Gray Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: How is the story of Adam and Eve random? One story out of hundreds? What other aspects of the characters are all human beings intended to mimic?
ksfisher Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: If you want to believe there were sexual relations between Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, you can believe that. Where did I say that? If you believe that's what I said then you are making assumptions.
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: Nope, sorry. Yep sorry... See we can play this game all day.
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: One story out of hundreds? What other aspects of the characters are all human beings intended to mimic? Incest perhaps? Or is there any other way the story of Adam and Eve can be literally true that does not involve this? 1
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Where did I say that? If you believe that's what I said then you are making assumptions. So you agree that Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations in the Garden? I thought you disagreed. I apologize for misunderstanding.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: Incest perhaps? Or is there any other way the story of Adam and Eve can be literally true that does not involve this? Doing it now. No other options since everybody who comes to this planet is a child of our Father and Mother in heaven. Anything else? 1
ksfisher Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: So you agree that Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations in the Garden? I thought you disagreed. I apologize for misunderstanding. Actually what I said was that I didn't think it was appropriate to speculate on the intimate lives of others. The story is symbolic, and it is taught in the temple in a way in which we can each place ourselves in the shoes (metaphorically speaking) of Adam and Eve. The point is that the Lord brought together a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Arguing over the details of their honeymoon distracts from the point. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 56 minutes ago, JulieM said: Zina was also not Brigham's eternal wife. So, not his legal wife or his sealed to him for eternity wife. Why did Brigham need to marry her then? Also, they had a daughter (Zina & Brigham). Is she sealed to Joseph, not Brigham (for her father)? She will be Joseph's daughter in the resurrection. Brigham married her to raise up seed to Joseph and to care for her and her family. A traditional Levirate time only marriage.
Gray Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: She will be Joseph's daughter in the resurrection. Brigham married her to raise up seed to Joseph and to care for her and her family. A traditional Levirate time only marriage. Not so traditional since Zina was already married to a living man.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, JulieM said: Gays who are married can avoid those sins as well as heterosexuals. Except gays cannot marry in the eyes of God, making any pretense at marriage a sin. 2
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: Really? You really think gay marriage is that wicked? I don't even think there is gay marriage. And it is the corruption of society as a whole, not any one group of people or any one specific act, that will necessitate God to act at some point.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Not so traditional since Zina was already married to a living man. Civil marriage was not a consideration. How many times do I have to explain that?
smac97 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, ALarson said: A man in a SSM does not have a husband? A woman in a SSM, does not have a wife? Hmmmm..... It states "husband OR wife". SSMs meet that criteria as shown above. A whole lotta wresting of the scriptures and the words of the Brethren going on in this thread. There is no good faith statement to be made whereby same-sex conduct can be brought within the ambit of permissible conduct under The Law of Chastity. None. At all. The recently-minted novelty of same-sex marriage has been categorically, unequivocally rejected as a form of marriage recognized by the Church. The Family: A Proclamation to the World: "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God ... We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife ... THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan ..." THE ETERNAL FAMILY TEACHER MANUAL LESSON 7: MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN IS ORDAINED OF GOD: "In our day, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have confirmed this pattern by stating, “Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God” ('The Family: A Proclamation to the World,' Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129). Although laws of men may attempt to alter this definition, God’s laws remain the same forever." April 2008 Liahona Visiting Teaching Message: Quote Why Is Marriage between a Man and a Woman Ordained of God? D&C 49:16–17: “They twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.” Julie B. Beck, Relief Society general president: “We believe in the formation of eternal families. That means we believe in getting married. … We know that in the great premortal conflict we sided with our Savior, Jesus Christ, to preserve our potential to belong to eternal families” (“What Latter-day Saint Women Do Best: Stand Strong and Immovable,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2007, 110). Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “Two compelling doctrinal reasons help us to understand why eternal marriage is essential to the Father’s plan. “Reason 1: The natures of male and female spirits complete and perfect each other, and therefore men and women are intended to progress together toward exaltation. … “Reason 2: By divine design, both a man and a woman are needed to bring children into mortality and to provide the best setting for the rearing and nurturing of children. … “As men and women, as husbands and wives, and as Church leaders, one of our paramount responsibilities is to help young men and women learn about and prepare for righteous marriage through our personal example. As young women and men observe worthiness, loyalty, sacrifice, and the honoring of covenants in our marriages, then those youth will seek to emulate the same principles. … As we consider the importance of our personal example, do you and I discern areas where we need to improve?” (“Marriage Is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” Liahona, June 2006, 51–52, 54; Ensign, June 2006, 83–84, 86). The Brethren have been equally clear about the prohibition of same-sex behavior. Here: "The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married." Here: "Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said: 'In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.'" Here: "Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. ... Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. ... A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. ... Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.'" Thanks, -Smac 4
JulieM Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: She will be Joseph's daughter in the resurrection. Brigham married her to raise up seed to Joseph and to care for her and her family. A traditional Levirate time only marriage. But Henry Jacobs was still married to her and they were raising up seed for Joseph, right? All of Zina and Henry's children are sealed to Joseph, correct? It's very difficult to understand why her marriage to Brigham was necessary.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I don't even think there is gay marriage. And it is the corruption of society as a whole, not any one group of people or any one specific act, that will necessitate God to act at some point. Gay marriage is just what they call what they do when they do that. It's not what we call marriage, or at least not a righteous marriage, but there should be no problem accepting that as what they call it. All words have multiple definitions. Like how the word bad is often used as slang to refer to something that is good. Or killer if it is especially good. Language is just a tool for communicating and the corruption of language is something we all see and should be accustomed to seeing on a regular basis while we still try to understand what people mean by the words they use and abuse. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, JulieM said: But Henry Jacobs was still married to her and they were raising up seed for Joseph, right? All of Zina and Henry's children are sealed to Joseph, correct? It's very difficult to understand why her marriage to Brigham was necessary. I really thought I made this clear already. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. Zina and Joseph are eternal companions. Any children of Zina will belong to Joseph in the eternities - some by sealing, some by covenant. Zina married Brigham after Joseph died in what can basically be termed a Levirate marriage as Brigham was Joseph's primary proxy, and had one child who will be Joseph's. She ceased relations with Henry after entering the original law of Chastity covenant and lived faithful to her covenant. Zina and Henry married in a civil union only. Their children are not sealed to Henry in any way, neither born in the covenant nor sealed. Zina and Brigham considered no divorce from Henry needed as the marriage was seen to be of lesser authority and pertaining only to things of men rather than the priesthood ceremonies which pertained to things of God. They considered her marriage to Henry as bypassed. I hope that is clear now. Edited March 10, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 32 minutes ago, Gray said: Not so traditional since Zina was already married to a living man. Only in the eyes of the government.
Gray Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Civil marriage was not a consideration. How many times do I have to explain that? Was it never a consideration? Were no marriages considered valid unless performed by the church? Brigham Young, for instance, was not sealed to Zina, right? But the non-sealing non-legal marriage trumped the legal marriage? I know you feel like you're repeating yourself, but I haven't been a part of the previous conversation on this one. Thanks! Edit: never mind, I see your explanation above. Edited March 10, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Only in the eyes of the government. What a strange outlook on marriage. I guess this was the way it went in the early Utah period though, right? We've really done a complete 180 on the issue of civil marriage. I don't believe there is any justification for dismissing civil marriage as invalid in the scriptures, though. Do you view this as doctrinally valid? Edited March 10, 2016 by Gray
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: She will be Joseph's daughter in the resurrection. Brigham married her to raise up seed to Joseph and to care for her and her family. A traditional Levirate time only marriage. No it was not . It was not a Levirate marriage. She was married to Henry Jacob. She did not need Brigham for this. He stole her plain and simple. And she conceded to it. The situation with Joseph was already bizarre and Brigham just aggravated it. But hey when you can claim God is telling you to do it and people buy into it you can get away with all sorts off bad stuff.
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I really thought I made this clear already. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. Zina and Joseph are eternal companions. Any children of Zina will belong to Joseph in the eternities - some by sealing, some by covenant. Zina married Brigham after Joseph died in what can basically be termed a Levirate marriage as Brigham was Joseph's primary proxy, and had one child who will be Joseph's. She ceased relations with Henry after entering the original law of Chastity covenant and lived faithful to her covenant. Zina and Henry married in a civil union only. Their children are not sealed to Henry in any way, neither born in the covenant nor sealed. Zina and Brigham considered no divorce from Henry needed as the marriage was seen to be of lesser authority and pertaining only to things of men rather than the priesthood ceremonies which pertained to things of God. They considered her marriage to Henry as bypassed. I hope that is clear now. How convenient. And you really believe this was a OK?
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Teancum said: No it was not . It was not a Levirate marriage. She was married to Henry Jacob. She did not need Brigham for this. He stole her plain and simple. And she conceded to it. The situation with Joseph was already bizarre and Brigham just aggravated it. You are welcome to believe that, but it doesn't fit with the historical record. It is just a typical presentist misinterpretation of events. I've explained the contemporary view of Henry & Zina's marriage. You can ignore it if you like, but it doesn't change the view of those involved. 12 minutes ago, Teancum said: How convenient. And you really believe this was a OK? Yep. Edited March 10, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, Teancum said: No it was not . It was not a Levirate marriage. She was married to Henry Jacob. She did not need Brigham for this. It was not even a Levirate marriage if we are using the Biblical requirements for when one was necessary. Zina had already given Joseph a son (through Henry Jacobs). That is the reason given in Deuteronomy for a Levirate marriage (if the widow did not have a son prior to her husband passing away, then her husband's brother was to marry her to give him an heir). I know that JLHPROF truly believes this all came from God and I respect that he has a right to believe this, but for me, it seems they just kind of made it up as they went along and made up new laws or rules to suit their whims. IMO, Brigham's marriage to Zina was not necessary (not for a civil union and not for a Levirate marriage), but he wanted her for a wife, so he made it happen. But, let's not forget Zina's role in all of this too. She did have a voice. 2
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Yep sorry... See we can play this game all day. Nuh-uh.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Only in the eyes of the government. The civil, secular government. Not the government of God. Just trying to make it clear that there are 2 kingdoms/governments on this planet, generally speaking. The kingdom/ government of God vs the kingdom/ government of mankind that is generally opposed to the kingdom/ government of God.
Recommended Posts