Ahab Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Teancum said: How convenient. And you really believe this was a OK? In God's eyes, yes. Opinions to the contrary don't matter much.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: 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? Civil authorities do not generally operate through the power of the priesthood of God so what they do is generally for time only. Even if they say something other than until death do you part, unless they are acting through the power of the priesthood of God. Basic stuff here to anyone who knows the difference between civil authority and the actual priesthood power of God and how each type of authority is given to others. And no man or woman can just assume to have or operate under either type of authority.
Popular Post sheilauk Posted March 11, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 11, 2016 2 hours 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. 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. He didn't steal her. Zina is not an object to be taken as someone likes. Zina is a person with her own mind and she made a choice. It's demeaning to refer to people as being stolen. 6
Gray Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Civil authorities do not generally operate through the power of the priesthood of God so what they do is generally for time only. Even if they say something other than until death do you part, unless they are acting through the power of the priesthood of God. Basic stuff here to anyone who knows the difference between civil authority and the actual priesthood power of God and how each type of authority is given to others. And no man or woman can just assume to have or operate under either type of authority. What is any of that based on, besides your own opinion? This is what the church says about civil marriage: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/07/april-2014-conference-notebook/marriage-and-chastity?lang=eng Quote 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.’ 1
mtomm Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Seems to me that the church puts a lot of importance on civil marriage (at least currently). You can't be sealed without one.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 36 minutes ago, mtomm said: Seems to me that the church puts a lot of importance on civil marriage (at least currently). You can't be sealed without one. True. Complete change from the 19th century.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 I just got in a fight with my female non Mormon friend when I said homosexuals should remain celibate just like straights should remain celibate until marriage. Didn't go over well and this is someone I've been close friends with for 11 years.
Teancum Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ahab said: In God's eyes, yes. Opinions to the contrary don't matter much. Well it certainly is far from certain that God condone or commanded this. All you have is your opinion that He did so opinions do matter to you. Edited March 11, 2016 by Teancum
Teancum Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 2 hours ago, sheilauk said: He didn't steal her. Zina is not an object to be taken as someone likes. Zina is a person with her own mind and she made a choice. It's demeaning to refer to people as being stolen. Yea i agree. Zina was culpable in this as well. I guess that makes her and adulteress. 1
Daniel2 Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, ERMD said: You left out some important words--"...husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded," is the covenant. And sorry, a man does not qualify as a wife, nor does a woman qualify as a husband. So, again, based on your words above, Elder Holland WAS wrong--it IS about gender, not just chastity. Edited March 11, 2016 by Daniel2
Ahab Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: What is any of that based on, besides your own opinion? This is what the church says about civil marriage: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/07/april-2014-conference-notebook/marriage-and-chastity?lang=eng You provided the reference for me. Thank you. His, excuse me HIS, law of chastity. vs how chastity is generally understood in the world, like according to world dictionaries for examples.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yea i agree. Zina was culpable in this as well. I guess that makes her and adulteress. Zina was one of the great women of this dispensation, and now stands with Joseph Smith as a Queen. If you can't understand that now, you will one day. 1
california boy Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 So did the church not recognize any civil marriages during this time or only the ones when BY wanted to marry someone's wife? Did other church leaders take other men's wives away from their living husbands? Sorry the quote thing is giving me formatting problems On March 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM, JLHPROF said: 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
Teancum Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Zina was one of the great women of this dispensation, and now stands with Joseph Smith as a Queen. If you can't understand that now, you will one day. Zina abandoned her husband for not one, but two powerful men in her sphere. She is not the first and won't be the last to do so. If you find that the attributes of a great woman bully for you. Some here love to quote Isaiah about calling good evil and evil good. Ponder that verse in relation to this sad tale if you can objectively do so. I once thought like you on this. I no longer can. 2
Gray Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Ahab said: You provided the reference for me. Thank you. His, excuse me HIS, law of chastity. vs how chastity is generally understood in the world, like according to world dictionaries for examples. The reference I provided talks about legal marriage, part of the law of chastity as defined by the church leadership. What are you basing your opinion on that legal marriage is irrelevant?
ERMD Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 12 hours ago, Daniel2 said: So, again, based on your words above, Elder Holland WAS wrong--it IS about gender, not just chastity. No.
rockpond Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 13 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I just got in a fight with my female non Mormon friend when I said homosexuals should remain celibate just like straights should remain celibate until marriage. Didn't go over well and this is someone I've been close friends with for 11 years. If you take a closer look at the definition of the word celibate, you'll see that you aren't really using it correctly. The expectation among church members is that they remain chaste until marriage. If you are gay church member, the expectation is celibacy.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: If you take a closer look at the definition of the word celibate, you'll see that you aren't really using it correctly. The expectation among church members is that they remain chaste until marriage. If you are gay church member, the expectation is celibacy. The only expectation for anyone is that they only have sex within the bounds God designed - Genesis 1:27-28 and Genesis 2:23-25 Anything else sexual is sin of varying degrees of severity. And no amount of reasoning or wresting will change that for God never gave any alternate choice. And the more we accept of these sins, the more evil our society becomes and the closer we bring ourselves to the end.
USU78 Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 25 minutes ago, rockpond said: If you take a closer look at the definition of the word celibate, you'll see that you aren't really using it correctly. The expectation among church members is that they remain chaste until marriage. If you are gay church member, the expectation is celibacy. Almost. If every instance of homosexual sexual contact is a violation of the Law of Chastity (and it is) and if every person must remain chaste until marriage (he must), then the person who suffers from same sex attraction and cannot abide the thought of marriage to one of the opposite sex, in order not to violate the Law of Chastity, must remain celibate.
Jeanne Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Zina was one of the great women of this dispensation, and now stands with Joseph Smith as a Queen. If you can't understand that now, you will one day. We are still in this dispensation. Can you imagine how a woman would be looked upon today in pulling all this off and still remain a Queen??? 2
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 30 minutes ago, Jeanne said: We are still in this dispensation. Can you imagine how a woman would be looked upon today in pulling all this off and still remain a Queen??? That's because our society has become even further removed from correct understanding. Our ideas and societal norms are more corrupted than ever. If God allowed polygamy again this could happen and would still not be wrong.
Jeanne Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: That's because our society has become even further removed from correct understanding. Our ideas and societal norms are more corrupted than ever. If God allowed polygamy again this could happen and would still not be wrong. Then may society remain further removed, This makes SSM look sane even in LDS thought.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Just now, Jeanne said: Then may society remain further removed, This makes SSM look sane even in LDS thought. Thank you for proving my point. We have become great at calling good evil and evil good.
Teancum Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That's because our society has become even further removed from correct understanding. Our ideas and societal norms are more corrupted than ever. If God allowed polygamy again this could happen and would still not be wrong. So you believe monogamy is corrupt but it is ok and a correct understanding for a woman who is married to someone else and who had had children with that person to abandon that relationship, marry another powerful man and bear children with that man? That is the correct understanding and the norm of monogamous marriage in the USA is more corrupt than ever? Just want to be clear on this.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Teancum said: So you believe monogamy is corrupt but it is ok and a correct understanding for a woman who is married to someone else and who had had children with that person to abandon that relationship, marry another powerful man and bear children with that man? That is the correct understanding and the norm of monogamous marriage in the USA is more corrupt than ever? Just want to be clear on this. To be clear: 1. I believe that monogamy is not corrupt, but is a lesser law than polygamy (tithing to consecration) 2. A correct understanding is to put eternal marriage sealed by priesthood authority ahead as being more valid than man's governmental "marriages". 3. The norm of civil marriage (which now can include SSM) is more corrupt than ever. Edited March 11, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
Recommended Posts