stemelbow Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: Well we shall see if the issue of "no more 'ites of any kind'" comes up in any of his conference or other addresses, won't we? I'm guessing, because ti seems pretty clear, you misunderstood me.
stemelbow Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, california boy said: I wonder if the next printing of the Book of Mormon, they will motify that verse in 2 Nephi to say "and he ainviteth them ball to ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ddenieth none except children of gay couples" And don't forget except children from polygamous families.
USU78 Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Sorry I jumped the gun and replied before you edited. But both of my replies seem relevant to me so I'll continue. You are confusing me. First you tell me a "Mormon perspective" should include something that does not agree with my view (which so happens to be a Mormon perspective) Thus it feels very "ites" creating to me, on your part. Then you go on to say there shouldn't be "ites". The existence of "ites" suggests to me that we should not see different parties opposed to each other, but should be able to accept all as members together. It does not mean we should not acknowledge the differences among us. We are not that far off. The recognition of the need for linguistic and cultural division into short-term branches is the Church's answer to differences that might become divisions if not adequately dealt with. My own Welsh ancestors in BC were not permitted to adhere to old-world traditions of anti-Sassanach sensibilities: they were compelled to learn English and live cheek by jowl with their neighbors. The Spanish-language branches in Mormon Central are the answer today. My own brother has been working in those branches for over a decade now, and just got a full-time calling as ESL missionary to those branches. But that is a cultural problem. Where the subgroup defines itself by its behavior or beliefs which are at serious odds with the larger group, there is a serious and, I submit, insurmountable problem that can only be dealt with by refusal by the group to countenance the subgroup's existing within the group. Homosexuality, which is more than anything else a set of behaviors, is such a subgroup, if permitted to exist with Mormonism as a subgroup. It could tear the group apart as people take sides on the sociopolitical issue that informs the subgroup's claims to legitimate existence. Bednar, as I understood him, and as I understand him, expresses the desire of the group not to be splintered by the insistence that this particular subgroup be permitted to exist. "Ites" are never a good thing, as experience has shown. And that is the Mormon position. 1
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, clarkgoble said: OK. I thought you were saying something different than that. I don't really disagree with the above although I think you may be pushing porneia a tad more than legitimate. As I said I don't think Paul really grounds our sexual beliefs. That's why we have modern prophets. My source is this Yale course, which I coincidentally just listened to As far as modern prophets go, I don't see that they've done any more than adopt wholesale the beliefs of the larger conservative American Christian culture. Very similar to what we did with the priesthood ban in the 19th century. Edited June 30, 2017 by Gray
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 16 hours ago, USU78 said: From the BoM: 2 Nephi 26:33 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ainviteth them ball to ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. And to the same effect from the NT: Galatians 3:28 28 There is neither Jew nor aGreek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all bone in Christ Jesus. So ... by what justification do you advocate for hypenated Mormons? Or do you wish to refine your prior position? The justification is right in the text you quote, which also uses description pronouns, like black, white, male, female, Jew, Greek, etc.
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 15 hours ago, USU78 said: I am making the same point Elder Bednar did, and for which he continues to take potshots from people either too ignorant or too lazy to understand the scriptural basis upon which he said what he said. Do you, as others, hold with hyphenating Mormons? In defending Elder Bednar so vociferously, you're actually criticizing the church's common practice on this issue. 1
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 17 hours ago, CV75 said: Of course their views would have nothing at all to do with modern gay marriage. In the historical context, they didn’t conceive of such a notion, but my interpretation of the text is this: if someone proposed it to Paul in his day, in his historical context he would have rejected it. I suppose Paul would have also agreed with the principle that any sexual behavior outside of marriage to be sin, lust also. Homosexual behavior is only one example. And the more generally and widely you frame a spiritual principle, the more leeway there is for sinful application. Paul also would have disagreed with women "on top" during intercourse, and also didn't have a notion that a woman could be dishonored by her husband cheating on her - his focus was totally male-centric. That's not a criticism of Paul, that's just the culture he grew up in. 17 hours ago, CV75 said: Let’s consider also what sexual behaviors and practices might be construed as sinful within the divine marriage covenant. Perhaps anything that is done without the spouse’s knowledge or participation? Perhaps anything that is selfish or coerced or contrary to one's consent? As you mentioned, there are many continua to consider, and Mormons understand the principle of degrees like nobody’s business (D&C 76; Alma 12:9)! Let’s say homosexual behavior is carried out without the spouse’s knowledge or participation because in the context of the divine marriage covenant, there is no spouse. Or that it is selfish and coerced only when done in light of knowingly rejecting the Gospel covenants as correctly understood. Honestly, even the Bible's statements on straight marriage, in historical context, don't automatically apply to marriage today. The institution is totally different. That's why we should look to scriptures for good principles that can be applied broadly, not for a list of specific dos and don'ts. It's like looking in a 1982 Curtis Mathis instruction manual and hoping to learn how to set up your 2016 Sony flatscreen.
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 15 hours ago, USU78 said: We are not that far off. The recognition of the need for linguistic and cultural division into short-term branches is the Church's answer to differences that might become divisions if not adequately dealt with. My own Welsh ancestors in BC were not permitted to adhere to old-world traditions of anti-Sassanach sensibilities: they were compelled to learn English and live cheek by jowl with their neighbors. The Spanish-language branches in Mormon Central are the answer today. My own brother has been working in those branches for over a decade now, and just got a full-time calling as ESL missionary to those branches. But that is a cultural problem. Where the subgroup defines itself by its behavior or beliefs which are at serious odds with the larger group, there is a serious and, I submit, insurmountable problem that can only be dealt with by refusal by the group to countenance the subgroup's existing within the group. Homosexuality, which is more than anything else a set of behaviors, is such a subgroup, if permitted to exist with Mormonism as a subgroup. It could tear the group apart as people take sides on the sociopolitical issue that informs the subgroup's claims to legitimate existence. Feels like we're far off to me. I can't agree with the highlighted portions at all. 15 hours ago, USU78 said: Bednar, as I understood him, and as I understand him, expresses the desire of the group not to be splintered by the insistence that this particular subgroup be permitted to exist. "Ites" are never a good thing, as experience has shown. And that is the Mormon position. Well, as I expressed I hope Bednar has learned his lesson and we will not hear this "there are no homosexual members of the Church" nonsense again. As far as I can tell it hasn't been said again, so my hope remains. Oddly, in opposition to what you are saying, his statements are forming "ites". As I suggested anyone can claim homosexuality and be abstinent if one wants. Such members do exist in the Church at this very time. 1
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Paul also would have disagreed with women "on top" during intercourse, and also didn't have a notion that a woman could be dishonored by her husband cheating on her - his focus was totally male-centric. That's not a criticism of Paul, that's just the culture he grew up in. Honestly, even the Bible's statements on straight marriage, in historical context, don't automatically apply to marriage today. The institution is totally different. That's why we should look to scriptures for good principles that can be applied broadly, not for a list of specific dos and don'ts. It's like looking in a 1982 Curtis Mathis instruction manual and hoping to learn how to set up your 2016 Sony flatscreen. But ssm wasn't conceived in Paul's culture for religious reasons -- I mean, being "male-centric" and all, the fear of God would be the only deterrent! LOL And I'm sure you can show me which Biblical statements on marriage apply to marriage today, and also show me in what ways the institution is the same today as it was back then. Are you open-minded enough to run through that exercise? Your straw-men and red herrings are so gauche. 2
USU78 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Feels like we're far off to me. I can't agree with the highlighted portions at all. Well, as I expressed I hope Bednar has learned his lesson and we will not hear this "there are no homosexual members of the Church" nonsense again. As far as I can tell it hasn't been said again, so my hope remains. Oddly, in opposition to what you are saying, his statements are forming "ites". As I suggested anyone can claim homosexuality and be abstinent if one wants. Such members do exist in the Church at this very time. I didn't expect we'd agree in toto. Edited June 30, 2017 by USU78
USU78 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: In defending Elder Bednar so vociferously, you're actually criticizing the church's common practice on this issue. Not at all, but I expected as much in response.
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 40 minutes ago, CV75 said: But ssm wasn't conceived in Paul's culture for religious reasons -- I mean, being "male-centric" and all, the fear of God would be the only deterrent! LOL Yes, exactly! So using Paul's culturally conditioned views on sex as a reason to oppose gay marriage doesn't make a lot of sense. 40 minutes ago, CV75 said: And I'm sure you can show me which Biblical statements on marriage apply to marriage today, and also show me in what ways the institution is the same today as it was back then. Are you open-minded enough to run through that exercise? Your straw-men and red herrings are so gauche. I was with you until you said "straw men" and "red herrings" which you seem to be using reflexively and defensively, but nonsensically. If you're willing to drop the silly insults, I'm happy to discuss.
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: Not at all, but I expected as much in response. Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. Sometimes when it's a choice between defending Peter and attacking Paul, or vice versa.
clarkgoble Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: As far as modern prophets go, I don't see that they've done any more than adopt wholesale the beliefs of the larger conservative American Christian culture. Very similar to what we did with the priesthood ban in the 19th century. Again as I mentioned I think the difference that you're neglecting is the theological role of Adam and Eve as a type for divinization. That's key to the temple. While that is in Paul, he tends to neglect the Adam & Eve aspects of theosis. Perhaps that not being initiated into them for all we know, perhaps distrusting them due to their similarity to his gnostic and perhaps platonic/hermetic opponents. That's why I raised 1 Cor 7 as a problematic chapter. The one flesh idea of Adam and Eve is that Eve was taken from Adam and that theosis requires that reunification. This is of course pushed in Mormonism to the idea that deification requires a man and woman united as one. 4
USU78 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 U 11 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. Sometimes when it's a choice between defending Peter and attacking Paul, or vice versa. More correctly, praising apples and oranges by turns
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Again as I mentioned I think the difference that you're neglecting is the theological role of Adam and Eve as a type for divinization. That's key to the temple. While that is in Paul, he tends to neglect the Adam & Eve aspects of theosis. Perhaps that not being initiated into them for all we know, perhaps distrusting them due to their similarity to his gnostic and perhaps platonic/hermetic opponents. That's why I raised 1 Cor 7 as a problematic chapter. The one flesh idea of Adam and Eve is that Eve was taken from Adam and that theosis requires that reunification. This is of course pushed in Mormonism to the idea that deification requires a man and woman united as one. I think we can't go too far in pushing the particulars of Adam and Eve as the one model for deification. The model for many LDS marriages (if you look at LDS marriages over our entire history) is actually quite different. We have a lot of marriages involving three or more parties (sometimes dozens). That's quite different from the Adam and Eve model. Who's to say Adam and Eve can't stand in for Beth and Susie, just as well as for John and Lisa? We have no real idea about how the particulars of Godhood really work. The main idea is that we can't do it alone, right? At one point some people thought it was important that these relationships not cross racial boundaries. Now we no longer think that's important. We shrugged it off. I think our ideas about gender boundaries could just as easily be cast aside. Edited June 30, 2017 by Gray
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: U More correctly, praising apples and oranges by turns I feel like this conversation has turned into an out of body experience, involving fruit somehow.
clarkgoble Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Gray said: I think we can't go too far in pushing the particulars of Adam and Eve as the one model for deification. The model for many LDS marriages (if you look at LDS marriages over our entire history) is actually quite different. We have a lot of marriages involving three or more parties (sometimes dozens). That's quite different from the Adam and Eve model. Who's to say Adam and Eve can't stand in for Beth and Susie, just as well as for John and Lisa? We have no real idea about how the particulars of Godhood really work. The main idea is that we can't do it alone, right? At one point some people thought it was important that these relationships not cross racial boundaries. Now we no longer think that's important. We shrugged it off. I think our ideas about gender boundaries could just as easily be cast aside. The only real solution that would work within the LDS model without throwing out most of the Mormon conception of deification is a combination of polyandry and polygyny. Edited June 30, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 46 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, exactly! So using Paul's culturally conditioned views on sex as a reason to oppose gay marriage doesn't make a lot of sense. I was with you until you said "straw men" and "red herrings" which you seem to be using reflexively and defensively, but nonsensically. If you're willing to drop the silly insults, I'm happy to discuss. So it really doesn't matter how you characterize his views, does it? You say he was male-centric. This means he was not necessarily personally inclined against homosexual behavior, but for the sake of religion opposed to it. And of course if one refuses to view marriage as a religious institution, it doesn't make a lot of sense to use Biblical passages to support it. Don't worry about how I am using "straw men" and "red herrings" as they were not meant as insults.
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 36 minutes ago, Gray said: I think we can't go too far in pushing the particulars of Adam and Eve as the one model for deification. The model for many LDS marriages (if you look at LDS marriages over our entire history) is actually quite different. We have a lot of marriages involving three or more parties (sometimes dozens). That's quite different from the Adam and Eve model. Who's to say Adam and Eve can't stand in for Beth and Susie, just as well as for John and Lisa? We have no real idea about how the particulars of Godhood really work. The main idea is that we can't do it alone, right? At one point some people thought it was important that these relationships not cross racial boundaries. Now we no longer think that's important. We shrugged it off. I think our ideas about gender boundaries could just as easily be cast aside. The Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women. 1
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, CV75 said: The Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women. In that case, since Eve can represent multiple women, she can also represent gay marriage where the partners are both women.
Gray Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, CV75 said: So it really doesn't matter how you characterize his views, does it? You say he was male-centric. This means he was not necessarily personally inclined against homosexual behavior, but for the sake of religion opposed to it. And of course if one refuses to view marriage as a religious institution, it doesn't make a lot of sense to use Biblical passages to support it. Don't worry about how I am using "straw men" and "red herrings" as they were not meant as insults. Male centric in that Paul was concerned that when men sleep with other men's wives, they are dishonoring the woman's husband. The concern wasn't for the women being cheated on. Women were vessels for the use of men, as a way to channel their sexual urges. That's a totally alien point of view to most of us.
clarkgoble Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Gray said: In that case, since Eve can represent multiple women, she can also represent gay marriage where the partners are both women. I think the argument is that you can have multiple marriages but that each marriage has to be an Adam and Eve. Your argument basically is that if the type is able to handle multiple marriages it ought mean anything you want, but I confess I don't see that. In one sense symbolisms are arbitrary, but effectively what you're saying is that Adam and Eve don't represent their sexes but just marriage. While the allegorization drive can of course end up removing any literal meaning, you're still faced with the problem of there being no history of the reading you are making. Effectively it reduces to "scripture can mean anything we want it to mean." But again as a practical matter for Mormons our practices are based upon what the current prophet. But then for SSM would say, well by that measure they could overthrow any doctrine. Effectively though what is going on is a rejection of history/tradition as offering even a burden of proof and the assumption that SSM should be church law because they want it. At that point, what possibility of discussion is there? We'd at best be discussing the beliefs of the 12 (which seem pretty clear) or how much social pressure will overthrow doctrine. The only two examples are polygamy and blacks and the priesthood. The former shows the church was very willing to stand up to social pressure until its very existence was threatened. The latter shows that most of the 12 were willing to change it early but that a single vote was able to prevent it for a few decades. Further that was with a doctrine that always said blacks would one day have the priesthood. (We can debate when most thought it would take place but the key is everyone thought it would take place whereas there's no authorities saying gay marriage would happen) 4
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 36 minutes ago, Gray said: In that case, since Eve can represent multiple women, she can also represent gay marriage where the partners are both women. Nope! No matter how you mix and match a marriage contract, the Adam and Eve template is always between a man and a woman, no matter how many might be on either side of the aisle. Something conveniently forgotten about this template is that God is a party to the contract, and He can authorize any number of participants in the authorized template, but it's a man-woman template. Even God, as a Council of Heavenly Parents, can be said to be following the Man-Woman template. 2
CV75 Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 35 minutes ago, Gray said: Male centric in that Paul was concerned that when men sleep with other men's wives, they are dishonoring the woman's husband. The concern wasn't for the women being cheated on. Women were vessels for the use of men, as a way to channel their sexual urges. That's a totally alien point of view to most of us. I think you're reading way too much into it, as you suggested might be case a number of posts ago.
Recommended Posts