Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, juliann said:

Your other points are a much better support. Trying to use this as a proof text  is rather strange and requires foundation, such as documentation of any discussion of gay marriage in the era and locale of this text.

 

 First, it may not be Paul at all. Second, Paul does not shrink from writing his opinion...he declares it. And am I to understand that you believe all scripture to be God breathed? That isn't a particularly LDS position.

Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of your argument. It is a diversion from it, however. 

Humm.  I am thinking that you haven't read through the posts I have made on this subject.  I very much believe that many writers in the scriptures are just giving their opinions which may or may not align with God's.  In particular, I find a lot of Paul's letters to be just that, letters where he is giving his opinion on various doctrinal points.  But in this case, Paul specifically separates his own views on this prophecy when he clearly states. " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly".  What follows is not one of Paul's letters of his opinion, but rather a report of what God has revealed to him through the Holy Ghost.  So yea, a big difference and one that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

Edited by california boy
Posted
59 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

I think there is no question that this issue is a bigger problem for the youth than for older generations.  How big of issue that is I don't think anyone has an accurate number on.  But I have heard and I am sure you have as well, that this issue is frequently sited as a reason some of that age group have left the church.  

 

I have to wonder if there is a Thomas Marsh thing going on with such declarations. There is probably a well developed set of reasons but the one with the most play takes precedence.  I do not intend to diminish feelings about the policy (I am not happy with it at all)  but it seems more noble to leave over something that effects a class of people than random grievances. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Humm.  I am thinking that you haven't read through the posts I have made on this subject.  I very much believe that many writers in the scriptures are just giving their opinions which may or may not align with God's.  In particular, I find a lot of Paul's letters to be just that, letters where he is giving his opinion on various doctrinal points.  But in this case, Paul specifically separates his own views on this prophecy when he clearly states. " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly".  What follows is not one of Paul's letters of his opinion, but rather a report of what God has revealed to him through the Holy Ghost.  So yea, a big difference and one that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

No, I haven't read them all. Sorry. But this is not Paul, it is Pauline. And you really do have to do some critical analysis when adding a meaning that is not evident or supportable. In board terms it requires a CFR (I'm not demanding one.) I just don't like baseless proof texting. We get enough of that in Sunday school.

Posted
6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Verse 3 states, as you've quoted, "which God hath created."  The pattern of marriage which God established in the Garden of Eden was between a man and a woman.  I am not aware of God commanding or establishing a pattern of marriage whereby a man marries a man or a woman a woman. 

Let's take a look at the whole of verse 3

Quote

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

I think the Holy Ghost is referring to the abstaining of meat, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.  

Forbidding to marry is not the same thing as abstaining of meat.  They are clearly unrelated issues.  

That said, marriage and family is still very much at the very center of the Plan of Happiness.  I don't think you would challenge that point.  To forbid marriage in the latter days is to deny that Plan of Happiness to anyone simply because they are gay.  Perhaps that is why this prophesy warns so strongly against this latter day practice.  

Posted
1 minute ago, california boy said:

Let's take a look at the whole of verse 3

I think the Holy Ghost is referring to the abstaining of meat, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.  

Forbidding to marry is not the same thing as abstaining of meat.  They are clearly unrelated issues.  

That said, marriage and family is still very much at the very center of the Plan of Happiness.  I don't think you would challenge that point.  To forbid marriage in the latter days is to deny that Plan of Happiness to anyone simply because they are gay.  Perhaps that is why this prophesy warns so strongly against this latter day practice.  

Both are possible interpretations of the verse.  Perhaps someone familiar with the original Greek could help.

In cases such as these, and actually when trying to understand any aspect of the gospel, I find it is helpful to look at all of scripture as well as the teachings of latter-day prophets.  Do you have any examples from the scriptures of God establishing marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman as being ordained or blessed or accepted by Him? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, juliann said:

No, I haven't read them all. Sorry. But this is not Paul, it is Pauline. And you really do have to do some critical analysis when adding a meaning that is not evident or supportable. In board terms it requires a CFR (I'm not demanding one.) I just don't like baseless proof texting. We get enough of that in Sunday school.

Who is Pauline?  I am unaware of an apostle named Pauline nor any writings credited to her.  

Does the church credit Pauline as being the writer of the words of Paul?  Not sure where you are going with this.  Would you mind if you could be a bit more clear what you are talking about?

My intent is to only discuss what was revealed by the power of the Holy Ghost to the Apostle Paul.  For a CFR. I think 1 Timothy 4 would be my reference.

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Who is Pauline?  I am unaware of an apostle named Pauline nor any writings credited to her.  

 

I'm going to assume you are trying to be funny.  That is standard biblical scholarship that needs to be understood to have a discussion. Thus, my objections to your proof texting.

Edited by juliann
Posted
1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Both are possible interpretations of the verse.  Perhaps someone familiar with the original Greek could help.

In cases such as these, and actually when trying to understand any aspect of the gospel, I find it is helpful to look at all of scripture as well as the teachings of latter-day prophets.  Do you have any examples from the scriptures of God establishing marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman as being ordained or blessed or accepted by Him? 

Unfortunately the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are all silent on any reference to homosexuality.  Their silence on this issue is deafening.  It appears that the church has not relied on any latter day scripture to form it's policies against gay marriage.  Do you think it is in keeping with other scriptures that just because someone is gay they should not be allowed to participate in the Plan of Happiness?  

Posted
3 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm going to assume you are trying to be funny.  That is standard biblical scholarship that needs to be understood to have a discussion. Thus, my objections to your proof texting.

I am still confused.  Is Pauline a real person?

Posted
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am still confused.  Is Pauline a real person?

It refers to Paul or his followers. It was common to write under the name of others in this era. If you want to debate bible verses you do have to ultimately appeal to mainstream scholarship. "Timothy" was responding to the growing appeal of ascetic movements, sexual abstinence...and not eating certain foods or much food at all.  You are really misusing this verse, that is all I am saying. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Unfortunately the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are all silent on any reference to homosexuality.  Their silence on this issue is deafening.  It appears that the church has not relied on any latter day scripture to form it's policies against gay marriage.  Do you think it is in keeping with other scriptures that just because someone is gay they should not be allowed to participate in the Plan of Happiness?  

So if the pattern of marriage established in the Garden of Eden, by God, is marriage between a man and a woman, why should the church accept marriage between a man and a man?  Prophets, throughout history, have never recorded a revelation allowing such a marriage.  Why, just because society has changed, should the church change it's views?

Posted
24 minutes ago, juliann said:

It refers to Paul or his followers. It was common to write under the name of others in this era. If you want to debate bible verses you do have to ultimately appeal to mainstream scholarship. "Timothy" was responding to the growing appeal of ascetic movements, sexual abstinence...and not eating certain foods or much food at all.  You are really misusing this verse, that is all I am saying. 

I can see it would be easy to dismiss this verse as the opinion of Paul or some follower of Paul.  But the reason why it becomes difficult to dismiss this verse as being someone's opinion on what was going on at the time it was written is two parts as I outlined in the OP.  1, Paul specifically states that this is not just an opinion.  It came to him by revelation through the Holy Spirit.  And 2, it specifically was not written for the times that this was written but specifically for the latter days.  

I think it might be helpful for you to read the other comments I have made about these verses.  You will find that I have not made these statements lightly.  

Posted
26 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So if the pattern of marriage established in the Garden of Eden, by God, is marriage between a man and a woman, why should the church accept marriage between a man and a man?  Prophets, throughout history, have never recorded a revelation allowing such a marriage.  Why, just because society has changed, should the church change it's views?

Well I never stated that, nor do I believe it to be true.  God has allowed different types of marriage relationships at different dispensations.  To limit God on what type of marriage He will accept and what kind He will reject is dangerous territory in my opinion.  God doesn't seem to be on the side of forbidding to marry.

Posted
2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can see it would be easy to dismiss this verse as the opinion of Paul or some follower of Paul.  But the reason why it becomes difficult to dismiss this verse as being someone's opinion on what was going on at the time it was written is two parts as I outlined in the OP.  1, Paul specifically states that this is not just an opinion.  It came to him by revelation through the Holy Spirit.  And 2, it specifically was not written for the times that this was written but specifically for the latter days.  

I think it might be helpful for you to read the other comments I have made about these verses.  You will find that I have not made these statements lightly.  

I guess the question then is, is what Paul was thinking about when he wrote the verse the same thing that you are thinking about?  Did Paul even have a concept of gay marriage?  If he didn't have a concept of gay marriage and wasn't referring to gay marriage then can his words be used to justify gay marriage? 

Posted
Just now, california boy said:

 To limit God on what type of marriage He will accept and what kind He will reject is dangerous territory in my opinion.  God doesn't seem to be on the side of forbidding to marry.

So you've just opened up marriage to any sort of marriage that I can imagine.  If God has no limits then anything goes, right? 

Posted
5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think it is in keeping with other scriptures that just because someone is gay they should not be allowed to participate in the Plan of Happiness?  

What is this Plan o Happiness of which you speak? I have heard of a Plan of Salvation or rather Plan of Exaltation.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Unfortunately the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are all silent on any reference to homosexuality.  Their silence on this issue is deafening.

Because the subject never came up in any of those scenarios. Was that because it was accepted, or that it was a question that was already answered in the Old Testament prohibition against homosexual acts?

 

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

It appears that the church has not relied on any latter day scripture to form it's policies against gay marriage.

It would seem that the Apostles are relying on the Old Testament prohibition, the Pauline ;) epistles, and their own revelations on the matter.

Now I really think that for you to make your case you should be able to point out somewhere in the scriptures where homosexual relations were approved of or homosexual marriage is even intimated?

When the Savior declared "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" (Matthew 19:5 probably quoting an early prophet such as Genesis 2:24, or Abraham 5:18, or Moses 3:24) does anyone actually believe that the Savior or Moses, or Abraham were speaking of a wife being either a woman or another man? Are there any scriptures to support such an idea? Scriptures that do not require an interpretative spin?

One can adduce an acceptance by the Lord of polygamy from the scriptures (and history) in certain case, which case is when the Lord commands it. I have not been able to fins any such support for homosexual acts or for same sex marriage.

Glenn

Posted
11 hours ago, california boy said:

So now you believe that Paul was living in latter times?  In any event, it is not what Paul believed.  It is what the Holy  Spieit was revealing to him.  So you would also have to believe that the Holy Spirit thought that Paul was living in the latter days.

1

No, I was merely pointing out that your logic led that way -- since Peter's saying that forbidding to marry pertained to gay marriage, which was forbidden in his time.

You think you understand what the Holy Spirit was revealing to him?  I doubt this.  And why would the Spirit tell him that something would be forbidden as a sign of the times if it was forbidden from all time since the Garden of Eden, through Paul's own time, all the way until the 21st century, when <gasp> it was suddenly permitted!

I guess we've gone past the last days, then!  Why, it must be the Millennium, and no one told us! Amazing!

I think it might be more accurate to interpret "forbidding to marry" as celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, california boy said:

1. I am quoting Paul directly.  Were you confused by that?

2. That brief period of time you speak of was well over 100 years of denying anyone black temple marriage.  It now includes gay couples that same marriage.

3. Are you denying that the church forbids gay couples from marrying?  I define marriage in the same way the church defines marriage which currently is forbidden if you are a gay couple.  

 

1. Not at all. What's odd is your interpretation. Do you believe Paul (or his surrogate) would have approved same-sex marriages? What makes you think he would?

2. In all of Judeo/Christian history, the time that both the Melchizedek Priesthood and Temple sealings have been available to the general population but restricted by race is about .02%. That is brief. Our theology allows those blessings for those and all the other 99.98% of the times when they were not. 

3. Gay couples may marry without the Church's permission. There may be consequences if the participants are LDS, but if you define marriage in the same way the Church does, then you define marriage as only between one man and one woman. Since you object to that, you must have some other definition you are working from. What would that be? 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Posted

I doubt Paul would have approved of gay marriage had someone explained the concept to him, but Paul wouldn't have approved of a lot of things that good Latter-day Saints do with regularity. :)

Posted
5 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Of course you would expect Paul to want women and men to marry.  It is key to the gospel plan as I mentioned earlier.  And I would agree with you that we can not find anything in Paul's writings concerning gay marriage.  In fact it would be absurd to think that there would be since gay marriage was not around during Paul's lifetime.  

But this is what is so interesting about these verses.  They do not represent the beliefs of Paul.  He clearly states that these thoughts came to him by the Spirit of God.  And they are not relevant during his lifetime.  They will become relevant in the latter days.  It is not often that the scriptures so clearly differentiate between the thoughts and beliefs of the writer from the word of God.  But this is one of those times where it is crystal clear where that prophecy came from.  "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly"  It is not Paul speaking at all is it.

I'm trying to understand your point. You are quoting Paul (or the Spirit) that in the latter days, some will forbid marriage. His words apply to today's situation because the Church doesn't sanction it, even though he was not referring to ssm during his time. Is this what you mean? This is why I asked for your definition of marriage. Would the same scripture apply to plural marriage, incestuous marriage, marrying oneself, marrying a pet? How far can you take this?

Posted
3 hours ago, california boy said:

.....just because someone is gay they should not be allowed to participate in the Plan of Happiness?  

That has not been established. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So if the pattern of marriage established in the Garden of Eden, by God, is marriage between a man and a woman, why should the church accept marriage between a man and a man?  Prophets, throughout history, have never recorded a revelation allowing such a marriage.  Why, just because society has changed, should the church change it's views?

Prophets, throughout history, have never recorded a revelation Dis-allowing such a marriage either.  At least as far as I know.  I don’t pretend to be a scholar, so maybe you can point out a revelation I’ve missed.

And to be fair, there was only one man and one woman in the Garden of Eden, so a SSM would not have been possible.  Had there been twenty men and twenty women, would things have been different?  We’ll never know.

And while we’re on the topic of the Garden of Eden, who did Adam and Eve’s children marry?  Unless you believe in “pre-adamites”, the only answer would be “each other”.  That would be called incest.  So, comparisons to what happened during Adam’s time to today don’t necessarily fly with me.

Edited by Rock_N_Roll
Posted
32 minutes ago, Gray said:

I doubt Paul would have approved of gay marriage had someone explained the concept to him, but Paul wouldn't have approved of a lot of things that good Latter-day Saints do with regularity. :)

Just good Latter-day Saints?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...