Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Rock_N_Roll said:

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.

I think we do know.  Modern prophets have confirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman.  To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

"...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. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

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.

Really? 
Matthew 19:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Posted
3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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? 

Not really.  When you receive a prophecy from God it is really irrelevant what you personally were thinking.  Is all Paul is doing is relating what was revealed to him.  It is up to each one of us to decide whether that revelation came from God or not.

Posted
3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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? 

I think you will have to ask God about that question.  Is all I am doing is quoting what Paul wrote. 

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

I think you will have to ask God about that question.  Is all I am doing is quoting what Paul wrote. 

And, as Juliann has explained, forcing an out of context meaning onto his words.

Edited by ksfisher
sp
Posted
2 hours ago, juliann said:

I'll give it one more try, CB. I am not concerned about your point, I object to what you are doing to biblical scholarship. When there is a disagreement, the only level playing field is scholarship. Not Bible school scholarship or LDS scholarship, mainstream liberal scholarship. That is the ball and if you aren't using it, you aren't in the game. You will find no support for any idea that these verses include gay marriage. THESE verses do not support you. If you want them to, you must find some other way and that means going to....scholarship. And you won't find it there. Nor will you find the idea that Paul personally wrote the Pastoral Epistles (1st Timothy being particularly problematic), which is here nor there, other than you seem to be relying heavily on the idea that Paul's own voice gives it special import. Paul believed that they were in the latter days, BTW, as has every generation since. 

Carry on.

Juliann, each of us have to decide whether what is written in the Bible came from God or man.  I think there is a lot in the Bible that is just the opinion of those that wrote parts of the Bible.  This particular verse makes a very specific claim.  It claims to be a revelation from God and not just someone's opinion.  This particular verse addresses us in the latter days.  You and no one else has to decide for yourself whether what is written comes from God or man.  If it is indeed what Paul wrote, then what he thought about when the latter days were is irrelevant.  The claim is not about what Paul thought.  The claim is that it was a prophecy given to him by God.  Is it a true prophecy?  I can't give you that answer.  Neither can an army full of scholars.  You have to find your own answer.  No CFR is going to be able to do that for you.

Posted
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

I don't pretend to speak for God.  I only quoted a prophecy given to Paul.  Is that prophecy as Paul claimed it to be?  Did it come from God?  Is God condemning those that forbid marriage?  Those are all questions that you have to decide for yourself.  You can mock the words of Paul if you wish.  Or you can decide if what he wrote is in fact a prophecy from God concerning the latter days.

Posted
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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? 

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

Paul makes a claim of a prophecy from God.  I doubt very much if he understood what that prophecy was even referring to.  He probably related it to his time and his day.  But the prophecy was not for his time and his day.  It was for the latter day.  You are free to reject the revelation that Paul recorded 2000 years ago.  No one is compelling you to do anything.  And no one is going to interpret the prophecy for you.  But if it is as Paul recorded it, then what are the implications of that prophecy?

Posted
58 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

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.

Is this not an "argument from silence" type? The scriptures are not silent on homosexual acts. I asked CB in an earlier post to find something that promoted homosexual acts as not being sinful or even implied such. Why would God condemn to the death such acts in one era, then promote them in another era while failing to inform His prophets of such a change? (Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.) So, for the sake of argument (only) that God revealed such to a prophet and the prophet refused to carry out God's edict. I seem to remember a story about a prophet who tried to skip out on doing what the Lord had commanded him to do. His name was Jonah and he was issued a course correction, which was recorded for posterity to read and understand.

Glenn

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

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 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 have not started a thread in several years.  So deciding to do this is not without careful thought.  In another thread, I brought this scripture up with several very interesting reactions to it. I felt like I would like to explore this prophecy of Paul, and it should be done in it's own thread.  Two things make these verses very interesting.  First, Paul clearly states that unlike some of his writings, this is not just his opinion.  He starts his point out saying specifically "Now the Spirit speakers".  The second important distinction from other writings of Paul is this part. " In the latter times".  Paul is not talking about his opinion or his time and issues of his day.  He is talking specifically about our time, the latter days under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  

I hope I can answer in equally careful thought, even if much of this will likely be in disagreement. 

I find both of these parts very interesting. As a vegetarian of 15 years it would look like I was heeding seducing spirit with this scripture alone. A person who may over-indulge in meat could easily come back at me with this verse. But there is also modern revelation that directly expands on this verse in Section 49 (and 89 for the meat):

 

Quote

 

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddethto marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earthmight answer the end of its creation;

17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

 

 

89

 

Quote

 

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

.....not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

 

 

 

  I'm not in famine and I'm not excessively hungry :P. But either way, modern revelation has given parameters and further clarification to what this means for us. It is not a wholesale endorsement of our current culture that is meat heavy and with practices that are unsustainable or by any means a real form of thanksgiving or need-based. A person who would use this scripture to justify eating a meat-heavy diet would be in the wrong. In fact they may be in condemnation for "wasting flesh" in a time where they don't need it. 

Likewise with the "forbidding to marry" line. What marriage is, is clarified in the following verses as a man with one wife and partaking in a relationship that makes them "one flesh" ....a specific partnership so important that it is a means to answer the "ends of the earth's creation." This isn't stating it isn't okay to forbid ANY form of marriage. Just that of the marriage between a man and a woman for its absolute importance to Creation in general. Other forms of marriage could and have and will be considered forbidden as they move away from this.

I'm not saying this to condemne you any more than I condemn my family for eat way more meat than needed. But I am saying that for LDS particularly this, potential condemnation doesn't work in the context of continuing revelation and other pretty specific scripture.   

Quote

Growing up, these verses were used to point at "that other church" as proof that they had strayed from the teachings of Christ.  Looking back at it now, I see how wrong that belief was.  Because while my church teachers were pointing to "that other church" the church itself was forbidding to marry.  Perhaps the worse part of the discrimination against blacks was not the denying of the priesthood to them, but the denying families of temple marriage.

I don't exactly know what you mean by that other church. And though I think we were misguided or allowed a watered-down gospel state (similar to What happened to Israel after the idol incident), they technically didn't forbid marriage. They forbade live sealings.

Quote

 

At the very core of the gospel is the Plan of Happiness.  And at the very core of that Plan of Happiness is the family.  You take eternal marriage and the importance of family out of that plan and you have nothing.  In fact the whole reason for the gospel collapses.  Yet, in these latter days, when the church forbids gay couples from marrying, that is exactly what that policy does to gay members.  It takes away from them the Plan of Happiness simply because they are gay.  It excludes them from the very fundamental core of the gospel in exactly the same way as past policies took away the Plan of Happiness simply because they were black.

 

Eternal marriage is core and family is the ultimate goal. But I do think we oversimplify this doctrine in a way that ignores the full scope of God's plan. I've had a lot of time to think about it because the simplified version leaves me currently a spiritual orphan and single-sister drifter. I believe the great plan of happiness entails not just the highest degree of the celestial kingdom but all three degrees of Glory. The ultimate goal is that we will all be sealed as one family. Whether in the pinnacle and connecting roles and co-partners seen in marriage or as the children of said couple. Someone in the terrestial kingdom are still part of the plan of Happiness/Salvation/Redemption. The are still given a portion of light based on what they desire and abide by. They are still saved from death and hell they are still redeemed to receive their terrestial glory. Someone in the telestial kingdom likewise has part in the Family of God and partakes in his plan of happiness. The kingdoms are described as ministering one to another. Ministering to my mind asserts something far from separate. So no matter what choice or direction a gay person makes tied or untied to their sexuality, they are likely to still be partakers in the kingdoms of God....partakers in said glory and, yes, happiness

 To the bold, no, this is noway exactly the same way as past policies as it was to blacks. Noway. And it really bothers me when exact parallels are made. However difficult it may be, there is STILL a way for a person who is LGBT in someway to partake in the ordinances of the temple and priesthood...by living the parameters of the gospel. No matter how good and obedient a black person was between roughly 1852-1978, they couldn't ever receive any form of priesthood ordinance beyond baptism. It is action and expression of identity/orientation that defines an LGBT persons place in priesthood ordinances. It was identity/color alone that defined a black persons no matter their actions or expression of gospel faith. This issue is definitely difficult and it can be painful for many, without a doubt. But it is an exaggeration that it is exactly like blacks experience of limited and at times literal barring (in the case of the work in Africa) from all the saving ordinances of the gospel. 

Quote

 

I don't believe there is any other single issue that is dividing faithful members of the church more than this issue.  According to the documents posted on Mormon leaks 70% of the young people are leaving the church.  Many of them point specifically to the policy concerning gays as the reason they can no long in good consciousness stay involved in the church.  On this board we have those serving in leadership positions who reject the church policy of forbidding marriage simply because someone is gay.  In just ONE year, the church has seen a drop of 11% opposing gay marriage.  Ultimately, where is this policy headed.  Why is the Spirit whispering to so many members that something is wrong. in baring someone from core fundamental teachings of the gospel.

 

I don't agree. I think its a major one, just not THE major one. I base this off of several people I've met and listened to for their reasoning. 

Quote

 

Just how easily is it to dismiss this prophecy of Paul "latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;....Forbidding to marry".

 

Not to dismiss, but to see it from a differing perspective. I simply do not see it the way you do.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Posted
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Really? 
Matthew 19:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I don't think that anyone has argued that heterosexual marriage is not a part of the Plan of Happiness.  In fact, I have pointed out several times that the key component to the Plan of Happiness is centered around marriage.  The question is, is that play available for gay members as well?

Posted
7 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Is this not an "argument from silence" type? The scriptures are not silent on homosexual acts. I asked CB in an earlier post to find something that promoted homosexual acts as not being sinful or even implied such. Why would God condemn to the death such acts in one era, then promote them in another era while failing to inform His prophets of such a change? (Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.) So, for the sake of argument (only) that God revealed such to a prophet and the prophet refused to carry out God's edict. I seem to remember a story about a prophet who tried to skip out on doing what the Lord had commanded him to do. His name was Jonah and he was issued a course correction, which was recorded for posterity to read and understand.

Glenn

Are the heavens sealed or can God still reveal His secrets to his prophets?

Posted
14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I hope I can answer in equally careful thought, even if much of this will likely be in disagreement. 

I find both of these parts very interesting. As a vegetarian of 15 years it would look like I was heeding seducing spirit with this scripture alone. A person who may over-indulge in meat could easily come back at me with this verse. But there is also modern revelation that directly expands on this verse in Section 49 (and 89 for the meat):

 

 

89

 

  I'm not in famine and I'm not excessively hungry :P. But either way, modern revelation has given parameters and further clarification to what this means for us. It is not a wholesale endorsement of our current culture that is meat heavy and with practices that are unsustainable or by any means a real form of thanksgiving. A person who would use this scripture to justify eating a meat-heavy diet would be in the wrong. In fact they may be in condemnation for "wasting flesh" in a time where they don't need it. 

Likewise with the "forbidding to marry" line. What marriage is, is clarified in the following verses as a man with one wife and partaking in a relationship that makes them "one flesh" ....a specific partnership so important that it is a means to answer the "ends of the earth's creation." This isn't stating it isn't okay to forbid ANY form of marriage. Just that of the marriage between a man and a woman for its absolute importance to Creation in general. Other forms of marriage could and have and will be considered forbidden as they move away from this.

I'm not saying this to condemne you any more than I condemn my family for eat way more meat than needed. But I am saying that for LDS particularly this, potential condemnation doesn't work in the context of continuing revelation and other pretty specific scripture.   

I don't exactly know what you mean by that other church. And though I think we were misguided or allowed a watered-down gospel state (similar to What happened to Israel after the idol incident), they technically didn't forbid marriage. They forbade live sealings.

Eternal marriage is core and family is the ultimate goal. But I do think we oversimplify this doctrine in a way that ignores the full scope of God's plan. I've had a lot of time to think about it because the simplified version leaves me currently a spiritual orphan and single-sister drifter. I believe the great plan of happiness entails not just the highest degree of the celestial kingdom but all three degrees of Glory. The ultimate goal is that we will all be sealed as one family. Whether in the pinnacle and connecting roles and co-partners seen in marriage or as the children of said couple. Someone in the terrestial kingdom are still part of the plan of Happiness/Salvation/Redemption. The are still given a portion of light based on what they desire and abide by. They are still saved from death and hell they are still redeemed to receive their terrestial glory. Someone in the telestial kingdom likewise has part in the Family of God and partakes in his plan of happiness. The kingdoms are described as ministering one to another. Ministering to my mind asserts something far from separate. So no matter what choice or direction a gay person makes tied or untied to their sexuality, they are likely to still be partakers in the kingdoms of God....partakers in said glory and, yes, happiness

 To the bold, no, this is noway exactly the same way as past policies as it was to blacks. Noway. And it really bothers me when exact parallels are made. However difficult it may be, there is STILL a way for a person who is LGBT in someway to partake in the ordinances of the temple and priesthood...by living the parameters of the gospel. No matter how good and obedient a black person was between roughly 1852-1978, they couldn't ever receive any form of priesthood ordinance beyond baptism. It is action and expression of identity/orientation that defines an LGBT persons place in priesthood ordinances. It was identity/color alone that defined a black persons no matter their actions or expression of gospel faith. This issue is definitely difficult and it can be painful for many, without a doubt. But it is an exaggeration that it is exactly like blacks experience of limited and at times literal barring (in the case of the work in Africa) from all the saving ordinances of the gospel. 

I don't agree. I think its a major one, just not THE major one. I base this off of several people I've met and listened to for their reasoning. 

Not to dismiss, but to see it from a differing perspective. I simply do not see it the way you do.

 

With luv,

BD

Thank you for taking the time to try and understand my perspective and thoughts on this issue.  I have done the same with what you wrote.  I fully believe that telling someone they can never marry and enjoy all the joy and happiness that come with that part of life is wrong.  I fully believe that it goes against the Plan of Happiness.   And yes, I believe that Paul did receive a  revelation concerning these latter days.  I know that church leaders have a different point of view.  But I have learned through sad experience that church leaders do not have all the answers to this question.  And that they have been wrong about this issue in the past.  So I trust in God.  I know that I am on a path back to Him.  And I think you know that you can also trust God and the path you are on also leads back to God.  Putting our faith in God is a much more sure place than man no matter how sincere they strive to be.  They are still fallible men.  We have learned the lesson over and over again.  

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

I don't think that anyone has argued that heterosexual marriage is not a part of the Plan of Happiness.  In fact, I have pointed out several times that the key component to the Plan of Happiness is centered around marriage.  The question is, is that play available for gay members as well?

Before the questions can be asked and answered, one has to decide what marriage is. What do you think it is?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Posted
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just good Latter-day Saints?

Good Christians from most denominations, most likely.

Posted
5 minutes ago, california boy said:

But I have learned through sad experience that church leaders do not have all the answers to this question.  And that they have been wrong about this issue in the past.

About the issue of ssm?

Posted
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't pretend to speak for God.  I only quoted a prophecy given to Paul.  Is that prophecy as Paul claimed it to be?  Did it come from God?  Is God condemning those that forbid marriage?  Those are all questions that you have to decide for yourself.  You can mock the words of Paul if you wish.  Or you can decide if what he wrote is in fact a prophecy from God concerning the latter days.

Wasn't mocking Paul. Was saying that your interpretation was unfounded. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Is this not an "argument from silence" type? The scriptures are not silent on homosexual acts. I asked CB in an earlier post to find something that promoted homosexual acts as not being sinful or even implied such. Why would God condemn to the death such acts in one era, then promote them in another era while failing to inform His prophets of such a change? (Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.) So, for the sake of argument (only) that God revealed such to a prophet and the prophet refused to carry out God's edict. I seem to remember a story about a prophet who tried to skip out on doing what the Lord had commanded him to do. His name was Jonah and he was issued a course correction, which was recorded for posterity to read and understand.

Glenn

I only added the “Dis-“ to a sentence by Ksfisher.  If you dismiss my argument as “an argument from silence”, then his argument must be dismissed as well.

Where in the scriptures does God condemn to death persons committing homosexual acts?  I’m not saying it’s not there, there’s a lot of weird stuff in the OT, I just don’t remember seeing it.

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

About the issue of ssm?

Absolutely.  I knew I was gay from the time I was 12.  I felt like if I just did everything God asked me to do, then with him, all things are possible and I could overcome this attraction to men.  So I did just that.  I did everything that God asked me to do.  When I retuned from my mission I could not understand why I was still gay.  Church leaders promised me in the name of God himself that if I just married a woman, then I would loose this attraction for men and would no longer be gay.   I asked them this is really a promise from God and they told me yes, that they knew the will of God on this issue.  So I trusted those what were suppose to know what God wanted of me.

Obviously that proved to not be true at all.  Someone does not stop being gay even if they marry a woman.  Church leaders no long make this promise in the name of God.  In fact, they now explicitly say that marriage is not therapy and will not make you straight.  Think about all the heartache and sadness that counsel brought to so many families.  So yes, the church has been very wrong about what the will of God is when it comes to marriage for gay members.  Not a little wrong.  Completely wrong.

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

Absolutely.  I knew I was gay from the time I was 12.  I felt like if I just did everything God asked me to do, then with him, all things are possible and I could overcome this attraction to men.  So I did just that.  I did everything that God asked me to do.  When I retuned from my mission I could not understand why I was still gay.  Church leaders promised me in the name of God himself that if I just married a woman, then I would loose this attraction for women and would no longer be gay.   I asked them this is really a promise from God and they told me yes, that they knew the will of God on this issue.  So I trusted those what were suppose to know what God wanted of me.

Obviously that proved to not be true at all.  Someone does not stop being gay even if they marry a woman.  Church leaders no long make this promise in the name of God.  In fact, they now explicitly say that marriage is not therapy and will not make you straight.  Think about all the heartache and sadness that counsel brought to so many families.  So yes, the church has been very wrong about what the will of God is when it comes to marriage for gay members.  Not a little wrong.  Completely wrong.

You may want to reread your first paragraph and make an edit. :)  The sentance beginning "Church leaders promised..." 

Posted
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Are the heavens sealed or can God still reveal His secrets to his prophets?

No the heavens are not sealed and God still can and does reveal His secrets to the prophets.

Glenn

Posted
9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You may want to reread your first paragraph and make an edit. :)  The sentance beginning "Church leaders promised..." 

Thanks.  I am glad you knew exactly what I met.

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

Thanks.  I am glad you knew exactly what I met.

No problem.  I'm constantly finding mispellings, typos, and stray words in my posts - after I post them.

Edited by ksfisher
Posted
30 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

Where in the scriptures does God condemn to death persons committing homosexual acts?  I’m not saying it’s not there, there’s a lot of weird stuff in the OT, I just don’t remember seeing it.

Leviticus 20:13.

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

I only added the “Dis-“ to a sentence by Ksfisher.  If you dismiss my argument as “an argument from silence”, then his argument must be dismissed as well.

I do not think that it is an argument from silence at all in light of God's prohibition against homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22 (one needs to read the whole chapter for context) and the extreme unction penalty in Leviticus 20:13. It is something that logically follows.

When God labels something as a sin or issues a commandment if He does not reiterate that commandment to every succeeding prophet and generation does that mean that it is no longer a sin because God was silent on the matter or that the commandment was/is no longer in force because God did not repeat that commandment to the succeeding prophet or generation?

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
An additional thought
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...