The broad way (being single) leads to death?

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Frank11 said:

The context in which Jesus replied, "when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage", is quite clear. Here the Saducees asked to whom the woman belonged who had been married seven times. Jesus wants to make it clear that none of the men has a claim to ownership of the woman, since the marriage covenant has expired. Romans 7 also says this: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." That does not mean, however, that we cannot be together with our loved ones in eternity. I hardly know any Christian who does not believe that they will not be able to see their spouse, children and close friends again later. There is just no formal marriage with obligations that ensure the earthly care of the family, because then it is simply no longer necessary. 

1) Why do you believe it was God’s design that Adam and Eve should exist in His presence as an eternally married couple who shared in an everlasting union of husband and wife that would have endured forever if it hadn’t been for the fall? 2) Why do you believe that a full redemption from the fall doesn’t include eternal marital unions between husbands and wives who eternally become “one flesh,’ as modeled by Adam and Eve before the fall?

Please note that when God said it wasn’t good that man be should alone that He didn’t just create a friend for Adam, but instead of a mere friend He created a beloved wife with whom Adam who be so closely bound that she would become bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh, and the mother of their children. I find it interesting how so many otherwise conservative non-LDS Christians believe that the battle for the preservation of the traditional nuclear family is ultimately going to be won by the progressive types who are striving to abolish the traditional family because of their undying hatred for the sacred Biblical roles of Father and Mother.

 

Edited July 15, 2024 by teddyaware

[InCognitus]

On 7/14/2024 at 5:36 AM, Frank11 said:

On this subject, I wonder how D&C 132:19 is compatible with Jesus' statement: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

Read just a couple of verses earlier in Doctrine and Covenants 132:15-16 to get the same situational context that correlates to what Jesus said to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matthew 20:23-33 and Luke 20:27-36, who did "err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt 22:29).  The verse you referenced in the Doctrine and Covenants is for those who marry in the new and everlasting covenant, so it's not the same situation.  

Besides, Jesus saying "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage" is hardly "clear", because on face value it does not indicate that marriages made in this life don't continue into the eternities.  It's simply saying that no marriages will be performed in the resurrection.  For example, consider this discussion on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange:  Does "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" refer to the act of getting married, or the state of being married?

[Frank11]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

1) Why do you believe it was God’s design that Adam and Eve should exist in His presence as an eternally married couple who shared in an everlasting union of husband and wife that would have endured forever if it hadn’t been for the fall?

We both know that wasn't God's plan, right?

 

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

2) Why do you believe that a full redemption from the fall doesn’t include eternal marital unions between husbands and wives who eternally become “one flesh,’ as modeled by Adam and Eve before the fall?

I am not against the idea of a wife and husband becoming one flesh and living together for all eternity if that is what they both want. I don't think that's what Jesus meant either. It is solely about the mutual obligations of a marriage. What does it mean to be one flesh? On the one hand, uniting and begetting children. On the other hand, to empathize with your partner as if they were your own feelings, be it suffering, pain, fears, etc. All of this creates love between two people, not an ordinance. 

Example: A woman and a man are sealed for time and eternity. After a year, the man dies. The marriage was childless. She meets a new man outside the church and marries him civilly. She leads a happy marriage for decades with many children and grandchildren and knows at the end of her life that he was her soul mate for life. 
If the ordinance were now crucial, she would have to live with her first husband for eternity. If this ordinance expires at death, she would be free to decide for herself who she wants to be with in eternity, and that would be her soulmate with whom she became one flesh during her lifetime.

I once read a funny story about a clever Mormon woman, who strategically planned her marriages. She only married her first husband for a time. When he died, she married the second man also for time only. After he also died, the clever woman decided to seal herself to the second husband for eternity. The even cleverer daughter from the first marriage did not like this. When her mother died, she also sealed her mother to her father (the first husband). 

I don't know if this story is true, but the next certainly is. 

In March 1841, Zina Huntington legally married Henry Jacobs. She had two children with him. Six months later, she was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity while she was married to Henry. In 1846, she married Brigham for time while Henry was on a mission in England. She had one child with Brigham. 
I find it hard to believe that Joseph and Zina, who were sealed for eternity, were one flesh.

15 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I find it interesting how so many otherwise conservative non-LDS Christians believe that the battle for the preservation of the traditional nuclear family is ultimately going to be won by the progressive types who are striving to abolish the traditional family because of their undying hatred for the sacred Biblical roles of Father and Mother.

You have to talk to Jesus Christ about it, I was just quoting him. 

 

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Read just a couple of verses earlier in Doctrine and Covenants 132:15-16 to get the same situational context

That certainly helps you, but I would have to believe in D&C that it comes from God and not from Joseph. I find that particularly difficult in the controversial chapter 132, especially the part from verse 51 onwards.

 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Besides, Jesus saying "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage" is hardly "clear", because on face value it does not indicate that marriages made in this life don't continue into the eternities.  It's simply saying that no marriages will be performed in the resurrection.  For example, consider this discussion on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

There are actually a few good points in this discussion. But that wouldn't be relevant to you either if you believe in D&C 132:15-16.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Frank11 said:

That certainly helps you, but I would have to believe in D&C that it comes from God and not from Joseph.

Whether you believe the Doctrine and Covenants came from God or not it demonstrates that Doctrine and Covenants 132:19 (in its context) is completely compatible and in harmony with the teaching of Jesus in the Bible (in its context). 

3 hours ago, Frank11 said:

There are actually a few good points in this discussion. But that wouldn't be relevant to you either if you believe in D&C 132:15-16.

They are entirely relevant.  Verse 16 of Doctrine and Covenants 132 says why those discussion points are relevant, but the key to why their marriage in this life does not extend to the next is found in verse 15 (and the same would be true of the unbelieving Sadducees who did not know the scriptures or the power of God).

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I find it interesting how so many otherwise conservative non-LDS Christians believe that the battle for the preservation of the traditional nuclear family is ultimately going to be won by the progressive types who are striving to abolish the traditional family because of their undying hatred for the sacred Biblical roles of Father and Mother.

Are these “progressive types who are striving to abolish the traditional family because of their undying hatred” in the room with us right now?

[longview]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are these “progressive types who are striving to abolish the traditional family because of their undying hatred” in the room with us right now?

Don't be a silly ninny. We only need to look at two historical facts among the many:

1- in the early Bolshevik days of the Russian Revolution, they tried to raise all children in the communes completely dispersed without any binding parental ties (they had to eventually give up the experiment);

2- it is blatantly obvious there is a steady increase in the amount of governmental controls superceding the rights of parents to make decisions for their children (especially in public schools education complex).

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, longview said:

Don't be a silly ninny. We only need to look at two historical facts among the many:

Oh, this should be good.

28 minutes ago, longview said:

1- in the early Bolshevik days of the Russian Revolution, they tried to raise all children in the communes completely dispersed without any binding parental ties (they had to eventually give up the experiment);

That never happened. There were people who had aspirations to make it happen but it never did. The “communes” were almost entirely made up of orphans and abandoned children of which there were a lot of due to all of the wars

28 minutes ago, longview said:

2- it is blatantly obvious there is a steady increase in the amount of governmental controls superceding the rights of parents to make decisions for their children (especially in public schools education complex).

No, there has been an increase in activists screaming about school systems supposedly usurping parental rights. Many of these activists don’t even live in the districts where they are protesting. When you ask what rights are being superseded they get antsy and talk about how ‘blatantly obvious’ it is without being willing to get into specifics.

Your attempt to mix this modern hysteria with mythical stories of widespread child abduction in Soviet Russia as if the two are somehow related is ridiculous. We have enough real problems to deal with that these fake ones are a puerile distraction. A suspicious and cynical person would probably wonder what the people behind these distractions are distracting everyone from.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, there has been an increase in activists screaming about school systems supposedly usurping parental rights. Many of these activists don’t even live in the districts where they are protesting. When you ask what rights are being superseded they get antsy and talk about how ‘blatantly obvious’ it is without being willing to get into specifics.

Hmmm....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-bill-banning-schools-from-notifying-parents-childs-gender-identity

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Hmmm....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-bill-banning-schools-from-notifying-parents-childs-gender-identity

 

Well, there are families, or parents that boot their own children out of their homes and make them homeless if they came out gay to them. So there's that. So I wonder if that's why. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, there are families, or parents that boot their own children out of their homes and make them homeless if they came out gay to them. So there's that. So I wonder if that's why. 

It is still an usurption of parental rights. They are literally taking away the rights of ALL parents because there might be SOME parents who react badly. It should be on a case by case basis.

[manol]

On 7/15/2024 at 5:54 PM, Frank11 said:

Example: A woman and a man are sealed for time and eternity. After a year, the man dies. The marriage was childless. She meets a new man outside the church and marries him civilly. She leads a happy marriage for decades with many children and grandchildren and knows at the end of her life that he was her soul mate for life. 

 

If the ordinance were now crucial, she would have to live with her first husband for eternity. If this ordinance expires at death, she would be free to decide for herself who she wants to be with in eternity, and that would be her soulmate with whom she became one flesh during her lifetime.

It sounds to me like you are saying that the natural affinity between this woman and her second husband matters more than the technicality of her having been sealed to her first husband.  If so, then I agree with you.  If the technicalities are critical in the next life, then I expect there will be avenues by which the technicalities can and will be brought into alignment with natural affinity.

I expect that our associations in the next life will be governed by natural affinity rather than by the circumstances of our earth lives, including consequences of the veil.  Yes the Lord's house is a house of order, but it is a natural order, not an imposed one, in my opinion.  This based on an underlying assumption that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  And as a corollary to this underlying assumption, I do not believe that being single leads to death nor anything remotely similar. 

Edited July 17, 2024 by manol

[manol]

double post

Edited July 17, 2024 by manol

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Hmmm....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-bill-banning-schools-from-notifying-parents-childs-gender-identity

Demanding that teachers spy on children and report everything to parents is not a long-established parental right. Especially when the child may literally be threatened by said parents.

So, no.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is still an usurption of parental rights. They are literally taking away the rights of ALL parents because there might be SOME parents who react badly. It should be on a case by case basis.

No such right to expect teachers to spy on a parent’s behalf.

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No such right to expect teachers to spy on a parent’s behalf.

If teachers don't give a rats tail and don't tell parents anyways, why did they feel it necessary to make a law prohibiting teachers from letting parents know if their child is doing something that may run afoul of the moral values of the students families?

Are parents able to opt out of said law and request to be informed so they can address the issue as a family? 

I'm guessing not.

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, manol said:

It sounds to me like you are saying that the natural affinity between this woman and her second husband matters more than the technicality of her having been sealed to her first husband.  If so, then I agree with you.  If the technicalities are critical in the next life, then I expect there will be avenues by which the technicalities can and will be brought into alignment with natural affinity.

I expect that our associations in the next life will be governed by natural affinity rather than by the circumstances of our earth lives, including consequences of the veil.  Yes the Lord's house is a house of order, but it is a natural order, not an imposed one, in my opinion.  This based on an underlying assumption that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  And as a corollary to this underlying assumption, I do not believe that being single leads to death nor anything remotely similar. 

agree

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Yes the Lord's house is a house of order, but it is a natural order, not an imposed one, in my opinion. 

Well said.  This is an idea I have had for a long time.  “Punishments” imo are limited to natural consequences (some of which we may not be aware of) rather than something equivalent to being sent to stand in the corner or wear a dunce cap.  Hierarchies exist because they form through our relationships and actions (you appeal for help from someone because of their capability and relationship, not position) rather than our relationships forming based on hierarchies or our actions being dictated by our assigned position.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is still an usurption of parental rights. They are literally taking away the rights of ALL parents because there might be SOME parents who react badly. It should be on a case by case basis.

What kind of reports have your kids’ teachers been giving you?  Mine were extremely limited and I was the room mother most years and in class helping out at least weekly.  They just don’t have time to spend their after hours with reports to parents on any new behaviour or relationship the kid shows, especially if it doesn’t affect their school performance.

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

What kind of reports have your kids’ teachers been giving you?  Mine were extremely limited and I was the room mother most years and in class helping out at least weekly.  They just don’t have time to spend their after hours with reports to parents on any new behaviour or relationship the kid shows, especially if it doesn’t affect their school performance.

Than why did a law need to be made that addresses a non-issue?

For some parents their child pretending to be the opposite sex behind their backs is an important behavioral issue.

Edited July 17, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Than why did a law need to be made that addresses a non-issue?

For some parents their child pretending to be the opposite sex behind their backs is an important behavioral issue.

To avoid teachers getting slammed or sued by parents when they find out the child behaved differently at school than they do at home.  Parents are not always reasonable, especially when it comes to controversy.

I do think parents have a right to know any medically important info and what is taught about such, such as drug use or behaviour that could lead to a pregnancy (I believe parents have a right to know what Sex Ed their kids are being taught, but not to dictate what is taught) and that includes mental health such as signs of depression or high anxiety, as behaviour at home may differ because children are under less stress or parents have accepted coping mechanisms where they are not accepted at school….but pronoun use in and of itself is not a medical issue.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

To avoid teachers getting slammed or sued by parents when they find out the child behaved differently at school than they do at home.  Parents are not always reasonable, especially when it comes to controversy.

I do think parents have a right to know any medically important info and what is taught about such, such as drug use or behaviour that could lead to a pregnancy (I believe parents have a right to know what Sex Ed their kids are being taught, but not to dictate what is taught) but pronoun use in and of itself is not a medical issue.

It's a morality issue for many families, which is far more important to them than any medical issue- as it has to do with eternity, not just the here and now.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's a morality issue for many families, which is far more important to them than any medical issue- as it has to do with eternity, not just the here and now.

And I am not saying parents shouldn’t talk to their kids about moral issues or teach morality.  That is their job.  If they are worried about it, they should talk to their kids themselves.

It is a job that shouldn’t be pushed on the school.

Schools need basic morality to keep functioning, no bullying, no cheating, no truancy, no stealing, no violence, basic common courtesy and politeness and therefore should promote such things.  But when it comes to finetuning morality which may be different with each family, it’s asking too much for them to track that stuff imo.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

And I am not saying parents shouldn’t talk to their kids about moral issues or teach morality.  That is their job.  If they are worried about it, they should talk to their kids themselves.

It is a job that shouldn’t be pushed on the school.

Schools need basic morality to keep functioning, no bullying, no cheating, no truancy, no stealing, no violence, basic common courtesy and politeness and therefore should promote such things.  But when it comes to finetuning morality which may be different with each family, it’s asking too much for them to track that stuff imo.

I'm not saying the school should talk to their kids about it. (Did I write that anywhere?). I'm sure most religious parents surely do NOT want the school talking to their kids about it. (Which they already do in whole-hearted support of 🏳️‍🌈). I'm saying parents have the right to be informed, if they so choose, if their child is adopting a different gender at school.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not saying the school should talk to their kids about it. (Did I write that anywhere?). I'm sure most religious parents surely do NOT want the school talking to their kids about it. (Which they already do in whole-hearted support of 🏳️‍🌈). I'm saying parents have the right to be informed, if they so choose, if their child is adopting a different gender at school.

I am not saying you did say the school should talk to the kid.  Asking teachers to put that on their checklist is asking teachers/the school to get involved in the teaching imo, even if only being facilitators.  How do they know that it’s something the parents will opposed?  Why should they be required to assume that as the default?

They have so many things to keep track of now even with just learning skills they don’t have enough time to breathe (my daughter in law is a teacher’s aid as well as getting her degree in teaching and my sister just retired from being a teacher…she had very little free time from August to June, often missed Thanksgiving visits though did manage several days at Christmas.  She was very dedicated and invested in teaching (she has gotten a Ph.D in English literature and was a college prof for many years, but felt she would change more lives if she taught kids when they were still forming their personalities).

Quote

Which they already do in whole-hearted support of 🏳️‍🌈

I am all for teaching no bullying for any reason and because of that some accurate and realistic LGBT info is going to need be taught and positive things need to be said about kids who are queer, etc…and such should be said as much for them as anyone else imo as that is the only way to diminish bullying, it’s not enough to just say “don’t do it, there needs to be reasons not to do it as in “don’t bully because they deserve your respect” and then they will need to show why they deserve respect.  Assuming kids will stop or do something just because you say “just because” is foolish.

However, going more than that as in promoting any lifestyle whether religious, sexual, financial, political or whatever can be problematic in my view when it happens, but I don’t see one ‘too far’ behaviour as an automatically appropriate response to another ‘too far’.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, Calm said:

I am not saying you did say the school should talk to the kid.  Asking teachers to put that on their checklist is asking teachers/the school to get involved in the teaching imo, even if only being facilitators.  They have so many things to keep track of now even with just learning skills they don’t have enough time to breathe (my daughter in law is a teacher’s aid as well as getting her degree in teaching and my sister just retired from being a teacher…she had very little free time from August to June, often missed Thanksgiving visits though did manage several days at Christmas.  She was very dedicated and invested in teaching (she has gotten a Ph.D in English literature and was a college prof for many years, but felt she would change more lives if she taught kids when they were still forming their personalities).

If a parent calls and directly asks, "Is my kid identifying opposite gender at school?" should the school have to inform the parent?