LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[misanthropic_clown]

Probably gay people in every denomination would be working to change the views of their denominations, which I'm sure you agree is their right.

I see no problem with people actively engaging with their religious organisations in this manner, though I would have to say I support the right of the religious group to respond with disciplinary measures if this is done in an inappropriate manner.

 

[Autodidact]

Firstly you have to be legally married to get a temple marriage anyway. But if we are still in the hypothetical situation that our legal marriage would not be considered valid by the state, assumably church policy would allow for us to simply get married in the temple anyway? And if we are in that hypothetical situation, then I don't see why the woman would be adverse to seeking the rights of a couple in some more convoluted legal route. Again, the spiritual aspect of that relationship would be so much more important to render anything the state said to the point of insignificance, provided that I had rights that gave the relationship legal stability.

In any respect, I don't see that postulation as being particularly coherent.

Hold everything. I thought you didn't care whether you could get legally married? Now you seem to care quite a lot! Why should Church policy change? I thought you were against state policy directing Church policy.

 

[Autodidact]

I see no problem with people actively engaging with their religious organisations in this manner, though I would have to say I support the right of the religious group to respond with disciplinary measures if this is done in an inappropriate manner.

Or alternatively, they might get just the divine revelation their members are asking for. As Painted Wolf pointed out, it's happened before.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Hold everything. I thought you didn't care whether you could get legally married? Now you seem to care quite a lot! Why should Church policy change? I thought you were against state policy directing Church policy.

This turnabout doesn't make sense. I would care about getting married *right now* because I would need it to get married in the temple *right now*. I assume that the church only marries legally married couples for legal or some other precautionary reasons. It is not otherwise an integral part of the process. If the requirement to be legally married was dropped, I wouldn't be particularly interested in getting legally married (provided, as before, that my relationship had legal stabilities, as are currently provided by UK law anyway)

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Or alternatively, they might get just the divine revelation their members are asking for. As Painted Wolf pointed out, it's happened before.

And as I said before, touche, though I do consider that changing our stance on homosexuality would be far more difficult doctrine-wise than giving black members equal rights to the Priesthood. Though perhaps that is worthy of a new thread if to be discussed further.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., misanthrope, I understand. But, as I was saying earlier, what do you think your chances would be of courting your sweetheart then?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

O.K., misanthrope, I understand. But, as I was saying earlier, what do you think your chances would be of courting your sweetheart then?

If marriage were made redundant to the point of symbolism and tax breaks? Again, if taken in context with the comparison to the temple marriage, I am pretty sure I would be able to find someone like-minded. And given that there would still be a marriage ceremony to placate the lady , I sincerely don't see what I would be missing.

I can honestly say that I can see your stance. You feel that people are hiding homophobia behind the protection of religious rights. You may well be right, and if I were in a position to make any difference whatsoever I would have no problem working to create a stable, legal institution for same-sex couples.

But as far as I am concerned, in the UK anyway, the legal institution of marriage is so hollow in comparison to the building of a stable and loving relationship within a spiritual context. I would happily ignore the first part provided it did not infringe on my ability to partake in the second part.

 

[emiliano]

Maybe your Church does. Many others do not. I see. So Jesus died and put you in charge, did he? Did you know that there are millions of Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin? And obviously, lesbianism is not a sin in any Christian Church, unless they're heretics, because neither God nor Jesus ever prohibit it or describe it as such. Divorce, on the other hand, is clearly a sin, and no Church could ever have a divorced pastor and call itself Christian.
And the argument, probably correct, that homosexuality is not a sin.

Now, the problem is that you are interpreting what a Christian is to us Christians, you don’t know what Christianity tenets are, for starter: The Apostle Paul’s Epistles are considered inspired scripture, inspired by the Lord after his ascension, it was Jesus that chose Him to be a choice instrument for the spreading of His word. Paul wrote more than any of the Apostles, we believe that he was inspired by the Lord, thus it is really Jesus commands, he put him in charge, I just learn from him, from what he wrote. And lesbianism is a sin and a dangerous one.
Rom 1:26 For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
This letter was addressed to the Roman congregation and it is a warming to the congregation that he established there, a place known for its sexual immorality. Rome the sin capital of the ancient world. Where homosexuality ran amok it show lesbianism as a consequence and a dishonours, a sin against their natural design. “also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error” sin leading to greater sins “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right”

 

[Autodidact]

Now, the problem is that you are interpreting what a Christian is to us Christians, you don’t know what Christianity tenets are, for starter: The Apostle Paul’s Epistles are considered inspired scripture, inspired by the Lord after his ascension, it was Jesus that chose Him to be a choice instrument for the spreading of His word. Paul wrote more than any of the Apostles, we believe that he was inspired by the Lord, thus it is really Jesus commands, he put him in charge, I just learn from him, from what he wrote. And lesbianism is a sin and a dangerous one.
Rom 1:26 For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
This letter was addressed to the Roman congregation and it is a warming to the congregation that he established there, a place known for its sexual immorality. Rome the sin capital of the ancient world. Where homosexuality ran amok it show lesbianism as a consequence and a dishonours, a sin against their natural design. “also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error” sin leading to greater sins “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right”

That's so interesting. And where in either testament is lesbianism prohibited? Where does God tell us not to do it? Where are we commanded not to engage in it? Anywhere? Anywhere? Who are you to speak for God? To make up commandments in God's name? To disregard His holy words? Are you sure you're a Christian?

Now divorce, that's different. Jesus made it clear that is prohibited. But for some reason, you don't see Christians organizing to prohibit that. Why do you think that is, emiliano?

I assure you I know your Bible better than you do, emiliano.

 

[Watchmen]

Once upon a time the church thought that African Americans could never hold the priesthood...
God changed his mind on that one, who's to say he can't change his mind here too?

wa:do

You're mis-stating and don't understand the history.

God didn't change his mind. God never kept them out of the priesthood - man did.

 

[painted wolf]

That is not my understanding from my time in the LDS church.

Some of those men speaking on keeping African Americans out of priesthood were the Prophets.
It took a revelation by another prophet to change things.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

No, because our country is backward and pandering to your flock of sheep. There is not point when justice will get crushed by the cancer that is religion.

I see, the whole world is crazy but me, sort of thing? You’ll be surprise how many times a heard that around my place of work, there are so many and more important issues to worry about at present, that you have no chance of pulling any thing like this into the first page, and as you know the new leadership of this country does not put great hopes on following the path that the US, the emphasis is on economic and the search for a way out of troubles has shifted to Asia, their eyes are on China and India. The big picture revisited.
I love this country! That’s why I am here.

 

[DeepShadow]

Hmmm. Are you married?

Yes. Is that so hard to believe?

 

[Watchmen]

That is not my understanding from my time in the LDS church.

Some of those men speaking on keeping African Americans out of priesthood were the Prophets.
It took a revelation by another prophet to change things.

wa:do

"Some of those men." There were black priesthood holders in Joseph Smith's time. Brigham Young and others came up with their own interpretation of things, but the ban was never official doctrine - just a practice. In other words, it did not come from God. The revelation to give blacks the priesthood did come from God. It was not a case of God changing his mind. It was a case of God correcting man.

 

[painted wolf]

Someone should have told that to Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith. Those two African American men were never allowed to practice any temple rites or ordinances, certainly not after Josephs death.
But this is getting off topic.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

[quote=Autodidact;1347805]That's so interesting. And where in either testament is lesbianism prohibited? Where does God tell us not to do it? Where are we commanded not to engage in it? Anywhere? Anywhere? Who are you to speak for God? To make up commandments in God's name? To disregard His holy words? Are you sure you're a Christian?

Now divorce, that's different. Jesus made it clear that is prohibited. But for some reason, you don't see Christians organizing to prohibit that. Why do you think that is, emiliano?

I assure you I know your Bible better than you do, emiliano.[/quote]

It is clearly established in verse one that Paul is speaking for God, It is clearly set out as a warning, in verse 5 and 6 it is clear from whom is he writing for. Verse 7 identifies the congregation of Rome as the addressee. This Epistle talk about the corruption of the men, their dishonorable affections (homosexuality) and made them responsible for the corruption of their women, their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature (lesbianism) knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, this is spiritual death. It could no be any clearer.
If you know the bible you could see it clearly, but scripture cannot be understand by those that are spiritually dead, you cannot understand in it in that state. The Lord had a ministry of 31/2 years in which He prepared the Apostle for the continuation of the preaching of the Gospels, He promised to send the Holy Spirit to the Church, and that He would be with them till the end, Paul was called to minister the Gospels to the nations and that is what he did and this is what he wrote about homosexuality and lesbianism inspired by the Holy Spirit, we believe that this is the inspired word of God.

 

[Autodidact]

[quote=Autodidact;1347805]That's so interesting. And where in either testament is lesbianism prohibited? Where does God tell us not to do it? Where are we commanded not to engage in it? Anywhere? Anywhere? Who are you to speak for God? To make up commandments in God's name? To disregard His holy words? Are you sure you're a Christian?

Now divorce, that's different. Jesus made it clear that is prohibited. But for some reason, you don't see Christians organizing to prohibit that. Why do you think that is, emiliano?

I assure you I know your Bible better than you do, emiliano.

It is clearly established in verse one that Paul is speaking for God, It is clearly set out as a warning, in verse 5 and 6 it is clear from whom is he writing for. Verse 7 identifies the congregation of Rome as the addressee. This Epistle talk about the corruption of the men, their dishonorable affections (homosexuality) and made them responsible for the corruption of their women, their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature (lesbianism) knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, this is spiritual death. It could no be any clearer.
If you know the bible you could see it clearly, but scripture cannot be understand by those that are spiritually dead, you cannot understand in it in that state. The Lord had a ministry of 31/2 years in which He prepared the Apostle for the continuation of the preaching of the Gospels, He promised to send the Holy Spirit to the Church, and that He would be with them till the end, Paul was called to minister the Gospels to the nations and that is what he did and this is what he wrote about homosexuality and lesbianism inspired by the Holy Spirit, we believe that this is the inspired word of God.[/quote]

So let me get this. You've got 2 huge volumes, 613 commandments in the OT alone, 613 "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s, everything from idol worship to how to trim your beard, and you've got one story, describing what G-d did to some people who didn't worship him, that He punished them by causing them to have sexual desires that were not natural to them, described second-hand by Paul, and you're trying to persuade me that's G-d's odd, sideways manner of prohibiting something? Aw go one, pull the other one.

Now, as I was saying, where's that passage where G-d does prohibit lesbianism exactly? Y'know, something along the lines of

1 Corinthians 7
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Something like that.

Instead we get:

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

I mean, it couldn't be more clear what Paul says here: They did not worship G-d, so therefore G-d punished them by making them have unnatural relations.

So, as I often say, it's crystal clear that, unlike divorce, lesbianism is not prohibited. Anyone who says that it is is putting his own narrow prejudice in G-d's mouth, which is heresy, don't you agree?

 

[darkendless]

I see, the whole world is crazy but me, sort of thing? You’ll be surprise how many times a heard that around my place of work, there are so many and more important issues to worry about at present, that you have no chance of pulling any thing like this into the first page, and as you know the new leadership of this country does not put great hopes on following the path that the US, the emphasis is on economic and the search for a way out of troubles has shifted to Asia, their eyes are on China and India. The big picture revisited.
I love this country! That’s why I am here.

Yeh i love the hypocrisy and trampeling rights as well

I agree with you there are important things that need our attention. But my point is and always has been, why do we ignore this problem when given a study of 500 people as well as parliament, it would pass and homosexuals could get married? Its a lot different to what you've been saying all along that no one cares and no one wants them to marry.

 

[emiliano]

Autodidact you wrote

So let me get this. You've got 2 huge volumes, 613 commandments in the OT alone, 613 "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s, everything from idol worship to how to trim your beard, and you've got one story, describing what G-d did to some people who didn't worship him, that He punished them by causing them to have sexual desires that were not natural to them, described second-hand by Paul, and you're trying to persuade me that's G-d's odd, sideways manner of prohibiting something? Aw go one, pull the other one.
Now, as I was saying, where's that passage where G-d does prohibit lesbianism exactly? Y'know, something along the lines of
Something like that.
Instead we get:
I mean, it couldn't be more clear what Paul says here: They did not worship G-d, so therefore G-d punished them by making them have unnatural relations.

So, as I often say, it's crystal clear that, unlike divorce, lesbianism is not prohibited. Anyone who says that it is is putting his own narrow prejudice in G-d's mouth, which is heresy, don't you agree?

OH boy, what a job you trying to do here. Let see your take on divorce, the Lord does not say that divorce is prohibited Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.
So some divorces are allowable, in the case of fornication. it is funny that you quote from this chapter as it tell us so clearly that the marriage that God instituted is between a man and a woman. Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",
And you told me that you know the bible better than I do and set out to explain it to me. Are you kidding me?
This us is telling us that this is the union that God instituted at the beginning and further it teaches Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?
A man not a woman, where do lesbian get confused?
On the scripture that we were discussing it is clearly stated that lesbianism in Rome was the consequence of men’s homosexuality and that this leads to death, spiritual death of Homosexuals, Lesbians and those that don’t correct them.
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.
It is clear to me that not stopping these practices (homosexuality and Lesbianism) taking pleasure in those (gays) that practice this behaviours makes us accomplices of these sins, thus Christians campaigned against seme sex marriages, they don’t want to be partaker of these sins.
As for the Jews position on this issue. Ask a Jew!

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact you wrote

OH boy, what a job you trying to do here. Let see your take on divorce, the Lord does not say that divorce is prohibited Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.
So some divorces are allowable, in the case of fornication. it is funny that you quote from this chapter as it tell us so clearly that the marriage that God instituted is between a man and a woman. Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",
And you told me that you know the bible better than I do and set out to explain it to me. Are you kidding me?
This us is telling us that this is the union that God instituted at the beginning and further it teaches Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?
A man not a woman, where do lesbian get confused?
On the scripture that we were discussing it is clearly stated that lesbianism in Rome was the consequence of men’s homosexuality and that this leads to death, spiritual death of Homosexuals, Lesbians and those that don’t correct them.
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.
It is clear to me that not stopping these practices (homosexuality and Lesbianism) taking pleasure in those (gays) that practice this behaviours makes us accomplices of these sins, thus Christians campaigned against seme sex marriages, they don’t want to be partaker of these sins.
As for the Jews position on this issue. Ask a Jew!

Are you honestly trying to argue that divorce is not prohibited? It's true, there are conflicting passages, one that prohibits it altogether, and two that prohibit it except for fornication, but surely we can agree that divorce for any reason other than fornication is strictly and explicitly prohibited, right? So I suppose you've put a lot of energy into making sure that Australia prohibits divorce except for fornication?

Now, are you trying to argue that some passage does prohibit lesbianism? Because, you know, it's not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. btw, I am a Jew.

Yes, Romans says that sex that was unnatural for these women was a consequence of their irreligious actions--we agree on that. And that's the only place in the entire Bible that it's mentioned, right? So can we agree that there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that prohibits it? Unlike divorce, which is always prohibited except possibly in case of fornication?