Mormon posters grasp at straws to discredit dissenter

[_harmony]

it is an abomination.

So is plural marriage, according to Jacob, yet you support it. Perhaps consistency is too much to expect from you.

As for the subject of the thread, homosexuality is not a sin. Fornication is the sin, and is applicable to all types of sexual activity. The canon supports the prohibition against fornication, not a prohibition against homosexuality.

[_moksha]

Here's the original punctuation:

Homosexuality is gross, Telestial wickedness; it is an abomination. It is completely outside the Gospel and general Judeo/Christian framework.

How could this have been misunderstood?

I understood you point, however homosexuality exists never the less and I still fail to see why the Church would feel a need to punish the Danzigs or Jeffery Nielson who spoke up originally not about the Church's doctrine of not having active homosexual members, but a wholly political position to which Mr. Nielson found himself opposed. At what point can the Church legitimately punish its members for contrary political positions, if they were speaking against Church political positions?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

So then you are saying this is one thing that members are not allowed to find their own personal revelation? Especially if it falls outside of the expected supporting norm?

I know of no doctrine in the Church saying that any member, upon any subject, can receive revelation for the Church, whether that be Branch, Ward, Stake, or especially for the Church as a whole. Indeed, official Church doctrine has always been precisely the opposite. Nor is a faithful member going to receive revelation for him or herself, that is in contradiction to settled doctrines and standards of the Church, not, at least, if those doctrines and standards have come by the same principle of revelation. Truth, being one (except to liberals, each of which has his own), cannot, quite obviously, be inconsistent with truth. One may take a purely sociological, reductive view of the Church of course, as to its true nature, and that will, of course, take your assumptions, and hence your conclusions about its teachings, in another direction.

You two are getting very close to forcing me to ask you whether you've ever really been members. This kind of doctrinal ignorance--of basic Church teachings--begs some explanation. The Teachings regarding homosexual conduct have been set since Adam; since the beginning of human civilization of which we have record and which is relevant to the plan of salvation. It's never changed, and will not, no matter how loud and shrill the wails of the modern compassion fascists become.

Since Adam huh? Do you like to eat shrimp?

[_Some Schmo]

Though to me, on a psychological and emotional level, homosexual conduct is, indeed, gross, that was hardly the thrust of my comment.

He's only saying this because he's uncomfortable about his true feelings toward me.

Just come out of the closet, coggy. You know you want to.

[_Coggins7]

it is an abomination.

So is plural marriage, according to Jacob, yet you support it. Perhaps consistency is too much to expect from you.

As for the subject of the thread, homosexuality is not a sin. Fornication is the sin, and is applicable to all types of sexual activity. The canon supports the prohibition against fornication, not a prohibition against homosexuality.

I'm not going to enter into a discussion regarding your self generated psychological blockage regarding plural marriage as it appears in Jacob. That issue has been settled. Plural marriage entered into by human beings without divine sanction is an abomination. Plural marriage, re Jacob, entered into if the Lord commands specific persons for specific purposes, is rightious and justified of the Lord.

Even polygamy, as historically practiced in various ancient cultures, including semitic, is, whatever else it may be, hardly a "perversion" in the sense that homosexuality is a distortion of normative psychosexual development and perception. Its a modification of heterosexual marital forms that in no manner parallels homosexuality, which is not a modification of heterosexual family patterns, but a perversion ("To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse") of heterosexual conduct-any heterosexual conduct.

Pre-marital sexual relations and adultery are transgressions beyond the boundaries of proper human sexuality, but not perversions of it. Plural marriage is a transgression beyond the boundaries of proper human sexuality but clearly, according to Jacob, Second Samuel, and the experience of Abraham, Moses, Issiac, and Jacob (Old Testament Jacob) there is a proper form, controlled under the authority of the Priesthood, if and when sanctioned by the Lord, that is appropriate.

I don't think you can be educated on this issue, regardless of the warrant for it that clearly appears in the scriptures, because of the obsessional controlling interest it has for you regarding the Gospel, so never mind.

[_Mary]

Coggins, so let's not be hypocritical about this...

Jesus, the master, also said:

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Let's add to it another one... (from Matt 19)

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Does the leadership of the church keep to Jesus of Nazareth's doctrine on the subject of divorce. I wonder why not... (they probably wouldn't have too many members left)

In my opinion it is hypocritical to make a stand on steady homosexual relationships/marriage (something which the ancients probably had little understanding of in terms of its genetic components), without making the same doctrinal stand on divorce.

If you divorce and it wasn't on account of unfaithfulness..you are an adulterer....there you have it from the mouth of the master.

hmmmm
Mary

[_Brackite]

I'm not going to enter into a discussion regarding your self generated psychological blockage regarding plural marriage as it appears in Jacob. That issue has been settled. Plural marriage entered into by human beings without divine sanction is an abomination. Plural marriage, re Jacob, entered into if the Lord commands specific persons for specific purposes, is rightious and justified of the Lord.

Even polygamy, as historically practiced in various ancient cultures, including semitic, is, whatever else it may be, hardly a "perversion" in the sense that homosexuality is a distortion of normative psychosexual development and perception. Its a modification of heterosexual marital forms that in no manner parallels homosexuality, which is not a modification of heterosexual family patterns, but a perversion ("To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse") of heterosexual conduct-any heterosexual conduct.

Pre-marital sexual relations and adultery are transgressions beyond the boundaries of proper human sexuality, but not perversions of it. Plural marriage is a transgression beyond the boundaries of proper human sexuality but clearly, according to Jacob, Second Samuel, and the experience of Abraham, Moses, Issiac, and Jacob (Old Testament Jacob) there is a proper form, controlled under the authority of the Priesthood, if and when sanctioned by the Lord, that is appropriate.

The Book of Mormon , States absolutely Nothing about Polygamy being Not an abomination. Polygamy is referred to as being Abominable and/or also as an abomination in the Revelation from the Lord God given through the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob, in Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23-33, Three times. Here are these three times that the Lord God through His Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob, in Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23-33, in which He Refers to Polygamy as being abominable, and/or also as an abomination:

Jacob 2:

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins, so let's not be hypocritical about this...

Jesus, the master, also said:

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Let's add to it another one... (from Matt 19)

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Does the leadership of the church keep to Jesus of Nazareth's doctrine on the subject of divorce. I wonder why not... (they probably wouldn't have too many members left)

In my opinion it is hypocritical to make a stand on steady homosexual relationships/marriage (something which the ancients probably had little understanding of in terms of its genetic components), without making the same doctrinal stand on divorce.

If you divorce and it wasn't on account of unfaithfulness..you are an adulterer....there you have it from the mouth of the master.

hmmmm
Mary

You answered your own question above. How did you miss it?

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

The absence of divorce is the ideal, but, because we are imperfect, fallen, and given to mortal weakness, we have divorce, and all divorce is not of the same metal. But as we are not fundamentalists, and believe in modern, continuing revelations (as the early Saints did), holding us to a Biblical injunction extraneous to all other considerations is a weak argument, no?

In my opinion it is hypocritical to make a stand on steady homosexual relationships/marriage (something which the ancients probably had little understanding of in terms of its genetic components), without making the same doctrinal stand on divorce.

If you divorce and it wasn't on account of unfaithfulness..you are an adulterer....there you have it from the mouth of the master.

You really need to check the logical scaffolding of your argument here before proceeding any further. Jesus clearly states that divorce is allowed, because of our fallen condition, even though there is a higher law and ideal. Homosexuality is utterly and unequivocally condemned throughout the Old Testament and New Testament without qualification. No allowance is ever made for it whatever in any text.

Interestingly, by your own logic, the Church cannot take any committed stand on premarital sex or adultery unless they begin refusing to grant divorces for any reason whatsoever. Indeed, you would seem to suggest that unless the Church reinsititutes animal sacrifice, no moral teaching regarding sexuality or anything else, should be taken as anything other than hypocritical. Indeed, apparent contradictions such as this could be multiplied ad infinitum. Even more interesting is the logical implication that, by your own argument, the Church cannot take a stand for or against polygamy, on moral or theological grounds, unless a rigid letter of the law stance is taken on Jesus' words regarding divorce in Matthew.

Nor can you.

One more point: the fact that the ancients had no knowledge of genetics is peripheral to the issue of homosexuality, because we have, although much more knowledge or genetics, no knowledge of the degree of influence genetics represents as to the development of homosexuality, at least according to the present state of knowledge within the brain sciences.

Historic liberal media hype and special pleading notwithstanding.

[_Coggins7]

I'm not going to enter into a discussion regarding your self generated psychological blockage regarding plural marriage as it appears in Jacob. That issue has been settled. Plural marriage entered into by human beings without divine sanction is an abomination. Plural marriage, re Jacob, entered into if the Lord commands specific persons for specific purposes, is rightious and justified of the Lord.

Even polygamy, as historically practiced in various ancient cultures, including semitic, is, whatever else it may be, hardly a "perversion" in the sense that homosexuality is a distortion of normative psychosexual development and perception. Its a modification of heterosexual marital forms that in no manner parallels homosexuality, which is not a modification of heterosexual family patterns, but a perversion ("To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse") of heterosexual conduct-any heterosexual conduct.

Pre-marital sexual relations and adultery are transgressions beyond the boundaries of proper human sexuality, but not perversions of it. Plural marriage is a transgression beyond the boundaries of proper human sexuality but clearly, according to Jacob, Second Samuel, and the experience of Abraham, Moses, Issiac, and Jacob (Old Testament Jacob) there is a proper form, controlled under the authority of the Priesthood, if and when sanctioned by the Lord, that is appropriate.

The Book of Mormon , States absolutely Nothing about Polygamy being Not an abomination. Polygamy is referred to as being Abominable and/or also as an abomination in the Revelation from the Lord God given through the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob, in Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23-33, Three times. Here are these three times that the Lord God through His Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob, in Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23-33, in which He Refers to Polygamy as being abominable, and/or also as an abomination:

Jacob 2:

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

Keep on rockin' Brack. I know you don't have any reading comprehension problems, so what this continual urinating in the wind represents is simply a continual pounding of your bleeding knuckles against a concrete wall. You can continue to extract, isolate, and twist these verses in Jacob until your head explodes if you wish, but you will never undue the very explicit reference to the exception to the general rule contained in that same book.

Your previous exegesis of that verse was, frankly, silly, and quite obviously strained beyond any conceivable textual limits as to a reasonable, conservative reading of the text. Nor will you lock horns with the very clear references to plural marriage in the Old Testament, including the Mosaic law's rules concerning it, and the plural wives of some of the Old Testament's most important patriarchs and prophets.

Your arguments here need some Fix-It-Flat to keep the flopping tire rolling down the bumpy road you have set for yourself.

[_Mary]

Coggins....

You really need to check the logical scaffolding of your argument here before proceeding any further. Jesus clearly states that divorce is allowed, because of our fallen condition, even though there is a higher law and ideal.

Jesus argued from that passage that divorce was allowed only on the basis of adultery. So 'anyone' in the church who is divorced because of 'unreasonable behaviour' or any other reason other than 'adultery' or 'fornication' commits adultery should they marry again. Or do you interpret those passages differently? To my mind those scriptures in no way sanction divorce as a blanket rule which is what you suggest..

You can equivocate all you like but that was 'doctrine' from the master. It is not 'doctrine' that the church upholds in its proclamation on the family. I know a dozen members who have married and divorced for reasons other than fornication or adultery...I don't see the church rushing to accuse them of adultery should they decide to marry again, which was clearly Jesus' position...

Mary