Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 17, 2007 1:55:18 GMT -4
I'm sorry -the quotes from Salamander mean little to me without the context.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 17, 2007 2:11:07 GMT -4
True. However, I wouldn't suggest instituting a law against poor people marrying, and I doubt you would, either. No, I wouldn't make that a law either. It is something people in such a circumstance should consider, however. Underage marriages or marriages with people who are already married are already against the law of course, so my original point stands - there are restrictions on who you can marry that most people consider sensible. Even your last statement about it is conditional, Gillian. He could decide this, and if He gave a revelation to Church leaders concerning this we would be bound to accept it. However everything to this point has indicated that this is unlikely to happen. That's not the case with polygamy or blacks holding the priesthood. The Book of Mormon states that the normal rule is one wife per husband, but that the Lord may command his people otherwise to "raise up seed unto me." The LDS Church's practice of polygamy was for exactly this purpose - it was only allowed because of a specific command, and therefore able to be repealed by a second such commandment, which it was. Most of the leadership of the church also understood that the prohibition against granting blacks the priesthood was a temporary one, and would one day be removed, by revelation. And that is what happened. President Kimball even refers to "the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us" and "the long-promised day" in the official declaration which announced the revelation. There are no similar indications that homosexual behavior will ever be declared acceptable by God.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2007 7:26:06 GMT -4
I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that later editions of the Book of Mormon have a different take on the subject than earlier ones, would it?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 17, 2007 11:34:36 GMT -4
I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that later editions of the Book of Mormon have a different take on the subject than earlier ones, would it? No, not really. The current text of the particular passage found in the book of Jacob regarding multiple wives is not substantially different from the original manuscript.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2007 12:59:31 GMT -4
So you admit there have been changes? (And I didn't mean the mention of polygamy; I'm perfectly aware that it was a personal revelation from God to Joseph Smith. Frequently.)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 17, 2007 14:47:07 GMT -4
Changes in the Book of Mormon text? Yes, of course I admit there have been changes.
Joseph Smith himself made corrections between the original edition and the 1838 edition.
A note in the front of my copy says "Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."
I've seen comparisons of different editions of the Book of Momon on-line. Most of the changes are obvious corrections - mis-spellings, etc. Some of them actually remove hebraisms in the text that are evidence that it is an ancient text in bringing the text into more modern English. I don't find any of the more significant changes to be particularly worrisome ("son of" God added in some instances, "white" to "pure", and the confusion between kings Benjamin and Mosiah are examples of some of the more significant changes).
One of the stong points of LDS doctrine, however, is that the Book of Mormon doesn't have to be regarded as infallible in order for church doctrine to be secure. A good thing, too, since it doesn't claim to be infallible. Modern revelation received by the current living prophet can supercede the writings of past prophets.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 18, 2007 2:02:52 GMT -4
That's as may be, but you've claimed it as infallible in the past.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 11:12:14 GMT -4
I think if you read my past posts carefully you'll see that I haven't. I wrote about this particular issue quite a bit on the now closed "Mormonism" thread.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 11:27:39 GMT -4
Reply #17 on the "Mormonism" thread - September 27, 2006: 'First off, let me say that the Book of Mormon makes no claims to being infallible, so this whole debate of internal inconsistency may be academic." That's just the first example I found.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 12:29:21 GMT -4
This is a problem I've come across all too often on these forums. Quite often people read into my posts what isn't there, simply because it fits their preconception of what a member of the LDS church (or, more broadly, a generally conservative Christian) should be claiming. This point was driven home to me when, at the end of a long debate over personal messages I realized my fellow corresponder wasn't even reading my responses. At the time I decided to block his messages he had only opened three of the last ten responses I sent him. My guess is that he had decided that he already knew what I was all about, and therefore had no need to read anything I wrote.
This attitude is sometimes present in the more Apollo-oriented sections of the forum as well. A short while ago a Brazillian poster got his head bit off by the regulars after posting some of the claims of others that the Wright brothers weren't the first to fly. In his case his command of English was imperfect and his meaning may not have been well-presented, but the regulars of the forum where all too ready to believe the worst of him because they thought his message matched the pattern of a hoax believer, and so they didn't bother to read his post closely enough to divine his true intent before firing off their own messages excoriating his presumed argument.
The moral of the story: read and more importantly think a little about other's posts before posting your own replies. Don't be so anxious to present your own argument that you mis-understand the other party's position.
I know, this is an internet forum - this sort of thing comes part and parcel with the medium we're using. And I'm certainly not completely innocent myself. Still, it would be nice to improve things a bit. A little awareness that this is a problem may help.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 18, 2007 14:44:29 GMT -4
Hmm. Mote. Beam.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 14:47:34 GMT -4
"And I'm certainly not completely innocent myself."
Thank you for proving my point, Al.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 18, 2007 14:58:18 GMT -4
I would have chosen another word than "completely". ;D
And as you're the only Mormon I know, I don't think I have much in the way of preconceptions about what you "ought" to be saying: if you're predictable, it's purely on the basis of your track record here.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 15:10:42 GMT -4
Perhaps you're just going with the "generally conservative Christian" stereotype then.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 15:26:27 GMT -4
I'm talking about two consenting adults that are not already married and in love with each other. Those restrictions you outlined apply for anyone (except for the last one of course).
Because marriage is also a claim to financial and legal rights.
What is marriage, Jason? It's a declaration of love between two consenting adults. Marriage is an official declaration of love and a lifelong commitment towards the bond that the love holds. It is also as I said above a claim to financial and legal rights granted only to a married couple. Nothing about that definition, which is the only definition that the government can truly uphold (thank you seperation of church and state) says anything about sexual preference, or for that matter, gender, race, class, or belief system. Why? Because love is not bound to one system, one type of bond. If you can admit that gay people are capable of sharing the same love that a straight couple does, then they have the fullest right to marry.
Exactly why can't gay people marry in your opinion? Why does sexual preference make a such a difference that they are not granted that right?
|
|