|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Why does this show keep saying that Mormons are polygamists? Don't you have to believe what the Book of Mormon says to be a Mormon? If you don't believe the Book of Mormon aren't you a non-Mormon?
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
5/19/08
|
|
(254 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 8:25 AM
|
Declaration:
I had stopped reading this thread for a while as I responded to some other responsibilities. I have posted often on other topics but didn't feel a need to comment on the direction in which this particular thread went. My function on this board, I felt, was to help people see things from the LDS point of view, to explain them, since I was once a faithful temple-recommend Mormon.
But I can't let you feel that you are alone in your views on homosexuality.
My life has been filled with friendships with gay people. The first man who ever asked me to marry him was gay. (I guess we're both probably glad that didn't materialize, though I've lost touch with him.) In fact, it's my practice (sometimes to the chagrin of my family) to seek out anyone in any situation who is different or might look alone. I'm not perfect, but one of my few virtues is an aching love for the outsider. I hear the hurt and anger in many of the posts here. I am so sorry for the way others have treated some of you. May God forgive them.
I have an earned PhD in Biblical and theological studies. I read koine Greek, and could once say that I read Hebrew (it didn't "stick" like other foreign languages I have learned). I've taken textual criticism classes at a master's degree level, studied textual redaction, dealt with in my own mind and heart the issues related to them.
After a lifetime of study, I've concluded that the Bible is an accurate representation of the mind of God. (Not the whole mind of God, but what He has revealed.) I can put my full weight on it, so to speak. And in Romans and other linguistic manifestations of that mind of God, the practice of homosexuality is portrayed as a symptom of alienation from God.
Well, no argument there, many on this board would say. However, there are also people who earnestly seek Him as gay people (both in the LDS church and other churches) believing -- as has been passionately and articulately portrayed on this board -- that the problem is with the Bible. I cannot get my mind around seeking the God of the Bible and rejecting piecemeal the document that tells about Him.
I realize that some of you may want to pick this letter apart, to argue its finer points. You may of course do that but I may of course not respond. (I am a full-time writer, and my next book explores my conclusion that a woman wrote the book of Hebrews in the New Testament. I need to get back to that.)
Some who have followed my comments on other threads might think they see hypocrisy in supporting the Bible and rejecting Mormonism. (One result of leaving Mormonism, though, is that I know what it feels like to be completely and devastatingly wrong about something.) I have my reasons for that choice and if you're interested, I've written entire books on the subject.
Others might think there is hypocrisy in the concept of "hating the sin but loving the sinner." Please at least acknowledge our avenues of loving our fellow human beings. It is not necessary to advocate a person's oppositional point of view nor behavior to show love and respect. (The movie Dead Man Walking demonstrated how a Christian can show such love without condoning actions.)
But Declaration, you are not alone. I can't say I agree with every single thing you've said, but I certainly do with the overall concept.
Respectfully,
Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com
www.representationalresearch.com
|
|
|
Posts:
487
Registered:
3/12/09
|
|
(253 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 6:54 AM
|
> titiannia,
>
> Bible 101..................the Bible was not
> writiten by white men.
>
> This is not a slam, it simply tells me that you
> have't been educated in the origins of the Bible.
> That's okay...you are NOT alone.
>
> FAG.....that is an offensive word where I come from
> and I'd not use it. It might be acceptable to others
> and I'd allow for that. But you'll never see or hear
> me use it.
>
> Let me be clear. I do not have bad feelings towards
> homosexuals. I view it as the same as any sin...
> smoking, lying, stealing, etc. God's grace covers
> all sin except for the blasphemy against the spirit.
>
>
> I would invite everyone to read the account of Lot
> and his wife. And the fall of the Roman Empire.
>
>
> Blsssings.
>
>
> P.S. Despite the heat I'll
> take.................I have no problem being the
> voice in the wilderness. --
Look it is possible to discuss the scriptures based on reason. But whenever reason conflicts with the opinion of a "believer" that reason is dismissed based on the person's "belief". That's why it makes much more sense logically to say you believe what you believe based on faith, not facts. Here is the thing, there is no such thing as "what the Bible says." There is only what you think it says when you read it. And so what Christians base their faith on is the their tradition of interpretation of the Bible. This is true for any religion that bases their faith on a book. People who often use the statement, "The bible says" are usually cherry picking scriptures to support things they already believe, or what their tradition has taught them. Usually these people haven't gotten past Bible 101, or have spent a lot of time reading books read by authors who also believe what they believe (i.e., if everything you are reading comes from the same few publishing houses, you may not be learning much).
They haven't really done any deep biblical studies. They read an English translation, which is already an interpretation. They do not take into account the historical/cultural context of when the story happens and/or when it was actually written and/or the number of redactors involved in the process. They don't understand how the bible was redacted, haven't studied canon criticism, greek, hebrew, exegesis or hermeneutics, or church history. And very often in these newer non-denominational churches their pastors haven't studied these things either. Then they rely on the "spirit" to justify their interpretation. It's all very subjective. However, if you question their "interpretation", they will talk to you as if these things are facts, and then dismiss you as an "unbeliever". Not very productive is it? So my point is, it's useless to debate scripture on these threads - especially when it's concerning the how we treat a minority group in this country (i.e. LGBT community or even the polygs).
--
We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams. - W. Wonka
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(252 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 3:34 AM
|
> So you are suggesting that gays can't or won't
> control their emotions and resort to assaulting a
> senior citizens?
They didn't assault her. They assaulted a piece of cardboard. It looked as if she'd taken a few boxes keyboards came in, and taped 'em together. And maybe she shouldn't have swatted that guy in the red shirt with it. I think they might not have thrown it down and stomped on it, if she had just left.
> Even I don't believe that. The lesson of MRK JR. was
> PEACEFUL NON RESISTANCE.
You mean peaceful resistance.
They didn't hurt that woman. They "berated her," which is understandable. But they controlled their tempers. And when one of the men grabbed that cross, (which she did smack him with, to be fair,) and the other guy started stomping on it, six of those men formed a protective circle around her, and, still carrying their signs, walked her out, shielding her with their bodies, even though she was there to berate and condemn them for who they were.
So I don't think she's got any right to complain. She went there to stir the pot, and she stirred it.
I doubt a white person who'd done the same at a King rally, or a homosexual who confronted a revival meeting or Christian protest, would have gotten off that easily.
--
?Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).?
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(251 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 3:25 AM
|
> titiannia,
>
> Bible 101..................the Bible was not
> writiten by white men.
It was drawn from Sumerian sources, so yeah, it was written by Semitic men and Arabic men. Technically Caucasian. And then later it was added to by Greek men, and then translated by European men.
It was mainly a revisionist history and revision of a number of existing legends, justifying patriarchy through the stories of Adam & Abraham, and justifying the conquest of many surrounding cultures with the stories of Noah, Moses, Lot, David, Solomon, etc....
The OT chronicles the slow obliteration of the goddess cultures, including the rape of priestesses, public murder of queens such as Jezebel, the defilement of temples, dashing out of children's brains, and leveling of sacred forests, and of course the conquest of many city-states.
History is written by the victors, and the fact that these guys usually win, is chalked up to the fact that God is on their side.
> This is not a slam, it simply tells me that you
> have't been educated in the origins of the Bible.
> That's okay...you are NOT alone.
I may have been more educated about the Bible than you think.
> FAG.....that is an offensive word where I come from
> and I'd not use it.
But quoting Leviticus and verses where they're called "abominations" isn't offensive? That part about how we're supposed to kill them, if they're found making love, and their blood is to be on their own heads?
> Let me be clear. I do not have bad feelings towards
> homosexuals.
But you feel that churches should uphold and enforce Leviticus, which demands that anyone who knows a gay couple should kill them. No bad feelings there. I'm sure if people called for your blood to be spilled, you wouldn't take any offense at all. LOL!
> I view it as the same as any sin...
> smoking,
Ah. Baptist or Methodist? The Bible doesn't mention smoking as a sin. There is no reference to smoking in the Bible at all, in fact.
> lying, stealing, etc. God's grace covers
> all sin except for the blasphemy against the spirit.
Then why even mention Leviticus?
>
>
> I would invite everyone to read the account of Lot
> and his wife.
I read it many times as a child, trying to understand it. And of course that other part about his daughters. Were those the SAME two daughters that he offered to the angry mob? "here, rape my two virgin daughters, and leave these two strange men alone." Nice. And I note that the angels didn't bother helping out the little girls, either.
They didn't count on any women ever reading this book--women weren't supposed to read the Torah except at their father or brother or husband's knee, so probably the man was expected to edit out the bits that would alienate a woman from this ultra-patriarchal saga.
> And the fall of the Roman Empire.
What about the fall of the Roman Empire? It happened because the Romans got paranoid about foreigners and killed their own thriving economy by closing off trade, and at the same time spread their armies all over the globe so that they could not take care of what was happening in Rome proper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(455)
A wonderful source about the fall of Rome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones'_Barbarians
He was a historian before he was a comedian, and is one again now that he's old.
> P.S. Despite the heat I'll
> take.................I have no problem being the
> voice in the wilderness. --
> Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 5:46 PM PDT
>
> --
> Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 5:54 PM PDT
>
> --
> Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 6:01 PM PDT
>
> --
> Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 6:02 PM PDT
--
?Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).?
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(250 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 3:03 AM
|
CHansen,
Impressive list. No surprises there, that in the infancy of patriarchal society most men of note would be polygamists.
But just because people were polygamists in those days, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for everyone nowadays, or that it is necessarily a condition of salvation for everybody either.
I don't condemn polygamy when it's consensual and everyone's happy. After all, "all acts of love and pleasure" are her rituals, including the ones I personally wouldn't do. But neither do I understand elevating it above mutual monogamous commitment.
Ironic you should keep using that tag about witches burning, when it's your patriarchy that created the witch hunts, both in Europe and in the US.
"Now the Earth, is a witch, and the men still burn her,
stripping her down with mining and the poisons of their wars....but to us the earth is a healer, a teacher, a mother, she spins the web of life that keeps us all alive...." (couldn't resist. So much religious quoting goin' on.
--
?Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).?
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(249 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 2:57 AM
|
Declara,
> While I respect your view.................human are
> not higher primates. Theyare children of the
> living God
Is there any particular reason higher primates couldn't be children of the living God?
Because we most certainly ARE higher primates. We have a 99% DNA match to chimpanzees, so how could we NOT be higher primates?
> and as such should conduct themselves
> in that way.
Well, I know what that means in your religion, but in my religion "children of the living God," can be homosexual, because God made them that way. Your absolute commitment to your religious faith is admirable, but you shouldn't assume that everyone has the same religion.
> Thank you for your point of view.
You too, I guess.
--
?Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).?
|
|
|
Posts:
41
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(248 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 12:39 AM
|
Polygamists in the Bible
Abdon, Judge of Israel, 40 sons, Judge 12:14
Abijah, Godly King of Judah who opposed godless Jereboam, 14 wives, 2
Chronicles 13:21
Abraham, Patriarch and friend of God,at least 1 wife and 3 concubines,
Genesis 16:3
Ahab, evil king of Israel wives given to Ahab and 70 sons 1 Kings 20:1-9
Ashur, 2 wives, 1 Chronicles 4:5
Belshazzar, King of Babylon, wives and concubines, Daniel 5:2
Ben-Hadad, King of Aram, wives of Ahab, 1 Kings 20:1-9
Caleb, 1 wife and 2 concubines, 1 Chronicles 2:18-19, 46-48
David, King of Israel and a man after God's own heart, 12+ wives, 3+
concubines, 1 Samuel 18:27, 2 Samuel 3:2-4, 2 Samuel 5:13, 2 Samuel 11, 2
Samuel 12:8, 1 Chronicles 3:1-5, 1 Chronicles 14:3
Eliphaz, 1 wife and 1 concubine, Genesis 36:12
Elkanah, 2 wives, 1 Samuel 1:1-2
Esau, 4 wives, Genesis 26:34, Genesis 28:9
Gideon, many wives and 70 sons, Judges 8:30
Heman, God gave Heman fourteen sons and three daughters, 1 Chronicles 25:4-5
Isaiah, Son of Izrahiah, many wives and children, 1 Chronicles 7:3-4
Jacob, 2 wives and 2 concubines, Genesis 29, Genesis 30
Jair, Judge of Israel, 30 sons, Judges 10:3-4
Jerahmeel, 2 wives, 1 Chronicles 2:25-26
Jehoram, King of Israel, multiple wives, 2 Chronicles 21:12-14
Joash, Righteous King of Judah, 2 wives, 2 Chronicles 24:2-3
Joel, Son of Izrahiah, many wives and children, 1 Chronicles 7:3-4
Lamech, Pre-flood descendent of Cain, 2 wives, Genesis 4:19
Manasseh, at least one concubine, 1 Chronicles 7:14
Mered, 2 wives, 1 Chronicles 4:17-18
Michael , Son of Izrahiah, many wives and children, 1 Chronicles 7:3-4
Moses, 2 wives, Exodus 2:21, Numbers 12:1
Nahor, 1 wife and 1 concubine, Genesis 22:20-24
Obadiah, Son of Izrahiah, many wives and children, 1 Chronicles 7:3-4
Rehoboam, 18 wives and 60 concubines, 2 Chronicles 11:21
Saul, at least 2 wives, 1 Samuel 14:50, 2 Samuel 3:7
Shaharaim, 2 divorced wives and at least 1 not divorced, 1 Chronicles 8:8
Solomon, 700 wives and 300 concubines, 1 Kings 11:3, Song 6:8, 2 Kings 10:1
Terah, 2 but not necessarily simultaneously, Genesis 11:26, Genesis 20:12
Xerxes, King of Persia and husband of Esther, wives and concubines, Esther 2
YahwehGod, 2 wives, Jeremiah 3:6-10, 31:31-32, Ezekiel 23
Zedekai, King of Judah, multiple wives, Jeremiah 38:19-23
Ziba, 15 sons, 2 Samuel 9:10
* David's wives:
1 = Michal, daughter of Saul, 1 Samuel 18:27
1 = Abinoam of Jezreel, 2 Samuel 3:2
1 = Abigail, widow of Nabal, 2 Samuel 3:3
1 = Maacah, daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur, 2 Samuel 3:3
1 = Haggith, 2 Samuel 3:4
1 = Abital, 2 Samuel 3:4
1 = Eglah, 2 Samuel 3:5
5+=more concubines and wives in Jerusalem (implying at least 2 of each in
addition to previous wives and at least one unnamed concubine), 2 Samuel 5:13
1 = Bathsheba, 2 Samuel 11
2+=Saul's wives, 2 Samuel 12:8
--
Ahh, the smell of witches roasting on the fire! What a cherished European and American tradition.
|
|
|
Posts:
41
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(247 of 464)
Mar 27, 2009 12:33 AM
|
The Book of Mormon doesn't demonstrate polygyny was practiced?
Alma 10:11 "he hath blessed me, and my women"
Ether 1:41 "thy families" vs. Jared only had one family
Ether 6:20 "the number of sons and daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls"
Ether 7:2 Orihah had 31 children
Ether 14:2 Man and his wives
--
Ahh, the smell of witches roasting on the fire! What a cherished European and American tradition.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,216
Registered:
8/10/07
|
|
(246 of 464)
Mar 26, 2009 11:58 PM
|
> > No, Notouch this exactly what you wrote:
> >
> > > And us Hispanic people get attacked for
> just
> > working low paying jobs.
> >
> > Yo entiendo, no. . .comprendo exactemente lo
> que
> > usted esta diciendo. . ."Oh pobre de nosotros,
> mi
> > gente. . .somos attacados y ofendidos por todos
> > lados, por nuestro Raza, por nuestro fe. Nadie
> nos
> > quire!!!!"
> > ...
>
> Si no quieres entender, es tu propio decision. Si tu
> quieres complicar algo muy simple que yo dije, no hay
> nada que yo puedo hacer. Ya no tengo energia para
> botar en discuciones como este, como ya veo que tu
> estas dispuesta a discutir conmigo sobre palabritas y
> algo implicado cuando tu tienes la capacidad de
> entenderme bien, pero no te conviene por alguna
> razon. Pero ya no tengo ganas de pasar tiempo
> explicando una oracion que de verdad, no tiene much> que ver con nada aqui.
Claro que si tiene que ver aqui... TU LO ESCRIBISTE!!!! Nada mas porque yo si te estoy llamando la atencion que dijiste algo, y despues, niegas lo que dijo. . ., o que quiere decir algo mas. . .o, no puedes presentar factos sobre de lo que dices. Este si es cobarderia. Cuando yo estoy en mal, yo si lo admito. . .no lo cambio la cuenta, o decido que no me vale la pena o el tiempo de progresar con la platica.
--
Bitches are not born. . . they are made.
|
|
|
Posts:
130
Registered:
3/15/09
|
|
(245 of 464)
Mar 26, 2009 11:27 PM
|
While I respect your view.................human are not higher primates. Theyare children of the living God and as such should conduct themselve in that way.
Thank you for your point of view.
|
|
|
Posts:
189
Registered:
3/9/09
|
|
(244 of 464)
Mar 26, 2009 10:51 PM
|
> Declara
>
> No one is happy about anyone being trampled or
> abused, but sadly humans are just higher primates
> with certain unpleasant characteristics, and that
> includes the religious primates...
>
> Are you familiar with the term "bad apples?"
I sure am. But for some reason there were a few people on this thread earlier who wanted to characterize Matthew Sheppard's killers as prime examples of mean and hateful LDS boys, what with them frequenting bars and assaulting and killing people and all. So I'm not entirely sure that everyone on this thread is.
|
|
|
Posts:
189
Registered:
3/9/09
|
|
(243 of 464)
Mar 26, 2009 10:48 PM
|
> No, Notouch this exactly what you wrote:
>
> > And us Hispanic people get attacked for just
> working low paying jobs.
>
> Yo entiendo, no. . .comprendo exactemente lo que
> usted esta diciendo. . ."Oh pobre de nosotros, mi
> gente. . .somos attacados y ofendidos por todos
> lados, por nuestro Raza, por nuestro fe. Nadie nos
> quire!!!!"
> ...
Si no quieres entender, es tu propio decision. Si tu quieres complicar algo muy simple que yo dije, no hay nada que yo puedo hacer. Ya no tengo energia para botar en discuciones como este, como ya veo que tu estas dispuesta a discutir conmigo sobre palabritas y algo implicado cuando tu tienes la capacidad de entenderme bien, pero no te conviene por alguna razon. Pero ya no tengo ganas de pasar tiempo explicando una oracion que de verdad, no tiene much que ver con nada aqui.
|
|
|
Posts:
130
Registered:
3/15/09
|
|
(242 of 464)
Mar 26, 2009 8:58 PM
|
So you are suggesting that gays can't or won't control their emotions and resort to assaulting a senior citizens?
Even I don't believe that. The lesson of MRK JR. was PEACEFUL NON RESISTANCE.
|
|
|
Posts:
130
Registered:
3/15/09
|
|
(241 of 464)
Mar 26, 2009 8:40 PM
|
titiannia,
Bible 101..................the Bible was not writiten by white men.
This is not a slam, it simply tells me that you have't been educated in the origins of the Bible. That's okay...you are NOT alone.
FAG.....that is an offensive word where I come from and I'd not use it. It might be acceptable to others and I'd allow for that. But you'll never see or hear me use it.
Let me be clear. I do not have bad feelings towards homosexuals. I view it as the same as any sin... smoking, lying, stealing, etc. God's grace covers all sin except for the blasphemy against the spirit.
I would invite everyone to read the account of Lot and his wife. And the fall of the Roman Empire.
Blsssings.
P.S. Despite the heat I'll take.................I have no problem being the voice in the wilderness. --
Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 5:46 PM PDT
--
Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 5:54 PM PDT
--
Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 6:01 PM PDT
--
Edited by Declaration at 03/26/2009 6:02 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(240 of 464)
Mar 26, 2009 3:32 PM
|
Declaration,
> Now as as far as scripture....Ya'll have been
> watching too much of The West Wing.
I've never seen that show.
> So does The New Testament
Might be hard for you to digest this, but I don't care which passage of a book written by white men to justify their oppression of women, fags, and children, condemns homosexuality.
> You can't however, get past the 41
> states who now have said "NO" to homosexuality.
They'll come around in time.
> I was just shocked
> and saddened watching a homosexual assault an elderly
> women utilizing her constitutional right to oppose
> homosexuality.
They didn't assault her. They didn't even threaten her. They told her to go home and leave them alone, after she read her statement. They let her express her opinion. Her opinion was insulting and ignorant.
She started waving a cross around that was made from two very long narrow cardboard boxes. It was stupid, and she smacked a guy with it, I think accidentally, and at that point they took it from her and started stomping on it.
> If I'm no longer welcome here, I can live with that.
Why? You've got your opinions. No biggie. It's not like you smacked someone with a cardboard box or anything.
--
?Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).?
|
|
|
|
|
