Gotta keep those tithes coming in and butts in the pews by making compromises on moral behavior to reflect shifting demographics and unfashionable taboos. We Catholics have to try to decipher the Pope's word salads like Amoris laetitia after being told our whole lives to avoid all near occasions of sin and not to scandalize children with our bad examples so the slippery slope to secular humanism being taught from the pulpit seems to be metastasizing almost everywhere.

You’re incorrect, Deuteronomy 25:5-7 makes no mention of the brother being already married, the only examples in scripture, Gen 38 and Ruth 3-4, involved unmarried men. Genesis 2:24 already defines Godly marriage. The examples in the Old Testament of polygamy were not normative, they were descriptive of what occurred, not prescriptive of what ought to occur.

But here you are, using the OT to defend polygamy as Biblical, why is that?

"Pro-homo talking points?" Lol, rofl. Quoting from the Bible isn't "talking points." The Bible not mentioning adult consensual gay relationships between equal partners is a -huge- thing if you use the Bible as a guide for defining marriage.

But, here goes... I was answering a question about marriage definitions in the Bible. Celibacy and wholly avoiding family responsibilities is found as normative in the Bible per Pauls teachings. And plural marriage was a normative marital practice in the Bible.

I am pro-Christ. I am pro "read the Bible." Pro-gay? I guess you meant that as an insult but as a small-government, limited-government Christian I have to say that if I have a right to something, everyone else should have the same right. In that way I am pro-gay.

Several Church members I am close with have "come out" and continue to attend. They --to a one-- tried to "pray away the gay." They did not want to be gay. They continue to worship and follow Christ. Just like the rest of us.

Pro-gay? Pro-Christ would be an honest and accurate moniker to attach to me. But if you are talking about my ministering to and accepting gay followers of Christ, and me supporting equal rights for all as a limited-government conservative, then sure. Attach the moniker.

Pro-gay? I know you meant it as a dig. An insult. But Christ offers Himself to everyone. "Bond or free, male and female all are alike unto Christ." Everyone. Gay or straight. Everyone can follow and accept Christ-- Even gay people.




The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently supported the marriage equality act because it strengthened Church rights. It gave the Church (and BYU, and any other Church school or organization) more rights to discriminate -against- gay people for admittance.

Some people did not want to actually read the law and with that ignorance-- jump to false conclusions.

Liberty University released a statement condemning the Church. While at the same time they benefitted from the wording of the law to protect it as a religious institution. Funny. Ironic.

The Church becoming more liberal on gay believers and gay followers of Christ? Probably. People are understanding gay people more now. 20 years ago people did not understand gay people as much as they do today. Churches did not understand gay followers of Christ like they do today.

People thought that gay people must have been abused. Raised in bad homes. That sort of thing. You will have a family. Takes their kids to Church. Good mom. Good dad. Some kids are straight. One kid will be gay. Liberal? People are starting to understand and accept gay people more now generally. That is a good thing.

And adult gay consensual relationships between equal partners isn't a thing that is addressed in the Bible... "There are few biblical verses that address homosexuality at all, and most of those are not directed at homosexuality per se. Jesus never said one word against homosexuality." Link



We accept "continuing revelation." The scriptural canon is not closed for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Doctrine rarely changes. Policies and practices change... Doctrine rarely changes. Policies and procedures change. The few core doctrines of the Church are...  1. Godhead. 2. Plan of Salvation. 3. Atonement of Jesus Christ. 4. Dispensation, Apostasy, and Restoration. 5. Prophets and Revelation. 6. Priesthood and Priesthood Keys. 7. Ordinances and Covenants. 8. Marriage and Family. 9. Commandments. Link

There has been "continuing revelation" that has added more information about those core doctrines. But "change doctrine" is rare.

The Heavens are open. And that is a good thing. The Heavens are not closed. The scriptural canon is open.

The Bible is clear. A follower of Christ can turn their back on family responsibilities and live celibate. Per Paul. The Bible is clear... Plural Marriage is a normative Biblical practice of marriage. The Bible is clear... A man can take concubines in his marriage.

What the Bible is --not-- clear about is condemning relationships between equal and consenting gay adults. Not a peep about that. Take concubines into marriage? Fine, per the Bible. Normative in the Bible. Plural marriage? Fine, per the Bible. Normative in the Bible. Turning your back on family and kids and living celibate? Fine, per Pauls teachings.

Relations between consenting equal gay adults? Not addressed in the Bible. The Bible is silent on the issue. Take concubines into marriage? Fine, per the Bible. Plural marriage? Fine, per the Bible. Both are normative Biblical marriage practices.

To be clear, the church isn't, though.

Every Western religion is facing an exodus right now. Every religion.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Missionary Church, and its growth has slowed to a trickle.

No one. No one who wants Christianity to succeed should be celebrating the demise of Christianity.

As for tithing... Every religion has to pay to flush the toilets. Every religion needs financial stability.

As for butts in the pews... Every Christian religion is suffering for lack of attendance. Some more than others. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has slowed its exponential growth to a trickle. And that is not good news for any Christian. In an denomination.




Using concubines in marriage... Is a normative Biblical practice.

Leaving family and children to be celibate... Is taught by Paul. In the Bible.

Plural marriage... Is a normative Biblical practice.

Those things are supported and endorsed by Biblical teachings.

A gay follower of Christ can worship Christ alongside anyone else. That is the truth. And "Jesus never said one word against homosexuality." Link




I think we need to be careful as we navigate and interpret the Bible to combat "the slippery slope to secular humanism" we interpret the Bible correctly. If we use the Bible to "define marriage" or define appropriate relationships, we won't find a word condemning consentual equal gay relationships. But we do find concubines in marriage as acceptable. We do find celibacy instead of marriage acceptable. And we find plural marriage acceptable.

Us Christians need to do something to get people to adopt the Biblical models for marriage: concubines, plural marriage, and not-marrying (celibacy)... Right? Right??-!!

I think Jesus was crystal clear about it.

Mark 10.


God's intent from the beginning was man and wife. Adam and Eve. Polygamy is just one of the things God tolerated from the Israelites; having a king was another.  Neither were aligned with His perfect will.  

Several early Church writers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius and Basil of Caesarea all wrote against polygamy.

Similarly, where homosexuality is mentioned in both testaments, it is only to condemn it.  There is no scripture or writings of a Church father that mention man and husband or woman and wife as couplings in a favorable context.

Incorrect? Show me the verse in Deuteronomy 25:5-7 that excludes Levirate marriage if the brother is already married...?

Here is a clue... Its not there. Levirate marriage is crystal-clear God-mandated polygamy.

There is no exclusion in the verses for a brother that is already married. It is God-mandated polygamy.

Ruths situation was not a -strict- Levirate marriage. Boaz isn't the brother-in-law of Ruth. There are plenty of lessons to learn from Ruth. Boaz wasn't a brother but a relative and "saved" Ruth. Plenty of good Christian foreshadowing in the Old Testament. Lots of good information for Christians in the Old Testament. But Boaz wasn't a brother-in-law.

"...this is clearly not strictly a case of levirate marriage, since Boaz is not a brother-in-law or levir." Link

Link


If the Bible is Gods word, and the Bible defines, "Godly marriage." Then plural marriage, use of concubines in marriage, and celibacy to avoid marital commitments is "Godly marriage." Per the Biblical definition.

If the Bible "defines" Godly marriage then polygamy, concubines in marriage, and celibacy in lieu of family commitments is part of that definition.




Polygamy was a normative marital practice among Gods anointed in the Bible. Per the Bible... God allows polygamy. And concubines used in marriage. And celibacy in lieu of family commitments (per Paul).




The Old Testament is Biblical. Yes? We can agree on that, yes?

Followers of Christ understand the sacred importance of the Old Testament. Jesus consistently quoted from the Old Testament. Sometimes without specifically citing it and sometimes paraphrasing. Link

The Old Testament is the Bible. If we are to say, "The Bible defines marriage." Then the use of concubines in marriage is acceptable, plural marriage is acceptable, and avoiding marital responsibilities in celibacy is acceptable.

The Church strengthened its legal ability to teach what it teaches and for BYU (and other private Church schools) to discriminate against gays through the recent marriage bill. The one that ignorant mouth-breathers -who did not actually read the law- point to and say, "tHe ChUrCh lOvEs gAyS!"

I am -very- pro-gay Saint. My Ward has a prominent Sister who served in leadership in Young Womans and now in Relief Society who is active and faithful and-- gay.

She -a beautiful, educated, talented woman- talks about considering self harm after unanswered prayers to be straight. She lives worthy, serves the Church and the community, and is perfectly worthy.

And gay.

She is a good example in our Ward. She is a -true- follower of Christ. And the Church teaches she will live a celibate life to be worthy. Meanwhile I get cuddles, and kisses, and relations of a Biblical nature with my wife pretty much whenever I want-- and I am also worthy. And I can't find -any- Biblical scriptures to condemn her or other gay Saints who try to live the covenant path.

The Bible is silent on gay relations between consenting, willing, and equal adults. Modern revelation, on the other hand-- that is not the case.

Sure.  Like I said.  The Church has NOT been silent on it.   The family is ordained of God.  Thusly, marriage is between a man and a woman.  Man and woman is biological sex at birth.  Relationships that are sexual in nature are appropriate only within that marriage.

Paul an Apostle of Christ was crystal-clear that celibacy and not marriage and not honoring marriage commitments was the answer. "Paul conceived of marriage as asocial obligation that had the potential of distracting Christians fromChrist. For him, celibacy was the single life, free from such distraction, not a life of saintly denial." Link
https://www.gotquestions.org/how-many-wives-did-Abraham-have.html



Gods intent with Abraham was man and wife and wife. "Abraham had a principal wife, Sarah (Genesis 11:29), and two secondary wives, Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16:3; 25:1)." Link





Polygamy was more than tolerated by God. God -gave- wives and concubines to David. More than just tolerated.



It is condemned today by Gods anointed. It was practiced as normative in the Bible. It was practiced as normative until 1890 and 1904. Its clear there are times it is authorized and times it is not.





There is no negative mention of gay relationships between equal willing partners in the Bible. "The Bible does not address homosexuality." Link

Rape? Condemned. Child abuse? Condemned. Gay relationships between equal willing partners? Not mentioned.





Early Christianity? Baptism for the dead. God-Christ separate. Deification. Early Christianity testifies of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Polygamy was a normative Biblical practice. Alongside celibacy in lieu of marriage. Alongside using concubines in marriage. Polygamy was normative in the Bible.

The pre-creed Church believed God-Christ were separate. Practiced Baptism and ordinances for the dead. And believed they would become Gods. Deification. But like the Latter-day Church after 1890 and 1904, they --unlike the Bible-- did not practice polygamy.

It is hard to understand why anyone that has the Holy Spirit would care more about the unsanctified behaviors of the forefathers than the examples of fruit found in the New Testament. I suppose they consider a man baptized into Moses to have the same behaviors as one baptized into Christ.

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come!"
2 Corinthians 5:17

There are easily 10+ statements in the bible talking about the sin of homosexuality: source

He has to do Olympic level mental gymnastics to reconcile what the Bible says on homosexuality versus what the Mormon leader says on the topic.  His weak and tired arguments have be debunked many times.

Where does it say *consenting gay adults*?

I'll be waiting.

If they had just gotten rooms it would have all been okay!

You’re wasting your time with this guy.

Checkmate, bigots

Christ quoted from the Old Testament all the time. Often without citing the specific reference. Sometimes referring to scripture that he was paraphrasing that is either not there or a stretch to find in the Old Testament. And Christ was citing it as scripture.

A third of the New Testament can be attributed to the Old Testament... Link

Ignore or downplay the sacred teachings of the Old Testament? Christ and early Christians didn't...






Hyperbole.

Strawman.

"I suppose they consider..." Hyperbole. Strawman.

Christ quoted from the Old Testament because it is important scripture.




I felt renewed. I -felt- like a new creation when I was baptized when I was a kid. I felt pure.

I still find that Christ quoted from the Old Testament. It is an important part of the Bible.

Leviticus? Sodom? Ok, sure. lol.

Each verse used to condemn consensual gay relationships between equal adults deconstructed and debunked... Link





Olympic level mental gymnastics is trying to use Sodom (its one of your lol rofl verses) to condemn consenting gay adults in an equal relationship. That is some cognitive gymnastics.

Cognitive gymnastics is defining marriage "using the Bible" and not using celibacy and polygamy and use of marital concubines in marriage in the definition. -Thats- some Olympic-level cognitive gymnastics.



You didn't read the exchange in this thread between me and another follower of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, did you?






Debunked? Eh?

The Bible verses you used to condemn adult consensual gay relationships between equal adults have been debunked numerous times. Using Sodom (as you did) to condemn anything other than rape and abuse has long since been debunked.

Debunked? You -sure- your points have been proven...? Eh? Sodom condemns rape and abuse. Not consensual relationships between equal gay adults.

Marriage as defined in the Bible would include polygamy. And turning your back on family to live celibate. Both those things are found taught and preached, promoted, and actually practiced by Gods anointed in the Bible.

Gods chosen practiced polygamy in the Bible. God -gave- wives (plural) and concubines (plural) to His anointed in the Bible.

Consensual relationships between equal gay adults? Not actually addressed in the Bible.

Link

All those examples of polygamy in the OT, universally condemned in Christianity, and you can't find a single favorable reference to same sex copulation and somehow your mind equates that to ambiguity.

Reference my quote from the Gospel, above, where Jesus referred to matrimony as man and wife, non man-man, woman-woman, of man-wives".

Now you may retort that Jesus didn't explicitly say "not man-man or woman-woman', but neither did he say "not man and goat, not man and dog, not man and oxen".

Be aware that while some individual members may equate that to ambiguity, the Church leaders don't, and have plainly stated so.

"Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord and was fervent in spirit. He spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him in and explained to him the way of God more accurately." (Acts 18:24-26)

"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the interior and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?"
"No," they answered, "we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
"Into what, then, were you baptized?" Paul asked.
"The baptism of John," they replied.
On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all." (Acts 19:1-7)

"Why do you look for the living among the dead?" (Luke 24:5)

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Ignore the sacred teachings of the Bible at your own religious and spiritual peril. Christ -consistently- quoted from the Old Testament.

Paul, a Christian, wrote and promoted avoiding marriage and marital responsibilities to live a life of celibacy.

Celibacy in lieu of Marriage is a Christian concept.

Polygamy is not necessarily universally condemned in Christianity. Christians hold the Old Testament in high esteem and it was practiced by Biblical leaders. Its clear that it is sometimes sanctified by God at His will. That is clear in the Bible.

Polygamy condemned? Not by current mainstream Christians... It i currently practiced by mainstream Christians in African Christian denominations. Link

American Christians have a problem with it, and view the husband-wife family as important-- so they navigate the Bible and Biblical to exclude concubines, polygamy, and celibacy. Proving my point that the Bible has no inherent authority beyond that which we interpret and assign to it.





There is nothing ambiguous about it. Gay relations between consenting equal adult partners is not addressed in the Bible.

Using concubines in marriage... Fine, per Biblical teachings.

Avoiding marital responsibilities to live celibate... Fine, per Biblical teachings.

Polygamy... Fine, per Biblical teachings.



The Bible teaches a lot about marriage. The Bible teaches that use of concubines in marriage is acceptable and normative. Celibacy in lieu of marriage is acceptable and normative. Polygamy is normative.

We don't have to guess. The Bible teaches that Gods anointed practiced polygamy. We don't have to guess and postulate.

God sanctifies marriage between a man and a woman in the Bible. No argument.

God also --per Paul-- sanctifies a man who turns his back on marital responsibilities and lives celibate. No argument. Its right there in the Bible.

God also sanctifies the use of concubines in marriage. No argument. Its there in the Bible.

God also sanctifies plural marriage. Hard to argue that Gods chosen didn't practice polygamy in the Bible.

"God sanctifies marriage between a man and a woman." That is honest and accurate. Per the Bible. So is concubines, plural marriage, and celibacy.



Strawman.

Projecting.

False argument.

No one is arguing anything other than that polygamy is sanctified by God in the Bible. Concubines in marriage is sanctified by God in the Bible. Celibacy and turning your back on marriage is sanctified by God in the Bible. That is backed-up by Biblical teachings.

Gay relations between consenting equal adults? The Bible is silent on the issue. Rape? The Bible is not silent. Child abuse? The Bible is not silent. Gay relations between consenting equal adults? Not addressed in the Bible.

Things that make us unique as followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be backed-up by scripture.

Baptism for the Dead... Scripture. And it was practiced as a tenet by the earliest Christians in pre-creed Christianity.

Deification/Theosis... Scritpure. And it was practiced and believed as a tenet by the earliest Christians in pre-creed Christianity. Its right there in scripture after scripture. "MaRmAnS bElIeVe ThEy WiLl ShaRe GoDs ThRoNe AnD pOwEr aS oNe WiTh GoD!" Yeah, its in the scriptures and in early Christianity before the creeds.

Temple worship... Scripture. And early Christians went to the Temple and worshiped after His ascension. Scriptures are open... Scripture says God will reveal truths through Prophets and early Christians didn't think scripture was closed. Most early Christians never had a complete New Testament.

The things other Christians point-at and say, "We don't believe that!" Its right there crystal-clear in the scriptures and right there crystal-clear in pre-creed Christianity.

We had a High Councilman give a rah! rah! Anti-gay, "I watched on the news how those gays are trying to get equal rights..." talk in Sacrament Meeting. So I approached him after the talk and asked, "The Church has taught us to be kind and to minister to gay people, do you think your talk helped that?" He hemmed and hawed. So I asked him, "What scriptures back up your position?" Our positions in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ fully-align with the Bible. You can find ordinances for the dead, open-canon, Temple worship, deification, God-Christ separate... You can find all that in the Bible.

"Where do I find gays being condemned in the Bible?"

"Sodom!"

"What verse in Sodom?"

"Well its there."

"Please, brother, take five seconds to show me the verse that backs up denying gay people equal rights. What verses back up the things you said in your talk?"

"Its in Sodom!"

"What verse?"

Instead of showing me the information I was asking for (because its not actually there). He told me I shouldn't be attending Church if I had a problem with what was in his talk. There is some Christlike behavior.

Don't attend Church? Eh? I have faith and I believe. I accept Smith was called by Christ as a Prophet. I accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I live worthy. I defend the Church on the internet. I defend the Church in my day to day life. I help the Missionaries. I believe. I have faith.

Don't attend Church? For simply pointing-out that Sodom condemns rape and abuse and makes no mention of consensual relationships? Eh? Um? Er? Ok.

I am --as you know-- an active and faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Each tenet of beliefs align with the Bible. The tenets that Creedal (usually Americanized) Christians point-at and say, "that does not align with my Creedal Christian beliefs.” Each tenet of my beliefs that creedal Christians have a problem with—each tenet aligns with the Bible.

Our beliefs align with the Bible. Tithing... Biblical. Temple worship... Biblical. Open-canon... Biblical. Temple ordinances and sealings... Biblical. Ordinances for the dead... Biblical. Deification/theosis... Biblical. And they are tenets of belief of early Christianity.

Then we get to condemning gay believers. Not in the Bible.

Condemning gay followers of Christ. Not in the Bible.

I know gay Saints who did not -ever- make a decision to be gay. The entire plan of God is based on freedom to choose. Freedom of choice. And they did not choose. They prayed and prayed to be straight. Either they were "born that way." Or God does not answer prayers. And I testify that God answers prayers. God answers prayers.

Where is the Biblical scripture that condemns gay adults in consensual equal relationships? Its not there.

Where is the Biblical scripture that says the feelings I have for my wife are real but their adult and consensual feelings -they- have for a adult gay partner are not real? All the rest of our teachings align with the Bible. Where is the Biblical alignment on our condemnation of consenting gay adults in an equal relationship? Its not there.

All the rest of the tenets of our faith align with the Bible. Just not this one.

If we accept the teachings of Paul in the New Testament, none of us would be married... We would all be celibate.

Be careful in picking and choosing and navigating and interpreting scripture.

Christ quoted from the Old Testament because Christ thought the Old Testament was important. Almost a third of the New Testament is repeated Old Testament scripture.

Christ was trying to tell us something when he quoted from the Old Testament consistently: Its important scripture followers of Christ would be wise and prudent to not ignore.

Use whatever mental gymnastics you like.  The FACT remains, the Church is NOT ambiguous on this topic, as I stated.

You aren’t arguing with me.  You’re arguing with the First Presidency.

It doesn't matter what the Bible says, he runs the same tired script:
"Akshully the bible never says anything about men sticking their penis in another man's anus.  All the Bible verses talking about it are taken out of context because I said so."

It's best to just put him on your ignore list.  Lying about the Word of God is a hobby of his.

There you go! By your own words you don't accept the teachings of Paul! Now admit you aren't the product like us and not a Christian. You tread on the words of Paul while elevating those types in the Old Testament, the kind of people that crucified Christ. Stop associating with the name Christian using that new gospel you got from an angel!

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!" (Galatians 1:8)

Also you are wrong about Paul's teaching. He gave advice for men to dedicate themselves to the service of the Lord to the degree their primal urges would allow. Like Christ saying you are a murderer if you have anger in your heart, or adultery with your eyes, He was talking about something men would fail at but ideally they would have such strength.

Did not Paul Say!
"Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5)

Also Christ in Mark 10

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
7 For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife.
8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
10 And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.
11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her.
12 And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery.



Those people are violating their own Church's teaching on the subject.  That they are doing so, does not change the Catholic Church's teaching.  Article even says that enforcing Church doctrine would drive them to Islam which permits polygamy.

Jesus said "Man and wife, not man and wives" ...or Man and man




Sex outside of marriage is fornication.

Jesus in Mark 10 - Marriage is man and wife



Not sure what your point is here.  A celibate is not fornicating




Jesus said marriage is man and wife.  Do you not believe that Jesus is God?

So weird He never quoted from the New Testament...

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says that “homosexuals” or “sodomites” will not inherit the kingdom of God (and other sinners). Then Paul says “and that was what some of you were”, implying that a saved believer will not be currently engaging in such behaviors.

Strawman. Projecting.

"Paul conceived of marriage as a social obligation that had the potential of distracting Christians fromChrist. For him, celibacy was the single life, free from such distraction, not a life of saintly denial." Link


Do -you- accept the teachings of Paul? "7 Now, about what you wrote: “It’s good for a man not to have sex with a woman.”"





I am a follower of Christ.

And have said as much several times.






Eh?

Er?

Um...

I have -elevated- the words of Paul. Paul taught celibacy in lieu of marriage. I -question- why American Christians ignore Pauls words.

Celibacy.

Polygamy.

Concubines.

Celibacy, polygamy, and concubines are all part of the "Bible definition" of marriage.








Polygamy, celibacy, and concubines are all part of Bible teachings. That isn't any sort of "new gospel."





Paul taught celibacy in lieu of marriage.

Paul taught touching a woman was forbidden.






Bible scholars state Paul wanted all Christians to be celibate...

"And it’s on account of this deeply embodied longing that Paul wishes that all Christians would remain single and celibate." Link

What the Bible says is -very- important to followers of Christ.

Christ quoted from the Old Testament. Paul promoted celibacy. Multiple wives and concubines were given to Gods anointed by God in the Bible.

And the Bible makes no mention of gay relationships between consenting equal adults.

All that information. All those -facts- is -very- important to followers of Christ.







You are attempting to strawman, which only goes to show how weak your position is. Paul had shocking words too to use towards touching women and encouraging celibacy in lieu of marriage.

You realize you have to re-frame and re-direct to try to make your point? If you have to create a strawman to make your point, perhaps you don't have a very good point to make.





Lying? Eh?

-You- just created a false strawman in -this- post... And -I- am the one lying...? Eh? Er? ~Ok.

The "Word of God" has Paul advocating celibacy.

The "Word of God" has God -giving- plural wives and plural concubines to Gods anointed.

The "Word of God" has no words condemning gay relationships between equal consenting partners. That is the "Word of God." No twisting. No reframing. No strawman. That is the "Word of God."

Brothers, I see no more reason to waste our time with this one. Let's kick the dirt off our feet. There are plenty we can find that don't have their cups full of whatever. All should do likewise. We will only know peace in this world by not being dependent on one another, then Christ will judge.

Math book: 1 plus 1 is 2

"My math book never said 1 plus 1 is not 3"

Eve found the serpent more trustworthy than God not because of its credentials, but because it told her what she wanted to hear.

Just ignore him, he's a troll and gets off on causing discord.

I don't think he's a troll, I think he just disagrees.  Sometimes we learn when we have discussions with people that believe differently.   In this specific case, I believe he is trying to fit scripture to his world view.  I'm of the same faith, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread our Church hasn't been silent on this topic.

In here, we learn of the similarities of a liberal communist democrat and a defender of a reimagined faith…both are strikingly similar in their wordy defenses, yet I continue to feel no definitive truth, no peace from their words…just rambling of justification that I can compare to a Satanic salesman combining some truth with many lies and broken promises to only promote confusion and hellish gaslighting. One desperately pleading his case to pass through eternity and diluting evidence of a man fornicating with over 30-40 women/teenagers. A man claimed he spoke with God, spoke with Jesus, spoke with and saw angels, wrote the most correct book ever, restored the true gospel of Jesus Christ, restored the only true priesthood authority, set up the only true church, promised that we could become gods and have multiple wives, produce spirit children, populate planets, and has the only true prophet today that talks to God to lead the only true church in the latter days. A church that baptizes for the dead, while ignoring the problems of the living.

Just once, instead of defending, insulting, and distorting, admit your church is weird and contradictory, and accept it is not for everyone. Admit that it is not the best and only true church of Christ. Admit that Joseph Smith loved sex and women and used his manipulative skills to freeload off of mentally weak individuals seeking truth. Admit he lost the Holy Spirit once he started cheating on his wife. But this is hard for them, because everything they have been taught since birth comes into question, this is who they are and to accept the possibility that they have been mislead is overwhelming to say the least, this would be their alien visitation, they would have to redefine themselves and this is not easy…so we will be stuck with deniers, naysayers, and threadlockers.

Right back at you.

Sounds weird coming from me I know, but take a deep breath

This is done.