Mormon Leaders Take on Marriage Equal...

Mormon Leaders Take on Marriage Equality in Hawaii

There are 141 comments on the EDGE story from Sep 20, 2013, titled Mormon Leaders Take on Marriage Equality in Hawaii. In it, EDGE reports that:

Although leaders from the Mormon Church have remained out of the gay marriage debate in a number of states as of late, they have recently resurfaced to take on the marriage equality battle in Hawaii, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#130 Oct 28, 2013
anonymousnetruthteller wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are wrong I know we are Christians(followers of Christ)
But not followers of Yeshua, just like the rest of "christendom".

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#131 Oct 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I can give you verses that prove God/Jesus is extremely anti-sex outside of a marriage. If one wishes to state God/Jesus is okay with homosexual relations, supply the verse or supply your opinion based on hearsay. If one wishes to use David and Jonathan for their example of a married homosexual couple they need to show evidence where God/Jesus allowed for a man to marry one or more females AND marry another man at the same time.
Laws forbidding incest
Do not marry or have sexual relations with...
Your mother or father (Lev 18.7)
Your sibling or half-sibling (Lev 18.9)
Your grand-child (Lev 18.10)
Your aunt (Lev 18.12-13) or uncle (Lev 18.14)
Laws forbidding perversion of the sanctity of marriage and of the parent-child relationship
Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife, even if she is not your birth mother (Lev 18.8)
Do not lead your daughter into prostitution (Lev 19.29)
Laws forbidding betrayal of the essential trust of marriage
Do not have sexual relations with...
Your daughter-in-law (Lev 18.15)
Your sister-in-law (Lev 18.16)
Laws forbidding betrayal of the sanctity of blood relationships
Do not have sexual relations with...
Both a woman and her daughter (Lev 18.17)
Both a woman and her grand-daughter (Lev 18.17)
Two sisters while both sisters are still living (Lev 18.18)
Laws forbidding homosexuality, lesbianism,(debateable) or beastiality
Do not have sexual relations with...
A person of the same gender as yourself (Lev 18.22, Rom 1.26-28)
An animal (Lev 18.23)
Law forbidding concealment of gender identity
Do not "cross-dress" so as to appear that you are the opposite gender from the gender God gave you (Deu 22.5)
Laws forbidding lust
Do not covet a person's spouse (Ex 20.17)
Do not drug a person so as to view their nakedness (Hab 2.15)
Do not look upon a person as a sex object (Mt 5.28)
The lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh are not of the Spirit but of the world (First John 2.16)
We are commanded to flee youthful lusts (2 Tim 2.22) and to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (1 Pet 2.11).
Laws forbidding adultery and fornication
Do not commit adultery (Ex 20.14)
Abstain from fornication (Acts 15.29)
Fornication is a sin against your own body (1 Cor 6.18)
Law for purposes of hygiene
Do not have sex during menstruation (Lev 18.19)
Laws for strengthening marriage and resisting temptation
Meet your sexual needs within the bounds of marriage (1 Cor 7.2)
Husband and wife should not withhold sex from each other except for short periods, by mutual consent, for prayer and fasting (1 Cor 7.4-5)
The marriage bed is undefiled (Heb 13.4)
Boy, this Leviticus character was sure a spoilsport, a real downer. I wonder if he liked watching.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#132 Oct 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither were the early Hebrews.
"Elohim" is a "plural collective", like "the Johnsons".
Correct. The early Hebrews were not Christians. Any other words of wisdom ???

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#133 Oct 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
Regardless, "christendom" is actually Saulianity; i.e. synagogue Pharisee gentiles posing as Temple Sadducees, violating and institutionalizing at one time or another almost every teaching of Yeshua in favor of their developed traditions.
lol....I'm in total agreement dude! Excellently worded!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#134 Oct 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. The early Hebrews were not Christians. Any other words of wisdom ???
monotheists, twit. monotheists.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#135 Oct 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol....I'm in total agreement dude! Excellently worded!
Ever read the "Didache" ?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#136 Oct 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the problems of Saulian "christendom" is conflation; and conflation with a chaotic depth only possible to gentiles who have little grasp of the context of Yeshua's teachings.
One of the most glaring conflations is the confusion between the roles of "apostolos" and "mathitis" (disciple) and the common follower.
Saul created roles in his communities based upon Pharisee synagogues. The deacons, for example, were nothing more than what is now called "the Synagogue Brotherhood" which has always been charged with the social services of the community served. This was NOT how the Jerusalem community functioned. The presbyter (elder) is nothing other than the synagogue elders, and the episkopos (overseer) nothing other than the Rabbi.
NONE of these are what Yeshua established.
Further developments of these roles into what you know today is the direct result of gross conflation by gentiles with pagan priests and the hierarchies and prerogatives established for them by Roman Imperial law. All of this is englamoured with allusions to and borrowings from the Sadducees and their destroyed temple.
It is interesting to note that female virginity developed swank before celibacy did, drawing from the Roman Vestals and other pagan temple renunciates, especially those of Egypt.
The RCC is not always the best authority on itself. It has to filter everything through it's ossified traditions and other agenda.
Again, get some snacks and give this the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tddCNY6U77YXX
What is your belief/religion? Interesting video. I am aware of the name debate.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#137 Oct 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are more requirements tahn simply that to be a Christian.
Foremost is to be monotheistic which Mormons are not.
Furthermore, I know of NO religious groups or denominations, i.e. Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, nor others, that recognize that Mormons are Christians. My denomination, ELCA, SPECIFICALLY TEACHES that Mormons are NOT Christians.
They're not.
Now I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just like saying that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are not Christians. That's just a fact. It's the same with Mormons. They're not Christians. It's just a fact.
Actually it's a traditional teaching that there are requirements to being a Christian. Jesus set forth no such list of requirements. There's even an example in the NT where a person was preaching and healing in Jesus's name that wasn't part of the flock. The apostles went after him telling him to stop his way of preaching, etc. Jesus said to leave him alone even though he wasn't a disciple. Get the message Jesus imparted? He proved from that situation there were no requirements to be a believer but to have faith in him and to do as he did.
And Christians today are a very twisted definition of what the followers of Jesus actually were 2000 years ago.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#138 Oct 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's a traditional teaching that there are requirements to being a Christian. Jesus set forth no such list of requirements. There's even an example in the NT where a person was preaching and healing in Jesus's name that wasn't part of the flock. The apostles went after him telling him to stop his way of preaching, etc. Jesus said to leave him alone even though he wasn't a disciple. Get the message Jesus imparted? He proved from that situation there were no requirements to be a believer but to have faith in him and to do as he did.
And Christians today are a very twisted definition of what the followers of Jesus actually were 2000 years ago.
Well, I go according to the teachings of my church, "St. Martin's Second Reformed Lutheran Church and Microbrewery Of Tobyhanna" and I'm stickin with it !

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#139 Oct 29, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your belief/religion? Interesting video. I am aware of the name debate.
The "name" isn't the issue. Did you finish it? The first half is en essential primer on pharisee-ism by someone who was raised as one. The entire piece is a discussion resolving contradictions between the texts presented by examining the Hebrew original. Very important.

Really. Give it the time.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#140 Oct 29, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's a traditional teaching that there are requirements to being a Christian. Jesus set forth no such list of requirements. There's even an example in the NT where a person was preaching and healing in Jesus's name that wasn't part of the flock. The apostles went after him telling him to stop his way of preaching, etc. Jesus said to leave him alone even though he wasn't a disciple. Get the message Jesus imparted? He proved from that situation there were no requirements to be a believer but to have faith in him and to do as he did.
And Christians today are a very twisted definition of what the followers of Jesus actually were 2000 years ago.
Wow. Missed it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#141 Oct 30, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The "name" isn't the issue. Did you finish it? The first half is en essential primer on pharisee-ism by someone who was raised as one. The entire piece is a discussion resolving contradictions between the texts presented by examining the Hebrew original. Very important.
Really. Give it the time.
I understand contradictions are being presented. I get it, really. This guy in the video (and others I saw) was making a point against 1500 years of accepted understandings of the NT writings by a variety of scholars from many different nationalities who mostly agree on what exists as being reliable. But what a 'supposed' pharisee is today as to what they were 2000 years ago is as different as what a Christian today is compared to what a person was who followed Christ 2000 years ago.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#142 Oct 30, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Missed it.
Wow. According to you I missed what? You have a really bad habit of making a exclamation with no follow up. You seem to like to let videos do all your talking.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#143 Oct 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. According to you I missed what? You have a really bad habit of making a exclamation with no follow up. You seem to like to let videos do all your talking.
You still didn't quite get the point of the vid.

What we see now as "christendom" is only very loosely BASED upon the original. The fact that "christ" is used as an identifier is a major indicator of it's gentile roots.

Yeshua's teachings got thoroughly TROLLED. As trolled as any TOPIX gay forum thread. As early as the 2nd Century the trolls were already shouting over the message, twisting all discourse to pointless and increasingly erroneous propositions. By the time of the first "Councils" they were already far off the rails. This divergence increased and accelerated as the movement became exclusively gentiles, whose only contact was with the pharisees of the diaspora synagogues.

Saul was a troll.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#144 Oct 31, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You still didn't quite get the point of the vid.
What we see now as "christendom" is only very loosely BASED upon the original. The fact that "christ" is used as an identifier is a major indicator of it's gentile roots.
Yeshua's teachings got thoroughly TROLLED. As trolled as any TOPIX gay forum thread. As early as the 2nd Century the trolls were already shouting over the message, twisting all discourse to pointless and increasingly erroneous propositions. By the time of the first "Councils" they were already far off the rails. This divergence increased and accelerated as the movement became exclusively gentiles, whose only contact was with the pharisees of the diaspora synagogues.
Saul was a troll.
You can call Saul anything you like. But older and older fragments are including him as part of the twelve be he disciple or apostle or both. And he did teach his version of the Lord as did each of the apostles. And Saul was a Jew first.
But I disagree with when the message of Jesus was twisted and perverted. In the NT Jesus revealed his message was already being perverted and twisted by Jew and gentile alike. By the time of his death and the death of the last apostle, renegade 'self sustained' disciples were preaching the words of Jesus as they understood them according to their personal opinions throughout many countries. The truths of Jesus didn't exist anymore within fifty years of Jesus's death I would claim. Even ancient writers have made comments of the wide varieties of messianic Jesus type groups that thrived in the second and third centuries.
I don't believe modern Christianity reflects what Jesus taught through the apostles any more than I believe the ancient church of Rome reflects what Jesus taught the apostles.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#145 Oct 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You can call Saul anything you like. But older and older fragments are including him as part of the twelve be he disciple or apostle or both. And he did teach his version of the Lord as did each of the apostles. And Saul was a Jew first.
But I disagree with when the message of Jesus was twisted and perverted. In the NT Jesus revealed his message was already being perverted and twisted by Jew and gentile alike. By the time of his death and the death of the last apostle, renegade 'self sustained' disciples were preaching the words of Jesus as they understood them according to their personal opinions throughout many countries. The truths of Jesus didn't exist anymore within fifty years of Jesus's death I would claim. Even ancient writers have made comments of the wide varieties of messianic Jesus type groups that thrived in the second and third centuries.
I don't believe modern Christianity reflects what Jesus taught through the apostles any more than I believe the ancient church of Rome reflects what Jesus taught the apostles.
I'd like to have a look at these "fragments" you mention.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#148 Nov 3, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to have a look at these "fragments" you mention.
As I crashed my pc a while back, several dozen bookmarks are gone I could have referenced you to. Yes, I'm learning about backing up my info on a thumb drive :)
You may know of these. So it may be old news. But the essence of the article tells you a new process whereby older and older fragments of the NT are being sought/looked to.

https://bible.org/article/five-old-fragments-...

You may also be interested in the list of materials at this link.

http://www.essene.com/Yeshua/FRAGMENTS%20OF%2...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#149 Nov 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As I crashed my pc a while back, several dozen bookmarks are gone I could have referenced you to. Yes, I'm learning about backing up my info on a thumb drive :)
You may know of these. So it may be old news. But the essence of the article tells you a new process whereby older and older fragments of the NT are being sought/looked to.
https://bible.org/article/five-old-fragments-...
You may also be interested in the list of materials at this link.
http://www.essene.com/Yeshua/FRAGMENTS%20OF%2...
I'm well acquainted with all these writings. Most are Nicene gentile works and with the others hold little more than contextual value.

If you ever come find the links to the "fragments" you mentioned, I would like to have a look.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#150 Nov 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As I crashed my pc a while back, several dozen bookmarks are gone I could have referenced you to. Yes, I'm learning about backing up my info on a thumb drive :)
You may know of these. So it may be old news. But the essence of the article tells you a new process whereby older and older fragments of the NT are being sought/looked to.
https://bible.org/article/five-old-fragments-...
You may also be interested in the list of materials at this link.
http://www.essene.com/Yeshua/FRAGMENTS%20OF%2...
Thumbdrives often go bad suddenly too I found out much to my unpleasant surprise.

I think you're better off using 2 large inexpensive external usb hard drives for backup.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#151 Nov 6, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thumbdrives often go bad suddenly too I found out much to my unpleasant surprise.
I think you're better off using 2 large inexpensive external usb hard drives for backup.
Actually what you described is what I was speaking of but thanks for the clarification :)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Neil Abercrombie Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Preservation unit under probe - Hawaii News (Aug '09) Tue Georgina 45
News Hawaii pays off lawyers' fees for Honolulu news... (May '15) May '15 Joe Balls 3
News VIDEO: Hawaii volcano lava prompts evacuation c... (Oct '14) Dec '14 hut 3
News Abercrombie content as he leaves office (Nov '14) Dec '14 Mike 14
News Schatz, Cavasso vie for Senate seat (Nov '14) Nov '14 Joe Balls 1
News Hawaii officials warn of possible lava evacuation (Oct '14) Oct '14 Understatement 4
News A look at the Hawaii volcano sending lava towar... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Adrian Godsafe MSc 2
More from around the web