Elizabeth Smart's father announces he is gay

[gazelam]

What force and coercion exactly are you referring to? The coercion of a commandment of God?

Where in scripture do you believe Jesus gave such a choice to women, allowing women to purposely refuse a legitimate and loving marriage offer and still gain Eternal Life?

Implying that refusal of a marriage proposal is a sin, is coercion.

It goes without saying, of course, that the suitor and the pursued should both be counseling each individually with their Heavenly Father through prayer on this important matter. It’s always possible that after doing so one of the parties may decide to pass on the current opportunity and wait for something better later.

Joseph Smith threatened women and their families with bad spiritual consequences, for spurning his advances. That’s the example you follow, that you think is perfectly OK and normal. It is not.

Please provide examples where Joseph Smith did this.

All preachers worth their salt teach that bad spiritual consequences will follow if God’s will is not done. Catholics teach that missing Mass intentionally is a mortal sin and Hell awaits any who does not confess to a Priest and receive absolution from the priest for having intentionally missed Mass. By your definition the RCC’s teaching in this case is coercion.

 

[Sarcelle]

Please provide examples where Joseph Smith did this.

Joseph Smith was a polygamist.

Women and girls who have grown up in a society where monogamy is upheld are not going to be suddenly accepting of being one of his multiple wives. They were probably threatened with bad spiritual consequences if they refused.

Warning another with dire spiritual consequences for refusing one’s sexual advances is spiritual abuse. No two ways about it.

 

[Sarcelle]

They become servants to the married ones.

By the way, in some Evangelical denominations here in the US, single women are expected to provide free housekeeping and child care for the married members.

It is expected on the premise that single people have all the time in the world.

No joke. It’s not a widespread practice among evangelicals but it does happen.

 

[ZMystiCat]

When would God had notified a prophet that the Earth is properly replenished and that some celibacy would then be permissible?

Apparently, by the time of Christ (Matt. 19:11-12):

He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Even Paul spoke of celibacy in positive terms (1 Cor. 7:7). (And yes, I know he encouraged marriage in the same passage, but that does not nullify that he still spoke of celibacy positively.)

On the other hand, Genesis 2:24 does give a broad commandment for all men.

As already mentioned, both Jesus and Paul spoke positively of celibacy, with Jesus actively encouraging it. Both of them also obviously knew of this passage. Paul references it in Ephesians 5. Jesus references it right before encouraging celibacy. Clearly it isn’t the universal call to marriage you’re making it out to be. It’s an observation on why marriage exists.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sure, I’m fine with being coerced to go to church on Sunday. I’m NOT fine with being coerced into a marriage! Why would you compare the two as equal?

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

By the way, in some Evangelical denominations here in the US, single women are expected to provide free housekeeping and child care for the married members.

It is expected on the premise that single people have all the time in the world.

Yes, I’ve come across this.
I used to read a blog by a stay-at-home-daughter. She had completed her education and was helping her mom keep house until Mr Right came along.

 

[gazelam]

Why don’t you believe Jesus, when he clearly explained marriage is not a commandment for all. He clearly taught, those who can serve the kingdom of heaven in a state of celibacy, should.

gazelam:

When would God had notified a prophet that the Earth is properly replenished and that some celibacy would then be permissible?

Apparently, by the time of Christ (Matt. 19:11-12):

He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

I don’t think enough is known of these eunuchs to support an opinion one way of the other. New Advent doesn’t have an entry on eunuchs. The version of Matthew 19:12 cited here says “they have renounced marriage”. However, interlinear shows that the underlying Greek says they have emasculated or castrated themselves for the sake of the Kingdom. Is Jesus really applauding some for physical self-mutilation?

Even Paul spoke of celibacy in positive terms (1 Cor. 7:7). (And yes, I know he encouraged marriage in the same passage, but that does not nullify that he still spoke of celibacy positively.)

Yes, but only for the “present distress” mentioned in verse 26.

 

[ZMystiCat]

However, interlinear shows that the underlying Greek says they have emasculated or castrated themselves for the sake of the Kingdom. Is Jesus really applauding some for physical self-mutilation?

St. John Chrysostom probably gives the clearest look into how this was understood in the early Church in Homily 64:

Consider if you were in such case by nature, or had endured this selfsame thing at the hands of those who inflict such wanton injuries, what would you have done, being deprived indeed of the enjoyment, yet not having a reward?

…

For this intent therefore He brought in those others, even that He might encourage these, since if this was not what He was establishing, what means His saying concerning the other eunuchs? But when He says, that they made themselves eunuchs, He means not the excision of the members…For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demoniacal agency…

In other words, the call is to celibacy, as eunuchs are forced into, but it is not to physically make yourself like them. It is to live like them in deed, supported in heart and mind, even while having the ability to live another life.

This is clearly consistent with Jesus’ words and the context of God’s revelation throughout history. It is informed, not an attempted argument from ignorance, as you’ve presented.

Yes, but only for the “present distress” mentioned in verse 26.

You’re twisting the context very blatantly here. He wishes them to be celibate, but he knows that isn’t possible under current circumstances, hence his comment, “but each has a particular gift from God.” His normal wish is celibacy, but the “present distress” means that isn’t possible in this case. He even prefaces this with:

Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

His comment about wishing they were celibate follows directly after, supporting that he was not commanding sex and marriage but encouraging it in that context.

 

[gazelam]

I have seen a copy of the LDS lessons taught to young women. It is truly the most demeaning and sexist thing I have ever read. And yes, women need to marry a RM in the temple to achieve heaven.

Utterly untrue. Please provide the link where you saw this.

Mary obviously didn’t remarry after Joseph died.

The Woman at the well apparently didn’t have a husband at the time of her death (I’m taking it you didn’t read her story).

Can a woman remain single, or not remarry after divorce or death and still go to LDS heaven?

What’s necessary for Eternal Life is the be sealed in the temple “for time and all eternity”. Someone who divorced needs to remarry in this life if possible or practical. The faithful who did not have the opportunity in this life will have the opportunity in the next life before the Resurrection. A widow sealed previously in the temple has the assurance that she will be reunited with her husband afterward.

I suspect and hope that Mary will be (and hopefully is now) reunited with Joseph.

gazelam:

My opinion here… If she does not remarry in the temple in this life after having the opportunity to do so (and not just a token marriage, but a loving marriage) she would forfeit Eternal Life. If she had been striving for another marriage in the temple and simply hadn’t found the right guy, she will have the opportunity in the next life (before the Resurrection), to receive that blessing.

What about official LDS teaching on the matter?

Only marriages solemnized in the temple on Earth are recognized as binding in the hereafter is official Latter-day Saint teaching. When I express my opinion as to whether someone will receive Eternal Life, or whether they had the opportunity in this life, I do so knowing that Christ will be determining who had a sufficient chance and who didn’t.

What do you mean exactly “she would forfeit Eternal Life?”

She would not be living the life that God lives.

Don’t sugarcoat it, please.

Sorry. I sugarcoat during months with 30 days, but not during months with 31 days. I also sugarcoat during February, except in leap year.

 

[gazelam]

This is where we have to agree to disagree. Marriage was never a commandment. This is like putting burdens on people requiring something of them which may be out of their control.

Either way, it sends a clear signal that single people are second class.

Luke 1:37 for nothing will be impossible for God.

gazelam:

Please provide examples where Joseph Smith did this.

Joseph Smith was a polygamist.

Nowhere does the Bible forbid polygamy outright. Even the CCC in forbidding polygamy does not refer to a Bible verse. Moses, King David “the man after God’s own heart”, Abraham “the father of righteousness” and Jacob were all polygamists.

 

[gazelam]

Sure, I’m fine with being coerced to go to church on Sunday. I’m NOT fine with being coerced into a marriage! Why would you compare the two as equal?

Because both are commandments?

The Wives of Joseph Smith - Lucy Walker

Thank you for this example of a faithful God-fearing woman, who “received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the mariage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage’” and “afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabitated with him as such.”

The Wives of Joseph Smith - Helen Mar Kimball

Another faithful Latter-day Saint who said “This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.”

 

[Stephen168]

Nowhere does the Bible forbid polygamy outright. Even the CCC in forbidding polygamy does not refer to a Bible verse.

Actually Christianity, and the CCC does refer to the Bible to forbid polygamy:

So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Matthew 19:6
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.- Genesis 2:24

Plus the example set by Christ and the Apostles

 

[RebeccaJ]

I already said, that’s the example you follow, that you think is perfectly OK and normal. It is not.

Because they have been programed to believe it.

G, I sure hope you don’t have daughters. If so they should be warned that at the age of 14 or 15, you think it’s faithfulness, to turn them over to a married man who has promised they and their family salvation in exchange for “marriage”.

Smith was just a man. He wasn’t Jesus. Jesus NEVER require women turn themselves over to him in marriage, in return for salvation.

That you believe this about Smith, and think it is faithfulness, is up just gross.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

But Jesus did not say there is no marriage in heaven. Jesus did not accept the premise of the Sadducees who were questioning the resurrection. He said to them, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage” Matt. 22:29-30
Latter-day Saints believe when we die we enter the spirit world where we wait the time of the resurrection.

You are correct when you say that this passage is about the resurrection. The Sadducees were denying the resurrection and Jesus told them they were wrong. But you are incorrect about the LDS interpretation of Mathew 22 with regards to marriage. Let’s look at the whole passage to get the context:

The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. After them all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all had her.” But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching (Matthew 22:23-33).

The Sadducees asked Jesus who’s wife will she be in the resurrection because she was married to all seven of the brothers during their earthly life. They weren’t asking Jesus whether or not she would marry one of them in the resurrection. So the LDS interpretation doesn’t make any sense here, because for it to make sense, Jesus would have to be answering a question that wasn’t asked. Jesus answers the question of who’s wife would she be of the 7 brothers she married on earth. So taken in correct context, Jesus says she won’t be wife to any of them because there is no marriage in heaven. And then after that he says they will be like the angels in heaven. In other words, not married. Angels are not married. They have an entirely different role and in fact are entirely a different race of beings. This goes to another false LDS teaching which says that angels are resurrected human beings. They are not.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Utterly untrue. Please provide the link where you saw this.

I have a copy of it and will post it when I can retrieve it. It used to be available online and I made a copy of it several years ago.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

What’s necessary for Eternal Life is the be sealed in the temple “for time and all eternity”. Someone who divorced needs to remarry in this life if possible or practical

Why did Jesus die for our sins if marriage in an LDS temple is what gets us into heaven?

She would not be living the life that God lives.

God lived a life? A human life?

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Utterly untrue. Please provide the link where you saw this.

It seems very clear the LDS teaching on the topic:

Exaltation according to Mormonism means gaining a fullness of all God has to offer. It includes reaching the “highest level” of the LDS heaven (called the celestial kingdom), attaining all knowledge available, and becoming a “God” over your own creation. Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote that those who attain exaltation “…inherit in due course the fullness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all power in heaven and on earth…” ( Mormon Doctrine pg. 257). Doctrine and Covenants also teaches that “then shall they be gods, because they have no end…then shall they be gods, because they have all power…” ( D&C 132:16-26). This is the ultimate goal in Mormonism.

One of the requirements to reach this goal is what Mormons call “celestial marriage.” Today celestial marriage is simply defined as a marriage in a Mormon temple designed to last not just until death but throughout all eternity…

McConkie wrote,

Celestial marriage is an absolute necessity to reach this desired goal. Its importance in the place of salvation and exaltation cannot be overestimated.

“The most important things that any member of (the LDS Church) ever does in this world are: 1) To marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority; and 2) To keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony…” ( Mormon Doctrine pg. 118).

Those who choose to remain single or do not enter into the covenant of celestial marriage while on earth are no longer in obedience to God or to Mormon authorities. They will not advance to Godhood, but will be given menial tasks as angels for all eternity. As McConkie put it,

And Doctrine and Covenants 132;16-17 says,

“Therefore, when they are out of the world they… are appointed angels in heaven… to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law”.”

 

[Sarcelle]

They will not advance to Godhood, but will be given menial tasks as angels for all eternity. As McConkie put it,

Interesting

So singles will cease to be human and become angels?

Is this right?

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Good question.

This doesn’t answer it, but adds to the unorthodoxy of Mormon teaching:

…We have to wonder, then, about Paul or even Jesus Himself. Are they nothing more than “ministering angels” because they remained single here on earth? This would seem to be the case. However, to avoid this difficulty, LDS leaders have taught that both of them were married. In fact, some even taught that Jesus was a polygamist. (See Journal of Discourses 1:345, 2:82, 4:259 as well as The Seer , p.172.)

 

[Sarcelle]

To attain internal consistency with Mormon requirements on marriage things get more and more twisted and end up with Jesus as a polygamist.