This is topic A question about Christians? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=024224

Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Alright, I have a question that has been bugging me for a while. It has to do with sex before marriage and Christianity. Christianity because that is what im most familiar with not because I am nit picking or have anything against Christians. Now, the bible clearly states that sex before marriage is wrong. In college there are a number of girls I know who consider themselves religious but have sex before marriage. They justify this by saying things like
quote:

I believe that you are supposed to be in love with someone before you have sex with them
quote:

How can they make the bible subjective like this? Do you think people like this are trying to justify their actions? or do they really beleive what they say?

*if this has spelling or grammar errors, sorry, its finals week and I wrote it fast. If there is something you need clarification on, just tell me and I will attempt to explain what I was trying to say
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Now, the bible clearly states that sex before marriage is wrong."

Well, this isn't necessarily the case. While the Bible clearly states that sex with someone married to someone ELSE is wrong, it's less clear-cut about premarital sex.

Furthermore, your question is flawed. The issue is not that they're basing their morality on a misunderstanding of the Bible; it's that they don't realize they're basing their morality on a personal sense of right and wrong, not the Bible at all.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Well put TomD!

[ May 11, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
What Tom said, except that they very well may realize that they aren’t basing their morality directly on the Bible. Not all Christians consider the Bible the sole source for developing a moral/ethical system.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
You can't directly base your moral values on the one true interpretation of the Bible. You can only base them on what your interpretation of the Bible is.

Having said that, it's also certainly possible to be a Christian without basing your moral values solely on the Bible. I, for one, certainly don't.

[ May 11, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
And that Judeo-Christian system is based on ancient hygienic code. Kosher diet…based on avoiding food poisoning. Baptism…evolved from bathing to keep disease away (and the Muslim ritual of washing during prayer). Marry for life to one mate cuts down on STD's...
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Christians (1) use a very wide range of doctrines ranging from Sola Scriptura to whatever the fruity charismatic trend is "in" this week (2) in light (or spite) of this, are no better or worse at rationalization.
 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Tom, I felt that the bible was fairly straight forward about not having sex before marriage when it says
quote:
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God wil judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral
not to mention
quote:
he who marries the virgin does right
But Tom, what you said made sense to me, about them not basing their actions on the bible but about a personal sense of morality.

Xas- isnt basing your morality on your interpretation, making the bible subjective? and if you make it subjective, then what good is it at all? You can follow its words whenever it is in your best interest.

[ May 11, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
 
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
 
The New Testament is filled with warnings against "sexual immorality"; however, upon I searching for the definition, I could not find it. I believe that the Spirit speaks to your heart and that you will know whether or not what you are doing is right, because otherwise, how could anyone sin? And I, for one, am a Christian, and I KNOW that premarital sex is wrong, not just for myself or in some situations; it is an absolute truth and it is a sin. Many, many Christians I know are making their absolute truths completely subjective, and it's so disheartening to see. I found one passage that spells out "sexual immorality" pretty clearly for me:

"Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." Romans 13:13-14
[Hat]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think there are some people on this thread who are associating extramarital sex with sexual immorality.

I see no reason to make this assumption.
 
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
Just so you know, Promethius, the quote button is designed to be used like this:
code:
 [QUOTE]Your message[/QUOTE] 


 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
thanks goat, I was wondering what I was doing wrong, im gonn go fix that now. I knew that at one time, but its been a while since my last string of posts

edit- for the pure craziness in my grammar

[ May 11, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Is there anyone who believes that extra-marital sex is NOT immoral?
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
I have a feeling well over half of this country (the most socially conservative industrialized nation) does. For better or worse.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
And guys.

Not just girls. Also the guys. Standards of morality apply to both sexes equally.

My $0.02.
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
:: shields eyes from blinding light of wisdom shining from thread ::
 
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
 
"And that Judeo-Christian system is based on ancient hygienic code. Kosher diet…based on avoiding food poisoning. Baptism…evolved from bathing to keep disease away (and the Muslim ritual of washing during prayer). Marry for life to one mate cuts down on STD's... "

Maybe it was just common sense for God but no one knew better. For example, the Bible warns against men having sexual relations. Warning ignored. Hello AIDS! Also, circumcision took place on the eighth day of a newborn's life, which, it just so happens, is the day with the highest level of vitamin... oh, dear, I don't know my vitamins... it's the healing one, maybe D? K? Possibly C? I'm sure I have you all convinced with my super-potent argument now... [Angst]
 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Katharina-

Of course that is true. I just do not know of any guys in my school that I am close friends with that consider themselves religious.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I'm sure I have you all convinced with my super-potent argument now..."

Well, I'm pretty sure you're a troll, if that's what you mean.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
It is justification.

Okay - I speak with experience. I was raised a Christian, in a very very strict conservative, fundamental household. I considered myself a Christian since childhood.

Yet I had sex before marriage (even got pregnant before marriage -- some 19 years ago).

I justified it to myself because I was "in love", etc.

But basically it comes down to the war between the flesh and the spirit, and sometimes the flesh just wins -- our sex drives are so strong, and we make bad choices.

Then we try to justify it because it makes it so we can live with ourselves.

There is nothing wrong with Christian principles -- we just are unable to perfectly maintain Christian behavior.

..which is why, of course, the saving blood of Christ was necessary.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Sure. I see nothing immoral about it at all. In fact, I generally don't judge the morality of sexual choices.

For myself, I won't have sex except within a committed long term relationship (which, so far, has meant not yet).
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Can someone provide a scriptural argument against extramarital sex?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Are you picky about the scriptures?

[ May 11, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Yes it says
quote:
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God wil judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral

 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Tom, it all depends on how you interpret the Greek and the Hebrew and how willing you are to take certain passages literaly.

AJ
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Here is a quick summary page:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm

As for the original context, it's pretty safe to say that premarital sex was not well tolerated in any ancient Semitic cultures.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Promethius, I'm afraid your quote says only that sex IN marriage -- the marriage bed -- should be kept pure. Marriage and sex are not, as far as I'm concerned, synonymous (and to start from that premise is to proceed directly from the conclusion.)

---

*nods to Anna* That's kind of what I figured.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
The old testament has some interesting bits though. But the ten commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" from my understanding speaks strictly of infidelity from a person who is ALREADY married.

It doesn't really say anything about those who are unmarried in the commandment, though it can be extrapolated from other passages, including one where if two unmarried people of opposite sex are caught in the act they are required to marry and never allowed to divorce. (Though there are caveats about where it happened and if anyone was too far away to hear the woman's screams in the case of a possible rape etc.)

But this is the same set of laws that has the rules where parents can stone rebellious children. So it depends on how literally you are interpreting stuff.

AJ
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Anna, I've always looked at those forced marriage and child obedience restrictions as ancient versions of property law, not moral code.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
One of the big reasons why premarital sex wasn't tolerated was property rights and inheritance. And that is why most cultures always come down harder on the woman for cheating than the man. Even the stuff in Leviticus and Duteronomy which was actually progressive at the time as far as "womens rights" were pretty lousy if you ask me.

AJ
(Jinx Tom!!) I was typing when you posted.

[ May 11, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom, would finding something in the Bible that explicitly forbids sex outside of marriage change your opinion of it?
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Stargate, I'm afraid we are on the opposite two sides of basic Christianity....

Salvation is through faith, not by works...

Nothing we DO earns us salvation. It is totally through Christ's grace alone. Our repentenance is to admit to ourselves nothing we do is worthy of salvation.

however..that said.. if we are Christians our lives should show He is Lord of us, and therefore our lives (works) should be morally good. So our daily lives SHOULD model good moral behavior as our witness. But we are not perfect, and we sometimes fail -- just like we sometimes say an untruth, or do something we later realize was NOT a Christian action.

Those things don't take away our Salvation -- but we ask forgiveness.

Don't worry -- I've learn to "control" my basic desires as I grew more as a Christian and personal maturity.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
And Tom conservative Christians don't distingush much between the legal instructions and the moral instructions when it comes to the Bible, though they aren't for piercing holes in slave's ears anymore. I guess it is more they don't Think they are distinguishing between the moral and legal even though they do.

AJ
 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Tom,

having sex before marriage would be making the marriage bed impure. Did you read the other quote I posted earleir which said
quote:
he who marries the virgin does right

 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
kat at least in my version of the Bible (I realize the Joseph smith translation is a little different) it is VERY hard to find a verse specifically forbidding premarital sex.

The new testament word for "fornication" or "pornea" doesn't necesarily apply to premarital sex, because of the way it was used in the Greek for far kinkier sex acts especially in religious worship. That is also the word that gets translated "sexual immorality" There is a far stronger anti-homosexual case in the Bible because many of the translated "sexual immorality" bits specifcally mean that compared to just premarital sex.

AJ

[ May 11, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Of course that doesn't mean the scriptural author thought that "she who marries a virgin does right." The woman has to be virginal, anything else would be unspeakable. But guys seem to get more slack...
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Promethius, could you provide citations for your quotes, please? And also let us know which traslation you are using?

Thanks.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
Xas- isnt basing your morality on your interpretation, making the bible subjective? and if you make it subjective, then what good is it at all?
It's useful in the same way anything you have to interpret is useful! Your science textbook, your mother's advice, your income tax statement, your posts on this forum - all of these are useful only insofar as your understanding of them is useful. Heck, even physical reality is something that you must interpret from your senses. This does mean it is possible to be mistaken about what it is telling you, but it certainly doesn't mean it's useless.

[ May 11, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
quote:
having sex before marriage would be making the marriage bed impure
Where is this ever specifically defined?

Don't you love the sexist implications here?

"He who marries the virgin does right"

I'd have to look at the commentaries on the original language but I would be very surprised if that was a "generic" masculine. I would bet the "he" is specifically male and the "virgin" is specifically female.

[Roll Eyes]

AJ
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

having sex before marriage would be making the marriage bed impure. Did you read the other quote I posted earleir which said "he who marries the virgin does right"

See, I think you're not filling in some logical holes. Having sex before marriage does not make the marriage bed impure UNLESS premarital sex is inherently impure -- which we cannot assume, since the purpose of this exercise is to prove this. Moreover, while "he who marries the virgin does right" (which, BTW, is clearly another property law issue), there's nothing in your quote to indicate that he who does not marry a virgin, or the virgin herself, has done WRONG.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
So I can just sit down and be idle and let my neighbor starve and, only because I believe, I am saved anyway?

I would think if you truly believed, you wouldn't do these things anyway. Works cannot replace faith, but faith can produce works.
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Chris, you are correct about the cultural value placed on female virginity in ancient times. But the Bible doesn't seem to be as discriminatory as you imply. For instance:

quote:
(1 Cor 7:7-9 NIV) I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. {8} Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. {9} But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Stargate --

I'm just saying if we ARE Christian then we WILL do those things (be charitable, have good works) because of our salvation and making Christ our Lord. Once we are saved, we DO those things because we are saved.

You and I are just saying them in reverse order -- you are saying you can't get Salvation without first doing good works. I'm saying when you receive Salvation through Christ, you WILL do good works because you are Christian and have received the Holy Spirit.

Any philosphy that views the need for WORKS to EARN salvation takes away from the importance of the gift of salvation through Christ. If we could earn it on our own, there would be no need for Christ.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Farmgirl, so you think that we don't have to be charitable and kind unto others, and we can still earn Salvation??
Actually, the whole point of the doctrine of sola fide is that we can't earn Salvation. Ever. 'tis not an "earnable" commodity.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Richard while we didn't get a citation for that "virgin" quote it doesn't sound like anything Paul wrote. It reeks of something in Proverbs which would be my best guess for the location.

I've also thought the imagery was interesting there in the marry or burn bit, because doesn't one of the more common STDs cause a burning and itching sensation in the groin?

AJ
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Richard - true, and women-as-property was somewhat less important towards the New Testament end. But all too often when these types of discussions come up, lines from the Old and New Testament are cherry-picked to prove a point without regard to their context or the cultural changes between the two. If we could set a starting point, such as "the New Testament supercedes the Old and we're going with Pauline teachings" I could argue more effectively. As it is I settle for answering out-of-context arguments with equally out-of-context responses.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
quote:
We all have freedom to follow moral laws or not, the Bible teaches us these laws, and those who don't follow them, sooner or later, will understand why the Bible recommended them.

It's like the law of gravity, if you don't believe in it, sooner or later, you're gonna get hurt.

Actually that isn't what the Bible says. It says that the rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and that the unrigheous often flourish more than the righeous. And it says that you will be persecuted for being a Christian.

So try again.

AJ
 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
DKW-

The bible I am quoting from is, New International Version
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
This thread has evolved very quickly; I'm not sure what's being debated at the moment (aside from the faith vs. works tangent). Last time I hit refresh, it was something along the lines of "does the Bible condone premarital sex?" Thus assuming some sort of doctrine that (1) values the Bible (2) considers it cohesive.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Can you supply chapter and verse references please? It just makes sure we are all on the same page <grin>

AJ
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom, did you see my question?

It all depends on what you mean by scripture. For anyone wondering, yeah, sex with anyone excepted for your spouse is explicitly expressed to be against the Lord's commandments in both the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants, not to mention modern revelation.

But assuming you don't accept those as scripture, do you accept the Bible as such? If there was a scripture in there against, would you take is as gospel?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Actually I've seen a lot more persecuting of other believers done by Christians instead of Nonchristians but that is way off topic.

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kat you are right, he wouldn't take it as gospel but the fact is, it isn't definitively there either.

IMO [Wink]
AJ
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well, I think since the thread title is asking about how this applies to Christianity, then only those posters who are active Christians should reply!

[Big Grin] *just joking! really!*

Farmgirl

[ May 11, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Banna: *grin* Possibly why modern revelation is around, to clarify the point. [Razz]

Added: Famgirl = Farmgirl with a crush on Orlando Bloom

2nd Edit: ...and now I look crazy... [Razz]

[ May 11, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Promethius, I am having a hard time finding the verses you quoted, and I don't have a computer-searchable NIV. Could you give us a hint where to find them?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Actually the first time I seriously read through the Bible, I was surprised by the absence of such a passage. Especially considering the sermons and sunday school lessons I'd heard.

AJ
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
First time I read through the Bible, I was floored by how many of our common cliches are bible quotes. Sort of like when I learned to play chess. "Wow! Keep the faith actually means something!"

All of sudden, Ed Norton movies were much funnier.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
dkw http://www.biblegateway.com/
is a great site for searching for stuff like this though I don't know if they are violating any copyrights or not with the different versions.

However, I'm not going to look up something promethus should provide, on principle [Smile]

AJ
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
While you all go find the scriptures... <grin>

I have to agree that basically what I've been taught is that the biblical term "immoral" encompasses the idea of fornication (sex before marriage by the unmarried).

Now whether you guys are going to prove that literally true or not, I think it is the spirit of the scripture. The whole idea is to keep sex as special within a monogamous relationship.

And logically speaking -- this is just a good idea for health reasons, emotional reasons, etc. even if I wasn't a Christian.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Maybe that was like me watching Star Wars for the first time when I was 18 and realizing that the music they played on radio commercials for some exterminating company went with Darth Vader.

AJ
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Even if translations were copyrightable, I somehow doubt those who do the translation are opposed to its distribution.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
the niv is online and searchable at www.niv.org

DKW, I'd be interested in your thoughts about Richard's article re: Pornea
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Richard the copyright limitations on the NIV and NAS versions used to be extremely strict. And yes I do believe there were lawsuits over it.

Christians suing Christians in fact...

AJ
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Okay, out of context does not even begin to describe this use of the "virgin" quote. Strange that Promethius didn't quote teh whole sentence --

"So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better."
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
uh-oh! dkw is beginning to argue on the side of sex-before-marriage...

..and she's engaged!

[Eek!]

j/k
Farmgirl
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
oh, and I know the Catholic Church has interpreted the injunction against adultery to include all form of sexual sin based on Jesus's "look at a woman lustfully=commiting adultery in your heart"... it would not surprise me if the Catholic position on sexual sin merely carried through to the Protestant denominations as well.

Personally, I think we just make too big a deal out of sexual sin... my pet theory is that it's been harped on because:

1)physical evidence of the act was conclusive: a pregnant woman out of wedlock *had* to have had sex... there was no disputing it and so people got hyper about it because there was no way to cover/hush it up.

2)it's the least obviously harmful sin and so needed some extra enthusiasm. It's easy to see why lying, killing, and stealing are wrong... not so much so to understand why making someone else feel good is, so we had to make it REALLY bad.

[ May 11, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Jim, just for the record, I completely and utterly disagree with your belief that sexual sin is no big deal.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I didn't say it was no big deal.

I said it was made too big a deal of. There's a difference.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
quote:
1 Thessalonians 4
1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

Link to other verses
King James Version

Dictionary:
quote:
Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other

FG

[ May 11, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm

(This was an accidentally redundant post to Richard's link on the first page. I apologize for the confusion.)
AJ

[ May 11, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Translations are very copyrightable.

Also, I'd be very suspicious of using the KJV for any sort of nit-picky argument on definitions. The translators played it fast and loose with a number of words in it.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So, what, it's a big deal, but it's made to be too big of a deal? [Razz]

[ May 11, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I wonder what percent of the Bible deals with sex compared to everything else. There is a lot of sex in the stories in the Old testament and Song of Solomon and Esther too. I don't know the answer. It is an interesting question.

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
fugu there are a branch of conservative Christians who believe the KJV is the only english version inspired by God.

AJ
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
If Shakespearean English was good enough for Jesus...
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Interesting link and article, AJ. However, I don't think it downplays the meaning of the word at all....

It says:
quote:
Strong's Concordance gives 19th century meanings to Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. It describes "pornea," as having a somewhat broader usage in Biblical times, compared to today. When used literally, it includes three activities: prostitution, adultery and incest. Figuratively it means idolatry, or sexual intercourse between unmarried persons
then it says:
quote:
However, most conservative Christian churches have greatly expanded the English term "fornication." ... it now includes "premarital sex,
How exactly is "sexual intercourse between unmarried persons" (first paragraph) any different than "pre-marital sex" (second paragraphy)?? In both cases, they are unmarried.

And I just realized, AJ, that you may be taking this personally, and I am NOT posting in that way! I'm just defending my Christian beliefs, and have NOT been thinking in terms of the choices of lifestyles of other people on this board. What I am saying applies to ME, and I'm not judging anyone else. I am a sinner myself.

You know I love ya, AJ -- please don't take this debate to the personal level.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
[ROFL]
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Farmgirl, I take it you're talking to me? I don't know if you're familiar with the website as a whole, but as the domain name should imply, they don't take sides. They're not arguing one way or the other, merely explaining what different sects believe and citing probable causes.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
No I didn't mean it personally. That was the first link I grabbed that seemed halfway decent for a rebuttal. I'm sure I could find an even more explicit one. The thing is even most of the extremely conservative sermons I've heard on the word Pornea make it clear that the stuff going on and where the greek word was in common usage was in the context of idol worship not just ordinary sex outside of marriage.

AJ
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Uh, Richard -- no, actually I was responding to the link BannaOJ posted to religioustolerance.org.

Did I miss something here?

*scrolls back up*

Farmgirl
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Farmgirl, the point of that link is that "pornea," which is translated "fornication" in the KJV, does not in fact refer to premarital sex. However, because many conservative Christians consider premarital sex to be immoral, the word "fornication" has come to include premarital sex in some (but by no means all) its definitions. By saying that "pornea" means "fornication," and "fornication" includes premarital sex, you have the effect before the cause.

----

kat, I'd really rather not answer your question in detail here, because elaborating on it would offend many Mormons. But, no, I don't consider the Book of Mormon or any of the other ancillary works to be Christian scripture, or relevant to discussions of Christianity.

It's my opinion that the BoM was written expressly to address some of the perceived flaws and limitations in the KJV that were, even in the 19th century, fairly popular philosophical targets. Unfortunately, while I'm all for letting Mormons self-identify as Christians, this means that discussing "Christianity" using the Book of Mormon is like discussing Windows 95 using Windows 98; many bugs are patched and features (and other bugs) added, meaning that not all criticisms apply across the versions.

[ May 11, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
DKW, I did not include the rest of the quote because, I took the whole quote to mean that a person should not be compelled to marry. It explains it if you read the whole thing. Its from Corinthians 7 for whoever is interested in looking it up. Ive gotta run to the dining hall, but I will link/quote whatever I posted before. Im not abandoning the thread I started.

Edit: I think I sounded snide, and I did not mean to

[ May 11, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That was the first question. And aw, that's too bad. It's an incomplete discussion without it.

-----

What about the second? Would an explicit scripture in the Bible change your opinion?

[ May 11, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
quote:
Farmgirl, the point of that link is that "pornea," which is translated "fornication" in the KJV, does not in fact refer to premarital sex
Sorry, Tom -- I went back and read it again, and just don't get that (what you said above) from that article. It does say the meaning has been BROADENED to include perhaps more than it should, but it never explicitly says that it DOES NOT refer to sex between people who are not married.

FG
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
*grin* I’m not arguing for sex outside of marriage, I’m just arguing against manipulating texts. The verse from 1 Corinthians is in reference to remaining engaged and celibate rather than marrying and having sex. It has nothing to do with whether marrying a virgin is better than marrying a non-virgin.

Not to mention, that the section begins with Paul saying, “Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think . . .”
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
I think most Christians know that the Christian church does not approve of premarital sex, some people just choose to do it anyway...and then use "love" or "drives" to rationalize it.

As for whether you are saved with or without works, it is Christ that saves you...not your behavior, or works. However if you are a Christian you should want to follow the teaching of the church. If you believe in what Christ taught, you should want to help others, avoid immoralty, and so forth.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So much for no detail because it might offend. [Razz]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
It refers to people whether married or unmarried engaging in sexual acts as a form of worship. Generally speaking, if married, the sex acts were not with the spouse. Those would fall under the "adultery" heading. All of them were wrong because of the implications with idolatry.

AJ

This bit I found on the same site on kinds of marriages actually found in the Bible is interesting too. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I think, as in a lot of "Christianity" debates I've heard lately, this is just more evidence of the weakness of basing an all-inclusive religious doctrine on one text that has many different translations even in our own language. I would argue that an "infallible" Bible would make it a lot more difficult to argue against itself.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
kat, I elaborated a bit in an edit above while you were in the process of replying. But an explicit admonition against extra-marital sex in the Bible, while it would fail to change my own opinion on the issue, would at least convince me that the Bible specifically addresses and censures the practice. [Smile]

-----------

Farmgirl, I'm not enough of an ancient language expert to know how "pornea" was applied in all cases; I'll defer to DKW on this one. But it seems clear enough that it describes a category of practices considerably more severe than premarital sex -- and while some authors, I'm sure, may well have considered that act "pornea" in the same way that some people today consider masturbation ghastly and unforgivable, I don't see anything to indicate that this was part of the common usage. At the most, we can conclude that the Bible censures idolatrous, aberrant sex -- which may or may not include extramarital sex, depending on whether you're starting from the presumption of aberration.
 
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Farmgirl, I posted the religioustolerance link...

DKW, that verse is ostensibly about the choice between celibacy and marriage, yes. However, I think its implications are clear: under Pauline doctrine, those two choices are the only moral options. In other words, his words of caution refer to choosing between the options themselves; by omitting premarital sex from the list he showed it wasn't something a Godly man even considered.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
would at least convince me that the Bible specifically addresses and censures the practice.
I think my puzzlement comes from a perception that you didn't believe in the Bible anyway, so why would it matter if it did specifically address it?

And...

Considering how the scriptures against homosexuality get dismissed, I have no confidence at all that a specific stricture against pre-marital sex would close the discussion today.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Just FYI, most of the conservative Christian churches that I know of that believe in the total infalibility and inerrancy of the Bible, do have the little caveat somewhere in the doctrinal statment of "only in the original language", though the KJV-only crowd has gotten away from that.

The liberal deonminations define the infalability and inerrancy differently to begin with and I believe only when it is speaking on spiritual matters, but I defer to dkw on that.

AJ
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think there's a lot of debate, even among very devout Christians, over whether Paul's letters, containing personal opinions he occasionally admits are fallible, are in fact scripture.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Oh Richard and I both posted the relgious tolerance link but I missed the fact he posted it cause the thread is moving so fast!

*lightbulb goes on*

AJ
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Yes, and I replied to your link on page 2 -- I didn't see Richard's link on Page 1. But I think they both point to the same thing...

FG
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Farmgirl, so you think that we don't have to be charitable and kind unto others, and we can still earn Salvation??

By faith only? So I can just sit down and be idle and let my neighbor starve and, only because I believe, I am saved anyway?

I am sorry, Salvation is having Faith and being charitable. If we don't show charity we can't change the world for the better.

Sorry to backtrack here, but thinking on this somehow made me realize I'm closer to the tradition I was raised in than I realized.

So I'm a Congregationalist by tradition, a group strongly influenced by Calvin.

I am not a fan of predestination.

However, having thought on this little chicken-or-the-egg conundrum that comes up often, I have to currently think I'm with (a variation of) Calvin on this one, in the sense that through faith one will be compelled to do works (I think subconciously; I don't think acting conciously to do a work is actually a work), I think that people can do works without ever having a professed opinion on Jesus, and I think (as I believe is in line with the Bible) that it is impossible to tell the two apart, and that Christians ought not to try. However, my modification to this is that I'm a universalist in a way, and ultimately I don't think it matters if you've publically confessed to the concrete idea of Jesus, what matters is if your inward heart/soul has accepted the abstract concepts of Jesus and his teachings.

This no doubt makes me a heretic of the highest order.

But then, I've gotten used to the idea that most conservative Christians wouldn't even consider my denomination truly christian anymore (even if they give public recognition grudgingly, thanks to the fact that we were in the USA first [Smile] ), being an explicit heretic doesn't bother me.

Sorry about this tangent, carry on!

-Bok
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
And in case anyone is interested, here is the Mormon stance on the issue:

The reason sexual sin is so serious, second only to the shedding of innocent blood, is because of the belief in the sanctity of human life that underlies them both. It is as wicked to tamper with the God-given mechanisms by which mortal life is brought about, to engage in behavior that might bright life about when unauthorized (marriage being God's authorization), as it is to prematurely end a life. Either way, one is making decisions about life without the authority of God, in our opinions.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Heck, there's been debate here over just how much of what Paul wrote was meant to be taken as gospel.

Two thousand years of controversey could all have been solved by a good technical writer. But that's what I mean - even something flat out unambiguous would still be debated, because it would still be a conflict of desires.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
by the way -- who is Stargate? I'm glad to see someone else posting on the defense of Christianity on this forum -- sometimes I feel so out-numbered, and flamed for trying to uphold my own beliefs. Welcome Stargate!

Farmgirl
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Yes, Kat, that's exactly what I mean. I'd be the last to say that the Christian world is merely composed of Jack Chick and Fred Phelps, but there is an awful lot of fuss made over sexual sin, and an ubelieveable amount of effort put into preventing it.

Now sex, like fire, guns, power drills or any other useful tool, has the potential to cause great damage and using it properly is very important...

But, like the other tools above, the issue is a matter of safety for people's hearts and bodies. A lot of people receive the message that these acts are inherently evil the same way as murdering someone or stealing their property is... and I think that is an overstatement. I certainly did personally receive that message, and, while this is anecdotal, I would call that particular lesson the root of nearly every serious problem I have ever had... including a tremendous difficulty receiving and accepting God's forgiveness for the sins (sexual and otherwise)I committed personally...

And, I'm sure you can see how having the evil of something being overstated gets in the way of receiving forgiveness here? How many homosexuals avoid religion entirely because the proponents of religion vilify them mercilessly and give them no hope of acceptance? Is being a praticing homosexual an unforgivable sin? NO! not by any Christian text...

Yet it is treated as such on a regular basis by conservative Christians. And I think that shameful.

[ May 11, 2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Annie, I think it's more than that. Sexual sin isn't just a problem because of the possibility of life, because that would mean it isn't a problem when there is no possibility of a new life coming from it.
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
quote:
a matter of safety for people's hearts and bodies
Don't you think that teaching unmarried adolescents to avoid sexual relations is trying to accomplish this very thing?
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Thanks for sharing, Bok.

The question is -- somewhere along the line of this thread -- did we give Promethius a satisfactory answer to the question posed in the first post?

Farmgirl
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
1 Corinthians is not a work of systematic theology, it’s a letter written to a specific community to address specific issues raised by the members of that community. In this case, the question was whether or not, in light of the expected imminent return of Jesus, it was permissible to marry or better to remain unmarried.

Yes, from the fact that Paul assumes the choices are to marry or remain celibate one can infer that he was against premarital sex. But to quote half of verse 38 as if it were a statement that marrying a non-virgin is wrong is clearly twisting things.

Edit: Wow this is moving fast. This is in response to Richard's last post on p. 2.

[ May 11, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
Is being a praticing homosexual an unforgivable sin? NO! not by any Christian text...
This isn't completely true. In some Christian denominations being a practicing homosexual is forgivable, and I don't know of any Christian denomination in which having practiced homosexuality isn't forgivable. However, forgivness requires reptance and if you're currently practicing homosexual behavior then you haven't fully repented and thus aren't able to recieve Christ's forgivness. Not all denominations hold this view, but some do (including mine [Smile] ).

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Jim, what you're saying is that it wouldn't be as big of a deal if people weren't made to feel guilty about it - that the harm from the sin comes from the shame and not the sin itself.

I don't agree.
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I'd agree with you Kat - it's not just the possiblility of pregnancy that makes it something to avoid. But the underlying principle of the sin has to do with the life-giving mechanism. Any errance from its intended purpose - and this includes, according to many a prophet, sex within marriage with the use of birth control - is an affront to Heavenly Father's intent.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
sex within marriage with the use of birth control - is an affront to Heavenly Father's intent.
Assuming the potential mother is healthy and able to bear children...

[/clarification]

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*squints* Annie, I don't have that same understanding. I'm going to look some things up, to figure out where my understanding comes from.

To clarify for Hatrack, I don't think we disagree as to whether it's a sin or not, just as for the reasons why. Ultimately, the reasons why are nice to know, but it doesn't change whether or not it is one.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Annie, how do you personally feel about birth control?
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
FG, I think the answer to his question is simply that there isn't any univerally-accepted complete description of Jesus' teachings (whether due to forgetting, misinterpretation, both recent and ancient, and just plain politics). The consequence of this is that there has been a blossoming on interpretations of what Jesus meant, and whether he meant it literally all the time, some of the time, of was just being strictly allegorical.

All of which means there is a fair amount of wiggle-room in the grand umbrella of Christianity. Not that some people don't think that other's views are false, but that enough has been said and remembered that odds are someone who proclaims themselves to be a Christian will accept you as one also.

-Bok
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
No, I'm not, Kat.

I'm saying that when the shame becomes more harmful than the sin, then the sin is being persecuted too much.

Annie, I *do* think that teaching people to reserve sex as a sacred bond between married partners is doing exactly that. I have no objection to the idea of chastity. I have every objection to making people feel horrible or worthless because they gave in to a natural desire. Perhaps what I have to say to your tiger will shed some light [Wink] .

Hobbes, I object to the idea of saying that because someone continues a behavior their repentance means nothing. To take it out of the sexually charged arena, I will overeat at times (guilty of gluttony). Chances are excellent that I will do it again. Does this make my repentance moot? No... and especially not if there are mitigating circumstances which cause my overeating... such as a powerful genetic or psychological predisposition.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Here's a collection fo statments about the Mormon's position on birth control. Bascially unless there's a reson beyond personal convience (that includes basically everything besides serious health concerns) birth control should not be used (happy is the man with a quiver-full). I can't speak for Annie but I can tell you that she tries her very best to follow Church teachings.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think there's a difference between a not-always-successful struggle to overcome a temptation and an intention of acting on that temptation and expecting forgiveness anyway.
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I am in agreement with the church's stance on this one.

But look - there I go derailing again. Apologies.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Ohh I agree Jim, I'm not saying it means nothing, but I'm talking here more about people who see no problem with homosexuality and are "proud" or at least have no problem with their homosexual prefrences. Repenting and failing and repenting again is all part of the process, but not even acknoledging it as a sin would certainly disqualify your repentance since there wasn't any.

[EDIT: this is such a good example of how badly I spell when distracted instead of editing it I'll just let it stand here as kind of a monument to my awful spelling.]

Hobbes [Smile]

[ May 11, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Hobbes, is being able to afford your children "personal convienence"? Like people who got married while still in college for example?

AJ
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Annie, are you presenting the church's stance as being against birth control?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Actually, Hobbes, I was kind of hoping to hear what Annie felt, not what the church felt, on the assumption that the two aren't necessarily synonymous.

Since you've posted that, though, can I also assume that the Mormon church opposes fertility drugs, in-vitro fertilization, and adoption? (The first two because they ALSO meddle with the production of life, and the second because the biological process here is subverted by the legal?)
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Yes, given that specific situation I wouldn't describe it that way, but that's within the realms of what I was talking about.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Then can I consider my point made/taken?
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Yes, Kat - see Hobbes's link for that stance.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Jim: No, I still don't agree with you. If there are concerns with forgiveness, then it isn't because the sin was made out to be more serious than it was, but because the Atonement was not seen to be as comprehensive as it is.

Annie: I don't agree.

[ May 11, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Jim, sure, at least to me. [Smile]

quote:
Since you've posted that, though, can I also assume that the Mormon church opposes fertility drugs, in-vitro fertilization, and adoption? (The first two because they ALSO meddle with the production of life, and the second because the biological process here is subverted by the legal?)
I think you know what the Church's stance on this is Tom. [Razz]

The link I sited gives some very good reasons why the Church opposes birth control, and tey aren't as in specific as "meddles with the production of life".

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Which of those is your favorite reason, Hobbes? I ask this because so many of those quotes given were so incredibly odious in both letter and spirit that I would have been remarkably proud to have insulted the author to his or her face. I'm afraid that lines like this one -- "My wife has borne to me fifteen children. Anything short of this would have been less than her duty and privilege." -- don't endear me to your faith or its proponents.

The central idea given in the essays -- that it is the duty of Mormons to pop out as many babies as possible so as not to delay the physical Tabernaculation of souls any longer than necessary -- is one that makes sex sound, quite frankly, remarkably unpleasant.

[ May 11, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
What don't you agree with Kat? Now I'm al confused. [Dont Know]

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
His favorite reason? What are you trying to argue with here, Tom?
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
wow, i couldn't finish it. i just couldn't.

*shudder*
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
And here's a quote that I'm basing my earlier statement off of, Kat. It's from the teachings of Joseph F. Smith - chapter 18 - Chastity and Purity:
quote:
We desire with holy zeal to emphasize the enormity of sexual sins. Though often regarded as insignificant by those not knowing the will of God, they are, in his eyes an abomination, and if we are to remain his favored people they must be shunned as the gates of hell. The evil results of these sins are so patent in vice, crime, misery and disease that it would appear that all, young and old, must perceive and sense them. They are destroying the world. If we are to be preserved we must abhor them, shun them, not practice the least of them, for they weaken and enervate, they kill man spiritually, they make him unfit for the company of the righteous and the presence of God. 6

We hold that sexual sin is second only to the shedding of innocent blood in the category of personal crimes. … We proclaim as the word of the Lord: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” [Exodus 20:14.] “He that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith.” [D&C 63:16.]


 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm trying to argue that most of the reasons given in those essays are empty blather, if not despicable outright. As Hobbes is a reasonable person, I imagine that -- since he apparently agrees with the concept -- there are reasonable reasons that he's found which have helped him understand this policy. I'd much rather hear from him which reasons HE has for opposing birth control than try to sort through looking for ones that don't seem ridiculous to ME.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
I'm afraid that lines like this one -- "My wife has borne to me fifteen children. Anything short of this would have been less than her duty and privilege." -- don't endear me to your faith or its proponents.
Then I think you missed the point of that argument Tom. It wasn't her duty and privlege to bear him 15 children because she was a women, it was her duty and privledge because they could have 15 children and every child they denied entrance into this world is a missed privledge of raising (I certainly believe children are a blessing) and one who would have to wait to enter the world, and could not do so inside that family. It was her privledge because a child is a privilige (something special, a gift or a blessing) and her duty because it is comannded of God to have children, since the whole point of this Earth is to have people here living and experiencing life and we are the vessles through which these people arrive clearly it's our duty to keep the work up.

quote:
The central idea given in the essays -- that it is the duty of Mormons to pop out as many babies as possible so as not to delay the physical Tabernaculation of souls any longer than necessary -- is one that makes sex sound, quite frankly, remarkably unpleasant.
Then you're assuming it's the only purpose of sex, to "pop out babies", which seems a little naive Tom, and is not the position that the Church takes either.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Annie, I complete agree with Joseph F. Smith's statement.
quote:
for they weaken and enervate, they kill man spiritually, they make him unfit for the company of the righteous and the presence of God.
That's not just using the power of procreation for something than what it's meant, though.

I was looking for the talk that made everything clear to me, and was completely distracted. I'm going back to looking. (Anyone know what I'm talking about? General Conference, around 1999, Elder Eyring maybe, something about souls?)
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
And here is a second quote that I base my position off of - it's not in the canon of scripture, it's an address given by Bruce C. Hafen of the seventy, reproduced in the Feb. 2002 New Era.

quote:
Sometimes we give as reasons for the law of chastity the risk of pregnancy or abortion, the possibility of an unwanted or embarrassing marriage, or the chance of a terrible venereal disease. With adultery, we talk about the damage of destroying an existing marriage or family. As serious as these things are, I’m not sure they are the fundamental reason for the Lord’s having placed this commandment ahead of armed robbery and fraud in the seriousness of sins.

Think of it—unchastity is second only to murder. Perhaps there is a common element in those two things—unchastity and murder. Both have to do with life, which touches upon the highest of divine powers. Murder involves the wrongful taking of life; sexual transgression may involve the wrongful giving of life, or the wrongful tampering with the sacred fountains of life-giving power.

I have been around enough to know that this is not the first time you have ever heard this subject mentioned. But I have also been around enough to know that no matter what you have heard and no matter how often, today we live in a world so completely soaked through with tragically wrong and evil ideas about sex that you must be warned—in love and kindness, but warned—lest the moral sleeping sickness that is overcoming the whole world calm you into deadly slumber.


 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
You know, Hobbes, I'm going to have serious trouble getting this mental image out of my head of all these baby factories in white button-up shirts and black slacks, solemnly going about their "joyful" duty on behalf of the impatient disembodied souls of the world....

*shudder*

Seriously, man, you don't think that's more than a little messed up, as a philosophy AND as an approach to sex?

[ May 11, 2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kat, since you and Annie have some apparent disagreement on this issue I'm highly interested in what you have to say.

I genuinely hope that that lightplanet site that has been linked to is only "unofficial" LDS teaching and not "official" teaching particularly because of the section on interacial marriage.

AJ
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I'm trying to tell you Tom, you keep assuming that the only point of sex is procreation, and this isn't the case. However, I think it's the most important reason for sex. Don't you agree that the most powerful effect sex can have is the birth of a child?

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Do you mean to use birth and conception interchangeably?

*is also very interested in kat's opinion*

[ May 11, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
conception?

I'm confused again.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I do apologize again for bringing this up in a context that doesn't really give us the time nor background to explain the LDS church's position on the law of chastity. I've managed by my first statements to entirely derail the very interesting (though unrelated) question that Prometheus posed originally.

There is a lot to be said on the topic of chastity in LDS doctrine - typing in "Law of Chastity" in the gospel libray section of lds.org brings up over 500 articles.

However, those that we've already linked to do in fact represent the official doctrinal standpoint of the church. Those on the birth control page that are listed as statements by prophets or apostles are considered modern revelation to church members.

I don't apologize for the unorthodox beliefs I've studied out and decided to subscribe to, I only intended to state the LDS belief on the subject as a comparative point to the other Christian doctrines that were being discussed.

very inportant edit: my use of the word "unorthodox" was meant to imply different from the accepted American school of thought. These are not unorthodox beliefs from the LDS point of view.

[ May 11, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
*runs from thread*
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"However, I think it's the most important reason for sex. Don't you agree that the most powerful effect sex can have is the birth of a child?"

Sure. But I think you then leap to the conclusion that this is the exclusive purpose of all sex acts; the suggestion, for example, that sex SHOULD result in childbirth implies that it does not in fact have any other purpose.

(Note the many quotes in the document to which you linked pointing out that women who are incapable of bearing children -- in all cases, the women are assumed to be the sterile ones -- should not be concerned, because the really faithful ones will be blessed with miracles and be cured of their sterility.)
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Annie I know you and kat agree on the Law of Chastity thing. I'm not condemning you for your beliefs.

However kat hasn't yet stated her position on birth control and that is what I think celia and I are confused about.

AJ
 
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
Lightplanet.com is most certainly not official LDS Church teaching (though he does quote lots of stuff from Church leaders). I haven't read everything on that page, but most of the quotes don't seem to be saying that birth control is always bad. Most of them seem to be saying that birth control is bad if you're using it for selfish reasons.

The most current teachings that I know of:
quote:
Church Handbook of Instructions
January 1999

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples also should understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.


 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Okay, I found it. Elder Holland, General Conference, October 1999.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/199 8.htm/ensign%20november%201998.htm/personal%20purity.htm

quote:
In approaching this subject I do not document a host of social ills for which the statistics are as grim as the examples are offensive. Nor will I present here a checklist of do’s and don’ts about dating and boy-girl relationships. What I wish to do is more personal—I wish to try to answer questions some of you may have been asking: Why should we be morally clean? Why is it such an important issue to God? Does the Church have to be so strict about it when others don’t seem to be? How could anything society exploits and glamorizes so openly be very sacred or serious?

...

First is the revealed, restored doctrine of the human soul.

One of the “plain and precious” truths restored in this dispensation is that “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” 5 and that when the spirit and body are separated, men and women “cannot receive a fulness of joy.” 6 That is the reason why obtaining a body is so fundamentally important in the first place,why sin of any kind is such a serious matter (namely because it is sin that ultimately brings both physical and spiritual death), and why the resurrection of the body is so central to the great triumph of Christ’s Atonement.

The body is an essential part of the soul. This distinctive and very important Latter-day Saint doctrine underscores why sexual sin is so serious. We declare that one who uses the God-given body of another without divine sanction abuses the very soul of that individual, abuses the central purpose and processes of life, “the very key” 7 to life, as President Boyd K. Packer once called it. In exploiting the body of another—which means exploiting his or her soul—one desecrates the Atonement of Christ, which saved that soul and which makes possible the gift of eternal life. And when one mocks the Son of Righteousness, one steps into a realm of heat hotter and holier than the noonday sun. You cannot do so and not be burned.

....

Secondly, may I stress that human intimacy is reserved for a married couple because it is the ultimate symbol of total union, a totality and a union ordained and defined by God. From the Garden of Eden onward, marriage was intended to mean the complete merger of a man and a woman—their hearts, hopes, lives, love, family, future, everything. Adam said of Eve that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, and that they were to be “one flesh” in their life together. 13 This is a union of such completeness that we use the word seal to convey its eternal promise. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said we perhaps could render such a sacred bond as being “welded” 14 one to another.

...

Can you see the moral schizophrenia that comes from pretending you are one, pretending you have made solemn promises before God, sharing the physical symbols and the physical intimacy of your counterfeit union but then fleeing, retreating, severing all such other aspects of what was meant to be a total obligation?

In matters of human intimacy, you must wait! You must wait until you can give everything, and you cannot give everything until you are legally and lawfully married. To give illicitly that which is not yours to give (remember, “you are not your own”) and to give only part of that which cannot be followed with the gift of your whole self is emotional Russian roulette. If you persist in pursuing physical satisfaction without the sanction of heaven, you run the terrible risk of such spiritual, psychic damage that you may undermine both your longing for physical intimacy and your ability to give wholehearted devotion to a later, truer love.

...

Thirdly, may I say that physical intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a husband and a wife—the very uniting of their souls—but it is also symbolic of a shared relationship between them and their Father in Heaven. He is immortal and perfect. We are mortal and imperfect. Nevertheless we seek ways even in mortality whereby we can unite with Him spiritually. In so doing we gain some access to both the grace and the majesty of His power. Those special moments include kneeling at a marriage altar in the house of the Lord, blessing a newborn baby, baptizing and confirming a new member of the Church, partaking of the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, and so forth.

These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God’s will, our spirit with His spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge His divinity but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves. One aspect of that divinity given to virtually all men and women is the use of His power to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never before seen in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity. A child, your child—with eyes and ears and fingers and toes and a future of unspeakable grandeur.

(Emphasis original to text.)

He does mention the possibility of life coming from it as a reason, but not as the only reason. The one that I remebered, that made sense in my head, was the part about the body being part of the soul, and the bit about being honest.

[ May 11, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Tom, you can try and think of it this way. A car serves a specific function, it moves the care around and the things inside. Only for some reson only really want to move the back seat of the car so you figure you'll do that, you turn on the car, start dirving... and crash through your grage door causing damage to the car and the house you live in because it's all one package, you can't just move the back seat, the whole car's going to come along with it. I assume you beleive you can seperate them, but I fankly, don't. So maybe that's our impass and we wont get over it, I don't know but that's how I see it.

quote:
But I think you then leap to the conclusion that this is the exclusive purpose of all sex acts; the suggestion, for example, that sex SHOULD result in childbirth implies that it does not in fact have any other purpose.

But I've already explicitly told you twice Tom that I don't think it's the only purpose.

I'm not sure if you were serious when you ask for my favorite reason, and I don't really have a "favorite reason" but I did like this quote:

quote:
by President Ezra Taft Benson

Conference Report, April 1969, Pg.12

The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father's children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity. The first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth with children. That commandment has never been altered, modified, or canceled. The Lord did not say to multiply and replenish the earth if it is convenient, or if you are wealthy, or after you have gotten your schooling, or when there is peace on earth, or until you have four children. The Bible says, "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: ". . . Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. . ." (Ps. 127:3, 5.) We believe God is glorified by having numerous children and a program of perfection for them. So also will God glorify that husband and wife who have a large posterity and who have tried to raise them up in righteousness.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh, on birth control? Between you, your husband, and the Lord, and the goal is a family. The details are not prescribed.

Hobbes and Annie, look at the date on most of those quotes. The vast majority come from 1916, and the others from 1969. Not that that means they are invalid, but that does matter. What is the most recent statement?

[ May 11, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I think a careful reading of those notes on sterility, Tom, will show that that is not what they imply.
 
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
This site seems to have a more balanced collection of quotes from Church leaders.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*reads thread* Yes. What Jon Boy quoted. That's from 1999.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Absolutley Kat, as far as I can tell, studying the history of this the last really major revelation on birth control was in 1969 when the basic concluesion was "it's not evil in and of itself, but you should not choose to curtail the birth of your children unless it's absolutley necesary". Since then most of the statments have been rather inspecific but "it's your choice, not ours" would be the general tone of them.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
 
Kat--it's the brilliant "Personal Purity" talk by Elder Holland. I just love him. He gives the best explanation of chastity I have ever heard before. The General Conference link is here: "Personal Purity"--Elder Holland


The original talk was given at a BYU devotional, called "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments." I need to go soon so I won't find the link, but I've found it on the internet before (recently, because I was helping with a youth chastity program, which used cheesy quotes to frighten the young women into being chaste. Elder Holland's talk is much, much better.)

I can't recap it because I'm short on time. But I think this is the one Kat was looking for.

--Emily
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Emily, you're a peach. [Smile] That's it exactly.

Hobbes: "Since then most of the statments have been rather inspecific but "it's your choice, not ours" would be the general tone of them." Well, yeah, that has been the general tone. That means that the official stance is that it's between the Lord and the couple.

[ May 11, 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I don't know if I'd rely more on the authority of that site, Jon Boy - those are quotes from Relief Society Magazine and personal correspondance. Neither of those sources are official church doctrine.

A search of statements by prophets and apostles reveals statements like the ones on the lightfoot page, which are all documented as being scriptural sources.

I was just searching, actually, for the very talk that Kat cited above (by Elder Holland, not Elder Eyring). It seems that the version of it that I read was titled "Of Symbols, Souls and Sacraments." I think it gives one of the most profound explanations on the reasons for chastity and the purposed of marital intimacy.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
The comments have certainly gotten softer, but I haven't heard a single talk that change's the Church's position that not having children is wrong if you can have children.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Except for the part about the decision being up to the couple and the Lord, in which case, it may be that "not right now" would be an answer, and that wouldn't be wrong.

[ May 11, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Sorry, didn't see your edit Kat.

Yes, it's between the couple and the Lord, that doesn't mean the Church hasn't set down some pretty clear guidlines for it, just means that you have to make the final choice. As you do with all things... [Dont Know]

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
 
You found it already! I should have read before I posted. But it's Elder Holland, I think, not Elder Eyring.

On birth control: what Katharina said. It's between you, your husband, and the Lord, and the goal is a family. I personally am not emotionally capable of being a good mother to many small children at a time. I can't do the four small children under the age of four thing the way other women I know do. And more power to them; that's great for them. But I would go crazy, literally. As long as I'm working towards the goal of raising a good family, I don't think protecting my sanity through birth control is a sin.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Yes, it's between the couple and the Lord, that doesn't mean the Church hasn't set down some pretty clear guidlines for it, just means that you have to make the final choice. As you do with all things...
Hobbes, I'm concerned about this, because I don't believe that it is the same kind of "it's up to you" as in the case of free agency.

If the current guidelines are less clear, that means there's no exacting requirements, not that there are exacting requirements and the church is afraid to lay them out.

--

And Emily said it so much better than I did. [Smile]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
But Kat, there are clear guidlines. Just because the talks are from a long time ago doesn't change that the Church did set down guidlines. I mean, the BOM of Mormon is thousands of years old and I know you don't think it invalidates it. If modern revelation actually changes past opinions on it (like polygamy) then the age of it matters and whatever the most recent revelation on the matter is the one to pay attention to. But saying "it's between the couple and the Lord" does, in no way, invalidate all the previous words that have been spoken on the topic by Prophets.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Hobbes, that DOES change it. Saying "It's between the couple and the Lord" takes precedence over "It's wrong to use birth control."
 
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
 
quote:
I don't know if I'd rely more on the authority of that site, Jon Boy - those are quotes from Relief Society Magazine and personal correspondance. Neither of those sources are official church doctrine.
Okay, so I didn't read that site very thoroughly, either. The quotes I was most interested in was the one from the current Church Handbook of Instructions.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
There was a revelation recently (as in the last 50 years) in which the Church issued revelation saying that birth control is not inherintly evil, nor is it evil to use it. However, the Church also said that you must be very careful, and that in most cases it is wrong to use it. The statments today are not a contradiction of that, they simply say you must ask the Lord if it is right for you.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Okay.

Which means that the official stance of the church is NOT that using birth control is wrong.

It's that the goal is a family, pray about it, and follow what the Lord says.

Those two statements are different.

Added: I feel like I need to add smileys or something to convey the happy tone that was all said in. Here we go: [Smile] [Cool] [Smile] [Kiss] [Group Hug]

[ May 11, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Oh, no.

Another Mormon love fest.

Um. . . you're all prudes!

Prudes! Who're prudish!

Puriently prudish prunes! The lot of ye!
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*traces toe on floor* This did kind of get derailed, didn't it. I'm sorry.

Um, so, power-point Bible. Still waiting. [Smile]
 
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
I'm glad someone (Snarky/Jon Boy?) posted the relevant section of the current Handbook of Instructions, which clearly states that "The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter."

This language, in my opinion, clearly allows for the judicious use of birth control.

My opinion, based on my reading of all previous statments by Church leaders on the subject, is that 1) it is wrong to put off or limit the number of children for selfish reasons, such as wanting more freedom, wealth, etc., but 2) there is nothing wrong with planning one's family to ensure that one has the necessary resources (physical, financial, emotional, etc.) to properly care for them. There is no duty incumbent upon members of the Church to have as many children as their bodies are physically capable of producing.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"it is wrong to put off or limit the number of children for selfish reasons, such as wanting more freedom, wealth, etc., but 2) there is nothing wrong with planning one's family to ensure that one has the necessary resources (physical, financial, emotional, etc.) to properly care for them"

What is the distinction between these two things?
 
Posted by The Cheat (Member # 5204) on :
 
Needs and wants.
 
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
1) would be choosing not to have children, or to have no more children, because you think you wouldn't be able to afford the luxuries you want, or because it would impinge on your recreational pursuits or free time, or because you want to retire early and be DONE with kids by the time you're fifty, just as examples.

2) means that, when deciding when and whether to have (more) kids, you should take into account your financial resources (can you reasonably afford to feed, clothe, house, educate and give proper medical care to a(nother) child?), your physical limitations (do you or your spouse have a health condition that would make (another) pregnancy or childbirth dangerous, or would make raising a child exceedingly difficult?), your emotional capacity (do you have the mental/emotional capacity to give the proper time, attention, discipline, etc. to another child without having a nervous breakdown?). Things like that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
But how do we define a luxury? If you can raise five children on hand-me-downs and macaroni, or three children on new clothes and health food, which is better? What if you have seven children, but the macaroni is provided by the state?
 
Posted by The Cheat (Member # 5204) on :
 
Pray about it, Tom.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, I suppose the Word of God would certainly help in a situation like that. Shame He hasn't got a newsletter. [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
[Razz] Or the antenna isn't up.
 
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
"If you can raise five children on hand-me-downs and macaroni, or three children on new clothes and health food, which is better?"

Well, I was really talking about luxuries for the parents (high-end electronics, cars, boats, jewelry, club memberships, trips), but the principle works with kids, too. The question is one of reasonableness -- what does it take to be a good parent? I would say you can dress your kids in decent hand-me-downs and still be a good parent, but you can't just give them macaroni all the time.

"What if you have seven children, but the macaroni is provided by the state?"

I know parents like this, who think that they are doing what they're supposed to by having so many children. But one of my qualifications was the ability to provide financially for your children. Government (or Church) aid does not constitute providing for your children! If you can't pay your own way, you can't properly provide for the children. Work harder, get more education, whatever, and then you may have the resources to have more kids.

This doesn't work retroactively, of course. Once you already have the kids, there may be unforeseen circumstances that reduce your means to the point where you need to rely on aid from government or others. That's not your fault, you just do the best you can. But before the fact, you do need to do the planning.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If I understand correctly, it is one's duty to ALWAYS have the antenna up and dish set to receive, even if it would be inconvenient. [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Aw, there are better reasons than duty. [Smile]

[ May 11, 2004, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
What if you've got the antenna up and you still aren't getting a signal?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would suggest plying the dish with sweet talk, soft music, and chocolate.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh, for crying out loud. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
See, kat, I thought -- based on your immediately previous response -- that you already got that joke. [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I'm trying to think of a jokey response here, but I can't. I didn't. It didn't even occur to me.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, I'm just glad you're not jettboy. *grin*
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
as for birth control, I don't see anything wrong with it inside of a marriage. Within a marriage sex is not immoral, nor does it lead to problems such as disease, not to mention the emotional costs of sexual promiscuity.

It is simply a couple who have made a commitment to God to be faithful to each other, showing that love.

Of course, this is preventative birth control I am talking about, not things such as abortion.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Heh. Despite a dearth of similarities, I do have topics of No Sense of Humor.

It's like...it's like you're using humor to deflect the conversation. *looks innocent*
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
*Back from the ball game*

Just wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to judge anyone who had or does use birth control. I think most people in the Church aren't aware that their Church has issued some defenitive statments in regard to it's usage and I think it's a good idea to be informed. [Cool]

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"It's like...it's like you're using humor to deflect the conversation."

Except that I firmly believe that it is vitally -- VITALLY -- important to have a sense of humor about sex. [Smile]
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
From your link on the previous page, Hobbes:

quote:
"It is contradictory to [the temple marriage] covenant to prevent the birth of children if the parents are in good health."
Which is why I asked if you were using birth and conception interchangably. The author of that site cited this as an example of the Church's stance on birth control, but to me it sounds like a stance on abortion, which isn't the same thing. Preventing birth implies that conception has already occured, and thus there is a birth to be preventing. Preventing conception is a totally seperate issue. Unless you're equating the two distinct concepts.

Is that how I should be interpreting? Because just reading that link makes no sense to me, knowing what the words mean.

[ May 12, 2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
But Hobbes, according to my own research and what kat has verified, the policy has definitely become more lenient than the strong language included on that lightplanet site.

I don't know how to describe in words, how much that entire lightplanet site bothers me, on what they have on other topics as well. It reeks of a lunatic fringe among the LDS, quite like the lunatic fringe in fundamentalist protestant christianity.

It is like they are destroying the spirit of the teaching with the legalistic letter of the teaching.

AJ
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Hobbes, I don't agree with you. The church doesn't hide definitive stances. If a definitive statement from a previous prophet has been replaced with an enjoinder to make the decision yourself, then that's the stance. It means the less concrete one IS the current stance, not that you search back to find one.

It's definitely not a matter of the church being shy, or unwilling to take a definitive stance. If it's been softened, then it's because it needed to be.

Tom: It is okay to talk about prayer. It doesn't have to make you uncomfortable. [Smile]

celia: I think that's a language thing. Here is the stance on abortion.

Banna: I actually don't like to take as, well, gospel, anything that doesn't come from the scriptures or else official LDS sites. Every site and information source has an editor, and every editor inevitably has an agenda. That includes the LDS ones, of course, but at least those, if you disagree with the agenda, you can rightly blame the church for it. I really, really get squicky about other sources, even (especially, sometimes) books from Deseret Book written by former General Authorities.

[ May 12, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
kat, it only makes me uncomfortable because it puts me in the position of telling people whom I don't want to upset that I think they're at least mildly delusional. I'm not that confrontational of a person....
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Do you think answers to prayers are so fragile that your (commonly encountered) skepticism would shake those who have posted here?

If someone's basing life decisions off those answers, I sure hope not. [Smile]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
? Tom mention s his religious experiences, including prayer, pretty regularly. He's not uncomfortable with it that I've ever seen. We've been talking about sex in this thread, and he saw a pretty obvious joke on the theme. I thought it was rather funny.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I don't think it would SHAKE them; I think it would offend them. Much like telling someone that birth control is universally immoral, I don't think voicing my skepticism is likely to change anyone's behavior -- but might tick 'em off.

When people say they're basing their decisions on the Word of God, and I don't think they ARE talking to God, it's much more diplomatic of me to not say anything.

-----

P.S. Thanks, fugu. *grin* I thought it was funny, too. [Smile]

[ May 12, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Well, if we can call you on bad antenna equipment, you can call us on being delusional, I suppose. . .
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Well, that's your perogative, but I'd hate to think that people would get huffy over someone's else's doubt. The very nature of personal revelation is that other people didn't feel the same thing you did - it isn't their life, so they wouldn't. But you can get revelation for your own life. [Smile]

[ May 12, 2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hey, there's nothing wrong with my antenna that the occasional oiling can't fix.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
You've been putting oil on your antenna?

[Confused]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Not so much recently. There's a foreign body in the reservoir, if you get my drift. [Smile]
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Where's that puking smiley when you need it?

[Wink]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I know plenty of people who've gotten revelation for their own life from various nature spirits. And their antennas come with free shrubberies.
 
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
I will have you know I have never had to pay for shrubbery in my life.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I bought my shrubbery at Walmart. I must have been getting messages from the Devil himself.
[Wink]

AJ
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
We apparently need an In-Context thread. [Smile]
 
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
 
I finished with my shrubbery and now I'm looking for a good, sharp herring. [Smile]

Someone please let us know when this gets too lame.

Oh, wait, I think it might be a bit late for that. [Wink]
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Thanks, kat, that was what I gathered the abortion stance from the ramblings on the lighthouse thread was. Ok, actually, that's a more liberal stance on abortion than what I had assumed, but also consistent with what I quoted.

What I don't see is how that quote is at all relevant to birth control. Which is where my question came in, as equating birth and conception was the only way I could find to draw the same conclusion as the author of that site from that quote.

Which I think you and I agree are different things.

But I wonder if other people are aware of that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
And yet, while there are no specific admonitions against premarital sex in the Bible, there ARE specific admonitions against judging the quality and depth of another person's faith.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Tom... I find it utterly amazing that you and I were apparently thinking the exact same thing. [Smile]
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Stargate -- I'm not trying to be snarky here (well, maybe I am) because I want to support and back up any other Christians I find on this board..
..however...

Your post does sound a little condescending. Do you never, ever sin? Not ever since you became a Christian? I mean, you know that it's pretty clear that one sin is not worse than any other sin in God's eyes ("we all fall short").

So if you do even one thing wrong since you became a Christian -- like told a white lie, or said something about someone else you shouldn't have -- does mean YOU are not a Christian?

I agree that these girls should not CONTINUE in this behavior. But I don't believe their sin means they aren't Christian. We all sin, none are perfect.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Farm Girl

quote:
you know that it's pretty clear that one sin is not worse than any other sin in God's eyes
Doesnt it say somewhere that suicide is the worst sin a person can commit? Although, maybe people say that and there is no actual religous backing for it.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Suicide was for a long time considered the only unforgivable sin not because it was considered worse than any other sin but because it is impossible to repent. (Assuming that repentance must come in this life.) Most churches have backed away from that stance in recent decades, however.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I have a story that may or may not apply; I thought it was funny.

My mother joined the church as an adult, and she remained close to her family, but they were various things in turn and then not really active in anything. Never interested in the church.

One time, when my mom was talking to my aunt about it (just a general discussion of course - it was a big part of my mom's life), my aunt said, and I quote, "We all do different good things. You go to church, and I recycle."

It was unintentionally hilarious, but I think it displayed a fundamental disconnect in the conversation.

[ May 12, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
promethius --

what dkw said. Most people considered it the worse sin only because you would have no chance to say "forgive me for this sin" after you did it.

But I don't think scripturally it says anywhere that suicide is the worse sin.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I believe that Jesus stated that the only unforgiveable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

quote:
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

-- Matthew 12:31



[ May 12, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: digging_holes ]
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
....beginning to realize that Stargate is probably OSC-fan.....

farmgirl
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Suicide is not identified as such in the bible, no.

Chesterton has a pretty insightful section on it, as opposed to Martyrdom, in Orthodoxy.

The bible does say there's a difference between venial and mortal sin... the Catholic Church's position is that this is mostly a matter of forethought-- if you stop down and think "I shouldn't be doing this, it's wrong" and then do it anyway, that's mortal. It also denotes that there is something called "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" which is the only unforgiveable sin.

I'm no expert, but I was led to believe that this "Blasphemy of the Spirit" was believing yourself un-savable... i.e. despair.

It was precisely because of the ridiculously inflated deal that people make about sexual sin that I became endangered by that particular sin. If you don't think I'm right about this, look a few posts back: "these people are sinning sexually, they must not be real Christians."

How often do you think you can hear that without questioning your salvation? How often do Homosexuals get told that Paul says they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven... and, aside from how out of context and mis-translated that quote is, what do you think this does to their ability to approach God at all?

THIS is what I'm talking about, Kat. and I'm going to take that dreaded step further and personalize this all the way, not to whine, but because I am a perfect example of the harm that over-concern about sexual sin can do to a person spiritually.

Let me refer you all back to my first landmark post. I was molested on four seperate occasions by 3 groups of older kids by the time I was 5 years old. My parents reaction to this was to spank me with a belt and tell me "never do that again."

Did they hate me? No. But they were scared to death because when they told me not to do it, I said it felt good. They were worried their son would grow up to have some kind of screwed up sexuality and decided that to threaten and beat it out of me was the best thing. After all, what would the neighbors think if they knew this little boy enjoyed being sodomized by some older boys?

We over react. We are unjustly and insanely afraid of sexual sin to the point of harming and scarring it's victims. We tell people they are going to hell for being sexually active, that they can't be Christians and be sexual creatures outside of marrying or they are doomed. The message is supposed to be "God loves you and will always love you, no matter what you do, now try to follow His rules because they are what's best for you."

The message is often "God will punish you because you are a bad person, unless you stop and beg forgiveness, because you have to do what He says our you will go to hell." And FAR TOO OFTEN the message becomes "God can forgive anything, but those sexual people are LIVING IN SIN and THAT is unforgivable."

Your lies, your pride, your hatred for other people, those are all on the inside and so they are forgivable, despite the fact that they are more a part of you than your sexual desires... but act on those desires once in a while, and you must be unrepentent. That's what is said. That's what is heard. And that is, spiritually speaking, the most deadly thing I can think of.

I wasted 30 years of my life feeling like I was rotten at the core. That anyone who saw the real me would merely confirm what God had seen because he knew all my hidden desires and thoughts-- that I was evil and not His child. That I was unwanted, not yet purified, that my penitence was not yet perfect enough and so I continued to be a sinner amongst all these holier people who didn't have this horrible nature that is so reviled.

And that, as I'm sure you all know, and as I know now, was comeplete and utter horseshit. I am angry with myself for waiting this long to figure it out, but I am also angry because a huge number of well-meaning but self-righteous people spent most of my life drumming into my head that I wasn't good enough for God.

I am only thankful that my belief in His love for me outlasted their judgement and terribly sorry for those who have believed the hype and the hypocrisy surrounding typical Christian treatment of sexual sin.

[ May 12, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Well for starters which are the ten commandments and where are they split? Are you aware that there is a disagreement between churches
over this most basic fact Stargate?

Secondly while they are listed in order it is generally believed that the TOP of the list, those about your relationship with God are the most important not the ones lower down the list which is about your relationships with others. The order shows that if your relationship with God is correct your relationships with your fellow people become easier.

So you are spouting somthing that flies in the face of milleniums of christian and jewish interpretation of the commandments.

AJ

(Edited to tone down. I apologize for losing my patience with stupidity. I notice my tolerance has dropped a lot recently.)

[ May 12, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
No, Stargate's not a troll.... She's AJ's grandmother!!!

[Eek!]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Hey.

I don't necessarily agree, but the reactions to Stargate have been way over the top.

She didn't make it personal to any Hatrackers here. Don't attack her personally for her religious beliefs.

Added: I just saw the edit. Stargate, I think the chances are pretty good Banna could recite the Ten Commandments backwards while asleep.

This is getting sort of personal. That's not good.

[ May 12, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
This thread points out, I think, how difficult it can be to pin down the distinctions between the canonical, inspired, strongly suggested, only one's informed opinion, and clearly wrong when it comes to the (sometimes conflicting or at least differently stated) pronouncements of LDS Church leaders -- esp. if you do a survey across the decades.

In the interest of clarity -- with the understanding that Church doctrines/policy is not infallible and is open to change and that we still place a primary emphasis on scripture as well as actions rather than doctrine -- the new official Church publication True to the Faith might help with this and further discussions on the LDS Church -- especially related to the issues of abortion and birth control.

Some of the material included is taken from the aformentioned Church Handbook of Instructions. Some is not. The work itself is geared towards youth and new members. It's an interesting and exciting development.

NOTE: My intention in posting this is *not* to spur discussions and extended breakdowns on every potentially incidiary (or not) topic included in the book. Which I could easily see happening, but hope that it doesn't. Nor am I saying that citing True to the Faith chapter and verse [or rather section and paragraph] ends any discussion on Mormon doctrine. But I know that it can be maddening for non-members (and members) when different LDS come up with different replies to a question.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I wasn't labeling Stargate as a troll -- I just was expressing a sudden revelation.

She/he didn't join until April 22nd, yet immediately knows who I'm talking about when I mention "OSC-Fan", accuses me of calling her a troll....

what does that say?

Stargate, I actually agree with you on many points, and not on some other points. But I'm not trying to make this a personal fight -- I was just making an observation.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
You know, kat... sometimes I just insult people 'cause I think they need a good ol' insultin'. Even despite my personal crusade to wipe religion from the face of the earth.

So please, I'd rather you didn't throw yourself between me and every Hatracker who's ever mentioned God every time I open my.... mouth? Fingers?
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Stargate --

and I just clicked that link you provided above. You DO know that HWA (Mr. Armstrong) has been dead since 1986? Don't even go there with me! I was a member of his church for over 30 of my 43 years of life!

Farmgirl
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Come on, this is hilarious! I'll show you what being Christian means! [Razz]
 
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
quote:
Preventing birth implies that conception has already occured, and thus there is a birth to be preventing. Preventing conception is a totally seperate issue. Unless you're equating the two distinct concepts.

Celia:

This is a case where there's a slippage in Mormon discourse. The idea of "preventing birth" should probably more correctly be termed "preventing potential births." Another way of saying what I think the author on that site was getting at is "delaying opportunities for God's spirit children to enter mortality and gain physical bodies."

As far as I know, the Church has no official stance on when the spirit enters the body or even to put it in terms sometimes used in the abortion debate -- when "life" begins. Thus, for example, we have the phenomenon of Senator Orrin Hatch who is opposses abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother is in danger, but supports stem cell research.

There are Mormons who do oppose stem cell research and believe that life begins at conception.

It will be interesting to see if, as the field of genetics evolves, LDS Church leaders feel the need to clarify this issue or will be content to leave it as is.
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
This is an increadible thread....
[Hail]
I love seeing all my fellow humans talking and thinking! Too cool! *hugs*

[ May 12, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/tencomma.htm
quote:
The Ten Commandments (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 10:4, marg. "ten words") i.e., the Decalogue (q.v.), is a summary of the immutable moral law. These commandments were first given in their written form to the people of Israel when they were encamped at Sinai, about fifty days after they came out of Egypt (Ex. 19:10-25). They were written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. The first tables were broken by Moses when he brought them down from the mount (32:19), being thrown by him on the ground. At the command of God he took up into the mount two other tables, and God wrote on them "the words that were on the first tables" (34:1). These tables were afterwards placed in the ark of the covenant (Deut. 10:5; 1 Kings 8:9). Their subsequent history is unknown. They are as a whole called "the covenant" (Deut. 4:13), and "the tables of the covenant" (9:9, 11; Heb. 9:4), and "the testimony." They are obviously "ten" in number, but their division is not fixed, hence different methods of numbering them have been adopted. The Jews make the "Preface" one of the commandments, and then combine the first and second. The Roman Catholics and Lutherans combine the first and second and divide the tenth into two. The Jews and Josephus divide them equally. The Lutherans and Roman Catholics refer three commandments to the first table and seven to the second. The Greek and Reformed Churches refer four to the first and six to the second table. The Samaritans add to the second that Gerizim is the mount of worship.


Note: I'm not endorsing all of the opinions on that website because some of it is anti-catholic but this part of the info is correct.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Telperion -- thanks for the hugs. I really needed that at the moment.

In the mood I'm in today, I shouldn't even be on here posting -- I'm not even trying to get along. So I will leave and collect my thoughts.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by The Cheat (Member # 5204) on :
 
Thanks for that link, Zal. Too bad it doesn't mention the hostly debated subjects of caffeine and face cards.

And I never even knew that people divided up the ten commandments differently. You learn something new every day. . . .
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
And just for grins since Kat made me curious as to how good my memory is.

You'll have to trust that I'm not looking anywhere. Compare with the KJV version for mistakes because that is what I memorized it in.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or the earth beneath or the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them or serve them for I the Lord thy God am a jealous god visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation but showing mercy to thousands that love me and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Six Days shalt thou labor and do all they work but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, neither though nor thy son nor thy daughter nor thy manservant nor thy maids servant nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.

Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land with the Lord thy God giveth the.
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife nor his ox nor his ass nor anything that is thy neighbors.

(hmm wonder how many mistakes I made)

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Adding the prequel in with the correct version because it is discussed in the bit above. It looks like I mixed the order of the short ones up.

AJ

Fromhttp://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=exodus+20&version=KJV
quote:


Exodus 20 :: King James Version (KJV)

1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.




[ May 12, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Zal, thanks.

What are face cards?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Celia "face cards" are playing cards with faces on them. Fundamental protestants were anti that for a while too,I think in the early to mid 1900s because you can use the cards as symbolism for catholic prayers, thus leading to idol worship.

I wasn't allowed to play with any sort of playing card for years.

Interesting stargate that you could actually find threads with OSC-fan on them since all but one or two are deleted, and the ones that remain are fairly innocuous.

AJ

[ May 12, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
"It's not just a coincidence the ten commandments are numbered."

Except that they aren't.
 
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Playing cards.

There were some pronouncements [most strongly in the 50's] by Church leaders about playing cards.

Some of the evangelical Christian face-cards-are-evil-because-they-derive-from-tarot [and tarot is divination which the Bible warns against] discourse got mixed into that. And so a sort of simplified folk doctrine [which was reflected by some Church leaders] arose about not having face cards in the home.

As I understand it, however, much of the real concern on the issue breaks down into two periods/categories.

1. Late 19th century concerns over gambling -- i.e. that whole frontier poker thing.

2. 1950s concerns about the rise of bridge playing (and other social card games) among the middle/upper-middle class in Utah [esp. among the Salt Lake City elite]. The popularity of these games in Utah reflected on a surge in popularity among post-war Americans in general. The concern wasn't so much about some inherent "evilness" in face cards. Nor was gambling a concern since I believe most games were played only for fun. Rather, the concern was that these games were causing members to neglect their families and Church duties.

While I know a few Mormons who still refuse to keep face cards in their home, I also know a lot of Mormons who do. Indeed, I learned to play poker and blackjack on Scouting trips. The closest we ever skirted to the edge, though, was playing for candy [Starbursts or jolly ranchers]. Yep, I was a wild one.

And I don't know any Mormons who don't play Uno. Uno is like the caffeine free diet Coke of Mormon game culture.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
*grin*

My Mom was raised Baptist. When she was in the hospital after she miscarried her first baby, she was mortified that her pastor came to visit and caught her and Dad playing Go Fish.
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Are you sure caffeine free diet Coke isn't the caffeine free diet Coke of Mormon culture?

*may have taught people to play card games with a Tarot deck minus the major arcana*

Danke [Smile]

[ May 12, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I have taught people to play card games with the Major Arcana: http://www.plastic-castle.com/tom/tarotpoker.htm
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
<coughs politely>

1-1/2 hrs. edit: 25 posts.

Did I do something bad?

[ May 12, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Geek!

Think we can get enough people to play at Kamacon?

Jim-me, you may have noticed that I tend to post disagreements and insults and I have neither for you.

[ May 12, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Sidenote:

Mormons are major board and card game players. The factors in this are what you'd might expect.

1. It's cheap entertainment. One-time cost.
2. It's entertainment that takes place in the home.
3. It's a great way to get large numbers of people involved -- i.e. those families with numerous siblings and/or close ties to extended family
4. It can accomodate varying age groups -- either through one game that all can enjoy or setting up separate games.

There's even a Book of Mormon-themed mod to Settlers of Catan called Settlers of Zarahamla.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I've also heard of using face cards to fascilate something called Mafia.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Thank you, Celia. That was sweet of you to say. I was just feeling very ignored.

[ May 12, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Well now that's just taking evil and compounding it.

::shakes head::
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Jim, I'm sorry. I don't have much to say on it now. I'm sorry you had that experience. I think there is enough blame and pain floating around there to fell an elephant. I still disagree with the conclusions from earlier in the thread, but I'm uncomfortable with discussing it in such personal terms. I can tell it's an issue that's important to you.
 
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
I thought he was complimenting evil. Or were you talking about another post?

Jim-me, yeah I sometimes wonder if anyone even noticed the rare times that I say things I consider to be very personal and difficult when no one responds at all. But I'm just as bad about it.

[ May 12, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 
Posted by The Cheat (Member # 5204) on :
 
Ruth was raised in the "caffeine and face cards are forbidden" culture. They couldn't even drink caffeine-free cola, I believe (you know, because you're supposed to avoid the appearance of evil). But they drank Barq's root beer. I can't figure that one out.

But I've gotten her to drink Pepsi and play poker, though (with chips, not real cash, of course). She still doesn't like cola, but she had fun playing cards.

_____

Settlers of Zarahemla? *groans* Can Mormons think of nothing of their own? Must we merely imitate every other cool thing in the world?

[ May 12, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: The Cheat ]
 
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Dude. I'm beginning to question your fitness as a leader in the home.
 
Posted by The Cheat (Member # 5204) on :
 
I'm a perfectly capable leader. I'm leading her straight down to hell, right?
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Celia, I think Zal was talking about Cards and Mafia, but i was definitely complimenting you, in all your dark glory.

Kat, I apologize for making things uncomfortable. I only used the personal example because, honestly, mine is the only story I'm at liberty to tell and it happens to be a damned good example.
 
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
In Utah, most Barq's root beer doesn't have caffeine. I think it's bottled locally, and the local plant does it differently. But you still have to read the label when you buy it to be sure.
 
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
My grandmother is still dead set against face cards. The closest thing she allowed was Rook, which works for most things since there are 4 suits of 13 cards, but instead of face cards there are numbers 11 through 13.

President Joseph F. Smith was the one who spoke out against face cards the most, and Zal is right, usually his reasoning was that card-playing was becoming so popular in Utah that it was becoming a total time-waster for a lot of people who had better things to do with their lives.
 
Posted by The Cheat (Member # 5204) on :
 
I have only ever seen caffeine-free Barq's on BYU campus. Nowhere else. (But Ruth isn't from Utah, so the stuff she was drinking was definitely caffeinated. And anyway, Barq's sucks.)
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Jim, I appreciate that it's a personal example, and it's horrifyingly far too common. I don't think it's a representative example, though. But I don't want to get into Battle of the Anecdotes, and that's what I could see the discussion becoming.
 
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I don't particularly want to go there, either, since I only have the one [Smile]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*nods* Okay.
 
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Well, caffeine-free Barq's certainly isn't limited to BYU campus, or even Utah County, because I have had a lot of it, and I always spent as little time as possible in that forsaken region of the state.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2