371 reputation
210
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 2 months
seen Jan 5 '13 at 5:35

Nov
20
comment Matthew 1:19, Divorce, and Virginity
A betrothal is simply a contract to get married - it may be terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties to the contract (whether we understand that to mean the couple to be married, or in biblical times it would have been their respective families.) Following the standard of Matthew 19, marriage is a morally much more serious affair, with much more strenuous moral and legal requirements around its termination.
Nov
15
comment Is it a sin or forbidden to follow any of the parts of the Law of Moses?
I think we have to distinguish two separate questions (1) whether John 7:53-8:11 is part of the original text of the Gospel of John from (2) whether the pericope is inspired or canonical. A number of people seem to presume that a "No" to (1) implies a "No" to (2). Yet it is entirely possible to believe that, this passage is the inspired Word of God, and thus properly part of the Bible, but that it was originally a separate inspired work from the Gospel of John, which was then inserted into John's Gospel at this point.
Nov
15
comment How should Reformed Christians deal with homosexual marriage of individuals prior to their conversion to Christianity?
Would it make any difference to the situation if the gay married couple agreed to refrain from sexual relations? Could a legally married, living together, gay couple who promised not to have sex, be baptised / communed in your view? Or would you require them to live apart and/or get a legal divorce? (Some married couples choose not to have sexual relations.... Andrea Dworkin and John Stoltenberg were an example.)
Nov
13
comment What's the main logical basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God?
@SteelyDan: You seem to be expressing a New Thought / New Age Christology - rather than Christ as being a unique office held by only one person in history, Christ is a state we can all aim for (like Buddhahood in Buddhism). Rather than Christ as a unique intersection between humanity and divinity, all humans having the potential to be God and Christ being the fulfilment of that potential
Nov
13
comment How do LDS know that Brigham Young and his successors are true prophets?
I like the emphasis on the personal/experiential dimension in your answer. It seems plausible to me that this is in fact how many LDS answer this question in practice.
Nov
13
comment How do LDS know that Brigham Young and his successors are true prophets?
There is a distinction between demonstrating the existence of an office of "Prophet", and demonstrating a particular person currently holds that office. Your answer seeks to demonstrate the first, but doesn't address the second. How does one know that the true "President of the office of the High Priesthood" (D&C 107:91) is Thomas S. Monson and not say Stephen M. Veazey?
Nov
13
comment How do LDS know that Brigham Young and his successors are true prophets?
"In the Doctrine and Covenants... The person who has been in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles the longest, is at the death of the old prophet sustained, and ordained the new prophet of the church" Your answer would be better if you would cite which section/verse says this
Oct
13
comment What is the moral status of common-law marriage?
Does the state, by establishing a legal system of marriage registration, "require" marriages to be registered? At least where I live, there is no crime in calling yourself married without having a legally recognised marriage. The state won't consider you married, but it's up to you how much you care about that. Does the state even care? I don't get the impression that it does - how then is not registering a marriage sinful? Is it deceiving others? If your understanding of "marriage" is broader than "state-recognised marriages", I don't see how it could be that either.
Oct
13
comment What is the moral status of common-law marriage?
So, if two people publicly declare themselves to be married, but never legally get married, is that enough for their sexual relations to not be sinful? If two atheists publicly declare "we are now married", without legally getting married, but with the intention of staying together for the rest of their lives, then have sexual relations, have they sinned?
Oct
13
comment To what degree could a person be “pro-polygamy” yet still obey the LDS church?
I accepted this answer because I think it is genuine and is likely an accurate reflection of how most LDS would approach the issue. (That said, I do have some doubts about how consistent the answer is with the historic positions of various LDS church authorities, but then those doubts are really about the LDS church as a whole as opposed to the answerer in particular.)
Oct
10
comment To what degree could a person be “pro-polygamy” yet still obey the LDS church?
Edited question to remove mention of "excommunication", since my main point was whether the LDS church considers those opinions wrong, not whether it would excommunicate someone for it (which may depend on details of the specific circumstances apart from the inherent judgement of the position as wrong)
Oct
9
comment To what degree could a person be “pro-polygamy” yet still obey the LDS church?
It might have been better had I left the reference to "excommunication" out of my question. I was really asking, are these position wrong from an LDS church position, not if they are wrong enough to warrant say excommunication (which as you point out, will depend on the individual circumstances.) Is hoping that plural marriage be reinstated by God really "contrary to God's commandments"? Did Bruce R. McConkie express that hope when he said "Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium"