The Contested Color of Christ

[annewandering]

BTW, you might want to re-read Tacitus...

"They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race."

Aliens? So there are aliens or did they all die out?

[Bhodi]

Just because there are sacred and confidential things on the internet does not give the faithful "license" to just search them out since they're there.

The faithful also do not seek out "loopholes" in the commandments of the Lord, or in the law of the land.

You would again be incorrect on multiple issues.

1. The CHI is certainly not sacred by any stretch of the imagination. It is somewhat confidential, but not really...

2. The section I referenced is posted here...

Temple Divorce, Cancellation of Sealing | Ask Gramps

and in the 1975 New Era magazine. It has not changed much (not a big surprise there). So it cannot be confidential, since the Church published the particular part several decades ago...

3. It is highly inappropriate to accuse me of seeking a loophole, since I did no such thing. The loophole, if you had read my comments, it not in Church doctrine or theology at all, but in our non-theological and non-doctrinal practice of accepting governmental actions as religiously binding.

[Bhodi]

Try from p. 147 on.

Please quote specifically.

You are right on this one. I was going off of memory. Happens some times.

It does, as it has done with the above.

[volgadon]

Please quote specifically.

That passage can be viewed online. I'm not going to quote a lengthy passage.

Ezekiel the Tragedian had no problem with stating that Moses, the seminal representative of Judaism in the eyes on the Greeks and Romans, was married to a non Jew. His play has Sepphorah say, "my father gave me for this alien's wife."

[pam]

You would again be incorrect on multiple issues.

1. The CHI is certainly not sacred by any stretch of the imagination. It is somewhat confidential, but not really...

2. The section I referenced is posted here...

Temple Divorce, Cancellation of Sealing | Ask Gramps

and in the 1975 New Era magazine. It has not changed much (not a big surprise there). So it cannot be confidential, since the Church published the particular part several decades ago...

3. It is highly inappropriate to accuse me of seeking a loophole, since I did no such thing. The loophole, if you had read my comments, it not in Church doctrine or theology at all, but in our non-theological and non-doctrinal practice of accepting governmental actions as religiously binding.

“As to the question, “What happens when a couple gets a temple divorce?” we should understand that there is no such thing as a temple divorce. What we refer to as a temple divorce is in fact a cancellation of a temple sealing. When a couple is married in the temple, they not only satisfy the law of the land as to a legal civil marriage, but they are also sealed for time and all eternity in an eternal relationship. A civil divorce nullifies the marriage so far as the civil law is concerned, but only by a mandate of the President of the Church can the sealing of the couple be canceled. A cancellation of the sealing is what we are really referring to when we talk about a temple divorce.

It's interesting you would quote Clay when in fact he is stating exactly what we all have said. The civil marriage is nullified but a sealing is not. That doesn't mean that gives free rein for people to have sexual relations with an ex spouse (legally divorced by law) because the sealing has not been cancelled.

[Bhodi]

That passage can be viewed online. I'm not going to quote a lengthy passage.

Ezekiel the Tragedian had no problem with stating that Moses, the seminal representative of Judaism in the eyes on the Greeks and Romans, was married to a non Jew. His play has Sepphorah say, "my father gave me for this alien's wife."

so far I have been condescended to, belittled, accused falsely, etc... all because I challenged your assertions and I am the new guy. One of your sources has already been proven false, and when I was asked to provide evidence, I did so with direct quotes and hyperlinks.

You should certainly be able to do the same, and keep in mind your claim involved blond hair and blue eyes. I know you are wrong, I was not condescending, I did not insult you, I was not sarcastic, all of which was done to me, but is allowed according to the rules apparently, all I ask is simple direct ciitation.

Tacitus proved incorrect, this source is incorrect too. If you cannot provide a source, then...?

[Bhodi]

It's interesting you would quote Clay when in fact he is stating exactly what we all have said. The civil marriage is nullified but a sealing is not. That doesn't mean that gives free rein for people to have sexual relations with an ex spouse (legally divorced by law) because the sealing has not been cancelled.

I never questioned that civil divorce nullifies civil law. But a sealing is higher than civil law. A marraige per celestial law is not nullified by civil law, unless your theology runs completely counter to LDS theology.

This is not debatable, it is not arguable, it is fact, celestial law does not care one whit about civil law.

So, given that fact, how is the contradiction dealt with?

Pretending that the contradiction does not exist hardly make it go away any more than putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Nah, Nah, Nah" makes the aggrivating effect go away.

Edit: The problem is in practice, American Mormons give the US government a lot of celestial authority that our doctrine and our theology does not. I have not met a single Brit, Italian, German, Swiss, French, Spanish, or any other LDS Church member who would believe that their government marriage impacted their celestial marriage. It is only in the US, that we make this problem exist.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Bhodi

[pam]

Edit: The problem is in practice, American Mormons give the US government a lot of celestial authority that our doctrine and our theology does not. I have not met a single Brit, Italian, German, Swiss, French, Spanish, or any other LDS Church member who would believe that their government marriage impacted their celestial marriage. It is only in the US, that we make this problem exist.

So are you saying that only in the US do we consider it adultery if one were to have sex with an ex spouse if the sealing had not been canceled?

[Bhodi]

So are you saying that only in the US do we consider it adultery if one were to have sex with an ex spouse if the sealing had not been canceled?

A sexual relationship with a wife, which is what a sealing is, is a relationship with a wife.

If the sealing has not been cancelled, there is no ex-spouse.

Edit: "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Unless it is the US government)

[Just_A_Guy]

You would again be incorrect on multiple issues.

1. The CHI is certainly not sacred by any stretch of the imagination. It is somewhat confidential, but not really...

Perhaps; but your cite is incorrect. Book 1, Chapter 8 deals with physical facilities.

And citing to an entire chapter is pretty darned vague; so I do hope that when you post the corrected cite you will be a bit more specific.

2. The section I referenced is posted here...

Temple Divorce, Cancellation of Sealing | Ask Gramps

and in the 1975 New Era magazine. It has not changed much (not a big surprise there). So it cannot be confidential, since the Church published the particular part several decades ago...

That section deals with the sealing between parent and child; but does not deal with the "sealing" by the Holy Spirit of Promise which makes the ordinance efficacious in the eternities (see D&C 132:7, 18). Moreover, it's not even clear from the context whether Elder Cullimore is speaking about "sealing" as the administrative record/ordinance (which can be broken, according to circumstances), or "sealing" in terms of the actual relationship and roles that will finally be in place when the Patriarchal Order is perfectly implemented in the eternities.

3. It is highly inappropriate to accuse me of seeking a loophole, since I did no such thing. The loophole, if you had read my comments, it not in Church doctrine or theology at all, but in our non-theological and non-doctrinal practice of accepting governmental actions as religiously binding.

Frankly, you came off as trying to state that a civilly divorced couple that hasn't had a formal sealing cancellation, is morally justified in continuing a sexual relationship - even if the male has remarried. If that isn't your position, feel free to disavow it - I'm sure we'll all be very relieved to see you do so.

[pam]

A sexual relationship with a wife, which is what a sealing is, is a relationship with a wife.

If the sealing has not been cancelled, there is no ex-spouse.

Edit: "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Unless it is the US government)

Oh my heck

[volgadon]

so far I have been condescended to, belittled, accused falsely, etc... all because I challenged your assertions and I am the new guy.

I'm going to shamelessly bully whoever it was that let my secret out.

One of your sources has already been proven false,

Which I graciously admited, and would have said so sooner, were I done comparing your link to the extracts provided in Stern's Greek and Latin Authors.

and when I was asked to provide evidence, I did so with direct quotes and hyperlinks.

Really? You only provided that quote after checking on the source I mentioned, so I don't think you can use it to say how wonderful you are being. You still haven't provided any of the sources you were using.

You should certainly be able to do the same, and keep in mind your claim involved blond hair and blue eyes.

Really? You should have no problem providing me with the post number, then.

Hint: Not all posters whose username begins with VO are volgadon.

I know you are wrong, I was not condescending, I did not insult you, I was not sarcastic, all of which was done to me, but is allowed according to the rules apparently, all I ask is simple direct ciitation.

Tacitus proved incorrect,

You mean my statement about Tacitus was incorrect. You are right.

this source is incorrect too.

I find it hard to believe that you are a scholar. Would you care to provide a cogent response as to why the source is wrong? Have you even read it? Good luck if you can find an English translation of the Exagogue online.

I provided the page number for Sarlow. The passage is long, but you can certainly read it online. I'll provide the hyperlink if you wish, but your post made it sound as if you'd already found the book.

If you cannot provide a source, then...?

I have provided a source, thankee.

Edited November 26, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

And citing to an entire chapter is pretty darned vague;

The irnoy is that he is getting all in a huff when I at least provided the page number.

[volgadon]

So are you saying that only in the US do we consider it adultery if one were to have sex with an ex spouse if the sealing had not been canceled?

I was in branch presidencies in two different countries, one in Russia, the other in Israel. Bhodi is wrong. If the civil marriage has been annulled, you can't use the sealing to justify sleeping with your ex.

[Guest]

I was in branch presidencies in two different countries, one in Russia, the other in Israel. Bhodi is wrong. If the civil marriage has been annulled, you can't use the sealing to justify sleeping with your ex.

It's not that he doubts that it's wrong according to Church leadership. It's that he disagrees with Church leadership.

[estradling75]

Bhodi, I feel that a very important concept is being missed here... That concept is that God will not force anyone to do or accept more then they are willing too. And that the Sealing Covenant can be effectively be broken and cancelled by an individual unwillingness to live up to the requirements.

So someone who gets divorced after being Sealed is effectively saying I do not want to be with this person any more (much less for eternity) and thus cut themselves off from the blessings that would come with that. (whatever they my be)

Now the Sealing Ordinance is more then just who you are Sealed to (it also effects kids and the individuals) So the church will keep the Sealing in place in the event of a divorce so those other blessings can remain in place. But God will not in anyway force two people to be together against their wills, which will nullify that part of it.

And frankly having sexual relations with anyone that you have not made every attempt and are continually willing to commit to for all Eternity (or at least Time) is a violation of the Law of Chasity. And Church treats it as such. The Government only gets involved in that we obey the laws and getting that marriage or divorce legally recognized is a part of the individual making every effort to express their heart felt desires. It is this choice which matters for if the Sealing is in effect or not. Not the government backing (that is just a side effect)...

[volgadon]

From p. 12 on there is a discussion of the ban on intermarriage throughout different ages. The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism - Richard Lee Kalmin, Seth R.. Schwartz - Google Books

Some of the evidence, such as that of Ezra/Nehemia, and Josephus on those books, shows that there was a widespread problem of intermarriage. The later sources on prohibition, are just that, sources on prohibition. They do not indicate how closely people followed them.

[Just_A_Guy]

Pshaw! You colonials with your puritanical notions of "adultery"! So provincial - Europe's enlightened sexual mores are so clearly better for society.

[circusboy01]

You all go ahead and argue among yourselves.

I still think Jesus looked like His father, because his Fathers (God) genes were dominant over Mary's genes. To me this makes perfect sense. Brother Ray

[Guest]

You all go ahead and argue among yourselves.

I still think Jesus looked like His father, because his Fathers (God) genes were dominant over Mary's genes. To me this makes perfect sense. Brother Ray

And what does God look like?

[pam]

And what does God look like?

Must I point you out to the numerous pictures toward the beginning of this thread? I mean if God the Father and Jesus Christ look like each other...you had your answer already.

[Guest]

I didn't realize those were photographs, PAM.

[skippy740]

The Son.

I could've sworn that there was a verse somewhere that the Father and the Son look exactly alike - aside from the Messianic imprints in Christ's hands, feet and side.

Brother Ray is saying it's because of genes. I can't dispute that simply because the Messiah was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. One sounds more miraculous than scientific (and eludes to a theory that is not in harmony with the gospel).

[pam]

I didn't realize those were photographs, PAM.

Please don't yell my name. That hurts my feelings.

[Guest]

Sorry, pammy.

Maybe I wasn't yelling. Maybe it's an acronym.