LDS II: The Mormons

[abaddon]

You justifiably point out that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, there is no record of that opposition in the OT and NT. Are we to assume, then--by the same measure--that Jesus wasn't opposed to pornography or abortion or drug abuse or alcoholism because there is no record in the OT and NT of His having addressed those subjects? Your answer to those inconvenient questions is to dismiss the Bible as irrelevant.

Yes. Because all of those have existed for thousands of years, yet the supposed Jebus said nothing about them, even though he must have known of them.

 

[bruto]

You justifiably point out that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, there is no record of that opposition in the OT and NT. Are we to assume, then--by the same measure--that Jesus wasn't opposed to pornography or abortion or drug abuse or alcoholism because there is no record in the OT and NT of His having addressed those subjects? Your answer to those inconvenient questions is to dismiss the Bible as irrelevant.

I think here you have a point but miss another.

Of course a large part of Christian thought involves extrapolating what Jesus would have thought about one thing or another, because the record is sparse. Assuming one finds any veracity in the Christian record to begin with, one cannot simply dismiss any Christian idea because no quotation on it can be found. Legions of scholars have made careers of this for millennia after all.

But there still is a difference between one thing and another. Something that did not exist or was not prevalent in Jesus' world can hardly have been addressed directly, and the only way to fit these things into a Christian framework is with interpretation. It goes without saying that any Christian ideas about, say, the internet, are going to be extrapolations based on an idea of what Christianity means and intends, and they will always be arguable.

To some extent that's true of homosexuality too - extrapolation is all you're going to get - but the lack of commentary on this is somewhat more remarkable, since it's pretty certain that this was something that existed and was, occasionally at least, visible. People have always been people, after all.

Of course you can surmise that this was not addressed simply because it was already so taboo that nobody needed to add commentary, and you can, as with just about everything else, derive an opinion from existing scripture and express it as such. But when you look at this issue, one thing you must consider is why there was no commentary on something that did exist, if it was indeed as important as current Christian thinkers often say it is.

So I really think there is a difference here. In many issues, one can only surmise what Jesus might have made of them if they'd been in his world. If you're going to be a Christian, you must interpret. But as you do so, you must also surmise why Jesus might have been mute about a subject that almost certainly was a part of his world.

 

[Craig4]

You justifiably point out that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, there is no record of that opposition in the OT and NT. Are we to assume, then--by the same measure--that Jesus wasn't opposed to pornography or abortion or drug abuse or alcoholism because there is no record in the OT and NT of His having addressed those subjects? Your answer to those inconvenient questions is to dismiss the Bible as irrelevant.

Why wouldn't the Bible be irrelevant on topics it doesn't address? What stance could you not take using the criteria that Jesus might have mentioned something about it but the comments were redacted?

You and certainly Janadele seem to think Jesus had very strong opinions about homosexuality. Does it not strike you as odd that he makes no mention of something you seem to think he strongly disapproves of?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You justifiably point out that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, there is no record of that opposition in the OT and NT. Are we to assume, then--by the same measure--that Jesus wasn't opposed to pornography or abortion or drug abuse or alcoholism because there is no record in the OT and NT of His having addressed those subjects? Your answer to those inconvenient questions is to dismiss the Bible as irrelevant.

It seems as if you almost get it, and then your sectarian instructions kick in.

Yes. It is nowhere recorded, in any canonic source, that Jesus (you know, him said to be said to be 'the christ') addressed homosexuality in any way. If one chooses to oppose homosexuality, it is dishonest to pretend that one's opposition is based upon the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

Since it is nowhere recorded, in any canonic source, that Jesus (you know, him said to be said to be 'the christ') directly addressed pornography in any way, it is equally dishonest to pretend that one's opposition to pornography is based upon the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

Since it is nowhere recorded, in any canonic source, that Jesus (you know, him said to be said to be 'the christ') directly addressed abortion in any way, it is equally dishonest to pretend that one's opposition to abortion is based upon the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

Since it is nowhere recorded, in any canonic source, that Jesus (you know, him said to be said to be 'the christ') addressed alcoholism in any way, it is equally dishonest to pretend that one's opposition to alcoholism is based upon the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity". (It is interesting, in a horrifying way, to study the roots of the Southern Baptist aversion to alcohol in any form; an aversion they say is a "christian" idea; which requires them to ignore what is actually attributed to Jesus, in canonic material, about alcohol *cough* Wedding at Canaan/first recorded "miracle" *cough*.)

So, yes, if your mob is going to make, and endorse, this claim...

I trust that the following will be enlightening.

On March 20, 2012, LDS Apostle Jeffrey Holland spoke to students at the Harvard Law School as part of the school's annual "Mormonism 101" series. One of the students asked if Mormons were Christians. Here is Elder Holland's response:

"We are not fourth-century Christians, we are not Nicene Christians, we are not creedal Christians of the brand that arose hundreds of years after Christ. No, when we speak of 'restored Christianity' we speak of the Church as it was in its New Testament purity, not as it became when great councils were called to debate and anguish over what it was they really believed. So if one means Greek-influenced, council-convening, philosophy-flavored Christianity of post-apostolic times, we are not that kind of Christian. Peter we know, and Paul we know, but Constantine and Athanasius, Athens and Alexandria we do no know."

(recognize it?)

...it is incumbent upon you to explain how something Jesus is never recorded as saying is, in fact, part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity", and not something pulled out of a hat hundreds of years later.

Of course an xian is free, as a person, to oppose homosexuality, pornography, the rule of law, drug abuse, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, or whatever hobbyhorse upon which they choose to cinch their saddle. However: if there is no canonic instance of words attributed to Jesus addressing the issue, it is disingenuous at best (and, more likely, self-deludedly dishonest) to pretend that opposition to be part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

The bible is, in fact, irrelevant--but that does not free those in thrall to its superstitions from honesty in their claims. (Oddly enough, the canonic materials do, in fact, attribute a few teachings about honesty to Jesus...)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nor is there any record of Jesus having spoken about pornography, or serial killers, or alcoholism, or prostitution, or capital punishment, etc. By your reasoning, then, He held no views on those issues. It's fascinating that SV, among others, utterly rejects the Bible. Suddenly though, he imbues it with credibility by 1) proclaiming it contains no record of Jesus having uttered a word about homosexuality; and 2) ignoring the fact that Jesus didn't utter any words about the other issues I list above.

And, since no words attributed to Jesus are, in fact, recorded in any canonic materials addressing these issues, it is, in fact, dishonest to pretend that one's opinion about these issues is part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity". One may be of the opinion that one's opinions are logical extensions of words attributed to Jesus in the canonic materials, but that way lies the spectre of doctrines pulled out of a hat, "hundreds of years later".[/quote]

Is it your position that Jesus controlled what the gospel writers were to put into their accounts? Isn't one of the arguments naysayers use to challenge the veracity of the Bible is that the gospels were written years after the death of Jesus on the cross?

This is not my position, although it is consonant with the evidence that the 'gospels' were composed, or at least collected and edited, at least half a century after Jesus is supposed to have been executed, and risen form the grave in conflicting accounts, as attested to by physically impossible solar eclipses, unnoticed earthquakes, and, lest we forget, the zombi saint infestation of Jerusalem proper, none of which appear in contemporary records.

Are you claiming that one must accept, and endorse, The Little Red Book, to be allowed to point out that, "A chicken in every pot; a Chevy in every garage," is not an authentic Maoist doctrine?

Are you claiming that one must acknowledge that LOTR is, in fact, a work of "real history", and not fiction, to be allowed to point out that fanfic shipping Frodo and Gollum is not an authentic part of the text?

Thank you for conceding the point, even if you are laughably wrong about marriage after death and resurrection.

I invite you, as I have several times, to indicate chapter and verse in the canonic materials where words are attributed to Jesus to the effect that the saints will get to be polygamists in heaven, and become 'gods'; as opposed to, you know, the words actually attributed to Jesus in the canonic materials to the effect that none of a woman's husbands would be her husband in the afterlife because at the resurrection, the resurrected will neither marry, nor be given in marriage.

Because I can't find it in any of the bibles I own, in the canonic, nor yet the deuterocanonic, materials.

 

[jsfisher]

Nor is there any record of Jesus having spoken about pornography, or serial killers, or alcoholism, or prostitution, or capital punishment, etc. By your reasoning, then, He held no views on those issues.

Your logic is grossly faulty. The lack of a basis to conclude Jesus held some view does not give leave to conclude he held the opposite view nor no view at all on the subject.

 

[skyrider44]

OTH, you continue to pretend that since (for instance), no incidence of words attiributed to Jesus addressing homosexuality has ever been preserved in any canonic xian material, it is still reasonable to claim that the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity" includes condemnation of homesuality.

You continue to pretend that since (as a further example) no incidence of words attributed to Jesus stating that men could, in fact, "become 'gods' " has ever been preserved in any canonic xian material, it is still reasonable to claim that the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity" includes the heterodox idea that men can and will "become 'gods' ".

You continue to pretend that, although Jesus is recorded, in canoninc xian texts, as teaching, clearly and in so many words, that those participating in "the resurrection" would "neither marry, nor be given in marriage", eternal marriage is still part of the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity".

Given that degree of doctrinal temerity and scholastic flaccidity, what is there that could not be considered part of the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity"?

You find yourself in the awkward position of savaging the OT and NT and then relying on those works to prove that Jesus never uttered a word about homosexuality. You're right--He didn't say anything about homosexuality that was recorded. Nor did He say anything about abortion, or serial killers, or prostitution that was recorded. Talk about "scholastic flaccidity"! You have repeatedly dismissed the Bible as a collection of drivel, and then--in what must be taken as desperation--you embrace it to support the fact that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

In the midst of that argumentive ataxia, you suggest that the gospel writers were under some kind of mandate to write what Jesus told them to write. That would make a memorable skit for Saturday Night Live in which Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are seen gathered around Jesus, slates and limestone sticks in hand. Jesus speaks: "And you, Luke, make sure you provide adequate detail about the healing of the blind man. And Matthew, are you sure you understand why it was necessary for John the Baptist to baptize me? And Mark, I wish you would go into more detail about . . . ."

Hilarious.

 

[skyrider44]

I think here you have a point but miss another.

Of course a large part of Christian thought involves extrapolating what Jesus would have thought about one thing or another, because the record is sparse. Assuming one finds any veracity in the Christian record to begin with, one cannot simply dismiss any Christian idea because no quotation on it can be found. Legions of scholars have made careers of this for millennia after all.

But there still is a difference between one thing and another. Something that did not exist or was not prevalent in Jesus' world can hardly have been addressed directly, and the only way to fit these things into a Christian framework is with interpretation. It goes without saying that any Christian ideas about, say, the internet, are going to be extrapolations based on an idea of what Christianity means and intends, and they will always be arguable.

To some extent that's true of homosexuality too - extrapolation is all you're going to get - but the lack of commentary on this is somewhat more remarkable, since it's pretty certain that this was something that existed and was, occasionally at least, visible. People have always been people, after all.

Of course you can surmise that this was not addressed simply because it was already so taboo that nobody needed to add commentary, and you can, as with just about everything else, derive an opinion from existing scripture and express it as such. But when you look at this issue, one thing you must consider is why there was no commentary on something that did exist, if it was indeed as important as current Christian thinkers often say it is.

So I really think there is a difference here. In many issues, one can only surmise what Jesus might have made of them if they'd been in his world. If you're going to be a Christian, you must interpret. But as you do so, you must also surmise why Jesus might have been mute about a subject that almost certainly was a part of his world.

This is an exceptionally civil, well-reasoned post. I commend you for it.

Yes, Christians must surmise and interpret. Something to consider (and I don't think it has been mentioned), is that Jesus tended to let the OT speak for itself. After all, he was ushering in a new era. In what might be viewed as a summing-up statement re. the OT, Jesus implored his followers to read the words of Isaiah, calling them great. Jesus may have felt, therefore, that homosexuality--or allusions to it--had been sufficiently covered in Gen., Lev., Deut., Ezek, Rom., 1 Cor., 1 Tim., and Jude.

 

[skyrider44]

Why wouldn't the Bible be irrelevant on topics it doesn't address? What stance could you not take using the criteria that Jesus might have mentioned something about it but the comments were redacted?

You and certainly Janadele seem to think Jesus had very strong opinions about homosexuality. Does it not strike you as odd that he makes no mention of something you seem to think he strongly disapproves of?

How do you know that he didn't mention it but that it wasn't recorded? It seems odd to me that you and others dismiss the Bible as so much twaddle, but then rush to cite it as proof that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality.
There's something intellectually amiss about that.

 

[skyrider44]

Your logic is grossly faulty. The lack of a basis to conclude Jesus held some view does not give leave to conclude he held the opposite view nor no view at all on the subject.

You do not know, nor do I, that every thing Jesus said or thought was preserved in writing. Is it logical/reasonable to assume that every thing he said or thought was preserved in writing? The logic operative in that position is what's "grossly faulty."

 

[halleyscomet]

New Mormon dating site facing backlash from church

Mormon Match is trying to build a safe space for Mormons to meet online and find true love. However founders Jonathan Eller and Matthew LaPointe are facing pressure from the LDS church for using the word ‘Mormon.’

 

[halleyscomet]

The Movement to Ordain Mormon Women

Why the struggle over priesthood for women looks so different in the LDS Church than it does among Catholics.

 

[halleyscomet]

Alex Beam's 'American Crucifixion' takes on early Mormon history

The journalistic account in Alex Beam's 'The Murder of Joseph Smith' examines the brutal history of Mormon origins.

Here is a link to the book itself:
American Crucifixion: The Murder of Joseph Smith and the Fate of the Mormon Church

 

[halleyscomet]

“Happy Easter,” I said to a pair of fellow missionaries as I entered the LDS meeting house in Kaohsiung, Taiwan on the last Sunday in March, 1986.

The elders stopped and stared at me. “Easter?” one of them said. “Today’s not Easter.”

“Yes it is,” I said.

“Sister Welker,” the other said, “Easter is always the first Sunday in April.”

“No it’s not,” I replied. “It’s the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. And that’s today.”

The elders rolled their eyes at each other. “Where’d you hear that?” one asked.

“My Chaucer class,” I said. “The early Christians put Easter as close as possible to a full moon so people could still have light at night to go on pilgrimage.” (FYI: a literature degree can be very useful in writing about religion, and vice versa.)

They laughed. “Sister Welker, that may have been how they did things in the olden days. But now Easter is always the first Sunday in April.”

“No it’s not,” I said. “If it were, Easter would always be Conference Weekend. And it’s not, is it?”

I had them there. But they still wouldn’t admit defeat. “If it was Easter, someone would have told us,” they said.

The truth was, nothing but my Arizona Highways calendar had announced the holy day to us. Because we weren’t in a country where children woke up to baskets filled with candy, we didn’t simply know, like everyone else, that the holiday had arrived. We hadn’t had 40 days of reflecting on the holiday to help us prepare for it. Our mission president didn’t mention it; apparently no one had received Easter wishes in letters from family; and nothing in our meetings that day directly acknowledged the atonement, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Read more about this perplexing aspect of the LDS faith in the article:

Mormons’ Puzzling Indifference to Easter

 

[jsfisher]

You do not know, nor do I, that every thing Jesus said or thought was preserved in writing.

I never asserted otherwise, so this comment is an irrelevant strawman.

Is it logical/reasonable to assume that every thing he said or thought was preserved in writing? The logic operative in that position is what's "grossly faulty."

Agreed!!! Why then did you completely misinterpret halleyscomet's statement? You said:

By your reasoning, then, He held no views on those issues.

There was nothing inherent in his statement to support your conclusion...and that is where your logic was grossly faulty. Either that or a deliberate misrepresentation of halleyscomet's position.

 

[Pup]

How do you know that he didn't mention it but that it wasn't recorded? It seems odd to me that you and others dismiss the Bible as so much twaddle, but then rush to cite it as proof that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality.
There's something intellectually amiss about that.

For what it's worth, I've always read such arguments with the unspoken introduction: If one believes in the Bible, then... In other words, people aren't dismissing the Bible as twaddle, then citing it as proof; they're dismissing it but saying that if one believes in it, this is what logic would suggest.

It's the same way that people can argue endlessly about the consistency of details in Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes, while still realizing the underlying stories are fiction.

So for instance, there's the story of Jesus healing the centurion's slave/lover is a quandry. Either Jesus had a chance to free a slave and didn't, or had a chance to break up a gay couple and didn't, or something else, depending on how one wants to interpret the Greek wording in the two gospel versions, Luke 7 and Matthew 8.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You find yourself in the awkward position of savaging the OT and NT

Interesting that, to you, pointing out the demonstrable weaknesses of the canonic materials (and the deuterocanonic materials) is "savaging" them; interesting that accurately describing their macculate history and peccable provenance is, in your mind, an "uncomfortable position".

...and then relying on those works...

Just to correct one of the many misstatements in this post, it is not I who is "relying" upon the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

It was, in fact, you who provided this gem:

I trust that the following will be enlightening.

On March 20, 2012, LDS Apostle Jeffrey Holland spoke to students at the Harvard Law School as part of the school's annual "Mormonism 101" series. One of the students asked if Mormons were Christians. Here is Elder Holland's response:

"We are not fourth-century Christians, we are not Nicene Christians, we are not creedal Christians of the brand that arose hundreds of years after Christ. No, when we speak of 'restored Christianity' we speak of the Church as it was in its New Testament purity, not as it became when great councils were called to debate and anguish over what it was they really believed. So if one means Greek-influenced, council-convening, philosophy-flavored Christianity of post-apostolic times, we are not that kind of Christian. Peter we know, and Paul we know, but Constantine and Athanasius, Athens and Alexandria we do no know."

If you are going to pretend that a himikkimuk of your club intended to be taken seriously when he spoke of not being "creedal[sic] christians of the brand that rose hundreds of yeas after christ..."; if you are going to try to claim that your mob's doctrines represent authentic teachings of Jesus (you know, him said to be said to be "the christ"), in its "new testament purity"; then the onus is on you to demonstrate why you and yours feel free to claim that teachings not attributed to Jesus in any canonic material are, in fact, part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity". Even worse, it falls to you to explain why you and yours feel free to pretend that teachings that directly contradict words that are, in fact, recorded as attributed to Jesus in the canonic materials are, somehow, part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity", and not something pulled out of someone's hat "hundreds of years" later.

...to prove that Jesus never uttered a word about homosexuality. You're right--He didn't say anything about homosexuality that was recorded.

Which, to an honest disputant, ends the argument. If the canonic materials record not a single word attributred to Jesus (remember, he was said to be said to be "the christ"), then it is dishonest to pretend that,somehow, what is not there is part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

What he may have said is, and will remain, a mystery (in the same way that the inclusions of events to which no one could have been a witness, in purportedly "eyewitness testimonies" is, and will remain, a mystery). However, what is not there cannot honestly be said to be part of the the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

If you and yours want to claim that things that are not included in the canonic new testament have been "revealed" to "the faithful", you have that right--but it is fundamentally dishonest to pretend that those "revelations" represent any part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity". Particularly when some of those "revelations" directly and specifically contradict words attributed to Jesus and included in the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

Nor did He say anything about abortion, or serial killers, or prostitution that was recorded.

And thus, no doctrine on abortion, or serial killers, or prostitution, or the designated hitter rule, can honestly be said to be part of the "authentic" κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity".

At most, an opinion about abortion can be said to be an extension of the intent of teachings attributed to Jesus, as recorded in the canonic material, if one chooses to be honest.

At most, a sectarian opinion about "serial killers" can be said to be consonant with "love your neighbor as yourself" (which seems, at least to preclude killing them for fun), if one chooses to be honest.

At most, a doxological statement regarding prostitution could be said to reflect Jesus' attitudes toward "sinners and publicans" (and their ilk), if one chooses to be honest.

The designated hitter rule simply cannot be defended; it is clearly a late redaction by heretical scribes and sabermetricians.

It is dishonest to pretend that a doctrine or teaching that is not recorded as attributed to Jesus, in the canonic materials, is an authentic part of the the κήρυγμα of Jesus "in its New Testament purity". Whatever part such doctrines play in a sect's orthodoxy, "authenticity" cannot be claimed for them, if one chooses to be honest.

Talk about "scholastic flaccidity"!

Yes. it is scholastically flaccid, further, it is completely and indefensibly dishonest, of you and yours to pretend that words that are not attributed to Jesus in any canonic material are in fact authentic components of his κήρυγμα. It is either an indefensibly elementary error, or an attempt to get away with callous dishonesty, by you and yours to pretend that doctrines that directly contradict words attributed to Jesus in the canonic materials are yet somehow part of the "new testament purity" of his κήρυγμα.

You have repeatedly dismissed the Bible as a collection of drivel,

I will accept your apology for this outright misstatement. It is possible you are being misled by your fervour. It is a demonstrable fact that I have not, anywhere in this thread, referred to the canonic materials as "drivel". I have dismissed the canonic materials in many ways, for good and proper reasons, but "drivel" is your word.

and then--in what must be taken as desperation--you embrace it to support the fact that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

Well, no. What I have said, and will say again, despite misrepresentation, is that nowhere in any canonic material is recorded a single word attributed to Jesus addressing homosexuality. Without, I might point out, the slightest hint of desperation.

It is you who feels free, under the aegis of your himukkimuks, to claim that things of which there is no record of Jesus ever saying are, in fact, authoritative parts of his authentic κήρυγμα, in its "new testament purity". Are those phylacteries broad enough for you yet?

In the midst of that argumentive ataxia,

...It is not I who is disorganized...

... you suggest that the gospel writers were under some kind of mandate to write what Jesus told them to write. That would make a memorable skit for Saturday Night Live in which Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are seen gathered around Jesus, slates and limestone sticks in hand. Jesus speaks: "And you, Luke, make sure you provide adequate detail about the healing of the blind man. And Matthew, are you sure you understand why it was necessary for John the Baptist to baptize me? And Mark, I wish you would go into more detail about . . . ."

Hilarious.

And, oddly enough, this is not a claim I have ever made. Once again, you are attributing to me positions I have not taken. Do consider being more careful.

 

[skyrider44]

If you assume a divine origin of the Gospels then God did not have strong enough feelings about homosexuals to comment upon them in the Gospels.

But God obviously had strong enough feelings about homosexuals to have his prophets comment on them in four books of the OT (three passages in Gen., two passages in Lev., and one passage each in Deut. and Ezek.). He also had the resurrected Jesus call Paul to be an apostle--the same Paul who disapproved of homosexuality in the NT in Rom., 1 Cor., 1 Tim., and Jude. Anyone who doesn't believe that Paul was commissioned as an apostle by the Savior Himself, and that Paul said what he said about homosexuality with the approval of He who commissioned him, could well have his/her Christian credentials called into question. The Gospel writers are not the end-all of the NT, as you seem to suppose.

 

[pakeha]

...So for instance, there's the story of Jesus healing the centurion's slave/lover is a quandry. Either Jesus had a chance to free a slave and didn't, or had a chance to break up a gay couple and didn't, or something else, depending on how one wants to interpret the Greek wording in the two gospel versions, Luke 7 and Matthew 8.

A good point, Pup.
" ...In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover."

"...In this story, Jesus restores a gay relationship by a miracle of healing and then holds up a gay man as an example of faith for all to follow. So consider carefully: Who is Lord — Jesus or cultural prejudice?"
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html


How does the LDS interpret Jesus' actions with the centurion's pais?

 

[skyrider44]

OTH, you continue to pretend that since (for instance), no incidence of words attiributed to Jesus addressing homosexuality has ever been preserved in any canonic xian material, it is still reasonable to claim that the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity" includes condemnation of homesuality.

You continue to pretend that since (as a further example) no incidence of words attributed to Jesus stating that men could, in fact, "become 'gods' " has ever been preserved in any canonic xian material, it is still reasonable to claim that the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity" includes the heterodox idea that men can and will "become 'gods' ".

You continue to pretend that, although Jesus is recorded, in canoninc xian texts, as teaching, clearly and in so many words, that those participating in "the resurrection" would "neither marry, nor be given in marriage", eternal marriage is still part of the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity".

Given that degree of doctrinal temerity and scholastic flaccidity, what is there that could not be considered part of the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity"?

It's obvious why you want to limit Biblical disapproval of homosexuality to what Jesus didn't say about it in the four gospels. The NT doesn't end with the book of John. Saul (Paul), commissioned an apostle by the risen Savior, speaks clearly against the practice in Romans, 1 Cor., and I Tim.--a fact you prefer to ignore. At the Last Supper, Jesus encouraged his disciples to carry on his work, which some of them did, giving their lives for so doing. Then, too, there is condemnation of the practice in three books of the OT (multiple passages).

I must say again, however, that it is laughable that you--who considers the Bible a fraud--turns to it to prove that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. There is something intellectually aslant about that.