Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Daniel2

Religious Organizations Opposing Ssm Ban Increase

Recommended Posts

And this means? That the COJCOLDS should become a product of opinion polls and emulate our neighbors? Insert something about "great and spacious building".

To quote the scriptures...we cannot go beyond the word of God.

I think the answer to both questions is best answered by words penned by Joseph Smith regarding the contemporary limitations of societal marriage restrictions of his time:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart,even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."...

"This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow;..."

"Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive..."

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/smith_letter.htm

Regarding unwillingness to "go beyond the word of God," I think the scriptures themselves caution against a refusal to accept that God could reveal further 'words' on any matter:

Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

--Second Nephi

Share this post


Link to post

Daniel, to reply to the quotation you made to my comment...yes Joseph did seek to expand the social definition of marriage. It led to his death and the exile of the Saints to the West. Even then it Gov't took the Church to the brink of collapse.

Not sure you want to invoke that kind of logic.

Do not be surprised if Baptist's start doing this...there is absolutely central governing body. All Churches are completely independent. However little chance that any of the SBC will take part in performing Gay Marriage.

Share this post


Link to post

If all the other religious organizations were to recognize and perform ssm is that adequate reason for LDS to follow.  Insert one of Grandma's adages about jumping off cliffs.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the answer to both questions is best answered by words penned by Joseph Smith regarding the contemporary limitations of societal marriage restrictions of his time:

Regarding unwillingness to "go beyond the word of God," I think the scriptures themselves caution against a refusal to accept that God could reveal further 'words' on any matter:

 

 

The scriptures also caution against "itching ears" in 2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears;

 

So who's right in this case?  It seems like the scripture that I shared and the scripture that you shared sort of contradict each other, or at least the ways that we are interpreting them.  

 

This is why I will welcome a new revelation about SSM through a prophet of God if it happens, but I simply don't see much evidence of a change like this occurring any time soon, if ever, in the LDS Church.  Instead, I'm hearing the leaders of the Church in every General Conference reaffirming the statements found in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

Share this post


Link to post

If all the other religious organizations were to recognize and perform ssm is that adequate reason for LDS to follow. Insert one of Grandma's adages about jumping off cliffs.

It is more likely the church will be last given how long it took to accept blacks fully into the church

Share this post


Link to post

If all the other religious organizations were to recognize and perform ssm is that adequate reason for LDS to follow.  Insert one of Grandma's adages about jumping off cliffs.

 

I am sure there were a number of loyal LDS members who held this same type of sentiment when it came to the LDS practice of polygamy.....they couldn't fathom a true LDS church that would abandon the practice (heck, my own great grandfather was disfellowshipped for having multiple wives as late as the 1930s in Salt Lake City...he could not comprehend an LDS faith that did not include the practice of polygamy).

 

Likewise, I am sure there was some population of loyal LDS members who thought they'd never, ever see the day when blacks were granted the priesthood.

 

The point being, never say never............

Share this post


Link to post

It is more likely the church will be last given how long it took to accept blacks fully into the church

 

That's a bit of a misnomer. Blacks have always been welcomed to become members. Male Priesthood was a different question.               

Share this post


Link to post

That's a bit of a misnomer. Blacks have always been welcomed to become members. Male Priesthood was a different question.

I am sure you know what I am stating. In the same way gays are welcome in the church. They are just not entitled to the full temple blessings when they marry someone of the same sex which is what we are talking about The exact same situation for interracial couples until long after just about every other denomination.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure you know what I am stating. In the same way gays are welcome in the church. They are just not entitled to the full temple blessings when they marry someone of the same sex which is what we are talking about The exact same situation for interracial couples until long after just about every other denomination.

 

No one is entitled to full temple blessings. Temple attendance is by written invitation only. Unless you can honesty and correctly answer all the Temple Interview questions; have been a member for over a year; and have sufficient spiritual maturity to understand and accept the doctrines expressed in the Temple; you won't get that invitation regardless of skin color.

 

Please do not misunderstand. I joined in 1971. I had serious questions about the Priesthood ban. I was overjoyed when the announcement finally came down in 1978. .

 

Single celibate gays can and do attend the Temple. Just as non-celibate single hetero's can't and don't. I don't foresee anytime when gay couples will be given that invitation.

Share this post


Link to post

It is more likely the church will be last given how long it took to accept blacks fully into the church

 

And the relevance of that?

Share this post


Link to post

The scriptures also caution against "itching ears" in 2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears;

So who's right in this case? It seems like the scripture that I shared and the scripture that you shared sort of contradict each other, or at least the ways that we are interpreting them.

This is why I will welcome a new revelation about SSM through a prophet of God if it happens, but I simply don't see much evidence of a change like this occurring any time soon, if ever, in the LDS Church. Instead, I'm hearing the leaders of the Church in every General Conference reaffirming the statements found in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

I recall many times on my mission when my companion and I defended against criticisms made by Evangelicals that we, as Latter - day Saints, should be condemned because of our belief in continuing revelation. Ironic that they leveled the same claims of having "itchy ears," and employed the same scripture from Timothy, to which we would reply:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible...

Because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever...

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

Speaking for myself, my ears don't itch, and I have no desire for the LDS faith to grant me permission to follow my heart when it comes to my choice of spouse, nor sanction the ways we express and experience our love for one another. I have already proclaimed my independence from the LDS organization, and its highly unlikely that I would ever return, even after the church eventually welcomes active gays and lesbians and into full fellowship and their relationships receive ecclesiastical approval.

Share this post


Link to post

No one is entitled to full temple blessings. Temple attendance is by written invitation only. Unless you can honesty and correctly answer all the Temple Interview questions; have been a member for over a year; and have sufficient spiritual maturity to understand and accept the doctrines expressed in the Temple; you won't get that invitation regardless of skin color.

Please do not misunderstand. I joined in 1971. I had serious questions about the Priesthood ban. I was overjoyed when the announcemept finally came down in 1978. .

Single celibate gays can and do attend the Temple. Just as non-celibate single hetero's can't and don't. I don't foresee anytime when gay couples will be given that invitation.

I know how temple recommends work. And I support the churches right to marry whoever it wants. I am only saying that the church will probably be one of the last to welcome gay couples to partake of the blessings of temple marriage. And they may never. Who knows. It is not relevant to me in any event.

Share this post


Link to post

I know how temple recommends work. And I support the churches right to marry whoever it wants. I am only saying that the church will probably be one of the last to welcome gay couples to partake of the blessings of temple marriage. And they may never. Who knows. It is not relevant to me in any event.

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post

I recall many times on my mission when my companion and I defended against criticisms made by Evangelicals that we, as Latter - day Saints, should be condemned because of our belief in continuing revelation. Ironic that they leveled the same claims of having "itchy ears," and employed the same scripture from Timothy, to which we would reply:

Speaking for myself, my ears don't itch, and I have no desire for the LDS faith to grant me permission to follow my heart when it comes to my choice of spouse, nor sanction the ways we express and experience our love for one another. I have already proclaimed my independence from the LDS organization, and its highly unlikely that I would ever return, even after the church eventually welcomes active gays and lesbians and into full fellowship and their relationships receive ecclesiastical approval.

 

I interpreted your opening post, in part, as implicitly implying that because some other religions are embracing SSM, the LDS Church will eventually cave in to pressure, see the light, and willy-nilly call it a "revelation", just like we once did with polygamy and blacks and the priesthood.  Currently, the LDS Church is completely out of touch with regards to SSM, and eventually it will catch up with the rest of civilized society.  At least some other posters on this thread seem to have that impression.  I simply disagree with this characterization, and find it disparaging, and for good reason.  Although some of the rhetoric has softened through the years, the leaders of the LDS Church still have been very clear and consistent about what the Lord's standards are regarding sexual behavior.    

 

I also recognize that continuing revelation is a central tenant of the LDS faith, and I fully embrace that tenant.  Who knows what the future will bring in regards to new revelation or changing doctrine.  I don't put any stipulations on how or what or when this happens.  I just believe that the Lord wants us to fully accept and utilize what we already have before He gives us more.  And He's given us a lot.  Admittedly, I have a hard time accepting that the Lord would completely and abruptly change His mind 180 degrees about this particular matter after all that has been said about it.               

 

As a gay person myself still involved with and fully invested in the Church, this is obviously a topic that is near and dear to my heart.  Trying to accept and implement the Church's teachings about sexuality into my own life has come at a great personal cost to me and also caused a great deal of pain and uncertainty.  

 

I'm all for doing things to increase mutual understanding and respect on all sides, as unachievable or unbridgeable as this may seem at times.  I also fully acknowledge that a gay person, particularly one in a same-sex relationship, is not likely to feel at home in the LDS Church, and that they may very well be happier outside the Church than in.  I'm glad that you are at peace with where you're currently at in your life, and that you aren't seeking for LDS approval.          

Share this post


Link to post

I interpreted your opening post, in part, as implicitly implying that because some other religions are embracing SSM, the LDS Church will eventually cave in to pressure, see the light, and willy-nilly call it a "revelation", just like we once did with polygamy and blacks and the priesthood. Currently, the LDS Church is completely out of touch with regards to SSM, and eventually it will catch up with the rest of civilized society. At least some other posters on this thread seem to have that impression. I simply disagree with this characterization, and find it disparaging, and for good reason. Although some of the rhetoric has softened through the years, the leaders of the LDS Church still have been very clear and consistent about what the Lord's standards are regarding sexual behavior.

I also recognize that continuing revelation is a central tenant of the LDS faith, and I fully embrace that tenant. Who knows what the future will bring in regards to new revelation or changing doctrine. I don't put any stipulations on how or what or when this happens. I just believe that the Lord wants us to fully accept and utilize what we already have before He gives us more. And He's given us a lot. Admittedly, I have a hard time accepting that the Lord would completely and abruptly change His mind 180 degrees about this particular matter after all that has been said about it.

As a gay person myself still involved with and fully invested in the Church, this is obviously a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Trying to accept and implement the Church's teachings about sexuality into my own life has come at a great personal cost to me and also caused a great deal of pain and uncertainty.

I'm all for doing things to increase mutual understanding and respect on all sides, as unachievable or unbridgeable as this may seem at times. I also fully acknowledge that a gay person, particularly one in a same-sex relationship, is not likely to feel at home in the LDS Church, and that they may very well be happier outside the Church than in. I'm glad that you are at peace with where you're currently at in your life, and that you aren't seeking for LDS approval.

As I said in my previous post I'm not advocating for the church changing his position on gay marriage. I also don't know whether they will ever taste of position. But just a few things to note.

There has never been a revelation on gay marriage and whether or not this is acceptable to God.

The problem with not allowing gays to marry is that it conflicts with other teachings of Christ. A doctrine of celibacy is not in keeping with the plan of salvation. Encouraging people not to marry is not in keeping with the plan of salvation. The law chastity has always been no sex outside of the marriage covenant. There's really no real doctrinal reasons to not allow gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think SSM can be analogized to Africans receiving the Priesthood -- there was no major structural doctrinal issue to overcome with respect to the extension of the Priesthood.  I suspect we will see a radical change in the access of women to authority in the Priesthood before we will see, and in fact I don't think we will ever see, acceptance of SSM.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think SSM can be analogized to Africans receiving the Priesthood -- there was no major structural doctrinal issue to overcome with respect to the extension of the Priesthood.  I suspect we will see a radical change in the access of women to authority in the Priesthood before we will see, and in fact I don't think we will ever see, acceptance of SSM.

Interesting thoughts.

Do you think there's a "major structural doctrinal issue" that "needs overcome" before the church could accept ssm?

If so, what would it be?

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting thoughts.

Do you think there's a "major structural doctrinal issue" that "needs overcome" before the church could accept ssm?

If so, what would it be?

 

Eternal marriage with offspring would be a big one.

Share this post


Link to post

Eternal marriage with offspring would be a big one.

How do you believe allowing "same-sex couples to marry" conflicts with "eternal marriage with offspring"?

Does the LDS church currently marry any couples that aren't "eternally married"?

Is it "a major structural doctrine" that every eternally-married couple must have offspring?

Is it a "major structural doctrine" that to have offspring, a couple must be dual-gendered?

I'd love to hear canonical citations for each answer.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here. My point in asking such focused questions is that I don't believe any structural doctrinal issues really are as major, central, or even concretely, actually doctrinal as many Latter-day Saints might assume they are. I believe a heterosexual bias causes many members to presume there are "major structural doctrinal issues" that would need to be overcome--but I assert that such is based on cultural assumptions, and not actual doctrine found in the church's doctrinal cannon.

Many couples are married in the LDS church that aren't for eternity, either because they are not temple worthy, or they are already sealed to someone else, or are only seeking temporal companionship, or because they simply don't want to marry in the temple. If allowances can be made for such couples, why not same-sex ones?

In similar fashion, I'm not aware of any church doctrine that says that each and every eternally sealed couple MUST have offspring in the eternities. Isn't it possible that some may choose not to? Or is divine procreation actually all that LDS exaltation is really strictly about...? What of the two thirds of other hosts in the celestial kingdom who don't procreate...?

Finally, as I have asserted on this board numerous times, I see no reason why (nor doctrinal evidence that) omnipotent celestial beings' procreation would be limited to opposite-gendered couples, especially in light of modern (but FAR from omnipotent) medical advances that already allow reproduction using gametes solely from same-sex couples.

Share this post


Link to post

How do you believe allowing "same-sex couples to marry" conflicts with "eternal marriage with offspring"?

Does the LDS church currently marry any couples that aren't "eternally married"?

Is it "a major structural doctrine" that every eternally-married couple must have offspring?

Is it a "major structural doctrine" that to have offspring, a couple must be dual-gendered?

I'd love to hear canonical citations for each answer.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here. My point in asking such focused questions is that I don't believe any structural doctrinal issues really are as major, central, or even concretely, actually doctrinal as many Latter-day Saints might assume they are. I believe a heterosexual bias causes many members to presume there are "major structural doctrinal issues" that would need to be overcome--but I assert that such is based on cultural assumptions, and not actual doctrine found in the church's doctrinal cannon.

Many couples are married in the LDS church that aren't for eternity, either because they are not temple worthy, or they are already sealed to someone else, or are only seeking temporal companionship, or because they simply don't want to marry in the temple. If allowances can be made for such couples, why not same-sex ones?

In similar fashion, I'm not aware of any church doctrine that says that each and every eternally sealed couple MUST have offspring in the eternities. Isn't it possible that some may choose not to? Or is divine procreation actually all that LDS exaltation is really strictly about...? What of the two thirds of other hosts in the celestial kingdom who don't procreate...?

Finally, as I have asserted on this board numerous times, I see no reason why (nor doctrinal evidence that) omnipotent celestial beings' procreation would be limited to opposite-gendered couples, especially in light of modern (but FAR from omnipotent) medical advances that already allow reproduction using gametes solely from same-sex couples.

 

Simple biology. it takes a man and a woman to produce offspring.

 

Yes; We can be married outside the Temple. However we do encourage all to be married in the Temple.

 

That is by definition exaltation in the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom. To be like God.

 

Section 132 of D&C is still in our canon.

 

Homosexuality is a sin within the Church. We don't promote sin.

 

By definition being in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom involves having increase(children).

 

I appreciate today's technology and hope to have much more in the near future. However I'm not too sure as to what level of technology God needs to use.

 

What does God need with a Starship? 

Share this post


Link to post

Simple biology. it takes a man and a woman to produce offspring.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

To paraphrase your Trekkism (which you get bonus points for, btw... I'm a confirmed Trekker), "What does God need with 'simple biology'?

Why does God's procreation need to have male and female genitalia, at all...?

Was God constrained by 'simple biology' when he omnipotently created the universe, countless worlds, all plant life, and all forms of animals inhabiting the earth?

What does the God of miracles, who sent plagues and famine, parted seas, sent a flood to drown the wicked, caused fire to fall like rain, set new stars in the heavens, divided firmaments, stopped the spinning of the earth, turned water to wine, healed the sick, walked on water, defied gravity by ascending into heaven, caused the blind the see, cast out demons, and raised the dead....<whew>.... need with 'simple biology'...?

Did God use 'simple biology' when, through the power of the Holy Ghost, he created his only begotten son, Jesus Christ by impregnating a virgin?

(I am very familiar with the fact that some early LDS leaders taught that God had physical, sexual relations with Mary. Some taught that God even married Mary first, lest he be accused of adultery to create the Son of God. However, such non-cannonical teachings are not found in thr standard works, and today's institutional church has distanced itself from those unofficial teachings, dismissing them as never having been part of official doctrine.)

If the need for Christ's creation/begottenenss has been unlinked from early teachings mandating sexual intercourse without any major structural doctrines being changed, why can't the same be true of the once presumed procreative powers that result in spirit children--a process that has never been described or specified in LDS cannon?

Again... what does God have need of 'simple biology'?

Yes; We can be married outside the Temple. However we do encourage all to be married in the Temple.

So, again: if allowances can be made for non eternal marriages, or non - exalted marriages, why not for same sex couples?

That is by definition exaltation in the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom. To be like God.

And what of the two thirds of others in the Celestial kingdom who do not procreate? Isn't it possible there could be married same sex couples who do other tasks besides getting pregnant with spirit children...? (But then again, what does God need with the simple biology of pregnancy...?)

There are countless ways anyone can "be like god." Women may "be like god" without altering their physical form, or the use of their bodies. Presumably we all won't look exactly like God by becoming carbon copies. Presumably there is some sense of diversity in heaven. So it stands to reason that there will be some things that we share in common, but others that differ.

Unless the phrase "become like god" ignores all other divine characteristics and really just means "we use our genitals to sexually beget spirit children in the same fashion mortals sexually reproduce." [Edit: spelling errors corrected]

Section 132 of D&C is still in our canon.

Yes, it is. Which verses do you feel are in conflict with the concept that some of God's children could get married to a member of their own gender?

Homosexuality is a sin within the Church. We don't promote sin.

But many things are "within the church" which are not doctrine, and which are later identified as having been "a product of their time," or the evolving understanding of God's fallible prophets. Which is why I asked for canonical references. I don't believe there's ever been a revelation about "Homosexuality being a sin," and certainly not one about married same sex couples--at least, not in the standard works (the official cannon).

By definition being in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom involves having increase(children).

Again... A strawman. What about the other two thirds of the Celestial kingdom? And even so, I'm not entirely sure of the scriptural reference that links being in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom with a necessity of 'having children'. (Does the Holy Ghost inhabit the Celestial Kingdom..........? Does or will he have children?)

I appreciate today's technology and hope to have much more in the near future. However I'm not too sure as to what level of technology God needs to use.

What does God need with a Starship?

It was not my intent to suggest that deified beings would be constrained to use today's limited medical technology to beget children.

My intent was to suggest that if we (being supremely NON-omnipotent, very limited, and FAR from as powerful as God allegedly is, and who can apparently clearly operate FAR beyond the constraints of science that likely seems incredibly 'simple' through his omniscient eyes) can already create life from two same sex parents with our crude and limited instruments and laboratories----why would God be able to, using supranatural means which are nevertheless entirely easy and natural, once divinity has been attained...?

Is God omnipotent, or isn't he?

Now, if you've waded through all of the above ruminations, I really would prefer to ask a simple question: What are the basics of the gospel actually all about? Is 'attaining exaltation so we can have eternal increase' really the point of 'becoming like God'--the central tenant of Christ's message? Or has this line of reasoning lost sight of the point of the gospel to encourage people to 'become like Him'?

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for illustrating my point.

To paraphrase your Trekkism (which you get bonus points for, btw... I'm a confirmed Trekker), "What does God need with 'simple biology'?

Why does God's procreation need to have male and female genitalia, at all...?

Was God constrained by 'simple biology' when he omnipotently created the universe, countless worlds, all plant life, and all forms of animals inhabiting the earth?

What does the God of miracles, who sent plagues and famine, parted seas, sent a flood to drown the wicked, caused fire to fall like rain, set new stars in the heavens, divided firmaments, stopped the spinning of the earth, turned water to wine, healed the sick, walked on water, defied gravity by ascending into heaven, caused the blind the see, cast out demons, and raised the dead....<whew>.... need with 'simple biology'...?

Did God use 'simple biology' when, through the power of the Holy Ghost, he created his only begotten son, Jesus Christ by impregnating a virgin?

(I am very familiar with the fact that some early LDS leaders taught that God had physical, sexual relations with Mary. Some taught that God even married Mary first, lest he be accused of adultery to create the Son of God. However, such non-cannonical teachings are not found in thr standard works, and today's institutional church has distanced itself from those unofficial teachings, dismissing them as never having been part of official doctrine.)

If the need for Christ's creation/begottenenss has been unlinked from early teachings mandating sexual intercourse without any major structural doctrines being changed, why can't the same be true of the once presumed procreative powers that result in spirit children--a process that has never been described or specified in LDS cannon?

Again... what does God have need of 'simple biology'?

 

So, again: if allowances can be made for non eternal marriages, or non - exalted marriages, why not for same sex couples?

 

And what of the two thirds of others in the Celestial kingdom who do not procreate? Isn't it possible there could be married same sex couples who do other tasks besides getting pregnant with spirit children...? (But then again, what does God need with the simple biology of pregnancy...?)

There are countless ways anyone can "be like god." Women may "be like god" without altering their physical form, or the use of their bodies. Presumably we all won't look exactly like God by becoming carbon copies. Presumably there is some sense of diversity on heaven. So it stands to reason that there will be some things that we share in common, but others that differ.

Unless the phrase "become like god" ignores all other divine characteristics and really just means "we use our gentiles to sexually beget spirit children in the same fashion mortals sexual lunch reproduce."

 

Yes, it is. Which verses do you feel are in conflict with the concept that some of God's children could get married to a member of their own gender?

 

But many things are "within the church" which are not doctrine, and which are later identified as having been "a product of their time," or the evolving understanding of God's fallible prophets. Which is why I asked for canonical references. I don't believe there's ever been a revelation about "Homosexuality being a sin," and certainly not one about married same sex couples--at least, not in the standard works (the official cannon).

 

Again... A strawman. What about the other two thirds of the Celestial kingdom?  And even so, I'm not entirely sure of the scriptural reference that links being in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom with a necessity of 'having children'.  (Does the Holy Ghost inhabit the Celestial Kingdom..........?  Does or will he have children?)

 

It was not my intent to suggest that deified beings would be constrained to use today's limited medical technology to beget children.

My intent was to suggest that if we (being supremely NON-omnipotent, very limited, and FAR from as powerful as God allegedly is, and who can apparently clearly operate FAR beyond the constraints of science that likely seems incredibly 'simple' through his omniscient eyes) can already create life from two same sex parents with our crude and limited instruments and laboratories----why would God be able to, using supranatural means which are nevertheless entirely easy and natural, once divinity has been attained...?

 

Is God omnipotent, or isn't he?

 

God the Father is a man(male to be exact). The Scriptures are replete with it.

 

I don't know the process by which the Gods reproduce. But since we believe God the Father has a wife. It is a fair assumption that biology is important to the Gods.

 

I believe God used a logical process to produce us, our world, and our universe. I've never been a fan of God saying Alakazam and everything was.

 

I'm not God, at least not yet. ;) to me miracles are just something I don't understand how it was done. Hopefully someday I will know.

 

I don't know the process by which God impregnated Mary. However since I do know about In Vetro fertilization. It doesn't necessarily entail sexual intercourse.

 

It's not particularly simple biology, but simply biology

 

We believe that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. The Church can not, and for the foreseeable future, will not promote sin.  

 

We don't know the number of people what will be in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. However I do believe God is a successful God. The vast majority of his children will be there.

 

We are to become like God. Be Ye therefor perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.  don't know about gentiles being used to create children. ;) But genitalia works pretty well.  Also add in that neither is the woman without the man, nor is man without the women in the Lord. We don't become sexless just because we become like God.

 

Neither the Church nor I believe we will be carbon copies of God. Christ was/is a separate and distinct individual that is also part of the Godhead. Try to imagine what is would be like to be without flaw, sickness, illness, or disability, to see not only your present, but past, and future, but retain your own personally. That to me is close to what it is like to be like God.

 

D&C 132: 15, 18, 19, 30.

 

It is Church doctrine and policy. http://www.mormon.org/faq/stand-on-homosexuality

 

The number is irrelevant. As I said our God is a successful God. It is we that choose to become like him or not. God will not force you to be with him, nor will he force you be away from him.

 

I didn't think you were. But neither one of us knows exactly how God does it. Something tells me it isn't just the meeting of sperm and egg in a petri dish at the end of a long glass tube.

 

We do not know very much about science or religion. It wasn't that long ago that if you could time travel back to 18th Century America. They would burn you at the stake as a witch, if you tried to tell them about television. Something today we consider pretty simple.

 

God is omnipotent as far as we're concerned NOW. Someday we all hope to be like him.

 

Let's allow celestial figures some privacy please.

Share this post


Link to post

Daniel asked if there were any doctrinal issues. What you wrote May or May not be true. It is all speculation, not doctrine I find the idea of an eternally pregnant mother in heaven highly unlikely. So I doubt creating spirit children is anywhere close to being like creating mortal bodies. After tall all animals were not created by God through a birthing process and they all have spirits as well according to scripture.

Share this post


Link to post

Daniel asked if there were any doctrinal issues. What you wrote May or May not be true. It is all speculation, not doctrine I find the idea of an eternally pregnant mother in heaven highly unlikely. So I doubt creating spirit children is anywhere close to being like creating mortal bodies. After tall all animals were not created by God through a birthing process and they all have spirits as well according to scripture.

 

There are significant doctrinal issues with SSM in the Temple. I agree there are plenty of speculations, but on the issue of SSM in the Temple, not so much. I don't believe in an eternally pregnant Mother-in-Haven either. When you have all of eternity even the largest number you can think of becomes virtually nothing. We have no theology on when the spirit enters our mortal body. I don't know the process by which spirit bodies are created. Does it take seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years? Biologically we are animals. Spiritually we are the offspring of God.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know the process by which the Gods reproduce. But since we believe God the Father has a wife. It is a fair assumption that biology is important to the Gods.

It's not particularly simple biology, but simply biology

Sometimesaint, here’s the problem that I have with your assumption that celestial reproduction likely operates ‘simply’ by ‘biology,’ at least anywhere approaching what we currently understand it to be:

According to LDS theology, there are numerous problems with a strict assumption that celestial bodies are constrained by mortal biological processes.

For example, hypothetically speaking: celestial bodies presumably don’t need food, water, oxygen, or a variety of other necessities that mortal bodies need. Celestial bodies have no need to replicate and replace damaged or dying cells because they aren’t subject to death, disease, extreme changes in temperature, the vacuum of space, etc. Presumably, the quantity of cells within a resurrected body won’t change because those celestial cells wouldn’t die, nor will new cells be added. Most significantly, according to LDS doctrine (found in the scriptures) celestial bodies won’t have blood flowing through their veins—they are bodies made of flesh and bone, animated by ‘spirit,’ rather than blood.

According to our understanding of mortal biology, blood is essential for sexual reproduction, both in male and female reproductive processes. For example, a male depends on blood being available within the body to engorge certain spongy tissues of male anatomy in order to effectively transfer sperm into the birth canal. Females requires blood to engorge uterine lining to allow the implantation of a fertilized egg along the uterine wall, and then to transfer nutrients across the placenta to sustain a developing fetus. Both male and female fetal tissue requires the circulation of blood in order to deliver needed nutrients that facilitate cellular division resulting in fetal growth.

If we presume that celestial bodies are constrained by ‘simple biology,’ how would a lack of blood, then, affect celestial reproductive processes?

Presumably, there may be several aspects of the systems and processes of our mortal bodies that will be rendered irrelevant in a resurrected body; namely, our digestive tracts, organs and apparatuses for the circulation of blood, respiration, the processing of food and the elimination of waste, mitochondrial structures for cellular division and repair, etc. Deification of mortal bodies creates a wealth of vestigial systems and organs.

These are just a few examples of how the application of our very limited, mortal understanding of the biological processes of science to religion breaks down--and it's all speculation and presumption, anyway.

As California Boy said, assumptions about celestial reproduction, and the application of science, is clearly pure speculation, and not based on scriptural cannon, and would be beyond the scope of anyone’s current understanding.

There are significant doctrinal issues with SSM in the Temple. I agree there are plenty of speculations, but on the issue of SSM in the Temple, not so much. I don't believe in an eternally pregnant Mother-in-Haven either. When you have all of eternity even the largest number you can think of becomes virtually nothing. We have no theology on when the spirit enters our mortal body. I don't know the process by which spirit bodies are created. Does it take seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years? Biologically we are animals. Spiritually we are the offspring of God.

Regarding what is described in the temple: I am very familiar with the endowment session and the sealing of opposite-gendered spouses. First thought that came to my mind: given that temple content is not found in cannon of the church; and given that temple ordinances themselves have changed throughout the history of the church; and given that the temple ceremonies self-describe themselves as allegorical representations in order to make covenants; and given that the wording of the covenant of the law of chastity is not gender-exclusive of same-sex couples (that is, the law of chastity consists of not having sexual relations except with one’s spouse, to whom one is ‘legally and lawfully wedded’); two thoughts come to mind:

  • It’s not clear that temple content is actual doctrine of the church, and
  • temple content doesn’t specifically forbid same-sex couples from marrying anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...