Jump to content

Archived

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

Daniel2

Religious Organizations Opposing Ssm Ban Increase

Recommended Posts

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

To clarify the discussion further, here's D&C 132: 15, 18, 19, and 30 state:

Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord.

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

These verses specify how marriage shall be construed “if a man marries a wife.” None of them limit the possibility of a woman marrying a wife, or a man marrying a husband.

They are entirely silent on that issue—they don’t offer any prohibition of same-sex marriage; that’s not what section 132 is about. It simply describes eternal marriage for opposite-sex couples, but is entirely silent about what marriage for same-sex couples could look like.

Share this post


Link to post

It is probably pretty pointles to discuss how spirits are created since neither one of us have any doctrinal support. But that doesn't mean I am not interested in your views. So I would like to know your opinion on

1. How do you think animal spirits are created

2. Do you think it is possible human spirits are created the same way?

3. Do you think that 2 male gods could create worlds and all other godly responsibilities without being married to a woman?

Love reading your views

Share this post


Link to post

In order to accept SSM, then we have to come close to disavowing the King Follett Sermon and the Snow Couplet, and the idea that we are literally the Spirit Children of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother -- which calls into question the whole purpose of eternal marriage which is the pinnacle ordinance of the Temple.  This would be a major structural change unlike extending keys to the Priesthood or receiving a revelation to create a Priestesshood with keys in mortality and outside the Temple, and certainly a greater doctrinal upheaval than extending the Priesthood to all worthy males.  So we are in a completely different league here.

Share this post


Link to post

In order to accept SSM, then we have to come close to disavowing the King Follett Sermon and the Snow Couplet, and the idea that we are literally the Spirit Children of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother -- which calls into question the whole purpose of eternal marriage which is the pinnacle ordinance of the Temple. This would be a major structural change unlike extending keys to the Priesthood or receiving a revelation to create a Priestesshood with keys in mortality and outside the Temple, and certainly a greater doctrinal upheaval than extending the Priesthood to all worthy males. So we are in a completely different league here.

Thanks for the response, Stoneholm.

Setting aside the fact that neither the King Follett sermon or the Snow couplet are canonical, and therefore not doctrinally-authoritative....

Which aspects of the Follett sermon do you think would need to be abandoned? Could you share specific quotes?

And how do you think the Snow couplet would no longer apply? Do you feel that to "become as God is," the central, essential meaning of "becoming like God" must include celestial sexual reproduction...? Or could we "become like God" in other ways... sharing other God-like characteristics?

See... from another perspective, adopting same-sex marriage for some of God's children doesn't mean abandoning or disavowing either of the two sources you listed. It may mean clarifying that those sources don't actually mean exactly what people have assumed they meant, or that some of the things that those sources do mean aren't universally true or even universally desirable for/by all of God's children.

One wouldn't have to necessarily abandon them--just understand them in a previously unknown way; that heaven or exaltation isn't a "one size fits all" existence... line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, as The Lord extends the Saints' understanding, the knowledge and power of God are expanding;The veil o'er the earth is beginning to burst. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

It is probably pretty pointles to discuss how spirits are created since neither one of us have any doctrinal support. But that doesn't mean I am not interested in your views. So I would like to know your opinion on

1. How do you think animal spirits are created

2. Do you think it is possible human spirits are created the same way?

3. Do you think that 2 male gods could create worlds and all other godly responsibilities without being married to a woman?

Love reading your views.

 

1. I  don't know. That is but one on a long list of things God has yet to tell me about.

 

2. Human spirits were organized  from before the foundations of the world were set from "light and  truth". I don't know the process. From the Scriptures "light and truth" have always existed.

 

3. No. LDS believe in a Mother-in-Heaven.

Share this post


Link to post

To clarify the discussion further, here's D&C 132: 15, 18, 19, and 30 state:

These verses specify how marriage shall be construed “if a man marries a wife.” None of them limit the possibility of a woman marrying a wife, or a man marrying a husband.

They are entirely silent on that issue—they don’t offer any prohibition of same-sex marriage; that’s not what section 132 is about. It simply describes eternal marriage for opposite-sex couples, but is entirely silent about what marriage for same-sex couples could look like.

 

Silence doesn't mean consent in the Church. The Scriptures are silent on a great many things that are still true. However on the issue of SSM in Temples, or other Church buildings, the Church and its Scriptures are not silent.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

Share this post


Link to post

They already are separate. No religion has to recognize a civil marriage. And the government will not recognize a religious marriage if no pAperwork is filed. There, you got your wish, problem solved. Except for the tiny little detail that the church wants to control both types of marriages. Until that stops there will be a problem

 

But to clarify, religious lobbying should not overflow into the civil marriage discussion. IOW, religious opinion has no bearing on civil marriage.

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?

Silence doesn't mean consent in the Church. The Scriptures are silent on a great many things that are still true. However on the issue of SSM in Temples, or other Church buildings, the Church and its Scriptures are not silent.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

I understand that from the pulpit and church magazines and websites, current leadership's position is to uphold the current LDS policy that any and all same-sex behavior is sinful, and that the Lord has not yet revealed any accommodation for the marriage of same-sex couples.

My point is that the church's current "attitude" (the word used on the church's website you first listed) is a statement of policy that isn't scriptural or doctrinal. That is, it isn't found in the doctrine as described by the standard works. At best, it's based on vague and non-explicit passages that don't actually address or even prohibit the possibility that the Lord could someday sanction same-sex marriage for his gay sons and lesbian daughters in the same way he does for his straight sons and daughters.

Further, I suggest that because LDS doctrine has never described the process by which heavenly parents create spirit children, it's not yet clear whether or not dual genders are necessary for the creation of spirit children.

Finally, even if two different genders are necessary for celestial procreation, it's possible that God could specify that same-sex couples can be united in eternal marriages, reside in the celestial kingdom, and have a different celestial purpose and destiny other than spiritual child-bearing.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that from the pulpit and church magazines and websites, current leadership's position is to uphold the current LDS policy that any and all same-sex behavior is sinful, and that the Lord has not yet revealed any accommodation for the marriage of same-sex couples.

My point is that the church's current policy is not scriptural or doctrinal. That is, it isn't found in the doctrine as described by the standard works. At best, it's based on vague and non-explicit passages that don't actually address or even prohibit the possibility that the Lord could someday sanction same-sex marriage for his gay sons and lesbian daughters in the same way he does for his straight sons and daughters.

Further, I suggest that because LDS doctrine has never described the process by which heavenly parents create spirit children, it's not yet clear whether or not dual genders are necessary for the creation of spirit children.

Finally, even if two different genders are necessary for celestial procreation, it's possible that God could specify that same-sex couples can be united in eternal marriages, reside in the celestial kingdom, and have a different celestial purpose and destiny other than spiritual child-bearing.

 

 

It is Scriptural and doctrinal. God can, of course, at anytime change the requirements of his Church. However I see no indication that he will change the requirements of Church regarding SSM for the foreseeable future.

 

That is a leap in logic that neither the church nor I can make at this time.

 

Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom is the ability to have increase(Offspring). Same sex couples whatever their other fine qualities can not have increase(Offspring).

Share this post


Link to post

It is Scriptural and doctrinal.

I haven't found or seen any scripture reference regarding any prohibition of same-sex marriage, which is why I asked for references. The Scriptures you listed describe conditions of marriage "if a man marry a woman," but do not say anything about prohibiting marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. So, a prohibition of same-sex marriage isn't scriptural.

If a book describes the conditions by which someone can become a doctor, it doesn't mean it automatically prohibits anyone else from becoming a dentist--it was simply describing what it means to become a doctor.

My understanding that official doctrine is only contained in the standard works. Therefore, since there is no prohibition of same-sex marriage in the Scriptures, the current prohibition of same-sex marriage is a matter of policy, not official doctrine.

God can, of course, at anytime change the requirements of his Church.

I'm glad we can agree on that. :)

However I see no indication that he will change the requirements of Church regarding SSM for the foreseeable future.

God's thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways

That is a leap in logic that neither the church nor I can make at this time.

I believe this is true (emphasis added).

Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom is the ability to have increase(Offspring). Same sex couples whatever their other fine qualities can not have increase(Offspring).

I understand this is what you believe, but according to the apologetic standards of how to determine what is official church doctrine, I don't believe these statements don't qualify as scriptural or doctrinal.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't found or seen any scripture reference regarding any prohibition of same-sex marriage, which is why I asked for references. The Scriptures you listed describe conditions of marriage "if a man marry a woman," but do not say anything about prohibiting marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. So, a prohibition of same-sex marriage isn't scriptural.

If a book describes the conditions by which someone can become a doctor, it doesn't mean it automatically prohibits anyone else from becoming a dentist--it was simply describing what it means to become a doctor.

My understanding that official doctrine is only contained in the standard works. Therefore, since there is no prohibition of same-sex marriage in the Scriptures, the current prohibition of same-sex marriage is a matter of policy, not official doctrine.

I'm glad we can agree on that. :)

God's thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways

I believe this is true (emphasis added).

I understand this is what you believe, but according to the apologetic standards of how to determine what is official church doctrine, I don't believe these statements don't qualify as scriptural or doctrinal.

 

Just because something might not (yet) be codified in the standard works doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't qualify as doctrine.  The Family: A Proclamation to the World is an example.  Patriarchal Blessings are another example.  As you probably know, according to LDS teachings, whether it is spoken by the mouth of Lord's servants or by the Lord Himself, it is the same (D&C 1: 38).  And the words of the living prophets always take precedence over the dead ones (see here).  Yes, the standard works contain official doctrine, but as Elder Neal L. Anderson also pointed out,

 

"There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

 

There is also the scripture in Romans 1: 26-27.  We also also warned against "wresting the scriptures."  

 

The attempt to argue that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is not doctrinal, but only procedural, strikes me as disingenuous.    

Share this post


Link to post

Just because something might not (yet) be codified in the standard works doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't qualify as doctrine.  The Family: A Proclamation to the World is an example.  Patriarchal Blessings are another example.  As you probably know, according to LDS teachings, whether it is spoken by the mouth of Lord's servants or by the Lord Himself, it is the same (D&C 1: 38).  And the words of the living prophets always take precedence over the dead ones (see here).  Yes, the standard works contain official doctrine, but as Elder Neal L. Anderson also pointed out,

 

"There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

 

There is also the scripture in Romans 1: 26-27.  We also also warned against "wresting the scriptures."  

 

The attempt to argue that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is not doctrinal, but only procedural, strikes me as disingenuous.

While I don't agree that the Proclamation is doctrine. I am not a strict constructionist so that unless the standard works specifically denounce SSM that means it could ever be considered appropriate in the Church. We may well be out in a cultural and doctrinal left field regarding our gender stereotyping, but marriage of the heterosexual kind is a fundamental structure for the way Mormonism conceives of the world and the hereafter. This something not lightly changed. Women having the Priesthood, no big structural change there, but SSM, that is a whole different league. However, I see no doctrinal support for the idea that we should be legislatively trying to force our views on marriage on others anymore than they should be forcing us to accept their views as part of our religion.

Share this post


Link to post

Just because something might not (yet) be codified in the standard works doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't qualify as doctrine. The Family: A Proclamation to the World is an example. Patriarchal Blessings are another example. As you probably know, according to LDS teachings, whether it is spoken by the mouth of Lord's servants or by the Lord Himself, it is the same (D&C 1: 38). And the words of the living prophets always take precedence over the dead ones (see here). Yes, the standard works contain official doctrine, but as Elder Neal L. Anderson also pointed out,

"There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

There is also the scripture in Romans 1: 26-27. We also also warned against "wresting the scriptures."

The attempt to argue that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is not doctrinal, but only procedural, strikes me as disingenuous.

Ok.... let's take a look at something similar from Mormonism's recent past, and attempt to apply your reasoning from above:

A Statement from the First Presidency:

“August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

The First Presidency”

http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/

Mormon First Presidency 1947 Signed Statement:

"...From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel."

--As Originally, Officially Stated

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Mormon-Church-Blacks-The-First-Presidency-Officially-Stated-Position

On 17 July 1947, the LDS First Presidency wrote the following to Lowry Nelson, Mormon professor at Utah State Agricultural College regarding the status of Blacks in the eyes of the Mormon God:

"Dear Brother Nelson:

". . . The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assinged to superior positions before the world was formed.

"We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore. From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

"Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

"Faithfully yours,

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay"

[George Albert Smith was the Mormon prophet in 1947]

Lowry responded on 8 October:

"The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist."

The First Presidency answered:

"We feel very sure that you are aware of the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.

"You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God."

I believe the similarities with the discussion and potential assumptions being made in this thread about:

  • what constitutes "doctrine" vs "policy,"
  • the danger of assuming prophets are infallible
  • that "doctrine" is unchangeable
and how the church's understanding about these same assunptions, as applied to the priesthood ban, are well illustrated by the above official statements and letters issued by the First Presidency.

When we fast-forward 65 years, we read the following explanation, as offered on the church's official website:

Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

...In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.8

...The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.

...Given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done.

... Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”24 and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

I realize that many feel that the difference between the race-based African Negro priesthood ban vs. the gender based same-sex marriage ban we're discussing here is that same sex-marriage requires a "major structural doctrinal change," unlike our current understanding of race based doctrines.

My point is this: doesn't it seem to you that the statements made by members of the First Presidency prior to 1978 sure seem like the leaders in earlier times were convinced that the priesthood ban was based on "doctrine"? And yet the church today completely "disavows" that those were ever doctrine...? And if you're white, maybe that doctrinal disavowel didn't seem like a "major structural change," but if one was black, it sure seems like one to me. Can you imagine a member of the First Presidency today suggesting that black skin is "a handicap" that blacks readily accepted, just to get the blessing of having a physical body...?

Times change. Yesterday's "doctrine" turns out to never have been "doctrine" at all----it was just "policy."

The nature of "revelation" is to bring new light and knowledge into the world--a different understanding than what was previously unknown.

What differences will the church 'website' of 2079 have, from the alleged 'doctrines' of today?

Share this post


Link to post

No, it does not even seem remotely close.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't found or seen any scripture reference regarding any prohibition of same-sex marriage, which is why I asked for references. The Scriptures you listed describe conditions of marriage "if a man marry a woman," but do not say anything about prohibiting marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. So, a prohibition of same-sex marriage isn't scriptural.

If a book describes the conditions by which someone can become a doctor, it doesn't mean it automatically prohibits anyone else from becoming a dentist--it was simply describing what it means to become a doctor.

My understanding that official doctrine is only contained in the standard works. Therefore, since there is no prohibition of same-sex marriage in the Scriptures, the current prohibition of same-sex marriage is a matter of policy, not official doctrine.

I'm glad we can agree on that. :)

God's thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways

I believe this is true (emphasis added).

I understand this is what you believe, but according to the apologetic standards of how to determine what is official church doctrine, I don't believe these statements don't qualify as scriptural or doctrinal.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

 

At least in the US dentists are doctors.

 

There is a prohibition on SSM in the Scriptures.

 

I am always glad when we agree. :good:

 

You can drive the QE2 through that loophole.

 

I'm no apologist, all I am is a interested member of the church with a big mouth. ;) It is what the Church says.

Share this post


Link to post

To clarify the discussion further, here's D&C 132: 15, 18, 19, and 30 state:

These verses specify how marriage shall be construed “if a man marries a wife.” None of them limit the possibility of a woman marrying a wife, or a man marrying a husband.

They are entirely silent on that issue—they don’t offer any prohibition of same-sex marriage; that’s not what section 132 is about. It simply describes eternal marriage for opposite-sex couples, but is entirely silent about what marriage for same-sex couples could look like.

 

Perhaps the reason that they don’t explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage is that, until recently, marriage was defined as a relationship between men and women.  Why would the scriptures prohibit something, which by definition, could not exist?  Advocates of ssm changed the definition of marriage within the last decade or so.  Apparently, many are now forgetting that they have changed the definition, and no doubt will soon forget that they forgot.  Marriage is a relationship between two adults, regardless of gender.  It has always been a relationship between two adults, regardless of gender. Straight out of Orwell.  
 
And therefore, the fact that scriptures written before the definition was changed by ssm advocates  failed to specifically prohibit ssm is evidence of the possibility of “eternal ssm.” 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Perhaps the reason that they don’t explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage is that, until recently, marriage was defined as a relationship between men and women.  Why would the scriptures prohibit something, which by definition, could not exist?  Advocates of ssm changed the definition of marriage within the last decade or so.  Apparently, many are now forgetting that they have changed the definition, and no doubt will soon forget that they forgot.  Marriage is a relationship between two adults, regardless of gender.  It has always been a relationship between two adults, regardless of gender. Straight out of Orwell.  
 
And therefore, the fact that scriptures written before the definition was changed by ssm advocates  failed to specifically prohibit ssm is evidence of the possibility of “eternal ssm.” 

 

 

I think everyone agrees with what you are saying.  The point is, there is no doctrine or revelation concerning ssm.  The reason is because of what you stated.  We really have no idea how God feels about homosexual relationships within the bounds of marriage.  We do clearly know that all sex including gay sex, outside of marriage is prohibited in the scriptures, and that would be doctrine in keeping with the law of chastity.

 

Right now there is only church policy concerning gay relations being prohibited both within and without the bonds of marriage.  Perhaps at some point a revelation on this issue will be received if asked for by the prophet.  

Share this post


Link to post

Ok.... let's take a look at something similar from Mormonism's recent past, and attempt to apply your reasoning from above:

I believe the similarities with the discussion and potential assumptions being made in this thread about:

  • what constitutes "doctrine" vs "policy,"
  • the danger of assuming prophets are infallible
  • that "doctrine" is unchangeable
and how the church's understanding about these same assunptions, as applied to the priesthood ban, are well illustrated by the above official statements and letters issued by the First Presidency.

When we fast-forward 65 years, we read the following explanation, as offered on the church's official website:

I realize that many feel that the difference between the race-based African Negro priesthood ban vs. the gender based same-sex marriage ban we're discussing here is that same sex-marriage requires a "major structural doctrinal change," unlike our current understanding of race based doctrines.

My point is this: doesn't it seem to you that the statements made by members of the First Presidency prior to 1978 sure seem like the leaders in earlier times were convinced that the priesthood ban was based on "doctrine"? And yet the church today completely "disavows" that those were ever doctrine...? And if you're white, maybe that doctrinal disavowel didn't seem like a "major structural change," but if one was black, it sure seems like one to me. Can you imagine a member of the First Presidency today suggesting that black skin is "a handicap" that blacks readily accepted, just to get the blessing of having a physical body...?

Times change. Yesterday's "doctrine" turns out to never have been "doctrine" at all----it was just "policy."

The nature of "revelation" is to bring new light and knowledge into the world--a different understanding than what was previously unknown.

What differences will the church 'website' of 2079 have, from the alleged 'doctrines' of today?

 

 

 

Sorry, but I simply don't buy the notion that the former priesthood ban is akin to today's counsel against same-sex relationships and SSM.  I also roundly reject that there is no doctrine or revelation concerning SSM.  I can see how it might be more convenient for some to believe that, though.  I gave several references to back up my position, and they stand on their own.  

 

I'm also not a fan of endlessly quibbling over what constitutes "doctrine" vs "policy."  It's just another way to justify rationalization.   

 

 

I also noticed that in the 1949 FP letter that you referenced, it states: "Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."  It also states: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."  

 

So, the 1949 letter hints that the Priesthood restriction wasn't something permanent, and that there would be a change at some future point.  I see no such similar declarations or hints anywhere in the Family Proclamation with regards to SSM.  It's also worth noting that the Family Proclamation was issued by all 15 members of the FP and the Q12, and only they have the full authority to interpret God's laws and declare doctrine for the entire church.  The Family Proclamation was a proclamation to the world, and has not been rescinded in the nearly 20 years since it was issued, but instead it continues to get referred to in every General Conference as God's unalterable standard regarding marriage and the family.  It also hangs on the walls, in frames, in many LDS homes.  It is treated and revered as though it was scripture.  

 

So yes, the Family Proclamation holds much more weight for me than a relatively obscure FP letter from 1949….

 

   

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I simply don't buy the notion that the former priesthood ban is akin to today's counsel against same-sex relationships and SSM.  I also roundly reject that there is no doctrine or revelation concerning SSM.  I can see how it might be more convenient for some to believe that, though.  I gave several references to back up my position, and they stand on their own.  

 

I'm also not a fan of endlessly quibbling over what constitutes "doctrine" vs "policy."  It's just another way to justify rationalization.   

 

 

I also noticed that in the 1949 FP letter that you referenced, it states: "Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."  It also states: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."  

 

So, the 1949 letter hints that the Priesthood restriction wasn't something permanent, and that there would be a change at some future point.  I see no such similar declarations or hints anywhere in the Family Proclamation with regards to SSM.  It's also worth noting that the Family Proclamation was issued by all 15 members of the FP and the Q12, and only they have the full authority to interpret God's laws and declare doctrine for the entire church.  The Family Proclamation was a proclamation to the world, and has not been rescinded in the nearly 20 years since it was issued, but instead it continues to get referred to in every General Conference as God's unalterable standard regarding marriage and the family.  It also hangs on the walls, in frames, in many LDS homes.  It is treated and revered as though it was scripture.  

 

So yes, the Family Proclamation holds much more weight for me than a relatively obscure FP letter from 1949….

 

   

 

But to Daniel's point... If, in 2014, the Church can disavow what was taught by prophets and apostles for 125 years, then I see no reason why the Church couldn't disavow what has been taught about homosexuality by prophets and apostles over a much shorter period of time.  In fact, in some ways the Church already has by removing apostolic addresses such as "To Young Men Only" and "To The One" and be rescinding previous handbook counsel for homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriage.  Similarly, with the priesthood & temple restrictions, Brigham Young originally said that they would be in place until some millenial timeframe (the "all the sons of Adam" declaration that came with the ban).  But over time, that began to change to "someday" rather than President Young's original incorrect prophecy.  All of which, of course, has essentially now been deemed to be the opinions of men.  As will our current teachings on homosexuality.  And probably ordination of women as well.

 

That's both the beauty and difficulty of believing in continuing revelation.

Share this post


Link to post

God will never sanctify homosexual activity, no matter how many people approve of it. It's the same sin as masturbation, wasting the sacred seed of life. It will always take one part male and one part female to create a life.  SSM ends all possibility of creating life, there can be no increase.

Share this post


Link to post

God will never sanctify homosexual activity, no matter how many people approve of it. It's the same sin as masturbation, wasting the sacred seed of life. It will always take one part male and one part female to create a life.  SSM ends all possibility of creating life, there can be no increase.

 

Just out of curiosity - where is masturbation defined as a sin?

 

I don't really see the relevance of whether or not a gay couple can produce mortal offspring.

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity - where is masturbation defined as a sin?

 

I don't really see the relevance of whether or not a gay couple can produce mortal offspring.

 

Genesis 38: 8-10

Share this post


Link to post

Genesis 38: 8-10

 

Nothing there about masturbating.  What Onan seems to have done is intentionally avoid impregnating his brother's widow.  I don't want to get graphic on these boards so you'll just have to think that one through.

Share this post


Link to post

But to Daniel's point... If, in 2014, the Church can disavow what was taught by prophets and apostles for 125 years, then I see no reason why the Church couldn't disavow what has been taught about homosexuality by prophets and apostles over a much shorter period of time. In fact, in some ways the Church already has by removing apostolic addresses such as "To Young Men Only" and "To The One" and be rescinding previous handbook counsel for homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriage. Similarly, with the priesthood and temple restrictions, Brigham Young originally said that they would be in place until some millenial timeframe (the "all the sons of Adam" declaration that came with the ban). But over time, that began to change to "someday" rather than President Young's original incorrect prophecy. All of which, of course, has essentially now been deemed to be the opinions of men. As will our current teachings on homosexuality. And probably ordination of women as well.

That's both the beauty and difficulty of believing in continuing revelation.

I recognize that there has been some changes over the years with the way the Church apporaches the topic of homosexuality. And I have welcomed those changes. But the doctrine that same-sex relationships are considered sinful has not changed. I continue to stand by my position and the sources that I used to back myself up. We might not find out which one of us was right until many years later. I respectfully bow out of this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity - where is masturbation defined as a sin?

 

I don't really see the relevance of whether or not a gay couple can produce mortal offspring.

Do you need every sin spelled out in black and white?

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...