Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PacMan

Bill Reel Straw Man - 2015 Policy Edition

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

In this evolution do you believe the church will allow same sex sealings in the temple in the future? If yes, then do you believe that the sealings have validity in the highest realms of the Celestial Kingdom or that they reach a certain level like single ministering angels? 

Assuming you believe the doctrine of eternal increase / becoming Gods, can a same sex couple participate in this if sealed in your opinion?

If the church does accept married same-sex couples but doesn't allow sealings or teach that they are only ministering angels,  do you think that creates second class citizens in the kingdom and that we will see continued frustration and animosity from the gay rights community?

 

I personally don't think any gay rights group will be happy until the church says that same-sex couples are 100% the same now (temple marriage) and for eternity (doctrine of eternal increase) and until that is the case they will complain. And after that is the case they will say the church was wrong and isn't penitent enough (just like for blacks and the priesthood) and must crawl on the floor woefully to repent. The ironic part is I would be surprised if the majority of those in gay rights groups with these opinions even believe in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or temple marriage. So it is somewhat of a moot point what they think. But we sure give them a lot of air-time

What is the primary purpose in your mind of preparing Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms for our heavenly parents children to dwell in?  As far as I know lds theology has doctrine defining who may inherit the highest level of the celestial kingdom (heterosexual monogamist couples, polygamists, and single gods like Jesus and the holy ghost) and the lowest level of the celestial kingdom (angels who choose not to get married).  However concerning the 2nd level of the celestial kingdom, or social relationships, unions, marriages, socialities, friendships, kinship networks, tribes, and groups which inherit the terrestrial and telestial worlds lds theology has really nothing to offer as far as I can tell.  "we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;"  

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What is the primary purpose in your mind of preparing Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms for our heavenly parents children to dwell in?  As far as I know lds theology has doctrine defining who may inherit the highest level of the celestial kingdom (heterosexual monogamist couples, polygamists, and single gods like Jesus and the holy ghost) and the lowest level of the celestial kingdom (angels who choose not to get married).  However concerning the 2nd level of the celestial kingdom, or social relationships, unions, marriages, socialities, friendships, kinship networks, tribes, and groups which inherit the terrestrial and telestial worlds lds theology has really nothing to offer as far as I can tell.  "we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;"  

We are going way off into left field, as I have nothing great to back it up except opinion.

But, if I were to guess the purpose of all the kingdoms is to help God's children in the eternities to advance and continue their eternal progression. I am personally of the opinion that all spirit children will be given the opportunity to advance and continue forward. However, I think the progression is slow-going after you lose your mortal probation. I also believe that whatever they are doing, most won't choose to continue to advance for the same reason that many choose to not constantly try to do God's will more fully in this life. They'll just be content with their life how it is (something I am guilty of all too frequently).

Also, as a side-note: "single gods like Jesus and the holy ghost" - I don't believe there are any exceptions and that all who receive eternal glory have to be sealed. So Jesus and the Holy Ghost will need to be sealed to a wife(s). And as I mentioned in my other post, the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ is very unique in that it believes in a Heavenly Mother/Heavenly Father and the concept of marriage and eternal increase after this life, all of which require two genders. I don't see any way for the church to squeeze in the idea that same-sex marriages can be sealed and have eternal increase. So I don't think there will ever be changes in their rules regarding all homosexual activity (married or not) being sin. Plus, I believe it's an eternal law that God can't/won't change.

I also think that this will continue to cause huge rifts primarily between the Church and the world, and to a lesser extent between the Church and some members who don't have faith in the current and future prophets and apostles that continue teaching God's principles on this, and we will see major struggles with apostasy and attacks on the church from other institutions in the world (governments, companies, media. etc.).

How about you? I'd love your thoughts on if/should the church change their rules regarding homosexual activity and sealings and why. And if you are a person of faith, do you have any scripture or clear teachings on why.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So what was once moral (having sex with someone who was not your legal spouse) and was considered to be living within the bounds of the Law of Chastity is now a sin and is breaking the Law of Chastity.

You keep making reference to this. Has the church ever taught it's okay to have sex with someone you aren't married to (either for time or eternity or both)? I have never heard of this if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm referring to your use of the common acronym for a curse word.  Let's leave that kind of talk off these boards.

As I said, look at where CB was the first to use it, why I've been using it, and then scold him as well. In the meantime I shall scold you for coming late to a discussion so ready to condemn without considering his or my posts.

Consider yourself blatantly scolded,!

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, california boy said:

Not sure if I want to get drawn in on this issue once again.  But from an outsiders point of view, this who using the child as some pawn in the church's war against gay marriage is sad.  The church has no policy for prohibiting baptism to children whose parents are also sinning such as not being married or of a different religion.  So this whole excuse of protecting the family from conflict is just BS.

I totally get that the church is against gay marriage.  Fine.  Not a problem.  But to use kids as some kind of punishment to the child of a gay couple who want their child to be a member of the church is well, sad.  

I didn't catch this before but to be fair to @CV75 and to not be deemed duplicitous by @Scott Lloyd, I'll tell you as well that I find the use of "BS" to be inappropriate for the board.

I think we should all strive to keep our language clean here as our dialogue represents the church.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As I said, look at where CB was the first to use it, why I've been using it, and then scold him as well. In the meantime I shall scold you for coming late to a discussion so ready to condemn without considering his or my posts.

Consider yourself blatantly scolded,!

I missed CB's use but see my response to him above.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't catch this before but to be fair to @CV75 and to not be deemed duplicitous by @Scott Lloyd, I'll tell you as well that I find the use of "BS" to be inappropriate for the board.

I think we should all strive to keep our language clean here as our dialogue represents the church.

What if it's my initials, can I use it.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I missed CB's use but see my response to him above.

OK I would like to see you reply to him in the exact same phrasing as you replied to me. Then we can redirect from the topic altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

They can hope the parents get married, stop drinking, stop doing drugs.  All of which do not affect their family structure in a bad way, but strengthen it.

The only family structure I see as potentially destroyed if parents were to choose to start living by church standards is one where one parent is actually married to someone else.  A divorce and destruction of another family would have to take place in order to strengthen that family's bonds.  Still while the child might feel bad for the other family, it does not desolve his own as would be required if his parents were gay or in a polygamy situation and then chose to follow church standards of marriage.  This is probably not a common occurrence here, but might be in countries where divorce is not legal or very difficult to get.

Would be interesting to know if there are restrictions on baptism of children in such areas.

I see this will change as well, so I don't believe the family structure would be destroyed.  I honestly cannot see the church continuing its stance that those who enter into a committed marriage (SSM) are guilty of Apostasy.  I know that is what the leaders state now, but I firmly believe this will change.  But for now, I see your reasoning.  However, I completely disagree with the policy and believe a child should be allowed baptism, the Priesthood (and advancement in the Priesthood) even if their parents are in a SSM.  

I always appreciate the way you reason things out, Calm.... 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

You keep making reference to this. Has the church ever taught it's okay to have sex with someone you aren't married to (either for time or eternity or both)? I have never heard of this if so.

Yes (for sex with someone who you are not legally married to).  I'd quote it, but it was in the temple endowment when taking the covenant to obey the Law of Chastity (hint....it wasn't limited to "legally and lawfully wedded", since polygamous unions were not legal).  The wording was changed when polygamy was no longer practiced to what it was before there was another change recently.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see this will change as well, so I don't believe the family structure would be destroyed. 

Until it changes though, it would be destroying them if standards were acted upon.  And assuming I remember well enough how I thought as a child as well as how I see children expressing themselves, hoping for possible futures is nowhere close to being sufficient to deal with current anxieties and fears.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Until it changes though, it would be destroying them if standards were acted upon.

I don't think the family structure would have to be destroyed in order for a child to be baptized who was living in a home where his parents are in a SSM.  What if these parents supported the baptism?  

Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but I don't see why baptizing a child (or giving a son the Priesthood) would be destroying the family structure.

Many children or youth go to church and their parents are either just living together (or committing other sins and not attending).  What if those parents never change their behaviors but the child stays active?  Is that destroying the family structure too?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't think the family structure would have to be destroyed in order for a child to be baptized who was living in a home where his parents are in a SSM.  What if these parents supported the baptism?  

If the policy about SSM was changed.  I am talking about the current state of things.

It is considered a sin and individuals can only be no longer be committing a sin when the relationship ceases to exist altogether (as in sexual and romantic companionship) as opposed to most other sinful behaviours with a marriage partner or long term companion (exceptions being SSM, polygamy and a parent being an adulterer, though the last two have the option of destroying other families and maintaining the one the child at question is in).

If parents in any other case besides those three are taking drugs, etc. come to church, there is no issue with teaching them they should get off of drugs or even get married.  Missionaries can teach them lessons without having to be concerned there will be more than the usual upheavals if they convert and in fact most society would applaud the typical changes of no tobacco or illegal drugs or be neutral about other requirements of no alcohol, marriage.  Completely different set of dynamics if teaching one of the three....'if you choose to convert, you need to get divorced, live separately, and never see this partner in a romantic way again; your children will need to live with only one parent at a time; due to the issues with divorce, there is a good chance your children will be raised in poverty or at least greater hardship than now, etc. etc.'

The only way for all that to be removed without changing the Law of Chastity is for the Church to say 'we don't really care about 'this sin' anymore; we won't teach that gay, plural, or adulterous partners must split up to live the Law of Chastity so your kids won't need to worry about hearing that taught as they grow up.'  If we approach that type of chasitity in that way, what moral right will there be to teach premarital Chasity is necessary?

The only thing that could work imo is to remove homosexual behaviour in the context of marriage from the sinful category.  I think some fundamental beliefs about what exaltation and how spirit children are created (only two people needed, not man and woman) would have to be changed though.  At this point, even unmarried relationships between a man and a woman (including polygamous and adulterous ones if they repent of disobedience in mortality and God approves of the relationship continuing between perfected beings which means it would then be chaste) can be imagined that after some work they could be functioning exalted married relationships.  Not so for SSM.  That is why I see massive belief change would be required to have it viewed as anything like OSM is viewed today.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Found out I have company this weekend...got to go get the house respectable, so will be trying not to post.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Yes (for sex with someone who you are not legally married to).  I'd quote it, but it was in the temple endowment when taking the covenant to obey the Law of Chastity (hint....it wasn't limited to "legally and lawfully wedded", since polygamous unions were not legal).  The wording was changed when polygamy was no longer practiced to what it was before there was another change recently.

I have never heard of this before, but figured it would be something around polygamy. Did the Law of Chastity previously require either a) a civil marriage or b) a temple sealing? If it required at least one or the other, then it is still marriage in God's eyes and I really don't feel it's a change. If it allowed full on adultery or fornication without either civil marriage or temple sealing, then I would agree that this is a change.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have never heard of this before, but figured it would be something around polygamy. Did the Law of Chastity previously require either a) a civil marriage or b) a temple sealing? If it required at least one or the other, then it is still marriage in God's eyes and I really don't feel it's a change. If it allowed full on adultery or fornication without either civil marriage or temple sealing, then I would agree that this is a change.

Civil marriage often included common law marriage, and divorce was often carried out on a par, as a mutual understanding without the formality we are accustomed to. But in either case, these were considered lawful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I didn't catch this before but to be fair to @CV75 and to not be deemed duplicitous by @Scott Lloyd, I'll tell you as well that I find the use of "BS" to be inappropriate for the board.

I think we should all strive to keep our language clean here as our dialogue represents the church.

I apologize for being so frustrated on the logic some use to defend this policy and using an inappropriate initial.  I am not going to say much more than that since I have already been chastised for commenting too much on this issue.  An issue I might add that I have NEVER started any thread about. And a policy  that I have repeatedly said the church has every right to impose.  Church leaders can withhold baptism on any child they wish.  It is just their excuse for doing so that I feel is ridiculous and lacks any kind of consistency. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't think the family structure would have to be destroyed in order for a child to be baptized who was living in a home where his parents are in a SSM.  What if these parents supported the baptism?  

Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but I don't see why baptizing a child (or giving a son the Priesthood) would be destroying the family structure.

Many children or youth go to church and their parents are either just living together (or committing other sins and not attending).  What if those parents never change their behaviors but the child stays active?  Is that destroying the family structure too?

I think it's specifically about redefining the covenant of marriage, which in turn is the basis for a covenant-based family. I think "destroying the family" is shorthand or a slight tangent on what is actually going on.

Cohabitation and other sins do not alter the marriage covenant as designed. Same-sex marriage does alter it, which is why I think it is defined as apostate for formal disciplinary purposes.

As far as sinful people (and we all are sinful people) raising or otherwise influencing/affecting children together, in the eyes of the child, the adult couple in their lives is "married" no matter how sinfully (co-habitation/fornication) or apostate (formal marriage) their arrangement may be. The marriage laws of yesteryear may seem simple and childlike to us today, but a child's perspective must be taken into account when working with offending couples in a parent-Church partnership in getting her the ordinances. One set of sinners changes the covenant which is the basis for a family (a couple qualifying as a family), the other does not.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I apologize for being so frustrated on the logic some use to defend this policy and using an inappropriate initial.  I am not going to say much more than that since I have already been chastised for commenting too much on this issue.  An issue I might add that I have NEVER started any thread about. And a policy  that I have repeatedly said the church has every right to impose.  Church leaders can withhold baptism on any child they wish.  It is just their excuse for doing so that I feel is ridiculous and lacks any kind of consistency. 

I think it’s a common enough term not to be overly offensive in and of itself (maybe a PG). Oddly enough though, I was the only one who gave you the benefit of a doubt as to what you could have meant by it. And oddly, I offended some because I came up with a few alternatives as to what it stood for which, were perfectly G-rated.

I think this illustrates the problem with redefining words, terms and concepts (and covenants). Why can’t I be more creative, loving, open and inclusive by giving the “initials-that-shan’t-be-uttered” (ITSBU) a more liberal and diverse array of definitions? Is there really only one true version of the ITSNBU?  I suppose so, since the same goes for marriage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I didn't catch this before but to be fair to @CV75 and to not be deemed duplicitous by @Scott Lloyd, I'll tell you as well that I find the use of "BS" to be inappropriate for the board.

I think we should all strive to keep our language clean here as our dialogue represents the church.

I agree, but it would have been better had you taken more ownership than having to pass your motivation and rationale on to me and Scott.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I have never heard of this before, but figured it would be something around polygamy. Did the Law of Chastity previously require either a) a civil marriage or b) a temple sealing? If it required at least one or the other, then it is still marriage in God's eyes and I really don't feel it's a change. If it allowed full on adultery or fornication without either civil marriage or temple sealing, then I would agree that this is a change.

But the wording was changed (just like it was a few months ago).  Is the wording something different than the actual law?  

If so, then that pertains to the newest change too, in my opinion.

So what exactly is the Law here?

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

OK I would like to see you reply to him in the exact same phrasing as you replied to me. Then we can redirect from the topic altogether.

All I said to you was “inappropriate” and I used the exact same word with CB. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I agree, but it would have been better had you taken more ownership than having to pass your motivation and rationale on to me and Scott.

Oh brother. 

First, I said “to be fair” to you.  That is acknowledging that I was being unfair. 

As for Scott, he has twice called me duplicitous without cause.  Will you call him out on that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...