Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wade Englund

Step Towards Same-Gender Temple Marriage?

Recommended Posts

Now that the heat has somewhat died down after the change in policy on same-gender marriage, perhaps we can have a reasoned and respectful discussion on a single point raised since last Friday:

It is the contention of some that the change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression (immoral conduct) similar to heterosexual adultery,  is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and ultimately temple marriage.

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

Granted, many who believe in the "step towards" have me on ignore, so there may not be much discussion. But, we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

 

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Not sure I'm following the logic here. Could you explain the above?

Edited by Palerider
Edited for clarity

Share this post


Link to post

Step 1.  (Intentionally left blank)

Share this post


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

Now that the heat has somewhat died down after the change in policy on same-gender marriage, perhaps we can have a reasoned and respectful discussion on a single point raised since last Friday:

It is the contention of some that the change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression (immoral conduct) similar to heterosexual adultery,  is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and ultimately temple marriage.

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

Granted, many who believe in the "step towards" have me on ignore, so there may not be much discussion. But, we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think we'd have to also look at permitting the baptism of ssm spouses first, and I think that gets back to the definitions of marriage doctrine-wise and cohabitation / fornication policy-wise. As long as marriage is defined as it currently is, I don't see the legitimacy of ssm or cohabitation vis-a-vis membership in the Church. I see no legitimacy for baptized members entering into these relationships either.

"Apostasy" is not necessarily "sin / serious transgression." The way this term is used for disciplinary policy purposes makes it no better or worse, or no less or more serious, than sin, just a different reason for discipline. "Apostasy" (policy definition) has overtones of enmity, which I think the Church, according to the recent articles, is trying to remove from issues of sexuality.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Has anyone changed their minds on this topic since the last lengthy discussion?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71724-policy-reversal/

If not, do we really need to rehash it again?

My opinion is the same as before.  If we’re talking about “steps”, I believe it’s a step closer to acceptance rather than taking a step towards even a stronger stance against SSM.  But I believe it’ll be years before it’s ever fully accepted by church leaders.  More members are accepting and supporting it as time goes by.  So time will tell how things progress from here.

(And yes, Wade, I tried to put you on ignore but I couldn’t find the link to do so on my phone!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Didn’t we just do this thread?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

It is the contention of some that the change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression (immoral conduct) similar to heterosexual adultery,  is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and ultimately temple marriage.

I did not like calling it apostasy.  It is not anymore apostasy as prostitution is apostasy.    Those who are making this claim are on some serious meds as far as I am concerned.  Many things are immoral conduct.   If its a step closer and now on the same classification as adultery, then perhaps adultery will be accepted at some point as well.  I have a hard time believing that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I did not like calling it apostasy.  It is not anymore apostasy as prostitution is apostasy.    Those who are making this claim are on some serious meds as far as I am concerned.  Many things are immoral conduct.   If its a step closer and now on the same classification as adultery, then perhaps adultery will be accepted at some point as well.  I have a hard time believing that.

Ssm was called apostasy for disciplinary purposes, and I saw a sound doctrinal basis for that. I also see sound reasoning for removing that designation 3+ years on for disciplinary purposes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Now that the heat has somewhat died down after the change in policy on same-gender marriage, perhaps we can have a reasoned and respectful discussion on a single point raised since last Friday:

It is the contention of some that the change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression (immoral conduct) similar to heterosexual adultery,  is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and ultimately temple marriage.

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

Granted, many who believe in the "step towards" have me on ignore, so there may not be much discussion. But, we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One form of heterosexual adultery is already accepted by the church.

Mark 10:

Quote

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a few years into a 20 year bet with an atheist arguing buddy.  He figures the church, like any other soulless corporate entity, will act like any other soulless entity, and do whatever it must to grow.  He points out that SSM is an established thing now, with majority acceptance in the US and growing around the world.  He thus concludes that the church will be forced to drop it's opposition to SSM in order to keep it's members and continue to grow.

I figure the church is what it claims to be, led by Christ through his chosen apostles and prophets, who believe the truth claims of the church.  And I figure one of those truth claims is God says the only good definition of marriage is between one man and one woman.

So, in 17(ish) years, if the church is performing same-sex marriages in the temple, I must put on a pink tutu and sing I'm a Little Teapot.  If we're still not doing so, he must don the tutu and perform the song.

(I don't think he's figured out yet, that this bet favors me no matter what the outcome.  If I wake up on the 20 year mark and discover the church is doing gay sealings in the temple, I probably won't care much about the color of my tutu.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Has anyone changed their minds on this topic since the last lengthy discussion?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71724-policy-reversal/

If not, do we really need to rehash it again?

My opinion is the same as before.  If we’re talking about “steps”, I believe it’s a step closer to acceptance rather than taking a step towards even a stronger stance against SSM.  But I believe it’ll be years before it’s ever fully accepted by church leaders.  More members are accepting and supporting it as time goes by.  So time will tell how things progress from here.

(And yes, Wade, I tried to put you on ignore but I couldn’t find the link to do so on my phone!)

I am sorry you weren't able to place me on ignore, but I appreciate your input nevertheless. As for it being rehashed, the specific question I am asking wasn't addressed at all.

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Didn’t we just do this thread?

No. I am asking a specific question that wasn't addressed earlier.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Palerider said:

Not sure I'm following the logic here. Could you explain the above?

Sure.

If SSM was originally classified as "A", but then had recently been reclassified as "B",

And, if "B" is considered closer to "Z" than "A"

Then if adultery had already been classified as "B" for some time, then adultery was already closer to "Z".

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Gray said:

One form of heterosexual adultery is already accepted by the church.

Mark 10:

 

Brilliant! 

However, since as you noted that "form of heterosexual adultery is already accepted by the church". it can't be the form of heterosexual adultery I was asking about.

Do you have any thoughts about the relevant form of adultery  (D&C 132:41-44)? Is it already closer to being legitimized?

BTW, there is one more minor problem with my OP question.  Can you guess what it is?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm a few years into a 20 year bet with an atheist arguing buddy.  He figures the church, like any other soulless corporate entity, will act like any other soulless entity, and do whatever it must to grow.  He points out that SSM is an established thing now, with majority acceptance in the US and growing around the world.  He thus concludes that the church will be forced to drop it's opposition to SSM in order to keep it's members and continue to grow.

Interesting.  However, my question for this thread is far more specific. To bring your comment in line with the more specific question, does your friend believe that adultery or fornication will also be legitimized by the Church, particularly given the public acceptance of those things, particularly fornication?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Now that the heat has somewhat died down after the change in policy on same-gender marriage, perhaps we can have a reasoned and respectful discussion on a single point raised since last Friday:

It is the contention of some that the change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression (immoral conduct) similar to heterosexual adultery,  is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and ultimately temple marriage.

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

Granted, many who believe in the "step towards" have me on ignore, so there may not be much discussion. But, we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the change in the temple law of Chastity is a step against it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Now that the heat has somewhat died down after the change in policy on same-gender marriage, perhaps we can have a reasoned and respectful discussion on a single point raised since last Friday:

It is the contention of some that the change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression (immoral conduct) similar to heterosexual adultery,  is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and ultimately temple marriage.

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

Granted, many who believe in the "step towards" have me on ignore, so there may not be much discussion. But, we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I really do not think it is such a step. It seems to be a reassessment of the situation and its impact on members of the church. I would not be surprised though to see the church formally canonize the Family Proclamation in order to dispel any ambiguity or any perceptions of ambiguity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Interesting.  However, my question for this thread is far more specific. To bring your comment in line with the more specific question, does your friend believe that adultery or fornication will also be legitimized by the Church, particularly given the public acceptance of those things, particularly fornication?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Depends on if they go back to what Joseph used to practice with his polygamy.  For some reason I see non-legalized polygamy, particularly if hidden from spouses and all of that, as adultery and fornication.  I, in fact, can't understand that anyone would conclude otherwise.  It seems to me you are only asking if the Church will return to it's former self and seem to want to tie in the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-considered policy change from 3 years ago.  No.  I think the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-conceived policy change from 3 years ago as a necessity for the church.  They wouldn't have done it otherwise.  finally the leaders realized the foolishness of it and dropped it.  I don't know that dropping it resolved anything for those who were negatively effected, but it's a good thing the Church can learn from it's mistakes to some extent.  And no I don't think it necessarily stepped the Church back to the adultery and fornication that the Church used to practice.  More the opposite of that.  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I really do not think it is such a step. It seems to be a reassessment of the situation and its impact on members of the church. I would not be surprised though to see the church formally canonize the Family Proclamation in order to dispel any ambiguity or any perceptions of ambiguity.

I actually wondered if that was going to happen too (canonization of the proclamation) and of course, it still may take place.

But then there are those who state there’s nothing in it about SSM.  

It seems members on each side of this debate can see whatever they believe is right.

Everything is just speculation at this point anyway.  Who knows what the next step will be.  Most of us were certainly surprised with the announcement of the reversal of the policy!  Many predicted it, but not this soon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Depends on if they go back to what Joseph used to practice with his polygamy.  For some reason I see non-legalized polygamy, particularly if hidden from spouses and all of that, as adultery and fornication. 

When looking at Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger, there are definitely a lot of questions.  Joseph couldn’t be sealed to her (no keys restored yet) and it was not a legal marriage.  It does appear he had a physical relationship with her and without Emma’s knowledge.  

So much of how polygamy was lived (especially in Nauvoo) was morally wrong, in my opinion.  Mainly the lies and deceit to hide it from Emma.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Gray said:

One form of heterosexual adultery is already accepted by the church.

Mark 10:

There is a difference between acceptance and permission: "Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

In some cases, until a person's heart is softened, he is not accountable for the hardness of his heart imposed upon him through the traditions of men. This is a common tehme in the Book of Mormon in relation to the descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Depends on if they go back to what Joseph used to practice with his polygamy.  For some reason I see non-legalized polygamy, particularly if hidden from spouses and all of that, as adultery and fornication.  I, in fact, can't understand that anyone would conclude otherwise.  It seems to me you are only asking if the Church will return to it's former self and seem to want to tie in the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-considered policy change from 3 years ago.  No.  I think the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-conceived policy change from 3 years ago as a necessity for the church.  They wouldn't have done it otherwise.  finally the leaders realized the foolishness of it and dropped it.  I don't know that dropping it resolved anything for those who were negatively effected, but it's a good thing the Church can learn from it's mistakes to some extent.  And no I don't think it necessarily stepped the Church back to the adultery and fornication that the Church used to practice.  More the opposite of that.  

But the Church saw plural marriage as legitimate because it was a priesthood order practiced under the proper keys . It is no longer legitimate between living spouses under the priesthood keys, and is not a priesthood order upon the earth between the living and dead spouses.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But the Church saw plural marriage as legitimate because it was a priesthood order practiced under the proper keys . It is no longer legitimate between living spouses under the priesthood keys, and is not a priesthood order upon the earth between the living and dead spouses.

Great.  And I guess in answer to Wade's question, I'm just saying essentially, the leaders would have to see reason to go back to the laws of the early Church, but again that seems to have nothing to do with dropping the ill-conceived and hostile policy that was put in place a couple of years ago.

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

When looking at Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger, there are definitely a lot of questions.  Joseph couldn’t be sealed to her (no keys restored yet) and it was not a legal marriage.  It does appear he had a physical relationship with her and without Emma’s knowledge.  

So much of how polygamy was lived (especially in Nauvoo) was morally wrong, in my opinion.  Mainly the lies and deceit to hide it from Emma.

Agreed

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So much of how polygamy was lived (especially in Nauvoo) was morally wrong, in my opinion.  Mainly the lies and deceit to hide it from Emma.

I have strong IMO's about this.  The defining moment for many is when you have to jump left or right you cannot stay where you are.  Joseph only had two choices. Keep living the way he was with Emma and displease the Lord or take what the Lord gave him and displease Emma.  After over 35 years of marriage if I was faced with such a choice it would be awful.  Be assured that Joseph did not take what the Lord did not give him. As one blessed with a powerful testimony of Joseph Smith I would stake all I have on that.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I really do not think it is such a step. It seems to be a reassessment of the situation and its impact on members of the church. I would not be surprised though to see the church formally canonize the Family Proclamation in order to dispel any ambiguity or any perceptions of ambiguity.

It seems to me the policy served the Lord's purpose and so the Lord changed it, which is the morally responsible thing to do with policies. Nothing changed in the doctrine. I think that is a good sign for our progress, that the First Presidency doesn't have to sign off on every baptism for every child in a potentially compromising spiritual dilemma. It is also good that "apostasy" over the marriage covenant seems to be on a par with "apostasy" over the baptism of little children in that it is now a matter of principle rather than practice, but when the practice is carried out and promoted in a way that is a conscientious rejection of Church keys, then it becomes apostasy for disciplinary purposes.

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...