Jump to content

JLHPROF

Contributor
  • Content Count

    14,713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JLHPROF

  1. Oh well. Enjoy the one that worked...
  2. I mentioned in another post that my family took a walk by the Salt Lake Temple last week. Thought people might be interested to see the three pictures I will post here. I found this first one fascinating to be able to see the uncovered rough stones on the SE corner. ETA having trouble finding a way to add all 3 pics. Working on it.
  3. Hmmm... weren't we just discussing this on another thread? Would never have happened even 20 years ago. Imagine 20 years from now.
  4. Well there are prophecies of a very small group of members that will be left when all is said and done. Perhaps 16 million is about as high as we'll get before the "mass exodus".
  5. I'm not disagreeing with you. I am however positing that the views of the general Church membership may not match you on this (or many other issues ). I think civil divorce today is often seen as being effective in cancelling a sealing due to the agency principle. I may be wrong. But I agree with you. Unless a cancellation happens or a covenant is broken by sin they are still husband and wife and remarriage is adultery.
  6. By we I mean the general body of the Church. Do you not have any divorced members who have remarried civilly but not been resealed in your circle of acquaintances?
  7. I would suggest that there are many divorced couples who are otherwise completely worthy in every other way. In which case the divorce has no justification for breaking of the covenant or prohibition being confirmed in the eternities by the Holy Spirit of Promise. No justification other than the law of agency. God will always allow us to choose our path, but I don't think he will allow covenants to be discarded that were never broken.
  8. I can think of several hypothetical ways this would manifest. Not sure it's worth speculating on but when your Bishop has a son in a SSM who is in every other way a believing saint? Or your Stake President has a sister in a SSM who wants to be active in the ward? These situations are going to continue to crop up again and again. Right now there is clear division, strict policy in place. And in general practicing homosexuals aren't seeking to partake of Church blessings and callings. But members will increasingly stop seeing a problem if they do. The young man in the original OP video i
  9. That's true. But what would the repercussions likely be within the Church? The 90% we are speaking of in this hypothetical instance are active members, many in leadership positions.
  10. So if a member who is sealed, gets a civil divorce but not a sealing cancellation/permission to remarry and then remarries in a civil ceremony do we consider that adultery? If not, why not?
  11. Neither do I. But nor do I think they will get to take their pick of an alternative. It may well be live up to your covenants or remain single. After all, everyone there will be a heavenly Celestial being.
  12. Not my wish, just to be clear. I just see parallels to history.
  13. Agreed. I think many who consider themselves divorced and single may yet find themselves with their eternal companion. (Unless they choose to reject that blessing in eternity). Brigham certainly indicated as much. What of the Savior's statement concerning remarriage after divorce (presumably without a sealing cancellation)? That's a scary concept.
  14. This is all true. Which brings us back to the question at hand. If no covenant was broken and there is no sealing cancellation, how would a member be justified after divorce in considering themselves single? Is there a gospel principle that would allow that.
  15. I'm not as convinced. I think you are correct that right now the action is to leave. I think we will reach a point where the great majority of active members will accept homosexual relationships as not sinful and they won't leave the Church over it. Instead you will have Bishops, Stake Presidents, Area Authorities, Temple Presidents, etc who will approach those in such relationships in a far more accepting manner than policy will currently allow. And back to the start of our conversation, I see this going far more in line with the membership thoughts that led to the end of the priesthoo
  16. The quote doesn't suggest that divorce is more accepted or a valid way to end a covenant. I also consider the quote congruent with President Young which is why I included it with the other quotes. The question at hand is since divorce isn't frowned on by members as much but the quotes seem to remain congruent as Church teaching, how do we reconcile our divorces with the gospel? Do we believe they are valid in God's eyes and that divorced members are no longer joined in eternity in those cases where no covenant was broken through major sin?
  17. B. And I agree that it is unworkable right now because a huge percent of the church still see homosexuality as sinful. But that huge percent shrinks daily. Yes, I do anticipate a different course for SSM etc than for adultery and fornication. There is no change of thought and acceptance among members of the Church. Nobody thinks it's ok to cheat on their spouse etc. What you call the sexual revolution isn't really relevant to the topic. Members of the Church aren't really changing the way they view adultery. I don't really think even society at large views adultery as good.
  18. In that case the question of the gospel validity of a divorce is probably moot since covenants were clearly broken.
  19. I specifically quoted from this topic as one of the quotes. The portion pertinent to the topic at hand. The other elements in this topic are correct and valuable but not pertinent to the topic. The topic is the idea that divorces are more accepted and considered valid as ending covenants in the Church than they once were and how we explain that from a gospel and doctrine perspective. The topic is not marriage and family good/divorce bad but sometimes necessary.
  20. In this instance from within means the members don't believe the Church's position on the subject. I don't know many members that believe adultery, fornication, or even substance abuse are ok. I know an increasing number of members who believe homosexuality and SSM are fine. Pressure from outside the Church can and has resisted. Even smaller movements within the Church have been resisted (Ordain Women for example). But when the body of the Church change their thinking that generates pressure from within. As I said I'm differentiating here between societal pressures from outside the Chur
  21. You and I don't often see eye to eye but I love what you wrote here. I know God doesn't make rule to make people suffer, although he does often make rules that will try our faith to the core. In both your examples I think it seems that covenants were actually broken. Not all divorces are as clear.
  22. Yes, that is exactly my point. What you have stated appears to be how these things are viewed from a gospel standpoint. But the point of this thread is that this is no longer how divorce seems to be viewed in the Church, so I am curious about how we have reconciled the ideas and based on what gospel principles do we think God would allow a divorce to mean an eternal sealing is no longer in place. Are divorces valid in the eternities (in those situations where no covenants were broken or sealings cancelled?) Or will many divorced members find themselves still married to their ex when they
  23. I see this but it's not often that God changes one of his rules just to make us feel happier.
  24. I'm sure you're right. But I've been reading about marriage in the early Utah period and there were plenty of divorces then. So many Brigham threatened to quit sealing. If anything women had more divorce rights in the Church at that time. The question is how do we justify our increased comfort with it from a gospel perspective?
×
×
  • Create New...