Elder Gilbert, new Q12 member

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

The priesthood ban has no known revelatory provenance.

He said claims of revelation, not evidence of revelation…unless you believe that the First Presidency and Apostles stating something is a revelation or a “direct commandment of God”, see above) counts as evidence for revelation.  If so, you are wrong about the ban having none such.

Sections of scripture were misinterpreted imo to support the claims of revelation for the ban. Why could this not be happening with the sections of scripture used to exclude gay marriage today?  What is different? (I do not support gay marriage being accepted in the Church, but I don’t believe we have the certainty of it being against the commandments that is claimed. Added to be clear, I don’t reject it being accepted either, I am currently in limbo on this though the symmetry of male-female half making a whole symbolism appeals to me, possibly because it surrounded my youth in and out of the Church).

Edited February 20 by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sections of scripture were misinterpreted imo to support the claims of revelation for the ban. Why could this not be happening with the sections of scripture used to exclude gay marriage today?  What is different?

I have previously said this:

Quote

If the Church is what it claims to be, then I see nothing more than a de minimis basis for hoping/believing/predicting that the Church will alter its doctrines to accommodate same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, the Law of Chastity, doctrines pertaining to marriage (such as D&C 132:7), and so on.
...
If same-sex behavior/marriage were to be, by revelation, ratified and incorporated into the doctrines and teachings of the Church, I would embrace it.  The thing is, I just don't see that ever happening.  Not that it wouldn't be nice, at least for a little while.  You and yours might feel vindicated in your strongly-held feelings and beliefs, while folks like me might get a reprieve from the endless disparagements thrown at us for espousing the Law of Chastity as previously revealed and taught and construed and applied.

As it is, however, I invest essentially no time or attention or effort in exploring What-Would-Things-Be-Like-If... scenarios like this.  The way the Restored Gospel is structured, it is not for me to foist my expectations of "how things ought to be" on the Church.  

I want everyone to obtain joy and happiness, both in this life and the next.  2 Nephi 2:25 states: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."  1 Cor. 2:9 states: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  Per the Family Proclamation, "{h}appiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Obedience to teachings about family and sexual behavior is a big part of the equation.

I just don't see same-sex relationships as a viable part of the Plan of Salvation.  Those outside the Celestial Kingdom "cannot have an increase."  That is not an indictment or condemnation.  It is a statement of belief regrading the way things are pursuant to God's laws.  So there are clearly some material differences between how we live now and the eternities.  Marriage and "increase" is available to saint and sinner alike in this world, but not in the world to come.  In the world to come, those blessings are limited to the Celestial Kingdom.  We are also told that "[a]ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."   We are also taught that those who do not enter into a celestial marriage "are not bound by any law when they are out of the world," that such persons "neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants," and that such persons - as angels - "cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity."  So I don't see family units, either heterosexual or homosexual, existing in the lower kingdoms.

Again, if tomorrow our understanding of these things were to be radically revised via revelation to the Lord's anointed, I would get on board with such changes.  But not only do I have no such expectation (beyond a de minimis reservation per AoF 1:9), I affirmatively think (at present) that the alterations Daniel hopes to see will never happen.  Not because I harbor animus toward his or anyone else's sincerely-held hopes, but because those hopes are, in my view, utterly wrongheaded and futile and incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  If I am proven wrong on this in the future, I will happily eat crow and revise my perspective.  Until then...

Marriage is about the union between a man and a woman, and their having children, and their familial relationship (ideally) being preserved in the eternities, and all of this has been extensively addressed by both ancient and modern prophets as being ordained of God. 

These are the fundamental attributes and purposes of marriage, and they are wholly absent from same-sex marriage.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

(I do not support gay marriage being accepted in the Church, but I don’t believe we have the certainty of it being against the commandments that is claimed.)

See my above "de minimis" comments.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

On 2/17/2026 at 2:18 AM, california boy said:

Probably wasting my time writing this.  I am glad things have improved for you and your family. I remember being taught all those attitudes and doctrine towards blacks as well. I also remember all those derogatory comments made towards those that are LGBT .  The name calling has subsided but attitudes have not.  What happens if a member brings a gay friend to a church dance?  What happens if they dance with that gay person if they are the same sex even if the member isn’t gay?  What happens if the member is gay?   What if they hold hands? Has anyone actually done anything immoral? Would that stop all the gossip like you experienced?

Sorry this took a bit. It's a busy week in a busy period of life. Cuz of that, I haven't been able to read most the posts past this one. So if this is redundant, I apologize. 

As MS mentioned I don't think it's a waste of time to have you write what you did. It's a needed opinion/experience, even if there's points I may diverge on. 

If name calling has subsided that would indicate at least some change in attitude. Name calling infers some sort of derisive or derogatory attitude. I'm not assuming perfection or uniformity in this. But I do think that's shifted, slowed, and in many places become completely unacceptable. I would say that's not the only thing that's shifted. Talks have shifted, dehumanizing language has shifted, expectations on what one can and can't be has shifted, tolerance levels have grown too. Again, not uniformly and not perfectly. But definitely better. Because of that, to a lot of your questions I think the response would be dependent on the ward. I don't say that hypothetically, but based on the experiences LGBT+ members I've listened to. Of course, most (all?) of those were US based. I would expect even more variation based on where in the world they were meeting, reflecting the local cultural moors and values. 

Personally, if I had a magic wand, I would hope for kindness and a welcoming attitude in all of the questioned hypotheticals. Also, You may be confusing my experiences with notatbm's (I can't think of a gossip experience I've had related to race. I'm pretty bad at being aware of drama around  me and am a bit of a wet blanket to it since I tend towards humanizing responses). 

Quote

Can a married gay couple hold the priesthood?   Can they attend the temple?  Has there ever been a revelation on this doctrine or is it just “men of their time”

  The same type of men continue to run the church as we’re running it during its racist past.  
 

Being gay is the new black.  We just need our Spencer W Kimball to receive a revelation.  Probably not gonna happen for another generation 

This is the part we probably would diverge a little on. 

I've mentioned before (eons ago, I'm sure) that I don't think gay is the new black exactly. There's overlap, namely in that they're a group of people that have faced prejudice and limitations in our church. But there's key differences and those differences are probably going to effect how things unfold. 

For example, though I disagree or have concerns with our policies around LGBT folk, there's still more access points for service and integration into a church setting than would have been available to someone who looked like me pre 1978. There was nothing I could do "right" that would give me access to spaces that you at points likely did have and other gay/queer members do currently have. This was the severest cut based solely on who you are, not what I do or express. The limitations now are more expression-based. That doesn't excuse them as acceptable, but that shifts how we think of them and what it means in terms of policies. This issue will also stay relatively the same size within the church and can be both more personal or distant depending to one's access to family or friends who are some variation of LGBT.  That's again, going to effect the pressures to change and engage differently. 

lastly there is several positive doctrines/practices that contradict with full incorporation of, say, a gay married couple. This is near the reverse experience for the black priesthood band, where there were clearer scriptural edicts that contradicted varying policies and interpretations that supported the ban. I think this will take a reexamination of how we think of a number of doctrines and practices that we currently have to meet that. It will likely be more complicated than the more simplistic policy that policies around African descended members took. I want to say more, but this is tangential and may be its own thread. Besides it's highly speculative on my end and I'm running behind.

I also disagree with your timeline. Maybe? Who knows....Things can shift rapidly. And this may be on the list of things that rearranges to a better policy faster than we presume. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The priesthood ban has no known revelatory provenance.  In contrast, the Law of Chastity is found amply throughout the Standard Works

This is just a laughable falsehood.

I think it is demonstrably correct.  

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From the FP in 1949: 

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."

Interesting that you left off this part of that letter, found in the very next paragraph:

Quote

Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known. The few known facts about our pre-earth life and our entrance into mortality must be taken into account in any attempt at an explanation. 

Here the First Presidency acknowledged the lack of revelatory provenance, while earlier speaking of "{t}he attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes" as being "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."

This statement ("they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time"), as we now know, does not address Elijah Abel/Able/Ables, Moroni Abel/Able/Ables, Elijah R. Ables, James Brown, Jr., Henry G. Church, Robert R. Church, William F. Church, and Q. Walker Lewis.

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.”  This sentiment was, I believe, repeated a number of times, including in the very 1949 statement you are citing here.  In contrast, there has never been, to my knowledge, any such sentiment expressed regarding the Church ratifying same-sex marriages.  And there have been ample statements which fairly firmly show that the Brethren do not expect any such development.

As for the the 1949 article, I found these comments (from a FAIR article) worthwhile:

Quote

Now, some of you are probably thinking, “Sure, but what about when it’s the doctrine they get wrong?”

Unfortunately, that happens sometimes too. It’s more rare, but it happens. It happened to Peter, who thought that the Savior was going to lead a rebellion against the Romans and that Gentile converts needed to obey the Law of Moses. It happened to Jonah, who tried to call down the power of Heaven to destroy the people of Nineveh instead of acknowledging their repentance. It happened to Abraham, who nearly destroyed an entire city over a misunderstanding. It even happened to Joseph Smith, who wrote an op-ed for the Messenger and Advocate in 1836 saying that he believed the enslavement of the black race was decreed by Jehovah and that abolitionists were fighting against the design of God by trying to free them. (He later thankfully changed his mind.)

Some of the things our past leaders taught about black people and the Priesthood restriction were wrong. Some of them are offensive and difficult to read. That does not make them bad people, and it doesn’t mean they were not called of God. It just means they were wrong about this.

That seems about right.

Quote

I obviously have never met any of the men in the 1949 First Presidency. I don’t know what prejudices they held or how they intended this letter to be read. All I can do is point out that there’s more than one way to look at it.
...

But this is the benefit of a church that believes in on-going revelation. We believe that if earlier prophets get something wrong, later prophets will eventually correct it. It’s exactly what happened when Wilford Woodruff had his famous revelation on the sealing ordinance, which restructured the way sealings had been done since before Joseph Smith was murdered. And it’s what has happened here with these upsetting racial teachings.

In the years since the 1978 revelation on the Priesthood, attitudes have shifted considerably and scholarship has grown in leaps and bounds. We know a lot more than we did back then, both in terms of personal progress and in the knowledge of our Church’s history.

The First Presidency in 1949 shared what they believed was true. It was their interpretation of the scriptures and their knowledge passed down from prior generations. We now know that their interpretation of those scriptures was incorrect. But it’s important to remember that when they shared that interpretation, it was done in ignorance, not malice.
...
 

At one point, President McKay told Marion D. Hanks that he’d pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but hadn’t received the answer he wanted. Elder Adam S. Bennion reported that McKay had prayed “without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe.” But he didn’t give up.

As reported by FAIR and also found in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory Prince:

Sometime between 1968 and his death in 1970 he confided his prayerful attempts to church architect, Richard Jackson, “I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”

He prayed and prayed to reverse the Priesthood restriction, only for the Lord to finally tell him to stop asking because it wasn’t going to happen under his tenure as leader of the Church.
...

Those comments from the past, as difficult as they can be to read and accept, simply don’t matter in a Church that believes in ongoing revelation. That’s the key that we need to hold on to. It’s the entire reason we have prophets and apostles in the first place.

And, despite the occasional errors that can pop up in the statements by those prophets and apostles, we are better for having them. They are a blessing to every one of us. I am so grateful to my Father in Heaven for sending us these men who willingly spend hours on their knees, pleading and pleading with Him to grant the changes that would make our lives better.

Good stuff, this.

I can't help but think that some of us construe racialist sentiments as an unpardonable sin, just as some others may see same-sex behavior as an unpardonable sin.  Both sentiments are incorrect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Sorry this took a bit. It's a busy week in a busy period of life. Cuz of that, I haven't been able to read most the posts past this one. So if this is redundant, I apologize. 

As MS mentioned I don't think it's a waste of time to have you write what you did. It's a needed opinion/experience, even if there's points I may diverge on. 

If name calling has subsided that would indicate at least some change in attitude. Name calling infers some sort of derisive or derogatory attitude. I'm not assuming perfection or uniformity in this. But I do think that's shifted, slowed, and in many places become completely unacceptable. I would say that's not the only thing that's shifted. Talks have shifted, dehumanizing language has shifted, expectations on what one can and can't be has shifted, tolerance levels have grown too. Again, not uniformly and not perfectly. But definitely better. Because of that, to a lot of your questions I think the response would be dependent on the ward. I don't say that hypothetically, but based on the experiences LGBT+ members I've listened to. Of course, most (all?) of those were US based. I would expect even more variation based on where in the world they were meeting, reflecting the local cultural moors and values. 

Personally, if I had a magic wand, I would hope for kindness and a welcoming attitude in all of the questioned hypotheticals. Also, You may be confusing my experiences with notatbm's (I can't think of a gossip experience I've had related to race. I'm pretty bad at being aware of drama around  me and am a bit of a wet blanket to it since I tend towards humanizing responses). 

This is the part we probably would diverge a little on. 

I've mentioned before (eons ago, I'm sure) that I don't think gay is the new black exactly. There's overlap, namely in that they're a group of people that have faced prejudice and limitations in our church. But there's key differences and those differences are probably going to effect how things unfold. 

For example, though I disagree or have concerns with our policies around LGBT folk, there's still more access points for service and integration into a church setting than would have been available to someone who looked like me pre 1978. There was nothing I could do "right" that would give me access to spaces that you at points likely did have and other gay/queer members do currently have. This was the severest cut based solely on who you are, not what I do or express. The limitations now are more expression-based. That doesn't excuse them as acceptable, but that shifts how we think of them and what it means in terms of policies. This issue will also stay relatively the same size within the church and can be both more personal or distant depending to one's access to family or friends who are some variation of LGBT.  That's again, going to effect the pressures to change and engage differently. 

lastly there is several positive doctrines/practices that contradict with full incorporation of, say, a gay married couple. This is near the reverse experience for the black priesthood band, where there were clearer scriptural edicts that contradicted varying policies and interpretations that supported the ban. I think this will take a reexamination of how we think of a number of doctrines and practices that we currently have to meet that. It will likely be more complicated than the more simplistic policy that policies around African descended members took. I want to say more, but this is tangential and may be its own thread. Besides it's highly speculative on my end and I'm running behind.

I also disagree with your timeline. Maybe? Who knows....Things can shift rapidly. And this may be on the list of things that rearranges to a better policy faster than we presume. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I mostly agree with you.  Of course there are some differences.  For example, you probably didn't get kicked out of your family for being black.  After I came out to my strong Mormon family, I wasn't invited to any family activity, reunions, Christmas or Thanksgiving dinners, even baptisms and missionary farewells for 13 years.  They thought that if they invited me or included me into any family functions, then somehow that would signal some kind of acceptance for me being gay.  That wasn't an uncommon experience for a lot of gay members.  I have heard a lot of similar stories, some of which are still sadly not part of their families.  

Prejudice can cause all kinds of inhumane treatment.  Sometimes physical.  Sometimes mental.  Often both.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Marriage is about the union between a man and a woman, and their having children, and their familial relationship (ideally) being preserved in the eternities, and all of this has been extensively addressed by both ancient and modern prophets as being ordained of God. 

Just why do you always add "their having children."  Is that a mandatory part of every marriage?  Do people promise to anyone including God that if they get married they will absolutely have children??

Or is it simply that your rationalization for not allowing gay marriage kinda falls apart if it isn't a requirement to have children.

[gopher]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of the stuff that prophets teach are part of Heavenly Father’s Plan are very modern. Exalting our current concept of the nuclear family, elevating romantic feelings in marriage as desirable and something that will continue in the next world, thinking women’s consent to have sex matters, the idea that men and women are equal, etc.

And that is just in that one area. In modern scripture God talks up the value of liberal democracy but somehow waited until the last days to bring it about. God is supposedly opposed to slavery but only recently started making that clear. Trying to put together a coherent and logical history of God’s dealings with humanity and trying to understand what God wants is a monumental task. God cannot lie but also God did lie. God hates those who lust after death but also commands genocide. God tells people in the First Century CE that Jesus will return shortly but still hasn’t come.

I've found that rejecting the cynical, skeptical, sarcastic, disbelieving, unloving, etc interpretations of God's dealings with humanity has made it much easier to understand what God wants.  But I realize that doesn't work for everyone.

[gopher]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Like President Nelson saying God is offended by using the title of Mormon? After that whole big “ I’m a Mormon” movement?

No, it's not like that.

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

As far as I’m concerned anything other than solid “declared-as-doctrine” stuff  has potential to change in this church- in other words, most everything about this church can change at any minute. 
In fact, some stuff that I thought was doctrine my whole life actually is “church.”  So yes, why not the sentiment that  homosexuals can live a righteous life? 

The prophets can change whatever God tells them to change.  The issue here is will God consider us righteous if we disagree with His prophets and disobey His commandments?  Shouldn't we wait until God declares something is no longer a sin before we start doing it?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is demonstrably correct.  

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From the FP in 1949: 

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."

Expand  

Interesting that you left off this part of that letter, found in the very next paragraph:

Quote

Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known. The few known facts about our pre-earth life and our entrance into mortality must be taken into account in any attempt at an explanation. 

Here the First Presidency acknowledged the lack of revelatory provenance, while earlier speaking of "{t}he attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes" as being "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."

No. They didn’t acknowledge any such thing. “Why” is unknown. Just like why people are born intersex or gay is unknown. What’s known? It’s a revelation from God based on scripture and prophetic declaration. Unknown? Why. 
 

see Dallin Oaks:

“If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

[gopher]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Well not if they are married to the person they love.  You have to argue that marriage is not important if you happen to be gay.  Is any of this thinking sounding familiar?  Let me connect the dots.  Temple marriage and the priesthood are not important for you to have in your life if you happen to be born black.

Your last sentence is obviously false.  I don't know what dots you think you've connected.  No prophet has ever said that a marriage between two men is part of God's plan.  President Hinckley said:

"But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families"

I don't believe that will ever change, but if it does, I'll accept it.

[teddyaware]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just why do you always add "their having children."  Is that a mandatory part of every marriage?  Do people promise to anyone including God that if they get married they will absolutely have children??

Or is it simply that your rationalization for not allowing gay marriage kinda falls apart if it isn't a requirement to have children.

Because it’s a commandment of God. And if for some unfortunate reason eternally married couples are unable to bring forth children in this life, the promise is sure that if they prove faithful they will have the opportunity to fulfill the commandment to multiply after the resurrection.

The main purpose of celestial marriage is to enable men and women to bring forth children in the eternal world. Meanwhile, if two men or two women desire to spend eternity together perhaps they will be able to do so, but there won’t be any need for a gospel ordinance to make it happen since the bearing of children (the most important element of eternal marriage) won’t be in the mix.

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Marriage is about the union between a man and a woman, and their having children, and their familial relationship (ideally) being preserved in the eternities, and all of this has been extensively addressed by both ancient and modern prophets as being ordained of God. 

Just why do you always add "their having children."  

I think for the same reason you apparently dislike this acknowledgment: Procreation is the exclusive province of heterosexual sex.  Marriage as an institution has always centered on the creating and rearing of children, so the heterosexual act is a means to that end.  Same-sex behavior can never be the means to that end, and so is fundamentally distinguishable.

Sex, that is, heterosexual sex, is principally about "having children."  Biologically, same-sex behavior does not make sense, as it does nothing to propagate the species, nor does it involve the biologically "intended" purposes of the participants' respective reproductive systems.  This is so in both the macro and micro sense. 

I do not deny that there can be strong emotions involved in a same-sex relationship.  

Latter-day Saints propose that sexual behavior has an added fundamental dimension and purpose, namely, the strengthening of the union between husband and wife.  In other words, it's all about, or should be all about, eternal families.  The Lord has instituted marriage for purposes which a same-sex pairing can never achieve or fulfill. 

A man and a woman can marry and have children together.  A same-sex couple cannot. 

A man and a woman can marry and be a father and a mother to children.  A same-sex couple cannot. 

A man and a woman can be sealed for eternity, and they can also be sealed to their children.  A same-sex couple cannot. 

A man and a women can marry and, through sexual behavior, strengthen the marital relationship between husband and wife.  A same-sex couple cannot.

An unmarried heterosexual couple can approximate some of these things.  They can propagate the species.  They can live together and raise children together (as can a same-sex couple).  But even so, sexual behavior in this context is still immoral in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

In the end, I can't help but thing that there is really not a huge difference between you and me. 

You regard sexual behavior as extremely important, and so do I. 

You recognize its potency in affecting our individual lives, and so do I. 

You believe sexual expression ought to, even must, have a moral/ethical framework that creates boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate, moral and immoral, and so do I.

We differ in that you place same-sex behavior within the ambit of "appropriate" and "moral," and I do not.  For me, the parameters of appropriate sexual behavior are A) between husband and wife for the purpose of B) procreation and/or C) strengthening the relationship between husband and wife.  Again, Elder Renlund explained things rather well:

Quote

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife. In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

I cannot speak to the particulars of whatever boundaries you choose to impose on sexual expression.  I would not presume to speak for you.  Based on your comments over the years, I know these parameters are not fully congruent with the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, but they sure seem to have a lot of overlap.  You love your children.  I respect that.  You love your partner.  I respect that.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Is that a mandatory part of every marriage?  

It is, I think, the central and intended purpose of every marriage, yes.  Not every heterosexual marriage works out that way, of course.  Some choose to not have kids (or abort or abandon the ones they do have), some are incapable of doing so (due to disorder or age or whatever).  But despite the exceptions in the "micro" sense, most marriages throughout history - the macro sense of things - have involved procreation.  

In contrast, same-sex relationships have a 0% chance of procreating.  If a child is in the picture, it is only because the child came by way of a heterosexual pairing.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Do people promise to anyone including God that if they get married they will absolutely have children??

I don't know.  I do know, however, that "multiply and replenish" has always been a biggie, after complying with Matthew 19:

Quote

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

I appreciate that The Bible can, if the individual really wants to, be construed to accommodate same-sex behavior.  I can't do it, but clearly there are people who can.  As I see it, though, marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is limited to the purposes explained above by Elder Renlund.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Or is it simply that your rationalization for not allowing gay marriage kinda falls apart if it isn't a requirement to have children.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  My explanation for God not ordaining or recognizing same-sex marriage is not contingent on this or that person not having children.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 20 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

34 minutes ago, gopher said:

No, it's not like that.

The prophets can change whatever God tells them to change.  The issue here is will God consider us righteous if we disagree with His prophets and disobey His commandments?  Shouldn't we wait until God declares something is no longer a sin before we start doing it?

I’m under the impression that you believe that everything that the 12 says comes directly from God? If so, it would make sense why we are not aligning.

 

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Because it’s a commandment of God. And if for some unfortunate reason eternally married couples are unable to bring forth children in this life, the promise is sure that if they prove faithful they will have the opportunity to fulfill the commandment to multiply after the resurrection.

The main purpose of celestial marriage is to enable men and women to bring forth children in the eternal world.

So are you saying that a couple should not get married if they could have children but don't wish to?  

Is using contraceptives to prevent children in a marriage against the main purpose of celestial marriage and against the plan of God?

24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

 

Meanwhile, if two men or two women desire to spend eternity together perhaps they will be able to do so, but there won’t be any need for a gospel ordinance to make it happen since the bearing of children (the most important element of eternal marriage) won’t be in the mix.

 

Do you actually know how children are born in the eternities?  Please share.

 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No. They didn’t acknowledge any such thing.

"Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known."

More recently, the Church has provided a markedly more clear - and accurate - assessment:

Race and the Priesthood

Quote

There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

Huh.  Hadn't really noticed that bit before.

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

A great error, in my view.

Quote

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.
...
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 unrighteous 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”²⁵ 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.”²⁶

Lovely stuff.  I heartily endorse and ratify this.

In contrast, I do not feel the same way at all about same-sex marriage.  I respect same-sex marriage as the law of the land.  I respect those who feel differently than I do about it.  I have same-sex couples in my family and sphere of friends and acquaintances.  They have not solicited, and I have not volunteered, my perspective on this matter.  Nor, for that matter, have I offered unsolicited input to people I know and value who have violated the Law of Chastity in other ways.

Same-sex behavior is, in my view, fundamentally incompatible with the Plan of Salvation (rather like the race-based restriction on the priesthood, which was likewise fundamentally incompatible).  Again:

Quote

If the Church is what it claims to be, then I see nothing more than a de minimis basis for hoping/believing/predicting that the Church will alter its doctrines to accommodate same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, the Law of Chastity, doctrines pertaining to marriage (such as D&C 132:7), and so on.
...
If same-sex behavior/marriage were to be, by revelation, ratified and incorporated into the doctrines and teachings of the Church, I would embrace it.  The thing is, I just don't see that ever happening.  Not that it wouldn't be nice, at least for a little while.  You and yours might feel vindicated in your strongly-held feelings and beliefs, while folks like me might get a reprieve from the endless disparagements thrown at us for espousing the Law of Chastity as previously revealed and taught and construed and applied.

As it is, however, I invest essentially no time or attention or effort in exploring What-Would-Things-Be-Like-If... scenarios like this.  The way the Restored Gospel is structured, it is not for me to foist my expectations of "how things ought to be" on the Church.  

I want everyone to obtain joy and happiness, both in this life and the next.  2 Nephi 2:25 states: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."  1 Cor. 2:9 states: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  Per the Family Proclamation, "{h}appiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Obedience to teachings about family and sexual behavior is a big part of the equation.

I just don't see same-sex relationships as a viable part of the Plan of Salvation.  Those outside the Celestial Kingdom "cannot have an increase."  That is not an indictment or condemnation.  It is a statement of belief regrading the way things are pursuant to God's laws.  So there are clearly some material differences between how we live now and the eternities.  Marriage and "increase" is available to saint and sinner alike in this world, but not in the world to come.  In the world to come, those blessings are limited to the Celestial Kingdom.  We are also told that "[a]ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."   We are also taught that those who do not enter into a celestial marriage "are not bound by any law when they are out of the world," that such persons "neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants," and that such persons - as angels - "cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity."  So I don't see family units, either heterosexual or homosexual, existing in the lower kingdoms.

Again, if tomorrow our understanding of these things were to be radically revised via revelation to the Lord's anointed, I would get on board with such changes.  But not only do I have no such expectation (beyond a de minimis reservation per AoF 1:9), I affirmatively think (at present) that the alterations Daniel hopes to see will never happen.  Not because I harbor animus toward his or anyone else's sincerely-held hopes, but because those hopes are, in my view, utterly wrongheaded and futile and incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  If I am proven wrong on this in the future, I will happily eat crow and revise my perspective.  Until then...

Marriage between a husband and wife is central to the Restored Gospel and its conceptualization of Eternal Progression.  Such an institution is intended to, and generally does, involve procreative efforts.  Most of the time, those procreative efforts pay off, after which the Lord would have children being raised by a father and a mother in love and righteousness.

A same-sex marriage accomplishes none of these purposes.  

I readily acknowledge that a same-sex couple can approximate the foregoing in some respects.  They can acquire a child (though only by borrowing from a heterosexual coupling).  They can raise the child with love (though in a home which by design omits either a father or a mother).  

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“Why” is unknown.

Oh, I don't know about that.  I think it's pretty hard to avoid attributing some / most / all of it to racialist sentiments which were prevalent in the 19th century (and perhaps some catalytic events which precipitated the 1852 pronouncements).

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just like why people are born intersex or gay is unknown.

Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs) are primarily caused by genetic, chromosomal, or hormonal variations that disrupt typical fetal sex development.

Same-sex attraction is likely derived from an interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What’s known? It’s a revelation from God based on scripture and prophetic declaration.

I think we can not only go along with this fundamentally unprovable premise (it's a matter of faith, after all), we can also use our reasoning and personal revelation to evaluate whether or not a purported revelation is from God, or whether the cumulative scriptural/prophetic guidance on a particular issue is congruent with the Lord's will.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

For example, you probably didn't get kicked out of your family for being black.

I have heard of someone getting kicked out for marrying someone who was black though.  

And it certainly didn’t stop racists remarks and treatment from the white side of Bluedream’s family from what she has reported (and I have heard similar things from others).  I also know a parent of an adopted young woman who is convinced she will never marry in the Church contrary to the reality.  My guess is the nasty bigotry of that parent’s (I know some stories of their childhood, tragic) own parents is embedded in their views so that they end up treating her differently, telling her she is seen as inferior, telling her she won’t succeed, but blaming it on others rather than accepting their own responsibility in conveying to her she is less than (thankfully she is getting very strong support from others members in her family to resist such programming, plus always was a strong, determined individual since I knew her from toddler age).  Just because it’s family doesn’t mean they won’t be racist to their own family members.

Not that it’s a competition.  Bigotry is bad whatever the target.

I do think being able to mask, a choice for those who are gay that does not exist for most Blacks, adds a fundamental difference in the dynamics, but that ‘option’ creates both better and worse conditions…masking allows one to avoid the bigotry being directed at oneself but likely still will encounter people exhibiting it and even be expected to join in, the bigots unaware they are insulting the person in front of them.  The masking itself is a denial of self, unnatural and a heavy burden to manage, very high cost emotionally, mentally, and physical…masking is exhausting.  One does not avoid fear either by masking because there is always the fear of exposure.

Not saying here Blacks don’t engage in masking in and out of the Church as I am aware that many do to avoid being seen as different, to fit in; I am speaking specifically to the issue of the Bans in the context of the Church.  Very few Blacks could mask their blackness to the point of being able to receive a temple recommend.  Any one with same sex attraction could and can mask that attraction and and related behaviour in order to receive a recommend….and many did.

Edited February 20 by Calm

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because sex is principally about "having children."  Biologically, same-sex behavior does not make sense, as it does nothing to propagate the species, nor does it involve the biologically "intended" purposes of the participants' respective reproductive systems.  This is so in both the macro and micro sense.  I do not deny that there can be strong emotions involved in a same-sex relationship. 

Principally about having children????  How many times do married couples have sex where children wasn't the outcome?  Are all of those other times against the basic principle of marriage??  Should couples that are past the age of being able to bear children quit having sex?  

Sorry, this makes no sense.  It is more a rationalization for your unproven and untested belief that sex is principally about having children.

 

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Latter-day Saints propose that sexual behavior has an added fundamental dimension and purpose, namely, the strengthening of the union between husband and wife

Do you not believe it is possible for a gay couple to have their relationship strengthened  by getting married?

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In other words, it's all about, or should be all about, eternal families. 

If that is the plan, just what percentage of people in the world are married for time and eternity?

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Lord has instituted marriage for purposes which a same-sex pairing can never achieve or fulfill.  A man and a woman can have children together.  A same-sex couple cannot. 

I will ask you the same questions I asked Teddy

So are you saying that a couple should not get married if they could have children but don't wish to?  

Is using contraceptives to prevent children in a marriage against the main purpose of celestial marriage and against the plan of God?

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

A man and a woman can be a father and a mother to children.  A same-sex couple cannot.  A man and a woman can be sealed for eternity, and they can also be sealed to their children.  A same-sex couple cannot. 

You do realize that a gay couple can adopt children right?  So are you saying that couples, gay or straight can not be parents if they can only adopt?

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A man and a women can, through sexual behavior, strengthen the relationship between husband and wife.  A same-sex couple cannot.

Why not?

 

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An unmarried heterosexual couple can approximate some of these things.  They can propagate the species.  They can live together and raise children together.  But even so, sexual behavior in this context is still immoral in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

In the end, there is really not a huge difference between you and me.  You regard sexual behavior as extremely important, and so do I.  You recognize its potency in affecting our individual lives, and so do I.  You believe sexual expression ought to, even must, have a moral/ethical framework that creates boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate, moral and immoral, and so do I.

We differ in that you place same-sex behavior within the ambit of "appropriate" and "moral," and I do not.  For me, the parameters of appropriate sexual behavior are A) between husband and wife for the purpose of B) procreation and/or C) strengthening the relationship between husband and wife.  Again, Elder Renlund explained things rather well:

You have chosen to put those boundaries there.  It doesn't make that choice the only valid choice.  It just makes it your personal choice.

 

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I cannot speak to the particulars of whatever boundaries you choose to impose on sexual expression.  I would not presume to speak for you.  Based on your comments over the years, I know these parameters are not fully congruent with the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, but they sure seem to have a lot of overlap.  

It is, I think, the central and intended purpose of every marriage, yes.  Not every heterosexual marriage works out that way, of course.  Some choose to not have kids (or abort or abandon the ones they do have), some are incapable of doing so (due to disorder or age or whatever).  But despite the exceptions in the "micro" sense, most marriages throughout history - the macro sense of things - have involved procreation.  

In contrast, same-sex relationships have a 0% chance of procreating.  If a child is in the picture, it is only because the child came by way of a heterosexual pairing.

I don't know.  I do know, however, that "multiply and replenish" has always been a biggie, along with Matthew 19:

I appreciate that The Bible can, if the individual really wants to, be construed to accommodate same-sex behavior.  I can't do it, but clearly there are people who can.  As I see it, though, marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is limited to the purposes explained above by Elder Renlund.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  My explanation for God not ordaining or recognizing same-sex marriage is not contingent on this or that person not having children.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is a bit interesting to me that you can compartmentalize so much in your head even though real life doesn't really work that way.  The only thing you can grab on to is two men can not biologically have children at this point in time.  But when you try to shoe horn that belief as a requirement for marriage, it falls completely apart because there are literally millions, perhaps billions of successful marriages throughout history that do not fit that paradigm of marrying just to reproduce.  And there have been millions, perhaps billions of children born into this world that did not come from a marriage between a man and a woman.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No. They didn’t acknowledge any such thing.

"Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known."

More recently, the Church has provided a markedly more clear - and accurate - assessment:

 

I will take this as an acknowledgement that you agree the FP in 1947 did not acknowledge the ban was of unknown provenance. Your quoted passage is merely an acknowledgment that we [i.e. the 1947 FP] don’t exactly know why the ban was in place. As for the modern statement, it’s always amazing how clear things are in retrospect. Apologists have perfected it. To paraphrase Dan McClellan - if you think God is anti-slavery you have all the tools you need to conclude God is fine with homosexual relationships. 

Edited February 20 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

there won’t be any need for a gospel ordinance to make it happen since the bearing of children (the most important element of eternal marriage) won’t be in the mix.

 

Why is there an ordinance required for the bearing of children in your view?

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Procreation is the exclusive province of heterosexual sex. 

And what happens with your reasoning when science allows this to change, when two women can create offspring with one of them carrying the child till birth?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sex, that is, heterosexual sex, is principally about "having children."

Do you view life’s main purpose is evolution?  The passing on of DNA?  

If not, why is the principle purpose of heterosexual sex about reproduction?  Because my guess is given the search for and use of many different forms of birth control over the ages as well as the evidence for the frequency of premarital sex (a woman would be crazy in most cultures to attempt to raise kids without a husband because of property issues, physical protection, rights of women or rather lack of them) as well as sexually active women who are no longer fertile, the majority of heterosexual acts in humanity’s existence have been most likely been for the purpose of pleasure, not to produce children and that often they were an unwanted side effect (and thus many were abandoned when abortion was not an option).

God and/or evolution may view heterosexual sex as principally about reproduction, but those doing it….much lower percentage.

In the 45+ years of my marriage, about 6 months of heterosexual sex was principally devoted to having children with the side purpose of having fun.  The rest of the time it’s been about pleasure and companionship.  So around 1%.

Edited February 20 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why” is unknown.

Oh, I don't know about that.

BTW, this is hilarious. You break up a paragraph to such an extent as to remove all context and meaning. 

Edited February 20 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I mostly agree with you.  Of course there are some differences.  For example, you probably didn't get kicked out of your family for being black.  After I came out to my strong Mormon family, I wasn't invited to any family activity, reunions, Christmas or Thanksgiving dinners, even baptisms and missionary farewells for 13 years.  They thought that if they invited me or included me into any family functions, then somehow that would signal some kind of acceptance for me being gay.  That wasn't an uncommon experience for a lot of gay members.  I have heard a lot of similar stories, some of which are still sadly not part of their families.  

Prejudice can cause all kinds of inhumane treatment.  Sometimes physical.  Sometimes mental.  Often both.  

This may sound stalkery, but I do remember your story. It's something that still bothers me that they still remain a strained relationship at best with you and your partner. But yes, I wasn't kicked out of my family. It's a little harder to pull off to a baby. My mon did try to have me adopted out and it didn't work out. But that was largely for the single parent thing for what they tell me. 

So usually prejudicial stuff around race in family comes out differently. Either before one is born in the parents' interracial relationships,  in off-hand comments or criticisms growing up, or when you begin dating and begin looking outside your family for another. I can pull out a bit of all three in mine. Most of them relatively light, though never comforting. 

 I should note my family may have many many flaws to them, but they don't proactively shun due to the differences in race, religion, or queerness. So that particular wound will never be mine. They've had opportunities to do so with any of those areas. That's not to say they're always good engaging with those...but they're just not that variation of bad either. Pretending "perfect" image over imperfectly relating is a family choice mine didn't make. I really am sorry yours did. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[gopher]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m under the impression that you believe that everything that the 12 says comes directly from God? If so, it would make sense why we are not aligning.

 

No.  But I believe everything that a prophet of God says comes directly from God when it's consistent and in agreement with other prophets.  If a prophet says something that is never mentioned by all other prophets, I don't feel as strongly about it. That's why I got two ear piercings in one ear.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Principally about having children????  

Yes.

Quote

Marriage is essential to God’s plan

Your life here on earth has a purpose. You are here as part of God’s plan. Before any of us were born, we existed in heaven as spirits. God created this earth so that we could have an opportunity to have physical bodies and to learn and grow. When we get married, we are given the sacred opportunity to bring children into this world, and we take on the solemn responsibility to care for them. Because God loves His children, He wants each one of us to receive love, support, and care. This happens best through an honest and devoted marriage.

The blessings of marriage can still come

We aren’t all given the opportunity to be married in this life. And we don’t all have marriages that last. Not all children are born to a married mother and father, and not all who are married are able to have children. But God loves every one of His children. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, if we are faithful to God, He will compensate for every loss or deprivation we experience in this life (see Revelation 7:17). When you turn to Him, you will be rewarded with happiness and peace now and after death. As we give ourselves to Him completely, we will each have the opportunity to receive everything that our Heavenly Father has.

And here:

Quote

We are going to have the Kingdom of God in the fulness thereof, and all the heights and depths of glory, power, and knowledge; and we shall have fathers and mothers, and wives and children (DBY, 97).

You seem surprised.  I am surprised that you are surprised.

The sexual act is not, or is not supposed to be, an end unto itself.  It is, instead, intended to facilitate procreation and the strengthening of the marital union of a husband and wife.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

How many times do married couples have sex where children wasn't the outcome?  

I have repeatedly acknowledged that sex is also intended to strengthen of the marital union of a husband and wife.

Again, I am surprised that you are surprised.  Why do you think the "reproductive system" is called that?  Why do you think we have male and female body parts that are designed to introduce Mr. Sperm to Mrs. Egg? 

If the principal purpose of sex is not reproduction, then what do you propose is the principal purpose?

Human beings procreate by by joining together of a sperm and an egg, one gamete from each of the two sexes who come into proximity to each other via heterosexual sex. A same-sex sexual act is wholly inconducive to the intended purpose and use of our reproductive parts.  Is it problematic of me to note this? 

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are all of those other times against the basic principle of marriage??  

No.  Again, Elder Renlund explained things rather well:

Quote

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife. In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

I've quoted this a few times now.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Should couples that are past the age of being able to bear children quit having sex?  

It's up to them.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry, this makes no sense.  

It is an unfortunately common tactic these days to feign ignorance as a deliberate tactic of avoiding or pretending not to understand inconvenient facts, particularly regarding ideological, economic, or historical issues. 

Here's we're discussing marriage and heterosexual sex, and the interplay between them, and the centrality of the procreation of the species resulting from that interplay, all of which has, for thousands of years, been the bedrock of society.

And here you are, saying it "makes no sense."

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is more a rationalization for your unproven and untested belief that sex is principally about having children.

Well, I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.

If the use of our reproductive systems to have sex is not principally about reproduction, then what, in your view, is the principal purpose of such use?  

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you not believe it is possible for a gay couple to have their relationship strengthened  by getting married?

Ah, so you the reproductive act is principally about strengthening the relationship between the participants, and not about reproduction?

My worldview, as I have noted repeatedly, contemplates both.  But even then, wouldn't the "strengthening the relationship" part facilitate the procreatin' and rearin' part of the process?  And vice versa?  I've heard it said that raising children can injure a marital relationship.  I acknowledge that.  Broadly, though, these are mutually complementary.  We have sex to have and raise kids, and we have sex to strengthen our relationship, which in turn strengthens our ability to have and raise kids.

I can understand why you would prefer to focus on just the one, since the other one is, by design, wholly absent from same-sex couplings.  But we each have what we call a "Reproductive System."  I've never heard anyone calling it the "Strengthening the Relationship System."

Consider, for example, the concept of "Pair Bonding," described here:

Quote

In biology, a pair bond is the strong affinity that develops in some species between a mating pair, often leading to the production and rearing of young and potentially a lifelong bond. Pair-bonding is a term coined in the 1940s^[1] that is frequently used in sociobiology and evolutionary biology circles. The term often implies either a lifelong socially monogamous relationship or a stage of mating interaction in socially monogamous species. It is sometimes used in reference to human relationships.
...

Humans can experience all of the above-mentioned varieties of pair bonds. These bonds can be temporary or last a lifetime.^[14] They also engage in social pair bonding, where two form a close relationship that does not involve sex.^[15] Like in other vertebrates, pair bonds are created by a combination of social interaction and biological factors including neurotransmitters like oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine.^[15][16]

Pair bonds are a biological phenomenon and are not equivalent to the human social institution of marriage. Married couples are not necessarily pair bonded. Marriage may be a consequence of pair bonding and vice versa. One of the functions of romantic love is pair bonding.^[17][15]

And here.  Humans also generally exhibit "parental/maternal/paternal bonding" (parent and child).  There is apparently neurobiological component to these things:

Quote

Human bonding is governed by an integrated "cocktail" of neuropeptides, neurotransmitters, and hormones:

Oxytocin

 

Oxytocin is often dubbed the "love hormone,"^[11]. It is a peptide hormone and neuropeptide normally produced in the hypothalamus and released by the posterior pituitary.^[12] It is involved in social-affiliation processes, with effects modulated by context and receptor distribution. It is thought to be critical for promoting prosocial behaviors, trust, and feelings of closeness. More specifically, it plays a role in:

• Parent-Infant bonding: Oxytocin is released in high concentrations during labor, childbirth, and breastfeeding, significantly strengthening the bond between mother and child. It is also activated in fathers through close contact and synchronous interaction with their infants.
• Pair Bonding and trust: In adult relationships, oxytocin release — triggered by physical touch, intimacy, and shared emotional experiences—reinforces emotional connection and trust between partners.

In the area of pair bonding, oxytocin works by dampening the activity of stress-related circuits (like the amygdala) and increases activity in reward-related areas, promoting a state of "immobility without fear" that is conducive to social engagement.^[2]

Vasopressin

Vasopressin, another neuropeptide related to oxytocin, is thought to play a key role, particularly in males, in regulating social and pair-bonding behavior. In addition to its other functions, vasopressin is released directly into the brain from the hypothalamus, and is thought to play an important role in social behavior, sexual motivation and pair bonding, and maternal responses to stress.^[13] In close interaction with oxytocin,^[14] vasopressin seems to have the following effects:^[15]

• Pair-Bonding: Research, notably on the monogamous prairie vole, shows that vasopressin receptors are densely concentrated in the ventral pallidum, an area associated with motivational and reward pathways. Evidence for an effect of AVP on monogamy vs polygamy comes from experimental studies in several animal species, which indicate that the precise distribution of vasopressin and vasopressin receptors in the brain is associated with species-typical patterns of social behavior. In particular, there are consistent differences between monogamous species and polygamous species in the distribution of AVP receptors, and sometimes in the distribution of vasopressin-containing axons, even when closely related species are compared.^[16] Activation of these circuits is essential for forming and maintaining selective, monogamous bonds and mate-guarding behavior (which may manifest as jealousy in humans).^[17]
• Stress Modulation: Vasopressin can also be involved in stress responses, often supporting more active coping strategies or protective behavior toward a partner or offspring.^[13]

Dopamine

Dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter of the brain's reward and motivation system, the mesolimbic pathway. Although dopamine is often portrayed as the main chemical of pleasure, scientists now believe that dopamine instead confers motivational salience;^[18] in other words, dopamine signals the perceived motivational prominence (i.e., the desirability or aversiveness) of an outcome, which in turn propels the organism's behavior toward or away from achieving that outcome.^[18]

For that reason, it is heavily implicated in the phase of intense attraction and early love. When an individual is "in love," viewing or thinking about the partner activates major dopamine-rich areas, including the Ventral Tegmental Area and the Nucleus Accumbens. This activation creates feelings of euphoria, intense motivation, and focused attention, similar to the neurochemical response seen in addiction. The interaction of dopamine with oxytocin is proposed to link the rewarding sensation (dopamine) with the specific social stimuli of the partner (oxytocin), enabling the individual to focus their motivational drive exclusively on the chosen partner.

 

Serotonin

Serotonin is a monoamine neurotransmitter with a wide range of functions in both the central nervous system and also peripheral tissues. It is involved in mood, cognition, reward, learning, memory, and several physiological processes.^[19] It often shows fluctuating levels during the early, intense stage of romantic attraction. Studies suggest that serotonin levels in people newly in love can resemble those found in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder. This may account for the intrusive, all-consuming thoughts and idealization associated with early infatuation. As relationships transition to long-term attachment, serotonin levels typically normalize.^[20]

Neural circuitry

Functional neuroimaging studies (fMRI and PET) in humans have identified several brain regions that show consistent changes in activity when subjects are exposed to cues of their attachment figures (e.g., viewing a photo of a romantic partner or child).^[20] The formation and maintenance of social bonds are mediated by networks in the limbic system and reward pathways.
...

In her book, Why We Love^[30]: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love, Fisher theorized that romantic love in humans can be divided into three distinct, yet interrelated, neurochemical systems:

• Lust (Sexual Drive): Primarily mediated by sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen). Drives the initial desire for sexual gratification.
• Attraction (Romantic Love) is driven by the surge of monoamines (dopamine and norepinephrine). It is associated with exhilaration, focused attention, and energy expenditure during an intense but typically short-lived period (18 months to 3 years).
• Attachment (Deep Connection): Characterized by high levels of neuropeptides (oxytocin and vasopressin). This promotes long-term security, calm, comfort, and the establishment of stable, enduring relationships, often coinciding with marriage or co-parenting.

I think most of us like to think there is more to sex and interpersonal relationships than neurochemical processes.  Some of us believe that that this "more" includes guidance from the Spirit of God.  

In any event, I think the principal purpose of us using our reproductive system is to facilitate reproduction.  This should not be a controversial thing.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

In other words, it's all about, or should be all about, eternal families. 

If that is the plan, just what percentage of people in the world are married for time and eternity?

Very few.  But then, Brigham Young indicated this will be a big part of the work during the Millennium:

Quote

In the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God {see Revelation 3:12}, and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. … And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then {children} will be sealed to {parents} until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene.

This will be the work of the Latter-day Saints in the Millennium (DBY, 116).

"{A}nd we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them."

Yep.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I will ask you the same questions I asked Teddy

So are you saying that a couple should not get married if they could have children but don't wish to?  

No.  If I had someone in my sphere of influence and stewardship who did not want to have children, and if they sought out or were otherwise receptive to my input, I would try to persuade them to, if possible, get married and have children.  There are all sorts of ways marriage is being undermined these days.  I think that diluting the meaning and purpose of marriage by severing it from its procreative aspect, whether by advocating for same-sex couplings (which are biologically incapable of having children), or by subscribing to DINK ("Dual Income, No Kids") and other anti-natalist philosophies (where a couple consciously choose to not have children), or by the large scale elective abortion of babies, or by viewing having kids as an incidental and secondary, rather than intended and primary, purpose of the procreative act, and so on, we have materially weakened the institution of marriage.  

Again, from the Proclamation:

Quote

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.
...
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Fertility is collapsing around the world.  Anti-natalism, in all its repellant forms, is gaining momentum.  See, e.g., here:

France’s Plan To Lure Women Into Freezing Their Eggs Won’t Fix Its Flailing Fertility Rate

Quote

In an attempt to boost its flailing fertility rate, France plans to target women in their late 20s with a letter that attempts to lure them into freezing their eggs for future conception using assisted reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Yeah, good luck with that, Mr. Macron.

Quote

The rapidly declining birth rate problem is not isolated in France. Across Europe, people are waiting to have children longer than ever. Even the U.S. is reporting a record low number of births — 1.6 per woman, far below the 2.1 needed for developed countries to maintain a stable population.

Such are the noxious fruits of the amoral and self-centered philosophies of the day.  Children have been devalued in modern culture.  This is a terrible thing.  I cannot conceive of a purpose more worthwhile than in being a husband and father.

In Matthew 24:12, we were told that in the last days "iniquity shall abound," and therefore that "the love of many shall wax cold."  The anti-natalism and anti-marriage sentiments arising from secularism, self-centeredness, abortion rhetoric and other mechanisms are, in my view, a fulfillment of this prediction.  Moreover, I think it's a permanent thing.  There's no getting out of it.  The foregoing influences are only going to get stronger and stronger.  I will probably not live to see the peak of human population growth, but I think my children will.  And I also think they will thereafter see a drastic and rapid drop in world population, with all sorts of attendant problems and calamities.

There will be some silver linings to this, but also a lot of bad stuff.  Matthew 24:12 was a warning against difficult times.

Quote

Women who were sold the lies of fourth-wave feminism absolutely need to be reminded that their biological clocks are ticking. But pretending that the painful, expensive, and sometimes traumatizing procedure of harvesting and freezing their eggs is the best solution for that once again sells women something that does not guarantee them a child or guarantee France a fertility rate boost. Significantly, women who undergo ova retrieval use can suffer side effects such as excessive bleeding, abdominal swelling, discomfort, weight gain, nausea, infection, problems urinating, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, fatal colon cancer, a potential increased risk for breast cancer, and even sudden infertility.

Some women have no choice but to go through IVF.  I have a dear friend who went through this, and she now has a beautiful little girl.

Tragically, there are large numbers of women who are choosing, whether through specific intent or inattention, to set aside marriage and family, or to subordinate such things, or to delay such things until procreation becomes more difficult and risky.

Quote

The proposition laid out in the targeted letter might entice more French females to take advantage of taxpayer-funded egg retrieval and storage. Whether or not those women ever use reproductive technology to commission the creation of a child using those eggs, however, is not promised. What is promised is that France’s ongoing sponsorship of test-tube babies makes human existence appear transactional and sentences countless embryos to death or indefinite life in a freezer each year.

The notion of sex as a "transactional" thing, or as something wholly severed from procreation and children, has done great damage to our society.

Quote

Paying people to have babies doesn’t work. As Federalist Executive Editor Joy Pullmann accurately noted, concern about falling fertility rates is “not just that we need more human beings” but that “we need more citizens capable of sustaining themselves and contributing to others.” 

This is, in my view, entirely correct.  Children were previously valued either as "an heritage of the Lord" (Psalm 127:3) (or something similar in outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition), and as assets (such as in an agrarian society, where children could contribute labor toward the benefit of the family).  These days, children are devalued.  They are aborted for any reason, or no reason at all.  Or they are never conceived in the first place.  And if they are conceived and born, it happens, in ever-increasing numbers, outside of the marital covenant.  The act by which they are conceived has been severed from both their creation and the family in which they ought to be reared.

Quote

In fact, the reverse result is possible. Opening the floodgates for assisted reproductive technology gives people with normally good natural procreation chances a false sense of security about their decisions to delay marriage and reproduction. Fertility procedures such as IVF are marketed as a safety net or means to circumvent a worn down biological clock, as demonstrated in the latest French letter. Freeing up men and women in their peak fertile years, however, could easily deter settling down and raising a family in favor of climbing a career ladder and hookup culture.

There are all sorts of influences which are deterring people from "settling down and raising a family."

It's a sad thing.  I feel grateful that I listened to prophets and apostles more than to worldly philosophies, as did my wife.  Together we had six children, which was difficult but utterly worthwhile.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is using contraceptives to prevent children in a marriage against the main purpose of celestial marriage and against the plan of God?

See here: Birth Control

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

A man and a woman can be a father and a mother to children.  A same-sex couple cannot.  A man and a woman can be sealed for eternity, and they can also be sealed to their children.  A same-sex couple cannot. 

You do realize that a gay couple can adopt children right?  

I do.  I did not say otherwise.

But a gay couple cannot procreate, nor can they "be a father and a mother to children," nor can they be sealed for eternity, nor can they be sealed to their children, nor can their sexual behavior strengthen the marital relationship between husband and wife.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

So are you saying that couples, gay or straight can not be parents if they can only adopt?

No.

I am saying that gay couples are biologically incapable of procreation.

Again: I readily acknowledge that a same-sex couple can approximate some of the things a heterosexual couple can do.  They can acquire a child (though only by adopting or otherwise acquiring one from a heterosexual coupling).  They can raise the child with love (though in a home which by design omits either a father or a mother).  

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

We differ in that you place same-sex behavior within the ambit of "appropriate" and "moral," and I do not.  For me, the parameters of appropriate sexual behavior are A) between husband and wife for the purpose of B) procreation and/or C) strengthening the relationship between husband and wife.  Again, Elder Renlund explained things rather well:

You have chosen to put those boundaries there.  

Nope.  I believe that the Lord "put those boundaries there," and have elected to accept that.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

It doesn't make that choice the only valid choice.

Worldviews and presuppositions come into play here.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is a bit interesting to me that you can compartmentalize so much in your head even though real life doesn't really work that way.  

I don't know what you are referencing here.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

The only thing you can grab on to is two men can not biologically have children at this point in time.  

Has there been a time when two men have been able to "biologically have children" together?  I think not.

And I have said far more than just that.  I have presented an affirmative case for what marriage is, or should be, about.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

But when you try to shoe horn that belief as a requirement for marriage,

A "requirement"?  No, I don't think I have said that.

But that is neither here nor there.  Same-sex couples categorically have a 0% fertility rate.  Heterosexual couples have a higher, though presently quite low, fertility rate.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

it falls completely apart because there are literally millions, perhaps billions of successful marriages throughout history that do not fit that paradigm of marrying just to reproduce.  

I've said nothing about "just to reproduce."  I was speaking of sex having the dual purposes of A) procreation and B) strengthening the union between husband and wife.  Marriage is intended to provide the best possible environment in which the procreative act can take place.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

And there have been millions, perhaps billions of children born into this world that did not come from a marriage between a man and a woman.  

Sure.  Such are the vicissitudes of living in a fallen and telestial world.  The Plan of Salvation, however, posits that sex should be limited to husband and wife for the purposes of A) procreation and B) strengthening the union between husband and wife.

Thanks,

-Smac