Marrying For Eternity "Either In This Life Or In The Next"

[mfbukowski]

Well, I don't think we disagree on what the LDS position is after all. If you agree that eternal marriage is a command and that it is required for exaltation, there's no disagreement here as to what the LDS doctrine is.

Progress!

[Ahab]

There's a lot of things I know are wrong, yet I'm still in a mindset with habits that make it difficult to fully live according to what I know. I think the eternities will be very similar.

Yeah, it may be difficult to live according to what you know, but you either will or you'll suffer the consequences.

Just keep in mind that one of the God's commandments is to Repent from your sins, so as long as you're repenting, when you need to repent, then you're living up to God's commandments.

... and easy or not, you better just do it, otherwise you'll be among those who will suffer.

[mfbukowski]

If such is the developing POV, I can see Civil Same Sex Marriage (once it becomes the legal standard in america) being permitted in the Church as a valid way of expressing the Law of Chastity - but recognizing that participants cannot be sealed, and gain exaltation.

Participants will never (I maintain) be able to get a temple recommend. Perhaps they will not be subject to church discipline, since they are "legally and lawfully wedded" but they will be participating in a lifestyle "opposed" to church policy and thus, not eligible for a recommend. Arguably today, for example, supporters of Planned Parenthood would be ineligible for recommends, Of course such decisions are at this time up to individual bishops.

Of course, it would also essentially create a 'servant caste' in the Church. Not something we really want.

I am not totally sure what you mean by this, but I think I disagree vehemently. If this is regarding the Celestial Kingdom and those who would not be exalted, being "ministering angels" I think you are very wrong indeed.

Wasn't it you who brought up Mother Theresa as a person who voluntarily gave her life to service and ministering to others? Was she therefore part of a "servant caste"?

Those who are ministering servants in the Celestial Kingdom will be there because this is the highest level law they decided to live- this will be the greatest happiness they can imagine. These are they who WANT nothing more than to surround the throne of God and praise him eternally; they will have their fondest wish.

Frankly, were I openly gay, and felt that was God wanted me to be, being a member of the LDS church would be the last option I would take. I cannot imagine that suddenly we will be deluged with openly gay members who want to be civilly married AND LDS.

[mfbukowski]

In other words, perhaps it's not as much that our vision won't be as limited then, as it is that our current vision of the extent of the ability and desire of God's mercy is what is limited.

My view is that God is interested in getting us to the ultimate goal of a fullness of Joy as quickly as possible, and he'll do whatever it takes that is in his power to do so.

The 99 might have an easier time, and be rushed through first, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop working on the struggling 1 before he makes it into the pen. No matter how long that takes.

Now on this, we agree fully!

Especially when time has little meaning to eternal beings!

[Ahab]

Participants will never (I maintain) be able to get a temple recommend. Perhaps they will not be subject to church discipline, since they are "legally and lawfully wedded" but they will be participating in a lifestyle "opposed" to church policy and thus, not eligible for a recommend. Arguably today, for example, supporters of Planned Parenthood would be ineligible for recommends, Of course such decisions are at this time up to individual bishops.

Which question asked during the temple recommend interview would be the question that would bring out whether or not someone was living a homosexual lifestyle?

As far as I know, a question asking something like: "Are you gay, or do you give in to homosexual urges" is not part of the temple recommend interview process, so I'm asking you to tell me on what basis you would disqualify them, if you were the bishop doing the interview.

[LeSellers]

Which question asked during the temple recommend interview would be the question that would bring out whether or not someone was living a homosexual lifestyle?

There is a question on the Law of Chastity, as I recall. "Living a homosexual lifestyle" just might be construed as breaking the Law of Chastity.

Lehi

[Ahab]

There is a question on the Law of Chastity, as I recall. "Living a homosexual lifestyle" just might be construed as breaking the Law of Chastity.

Lehi

The law of chastity, as defined by the Church, involves limiting sexual relations to only someone's legally and lawfully wedded spouse, so at that point it becomes necessarily to define what is a legally and lawfully wedded spouse.

Has the President of the Church or First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve come out with an authoratative declaration to state that a legally and lawfully wedded spouse is such only by a temple sealing? As far as I know, they still define a legal and lawful marraige as one that is sanctioned by the law of the land, rather than only those who have been sealed in a temple.

I'm guessing there's probably something about this issue in the CHI, but I'd like someone to disclose what is said about it.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Ahab

[David T]

There is a question on the Law of Chastity, as I recall. "Living a homosexual lifestyle" just might be construed as breaking the Law of Chastity.

Lehi

The context, though, was in the case the Church eventually permits Same Sex Marriage to be recognized as Legally and Lawfully wedded. And thus in the realm of the Law of Chastity.

Those who are having sexual relationships outside of a legal marriage - no matter their orientation - are (and will be) in violation of the Law of Chastity as currently explained.

EDIT: Ahab's latest post made this redundant

Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

The law of chastity, as defined by the Church, involves limiting sexual relations to only someone's legally and lawfully wedded spouse, so at that point it becomes necessarily to define what is a legally and lawfully wedded spouse.

The context, though, was in the case the Church eventually permits Same Sex Marriage to be recognized as Legally and Lawfully wedded. And thus in the realm of the Law of Chastity.

In context, it was hypothetical, and the question, and the definition it's based on, would probably change were there to be same-sex "marriage" and the person known to be "married" to another homosexual.

The Law of Chastity does not permit homosex, whether or not the couple is legally "married".

Lehi

Edited June 17, 2011 by LeSellers

[David T]

I am not totally sure what you mean by this, but I think I disagree vehemently. If this is regarding the Celestial Kingdom and those who would not be exalted, being "ministering angels" I think you are very wrong indeed.

Well, I meant more in the Church, and was dealing more with individuals' views than with doctrine. As much as they shouldn't, there would be members who viewed those in SSM as being destined to be servants, while they would be destined for Godhead. They would perhaps speculate that those individuals might be their own ministering angels, since they are 'destined for a fair greater glory'. Either way, at least in the Church of mortality, there would, once again, be a 'separate but equal' status.

Much like Africans who could be baptized, but not receive Temple ordinances. As I presented it, gay couples, however, would have access to all of the ordinances with the exception of Temple Marriage. While their orientation might not be a choice, their choice to pursue the marriage relationship in lieu of celibacy would be viewed by many members as a choice to be servants/ministering angels - and viewed as a less noble goal than their own.

Wasn't it you who brought up Mother Theresa as a person who voluntarily gave her life to service and ministering to others? Was she therefore part of a "servant caste"?

In the Catholic Church, she is viewed as being of a separate vocation than those who are married in this life. However, in Catholicism, there is not a distinction between married godhood, and single servitude in the eternities as there is in LDS doctrine. Her eternal outcome will be viewed as no different than someone who chose a different vocation.

Those who are ministering servants in the Celestial Kingdom will be there because this is the highest level law they decided to live- this will be the greatest happiness they can imagine. These are they who WANT nothing more than to surround the throne of God and praise him eternally; they will have their fondest wish.

Frankly, were I openly gay, and felt that was God wanted me to be, being a member of the LDS church would be the last option I would take. I cannot imagine that suddenly we will be deluged with openly gay members who want to be civilly married AND LDS.

The Church was getting huge numbers of requests for Missionaries and Baptisms from African saints with the full knowledge that they would not be able to receive the ordinances of the Temple, or be ordained to the Priesthood, with a full recognition that there was - in practice - a 'second tier' status given them.

I think if the Church were to recognize SSM as being valid obedience to the Law of Chastity - even though it would keep them from Eternal Marriage - there would still be a significant change in opinion.

Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Ahab]

The Law of Chastity does not permit homosex, whether or not the couple is legally "married".

CFR from an appropriate authority with some more detail to back up what you are saying.

As I see it, the law of chastity doesn't disquality same sex spouses who are legally and lawfully wedded, so it would take something else to disquality them.

[mfbukowski]

If gay marriage becomes federal law, I can see a change in the recommend questions or a clarification on the definition of "chastity". That is one of the advantages to having a prophet.

But I can see current questions other than the one on chastity applying, like one asking about conduct with members of our family not being in harmony with the teachings of the church- or supporting agreeing with or affiliating any group or individual who's practices are contrary to those accepted by the church.

Those are not exact quotes, but if a bishop was inclined to exclude even married gay people from the temple with the current questions, having nothing to do with the definition of "chastity".

I am not advocating such exclusion necessarily, but I think clearly gay marriage falls under both of those questions.

Again, it would be up to the individual bishop to interpret as he sees fit.

Edited June 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LeSellers]

As I see it, the law of chastity doesn't disquality same sex spouses who are legally and lawfully wedded, so it would take something else to disquality them.

The operative words here are "As [you] see it".

If "married" homosexuals could pass the Law of Chastity test, there would be no reason for the Church to oppose same-sex "marriage".

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Well, I meant more in the Church, and was dealing more with individuals' views than with doctrine. As much as they shouldn't, there would be members who viewed those in SSM as being destined to be servants, while they would be destined for Godhead. They would perhaps speculate that those individuals might be their own ministering angels, since they are 'destined for a fair greater glory'. Either way, at least in the Church of mortality, there would, once again, be a 'separate but equal' status.

Much like Africans who could be baptized, but not receive Temple ordinances. As I presented it, gay couples, however, would have access to all of the ordinances with the exception of Temple Marriage. While their orientation might not be a choice, their choice to pursue the marriage relationship in lieu of celibacy would be viewed by many members as a choice to be servants/ministering angels - and viewed as a less noble goal than their own.

I disagree. We all are sinners and nobody knows who is going to the CK or what level even if we get there etc. And in my opinion, they would be barred entrance to the temple and would not be eligible for any temple ordinances.

Maybe you have seen this attitude in the church, that "I'm better than you because I don't (fill in blank here)" but in my 31 years in the church I have not.

[mfbukowski]

The operative words here are "As [you] see it".

If "married" homosexuals could pass the Law of Chastity test, there would be no reason for the Church to oppose same-sex "marriage".

Lehi

They would simply add a question- that's all.

[Ahab]

They would simply add a question- that's all.

Who would add the question, and to what set of questions?

Does a bishop have authority to ask another question during the temple recommend interview process to ferret out those who are practicing homosexuals?

I'm thinking a bishop is limited to asking certain questions during the temple recommend interview, with the interviewee's answers being the gauge to determine whether or not they will get one.

If the bishop discovered they were gay, for example, how would that affect receiving a recommend?

Does the CHI or some other authoratative source state practicing homosexuals are disqualified from receiving a temple recommend?

I'm just trying to understand the specifics on this.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Ahab

[David T]

I disagree. We all are sinners and nobody knows who is going to the CK or what level even if we get there etc. And in my opinion, they would be barred entrance to the temple and would not be eligible for any temple ordinances.

Maybe you have seen this attitude in the church, that "I'm better than you because I don't (fill in blank here)" but in my 31 years in the church I have not.

Well, there were a great many who believed blacks were born cursed because they were less valient in the pre-existence. Heck, I'm sure there are some who may even still feel that all blacks born "from Cain" until 1978 needed (or perhaps deserved) to be cut off from the Priesthood.

I think it's all a bunch of crap, as does Elder Holland.

However, that doesn't mean there aren't otherwise great and faithful members in the Church who do feel that way.

Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Ahab]

The operative words here are "As [you] see it".

If "married" homosexuals could pass the Law of Chastity test, there would be no reason for the Church to oppose same-sex "marriage".

Lehi

Law of Chastity test, for me, as I see it = am I limiting my sexual relations to only my legally and lawfully wedded spouse?

What makes you think someone who is legally and lawfully married to someone of the same sex couldn't pass that same test with a "Yes" answer???

Edited June 17, 2011 by Ahab

[David T]

It would need to be clarified to say that one covenants to have sexual relations only with their spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully wed...and who are also of a different gender. It does become a mouthful

[LeSellers]

Law of Chastity test, for me, as I see it = am I limiting my sexual relations to only my legally and lawfully wedded spouse?

Again, "as [you] see it". It seems as if you are imposing your standard on God, because, in your view, God wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings or demand anything difficult.

What makes you think someone who is legally and lawfully married to someone of the same sex couldn't pass that same test with a "Yes" answer???

If that were to be the question, then, yes, the "married" homosexual could pass the test, but there is no reason at all to imagine that the question would not become something like: Do you follow the Law of heterosexual chastity?

Remember, God created us male and female, has condemned homosex from at least the time of Moses (and long before, according to the Sodom account in Genesis), and there is no basis for believing that these were idle commandments. The first commandment was to "multiply and replenish the earth", not to have sex with just one person. "Married" homosexuals cannot multiply with their "spouses".

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Who would add the question, and to what set of questions?

Does a bishop have authority to ask another question during the temple recommend interview process to ferret out those who are practicing homosexuals?

I'm thinking a bishop is limited to asking certain questions during the temple recommend interview, with the interviewee's answers being the gauge to determine whether or not they will get one.

If the bishop discovered they were gay, for example, how would that affect receiving a recommend?

Does the CHI or some other authoratative source state practicing homosexuals are disqualified from receiving a temple recommend?

I'm just trying to understand the specifics on this.

Coime on- You know this stuff!

Yes, performing homosexual sex is against the law of chastity, and thus prohibits one from getting a recommend.

The First Presidency could write a letter to all the bishops changing the temple recommend interview questions tomorrow if they wanted to.

Bishops are limited to asking the authorized temple recommend interview questions, but they are changed every few years- it's no big deal to change them.

Were a bishop to issue a recommend to someone who did not understand that homosexual relations were breaking the law of chastity, and later the bishop found out that the individual was a practicing homosexual, the most likely way that it would be handled would be that the bishop would have a conversation with that individual, explain the law of chastity to him and then revoke his recommend until in the bishop and/or disciplinary council's opinion, the individual had "repented" sufficiently to have a recommend.

If someone blatantly lied on a recommend interview and was found to have done so, and the bishop did not catch it by the spirit, the bishop could go to the Stake President and have the recommend revoked, so that if it was scanned when the person attempted to gain access to the temple, it would show as being revoked and that individual would not have access to the temple until the situation was resolved.

Clear?

[zerinus]

If the bishop discovered they were gay, for example, how would that affect receiving a recommend?

Does the CHI or some other authoratative source state practicing homosexuals are disqualified from receiving a temple recommend?

I'm just trying to understand the specifics on this.

Law of Chastity test, for me, as I see it = am I limiting my sexual relations to only my legally and lawfully wedded spouse?

What makes you think someone who is legally and lawfully married to someone of the same sex couldn't pass that same test with a "Yes" answer???

The proclamation on the family says:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between

a man and a woman

is ordained of God and that the

family

is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

Gender

is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and

purpose

.

We declare that God’s commandment for His children to

multiply and replenish

the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed

only between man and woman,

lawfully wedded as husband and

wife

.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between

man and woman

is essential to His eternal plan.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of

chastity

[i.e. as defined above], who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.

Also in scripture:

D&C 42

:

22 Thou shalt love thy

wife

[female] with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto

her

and

none else

.

Edited June 17, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

It would need to be clarified to say that one covenants to have sexual relations only with their spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully wed...and who are also of a different gender. It does become a mouthful

And so? God didn't only limit us to having sex with one person, He said "multiply and replenish the earth". "Married" homosexuals cannot do that with their "spouses".

Inherent in the term "married" is the idea of difference. You can marry (metaphically) art and science, but it does not make any sense at all to "marry" art and art. Even the word "sex" means "different" (from Latin secÄre to divide).

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

If that were to be the question, then, yes, the "married" homosexual could pass the test, but there is no reason at all to imagine that the question would not become something like: Do you follow the Law of heterosexual chastity?

It doesn't have to be mysterious or oddly worded. The First Presidency could just word a new question- "Do you practice homosexual sex?"

A yes answer makes you ineligible for a recommend. Simple as that- it could be done virtually overnight with a letter to all bishops.

But I would not want to be the bishop of an 80 year old sweet sister who came in for an interview in that case!

What a world we live in!

[Ahab]

If that were to be the question, then, yes, the "married" homosexual could pass the test, but there is no reason at all to imagine that the question would not become something like: Do you follow the Law of heterosexual chastity?

When do you suppose the authorities of the Church will rephrase the question to something like that?

You do realize that same sex marriage is already legal and lawful in some states of America, don't you?

Why aren't they asking that question something like that way right now, do you suppose?

As I see it, all bishops are supposed to ask only the questions that are now asked in the temple recommend interview, and exactly as they are stated.

As I see it, there's no leeway for bishops to rephrase the questions, or to ask additional questions they think should be asked in the process.

If I'm not right about that, though... meaning if I don't see it as it is now... please go ahead and straighten me out by quoting someone with more authority than either of us.