Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[lostinmd]

God would rain down fire and brimstone just like Sodom and Gomorah if the church ever started aknowledging gay marriage! Luckily for us, the Church will never recognize homosexual practices- they are an abomination in the sight of the Lord!

And the old guard has arrived!

Enjoy, because as your generation moves on and becomes one with the universe the new generation will be practicing what you state would never happen. This reminds me of the many talks I read from the Journal of Discourses and the constant proclamation that polygamy is here to stay.

[guitarist]

Yes and no. We could measure the percentage of Mormons with views similar to those of Carmack for different cohorts, and observe how that changes over time. If a greater and greater plurality of members see things the way Carmack sees them, and the members with those views percolate up priesthood hierarchy, what’s going to happen? It is conceivable that in some future decade an apostle will say, “Forget everything that I ever said about this issue and that a score of dead apostles have said about this issue. The Lord has revealed that the long hoped-for day has arrived when the blessings of Celestial Marriage will be available to all righteous families, without regard to the gender of the spouses.”

Regardless of whether even the LDS population begin to shift its thinking into thinking its right or not, that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God. One of the primary functions of the family is to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the possibility of doing this within a homosexual relationship is zero--it's just not biologically possible. Do you really see God modifying this primary & eternal function of marriage just so homosexuals can be justified in being married?

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. But if you believe in continued revelation, in principle, you should allow for the possibility that future revelations will be challenging—even shocking—to Latter-day Saints of other generations.

There's no doubt that some past revelations have gone against the grain of what some perceived to be the ways of the church, but ultimately, when you look at all of those revelations, you can see that they were still compatible with the laws of God. A homosexual relationship just cannot be for the reason that it cannot fulfill the first basic principle of the family--to have children. Suppose for a minute that everyone in the world decided to enter monogamous "committed" homosexual relationships. You would witness the extinction of the entire human race in a single generation. How can such an arrangement work in the eternal scheme of things? Edited April 5, 2012 by guitarist

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would say to any Gay person, if a straight single man can be happy in the church and live a life of chastity, why cant you?

Catholics do it all the time. So can we...

[lostinmd]

Regardless of whether even the LDS population begin to shift its thinking into thinking its right or not, that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God. One of the primary functions of the family is to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the possibility of doing this within a homosexual relationship is zero--it's just not biologically possible. Do you really see God modifying this primary & eternal function of marriage just so homosexuals can be justified in being married?

There's no doubt that some past revelations have gone against the grain of what some perceived to be the ways of the church, but ultimately, when you look at all of those revelations, you can see that they were still compatible with the laws of God. A homosexual relationship just cannot be for the reason that it cannot fulfill the first basic principle of the family--to have children. Suppose for a minute that everyone in the world decided to enter monogamous "committed" homosexual relationships. You would witness the extinction of the entire human race in a single generation. How can such an arrangement work in the eternal scheme of things?

Currently, the statistics reflect roughly 10% of the population is currently identifying as GLBT. So if only 10% are 'not being fruitful' then the "multiply and replenish" declarative is not a problem especially considering how inefficient child birth was in past times such the infant mortality rates during the peak of roman times speculated to reach as high as 50%.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Elder David A. Bednar is the first apostle from my generation, the free-love, free-wheeling, "summer-of-love" generation of the sixties.

I survived the 60"s...I was very much a loner as my brothers and friends were doing things that I could not reconcile with my upbringing.

[guitarist]

Currently, the statistics reflect roughly 10% of the population is currently identifying as GLBT. So if only 10% are 'not being fruitful' then the "multiply and replenish" declarative is not a problem especially considering how inefficient child birth was in past times such the infant mortality rates during the peak of roman times speculated to reach as high as 50%.

The point of my extreme scenario is that there is no biological basis for homosexual relationships to be able to produce offspring. It wasn't designed that way, it goes against the natural order of things, not the least of which, evolution. If God wanted homosexual relationships to be eternally compatible, he would have designed us to be able to reproduce either way. As it is, we cannot.

[Analytics]

Regardless of whether even the LDS population begin to shift its thinking into thinking its right or not, that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God. One of the primary functions of the family is to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the possibility of doing this within a homosexual relationship is zero--it's just not biologically possible. Do you really see God modifying this primary & eternal function of marriage just so homosexuals can be justified in being married?

I'd remind you that man's thoughts are not God's thoughts, and man's ways are not God's ways. Just because you think it is impossible for same-sex couples to have children doesn't mean that with God it is impossible.

Just sayin'.

There's no doubt that some past revelations have gone against the grain of what some perceived to be the ways of the church, but ultimately, when you look at all of those revelations, you can see that they were still compatible with the laws of God. A homosexual relationship just cannot be for the reason that it cannot fulfill the first basic principle of the family--to have children. Suppose for a minute that everyone in the world decided to enter monogamous "committed" homosexual relationships. You would witness the extinction of the entire human race in a single generation. How can such an arrangement work in the eternal scheme of things?

By your reasoning, infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't get married. After all, such relationships by definition "cannot fulfill the first basic principle of the family--to have children."

Of course, with advances in technology, couples that used to be considered infertile can now have their own children. And of course, just because a couple can't have children in the current mortal probation doesn't preclude God from making a way for them to have children in the next life.

Likewise, there is an excellent chance that through emerging technology, same sex couples will someday be able to have their own biological children too. And just because you are convinced God simply wouldn't make a way for loving same-sex couples to have children in the next life doesn't mean that future generations of Mormons will have the same conviction.

[wenglund]

Yes and no. We could measure the percentage of Mormons with views similar to those of Carmack for different cohorts, and observe how that changes over time. If a greater and greater plurality of members see things the way Carmack sees them, and the members with those views percolate up priesthood hierarchy, what’s going to happen? It is conceivable that in some future decade an apostle will say, “Forget everything that I ever said about this issue and that a score of dead apostles have said about this issue. The Lord has revealed that the long hoped-for day has arrived when the blessings of Celestial Marriage will be available to all righteous families, without regard to the gender of the spouses.”

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. But if you believe in continued revelation, in principle, you should allow for the possibility that future revelations will be challenging—even shocking—to Latter-day Saints of other generations.

The kind of percolating that you are talking about tends to be members percolating away from the church rather than up through the ranks of priesthood authority.

Also, continuing revelation is progressive, not digressive. And, what you are suggesting, is digressive, which means it isn't likely to occur.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

100% correct, this issue will be settled in the next decade and SSM will be well received by leadership. This is very hard to grasp for older and/or more conservative LDS but much like African-Americans and the Priesthood, polygamous marriages, etc the doctrine will be modified.

This is incredibly clueless (see my statement above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kenngo1969]

A gay person might say that, but there are plenty of straights that realize that the hope of marriage in this life is very low. And you are correct, having an eternal perspective, rather than a mortal one, makes all the difference.

The above, x 2.

[Jaybear]

The kind of percolating that you are talking about tends to be members percolating away from the church rather than up through the ranks of priesthood authority.

Also, continuing revelation is progressive, not digressive. And, what you are suggesting, is digressive, which means it isn't likely to occur.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Progressive: Canada where gay marriage is legal.

Regressive: Iran, where homosexuals are put to death by the state.

Tell me why I am wrong.

[Kenngo1969]

I'd remind you that man's thoughts are not God's thoughts, and man's ways are not God's ways. Just because you think it is impossible for same-sex couples to have children doesn't mean that with God it is impossible.

Just sayin'.

By your reasoning, infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't get married. After all, such relationships by definition "cannot fulfill the first basic principle of the family--to have children."

Of course, with advances in technology, couples that used to be considered infertile can now have their own children. And of course, just because a couple can't have children in the current mortal probation doesn't preclude God from making a way for them to have children in the next life.

Likewise, there is an excellent chance that through emerging technology, same sex couples will someday be able to have their own biological children too. And just because you are convinced God simply wouldn't make a way for loving same-sex couples to have children in the next life doesn't mean that future generations of Mormons will have the same conviction.

Even if everyone in the Church were to apostatiize in the manner you suggest, God's laws won't change.

[lostinmd]

The point of my extreme scenario is that there is no biological basis for homosexual relationships to be able to produce offspring. It wasn't designed that way, it goes against the natural order of things, not the least of which, evolution. If God wanted homosexual relationships to be eternally compatible, he would have designed us to be able to reproduce either way. As it is, we cannot.

then why not make it far more efficient to have children, such as protecting against high infant mortality rates? You get the just of where I am going, if, if, if

[guitarist]

I'd remind you that man's thoughts are not God's thoughts, and man's ways are not God's ways. Just because you think it is impossible for same-sex couples to have children doesn't mean that with God it is impossible.

Just sayin'.

By your reasoning, infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't get married. After all, such relationships by definition "cannot fulfill the first basic principle of the family--to have children."

Of course, with advances in technology, couples that used to be considered infertile can now have their own children. And of course, just because a couple can't have children in the current mortal probation doesn't preclude God from making a way for them to have children in the next life.

Likewise, there is an excellent chance that through emerging technology, same sex couples will someday be able to have their own biological children too. And just because you are convinced God simply wouldn't make a way for loving same-sex couples to have children in the next life doesn't mean that future generations of Mormons will have the same conviction.

Yes, Man's ways are not God's ways. However, God's house is a "house of order", has always been, and always will be. This statement could just as easily be used against homosexuality, since it is the thoughts of men that are pushing for homosexuality.

Infertile couples are at least biologically designed to have children, but for whatever infirmities afflict them, they are unable to do so. Homosexuals on the other hand have never been biologically designed to do so.

To say that because it's possible one day we may be able to manipulate genetic code from two males or two females into a biologically feasible "offspring" does not mean that God on that day will jump for joy and proclaim, "You did it! It is now ok for homosexual couples to be sealed in my temples".

[lostinmd]

The kind of percolating that you are talking about tends to be members percolating away from the church rather than up through the ranks of priesthood authority.

Also, continuing revelation is progressive, not digressive. And, what you are suggesting, is digressive, which means it isn't likely to occur.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This does not hold water. The Church digressed when polygamous marriages were taken away. If we read the prophets and apostles that were practicing polygamy during the polygamous era we find they support this idea.

[wenglund]

Progressive: Canada where gay marriage is legal.

Regressive: Iran, where homosexuals are put to death by the state.

Tell me why I am wrong.

Progressive: throughout the world where eternal marriages are performed in the LDS temples.

Regressive: San Fransisco and their aids-infested bath houses

Tell me where I am wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 5, 2012 by wenglund

[guitarist]

then why not make it far more efficient to have children, such as protecting against high infant mortality rates? You get the just of where I am going, if, if, if

That is a non sequitur. The fact that women the birthing process is "inefficient" has nothing to do with the fact that homosexuals are biologically incompatible.

[lostinmd]

Even if everyone in the Church were to apostatiize in the manner you suggest, God's laws won't change.

God's laws do change (e.g. The Law of Moses, polygamy, priesthood rights, etc.)

[guitarist]

This does not hold water. The Church digressed when polygamous marriages were taken away. If we read the prophets and apostles that were practicing polygamy during the polygamous era we find they support this idea.

It did not digress. The celestial laws for polygamy still stand. The church has always said that polygamy is acceptable only when the Lord says it is, and is forbidden on all other counts. The Lord is perfectly capable of (and just) in saying at any given time when polygamy is acceptable unto him. Now is not that time. But it likely will be again one day in the future, whenever the Lord says so. But this is still not an apples to apples comparison, because polygamy is still biologically compatible, and homosexuality never was.

[wenglund]

This does not hold water. The Church digressed when polygamous marriages were taken away. If we read the prophets and apostles that were practicing polygamy during the polygamous era we find they support this idea.

You really aren't thinking this through. The LDS practice of polygamy wasn't digressive or progressive in relation to LDS monogamous marriages, particularly in terms of the divine and eternal intent behind marriages.

The same is not true for so-called "same-sex marriges." since such marriages defy the divine and eternal intent for marriage and would thus be digressive.

Please get a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[lostinmd]

It did not digress. The celestial laws for polygamy still stand. The church has always said that polygamy is acceptable only when the Lord says it is, and is forbidden on all other counts. The Lord is perfectly capable of (and just) in saying at any given time when polygamy is acceptable unto him. Now is not that time. But it likely will be again one day in the future, whenever the Lord says so. But this is still not an apples to apples comparison, because polygamy is still biologically compatible, and homosexuality never was.

CFR regarding polygamy being a celestial law still. I believe you are going to ruffle a lot of feathers with such as statement.

[lostinmd]

You really aren't thinking this through. The LDS practice of polygamy wasn't digressive or progressive in relation to LDS monogamous marriages, particularly in terms of the divine and eternal intent behind marriages.

The same is not true for so-called "same-sex marriges." since such marriages defy the divine and eternal intent for marriage and would thus be digressive.

Please get a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wrong, you are the one not thinking this through. From monogamous marriage to sealings and likewise polygamous marriage there was a claim of progression, only to have this progression taken away and brought full circle back to monogamous marriages.

If we look at the history and claims made during the polygamous era (see Journal of Discourses) we find that the more progressed leaders were found worthy to live on a higher level which included polygamy. No need to speculate.

[Jaybear]

progressive: throughout the world where eternal marriages are performed in the LDS temples.

There are LDS temples in Canada, and one in the Bay Area.

There are none in Iran.

Progressive believe in choice, and diversity.

digressive: San Fransisco and their aids-infested bath houses

If you have a problem with adults who choose to engage in reckless sexual behavior, you should support gay marriage.

Far more practical than telling gays to be celebate, because your God says so.

[jskains]

There are LDS temples in Canada, and one in the Bay Area.

There are none in Iran.

Progressive believe in choice, and diversity.

If you have a problem with adults who choose to engage in reckless sexual behavior, you should support gay marriage.

Far more practical than telling gays to be celebate, because your God says so.

That's like the poor response of "they are doing to do it anyways so......."... It's like hey, they are doing to do drugs anyways, so lets make it legal. Or people are going to kill each other anyways, so lets make wild west duels legal.

Opening to sexual deviancy based solely on the idea that it will be done worse if we don't change the definition of marriage IMHO is a bad argument that will lead to more bad arguments.

JMS

[guitarist]

CFR regarding polygamy being a celestial law still. I believe you are going to ruffle a lot of feathers with such as statement.

Official Declaration 1. Polygamy was not denounced as a celestial law, but was deemed forbidden in order to abide by the laws of the land, and avoid additional persecution & being thrown in jail.