Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[wenglund]

There are LDS temples in Canada, and one in the Bay Area. There are none in Iran.

Progressive believe in choice, and diversity.

Progressives believe in progressive choices.

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.

Regressives believe in promoting and sanctioning regressive choices.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[lostinmd]

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.

I believe President Hinkley laid this to rest when he stated: "polygamy is not doctrinal" on CNN. A general websearch of "Hinkley on polygamy" will bring up the video and transcripts.

[wenglund]

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.

You keep ignoring the most important element in this whole discussion, and that is the divine and eternal purpose for marriage. When you actually consider that most important element, you will then understand that LDS polygamy isn't digressive or progressive in relation to LDS monogamous marriages. The former simply consists of more of the latter, or more of the same.

However, I understand that you have to ignore the divine and eternal purpose for marriage because it flies in the face of your perverted wish for the church to eventually embrace so-called "same-sex marriages."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[guitarist]

I believe President Hinkley laid this to rest when he stated: "polygamy is not doctrinal" on CNN. A general websearch of "Hinkley on polygamy" will bring up the video and transcripts.

So based on a PR statement from Pres. Hinkley, you're saying that the Lord did things that weren't doctrinally sound in DC 132:37-39, 52, 61–62?

Edited April 5, 2012 by guitarist

[lostinmd]

So based on a PR statement from Pres. Hinkley, you're saying that the Lord did things that weren't doctrinally sound in DC 132:37-39, 52, 61–62?

either or

meaning either D&C is wrong or President Hinkley is wrong...

which one is wrong?

[lostinmd]

You keep ignoring the most important element in this whole discussion, and that is the divine and eternal purpose for marriage. When you actually consider that most important element, you will then understand that LDS polygamy isn't digressive or progressive in relation to LDS monogamous marriages. The former simply consists of more of the latter, or more of the same.

However, I understand that you have to ignore the divine and eternal purpose for marriage because it flies in the face of your perverted wish for the church to eventually embrace so-called "same-sex marriages."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We can go back to the main point of this thread, but I felt it was important to point out your inaccuracies. Of course my perception may not be reality and likewise your perception may also be flawed.

I am going to stick to the belief that in a matter of a decade or two the Church will allow openly PRACTICING LGBTs to have all rights.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Are you the same poster as lostindc?

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe President Hinkley laid this to rest when he stated: "polygamy is not doctrinal" on CNN. A general websearch of "Hinkley on polygamy" will bring up the video and transcripts.

I'm quite confident that in the instance to which you refer, he was speaking of polygamy as practiced today, i.e, polygamy that is not authorized by God.

It is disingenuous to take words out of context.

But feel free to produce for us a link and/or a quote so we can evaluate it for ourselves.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I am going to stick to the belief that in a matter of a decade or two the Church will allow openly PRACTICING LGBTs to have all rights.

Please clarify your meaning by the term "all rights."

Do you mean civil rights? It is not the province of the Church to forbid or grant those.

Or do you mean privileges, such as Church membership in good standing, Church-sanctioned marriage, temple access, holding callings, etc.?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

This wouldn't prove anything. It has long been the case that people can get by with nominal membership in the Church while holding all manner of apostate views. That doesn't drive Church doctrine. Revelation in the Church is not decided by popular vote.

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.

Then shall we come back in 10 years' time and see if, by any reasonable measure, what you predict is any closer to happening? Shall I put it on my calendar?

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[lostinmd]

I'm fairly confident that in the instance to which you refer, he was speaking of polygamy as practiced today, i.e, polygamy that is not authorized by God.

It is disingenuous to take words out of context.

But feel free to produce for us a link and/or a quote so we can evaluate it for ourselves.

I am not sure what the board rules are for producing links. In any event, there is no point in getting caught up in the typical play on words. The absence of a statement does not imply this is what the late President Hinkley meant. He clearly stated:

``It's behind us,'' said Hinckley, a man believed to be a ``prophet, seer and revelator'' by the church's 10 million members. ``I condemn it as a practice. It is not doctrinal. It is not legal.''

Current polygamists in Utah ``don't belong to the church,'' he said. ``There are no Mormon fundamentalists.''

The church has no position on whether to prosecute today's polygamists, he said. ``We are totally distant from it . . . it is outside our responsibility.''

Some scholars have noted that certain church leaders stayed in plural marriages even after the ``Woodruff Manifesto'' and say the principle has not been erased from Mormon scripture.

Harrie, D. (1998). Hinkley Attacks Polygamy on National Television. Salt Lake Tribune.

[lostinmd]

Please clarify your meaning by the term "all rights."

All rights, implies rights to leadership roles (e.g. bishop, stake president, etc) and full ritual rights, specifically Temple rituals.

[Scott Lloyd]

All rights, implies rights to leadership roles (e.g. bishop, stake president, etc) and full ritual rights, specifically Temple rituals.

Then will you make a commitment to come back in 10 years, to this board or whatever successor there might be to it? You did say "the next decade or two," and I want to revisit this discussion then. I predict you will be just as far off the mark as you are today.

In fact, I'll put it on my calendar. I'll expect you and Roger Loomis. Until then I'll preserve your and his posts to quote on that date, which will be April 5, 2022.

(On occasions like this, I almost wish I were not opposed as a matter of principle to wagering.)

Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

I am going to stick to the belief that in a matter of a decade or two the Church will allow openly PRACTICING LGBTs to have all rights.

I think the more likely event to happen in the next ten years is that the "Proclamation on the Family" will be added to the formal LDS canon.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you the same poster as lostindc?

I see that lostinmd has now been banned, so apparently my hunch was right.

Thus, he might not be able to return here 10 years from now. Ah well, I can still quote his posts and revisit the matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not sure what the board rules are for producing links. In any event, there is no point in getting caught up in the typical play on words. The absence of a statement does not imply this is what the late President Hinkley meant. He clearly stated:

Harrie, D. (1998). Hinkley Attacks Polygamy on National Television. Salt Lake Tribune.

It's just as I suspected: President Hinckley was responding to a question in the context of schismatic groups that engage in polygamy and was thus denouncing the unauthorized practice thereof.

There has never yet been an authoritative statement from the Church that plural marriage as practiced in the early days of Church history was anything less than a commandment from God, nor do I expect there ever will be.

[BlueDreams]

The problem that I see with his article starts with his initial underlying assumptions about gay families and homosexuality in general. From the way he worded it, it’s apparent that he assumed that if something didn’t meet up to LDS standards, then the results must be immediate problems for the people effected next to spiritual changes. This assumption isn’t necessary or even precedent in order to believe in marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. I don’t have any doubts that there are wonderful parents who are same-sex couples. I still believe the latter though.

Further even subtracting the verses taken as condemning homosexuality, it still leads to the positive and direct emphasis of what marriage is for God. One of my favorite scripture about marriage is in DC 49: 16: "Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one ^awife, and they twain shall be ^bone flesh, and all this that the ^cearth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his ^acreation ^bbefore the world was made." The scriptures that talk about marriage are fairly explicit about who it’s for and what the reasoning is behind this. Because of it’s significance (as not just sacred, but central to all creation) and specificity I doubt that it would change and I don’t believe that it should. It isn’t something that can, it’s fundamental. What should change is our dialogue around sexuality as a whole and understanding of that that are LGBT specifically. It’s part of the reason he came to an incorrect conclusion, because his initial understanding about LDS doctrine and gay people were severely lacking.

With luv,

BD

[Bikeemikey]

Elder David A. Bednar is the first apostle from my generation, the free-love, free-wheeling, "summer-of-love" generation of the sixties. Are his attitudes about sex more liberal, casual or non-traditional than those of his brethren? Obviously not. In the 50 years since, the sexual revelation has changed the doctrine and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ not at all. Sex between anyone other than a lawfully married man and woman is still regarded as an abomination, an offense punishable by the severest penalty the Church can mete out.

Neither Roger nor I will be around in 80 years. But I expect to be surviving after 10, perhaps even 20 or 30. I would like to revisit his prognostication then to test his notion that eternal laws of morality are subject to the changing whims of a secularist society. Perhaps I'll even put it on my calendar.

I don't think that Elder Bednar was ever a free-love, free-wheelin, Summer of love kinda fellow.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

I doubt it will be in the next decade.

I also wonder if it will be all at once or start with allowing membership and baptism and then later on the temple blessings.

Those of "black" ancestry were members in good standing a long time before they had equal access to temple blessings.

[mikwut]

Hello Bob, you responded my post with:

I submit that you have a massively uphill argument.

I submit the contrary.

Contrary to a thousand years of Biblical commentary.

Please provide documentation for that statement. The issue of sexual orientation and loving committed relationships among the same sex has not been a cultural or societal issue or any import that Biblical commentary has spoken to it for thousands of years. The issue of just what sexual orientation is was not an issue for a thousand years.

Favored by a small set of very recent sholarship which does not draw on new material.

The issue is recent for both sides, your sword cuts both ways and is simply non-substantive and opinionated. What "new material" are you suggesting that words be something else more akin to what you want them to be.

Yours is poor teaching.

Yours is poor teaching.

Kind of like reading scholarship that Jesus was really black; there's plenty of that.

They aren't even analogous.

Read the NIV Study Guide, Expositor's commentary on the NIV or KJV, Matthew Henry, Bruce Metzger, and report back.

I have. Maybe you could read what I wrote before name dropping. Maybe you could provide one example from the church's standard works that discusses the issue that is of such prominence socially and within the church. I again submit to you that is not a trivially matter for your position.

If I knew your profession I could denounce your argument for that as well.

Well that would be counterproductive because we share the same profession.

regards, mikwut

[Bikeemikey]

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

God's law changed when the USA threatened the Church with certain destruction. Polygamy slowly disappeared and now most younger generations I talk with think it is fundamentally immoral to practice polygamy; the Church will excommunicate you if you try.

If God's laws can be undermined and changed by the Government of the USA, why not it's owned membership?

[Scott Lloyd]

I doubt it will be in the next decade.

I also wonder if it will be all at once or start with allowing membership and baptism and then later on the temple blessings.

Those of "black" ancestry were members in good standing a long time before they had equal access to temple blessings.

Being "black" was never a matter of violating the laws of God with offenses punishable by excommunication.

I think it far more likely that God would do as Rob Osborn said and rain down fire and brimstone on the Church for doing what you suggest than that the Church would ever do such a thing in the first place, even incrementally.

[Scott Lloyd]

God's law changed when the USA threatened the Church with certain destruction. Polygamy slowly disappeared and now most younger generations I talk with think it is fundamentally immoral to practice polygamy; the Church will excommunicate you if you try.

If God's laws can be undermined and changed by the Government of the USA, why not it's owned membership?

Polygamy is always immoral unless authorized and commanded by God.

[David T]

Being "black" was never a matter of violating the laws of God with offenses punishable by excommunication.

I think it far more likely that God would do as Rob Osborn said and rain down fire and brimstone on the Church for doing what you suggest than that the Church would ever do such a thing in the first place, even incrementally.

So if gay married couples are eventually allowed to be baptized, does that mean you would you be avoiding Temple Square?

[Calm]

I have not read all this thread so if this has been asked, sorry, and just point me to the post:

a monogamous, legally married LDS same-sex couple in Massachusetts

Is there any information on who this couple is?