Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[Analytics]

I have two points back. I humbly submit that from an unbelieving perspective (your words), changing a doctrine is easy. From a believing perspective, Eternal Marriage-the man/woman kind-is the very heart of God's plan. THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM. None, not now, not ever. And current leaders, while calling for christlike love for all of God's children, have stated that same thing. Specifically, that it will never happen. So all those who think that gay relationships will ever be sanctified in the temple, get over it. It's not going to happen as long as the Plan of Salvation, which predates our earth, exists.

Second, the truth, light, and understanding that has come into the world since 1820 has never taken what is deep dark sin and said it's no longer a sin.

Is this the point where we start quoting Isaiah 5:20 back and forth to each other?

[DBMormon]

As a Bishop I am not told I can not marry a heterosexual couple based on their having serious sins in their life. In otherwords I have the authority to marry a mna to a women regardless of their transgressions. My personal feelings don't matter here, but I could see at some point the church acknowleging unions of gay couples and permitting Bishops to officiate that union while still not calling it marriage nor ever allowing a sealing in the temple.

[Saints Alive]

I could see at some point the church acknowleging [sic] unions of gay couples and permitting Bishops to officiate that union while still not calling it marriage nor ever allowing a sealing in the temple.

The only way I see that happening is it it becomes a matter of law that those who officiate must officiate regardless of the union. What point would there be in an LDS bishop sanctioning a "union" ? It wouldn't change the couples sins, it wouldn't join them in any eclisiastical way, and it would give the church's implicit approval of such unions. I just don't see that happening.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Scott Lloyd]

No. I'm not. He was excommunicated, or disfellowshipped, and then readmitted where he later became a high councilor in Hawaii. Because of him Elredge was not a general authority, as that part of the calling was dropped. Eldredge was a somewhat vocal fellow and complained about his circumstances.

Who is Eldredge?

Add- on:

Do you mean Eldred G. Smith? If so you are still wrong. From the time of his call in the 1940s until he received emeritus status in 1979, he was not only a General Authority but the only one other than the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to be sustained in general conference as prophet, seer and revelator.

He did complain after 1979. But that was because he thought the General Authority position of Patriarch to the Church should continue and that it should be him.

I have a very clear memory from my youth of Eldred Smith speaking often in conference. I clearly remember him receiving emeritus status. I was 25 then. In my adulthood, I have written about him. I interviewed him when he turned 100.

You appear to be going on vague memories of what you have read and apparently can't even spell his name right.

I know very little about his predecessor, Joseph F. Smith II, but so far I've not seen or been shown anything that indicates he was excommunicated or disfellowshipped, as you've said.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

As a Bishop I am not told I can not marry a heterosexual couple based on their having serious sins in their life. In otherwords I have the authority to marry a mna to a women regardless of their transgressions. My personal feelings don't matter here, but I could see at some point the church acknowleging unions of gay couples and permitting Bishops to officiate that union while still not calling it marriage nor ever allowing a sealing in the temple.

Except once they are married, they are no longer fornicating, the sin is in the past and still needs to be repented of, but does not continue. The same cannot be said for homosexual "relations".

[Scott Lloyd]

Except once they are married, they are no longer fornicating, the sin is in the past and still needs to be repented of, but does not continue. The same cannot be said for homosexual "relations".

Yes. There is no precedent for any kind of Church ceremony that, in effect, blesses the ongoing commission of sin. That such a thing might happen at some future date for sin for which excommunication is currently the penalty is inconceivable to me.

[Jaybear]

Yes. There is no precedent for any kind of Church ceremony that, in effect, blesses the ongoing commission of sin. That such a thing might happen at some future date for sin for which excommunication is currently the penalty is inconceivable to me.

I think you must have forgotten, that at one time, your First Presidency sent out a letter stating that:

Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices.

Its my understanding that while "unnatural, impure and unholy practices" by single members will keep them out of the temple, Bishops are now not to inquire into such details for heterosexual members who are MARRIED.

Is it really inconceivable that in the future, LDS Bishops will be told not to inquire into what happens in the bedroom of MARRIED homosexual couples.

Is it also inconceivable to you that at some time in the future, the LDS Church will leave it up to the members to decide for themselves whether they are worthy to enter the Temple.

[Saints Alive]

For me Atleast it is a yes to both cases.

Even if homosexual couples are Married by law I doubt the church will recognize that union. I find it more likely that the church will treat homosexual marriage like abortion and excommunicate anyone who enters into such union

Edited April 6, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you must have forgotten, that at one time, your First Presidency sent out a letter stating that:

Its my understanding that while "unnatural, impure and unholy practices" by single members will keep them out of the temple, Bishops are now not to inquire into such details for heterosexual members who are MARRIED.

Is it really inconceivable that in the future, LDS Bishops will be told not to inquire into what happens in the bedroom of MARRIED homosexual couples.

Is it also inconceivable to you that at some time in the future, the LDS Church will leave it up to the members to decide for themselves whether they are worthy to enter the Temple.

The short answer to your questions is yes.

And by the way, <any> sex by unmarried persons is regarded as impure.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

For me Atleast it is a yes to both cases.

Even if homosexual couples are Married by law I doubt the church will recognize that union. I find it more likely that the church will treat homosexual marriage like abortion and excommunicate anyone who enters into such union

That the Church would incur the hostility and reprisals from political pressure groups to take a public position on Prop 8 should be clear indication to anyone of how earnest and unyielding the Church is on this matter.

[David T]

That the Church would incur the hostility and reprisals from political pressure groups to take a public position on Prop 8 should be clear indication to anyone of how earnest and unyielding the Church is on this matter.

And how powerful and real it would be if a revelation was declared, and unanimously sustained by the Brethren. Would anyone doubt it was a true revelation from God if Boyd K. Packer sustained such a thing?

[Scott Lloyd]

And how powerful and real it would be if a revelation was declared, and unanimously sustained by the Brethren. Would anyone doubt it was a true revelation from God if Boyd K. Packer sustained such a thing?

There has already been revelation in this matter. It is expressed in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

In light of subsequent events (illustrated by the discussion we are having in this thread) it is more clear to me than ever why God inspired the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to issue the proclamation when they did. It is a manifesto of sorts, one that is not being taken seriously enough in public discourse. I too believe it might one day be canonized, this in response to increasing pressure on the Church to alter the laws of God.

[Saints Alive]

There has already been revelation in this matter. It is expressed in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

In light of subsequent events (illustrated by the discussion we are having in this thread) it is more clear to me than ever why God inspired the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to issue the proclamation when they did. It is a manifesto of sorts, one that is not being taken seriously enough in public discourse. I too believe it might one day be canonized, this in response to increasing pressure on the Church to alter the laws of God.

I for one would live to see the proclamation included in D&C behind the manifesto

[Daniel2]

There has already been revelation in this matter. It is expressed in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

In light of subsequent events (illustrated by the discussion we are having in this thread) it is more clear to me than ever why God inspired the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to issue the proclamation when they did. It is a manifesto of sorts, one that is not being taken seriously enough in public discourse. I too believe it might one day be canonized, this in response to increasing pressure on the Church to alter the laws of God.

If one carefully reads the words of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," one may see that nothing in it expressly precludes the possibility of a new revelation sanctioning same-sex marriage.

Yes, I understand many presume that it is suggesting that same-sex relationships should be prohibited--but "AFFIRMING the importance of opposite-sex marriage" is NOT the same thing as "forever CONDEMNING same-sex marriage in every and all future circumstances."

Daniel2

Edited April 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[BlueDreams]

Yes, I understand many presume that it is suggesting that same-sex relationships should be prohibited--but "AFFIRMING the importance of opposite-sex marriage" is NOT the same thing as "forever CONDEMNING same-sex marriage in every and all future circumstances."

My other post in this thread got buried, but it still applies, IMHO. It's not simply the affirmation, but the strength of it....to the extent of being described as the means in which the "earth might answer the end of its creation." It is it's absolute centrality to God's plan and creation that makes it highly improbable/impossible for same-sex marriage to occur. Marriage (specifically the type of marriage God recognizes) is defined fairly clealry, placed as central in importance throughout the gospel, and is an important covenant representing partnership between the genders. Since the church is there to facilitate growth in said gospel, it would be counterproductive to facilitate same-sex marriage that does not have such an ordanation from God.

with luv,

BD

Edited April 6, 2012 by BlueDreams

[wenglund]

I think it evident from some of the comments in this thread that for those who are intent on justifying sin and who wish to consider bad as good, there is no revelation, regardless of specificity, that could prevent them from creatively interpreting those revelations in such a way as to meet their perverted end. If what has already been revealed isn't plain enough for some people, I don't think that further revelation would make much, if any, difference, Such is the state of the world we now live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Inflammatory remarks have no place in this discussion. Express disagreement with civility. You are removed.

[David T]

<never mind. Snarkiness removed.>

Edited April 6, 2012 by David T

[Daniel2]

My other post in this thread got buried, but it still applies, IMHO. It's not simply the affirmation, but the strength of it....to the extent of being described as the means in which the "earth might answer the end of its creation." It is it's absolute centrality to God's plan and creation that makes it highly improbable/impossible for same-sex marriage to occur. Marriage (specically the type of marriage God recognizes) is defined fairly clealry, placed as central in importance throughout the gospel, and is an important covenant representing partnership between the genders. Since the church is there to facilitate growth in said gospel, it would be counterproductive to facilitate same-sex marriage that does not have such an ordanation from God.

with luv,

BD

I understand your (and, frankly, Scott's) feelings on the matter. Really, I do. I get that most Latter-day Saints don't see how same-sex marriage could fit with the gospel.

Here's another way of looking at it:

A loving father and mother have ten children together--five sons, and five daughters. Though both gained college educations, Dad became the breadwinner by becoming a doctor, and Mom chose to become a homemaker and raise the children. From the time their children were small, Dad and Mom encouraged their children to love reading and value and education. Believing his profession of saving lives to be noble and life-affirming, Dad always expressed his hope that his five sons would carry on the family business, and feeling that motherhood was a special calling for women, Mom always emphasized the importance of motherhood to her five daugthers. Both parents taught their children the importance of a colledge education, and set aside funds for their children's higher education. Dad promised each of his son's a share of his Medical Practice, hoping that each son would become like him--a doctor, each in his own right. Mom held the same dreams of her own motherhood for each of her daughters. Because of their financial success, the purchased a cul-de-sac with a beautiful plot of land where each child could eventually have their own home in the "family neighborhood" and live nearby "the family business."

Four sons and four daugthers each diligently followed in the footsteps of their loving parents. All eight of them headed to colledge, and each of the sons enrolled in medical school, and each of the daughers married doctors and began families of their own. Upon receiving their medical degree, each son was awarded a home on the family cul-de-sac, and each daughter likewise was given a home to raise their fledgling families. The father and mother were pleased as each child grew and eventually chose to "become like them."

The youngest son and the youngest dauther, however, were different. After each enrolled in college, both found they were drawn to other pursuits... The youngest son wanted to be a mechanic, having always loved working with his hands, not to mention a passion for cars. The youngest daughter wanted to be a lawyer, but held no desire to marry or have children. Mom and Dad couldn't understand how the children they had raised to value the medical profession and motherhood could reject the values of their family. They were disheartened that their youngest son and daugther felt no desire to continue the family business. They knew that mechanics could not save lives, and their unmarried daugther was choosing to remain childless. Two homes on the family cul-de-sac stood empty and waiting for their youngest children...

The father and mother struggled to know what to do... Did the desires and attitudes of their youngest son and daughter undermine the plan for their family? Could they be happy, fulfilling other roles beyond "doctorhood" or "motherhood"? Could they allow them to have a space in the family neighborhood?

Daniel2

Edited April 6, 2012 by Daniel2

[Jaybear]

I think it evident from some of the comments in this thread that for those who are intent on justifying sin and who wish to consider bad as good, there is no revelation, regardless of specificity, that could prevent them from creatively interpreting those revelations in such a way as to meet their perverted end. If what has already been revealed isn't plain enough for some people, I don't think that further revelation would make much, if any, difference, Such is the state of the world we now live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What did God say, specifically, about the subject of gay marriage? When did he say it? Who did he say it to? How were the words or thoughts communicated?

If you are going to bring God and revelation into the discussion, you will need to be more specific, so we can discern what God actually said, with what you merely thinks he said.

[Kenngo1969]

If one carefully reads the words of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," one may see that nothing in it expressly precludes the possibility of a new revelation sanctioning same-sex marriage.

Yes, I understand many presume that it is suggesting that same-sex relationships should be prohibited ...

Daniel2

What's with all this crazy presumin' goin' on?!!

[wenglund]

What did God say, specifically, about the subject of gay marriage? When did he say it? Who did he say it to? How were the words or thoughts communicated?

If you are going to bring God and revelation into the discussion, you will need to be more specific, so we can discern what God actually said, with what you merely thinks he said.

I didn't bring God and revelation into the discussion. They had already been introduced. Rather, it was the creative way (in my opinion) in which certain people discerned/interpreted those revelations that precipitated my comment. If you had been following the discussion, I would have thought this obvious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

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?

Seriously??

Because for the straight person, living a life of chastity includes the option to get married and have lots of wild sex with the person they love and also the gender which they find attractive. For a gay person, nothing like this can happen without it being a violation.

I would say to you; try going your whole life without having relations with the gender that arouses sexual desire and do not marry anyone of the gender that attracts you romantical and sexually. Try imagining that it is a sin to be with the opposite sex. Then you will have an idea.

Better yet, imagine that one morning you wake up and your gender has physically changed but you feel exactly the same sexually and romantically as you do now (say even toward your spouse if you have one!).

You want to intimately touch your spouse just as before but now you and your spouse are the same gender. How does that feel?

Edited April 6, 2012 by Tarski

[rodheadlee]

If one carefully reads the words of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," one may see that nothing in it expressly precludes the possibility of a new revelation sanctioning same-sex marriage.

Yes, I understand many presume that it is suggesting that same-sex relationships should be prohibited--but "AFFIRMING the importance of opposite-sex marriage" is NOT the same thing as "forever CONDEMNING same-sex marriage in every and all future circumstances."

Daniel2

That is really stretching it.

[LDS_RM]

The op-ed brings to light the error in trying to use the wisdom of man to dictate the actions of God. While the op-ed statements might be sound concerning the ways of man, those same opinions fail concerning the workings and order of God's Kingdom.

[asbestosman]

Try imagining that the kind of person you are physically attracted to wouldn't so much as give you the time of day. Can you imagine what it'd be like if only brunettes would talk to you but you prefer blondes? It would be such torture that you would probably create 2-3 threads on it per week on some other message board. Why can't they look past my superficial jerkiness and see the charismatic, successful person hidden beneath. . . (well hidden)? Better yet, imagine that your spouse's hair color has physically changed but you feel exactly the same about hair as you do now (we'll assume you already have a spouse with the preferred hair color). How does that feel?

Obviously there is a difference between how important hair color is vs gender. However, I actually could imagine it being hypothetically possible that my gender preference could change if it were so willed by God or some kind of futuristic mad-medical technology. I just don't think God would do that, I don't think society would support it even if it were possible, and I certainly don't want to change.

I wonder. if you're faithful in this life, can God help you change your hair-color orientation so that you prefer brunettes after all?