Prophets Saw Our Day

[Calm]

I've no idea how this is relevant to the black priesthood ban and restoration.

In the Parable of the Labourers, all received the same wage no matter what time they entered the vineyard and began their work.

And IIRC, the lord of the vineyard at the end took all who were there willing to work, though he had not chosen them earlier.

Thus there was no penalty applied to those who had less opportunity to work through no fault of their own.

[canard78]

If it was only the occurrence outside of marriage, then that would certainly be a valid argument. But there are things that could occur within a marriage that are just as sinful as they would be without the marriage....abuse for one thing. And if this is the case, then the sin should not be diminished by granting it a status that is not appropriate, just as it would be inappropriate to allow a man to rape a woman just because he was married to her as once the law allowed.

I don't want to make you more uncomfortable than you already sound in this post. Are you hinting at the fact that even if we endorsed gay marriage, the only act of intimacy available within that marriage would be a sin? So unless it's the 'conventional' act (that potentially leads to conception) it is a sin (whether the relationship is straight or gay)?

I'm aware that the older Mormon generation may recall a time when the above was taught, but I've not in my generation. Therefore it doesn't fit with the way doctrine is established.

And I'd imagine the comparison between gay marriage and abuse/rape in marriage would be fairly offensive. There's no abuse inherent in a gay relationship if there are two consenting adults.

Not really, maybe with another woman, but not another man last I checked.

Oops, I meant a widow (female) who has been previously sealed can marry again for "companionship" in life only.

Which may involve her being married to all of them for all we know.

Polyandry in the eternities? Maybe. So let the woman be sealed to multiples in this one too.

[canard78]

In the Parable of the Labourers, all received the same wage no matter what time they entered the vineyard and began their work.

And IIRC, the lord of the vineyard at the end took all who were there willing to work, though he had not chosen them earlier.

Thus there was no penalty applied to those who had less opportunity to work through no fault of their own.

Oh I see, black people are like the latter-hours workers?

I agree that they should not be seen as being limited by the ban for eternity (even if certain prophets/apostles erroneously believe otherwise).

[Calm]

I don't want to make you more uncomfortable than you already sound in this post. Are you hinting at the fact that even if we endorsed gay marriage, the only act of intimacy available within that marriage would be a sin? So unless it's the 'conventional' act (that potentially leads to conception) it is a sin (whether the relationship is straight or gay)?

No, you misunderstand, I am not talking about specific sexual acts (won't go into details due to board rules), I am talking about behaviour that promotes any sort of sexual emotions and physical responses and desires and sexual behaviour that is between individuals of the same gender. Thus if two men or women holding hands begin to desire to engage in sex with each other...and if homosexual sex is inherently sinful, then holding hands would be sinful as well as knowing engaging in behaviour that may lead to another sin....kind of like lying to your parents about where you are so you could go to a party because there will be drinking there because once you are there you will likely feel the desire to partake of what everyone is partaking....the first is a sin because we consciously choose a path that leads us into further sin (beyond just lying being a sin).

If homosexual behaviour in and of itself is a sin...as it would seem to be not just because it is outside of marriage, then clothing it in marriage is not a favour to those who need to recognize it as a sin and repent of it if they wish to spiritually progress.

The question now being is if homosexual behaviour is inherently sinful in a way that heterosexual behaviour is not, even though many heterosexual acts that are equivalent to homosexual acts are only sins outside of marriage, but are not within. People tend to answer that question differently, there seems to be a wide range of opinion on how far is too far and if marriage would remove all such limitations that are not imposed on heterosexuals.

[Calm]

Oh I see, black people are like the latter-hours workers?

One could point to the Israelites as the early workers, Early Christians as the Midday workers and the LDS as the evening workers with others coming in the very last hour or two before midnight. Anyone who receives the priesthood later due to whatever reason would be included (the gospel not being taken to their land yet, being women perhaps, government refusing to allow for proselyting, for example)

[canard78]

One could point to the Israelites as the early workers, Early Christians as the Midday workers and the LDS as the evening workers with others coming in the very last hour or two before midnight. Anyone who receives the priesthood later due to whatever reason would be included (the gospel not being taken to their land yet, being women perhaps, government refusing to allow for proselyting, for example)

I agree that black members should/would not be limited in the blessings available to them given their opportunities to labour in the vineyard were limited by the prejudice and ignorance of others.

My concern has always been what we learn about the type of revelation a prophet/apostle receives when some of the things they say/believe are so far removed from anything I can imagine God ever teaching them. Kevin's suggested paradigms help. But it's certainly a big step from where I used to view things from.

[canard78]

The question now being is if homosexual behaviour is inherently sinful in a way that heterosexual behaviour is not, even though many heterosexual acts that are equivalent to homosexual acts are only sins outside of marriage, but are not within. People tend to answer that question differently, there seems to be a wide range of opinion on how far is too far and if marriage would remove all such limitations that are not imposed on heterosexuals.

I suppose that's where we'd view things differently. I accept God's instruction to keep sexual relations within the bounds of marriage. But I also personally would welcome the church extending the definition of marriage to gay people.

I don't view the act as being inherently sinful within marriage. And I don't view the non-sexual, pre-marital acts that are expressions of romantic attraction to be sinful. Straight young Mormons today date and kiss people they have no intention of marrying and no intention of having sexual relations with. Why the double standard for gay people.

(You're up late?)

[CV75]

So recognise their marriage

This cannot happen -- the marraige, as with the other covenats (as I pointed out first) is about multiplying the children of God a) in the flesh and then b) in the Spirit. For time and eternity.

Persistence in excluding gays from the bounds and blessings of marriage is likely due to the same weakness of capacity.

Regarding priesthood for the blacks, tehre is nothing wrong with revelation coming late in the game -- hence the need for the dispensation of the fulness of times after many others have come and gone. No prophet need to be blamed for dereliction (pun?) of duty.

But regarding gays, the marraige, as with the other covenats (as I pointed out first) is about multiplying the children of God a) in the flesh and then b) in the Spirit, for time and eternity, so a revelation condoning marriage for gays seems to be a false hope.

Edited July 29, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

I've no idea how this is relevant to the black priesthood ban and restoration.

I think now you do (I hope).

[canard78]

This cannot happen -- the marraige, as with the other covenats (as I pointed out first) is about multiplying the children of God a) in the flesh and then b) in the Spirit. For time and eternity.

Regarding priesthood for the blacks, tehre is nothing wrong with revelation coming late in the game -- hence the need for the dispensation of the fulness of times after many others have come and gone. No prophet need to be blamed for dereliction (pun?) of duty.

But regarding gays, the marraige, as with the other covenats (as I pointed out first) is about multiplying the children of God a) in the flesh and then b) in the Spirit, for time and eternity, so a revelation condoning marriage for gays seems to be a false hope.

Did you know you'd repeated yourself? Ooh, a chiasmus.

Anyway. We marry people for time only and with no commitment (or sometimes ability) to have children. They are marriages for time only.

We also marry couples where one or both is unable to have children. We reassure them they can have children in the eternities. But we've no idea of the mechanics of spiritual procreation nor whether it needs a male and female celestial being to do it.

We also tell people there are places in heaven for people who are not in a male+female relationship.

I know faithful women with no desire to marry who are already looking forward to being 'ministering angels.'

[Questing Beast]

So pointing out earlier examples of how GAs have eaten their words paves the way for the biggest word eating fest in Christian history! Nothing bigger has been said than all the words expended on the righteous, eternal and singular nature of immutable gender and heterosexual marriage. The "Proclamation on the Family" is the most famous and recent collection of GA pronouncements on the subject. If every copy of the proclamation is wadded up and force fed to the GAs from now until eternity, how is that going to "fly" within the religion? Nothing (sic) they say from then on will carry any weight as "revelation". They might as well get up in general conference and recite nonsense rhymes....

[california boy]

Christ is always seen mingling with ADULT sinners. Where are the children? Am I to allow blatant disregard for my moral position in our home, simply because the now-adult children want to be included with their bf and gf? I have another daughter who has a bf half a dozen years older than she is, and she is seventeen, still a minor. She spends the nights often over at his apartment. Yet assures siblings and we her parents that they have never engaged in sex. Hard to comprehend but entirely possible. In any case, I have no evidence to the contrary other than my incredulous observation. She's always been "grownup" in her own mind, so is entirely ungovernable by any sort of "persuasion and long suffering", and I won't use compulsion to any degree, at this point in my fathering "career" being entirely convinced to let consequences do all the teaching, after I have lectured to excess and fallen silent.

We now have grandchildren included in Sunday dinner and other family gatherings. If I follow Cali boy's advice and "mingle with sinners" as Christ did, what kind of messages of acceptance are the grandchildren going to pick up? Confused messages, I'm suspecting. It seems to me that a child who has always been included in family events ought to respect the family's morals. Asking to be included with a bf or gf with which they are being knowingly immoral is unreasonable and even selfish. Throwing my asserted "anti gay" stance in my face is proof of that. I have not had the confrontation, yet. But I fear it....

I appreciate the situation that you find yourself in. I am going to give you just my 2 cents worth of advice. I do this simply based on my experience of raising 6 children. First, I would like to commend you for having a big family dinner on Sundays. It was a tradition I always embraced while my children were growing up as well. As part of our family dinners we would strive to always invite at least one person outside our family to share that meal with us. Often it was a single adult, who had no family near by. Sometimes they were members of the church and sometimes not. Part of this ritual of Sunday dinner was the exchange of ideas that often not everyone agreed on. I felt like it was good for my children to be exposed to alternative views in such a safe environment as Sunday family dinner. Differing views enriched their lives and often made their own personal testimonies stronger. Each one of my kids had to decide for themselves what they wanted in their lives and what role the church would play in that life.

One of the most important lessons a father can pass on to his children and grandchildren is that we are all individually responsible for the choices we make in this life. What another person does has absolutely no relevance to the choices that each one of them must make for themselves. No matter what choices any one of them make, my unconditional love for them will always be there. It is the rock that will always hold them close to me. That is an amazing lesson that you also need to pass on to your children and grandchildren. What better place to show what is met by that unconditional love than at Sunday family dinner.

So as I see it, by inviting your wayward children and who ever is important to them to your family dinners gives you an invaluable opportunity to teach these two principles to them. 1. We are all responsible for the choices we make in this life. 2. Your love for each of your children is unconditional. Both of these lessons seem to me like important lessons Christ would want you to teach those young ones that you love and have stewardship over. Stewardship does not mean shunning others, it means teaching others correct principles and letting them decide for themselves what their life will be like. It remains their choice, not yours.

I guess you have to ask yourself what lesson you are teaching these children if you do not allow your own daughter to attend dinner. Is that a lesson you want them to learn? I personally can not find any examples in the Saviors life where His love for anyone was conditional. Do you think the children that may have been standing by when the adulterous was almost stoned gained an important life lesson? Do you think that the sinners never had children of their own when Christ dinned with them? Could you imagine Christ clearing out all of the children from the room before He sat down with a sinner? There is no record of Christ shooing children away before extending His unconditional love to anyone, no matter what the sin. Would you not have your grand children serve in a soup kitchen where recipients have often made devastating choices in their lives? Just my thoughts. These are all very personal decisions you will have to make yourself. Just be wise in the course you choose to follow because children are watching as they should be.

[california boy]

So pointing out earlier examples of how GAs have eaten their words paves the way for the biggest word eating fest in Christian history! Nothing bigger has been said than all the words expended on the righteous, eternal and singular nature of immutable gender and heterosexual marriage. The "Proclamation on the Family" is the most famous and recent collection of GA pronouncements on the subject. If every copy of the proclamation is wadded up and force fed to the GAs from now until eternity, how is that going to "fly" within the religion? Nothing (sic) they say from then on will carry any weight as "revelation". They might as well get up in general conference and recite nonsense rhymes....

Fortunately the church leaders have never claimed that the "Proclamation on the Family" was a revelation from God. In fact, no prophet has ever claimed to have a revelation from God concerning gay marriage. It is very similar to the personal statements of BY that over time became doctrine. There is no record that BY ever received a revelation on blacks and the priesthood. His opinion should have never become doctrine. Only revelation from God should determine doctrine. It seems like the church learned that lesson once before. Should history repeat itself??

[CV75]

Did you know you'd repeated yourself? Ooh, a chiasmus.

Anyway. We marry people for time only and with no commitment (or sometimes ability) to have children. They are marriages for time only.

We also marry couples where one or both is unable to have children. We reassure them they can have children in the eternities. But we've no idea of the mechanics of spiritual procreation nor whether it needs a male and female celestial being to do it.

We also tell people there are places in heaven for people who are not in a male+female relationship.

I know faithful women with no desire to marry who are already looking forward to being 'ministering angels.'

I see no problem doctrinally with any of the observations you have made. The marriages tie into eternal increase at the very least (most), and while we may not know the mechanics of eternal increase, we do know that the mechanics of the marriage covenants are revealed in scripture to require a man and a woman.

The laborers in the parable were eager to work, and accepted the vineyard for what it was. None of them waited for the landscape to change before working, but eagerly proceeded with faith.

[ERMD]

He doesn't say so in that parable. Simple qualification for eternal life is service. Nothing else included.

Besides, the purpose of making and keeping covenants is to create commitments and principles for living. These create actions, leading to habits, building character.

Every covenant we make is a covenant of service. Some, like Mormons, seem to need covenants to get us serving. Others seem to be to serve independently.

So temple covenants are not necessary? I submit that the purpose of making and keeping covenants is far more than to create commitments and principles for living, and to build character.

D&C 84: 19-22

[ERMD]

Just after he had said "he that is without sin cast the first stone."

If homosexuality is so heinous. Why is it that both Jesus during his mortal ministry and Joseph, during the restoration of the gospel made absolutely no reference at all to homosexuality?

The Family, A Proclamation to the World clarifies that. One of those unnecessary temple covenants covers this issue as well.

[Questing Beast]

I appreciate the situation that you find yourself in. I am going to give you just my 2 cents worth of advice. I do this simply based on my experience of raising 6 children. ... These are all very personal decisions you will have to make yourself. Just be wise in the course you choose to follow because children are watching as they should be.

I have never shunned any child, well, at least since I learned better! That was way back when my oldest four were still very young. I've done my best to show unconditional love always. None of our children are ever going to be refused a place at our family table. Their friends are a different matter. It seems to me that my children would respect their parents' feelings about who is benefiting the family by associating with them. I don't have much patience for the attitude, "You let him/her, why not me?" And that's the only or main objection for a perceived different treatment. For instance, one of my three daughters lives with her boyfriend as a wife. They are to the best of my knowledge, and my daughter's assurances, monogamous and in every way but the legal formalities, and "married" in their minds/hearts to each other. Then there is the daughter next in age, recently on her own, with a roommate, and she has another girlfriend that is clearly bi in the relationship, having had previous boyfriends in the sexual way. It is my daughter who is pushing for this relationship, and a large motivation is to "help" the other woman who is a few years older than my daughter. My wife has informed me that our daughter wants to invite her gf to Sunday dinners, since her older sister's bf has been invited to family events and dinners as if he is part of the family, and so she wants her gf to have the same treatment. It does not help any objections we might raise, to have the youngest daughter and child, still a minor, virtually living in with her bf who is c. six years older. No sex, as far as we have been told and can tell. An odd situation, to be sure, but not one that I am willing to call her on, since she is, as I have already said, "grownup" in her own mind and has been for most of her life! If, on the other hand, I were to find out that the guy had "known" my minor aged daughter in the biblical way, I would confront him possibly with the police. They both know this! He has been to several family Sunday dinners already, and out on double "dates" with my wife and I. Difficult. It seems that my only objection to the other daughter's gf is that it is a homosexual relationship, and an active one to boot. And that IS the difference in my mind. I see no reason to allow the partner of a "wayward" child to associate as a family member, yet I have already done so in one situation, yet am unwilling to do so in the other. Crap....

[Calm]

Straight young Mormons today date and kiss people they have no intention of marrying and no intention of having sexual relations with.

But the potential is still there and happens from time to time (both in positive and negative ways). I didn't intend to marry my husband when I first met him, only after getting to know him much better. I would assume that is the way with most marriages, very few see a person and think "I would like to marry this one".

(You're up late?)

Always it seems....

[why me]

I don't want to make you more uncomfortable than you already sound in this post. Are you hinting at the fact that even if we endorsed gay marriage, the only act of intimacy available within that marriage would be a sin? So unless it's the 'conventional' act (that potentially leads to conception) it is a sin (whether the relationship is straight or gay)?

I think that the lds position is the same as the catholic church's position. Homosexuality is not a sin. But the sex act is and that would include if they were married. Amazing how the lds church and the catholic church agree on this and both churches claim to be the true church. Pope Francis just came out with a position on homosexuality while he was in Brazil.

[california boy]

I have never shunned any child, well, at least since I learned better! That was way back when my oldest four were still very young. I've done my best to show unconditional love always. None of our children are ever going to be refused a place at our family table. Their friends are a different matter. It seems to me that my children would respect their parents' feelings about who is benefiting the family by associating with them. I don't have much patience for the attitude, "You let him/her, why not me?" And that's the only or main objection for a perceived different treatment. For instance, one of my three daughters lives with her boyfriend as a wife. They are to the best of my knowledge, and my daughter's assurances, monogamous and in every way but the legal formalities, and "married" in their minds/hearts to each other. Then there is the daughter next in age, recently on her own, with a roommate, and she has another girlfriend that is clearly bi in the relationship, having had previous boyfriends in the sexual way. It is my daughter who is pushing for this relationship, and a large motivation is to "help" the other woman who is a few years older than my daughter. My wife has informed me that our daughter wants to invite her gf to Sunday dinners, since her older sister's bf has been invited to family events and dinners as if he is part of the family, and so she wants her gf to have the same treatment. It does not help any objections we might raise, to have the youngest daughter and child, still a minor, virtually living in with her bf who is c. six years older. No sex, as far as we have been told and can tell. An odd situation, to be sure, but not one that I am willing to call her on, since she is, as I have already said, "grownup" in her own mind and has been for most of her life! If, on the other hand, I were to find out that the guy had "known" my minor aged daughter in the biblical way, I would confront him possibly with the police. They both know this! He has been to several family Sunday dinners already, and out on double "dates" with my wife and I. Difficult. It seems that my only objection to the other daughter's gf is that it is a homosexual relationship, and an active one to boot. And that IS the difference in my mind. I see no reason to allow the partner of a "wayward" child to associate as a family member, yet I have already done so in one situation, yet am unwilling to do so in the other. Crap....

I certainly apologize for getting your relationship with your children wrong in my post. And I certainly applaud your unconditional love for your children. Like I said, this decision is a very personal decision for you to make. But I think if you want to follow the example of Christ, you would do what He clearly showed us to do. He obviously had no problem eating with sinners. Some how I seriously doubt that Christ told all the children to leave the room so that they would not see Him eating with sinners. I think He was setting an example for the children as well as for the adults. That doesn't mean that He would not take the opportunity to teach everyone including the children important gospel lessons. Just my thoughts.

I don't quite understand why you think homosexuality would be a bigger sin than fornication. Maybe you could explain why you see a difference.

[Johnnie Cake]

In light of the recent discussions spurred by Hans Mattsson's "coming out" as a doubter, I decided to re-read some letters sent by LDS historians to Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1981 in response to his now-famous address, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."

Reading these letters, it is difficult to escape the impression that some of these historians truly saw our day. One letter, by James L. Clayton, struck me as being especially prescient:

Another respondent to Elder Packer's talk wrote:

So here we are, 30 plus years later, with the Church now reaping the whirlwind from its policy of withholding uncomfortable truths and presenting a selective, sanitized history to its members (apparently not having anticipated the reach of Google and YouTube and the blogosphere).

The Church now appears to be in damage control mode (a belated but welcome development in my view), sending flying columns of historians and church functionaries out to stanch the bleeding. I think we can safely say that a major shift has taken place when we hear Elder Jensen telling the Swedish Saints that Elder Packer (!) has directed the Church History department to "put together a committee to create answers to difficult gospel questions."

The problem however is that it wasn't the prophets who were the prophets...

[Questing Beast]

...

I don't quite understand why you think homosexuality would be a bigger sin than fornication. Maybe you could explain why you see a difference.

I'm not sure that I understand this either. Maybe it is like "fornication times two"? Two wrongs rolled into one, as it were. Fornication is bad enough, but homosexual fornication is at least doubly bad behavior. I really feel this way. I would not, however, allow a fornicating heterosexual friend over for "family" Sunday dinner. Yet my daughter that I described is by definition fornicating, and we have done our best to be accepting of their approach to living together "faithfully". Difficult! I guess I would allow the gf of my bi daughter to come to family Sunday dinners, IF they two were living together as my other "fornicating" daughter is living with her bf, that is to say, they assert that they are completely devoted to each other and do not share sexual activities with anybody else. In all things other than the legal papers, they are "married", in their feelings and "before God", as they see it. I could not allow myself to treat my bi daughter any differently living exactly the same way, only with a woman instead of a man. Much would depend on their behavior, too, of course. Any unseemly behavior is a separate issue, and really has nothing to do with personal morals. I probably would/will have a problem with displays of affection verging on "get a room" style, but there again, that's an "unseemly behavior" issue, and would equally apply to any of my married children and their spouses if they crossed that line of propriety.... Edited July 30, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Calm]

He obviously had no problem eating with sinners.

You have still not demonstrated that he was eating with unrepentant sinners as opposed to those who were listening to him and trying to change.

There is a difference though some of the Pharisees of that time and now may not see one.

Edited July 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

So temple covenants are not necessary? I submit that the purpose of making and keeping covenants is far more than to create commitments and principles for living, and to build character.

D&C 84: 19-22

That's a great reference. I also see it fitting my perspective if what ordinances are 'for'

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

That's exactly why, as Mormons, we are given the gift of ordinances. The opportunity to make commitment that build character that leads to godliness. It's not simply a life for testing how compliant we are, it's a life for becoming more like God.

However, I consider the D&C to apply to me as a Mormon. It's not something that has global application. Many other religions and philosophies have practices or principles where the "power of godliness is manifest."

Mormonism is clearly a religion for people who need little to no ambiguity. The word of wisdom, for example, is designed for the weakest of the saints and has very little ambiguity. Where it exists it has either been further clarified ('hot drinks') or ignored ('meat sparingly'). The whole question of tithing as gross/net is too ambiguous for some people and they clamour for a clarifying announcement. The instruction to wear garments when it was reasonable to do so was again too ambiguous so 'yard work' was added in (in UK the only yards are 'builders yards' - so I guess we can continue going topless when weeding our garden grown for food-storage).

D&C 19:6-7 is a favourite scripture of mine where God briefly lets down his 'absolutist' guard around us Mormons. "Yes, I know I said endless torment... It was just more express that way. It had the desired effect and so it was fit for purpose."

So yes, the priesthood ordinances are very much in place to help us discover the power of godliness in us. But we do that because in the ordinance we are making and keeping covenants of sacrifice and service (to God and fellow-man). The ordinances are not some arbitrary card-carrying, tick-boxing exercise in obedience.

[canard78]

The Family, A Proclamation to the World clarifies that. One of those unnecessary temple covenants covers this issue as well.

And yet, if we recognised gay marriage, they wouldn't be outside of that covenant.