Prophets Saw Our Day

[rockpond]

The First Presidency and the Twelve have made it abundantly clear that we know and fully understand God's will on this particular subject. This is what Elder Bednar said in April 2013 Conference:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship prescribed in God’s plan."

There are multiple other examples. Pursuing another agenda is not "tolerance", "acceptance", or "open-minded". It is rebellion. This is not to say that anyone is to be loved any less or to be treated with any degree of disrepect. All however are subject to this single, undeviating standard.

It would be most enlightening to read teachings to the contrary on this subject. One can hypothesize, hope, speculate, wish, or imagine that someday, somehow this doctrine may change, but given that it is inextricably linked to the plan and that all published official statements on it by the Church and its leaders are completely consistent, such efforts are founded on sandy soil.

It is a common tactic of those who oppose the Church and its teachings to selectively mine quotes given by leaders at some time in the past in an attempt to illustrate their point or to show a perceived problem on inconsistency. (This is not an insinuation that canard is opposed to the Church, just pointing out the tactic.)

Where saving ordinances and doctrine are concerned, the Prophets and Apostles will be clarion clear and in full agreement. This is most certainly the case with SSA and gay marriage.

I wouldn't say that they are entirely in agreement. I don't believe that President Packer has been completely on board with the current majority opinion on homosexuality.

But their consensus or lack thereof doesn't constitute the revealed will of God. For a long time the prophet & apostles were in agreement that those of African descent could also not be sealed in the temple or hold the priesthood. That agreement didn't mean it was God's will just as their eventual lack of agreement (beginning under President McKay) didn't change God's will.

Edited August 5, 2013 by rockpond

[ERMD]

CFR that there is not complete agreement wrt the Law of Chastity and same sex marriage.

Please explain your understanding of the "current majority opinion on homosexuality."

[rockpond]

CFR that there is not complete agreement wrt the Law of Chastity and same sex marriage.

Please explain your understanding of the "current majority opinion on homosexuality."

I think that there is agreement with respect to the LoC and same sex marriage. I meant that I don't see complete agreement with respect to the issue of homosexuality. For example, President Packer's teachings seem to point toward him still believing that homosexuality is more of a choice than an innate disposition.

Current majority opinion on homosexuality meaning that we accept homosexuals in full fellowship as long as they don't act out on those feelings as well as instructional type things like ending the counsel that gay men marry women.

[ERMD]

The discussion here started with respect to SSM and sealing of two homosexual partners.

If you're going to be addressing different issues, being clear that you have changed direction will be helpful.

[rockpond]

The discussion here started with respect to SSM and sealing of two homosexual partners.

If you're going to be addressing different issues, being clear that you have changed direction will be helpful.

My apologies for not clarifying. From my perspective, it's all the same topic but I'll try to be more clear in the future.

[Stone holm]

I don't see where anything really becomes "unhinged".

Have to agree with Questing Beast on this one. SSA and SSM are incompatible with Mormon doctrine regarding the hereafter. We have a much bigger doctrinal obstacle than the rest of Christianity which has no real structural problem with the concept.

[rockpond]

Have to agree with Questing Beast on this one. SSA and SSM are incompatible with Mormon doctrine regarding the hereafter. We have a much bigger doctrinal obstacle than the rest of Christianity which has no real structural problem with the concept.

I'm not aware of a doctrinal reason why a gay couple couldn't be sealed together for all eternity (assuming that God were to reveal that such an ordinance was permissible). Clearly that isn't the norm that we are taught but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be together forever.

We also have the benefit of already having established a non-marital sealing ordinance between two adult men (the Law of Adoption) which was used at least through the presidency of Brigham Young.

Edited August 5, 2013 by rockpond

[Questing Beast]

Mormon sexuality is all about procreation. That it is also pleasurable is problematic actually, forming a powerful area of temptation. The sexual act of mortals is likened unto the physical bodies in the hereafter, with "not even a hair of the head being lost and everything being resurrected to its proper and perfect frame." There is no doctrinal basis for assuming that males here in this world, in the preexistence and in the hereafter will be any different sexually, likewise females. This means that gender remains a constant. The whole problem with SSA is that it is "natural" in today's parlance. It is NOT natural according to LDS doctrine on gender. SSA is an aberration caused by this imperfect world, along with obvious flukes and abnormalities such as hermaphroditism and transsexual traits, etc. Nobody believing in the LDS paradigm of the perfect resurrection is going to assert that these abnormalities are going to be replicated in the hereafter. Likewise, SSA, the core of the entire issue of choice in the matter, will not be evident in the resurrection. That is why SSA can be accepted as a weakness of the flesh, which, if not given into, deserves the very same recognition as the substance addict who refuses daily to give into his/her addiction and remains clean. To assume that the LDS faith will someday receive a revelation from God saying that all established statements of Church doctrine and policy have been mistaken by being incomplete, is surely mistaken. In order to accept SSA and SSM as just another form of eternal marriage as valid as man and wife, the LDS Church would have to disavow the entire doctrine of revelation. Start with the BoM and go from there. What exactly is meant by "proper and perfect frame?" There is nothing proper about SSA, it is aberrant and temporary to this world along with all its other ills....

[Stone holm]

I'm not aware of a doctrinal reason why a gay couple couldn't be sealed together for all eternity (assuming that God were to reveal that such an ordinance was permissible). Clearly that isn't the norm that we are taught but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be together forever.

We also have the benefit of already having established a non-marital sealing ordinance between two adult men (the Law of Adoption) which was used at least through the presidency of Brigham Young.

Not compatible with eternal increase and the continuation of the seed.

[canard78]

Not compatible with eternal increase and the continuation of the seed.

Ah yes, "continuation of the seed." That thing that we have reams of revealed doctrine on. We know exactly, through canonised doctrine, that creating spirit children requires a male and female don't we?

Oh... Wait...

[california boy]

Mormon sexuality is all about procreation. That it is also pleasurable is problematic actually, forming a powerful area of temptation. The sexual act of mortals is likened unto the physical bodies in the hereafter, with "not even a hair of the head being lost and everything being resurrected to its proper and perfect frame." There is no doctrinal basis for assuming that males here in this world, in the preexistence and in the hereafter will be any different sexually, likewise females. This means that gender remains a constant. The whole problem with SSA is that it is "natural" in today's parlance. It is NOT natural according to LDS doctrine on gender. SSA is an aberration caused by this imperfect world, along with obvious flukes and abnormalities such as hermaphroditism and transsexual traits, etc. Nobody believing in the LDS paradigm of the perfect resurrection is going to assert that these abnormalities are going to be replicated in the hereafter. Likewise, SSA, the core of the entire issue of choice in the matter, will not be evident in the resurrection. That is why SSA can be accepted as a weakness of the flesh, which, if not given into, deserves the very same recognition as the substance addict who refuses daily to give into his/her addiction and remains clean. To assume that the LDS faith will someday receive a revelation from God saying that all established statements of Church doctrine and policy have been mistaken by being incomplete, is surely mistaken. In order to accept SSA and SSM as just another form of eternal marriage as valid as man and wife, the LDS Church would have to disavow the entire doctrine of revelation. Start with the BoM and go from there. What exactly is meant by "proper and perfect frame?" There is nothing proper about SSA, it is aberrant and temporary to this world along with all its other ills....

Just how much of what you said is actual doctrine and not just speculation?

I am not someone who needs the church to have SSM, but to pretend that could never happen is just as foolish. What God has in mind for gay men after the resurection has never been revealed. We do know this, that two male Gods are perfectly capible of creating and governing a world. And that, my friend, is doctrine.

[Questing Beast]

"It is not good for MAN to be alone", so they gave him a woman. Why did women enter into the story in the first place? Well, there are these other lovely creatures called women already here with men, that needs explaining, so a bronze age "man's world" pov was that women came afterward. That is doctrine, probably the oldest doctrine that there is in Judeo-Christianity. What follows is almost entirely a story of men. When women appear it is almost always in relation to begetting. You have a very few exceptions, Deborah, and the harlot that hid the Israelite spies in Jericho, the witch of Endor, et al. women not in the story simply as begetting characters.

I am sure that biology is speaking first and foremost in this issue today. Why should "your" biology be considered something inferior to a heterosexual man's? It shouldn't. But it also should not be considered normal or eternal, when it is obviously aberrant, being c. less than one percent of the male population. If SSA is "normal" we ought to be seeing a parity with heterosexual and other sexual attractions. We don't, not remotely. Most of the so called SSA's are playing a game of bait and switch and enjoying the attention hugely. The real SSA's are very few in the population. My own daughter and her girlfriend are "bi", which means they choose each other over men, probably because of a complex of reasons, but in my estimation mainly low self esteem, also for a complex of reasons, but mainly because it is easier to please another woman than a picky male who is looking for big ones on a porono body, even if he is religious, he wants to marry close to his unrealistic ideal, therefore comes across as truly shallow as to physical things, thus annoying and disappointing the girls he meets, including my daughter who is a large woman and her girlfriend who is also a large woman, etc. Neither is SSA in the remotest sense of that term, but they are currently lesbian, much to my annoyance, disappointment, sadness and mounting anger with the world at large that I have to wade in. I am sorry that you feel what you feel that is out of step with your religion. But "normal" is not part of what you feel. It won't be going into the afterlife if Mormonism as the "revealed religion" of JS is in any way true vis-a-vis sexuality, eternal gender and propagation of the species in that hereafter by glorified immortals....

[ERMD]

I'm not aware of a doctrinal reason why a gay couple couldn't be sealed together for all eternity (assuming that God were to reveal that such an ordinance was permissible). Clearly that isn't the norm that we are taught but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be together forever.

We also have the benefit of already having established a non-marital sealing ordinance between two adult men (the Law of Adoption) which was used at least through the presidency of Brigham Young.

Many scriptures cited earlier in this thread demonstrate some of the doctrinal reasons.

[rockpond]

Mormon sexuality is all about procreation. That it is also pleasurable is problematic actually, forming a powerful area of temptation. The sexual act of mortals is likened unto the physical bodies in the hereafter, with "not even a hair of the head being lost and everything being resurrected to its proper and perfect frame." There is no doctrinal basis for assuming that males here in this world, in the preexistence and in the hereafter will be any different sexually, likewise females. This means that gender remains a constant.

Gender and sexual orientation are two different things. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that their gender will be changed in the next life.

The whole problem with SSA is that it is "natural" in today's parlance. It is NOT natural according to LDS doctrine on gender.

It is natural by the definition of the word natural. I'm not sure what you mean by "NOT natural according to LDS doctrine on gender". Care to reference that?

SSA is an aberration caused by this imperfect world, along with obvious flukes and abnormalities such as hermaphroditism and transsexual traits, etc. Nobody believing in the LDS paradigm of the perfect resurrection is going to assert that these abnormalities are going to be replicated in the hereafter.

I believe in the LDS paradigm of the perfect resurrection and I still assert my belief that there will be homosexuals in the hereafter.

To assume that the LDS faith will someday receive a revelation from God saying that all established statements of Church doctrine and policy have been mistaken by being incomplete, is surely mistaken.

It happened in 1978.

In order to accept SSA and SSM as just another form of eternal marriage as valid as man and wife, the LDS Church would have to disavow the entire doctrine of revelation.

I think it's actually the opposite: We would need to accept that there could still be revelation to be received on the matter.

Edited August 6, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Not compatible with eternal increase and the continuation of the seed.

Right... because we KNOW how spirit children are born.

Edited August 6, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Many scriptures cited earlier in this thread demonstrate some of the doctrinal reasons.

From what I recall, they rely on the idea that two people can't be sealed to each other unless they are capable of producing spiritual offspring. But, we really don't know how that works.

[rockpond]

I am sure that biology is speaking first and foremost in this issue today. Why should "your" biology be considered something inferior to a heterosexual man's? It shouldn't. But it also should not be considered normal or eternal, when it is obviously aberrant, being c. less than one percent of the male population. If SSA is "normal" we ought to be seeing a parity with heterosexual and other sexual attractions.

So if left-handedness also an aberration that will be fixed in the next life? I mean, it doesn't have "parity" with right-handedness so it must not be normal, correct?

All those people with blue eyes... they must not be normal or eternal. But I suppose their "abberrant" eye color will be fixed in the resurrection, right?

[ERMD]

From what I recall, they rely on the idea that two people can't be sealed to each other unless they are capable of producing spiritual offspring. But, we really don't know how that works.

Scripture does not rely on ideas.

[rockpond]

Scripture does not rely on ideas.

I'll rephrase... my recollection is that the arguments attempting to employ those scriptures as a basis relied on the idea that "eternal increase" (spirit children) could only be produced by a male/female couple. But, they lacked the basis for such an assertion as that process has not been revealed to us.

If you wish to discuss those scriptures, feel free to cite them.

[daz2]

I am with rockpond. God is in charge here. If God decides that two men or two women may be sealed together for time and all eternity as partners, who am I to disagree? If God decides that two people of the same sex may be sealed and together have eternal increase, who am I to disagree?

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.'

We know, for example, roughly one or two percent of the population is born with some degree of sexual ambiguity, and 1 or 2 out of 1000 are sufficiently ambiguous ("intersex") that surgery is often necessary to assign them to one category or the other. The Church implicitly acknowledges this when it distinguishes between "elective" transsexual surgery and nonelective, in terms of which is a disciplinable sin. It surely is possible that people are assigned by mortal surgery to the "wrong" sex. Suppose that person marries someone of the apparent opposite sex, but it turns out they are both of the same "eternal" sex. They live together happily and want to be together forever. Is the ordinance invalid?

My own view is that God makes exceptions to "absolute" rules all the time--and the example I just listed would be one of them.

I don't see why God could not make an exception to the rule that a sealed couple must be of the opposite sex.

Obviously, God will do what God will do, regardless of how we interpret the rules.

[ERMD]

I'll rephrase... my recollection is that the arguments attempting to employ those scriptures as a basis relied on the idea that "eternal increase" (spirit children) could only be produced by a male/female couple. But, they lacked the basis for such an assertion as that process has not been revealed to us.

If you wish to discuss those scriptures, feel free to cite them.

Already did.

[Questing Beast]

Gender and sexual orientation are two different things. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that their gender will be changed in the next life.

It is natural by the definition of the word natural. I'm not sure what you mean by "NOT natural according to LDS doctrine on gender". Care to reference that?

Care to attempt to insert SSA into the Proclamation on the Family? Gender and heterosexual marrieds are the only paradigm on sexuality that is admitted in that document.

I believe in the LDS paradigm of the perfect resurrection and I still assert my belief that there will be homosexuals in the hereafter.

Admitting that to your church leaders will place you one short step from discipline. Teach it, and that one short step will be taken, practice it in this mortal life and you will have a long step getting back....

[Stone holm]

I am with rockpond. God is in charge here. If God decides that two men or two women may be sealed together for time and all eternity as partners, who am I to disagree? If God decides that two people of the same sex may be sealed and together have eternal increase, who am I to disagree?

We know, for example, roughly one or two percent of the population is born with some degree of sexual ambiguity, and 1 or 2 out of 1000 are sufficiently ambiguous ("intersex") that surgery is often necessary to assign them to one category or the other. The Church implicitly acknowledges this when it distinguishes between "elective" transsexual surgery and nonelective, in terms of which is a disciplinable sin. It surely is possible that people are assigned by mortal surgery to the "wrong" sex. Suppose that person marries someone of the apparent opposite sex, but it turns out they are both of the same "eternal" sex. They live together happily and want to be together forever. Is the ordinance invalid?

My own view is that God makes exceptions to "absolute" rules all the time--and the example I just listed would be one of them.

I don't see why God could not make an exception to the rule that a sealed couple must be of the opposite sex.

Obviously, God will do what God will do, regardless of how we interpret the rules.

That assumes that Heavenly Father can simply decree that people of the same sex can have spirit children. If you believe in a Heavenly Father that can do that, then there wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if you believe that even Heavenly Father has to follow a recipe not only for the creation of exalted beings, but for creating spirit children then its a problem. The Heavenly Father that I believe in, has to follow certain rules not of His making that apply. Hence the need for Heavenly Fathers and Heavenly Mothers, hence all the hoopla in the Declaration on Family about gender being eternal. Gender stereotyping is merely culture, but gender when it comes to creating children, whether mortal children or spirit children is important doctrine. So no, God will not do just anything.

[Questing Beast]

So if left-handedness also an aberration that will be fixed in the next life? I mean, it doesn't have "parity" with right-handedness so it must not be normal, correct?

All those people with blue eyes... they must not be normal or eternal. But I suppose their "abberrant" eye color will be fixed in the resurrection, right?

Who knows how silly your not immoral comparisons really are? This isn't even apples and oranges, it's more like comparing rocks and vegetables. If you want to toss out all references to sexual immorality even existing, then I suppose your comparisons are valid as pointing to dominant traits versus less common or even very rare traits. Are there going to be albinos in the hereafter? People who are genetically predisposed to obesity? Retaining water? Bad knees? The list is almost endless. Silly. "Everything being restored to its proper and perfect frame" can only mean perfection in the place of imperfection. If left handedness is a defect, which I think it is just like being ONE-handed is a defect (as opposed to being perfectly ambidextrous), then that will no longer exist with immortals. If sex with water mammals is natural, I am sure that a sapient "Flipper" can exist as an eternal couple with the human boy too. Do you really want to argue it this way? Less than one percent of men between the ages of 15 and 21 admit that they are attracted ONLY to males, well under one percent in fact. It isn't supposed to be. In the next life it, along with every other aberrant twist of mortality will be healed. That is the position of the Church's policy on abstinence, for SSA and for drug/alcohol addicts, sex addicts who are sorely tempted to impropriety of all kinds, etc.... Edited August 6, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

Who knows how silly your not immoral comparisons really are? This isn't even apples and oranges, it's more like comparing rocks and vegetables. If you want to toss out all references to sexual immorality even existing, then I suppose your comparisons are valid as pointing to dominant traits versus less common or even very rare traits. Are there going to be albinos in the hereafter? People who are genetically predisposed to obesity? Retaining water? Bad knees? The list is almost endless. Silly. "Everything being restored to its proper and perfect frame" can only mean perfection in the place of imperfection. If left handedness is a defect, which I think it is just like being ONE-handed is a defect (as opposed to being perfectly ambidextrous), then that will no longer exist with immortals. If sex with water mammals is natural, I am sure that a sapient "Flipper" can exist as an eternal couple with the human boy too. Do you really want to argue it this way? Less than one percent of men between the ages of 15 and 21 admit that they are attracted ONLY to males, well under one percent in fact. It isn't supposed to be. In the next life it, along with every other aberrant twist of mortality will be healed. That is the position of the Church's policy on abstinence, for SSA and for drug/alcohol addicts, sex addicts who are sorely tempted to impropriety of all kinds, etc....

Left handedness and eye color don't have a lot to do with eternal increase do they? But if the Church policy is to allow people with SSA to do everything in the Church except consumate their attraction or have it sealed for eternity -- then the obvious conclusion is that if SSA is in fact something that a person has no control over then the obvious assumption is that God is going to "fix" it in the hereafter. Anyone with some kind of different hope for an end scenario is apparently going to be disappointed and perhaps the Church ought to be straight out honest about that instead of leading anyone on with false hopes to the contrary.