Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[ZelphtheGreat]

The Brethren have said Same Sex Attraction is not a sin..., but acting on it is.

 

With gay marriage legal, if two men or two women get 'legally and lawfully married', will the Church recognize it?

 

Seems they would as it is the law of the land and they are bound to accept that. Seems the sexual activity of married couples stays in the home and it is the business of the married couple, not the Bishop or anyone else as long as it is between the couple who are 'legally and lawfully married'.

 

With the church seemingly being more accepting of homosexual attraction and gay marriage becoming legal why wouldn't the Church follow the law of the land in recognizing gay marriage while restricting Temple Sealings to traditional man/woman couples?

 

I have read too many times church leaders, spokesmen and members talking of 'one man and one woman' as what marriage should be. This itself flies in the face of D&C 132 and LDS history.

 

Why not let it be, let those who marry legally do so whether homo or heterosexual and stop the lobbying?

[Bernard Gui]

When the laws prohibiting polygamy are overturned, should the church then be obliged to accept members who practice it? What is your view on the Declaration on the Family?

Edited August 26, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[ZelphtheGreat]

Yes, the Church would be honoring plural marriages.

 

The Declaration on the family is a statement, nothing more. Subject to revision just as so much from the Brethren has been for so long.

 

D&C 132 is about plural marriage an The Manifesto was a political compromise. Why wouldn't plural marriage be recognized once legal? It is doctrine, plain and simple.

[Calm]

Why wouldn't plural marriage be recognized once legal? It is doctrine, plain and simple.

When you mean recognized, do you mean accept as a legal marriage?  It is not the Church that determines that, but the government.

 

Those participating in polygynous marriages in countries where such are legal are not baptized even though they are legally married.

 

Why would it be different in the US?

Edited August 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[strappinglad]

         

[ZelphtheGreat]

strapin glad, gay marriage is a current event in the US and your belief it is a dead topic is myopic.

 

"Legally and lawfully married" is a basic LDS Concept used and taught at the highest levels of the Church.

 

It only makes sense to recognize the marriages and leave the couple be - after all, Same Sex Attraction is OK per the Brethren even if they don't like or understand it. So if marriages are legal for same sex couples the Church is bound to accept them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

strapin glad, gay marriage is a current event in the US and your belief it is a dead topic is myopic.

 

"Legally and lawfully married" is a basic LDS Concept used and taught at the highest levels of the Church.

 

It only makes sense to recognize the marriages and leave the couple be - after all, Same Sex Attraction is OK per the Brethren even if they don't like or understand it. So if marriages are legal for same sex couples the Church is bound to accept them.

What is lame is your attempt at a hypothetical. I know of no one that would be married and be celebate.  The other issue is that a "marriage" between to people of the same sex is not a marriage. The brothern would never accpet that definition. Try again.

 

Further more you have not even begun to explain how a "gay marriage" would be handled in the eternities. How does gay marriage fit in to the eternal plan? I mean so far as I can tell everything in nature point to a man and a women being necessary to create life. 2 gays guys can't do that on their own.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[CV75]

With gay marriage legal, if two men or two women get 'legally and lawfully married', will the Church recognize it?

Yes, I think the Church will recognize homosexual intercourse "and anything like unto it" as a sin, whether legal or not, and whether it is conducted within a marriage or not.

 

The only way the Church can know what a couple is doing is if one or both of the partners answers any appliacble interview questions truthfully. While all are welcome to attend church meetings and activities, only those who can answer the interview questions so to qualify for the ordinances can receive the ordinances.

[guerreiro9]

The Brethren have said Same Sex Attraction is not a sin..., but acting on it is.

 

With gay marriage legal, if two men or two women get 'legally and lawfully married', will the Church recognize it?

 

Seems they would as it is the law of the land and they are bound to accept that. Seems the sexual activity of married couples stays in the home and it is the business of the married couple, not the Bishop or anyone else as long as it is between the couple who are 'legally and lawfully married'.

 

With the church seemingly being more accepting of homosexual attraction and gay marriage becoming legal why wouldn't the Church follow the law of the land in recognizing gay marriage while restricting Temple Sealings to traditional man/woman couples?

 

I have read too many times church leaders, spokesmen and members talking of 'one man and one woman' as what marriage should be. This itself flies in the face of D&C 132 and LDS history.

 

Why not let it be, let those who marry legally do so whether homo or heterosexual and stop the lobbying?

 

While the Church does obey the law in the countries in which it is established, it does not change its doctrines to accommodate these laws.  Even the discontinuation of polygamy did not change any doctrine.  Polygamy, when commanded by God is not viewed as inherently sinful by the Church.  God is simply not commanding us to practice it at this point.

 

There are more members of the Church outside the United States than in.  The Church has been established in a number of countries for years where homosexual marriage (and polygamy) are legally permitted, and has not changed its doctrine to accommodate people in these countries.  Although we as Americans tend to be quite insular and assume that the United States is the world itself, it is not.  The Church has already passed this test and did not change its doctrine.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 26, 2013 by guerreiro9

[USU78]

         

 

Quite agree.  Why do we have to have this incessant homophile advocacy here?

 

The old joke is proving truer and truer:  "The love that dare not speak its name refuses to shut the h--- up."

[thesometimesaint]

The Brethren have said Same Sex Attraction is not a sin..., but acting on it is.

 

With gay marriage legal, if two men or two women get 'legally and lawfully married', will the Church recognize it?

 

Seems they would as it is the law of the land and they are bound to accept that. Seems the sexual activity of married couples stays in the home and it is the business of the married couple, not the Bishop or anyone else as long as it is between the couple who are 'legally and lawfully married'.

 

With the church seemingly being more accepting of homosexual attraction and gay marriage becoming legal why wouldn't the Church follow the law of the land in recognizing gay marriage while restricting Temple Sealings to traditional man/woman couples?

 

I have read too many times church leaders, spokesmen and members talking of 'one man and one woman' as what marriage should be. This itself flies in the face of D&C 132 and LDS history.

 

Why not let it be, let those who marry legally do so whether homo or heterosexual and stop the lobbying?

 

The Church will not recognize them regardless of what the law says.

 

There are plenty of activitives while perfectly legal are against Church rules. If violated can result in Church discipline.

 

The law is that those legally entitled to perform the marriage ceremony may do so. There is no, and can be no, requirement to do so.

 

Because while SSA is not a sin. SSM is against Church rules. IOW There is no sin in being tempted, only in giving into that temptation.

 

Monogamy is the default position of the Church. Scriptures allows for polygamy if and when it is commanded by God.

 

Are not members of the Church not allowed to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievences?

[rockpond]

The Brethren have said Same Sex Attraction is not a sin..., but acting on it is.

 

With gay marriage legal, if two men or two women get 'legally and lawfully married', will the Church recognize it?

 

Seems they would as it is the law of the land and they are bound to accept that. Seems the sexual activity of married couples stays in the home and it is the business of the married couple, not the Bishop or anyone else as long as it is between the couple who are 'legally and lawfully married'.

 

With the church seemingly being more accepting of homosexual attraction and gay marriage becoming legal why wouldn't the Church follow the law of the land in recognizing gay marriage while restricting Temple Sealings to traditional man/woman couples?

 

I have read too many times church leaders, spokesmen and members talking of 'one man and one woman' as what marriage should be. This itself flies in the face of D&C 132 and LDS history.

 

Why not let it be, let those who marry legally do so whether homo or heterosexual and stop the lobbying?

 

 

I think that the Brethren have clearly stated that they do not recognize marriages of two individuals of the same gender.  So they would not recognize it as a marriage even if it is legal in that jurisdiction.

 

If that couple were to attend church together and (in a temple recommend interview, for example) individually state that they were living the law of chastity (because in their minds & hearts, they are), I'm not sure how the church would take any action against them.  Depending on where they lived, the local priesthood authorities might choose to call a disciplinary council.

[ZelphtheGreat]

Whether The Brethren recognize it or not, when it is legal, it is legal. Add in that a big deal is made of "legally and lawfully married" and you have it whether they 'recognize' it or not.

 

Why a disciplinary council for something that is legal? Makes as much sense as excommunicating Helmuth Huebner in German for actively opposing Satan in the form of Hitler.

 

As for 'eternities' and whether it would be recognized, what does it matter? ALL marriages across the world are not recognized as 'eternal' by the Church.

 

"Polygamy didn't change Doctrine"?  Brigham and others stated it was necessary and would never be abandoned. Gordon B. Hinckley stated quite clearly in National Television "Polygamy is not doctrinal". So, what is Truth? A changing thing to suit the times. There are so few actual "Doctrines" the Church has that are unchanging it is almost funny, if not so sad to watch.

 

As far as waiting for inspiration and prompting from the Holy Ghost..., none was had in stopping Felix Urioste(a man) from being sealed for Time and All Eternity in the Salt Lake Temple to Bruce Jensen.(a man, and his/her Husband) A mistake maybe, but NO ONE caught it. NO ONE was in tune with the spirit enough to stop things. Not the Bishop, Stake President, Temple workers or anyone in the chain.

 

As far as doctrine changing, Blacks and the Priesthood is way different now than for more than 150 years in church history. Gay marriage will end up being the same thing. Many I know who have problems with the Church hinge on that fact..., that Doctrine is not really doctrine, but folk tales once one starts to look closely.

 

So yes, I see gay marriage being accepted by the brethren in the future as they will have no choice but to do so.

[rockpond]

Whether The Brethren recognize it or not, when it is legal, it is legal. Add in that a big deal is made of "legally and lawfully married" and you have it whether they 'recognize' it or not.

 

Why a disciplinary council for something that is legal? Makes as much sense as excommunicating Helmuth Huebner in German for actively opposing Satan in the form of Hitler.

 

I think that you raise two points there.  As I stated, I think that these hypothetical married gay men could answer that they are living the law of chastity based solely on the definition provided us in the temple.

 

Disciplinary councils however have no relation to what is "legal" outside of the church.  If doctrine/policy states that gay marriage (even legal gay marriage) is not recognized then they can obviously hold a disciplinary council.

[USU78]

Whether The Brethren recognize it or not, when it is legal, it is legal. Add in that a big deal is made of "legally and lawfully married" and you have it whether they 'recognize' it or not.

 

Why a disciplinary council for something that is legal? Makes as much sense as excommunicating Helmuth Huebner in German for actively opposing Satan in the form of Hitler.

 

As for 'eternities' and whether it would be recognized, what does it matter? ALL marriages across the world are not recognized as 'eternal' by the Church.

 

"Polygamy didn't change Doctrine"?  Brigham and others stated it was necessary and would never be abandoned. Gordon B. Hinckley stated quite clearly in National Television "Polygamy is not doctrinal". So, what is Truth? A changing thing to suit the times. There are so few actual "Doctrines" the Church has that are unchanging it is almost funny, if not so sad to watch.

 

As far as waiting for inspiration and prompting from the Holy Ghost..., none was had in stopping Felix Urioste(a man) from being sealed for Time and All Eternity in the Salt Lake Temple to Bruce Jensen.(a man, and his/her Husband) A mistake maybe, but NO ONE caught it. NO ONE was in tune with the spirit enough to stop things. Not the Bishop, Stake President, Temple workers or anyone in the chain.

 

As far as doctrine changing, Blacks and the Priesthood is way different now than for more than 150 years in church history. Gay marriage will end up being the same thing. Many I know who have problems with the Church hinge on that fact..., that Doctrine is not really doctrine, but folk tales once one starts to look closely.

 

So yes, I see gay marriage being accepted by the brethren in the future as they will have no choice but to do so.

 

Really?  Comparing a high council court with the German Bluthgericht <capital punishment court>?

 

You have got to be joking.  I like hyperbole as much as the next guy, but ain't this a bit much, even for the convicted antiMormon?

[CV75]

 

So yes, I see gay marriage being accepted by the brethren in the future as they will have no choice but to do so.

 

Yes, that is how you see it but your argument is full of holes.

 

Many things are legal that do not pass muster for a temple recommend because they are wrong according to the revelations.

 

Traditional marriages are recognized as having their origin instituted of God, but this does not apply to same-sex unions according to the revelations.

 

Truth is unchanging, but its teaching and requirements of the saints may change according to how the Lord sees fit to prove His people. So I don’t see how the brethren will have no choice in setting doctrine and policy; they always have a choice to carry out their responsibilities or not. Having this choice and carrying out their inspired unanimous decisions is inconsistent with approving fraud, deception and sexual sin.

 

Likewise, being in tune with the Spirit has nothing to do with approving fraud, deception and sexual sin; quite the opposite. Temple ordinances, like any other, are provided to anyone who answers the qualifying questions correctly. This is how agency is respected.

[ERMD]

Whether The Brethren recognize it or not, when it is legal, it is legal. Add in that a big deal is made of "legally and lawfully married" and you have it whether they 'recognize' it or not.

 

Why a disciplinary council for something that is legal?

...

 

So yes, I see gay marriage being accepted by the brethren in the future as they will have no choice but to do so.

Abortion is legal. It is still an abomination.

Plain and simple, you and others who hold to this view and keep beating this dead horse are wrong.

[Buzzard]

"Legally and lawfully" was a term put into use to make it clear that religious ceremonies (I.E. polygamous ones) that were not legal were not recognized and persons entering into them would be subject to discipline. If using that phrase becomes problematic vis a vis same gender marriages, the phrase will change.

I am surprised how people who claim to understand LDS doctrine can also think that there is any wriggle room on this issue. Opposite gender marriage is essentially, one of the main reasons for our mortal probation. Same gender couples cannot be sealed in this life or in the life to come. Since this practice strikes right at the heart of the very Plan of Salvation, I can see why the church has been so unalterably opposed to it, and why the adversary has been so aggressive in pushing it. 

[rockpond]

"Legally and lawfully" was a term put into use to make it clear that religious ceremonies (I.E. polygamous ones) that were not legal were not recognized and persons entering into them would be subject to discipline. If using that phrase becomes problematic vis a vis same gender marriages, the phrase will change.

I am surprised how people who claim to understand LDS doctrine can also think that there is any wriggle room on this issue. Opposite gender marriage is essentially, one of the main reasons for our mortal probation. Same gender couples cannot be sealed in this life or in the life to come. Since this practice strikes right at the heart of the very Plan of Salvation, I can see why the church has been so unalterably opposed to it, and why the adversary has been so aggressive in pushing it. 

 

That's why I am actually surprised that the Brethren didn't add some clarification to the "legal & lawful" statement in the newest temple film given that same gender marriage is becoming increasingly legal around the globe.  But I suppose they didn't think it was appropriate or needed.

 

I think the Plan of Salvation holds up just fine even if the Lord revealed an acceptance of same gender marriage for homosexuals.

[halconero]

I live in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for eight years. During that time the LDS church has not recognized same-sex marriages nor performed them.

What makes you think that it is different in the United States?

[Darren10]

I've never viewed "legally and lawfully" as purly legal or civil matters. The standards taught in the temple are that a *man* and *woman* are "legally and lawfuly" married to which they may have "sexual relations" and only between each othjer, which, again, is a *man* and a *woman*. The first part of being married is "legal". "Legal" is a civil matter. Anything can be "legalized" by man. From marriage to even killing other people, if it exists, it may become "legal". The latter part of the LDS church standard as taught in the temple is "lawful". This, I view as what is beholden to God's eyes. God does not view everything that is "legal" as "lawful". Therefore, a marriage between a man and a woman is "legal" civilly and is "lawful" in God's eyes. This means that everything about it is morally good. However, just because same sex marriage may be "legal" in some places does not make it "lawful" in God's eyes. Pornography is quite legal in most areas but it is never "lawful" for it is immoral. Even in the "privacy of one's home" it is not "lawful" howbeit "legal". A man and a woman may be sealed for eternity but a man and a man may never be, nor a woman to a woman. Homosexual relations is a guarantee to loose one's exaltation and terefore gives the adversary a big victory.

 

As for section 132, holding a standard of a marriage between *one* man and *one* woman does not at all violate the doctrines of that section. The doctrines fo that section is that people must enter into the new and everlasting covenant in order to gain exaltation which is, as Section 132 points out, is to be gods of whome, "shall inherit ^fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths". Even the angels of heaven are subject ot those who become "gods" by exaltation. According o the the new and everlasting covenant as well as Section 132, those sealed to just one person stand as much a chance to gain exaltation as a person sealed to several others. But Section 132, nor the new and everlasting covenant ever recognized homosexual couples.

[rockpond]

I've never viewed "legally and lawfully" as purly legal or civil matters. The standards taught in the temple are that a *man* and *woman* are "legally and lawfuly" married to which they may have "sexual relations" and only between each othjer, which, again, is a *man* and a *woman*. The first part of being married is "legal". "Legal" is a civil matter. Anything can be "legalized" by man. From marriage to even killing other people, if it exists, it may become "legal". The latter part of the LDS church standard as taught in the temple is "lawful". This, I view as what is beholden to God's eyes. God does not view everything that is "legal" as "lawful". Therefore, a marriage between a man and a woman is "legal" civilly and is "lawful" in God's eyes. This means that everything about it is morally good. However, just because same sex marriage may be "legal" in some places does not make it "lawful" in God's eyes. Pornography is quite legal in most areas but it is never "lawful" for it is immoral. Even in the "privacy of one's home" it is not "lawful" howbeit "legal". A man and a woman may be sealed for eternity but a man and a man may never be, nor a woman to a woman. Homosexual relations is a guarantee to loose one's exaltation and terefore gives the adversary a big victory.

 

As for section 132, holding a standard of a marriage between *one* man and *one* woman does not at all violate the doctrines of that section. The doctrines fo that section is that people must enter into the new and everlasting covenant in order to gain exaltation which is, as Section 132 points out, is to be gods of whome, "shall inherit ^fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths". Even the angels of heaven are subject ot those who become "gods" by exaltation. According o the the new and everlasting covenant as well as Section 132, those sealed to just one person stand as much a chance to gain exaltation as a person sealed to several others. But Section 132, nor the new and everlasting covenant ever recognized homosexual couples.

 

I like that interpretation... that "legal" refers to the world's definition and "lawful" refers to God's law.

 

I think, however, that you may have missed an important piece of the teaching in Section 132.  You said that a man and a man or a woman and a woman may never be sealed.  Yet, in verses 34-39 the Lord is telling us that things that we may view to be sin and abominations can still be commanded by Him and counted as righteousness.

[thesometimesaint]

Whether The Brethren recognize it or not, when it is legal, it is legal. Add in that a big deal is made of "legally and lawfully married" and you have it whether they 'recognize' it or not.

 

Why a disciplinary council for something that is legal? Makes as much sense as excommunicating Helmuth Huebner in German for actively opposing Satan in the form of Hitler.

 

As for 'eternities' and whether it would be recognized, what does it matter? ALL marriages across the world are not recognized as 'eternal' by the Church.

 

"Polygamy didn't change Doctrine"?  Brigham and others stated it was necessary and would never be abandoned. Gordon B. Hinckley stated quite clearly in National Television "Polygamy is not doctrinal". So, what is Truth? A changing thing to suit the times. There are so few actual "Doctrines" the Church has that are unchanging it is almost funny, if not so sad to watch.

 

As far as waiting for inspiration and prompting from the Holy Ghost..., none was had in stopping Felix Urioste(a man) from being sealed for Time and All Eternity in the Salt Lake Temple to Bruce Jensen.(a man, and his/her Husband) A mistake maybe, but NO ONE caught it. NO ONE was in tune with the spirit enough to stop things. Not the Bishop, Stake President, Temple workers or anyone in the chain.

 

As far as doctrine changing, Blacks and the Priesthood is way different now than for more than 150 years in church history. Gay marriage will end up being the same thing. Many I know who have problems with the Church hinge on that fact..., that Doctrine is not really doctrine, but folk tales once one starts to look closely.

 

So yes, I see gay marriage being accepted by the brethren in the future as they will have no choice but to do so.

 

According to the rules of the Church it doesn't matter whether something is legal, only if it is against Church rules. As a well over 21 year old adult it is perfectly legal for me to drink alcohol, and smoke tobacco. Church rules prevent me from do so.

 

While not against Church rules to oppose Hitler, it wasn't a particularly a good idea if you were under Hitler's rule. Good LDS on both sides fought in that conflict.

 

We didn't abandon polygamy. It is still in our Scriptures. The requirement to practice while on earth is up to Gods' command. I suppose someday its practice will return. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

No one in the Church claims omniscience. So it is entirely possible to successfully lie. Plus you left out the rest of the story.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/429217/URIOSTE-DENIES-HE-DUPED-AND-BILKED-HIS-HUSBAND.html?pg=all

 

There has always been blacks holding the Priesthood. Plus it has always been prophecied that one day the blacks of African descent would hold the Priesthood.

No such has been said about SSM.

 

We always have a choice. Don't hold your breath on the Church recognizing SSM.

[CV75]

I think the Plan of Salvation holds up just fine even if the Lord revealed an acceptance of same gender marriage for homosexuals.

The Plan of Slavation allows for different kingdoms, that is for sure, but "continuation of the seeds" has to do with the Lord's acceptance of marriage between men and women and rejection of same-sex procreation of His children.

[Darren10]

I like that interpretation... that "legal" refers to the world's definition and "lawful" refers to God's law.

 

I think, however, that you may have missed an important piece of the teaching in Section 132.  You said that a man and a man or a woman and a woman may never be sealed.  Yet, in verses 34-39 the Lord is telling us that things that we may view to be sin and abominations can still be commanded by Him and counted as righteousness.

 

Verse 35 says the following (bold mine):

 

Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, ^acommanded it.

 

If the Lord were to ever command a homosexual sealing than that is what should be done and i'll revoke my statement. But until the Lord commands such a thing, I stand by what I wrote.