Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[CV75]

I think we're getting into such basics here that perhaps another thread should be started on these baics and then we can work up to discussing your conundrum.

[rockpond]

Oh. To me, "this world" is any period between birth and the resurrection. "Out of the world" is after the resurrection.

 

Okay, so how will a deceased worthy individual who was not able to marry in this life be able to do so pre-resurrection?

[rockpond]

I think we're getting into such basics here that perhaps another thread should be started on these baics and then we can work up to discussing your conundrum.

I don't have a conundrum, I'm quite comfortable in my belief. But if you've got a conundrum you'd like to discuss you can go ahead and start a new thread and I'll participate if you'd like.

Edited August 30, 2013 by rockpond

[Questing Beast]

rockpond: Actually, if you are going to stick with your strict, unalterable view of Section 132, you might want to take a look at verses 15-16 which stand in contradiction to what the prophets and apostles are saying today that homosexuals who obey the law of chastity and live worthily will receive ALL the same blessings.  When they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage.  How do you reconcile that?

Before the final judgment all who wish to marry before they are resurrected will be given the opportunity to do so. That's what vicarious temple sealings are for. Have you forgotten that? Mormonism covers all its bases very well. All the homosexual has to do is be obedient and submit with patience during mortality. Otherwise their repentance in the spirit world/prison will be long and sore. (Somewhere it is taught as doctrine that repentance without a body could be ten times harder than with one. It sounds like a BRM add-on though, as I try and remember.) They have to have faith that their feelings will be at least as strong in the afterlife as they are now, but they will be healed such that they will no longer desire to sin.

 

You make a big deal out of the injustice of expecting GLBTQs to undergo the self inflicted misery of unrequited love in this life. But they are not alone, are they? Romance, when not fulfilling, or realized (requited) can be very painful. It happens all the time to heterosexuals. Why should GLTBQs be immune for another reason? If their romance is forbidden it is no less denied than a romance that does not pan out. Taking this further, other disappointments in life abound. The born warrior who lives in an age of peace. The reverse, the philosopher who lives in an age of war and death and destruction. The addict who is hounded by personal demons of temptation and is never healed, and must undergo a continual self denial in order to be obedient, never enjoying peace or relief from his addictive temptations. The world of mortals is full of imperfections, disappointments, pain and suffering, and the requirement of the believer that s/he endure to the end. God is merciful to all of us and makes it possible, and even lightens our burdens as he has promised. There is a measure of Joy waiting for the end and a release from disappointment and temptation unrelenting. Why should a GLBTQ be suddenly handed special treatment, a "pass" on his or her immoral conduct? Your wishful thinking would rewrite the entire history of Judeo-Christianity under the heading, "They didn't know any better"....

Edited August 31, 2013 by Questing Beast

[rockpond]

Before the final judgment all who wish to marry before they are resurrected will be given the opportunity to do so. That's what vicarious temple sealings are for. Have you forgotten that? Mormonism covers all its bases very well. All the homosexual has to do is be obedient and submit with patience during mortality. Otherwise their repentance in the spirit world/prison will be long and sore. )Somewhere it is taught as doctrine that repentance without a body could be ten times harder than with one. It sounds like a BRM add-on though, as I try and remember.) They have to have faith that their feelings will be at least as strong in the afterlife as they are now, but they will be healed such that they will no longer desire to sin.

You make a big deal out of the injustice of expecting GLBTQs to undergo the self inflicted misery of unrequited love in this life. But they are not alone, are they? Romance, when not fulfilling, or realized (requited) can be very painful. It happens all the time to heterosexuals. Why should GLTBQs be immune for another reason? If their romance is forbidden it is no less denied than a romance that does not pan out. Taking this further, other disappointments in life abound. The born warrior who lives in an age of peace. The reverse, the philosopher who lives in an age of war and death and destruction. The addict who is hounded by personal demons of temptation and is never healed, and must undergo a continual self denial in order to be obedient, never enjoying peace or relief from his addictive temptations. The world of mortals is full of imperfections, disappointments, pain and suffering, and the requirement of the believer that s/he endure to the end. God is merciful to all of us and makes it possible, and even lightens our burdens as he has promised. There is a measure of Joy waiting for the end and a release from disappointment and temptation unrelenting. Why should a GLBTQ be suddenly handed special treatment, a "pass" on his or her immoral conduct? Your wishful thinking would rewrite the entire history of Judeo-Christianity under the heading, "They didn't know any better"....

A love that never came to pass is quite a different thing than a love that was there but denied by church policy.

I'll pretend you didn't really compare the plight of LDS homosexuals to a warrior who didn't get to go off into battle. Or an addict.

And I thought it was the resurrection that was going to heal homosexuals of their "affliction" making it problematic for them to marry prior to the resurrection. And how do we do vicarious sealings for spirits who never married? Who chooses the spouses?

Edited August 31, 2013 by rockpond

[Questing Beast]

A love that never came to pass is quite a different thing than a love that was there but denied by church policy. I'll pretend you didn't really compare the plight of LDS homosexuals to a warrior who didn't get to go off into battle. Or an addict. And I thought it was the resurrection that was going to heal homosexuals of their "affliction" making it problematic for them to marry prior to the resurrection. And how do we do vicarious sealings for spirits who never married? Who chooses the spouses?

Are you saying that a single man or woman has no chance to pick a spouse or marry in the spirit world part of "this world"? Try sharing that idea in gospel doctrine class, in the presence of several/many singles and see how far you get.

 

There is nothing special about an LDS homosexual's plight. If is their burden. And yes one plight is as legitimate as another. I knew a "born warrior", who was disappointed in his hope that one day he would be called to defend the prophets and the Church in battle against their enemies. He did two tours to Nam and loved combat. The world of peace killed him with boredom and his other compensating addictions killed him early. I will pretend that you did not really understand the implication of your facile objection.

 

Jesus Christ (God) heals, and all things are spiritual before they are natural, or in the flesh. I am sure that long before a resurrection the attitude of the spirit that desires to repent achieves the attitude adjustment. Surely, once out of the body, all  biological urges to "romance" are no more, for everybody, making clear and rational thoughts easier, and relationships less complicated!...

[Kenngo1969]

You mean, if I don't have an opportunity to marry in this life, I won't in the next?  So I'll be a ministering angel, right?  OK.  That's cool, but if that's the case I want to keep my limp after the resurrection.  That way, I can be Lurch: "You rang?"

[rockpond]

Are you saying that a single man or woman has no chance to pick a spouse or marry in the spirit world part of "this world"? Try sharing that idea in gospel doctrine class, in the presence of several/many singles and see how far you get.

There is nothing special about an LDS homosexual's plight. If is their burden. And yes one plight is as legitimate as another. I knew a "born warrior", who was disappointed in his hope that one day he would be called to defend the prophets and the Church in battle against their enemies. He did two tours to Nam and loved combat. The world of peace killed him with boredom and his other compensating addictions killed him early. I will pretend that you did not really understand the implication of your facile objection.

Jesus Christ (God) heals, and all things are spiritual before they are natural, or in the flesh. I am sure that long before a resurrection the attitude of the spirit that desires to repent achieves the attitude adjustment. Surely, once out of the body, all biological urges to "romance" are no more, for everybody, making clear and rational thoughts easier, and relationships less complicated!...

No, I wasn't suggesting that single people will never have an opportunity to marry in the next life. I believe they will. My point is that our current doctrine requires a looser reading of Section 132 rather than the black and white dogmatic approach of: it only mentions man and woman so therefore nothing else can ever be revealed. There are shades of grey in other verses that we acknowledge.

And I stand by my objection... I'm sorry your friend didn't get to go out and kill & maim people in the name of religion but that still doesn't compare with and LDS homosexual person being told that they must remain alone through all of mortality with the promise that the very desire of their heart will be changed to accept a heterosexual union in the next life.

[CV75]

Okay, so how will a deceased worthy individual who was not able to marry in this life be able to do so pre-resurrection?

In the spirit world by proxy of course--I'm wondering how much you really understand, hence my invite to explore the basics.

[CV75]

I don't have a conundrum, I'm quite comfortable in my belief. But if you've got a conundrum you'd like to discuss you can go ahead and start a new thread and I'll participate if you'd like.

You do offer up "a confusing and difficult problem or question" which you have aditted you don't have an answer to.

[CV75]

As detailed in the Abrahamic covenant, loins are blessed “both in the world and out of the world,” for the sake of the posterity coming forth from those loins, as well as to bless the actual possessor of those loins with joy in his or her posterity.

 

If the promise was for posterity either in the world or out of the world, I could see where an Adam-Adam or Eve-Eve coupling could make sense, since what cannot done by design in this world could then be done in the next with an alternate design. But the promise is clearly for “both in the world and out of the world,” meaning, by design (the plan of happiness, and plan of salvation), complimentary loins, one being male and the other female, are necessary to bring it about, where each of God’s children is either Adam or Eve.

 

Since these blessings are spiritual and temporal, literal and figurative, the very reference to “both in the world and out of the world,” entailed in this blessing of the patriarchs (most commonly referred to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) prohibits homosexual relationships and sealings since such a couple is not designed by God to produce posterity in this world, and therefore by the same covenant, not in the next world, either.

 

So covenant-wise, I see no reason for hope in homosexually-generated posterity either in the world or out of the world, and therefore no change in the application of the covenant.

Edited August 31, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

In the spirit world by proxy of course--I'm wondering how much you really understand, hence my invite to explore the basics.

I'm a temple recommend holding member of the church... I got the proxy part. The question is... Who do you pick as the spouse? And how?

[rockpond]

You do offer up "a confusing and difficult problem or question" which you have aditted you don't have an answer to.

Which question is that?

[rockpond]

As detailed in the Abrahamic covenant, loins are blessed “both in the world and out of the world,” for the sake of the posterity coming forth from those loins, as well as to bless the actual possessor of those loins with joy in his or her posterity.

If the promise was for posterity either in the world or out of the world, I could see where an Adam-Adam or Eve-Eve coupling could make sense, since what cannot done by design in this world could then be done in the next with an alternate design. But the promise is clearly for “both in the world and out of the world,” meaning, by design (the plan of happiness, and plan of salvation), complimentary loins, one being male and the other female, are necessary to bring it about, where each of God’s children is either Adam or Eve.

Since these blessings are spiritual and temporal, literal and figurative, the very reference to “both in the world and out of the world,” entailed in this blessing of the patriarchs (most commonly referred to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) prohibits homosexual relationships and sealings since such a couple is not designed by God to produce posterity in this world, and therefore by the same covenant, not in the next world, either.

So covenant-wise, I see no reason for hope in homosexually-generated posterity either in the world or out of the world, and therefore no change in the application of the covenant.

Not every sealed couple has children here in mortality. And some couples (my grandfather and his second wife, for example) are sealed with no possibility of procreating in mortality. So that covenant need not be used as a reason to exclude homosexual couples.

There's also no reason that a different type of sealing ordinance couldn't be revealed. I don't know where we'd find the language but obviously the sealings performed between adult unrelated men under the law of adoption would not have required posterity in this life.

[CV75]

I'm a temple recommend holding member of the church... I got the proxy part. The question is... Who do you pick as the spouse? And how?

You find someone compatible in the spirit world, or even perhaps in this world--in the Millennium, the two worlds will not be so far apart. Once the plan is fully understood and accpeted, each faithful Adam and each Eve will pick up where they left off with the Fall and do the same things that the Adam and Eve of Genesis / Pearl of Great Price / temple drama did.

[CV75]

Which question is that?

I guess it doesn't matter--pick one!

[CV75]

Not every sealed couple has children here in mortality. And some couples (my grandfather and his second wife, for example) are sealed with no possibility of procreating in mortality. So that covenant need not be used as a reason to exclude homosexual couples. There's also no reason that a different type of sealing ordinance couldn't be revealed. I don't know where we'd find the language but obviously the sealings performed between adult unrelated men under the law of adoption would not have required posterity in this life.

This is why I use the terms "pattern" and "design."

 

Your grandfather and his second wife, by design. recieve by covenant the blessings both in this world and the next, as an Adam and an Eve. Many heterosexual couples cannot reproduce in this life, but by design that is the plan of happiness. Not everyone acheives it in this lifetime, no more than everyone acheives perfection or immortaity in this lifetime--yett everyone can have it in eternity. The point here is that it is not a homosexual covenant. No homosexual relationship or covenant can be spiritually life-generating any more than like loins can physically generate life together. his is why God does not use them--there is no life typified or actualized. The covenant has literal and figurative applications, as provided in a more detailed explanation above.

[rockpond]

You find someone compatible in the spirit world, or even perhaps in this world--in the Millennium, the two worlds will not be so far apart. Once the plan is fully understood and accpeted, each faithful Adam and each Eve will pick up where they left off with the Fall and do the same things that the Adam and Eve of Genesis / Pearl of Great Price / temple drama did.

Do you have a reference that verifies the ability of the souls in the spirit world to communicate their spousal choices to post-millennial earth or is that just your theory?

It may not be a bad theory although it still doesn't really reconcile a strict interpretation of 132:15-16 as now you are talking about souls outside of this world being given in marriage.

[rockpond]

I guess it doesn't matter--pick one!

Wait... You suggested starting another thread.

[rockpond]

This is why I use the terms "pattern" and "design."

Your grandfather and his second wife, by design. recieve by covenant the blessings both in this world and the next, as an Adam and an Eve. Many heterosexual couples cannot reproduce in this life, but by design that is the plan of happiness. Not everyone acheives it in this lifetime, no more than everyone acheives perfection or immortaity in this lifetime--yett everyone can have it in eternity. The point here is that it is not a homosexual covenant. No homosexual relationship or covenant can be spiritually life-generating any more than like loins can physically generate life together. his is why God does not use them--there is no life typified or actualized. The covenant has literal and figurative applications, as provided in a more detailed explanation above.

So it's a pattern that doesn't have to be interpreted literally? Unless you are a homosexual couple, then you must apply it literally? I'm convinced that you are actually open to the beautiful ambiguity that we find in the scriptures and gospel, you just don't apply it to the issue of homosexuality.

And you didn't respond to my point about the temple ordinance that was revealed allowing two unrelated adult men to be sealed to one another. No promise of posterity, I assume. I see no reason why a sealing ordinance for homosexual couples couldn't be revealed.

[ERayR]

Do you have a reference that verifies the ability of the souls in the spirit world to communicate their spousal choices to post-millennial earth or is that just your theory? It may not be a bad theory although it still doesn't really reconcile a strict interpretation of 132:15-16 as now you are talking about souls outside of this world being given in marriage.

 

I found this if it helps:

 

Many people have died without receiving these ordinances. People on the earth must perform these ordinances for them. This work is now being done in the temples of the Lord. There is too much work to finish before the Millennium begins, so it will be completed during that time. Resurrected beings will help us correct the mistakes we have made in doing research concerning our dead ancestors. They will also help us find the information we need to complete our records. (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:167, 251–52.)

[Questing Beast]

... There's also no reason that a different type of sealing ordinance couldn't be revealed. I don't know where we'd find the language but obviously the sealings performed between adult unrelated men under the law of adoption would not have required posterity in this life.

But sealed men do not subsequently engage in sexual relations with each other! If you want some kind of eternal relationship for homosexuals that doesn't involve sexual relations between them there's no problem with the concept of sealings for eternity. But that isn't what you are talking about at all, so why do you keep referring back to it as some kind of support for your imagined future where all the so-called "ambiguity of scripture" is resolved with further light and knowledge?

 

Nothing in the past or in scripture alludes to even a hint of what you are saying, and every evidence we do have points to men and women only, including scripture. You make an ambiguity where there is none....

[CV75]

Do you have a reference that verifies the ability of the souls in the spirit world to communicate their spousal choices to post-millennial earth or is that just your theory? It may not be a bad theory although it still doesn't really reconcile a strict interpretation of 132:15-16 as now you are talking about souls outside of this world being given in marriage.

But you seem to be avoiding defending the plausibility of the Abrahamic and temple covenants using the imagery, symbolism and actuality of male-to-male loins generating any kind of life because it is simply not possible, whereas our scriptures and ordinances use it quite openly.

 

A quick Google should provide you with references, but the first thing that comes to mind is D&C 130:2; "here" of course, in this application of the principle, being the earth, and "there" being the spirit world, and wherever else the Savior appeared from (see also D&C 138).

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng See the remarks on temple work—completing our records entails having all the desired sealings performed; temples of course are places of communication between heaven and earth; “The Millennium is the time when the Savior will personally work with the faithful, obedient members of His Church who have lived on the earth since the days of Adam (Institute Manual Section 101).

[CV75]

So it's a pattern that doesn't have to be interpreted literally? Unless you are a homosexual couple, then you must apply it literally? I'm convinced that you are actually open to the beautiful ambiguity that we find in the scriptures and gospel, you just don't apply it to the issue of homosexuality. And you didn't respond to my point about the temple ordinance that was revealed allowing two unrelated adult men to be sealed to one another. No promise of posterity, I assume. I see no reason why a sealing ordinance for homosexual couples couldn't be revealed.

Your grandparents are literally a man and a woman!

 

I ignored the "two unrelated adult men to be sealed to one another" becaue it is a lame example on many levels, not worth considering; as far as i can tell it has nothing to do with marriage or homosexuality.

 

You are not defending the plausibility of the Abrahamic and temple covenants using the imagery, symbolism and actuality of male-to-male loins generating any kind of life because it is simply not possible, whereas our scriptures and ordinances use it quite openly.

[rockpond]

I found this if it helps:

Many people have died without receiving these ordinances. People on the earth must perform these ordinances for them. This work is now being done in the temples of the Lord. There is too much work to finish before the Millennium begins, so it will be completed during that time. Resurrected beings will help us correct the mistakes we have made in doing research concerning our dead ancestors. They will also help us find the information we need to complete our records. (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:167, 251–52.)

Thanks.