Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

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....

The point is this: We exist in a church that believes in continuing revelation. That continuing revelation has been used to alter the application of the sealing ordinance (polygamy), to correct a misunderstanding that prevented a race of people from being sealed, and to add a different type of sealing ordinance. The suggestion that the scriptures preclude the possibility of future revelation authorizing homosexual unions seems to be without merit.

And which part do you disagree with? That there exists ambiguity in the scriptures or my hope for further light and knowledge?

[rockpond]

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).

I haven't suggested that male to male loins could produce life. I've demonstrated that procreation does not have to be a prerequisite to being sealed. It wasn't historically and it isn't now.

[rockpond]

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.

I wasn't suggesting that the male to male sealings done in the past had anything to do with marriage or homosexuality. My point was that a different type of sealing was revealed. As could be done again in the future.

[Calm]

I haven't suggested that male to male loins could produce life. I've demonstrated that procreation does not have to be a prerequisite to being sealed. It wasn't historically and it isn't now.

But the potential of such a relationship is always there in their exalted form, whether it is between the procreators and the procreatees (parents and children) or two potential procreators (husband and wife).  There are many aspects of marriage that may have to be put off due to physical limitations of the couple....what can't be done now though has no impact on what can be done later in an exalted, perfected unlimited form.

 

We have no indications that such things might occur with homosexual relationships.  Scriptures are full of connecting procreation with a man and a woman becoming one flesh.  If there was a potential in the next life for procreation to occur between homosexuals than why was not even a hint of it in the scriptures, why instead some pretty strong statements against such physical arrangements?

Edited September 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I wasn't suggesting that the male to male sealings done in the past had anything to do with marriage or homosexuality. My point was that a different type of sealing was revealed. As could be done again in the future.

But we don't know if they were sealing that were intended by the Lord as part of the Plan or were a temporary accommodation allowed so that they come in time to a proper understanding.  Do you believe that all those sealings to Joseph and others as nonbiological fathers will stand or will be they replaced by the sealing order given today?  The healing baptisms of the past weren't empty gestures, they had their purpose and a good one, but they weren't the salvific ordinance of baptism that we practice today and someone can't claim that simply because they were a form of baptism, they have the same saving power that baptism for the remissions of sins does.  A different type of sealing was done, but apparently it was not salvific as they still needed to have their parent child sealing done with their actual parents.  Nonsalvific ordinances do not affect our eternal standing, healings affect quality of life, but not quality of eternity, whether the healing was done by laying on of hands, anointing or a healing baptism.

 

And it would appear that movement of sealings and baptism have been toward using them solely for their salvific roles, probably to emphasize the teaching abilities of the ordinance and not have its eternal purpose diluted by being used for many things.

[CV75]

I haven't suggested that male to male loins could produce life. I've demonstrated that procreation does not have to be a prerequisite to being sealed. It wasn't historically and it isn't now.

 

I wasn't suggesting that the male to male sealings done in the past had anything to do with marriage or homosexuality. My point was that a different type of sealing was revealed. As could be done again in the future.

I think calmoriah’s point in #280 is the best one yet about why the sealing ordinances cannot become vaguer in meaning.

 

As far as what you've failed to demonstrate about prerequisites:

 

Sealing is a prerequisite for eternal procreation, and also for earthly procreation within the covenant. In the scriptures (including the temple ordinances), this covenant pronounces specific blessings (commandments) involving the loins (literally and symbolically), which by design (read into that, "plan of salvation") are life-generating only in a heterosexual union, and therefore prerequisite for sealing (where procreation follows). Even adoption requires sealing to a  previously sealed husband and a wife, and siblings of course are not sealed to each other.

 

I emphasize “design” because not all promised blessings are realized in this fallen world. It is the plan of salvation, which gets worked out on the Lord’s time table.

 

There can be no "different type of sealing" because sealing is for the exaltation of a man, woman, their families and generations, and all that entails, and not from whatever beauty one might extol from even the most worthy of homosexual liaisons.

 

I think you originally asserted that the plan of salvation accommodates homosexual sealings, but since the design simply isn't there (and never was, neither literally nor symbolically), this cannot be the case.

Edited September 1, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

But the potential of such a relationship is always there in their exalted form, whether it is between the procreators and the procreatees (parents and children) or two potential procreators (husband and wife).  There are many aspects of marriage that may have to be put off due to physical limitations of the couple....what can't be done now though has no impact on what can be done later in an exalted, perfected unlimited form.

 

We have no indications that such things might occur with homosexual relationships.  Scriptures are full of connecting procreation with a man and a woman becoming one flesh.  If there was a potential in the next life for procreation to occur between homosexuals than why was not even a hint of it in the scriptures, why instead some pretty strong statements against such physical arrangements?

 

I believe that are far more statements against physical intimacy between heterosexual couples.

 

Additionally, only the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom get to produce spirit offspring.  Maybe homosexual couples don't.  Or maybe they do as we really have no idea how spirits are organized (though that was already discussed earlier in the thread).

[rockpond]

I think calmoriah’s point in #280 is the best one yet about why the sealing ordinances cannot become vaguer in meaning.

 

As far as what you've failed to demonstrate about prerequisites:

 

Sealing is a prerequisite for eternal procreation, and also for earthly procreation within the covenant. In the scriptures (including the temple ordinances), this covenant pronounces specific blessings (commandments) involving the loins (literally and symbolically), which by design (read into that, "plan of salvation") are life-generating only in a heterosexual union, and therefore prerequisite for sealing (where procreation follows). Even adoption requires sealing to a  previously sealed husband and a wife, and siblings of course are not sealed to each other.

 

I emphasize “design” because not all promised blessings are realized in this fallen world. It is the plan of salvation, which gets worked out on the Lord’s time table.

 

There can be no "different type of sealing" because sealing is for the exaltation of a man, woman, their families and generations, and all that entails, and not from whatever beauty one might extol from even the most worthy of homosexual liaisons.

 

I think you originally asserted that the plan of salvation accommodates homosexual sealings, but since the design simply isn't there (and never was, neither literally nor symbolically), this cannot be the case.

 

But you are referring to the existing sealing ordinance.  And since there have been sealing ordinances revealed that do not require procreation, this insistence that all sealings must include the hypothetical ability to procreate appears unfounded.

[rockpond]

But we don't know if they were sealing that were intended by the Lord as part of the Plan or were a temporary accommodation allowed so that they come in time to a proper understanding.  Do you believe that all l those sealings to Joseph and others as nonbiological fathers will stand or will be they replaced by the sealing order given today?  The healing baptisms of the past weren't empty gestures, they had their purpose and a good one, but they weren't the salvific ordinance of baptism that we practice today and someone can't claim that simply because they were a form of baptism, they have the same saving power that baptism for the remissions of sins does.  A different type of sealing was done, but apparently it was not salvific as they still needed to have their parent child sealing done with their actual parents.  Nonsalvific ordinances do not affect our eternal standing, healings affect quality of life, but not quality of eternity, whether the healing was done by laying on of hands, anointing or a healing baptism.

 

And it would appear that movement of sealings and baptism have been toward using them solely for their salvific roles, probably to emphasize the teaching abilities of the ordinance and not have its eternal purpose diluted by being used for many things.

 

First, it wasn't just Joseph... it was continued in Utah for some time.

 

I think it is possible that it was something that was done as they learned through time in the restorative process.  Having said that, I am a little hesitant to call any temple sealing "temporary" but that could be the case.

 

And I believe that we are in the midst of a restorative process.  Thus my thoughts on this matter... As CV has said: We are to consider ourselves as Adam and Eve.  And as with Adam and Eve, there is still further light and knowledge to be revealed.

[Calm]

But you are referring to the existing sealing ordinance.  And since there have been sealing ordinances revealed that do not require procreation, this insistence that all sealings must include the hypothetical ability to procreate appears unfounded.

The question is if they were actually revealed or if they were ideas that the leaders came up with based on some faulty assumptions, as it appears healing baptism are that the Lord allowed to stand because they filled another purpose, but when the proper time came they were discontinued and as far as I know there is an assumption that the sealings to Joseph and others have been preempted by sealings to the actual parents....the sealings have replaced them in the paperwork at least.  The current sealings are only one dealing with procreation--parent-child, husband-wife.  If these other sealings were revealed sealings, then why don't we continue them?

 

As far as I know there is no revelation on such adoption sealings or healing or other forms of baptism beyond remission for sins.

Edited September 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

First, it wasn't just Joseph... it was continued in Utah for some time.

Yes, I know.  It was corrected by a revelation received by Wilford Woodruff.

[rockpond]

The question is if they were actually revealed or if they were ideas that the leaders came up with based on some faulty assumptions, as it appears healing baptism are that the Lord allowed to stand because they filled another purpose, but when the proper time came they were discontinued and as far as I know there is an assumption that the sealings to Joseph and others have been preempted by sealings to the actual parents....the sealings have replaced them in the paperwork at least.  The current sealings are only one dealing with procreation--parent-child, husband-wife.  If these other sealings were revealed sealings, then why don't we continue them?

 

As far as I know there is no revelation on such adoption sealings or healing or other forms of baptism beyond remission for sins.

 

Could be my mistake... I assumed that if it was a sealing ordinance in the temple, that it was likely received by revelation.  But I suppose that's not necessarily true.

 

I guess we were still figuring out exactly what the sealing ordinance was all about as late as President Woodruff's days.  And President Kimball's days.  Are we sure we've got it all figured out now?

[Questing Beast]

The point is this: We exist in a church that believes in continuing revelation. That continuing revelation has been used to alter the application of the sealing ordinance (polygamy), to correct a misunderstanding that prevented a race of people from being sealed, and to add a different type of sealing ordinance. The suggestion that the scriptures preclude the possibility of future revelation authorizing homosexual unions seems to be without merit. And which part do you disagree with? That there exists ambiguity in the scriptures or my hope for further light and knowledge?

I disagree that your hope for further light and knowledge will show that there was an ambiguity over homosexuality, when instead it is possibly the biggest "no brainer" in the scriptures and requires no elucidating to accommodate sinful desires and practices.

 

You might as well argue for the ambiguity in scriptures vis-a-vis animal rights. Today animal rights advocates go so far as to allow that animals have the same civil rights that people have and should be able to sue people in court. Of course this is ludicrous, since animals were provided "for the use of man", but there is precious little scripture on the subject if you want to argue "further light and knowledge" this way....

[rockpond]

I disagree that your hope for further light and knowledge will show that there was an ambiguity over homosexuality, when instead it is possibly the biggest "no brainer" in the scriptures and requires no elucidating to accommodate sinful desires and practices.

 

You might as well argue for the ambiguity in scriptures vis-a-vis animal rights. Today animal rights advocates go so far as to allow that animals have the same civil rights that people have and should be able to sue people in court. Of course this is ludicrous, since animals were provided "for the use of man", but there is precious little scripture on the subject if you want to argue "further light and knowledge" this way....

 

I actually do not think that there is much scriptural ambiguity regarding homosexuality.  There just isn't much there at all.  The ambiguity I was referring to was in other areas.

 

But interestingly, there was a time when we thought that banning blacks from temple sealings was also a "no brainer".  We're imperfect, it's part of the process.

[Questing Beast]

I actually do not think that there is much scriptural ambiguity regarding homosexuality.  There just isn't much there at all.  The ambiguity I was referring to was in other areas.

 

But interestingly, there was a time when we thought that banning blacks from temple sealings was also a "no brainer".  We're imperfect, it's part of the process.

To put this on a visceral level: BY's comments on the physical indicators of the "less valiant in the preexistence" segment of humanity, e.g. "the flat nose and black skin", have always been highly repugnant to most people including most LDS. That is why his outrageously bigoted comments get full coverage and repetition. Your turning of the world upside down only points to the weakness of continual comparing to "Blacks" then and now (post 1978). Most people found such a view of Blacks disagreeable. And most people find the thought of same sex relations disagreeable, at least men on men. There really is an inverse comparison here that you keep making. Most Mormons were happy with the declaration on priesthood in '78. I only ran into ONE man who was thoroughly upset by it, and he was thoroughly inactive already when the declaration was made public. Everyone else was either happy, ecstatic or at least willing to see what happened next, i.e. not angry about it at all. Do you really think that most people silently want to see homosexual "marriages" enter the Church? The temples? The two issues are not remotely the same, either historically or contemporaneously

[rockpond]

To put this on a visceral level: BY's comments on the physical indicators of the "less valiant in the preexistence" segment of humanity, e.g. "the flat nose and black skin", have always been highly repugnant to most people including most LDS. That is why his outrageously bigoted comments get full coverage and repetition. Your turning of the world upside down only points to the weakness of continual comparing to "Blacks" then and now (post 1978). Most people found such a view of Blacks disagreeable. And most people find the thought of same sex relations disagreeable, at least men on men. There really is an inverse comparison here that you keep making. Most Mormons were happy with the declaration on priesthood in '78. I only ran into ONE man who was thoroughly upset by it, and he was thoroughly inactive already when the declaration was made public. Everyone else was either happy, ecstatic or at least willing to see what happened next, i.e. not angry about it at all. Do you really think that most people silently want to see homosexual "marriages" enter the Church? The temples? The two issues are not remotely the same, either historically or contemporaneously

When you refer to "most people" are you talking about most people in 1978 or most people in 1938?

CFR what "most people thought" about BY's teachings.

The issue is, it wasn't just BY. There were many church leaders that taught many bigoted things (see Lester Bush, Mormonism's Negro Doctrine). And they weren't "always" considered repugnant to most people. Now you're just re-writing history to suit your desires.

Your attempt to paint the ban as something only attributed to remarks by BY and disliked by most members is a misrepresentation.

[Questing Beast]

My representation is incomplete, as yours is about homosexuality and the Church's stand against it. That is the point here. Nobody can get inside the heads of people, and long dead people are even more inaccessible for "comment". A look at existing people's attitudes toward Blacks and homosexuals does not remotely come to a parity. Homosexuals were not even on anybody's plate in the 1800's. Blacks were though. And gleaning bigoted statements from the pulpit and attributing them to some kind of widely held view cannot be shown. There are reasons why the declaration of '78 happened at all, and probably (my opinion) the biggest reason is that the huge majority of Mormons did not agree with racial prejudice not even for religious reasons. You are co-opting that same sentiment of fairness and saying that we are not ready for God's further light and knowledge, which loves the love homosexuals express for each sexually every bit as much as he does for men and women having sex in marriage. Nothing accounts for this idea of yours except that it "suits your desires"....

[CV75]

But you are referring to the existing sealing ordinance.  And since there have been sealing ordinances revealed that do not require procreation, this insistence that all sealings must include the hypothetical ability to procreate appears unfounded.

Yes, and I am talking about the sealing ordinance of marriage, the new and everlasting covenant, the one that yields eternal lives, which includes the sealing ordinances that link children to parents (biological and adoptive) and generations to generations. By its very nature, the linking of life-generating parties and their generations is all about procreation.

 

Calmoriah explained the “other” sealing ordinances of yore and how we are moving forward, not sideways and backward, with regards to the restoration of all things and how the existing sealing is superior in purpose to any other version that may have borrowed on its theme.

 

“…Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. …And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.”

 

You are pointing to some kind of sealing ordinance that specifically orders and sanctions a continuation of romantic and sexual relations that do not yield eternal lives. There is no eternal design for that; it is a recipe for terminating eternal progress and the antithesis of the plan of salvation. It is a reflection of one of the “many priesthoods” (see the current thread about it). People can and do choose that without God’s blessing. But no messenger from God is planting in the hearts of same-sex beloved the promises made to their same-sex beloved. The Abrahamic covenant simply doesn’t work or distill out that way.

 

I can see how inheriting a kingdom less than exaltation can come as a form of ordinance or sealing, but it is not a 'new and everlasting covenant;" it is a form of condemnation. And while I doubt the Lord will allow anyone to do anything they want with their resurrected bodies in those lesser kingdoms, I suppose that is possible. But in the resurrection, what is there left for anyone to kill, or steal, or adulterate or whore, or to lie or swear about, or covet or cast a spell on, etc.?

Edited September 1, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

My representation is incomplete, as yours is about homosexuality and the Church's stand against it. That is the point here. Nobody can get inside the heads of people, and long dead people are even more inaccessible for "comment". A look at existing people's attitudes toward Blacks and homosexuals does not remotely come to a parity. Homosexuals were not even on anybody's plate in the 1800's. Blacks were though. And gleaning bigoted statements from the pulpit and attributing them to some kind of widely held view cannot be shown. There are reasons why the declaration of '78 happened at all, and probably (my opinion) the biggest reason is that the huge majority of Mormons did not agree with racial prejudice not even for religious reasons. You are co-opting that same sentiment of fairness and saying that we are not ready for God's further light and knowledge, which loves the love homosexuals express for each sexually every bit as much as he does for men and women having sex in marriage. Nothing accounts for this idea of yours except that it "suits your desires"....

So when a majority of Mormons no longer agree with prejudice against homosexuality, can we expect OD3? (Just following your logic.)

Just a note here: it is you that keeps reducing eternal relationships to sex, not me.

Edited September 1, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Yes, and I am talking about the sealing ordinance of marriage, the new and everlasting covenant, the one that yields eternal lives, which includes the sealing ordinances that link children to parents (biological and adoptive) and generations to generations. By its very nature, the linking of life-generating parties and their generations is all about procreation.

Calmoriah explained the “other” sealing ordinances of yore and how we are moving forward, not sideways and backward, with regards to the restoration of all things and how the existing sealing is superior in purpose to any other version that may have borrowed on its theme.

“…Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. …And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.”

You are pointing to some kind of sealing ordinance that specifically orders and sanctions a continuation of romantic and sexual relations that do not yield eternal lives. There is no eternal design for that; it is a recipe for terminating eternal progress and the antithesis of the plan of salvation. It is a reflection of one of the “many priesthoods” (see the current thread about it). People can and do choose that without God’s blessing. But no messenger from God is planting in the hearts of same-sex beloved the promises made to their same-sex beloved. The Abrahamic covenant simply doesn’t work or distill out that way.

I can see how inheriting a kingdom less than exaltation can come as a form of ordinance or sealing, but it is not a 'new and everlasting covenant;" it is a form of condemnation. And while I doubt the Lord will allow anyone to do anything they want with their resurrected bodies in those lesser kingdoms, I suppose that is possible. But in the resurrection, what is there left for anyone to kill, or steal, or adulterate or whore, or to lie or swear about, or covet or cast a spell on, etc.?

Looks like we agree that we are in a restoration and moving forward in our understanding of the sealing ordinances.

I know a gay couple. They are married and are raising three children that they brought into this world with help of a surrogate. They absolutely love and adore those kids. And each other. I'm sure Elijah's promises would be very meaningful to them as well.

I have a difficult time imagining that God would separate them.

[Questing Beast]

So when a majority of Mormons no longer agree with prejudice against homosexuality, can we expect OD3? (Just following your logic.) Just a note here: it is you that keeps reducing eternal relationships to sex, not me.

Perhaps! By then, should that ever occur, the very leadership of the Church would be steeped in homosexual acceptance, believing the justice of allowing any consenting adults to have sex the way they want in marriage.

 

Seriously, how can you fault me for "reducing eternal relationships to sex", when the whole paradigm of eternal increase focuses back on sex? With even statements from the pulpit by GAs having taught that literal sex relations are involved in eternal procreation? The entire issue with homosexuals feeling marginalized and picked on is directly to do with sexual relations, biological desire. I find your last sentence very disingenuous....

[CV75]

Looks like we agree that we are in a restoration and moving forward in our understanding of the sealing ordinances. I know a gay couple. They are married and are raising three children that they brought into this world with help of a surrogate. They absolutely love and adore those kids. And each other. I'm sure Elijah's promises would be very meaningful to them as well. I have a difficult time imagining that God would separate them.

Absent the new and everlasting covenant, they have no other choice, just as Eve concluded that there is no other way to become like God than to abide all the covenants.

 

God would not separate gay couples, since in accepting His best alternative, they would separate themselves, as would their adopted children, and find a new and better life in line with His design. Or, rejecting His better alternative, they would become separate and single of their own volition.

 

A gay couple is not in any greater or lesser jeopardy than any other couple that rejects the new and everlasting covenant or misunderstands the Abrahamic covenant and Elijah's promises. But God gives everyone the opportunities they need to succeed on His terms, not theirs. The Lord said that families are sometimes separated due to poor choices.

 

I think it is important to note that any worthy gay person can make and keep all the covenants. Adam and Eve could well have been gay, and the plan still would have been perfectly executable. Given enough time, the honest in heart choose God’s way.

 

Life is full of the deepest disappointments imaginable, and then we find the highest love of God in the fulfillment of the true and everlasting covenant. Perhaps not everyone has experienced such disappointment yet, but it is waiting in some form or another, because this is how we are tested. The things we love, and the way we love people in this world in our fallen condition are typically those things that detract us from the promises God has given us. Everyone will be tested to their limits.

[Questing Beast]

And disappointment is the greatest of all pain....

[CV75]

And disappointment is the greatest of all pain....

Yes--reminds of something attributed to Joseph Smith: "I heard the Prophet Joseph say in speaking to the Twelve on one occasion: `You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried as it was for Abraham and other men of God, and (he said) God will feel after you, and He will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.'" (Journal of Discourses, 24:197.)

 

If we are tried as Abraham it can only be in connection with the requirements, rewards and blessings of Abraham.

[rockpond]

Perhaps! By then, should that ever occur, the very leadership of the Church would be steeped in homosexual acceptance, believing the justice of allowing any consenting adults to have sex the way they want in marriage.

Seriously, how can you fault me for "reducing eternal relationships to sex", when the whole paradigm of eternal increase focuses back on sex? With even statements from the pulpit by GAs having taught that literal sex relations are involved in eternal procreation? The entire issue with homosexuals feeling marginalized and picked on is directly to do with sexual relations, biological desire. I find your last sentence very disingenuous....

Wait... Did you just admit that "perhaps" a future official declaration could be revealed that would allow for homosexual sealings? Awesome. My work here is done.

Seriously though, what did you find disingenuous about my statement?

I don't think that homosexuals feel marginalized just because of sexual differences. There is much more than sex to their relationships (just as I love my wife for far more than that).