rockpond Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 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. Are you suggesting here that homosexual church members should enter into heterosexual marriages so that they can enter into the new and everlasting marriage covenant? I don't really find scriptural support for your assertion that the way we love people in our fallen state is what detracts us from the promises of God. For heterosexuals, we are actually told to pursue that love and build an eternal family around it. Homosexuals do it as well (as with the example I gave)... We just don't permit them to call it "eternal".
rockpond Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 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. He didn't say that we would be "tried as Abraham". He said: it is quite as necessary for you to be tried AS IT WAS for Abraham and other men of God. Meaning our trials are as necessary as Abraham's trials were.
CV75 Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 Are you suggesting here that homosexual church members should enter into heterosexual marriages so that they can enter into the new and everlasting marriage covenant? I don't really find scriptural support for your assertion that the way we love people in our fallen state is what detracts us from the promises of God. For heterosexuals, we are actually told to pursue that love and build an eternal family around it. Homosexuals do it as well (as with the example I gave)... We just don't permit them to call it "eternal".I suggest you re-read my several posts on this point to remind yourself of what I am actually suggesting. Of course the way we love anyone or anything detracts us from the promises of God when we put that first in relation to those promises. When we seek that which God has not ordained and instituted, we cannot generate life of any kind, and we are inviting death of every kind (and yes, of course homosexuals do this as well). This is why we are constantly reminded to keep the covenants.
CV75 Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 He didn't say that we would be "tried as Abraham". He said: it is quite as necessary for you to be tried AS IT WAS for Abraham and other men of God. Meaning our trials are as necessary as Abraham's trials were.Absolutely. And the covenants are as necessary for us as they are for Abraham. Everyone has or will have every opportunity to choose to enter into the new and everlasting covenant until the Lord finishes His work. I really don’t enjoy rehashing points we have already made. If you have some new issue or angle, I'd be happy to address that. The bottom-line for me is, if all you’re trying to do is demonstrate that eternal procreation does not have to be a prerequisite to being sealed, you have failed—there is no covenant that supports this idea. And it’s the other way around, anyway: being sealed is a prerequisite for eternal procreation. The covenants are all about life. So, in turn, you have failed to demonstrate that a sealing of couples that has nothing to do with eternal procreation could be performed in the future.
Questing Beast Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 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).Your work was never with me in the first place, because I don't have a dogmatic view of "revelation". I believe that it is relative to the times and places it comes forth in. "God" works with religions as they are, not as people think that "God" wants them to be. You still insist on homosexuals being distinguished by "much more than sex". I disagree. It is simply sexual preference and behavior accordingly. Without that singular distinction there would be no distinction as "other", they are in all other respects than SSA the same as everybody else....
rockpond Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 Your work was never with me in the first place, because I don't have a dogmatic view of "revelation". I believe that it is relative to the times and places it comes forth in. "God" works with religions as they are, not as people think that "God" wants them to be. You still insist on homosexuals being distinguished by "much more than sex". I disagree. It is simply sexual preference and behavior accordingly. Without that singular distinction there would be no distinction as "other", they are in all other respects than SSA the same as everybody else.... Amen to you first paragraph! But I still disagree on your second point. I didn't pick my wife because she had the right parts. I feel like there is a lot more to it. Somehow it runs deeper and is more intricate -- like how even before we know about sex, we still have crushes.
rockpond Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 I suggest you re-read my several posts on this point to remind yourself of what I am actually suggesting. Of course the way we love anyone or anything detracts us from the promises of God when we put that first in relation to those promises. When we seek that which God has not ordained and instituted, we cannot generate life of any kind, and we are inviting death of every kind (and yes, of course homosexuals do this as well). This is why we are constantly reminded to keep the covenants. I have read all your posts in this thread and re-read many of them. And it does kinda feel like you think homosexuals should just buck up and enter into an opposite gender marriage. Because then they would be obedient to God's laws and blessed for it. Am I incorrect? I guess it's a good thing that you and I were born with the sexual orientation that allows us to love and be loved without detracting from the promises of God.
rockpond Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 Absolutely. And the covenants are as necessary for us as they are for Abraham. Everyone has or will have every opportunity to choose to enter into the new and everlasting covenant until the Lord finishes His work. I really don’t enjoy rehashing points we have already made. If you have some new issue or angle, I'd be happy to address that. The bottom-line for me is, if all you’re trying to do is demonstrate that eternal procreation does not have to be a prerequisite to being sealed, you have failed—there is no covenant that supports this idea. And it’s the other way around, anyway: being sealed is a prerequisite for eternal procreation. The covenants are all about life. So, in turn, you have failed to demonstrate that a sealing of couples that has nothing to do with eternal procreation could be performed in the future. I don't enjoy rehashing either. But I feel like I need to clarify what you summarized above since it isn't an accurate statement of my thoughts on the matter: We don't know how eternal procreation works. So whether or not it is a required element of eternal sealings isn't relevant. And while the current sealing ordinance promises eternal procreation, a distinct sealing ordinance could be revealed without that element.
CV75 Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 I don't enjoy rehashing either. But I feel like I need to clarify what you summarized above since it isn't an accurate statement of my thoughts on the matter: We don't know how eternal procreation works. So whether or not it is a required element of eternal sealings isn't relevant. And while the current sealing ordinance promises eternal procreation, a distinct sealing ordinance could be revealed without that element.I know these assertions are what you are trying to defend, but you haven’t done so. God’s children receive their bodies with only one type of parentage; this is why the sealing covenants hinge and build upon on Adam-Eve unions exclusively. Without them things end. The keys of this dispensation are already committed (D&C 110:16), and the key of Elijah in particular deals with “the great work to be done in the temples of the Lord in the dispensation of the fulness of times, for the redemption of the dead, and the sealing of the children to their parents, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse and utterly wasted at his coming” (D&C 138:48).” The great work to be done in the temples, of course, is sealing in heaven the covenants made on earth, and sealing in heaven the covenants made in the spirit world that are made on earth by proxy. Unless a partnership has two features, it is cursed, or has an end. One feature is that the union is “made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity.” The second feature is that the relationship is one of “turning the hearts of the fathers [parents] to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers [parents]” with regards to the promises made to the fathers [parents] as described in D&C 32:30. While you assert that is “possible” for a same-sex union to have the first feature, by eternal design it cannot possibly have the second “parental” feature. It simply doesn’t fit in anywhere, so no new covenant can force it to fit. A separate ordinance consigning people to a lesser kingdom where they may continue to associate on some level is certainly plausible.
rockpond Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 I know these assertions are what you are trying to defend, but you haven’t done so. God’s children receive their bodies with only one type of parentage; this is why the sealing covenants hinge and build upon on Adam-Eve unions exclusively. Without them things end. The keys of this dispensation are already committed (D&C 110:16), and the key of Elijah in particular deals with “the great work to be done in the temples of the Lord in the dispensation of the fulness of times, for the redemption of the dead, and the sealing of the children to their parents, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse and utterly wasted at his coming” (D&C 138:48).” The great work to be done in the temples, of course, is sealing in heaven the covenants made on earth, and sealing in heaven the covenants made in the spirit world that are made on earth by proxy. Unless a partnership has two features, it is cursed, or has an end. One feature is that the union is “made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity.” The second feature is that the relationship is one of “turning the hearts of the fathers [parents] to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers [parents]” with regards to the promises made to the fathers [parents] as described in D&C 32:30. While you assert that is “possible” for a same-sex union to have the first feature, by eternal design it cannot possibly have the second “parental” feature. It simply doesn’t fit in anywhere, so no new covenant can force it to fit. A separate ordinance consigning people to a lesser kingdom where they may continue to associate on some level is certainly plausible. I've countered every argument that you have presented, so I certainly have defended my position. From a debate persective... but I thought we were just having a discussion. Sections 32, 110, and 138 don't contradict what I've said. Yes, I agree there are sealing ordinances that promise posterity. But sealing a gay couple together still helps connect the chain of parents to children. Obviously it would be problematic if everyone wanted to be in a gay relationship but obviously Heavenly Father didn't design us that way. And now, gay couples can and do have children. Those sons & daughters go on to have children in heterosexual and/or homosexual relationships. Sealing them together still works towards the objective of Elijah. And, as I've stated, we have no idea how spirits are formed and eternal seed created in the next life. We don't know that gay couples couldn't participate in that process. And even if they can't, there is no requirement that a future sealing for them include such a promise. But we really are talking in circles now... covering ground we've already covered multiple times. I do however, think it's awesome that you could envision a separate ordinance for them allowing them to continue to associate, somehow, in the next life. Even though I'd love to see more than that revealed (acknowledging that I don't now the Lord's will on the matter) maybe we could end on that note as our common ground.
TAO Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) Rockpond, why don't you ask God about why he doesn't want homosexual unions? Edited September 2, 2013 by TAO
rockpond Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 Rockpond, why don't you ask God about why he doesn't want homosexual unions? We discussed that a bit earlier in the thread... I did. But I'm not the prophet so my answer is not relevant to the church as a whole. And, as others have stated here, I apparently received an incorrect answer.
TAO Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) We discussed that a bit earlier in the thread... I did. But I'm not the prophet so my answer is not relevant to the church as a whole. And, as others have stated here, I apparently received an incorrect answer. I didn't read the thread =p. What answer did you receive? Edited September 2, 2013 by TAO
rockpond Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 I didn't read the thread =p. What answer did you receive? That He does approve.
TAO Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) That He does approve. Mmm... that isn't the answer I got. The answer I got was that despite the fact that they love each other, gender has an eternal significance, and that the reason the Lord opposes such marriages is because it stops them in eternities somehow. I don't know anything more than that, other than that it will prevent them from participating in some future happiness which the Lord wished them to have. And so he begged them to change. I felt that the Lord looked upon mercifully those who had the weakness, but lived everything else right, but that nonetheless, they needed to change, so that they could be happy in the end. Alas, I don't think I can fully portray what the Spirit says to me about things. It's kind of a personal matter, the Spirit, as it doesn't really talk to me much in words, but in feelings. And even then, I can't always tell. But yeah. That's what I experienced when I listened to the Spirit in the temple. Tis a bit wierd I suppose. Eternal signficance doesn't really fit the word, I guess... it's more like eternal necessity, or something. Even that doesn't fit exactly right. Meh. Edited September 3, 2013 by TAO
Erin15 Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 That He does approve.It seems to me The Lord has made known his position quite clearly through his prophets repeatedly and recently. He even instructed them to make a website just a few monthes ago on the subject. Acting on SSA is a sin, period. The will of The Lord has been stated. Now, it is up to us to choose which side we are on. 1
rockpond Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 Mmm... that isn't the answer I got. The answer I got was that despite the fact that they love each other, gender has an eternal significance, and that the reason the Lord opposes such marriages is because it stops them in eternities somehow. I don't know anything more than that, other than that it will prevent them from participating in some future happiness which the Lord wished them to have. And so he begged them to change. I felt that the Lord looked upon mercifully those who had the weakness, but lived everything else right, but that nonetheless, they needed to change, so that they could be happy in the end. Alas, I don't think I can fully portray what the Spirit says to me about things. It's kind of a personal matter, the Spirit, as it doesn't really talk to me much in words, but in feelings. And even then, I can't always tell. But yeah. That's what I experienced when I listened to the Spirit in the temple. Tis a bit wierd I suppose. Eternal signficance doesn't really fit the word, I guess... it's more like eternal necessity, or something. Even that doesn't fit exactly right. Meh. The Lord begged them to change? And yes, I agree. Personal spiritual experiences are tough to convey.
rockpond Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 It seems to me The Lord has made known his position quite clearly through his prophets repeatedly and recently. He even instructed them to make a website just a few monthes ago on the subject. Acting on SSA is a sin, period. The will of The Lord has been stated. Now, it is up to us to choose which side we are on. I wasn't aware of when the will of the Lord was revealed on this. Could you reference that for me? Could you also identify where & when the Lord instructed the prophet to make a website?
Erin15 Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 I wasn't aware of when the will of the Lord was revealed on this. Could you reference that for me? Could you also identify where & when the Lord instructed the prophet to make a website?Now you are just being flippant.
Calm Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 Now you are just being flippant.Don't think so. When someone uses to support their position " He even instructed them to make a website just a few monthes ago on the subject." then it is appropriate to challenge when this was revealed.
rockpond Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 Now you are just being flippant. I find it flippant to claim that the Lord has revealed something when you don't know whether or not He actually has. CFR still stands.
slamarwi Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 @ RockpondI'm sure the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were just as sincere and caring for their same sex partners. The Lord didn't make exceptions for them or any other society engaging in or promoting homosexuality. It hasn't occurred in recorded history and will not happen in our perverted society. It seems as though this may be your wish. However, it is just that... a wish.
rockpond Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) @ Rockpond I'm sure the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were just as sincere and caring for their same sex partners. The Lord didn't make exceptions for them or any other society engaging in or promoting homosexuality. It hasn't occurred in recorded history and will not happen in our perverted society. It seems as though this may be your wish. However, it is just that... a wish. The only recorded incident of homosexual acts in Sodom and Gomorrah was the bizarre incident of an attempted (requested?) rape outside Lot's home. And yes, I believe that the Lord opposes rape. But that alone isn't why He destroyed the city. Joseph Smith taught that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for inhospitality and rejecting the prophets. Not homosexuality. Edited September 3, 2013 by rockpond
slamarwi Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 : ) So it's all about bad manners? I wonder what those blasted prophets were teaching? It wouldn't have anything to do with the ceremonies (the groves) that included homosexuality, heterosexual immorality, and human sacrifice would it? This homosexuality thing happens in every dispensation and the demise of it is not for the faint hearted. Homosexual sin has also been directly addressed by our modern day prophets. It's your choice whether you believe them or not. Seriously, SSM as a temple ordinance has never been accepted nor will it be. Absolute truths exist, this is one of them. 1
TAO Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 The Lord begged them to change? And yes, I agree. Personal spiritual experiences are tough to convey. The Lord is begging them to change. Actually, he is begging all of us to change. He wants us to change so much. That's how much he loves us. The Lord is a surprisingly humble God. Or so I have found, from the way he communicates with me. Perhaps he's showing me that I need to be more humble. Leading by example, teaching me lessons. I'm quite sure he is a good teacher. In fact, I know it. =p 2
Recommended Posts