Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

 

There are plenty of reasons to believe and assert that the irredeemable selfishness you point out is not only not inconsistent with, but necessarily part and parcel of homosexual behavior en masse.  It's just that most folks are just too polite to say so, leaving the field to those who take advantage of a certain sense of squeamishness.

 

Yes, you can count me among those who find it extremely offensive to suggest that love between homosexuals is, by its very nature, an expression of selfishness.

[USU78]

Yes, you can count me among those who find it extremely offensive to suggest that love between homosexuals is, by its very nature, an expression of selfishness.

 

I cite SWK as my source.

 

Take it up with him.

[rockpond]

I only use the term because he is actively involved in an organization that deals with LGBT equality issues.  I would not use it for just someone who happened to comment one time on an interpretation or even spoke out on a popular subject from time to time.

 

I understand and do not disagree with categorizing him as an LGBT activist.  My point was that from their point of view, some church leaders are anti-gay activists because of their involvement in promoting anti-gay marriage initiatives.  I have also been called a gay activist in the past on these boards.  So while I think that his activities and organizational involvement are strong potential indicators of a bias, I also think we have to be careful because we all seem to be getting placed in these "activist" boxes.

[rockpond]

I cite SWK as my source.

 

Take it up with him.

 

Don't forget BKP, he also taught that selfishness was at the root of homosexuality.

[USU78]

Don't forget BKP, he also taught that selfishness was at the root of homosexuality.

 

I know Uncle Boyd is a great demon to homosexual advocates, both within and without the Church.

 

Good form (and a desire to keep this thread open) keeps me from revisiting their arguments . . . as well as citing study after study and statistic after statistic supporting their arguments.

 

Added:  One might site this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On as another source where good argument is supported by good evidence, arriving at the same conclusion.

Edited September 3, 2013 by USU78

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

I know Uncle Boyd is a great demon to homosexual advocates, both within and without the Church.

 

Good form (and a desire to keep this thread open) keeps me from revisiting their arguments . . . as well as citing study after study and statistic after statistic supporting their arguments.

 

Added:  One might site this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On as another source where good argument is supported by good evidence, arriving at the same conclusion.

It seems it shame that there is thought policing going on. I am so sick of being PC or being told I can't say something because it might offend some one.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

 

I know Uncle Boyd is a great demon to homosexual advocates, both within and without the Church.

 

Good form (and a desire to keep this thread open) keeps me from revisiting their arguments . . . as well as citing study after study and statistic after statistic supporting their arguments.

 

Added:  One might site this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On as another source where good argument is supported by good evidence, arriving at the same conclusion.

 

Alright, I may regret asking but why do you cite that book?

[CV75]

Why does it matter if the non-birth parents are male & female?

It matters because that is exactly how heaven (and the covenant creating it) is designed. Just as every child comes into the world through a mother and a father (even if only in the form of an egg donor and sperm donor), all the children (assuming that they too are eligible) have a right to be sealed to an eternal mother and father, even if it is by adoption due to any ineligibility on the part of the mortal parents.

[CV75]

Don't forget BKP, he also taught that selfishness was at the root of homosexuality.

Oh my, our extensive back-and-forth on that is forgotten already? Selfishness is the root of all sin and (in an active way) and susceptibility to temptation (in a passive way) and in entertainign temptation (in an actiiviely foolish way).

[rockpond]

Oh my, our extensive back-and-forth on that is forgotten already? Selfishness is the root of all sin and (in an active way) and susceptibility to temptation (in a passive way) and in entertainign temptation (in an actiiviely foolish way).

 

Clearly it wasn't forgotten.  I added the source that USU had left out.

[Scott Lloyd]

You need to read up on thinning peaches.

 

Note:  when I worked for George A Neilson & Sons (Utah's largest fruit farm . . . just read the billboard), we used to call thinning "beating on trees" for good reason.  Broken hoe handles served us well.

I'll remember that for future years.

I am woefully neglectful of my backyard crops. Whatever yield I get this year (and it will be substantial) is far beyond what I deserve for the effort I put forth.

[rockpond]

It matters because that is exactly how heaven (and the covenant creating it) is designed. Just as every child comes into the world through a mother and a father (even if only in the form of an egg donor and sperm donor), all the children (assuming that they too are eligible) have a right to be sealed to an eternal mother and father, even if it is by adoption due to any ineligibility on the part of the mortal parents.

 

And if they want to be sealed to the parents who raised them?  Even if they were raised by gay parents?

 

The point is (in response to what you were saying earlier) sealing a gay couple does not "break the chain".  

[Scott Lloyd]

So you don't have to pick them off one by one, just hit the branches?  good to know...we are usually too lazy to thin them and instead just eat two smaller ones instead of one large one.

To some degree mine have thinned themselves. The fruit fall is bothersome when it comes time to mow the lawn.

[USU78]

Alright, I may regret asking but why do you cite that book?

 

Do you deny that it describes a grossly selfish, not to mention self-destructive, populace in the Bay Area and elsewhere?

Edited September 3, 2013 by USU78

[Brian 2.0]

Do you deny that it describes a grossly selfish, not to mention self-destructive, populace in the Bay Area and elsewhere?

 

I would agree the book describes a populace in the Bay Area and elsewhere.  "Grossly selfish" and "self-destructive" are your opinions on that populace.  

 

And you're free to have those opinions, but don't be shocked to find that most would see those opinions as generalized, unkind, prejudiced, and offensive.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[USU78]

I would agree the book describes a populace in the Bay Area and elsewhere.  "Grossly selfish" and "self-destructive" are your opinions on that populace.  

 

And you're free to have those opinions, but don't be shocked to find that most would see those opinions as generalized, unkind, prejudiced, and offensive.

 

Name-call all you want, but the unbiased, rational viewer of the evidence would find gross selfishness and self-destructiveness described in the pages of that little book.

[rockpond]

Do you deny that it describes a grossly selfish, not to mention self-destructive, populace in the Bay Area and elsewhere?

I haven't read the book so I can't comment. But the link you provided indicates that the book is about how the government responded to the AIDS epidemic.

[Storm Rider]

Why does it matter if the non-birth parents are male & female?

I am a bit stunned you would ask this. It is as if there is no comprehension of the importance of a family, a mother and father who can parent, set examples of all things, etc. the position that, "well gosh, John and Dan can help little Jack and Jill, they take them to school and all, but most importantly they can love them just like the parents God desires for them to have had. No, they can't. Their very example destroys God's plan, his teachings, and his Gospel. I am not sure we can really achieve any conclusion to this discussion. One side is focused on eternal matters and the other is solely focused on the instant gratification of mortality without any thought of the consequences. One is based on God that leads man and the other is based on a God that does not lead but stays on the shelf and brought out for holidays and puppets the feel good sermons of self gratification.

[rockpond]

I am a bit stunned you would ask this. It is as if there is no comprehension of the importance of a family, a mother and father who can parent, set examples of all things, etc. the position that, "well gosh, John and Dan can help little Jack and Jill, they take them to school and all, but most importantly they can love them just like the parents God desires for them to have had. No, they can't. Their very example destroys God's plan, his teachings, and his Gospel. I am not sure we can really achieve any conclusion to this discussion. One side is focused on eternal matters and the other is solely focused on the instant gratification of mortality without any thought of the consequences. One is based on God that leads man and the other is based on a God that does not lead but stays on the shelf and brought out for holidays and puppets the feel good sermons of self gratification.

 

Wait... loving and raising children is focusing on "the instant gratification of mortality" just because they are a gay couple?

 

And gay parents can't love their kids like heterosexual parents can?  Their example destroys God's plan?

 

You're right though, I'm not sure if we can achieve any conclusion if that is how you feel about gay couples and if you are going to ignore the fact that I have been talking about eternal matters.

[CV75]

And if they want to be sealed to the parents who raised them?  Even if they were raised by gay parents?

 

The point is (in response to what you were saying earlier) sealing a gay couple does not "break the chain".  

God's holy ordinances are for tying people into His will, not theirs. People raised by gay parents, who make these covenants, are making a choice to lay claim to their rights to these eternal blessings (a sealed parent of each sex, a spouse of the complimenting sex, and a continuation of the seeds, etc.) contingent upon their keeping the covenants. As indicated above, it seems that people can continue to interact with adoptive, non-sealed parents that cared for them in mortality, in some form or fashion the Lord approves of, or to anyone else they are not sealed to that might dwell in another kingdom, to the extent there is interest, communication, visitation, etc. betweem kingdoms.

[rockpond]

God's holy ordinances are for tying people into His will, not theirs. People raised by gay parents, who make these covenants, are making a choice to lay claim to their rights to these eternal blessings (a sealed parent of each sex, a spouse of the complimenting sex, and a continuation of the seeds, etc.) contingent upon their keeping the covenants. As indicated above, it seems that people can continue to interact with adoptive, non-sealed parents that cared for them in mortality, in some form or fashion the Lord approves of, or to anyone else they are not sealed to that might dwell in another kingdom, to the extent there is interest, communication, visitation, etc. betweem kingdoms.

The problem with your first statement above is that I'm not certain that we have attained God's will on the subject. But the rest of your statement probably reflects our very best understanding at this time.

Except I'm curious about your second sentence. If someone is raised by gay parents and "makes these covenants" how are they laying claim to a sealed parent of each gender? If a child is raised by parents who are not sealed (gay or otherwise) and then that child marries in the temple wouldn't the sealing only apply to their own spouse and children? Just wondering if there is something I may have missed in the sealing ordinance.

[USU78]

I haven't read the book so I can't comment. But the link you provided indicates that the book is about how the government responded to the AIDS epidemic.

 

. . . and how homosexuals themselves responded to the AIDS epidemic

 

. . . and how the homosexual lobby responded to the AIDS epidemic

 

Selfishness

 

Self-destructiveness

[CV75]

The problem with your first statement above is that I'm not certain that we have attained God's will on the subject. But the rest of your statement probably reflects our very best understanding at this time.

See D&C 131:2 and 132: 2, which reflects God’s will on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Go through 132 and see how it relates only to a covenant between a man and a woman, their parents and their children, and not to other arrangements.

 

Except I'm curious about your second sentence. If someone is raised by gay parents and "makes these covenants" how are they laying claim to a sealed parent of each gender? If a child is raised by parents who are not sealed (gay or otherwise) and then that child marries in the temple wouldn't the sealing only apply to their own spouse and children? Just wondering if there is something I may have missed in the sealing ordinance.

 

God gave His children the right to come to earth, and fulfilled it through a mother and a father. This is most fundamental since there is no other way to become mortal. This is a type for the right to be sealed to a mother and a father, which exaltation entails. While the sealing right is often disrupted due to the Fall, it can be made good through the temple covenants by virtue of the Atonement. Having a mother and a father (a sealed parent of each sex) is a most fundamental right both in time and in eternity, as it is a requirement for entering mortal life and exalted life respectively. We lay claim to that right when we choose to make and keep the covenants that fulfill that right.

 

A child marrying in the temple is sealed to his spouse. Their children are sealed to them, either by birth (that is a major point here!) or by sealing ordinance. The eternal family does not begin and end there. Each marital partner will be sealed to his and her parent, and so on back to Adam and Eve. Each child of that union will be sealed to a spouse and have children sealed to them, as will their children. Since the generations are dependent on male-female pairings, the sealing are also accomplished along male-female pairings.

 

It does appear that you have missed the wording of the marriage sealing and the children-to-parents sealing ordinances. And also perhaps all of the endowment ordinances (and how they are given—it’s more than just the words) as well, since they are designed to refer to and tie in with these covenants. Obviously I can’t get into it here, but the next the time you go, pay attention to how specific the language is in all the temple ordinances, keeping in mind that there is no greater gift than exaltation, and what the characteristics and requirements of exaltation are.

Edited September 4, 2013 by CV75

[David T]

It does appear that you have missed the wording of the marriage sealing and the children-to-parents sealing ordinances. And also perhaps all of the endowment ordinances (and how they are given—it’s more than just the words) as well, since they are designed to refer to and tie in with these covenants. Obviously I can’t get into it here, but the next the time you go, pay attention to how specific the language is in all the temple ordinances, keeping in mind that there is no greater gift than exaltation, and what the characteristics and requirements of exaltation are.

 

Please accept that others may pay at the very least just as much attention as you to the ordinances and the scriptures, and have come to different interpretations or conclusions than you have.

[rockpond]

See D&C 131:2 and 132: 2, which reflects God’s will on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Go through 132 and see how it relates only to a covenant between a man and a woman, their parents and their children, and not to other arrangements.

 

 

God gave His children the right to come to earth, and fulfilled it through a mother and a father. This is most fundamental since there is no other way to become mortal. This is a type for the right to be sealed to a mother and a father, which exaltation entails. While the sealing right is often disrupted due to the Fall, it can be made good through the temple covenants by virtue of the Atonement. Having a mother and a father (a sealed parent of each sex) is a most fundamental right both in time and in eternity, as it is a requirement for entering mortal life and exalted life respectively. We lay claim to that right when we choose to make and keep the covenants that fulfill that right.

 

A child marrying in the temple is sealed to his spouse. Their children are sealed to them, either by birth (that is a major point here!) or by sealing ordinance. The eternal family does not begin and end there. Each marital partner will be sealed to his and her parent, and so on back to Adam and Eve. Each child of that union will be sealed to a spouse and have children sealed to them, as will their children. Since the generations are dependent on male-female pairings, the sealing are also accomplished along male-female pairings.

 

It does appear that you have missed the wording of the marriage sealing and the children-to-parents sealing ordinances. And also perhaps all of the endowment ordinances (and how they are given—it’s more than just the words) as well, since they are designed to refer to and tie in with these covenants. Obviously I can’t get into it here, but the next the time you go, pay attention to how specific the language is in all the temple ordinances, keeping in mind that there is no greater gift than exaltation, and what the characteristics and requirements of exaltation are.

 

Okay... The sealing ordinance that we enter into with our spouse seals us to that spouse and our children.  What you are referring to is the greater view of temple ordinances that will one day link all the generations.

 

And 132 does speak of other arrangements than just a man and a woman.  It also doesn't exclude the possibility of future revelation (as 132 itself replaced a previous revelation that contradicted it).  But we've already gone down that road.