Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[CV75]

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.

Of course I do--he was wondering if there is something he may have missed in the sealing ordinance, and I adressed that from my perspective. Please accept that I have accepted that others may pay at the very least just as much attention as I do to the ordinances and the scriptures, and have come to different interpretations or conclusions than I have.

 

[CV75]

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.

The greater view is greater for a reason, and embraces the husband-wife and children-to-parents sealings. Any other arrangements one might derive from D&C 132 are lesser.

 

The possibility of an even greater view that puts the male-female aspect we've been discussing on a par with same-sex pairings places exaltation on a par with lesser kingdoms where the new and everlasting covenant of marriage isn't a feature.

[David T]

 

The possibility of an even greater view that puts the male-female aspect we've been discussing on a par with same-sex pairings places exaltation on a par with lesser kingdoms where the new and everlasting covenant of marriage isn't a feature.

 

It is strange that in the only explicit act of a human being being created in the endowment... it is two men in a covenant relationship , two men that are both referred to as our Fathers (Heavenly Parents?) in the scriptures, who are depicted as participating in the body's Creation, with no women to be seen.

 

Even Elder Bednar, who is advocating for a heterosexual-only way of life, even acknolwedges that the example and source of Eternal Procreative Power comes from... two men. "The power of procreation is spiritually significant. Misuse of this power subverts the purposes of the Father’s plan and of our mortal existence. Our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son are creators and have entrusted each of us with a portion of Their creative power. "

 

Maybe someday the presentation might be adjusted to show a Heavenly Mother at the side of (or as making up a second half of) Elohim ? 

 

Is it not strange that while it is constantly said that the eternal pattern is man-woman, when we DO have a sacred, figurative example of the Gods preparing the bodies of humankind, it is only men that participate - even in the production of Eve?

 

I'm one of those who holds to an adoptive model of literal Eternal Parentage, not physical, biological  procreative, and thus see in this figurative example, perhaps an example (or a clue?). (as did, it seems, Taylor Petrey in his fascinating and provocative Dialogue paper)

Edited September 4, 2013 by David T

[rockpond]

The greater view is greater for a reason, and embraces the husband-wife and children-to-parents sealings. Any other arrangements one might derive from D&C 132 are lesser.

The possibility of an even greater view that puts the male-female aspect we've been discussing on a par with same-sex pairings places exaltation on a par with lesser kingdoms where the new and everlasting covenant of marriage isn't a feature.

Except that you haven't established a reason why God couldn't choose to exalt same gender couples.

[CV75]

It is strange that in the only explicit act of a human being being created in the endowment... it is two men in a covenant relationship

...the Father having a wife, of course--as D&C 132 points to, "the Gods" are male and female couples. They acn be referred to as "God," just as man and woman are called "Adam":

 

"So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them." --Abraham 4:7

 

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." -- Genesis 2:5

 

The Father (and His Wife) is a God or Gods with Her, and still so while including the Son in the group, also a God in His own right, awaiting His mortal sohourn.

[CV75]

I'm one of those who holds to an adoptive model

I see adoption as a valid part of an overarching "family" model, with the male and femael unions being key to both and adoption and generation.

Edited September 4, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

Except that you haven't established a reason why God couldn't choose to exalt same gender couples.

Because they are not a male and female union. He exalts as He was/is (the couplet!)...

[CV75]

Is it not strange that while it is constantly said that the eternal pattern is man-woman, when we DO have a sacred, figurative example of the Gods preparing the bodies of humankind, it is only men that participate - even in the production of Eve?

That would be a most literal interpretaion of a very figurative portrayal.

[rockpond]

Because they are not a male and female union. He exalts as He was/is (the couplet!)...

 

The couplet says nothing about gender.  Or marriage.

[rockpond]

That would be a most literal interpretaion of a very figurative portrayal.

 

Really?  So we are supposed to view Adam and Eve *literally* as each of us.  But, the others involved in the creation narrative are just figurative portrayals?

[CV75]

The couplet says nothing about gender.  Or marriage.

Oh my, oh my… I’m sorry—I was referring to the couplet’s application to God not “choosing” to exalt same-sex couples because He is not in a same-sex “marriage” Himself. He became exalted in the same way He is instructing us to become exalted (D&C 131, 132).

 

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be” can support the idea, “As man has been instructed to become exalted, God was once instructed; as God became exalted, man may be.”

 

Exalting same-sex couples is more like, “If God is omnipotent, He can create a rock He can’t pick up.”

Edited September 4, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

Really?  So we are supposed to view Adam and Eve *literally* as each of us.  But, the others involved in the creation narrative are just figurative portrayals?

We are to view ourselves as Adam and Eve and as entering into God's presence. The endowment covenants (where we make individual covenants) lead us ultimately to the marriage covenant (which we make as a couple), after which are to view ourselves as eternal husbands and wives. It is also good to remember or think of ourselves as Adam and Eve when we come across situations that test our covenants.

 

The literal part of our participation in the endowment (and other ordinances for that matter) is in the male and female aspect of the roles that are played in the endowment as far as we are concerned, and in making covenants as males and females. Other aspects are figuative. In either case, we are not unstructed, for the sake of the ceremony and covenants, to view ourselves as any of the the other characters.

 

We do know that both women and men are commanded to be as Christ, and to be as Heavenly Father is perfect. This finds ultimate fulfilment in exaltation as husbands and wives, which the temple ordinances (from start to finish, not just the endowment in isolation) prepare us for.

[David T]

We are to view ourselves as Adam and Eve and as entering into God's presence. The endowment covenants (where we make individual covenants) lead us ultimately to the marriage covenant (which we make as a couple), after which are to view ourselves as eternal husbands and wives. It is also good to remember or think of ourselves as Adam and Eve when we come across situations that test our covenants.

The literal part of our participation in the endowment (and other ordinances for that matter) is in the male and female aspect of the roles that are played in the endowment as far as we are concerned, and in making covenants as males and females. Other aspects are figuative. In either case, we are not unstructed, for the sake of the ceremony and covenants, to view ourselves as any of the the other characters.

We do know that both women and men are commanded to be as Christ, and to be as Heavenly Father is perfect. This finds ultimate fulfilment in exaltation as husbands and wives, which the temple ordinances (from start to finish, not just the endowment in isolation) prepare us for.

Or you could read Ephesians 5 to interpret the Man acting as Christ, and the Woman as the Church. And the sealing is the symbolic relationship of Christ to Israel. (We as the Church hearken to Christ as he does the will of the Father).

Point is, there are lots of ways to approach this.

[CV75]

Or you could read Ephesians 5 to interpret the Man acting as Christ, and the Woman as the Church. And the sealing is the symbolic relationship of Christ to Israel. (We as the Church hearken to Christ as he does the will of the Father).

Point is, there are lots of ways to approach this.

Absolutely--the terms "sealing" and "sealing power(s)" have several meanings and applications. But the new and everlasting covenant of marriage always uses terms that point to male-female sealing, and not same-sex sealing. And the revelations about the new and everlasting covenant of marriage describe the exaltation of God's children in this way as well. And exaltation itself is described in terms of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. So same-sex arrangements are not part ot the design for exaltation.

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

I suspected that you would focus on the "loving" issue. A human can love and therefore all humans can do all things. This is that concept that is Cum-ba-ya to the world, God is love, there are no commandments, there is no need for sacrifice, if it feels good - i.e. you love it - then all is good. It may be helpful to back way up and try and understand some fundamental principles:

 

• What is the purpose of God talking to mankind? 
• What do you see the need of commandments?
• Are there commandments?
• Is a man the exact equivalent of a woman?
• Are there any differences between a man and a woman?
• What is the purpose of mortality?
• What does the OT describe as an abomination? 
• Does it matter what the OT says?
• Does it matter what the NT says?
• Are we free to interpret scripture to fit our own needs and desires?
• Does it matter what a prophet, speaking as a prophet, says today?

I think that your whole premise is built on a hope that things will change and that all should acknowledge the possibility that God will change his entire plan of salvation and begin a new paradigm. I think I can appreciate having hope for something, but I also think that we need to seek for wisdom.

 

There is a gross misunderstanding of the often misused statement that "God is love". It is so often used to apply to sin; it does not matter what we do we need to love them, but we should not and God does not love sin. God cannot tolerate sin. Mortals will sin; we are all sinners, but to consciously accept sin rather than be repentant i.e. to constantly strive to abandon all sin is to seek our own destruction, to be separated from God.

 

We often will use the argument that "This is a part of me and therefore it is okay; specifically, we were born homosexual so therefore we can do nothing but be ourselves; God created us this way and therefore it must be acceptable and good before him. As a small boy my son would rather tell a lie than the truth, even when there were no negative consequences. He just liked to tell stories. It was as if he was made to tell lies. I have met many people that seemed made to do things contrary to the teachings of God. We each have to learn what is right and what is wrong.

 

I can already hear someone say, "Yes, but SSA is so completely different; it is their sexual identity, not some minor temptation; it is WHO they are". It is my personal belief that they are exactly the way our Father created them just as we all are. It is also my firm belief that it does not matter. All must come unto Christ; all must repent of their sins, all must align their thoughts, their actions, and their will to God's will.

 

I have seen the mental gymnastics of logic that some go to exclude or to explain away the simple fact that the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior. I find their reasoning to be painfully blind to reason and contrary to all of God's teachings. These are the ones that the NT describes as those with itching ears.

 

I know that our Father loves each of us just as we are just as I know that he desires to find those that are willing to take the name of his Son upon them, to submit to his will, to lose themselves in his service. These are the ones that will enter into Exaltation. Thankfully, those that do not do these things will obtain a glory that is befitting of their heart and choices; it will be a glory they choose and with which they find a degree of peace.

 

We teach the gospel from the position of Exaltation. Too often we think it is all or nothing; this is error. We know and we teach different glories for all. It is possible that some simply will not seek after Exaltation. It will always remain a choice.

[rockpond]

I suspected that you would focus on the "loving" issue. A human can love and therefore all humans can do all things. This is that concept that is Cum-ba-ya to the world, God is love, there are no commandments, there is no need for sacrifice, if it feels good - i.e. you love it - then all is good. It may be helpful to back way up and try and understand some fundamental principles:

• What is the purpose of God talking to mankind?
  
• What do you see the need of commandments?
  
• Are there commandments?
  
• Is a man the exact equivalent of a woman?
  
• Are there any differences between a man and a woman?
  
• What is the purpose of mortality?
  
• What does the OT describe as an abomination?
  
• Does it matter what the OT says?
  
• Does it matter what the NT says?
  
• Are we free to interpret scripture to fit our own needs and desires?
  
• Does it matter what a prophet, speaking as a prophet, says today?
  

I think that your whole premise is built on a hope that things will change and that all should acknowledge the possibility that God will change his entire plan of salvation and begin a new paradigm. I think I can appreciate having hope for something, but I also think that we need to seek for wisdom.

There is a gross misunderstanding of the often misused statement that "God is love". It is so often used to apply to sin; it does not matter what we do we need to love them, but we should not and God does not love sin. God cannot tolerate sin. Mortals will sin; we are all sinners, but to consciously accept sin rather than be repentant i.e. to constantly strive to abandon all sin is to seek our own destruction, to be separated from God.

We often will use the argument that "This is a part of me and therefore it is okay; specifically, we were born homosexual so therefore we can do nothing but be ourselves; God created us this way and therefore it must be acceptable and good before him. As a small boy my son would rather tell a lie than the truth, even when there were no negative consequences. He just liked to tell stories. It was as if he was made to tell lies. I have met many people that seemed made to do things contrary to the teachings of God. We each have to learn what is right and what is wrong.

I can already hear someone say, "Yes, but SSA is so completely different; it is their sexual identity, not some minor temptation; it is WHO they are". It is my personal belief that they are exactly the way our Father created them just as we all are. It is also my firm belief that it does not matter. All must come unto Christ; all must repent of their sins, all must align their thoughts, their actions, and their will to God's will.

I have seen the mental gymnastics of logic that some go to exclude or to explain away the simple fact that the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior. I find their reasoning to be painfully blind to reason and contrary to all of God's teachings. These are the ones that the NT describes as those with itching ears.

I know that our Father loves each of us just as we are just as I know that he desires to find those that are willing to take the name of his Son upon them, to submit to his will, to lose themselves in his service. These are the ones that will enter into Exaltation. Thankfully, those that do not do these things will obtain a glory that is befitting of their heart and choices; it will be a glory they choose and with which they find a degree of peace.

We teach the gospel from the position of Exaltation. Too often we think it is all or nothing; this is error. We know and we teach different glories for all. It is possible that some simply will not seek after Exaltation. It will always remain a choice.

If you are just going to go off on a rant instead of answering my question (that was in direct response to your comments) then I guess we're done.

If you think you've even come close to accurately describing my position or beliefs with the tirade above, you're wrong. But I won't engage with someone who doesn't wish to honestly dialogue.

[Storm Rider]

If you are just going to go off on a rant instead of answering my question (that was in direct response to your comments) then I guess we're done. If you think you've even come close to accurately describing my position or beliefs with the tirade above, you're wrong. But I won't engage with someone who doesn't wish to honestly dialogue.

 

That is a rather emotional non-response to the several questions I asked. Were you ignoring those on purpose?

 

I did not feel like my subsequent statements was a tirade, I did not even feel like I was on a soap box or a "rant" as you stated. I thought I was setting my position clearly as a discussion point. If you would like to see a rant I suppose I could oblige you, but you might want to consider having much thicker skin in that situation.

 

This is a religious board and as such I do feel a degree of empowerment to speak forcefully on scriptural, doctrinal, and spiritual matters. If you feel offended I am more than happy to ask for your forgiveness and I humbly request it. However, if you are demanding that I back down from my position or that I spoke too strongly, then I cannot, will not comply in any shape or form. I will not call evil good and good evil on this board or in any other position.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Storm Rider

[rockpond]

That is a rather emotional non-response to the several questions I asked. Were you ignoring those on purpose?

I did not feel like my subsequent statements was a tirade, I did not even feel like I was on a soap box or a "rant" as you stated. I thought I was setting my position clearly as a discussion point. If you would like to see a rant I suppose I could oblige you, but you might want to consider having much thicker skin in that situation.

This is a religious board and as such I do feel a degree of empowerment to speak forcefully on scriptural, doctrinal, and spiritual matters. If you feel offended I am more than happy to ask for your forgiveness and I humbly request it. However, if you are demanding that I back down from my position or that I spoke too strongly, then I cannot, will not comply in any shape or form. I will not call evil good and good evil on this board or in any other position.

It wasn't an emotional response, it was a reasonable one considering you ignored my questions and responded by moving in a different direction.

Trust me, to take the position I have regarding homosexuality as an active faithful member of the church definitely requires thick skin. And I'm not offended - it's nothing I haven't heard before. I'm willing to tackle your laundry list of questions (one at a time) but only when you respond to the questions I asked to try to clarify the point you were making.

[Storm Rider]

What questions did you ask me?

[David T]

It may be helpful to back way up and try and understand some fundamental principles:

• What is the purpose of God talking to mankind?

 

To develop a relationship, and to help man understand how to develop and experience Joy.

 

 

 

What do you see the need of commandments?

 

Guidelines to assist in the above purpose.

 

 

 

Are there commandments?

 

Yes. But not all commandments to be found in scripture were necessarily instituted personally by God, or are to be understood as representing the eternal way of things.

 

 

 

Is a man the exact equivalent of a woman?

Biologically, and physically, of course not. But 2 Nephi 26:33 suggests that all - including male and female - are "alike unto God." 

 

 

 

Are there any differences between a man and a woman?

Far less than many like to think.

 

 

 

What is the purpose of mortality?

To experience first hand the opposite of the ideal. Pain. Suffering. Prejudice. Hate. Sickness. Pride. Learn to know by experience how to discern between Good and Evil. To contrast the enduring and binding love of God with the entropy of Nature. To experience the family bond, to recognize God in what is good in those relationships, and to recognize also what God isn't by abuse, neglect, ignorance, etc.

 

 

 

What does the OT describe as an abomination?

Well, to start, Eating certain kinds of birds. Being unjust. Shellfish. Competing gods. Necromancers. Child Sacrifice. Pride. Committing wickedness. Cheating and dishonesty. Ignoring the poor. Mockers. Foolish thoughts. Ignorant prayer. Bats. Creeping things. Lying. Searching for mischief. Adultery. Letting the wicked go free. Sacrifices of the ritually unclean.  Male on Male sex. Seeing your parents, siblings, or grandparents naked. Sex with animals. Giving tithes/sacrifices made from unauthorized activities.  Oppressing the poor and needy. Robbery. Not honoring debts and promises. Marriage to a non Israelite. Incense. Devotional worship meetings when those who attend are not looking after the needs of one another. Women wearing the same type of clothes that men wear. Sacrificing a goat with a rash. Making an unauthorized place of worship. Remarriage. etc, etc.

 

 

 

Does it matter what the OT says?

As an historical view into what ancients believed (or wanted others to believe) was the work of God, yes. As insight into how individuals felt they were serving God, and how others were not, yes. As a catalyst to seek divine confirmation and revelation, yes. As a currently binding Church Handbook of Instruction and guide to modern doctrinal understanding of the nature, will, and desires of God? No.

 

 

 

Does it matter what the NT says?

In its context, again, as an historical view into what those contemporaries believed was the work of God, yes. As insight into how individuals felt the Christian community needed to behave and believe in light of the imminent end times, yes. As early witnesses to the life and effects of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, Yes. As a catalyst to seek divine confirmation and revelation, absolutely YES. As a currently binding Church Handbook of Instruction and guide to modern doctrinal understanding of the nature, will, and desires of God? NO.

 

 

 

Are we free to interpret scripture to fit our own needs and desires?

Yes, especially if one seeks inspiration from the source - but one is not free to disobey the present and established policies of the Church, or publicly rebel against them,  and expect to still remain in full faith and fellowship. 

 

 

 

Does it matter what a prophet, speaking as a prophet, says today?

Yes.  It should definitely be considered, and weighed. "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church." - however, when a Keyholding authority presents and officially affirms that Church members should refrain from an action, one should not expect to participate in that action, and still remain in good standing. This is binding on Covenant members of the community, and those that wish to participate in the benefits thereof.

 

 

I think that your whole premise is built on a hope that things will change and that all should acknowledge the possibility that God will change his entire plan of salvation and begin a new paradigm.

 

It should be understood that most aren't asking God to change his plan of salvation. It is generally hope and prayer for more clarification and confirmation that the current Paradigm is also God's paradigm. The paradigm surrounding very important aspects of how we tell the story of the Plan of Salvation, and what it means, has substantially shifted several times even since Joseph first began putting the pieces together. It is part of continuing revelation and continuing human experiences to expect the paradigm to shift. Remember: for a time, it was an accepted part of the Paradigm that part of the Plan of Salvation included premortal Fence Sitters who were born into mortality as Africans, and were thus not allowed to receive Gospel blessings in this life. This was an Eternal Explanation for a policy of the Church. It is an explanation and a paradigm that has since been rejected. It was rejected through experience, research, having a conclusion brought to the Lord, and having a sharp and strong confirmation.

 

There are many who truly believe God is revealed through scripture and living prophets, and that the authorized and directed work of the Lord is being done through the Church today, but that the restoration of the fulness of truth and understanding of God's paradigm isn't completed, and that He is progressively working through us (and others!) to shed the blood and sins of our generations so that we can see more clearly the revelation of who He actually is, and what actually matters to Him, and what others have just said that he has said or believed in the past.

 

I am just as willing - and actually more - to accept that I am wrong as I am to acknowledge that many, many better and more inspired men than me have been wrong. Acknowledging previous prophets got some things wrong isn't an indictment on their character - it acknowledges they lived amidst the cultural blood and sins of their generations, and that God still worked through them, and worked powerful things through them that could be changed and worked on in their generation, wittling away, bit by bit, on other elements that the Lord knew, in his divine wisdom, would take time.

 

I love Peter, Paul, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball, and Gordon Hinckley. I believe all were inspired men seeking to serve God, and express His will to the very best of their ability, through the lens of their cultural conditioning. God worked wonders through them, pushed powerful breakthroughs through them, and I am grateful for all of them. I fully believe that God has forgiven them of the blood and sins of their particular generations, "for they knew not what they did", in those cases. I believe we should read them and approach them in the context of their own history and lives. And we should see God working through them.

 

I am grateful that God will forgive me of the cultural blood and prejudicial sins of my generation that I may go to my grave unaware of. I try to do the same for those who went before, all the while doing my best to try to discover and break through any possible ones that may exist while I still can.

Edited September 5, 2013 by David T

[rockpond]

What questions did you ask me?

 

Post 394.  The one that you responded to with the lengthy list of questions that David T just answered.

[rockpond]

Oh my, oh my… I’m sorry—I was referring to the couplet’s application to God not “choosing” to exalt same-sex couples because He is not in a same-sex “marriage” Himself. He became exalted in the same way He is instructing us to become exalted (D&C 131, 132).

 

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be” can support the idea, “As man has been instructed to become exalted, God was once instructed; as God became exalted, man may be.”

 

Exalting same-sex couples is more like, “If God is omnipotent, He can create a rock He can’t pick up.”

 

Couplet says nothing about marriage, same-sex couples, sealings, etc.  You are super-imposing this idea that the couplet obviously refers to marriage when it says nothing of the sort.  Who knows what qualifications are and are not included in that little couplet.  President Hinckley said that we don't really understand it's meaning and yet here you are suggesting that it clearly indicates that God cannot provide a sealing ordinance for homosexual couples.

 

Maybe the couplet means that we all must be polygamists.  Isn't God a polygamist under your thought process?

 

I don't think we need to keep talking around this point.  I get that you view Section 132 as a statement that marriage between a man and a woman in the new & everlasting covenant is the only way to exaltation and that God would never allow a same-gender sealing because it violates what the Lord said in 132.  I got it.

 

I disagree.  Sorry.  I don't see that 132 needs to be taken in such a literal sense that it precludes the possibility of future revelations allowing homosexual couples to be sealed.  Our understanding of the sealing ordinance developed over time.  We opened up the temple to additional people as we overcame our mortal prejudices.  And we're still working on a more complete understanding of fundamental moral law regarding homosexuality.

[Storm Rider]

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.

Any human can love. No, it is impossible for a gay couple to love and parent the same as a traditional family just as a single parent cannot replace a mother and father. Their actively practicing homosexuality is an affront to God; it is an abomination to God just as all immoral sexual acts are. A gay couple is a sterile relationship and incapable of propagating.

[CV75]

Couplet says nothing about marriage, same-sex couples, sealings, etc.  You are super-imposing this idea that the couplet obviously refers to marriage when it says nothing of the sort.  Who knows what qualifications are and are not included in that little couplet.  President Hinckley said that we don't really understand it's meaning and yet here you are suggesting that it clearly indicates that God cannot provide a sealing ordinance for homosexual couples.

 

Maybe the couplet means that we all must be polygamists.  Isn't God a polygamist under your thought process?

 

I don't think we need to keep talking around this point.  I get that you view Section 132 as a statement that marriage between a man and a woman in the new & everlasting covenant is the only way to exaltation and that God would never allow a same-gender sealing because it violates what the Lord said in 132.  I got it.

 

I disagree.  Sorry.  I don't see that 132 needs to be taken in such a literal sense that it precludes the possibility of future revelations allowing homosexual couples to be sealed.  Our understanding of the sealing ordinance developed over time.  We opened up the temple to additional people as we overcame our mortal prejudices.  And we're still working on a more complete understanding of fundamental moral law regarding homosexuality.

Please don’t apologize on my account; no need to. D&C 132 is just a starting or reference point. The rest of my posts just draw upon various other doctrines that seem to prevent a male-to-male sealing in a covenant for exaltation being revealed at some future time.

 

I don’t think I mentioned here how I consider the law of opposition to play out in this issue as well: God is “a compound in one” of the opposing principles of male and female (even yin and yang in more popular terms), in the form of a married couple.

 

I do agree that our Church’s doctrines of the priesthood and sealing ordinance developed over time, and that it opened up the temple to additional people as a part of that, and it is dealing with an issue that has become quite popularized and affects the saints for many reasons.

 

I don’t think there needs to be, or even can be, a moral law regarding “homosexuality.” It is a kind of individual orientation, disposition, or personality type that may go so far as to influence or inform a behavioral response but doesn’t define or control the willful behavior, which is what moral law (rules of behavior) and the covenants (agreed-upon behavior) are about. The eligibility requirements for the covenants are the same for everyone.

Edited September 5, 2013 by CV75

[Questing Beast]

To develop a relationship, and to help man understand how to develop and experience Joy.

 

 

 

 

Guidelines to assist in the above purpose.

 

 

 

 

Yes. But not all commandments to be found in scripture were necessarily instituted personally by God, or are to be understood as representing the eternal way of things.

 

 

 

Biologically, and physically, of course not. But 2 Nephi 26:33 suggests that all - including male and female - are "alike unto God." 

 

 

 

Far less than many like to think.

 

 

 

To experience first hand the opposite of the ideal. Pain. Suffering. Prejudice. Hate. Sickness. Pride. Learn to know by experience how to discern between Good and Evil. To contrast the enduring and binding love of God with the entropy of Nature. To experience the family bond, to recognize God in what is good in those relationships, and to recognize also what God isn't by abuse, neglect, ignorance, etc.

 

 

 

Well, to start, Eating certain kinds of birds. Being unjust. Shellfish. Competing gods. Necromancers. Child Sacrifice. Pride. Committing wickedness. Cheating and dishonesty. Ignoring the poor. Mockers. Foolish thoughts. Ignorant prayer. Bats. Creeping things. Lying. Searching for mischief. Adultery. Letting the wicked go free. Sacrifices of the ritually unclean.  Male on Male sex. Seeing your parents, siblings, or grandparents naked. Sex with animals. Giving tithes/sacrifices made from unauthorized activities.  Oppressing the poor and needy. Robbery. Not honoring debts and promises. Marriage to a non Israelite. Incense. Devotional worship meetings when those who attend are not looking after the needs of one another. Women wearing the same type of clothes that men wear. Sacrificing a goat with a rash. Making an unauthorized place of worship. Remarriage. etc, etc.

 

 

 

As an historical view into what ancients believed (or wanted others to believe) was the work of God, yes. As insight into how individuals felt they were serving God, and how others were not, yes. As a catalyst to seek divine confirmation and revelation, yes. As a currently binding Church Handbook of Instruction and guide to modern doctrinal understanding of the nature, will, and desires of God? No.

 

 

 

In its context, again, as an historical view into what those contemporaries believed was the work of God, yes. As insight into how individuals felt the Christian community needed to behave and believe in light of the imminent end times, yes. As early witnesses to the life and effects of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, Yes. As a catalyst to seek divine confirmation and revelation, absolutely YES. As a currently binding Church Handbook of Instruction and guide to modern doctrinal understanding of the nature, will, and desires of God? NO.

 

 

 

Yes, especially if one seeks inspiration from the source - but one is not free to disobey the present and established policies of the Church, or publicly rebel against them,  and expect to still remain in full faith and fellowship. 

 

 

 

Yes.  It should definitely be considered, and weighed. "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church." - however, when a Keyholding authority presents and officially affirms that Church members should refrain from an action, one should not expect to participate in that action, and still remain in good standing. This is binding on Covenant members of the community, and those that wish to participate in the benefits thereof.

 

 

 

 

 

It should be understood that most aren't asking God to change his plan of salvation. It is generally hope and prayer for more clarification and confirmation that the current Paradigm is also God's paradigm. The paradigm surrounding very important aspects of how we tell the story of the Plan of Salvation, and what it means, has substantially shifted several times even since Joseph first began putting the pieces together. It is part of continuing revelation and continuing human experiences to expect the paradigm to shift. Remember: for a time, it was an accepted part of the Paradigm that part of the Plan of Salvation included premortal Fence Sitters who were born into mortality as Africans, and were thus not allowed to receive Gospel blessings in this life. This was an Eternal Explanation for a policy of the Church. It is an explanation and a paradigm that has since been rejected. It was rejected through experience, research, having a conclusion brought to the Lord, and having a sharp and strong confirmation.

 

There are many who truly believe God is revealed through scripture and living prophets, and that the authorized and directed work of the Lord is being done through the Church today, but that the restoration of the fulness of truth and understanding of God's paradigm isn't completed, and that He is progressively working through us (and others!) to shed the blood and sins of our generations so that we can see more clearly the revelation of who He actually is, and what actually matters to Him, and what others have just said that he has said or believed in the past.

 

I am just as willing - and actually more - to accept that I am wrong as I am to acknowledge that many, many better and more inspired men than me have been wrong. Acknowledging previous prophets got some things wrong isn't an indictment on their character - it acknowledges they lived amidst the cultural blood and sins of their generations, and that God still worked through them, and worked powerful things through them that could be changed and worked on in their generation, wittling away, bit by bit, on other elements that the Lord knew, in his divine wisdom, would take time.

 

I love Peter, Paul, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball, and Gordon Hinckley. I believe all were inspired men seeking to serve God, and express His will to the very best of their ability, through the lens of their cultural conditioning. God worked wonders through them, pushed powerful breakthroughs through them, and I am grateful for all of them. I fully believe that God has forgiven them of the blood and sins of their particular generations, "for they knew not what they did", in those cases. I believe we should read them and approach them in the context of their own history and lives. And we should see God working through them.

 

I am grateful that God will forgive me of the cultural blood and prejudicial sins of my generation that I may go to my grave unaware of. I try to do the same for those who went before, all the while doing my best to try to discover and break through any possible ones that may exist while I still can.

Good thoughts well expressed. ^

 

I think you meant "cleanse":

 

...He is progressively working through us (and others!) to shed the blood and sins of our generations so that we can see more clearly the revelation of who He actually is, and what actually matters to Him, and what others have just said that he has said or believed in the past.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Questing Beast