Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

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.

 

 

My statement about moral law was referring to President Packer's statement in "To The One" that when we have a more complete understanding of fundamental moral law that we would be able to "routinely" correct the condition of homosexuality.  Since, as a church we are not yet routinely correcting the condition of homosexuality, than I assume we don't yet have that complete understanding of moral law.  We still need more light and knowledge to be revealed on the subject.

[Questing Beast]

My statement about moral law was referring to President Packer's statement in "To The One" that when we have a more complete understanding of fundamental moral law that we would be able to "routinely" correct the condition of homosexuality.  Since, as a church we are not yet routinely correcting the condition of homosexuality, than I assume we don't yet have that complete understanding of moral law.  We still need more light and knowledge to be revealed on the subject.

"Correct" means to repent. Not heal. The Church does not heal anybody through doctrines or ordinances. That is Pharisaical thinking. Repentance is the same for all. We have seen on this forum, discussions of homosexuals marrying successfully and even having children by those marriages. That not all homosexuals are willing, ready or capable of doing likewise is not evidence that the attempt is flawed somehow. Marriages fail all the time, that doesn't mean marriage is flawed, only the people trying them out. Homosexuality can be "corrected" through repentance, and marriage is possible to some. The afterlife answers all needs....

[rockpond]

"Correct" means to repent. Not heal. The Church does not heal anybody through doctrines or ordinances. That is Pharisaical thinking. Repentance is the same for all. We have seen on this forum, discussions of homosexuals marrying successfully and even having children by those marriages. That not all homosexuals are willing, ready or capable of doing likewise is not evidence that the attempt is flawed somehow. Marriages fail all the time, that doesn't mean marriage is flawed, only the people trying them out. Homosexuality can be "corrected" through repentance, and marriage is possible to some. The afterlife answers all needs....

 

If you read the quote in its context, "repent" is not what President Packer meant by "correct".

 

And as a matter of church policy we do not advise mixed-orientation marriages.  I agree that it works for some but it seems that the church recognizes that it often leads to broken families despite the best desires and intentions of the participants.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I agree that a gay couple will not likely parent that same as a male-female couple.  Nor would our current definition of "traditional family" parent the same way that polygamist families parented.  I'm not really sure any couple parents the same as any other couple.  But I believe they all, gay couples included, are capable of loving their children (biological and adoptive) just as fully and completely.

 

And since we have no record of God commenting on a loving, committed homosexual couple (something that is quite different than what is described in the few Bible passages on the subject), I prefer to withhold conclusions about His declaring it an abomination.

[Calm]

 

Far less than many like to think.

 

I think speaking of differences between male and female in terms of quantity leads the conversation in the wrong direction.  There might be only one difference between two individuals, but if it is significant to a particular issue, it may amount to a complete turnaround of data, conclusions, etc.  Whether talking about about individuals or groups of individuals, it is important to not only identify differences, but identify why they are important and what effect they have on behaviour and interaction, otherwise the impact of that difference longterm may be misunderstood.

[David T]

I think speaking of differences between male and female in terms of quantity leads the conversation in the wrong direction.  There might be only one difference between two individuals, but if it is significant to a particular issue, it may amount to a complete turnaround of data, conclusions, etc.  Whether talking about about individuals or groups of individuals, it is important to not only identify differences, but identify why they are important and what effect they have on behaviour and interaction, otherwise the impact of that difference longterm may be misunderstood.

 

I was using 'less' to be quantitative as well as qualitative The problem is, some of the key qualitative 'differences' are ones that can be removed from a female without making her less woman. The problem is, many individuals making such arguments don't seem to get that.

 

My wife, to save her life from uterine cancer in her mid 20s, had a hysterectomy. She can no longer bear a child. So when a key argument presented about what makes women different in the Gospel is that women can bear children - as a key qualitative argument - that is removing a key quality of someone determining that my wife is a Woman, and why she should be handled differently when it comes to the Gospel. And that is something I cannot in any way agree with. 

Edited September 5, 2013 by David T

[USU78]

I was using 'less' to be quantitative as well as qualitative The problem is, some of the key qualitative 'differences' are ones that can be removed from a female without making her less woman. The problem is, many individuals making such arguments don't seem to get that.

 

My wife, to save her life from uterine cancer in her mid 20s, had a hysterectomy. She can no longer bear a child. So when a key argument presented about what makes women different in the Gospel is that women can bear children - as a key qualitative argument - that is removing a key quality of someone determining that my wife is a Woman, and why she should be handled differently when it comes to the Gospel. And that is something I cannot in any way agree with. 

 

I'm confused where you're going with this.  A 2-x-chromosome-carrying-human-female was, is and ever shall be a woman regardless what may or may not be lobbed off of her in the course of her life.  The Gospel categorizes and treats her no differently from any other 2-x-chromosome-carrying-human-female.

 

The issue, as I understand it, is whether having a 2nd 2-x-chromosome-carrying-human-female parent is indistinguishable from have both a human-female and a human-male parent when it comes to child-rearing.  Or do you believe the issue is otherwise?

[David T]

I'm confused where you're going with this.  A 2-x-chromosome-carrying-human-female was, is and ever shall be a woman regardless what may or may not be lobbed off of her in the course of her life.  The Gospel categorizes and treats her no differently from any other 2-x-chromosome-carrying-human-female.

 

I'm not suggesting the Gospel treats them differently, I am suggesting that Church members - and leaders - often do in poorly thought out ways to attempt to defend a current position.

 

 

The issue, as I understand it, is whether having a 2nd 2-x-chromosome-carrying-human-female parent is indistinguishable from have both a human-female and a human-male parent when it comes to child-rearing.  Or do you believe the issue is otherwise?

 

Frankly, I don't know. I do think the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman - A Defense is the best argument out there for the position that such a distinctive relationship type is unique, and societally important. It was the first argument for this position I have reviewed which I could consider as having made some good points, and made me consider that one could argue for this position without necessarily reverting to a "But God Said So!" argument, or just hating the idea of gays. It's a book I recommend for all interested in the discussion - for those  in favor of SSM (so you know what the best arguments out there look like), and those opposed (so you know what a good, rational defense not relegated to sounding bigoted to others can sound like).

 

That said, I feel that religions who ostracize faith-filled gay members from their community and their religious community values are ensuring that those children do not get raised with those values.  It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I find the concept of an inherent  "gay lifestyle" silly, because what is generally referred to - especially when it comes to committed same sex partners - is the exact same as many other heterosexual lifestyles, with the key exception that the gender of one partner is different.

Edited September 5, 2013 by David T

[CV75]

My statement about moral law was referring to President Packer's statement in "To The One" that when we have a more complete understanding of fundamental moral law that we would be able to "routinely" correct the condition of homosexuality.  Since, as a church we are not yet routinely correcting the condition of homosexuality, than I assume we don't yet have that complete understanding of moral law.  We still need more light and knowledge to be revealed on the subject.

In my view, the only “condition” that needs correcting is our mortal condition, which includes our susceptibility to temptation. Elder Packer’s talk is about just that – for the person who is tempted to sin sexually with someone of the same sex. He introduces his remarks by saying, “I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptation. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition.” Mortality is temporray. Subjection to temptation is temporary. Everything he says has to do with that. The approaches he advocates work in overcoming any temptation, and the same principles apply to everyone in their particular circumstance.

 

Not that homosexuality is necessarily manifest as an adiction (though it can be, and in this case popularization breeds excessive "tolerance" that can mask the real issues, reinforce bad behavior and enable a sex addict of any persuasion), the addiction recovery classes are a most universal approach for people to learn to draw upon the power of the atonement to strengthen them against any temptation they find difficult to bear and manage. And I do not believe that all homosexuals find temptation the most difficult one to bear, just like not all heterosexuals find temptations in that area dificult to bear. There are all types of people and libidos, with underlying issues, strengths, weaknesses, priorities, etc. Whatever the Church does to improve how we bring people to Christ will be the key, and ultimately it is the individual that chooses Christ over temptation.

[rockpond]

In my view, the only “condition” that needs correcting is our mortal condition, which includes our susceptibility to temptation. Elder Packer’s talk is about just that – for the person who is tempted to sin sexually with someone of the same sex. He introduces his remarks by saying, “I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptation. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition.” Mortality is temporray. Subjection to temptation is temporary. Everything he says has to do with that. The approaches he advocates work in overcoming any temptation, and the same principles apply to everyone in their particular circumstance.

 

Not that homosexuality is necessarily manifest as an adiction (though it can be, and in this case popularization breeds excessive "tolerance" that can mask the real issues, reinforce bad behavior and enable a sex addict of any persuasion), the addiction recovery classes are a most universal approach for people to learn to draw upon the power of the atonement to strengthen them against any temptation they find difficult to bear and manage. And I do not believe that all homosexuals find temptation the most difficult one to bear, just like not all heterosexuals find temptations in that area dificult to bear. There are all types of people and libidos, with underlying issues, strengths, weaknesses, priorities, etc. Whatever the Church does to improve how we bring people to Christ will be the key, and ultimately it is the individual that chooses Christ over temptation.

 

Temptation and sex addiction are potential issues with both homosexual and heterosexual orientation.  Thus I think we are all called upon to live the law of chastity and resist those temptations.

 

My understanding of your belief is that some people are afflicted (would the be the correct word?) with a homosexual orientation here in mortality but they become heterosexual in the next life.  Is that accurate?  So then their job here is to just resist and be celibate or hope to develop enough of a heterosexual orientation to be able to marry?

 

I just can't see it that way.  I believe that sexual orientation is part of our eternal identity.  It's key to who we are and how we love.  I can't see it as an affliction to be overcome by the atonement.  I remember as a teenager being taught by my Bishop that God gave us the desires we have to attract us to our future wife and to create a family.  I think homosexual people are the same.  And it's not just about libido, it's about the type of person who we want to spend eternity with.

[USU78]

That said, I feel that religions who ostracize faith-filled gay members from their community and their religious community values are ensuring that those children do not get raised with those values.  It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I find the concept of an inherent  "gay lifestyle" silly, because what is generally referred to - especially when it comes to committed same sex partners - is the exact same as many other heterosexual lifestyles, with the key exception that the gender of one partner is different.

 

Thanks for responding.  That clears up what I'd been confused about.

 

Yet . . . what you say and what I quote fails to account for the on-the-ground realities encountered in Denmark and Holland.  "Gay lifestyle," silly though it may seem when thought about in a vacuum, holds significant water in real-life situations.  And it has little to recommend it either as a strategy for maximizing personal happiness and fulfillment . . . or as a nurturing and comfy nest for the next generation to grow up attached to.

Edited September 5, 2013 by USU78

[Questing Beast]

...I just can't see it that way.  I believe that sexual orientation is part of our eternal identity.  It's key to who we are and how we love....

I think that IDing as a mortal is bound to biology, mortal biology, which is fickle and very different for individuals. That's why there is ONE set of sexual moral values, otherwise we are playing with "Pandora's Box" allowing the individual to assert their "love" as a natural and normal thing in eternity, which is being manifested "here below". Do you really want everybody with little or no desire to control themselves to play that game? Think about it....

[Calm]

 I remember as a teenager being taught by my Bishop that God gave us the desires we have to attract us to our future wife and to create a family.

If God gave us our desires, then how can they be eternal?  (at least in the sense they have always been a part of us)  And why couldn't he change them if he deemed fit just as he changes the weaknesses he gives us into strengths?

 

 27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

 

[rockpond]

I think that IDing as a mortal is bound to biology, mortal biology, which is fickle and very different for individuals. That's why there is ONE set of sexual moral values, otherwise we are playing with "Pandora's Box" allowing the individual to assert their "love" as a natural and normal thing in eternity, which is being manifested "here below". Do you really want everybody with little or no desire to control themselves to play that game? Think about it....

I'm no sure what you're asking. I haven't suggested that people shouldn't control themselves. Quite the opposite.

[rockpond]

If God gave us our desires, then how can they be eternal? (at least in the sense they have always been a part of us) And why couldn't he change them if he deemed fit just as he changes the weaknesses he gives us into strengths?

Good point. That was how my Bishop phrased it but I'm not sure I'd say it the same way. I don't know if it's something that became a part of our identity when we were formed into spirits or if it was there with us as intelligences. I'm also open to the idea that sexual orientation is something that is determined in the womb and then stays with us eternally.

But, since our marital relationships last into the next life, I assume that our sexual orientation must also.

Regarding Ether... I think the "weakness" with regards to sexual orientation is our sometime mortal desire to use it outside of the bounds of marriage.

Edited September 6, 2013 by rockpond

[CV75]

Temptation and sex addiction are potential issues with both homosexual and heterosexual orientation.  Thus I think we are all called upon to live the law of chastity and resist those temptations.

 

My understanding of your belief is that some people are afflicted (would the be the correct word?) with a homosexual orientation here in mortality but they become heterosexual in the next life.  Is that accurate?  So then their job here is to just resist and be celibate or hope to develop enough of a heterosexual orientation to be able to marry?

 

I just can't see it that way.  I believe that sexual orientation is part of our eternal identity.  It's key to who we are and how we love.  I can't see it as an affliction to be overcome by the atonement.  I remember as a teenager being taught by my Bishop that God gave us the desires we have to attract us to our future wife and to create a family.  I think homosexual people are the same.  And it's not just about libido, it's about the type of person who we want to spend eternity with.

I do not see homosexual orientation as an "affliction" any more than heterosexual orientation is--they are not afflictions, they are attributes, and we don't know exactly where they come from (I'm positive there are any number of concurrent combinations of factors). Gender is at least eternal, according to "The Procalamation." The covenants as we have them are also eternal. What afflcits us is our susceptibility to temptation, or our affliction is temptation and the susceptibility to it. If we could do a root cause analysis of how 1,000 convicts became susceptible to stealing, I'm sure we would find the same types of internal and external, spiritual and mortal, genetic and environmental (etc. ad nauseum) factors that make people susceptible to their sexual temptations.

 

I beleive it is our surrender to Christ that leads us to enter into and keep the covenants of exaltation; as we become more perfect in keeping them through the merits of Christ, we can have the attendant blessings in the next life. It is better for someone to remain celebate through this life, with the hope that he will be given every opportunity to realize these blessings later, than to jeopardize them by fulfilling his desires outside of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage--that goes for everyone. Of course this is a personal decision needing confirmation by the Holy Ghost (and of course not everyone has the Gospel).

 

I hope your Bishop wasn't talking just about libido, but maybe he was. I've mentioned a number of times about the male-female opposition that creates a compound in one; people are more or less tempted away from it than others, and people are also tempted to abuse it. Much of how we use or abuse our powers of procreation depends on our receptiveness to the Light of Christ. Just as when some are tempted to reject, favor or abuse mercy or justice over the other, any other principle in any opposing pairing can also be tested.

[rockpond]

Thanks for responding. That clears up what I'd been confused about.

Yet . . . what you say and what I quote fails to account for the on-the-ground realities encountered in Denmark and Holland. "Gay lifestyle," silly though it may seem when thought about in a vacuum, holds significant water in real-life situations. And it has little to recommend it either as a strategy for maximizing personal happiness and fulfillment . . . or as a nurturing and comfy nest for the next generation to grow up attached to.

Up until this century we prevented homosexuals from partaking of the ordinance (marriage) that we have historically used to define commitment and family. And for the most part we have ostracized them from our faith communities. Ask yourself what your life might look like without these important constructs. If you had grown up feeling that God didn't love you and that you would never be able to live in a way that he approved of. And if you had been told that marriage was not something available to you.

[rockpond]

I do not see homosexual orientation as an "affliction" any more than heterosexual orientation is--they are not afflictions, they are attributes, and we don't know exactly where they come from (I'm positive there are any number of concurrent combinations of factors). Gender is at least eternal, according to "The Procalamation." The covenants as we have them are also eternal. What afflcits us is our susceptibility to temptation, or our affliction is temptation and the susceptibility to it. If we could do a root cause analysis of how 1,000 convicts became susceptible to stealing, I'm sure we would find the same types of internal and external, spiritual and mortal, genetic and environmental (etc. ad nauseum) factors that make people susceptible to their sexual temptations.

I beleive it is our surrender to Christ that leads us to enter into and keep the covenants of exaltation; as we become more perfect in keeping them through the merits of Christ, we can have the attendant blessings in the next life. It is better for someone to remain celebate through this life, with the hope that he will be given every opportunity to realize these blessings later, than to jeopardize them by fulfilling his desires outside of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage--that goes for everyone. Of course this is a personal decision needing confirmation by the Holy Ghost (and of course not everyone has the Gospel).

I hope your Bishop wasn't talking just about libido, but maybe he was. I've mentioned a number of times about the male-female opposition that creates a compound in one; people are more or less tempted away from it than others, and people are also tempted to abuse it. Much of how we use or abuse our powers of procreation depends on our receptiveness to the Light of Christ. Just as when some are tempted to reject, favor or abuse mercy or justice over the other, any other principle in any opposing pairing can also be tested.

But you are saying that for heterosexuals while there are some sexual temptations, ultimately we can choose to follow the correct path and exercise our sexual orientation within the bounds of marriage. Whereas for homosexuals it's all a sexual temptation and the only righteous path is to remain alone (with the exception of a select few who can make an opposite gender marriage work). I think that as followers of Christ it is upon us to mourn for those who we consign to the path of celibacy and plead with God for more light on their behalf.

[slamarwi]

@Rockpond

Unfortunately for those with SSA, your last post is a very good synopsis of this topic.

[california boy]

...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.

 

This is the first time I have ever heard someone believe that God includes God and His eternal wife.  Can you give me a CFR on this?  If this is true, the evangelics are going to go nuts.  They think Mormons are crazy enough to believe that God and Christ are two separate individuals.  Wait until they find out that when we refer to God we are referring to both God and His wife.

 

I, of course, have no idea just like everyone else what God had planned for all of His gay children in the eternities.  I certainy hope that it does not include me spending eternity with a woman as the only way for me to be exalted.  I have absolutely no interest in that.  And I don't think for a moment that God is going to magically make me straight any more than a straight person could imagine God changing their orientation to make them have SSA.  The idea goes against my entire nature as you can imagine.  I certainly would be completely willing to forgo eternally having children rather than being magically turned straight.

 

Since you seem to believe that creating spirits has to happen in a similar way that creating chidren on earth happens, do you really plan to be eternally pregnant throughout eternity in order to create billions of spirit children??  Just that thought alone seems to make one open to the idea that spirit children are created in an entirely different way.  Just my thoughts.

[Storm Rider]

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.  Which ones have you deemed to not be from God?

 

Biologically, and physically, of course not. But 2 Nephi 26:33 suggests that all - including male and female - are "alike unto God."  Context seems to be irrelevant to your view of things. Interesting, God thought that man and woman were different enough that he created man and woman for each other. The context of the verse you are using is the related to the value of a soul where there is no difference. It is folly to take verses out of contest to build a position.

 

Far less than many like to think.  And far more than you like to think or give credit. There are different roles for a mother and a father. A father cannot be a mother and vice versa, regardless of how much we would like for it to be different.

 

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. 

This is a nice list, but he really does not answer the question. In fact, it has nothing to do with the purpose of life as the Church of Jesus Christ teaches it - why would you think God needs to understand hate? But, it is a good way to set up that house of cards you are building to support your argument for a world of rose colored glasses and rainbow fairy tales. The purpose of life is to: 

• Receive a physical body.
• Exercise agency and learn to choose between good and evil.
• Learn and gain experience that will help you become more like your Heavenly Father.
• Form family relationships that may become eternal.

 

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.   This is another one of those responses that suffers from context for a lot of it, but it does lend support to avoid the question and baffle with BS. Regardless, you make the point that immorality is an abomination and that homosexuality is an abomination.

 

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.  Another one of those trite phrase for avoiding the question. Specifically, is an abomination of yesterday an abomination today? The purpose is to demonstrate that from the beginning and to the present day, homosexuality is not in accordance with the teachings of God and does not fit into the Plan of Salvation regardless of how much one chooses to ignore the issue.

 

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.  DITTO.

 

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.  Well, at least there is one bridge of mutual understanding.

 

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.  The qualifier that I used was WHEN A PROPHET SPEAKS AS A PROPHET, the purpose of that phrase was to avoid the commonly understood concept that prophets are men too.

 

 

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.  It appears that you would prefer to ignore all scripture and all statements of the prophets in exchange for a burning bush that specifically declares to you that "Yes, I meant what I said from the beginning and homosexual relationships are an abomination before me, the Lord your God."  If that occurred would you then accept it or would it also be possible to ignore it because it was not specific enough for a given relationship of two people that loved one another?  After all, all you need is love, right? No commandments, no restrictions, just if it feels good and you love it, it is wonderful. 

 

I do not appreciate or admire consciously blinding oneself to the scriptures and to the words of the prophets to excuse oneself from not taking a stand for holiness. Individuals want to act as if homosexuality just popped on the seen in the last 30 years and never existed before.  This was a sin from the beginning. Social mores and cultures did not just begin by condemning this behavior; it was not a learned prejudice; it was the condemned because God condemned it as he did all sexual immorality.

 

Sexual immorality does not belong to those with SSA behaviors; it is a sin/abomination that many people fall prey. What is at stake is calling evil good and good evil. It is impossible to close one's eyes to thousands of years of God's interaction with humanity and conclude that somehow he was wrong and now we are so much more enlightened than ever before and we are going to be granted more light and knowledge that we lead us in an acceptance of sin. First, we are not more enlightened; our societies are replete with wickedness. Second, what changed? God did not change, but society has changed by having Hollywood cram down the throats of every man, woman, and child for decades the beauty of humor of those good looking gay guys that testify that all it has to do with is....love. God's love is unending except when it comes to sin. No matter how much we want it, how much we are confused by it, sin is sin.

[california boy]

 

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.  Which ones have you deemed to not be from God?

 

Biologically, and physically, of course not. But 2 Nephi 26:33 suggests that all - including male and female - are "alike unto God."  Context seems to be irrelevant to your view of things. Interesting, God thought that man and woman were different enough that he created man and woman for each other. The context of the verse you are using is the related to the value of a soul where there is no difference. It is folly to take verses out of contest to build a position.

 

Far less than many like to think.  And far more than you like to think or give credit. There are different roles for a mother and a father. A father cannot be a mother and vice versa, regardless of how much we would like for it to be different.

 

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. 

This is a nice list, but he really does not answer the question. In fact, it has nothing to do with the purpose of life as the Church of Jesus Christ teaches it - why would you think God needs to understand hate? But, it is a good way to set up that house of cards you are building to support your argument for a world of rose colored glasses and rainbow fairy tales. The purpose of life is to: 

• Receive a physical body.
• Exercise agency and learn to choose between good and evil.
• Learn and gain experience that will help you become more like your Heavenly Father.
• Form family relationships that may become eternal.

 

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.   This is another one of those responses that suffers from context for a lot of it, but it does lend support to avoid the question and baffle with BS. Regardless, you make the point that immorality is an abomination and that homosexuality is an abomination.

 

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.  Another one of those trite phrase for avoiding the question. Specifically, is an abomination of yesterday an abomination today? The purpose is to demonstrate that from the beginning and to the present day, homosexuality is not in accordance with the teachings of God and does not fit into the Plan of Salvation regardless of how much one chooses to ignore the issue.

 

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.  DITTO.

 

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.  Well, at least there is one bridge of mutual understanding.

 

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.  The qualifier that I used was WHEN A PROPHET SPEAKS AS A PROPHET, the purpose of that phrase was to avoid the commonly understood concept that prophets are men too.

 

 

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.  It appears that you would prefer to ignore all scripture and all statements of the prophets in exchange for a burning bush that specifically declares to you that "Yes, I meant what I said from the beginning and homosexual relationships are an abomination before me, the Lord your God."  If that occurred would you then accept it or would it also be possible to ignore it because it was not specific enough for a given relationship of two people that loved one another?  After all, all you need is love, right? No commandments, no restrictions, just if it feels good and you love it, it is wonderful. 

 

I do not appreciate or admire consciously blinding oneself to the scriptures and to the words of the prophets to excuse oneself from not taking a stand for holiness. Individuals want to act as if homosexuality just popped on the seen in the last 30 years and never existed before.  This was a sin from the beginning. Social mores and cultures did not just begin by condemning this behavior; it was not a learned prejudice; it was the condemned because God condemned it as he did all sexual immorality.

 

Sexual immorality does not belong to those with SSA behaviors; it is a sin/abomination that many people fall prey. What is at stake is calling evil good and good evil. It is impossible to close one's eyes to thousands of years of God's interaction with humanity and conclude that somehow he was wrong and now we are so much more enlightened than ever before and we are going to be granted more light and knowledge that we lead us in an acceptance of sin. First, we are not more enlightened; our societies are replete with wickedness. Second, what changed? God did not change, but society has changed by having Hollywood cram down the throats of every man, woman, and child for decades the beauty of humor of those good looking gay guys that testify that all it has to do with is....love. God's love is unending except when it comes to sin. No matter how much we want it, how much we are confused by it, sin is sin.

 

Since you seem to be the moral authority on the will of God when it comes to homosexuals.  I would like to ask you a question.  What does God have planned for His gay children when they die?

[Storm Rider]

Since you seem to be the moral authority on the will of God when it comes to homosexuals.  I would like to ask you a question.  What does God have planned for His gay children when they die?

That is a nice smarmy lead-in to your question. All that been revealed is that we each will be rewarded with mercy and justice. Those who have been faithful to eternal life and those not faithful to something less. Do you think it should be different?

[california boy]

That is a nice smarmy lead-in to your question. All that been revealed is that we each will be rewarded with mercy and justice. Those who have been faithful to eternal life and those not faithful to something less. Do you think it should be different?

Wait.  You are so clear that gay couples will never be allowed to be sealed in the eternities and that God is never going to allow that to happen, but you come up with a complete blank on what will actually happen to God's gay children.  How can you be so sure about one thing and be so completely lacking in knowledge about what will happen concerning the eternities?  You can't even tell me what will happen to the faithful gay Mormon who decides to be celibate, live his whole life on earth without any companion?  We have spent 23 pages, speculating on whether God will ever allow gays to be sealed, when in fact we know nothing of God's   plan for his gay children??

[rockpond]

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. Which ones have you deemed to not be from God?

Biologically, and physically, of course not. But 2 Nephi 26:33 suggests that all - including male and female - are "alike unto God." Context seems to be irrelevant to your view of things. Interesting, God thought that man and woman were different enough that he created man and woman for each other. The context of the verse you are using is the related to the value of a soul where there is no difference. It is folly to take verses out of contest to build a position.

Far less than many like to think. And far more than you like to think or give credit. There are different roles for a mother and a father. A father cannot be a mother and vice versa, regardless of how much we would like for it to be different.

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.

This is a nice list, but he really does not answer the question. In fact, it has nothing to do with the purpose of life as the Church of Jesus Christ teaches it - why would you think God needs to understand hate? But, it is a good way to set up that house of cards you are building to support your argument for a world of rose colored glasses and rainbow fairy tales. The purpose of life is to:

• Receive a physical body.
  
• Exercise agency and learn to choose between good and evil.
  
• Learn and gain experience that will help you become more like your Heavenly Father.
  
• Form family relationships that may become eternal.
  

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. This is another one of those responses that suffers from context for a lot of it, but it does lend support to avoid the question and baffle with BS. Regardless, you make the point that immorality is an abomination and that homosexuality is an abomination.

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. Another one of those trite phrase for avoiding the question. Specifically, is an abomination of yesterday an abomination today? The purpose is to demonstrate that from the beginning and to the present day, homosexuality is not in accordance with the teachings of God and does not fit into the Plan of Salvation regardless of how much one chooses to ignore the issue.

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. DITTO.

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. Well, at least there is one bridge of mutual understanding.

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. The qualifier that I used was WHEN A PROPHET SPEAKS AS A PROPHET, the purpose of that phrase was to avoid the commonly understood concept that prophets are men too.

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. It appears that you would prefer to ignore all scripture and all statements of the prophets in exchange for a burning bush that specifically declares to you that "Yes, I meant what I said from the beginning and homosexual relationships are an abomination before me, the Lord your God." If that occurred would you then accept it or would it also be possible to ignore it because it was not specific enough for a given relationship of two people that loved one another? After all, all you need is love, right? No commandments, no restrictions, just if it feels good and you love it, it is wonderful.

I do not appreciate or admire consciously blinding oneself to the scriptures and to the words of the prophets to excuse oneself from not taking a stand for holiness. Individuals want to act as if homosexuality just popped on the seen in the last 30 years and never existed before. This was a sin from the beginning. Social mores and cultures did not just begin by condemning this behavior; it was not a learned prejudice; it was the condemned because God condemned it as he did all sexual immorality.

Sexual immorality does not belong to those with SSA behaviors; it is a sin/abomination that many people fall prey. What is at stake is calling evil good and good evil. It is impossible to close one's eyes to thousands of years of God's interaction with humanity and conclude that somehow he was wrong and now we are so much more enlightened than ever before and we are going to be granted more light and knowledge that we lead us in an acceptance of sin. First, we are not more enlightened; our societies are replete with wickedness. Second, what changed? God did not change, but society has changed by having Hollywood cram down the throats of every man, woman, and child for decades the beauty of humor of those good looking gay guys that testify that all it has to do with is....love. God's love is unending except when it comes to sin. No matter how much we want it, how much we are confused by it, sin is sin.

You asked a laundry list of very broad questions... It strikes me as disingenuous to then be upset at the context in which he answered.

I don't have the time to respond to all that you said in a single post but I do have a few counterpoints.

First, when does a prophet speak as a prophet? How do we know? And are we talking about The Prophet or all of the men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Second, we believe that much of the OT is the old law, fulfilled by Christ. I don't understand the process for which abominations we still hold on to and which we've dropped.

Third, Christ came and taught love and compassion as the new law. I don't consider that to be rose-colored glasses and rainbow fairy tales.