Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[Storm Rider]

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??

 

Well, I think it is quite evident. There is ample scripture and declarations of prophets to determine what is sin and what is not. If someone lives a life in accordance with the Gospel nothing would prevent that person to enter into Exaltation.

 

You want to quantify individuals as gay or straight; the entire foundation that we have been trying to build is an understanding of what is sin and what is not - the behavior is sin. Let me repeat, if an individual lives in accordance with the Gospel they will be exalted. One of the wonderful teachings of the Gospel is that all ordinances of exaltation will be done for all whether they are able to have them done in this life, the work will be done for them. What is difficult to understand about that concept? Do you think that someone with a sinful nature (i.e. the entire human population) would somehow be prevented from the saving grace of Jesus Christ? Do you think because someone might have SSA they somehow have something different than a sinful nature? They are just like every other child of God that must learn to live within the bounds the Lord has taught us.

 

There is no need for "further light and knowledge" on this topic; it is no different than what has been said for hundreds, if not thousands, of generations.

 

What happens to those who do not live in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, those who willingly break his laws and do not seek repentance? They will not enter into the Celestial Kingdom because they have chosen not to enter therein. Do you think it would be otherwise?

[CV75]

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.

I'm not saying that at all. When you use the word “ultimately,” I include this to mean in this life or the next, which all God’s children have to work with. To me this is a given. And in our imperfection, ultimately everyone’s “orientation” will need to be washed clean and expressed in ways that emulate God, to the degree they are willing to be subject to Him.

 

Any follower of Christ that suffers because he must live a life of celibacy in order to keep the covenants he has or can have will be rewarded for his faith with every blessing. The reasons for celibacy can be involuntary and voluntary, sometimes with great sacrifice and imposition and sometimes with little or none. Of course some unmarried people need our fellowship, mourning and prayers because of their loneliness, but others have come to grips with it.

 

I think way too much focus and emphasis is being placed on sexual orientation. Orientation is not the summation of our identity; there is a lot more to human makeup than that. But we live in an overly and overtly sexualized society, so most people will absorb the values and priorities surrounding them and make their orientation the be-all, end-all of their existence, even in their religious observance and agenda.

 

That is why we need to focus on God and His covenants. As we do so, individual solutions, strength, comfort, and guidance will come from the Holy Ghost—individually, in families, wards, etc.—to honor and keep the covenants and find joy in where they are leading us.

[CV75]

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? 

Not immediately--but since God has a wife, and they act as One in bringing spirit children into Their sphere, I construe Them to be One God for many purposes in many applications. Whatever Heavenly Father does, He has a Helpmeet, whether She is literally engaged in every particular action and communication attributed to Him or not, just as He is not engaged in every particular action and communication She is carrying out at any given moment.

 

I'm sure the scholars have a better answer for you; I've seen threads that discuss this topic.

[David T]

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.

 

My list gives the response to the question of  "so what? And why?" of your checklist.

 

 

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.

 

Yep. In the same category as eating shellfish,  marriage to non-Israelites, and women wearing pants. 

 

 

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.

 

Now while I agree with the shellfish thing from a disgust factor (I don't like shrimp or lobster!), I wonder if you do. Do you think God still thinks eating shellfish is an abomination? If not anymore, did he before? It is called an abomination in the Old Testament.

 

 

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.

 

I reject this dichotomy. Prophets are always men, even when speaking in their authoritative role. There is always a human filter. The newsroom position I cited doesn't make any distinction about 'speaking as a prophet'.

 

 

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.

 

You insist on putting weird straw-men words in my mouth. And completely disregarding what I'm saying. Perhaps it's because I'm not being clear. Perhaps you're not trying to understand. Either way, communication clearly isn't occurring.

 

My past history should show evidence that I am very, very willing to accept correction when I'm shown to be wrong. My goodness, I joined this Church because I had divine confirmation of the goodness and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as I was striving to prove it wrong. I was definitely not seeking conversion, but it came anyway.

 

Do not try to lecture me about what I would do in light of inconvenient experience of divine revelation. My paradigm is prepared to shift, and has. There are some substantial elements where I have gone back to a far more conservative position than I had in the past based on my experiences. The same goes for the other.

 

Any attempts to paint me as someone who flippantly ignores things - especially scripture - that I don't agree with at the moment completely misunderstands everything I try to express here, and contradicts my very life..

 

 

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.

 

I do not appreciate or admire giving up one's thought process and seeking knowledge to automatically agree with the accepted view from millennia ago.

 

As President Uchtdorf teaches, "Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers from the scriptures or the handbooks because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

 

What you call 'putting blinders on', I call grappling with, and encountering the scriptures, and seeking deeply to understand the nature of revelation, and how God works with humanity. It's actually a lot of work. And it would be far easier to say, "X said Y, so it must be true."

 

 

 

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.

 

Let's rephrase that, to express an earlier position of the Church:

 

"Individuals want to act as if [interracial marriage] 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"

 

Is that crazy? Is that making things up? Here's a quote from below that expresses the same idea ... from the First Presidency. Do you agree with President George Albert Smith in 1947?

 

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.” First Presidency under George Albert Smith , May 5th, 1947. 

 

 

Listen, the "God doesn't change" argument is a strawman. I'm certainly not suggesting that he does.

 

What I do suggest is that he works with humanity, who does gratefully change,  "line upon line". That he finds us in the midst of deeply ingrained social and communal constructs, and works with what he has. He speaks to us "according to our weakness, in our own language."

 

You say we are not more enlightened as a society? I disagree 100%. Oh, we're by no means near perfection yet, but humanity is getting better. I'm glad most of humanity doesn't question that the idea of putting to death someone who has gay sex is ridiculous. I'm glad most of humanity doesn't question that the legalization of interracial marriage was a very GOOD thing. I'm glad that most of humanity would shudder and ask searching questions when they read the accounts of the ancient Israelites being commanded by God to kill every man and woman in the enemy camp, except for the young daughters to take as slave/wives.

 

Seriously - the fact that how people have sex you don't agree with seems to be one of your biggest moral beefs with the civilized world kind of should prove ... something. All the while showing that a very different kind of blinders are in view.

 

Your views express an inherent disdain and pessimism for humanity. I tend to see God as being highly optimistic, and determined to work through us. All of us.

 

Sometimes I do believe that in many cases, those who decry the calling of evil good, and good evil are guilty of the very thing they are accusing others of.

 

But in the end, what we all need to do is CHILL OUT, and not question the sincerity and integrity (and spirituality) of those who disagree with you. Some of the best examples of Christlike people in my life have been those I would heavily disagree with on account of their doctrinal positions on things. Doesn't mean they're a bad person. Doesn't mean either of us don't diligently seek truth from God. Doesn't mean one of us isn't sincere. It doesn't mean one of us is selfish.

 

It means we have different experiences, different reasons for believing what we do. 

 

Few things frustrate me and anger me more than suggestions that this isn't the case. And I try my best to rectify things if, in a fit of frustration,  I find myself falling into the trap of expressing something similar.

Edited September 6, 2013 by David T

[california boy]

Well, I think it is quite evident. There is ample scripture and declarations of prophets to determine what is sin and what is not. If someone lives a life in accordance with the Gospel nothing would prevent that person to enter into Exaltation.

 

You want to quantify individuals as gay or straight; the entire foundation that we have been trying to build is an understanding of what is sin and what is not - the behavior is sin. Let me repeat, if an individual lives in accordance with the Gospel they will be exalted. One of the wonderful teachings of the Gospel is that all ordinances of exaltation will be done for all whether they are able to have them done in this life, the work will be done for them. What is difficult to understand about that concept? Do you think that someone with a sinful nature (i.e. the entire human population) would somehow be prevented from the saving grace of Jesus Christ? Do you think because someone might have SSA they somehow have something different than a sinful nature? They are just like every other child of God that must learn to live within the bounds the Lord has taught us.

 

There is no need for "further light and knowledge" on this topic; it is no different than what has been said for hundreds, if not thousands, of generations.

 

What happens to those who do not live in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, those who willingly break his laws and do not seek repentance? They will not enter into the Celestial Kingdom because they have chosen not to enter therein. Do you think it would be otherwise?

I think what I am asking is, what does exalted mean to a faithful gay member?  If a person finds living with a woman on this earth to be such a difficult thing to do that he is willing to go his whole life without getting married and has no desire to be with a woman, what happens to him after he dies?  What does exalted mean to him?  Is he going to be paired up with a woman for eternity???  Doesn't sound that appealing to me.  I have no interest in spending eternity with a woman.  So maybe you can tell me what I should be striving for.  And what will be the results of that faithfulness.  

[california boy]

Not immediately--but since God has a wife, and they act as One in bringing spirit children into Their sphere, I construe Them to be One God for many purposes in many applications. Whatever Heavenly Father does, He has a Helpmeet, whether She is literally engaged in every particular action and communication attributed to Him or not, just as He is not engaged in every particular action and communication She is carrying out at any given moment.

 

I'm sure the scholars have a better answer for you; I've seen threads that discuss this topic.

Yet all the scriptues and teaching of the prophets have talked about God the Father and Christ working together to create the world.  You certainly put a new spin on the whole creation process.  Do you think this is doctrine or just speculation.  Do you think His helpmate will be pregnant throughout eternity since you seem to feel that spirit children will be concieved in a similar pattern as chlidren are created on earth?

[rockpond]

I'm not saying that at all. When you use the word “ultimately,” I include this to mean in this life or the next, which all God’s children have to work with. To me this is a given. And in our imperfection, ultimately everyone’s “orientation” will need to be washed clean and expressed in ways that emulate God, to the degree they are willing to be subject to Him.

 

Any follower of Christ that suffers because he must live a life of celibacy in order to keep the covenants he has or can have will be rewarded for his faith with every blessing. The reasons for celibacy can be involuntary and voluntary, sometimes with great sacrifice and imposition and sometimes with little or none. Of course some unmarried people need our fellowship, mourning and prayers because of their loneliness, but others have come to grips with it.

 

I think way too much focus and emphasis is being placed on sexual orientation. Orientation is not the summation of our identity; there is a lot more to human makeup than that. But we live in an overly and overtly sexualized society, so most people will absorb the values and priorities surrounding them and make their orientation the be-all, end-all of their existence, even in their religious observance and agenda.

 

That is why we need to focus on God and His covenants. As we do so, individual solutions, strength, comfort, and guidance will come from the Holy Ghost—individually, in families, wards, etc.—to honor and keep the covenants and find joy in where they are leading us.

 

What does our "sexualized society" have to do with it?  I'm not talking about sex.  I'm talking about that orientation that leads us to a companion, a helpmeet, to create an eternal bond with.  I thought that was the a key element of the plan of salvation.  For you to just dismiss it as being overly emphasized diminishes a key element of the argument you've made.

 

If our orientation that drives who we want to spend eternity with is not the be-all, end-all then it seems like God could allow same-gender sealings.  Cause now, per this latest response, it's not all that important.  Everyone's orientation will be washed clean, right?

 

I fully agree with your final paragraph.  Let's focus on God and his covenants.  And for me, that included praying that those covenants can be opened up to our homosexual brothers and sisters as well.

[Damien the Leper]

What the LDS church recognises as a valid marriage is irrelevant. Overall, churches need to remember their limited place where political issues are concerned.

[rockpond]

There is no need for "further light and knowledge" on this topic; it is no different than what has been said for hundreds, if not thousands, of generations.

 

 

Wow.  The restoration is complete.  Storm Rider has so declared that we no longer need further light and knowledge on this topic.

 

Despite that fact that our teachings regarding homosexuality have evolved over the past 50 years, despite the fact that we can't explain homosexual orientation without using the words "we don't know", despite that fact that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are silent on the subject of homosexuality, despite the fact that there is no mention (nor condemnation) of actual loving committed same gender unions in the Bible, and despite the fact that Christ himself was silent on the topic.  Despite all of that and despite the good members of the church who leave, at least in part, over the treatment of homosexuals... we don't need any further light and knowledge.

 

Good to know, Storm Rider.

[Storm Rider]

I think what I am asking is, what does exalted mean to a faithful gay member?  If a person finds living with a woman on this earth to be such a difficult thing to do that he is willing to go his whole life without getting married and has no desire to be with a woman, what happens to him after he dies?  What does exalted mean to him?  Is he going to be paired up with a woman for eternity???  Doesn't sound that appealing to me.  I have no interest in spending eternity with a woman.  So maybe you can tell me what I should be striving for.  And what will be the results of that faithfulness.

The only celestial unit exists between a man and a woman; I do not assume that a sinful nature is a celestial nature. They do not exist in the same sphere.

[Storm Rider]

Wow. The restoration is complete. Storm Rider has so declared that we no longer need further light and knowledge on this topic.

Despite that fact that our teachings regarding homosexuality have evolved over the past 50 years, despite the fact that we can't explain homosexual orientation without using the words "we don't know", despite that fact that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are silent on the subject of homosexuality, despite the fact that there is no mention (nor condemnation) of actual loving committed same gender unions in the Bible, and despite the fact that Christ himself was silent on the topic. Despite all of that and despite the good members of the church who leave, at least in part, over the treatment of homosexuals... we don't need any further light and knowledge.

Good to know, Storm Rider.

If you would like to turn this into a smarm fest, I can oblige you, but I suspect you would not enjoy it. I am a much worse individual than you. You could not hang with it.

More so, when the conversation gets completely absurd it is not much fun.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Storm Rider

[rockpond]

If you would like to turn this into a smarm fest, I can oblige you, but I suspect you would not enjoy it. I am a much worse individual than you. You could not hang with it.

More so, when the conversation gets completely stupid it is not much fun.

 

You got smarmy quite a ways back in this thread and I have hung with it just fine.

 

Honestly, I think that to say we don't need further light and knowledge is a complete affront to the entire concept of a living prophet.

 

And the fact that you seem to want to place so much emphasis on OT law is something that I struggle to relate with.

[Damien the Leper]

It is disingenuous, IMO, to cite any of the 8 verses in the biblical canon without dealing with the historical context of what was being said. To do this would be mere proof texting and not in any way a valid argument or stance. It is also perplexing to me that referencing the Adam and Eve narrative is about sex and marital relations when it is clearly about aloneness. The conservative opinion on the matter really isn't conservative but seemingly delusional.

 

Do not label a difference of opinion delusional.

[CV75]

Yet all the scriptues and teaching of the prophets have talked about God the Father and Christ working together to create the world.  You certainly put a new spin on the whole creation process.  Do you think this is doctrine or just speculation. Do you think His helpmate will be pregnant throughout eternity since you seem to feel that spirit children will be concieved in a similar pattern as chlidren are created on earth?

I'm sorry that you came in too late to establish much of a rapport, especially if you haven't seen or understood my prior posts on the subject. But the very post you replied to supports this idea with the scriptures that I listed and referenced. I think there is plenty of general LDS understanding that God has a Wife (yes, I think this is doctrine), and if He didn't, He would not be God in the first place to do the things He is represented as doing in scripture or the temple presentation.

 

The questions you've posted for me have been adressed in other posts of mine. Your questions show that you haven't read or understood them. I'm not inclined to rehash them, so if you don't get replies, it means I feel I've touched on the answers already and you can find them elsewhere in this thread.

[CV75]

What does our "sexualized society" have to do with it?

Our society, being over-sexualized, so acclimates us to make it easy to over-emphasize the sexual aspect of our identity at the expense of other aspects. It is an imbalance in sexual identity that keeps us from making and keeping the covenants primarily on the basis of our orientation.

 

If our orientation that drives who we want to spend eternity with is not the be-all, end-all then it seems like God could allow same-gender sealings.  Cause now, per this latest response, it's not all that important.  Everyone's orientation will be washed clean, right?

Compared to the way we are now, everyone's sexual orientation will be in proper balance with all the other attributes that comprise our prefected divine nature. It is not our orientation, but our gender that contributes to the necessary male-female union requisite for exaltation.

 

Our orientation does not drive us--that is where I think you are off. What drives us are too numerous to mention. Some are of God, some of the devil, and some of ourselves, and some imposed by he conditions of the Fall. Now people may allow their orientation to be the primary force to drive them in their intimate relationships, but there is much more to us than one drive.

 

I fully agree with your final paragraph.  Let's focus on God and his covenants.  And for me, that included praying that those covenants can be opened up to our homosexual brothers and sisters as well.

I wouldn't pray for such a thing myself, not only for the reasons I've articulated all through this thread (which is what I've gotten out of focusing on the covenants), but for the reasons you've posted for doing so!

 

Fortunately there are so many other things that bind us together as saints than this topic!

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps it would be best to take emphasis off of sexual identity and sex and place more emphasis on the redemptive nature of the Gospel of the Savior as presented in the biblical canon. Afterall, the canon is NOT about nor does it allude to an over importance of things concerning sex. Its about God and not us. Wherever Christianity decided to place this emphasis demonstrates a clear deficiency of what scripture and being a follower of God and Christ is about.

[rockpond]

Our society, being over-sexualized, so acclimates us to make it easy to over-emphasize the sexual aspect of our identity at the expense of other aspects. It is an imbalance in sexual identity that keeps us from making and keeping the covenants primarily on the basis of our orientation.

 

Compared to the way we are now, everyone's sexual orientation will be in proper balance with all the other attributes that comprise our prefected divine nature. It is not our orientation, but our gender that contributes to the necessary male-female union requisite for exaltation.

 

Our orientation does not drive us--that is where I think you are off. What drives us are too numerous to mention. Some are of God, some of the devil, and some of ourselves, and some imposed by he conditions of the Fall. Now people may allow their orientation to be the primary force to drive them in their intimate relationships, but there is much more to us than one drive.

 

I wouldn't pray for such a thing myself, not only for the reasons I've articulated all through this thread (which is what I've gotten out of focusing on the covenants), but for the reasons you've posted for doing so!

 

Fortunately there are so many other things that bind us together as saints than this topic!

 

I agree that we shouldn't over emphasize sexuality.  But I don't follow your logic:  as heterosexuals we certainly let our orientation direct us in choosing a companion and in making our temple covenants.  And then you envision the next life as being a place where male-female unions spend eternity having intercourse to produce spirit children.

 

If you want to say that orientation isn't all that important, that's fine.  But that needs to carry over into the next life as well because your current assertion that a male-female union is the only way to exaltation actually places excessive emphasis on sexuality.  

[Calm]

 when in fact we know nothing of God's   plan for his gay children??

We know that he wants them to be happy, that he knows them better than themselves and that after death and reconciliation with God through the Atonement, they will then know themselves and others as God has know them, we know that nothing unclean or sinful can enter the presence of the Lord, we know that God has told us that any blessing someone is worthy of that they haven't had a chance to receive in this life they will receive in the next one.

 

I think we can determine quite a bit of what God has to offer from the above, but we can't tell for each individual because it will be their choice of what gifts of God to accept or not.

[CV75]

as heterosexuals we certainly let our orientation direct us in choosing a companion and in making our temple covenants. 

I think "direct" is far too strong a word because there are many gradients and strengths of orientation--we are directed by too many other influences that are at play as well. It certainly facilitates or supports making a choice to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

And then you envision the next life as being a place where male-female unions spend eternity having intercourse to produce spirit children.

I never said that--though I'd certainly welcome it! I did say that we do not know how spirit chidlren are produced, but that they require a male and a female parent sealed to each other. So while some might welcome same-sex intercourse for spirit production in the next life, it isn't in the design.

 

If you want to say that orientation isn't all that important, that's fine.  But that needs to carry over into the next life as well because your current assertion that a male-female union is the only way to exaltation actually places excessive emphasis on sexuality.  

No, it places a proper priority and emphasis on the covenant which requires the binding of a man and a woman into one; while their sex is an eligibility factor, their sexuality is not.

Edited September 6, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

I think "direct" is far too strong a word because there are many gradients and strengths of orientation--we are directed by too many other influences that are at play as well. It certainly facilitates or supports making a choice to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

I never said that--though I'd certainly welcome it! I did say that we do not know how spirit chidlren are produced, but that they require a male and a female parent sealed to each other. So while some might welcome same-sex intercourse for spirit production in the next life, it isn't in the design.

 

No, it places a proper priority and emphasis on the covenant which requires the binding of a man and a woman into one; while their sex is an eligibility factor, their sexuality is not.

 

Alright.  Just to be clear, I have never suggested that same-sex intercourse produces spirits (I know you aren't saying that I did... I just want to be clear).  I am of the belief that spirits are organized from intelligences and that the process likely has nothing to do with intercourse of any type.

 

If the priority and emphasis are to be placed on the covenant (I agree) than God could reveal a covenant that allows for same-gender sealings.

[CV75]

If the priority and emphasis are to be placed on the covenant (I agree) than God could reveal a covenant that allows for same-gender sealings.

...but the covenant is inherently about and for a males and a female becoming "one" -- but I've gone over that 9but more importantly the reasons for that) a couple of times.

[Calm]

  If a person finds living with a woman on this earth to be such a difficult thing to do that he is willing to go his whole life without getting married and has no desire to be with a woman, what happens to him after he dies? 

There are many things that people see as an intrinsic part of themselves that might not fit the Plan of Salvation for the next step.  That might stand in the way of eternal progression.  They might even see it as a positive characteristic....it may even be a positive characteristic in some ways...I know a man who is so attached to his emotional independence, his view of the ideal Celestial Kingdom is getting on a celestial motorcycle with his wife on the back and touring the universe.  But that would be hell for his wife (since her limit of interaction would be with the back of his head) and what of his relationship with his friends and family?  Even now this perceived independence is causing harm to those who care for him because those who need him are being neglected for those things that interest and entertain him and he isn't fulfilling his role as a husband and father as needed to be done in some ways.  Being independent allowed him to get a good job to provide for his family in hard circumstances, to stay safe and chaste in some difficult situations in the war and relatively healthy over the years, but now as he ages it is destroying the quality of his life and where once his wife took great joy and comfort in his companionship, now she sees him treating her as an appendage as he's lost the ability to see much beyond himself for any length of time (granted he is missing part of his brain and the drugs he takes is a major part of why this part of his character is the one to 'crystalize' and become dominant now).  Will he be required to laid down that most cherished self-identity which he believes has allowed him to live a charmed life, never having to change from the fun loving, hardworking young adult that left his family's home around 1950 on the altar in order to be able to be open to the Atonement? An identity that if he thinks he has to give up, it scares him so deeply he completely shuts down?  I do believe he will, at least to the point that the Lord will be able to pick it up and alter it for the new man into something that is beneficial to everyone, not just to himself so that he willingly and joyfully comes to know the other types of love and deep companionship that he has been blind to all of his life.

 

If the Atonement covers the hardened criminals who find at last a chance to soften their hearts to the innocent children and those without the Law and creates in them the new man of God, why could this not happen for someone who is places too high of walls between himself and others or someone who has homosexual attractions?  God has promised that when we put off the natural man with his help in order to be able to accept his gifts, the Atonement creates in us a new godly man or woman, that takes our best qualities and purifies them to a level of glory we cannot imagine and takes our weaknesses and turns them into our strengths in some unknown, but promised fashion.   Why would sexual orientation be outside the Atonement (assuming that is a weakness and not of eternal value in our characters, I understand that some debate this.)

 

I am reminded of the scene in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Eustace the dragon tries to alter himself back into the boy he was and fails time and time again to shed the dragon skin until Aslan with his soul penetrating surgically sharp claws tears it off...not without a goodly amount of pain, revealing not the old Eustace, but a better man.  We acquire a lot of scales in our lives looking to protect our most inner selves and we may end up thinking that those scales are our best selves for what they have allowed us to accomplish even in helping others and to make a better world, but still it is that which we must be willing to sacrifice so that God's sacrifice can create in us our true, new and everlasting selves.

[rockpond]

...but the covenant is inherently about and for a males and a female becoming "one" -- but I've gone over that 9but more importantly the reasons for that) a couple of times.

 

I know you have and I don't think you need to again.  It just requires too literal a reading of scripture for me.

[rockpond]

If the Atonement covers the hardened criminals who find at last a chance to soften their hearts to the innocent children and those without the Law and creates in them the new man of God, why could this not happen for someone who is places too high of walls between himself and others or someone who has homosexual attractions?  God has promised that when we put off the natural man with his help in order to be able to accept his gifts, the Atonement creates in us a new godly man or woman, that takes our best qualities and purifies them to a level of glory we cannot imagine and takes our weaknesses and turns them into our strengths in some unknown, but promised fashion.   Why would sexual orientation be outside the Atonement (assuming that is a weakness and not of eternal value in our characters, I understand that some debate this.)

 

Well put, Cal.  For me, however, the question is why does sexual orientation need to be something must be corrected by the atonement?

 

Maybe all hearts will be softened, walls will come down, and all scales removed in such a way that we are able to see pure love beyond the genders (or numbers) of those in a particular union.

 

I think you make an excellent point that we really don't have a clear idea of what the next life will look like... Especially when we get into particularities like the man who wants to ride his motorcycle through the eternities.

[california boy]

I'm sorry that you came in too late to establish much of a rapport, especially if you haven't seen or understood my prior posts on the subject. But the very post you replied to supports this idea with the scriptures that I listed and referenced. I think there is plenty of general LDS understanding that God has a Wife (yes, I think this is doctrine), and if He didn't, He would not be God in the first place to do the things He is represented as doing in scripture or the temple presentation.

 

The questions you've posted for me have been adressed in other posts of mine. Your questions show that you haven't read or understood them. I'm not inclined to rehash them, so if you don't get replies, it means I feel I've touched on the answers already and you can find them elsewhere in this thread.

I am not questioning whether God has a wife.  That is pretty confirmed doctrine.  What I am questioning is your assertion that God's wife was an intergral or even small part of the creation of our earth.  Where did you get the idea that she was involved at all?  That is what I am asking for a CFR on.