Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

There has always been blacks holding the Priesthood. Plus it has always been prophecied that one day the blacks of African descent would hold the Priesthood.

No such has been said about SSM.

 

Be careful with absolutes... it wasn't "always" prophesied...

 

From Brigham Young in the J of D, vol 11:

"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

 

It happened a lot earlier than President Young taught.  That required condition has not yet been met.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed. But I don't see that as happen period.

[rockpond]

If the Lord were to ever command a homosexual sealing than that is what should be done and i'll revoke my statement. But until the Lord commands such a thing, I stand by what I wrote.

 

Yep - that was my point - if He commands it, then it can be done.

 

I'm glad you're willing to revoke your statement but I'm not willing to go out on that limb and state that it can never happen, as you did.

[rockpond]

Agreed. But I don't see that as happen period.

 

Fair enough.  I fall into the opposite camp.  I think it will... when we're ready.

[rockpond]

The Plan of Slavation allows for different kingdoms, that is for sure, but "continuation of the seeds" has to do with the Lord's acceptance of marriage between men and women and rejection of same-sex procreation of His children.

 

Except that we don't really know how spirit children are created.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

When the laws prohibiting polygamy are overturned, should the church then be obliged to accept members who practice it? What is your view on the Declaration on the Family?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[thesometimesaint]

Be careful with absolutes... it wasn't "always" prophesied...

 

From Brigham Young in the J of D, vol 11:

"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

 

It happened a lot earlier than President Young taught.  That required condition has not yet been met.

 

I must have missed where Brigham Young in the J of D, vol 11: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." has been acepted by the Church.

 

You might find this helpful:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God

 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

 

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

[CV75]

Yet, in verses 34-39 the Lord is telling us that things that we may view to be sin and abominations can still be commanded by Him and counted as righteousness.

D&C 132 touches upon the eternal nature of human reproduction as entailed in such phrases as, “fruit of his loins,” “continuation of the works of my Father,” “sprang many people,” etc. And nowhere is “abomination” used as a synonym for “sin.” In the scriptures, abominations are well beyond sin, or worse than sin. While the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, abominations elicit divine loathing.

[Ahab]

         

At least we're not talking about pornography as much as we once did.  And yes it's still sinful and wrong even though it is legal.

[CV75]

Except that we don't really know how spirit children are created.

Except that we do know they aer created in line with what I put in post #33.

[rockpond]

Except that we do know they aer created in line with what I put in post #33.

 

CFR that spirit children are created in line with what you posted in #33.

[rockpond]

D&C 132 touches upon the eternal nature of human reproduction as entailed in such phrases as, “fruit of his loins,” “continuation of the works of my Father,” “sprang many people,” etc. And nowhere is “abomination” used as a synonym for “sin.” In the scriptures, abominations are well beyond sin, or worse than sin. While the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, abominations elicit divine loathing.

 

Correct.  I should not have used the word abomination.  But it does not change my point.

[Scott Lloyd]

The concept is quite simple, really: Not everything that is legal ought to be condoned or engaged in.

[rockpond]

I must have missed where Brigham Young in the J of D, vol 11: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." has been acepted by the Church.

 

You might find this helpful:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God

 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

 

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

I agree with all of that.  It is also true that President Young taught (after Joseph Smith's death) that blacks would not receive the priesthood until all of God's other children had received the priesthood, presumably in some post-millenial timeframe.  It obviously happened much sooner.

 

But it is incorrect to teach that we "always prophecied" that blacks would be given the priesthood and allowed to enter the temple as if we expected OD2 to occur sometime before the return of Christ.

 

As you noted, the origins of the priesthood & temple restrictions were not based in revelation.  Similarly, we have no specific revelation prohibiting same gender marriage, only the revelations authorizing man/woman & plural marriage.

[CV75]

Correct.  I should not have used the word abomination.  But it does not change my point.

But immorality on the scale of homosexual intercourse is an abomination and cannot be treated as sin.

 

The Lord allows ploygamy when He commands it not because having more than one wife isn't sin (normally), but because human procreation is not an abomination.

 

All indicators are that spirit children are not the product of homosexual intercourse.

Edited August 26, 2013 by CV75

[Buckeye]

Be careful with absolutes... it wasn't "always" prophesied...

 

From Brigham Young in the J of D, vol 11:

"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

 

It happened a lot earlier than President Young taught.  That required condition has not yet been met.

 

Importantly, President Young's statement was quoted verbatim in the 1949 First Presidency Letter which affirmed that the racial priesthood bad was a "not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization ..."  Members today often misunderstand their history.  The ban was not something that could be lifted anytime.  It was a doctrine that could not be lifted until all non-cursed individuals had an opportunity to receive the priesthood.  That was the great struggle in 1978 and the reason why Elder McConkie said (paraphrasing) "forget everything I said prior to 1978."  What had been said - including the 1949 statement - directly conflicted with the 1978 revelation.  Elder McConkie defended the change by proffering that the brethren were now working under greater light than they had previously (something I thing we can all agree upon).

 

So to get back to the topic, if greater light can lead to a change of doctrine in 1978, surely the same can happen in our day too.  Every prophet has bounds to his authority and one of those bounds is time.  A prophet can declare the word of the Lord for his/her day.  But they cannot bind future prophets.  Whatever the current teachings, no mortal can say with any authority "this will never change."  Nothing stops future McConkie's from saying "forget what I or President Monson, or President Packer said on the subject.  We were working under lesser light." 

Edited August 26, 2013 by Buckeye

[CV75]

CFR that spirit children are created in line with what you posted in #33.

D&C 132 -- these concepts of human reproduction within the covenant are temporal and spiritual; mortal and eternal.

[rockpond]

But immorality is an abomination and cannot be treated as sin.

 

The Lord allows ploygamy when He commands it not because having more than one wife isn't sin (normally), but because human procreation is not an abomination.

 

Is adultery a sin?  An abomination?  Those verses indicate that the Lord can authorize the taking of concubines.

 

Is murder a sin?  An abomination?  Those verses indicate that the Lord can authorize murder.

 

It doesn't even seem like a stretch to me that the Lord could authorize marriage between two loving homosexual persons if he can authorize murder and concubines.

[rockpond]

D&C 132 -- these concepts of human reproduction within the covenant are temporal and spiritual; mortal and eternal.

 

That's not a CFR.  Where does 132 even say that?

[CV75]

That's not a CFR.  Where does 132 even say that?

Lack of revelation about a subject does not justify taking what has been revealed onto a conflicting trajectory to that which has been revealed.

 

The ideas in D&C 132 (integrating without repeating post #33) state that they are in relation to a new and everlasting covenant instituted for the fullness of God’s glory (the immortality and eternal life of man), expressed in the context of marriage between men and women.

 

The covenant is for time and for all eternity, and most holy (not an abomination). The mode of human procreation has been appointed, and the Lord will not receive at our hands that which He has not appointed.

 

Laws that were appointed before the world was can be expected to be in force after the world has served its purpose. The covenants that carry these appointments apply and are valid in this world and the next. This law of the Holy Priesthood was ordained by Christ and His Father before the world was.

 

Those who do not abide His law cannot be enlarged (have an increase), but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity, forever and ever. Those who abide His law are gods because they continue (which involves continuation of the seeds, or the procreation of new gods, beginning with their spirits). Spirit procreation therefore requires a man and a woman, the “biological” mechanics of which may be speculated, but the requirement for procreation is that a man and a woman do it together, and not same-sex couples.

 

The terms for adultery (and anything like unto it) are clear—sexual unions outside the male-female marriage.

 

Joseph Smith was authorized only to give men and women to each other, without condemnation on earth and in heaven.

[CV75]

Is adultery a sin?  An abomination?  Those verses indicate that the Lord can authorize the taking of concubines.

 

Is murder a sin?  An abomination?  Those verses indicate that the Lord can authorize murder.

 

It doesn't even seem like a stretch to me that the Lord could authorize marriage between two loving homosexual persons if he can authorize murder and concubines.

Whie sin and abomination are not necessarily mutually exclusive, there are differences. Murderd life is restored through the Resurrection. The pain of victims of adultery is also healed in the resurrection. Homosexual reproduction is impossible under the means of human reproduction instituted (appointed) of God, and has nothing to do with anything that can be done, corrected or perpetuated in the resurrection.

[rockpond]

Lack of revelation about a subject does not justify taking what has been revealed onto a conflicting trajectory to that which has been revealed.

 

The ideas in D&C 132 (integrating without repeating post #33) state that they are in relation to a new and everlasting covenant instituted for the fullness of God’s glory (the immortality and eternal life of man), expressed in the context of marriage between men and women.

 

The covenant is for time and for all eternity, and most holy (not an abomination). The mode of human procreation has been appointed, and the Lord will not receive at our hands that which He has not appointed.

 

Laws that were appointed before the world was can be expected to be in force after the world has served its purpose. The covenants that carry these appointments apply and are valid in this world and the next. This law of the Holy Priesthood was ordained by Christ and His Father before the world was.

 

Those who do not abide His law cannot be enlarged (have an increase), but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity, forever and ever. Those who abide His law are gods because they continue (which involves continuation of the seeds, or the procreation of new gods, beginning with their spirits). Spirit procreation therefore requires a man and a woman, the “biological” mechanics of which may be speculated, but the requirement for procreation is that a man and a woman do it together, and not same-sex couples.

 

The terms for adultery (and anything like unto it) are clear—sexual unions outside the male-female marriage.

 

Joseph Smith was authorized only to give men and women to each other, without condemnation on earth and in heaven.

 

Again, I agree with most of what you have summarized from 132 but you are making an unsubstantiated leap when you state that the creation of spirit children requires a man and a woman.  That process has not been revealed.

Edited August 26, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Whie sin and abomination are not necessarily mutually exclusive, there are differences. Murderd life is restored through the Resurrection. The pain of victims of adultery is also healed in the resurrection. Homosexual reproduction is impossible under the means of human reproduction instituted (appointed) of God, and has nothing to do with anything that can be done, corrected or perpetuated in the resurrection.

 

Homosexual reproduction in mortality is impossible (granted science may someday come up with something but that's a different discussion).

 

But, again, that fact does not restrict the Lord from someday potentially authorizing homosexual marriages.  D&C 132 says that he can authorize murder, plural marriage, and the taking of concubines.  We cannot, with authority, say that He will never authorize homosexual marriage.  We just can't.

[Buckeye]

CV - I think what rockpond is discussing is the commonly held idea that spiritual procreation mirrors mortal procreation exactly.  In otherwords, the same plumbing is required and works the same way for creating spirit children as it does for creating mortal children.  Rockpond is pointing out that we simply do not have any scriptural backing for that idea.  It may make some sense.  And there certainly is nothing concrete to say it is not true.  But the idea is not scriptural required.  Reasonable people can say "we just don't know."  In fact, I'd say most members are uncomfortable taking the idea to its fullest extent, as Brigham Young did, and believing that God had sex with Mary.

 

For the topic on hand, this point matters because members often say something like "God can't ever allow homosexual unions because they'd have no way to procreate in heaven."  That logic is unsound.  It may be true that God will never allow homosexual unions.  And I agree with you that spirit procreation will only be done in ways appointed by God.  But because we do not *know* how spirit creation is carried out, we cannot say that homosexuals are excluded from the process.  We just don't know enough at this time.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Buckeye

[MorningStar]

By your logic, the church should embrace alcohol, abortion, etc. because they're legal.  Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.  Homosexual behavior is going against the Law of Chastity whether the two people are "married" or not.