Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

The Book of Mormon allows for it. It doesn't command it.

Emma was conflicted about polygamy, and given her heritage I can understand that conflict.

I don't disagree with JFS. When it is commanded by God then we obey. When not we don't. It was a command to an individual on a individual basis, and not a Church wide command.

We don't know the reason(s) for the Ban on Priesthood. Personal speculation is just that.

I see no support from the Scriptures or statements by our leaders that at any time SSM is/will be permissable. Let alone leads to exaltation. I guess that at some unknown future time God would change that, but I seriously doubt it.

We are to be open to new revelation, and I do believe we are. However that SSM leads to exaltation is a step too far. There is nothing to support it, and plenty against it.

To me it is far more important that I treat my homosexual brothers and sister with loving kindness. However God will never accept sin in the least degree of tolerance.

Emma burned the 132 manuscript because it was understood to be saying that exaltation required plural marriage. And she didn't want Joseph to practice plural marriage.

The JFS statement shows that, back in the day, we taught polygamy as the way to the highest level of exaltation. Not just when it was commanded but that plural marriage was the only way to that highest level. We actually taught against monogamous marriages at times.

You're right when you say that we don't know the reasons for the priesthood ban. Is was not commanded of God. We likely let mortal prejudices get the better of us.

Point is... We learn. That's why we're here. It's why we believe in a restorative church and living prophets. The early saints had to be brought into the depths of humility... Prophet in hiding, prison sentences, etc before we were ready/able to be told that we could stop.

[thesometimesaint]

Yet there were at the time many good members of the Church that did not practice polygamy. There is no indications that it has ever been required unless they were personally asked. Also keep in mind that it was the Bible that inspired JS to ask about polygamy in the first place. Issac in the Bible had only one wife. While the original Apostles were married there is no indications that any of them were polygamists. Further it is not stated in the Bible if Jesus was married. Though one could make that a reasonable argument.

 

I have no doubt that Emma was troubled by polygamy. However she was well aware that Joseph was Sealed to more than one wife. The destuction of Scripture has no bearing on it correctness.  We will probably never know what happened to the original 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. Though I suspect Nancy Rigdon destroyed them.

 

Its earthly practice has never been the only way. The Book of Mormon itself has it as prohibited unless commanded by God.

 

I hope we all continue to learn. There is so much more to know concerning the Kingdom of God. We have but a thimbles worth of knowledge in the vast oceans of our ignorance.  We have Scripture that we are to do whatsoever our God will command us to do. Polygamy played its part. I'm just as glad we don't practice it today.

 

I can't say that it wasn't commanded by God. God for his own reasons has declined to give any reason(s) for any of the Priesthood Bans throughout history. No doubt those earlier Saints were prejudiced. But I tend to believe that the Ban was a trial for Priesthood holders and not for those members that couldn't hold it through no fault of their own. I am happy that not a single hitch was encountered with the lifting of the Ban, and virtually every member was overjoyed by its lifting.

[rockpond]

Yet there were at the time many good members of the Church that did not practice polygamy. There is no indications that it has ever been required unless they were personally asked. Also keep in mind that it was the Bible that inspired JS to ask about polygamy in the first place. Issac in the Bible had only one wife. While the original Apostles were married there is no indications that any of them were polygamists. Further it is not stated in the Bible if Jesus was married. Though one could make that a reasonable argument.

I have no doubt that Emma was troubled by polygamy. However she was well aware that Joseph was Sealed to more than one wife. The destuction of Scripture has no bearing on it correctness. We will probably never know what happened to the original 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. Though I suspect Nancy Rigdon destroyed them.

Its earthly practice has never been the only way. The Book of Mormon itself has it as prohibited unless commanded by God.

I hope we all continue to learn. There is so much more to know concerning the Kingdom of God. We have but a thimbles worth of knowledge in the vast oceans of our ignorance. We have Scripture that we are to do whatsoever our God will command us to do. Polygamy played its part. I'm just as glad we don't practice it today.

I can't say that it wasn't commanded by God. God for his own reasons has declined to give any reason(s) for any of the Priesthood Bans throughout history. No doubt those earlier Saints were prejudiced. But I tend to believe that the Ban was a trial for Priesthood holders and not for those members that couldn't hold it through no fault of their own. I am happy that not a single hitch was encountered with the lifting of the Ban, and virtually every member was overjoyed by its lifting.

Where in 132 does it say that it needs to be "personally asked"? And what was the process for that?

[CV75]

Why have there never been any prophets from a homosexual civilization, or are you suggesting there have been, and their scriptures haven't survived?

Well, you suggested “there is not a lot of support for a same-gender sealing in the scriptures,” and if “the Lord can only speak to man in the language and culture that they understand (2 Ne 31:3),” then I’m wondering what alternate language and culture would understand the concept same-sex unions of various kinds if the civilizations in the scriptures and onward through the Restoration haven’t.

 

Where homosexuality is not a race, there can be no civilization or culture founded and perpetuated upon it as the key identifying feature without the benefit of sexual reproduction. And since human beings tend to institutionalize whatever it is that their civilization relies on, male-female marriage would exist in a homosexual-centric culture.

[CV75]

I agree that the labels are new to mankind. But the reality behind them is not. I cannot imagine being in the next life and not loving my wife and spiritual, physical, romantic ways. And that's what orientation is. You seem to be describing an afterlife where we are asexual but still bond in male-female pairings. If we don't have an orientation, a desire to bond with someone, does that mean we will just do it because the covenant requires it of us, because we are sealed to that person and because they are the opposite gender from us?

No, I am saying that regardless of orientation, including those that do not share the exact profile you do, will abide the covenant and have great joy in it.

 

Male and female are so much more than orientation.

[rockpond]

No, I am saying that regardless of orientation, including those that do not share the exact profile you do, will abide the covenant and have great joy in it.

 

Male and female are so much more than orientation.

 

For me it's kinda the opposite... who we love, spiritually and intimately, is so much more than our gender.

[rockpond]

Well, you suggested “there is not a lot of support for a same-gender sealing in the scriptures,” and if “the Lord can only speak to man in the language and culture that they understand (2 Ne 31:3),” then I’m wondering what alternate language and culture would understand the concept same-sex unions of various kinds if the civilizations in the scriptures and onward through the Restoration haven’t.

 

Where homosexuality is not a race, there can be no civilization or culture founded and perpetuated upon it as the key identifying feature without the benefit of sexual reproduction. And since human beings tend to institutionalize whatever it is that their civilization relies on, male-female marriage would exist in a homosexual-centric culture.

 

That was my point... I think that we are just now creating societies in which homosexual unions are recognized.  So I wouldn't expect to see references to such unions in ancient scripture.

[WmLaw]

Yet there were at the time many good members of the Church that did not practice polygamy. There is no indications that it has ever been required unless they were personally asked. Also keep in mind that it was the Bible that inspired JS to ask about polygamy in the first place. Issac in the Bible had only one wife. While the original Apostles were married there is no indications that any of them were polygamists. Further it is not stated in the Bible if Jesus was married. Though one could make that a reasonable argument.

 

I have no doubt that Emma was troubled by polygamy. However she was well aware that Joseph was Sealed to more than one wife. The destuction of Scripture has no bearing on it correctness.  We will probably never know what happened to the original 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. Though I suspect Nancy Rigdon destroyed them.

 

Its earthly practice has never been the only way. The Book of Mormon itself has it as prohibited unless commanded by God.

 

I hope we all continue to learn. There is so much more to know concerning the Kingdom of God. We have but a thimbles worth of knowledge in the vast oceans of our ignorance.  We have Scripture that we are to do whatsoever our God will command us to do. Polygamy played its part. I'm just as glad we don't practice it today.

 

I can't say that it wasn't commanded by God. God for his own reasons has declined to give any reason(s) for any of the Priesthood Bans throughout history. No doubt those earlier Saints were prejudiced. But I tend to believe that the Ban was a trial for Priesthood holders and not for those members that couldn't hold it through no fault of their own. I am happy that not a single hitch was encountered with the lifting of the Ban, and virtually every member was overjoyed by its lifting.

Perhaps a generation or two from now, this same thing may be said about our time - regarding the issues with SSA marriages and sealings.  It's not inconceivable that there could be a new revelation and reversals in policies.  (preceded by reversals in attitudes by members and leaders...)

[CV75]

For me it's kinda the opposite... who we love, spiritually and intimately, is so much more than our gender.

True, but the gender is the key part of the covenant. In the eternities, when you have overcome all sexual temptations and distractions, you are no longer "heterosexual" but "(her name)sexual." Maybe you've completely overcome such temptation already; if so, good for you!

 

But in the same way, a homosexual can overcome all lust and become "(her name)sexual" for teh sake of the covenant. Some can accomplish this now, and some have to wait like just like their heterosexual counterparts.

 

Don't think for a minute a man can be with his wife/wives in eternity if he is sexually attracted to someone else of the opposite sex (sepcifically or generally). This tendency would have to be overcome.

[thesometimesaint]

Where in 132 does it say that it needs to be "personally asked"? And what was the process for that?

 

At the time JS was the only one to have the keys to the covenent. You had to have his permission to go the Temple.

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps a generation or two from now, this same thing may be said about our time - regarding the issues with SSA marriages and sealings.  It's not inconceivable that there could be a new revelation and reversals in policies.  (preceded by reversals in attitudes by members and leaders...)

 

I've never said that was impossible, but I do see it as so improbable as to be problematic.

[CV75]

That was my point... I think that we are just now creating societies in which homosexual unions are recognized.  So I wouldn't expect to see references to such unions in ancient scripture.

That wasn't my point: societies have always existed that had a homosexual element which as a feature in and of itself was not keyed in on participating in the perpetuation of the race. But everyone still understood it, and God could have set them straight and institutionalized a same-sex union, but didn't, and and for this reason wouldn't.

 

I don't see how societal acceptance of same-sex unions during this last dispensation will lead God into revealing a covenant to accommodate them. You've tried to use OD1 and OD2 as examples of social moores driving a revelation to change the covenants, but I don't think the dynamics that drove the seeking of these revelations were quite the same.

[rockpond]

True, but the gender is the key part of the covenant. In the eternities, when you have overcome all sexual temptations and distractions, you are no longer "heterosexual" but "(her name)sexual." Maybe you've completely overcome such temptation already; if so, good for you!

 

But in the same way, a homosexual can overcome all lust and become "(her name)sexual" for teh sake of the covenant. Some can accomplish this now, and some have to wait like just like their heterosexual counterparts.

 

Don't think for a minute a man can be with his wife/wives in eternity if he is sexually attracted to someone else of the opposite sex (sepcifically or generally). This tendency would have to be overcome.

 

Interesting theory.  I like your concept of "(insert name)sexual".  So you are basically saying that everyone's orientation becomes solely targeted to their sealed spouse (or spouses).

 

I agree with the exception (as noted before) that I'm open to the possibility that God could reveal the same covenant relationship between same gender couples.

[CV75]

Interesting theory.  I like your concept of "(insert name)sexual".  So you are basically saying that everyone's orientation becomes solely targeted to their sealed spouse (or spouses).

 

I agree with the exception (as noted before) that I'm open to the possibility that God could reveal the same covenant relationship between same gender couples.

LOL--there is no real "sex" between same-sex couples--just pleasurable friction! The "sex" is in two different sexes, on all the levels and contexts imaginable.

Edited September 9, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

At the time JS was the only one to have the keys to the covenent. You had to have his permission to go the Temple.

 

Permission, yes.  But how was the command from God given to practice plural marriage?

 

For six decades we practiced plural marriage... if it wasn't understood as THE requirement for the highest level of exaltation and was only done when commanded, then what was the process for receiving such a command?  Is there a record of that occurring?

[rockpond]

LOL--there is no real "sex" between same-sex couples--just pleasurable friction! The "sex" is in two different sexes, on all the levels and contexts imaginable.

 

That of course is all in how you define sex.  Of course, "just pleasurable friction" is true for many opposite gender couples in this life as well.  And, for all we know, that could be all it is in the next life for everyone.  We really don't know.

[rockpond]

That wasn't my point: societies have always existed that had a homosexual element which as a feature in and of itself was not keyed in on participating in the perpetuation of the race. But everyone still understood it, and God could have set them straight and institutionalized a same-sex union, but didn't, and and for this reason wouldn't.

 

I don't see how societal acceptance of same-sex unions during this last dispensation will lead God into revealing a covenant to accommodate them. You've tried to use OD1 and OD2 as examples of social moores driving a revelation to change the covenants, but I don't think the dynamics that drove the seeking of these revelations were quite the same.

 

CFR that "everyone still understood it".  

 

Yes, the dynamics that drove the seeking of the revelations in OD1 and OD2 were quite similar.  But that isn't what you meant to write, is it?

 

The acknowledgement of same-sex unions in our day opens up the possibility that we could begin asking God about them.  Assuming we are able to stop believing that we already know his reply.  My study of the gospel and restoration leads me to believe that we need to first ask a question, in humility, if we are to be able to receive God's reply.

[CV75]

That of course is all in how you define sex.  Of course, "just pleasurable friction" is true for many opposite gender couples in this life as well.  And, for all we know, that could be all it is in the next life for everyone.  We really don't know.

This gets back to the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. The Creation would not have come about had God not been a God (married per D&C 132), His children would not be male and female if they were not in "His" (married) image.

 

Adam and Eve did not have the luxury of picking each other out of a crowd, driven by their "orientation"; yet there they were, created male and female, married in the image of God.

[rockpond]

This gets back to the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. The Creation would not have come about had God not been a God (married per D&C 132), His children would not be male and female if they were not in "His" (married) image.

 

Adam and Eve did not have the luxury of picking each other out of a crowd, driven by their "orientation"; yet there they were, created male and female, married in the image of God.

 

 

None of which excludes the possibility that God could also acknowledge homosexual relationships.

[thesometimesaint]

Permission, yes.  But how was the command from God given to practice plural marriage?

 

For six decades we practiced plural marriage... if it wasn't understood as THE requirement for the highest level of exaltation and was only done when commanded, then what was the process for receiving such a command?  Is there a record of that occurring?

 

Many good and faithful members of the Church didn't engage in polygamy. We do have records of those whom didn't receive permission and they were excommunicated.

[CV75]

CFR that "everyone still understood it".  

Well, let's just say it was intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer...

 

Yes, the dynamics that drove the seeking of the revelations in OD1 and OD2 were quite similar.  But that isn't what you meant to write, is it?

 

The acknowledgement of same-sex unions in our day opens up the possibility that we could begin asking God about them.  Assuming we are able to stop believing that we already know his reply.  My study of the gospel and restoration leads me to believe that we need to first ask a question, in humility, if we are to be able to receive God's reply.

With OD1, polygamy had been the exception to the rule (one man, one wife), and this revelation rescinded it. Same-sex unions are neither the rule not the exception, and not the object of recission.

 

With OD2, priesthood for all men was the rule, the restrictions exceptional, and the restrictions rescinded or removed. Same sex unions are not a restriction, they are a never-was.

 

In OD1 and 2, the revelators acknowledged the rules and teh exceptions or restrictions and sought guidance about them. I see no rule embracing same-sex unions.

[CV75]

None of which excludes the possibility that God could also acknowledge homosexual relationships.

Except that it is impossible that God would cease to be God, and to acknowldge same-sex unions would deny His own perfected way of life which si the basis for the plan of happiness.

[rockpond]

Many good and faithful members of the Church didn't engage in polygamy. We do have records of those whom didn't receive permission and they were excommunicated.

 

That's not an answer.  What was the process for being commanded to practice polygamy?  You said that individuals had to be commanded to practice it and that 132 wasn't understood as the command for anyone who wanted the highest level of exaltation.

 

If you can cite the records of those who didn't receive permission and were excommunicated, that might be useful in trying to understand the process for receiving the command.

[rockpond]

Well, let's just say it was intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer...

 

 

Pure speculation.

[rockpond]

With OD1, polygamy had been the exception to the rule (one man, one wife), and this revelation rescinded it. Same-sex unions are neither the rule not the exception, and not the object of recission.

 

With OD2, priesthood for all men was the rule, the restrictions exceptional, and the restrictions rescinded or removed. Same sex unions are not a restriction, they are a never-was.

 

In OD1 and 2, the revelators acknowledged the rules and teh exceptions or restrictions and sought guidance about them. I see no rule embracing same-sex unions.

 

Polygamy was originally taught as THE way to the highest level of exaltation.  Monogamy was decried by church leaders.  We had to reach the depths of humility before the prophet was able to be taught by God that there could be another way.

 

Priesthood for all men was the rule but we failed to understand that.  We put in a restriction without God's sanction.  

 

We've placed a restriction on same-gender marriage and no revelation supporting such has been provided to us.  Maybe it's God's will.  Maybe it isn't.

 

Hopefully someday we'll know for sure.