Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[Darren10]

 

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.

Not that it can't but that it won't.

[rockpond]

 

Not that it can't but that it won't.

 

Are you are prophet, seer, or revelator?

 

Just wanting to check.  

[Buckeye]

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.

 

There's a difference between embracing and addressing confusion.  Clearly we don't accept everything that is legal as being moral.  But unlike alcohol, abortion, etc., chastity is commonly defined in church teachings as depending on the law - ie., "the law of chastity is that we do not have sexual relations outside of a legal and lawful marriage."  Surely you can see how a teenage member of the church could be confused on this point.  Going just by that common church definition, Bob and Larry are not violating the law of chastity.  Rockpond's point is that, unlike with other church teachings that do not incorporate the law of the land, our teachings on chastity may need to be made more clear to address this newly-developed conundrum. 

[Ahab]

... 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.

Speak for yourself, please.  I know many people who know what I know about this and we know it takes both a man and a woman to have a baby, even in heaven.   That's why Adam was given Eve as a spouse, and not Steve.  If Adam and Steve could have done it then it would have been written in the history books.

[rockpond]

Speak for yourself, please.  I know many people who know what I know about this and we know it takes both a man and a woman to have a baby, even in heaven.   That's why Adam was given Eve as a spouse, and not Steve.  If Adam and Steve could have done it then it would have been written in the history books.

 

I'm not really interested in the philosophies of men.  If you can back up your "knowledge" with some revealed truth, please share.

[Buckeye]

Speak for yourself, please.  I know many people who know what I know about this and we know it takes both a man and a woman to have a baby, even in heaven.   That's why Adam was given Eve as a spouse, and not Steve.  If Adam and Steve could have done it then it would have been written in the history books.

 

Unless you can show me otherwise, Adam and Eve did not create any spirit children.  I have yet to meet anyone who has created spirit children and can fill me in on the spirit birds and bees.  I doubt you have either.  You are entitled to your views.  But they don't constitute knowledge.

[Ahab]

I'm not really interested in the philosophies of men.  If you can back up your "knowledge" with some revealed truth, please share.

If I did you would just think it was the philosophy of some man, as you just did. 

[Ahab]

Unless you can show me otherwise, Adam and Eve did not create any spirit children.  I have yet to meet anyone who has created spirit children and can fill me in on the spirit birds and bees.  I doubt you have either.  You are entitled to your views.  But they don't constitute knowledge.

In your opinion.  Sheesh.  The audacity of some people.

[CV75]

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.

While the biological process has not been revealed in D&C 132, the spiritual and covenantal process has. In light of the many reference to how long these covenants and appointments have been and will be in place, and that they will be in place eternally, I see I quite a bit of substantiation to expect that homosexual covenants and appointments cannot be justified anywhere in the Plan of Salvation.

Edited August 26, 2013 by CV75

[Buckeye]

In your opinion.  Sheesh.  The audacity of some people.

Last word!  I win!

[MorningStar]

There's a difference between embracing and addressing confusion.  Clearly we don't accept everything that is legal as being moral.  But unlike alcohol, abortion, etc., chastity is commonly defined in church teachings as depending on the law - ie., "the law of chastity is that we do not have sexual relations outside of a legal and lawful marriage."  Surely you can see how a teenage member of the church could be confused on this point.  Going just by that common church definition, Bob and Larry are not violating the law of chastity.  Rockpond's point is that, unlike with other church teachings that do not incorporate the law of the land, our teachings on chastity may need to be made more clear to address this newly-developed conundrum. 

 

I don't see where the confusion is.  The church doesn't recognize these relationships as marriages.

[rockpond]

While the biological process has not been revealed in D&C 132, the spiritual and covenantal process has. In light of the many reference to how long these covenants and appointments have been and will be in place, and that they will be in place eternally, I see I quite a bit of substantiation to expect that homosexual covenants and appointments can be justified anywhere in the Plan of Salvation.

 

I also see substantiation to expect that homosexual covenant & appointments can be justified in the plan of salvation.  But I don't think that's what you meant to write.

[CV75]

We cannot, with authority, say that He will never authorize homosexual marriage.  We just can't.

Of course no one but the Prophet and the Lord Himself can say what the Lord will authorize. Scripturally, these are on record, and as stated above, all indications are that a homosexual work and glory are not supported by the covenants and appointments that have been set up from before the foundation of the world and which the Prophet and the Lord have expressed in numerous ways as pertaining to eternal mariages between men and women only.

Edited August 26, 2013 by CV75

[rockpond]

I don't see where the confusion is.  The church doesn't recognize these relationships as marriages.

 

The law of chastity is defined as "sexual relations only with your legally & lawfully wedded spouse".  One could easily interpret that to mean that a gay couple who is legally married is obeying the law of chastity.  They might be incorrect in accordance with the current policy of the church, but the interpretation could be drawn.

 

I think that's the point.

[CV75]

I also see substantiation to expect that homosexual covenant & appointments can be justified in the plan of salvation.  But I don't think that's what you meant to write.

LOL that's for sure!

[EllenMaksoud]

The Brethren have said Same Sex Attraction is not a sin..., but acting on it is.

 

With gay marriage legal, if two men or two women get 'legally and lawfully married', will the Church recognize it?

 

Seems they would as it is the law of the land and they are bound to accept that. Seems the sexual activity of married couples stays in the home and it is the business of the married couple, not the Bishop or anyone else as long as it is between the couple who are 'legally and lawfully married'.

 

With the church seemingly being more accepting of homosexual attraction and gay marriage becoming legal why wouldn't the Church follow the law of the land in recognizing gay marriage while restricting Temple Sealings to traditional man/woman couples?

 

I have read too many times church leaders, spokesmen and members talking of 'one man and one woman' as what marriage should be. This itself flies in the face of D&C 132 and LDS history.

 

Why not let it be, let those who marry legally do so whether homo or heterosexual and stop the lobbying?

It is my understanding that SS marriage at the ward level is permissible. They will not get Temple Priveleges. Why is this not enough? I am dealing with individual right now who wishes to change the entire church single handedly and causes me to knash my teeth. Grrrr.

Edited August 26, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[Scott Lloyd]

It is my understanding that SS marriage at the ward level is permissible.

I don't believe that is correct.

[CV75]

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.

I think we do know enough -- from D&C 132 alone, we see that the nature of the covenants and the promises are from befoer the foundation of the world and go on eternally, and are fixed to marriages between men and women which is the only way the continuation of the seeds ca ocurr (however that may be accomplished).

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't believe that is correct.

Ask your bishop. In this case it was Man and transgender woman. I do not act like the boss because I am not the boss.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ask your bishop. In this case it was Man and transgender woman. I do not act like the boss because I am not the boss.

I would be very, very surprised -- nay, astonished -- if a Latter-day Saint bishop had knowingly conducted a marriage ceremony under such circumstances.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Darren10]

 

Are you are prophet, seer, or revelator?

 

Just wanting to check.  

Just a faithful believe who attempts to makes sense out of the nature of God.

[Darren10]

 

The law of chastity is defined as "sexual relations only with your legally & lawfully wedded spouse".  One could easily interpret that to mean that a gay couple who is legally married is obeying the law of chastity.  They might be incorrect in accordance with the current policy of the church, but the interpretation could be drawn.

 

I think that's the point.

Except that all Church standards and policies, and even modern-day revelation are based upon the Standard Works. homosexuality is outright condemned as sinful in and of itself. It doesn't matter how much you drag dress it with legal marriage, it's sinful, period and has never been part of ancient Israel's, nor modern-day LDS restorative temple ceremonies. To interpret "legally and lawfully" married as being a sign of chastity of a homosexual act or acts is getting way far away from what the standards are and the true principles behind LDS Church policies and standards.

[Ahab]

I don't see where the confusion is.  The church doesn't recognize these relationships as marriages.

I wonder if there has been a case yet where someone has tried to submit the names of 2 people of the same sex for a temple sealing.

[EllenMaksoud]

I would be very, very surprised -- nay, astonished -- if a Latter-day Saint bishop had knowingly conducted a marriage ceremony under such circumstances.

Are you saying that I am lying?  Hmmm

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you saying that I am lying?  Hmmm

No. But I am wondering if you got your story straight.

 

Not only am I confident such a thing would not ordinarily happen in the Church, I'm fairly certain that a bishop who knowlngly did such a thing would himself be subject to correction.