Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[Ahab]

I am not playing dumb.  I sincerely responded to your points with my honest answer.

I still don't think what I said was too hard for you to understand, but I'll rephrase a bit just in case that might help.

 

I said:

The real problem here is that you don't accept the idea that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a sin, and wrong.

 

Or maybe you think that while our Father says it is a sin now, he might change his mind later and say it is not a sin anymore.

 

That's a fair assessment of your position at this point, isn't it.  I think it is.  Apparently you don't accept the idea that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a sin, and wrong.   Do you?  No.  You do not.  And I can tell by what you have already said.  If you did accept that idea you would realize that it really doesn't make any difference at all if people of the same sex are "married", because whether or not they're married it would still be a sin for people of the same sex to have sexual relations with each other.

 

So the problem is that you don't accept that idea.

 

I then said your problem should be solved when you find out how our Father feels about it, and that he'll always feel that way about it. Wishful thinking won't change that reality.

 

Meaning once you find out what our Father says about it then your wishful thinking won't change what he will tell you about it.

 

I already know he doesn't want any of us to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, whether those 2 people are married or not, so what you need to do now is find out how he feels and what he has to say about it.  Get to it.  Find out.  He will tell you if you ask him for his answer.   And I already know that what he will tell you will not contradict what he told me, because he doesn't give contradictory answers to the same question. 

 

Just ask him point blank:  Is it a sin for people of the same sex to have sexual relations (aka "sex") with each other?

 

Once he tell you it is you can then move on to learn about something else without having to worry about him changing his mind.

[rockpond]

I still don't think what I said was too hard for you to understand, but I'll rephrase a bit just in case that might help.

 

I said:

The real problem here is that you don't accept the idea that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a sin, and wrong.

 

Or maybe you think that while our Father says it is a sin now, he might change his mind later and say it is not a sin anymore.

 

That's a fair assessment of your position at this point, isn't it.  I think it is.  Apparently you don't accept the idea that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a sin, and wrong.   Do you?  No.  You do not.  And I can tell by what you have already said.  If you did accept that idea you would realize that it really doesn't make any difference at all if people of the same sex are "married", because whether or not they're married it would still be a sin for people of the same sex to have sexual relations with each other.

 

So the problem is that you don't accept that idea.

 

I then said your problem should be solved when you find out how our Father feels about it, and that he'll always feel that way about it. Wishful thinking won't change that reality.

 

Meaning once you find out what our Father says about it then your wishful thinking won't change what he will tell you about it.

 

I already know he doesn't want any of us to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, whether those 2 people are married or not, so what you need to do now is find out how he feels and what he has to say about it.  Get to it.  Find out.  He will tell you if you ask him for his answer.   And I already know that what he will tell you will not contradict what he told me, because he doesn't give contradictory answers to the same question. 

 

Just ask him point blank:  Is it a sin for people of the same sex to have sexual relations (aka "sex") with each other?

 

Once he tell you it is you can then move on to learn about something else without having to worry about him changing his mind.

 

I am not aware of any statements from God that saying that it's sinful for married people of the same gender to have sex.  Are you?  The law of chastity is sexual relations only with one's spouse.

 

I already received my answer to that question and it is apparently in contradiction to the answer you got.

[rockpond]

Your belief is not founded upon anything that God has revealed so far. "The Fall" is at least a metaphysical excuse for the condition of the world. LDS doctrine believes in it. You are LDS.

 

I understand very well how concern for loved ones being hurt by religious beliefs is a great problem. Problems with the Church's doctrines and the attitudes of its members cause people to leave all the time.

 

The simple truth is that we are imperfect here. Our love of one another is flawed by our imperfections. Not even the most pure heterosexual marriage is without flaws, and they are caused by weaknesses of the flesh, especially including the brain and the thoughts that it discerns. There is nothing special about heterosexual identity or orientation. It is what it is. Mostly it is bisexual, as "Ahab" points out using himself as an example. I concur completely. I have never, in my conscious memory (who knows what could be stuffed away in the subconscious from childhood!), had a homosexual encounter (had one adult male expose himself and make me touch him while he masturbated, when I was c. seven years old), and never felt curious about engaging in such. Yet I find the male quite sexually stimulating as much as the female, depending on the circumstances. I concluded long ago that I have the capacity to behave bisexually. And that I have a choice. I have committed to my choices, and am trying to convince my daughters to do likewise and follow their parents' example. But biology is already an often confusing gauge by which to judge morality. And in the current culture it is brushed aside as of little or no significance; just do what you want, it is all the same. Honesty is held up as a virtue, between any two people. You do that, apparently: you think a "marriage" between two people is sufficient to define it as "good". I don't. I see problems in doing relationships in other ways than heterosexual, and why cause needless problems?

 

Homosexuality is a flaw, a complex of biology and culture and upbringing. Most of humanity falls between "hardwired" heterosexual and homosexual, i.e. somewhere on the "bisexual" middle curve. But religious doctrine, asserted to be revealed by God, has always adhered to heterosexual marriage alone. That the State will make homosexual marriage legal has nothing at all to do with what God has already revealed. I do not expect any "further light and knowledge" to overturn thousands of years of what God has always said is a marriage. Like many other ways of not being worthy of full blessings, homosexual marriage will put the brakes on receiving those blessings, because it is not the ideal. But then, we fall for far less than the ideal in countless ways all the time and thus give up greater blessings of Joy.

 

I've said it before, "Mormon heaven" does not include homosexual marriage or anything like it. But I wouldn't put it past "God" to accommodate every kind of relationship with its level of joy, i.e. endless kinds of "heaven" for this and that. "Dog heaven", "cat heaven", and whatever humans want to accept for as long as they want to accept it. "God Is" in the Joy business, and we are all seeking for it the best we can....

 

I think it's inappropriate for a bisexual person to assume that everyone must feel similarly.  We are all different and unique sons and daughters of God.  Some lean toward being exclusively heterosexual, some exclusively homosexual, and some in between.

 

Other than that, I think we are just repeating ourselves now.  I've fully explained my beliefs as I believe that you have as well.  But if you have specific questions feel free to ask.

[Ahab]

I already received my answer to that question and it is apparently in contradiction to the answer you got.

Then one of us is not getting the answer from God, because God's answers to the same question in the same circumstances do not contradict.  And while you may think I'm the one who didn't get an answer from God, I am sure I did, and I have no doubt that what you said contradicts his answer to me.  But go ahead and live your whole life thinking what you think now if you think that is God's answer.  That's what I'm going to do now based on God's answer to me and I know he won't ever give a contradictory answer.  He's not the type who changes his mind about that sort of thing.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Ahab

[CV75]

I don't think I've ever disputed the content of section 132.  All I've said is that I'm open to the possibility of revelation that could extend those blessings to (including the accompanying temple ordinance) to homosexual couples.

You have said far more than that you are open to the possibility of specific revelation; if that it all you mean(t) to say, the conversation would have ended at that.

[rockpond]

Then one of us is not getting the answer from God, because God's answers to the same question in the same circumstances do not contradict.  And while you may think I'm the one who didn't get an answer from God, I am sure I did, and I have no doubt that what you said contradicts his answer to me.  But go ahead and live your whole life thinking what you think now if you think that is God's answer.  That's what I'm going to do now based on God's answer to me and I know he won't ever give a contradictory answer.  He's not the type who changes his mind about that sort of thing.

 

Wow.

 

Allow me a moment to bask in your humility.

[rockpond]

You have said far more than that you are open to the possibility of specific revelation; if that it all you mean(t) to say, the conversation would have ended at that.

 

This line of questioning began when someone (Was it you?  I honestly can't even remember.) insisted that God would never reveal an authorization of the sealing of same gender couples.  I've just been trying to explain my feelings & beliefs on why He could.

[Ahab]

This line of questioning began when someone (Was it you?  I honestly can't even remember.) insisted that God would never reveal an authorization of the sealing of same gender couples.  I've just been trying to explain my feelings & beliefs on why He could.

It's really beside the point for you to try to share "your" feelings and beliefs for why he could, or might, when in fact he wouldn't.

 

What you need to do is find out how "he" feels, and what "he thinks and believes regarding same sex sexual relations.

 

If you think you already know, then fine, go ahead and live with that answer which you think came from him.

 

Just know that I know he has given me a different answer and the answer you claim is from God contradicts what he told me.

[rockpond]

It's really beside the point for you to try to share "your" feelings and beliefs for why he could, or might, when in fact he wouldn't.

 

What you need to do is find out how "he" feels, and what "he thinks and believes regarding same sex sexual relations.

 

If you think you already know, then fine, go ahead and live with that answer which you think came from him.

 

Just know that I know he has given me a different answer and the answer you claim is from God contradicts what he told me.

 

CFR that He wouldn't or please stop making the unfounded assertion.

 

And actually, it's your answer that contradicts what He told me.  

[Ahab]

CFR that He wouldn't or please stop making the unfounded assertion.

 

And actually, it's your answer that contradicts what He told me.  

I'll rephrase and hope that you understand what I am saying this time.

 

God isn't going to change how he feels or what he thinks about same sex relations as if he needs some more time to think about his thoughts and feelings about it, so when in fact he wouldn't change his thoughts and feelings regarding this issue it would really be beside the point for you to try to share "your" feelings and beliefs for why "you" think he could or might change is mind.

 

What you should do is find out how he feels and what he thinks without thinking about him maybe someday changing his mind.

 

If you think he has already told you, then go ahead and live by what he has told you.  I'm going to live by what he has told me.

[CV75]

Then I ask that you kindly delete your accusation if you are not willing to support it.  I understand OD2.  If you read the church's response to the recent Randy Bott incident you might have a better understanding of my comments.

Here is where I find (without accusation—I am critiquing your posts) where “your portrayal does violence to the spirit of both the revelation and the message” in both tone and content (bolded, from post #150):

 

You wrote: “My scriptural insight is this:  If we can keep blacks from being sealed for over a century and a half and then say, institutionally:  oh sorry, we really had no revelation or doctrine or other reason for the restrictions and we disavow all that negative stuff that was said by church leaders.  Then I don't see it as a huge leap that someday the same could happen with homosexuals.”

 

OD2:

There is no “ifs” about it.

 

“Blacks” are not singled out or mentioned.

 

The phrases “extending priesthood and temple blessings,” “extend …all of the privileges and blessings,” “every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with the blessings of the temple” keeps no one from anything. It refers to what was promised for all God’s children on an eternal basis in His plan to be effectuated even in this life.

 

There is no apology. No disavowal. There is no mention of what earlier church leaders have said.

 

Even the header does not point to a lack of revelation, doctrine or reason, but only that “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice (restrictions with regard to race).” On the other hand, references to revelation abound (I count eight).

 

The tone of both the header and the declaration are loving, supportive, welcoming (as opposed to flippant, polemic, accusatory), both in the delivery of the message and a description of the process as to how the revelation was sought and obtained.

 

Regarding the press release, personal statements, attempts to explain and opinions have never represented Church doctrine. The teachings on homosexual sin, which Eder Packer’s talk addresses, do not fall into these categories.

 

In your summaries you are making slight but critical alterations to Elder Packer's message to make it fit better with our current teachings.  For example, he didn't say that homosexuals just need to "deal with it" and overcome the temptation.  He said that they could change if they could just rid themselves of the underlying selfishness.  If you don't read that talk in its entirety and see it as suggesting that individuals can change their orientation, then I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

 

As indicated in the first few lines of the talk, it iall about homosexual temptation, sin and the underlying selfishness of sin. This is what a person must change--the susceptibility, receptiveness, and giving in to temptation, and the habitual thoughts, feelings, desires, and behaviors that result. For the sake of this talk, it applies to homosexual temptation and sin, but the principles apply to any kind of sin: the sinner does have to change something about himself and himself, relying upon the merits of Christ.

 

I don't believe God to be the author of such confusion and therefore must conclude that we are awaiting future revelation on the subject.

OD2 for example, did not arise out of confusion but out of the deep desires of those that sought the revelation. The doctrines of eternal marriage are too clear, well documented and incontrovertible to qualify as lacking an origin for the practice or to substitute scripture for speculation, opinions and bungled explanations that would require Church leaders to seek a revelation to counter them.

[Brian 2.0]

Excuse me if this has been addressed in this thread...

But can two members of the same sex get married and live together and still get temple recommends (if they are not engaging in sexual activity)?

Say two males with SSA want to obey Gods law, but they want that close companionship and commitment. They get married, move in together, and don't engage in sexual activity. Are they square with the church?

[rockpond]

Excuse me if this has been addressed in this thread...

But can two members of the same sex get married and live together and still get temple recommends (if they are not engaging in sexual activity)?

Say two males with SSA want to obey Gods law, but they want that close companionship and commitment. They get married, move in together, and don't engage in sexual activity. Are they square with the church?

 

I think it was debated and I think it's a tough one to answer:

 

On one hand, they could honestly answer the temple recommend questions in order to get a recommend because they are not engaging in sexual activity.  (This assumes there is not another issue that could prevent temple worthiness.)

 

On the other hand, a priesthood leader could say that they are violating church policy by entering into a marriage with someone of same gender.

[rockpond]

I'll rephrase and hope that you understand what I am saying this time.

 

God isn't going to change how he feels or what he thinks about same sex relations as if he needs some more time to think about his thoughts and feelings about it, so when in fact he wouldn't change his thoughts and feelings regarding this issue it would really be beside the point for you to try to share "your" feelings and beliefs for why "you" think he could or might change is mind.

 

What you should do is find out how he feels and what he thinks without thinking about him maybe someday changing his mind.

 

If you think he has already told you, then go ahead and live by what he has told you.  I'm going to live by what he has told me.

 

Ah.  I think that I do understand this time and it's an important point you are making.

 

I agree that the way Heavenly Father feels about homosexuality wouldn't change.  That would be inconsistent with my understanding of the nature of God.

 

In the same way, I believe Heavenly Father's feelings about blacks were the same before & after 1978.  And yet, our policy was that they were not permitted to be sealed in the temple as well.  So, if God's feelings didn't change, what did?  I would suggest that our readiness and ability to receive the revelation is what changed.  We had to move past whatever it was that was preventing us receiving that revelation.

 

Similarly, our current policy is that gay marriage is not recognized nor has a sealing ordinance been authorized.  Could it be possible that we just are not yet ready to receive such a revelation?  I think it is.  Though I recognize that you and others here likely disagree.

[rockpond]

Here is where I find (without accusation—I am critiquing your posts) where “your portrayal does violence to the spirit of both the revelation and the message” in both tone and content (bolded, from post #150):

 

You wrote: “My scriptural insight is this:  If we can keep blacks from being sealed for over a century and a half and then say, institutionally:  oh sorry, we really had no revelation or doctrine or other reason for the restrictions and we disavow all that negative stuff that was said by church leaders.  Then I don't see it as a huge leap that someday the same could happen with homosexuals.”

 

OD2:

There is no “ifs” about it.

 

“Blacks” are not singled out or mentioned.

 

The phrases “extending priesthood and temple blessings,” “extend …all of the privileges and blessings,” “every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with the blessings of the temple” keeps no one from anything. It refers to what was promised for all God’s children on an eternal basis in His plan to be effectuated even in this life.

 

There is no apology. No disavowal. There is no mention of what earlier church leaders have said.

 

Even the header does not point to a lack of revelation, doctrine or reason, but only that “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice (restrictions with regard to race).” On the other hand, references to revelation abound (I count eight).

 

The tone of both the header and the declaration are loving, supportive, welcoming (as opposed to flippant, polemic, accusatory), both in the delivery of the message and a description of the process as to how the revelation was sought and obtained.

 

Regarding the press release, personal statements, attempts to explain and opinions have never represented Church doctrine. The teachings on homosexual sin, which Eder Packer’s talk addresses, do not fall into these categories.

 

 

As indicated in the first few lines of the talk, it iall about homosexual temptation, sin and the underlying selfishness of sin. This is what a person must change--the susceptibility, receptiveness, and giving in to temptation, and the habitual thoughts, feelings, desires, and behaviors that result. For the sake of this talk, it applies to homosexual temptation and sin, but the principles apply to any kind of sin: the sinner does have to change something about himself and himself, relying upon the merits of Christ.

 

OD2 for example, did not arise out of confusion but out of the deep desires of those that sought the revelation. The doctrines of eternal marriage are too clear, well documented and incontrovertible to qualify as lacking an origin for the practice or to substitute scripture for speculation, opinions and bungled explanations that would require Church leaders to seek a revelation to counter them.

 

I agree that there was no apology in OD2 and that there was no mention of what earlier church leaders had taught.

 

As you noted, the header states that we do not know the origins of the policy.  I agree that it was a revelation that ended it but we point to no revelation or scriptural basis for the origin of the policy.

 

For over 100 years, the prophet and apostles went about teaching different theories (both in and out of their official capacity) as to why the ban existed.  Fast foward to 2012, BYU professor Randy Bott repeated some of those statements to the Washington Post and the church's official response was that they are nothing more than speculation.  (See here.)

 

Jump to 2013 and we get the new official header to OD2 that you quoted in your post.  A newsroom disavowal of all prior teachings and then that disavowal was placed as header to the scripture itself.  Everything that was ever taught about why blacks were denied the priesthood and denied access to the temple has been dismissed with the official statement of "we don't know".

 

Now, would you care to explain what, exactly, I have misrepresented?

 

Of course OD2 arose out of confusion.  Have you read Lester Bush's article: Mormonism's Negro Doctrine.  Plenty of confusion.  And of course, the revelation was received as a result of a prophet of God asking the question.

[CV75]

Now, would you care to explain what, exactly, I have misrepresented?

 

Of course OD2 arose out of confusion.  Have you read Lester Bush's article: Mormonism's Negro Doctrine.  Plenty of confusion.  And of course, the revelation was received as a result of a prophet of God asking the question.

In filtering and spinning the scripture, header and news artcle, you have changed the original tone and content, as I explained very clearly.

 

I think you need to read what the revelators themselves said about why they sought the revelation, in OD2 itself -- this would represent the distillation of the most salient points and the crux of the matter which conveys no confusion at all--they knew the prophecies and wanted to know how to fulfil them. Extending this to your personal hope, there is prophecy, revelation or commandment about heterosexual intercourse from Genesis onward, but not about homosexual intercourse that would lead Church leaders into fulfilling the hope of extending the fulness of the priesthood blessings to all of God's worthy children.

 

But again, I see this part of the discussion as a deflection since the extension of the priesthood to all worthy males, and by extension the fulness of the priesthood to all worthy couples, families and generations has nothing to do with a revelation that homosexual intercourse (as typically practiced in this life, and however it might speculatively be practiced in the next life) falls within the fulnes of priesthood activities.

 

Receiving the priesthood and its fulness is an option the Lord invites us to enjoy, but not homosexual intercourse.

[CV75]

This line of questioning began when someone (Was it you?  I honestly can't even remember.) insisted that God would never reveal an authorization of the sealing of same gender couples.  I've just been trying to explain my feelings & beliefs on why He could.

It may well have been me. But when the bottom-line rationale is, "No one can know, even me," then the justifcation for feelings and beliefs that involve filtering, spinning and altering the tone and content of existing revelations are expected to be challenged.

 

Find a revelation that justifies your beliefs on its own merits while preserving their tone and content.

[rockpond]

In filtering and spinning the scripture, header and news artcle, you have changed the original tone and content, as I explained very clearly.

 

I think you need to read what the revelators themselves said about why they sought the revelation, in OD2 itself -- this would represent the distillation of the most salient points and the crux of the matter which conveys no confusion at all--they knew the prophecies and wanted to know how to fulfil them. Extending this to your personal hope, there is prophecy, revelation or commandment about heterosexual intercourse from Genesis onward, but not about homosexual intercourse that would lead Church leaders into fulfilling the hope of extending the fulness of the priesthood blessings to all of God's worthy children.

 

But again, I see this part of the discussion as a deflection since the extension of the priesthood to all worthy males, and by extension the fulness of the priesthood to all worthy couples, families and generations has nothing to do with a revelation that homosexual intercourse (as typically practiced in this life, and however it might speculatively be practiced in the next life) falls within the fulnes of priesthood activities.

 

Receiving the priesthood and its fulness is an option the Lord invites us to enjoy, but not homosexual intercourse.

 

You keep saying that I am filtering, spinning, changing tone and content.  But you can't seem to identify what I am misrepresenting.  I haven't disputed that OD2 is revelation nor that it changed the existing policy opening the priesthood to all.

 

Here's what I've said:

1. For a century, church leadership taught doctrinal reasons for the priesthood/temple restrictions.  Most often, they interpreted scripture to explain the ban.  There was also some rather uninformed bigoted remarks made regarding the unworthiness regarding those of African descent.  Lester Bush's article that I cited is a good source for understanding what was taught on this matter without delving into some of the more harsh commentary.
2. OD2 reversed the policy with a revelation.  At the time, no explanation had been provided for the ban with the exception of the historical teachings I noted in #1.
3. While there is the well known Elder McConkie quote " Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." to my knowledge it was never really presented to the entire church body.  The statement was made in an address at the CES Religious Educators symposium in August of 1978.
4. As far as I am aware the official disavowal came immediately following Brother Randy Bott's Washington Times interview when the church's public affairs department issued the statement I linked before wherein they stated that all of the previous teachings were nothing more than speculation and opinion with limited understanding.
5. In that February 2012 press release they also stated that "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began".  A similar version of that statement was then incorporated in the 2013 edition of the scriptures as the header to OD2.  And thus we have the disavowal of all that was taught to explain the temple/priesthood restriction and a clear statement that we don't know why it was ever in place.

So, if there is something you think is false in those statements, please let me know.

 

Here's why it's important and relevant to the discussion (i.e. not a deflection).  I believe it to be a betrayal to the sacrifices made by the good brothers and sisters of the church who were affected by this restriction to not seek to learn from the experience.  And what I think we learn is that we need to use caution in how we could let our mortal prejudices become part & parcel of how we view the gospel, the restoration, and how we read the scriptures.  Great men who were (and are) amazing priesthood leaders of our church read justifications into scripture that have not withstood the test of time, the search for truth, and the blessing of continuing revelation.  You seem to present the priesthood ban as something that we were all just waiting to get reversed, but even as late as the 1960's when President McKay wanted to change it, some of the apostles dissented (source:  Greg Prince's biography of Pres. McKay).  The historical record simply doesn't support the idea that "they knew the prophecies and wanted to know how to fulfill them".

 

We now have a similar policy that tells us we cannot abide gay marriage.  Like the priesthood ban, there is no known revelation to suggest that it is God's will.  But, we can read the scriptures and see an emphasis on heterosexual marriage.  We commonly read scripture now with eyes that see same gender marriages as wrong.  But are we making the same mistake made by generations before?

[Storm Rider]

No

[rockpond]

No

 

Good to know.  Thanks.

[CV75]

We now have a similar policy that tells us we cannot abide gay marriage.  Like the priesthood ban, there is no known revelation to suggest that it is God's will.  But, we can read the scriptures and see an emphasis on heterosexual marriage.  We commonly read scripture now with eyes that see same gender marriages as wrong.  But are we making the same mistake made by generations before?

The "policy" prohibiting gay "marriage" is more like the "policy" restricting the baptism of infants than it is similar to the former [actual] practice and policy of restricting the priesthood along racial lines.

 

Would you find acceptable your same rationale to hold out the hope that Moroni 8 be rescinded through additional "light" and "revelation" to correct the mistake that millions of people have been denied the joy of baptising their children, or that because of this policy, some percentage of precocious children under the age of eight that knew what they wanted have had their agency violated? The same holds for D&C 132 and other sripture, which is clearly about marriage between men and women.

 

Are you trying to say that it is reasonable to read the ancient and modern scriptures as including gay "marriage" whenever the topic of marriage is addressed?

[CV75]

So, if there is something you think is false in those statements, please let me know.

What I find false in those statements is their applicability to temple gay "marriage" being on a par with worthy people entering into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and the fulness of the priesthood.

[rockpond]

The "policy" prohibiting gay "marriage" is more like the "policy" restricting the baptism of infants than it is similar to the former [actual] practice and policy of restricting the priesthood along racial lines.

 

Would you find acceptable your same rationale to hold out the hope that Moroni 8 be rescinded through additional "light" and "revelation" to correct the mistake that millions of people have been denied the joy of baptising their children, or that because of this policy, some percentage of precocious children under the age of eight that knew what they wanted have had their agency violated? The same holds for D&C 132 and other sripture, which is clearly about marriage between men and women.

 

Are you trying to say that it is reasonable to read the ancient and modern scriptures as including gay "marriage" whenever the topic of marriage is addressed?

 

Nope, I wouldn't hold out hope that Moroni 8 would be rescinded.  Since He seems to have made His will clear on that, I don't see him changing it.  But if He felt to adjust the age it wouldn't really shake me.

 

D&C 132 is clearly about men & women but I don't see it as precluding the possibility of additional revelation expanding that to all couples should that be the Lord's will.

 

And to your last question. No.  But I see it as reasonable to read scripture as not forbidding it specifically.

[rockpond]

What I find false in those statements is their applicability to temple gay "marriage" being on a par with worthy people entering into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and the fulness of the priesthood.

 

Well, those of African descent were also once considered unworthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and the fulness of the priesthood so it seems like a valid comparison.

 

But, I'm glad that we agree now that I was not misrepresenting the facts of the ban or its removal & disavowal.

[Storm Rider]

Well, those of African descent were also once considered unworthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and the fulness of the priesthood so it seems like a valid comparison.

 

But, I'm glad that we agree now that I was not misrepresenting the facts of the ban or its removal & disavowal.

It was always stated that all would hold the priesthood. There has never been any such allusion that the entire plan of salvation would be turned upside down to allow gay marriage.