Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

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.

 

We've reached the point where we are just repeating ourselves.  But it was taught that they wouldn't receive the priesthood until all the other children of Heavenly Father had received all of their promised blessings.  I cited that quote a few pages back.

 

And as noted above (from McKay's biography by Greg Prince), some of the apostles were still saying that it shouldn't happen despite President McKay's desire to remove the ban.

 

Finally, the church has officially stated that we don't know why the ban was put in place and that everything taught about it prior to 1978 is nothing more than speculation and opinion.  So really... those who taught that the ban would be removed and those that taught that it would not be removed (until some post-millenial world) were all just speculating according to official LDS doctrine.  According to our current official sources, the priesthood ban itself has no doctrinal basis and therefore was never a part of the plan of salvation either.

 

To paint the priesthood & temple ban for blacks as something that we were all just forced to abide but really couldn't wait for it to end does not mesh with the historical record.

[Questing Beast]

Good point!...

 

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.

[rockpond]

Good point!...

 

Yeah, I've noted that several of you are fans of revisionist history.

[Storm Rider]

We've reached the point where we are just repeating ourselves.  But it was taught that they wouldn't receive the priesthood until all the other children of Heavenly Father had received all of their promised blessings.  I cited that quote a few pages back.

 

And as noted above (from McKay's biography by Greg Prince), some of the apostles were still saying that it shouldn't happen despite President McKay's desire to remove the ban.

 

Finally, the church has officially stated that we don't know why the ban was put in place and that everything taught about it prior to 1978 is nothing more than speculation and opinion.  So really... those who taught that the ban would be removed and those that taught that it would not be removed (until some post-millenial world) were all just speculating according to official LDS doctrine.  According to our current official sources, the priesthood ban itself has no doctrinal basis and therefore was never a part of the plan of salvation either.

 

To paint the priesthood & temple ban for blacks as something that we were all just forced to abide but really couldn't wait for it to end does not mesh with the historical record.

It is nice of you to consistently to use the priesthood ban as a spring board for something that is completely contrary to all that has been taught from the beginning. We are not talking 200 years ago; we are talking about the very beginning.

Further, trying to say, you don't see an outright ban of gay sealings and thus it must be acceptable or at least it could happen is ludicrous. It turns all of creation upside down.

I think most of this thinking is based on an extremely narrow understanding of love or agape. Godly love does not exist without righteousness and holiness. As must as liberals hem and haw about the texts, homosexuality is a perversion of God's plan for his creation.

This life is learning to submit to the will of God, to overcome our carnal desires. What you propose is to reject holiness and to surrender to carnal desires wholly and in doing so deny all that God desires for his children.

[rockpond]

It is nice of you to consistently to use the priesthood ban as a spring board for something that is completely contrary to all that has been taught from the beginning. We are not talking 200 years ago; we are talking about the very beginning.

Further, trying to say, you don't see an outright ban of gay sealings and thus it must be acceptable or at least it could happen is ludicrous. It turns all of creation upside down.

I think most of this thinking is based on an extremely narrow understanding of love or agape. Godly love does not exist without righteousness and holiness. As must as liberals hem and haw about the texts, homosexuality is a perversion of God's plan for his creation.

This life is learning to submit to the will of God, to overcome our carnal desires. What you propose is to reject holiness and to surrender to carnal desires wholly and in doing so deny all that God desires for his children.

 

I just don't see two loving, committed people as wholly "surrendering to carnal desires".  And the God I believe in would respect that love as part of His very nature.

 

I believe I've already responded to the other points in your post.  So I'll leave at that lest we both start talking in circles.

[CV75]

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.

If we are to be as Adam and Eve, and an Adam marries an Adam, or and Eve marries an Eve, they are as marrying themselves--the epitome of narcissim and selfishness at the most fundamental of levels.

 

What was forbidden is partking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which if only one of them did, would surely result in the end (death) of both Eden as it was set up for, and of the place of banishment for the Fall. This is because Adam and Eve would have remained alone in one sphere or the other, the equivalent of marrying themselves.

 

So scripture does indeed forbid same sex "marriages" and either gender exisitng alone without the benefit of the complimenting attributes they bring to each other.

[CV75]

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.

Never, ever scripturally--and so not a valid comparison. And unless you considered them unworthy, you can't even begin to lay claim that this was universally considered.

 

I think the tenor of your posts misrepresented the tone and content of the revelations, treating a few selected facts with a polemic manner of expressing them. You can keep backtracking, but to turn this into a discussion of the merits of OD2 only takes away from the discussion of revelations about gay "marriage."

[rockpond]

If we are to be as Adam and Eve, and an Adam marries an Adam, or and Eve marries an Eve, they are as marrying themselves--the epitome of narcissim and selfishness at the most fundamental of levels.

 

What was forbidden is partking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which if only one of them did, would surely result in the end (death) of both Eden as it was set up for, and of the place of banishment for the Fall. This is because Adam and Eve would have remained alone in one sphere or the other, the equivalent of marrying themselves.

 

So scripture does indeed forbid same sex "marriages" and either gender exisitng alone without the benefit of the complimenting attributes they bring to each other.

 

I agree, it's absolutely necessary that Adam and Eve be male and female lest there be an awfully difficult time populating the earth.

 

So while that is the obviously correct choice for the parents of the human race it doesn't specifically preclude the possibility of same gender marriage.  And as long as the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve keep marrying and producing homosexual children...

 

And yes, marrying yourself is the epitome of narcissism.  But two gay people marrying each other is not narcissistic.

[CV75]

And yes, marrying yourself is the epitome of narcissism.  But two gay people marrying each other is not narcissistic.

Yes it is, on a very fundamental level. I really don't need to draw a picture.

[rockpond]

Never, ever scripturally--and so not a valid comparison. And unless you considered them unworthy, you can't even begin to lay claim that this was universally considered.

 

I think the tenor of your posts misrepresented the tone and content of the revelations, treating a few selected facts with a polemic manner of expressing them. You can keep backtracking, but to turn this into a discussion of the merits of OD2 only takes away from the discussion of revelations about gay "marriage."

 

Many of the teachings that they were unworthy were based in scripture by the apostles.  Just as you are basing your conclusions on scripture.

 

You can keep stating that my tone is a misrepresentation but you need to actually identify something that is a misrepresentation or retract the accusation.  I can't control the "tone" you read into my remarks.

[rockpond]

Yes it is, on a very fundamental level. I really don't need to draw a picture.

 

If you can't comprehend the sincere and real love that two gay people can have for each other then that would help explain (to me) your opinions on all of this.  Thanks.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes it is, on a very fundamental level. I really don't need to draw a picture.

 

Are you insinuating that a gay man marrying another gay man is narcissitic because they both have a the same genitalia?  As if the reason they are getting married is because they want "more of themselves" or something like that?

[CV75]

Many of the teachings that they were unworthy were based in scripture by the apostles.  Just as you are basing your conclusions on scripture.

 

You can keep stating that my tone is a misrepresentation but you need to actually identify something that is a misrepresentation or retract the accusation.  I can't control the "tone" you read into my remarks.

I showed this a few posts ago, and it isn't an accusation.

[CV75]

If you can't comprehend the sincere and real love that two gay people can have for each other then that would help explain (to me) your opinions on all of this.  Thanks.

I can certainly empathize with how they feel on some level, but at the same time love can be so many things to so many people. I recognize what you experieince as love is part of what fuels your belief and hope, and I thought this thread would explore other aspects of gay "marriage."

[CV75]

If you can't comprehend the sincere and real love that two gay people can have for each other then that would help explain (to me) your opinions on all of this.  Thanks.

Also, we have scriptures that define "what is real."

 

And I really don't need to draw a picture because it is figurative. Adam choosing himself (Adam) over Eve, or Eve choosing herself (Eve) over Adam, even apart from the commandment for them to remain together, is a very fundamental spiritual narcissism. The figurative death is like the myth where Narcissus died because he was unable to leave the image of his own reflected beauty.

 

This kind of narcissism is at the very spiritual center of one’s being, so outwardly they may seem very well-adjusted. Everyone has this problem in some area of disobedience or another and homosexual unions are no different.

 

The problem with your arguments is that they too are too superficial in their attempt to reveal deeper spiritual truths.

[Brian 2.0]

I still don't see how you can compare Adam (or anyone) choosing to marry themselves as being equivalent to a homosexual marriage in regards to narcissism.

 

Unless you are simply saying that "any sin" is narcissism.  

[CV75]

I still don't see how you can compare Adam (or anyone) choosing to marry themselves as being equivalent to a homosexual marriage in regards to narcissism.

 

Unless you are simply saying that "any sin" is narcissism.  

The root of all sin is selfishness, and selfishness and narcissism go hand in hand. D&C 132 talks about the principle of beoming enlarged. This is accomplished by two complimentary souls becoming one flesh. If we are to be as Adam and Eve, an Adam-Adam pairing is not being enlarged. It is just more of the same. To be willing to have only more of yourself while there is another (your compliment Adam or Eve that needs you) is both selfish and narcissistic. This is true for so many other sins as well where those who need you are denied blessings because you seek to gratify yourself.

 

Since Adam and Eve provide the eternal pattern, the Lord’s dealings with and commands to them are His dealings with and commands to us, quite personally. We really cannot claim to be any different than Adam and Eve, or rightfully have any different options and choices than they did. This may make us seem very ordinary, but I think that's the point when it comes to eternal principles that we all have in common. But since this world is a place of testing, we all are tempted to seek to be extraordinary and exceptions from the pattern of Adam and Eve. That is he nature of fallen beings. Same-sex union is just one of countless ways to do so.

 

This is why same-sex unions are not an eternal principle and therefore a false hope.

 

I notice you came in kind of late, so if I don't engage fully it is only because I try to keep repeat posts to fewer than three!

[rockpond]

I showed this a few posts ago, and it isn't an accusation.

You never identified anything that I wrote (with respect to the ban, removal of the ban, and the disavowal) that was factually incorrect. You only complained about the tone that you perceived in my remarks.

[rockpond]

Also, we have scriptures that define "what is real."

And I really don't need to draw a picture because it is figurative. Adam choosing himself (Adam) over Eve, or Eve choosing herself (Eve) over Adam, even apart from the commandment for them to remain together, is a very fundamental spiritual narcissism. The figurative death is like the myth where Narcissus died because he was unable to leave the image of his own reflected beauty.

This kind of narcissism is at the very spiritual center of one’s being, so outwardly they may seem very well-adjusted. Everyone has this problem in some area of disobedience or another and homosexual unions are no different.

The problem with your arguments is that they too are too superficial in their attempt to reveal deeper spiritual truths.

There is nothing narcissistic about two people making a lifelong or eternal commitment to one another. Regardless of gender.

And, a homosexual Adam is not complimentary to an Eve. Your superficial arguments are only considering the physical aspect of the relationship.

[rockpond]

I can certainly empathize with how they feel on some level, but at the same time love can be so many things to so many people. I recognize what you experieince as love is part of what fuels your belief and hope, and I thought this thread would explore other aspects of gay "marriage."

I'm okay moving on to other aspects of gay marriage. I'm no expert but I'll throw my opinions in the ring.

[Storm Rider]

I just don't see two loving, committed people as wholly "surrendering to carnal desires".  And the God I believe in would respect that love as part of His very nature.

 

I believe I've already responded to the other points in your post.  So I'll leave at that lest we both start talking in circles.

Rock, that is the misunderstanding of God's love; you are narrowly focused on love without understanding his holiness. Your position is that God is not holy, cares not for righteousness, and is only concerned with a warm, fuzzy type of love. This is the type of love is wholly mortal in understanding, finite, with beginning and end. It is found only deeply within the carnal passions.

God's love is sacrificial, it can forgive almost all unrighteousness, but for it to act there must be a broken heart, one that submits to his will, his teachings, and his holiness. No unclean thing can enter his presence; this cannot change because two people want to surrender completely to their passions.

[CV75]

You never identified anything that I wrote (with respect to the ban, removal of the ban, and the disavowal) that was factually incorrect. You only complained about the tone that you perceived in my remarks.

This is the last time i will adress this complaint, and will use only one example to show it (both with regards to content and tone): there was no "oh sorry."

[CV75]

There is nothing narcissistic about two people making a lifelong or eternal commitment to one another. Regardless of gender. And, a homosexual Adam is not complimentary to an Eve. Your superficial arguments are only considering the physical aspect of the relationship.

You're not going deep enough.

 

The root of all sin is selfishness, and selfishness and narcissism go hand in hand. D&C 132 talks about the principle of beoming enlarged. This is accomplished by two complimentary souls becoming one flesh. If we are to be as Adam and Eve, an Adam-Adam pairing is not being enlarged. It is just more of the same. To be willing to have only more of yourself while there is another (your compliment Adam or Eve that needs you) is both selfish and narcissistic. This is true for so many other sins as well where those who need you are denied blessings because you seek to gratify yourself.

 

Since Adam and Eve provide the eternal pattern, the Lord’s dealings with and commands to them are His dealings with and commands to us, quite personally. We really cannot claim to be any different than Adam and Eve, or rightfully have any different options and choices than they did. This may make us seem very ordinary, but I think that's the point when it comes to eternal principles that we all have in common. But since this world is a place of testing, we all are tempted to seek to be extraordinary and exceptions from the pattern of Adam and Eve. That is he nature of fallen beings. Same-sex union is just one of countless ways to do so.

 

This is why same-sex unions are not an eternal principle and therefore a false hope.

 

The greater consolation in all this is that Adam is Everyman. For the sake of your concerns, no one knows his sexuality, or where he and Eve fell on the scale of sexual orientation. There are as many points on this scale as there are children of God. Neither do we know how compatible they were, and that is their business. The beauty is that they could be anyone, with any set of characteristics. Yet the commandments and the blessings are the same.

 

As wonderful as they are, romantic and sexual love and expression are not the be-all / end-all. Some may find this to be the case, but that can be said about any other kind of love that is limited in focus and scope. There is an overarching love that is more powerful than any all other kinds and manifestations. This is where God is leading us with the commandments and covenants; the plan of happiness. The powers of procreation are in all people of all orientations (even asexual!) and they can be harnessed for God's purposes and glory to brring the maximal joy, eternally. Personal orientation fundamentally does not matter because the pure love of Christ supercedes all that. This is why and how God would not create anyone that cannot abide His commands and covenants. He loves us that way.

 

Now anyone that decides that something different than what God wants is better is ultimately selfish and narcisstic to that same degree. Some other adjective may be more palatable, but it is not godly.

 

Only corruption and dependency of some kind or another can make one's procreative powers so dependent on external factors, objects of desire, other people, etc. outside of the commandments of God. That is what fallen people do with regards to sexual sin and why we have a Savior.

[rockpond]

Rock, that is the misunderstanding of God's love; you are narrowly focused on love without understanding his holiness. Your position is that God is not holy, cares not for righteousness, and is only concerned with a warm, fuzzy type of love. This is the type of love is wholly mortal in understanding, finite, with beginning and end. It is found only deeply within the carnal passions.

God's love is sacrificial, it can forgive almost all unrighteousness, but for it to act there must be a broken heart, one that submits to his will, his teachings, and his holiness. No unclean thing can enter his presence; this cannot change because two people want to surrender completely to their passions.

Got it...

Straight couples = holy, righteous, broken-hearted.

Gay couples = solely succumbing to their carnal passions.

[rockpond]

This is the last time i will adress this complaint, and will use only one example to show it (both with regards to content and tone): there was no "oh sorry."

You're right. There never was an apology. My mistake.