Misdefining "family"

[CV75]

You've lost me with this response, CV.  Care to elaborate?

Your spiritual happiness arising from the revelations on marriage and in being sealed has to do with those things that have been revealed of God, whatever sexuality you may find or consider yourself to experience. There is no revelation on sexuality or any other scientifically defined aspect of human capacity (and I can't see how there could be, as the revelations are about building our divine capacity through covenant, and condemning everythig else).

There is a general revelation I noted above about the human capacity for all kinds of experiences and responses (Abraham 3:25) and you can try to bridge your concept of sexuality with what it means to be proven in this estate. Doing so helps navigate all experiences and responses (including the sexual and the erotic) by the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost in context of the commandments and covenants.

[Ahab]

The church should do what every respectable, God-fearing, pro-real-family (but not "anti-gay," of course) organization would do--encourage the couple to legally divorce and give up their child to be adopted by a real family, of course!

Either that, or have the gay couple divorce and be raised by just one single, celibate parent--(cuz one is better than two, in this case). This will send the best possible message to these situationaly-irrelevant child/ren being raised by same-sex "parents" (another word to add to the list of words LDS should object to and preach against, since that's also an oxymoron) that their so-called "family" and "parents" were immoral and abominable, anyway.

After all, REAL families first... isn't it about...time?

We've already got it all covered by D&C section 132:

 

... All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, ^boaths, ^cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and ^dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is ^eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by ^frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this ^gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this ^hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ⁱkeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

[california boy]

Hum...You have a hard time trying to discern modern day scripture. This is in the form of all the modern day prophets in complete agreement that same sex marriage is an abomination and have repeated over and over again it is breaking a commandment. What does it take for you to believe? God actually showing up in Time Square and saying "No same sex marriage"? Why do you think it never mentions gay marriage in the bible? It's because "marriage" is only defined as a union between male and female, not male to male, not female to female. Does that make sense- from a biblical or "God" standpoint, there is no such thing as same sex marriage. The policy of "marriage" (the union only between man and woman) is very clearly defined in scripture. God never intended that man should marry man. We have prophets that testify to this truth. I could provide an endless amount of material on this subject but in truth you know that it exists, you know where the church stands, and you also know that the church is never going to change the law of God concerning marriage. What is it then that you really want? Is it that you want justification for your sins before God? Is it that you feel guilty for your sins and you want out of this torment by changing God's laws? Or, have you been so far removed from God's laws that you are in disbelief of the matter and truly believe homosexuality and same sex marriage is a Godly attribute?

 

It is pretty clear what modern day revelation is.  What it is not clear is when church leaders make up a policy as they have done on gay marriage.  The whole purpose of having a prophet is to receive revelation from God rather than decide by committee.  This is how revelation has been received since the beginning of time.  I don't know why you are so unfamiliar with this.  Prophets and apostles are not infallible as you well know.  Hence the need for modern day revelation.  It is one of the cornerstones of Mormonism.  When you take away the need for modern day revelation, then how is the Mormon church any different than any other church whose leaders determine doctrine by committee?

 

I am not looking for justification for my sins. I readily acknowledge that I am a sinner.  This is about sex within the bounds of marriage which is the very core of the law of chastity.  I know it must be difficult for you to understand the importance of allowing gays to live within the law of chastity rather than arbitrarily not allowing them to marry.

[Rob Osborn]

It is pretty clear what modern day revelation is.  What it is not clear is when church leaders make up a policy as they have done on gay marriage.  The whole purpose of having a prophet is to receive revelation from God rather than decide by committee.  This is how revelation has been received since the beginning of time.  I don't know why you are so unfamiliar with this.  Prophets and apostles are not infallible as you well know.  Hence the need for modern day revelation.  It is one of the cornerstones of Mormonism.  When you take away the need for modern day revelation, then how is the Mormon church any different than any other church whose leaders determine doctrine by committee?

 

I am not looking for justification for my sins. I readily acknowledge that I am a sinner.  This is about sex within the bounds of marriage which is the very core of the law of chastity.  I know it must be difficult for you to understand the importance of allowing gays to live within the law of chastity rather than arbitrarily not allowing them to marry.

Church leaders have not made up this policy on same sex marriage. This is a divine law that has to do with sinful homosexual behavior. We believe in modern prophets and apostles to lead us in God's commandments. There is not one single Church leader who advocates same sex marriage. It is exactly opposite of the plan of salvation for families on earth to get back to God. God has spoken an you are unwilling to accept God's will on this matter. What matter is that? That homosexual behavior is an abomination. If homosexual behavior is an abomination then same sex marriage is not only an abomination but also a blasphemous abomination in the sight of God. Tell me- where in scripture does God say it is ok for man to lay with another man?

 

I don't know how else to say it but to be rather blunt about it. Same sex marriage is the farthest thing from godliness.

[Ahab]

It is pretty clear what modern day revelation is.  What it is not clear is when church leaders make up a policy as they have done on gay marriage.  The whole purpose of having a prophet is to receive revelation from God rather than decide by committee.  This is how revelation has been received since the beginning of time.  I don't know why you are so unfamiliar with this.  Prophets and apostles are not infallible as you well know.  Hence the need for modern day revelation.  It is one of the cornerstones of Mormonism.  When you take away the need for modern day revelation, then how is the Mormon church any different than any other church whose leaders determine doctrine by committee?

 

I am not looking for justification for my sins. I readily acknowledge that I am a sinner.  This is about sex within the bounds of marriage which is the very core of the law of chastity.  I know it must be difficult for you to understand the importance of allowing gays to live within the law of chastity rather than arbitrarily not allowing them to marry.

The law of chastity is defined as sexual relations within the bounds the Lord has set, which may or may not fit in with what your idea of what a "marriage" is.  So what you need to find out is what are the bounds the Lord has set regarding sexual relations, and then stay within those bounds if you want to have his approval.

 

To date there is no revelation from the Lord sanctioning sexual relations between people of the same sex, and even though the laws of the land may say its okay and even call that a "marriage" its all going to be done away with when the people involved are dead, because that kind of association (or whatever you want to call it) is not something the Lord has said he would sanction. 

 

So if you have no promise from him, you will have no blessing coming from him about that.  His silence about it is not in your favor.

[rockpond]

Yes, but the ban was always considered a temporary thing.  There is nothing temporary about the way we view exaltation and the parenting of spirit children.

 

The prophecy about the lifting of the ban (by BY who instituted the ban) was not fulfilled.  It wasn't to happen until the millenium.  So was half of his sentence inspired and the other half just his opinion?

 

In any case, it doesn't matter... the teachings about the ban (temporary and otherwise) have been disavowed.  Officially.  And the racism behind the teachings and the ban have been condemned.

 

So, if prophets and apostles were, for decades, able to teach false principles (and institute correlating policies) about priesthood worthiness, temple access, and sealing privileges how can we be certain that they aren't doing the same today with respect to all the teachings promulgated with respect to the way we view exaltation and the parenting of spirit children?

[rockpond]

Your spiritual happiness arising from the revelations on marriage and in being sealed has to do with those things that have been revealed of God, whatever sexuality you may find or consider yourself to experience. There is no revelation on sexuality or any other scientifically defined aspect of human capacity (and I can't see how there could be, as the revelations are about building our divine capacity through covenant, and condemning everythig else).

There is a general revelation I noted above about the human capacity for all kinds of experiences and responses (Abraham 3:25) and you can try to bridge your concept of sexuality with what it means to be proven in this estate. Doing so helps navigate all experiences and responses (including the sexual and the erotic) by the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost in context of the commandments and covenants.

 

I'm sorry, I can't really follow you.  Marriage and sexuality are completely intertwined.  I have no idea how to separate those two things.

[Rob Osborn]

 

So, if prophets and apostles were, for decades, able to teach false principles (and institute correlating policies) about priesthood worthiness, temple access, and sealing privileges how can we be certain that they aren't doing the same today with respect to all the teachings promulgated with respect to the way we view exaltation and the parenting of spirit children?

 

Perhaps we were wrong also on Christ, and in reality it is Satan we must worship...

 

Just because the Church changed how it viewed the priesthood based off of real scriptures does not mean then that any other doctrine is called into question also. What side are you on? Do you support the prophet in how the Church views the family or not? Therein lies your heart and therein lies your true convictions.

[rockpond]

Perhaps we were wrong also on Christ, and in reality it is Satan we must worship...

 

Just because the Church changed how it viewed the priesthood based off of real scriptures does not mean then that any other doctrine is called into question also. What side are you on? Do you support the prophet in how the Church views the family or not? Therein lies your heart and therein lies your true convictions.

 

I do support the prophet.  I support him by doing my best to live what he teaches.  I also know that he's mortal and capable of mistakes.  You might also note that President Monson isn't really the most vocal regarding homosexuality.

 

I'm not the one who just disavowed a century of church teachings as well as condemning the racism used to justify keeping people out of the temple.  Now we're left to deal with the implications of having deleted one policy (with respect to those of African descent) while firmly upholding another policy (same gender marriage).

[toon]

It would help you to believe it if you would first think about each person as a child, instead of as a parent or sibling.  Each person starts out as a child, and each child is the offspring of a mother and a father.  It's a biological fact and there is no getting around it.

 

You are a member of the family you are a member of because of your relationship to that family by blood.  It's the blood that binds you together as a family unit, otherwise you're just friends with each other and not really a family.

 

So an adopted child is not really part of the family because there is no blood that binds?

 

In the Church, I thought it was the priesthood that binds.

[Rob Osborn]

I do support the prophet.  I support him by doing my best to live what he teaches.  I also know that he's mortal and capable of mistakes.  You might also note that President Monson isn't really the most vocal regarding homosexuality.

 

I'm not the one who just disavowed a century of church teachings as well as condemning the racism used to justify keeping people out of the temple.  Now we're left to deal with the implications of having deleted one policy (with respect to those of African descent) while firmly upholding another policy (same gender marriage).

The only implications are that some believe since the priesthood ban changed so too will same sex marriage be given a shot in our temples. Forget it- not gonna happen. The entire doctrine of Christ rests on the facts of marriage between man and woman only.

[toon]

Don't just think in terms of the law of the land.  I'm talking about biological facts here.  A child has both a mother and a father, otherwise there would not be a child in the first place, and every child will always be the offspring of its own biological parents.

 

I think everyone here understand the science behind it.

 

But there are many cases where the biological relationship is irrelevant.  In other word, family means something other than just a biological relationship, and a biological relationship is not a necessary component of the family.

[Ahab]

So an adopted child is not really part of the family because there is no blood that binds?

The adopted child is in the family including that child's mother and father, regardless of whether or not they are legally married and regardless of whether there is a piece of paper stating that child is the property or member of some other family.

 

A piece of paper dictating a law of the land doesn't change who the real biological parents are, whether the child has papers to show it has been legally adopted or the parents were never legally married.  The biological father and mother always are and always will be that child's parents, regardless of what any pieice of paper has to say.

 

In the Church, I thought it was the priesthood that binds.

Some things, yes, but family is always based on the blood of all who are involved, including the blood of Jesus Christ which binds all of us who are in his family.  Without the blood connection, there is no family connection.

[Ahab]

I think everyone here understand the science behind it.

 

But there are many cases where the biological relationship is irrelevant.  In other word, family means something other than just a biological relationship, and a biological relationship is not a necessary component of the family.

No, it is not irrelevant.  I'm talking about what a real family is.  You seem to be talking about what you like to think of as a family.

[toon]

No, it is not irrelevant.  I'm talking about what a real family is.  You seem to be talking about what you like to think of as a family.

 

Interesting that the Church will seal an adopted child to his or her adoptive parents, regardless of who the real parents might be, and notwithstanding his or her real family.

 

Other than mere biology, how are the birth parents relevant?  What practical or significant importance do they have, in this life or in the next?

[Calm]

Interesting that the Church will seal an adopted child to his or her adoptive parents, regardless of who the real parents might be, and notwithstanding his or her real family.

 

Other than mere biology, how are the birth parents relevant?  What practical or significant importance do they have, in this life or in the next?

Not only that, but the Church will encourage biological parents to give up the child for adoption if that is what is best for the child (for example if it is not possible or a good idea for the parents to get married).

[california boy]

The law of chastity is defined as sexual relations within the bounds the Lord has set, which may or may not fit in with what your idea of what a "marriage" is.  So what you need to find out is what are the bounds the Lord has set regarding sexual relations, and then stay within those bounds if you want to have his approval.

 

To date there is no revelation from the Lord sanctioning sexual relations between people of the same sex, and even though the laws of the land may say its okay and even call that a "marriage" its all going to be done away with when the people involved are dead, because that kind of association (or whatever you want to call it) is not something the Lord has said he would sanction. 

 

So if you have no promise from him, you will have no blessing coming from him about that.  His silence about it is not in your favor.

You actually bring up a very interesting point.  Since the beginning of the church, if a couple is legally married by the law of the land, then the church recognized that marriage as being valid.  If the couple was not legally married, then the church required a legal marriage prior to baptism or to consider temple worthiness.  Now for the first time in the history of the church, the leaders are choosing to not recognize legal marriages.  The church has always defined the law of chastity is sex within the confines of a legal marriage.  Now the church is taking an exception to that long held tradition.  Did God tell the church leaders they should not consider legal gay marriages as legal?  No.  It was decided by committee.

 

You might keep in mind that there are way more scriptures condemning straight sex outside of marriage than there is gay sex outside of marriage.  And as has been pointed out repeatedly there are no scriptures telling us that we should not recognize all legal marriages.

 

I actually do have a promise from God.  He has said that sex within the confines of marriage is lawful. He hasn't changed that promise has He?

[jkwilliams]

I don't have a problem with a particular group claiming the right to define what a word means for them, but when they attempt to extend their definition to everyone else outside of the group, that's a problem. IMO, it is right and proper for the church to define what words like "family" and "marriage" mean within an LDS context. But outside the church there isn't so much of a consensus, and the definitions were never the same anyway. Attempting to fix a definition of any word and then try to impose that definition on everyone else is never going to work.

[Ahab]

Interesting that the Church will seal an adopted child to his or her adoptive parents, regardless of who the real parents might be, and notwithstanding his or her real family.

 

Other than mere biology, how are the birth parents relevant?  What practical or significant importance do they have, in this life or in the next?

I think sometimes we do things in the Church because we don't know how things will turn out in the end, but I do know one thing.  When parents are faithful to their convenants with God and they have been sealed to their children they are sealed to all of the great and grand children, as well, so all of the great and grand parents of a child will still have all of their children in their family even if those children have been adopted by some other family. 

 

We're all connected by blood, at some level, even if that means having to go all the way back to Adam and Eve to see the connection, so the real biological parents are still as relevant and still as necessary to birth any child that has been born or will be born on this Earth.  And each person is an important member of each person's family because of what each person adds to each family, from talents and abilites to whole other persons with their own talents and abilites, too.

[Stone holm]

I don't have a problem with a particular group claiming the right to define what a word means for them, but when they attempt to extend their definition to everyone else outside of the group, that's a problem. IMO, it is right and proper for the church to define what words like "family" and "marriage" mean within an LDS context. But outside the church there isn't so much of a consensus, and the definitions were never the same anyway. Attempting to fix a definition of any word and then try to impose that definition on everyone else is never going to work.

 

Not only won't it work, it should not be attempted.

[Ahab]

You actually bring up a very interesting point.  Since the beginning of the church, if a couple is legally married by the law of the land, then the church recognized that marriage as being valid.  If the couple was not legally married, then the church required a legal marriage prior to baptism or to consider temple worthiness.  Now for the first time in the history of the church, the leaders are choosing to not recognize legal marriages.  The church has always defined the law of chastity is sex within the confines of a legal marriage.  Now the church is taking an exception to that long held tradition.  Did God tell the church leaders they should not consider legal gay marriages as legal?  No.  It was decided by committee.

We've never sanctioned anything simply because it was legal by the law of the land.  We've admitted that some things are legal, when they are legal by the law of the land, but that doesn't mean we sanction whatever is regarded as legal.  Porn is legal and we don't condone that.  Adultery is legal and we don't condone that either.  There is nothing new here, although some of the terminology has changed.  Marriage has always referred to the sexual union of a man and a woman whereby they become one flesh, and sexual relations between people of the same sex has never been sanctioned by God or his Church regardless of whether or not it has ever been legal.

 

You might keep in mind that there are way more scriptures condemning straight sex outside of marriage than there is gay sex outside of marriage. And as has been pointed out repeatedly there are no scriptures telling us that we should not recognize all legal marriages.

As I said before, God's silence is not in your favor.  And negative criticism isn't either.  What you need to look for are revelations from God letting you know what God approves of regarding sexual relations, and any associated blessings God will bestow upon people who do what God approves of.  And to date there is no revelation from God promising any blessings for people of the same sex who have sexual relations with each other, whether legally "married" or not.

 

I actually do have a promise from God. He has said that sex within the confines of marriage is lawful. He hasn't changed that promise has He?

The fact that something is lawful doesn't mean God approves of it.  Adultery is lawful too, and God still hasn't said he approves of adultery.  Try looking for a promise from God saying he has blessings in store for people of the same sex who have sexual relations with each other.  That would be something new.

[Stone holm]

The prophecy about the lifting of the ban (by BY who instituted the ban) was not fulfilled.  It wasn't to happen until the millenium.  So was half of his sentence inspired and the other half just his opinion?

 

In any case, it doesn't matter... the teachings about the ban (temporary and otherwise) have been disavowed.  Officially.  And the racism behind the teachings and the ban have been condemned.

 

So, if prophets and apostles were, for decades, able to teach false principles (and institute correlating policies) about priesthood worthiness, temple access, and sealing privileges how can we be certain that they aren't doing the same today with respect to all the teachings promulgated with respect to the way we view exaltation and the parenting of spirit children?

 

Let's not get too carried away here.  Yes the racist explanations for the ban have been disavowed.  Yes, there were false teachings spun to explain a practice.  Am not sure, however, that you can say that the recent statement goes quite so far as to say the ban for the time it was in place was a false principle, or that the ban itself has been condemned.  Maybe it does, but I didn't read it that way -- what I read was that the ban was instituted during a time of rampant and ubiquitous racism -- it was allowed to remain in place until a time when the cultural racism of America had become thoroughly politically incorrect and racial tensions had subsided.  Did the Lord have a purpose in leaving it in place?  I suspect we have to draw the conclusion that He did.  But I tend to think of the Lord as being somewhat like Harry Seldon in that certain things are allowed or condemned at certain times in order for life on Earth to develop and evolve towards a certain end.  We don't know what the Lord saw or what He was thinking -- His thoughts are not our thoughts.  All the release says is that the racist theological nonsense that got spun to explain the ban was not true or accurate.  Is it possible that there will be some other big changes?  Yes, possibly so long as they do not structurally crumble the way we view the hereafter.  We aren't going to do away with the concept of a physical resurrection, we aren't going to bounce Christ out of the godhead, we aren't going to do away with the Priesthood, and we aren't going to do away with the Snow Couplet, and we aren't going to do away with eternal marriage and families at the pinnacle of the Temple teachings.  So while it is possible that we may see women being ordained as Priestesses and High Priestesses and holding callings now reserved for males, it ain't likely that we are ever going to see SSM in the Temple.

[T-Shirt]

Attempting to fix a definition of any word and then try to impose that definition on everyone else is never going to work.

Yet, that is exactly what the proponents of same sex marriage have done, while hiding behind words like, "homophobia" and "bigotry". For the simple reason that I do not agree with the modern redefinition of a word (contrary to thousands of years of history), I am called all sorts of names.

[Bob Crockett]

T

And most important of all.  NOT A SINGLE SCRIPTURE OR MODERN DAY REVELATION ON THE SUBJECT OF GAY MARRIAGE.  NOT ONE.   I hope that is bold enough for you.  Until the prophet receives such a revelation, the policy of preventing gays from a temple marriage is just church policy not doctrine and not from God.

 

The thing that is exactly the same about blacks holding the priesthood and gay temple marriage is that they BOTH were a policy instituted by men and not God.  And once again, since you keep missing this point, I have NEVER said that straight marriage was not a part of God's plan.

The argument you make is really similar to the argument the fundamentalists have made against the Manifesto. It wasn't a revelation. It wasn't stated as "thus saith the Lord." It doesn't look like a D&C section. Thus, the Manifesto is not the word of God not matter what General Authorities have said to the contrary.

You also point to a circumstance where the church has, indeed, changed its stance and in a big way. But, they are not the same.

Keep up the good fight, but you've probably realized it is disingeuous to keep claiming that the Church is likely to, or should, change on this particular point.

Where I live in Los Angeles, there are plenty of Christian churches which admit gays to the congregration, bless their unions and some have gays in the priesthood. What do you think of their doctrine generally? This one is just down the street from where I live; the pastor is a lesbian, and the local LDS congregation is constantly teaming up with this congregation for community service events. http://www.st-stephens.org/wp/?page_id=533.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Daniel2]

Yet, that is exactly what the proponents of same sex marriage have done, while hiding behind words like, "homophobia" and "bigotry". For the simple reason that I do not agree with the modern redefinition of a word (contrary to thousands of years of history), I am called all sorts of names.

Even in states where gay couples can legally marry, it does not alter the marriages of opposite - sex couples. They do not "redefine" the word for everyone else, nor do they impose a same-sex definition on all other marriages.

Daniel