What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah....

[jwhitlock]

I'm not comparing the priesthood/temple ban and the church's stance on SSM, side by side.

 

I'm asking how you can be so certain that the Brethren now are not speaking with "limited understanding" when they were just 35 years ago?

 

I guess I'm not a "clear-thinking" person for hoping that we might be able to receive further light and knowledge on the subject of God's will for His homosexual children just as we received further light and knowledge regarding those of African descent.

 

Church leaders don't know everything in advance. They have to walk step by step, just as we do. However, where they have clear and consistent light and knowledge about subjects important to us, they tell us so. That's the case with SSM.

 

Tell you what, since you're so intent on saying they're walking in the dark with SSM. Church leaders were pretty clear over time that the ban would be lifted at some point. There were varied opinions about when, either in this life or the next, but that point is pretty clear. Please let us know where any church leader has authoritatively said that the "ban" on SSM is temporary and that it will be lifted at some point either in this life or in eternity.

 

That shouldn't be hard to find, should it. It certainly would put you in a stronger position for your rationalization that the priesthood ban and opposition to SSM are the same kind of thing.

 

Of course, on the other hand the lack of even one such statement really puts you in a bit of a bind, doesn't it.

[jwhitlock]

Yes

 

Yes

 

No (not authoritative in the sense of God's will, but certainly authoritative in the sense of their callings)

 

Yes

 

No

 

There ya go.  Now do I get an answer to my agree/disagree question to you?

 

I've addressed your questions. I've just not given the answer you wanted, which is not grounds to claim I'm not answering them.

 

Your "not authoritative" answer to number 3 is what we disagree on. I see no grounds for any supposition that our leaders aren't expressing God's will in the matter of SSM and homosexual behavior.

 

Otherwise, your answer to number 5 seems to be contradicted by what you're doing here on this thread. You're sending mixed signals on that one.

[rockpond]

No, it's a leading question because you demand a yes / no answer in support for a pre-determined rationalization that requires a more complex answer.

What don't you understand about "read the book" in your repeated demands for more evidence?

To continue to say that there is the same level of consistency is to ignore everything but the most superficial similarities between the two. The discussion will continue not have any point when such agenda-driven revisionism is used for rationalizations.

Well, I answered your list of yes or no questions. I'm not sure what is so complex about agreeing or disagreeing with Elder McConkie's statement.

Here's an example of "agenda-driven revisionism": Claiming that the Lord told Pres McKay to leave the ban in place when really President McKay's prayers went unanswered. Which is not the same thing.

[jwhitlock]

What may appear to be flimsy to you was a big deal to all of those Blacks that were kept from receiving temple blessings for over 100 years because of a church policy.  I guess Rockpond and I have a different view of what flimsy is than you do.  We don't want history to repeat itself.  Is that so difficult to understand?

 

You feel that God has revealed His will on this matter though there is no definitive revelation that you can point to.  You look to the teachings and statements of the prophets as your proof, your revelation if you will.  Others feel that church leaders are assuming or guessing or deducting God's will.  That God has yet to reveal His will on this matter.   It is as simple as that.  Who is right will be revealed at some future date.

 

Since the two situations are entirely different - especially because of the doctrine of homosexual behavior as sin - then there really isn't any chance of history repeating itself. The flimsiness was in Rockpond's attempts to draw a comparison between the two, so I don't know why you're applying "flimsy" to the circumstances of the priesthood ban.

 

I've pointed to definitive revelation. We've discussed the nature of inspiration as revelation. We've discussed section 132 as a revelation on marriage as part of the foundation for the church's position. And yet you toss all that out the window.

 

And now the First Presidency and the Twelve issue a joint statement the subject, and the best you can come up with for dismissing it out of hand is that they're just making assumptions or guesses about the subject. I find that to be totally laughable, to use a term you're fond of.

 

God's will has been revealed on the subject. Prophets have given specific and consistent counsel on it. No loophole has been identified, no authoritative past or present statement from a church leader has been presented that SSM would someday become available through the church and that homosexual behavior would be re-classified as non-sinful.

 

Since you don't accept leaders of the church as God's prophets, your viewpoint is understandable. However, for those of us who do, such a viewpoint is inconsistent and irrational.

[jwhitlock]

Well, I answered your list of yes or no questions. I'm not sure what is so complex about agreeing or disagreeing with Elder McConkie's statement.

Here's an example of "agenda-driven revisionism": Claiming that the Lord told Pres McKay to leave the ban in place when really President McKay's prayers went unanswered. Which is not the same thing.

 

No, you have it wrong. When a ban is in place, and the Lord finally tells President McKay not to bother him on the subject anymore, it can only be assumed that the Lord wants it left in place for the time being.

[rockpond]

No, you have it wrong. When a ban is in place, and the Lord finally tells President McKay not to bother him on the subject anymore, it can only be assumed that the Lord wants it left in place for the time being.

Again, that's not my recollection of Prince's biography of McKay. I'd ask, again, for an actually quote that the Lord said "don't bother me anymore" but I've grown tired of your obfuscating and have other things to do.

I realize that you are quite satisfied with what we've received from God, so far, on this subject. I used to be of the same opinion so I understand where you are coming from.

[BlueDreams]

All of that is pretty much what I would expect to see in scripture written by a heterosexually dominant culture.

Asking why we don't see any examples of homosexual marriage in ancient scripture is like asking why we know the names of all of Lehi & Sariah's sons but not the daughters.

 

Exactly, what's the point of making a case....when that case will always be chalked up to heterosexual dominant culture. Or we just need more new, completely unprecedented information.

 

There may not be a ton of women floating around in scripture. But there are women and there is still plenty for me to utilize in expanding my understanding as to the power, role, and capacity given equally to them.

 

There may have been falsehoods perpetuated as truths about Blacks. But there was enough cracks in it to slowly fall apart based on scripture and past practice. The parallels fall short

 

3 degrees of glory or pre-earth life may seem like completely new ideas, but there's enough of it in other works for it not to seem preposterous.

 

The temple endowment may not be spelled out in the books, but the idea is not foreign or obscene to the rest of scripture.

 

....etc. The restoration has been radical, but it hasn't been without its precedence.  

 

I'm not asking for a big red sign.  I'm not even looking for a small red sign. I'm looking for any indication, any crack, any scriptural/doctrinal/revelatory sized loophole, however small, that could give credence to what now feels more like your hoped desires for greater tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage rather than any solid information. It's ok for you to hold that hope. People have held more far-fetched beliefs. But one can't state that this is an equivalent perspective to the other based on no sign of specific condemnation, When there is indication that there was some colloquial condemning of homosexual activities, and even more solid evidence for what God does expect and define as marriage (with the only defense being that it's filtered through majority culture....that comes off as a weak argument). Right now, this reads to me as looking from a solid theological base of commands and covenants and comparing a position that is based heavily on the question of "what if," "maybe," and "why not" as well as a personal sentiment as to what a loving God should or shouldn't be doing.

 

For me, it's simply not enough. And I'm not exactly a hard-baller when it comes to this topic. I prefer more openness, acceptance, and tolerance. I prefer more behavior that leans to tender charity. I prefer listening even when it conflicts with my own beliefs because I believe I can learn and others have pieces of the puzzle that I may miss. But doing so does not mean having to permit and alter long established doctrines because of the (relatively) rapid change of social conscience based heavily on the precepts of men for what love is and it's basis for creating relationships. Not all changes in society match up with the Lord's way. Not all are on equal footing.  

 

Basically, I just want something, beyond your personal hopes, to be able to say...kay, I disagree, but I can accept that maybe it could happen because of a,b and/or c. Right now, that doesn't seem feasible. The points you've given have had some major holes in the argument. To date i've seen

 

Scriptures don't outright condemn this, if they could marry they'd be ok <----> But they do pretty outright define/command/assume what marriage is. 

 

Scriptures are archaic and entrenched in historical context <---> but this isn't something like whether one should be a vegetarian or eat pork, this is about an eternal principle and ordinance of grave weight. It was a relationship that was the pinnacle of God's creation. You think somewhere in there, he could have thrown in an addendum at least once for something so pertinent.

 

Blacks and the priesthood indicates room for being wrong <---> but there was always at least some space to state that there would one day (however distant) be change, there was division within the hierarchy for change, there was precedence for other practices in the past, and there was plenty to indicate that God prefers a more united and open model to priesthood reception in both the NT and BoM. In short, the change was distinct and powerful, but it was also not entirely unfounded. The only founding for SSM I've seen here is personal and societal based philosophy/assumption. 

 

God wouldn't be so cruel because He is love <---> but He is also a God of order and command, one of justice, sacrifice, and utter consecration. He allows every last part of us to be tested and tried for the understanding that such can exalt us as we yield to Christ. One cannot trump one virtue in favor of another. A love doesn't equal condoning everything another desires. 

 

If there's some argument I'm missing, then please point it out. If not, I'm content stopping here. I will not persuade you that those against gay sealings etc. have solid a point. And unless there's something I'm missing, the arguments presented have not been persuasive toward me as having a solid point. And I'm ok agreeing to disagree and letting the future role out to see what will actually happen.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[guerreiro9]

I do agree with you that we all have our own unique sexual experiences when growing up that can influence how we interact with others.  Your experiences may very well made you hesitate or feel you were not ready to pursue relationships with women.  I don't think it is anything like your comparison with certain groups being more susceptible to poverty or crime.  And I don't think that your experiences had anything to do with your orientation.  You seem to be consistently headed in just one direction.  It is just figuring out the right course for you to follow.  

 

Unless you were wishing that you could make out with the blonde kid with the piercing blue eyes that was teasing you into kissing the girl, then I would say you were pretty solidly straight.  Unless after being forced to kiss the girl, you went home crying because you couldn't kiss the guys teasing you, then I think you were pretty straight.  Unless when you are walking down the street with your wife and your eye is constantly attracted to other guys, and you are fantasizing being with them rather than your wife, then I would feel pretty safe in saying you were straight.  This isn't rocket science.  It might be difficult for some people to come to grips with their orientation but It is not that hard to figure out orientation for most people.  

 

I would say that the vast majority of people are pretty clear what their orientation is from a very early age and don't deviate much from it.  

 

In the High School age experiences I related, I did not want the girls, I wanted the guys.  I did not want them sexually, because I didn't know what that was, but I wanted to be around them.  I wanted them to accept me.  I wanted them to consider me a part of their group.  I wanted to be "cool" and "popular" and be everything I thought they were.  I looked up to them and admired them, and I think the only word I can use to describe it is I was attracted to them.  I use to day dream and fantasize about what it would be like to be one of them.  At that point in my life it was probably the thing I wanted most.

 

I didn't want to make out with that girl the first time, I wanted acceptance.  I didn't want to engage in the other aspects of sexuality that they engaged in, but I wanted to be a part of their group and that is what being a part of their group meant.  The things they did and talked about shocked me at first, but not enough to overcome my attraction for the group.  Eventually I came to accept the norms of the group and even began to enjoy them, but if I am correct (and of course I believe I am), then I would have come to enjoy them whether they were hetero or homo sexual in nature.

 

Incidentally I work as a "rocket scientist".  Sending things into orbit is much less complicated than human sexuality.

 

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

No can't say that it was. I was a curious kid about sexuality and did experiment/explore this to a limited degree with my local neighbor friends. My friend and I (both girls) got curious and kissed and decided that wasn't right (in short I kissed a girl and I didn't like it). Whatever it was we were doing, it was with the assumption and orientation of heterosexuality. I stopped after awhile, becoming more aware that what we were doing probably wasn't right. After, around 13 or so, my abject attractions kicked in majorly and I had my first crushes. They were all boys.

 

That stated, I do think our orienation and sexual identity can be complex, far more so than we give credence. I found your story interesting. And i have heard other accounts of sexuality that are more fluid or complex. Like a man who's sexually attracted solely to men, finding space to be sexually attracted to his wife (but still not other women). Or another man who was sexually attracted to women, but various experiences growing up made women feel unsafe relationally so his intimate relationships were with men.   Or a woman who would define herself as straight, married, was good in such a relationship, but later in life fell in love with a woman. That's what I meant by the multidimensional nature of sexuality. The theory that I heard presented (in short), based on qualitative research, focused on 4 dimensions that helped to determine one's sexual expressions. These included aesthetics, erotically, affectional/romantic, and social. And it's talked more in terms of attraction/aversion...these fields may also alter a little during life. Likewise there's a growing theory that female sexual orientation may be more fluid/complex than men's (surprise, surprise). And there is a split between orientation and actual identity.

 

Basically stating one's bi, straight, or gay and you have been your whole life can easily be an oversimplification. We learn to dialogue our experience into acceptable narratives for sexuality. For example, I rarely admit about my sexual curiosity at a very young age, because no one ever talked about it and many tend to forget/remove from memory. It's taboo, so our memories as well as our script alter to accommodate it. If they don't fit it leads to a sense of confusion and push back or at the very least discomfort from others. We want it to fit our accepted dialogue/understanding of sexuality. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

I do not expect another's experiences to be exactly like my own, in fact that is the exact opposite of what I am saying (you seem to be agreeing).  But what I do expect is that each individual's sexuality is unique to them and is influenced by the experiences they have passed through.

 

People seem to be advocating that we all emerge from the womb with an L,G,B,T or S stamped on our forehead and that our sexuality will innately conform to one of these categories.  We cannot erase the stamp, we cannot change the stamp, we must only learn what the stamp says and then act accordingly.

 

Perhaps the stamp was out of ink on the day I was born...

 

-guerreiro9

[jwhitlock]

Exactly, what's the point of making a case....when that case will always be chalked up to heterosexual dominant culture. Or we just need more new, completely unprecedented information.

 

There may not be a ton of women floating around in scripture. But there are women and there is still plenty for me to utilize in expanding my understanding as to the power, role, and capacity given equally to them.

 

There may have been falsehoods perpetuated as truths about Blacks. But there was enough cracks in it to slowly fall apart based on scripture and past practice. The parallels fall short

 

3 degrees of glory or pre-earth life may seem like completely new ideas, but there's enough of it in other works for it not to seem preposterous.

 

The temple endowment may not be spelled out in the books, but the idea is not foreign or obscene to the rest of scripture.

 

....etc. The restoration has been radical, but it hasn't been without its precedence.  

 

I'm not asking for a big red sign.  I'm not even looking for a small red sign. I'm looking for any indication, any crack, any scriptural/doctrinal/revelatory sized loophole, however small, that could give credence to what now feels more like your hoped desires for greater tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage rather than any solid information. It's ok for you to hold that hope. People have held more far-fetched beliefs. But one can't state that this is an equivalent perspective to the other based on no sign of specific condemnation, When there is indication that there was some colloquial condemning of homosexual activities, and even more solid evidence for what God does expect and define as marriage (with the only defense being that it's filtered through majority culture....that comes off as a weak argument). Right now, this reads to me as looking from a solid theological base of commands and covenants and comparing a position that is based heavily on the question of "what if," "maybe," and "why not" as well as a personal sentiment as to what a loving God should or shouldn't be doing.

 

For me, it's simply not enough. And I'm not exactly a hard-baller when it comes to this topic. I prefer more openness, acceptance, and tolerance. I prefer more behavior that leans to tender charity. I prefer listening even when it conflicts with my own beliefs because I believe I can learn and others have pieces of the puzzle that I may miss. But doing so does not mean having to permit and alter long established doctrines because of the (relatively) rapid change of social conscience based heavily on the precepts of men for what love is and it's basis for creating relationships. Not all changes in society match up with the Lord's way. Not all are on equal footing.  

 

Basically, I just want something, beyond your personal hopes, to be able to say...kay, I disagree, but I can accept that maybe it could happen because of a,b and/or c. Right now, that doesn't seem feasible. The points you've given have had some major holes in the argument. To date i've seen

 

Scriptures don't outright condemn this, if they could marry they'd be ok <----> But they do pretty outright define/command/assume what marriage is. 

 

Scriptures are archaic and entrenched in historical context <---> but this isn't something like whether one should be a vegetarian or eat pork, this is about an eternal principle and ordinance of grave weight. It was a relationship that was the pinnacle of God's creation. You think somewhere in there, he could have thrown in an addendum at least once for something so pertinent.

 

Blacks and the priesthood indicates room for being wrong <---> but there was always at least some space to state that there would one day (however distant) be change, there was division within the hierarchy for change, there was precedence for other practices in the past, and there was plenty to indicate that God prefers a more united and open model to priesthood reception in both the NT and BoM. In short, the change was distinct and powerful, but it was also not entirely unfounded. The only founding for SSM I've seen here is personal and societal based philosophy/assumption. 

 

God wouldn't be so cruel because He is love <---> but He is also a God of order and command, one of justice, sacrifice, and utter consecration. He allows every last part of us to be tested and tried for the understanding that such can exalt us as we yield to Christ. One cannot trump one virtue in favor of another. A love doesn't equal condoning everything another desires. 

 

If there's some argument I'm missing, then please point it out. If not, I'm content stopping here. I will not persuade you that those against gay sealings etc. have solid a point. And unless there's something I'm missing, the arguments presented have not been persuasive toward me as having a solid point. And I'm ok agreeing to disagree and letting the future role out to see what will actually happen.

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Very, very well expressed.

[jwhitlock]

Again, that's not my recollection of Prince's biography of McKay. I'd ask, again, for an actually quote that the Lord said "don't bother me anymore" but I've grown tired of your obfuscating and have other things to do.

I realize that you are quite satisfied with what we've received from God, so far, on this subject. I used to be of the same opinion so I understand where you are coming from.

 

Page 104 of the book in a quote from Richard Jackson on a conversation he had with President McKay.

 

Like I said, read the book. And thanks for the irony of accusing me of obfuscating things.

[rockpond]

Exactly, what's the point of making a case....when that case will always be chalked up to heterosexual dominant culture. Or we just need more new, completely unprecedented information.

There may not be a ton of women floating around in scripture. But there are women and there is still plenty for me to utilize in expanding my understanding as to the power, role, and capacity given equally to them.

There may have been falsehoods perpetuated as truths about Blacks. But there was enough cracks in it to slowly fall apart based on scripture and past practice. The parallels fall short

3 degrees of glory or pre-earth life may seem like completely new ideas, but there's enough of it in other works for it not to seem preposterous.

The temple endowment may not be spelled out in the books, but the idea is not foreign or obscene to the rest of scripture.

....etc. The restoration has been radical, but it hasn't been without its precedence.

I'm not asking for a big red sign. I'm not even looking for a small red sign. I'm looking for any indication, any crack, any scriptural/doctrinal/revelatory sized loophole, however small, that could give credence to what now feels more like your hoped desires for greater tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage rather than any solid information. It's ok for you to hold that hope. People have held more far-fetched beliefs. But one can't state that this is an equivalent perspective to the other based on no sign of specific condemnation, When there is indication that there was some colloquial condemning of homosexual activities, and even more solid evidence for what God does expect and define as marriage (with the only defense being that it's filtered through majority culture....that comes off as a weak argument). Right now, this reads to me as looking from a solid theological base of commands and covenants and comparing a position that is based heavily on the question of "what if," "maybe," and "why not" as well as a personal sentiment as to what a loving God should or shouldn't be doing.

For me, it's simply not enough. And I'm not exactly a hard-baller when it comes to this topic. I prefer more openness, acceptance, and tolerance. I prefer more behavior that leans to tender charity. I prefer listening even when it conflicts with my own beliefs because I believe I can learn and others have pieces of the puzzle that I may miss. But doing so does not mean having to permit and alter long established doctrines because of the (relatively) rapid change of social conscience based heavily on the precepts of men for what love is and it's basis for creating relationships. Not all changes in society match up with the Lord's way. Not all are on equal footing.

Basically, I just want something, beyond your personal hopes, to be able to say...kay, I disagree, but I can accept that maybe it could happen because of a,b and/or c. Right now, that doesn't seem feasible. The points you've given have had some major holes in the argument. To date i've seen

Scriptures don't outright condemn this, if they could marry they'd be ok <----> But they do pretty outright define/command/assume what marriage is.

Scriptures are archaic and entrenched in historical context <---> but this isn't something like whether one should be a vegetarian or eat pork, this is about an eternal principle and ordinance of grave weight. It was a relationship that was the pinnacle of God's creation. You think somewhere in there, he could have thrown in an addendum at least once for something so pertinent.

Blacks and the priesthood indicates room for being wrong <---> but there was always at least some space to state that there would one day (however distant) be change, there was division within the hierarchy for change, there was precedence for other practices in the past, and there was plenty to indicate that God prefers a more united and open model to priesthood reception in both the NT and BoM. In short, the change was distinct and powerful, but it was also not entirely unfounded. The only founding for SSM I've seen here is personal and societal based philosophy/assumption.

God wouldn't be so cruel because He is love <---> but He is also a God of order and command, one of justice, sacrifice, and utter consecration. He allows every last part of us to be tested and tried for the understanding that such can exalt us as we yield to Christ. One cannot trump one virtue in favor of another. A love doesn't equal condoning everything another desires.

If there's some argument I'm missing, then please point it out. If not, I'm content stopping here. I will not persuade you that those against gay sealings etc. have solid a point. And unless there's something I'm missing, the arguments presented have not been persuasive toward me as having a solid point. And I'm ok agreeing to disagree and letting the future role out to see what will actually happen.

With luv,

BD

Here's a crack: Do we believe God is in favor of celibacy? As a general rule.

What about what Paul said when it comes to forbidding to marry?

[rockpond]

Page 104 of the book in a quote from Richard Jackson on a conversation he had with President McKay.

Like I said, read the book. And thanks for the irony of accusing me of obfuscating things.

As I said, all I had was what I could recall hearing from Brother Prince. Which is why I asked for the quote. So thank you!

So, what does it mean to you that the Lord said to leave the ban alone?

My comment to your obfuscating was with respect to not answering my questions on the grounds that they were "leading" or required answers that were too complex.

[Mystery Meat]

Here's a crack: Do we believe God is in favor of celibacy? As a general rule.

What about what Paul said when it comes to forbidding to marry?

 

Man with man is not marriage nor is woman with woman. 

 

God is in favor of keeping sexual desires within his bounds: marriage between man and woman. 

 

See the recent First Presidency and 12 Apostle Statement.

[BlueDreams]

Here's a crack: Do we believe God is in favor of celibacy? As a general rule.

What about what Paul said when it comes to forbidding to marry?

 

The general rule is found in DC 49:15-17 and Gen 2:18, as well as other places. The ideal for all his children is defined as this. In any other circumstance, we are called to be celibate. He is in favor of celibacy if the context warrants it. There is plenty of recognition that many people during this life will not have opportunity to participate in the ordination of marriage for a number of reasons. That is what I believe is the general rule. Inside this relationship, no. Outside this relationship, yes.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[jwhitlock]

So, what does it mean to you that the Lord said to leave the ban alone?

 

 

It means that at the very least, the Lord had His reasons for leaving it in place at the time.  Like I said, a very complex situation that we don't fully understand.

 

Unlike SSM and homosexual behavior, which is pretty cut and dried as far as the church and the Lord are concerned.

[Tacenda]

The evils of gay marriage

 

And what it is doing to families in Utah.  

I know that I appear to be pro gay marriage on these threads, and I am.  But there is always this little voice in the back of my mind that nags at me that I might be wrong.  But after listening to this boy, it's no longer going to be a problem.  It's definitely in the best interest for this boy and his brother to have their mom's be married.   

[CV75]

Here's a crack: Do we believe God is in favor of celibacy? As a general rule.

What about what Paul said when it comes to forbidding to marry?

Looking at your questions over the last few pages, which seem to represent what you are trying the get at with the ban/marriage question that people don't answer, or don't answer to your satisfaction:

 

What does one do if he thinks the prophets might be operating under limited understanding or might be making mistakes? I’d recommend being patient. I think most people have observed the limited understanding and mistakes of the Lord’s anointed (real, perceived and imagined); some learn to put things in perspective (including and perhaps especially their own limited understanding and mistakes), and some don’t.

 

What does one do if he wants the prophets to get more revelation on a subject (or policy, course of action, doctrine, etc.) he finds personally difficult to cope with or accept under the existing revelations and conditions? I‘d recommend developing a more effective relationship with the Comforter--God is personally accessible to every member to help with every member's personal concerns.

 

What does one do when some members see their prophets’ words as moved upon by the Holy Ghost and some do not? It depends on whether he sees the prophets’ words as moved upon by the Holy Ghost or not, but I’d refer to the recommendations above.

 

Who gets to decide when leaders are making mistakes as we were recently taught that they do? God, for His purposes. If that doesn’t suffice for one’s own purposes, then he himself can decide, for his purposes (see 1st and 2nd questions).

 

Who gets to decide what constitutes a big issue for the Church these days? God, for His purposes. God, for His purposes. If that doesn’t suffice for one’s own purposes, then he himself can decide, for his purposes (see 1st and 2nd questions).

 

Discussion of course can be very helpful in studying things out in one's mind. The Lord has a recommended approach that is found in D&C 50 and D&C 88.

[rockpond]

Man with man is not marriage nor is woman with woman. 

 

God is in favor of keeping sexual desires within his bounds: marriage between man and woman. 

 

See the recent First Presidency and 12 Apostle Statement.

 

Here's another First Presidency statement.  But it's no longer considered doctrine.  Oh well.

[rockpond]

The general rule is found in DC 49:15-17 and Gen 2:18, as well as other places. The ideal for all his children is defined as this. In any other circumstance, we are called to be celibate. He is in favor of celibacy if the context warrants it. There is plenty of recognition that many people during this life will not have opportunity to participate in the ordination of marriage for a number of reasons. That is what I believe is the general rule. Inside this relationship, no. Outside this relationship, yes.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Yes, "whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God".  You'll notice that that verse in Section 49 is cross-referenced to Paul's counsel in his letter to Timothy where he says that forbidding to marry is a sign of the last days.

 

God seems to be opposed to celibacy as well as adultery & fornication.  And yet he created sons and daughters who, by their nature, don't function well in heterosexual marriages.

 

Our response is to forbid them to marry in the way that they were designed.  I guess it is the last days.

[rockpond]

It means that at the very least, the Lord had His reasons for leaving it in place at the time.  Like I said, a very complex situation that we don't fully understand.

 

Unlike SSM and homosexual behavior, which is pretty cut and dried as far as the church and the Lord are concerned.

 

It's fascinating to me that you can see the priesthood and temple ban as a "very complex situation that we don't fully understand."  And yet the issue of homosexuality and SSM, despite and evolving set of teachings over the past 50 years, is "cut and dried".

 

So, if the Lord had His reasons for leaving the ban in place at the time, did He also have His reasons for letting prophets and apostles teach things that were not true doctrine regarding the reasons for the ban?

[rockpond]

Looking at your questions over the last few pages, which seem to represent what you are trying the get at with the ban/marriage question that people don't answer, or don't answer to your satisfaction:

 

What does one do if he thinks the prophets might be operating under limited understanding or might be making mistakes? I’d recommend being patient. I think most people have observed the limited understanding and mistakes of the Lord’s anointed (real, perceived and imagined); some learn to put things in perspective (including and perhaps especially their own limited understanding and mistakes), and some don’t.

 

What does one do if he wants the prophets to get more revelation on a subject (or policy, course of action, doctrine, etc.) he finds personally difficult to cope with or accept under the existing revelations and conditions? I‘d recommend developing a more effective relationship with the Comforter--God is personally accessible to every member to help with every member's personal concerns.

 

What does one do when some members see their prophets’ words as moved upon by the Holy Ghost and some do not? It depends on whether he sees the prophets’ words as moved upon by the Holy Ghost or not, but I’d refer to the recommendations above.

 

Who gets to decide when leaders are making mistakes as we were recently taught that they do? God, for His purposes. If that doesn’t suffice for one’s own purposes, then he himself can decide, for his purposes (see 1st and 2nd questions).

 

Who gets to decide what constitutes a big issue for the Church these days? God, for His purposes. God, for His purposes. If that doesn’t suffice for one’s own purposes, then he himself can decide, for his purposes (see 1st and 2nd questions).

 

Discussion of course can be very helpful in studying things out in one's mind. The Lord has a recommended approach that is found in D&C 50 and D&C 88.

 

CV,

 

Thank you.  I think that is about the most fair and nicely written post I've seen come from your keyboard.  I agree.  And I strive daily to work on what you've outlined here.

[Calm]

Here's a crack: Do we believe God is in favor of celibacy? As a general rule.

What about what Paul said when it comes to forbidding to marry?

Interesting that you see that as a crack....

Definitely goes to show that different people interpret the same thing very differently.

Scriptually, God's response to man being alone:

"18The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adamf no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

The "suitable helper" was defined as a woman and the reason why the man leaves his parents, ie. becomes an adult to become one with her.

[jwhitlock]

It's fascinating to me that you can see the priesthood and temple ban as a "very complex situation that we don't fully understand."  And yet the issue of homosexuality and SSM, despite and evolving set of teachings over the past 50 years, is "cut and dried".

 

The church's position on SSM has always been that that it is not condoned by God, and that SSM will not be accepted by the church.

 

The church's position on homosexual behavior has always been that it is sinful, without exception.

 

Yet you keep claiming that those teachings have somehow "evolved". Please provide evidence that there has been a change in those two specific issues.

 

So, if the Lord had His reasons for leaving the ban in place at the time, did He also have His reasons for letting prophets and apostles teach things that were not true doctrine regarding the reasons for the ban?

 

 

Do you understand the concept of agency? If not, perhaps you can ponder this question:

 

Why does the Lord allow people to remain members of the church who disagree with clear counsel and instruction from His prophets?

 

When you answer that question, you may have answered your own question.

[guerreiro9]

Yes, "whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God".  You'll notice that that verse in Section 49 is cross-referenced to Paul's counsel in his letter to Timothy where he says that forbidding to marry is a sign of the last days.

 

God seems to be opposed to celibacy as well as adultery & fornication.  And yet he created sons and daughters who, by their nature, don't function well in heterosexual marriages.

 

Our response is to forbid them to marry in the way that they were designed.  I guess it is the last days.

 

Unless he didn't create sons and daughters who, by their nature, don't function well in heterosexual marriages.

 

It all hinges on this doesn't it?

 

-guerreiro9