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

[webbles]

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.

But are we actually forbidding them to marry according to God?  To me marriage is only between a man and a woman.  As far as I can tell from the scriptures, that's it.  So forbidding a man from marrying a woman is not ordained of God.  But forbidding a man from marrying a man is ok because it isn't really a marriage.  It is just a misuse of the term.

[rockpond]

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.

Who is the suitable helper for a gay man? A lesbian woman?

[webbles]

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

Interesting statement.  Here's a few quotes from it (bolding is mine):

Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time

 

The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.

 

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence ...

 

Notice how that statement has at least three instances (I didn't pull out the Brigham Young quote) where it states that it will change at some time.  And then the last paragraph, where it tries to explain it, it states "may be".  It doesn't definitely state why the ban was in place but it tried to explain it.

 

Is there anything like the above in the statements on marriage?

[rockpond]

But are we actually forbidding them to marry according to God?

Seems to me that we are. But I recognize different interpretations of that. I'm just identifying it as one of the scriptural "cracks" (not my term) that was requested of me.

[rockpond]

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

Yes.

[guerreiro9]

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

 

 

Yes.

 

Just out of curiosity do you believe God created sons and daughters who, by their nature, don't function well in other aspects of the gospel, or is this the only instance?

 

-guerreiro9

[rockpond]

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.

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.

I do understand agency. And...

I already knew my answer to that question and it was agency. I was curious as to your answer. I gather it is the same. So when they taught incorrect things about the nature of blacks it was agency but when they teach things about homosexuality, it is the will of God? See how I struggle with your logic that current teachings are equivalent to revelation from God?

Was it okay to disagree with the clear instruction regarding interracial marriage back in the first half of the 20th century? It was clearly stated by the prophet in an official letter, does that qualify it as revelation from God?

Here's some info on the evolution of our leaders' teachings on homosexuality: http://www.connellodonovan.com/etiology.htm

[jwhitlock]

I do understand agency. And...

I already knew my answer to that question and it was agency. I was curious as to your answer. I gather it is the same. So when they taught incorrect things about the nature of blacks it was agency but when they teach things about homosexuality, it is the will of God? See how I struggle with your logic that current teachings are equivalent to revelation from God?

Was it okay to disagree with the clear instruction regarding interracial marriage back in the first half of the 20th century? It was clearly stated by the prophet in an official letter, does that qualify it as revelation from God?

Here's some info on the evolution of our leaders' teachings on homosexuality: http://www.connellodonovan.com/etiology.htm

 

Since we're talking about two entirely different situations, there should be no struggle.  It's already been made clear that there was a "loophole" with the priesthood ban, that it would eventually be eliminated, and that there were differing opinions on the subject among church leadership. Not the same situation. In fact, you've been asked a number of times to provide clear evidence of the same kind of loophole for SSM, and you haven't done that. You keep ignoring that particular request. It seems to pose a significant problem for your claim that the priesthood ban is similar to the church's position on SSM.

 

In post #378, webbles makes some good observations about the instructions on the priesthood ban. If you compare that to the instructions received this week on SSM, you will notice that they are very dissimilar. In the statement on priesthood, the loophole is left clearly open. There is no loophole with SSM. 

 

Again, these are very dissimilar situations, and it is not valid to try to draw comparisons between the two in order to justify some rationalization that the church and the Lord might change their minds on the subject.

 

Finally, your link on homosexuality is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have made it very clear that as far as I'm concerned, this is not about same sex attraction itself. It's specifically about SSM and about homosexual behavior. It's specifically about how the church and the Lord view those two items, and NOT about homosexuality. This thread devolved into that earlier on, and you were only too glad to attack that particular straw man. I view this as an attempt at deflection, and not a serious answer to the question I posed. So I'll pose it again:

 

Can you provide any evidence that the church's stand on SSM and homosexual behavior - specifically those two items - has changed over time? In addition, can you provide any form of authoritative statement by any church leader that gives an indication that SSM might, at some point in the future, be allowed in the church, and that homosexual behavior might be re-classified as non-sinful?

[rockpond]

Just out of curiosity do you believe God created sons and daughters who, by their nature, don't function well in other aspects of the gospel?

-guerreiro9

Simple answer: yes. There are parts of our nature that we can and should change. I don't see that sexual orientation is one of those.

[webbles]

Seems to me that we are. But I recognize different interpretations of that. I'm just identifying it as one of the scriptural "cracks" (not my term) that was requested of me.

I do agree that it can be seen as a crack but it is a very weak crack and it is far too broad.  Because you can use that exact same crack to allow any form of marriage, including bestiality, child, etc.  Say a country (purely hypothetical) legalizes marriages between mankind and animal.  Should we be open to the possibility that God might actually be open to that form of marriage?

 

That would be why this crack doesn't work for me.

[guerreiro9]

Simple answer: yes. There are parts of our nature that we can and should change. I don't see that sexual orientation is one of those.

 

Well, we are obviously entitled to our own opinions.  I don't believe their is any scriptural or doctrinal support for this, or even any "folklore" support as others have mentioned.  

 

I also have not seen any support in my own experiences that leads me to believe that our sexuality is less mutable than any other part of our being (as I have explained at length).

 

I really have nothing more to add.  I understand your position (though not your reasons for it), I just disagree.

 

I'm sure we'll dialogue in the future, at least I hope so.

 

-guerreiro9

[Calm]

Simple answer: yes. There are parts of our nature that we can and should change. I don't see that sexual orientation is one of those.

Why not?

[Scott Lloyd]

A lot of posts have been made since, but this is the first occasion I have had to respond to this one from rockpond.

 

He was responding to this post from me:

 

Scott Lloyd, on 10 Jan 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Correction: Whatever they say when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the revealed word of God. It doesn't have to be canonized. It doesn't even have to be written down.

Your practice regarding whatever they say that doesn't suit you is to deny that they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, regardless of how forcefully, unitedly and consistently they express it over time. That's your privilege, I suppose, and it's internally convenient for you, but it is not binding on others.

Whereupon, he replied:

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

Yes, that was the passage I had in mind. Thank you for quoting it.

 

There is nothing "convenient" for me about our policies & doctrines regarding homosexuality.  And there is nothing convenient for me in my beliefs on the subject.

 

 

What I meant is that it is convenient for you in your endeavor to rationalize your position contradicting what prophets and apostles have expressed emphatically, unitedly and consistently over time. The latest such expression from them, of course, came just a couple of days ago and is the subject of another thread in this forum.

 

So what do we do, Scott, when some members see their words as moved upon by the Holy Ghost and some do not?  Who gets to decide when leaders are making mistakes as we were recently taught that they do?

 

It's a determination each individual must make personally based on his or her own interaction with the Holy Ghost.

 

But I'll tell you this: If I found myself holding a position so utterly contrary to what has been emphatically, unitedly and consistently expressed by the prophets and apostles over time as you do on this subject, it would be an occasion for personal introspection for me and a serious re-examination of my thinking and attitude and the stimuli to which I may have been subject.
 

 

Why is it a bad thing for me to want a clear revelation on this subject that is obviously such a big issue for the church these days?

 

It's not a bad thing to wish for more definitive revelation on a subject. I personally hope for the day when the family proclamation (which was directly referenced in that statement released a day or so ago by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on this subject) will be included in the scriptural canon.

 

But in the meantime, I'm not going to ignore, marginalize or dismiss what has already been given and continues to be given. I've said it before: When faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

[rockpond]

Since we're talking about two entirely different situations, there should be no struggle. It's already been made clear that there was a "loophole" with the priesthood ban, that it would eventually be eliminated, and that there were differing opinions on the subject among church leadership. Not the same situation. In fact, you've been asked a number of times to provide clear evidence of the same kind of loophole for SSM, and you haven't done that. You keep ignoring that particular request. It seems to pose a significant problem for your claim that the priesthood ban is similar to the church's position on SSM.

In post #378, webbles makes some good observations about the instructions on the priesthood ban. If you compare that to the instructions received this week on SSM, you will notice that they are very dissimilar. In the statement on priesthood, the loophole is left clearly open. There is no loophole with SSM.

Again, these are very dissimilar situations, and it is not valid to try to draw comparisons between the two in order to justify some rationalization that the church and the Lord might change their minds on the subject.

Finally, your link on homosexuality is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have made it very clear that as far as I'm concerned, this is not about same sex attraction itself. It's specifically about SSM and about homosexual behavior. It's specifically about how the church and the Lord view those two items, and NOT about homosexuality. This thread devolved into that earlier on, and you were only too glad to attack that particular straw man. I view this as an attempt at deflection, and not a serious answer to the question I posed. So I'll pose it again:

Can you provide any evidence that the church's stand on SSM and homosexual behavior - specifically those two items - has changed over time? In addition, can you provide any form of authoritative statement by any church leader that gives an indication that SSM might, at some point in the future, be allowed in the church, and that homosexual behavior might be re-classified as non-sinful?

I don't think that the priesthood/temple ban and our teachings regarding homosexuality and SSM are exact parallels. I've said that there are lessons to be learned from the ban and some applications to the issues surrounding homosexuality.

And I provided you evidence that our teachings regarding homosexuality have changed over time. Have the specific teachings about SSM (a relatively new topic) changed? No. Have our teachings about homosexual sex acts changed? No. Though the idea of separating out orientation from behavior is also a relatively new distinction as we used to not acknowledge "orientation".

But allow me to see if I understand your argument here: because there were loopholes in the priesthood ban, it's okay to decide that what prophets and apostles taught for over a century was incorrect and not the revealed word of God. But because there are no apparent loopholes regarding homosexuality and SSM, we must therefore conclude that prophets and apostles are clearly not speaking with the same limited understanding. Correct?

[rockpond]

I do agree that it can be seen as a crack but it is a very weak crack and it is far too broad. Because you can use that exact same crack to allow any form of marriage, including bestiality, child, etc. Say a country (purely hypothetical) legalizes marriages between mankind and animal. Should we be open to the possibility that God might actually be open to that form of marriage?

That would be why this crack doesn't work for me.

You don't see a difference between animals and God's sons and daughters?

[rockpond]

Why not?

My belief in the Proclamation and that it leads me to believe that our sexual orientation is an eternal part of our identity.

[rockpond]

Given the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

As have I. I may have a lot of divergent thoughts on the subject that I enjoy discussing amongst other members here, but where the rubber hits the road... I'm still following and prophets in the way I live my life.

[Scott Lloyd]

My belief in the Proclamation and that it leads me to believe that our sexual orientation is an eternal part of our identity.

Clearly, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles view the proclamation differently than you, as they directly referenced it in their statement published on Friday.

[Buzzard]

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.   

It is? I'm sure their mother has warm and fuzzy feelings for her partner of the moment, but she is damning herself and her posterity from participating in eternal life. So in the short term, marriage may make her, her kids, and you feel good, but in the long term, the decision will bring misery and eternal regret. God knows this, our leaders know this and have stated this, but some without eternal perspective want to encourage open defiance of God's laws.

Yes, we have agency, but agency does not free us from consequences, and it frankly does a disservice when those of us who should know better are telling those who currently don't know any better that everything will be just great. Because it won't.

[CV75]

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.

Great--problem solved! Next question?

[webbles]

You don't see a difference between animals and God's sons and daughters?

I do see a difference just as I see a difference between marriage between man and woman and marriage between man and man.  I'm just pointing out that the crack you found is valid for other cases than just same sex marriage.  And that is why the crack doesn't work for me.  Maybe if you could find a second crack, it might work better.

 

Also, you have mentioned that you don't think sexual orientation shouldn't change.  So for those who are born with the sexual orientation of wanting to be with animals, children, etc, what happens to them in the afterlife?  Are they doomed to an eternity of celibacy?  Or are some sexual orientations non-changeable and others are changeable?

[BlueDreams]

 

Also, you have mentioned that you don't think sexual orientation shouldn't change.  So for those who are born with the sexual orientation of wanting to be with animals, children, etc, what happens to them in the afterlife?  Are they doomed to an eternity of celibacy?  Or are some sexual orientations non-changeable and others are changeable?

 

Webbles, the comparison is unfair and demeaning. These are relationships of lust, usually one-sided, and can lead to severe harm in the case of children that has a lasting effect for years. Most gay/lesbian relationships are between 2 consenting adults (or at least peers of similar age). It is not the same. Furthermore I've studied up on people who find attraction/sex with animals. The development is very much more pathological. Most of them began with a mix of feeling disconnected from other people and opportunity. It's circles around lust and a very distorted picture of what love is over time (at best).  

 

Gay relationships can be unhealthy....but the reasons for them being unhealthy run parallel for why hetero relationships can be unhealthy (dependency, sex addictions, promiscuity, etc). There are relationships, psychologically speaking, that are healthy and relatively stable.

 

you're comparing apples and rotted oranges in making peach pie. There's reasons why someone should not include apples in it....but they are very different reasons for why rotting oranges shouldn't step near that pie (or be in the kitchen).

 

With luv,

BD

[Kenngo1969]

I think he wants joy for all His children.

I haven't suggested that anyone is exempt from the rules, so I don't understand your second question.

Fine.   However much I might like to share my life with someone else in a marriage relationship, is that the sin qua non of joy?

[thesometimesaint]

Since we're talking about two entirely different situations, there should be no struggle.  It's already been made clear that there was a "loophole" with the priesthood ban, that it would eventually be eliminated, and that there were differing opinions on the subject among church leadership. Not the same situation. In fact, you've been asked a number of times to provide clear evidence of the same kind of loophole for SSM, and you haven't done that. You keep ignoring that particular request. It seems to pose a significant problem for your claim that the priesthood ban is similar to the church's position on SSM.

 

In post #378, webbles makes some good observations about the instructions on the priesthood ban. If you compare that to the instructions received this week on SSM, you will notice that they are very dissimilar. In the statement on priesthood, the loophole is left clearly open. There is no loophole with SSM. 

 

Again, these are very dissimilar situations, and it is not valid to try to draw comparisons between the two in order to justify some rationalization that the church and the Lord might change their minds on the subject.

 

Finally, your link on homosexuality is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have made it very clear that as far as I'm concerned, this is not about same sex attraction itself. It's specifically about SSM and about homosexual behavior. It's specifically about how the church and the Lord view those two items, and NOT about homosexuality. This thread devolved into that earlier on, and you were only too glad to attack that particular straw man. I view this as an attempt at deflection, and not a serious answer to the question I posed. So I'll pose it again:

 

Can you provide any evidence that the church's stand on SSM and homosexual behavior - specifically those two items - has changed over time? In addition, can you provide any form of authoritative statement by any church leader that gives an indication that SSM might, at some point in the future, be allowed in the church, and that homosexual behavior might be re-classified as non-sinful?

 

I don't believe we can make such a statement concerning race.

SEE FairMormon Answers.

 

Elder Petersen said in this address: Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin.... In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.

 

IOW He will be "blessed" with being a servant to his white betters forever.

[jwhitlock]

I don't think that the priesthood/temple ban and our teachings regarding homosexuality and SSM are exact parallels. I've said that there are lessons to be learned from the ban and some applications to the issues surrounding homosexuality.

And I provided you evidence that our teachings regarding homosexuality have changed over time. Have the specific teachings about SSM (a relatively new topic) changed? No. Have our teachings about homosexual sex acts changed? No. Though the idea of separating out orientation from behavior is also a relatively new distinction as we used to not acknowledge "orientation".

But allow me to see if I understand your argument here: because there were loopholes in the priesthood ban, it's okay to decide that what prophets and apostles taught for over a century was incorrect and not the revealed word of God. But because there are no apparent loopholes regarding homosexuality and SSM, we must therefore conclude that prophets and apostles are clearly not speaking with the same limited understanding. Correct?

 

You've been using the priesthood ban as a rationalization that SSM might be allowed in the church someday. As has been extensively demonstrated on this thread, that is invalid.

 

The discussion is not about homosexuality. It's about SSM and homosexual behavior.  There has been consistency on those two items over time.

 

You misunderstand the whole point about the priesthood ban. The point is that it was always expected that it would be lifted at some point. That has not been the case for SSM or homosexual behavior. The latter appear, for all intents and purposes, to be the permanent will of the Lord.

 

Perhaps if you try to view the opinions that were taught about the priesthood ban as opinions of people trying to make some sense of it, and separate those opinions from the ban itself, the situation will become clearer. As has been demonstrated with President McKay, the Lord wanted the ban left in place for a period of time. It doesn't address how it came about (we don't know). The reasons for the ban were mostly speculative in nature. Statements about the ban being lifted have been proven to be prophetic. You can't view the priesthood ban at either extreme as being totally right or wrong, and  you can't view all statements on the ban made prior to 1978 as being all correct or incorrect. At this point, we know that some were correct, some were incorrect, and others are inconclusive.

 

On the other hand, statements concerning SSM and homosexual behavior have been consistent over time. Nothing has changed. The leadership of the church has reiterated this consistent message on those two specific items in the last week. The situation is far more cut and dried than the one around the priesthood ban.

 

Why is this so difficult, conceptually?