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

[ERayR]

Let's just get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Make them all Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships a legally enforceable contract.

 

I am OK with that but I think the politicians find it too good a tool to relinquish it.

[thesometimesaint]

I am OK with that but I think the politicians find it too good a tool to relinquish it.

 

Agreed.

[Avatar4321]

You know, it came to me while reading the responses that we are making assumptions about what's to come without taking into consideration what the Lord is going to do in these last days. It's quite possible that the winding up will occur long before we see more fallout from this.

 

We are hastening the work after all.

[thesometimesaint]

True; But as we keep sending out more and more Missionaries, I don't believe the end is anytime soon.

[Calm]

I thought this might amuse some here...I had heard of the filing of the lawsuit before opening up the thread, but the writ or whatever you call it was so garbled it was impossible for me at least to figure out what was being accused and what was being asked. However it was enough that it started me thinking done these lines and looking for something less vague in predictions of what the future might look like now that what most people have expected has happened...at least in Utah and at least until appealed if it gets overturned.

And I do admit that I would have had a lot of fun bringing this out if anyone had taken the position that there would be absolutely no legal attempts at all to pressure, harass or get money from the Church...but since I did not think of any poster who actually held that position actually existed, the thought may have made me giggled but I was expecting not to get any real mileage out of it.

But I was deceived and here we have this great instance of wild and wooly antics to snark over after all.

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865593352/Lesbian-couple-say-marriage-lawsuit-against-Utah-LDS-Church-was-filed-without-their-knowledge.html

Bravo to the couple for telling him to take a hike.

Speculation..the lawyer was celebrating N Y's Eve early and thought, hey why not,will get a few easy bucks to settle out of court..and then proceeded to write it under the influence.....this would be libel I guess if I believed it, but i really think he's a lousy lawyer...by several standards.

[strappinglad]

Where I live, the first thing that happened ( within 2 days ) was the first filing for divorce of a newly married lesbian couple. This was done on purpose so as to have the divorce laws changed to reflect the new ' status' .

[Calm]

Where I live, the first thing that happened ( within 2 days ) was the first filing for divorce of a newly married lesbian couple. This was done on purpose so as to have the divorce laws changed to reflect the new ' status' .

So did they get remarried afterwards or had they just looked on the marriage as paperwork that needed to be filed so that the real work could take place?

[jwhitlock]

One thing needs to be made clear. If you subscribe to the notion that President Monson and the rest of the apostles receive direction from God, it's pretty evident that the Lord has made His viewpoint clear concerning SSM and homosexual behavior. Both are unacceptable to Him. The Proclamation on Family and recent conferences have been very clear on where the lines are drawn.

 

Those members of the church who support SSM and want the church to "change" are basically coming out in opposition to God. Comparisons between the priesthood ban and opposition to SSM, while appealing on the surface, do not hold up when you dig into the history of both. While the priesthood ban had complex and conflicting historical background as to why it existed and when it would be lifted, along, there was also the fact that some blacks held the priesthood and there was a clear understanding that the situation could and would change at some point, even though there was disagreement on the details among church leadership.

 

SSM and homosexual behavior is quite another story. There has never been any intimation that either would eventually become acceptable to God, either in the scriptures or via prophetic insight. Specific comments concerning them either in the scriptures or by the prophets consistently condemn both. Supporters seeking to find support have resorted to some rather interesting spin to justify their claims that it could change, but those are tenuous at best.

 

This whole issue of SSM is simply another trendy fad of society. It will become increasingly unimportant as marriage itself continues to die a slow death, as far as the world is concerned. Only a very small percentage of gays actually want to engage in SSM; I anticipate that it will probably never rise above single digits as to the percentage of gays who actually engage in same gender marriages. There is active opposition by more radical portions of the gay community to SSM.

 

Again, the main thing to keep in mind is whether this is Christ's church, and whether it is guided by Him through the prophets. If that is the case, then it is very clear that the church's position against SSM is going to be permanent. If it's just another worldly organization - something I don't believe - then it will evolve over time to fit the world.

 

Those in the church who support SSM and want the church to change are going to find that the church is not going to accommodate their worldly viewpoints. They will, in effect, place themselves in opposition to God in their support of a worldly trend.

 

I am fascinated with how quickly this issue is evolving. In the last days when things fall apart, they will deteriorate rather quickly. Ultimately this is just another piece being placed on the stage that is being played out prior to the Second Coming.

[rockpond]

One thing needs to be made clear. If you subscribe to the notion that President Monson and the rest of the apostles receive direction from God, it's pretty evident that the Lord has made His viewpoint clear concerning SSM and homosexual behavior. Both are unacceptable to Him. The Proclamation on Family and recent conferences have been very clear on where the lines are drawn.

 

Those members of the church who support SSM and want the church to "change" are basically coming out in opposition to God. Comparisons between the priesthood ban and opposition to SSM, while appealing on the surface, do not hold up when you dig into the history of both. While the priesthood ban had complex and conflicting historical background as to why it existed and when it would be lifted, along, there was also the fact that some blacks held the priesthood and there was a clear understanding that the situation could and would change at some point, even though there was disagreement on the details among church leadership.

 

The Lord let his prophets and apostles teach false doctrine regarding another minority for a century.  He let his prophets and apostles restrict that minority from full fellowship in the church.  And He let them keep that minority out of the temple.  Whether you believe that the prophets and apostles receive direction from God (like you and I) or you don't, those facts still stand.

 

Was there a reason for that?  Possibly.  Should we learn from it?  Definitely.

 

We see the same thing happening today.  And pointing to Brigham Young's unfulfilled prophecy about the ban being lifted doesn't change the comparison between blacks and homosexuals.  What prophets and apostles taught about an eventual restoration of blessings for those of African descent was intermingled with their teachings that have now been disavowed and condemned.

 

The events in Utah over the past couple weeks seem to defy your assertion that marriage is dying a slow death and that only a small percentage of gays want to get married.  Seeing crowds of couples stand in line for hours to receive a long awaited marriage license should encourage us regarding the future of marriage.  It encourages me.

[jwhitlock]

The Lord let his prophets and apostles teach false doctrine regarding another minority for a century.  He let his prophets and apostles restrict that minority from full fellowship in the church.  And He let them keep that minority out of the temple.  Whether you believe that the prophets and apostles receive direction from God (like you and I) or you don't, those facts still stand.

 

Was there a reason for that?  Possibly.  Should we learn from it?  Definitely.

 

We see the same thing happening today.  And pointing to Brigham Young's unfulfilled prophecy about the ban being lifted doesn't change the comparison between blacks and homosexuals.  What prophets and apostles taught about an eventual restoration of blessings for those of African descent was intermingled with their teachings that have now been disavowed and condemned.

 

The events in Utah over the past couple weeks seem to defy your assertion that marriage is dying a slow death and that only a small percentage of gays want to get married.  Seeing crowds of couples stand in line for hours to receive a long awaited marriage license should encourage us regarding the future of marriage.  It encourages me.

 

Did you actually read my post? You're providing no response in defense of your assertion that the prophets have been mistaken on this issue. It does not in any way bear resemblance to the historical pronouncements on both side of the priesthood ban that were made by leaders of the church. Pronouncements on SSM and homosexual behavior by leaders of the church have been remarkably consistent over time. Have we had some same sex marriages performed by the church in the same manner that some blacks were ordained to the priesthood throughout the years since 1830? No. Do we have any indications by any leader of the church since 1830 that SSM might some day be performed in the church and that homosexual behavior would be reclassified as not sinful? No. Do we have the church supporting an official organization of SSM supporters and gays within the church like they did with Genesis and blacks? No. Do we have any indication that he is "letting" his prophets keep a ban of SSM marriage in place against the time that it might be lifted, such as was the case with the priesthood ban? No.

 

You have to ignore the striking dissimilarities between the priesthood ban and the church's position in SSM in order to think that God is going to change His mind on this subject. The church has been clear and consistent in not only opposing SSM, but in stating that marriage is between male and female.

 

Perhaps rather than sticking to this rather shallow comparison of the priesthood ban with the church's position on SSM, you could actually provide some evidence that it could change. How about:

 

- Prophetic statements that have indicated that SSM could eventually be allowed.

- Prophetic statements that indicate marriage is not to be limited to male-female bonds forever.

- Actual same sex marriages performed by the church that were allowed to stand historically, just like blacks were ordained to the priesthood before the ban was lifted.

- Prophetic statements that the nature of sin could possibly change in the matter of homosexual behavior.

 

Anything that is clear on the level of pre-1978 statements concerning the priesthood ban being temporary and changeable would probably make your point. Highly subjective interpretations of generalized statements about us being all children of God that SSM supporters like to bandy about do not count.

 

Again, the church's position on SSM and on the sinful nature of actual homosexual behavior is and has been consistent and clear. It's highly unlikely that it's a mistake, and it's highly probable that the church's actions over the last 10 years in regards to the SSM issue have been as a result of direction by the Lord on the subject. There is simply no real evidence to the contrary.

 

And that's why predictions that the church will eventually change and embrace an "enlightened" world view of things must, of necessity, deny the very foundation of what the church is and what its mission is. It was restored by Christ through authorized prophets to provide the ordinances of salvation and to guide us in preparation for His Second Coming. In the case of SSM, it is receiving guidance from God on what its position and actions should be.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The link to the original post didn't go in for some reason:

 

And it didn't here either....very, very weird...sorry.

Using this one because I know hard it is for mods when you answer a long post as the original on can the alter...having said that:

The Church already has something in place signed by leadership via the "Proclamation on the Family". If they gave equal status then in time they would extend it to the Temple.

They also have all of recorded scripture and historical background.

Sone quoted out of context the other day that as long as the marriage is "legal and lawful", leaving out that the statement means "legal and lawful" between "male and female".

On that note SSC's may be able to marry, but not in the Temple...the Church does not have to change it's position.

[jwhitlock]

 

The events in Utah over the past couple weeks seem to defy your assertion that marriage is dying a slow death and that only a small percentage of gays want to get married.  Seeing crowds of couples stand in line for hours to receive a long awaited marriage license should encourage us regarding the future of marriage.  It encourages me.

 

By the way, the fact that "lots" of people line up for gay marriage has no relevance to the actual percentages of gays that have been married. Pew Research here indicates that as of June 2013 there were probably at least 71,000 same sex marriages in the United States. If we double that and fudge upward to say it involves 150,000 people, then given a very conservative guess that 3% of the US population is gay or lesbian (9 million people), then that works out to 1.7 percent of gays and lesbians have entered into SSM arrangements since Massachusetts legalized it 10 years ago. That is, indeed, a very small percentage. That trend is not shifting particularly rapidly.

 

Another interesting statistic in all this, according to Marriage Equality USA, nearly two thirds of registered partnerships and marriages are between lesbians, and the other third are between gay men. Given that gay men outnumber lesbians by about 2 to 1 (estimates differ depending on the study, but this seems to be the general average), that indicates that the percentage of gay men who marry is very, very small.

 

SSM is not exactly taking the world by storm, by any measure.

[jwhitlock]

So did they get remarried afterwards or had they just looked on the marriage as paperwork that needed to be filed so that the real work could take place?

 

Maybe it's just me, but if someone is getting married and then divorced just to make a statement or to set legal precedent, that speaks volumes about their real attitudes towards the commitment that should be a prime purpose behind getting married. I wonder how many of the "throngs" of people flocking to get married in Utah are just doing it to make a statement of some sort. If past experience is any indicator, same sex marriage numbers drop off quite sharply after the initial "euphoria" and the reality of the real responsibilities of marriage set in.

 

That's part of the reason why I see significant potential for conflict between this worldly SSM trend and the church. Marriage in the church entails a significant level of overall commitment, something that many SSM supporters say is not really necessary. Having the church embrace SSM would require it to water down its standards of conduct and commitment between people, something that's not going to happen.

[rockpond]

Did you actually read my post? You're providing no response in defense of your assertion that the prophets have been mistaken on this issue. It does not in any way bear resemblance to the historical pronouncements on both side of the priesthood ban that were made by leaders of the church. Pronouncements on SSM and homosexual behavior by leaders of the church have been remarkably consistent over time. Have we had some same sex marriages performed by the church in the same manner that some blacks were ordained to the priesthood throughout the years since 1830? No. Do we have any indications by any leader of the church since 1830 that SSM might some day be performed in the church and that homosexual behavior would be reclassified as not sinful? No. Do we have the church supporting an official organization of SSM supporters and gays within the church like they did with Genesis and blacks? No. Do we have any indication that he is "letting" his prophets keep a ban of SSM marriage in place against the time that it might be lifted, such as was the case with the priesthood ban? No.

You have to ignore the striking dissimilarities between the priesthood ban and the church's position in SSM in order to think that God is going to change His mind on this subject. The church has been clear and consistent in not only opposing SSM, but in stating that marriage is between male and female.

Perhaps rather than sticking to this rather shallow comparison of the priesthood ban with the church's position on SSM, you could actually provide some evidence that it could change. How about:

- Prophetic statements that have indicated that SSM could eventually be allowed.

- Prophetic statements that indicate marriage is not to be limited to male-female bonds forever.

- Actual same sex marriages performed by the church that were allowed to stand historically, just like blacks were ordained to the priesthood before the ban was lifted.

- Prophetic statements that the nature of sin could possibly change in the matter of homosexual behavior.

Anything that is clear on the level of pre-1978 statements concerning the priesthood ban being temporary and changeable would probably make your point. Highly subjective interpretations of generalized statements about us being all children of God that SSM supporters like to bandy about do not count.

Again, the church's position on SSM and on the sinful nature of actual homosexual behavior is and has been consistent and clear. It's highly unlikely that it's a mistake, and it's highly probable that the church's actions over the last 10 years in regards to the SSM issue have been as a result of direction by the Lord on the subject. There is simply no real evidence to the contrary.

And that's why predictions that the church will eventually change and embrace an "enlightened" world view of things must, of necessity, deny the very foundation of what the church is and what its mission is. It was restored by Christ through authorized prophets to provide the ordinances of salvation and to guide us in preparation for His Second Coming. In the case of SSM, it is receiving guidance from God on what its position and actions should be.

Yes, I read your post. I felt I did actually respond to what you wrote.

Let me see if I can clarify my point...

I'm not trying to make exact parallels to the priesthood & temple ban (though there are many). I'm pointing out that the Lord let his prophets and apostles teach false doctrine about a minority for about one hundred years (roughly 1852 when the ban was initiated to at least 1949 when we have a very firm letter from the First Presidency which reaffirmed the now disavowed teachings). True or false?

I appreciate, however, that you at least used the phrase "highly unlikely" leaving some wiggle room for future changes based on further revelation.

[EllenMaksoud]

Ho HUM, well maybe they will get around to giving me a Temple Recommend, instead of letting me hang here by my thumbs? Just saying.

[halconero]

First off, Ellen, I hope and pray that everything will be resolved in a way that will bless you with the ordinances and teachings available in the House of the Lord.

 

To the main topic:

 

I feel that it's too early to tell what course this will take. The first country to legalize same-sex marriage (The Netherlands) only did so 13 years ago. Canada, where I live, has only had legal recognition of same-sex marriage for 8 years. I have conflicted feelings, thoughts and desires when it comes to the effects society, law, and religion will have on the Church. Society is a tricky thing, being made up of individuals who can act for themselves, but who still influence and are influenced by society. To say that there will be pressure from one homogeneous group labeled "gays" is fallacy, as viewpoints will differ among the individuals lumped into any such label.

 

Will there be legal pressure on religious institutions to accommodate? I believe so, and I think the evidence points to it. I believe the pressure will not be so much a lawsuit to open the temple sealing to couples in same-sex relationships, but will serve as punishments for not doing so. I believe this will come in the form of the aforementioned boycotts and censure of BYU, or other Church institutions, as well as other public (By this I mean open, vs governmental) activities. I believe legal action will be taken by parties to strip the Church of its tax-exempt status (an incredibly dangerous move in my opinion), educational credentials, and any form of charitable status. 

 

Such is the case already in Canada, where a lawsuit and major debate is going over the recent approval of law school charter given to a private Christian university in British Columbia (private schools are a rarity in Canada). The school has a "covenant" very similar to the BYU honour code, and when they applied for a law school charter legal action was taken to prevent this on the basis that the covenant is discriminatory against same-sex couples. At this point in time, it looks like the school will win. I do so pressure mounting though, and expect the issue to only grow as society changes.

 

As for same-sex relationships in the Church. I see nuanced views among my LDS friends and colleagues with same-sex attraction. I know some that are fine with the standards of the Church as they are currently taught and emphasized, I also see those (actually in my case, I live with this person) who wish to see same-sex relationships accepted in the Church with all the rights, ordinances, blessings and privileges accorded to them as any other relationship, they also seek to push this. I think there will be a number in the Church, both with and without same-sex attraction, who will push for this.

 

As for labeling...my goodness, one thing I agree wholeheartedly with the Church on is sticking to calling it same-sex attraction.

 

I am so much more than my sexual attractions. I'm a brother, a son, a student, a member of the Church, a snowshoeer, a rugby player, a writer, a bookworm, a returned-missionary, a life-long missionary, and so much more. Sexuality, while an important aspect of my life, is not the whole of it. I personally feel that when we label someone as gay, a gay-member, or whatnot, we immediately make their sexuality the focus of their being. I believe this is in line with the growing emphasis on sexuality in Euro-american culture.

[jwhitlock]

Yes, I read your post. I felt I did actually respond to what you wrote.

Let me see if I can clarify my point...

I'm not trying to make exact parallels to the priesthood & temple ban (though there are many). I'm pointing out that the Lord let his prophets and apostles teach false doctrine about a minority for about one hundred years (roughly 1852 when the ban was initiated to at least 1949 when we have a very firm letter from the First Presidency which reaffirmed the now disavowed teachings). True or false?

I appreciate, however, that you at least used the phrase "highly unlikely" leaving some wiggle room for future changes based on further revelation.

 

Still sticking to your guns that they're teaching false doctrine in opposing SSM, then. As for exact parallels, I've outlined the problems with the comparison while you haven't given us anything concrete as evidence to suspect that SSM and homosexual behavior might really be just "policies" that can be adjusted.

 

At this point, it's pretty clear what the position of the church, its leadership, and the Lord is on the subject.

[rockpond]

Still sticking to your guns that they're teaching false doctrine in opposing SSM, then. As for exact parallels, I've outlined the problems with the comparison while you haven't given us anything concrete as evidence to suspect that SSM and homosexual behavior might really be just "policies" that can be adjusted.

At this point, it's pretty clear what the position of the church, its leadership, and the Lord is on the subject.

There was a question for you in that post that you replied to... Care to answer it?

And I didn't say that they are teaching false doctrine regarding SSM.

[toon]

I thought this might amuse some here...I had heard of the filing of the lawsuit before opening up the thread, but the writ or whatever you call it was so garbled it was impossible for me at least to figure out what was being accused and what was being asked. However it was enough that it started me thinking done these lines and looking for something less vague in predictions of what the future might look like now that what most people have expected has happened...at least in Utah and at least until appealed if it gets overturned.

And I do admit that I would have had a lot of fun bringing this out if anyone had taken the position that there would be absolutely no legal attempts at all to pressure, harass or get money from the Church...but since I did not think of any poster who actually held that position actually existed, the thought may have made me giggled but I was expecting not to get any real mileage out of it.

But I was deceived and here we have this great instance of wild and wooly antics to snark over after all.

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865593352/Lesbian-couple-say-marriage-lawsuit-against-Utah-LDS-Church-was-filed-without-their-knowledge.html

Bravo to the couple for telling him to take a hike.

Speculation..the lawyer was celebrating N Y's Eve early and thought, hey why not,will get a few easy bucks to settle out of court..and then proceeded to write it under the influence.....this would be libel I guess if I believed it, but i really think he's a lousy lawyer...by several standards.

 

Someone's going to get disbarred.

[Calm]

Someone's going to get disbarred.

The guy is a jerk.  He told the women they have no right to tell him to remove their names and the names will stay there until he finds someone else to use.  One of the women is an attorney herself and I believe a judge whose opinion was asked stated he was totally wrong claiming he didn't have to have approval of the plantiffs to use them in a complaint.

 

And the judge is right, the case is official dismissed/closed.

 

I feel the love.  He is claiming he is doing it to defend the rights of gays and make right all the abuse they have suffered over the years at the hands of the state of Utah and the LDS Church but he can't be bothered to do more than sit at his desk and look at a newspaper article...actually talking to a gay couple is apparently too much hassle.  It's not like there weren't a couple of hundred down at the courthouse for two days straight.  All he would have had to do is walk up the line until he found someone agreeable.

 

He has been practicing in Utah for 40 years (degree received from UoU in 70).  If he graduated at the age of 24 or 25 with his law degree (not LDS so likely no mission), that makes him 65...close to retirement age.  Perhaps he doesn't care if he gets disbarred, it's either now or never for a big case....he felt the need to be first to get the headlines and didn't care how he went about it.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57343429-78/smay-fowler-court-lawsuit.html.csp

[jwhitlock]

There was a question for you in that post that you replied to... Care to answer it?

And I didn't say that they are teaching false doctrine regarding SSM.

 

The answer to the question is that it's irrelevant to the situation at hand.

[CV75]

There was a question for you in that post that you replied to... Care to answer it?

And I didn't say that they are teaching false doctrine regarding SSM.

I agree the question is irrelevant to the stuation at hand but would like to adress it only parenthetically:

 

I'd say the answer to the question is "False", since the ban never carried the weight of "false doctrine." And doctrine does not have to be false (or “anti-Christ” -- Alma 30: 6, 22), or withstand and oppose the truth as revealed by God (Alma 30:55), to be disavowed.

 

For example: No one teaching, believing in or applying the ban during that period has been “thrust down to hell” (2 Nephi 28:15) for teh sake of the ban. The ban was not preached “for the sake of riches and honor” (Alma 1:16). The ban was not a point of contention “to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another” (3 Nephi 11:13). The ban did not give Satan “possession of the hearts of the people …insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing” (3 Nephi 2:2).

 

If the ban and the Church’s position on SS“M” are on a parallel, then the Church’s position on SS“M” is not false doctrine, which you alreday pointed out. So instead, your position is that doctrine (of any quality) can be disavowed and changed and therefore the Church’s position on SS“M” can be changed, but this is where the ban and the Church’s position on SS“M” are not on a parallel. The ban did not track through sacred history on a parallel with marriage (so calling the Church’s position on SS“M” a “temple ban” skirts the actual doctrine of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage). The Church’s position on SS“M” tracks more closely with the "doctrine of Christ" (3 Nephi 11)  which was also evident from the beginning of sacred history (Moses 6:57-68).

[jwhitlock]

I agree the question is irrelevant to the stuation at hand but would like to adress it only parenthetically:

 

I'd say the answer to the question is "False", since the ban never carried the weight of "false doctrine." And doctrine does not have to be false (or “anti-Christ” -- Alma 30: 6, 22), or withstand and oppose the truth as revealed by God (Alma 30:55), to be disavowed.

 

For example: No one teaching, believing in or applying the ban during that period has been “thrust down to hell” (2 Nephi 28:15) for teh sake of the ban. The ban was not preached “for the sake of riches and honor” (Alma 1:16). The ban was not a point of contention “to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another” (3 Nephi 11:13). The ban did not give Satan “possession of the hearts of the people …insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing” (3 Nephi 2:2).

 

If the ban and the Church’s position on SS“M” are on a parallel, then the Church’s position on SS“M” is not false doctrine, which you alreday pointed out. So instead, your position is that doctrine (of any quality) can be disavowed and changed and therefore the Church’s position on SS“M” can be changed, but this is where the ban and the Church’s position on SS“M” are not on a parallel. The ban did not track through sacred history on a parallel with marriage (so calling the Church’s position on SS“M” a “temple ban” skirts the actual doctrine of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage). The Church’s position on SS“M” tracks more closely with the "doctrine of Christ" (3 Nephi 11)  which was also evident from the beginning of sacred history (Moses 6:57-68).

 

Interesting way of approaching it. Some good things to think about here.

 

My entire point with rockpond is that rationalizations made that because the church did away with the priesthood ban, they can do away with disallowing SS sealings or "normalizing" homosexual behavior, are tenuous at best. The church has been particularly clear and consistent in its pronouncements on the latter, while with the priesthood ban there were always conflicting viewpoints being expressed, along with an expectation from many in leadership that the ban would be reversed at some point. Even when the priesthood ban was most entrenched, there was a clear strong viewpoint from many, including those in leadership, that in eternity there would be complete equality. Those that didn't agree on even that subject were more a product of the culture of their times that anything else.

 

On the other hand, when it comes to SSM and homosexual behavior there is absolutely no official indication that those will ever be made acceptable or right either in this life or in eternity. Whether you believe in the prophetic calling of church leaders or not, we at least have to be very clear that the church has been consistent in applying the label of sin to homosexual behavior, and in opposing SSM.

 

Because of that, this "idea" that the church (and God) will someday "probably" change their minds and make both ok are simply unfounded fantasies. The history of the priesthood ban is not a parallel or rationalization for saying the same thing could happen with SSM.

[CV75]

Interesting way of approaching it. Some good things to think about here.

 

My entire point with rockpond is that rationalizations made that because the church did away with the priesthood ban, they can do away with disallowing SS sealings or "normalizing" homosexual behavior, are tenuous at best. The church has been particularly clear and consistent in its pronouncements on the latter, while with the priesthood ban there were always conflicting viewpoints being expressed, along with an expectation from many in leadership that the ban would be reversed at some point. Even when the priesthood ban was most entrenched, there was a clear strong viewpoint from many, including those in leadership, that in eternity there would be complete equality. Those that didn't agree on even that subject were more a product of the culture of their times that anything else.

 

On the other hand, when it comes to SSM and homosexual behavior there is absolutely no official indication that those will ever be made acceptable or right either in this life or in eternity. Whether you believe in the prophetic calling of church leaders or not, we at least have to be very clear that the church has been consistent in applying the label of sin to homosexual behavior, and in opposing SSM.

 

Because of that, this "idea" that the church (and God) will someday "probably" change their minds and make both ok are simply unfounded fantasies. The history of the priesthood ban is not a parallel or rationalization for saying the same thing could happen with SSM.

I agree.

For example, when someone asserts a belief, which he attributes to personal revelation that he uses to minister to those within his stewardship, and uses that belief and experience with it to predict what the Church could eventually do, this is a good example of an irrational process (a personal, spiritual revelation) driving a rational process (justifying a doctrine). On the other hand, tying the ecclesiastical understanding of marriage to the scriptural record is rational, as well as using the scriptural record to justify the doctrine.

[Calm]

 Even when the priesthood ban was most entrenched, there was a clear strong viewpoint from many, including those in leadership, that in eternity there would be complete equality. 

 

And there were always exceptions in existence (Elijah Able and his descendants) on the Priesthood part of the ban itself.  There has never been one exception on approval of homosexual marriage, not even a partial approval imo.  The practice may at most be ignored, but I have never heard of it getting an active approval (as opposed to a passive disapproval which is what is most likely happening in cases where it is ignored).