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

[california boy]

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).

Weren't there men sealed to men during JS time?

[Calm]

In the sense of marriage? No.

[rockpond]

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).

I meant doctrine in the sense of official church teachings. Did the Lord allow His servants the latitude to promulgate false teachings regarding those of African descent for about a century or are we to disregard the gospel topics article on LDS.org which now disavows and condemns those teachings?

[rockpond]

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.

Again, I'm not saying that "because the church did away with the priesthood ban" that they can now allow SSM.

I'm saying that mistakes can be made, by our leaders, over extended periods of time, justified with scripture, about important things and saving ordinances. And that those mistakes are corrected through revelation.

[jwhitlock]

Again, I'm not saying that "because the church did away with the priesthood ban" that they can now allow SSM.

I'm saying that mistakes can be made, by our leaders, over extended periods of time, justified with scripture, about important things and saving ordinances. And that those mistakes are corrected through revelation.

 

When there is a mistake.

 

There doesn't appear to be any mistake at all when it comes to SSM and homosexual behavior.

[california boy]

In the sense of marriage? No.

But they were sealed together, correct?

[jwhitlock]

But they were sealed together, correct?

 

Again, not in the sense of marriage.

 

We seal males to males today, but only as father and son.

[Calm]

It was called "Law of Adoption" for a reason and anyone who supposes it even hints of homosexual relationships needs to take a second indepth look at it.

There is just no way to see it as a partial exception to a ban on homosexual relationships as was the Priesthood being given to the Ables was a partial exception for the Priesthood ban.

[rockpond]

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.

To quote you and JWhitlock, your opinion of what is rational is not relevant to the matter at hand.

But regarding your first point, should we not all minister to those in our stewardship using personal revelation? Is there another way?

[rockpond]

When there is a mistake.

There doesn't appear to be any mistake at all when it comes to SSM and homosexual behavior.

At what point what the priesthood & temple ban identified as a mistake?

[jwhitlock]

At what point what the priesthood & temple ban identified as a mistake?

 

Since we're talking about SSM, and we've clearly established that the church has a consistent position on it that's not going to be changed, I'm not sure why you're continuing to pursue this priesthood ban comparison. That's not what the thread is about, and the comparison of the priesthood ban to the church's position on SSM is invalid.

[rockpond]

Since we're talking about SSM, and we've clearly established that the church has a consistent position on it that's not going to be changed, I'm not sure why you're continuing to pursue this priesthood ban comparison. That's not what the thread is about, and the comparison of the priesthood ban to the church's position on SSM is invalid.

Once again, it's not the comparison with the priesthood and temple ban (though there are valid parallels which I've noted). I'm interested in what we can learn from the ban and any potential applicability to the topic of this thread.

This is at least the second time in this thread you've declined to answer a question along these lines. This suggests to me that you know the answer leads to a conclusion which contradicts your stated position. So I'll let it go at that.

[Calm]

I don't see how you can conclude that unless jw came out and stated the ban was a mistake in his opinion (and I don't remember him doing that). While people may vary in opinion, there is nothing doctrinally that requires the ban itself to be a mistake.

Rationales given for it have been disavowed, not the ban itself. IMO, that position has been left open by the latest material presented.

At best, one could imagine that we are wrong about our reasons why we imagines God has instructed us that homosexual behaviour is a sin, but that would not require that the doctrine stating it was a sin was a mistake as well.

[rockpond]

I don't see how you can conclude that unless jw came out and stated the ban was a mistake in his opinion (and I don't remember him doing that). While people may vary in opinion, there is nothing doctrinally that requires the ban itself to be a mistake.

Rationales given for it have been disavowed, not the ban itself. IMO, that position has been left open by the latest material presented.

At best, one could imagine that we are wrong about our reasons why we imagines God has instructed us that homosexual behaviour is a sin, but that would not require that the doctrine stating it was a sin was a mistake as well.

My "conclusion" (referring to my previous post) has nothing to do with whether JW believes the ban itself was a mistake. It has to do with his unwillingness to answer questions about the implications of the teachings and later disavowal and condemnation of those teachings. But that's okay... He doesn't have to answer all my questions.

I agree that the issue of the ban being a mistake or inspired has been left open by the latest church publication.

And I also agree that we could be wrong about our reasons but not wrong about the teaching that homosexual marriage is wrong. That's why I hope we'll be blessed with further revelation on the subject.

[Daniel2]

Again, not in the sense of marriage.

We seal males to males today, but only as father and son.

And in addition to sealings between two non-blood-related men, as well as polygamous marriage relationships, a "sealing" could also occur between 'a master and his servant'--so sealings are not historically only between "one husband and one wife."

[Calm]

And in addition to sealings between two non-blood-related men, as well as polygamous marriage relationships, a "sealing" could also occur between 'a master and his servant'--so sealings are not historically only between "one husband and one wife."

Since jw included child to parent/law of adoption sealingsI don't see where anyone was saying sealings are only between a man and a woman.

[jwhitlock]

Once again, it's not the comparison with the priesthood and temple ban (though there are valid parallels which I've noted). I'm interested in what we can learn from the ban and any potential applicability to the topic of this thread.

This is at least the second time in this thread you've declined to answer a question along these lines. This suggests to me that you know the answer leads to a conclusion which contradicts your stated position. So I'll let it go at that.

 

I answered the first question, and  the second.

 

You can't dismiss an answer, accuse me of not responding, and declare victory.

 

Your first sentence is contradictory. You claim its not the comparison, and then you want us to see how the priesthood ban applies to the church's position on SSM.

 

This kind of blatant revisionism is why I find it so difficult to have any kind of real discussion with SSM supporters.

[jwhitlock]

And I also agree that we could be wrong about our reasons but not wrong about the teaching that homosexual marriage is wrong. That's why I hope we'll be blessed with further revelation on the subject.

 

We've received plentiful and specific revelation on the matter, and you want more before you'll make up your mind, so to speak? Or is it simply that the revelation received so far doesn't conform to your world view, and you want them to go back and hound the Lord until you get the answer you want? 

 

Since you're looking for historical applicability to what's going on today, what you're doing sounds very much like Martin Harris hounding Joseph to allow him to show the Book of Mormon manuscript to his wife.

[jwhitlock]

And in addition to sealings between two non-blood-related men, as well as polygamous marriage relationships, a "sealing" could also occur between 'a master and his servant'--so sealings are not historically only between "one husband and one wife."

 

And as Cal has noted, there have been historically NO male to male sealings of any type that could be construed as a marriage.

 

So there is no basis to say that there's any historical male to male sealing activity that might justify SSM "sealings".

[rockpond]

I answered the first question, and the second.

You can't dismiss an answer, accuse me of not responding, and declare victory.

Your first sentence is contradictory. You claim its not the comparison, and then you want us to see how the priesthood ban applies to the church's position on SSM.

This kind of blatant revisionism is why I find it so difficult to have any kind of real discussion with SSM supporters.

You said the first question was irrelevant. But no worries, I'm certainly not declaring victory.

Asking what we learn and how it applies to a different topic is not making a comparison.

[rockpond]

We've received plentiful and specific revelation on the matter, and you want more before you'll make up your mind, so to speak? Or is it simply that the revelation received so far doesn't conform to your world view, and you want them to go back and hound the Lord until you get the answer you want?

Since you're looking for historical applicability to what's going on today, what you're doing sounds very much like Martin Harris hounding Joseph to allow him to show the Book of Mormon manuscript to his wife.

Please identify the "plentiful and specific revelation on the matter".

[jwhitlock]

You said the first question was irrelevant. But no worries, I'm certainly not declaring victory.

Asking what we learn and how it applies to a different topic is not making a comparison.

 

And I answered that it doesn't apply. It's irrelevant. I've outlined why. Yet you keep badgering for yes/no answers to things that "yes/no" doesn't really apply.

[jwhitlock]

Please identify the "plentiful and specific revelation on the matter".

 

If you're an active member of the church and listen to conference, read the Ensign, or are familiar with the Family Proclamation, then this shouldn't even be a question.

 

In addition, the Doctrine and Covenants is very specific about male-female marriage only, and we are not at liberty to "interpret" it beyond that.

[thesometimesaint]

At what point what the priesthood & temple ban identified as a mistake?

 

The ban itself has never been identified as a mistake. The man made reasons for the ban have.

[rockpond]

And I answered that it doesn't apply. It's irrelevant. I've outlined why. Yet you keep badgering for yes/no answers to things that "yes/no" doesn't really apply.

The lessons we can learn from it do apply.