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

[Mystery Meat]

For me, it comes across as mental gymnastics to believe that we have any revelation on this subject.

 

I see no attempt in Elder Oaks' address to identify it as God's revealed will.  I fail to see your basis that it has been "understood for thousands of years by the Lord's people".  Especially as a member of the LDS church, you'll note that it is not mentioned in any of the canonized books of scripture that are unique to our faith.

 Homosexuality as sin is mentioned in just about every book of canonized scripture.

[rockpond]

 Homosexuality as sin is mentioned in just about every book of canonized scripture.

 

Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price.  (Which was my statement that you responded to.)  Do you disagree?  Because you are starting to show a pattern of claiming things in scripture that aren't actually there.

[california boy]

 Homosexuality as sin is mentioned in just about every book of canonized scripture.

I think perhaps this is your problem in understanding what Rockpond is pointing out.  You seem to feel that you have strong scriptural support concerning homosexuality.  You do not.  And that is a huge reason to question whether we have received knowledge of God's will concerning homosexuality within the bonds of marriage.

 

Let's just look at the facts for a moment.  Do you realize that there are many more times in the Bible where God's prophets have condemned sex between straight couples as being an abomination?  The law of Chastity that has been institute however tells us that sex is sinful EXCEPT within the bonds of marriage. 

 

Homosexuality is actually rarely condemned in the scriptures.  There are a handful of verses in the Old Testiment along with more than a dozen handful of scriptures condemning other things that are no longer followed or believed.

 

Then there are the statements of Paul, who is writing a letter.  He is not claiming that what is in his letter is scripture.  If it was, then women would not be allowed to teach or pray in church, Women would not be allowed to wear makeup We would not be allwed to wear jewelery.  But even more important, Paul states that we should all be celibate EXCEPT for those that are weak.  Do you find any straight members of the church including the prophets and apostles choosing to be celibate?  Would you consider them weak?

 

What is even more shocking to those that want to condemn homsexuality as a sin is that it is NOT EVEN MENTIONED as a sin in the ENTIRE Book of Mormon, D&C. and Pearl of Great Price.  Not once!!

 

So is there any basis for homosexuality within the bonds of marriage being a sin?  Absolutely NONE.  Not one scripture in 6000 years of revealed revelation from God from not one prophet.  

 

You can not say there is scriptural support for current church policy against gay marriage.  You can not say there is any revelation on whether gay marriage is consistent with the law of chastity.  Is ALL you can say is that current church policy developed by church leaders are guessing that homosexual marriage is not acceptable to God.  Certainly God has not weighed in on this issue.  As a church we are waiting for such a revelation.  Until then, the current POLICY will probably remain in place.  What we also have to acknowledge is that church policy is not always correct.

[halconero]

Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price.  (Which was my statement that you responded to.)  Do you disagree?  Because you are starting to show a pattern of claiming things in scripture that aren't actually there.

 

I personally believe that it is mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price, but perhaps that's for a different topic.

 

Edit: To be more specific, I believe that some verses in the Pearl of Great Price concerning a secret combination/society/cult in Lamech's day indicate that sexual relations among its male membership was either the norm/part of initiation. The subsequent translations of the Pearl of Great Price into other languages (in my case I read the English, Spanish, and French versions) seem to support this as well. 

 

It should be noted that this section isn't speaking out against same-sex marriage, but rather an indication of occult practices that would be condemned by the Lord whether they were hetero or homosexual in nature.

[Mystery Meat]

I think perhaps this is your problem in understanding what Rockpond is pointing out.  You seem to feel that you have strong scriptural support concerning homosexuality.  You do not.  And that is a huge reason to question whether we have received knowledge of God's will concerning homosexuality within the bonds of marriage.

 

Let's just look at the facts for a moment.  Do you realize that there are many more times in the Bible where God's prophets have condemned sex between straight couples as being an abomination?  The law of Chastity that has been institute however tells us that sex is sinful EXCEPT within the bonds of marriage. 

 

Homosexuality is actually rarely condemned in the scriptures.  There are a handful of verses in the Old Testiment along with more than a dozen handful of scriptures condemning other things that are no longer followed or believed.

 

Then there are the statements of Paul, who is writing a letter.  He is not claiming that what is in his letter is scripture.  If it was, then women would not be allowed to teach or pray in church, Women would not be allowed to wear makeup We would not be allwed to wear jewelery.  But even more important, Paul states that we should all be celibate EXCEPT for those that are weak.  Do you find any straight members of the church including the prophets and apostles choosing to be celibate?  Would you consider them weak?

 

What is even more shocking to those that want to condemn homsexuality as a sin is that it is NOT EVEN MENTIONED as a sin in the ENTIRE Book of Mormon, D&C. and Pearl of Great Price.  Not once!!

 

So is there any basis for homosexuality within the bonds of marriage being a sin?  Absolutely NONE.  Not one scripture in 6000 years of revealed revelation from God from not one prophet.  

 

You can not say there is scriptural support for current church policy against gay marriage.  You can not say there is any revelation on whether gay marriage is consistent with the law of chastity.  Is ALL you can say is that current church policy developed by church leaders are guessing that homosexual marriage is not acceptable to God.  Certainly God has not weighed in on this issue.  As a church we are waiting for such a revelation.  Until then, the current POLICY will probably remain in place.  What we also have to acknowledge is that church policy is not always correct.

 

There still is the pesky matter of modern day revelation even if we justify away the writings in the old and new testaments.

[rockpond]

There still is the pesky matter of modern day revelation even if we justify away the writings in the old and new testaments.

 

And there "still is the pesky matter" that you can't actually identify the modern day revelation on this particular subject.

 

And I am not justifying away the Biblical writings, I am just accepting what they are and not trying to infer more than that.

[thesometimesaint]

Here are a few of the resources that compile multiple studies on the biological basis of human sexuality, including the twins studies:

http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR561inh0M9cj4RQuSdVDcUKK7CQ2pnto

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0720613094

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199931585/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1389136156&sr=8-1π=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70

I'm interested your sources that suggest otherwise, SS. Can you share them, as well?

D

 

The Amazon links just tell me where to buy the studies, and the You Tube link isn't working for me. But thanx.

 

I have read similar articles none show a causal link to genetics, but all do show a environmental association. Personally I favor a combination of the two with a slight tilt towards the environmental.

[california boy]

There still is the pesky matter of modern day revelation even if we justify away the writings in the old and new testaments.

I am assuming by this answer that you now understand how little scriptural support you or the church has concerning homosexaulity.  Now if we only had a modern revelation from God concerning this issue, church policy would change to whatever doctrine that was revealed.  It may be that homosexual marriage is something against the will of God.  Or it may be that the current understanding of the law of chastity would continue.  "Sex outside the bonds of marriage is condemned by God"

[Daniel2]

The Amazon links just tell me where to buy the studies, and the You Tube link isn't working for me. But thanx.

I have read similar articles none show a causal link to genetics, but all do show a environmental association. Personally I favor a combination of the two with a slight tilt towards the environmental.

I don't have links to the studies--the Amazon links are to the books that compile, quote, and review the studies.

I agree that studies show that environment also plays a major role, insofar as "environment" refers to the uterine environment during gestation.

What are the sources of the studies you're referring to?

[guerreiro9]

I don't have links to the studies--the Amazon links are to the books that compile, quote, and review the studies.

I agree that studies show that environment also plays a major role, insofar as "environment" refers to the uterine environment during gestation.

What are the sources of the studies you're referring to?

So is it your belief that in societies where homosexuality is much more prevalent than our own that this is because of some unique uterine environment during gestation amongst a larger percentage of the people?

Or could that societies' culture have played some part in shaping the people's sexuality?

Would you feel any less about your sexuality if your culture and experiences had a hand in shaping it than you would if it was entirely inborn?

If you view your sexuality as something to be proud of why would you be opposed to it being something you had a part in creating?

Even though I have chosen a heterosexual marriage I openly acknowledge that were my cultural upbringing and experiences different I could have become sexually attracted to men although I have never become such. It would be more difficult for me now after having formed such a strong bond with my wife, but if I so chose, it is something I could work on developing in the future.

-guerreiro9

[Storm Rider]

So we ignore those verses that talk directly about gay sex; then we must assume that if God did directly mention it in scripture and modern day prophets have not received a specific revelation that meets your specific demands, then the doors are wide and it is good to do whatever you feel. Scriptures do not talk about the vast majority of sexual deviance and modern day prophets have also remained mum; your logic would dictate that if someone wanted to do "it" then it is acceptable. After all, if God did not think it was important then he would have mentioned specifically. 

 

You are not wanting to live the law of Christ, you want the Mosaic law where all things are specifically identified as sin. You are returning to being as the children of Israel.

 

For anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear the message is clear, homosexuality is a sin regardless of what way you try to dress the relationship. 

[rockpond]

So we ignore those verses that talk directly about gay sex; then we must assume that if God did directly mention it in scripture and modern day prophets have not received a specific revelation that meets your specific demands, then the doors are wide and it is good to do whatever you feel. Scriptures do not talk about the vast majority of sexual deviance and modern day prophets have also remained mum; your logic would dictate that if someone wanted to do "it" then it is acceptable. After all, if God did not think it was important then he would have mentioned specifically.

You are not wanting to live the law of Christ, you want the Mosaic law where all things are specifically identified as sin. You are returning to being as the children of Israel.

For anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear the message is clear, homosexuality is a sin regardless of what way you try to dress the relationship.

I don't know if this was directed at me but in case it was, I'll clarify my position and feelings on the matter:

I have not suggested that anyone should break the law of chastity. I have not said that we need all sin spelled out for us. I do not feel that because there is a lack of revelation on the matter that it is therefore some kind of free for all.

[CV75]

I assure you, I'm heading down the path in good faith.

 

And you are still unwilling to answer the question.  Your excuses are noted.

You may be asking the question in good faith, but your equating teaching the African priesthood ban with teaching a non-existant SS“M” ban, or rather the lack of teaching of such a non-existant ban, still renders the question impossible to answer by someone who does not equate the two.

[rockpond]

You may be asking the question in good faith, but your equating teaching the African priesthood ban with teaching a non-existant SS“M” ban, or rather the lack of teaching of such a non-existant ban, still renders the question impossible to answer by someone who does not equate the two.

 

CV -- You don't actually know what I am or am not equating because you have chosen not to dialogue with me.  Instead, you'd rather create little word plays like "SS'M' ban".  My question to you did not even mention anything about homosexuality or SSM.

[california boy]

You may be asking the question in good faith, but your equating teaching the African priesthood ban with teaching a non-existant SS“M” ban, or rather the lack of teaching of such a non-existant ban, still renders the question impossible to answer by someone who does not equate the two.

I found this quote to be interesting.

 

Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn, who has studied the LDS involvement in the fight against same-sex marriage, finds similarities between the kind of discrimination Church leaders once practiced against blacks and the current campaign to deny gays the right to marriage. “It takes a peculiar kind of blindness to currently affirm that [discrimination against blacks] was ethically and morally wrong, yet argue that it is now ethically and civilly right to discriminate against [homo- sexuals]” (Dialogue 33, no. 3 [Fall 2000], 48).

 

 

 

But of course you don't see the similarity.

[Buzzard]

Ummm, quoting D. Michael Quinn as an authority on what the LDS leadership should or should not be doing also takes a peculiar kind of blindness. Dr. Quinn is a skilled historian, but certainly not someone I would look to for spiritual guidance. 

And Mr. Rockpond, the WOW does not mention marijuana, or for that matter, heroin, LSD or Ecstasy. Does that mean that modern prophets who have told us that the use and abuse of those drugs is against that law are also overreaching until the Lord gives them a revelation with the specific chemical formulas of all banned substances? 

[CV75]

CV -- You don't actually know what I am or am not equating because you have chosen not to dialogue with me.  Instead, you'd rather create little word plays like "SS'M' ban".  My question to you did not even mention anything about homosexuality or SSM.

Given the thread and the last few pages of dialogue, the question is clearly about representing the Church's teachings on marriage in terms of a ban on SS"M" and grouping them on a par with disavowed teachings.

[EllenMaksoud]

 

I decided to start a new thread because I am fascinated in how different people are viewing the future of gay marriage, both independently and as it relates to Utah and to the LDS faith in general in the US and other countries.

 

Let us assume that the current ruling that SSM is now legally recognized in Utah now stands.

 

Let us assume that it will not be that long until it is legal throughout the US and at least those countries with a European heritage primarily.

 

Will the political activism now stop as having gained the ultimate prize?  Or is gay marriage not seen as the ultimate prize, is this just an item to be checked off the list on the way to another more ambitious goal?

 

Pure speculation is allowed and please don't demand CFRs for opinions or attack someone as being high on whatever as I am curious about what people think...not what they can prove or even if it is connected much to reality (though I want everyone to give what their opinion is on what is going to happen realistically and not turn it into a parody to mock, etc), but please keep it civil and address only the activities of gay activists and those who have been pushing for gay marriage for gay marriage itself and not to as a wedge to open up other forms of marriage.

 

If you need help in getting started, this topic grew out of a question I was asking of Daniel 2 at

 

 

 

 

So your nonfearful prediction is that gays won't attempt to seek to be married or sealed in the temple once their marriage is recognized legally or that it will happen, but the laws protecting religious practice will cause such attempts to be dismissed so there should be no concern?  Or something else?  Do you think that now those who are desirous for whatever reason of a temple sealing that they will just wait until the Church accepts them using only nonlegal avenues of persuasion or what, anticipating that attitude change will be enough?

 

I would assume that the gay community who are seeking recognition for marriage probably has relatively small core of activists and a larger group that are somewhat involved and a much larger group that are mainly interested observers just as most groups vary over their involvement in a mutual goal.  If I am right (and even if I am wrong and the setup is very different, are you aware of any discussions going on with those in the core as well as extended?

 

I would assume there is a lot of celebration going on now, but am wondering if there is any talk of 'what comes next'....if there is even anything 'next' for Utah.

 

PS:  this would actually be a good new topic "What comes next" if you are interested enough in that kind of discussion...I would love to see everyone's prediction...we could offer a prize to be given in ten years for the one closest.  Some official board title like "Ultimate Cosmic MDDB Prognosticator".

 

PS:  I would like to hear of any current discussion going on in the various gay communities before making my own prediction....but since I have no clue what are the respected forums and what are seen as cranks by other gays, at the moment I am relying on those who are more tuned in to provide the information.

 

I've been actively recruited by various gay rights organizations and they never even tempted me because I don't have a sexual orientation. Those organizations, and the church are profoundly confused about me. What the events of the last couple of weeks have taught me is that GBLT folk are sort of the black people of the 21st century. For well over 300 years Western culture treated Blacks in an abominable way, and some still try to.

 

So, now many organizations try to deprive the GBLT folk of rights. I don't know where all this is going for those folk in the LDS church. It has been a great surprise for me to find out that many gays and lesbians and transgender folk are unapologeticaly MORMON. Why would they stay with a church that deprives them of certain privileges? The answer is that aside from their unacceptable drives, they believe in the church. I did not suspect this until I heard it from an atheist gay rights activist.

 

The thing that separates me from the activists is that I believe that Heavenly Father and our prophet have a strong connection and will work things out. And, the idea of non reproductive intercourse just seems really icky to me.

[rockpond]

Given the thread and the last few pages of dialogue, the question is clearly about representing the Church's teachings on marriage in terms of a ban on SS"M" and grouping them on a par with disavowed teachings.

 

My question was about understanding the role of prophets, apostles, and revelation.

[rockpond]

And Mr. Rockpond, the WOW does not mention marijuana, or for that matter, heroin, LSD or Ecstasy. Does that mean that modern prophets who have told us that the use and abuse of those drugs is against that law are also overreaching until the Lord gives them a revelation with the specific chemical formulas of all banned substances? 

 

For me, it means that they are giving us the best counsel available under our current light and knowledge.

 

What does it mean to you?

[CV75]

My question was about understanding the role of prophets, apostles, and revelation.

Great! Then I suggest asking it in terms of "What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah...", and not in terms of the priesthood ban, which had been touted as a parallel to LDS teachings on marriage.

[rockpond]

Great! Then I suggest asking it in terms of "What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah...", and not in terms of the priesthood ban, which had been touted as a parallel to LDS teachings on marriage.

 

I did.  I asked it.  On this thread about what comes next now that SSM is legal in Utah.  Is there something wrong with looking at what we learn from the past and applying it to the future?

[Scott Lloyd]

Anyone think that lawsuits will come as a way to punish or harass the Church even if there is no intent to actually force it to seal against its own policies and doctrine?

I think that's a more plausible scenario than a direct government edict forcing the Church to perform same sex marriages. Using civil courts to harass the Church has a very clear precedent, mostly in the 19th Century but to some extent in more modern times.

 

Here's how I see it going down. A nominal member of the Church who is homosexual wants the Church to perform his marriage to his gay partner. The Church refuses, so he files suit. If he gets excommunicated, he files suit over that.

 

He gets some activist or hostile judge or jury to agree with him.

 

Even if that doesn't happen, it still amounts to harassment in that the Church has to defend itself against a frivolous lawsuit.

 

One way or another, from within or without, once they've got the civil marriage laws in subjection, they'll go after the Church.

[Mystery Meat]

I can tell you based on a conversation I had yesterday that the leaders of the Church believe that revelation on God's feelings about SSM and homosexual sex within such marriages has been given. There has been no equivocation on the matter.  

[rockpond]

I can tell you based on a conversation I had yesterday that the leaders of the Church believe that revelation on God's feelings about SSM and homosexual sex within such marriages has been given. There has been no equivocation on the matter.  

 

Based on a conversation you had?