Grudunza Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 The difference between blacks and the Priesthood and SSM is Brigham Young is not here to explain why those of African descent could not hold the priesthood until 1978. Elder Andersen's words are current. He is speaking to us now, today, not from 150 years ago.The obvious response is that we had numerous leaders, prophets and apostles, since BY, explaining various erroneous reasons about why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Elder Andersen, current or not, may be seen (if one interprets his ideas as faulty) as compared to those who defended a wrong idea for so long. At one point, the misguided and racist statements about blacks and the priesthood were "current."That being said, I agree that it does seem contrary to the idea of procreation and propagation of our species, as that pertains to God's plan. But I do feel like there is some purpose to the nature of our brothers and sisters with SSA that deserves our love and understanding and further pleas with our Father to better appreciate. Merely calling them sinful, when to some extent they may not have had a choice in their nature and have a natural desire for companionship and love, is not productive or always applicable. There may indeed be sin involved, but I think it's more nuanced than that in many cases.
Shadrak Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 ...SSM will never be compatible with the Plan of Salvation. With SSM there is no continuation of the seed, no birthright, no future heirs to the promises. With SSM there can be no families forever, it causes termination of the bloodline. With SSM you cannot fulfill the commandment to replenish the earth. It causes desolation. It is an abomination that causes desolation.I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I know of and see many SS couples with children, thus your prediction of no families, bloodline termination, inability to replenish the earth and desolation is already demonstrably false. Many want children (even SS couples), everyone knows how to have children and despite your protestations I think SS couples can figure out how to have children. How will this work in eternities, well, I think that is a mystery of God and we shouldn't worry about it too much. We should worry about excluding people God made the way they are in our world today.
rodheadlee Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 The obvious response is that we had numerous leaders, prophets and apostles, since BY, explaining various erroneous reasons about why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Elder Andersen, current or not, may be seen (if one interprets his ideas as faulty) as compared to those who defended a wrong idea for so long. At one point, the misguided and racist statements about blacks and the priesthood were "current."That being said, I agree that it does seem contrary to the idea of procreation and propagation of our species, as that pertains to God's plan. But I do feel like there is some purpose to the nature of our brothers and sisters with SSA that deserves our love and understanding and further pleas with our Father to better appreciate. Merely calling them sinful, when to some extent they may not have had a choice in their nature and have a natural desire for companionship and love, is not productive or always applicable. There may indeed be sin involved, but I think it's more nuanced than that in many cases.I was answering a post by Rockpond. I in no way suggested we don't have sympathy for any of our brothers and sisters no matter what their affliction. I have been celibate for quite sometime and have no children, I am desolate, bare. I also have never had a TR due to being addicted to tobacco. I can assure you I understand how it feels to go through church life as an outsider. The difference is I hope to cured or healed of my afflictions, most SSM people that I know have no desire to be cured or even consider it an affliction.
rodheadlee Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I know of and see many SS couples with children, thus your prediction of no families, bloodline termination, inability to replenish the earth and desolation is already demonstrably false. Many want children (even SS couples), everyone knows how to have children and despite your protestations I think SS couples can figure out how to have children. How will this work in eternities, well, I think that is a mystery of God and we shouldn't worry about it too much. We should worry about excluding people God made the way they are in our world today.No matter what science can do it still takes ingredients from both sexes to create a life.
krampus Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 "SSM will never be compatible with the Plan of Salvation. With SSM there is no continuation of the seed, no birthright, no future heirs to the promises. With SSM there can be no families forever, it causes termination of the bloodline. With SSM you cannot fulfill the commandment to replenish the earth. It causes desolation. It is an abomination that causes desolation.""This exactly. The wages of sin is death. God's work is to bring to pass life (and always has been). SSM relationships clearly fall under sin, not Godliness, no matter how legitimized we make them. They violate eternal principle."If this is true, than how come gay parents through adoption, invitro fertilization, and surrogacy (as you can still have sex with a surrogate, even though gay) can still get their children from these methods sealed to them?
why me Posted April 26, 2014 Author Posted April 26, 2014 I think that SSM is a sign of the times and the anarchy of our own morality as a society. Of course, I am refering to US society. It has become an anything goes society where moral life has been turned on its head. For example, here is an article in the NYPost extolling the life of a pornstar: http://nypost.com/2014/04/26/how-a-manhattan-prep-school-kid-became-a-millionaire-porn-star/ Reading the article, I have the feeling that porn is wonderful for the women who are acting in it. It is all about feminism, according to the porn star. Such is a society that has lost its way and judges everything by the availablity to make money and to respect the professions that allow it to happen. So, yes, I would put SSM with the basic amoralism that now is beginning to affect many socieities. 1
why me Posted April 26, 2014 Author Posted April 26, 2014 If this is true, than how come gay parents through adoption, invitro fertilization, and surrogacy (as you can still have sex with a surrogate, even though gay) can still get their children from these methods sealed to them?I kinda of miss the good ol' days when life seemed simpler. Marriage was between man and woman, porn was bad, morality has some play in on the TV etc. But of course, I am just an old fashion dinosaur not able to compete with invitro fertilization and a woman acting as a surrogate for two gay men. Or a male acting as a surrogate for two gay women. 2
krampus Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 ..or should I say, sealed not to them, but to a gay parent. It is merely a belief, that children of a gay couple will be detatched from a family relationship to their beloved same sex parents in the afterlife. Besides, when one is sealed, they are sealed into the covenant, notsimply to their immediate family members. In mormonism you can be sealed to Ted Haggard, as well as to you wife and children.
krampus Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 "I kinda of miss the good ol' days when life seemed simpler. Marriage was between man and woman, porn was bad, morality has some play in on the TV etc. But of course, I am just an old fashion dinosaur not able to compete with invitro fertilization and a woman acting as a surrogate for two gay men. Or a male acting as a surrogate for two gay women."whaaa? life isnt so black and white as it was in the good ol days? As an aficianado of history, let me twll you that the good ol days were not so black and white.
Shadrak Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 No matter what science can do it still takes ingredients from both sexes to create a life.I still think your fears are unfounded. But both sexes would still exist, the ingredients are still there, so what is missing to continue the species?
krampus Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 You must have a very romanticed view of the "good ol days"
rodheadlee Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 My whole point was our leaders have spoken on the subject, are we going to listen to their advice or not. The opinions of the people on this board are as varied as their number.
Shadrak Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 I kinda of miss the good ol' days when life seemed simpler. Marriage was between man and woman, porn was bad, morality has some play in on the TV etc. But of course, I am just an old fashion dinosaur not able to compete with invitro fertilization and a woman acting as a surrogate for two gay men. Or a male acting as a surrogate for two gay women.Perhaps you are also old enough to have enjoyed separate bathrooms and drinking fountains too, but society moves on and is not stuck in the past as we receive new awarenes and empathy of others. Not everything new is good, but neither was everything old.
Daniel2 Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 No matter what science can do it still takes ingredients from both sexes to create a life.Science has already proved the above statement to be false. Female mice can reproduce without gametes from male mice.Is today's science more advanced and potent than your view of God?
rodheadlee Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 The obvious response is that we had numerous leaders, prophets and apostles, since BY, explaining various erroneous reasons about why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Elder Andersen, current or not, may be seen (if one interprets his ideas as faulty) as compared to those who defended a wrong idea for so long. At one point, the misguided and racist statements about blacks and the priesthood were "current." It may not have been misguided for their time, perhaps the reason and statements but not the policy. We won't know for sure until Christ returns.
rodheadlee Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 Science has already proved the above statement to be false. Female mice can reproduce without gametes from male mice.Is today's science more advanced and potent than your view of God?We are not mice. We are of the same race as Heavenly Father.
Shadrak Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 My whole point was our leaders have spoken on the subject, are we going to listen to their advice or not. The opinions of the people on this board are as varied as their number.Our leaders have spoken on lots of things over the years. They should come with the warning, "current (and past) statements of doctrine is not an indicator of future doctrine."
why me Posted April 26, 2014 Author Posted April 26, 2014 "I kinda of miss the good ol' days when life seemed simpler. Marriage was between man and woman, porn was bad, morality has some play in on the TV etc. But of course, I am just an old fashion dinosaur not able to compete with invitro fertilization and a woman acting as a surrogate for two gay men. Or a male acting as a surrogate for two gay women."whaaa? life isnt so black and white as it was in the good ol days? As an aficianado of history, let me twll you that the good ol days were not so black and white.Well, I don't know. In Hazel, Butch always said his prayers before he went to bed. And Father's Knows Best was rather nice too. Was it perfect back then? No. But there was a moral code that most churches followed and the people did too. Now? Anarchy and amorality seems to rule the moral code.
rodheadlee Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 If this is true, than how come gay parents through adoption, invitro fertilization, and surrogacy (as you can still have sex with a surrogate, even though gay) can still get their children from these methods sealed to them?I am not aware of this policy. Is this (surrogate sex) going on after the fact or during Church membership?
why me Posted April 26, 2014 Author Posted April 26, 2014 Our leaders have spoken on lots of things over the years. They should come with the warning, "current (and past) statements of doctrine is not an indicator of future doctrine."However, the lds leaders have not exactly led us astray in how to do life. They seem to be right on target. Even through the sexual liberation of the 70s, they stayed on target saving many people from STDs and HIV. Chasity, though mocked by many back then, seemed to have saved some lives if lived by gay and heteros alike.
rodheadlee Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 Our leaders have spoken on lots of things over the years. They should come with the warning, "current (and past) statements of doctrine is not an indicator of future doctrine."We are certainly free to chose our own path. I didn't expect my stance to be popular and many people feel they know better than the prophets. So it was in the time of Noah, oh wait most people don't believe in the flood either.
Shadrak Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 It may not have been misguided for their time, perhaps the reason and statements but not the policy. We won't know for sure until Christ returns.It's not that difficult to admit that the leaders from BY to HBL were racists, the Church has had no problem doing so.
krampus Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 "My whole point was our leaders have spoken on the subject, are we going to listen to their advice or not. The opinions of the people on this board are as varied as their number."actually, our prophets have not told us that same sex marriage should be illegle, anymore than they have told us that impoverished marriages should be illegal, or single gay parent adopting should be illegle. you are imagining things.
krampus Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 the leaders of the church have said that marriage between a man and wife is oreferential to their values. They have said nothing about whether ssm should be illegal. If you share the same values as your religious leaders, aka straight marriage, then dont have a same sex marriage. Same with everything else that aligns with their values. They dont teach that everuthing that is not alligned with their values should be illegal. Plus, they want you to use your head before deciding to align your values with theirs. They also, have not said that ALL of their values MUST be your values. They have said that they are imperfect, that they make mistakes, and that their beliefs can be revised due to previous fallacies in which they believe in the past. For example, Brigham young and his dozens of estranged wives and children.
rockpond Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 I think that SSM is a sign of the times and the anarchy of our own morality as a society. Of course, I am refering to US society. It has become an anything goes society where moral life has been turned on its head. For example, here is an article in the NYPost extolling the life of a pornstar:http://nypost.com/2014/04/26/how-a-manhattan-prep-school-kid-became-a-millionaire-porn-star/Reading the article, I have the feeling that porn is wonderful for the women who are acting in it. It is all about feminism, according to the porn star. Such is a society that has lost its way and judges everything by the availablity to make money and to respect the professions that allow it to happen. So, yes, I would put SSM with the basic amoralism that now is beginning to affect many socieities.It's amoral to want to make a lifelong or eternal commitment to someone you love? You're comparing that to becoming a porn star? Okey dokey, thread closed.
Recommended Posts