Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[california boy]

Golly, geeeeeezzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, and that was always accepted as a temporary condition.  Now show us where the prohibition in the scriptures regarding homosexual sex would be revoked.

And that really doesn't change the fact that the church leaders were teaching a principle baring faithful members of the church from eternal marriage that was wrong for what 100 years?  We got about another 80 years to find out if they were wrong again this time don't we.

Edited May 15, 2014 by california boy

[eddie]

I've stayed out of this, but honestly I don't see how anyone can say Jesus never spoke against SSM.

 

Look here are a few selected passages which strictly prohibit the practice from the beginning. The first is the notion he never talked about it.

 

Matthew 19 

 

 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

He is quite clear that marriage between male and female was essential to the plan in that chapter when the Pharisees tempted him.

Second is a commandment from the Book of Genesis and multiple other places that are clearly divine commandments from God, and by their very nature would exclude SSM as a divine institution.   These concepts are so fundamental to the gospel (married couples having children and the eternal families through procreation) that SSM cannot co-exist with these commandments.

Genesis 3

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 1

 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Edited May 15, 2014 by eddie

[teddyaware]

Apologies. I was trying to be quick-witted but ended up dim-witted.

I usually try to show common courtesy and recognise that I didn't in my previous post.

I've deleted the comment in question.

Then you are indeed a gentleman and I'm gratified by your response. In the end the believing LDS participants on this board are all brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel, trying to navigate their way through many perplexing issues that cry out for reasonable and compassionate answers. Though you and I may have differing points of view on some subjects, in the end we are brothers in the cause of Christ and I will remember the kindness and courtesy you've shown me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I've stayed out of this, but honestly I don't see how anyone can say Jesus never spoke against SSM.

 

Look here are a few selected passages which strictly prohibit the practice from the beginning. The first is the notion he never talked about it.

 

Matthew 19 

 

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

While not a reference to same-sex marriage, this is an excellent example of Christ condemning divorce. Do you then accept the catholic view that no divorce is acceptable (see vs 9)? Or perhaps only for adultery as Christ says?

Edited May 15, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[eddie]

While not a reference to same-sex marriage, this is an excellent example of Christ condemning divorce. Do you then accept the catholic view that no divorce is acceptable (see vs 9)? Or perhaps only for adultery as Christ says?

As a celestial law, yes. And so does the church. In order to receive a cancellation of sealing and permission to remarry in the Temple, one must get approval from the first presidency. Simply by that very definition the church condemns divorce save it be cases where abuse and infidelity are not present.

Remember this thread is about eternal marriage, not those of a civil nature. Repentance and redemption are always possible, but these actions show Christ's Church disapproves of divorce under the covenant as well.

[CV75]

No I don't undrestand what you are saying.  Do you think gay men are attracted to lesbians? 

I am saying that in our stake we have instances of gay men and women being worthy according to the LDS law of chastity, marrying each other in the temple, having children and raising families together. And so yes, under these conditions and in these circumstances I not only think but I know that gay men and lesbians are attracted to each other in the manner described in D&C 88:40 and thus are motivated to marry in the temple and have children together. Their procreative functioning operates perfectly well, and independently of  the sex or sexual orientation of their spouse.

 

I think you have a limited understanding of the capacity of people with SSA to procreate, and even to have a fulfilling life with a spouse not of their own sex. Don't begrudge them because of the tradeoffs they've chosen in making and keeping the covenants of God.

[california boy]

I am saying that in our stake we have instances of gay men and women being worthy according to the LDS law of chastity, marrying each other in the temple, having children and raising families together. And so yes, under these conditions and in these circumstances I not only think but I know that gay men and lesbians are attracted to each other in the manner described in D&C 88:40 and thus are motivated to marry in the temple and have children together. Their procreative functioning operates perfectly well, and independently of  the sex or sexual orientation of their spouse.

 

I think you have a limited understanding of the capacity of people with SSA to procreate, and even to have a fulfilling life with a spouse not of their own sex. Don't begrudge them because of the tradeoffs they've chosen in making and keeping the covenants of God.

I never begrudge anyone for the choices they make.  Why would I?  It is their choice.  When I talked to church leaders after my mission, the standard counsel that they gave me was that if I would marry a woman, that these feelings and attractions I have for men would gradually disappear.  I followed that advice, trusting that they were truthful.  I got married to someone who was a friend, had children, but nothing changed.  I stayed in the marriage until my children were out of the home.  I felt like I had made a commitment to them to be their father and not just a weekend drop in.  As you know the church has quit giving this kind of advice.   No one can say I did not try.  That doesn't mean that other gay couples can make it work.  It also doesn't mean that a gay person is "attracted" to someone of the opposite sex.  I my case, I was more attracted to trying to follow church counsel and be faithful in doing what they told me at the time God wanted me to do.  

 

I have a gay friend who married, has children and seems happy.  Good for him.  I am happy for him.  But both him and the couples you mentioned have not finished their stories.  Perhaps they felt like they could make marriage work.  Perhaps they too felt like they made a commitment to their children.  Or perhaps they will not divorce later over this issue.  It is their life.  But what is clear, is marriage of opposite sex for a gay person is not a solution for most gay members.  A position the church currently teaches.

 

So yes, I still don't quite understand what your point is.  Can it work?  Perhaps.  Is it a solution for most gay people?  Nope.  Given my life history, I actually think I have a very clear understanding of the capacity of people who have SSA.  If anyone has a limited capacity of understanding the situation it would be you.  You are only seeing things from the outside.  You haven't lived the life I have lived.  

 

And it still does not change the only two points I have consistently made in this thread.  No revelation concerning sexual relations within the bonds of legally and lofty married gay couples.  And the church was wrong in preventing other couples from getting married in the past due to bigoted attitudes.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As a celestial law, yes. And so does the church. In order to receive a cancellation of sealing and permission to remarry in the Temple, one must get approval from the first presidency. Simply by that very definition the church condemns divorce save it be cases where abuse and infidelity are not present.

Remember this thread is about eternal marriage, not those of a civil nature. Repentance and redemption are always possible, but these actions show Christ's Church disapproves of divorce under the covenant as well.

Good answer to a poor question.

[california boy]

I've stayed out of this, but honestly I don't see how anyone can say Jesus never spoke against SSM.

 

Look here are a few selected passages which strictly prohibit the practice from the beginning. The first is the notion he never talked about it.

 

Matthew 19 

 

 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

He is quite clear that marriage between male and female was essential to the plan in that chapter when the Pharisees tempted him.

Second is a commandment from the Book of Genesis and multiple other places that are clearly divine commandments from God, and by their very nature would exclude SSM as a divine institution.   These concepts are so fundamental to the gospel (married couples having children and the eternal families through procreation) that SSM cannot co-exist with these commandments.

Genesis 3

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 1

 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that God does not want straight couples to marry and have children.  But Christ is not talking about gay marriage here, he is talking about marriage between a man and a woman.  

 

I disagree with seekingunderstanding.  Your answer on divorce is pretty weak.  Read the scripture again.  

 

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

Not man means NOT MAN, not even church leaders.  Yet, as you pointed out, they currently are approving temple divorce.  So in one case, you want to take the scriptures very narrowly and tell us it applies to something that Christ is not addressing at the time.  Yet you want to dismiss what Christ ACTUALLY said about such marriages and say that men can grant divorce.  They just have to do it by approval of church leaders.  Last time I checked, those church leaders are men.

Edited May 16, 2014 by california boy

[eddie]

I don't think anyone is saying that God does not want straight couples to marry and have children. But Christ is not talking about gay marriage here, he is talking about marriage between a man and a woman.

I disagree with seekingunderstanding. Your answer on divorce is pretty weak. Read the scripture again.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Not man means NOT MAN, not even church leaders. Yet, as you pointed out, they currently are approving temple divorce. So in one case, you want to take the scriptures very narrowly and tell us it applies to something that Christ is not addressing at the time. Yet you want to dismiss what Christ ACTUALLY said about such marriages and say that men can grant divorce. They just have to do it by approval of church leaders. Last time I checked, those church leaders are men.

Cancellation of a sealing is pretty rare. I have two family members that were divorced, but they never had their sealing cancelled. It happens, but usually only in the case where the other spouse wishes to remarry in the temple. Only someone with the authorized priesthood keys can grant a temple divorce and let them enter into the covenant. Christ gave those keys to Peter and then restored them to Joseph Smith at the advent of the restoration. Those keys are to use the sealing power in the name of God, not of men. Only God can authorized sealings, it is the power of His preisthood that can be exercised through his servants, the way it has been from the time of Adam. Christ was only here 33 years, but he left his authority in every dispensation. Men granting divorce is when a justice of the peace does it, not when someone with the Keys of the Priesthood cancels a sealing.

I also would like to know how SSM would possibly satisfy the first great commandment of multiply and replenish the earth and seal children to their parents? It is so contrary to that principle it could not possibly ever be divine.

Edited May 16, 2014 by eddie

[california boy]

I also would like to know how SSM would possibly satisfy the first great commandment of multiply and replenish the earth and seal children to their parents? It is so contrary to that principle it could not possibly ever be divine.

I am not sure I want to derail this thread, but the short answer to your question is, the same way any infertile couple fulfills that commandment.  My brother and his wife were unable to have children.  The adopted two great kids.  You certainly wouldn't condemn them or think they were going contrary to God's great commandment for entering into marriage just because they were infertile would you?  

[eddie]

I am not sure I want to derail this thread, but the short answer to your question is, the same way any infertile couple fulfills that commandment. My brother and his wife were unable to have children. The adopted two great kids. You certainly wouldn't condemn them or think they were going contrary to God's great commandment for entering into marriage just because they were infertile would you?

There is a difference between not having the biological ability to conceive, and medical issues regarding infertility. The scriptures are full of cases where couples thought they would never have children due to unknown reasons, but never was it due to going against Jesus's teachings of God creating a man and woman and cleaving unto one another. In many cases such as Sara, Rebecca, Hannah, and Elizabeth the women were eventually blessed with children sometimes in very old age after a trial of their faith. It doesn't happen for all in this life, but it is necessary for mothers and fathers to enter into the covenant of marriage. Abraham would never have had a posterity if he married Samuel instead of Sara. These abilities are not solely for mortality, but gender is essential to have families, hence Jesus reiterated the intended divine relationship between men and women.

Edited May 16, 2014 by eddie

[CV75]

So yes, I still don't quite understand what your point is.  Can it work?  Perhaps.

 ***

And it still does not change the only two points I have consistently made in this thread.

My point is very, very simple (see #216): If you are gay, you are NOT excluded from eternal marriage; I gave real-time evidence of that and that it can work. This opposes your false assertion that “If you are gay, you are excluded from eternal marriage” (see #215). Your other two points can’t and don’t support that assertion.

RE point 1, “No revelation concerning sexual relations within the bonds of legally and lofty married gay couples”: All we need is revelation concerning sexual relations and marriage, which abounds.

RE point 2, “The church was wrong in preventing other couples from getting married in the past due to bigoted attitudes”: The Church is not preventing anyone from keeping the revelations concerning sexual relations and marriage.

[california boy]

There is a difference between not having the biological ability to conceive, and medical issues regarding infertility. The scriptures are full of cases where couples thought they would never have children due to unknown reasons, but never was it due to going against Jesus's teachings of God creating a man and woman and cleaving unto one another. In many cases such as Sara, Rebecca, Hannah, and Elizabeth the women were eventually blessed with children sometimes in very old age after a trial of their faith. It doesn't happen for all in this life, but it is necessary for mothers and fathers to enter into the covenant of marriage. Abraham would never have had a posterity if he married Samuel instead of Sara. These abilities are not solely for mortality, but gender is essential to have families, hence Jesus reiterated the intended divine relationship between men and women.

I agree with all you wrote.  But what did any of that have to do with denying interracial couples from marrying and what does any of it have to do with gay couples being allowed the blessings of temple marriage?

[california boy]

My point is very, very simple (see #216): If you are gay, you are NOT excluded from eternal marriage; I gave real-time evidence of that and that it can work. This opposes your false assertion that “If you are gay, you are excluded from eternal marriage” (see #215). Your other two points can’t and don’t support that assertion.

RE point 1, “No revelation concerning sexual relations within the bonds of legally and lofty married gay couples”: All we need is revelation concerning sexual relations and marriage, which abounds.

RE point 2, “The church was wrong in preventing other couples from getting married in the past due to bigoted attitudes”: The Church is not preventing anyone from keeping the revelations concerning sexual relations and marriage.

i am sure you understand somewhere deep inside of you that MOST gay men have no interest in marrying any female.  This is why the church itself counsels against gays from entering marriage just so they can "fit in".  Do you really think that having gays marry someone of the opposite sex fixes everything?  Do you seriously not understand why a gay person wants to spend his life with someone of his own sex?  That is why they are gay.  Can a very small percentage of gays marry someone of the opposite sex?  Of course.  But that is hardly a plan on how to have a happy eternal marriage for most gays.  Surely you understand how basic human  relations function.

 

Yes we do have revelation concerning marriage to a man and a woman.  What we don't have is a revelation between a man and a man.  The church views those marriages as being very different.  

 

point 2. I think you understand that the church currently does not allow gays from marrying who they are attracted to.  For most gays, marrying somone of the opposite sex is not an option.  For those gays that is not an option for, the church tells them to NOT MARRY.  

Edited May 16, 2014 by california boy

[Mystery Meat]

"Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

 

I am getting a lot of scriptural support for heterosexual marriages. I have yet to see one scriptural reference to support SSM. "It is not good for man to be alone" has been brought up but unless you read that scripture while considering the other versus throughout scripture (and when you do you see this is a clear reference to heterosexual marriage) you are just as guilty of wresting the scriptures (which means taking one verse out of context and ignoring what other verses have to say on the matter) as the scribes and pharisees.

Edited May 16, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

"Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

 

I am getting a lot of scriptural support for heterosexual marriages. I have yet to see one scriptural reference to support SSM. "It is not good for man to be alone" has been brought up but unless you read that scripture while considering the other versus throughout scripture (and when you do you see this is a clear reference to heterosexual marriage) you are just as guilty of wresting the scriptures (which means taking one verse out of context and ignoring what other verses have to say on the matter) as the scribes and pharisees.

 

From the Book of Mormon Student Manual: 

 

"The dictionary defines wrest as, “To twist. … To distort; to turn from truth or twist from its natural meaning … ; to pervert” (Noah Webster’s First Edition of an American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828[1967]). Thus, those who wrest the scriptures change or distort the actual meaning to match their own personal opinion or interpretation. Those who manipulate the scriptures to stir up contention are inspired by Satan (see Alma 12:1–6; 14:6–7). The fate of those who wrest the scriptures is their own destruction (see Alma 13:20)."

 

Using "its not good for man to be alone to justify SSM" is not only a stretch, its also a perversion of the scriptures.

Edited May 16, 2014 by lvjd66

[CV75]

i am sure you understand somewhere deep inside of you that MOST gay men have no interest in marrying any female.  This is why the church itself counsels against gays from entering marriage just so they can "fit in".  Do you really think that having gays marry someone of the opposite sex fixes everything?  Do you seriously not understand why a gay person wants to spend his life with someone of his own sex?  That is why they are gay.  Can a very small percentage of gays marry someone of the opposite sex?  Of course.  But that is hardly a plan on how to have a happy eternal marriage for most gays.  Surely you understand how basic human  relations function.

These points are not relevant to the truth I pointed out about the marriage covenant and who can enter it.

 

The Church would not counsel gay OR straight couples to marry just because everyone else is. The Church likewise would not counsel single people to marry just anyone out of desperation or for lack of other options.

 

The only “fixing” I see is the redemption of fallen mankind through Jesus Christ; His plan of salvation and the covenants pertaining to it, the means for this “fixing” are not broken.

 

I know this may sound unsympathetic or indifferent to you, but exactly what, other than our fallen nature, is the “everything” that needs fixing?

 

A gay person is not gay because he wants to spend his life with someone of his own sex (I think it's the other way around, and a good many even don't want to spend their life with someone). And talking about percentages, an even smaller percentage of the human race atoned to redeem all mankind, and that is precisely the plan for addressing basic human relations.

[Mystery Meat]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

 

Leviticus 18:22

[pogi]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

 

Leviticus 18:22

 

I guess lesbians are ok then

[DarkScythe]

I guess lesbians are ok then

 

 

of course they are okay.

[cdowis]

I also would like to know how SSM would possibly satisfy the first great commandment of multiply and replenish the earth and seal children to their parents? It is so contrary to that principle it could not possibly ever be divine.

 

Simple.

 

They would contract with a birth parent, and the sealing would then be between the three parents, of course.  Please note there is "nothing in the scriptures" contrary to this arrangement, and three parents are now recognized legally.  

 

Anything to say, california boy? 

 

i am sure you understand somewhere deep inside of you that MOST gay men have no interest in marrying any female.  This is why the church itself counsels against gays from entering marriage just so they can "fit in".  

 

And many heterosexual men, somewhere deep inside, are dissatisfied with just one soul mate (wife).  Surely the church cannot deny them their deepest desires, especially in a country where multiple wives are legal.

 

You really have only three options ==

 

---start or join another church,

---complain to the prophet to change the doctrines which you proclaim are "wrong",

----suffer the slings and arrows of such injustice.

[eddie]

I agree with all you wrote. But what did any of that have to do with denying interracial couples from marrying and what does any of it have to do with gay couples being allowed the blessings of temple marriage?

I said nothing about interracial marriage, I was talking about the inherent universal inability of two men or women being able to obey the first commandment given of multiplying and replenishing the earth which is a part of the covenant and blessings of eternal marriage.

Such a thing is very different from a couple having fertility issues. One is completely biological and universal, the other medical with a very limited scope.

Edited May 17, 2014 by eddie

[california boy]

Look. I am not asking the church to change it's policies towards gays.  I am simply pointing out that there has been no revelation on how God views sexual relations for gays that are married.  I remember all of the "scriptural support" given for the church's policy on blacks denied temple marriage.  I remember all of the "scriptural support" for not allowing interracial couples to marry.  You are yourselves wresting the scriptures to justify the churches current position on eternal marriage for gay couples.  Fine.  But it is not a revelation from God.  It is you trying to make the scriptures support the churches current policies towards gays.  I totally understand your intentions.  I had those same intentions when serving a mission and having to try explaining bigoted church positions towards blacks.  That didn't mean the church policies were from God and it didn't mean that the scriptures I used to support the churches policies were correct.  They were just a way of justifying a policy that, as it turns out, was not from God at all.  

 

For you, those scriptures make totally logical sense supporting marriage only between a man and a woman (which is only sometimes the requirement of eternal marriage).  For me, the life of Christ seems more inclusive to all God's children.  It seems He wants all of us to participate and have all of the blessings of the gospel in our lives including the very key component of Celestial Marriage.  I do think that God clearly stated that" it is not good for man to be alone"  Yet the current church policy towards gays is to remain celibate if they are unable to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Pretending that all gays can simply marry a person of the opposite sex is ridiculous and not even worth arguing about.  It is certainly not supported by science or the  statistical rate of such marriages.  The church recognizes this and is why they recommend celibacy.  Perhaps if you were gay, you would choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.  I tried as well.  It doesn't work.  It only brings heartache and sorrow to the majority of such marriages.  It is unfair to both the gay person and the spouse.

 

I look forward to the day the prophet says "All temple blessings including eternal marriage are now available to all worthy members of the church."  Until that happens there is no reason for you to change your personal opinion on gay marriage.  And until that happens, I will unfortunately not be able to be a part of the church.  It may never happen.  Only God knows.  So far, He has not revealed His will on this subject.

[Mystery Meat]

Look. I am not asking the church to change it's policies towards gays.  I am simply pointing out that there has been no revelation on how God views sexual relations for gays that are married.  I remember all of the "scriptural support" given for the church's policy on blacks denied temple marriage.  I remember all of the "scriptural support" for not allowing interracial couples to marry.  You are yourselves wresting the scriptures to justify the churches current position on eternal marriage for gay couples.  Fine.  But it is not a revelation from God.  It is you trying to make the scriptures support the churches current policies towards gays.  I totally understand your intentions.  I had those same intentions when serving a mission and having to try explaining bigoted church positions towards blacks.  That didn't mean the church policies were from God and it didn't mean that the scriptures I used to support the churches policies were correct.  They were just a way of justifying a policy that, as it turns out, was not from God at all.  

 

For you, those scriptures make totally logical sense supporting marriage only between a man and a woman (which is only sometimes the requirement of eternal marriage).  For me, the life of Christ seems more inclusive to all God's children.  It seems He wants all of us to participate and have all of the blessings of the gospel in our lives including the very key component of Celestial Marriage.  I do think that God clearly stated that" it is not good for man to be alone"  Yet the current church policy towards gays is to remain celibate if they are unable to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Pretending that all gays can simply marry a person of the opposite sex is ridiculous and not even worth arguing about.  It is certainly not supported by science or the  statistical rate of such marriages.  The church recognizes this and is why they recommend celibacy.  Perhaps if you were gay, you would choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.  I tried as well.  It doesn't work.  It only brings heartache and sorrow to the majority of such marriages.  It is unfair to both the gay person and the spouse.

 

I look forward to the day the prophet says "All temple blessings including eternal marriage are now available to all worthy members of the church."  Until that happens there is no reason for you to change your personal opinion on gay marriage.  And until that happens, I will unfortunately not be able to be a part of the church.  It may never happen.  Only God knows.  So far, He has not revealed His will on this subject.

 

Well if you cant provide scriptural support at least tell me why Leviticus 18 is not a prohibition on homosexual sex.

Edited May 17, 2014 by lvjd66