Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[stemelbow]

It is also important to note that "men to men" sealings appears to be somewhat of a misnomer. Men were sealed to adoptive parents.

Good. So it was never one man to one man. It was always parents to a man?

Still curious of the possibility of sealing unrelated men these days, even in a adoptive parent type of way. What would that mean?

Edited May 14, 2014 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

In what way doesn't it?

Nevermind. I get it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Good. So it was never one man to one man. It was always parents to a man?

Still curious of the possibility of sealing unrelated men these days, even in a adoptive parent type of way. What would that mean?

Man, to parents, women to parents (in Nauvoo only) and couples to parents. Back in those days, if your parents weren't members, you could seal your self to adoptive parents instead. Basically they cut themselves off from their biological parents and in some instances even took their adoptive parent's last name.

[stemelbow]

Man, to parents, women to parents (in Nauvoo only) and couples to parents. Back in those days, if your parents weren't members, you could seal your self to adoptive parents instead. Basically they cut themselves off from their biological parents and in some instances even took their adoptive parent's last name.

Still curious what that means. Who would want to find new "parents" after they are grown to adopt them for eternity? Isn't sealing to wives and children meaningful? Are we missing something that they knew?

[california boy]

If you will read this thread you will find a response to your assertion that there are "no scriptures" which address this issue.

 

Let me repeat post #184

 

The scriptures have been very clear on sex among homosexuals.  You no longer have an excuse.

Sorry but I think it is you that are not reading my responses.  I am of course very familiar with the scriptures in the Bible regarding homosexuality.  Two things.  

 

Not everything written in the Bible comes from God.  Some are just the opinion of the Bible writer, such as many of the "teachings" of Paul for example prohibiting women from wearing gold jewelry, praying in church, wearing make-up etc.  None of the references on homosexuality in the Bible indicate they are from God.  And no reference to homosexuality at all in ANY of the other standard works.

 

Second point, All of the references concerning homosexuality have to do with sex outside of marriage.  No one is arguing that sex outside of marriage is against the will of God.

 

I am not looking for an excuse.  Why would I?  I am looking for clarification from God.  As you know church leaders have  been completely wrong about excluding others from eternal marriage, and it has cause a lot of unfortunate grief.  It has not been a reliable gauge of God's will in the past.  Why would this be any different?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Still curious what that means. Who would want to find new "parents" after they are grown to adopt them for eternity? Isn't sealing to wives and children meaningful? Are we missing something that they knew?

You should read Stapley's article as well as well as Sam Brown's Early Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvaiton. The short of it (and I won't do it justice) was that it was taught that to be saved you needed to be sealed in an unbroken chain back to Adam. There was great concern about being sealed to worthy parents so that you wouldn't miss out on salvation, whereas today we take the view of it'll all work out in the millennium so just seal yourself to your parents even if you don't know that they have accepted the gospel. 

[CV75]

Why would this be any different?

The difference is that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is excluded from eternal marriage.

Are you asking why the prophets would be right about God defining the covenant of eternal marriage as being by Him and between a man and a woman? D&C 132 is pretty clear about that. Are you asking why that would be right, in light of the Abrahamic covenant, Adam and Eve, the spiritual/religious history of marriage (even worldwide) and so forth?

[stemelbow]

You should read Stapley's article as well as well as Sam Brown's Early Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvaiton. The short of it (and I won't do it justice) was that it was taught that to be saved you needed to be sealed in an unbroken chain back to Adam. There was great concern about being sealed to worthy parents so that you wouldn't miss out on salvation, whereas today we take the view of it'll all work out in the millennium so just seal yourself to your parents even if you don't know that they have accepted the gospel.

Thanks.

[cdowis]

Even if your reference is credible and not just a faded memory, it says nothing to how those women were giving themselves to the prophet...sealed as wives, wives of husbands that were sealed as sons, daughters, sisters, mothers, servants, housekeepers, dog walkers....

That is what I am asking for more detail on.

 

I have already given the context of his comment -- that they were sealed "to the prophets" rather than to families.   This article below talks about the adoption sealing and could apply to both male and female.  From his humorous comment, it was clear that HE thought that they were looking to be his wife rather than some generic relationship.  The relationship a woman has with the "prophet" in the adoption is not clear and the sisters may have been engaged in some wishful thinking.

 

See especially the comments of BY in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism)

Edited May 14, 2014 by cdowis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I have already given the context of his comment -- that they were sealed "to the prophets" rather than to families.   This article below talks about the adoption sealing and could apply to both male and female.  From his humorous comment, it was clear that HE thought that they were looking to be his wife rather than some generic relationship.  The relationship a woman has with the "prophet" in the adoption is not clear and the sisters may have been engaged in some wishful thinking.

 

See especially the comments of BY in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism)

 

While there is a lot of ambiguity about Joseph's sealing practices while he was alive (time vs eternity, dynastic / other), there is no such ambiguity in the sealings after he died. Spouses were sealed together, and children were sealed to parents (adoptive or otherwise). There was no more question about which was happening then than there is now. To quote someone I know, "Just so that you no longer have an excuse" You should go read Stapley's article Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism. 

You no longer have an excuse.

Edited to add - You can read the cliff notes about what this article says about posthumous sealings to Joseph in post #195.

Edited May 14, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[canard78]

See post #185.

No it was not, at that time. It was a matter of sealing themselves to "the prophet". My only reference is my memory of a class discussion in the church history class at BYU. "Women were sealing themselves to JS" even though they were had no relationship to him until it was stopped by WW.

Post #185 confirms my memory, so I suspect that he can give references.

I know that there was a great deal of confusion on temple ordinances for baptisms when it first started, women being baptized for men, no records being kept, etc, and this confusion extended itself also the case of the doctrine and procedure for sealings. Even today there have been changes in sealings in the last few decades ==>> for vicarious sealings for women, they were only sealed to her first husband, and now they are sealed to all their husbands with the understanding that they would make their own choice, for example.

After the grief you've given me over the references I've provided in this thread I couldn't help but laugh at the paucity of yours in reply to cal.

[cdowis]

After the grief you've given me over the references I've provided in this thread I couldn't help but laugh at the paucity of yours in reply to cal.

You may remember that I asked whether you were quoting an opinion or actual source, and you finally responded.  I am looking for something short and to the point.

 

Now, you will note that I gave my specific source in my original post -- a personal recollection of a conversation in a church history class at BYU.. Short and to the point. There was nothing else to say. 

 

I guess you find a concise statement as laughable in a world of much blathering and hot air.

[Calm]

Still curious what that means. Who would want to find new "parents" after they are grown to adopt them for eternity? Isn't sealing to wives and children meaningful? Are we missing something that they knew?

No, they were missing something.

When the adoption started, they apparently were not doing the temple ordinances for all those who hadn't heard the gospel, such as the dead husband who had not converted, etc. so a widow would be sealed to someone who had been endowed, for example.

[Calm]

 

Now, you will note that I gave my specific source in my original post -- a personal recollection of a conversation in a church history class at BYU.. Short and to the point. There was nothing else to say. 

 

and yet you went on to refer me to....me.

[california boy]

The difference is that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is excluded from eternal marriage.

 

If you are gay, you are excluded from eternal marriage.  To say otherwise is double talk.

[CV75]

If you are gay, you are excluded from eternal marriage.  To say otherwise is double talk.

No--there are gay people in our stake who have entered into the covenant of eternal marriage and have families. They have not been excluded, but a man married a woman in each case.

[california boy]

No--there are gay people in our stake who have entered into the covenant of eternal marriage and have families. They have not been excluded, but a man married a woman in each case.

Yes and interracial couples could be married in the temple as long as one of them wasn't black.  

 

Geeeeeez.

[teddyaware]

Yes and interracial couples could be married in the temple as long as one of them wasn't black.  

 

Geeeeeez.

With all due deference, what will happen if it turns out that the phenomenon of same sex attraction is something that is only part and parcel of the fallen nature and that the disruptions of the fallen nature are going to be overcome and healed through the process of the glorious resurrection? In other words, what if the healing power of the resurrection causes unnatural human affections to reboot, as it were, so as to enable all saved beings to quite naturally and joyfully conform to the divinely established pattern of male/female relationships ordained and established by God prior to the distortions of the natural order brought on by the fall? And what if the reason why gay marriage will never be approved by the Church is because same sex attraction will not be something we will encounter or have to deal with in any of the three kingdoms of glory? What if all fallen human behavior that is out of harmony with God's will simply become a thing of the past and that we will one day look back on our time on earth and wonder we made such a big issue over things that were only transitory in nature?

Edited May 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[canard78]

Deleted

Edited May 15, 2014 by canard78

[CV75]

Yes and interracial couples could be married in the temple as long as one of them wasn't black.  

 

Geeeeeez.

I really don't think you understand what I am saying -- in some cases both spouses are gay/lesbian/have SSA; one is still a man and one is still a woman.

[teddyaware]

Some leaders in the past made statements about the "nature" and "character" of black people. I wonder whether, if you'd been around 100 years ago you'd have been saying:

As it is, I'm not aware of any church leader saying anything that specifically supports your "what if..."

Have any church leaders said that same sex attraction is temporary?

I've heard of putting words in someone's mouth, but this wins the prize! If I somehow get slandered as a racist as a consequence of your carelessness, I wonder if I'll have recourse to sue?

Edited May 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

Yes and interracial couples could be married in the temple as long as one of them wasn't black.  

 

Geeeeeez.

 

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.

[teddyaware]

Some leaders in the past made statements about the "nature" and "character" of black people. I wonder whether, if you'd been around 100 years ago you'd have been saying:

As it is, I'm not aware of any church leader saying anything that specifically supports your "what if..."

Have any church leaders said that same sex attraction is temporary?

Again, thanks for putting racist words in my mouth -- you're a real gentleman. In answer to your question: I would hope SSA is temporary because the Book of Mormon says we cannot be saved in our sins.

[canard78]

Again, thanks for putting racist words in my mouth -- you're a real gentleman. In answer to your question: I would hope SSA is temporary because the Book of Mormon says we cannot be saved in our sins.

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.

Edited May 15, 2014 by canard78

[california boy]

I really don't think you understand what I am saying -- in some cases both spouses are gay/lesbian/have SSA; one is still a man and one is still a woman.

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