california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Homosexuals have the same place in the plan of salvation as anybody else. They are born with tendencies and challenges to overcome. Some people have to fight their natures and instincts to remain monogamous within marriage. The claim that there is no place for homosexuals is an attempt to validate a sinful behavior. I would seriously like to know more how you think homosexuals fit into the plan of salvation as it is now taught. Let's say a faithful gay member is celibate his whole life here on earth. So then what? How does he fit into the plan of salvation after he dies??? Will he then be able to marry someone in heaven he is attracted to? Will he then have eternal increase? I am not trying to validate sinful behavior, I am trying to figure out why I should ever leave my boyfriend, come back into the church, and be celibate for the rest of my earthly life. Because from where I sit, even if I did all of that, I still can't marry someone I am attracted to after I die. And I still will not have eternal offspring. So just what is left of the plan of salvation that I get to participate in?? 1
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Do you really believe this as a possibility (that the sealings at the time were in any way related to the idea of same sex marriage sealings as opposed to law of adoption sealings as in one man acting in the role of father and the other son)?No and that is not what I said. What I did say is there are those who use the example that Joseph Smith believed/taught that a black person could hold the priesthood because he ordained a black person in his lifetime. And because Joseph Smith ordained a black person then Brigham Young errored it teaching that blacks could not hold the priesthood. (I am assuming you have heard this assertion before) Using the same logic, if the church did at some future time allow for same sex temple marriages, a member could point to the fact that Joseph Smith believe/taught that men can be sealed to men even when they are not related. And that Thomas S. Monson errored when he did not allow legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed together just as Joseph Smith did in the early days of the church.
Calm Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) No and that is not what I said. What I did say is there are those who use the example that Joseph Smith believed/taught that a black person could hold the priesthood because he ordained a black person in his lifetime. And because Joseph Smith ordained a black person then Brigham Young errored it teaching that blacks could not hold the priesthood. (I am assuming you have heard this assertion before) Using the same logic, if the church did at some future time allow for same sex temple marriages, a member could point to the fact that Joseph Smith believe/taught that men can be sealed to men even when they are not related. And that Thomas S. Monson errored when he did not allow legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed together just as Joseph Smith did in the early days of the church. And I am asking if you think this is in any way a valid argument for that member to use. Edited October 9, 2014 by calmoriah
ksfisher Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 No and that is not what I said. What I did say is there are those who use the example that Joseph Smith believed/taught that a black person could hold the priesthood because he ordained a black person in his lifetime. And because Joseph Smith ordained a black person then Brigham Young errored it teaching that blacks could not hold the priesthood. (I am assuming you have heard this assertion before) Using the same logic, if the church did at some future time allow for same sex temple marriages, a member could point to the fact that Joseph Smith believe/taught that men can be sealed to men even when they are not related. And that Thomas S. Monson errored when he did not allow legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed together just as Joseph Smith did in the early days of the church. CFR that Joseph Smith allowed legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed. Or even that any gay couples have been sealed in a temple
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 And I am asking if you think this is in any way a valid argument for that member to use. To sue? Are you serious? The church can teach what ever it wants. It is protected by the Constitution to do so. No member or nonmember has the right to sue because they don't believe what the church teaches, even when what the church teaches comes from limited knowledge. I don't even care what the church teaches. I only point out that current restrictions of gays denied temple marriage blessings goes against the plan of salvation and seems less in sync with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I personally believe that Christ wants all to participate fully in His gospel. When the church starts to restrict who can be full participants of temple blessings, and who can not, then things seem to not match up with the plan of salvation.
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 CFR that Joseph Smith allowed legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed. Or even that any gay couples have been sealed in a templeReread my post. I never made such a claim. I only stated that males were sealed in the temple to other males even when they were unrelated.
JDave Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 To sue? You inadvertently rearranged the letters in your head. She said 'use'.
The Nehor Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Are you telling all those faithful single members of the church that unless they are married in the temple in this life, they will not make it into the Celestial Kingdom???? Really? You do realize you are stressing out Nehor even more don't you? I think you also know that at one time during Joseph Smith's life they did seal men to men in the temple. Perhaps this will be used as proof that was God's intention all along like those that reference Joseph Smith ordaining a black member. Nehor needs more stress. I go to Krav Maga later and need some stress to unleash. It is not that they do not enter the Celestial Kingdom it is that they are condemned to the lower levels of it for their failure to reproduce. I've pretty much decided that if that happens I am skipping out and going to hell instead. If I can't have ultimate power and rule myself I might as well go where I can at least rule myself....and torment Satan for kicks for all eternity.
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 And I am asking if you think this is in any way a valid argument for that member to use. You inadvertently rearranged the letters in your head. She said 'use'. lol. OPPs sorry. I will answer the real question she asked. No not really. Just like the priesthood ban, a revelation from God is all we need as proof of God's will. Those who claim to know the will of God without Him revealing that will speak only for themselves.
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Nehor needs more stress. I go to Krav Maga later and need some stress to unleash. It is not that they do not enter the Celestial Kingdom it is that they are condemned to the lower levels of it for their failure to reproduce. I've pretty much decided that if that happens I am skipping out and going to hell instead. If I can't have ultimate power and rule myself I might as well go where I can at least rule myself....and torment Satan for kicks for all eternity. Well I will join you in Hell. Looks like I am headed there as well. So is my boyfriend, so we can have you over for dinner sometime. How does bar-b-cue sound?
The Nehor Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Well I will join you in Hell. Looks like I am headed there as well. So is my boyfriend, so we can have you over for dinner sometime. How does bar-b-cue sound? A third wheel even in hell. 1
ksfisher Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Reread my post. I never made such a claim. I only stated that males were sealed in the temple to other males even when they were unrelated. Here's what you wrote: "Thomas S. Monson errored when he did not allow legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed together just as Joseph Smith did in the early days of the church." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that Joseph Smith allowed gay couples to be sealed in a temple. I understand the first part of the sentence about President Monson to be a hypothetical, but not the comparison you make to Joseph Smith which does not come off as a hypothetical.
Calm Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) To sue? Are you serious? That was a typo…notice that I corrected it quickly, even as you were responding. PS: noticed that was drawn to your attention, seen your response, thank you…fyi to all, it was not his mistake, but mine; it did come up as "sue" first which caused to me laugh and think someone might claim that was a freudian slip. Edited October 9, 2014 by calmoriah
JLHPROF Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 No and that is not what I said. What I did say is there are those who use the example that Joseph Smith believed/taught that a black person could hold the priesthood because he ordained a black person in his lifetime. And because Joseph Smith ordained a black person then Brigham Young errored it teaching that blacks could not hold the priesthood. (I am assuming you have heard this assertion before) Using the same logic, if the church did at some future time allow for same sex temple marriages, a member could point to the fact that Joseph Smith believe/taught that men can be sealed to men even when they are not related. And that Thomas S. Monson errored when he did not allow legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed together just as Joseph Smith did in the early days of the church. You know full well that the sealing of men to men in the temple were parent/child, not spousal and so completely unrelated to your analogy. 1
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 You know full well that the sealing of men to men in the temple were parent/child, not spousal and so completely unrelated to your analogy.Wrong. The sealings done by Joseph Smith were not only parent/child, they were also men to men who were unrelated.
california boy Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Here's what you wrote: "Thomas S. Monson errored when he did not allow legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed together just as Joseph Smith did in the early days of the church." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that Joseph Smith allowed gay couples to be sealed in a temple. I understand the first part of the sentence about President Monson to be a hypothetical, but not the comparison you make to Joseph Smith which does not come off as a hypothetical.Reread the entire post. No and that is not what I said. What I did say is there are those who use the example that Joseph Smith believed/taught that a black person could hold the priesthood because he ordained a black person in his lifetime. And because Joseph Smith ordained a black person then Brigham Young errored it teaching that blacks could not hold the priesthood. (I am assuming you have heard this assertion before) Using the same logic, if the church did at some future time allow for same sex temple marriages, a member could point to the fact that Joseph Smith believe/taught that men can be sealed to men even when they are not related. And that Thomas S. Monson errored when he did not allow legally and lawfully married gay couples into the temple to be sealed together just as Joseph Smith did in the early days of the church.
JLHPROF Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Wrong. The sealings done by Joseph Smith were not only parent/child, they were also men to men who were unrelated. No, right.All men that were sealed to men were sealed to them as their SONS/HEIRS, never any other way.When Philo Dibble and John D. Lee were sealed to Brigham Young they were considered his sons, not his spouses.
Daniel2 Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Fail. The whole quorum did not sign it did they.So, something isn't official or doctrinal if the First Presidency issues a statement that isn't also signed by the 12..?Was the prophet and his counselors wrong in their "statement"...?BTW it is not a proclamation but a "statement".What do you believe is the significant distinction between "a statement" vs. "a proclamation"?
Daniel2 Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 No, right.All men that were sealed to men were sealed to them as their SONS/HEIRS, never any other way.When Philo Dibble and John D. Lee were sealed to Brigham Young they were considered his sons, not his spouses.You're both right.Joseph sealed biologically unrelated men to other adult men, but in a sealed father/son spiritual-adoptive relationship.
JLHPROF Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 You're both right.Joseph sealed biologically unrelated men to other adult men, but in a sealed father/son spiritual-adoptive relationship. Which is why it has absolutely no connection to SSM. 1
The Nehor Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 To sue? Are you serious? The church can teach what ever it wants. It is protected by the Constitution to do so. No member or nonmember has the right to sue because they don't believe what the church teaches, even when what the church teaches comes from limited knowledge. I don't even care what the church teaches. I only point out that current restrictions of gays denied temple marriage blessings goes against the plan of salvation and seems less in sync with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I personally believe that Christ wants all to participate fully in His gospel. When the church starts to restrict who can be full participants of temple blessings, and who can not, then things seem to not match up with the plan of salvation. If it helps any I hope you are right but I just don't know how that will work.
Stone holm Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 We don't actually know how to create spirit children nor do we know anything about Heavenly Mother. So this is conjecture on your part.Well that depends whether you have joined the recent fad of throwing Brigham Young under the bus or not, otherwise it seems pretty obvious.
The Nehor Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Well I will join you in Hell. Looks like I am headed there as well. So is my boyfriend, so we can have you over for dinner sometime. How does bar-b-cue sound?Sure, especially if there is steak, and do you two want to join a triumvirate? I am looking to take over the place when I get there.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 You're both right.Joseph sealed biologically unrelated men to other adult men, but in a sealed father/son spiritual-adoptive relationship.This is not correct. While Joseph taught adoption, he apparantly taught it could only be done in the temple. Brigham Young performed the first adoptions after the martyrdom in the Nauvoo temple. Once the saints left, adoptions did not resume until the St. George temple was dedicated. In addition, men were not sealed to men. A child was sealed to parents. John D Lee was sealed to Brigham and one of his wives in a parent child relationship. 3
rockpond Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Well that depends whether you have joined the recent fad of throwing Brigham Young under the bus or not, otherwise it seems pretty obvious.Is there anyone who doesn't question some of President Young's teachings? Even official church publications have "thrown him under the bus."So what did he have to say on the matter? Edited October 10, 2014 by rockpond
Recommended Posts