Scotus Denies Cert; Stay In Utah Lifted

[strappinglad]

I think we forget that marriage in this life , whether man to woman, man to several women, woman to several men , or even man to man or gulp,man to horse, has no effect in the eternities. None. Temple marriages also are of no effect unless and until that marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. There are no guarantees unless that happens and even then deck chairs can be shuffled. A person must first be saved. Anybody remember how to do that?

[Daniel2]

Which is why it has absolutely no connection to SSM.

Absolutely NO connection to same-sex marriage, except for the similarity of sealing two adult men together in an eternal familial bond.

[Daniel2]

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.

You are correct that Joseph taught it, though apparently Brigham claimed to have been sealed himself to Joseph, presumably while Joseph was still living.

You are incorrect in asserting that men were not being sealed to other men, but to opposite-gendered parents. The adoption sealings were not homosexual, although they were between two men, and did not include women:

Law of adoption (Mormonism)

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

The law of adoption was a ritual practiced in Latter Day Saint temples between 1846 and 1894 in which men who held the priesthood were sealed in a father–son relationship to other men who were not part of nor even distantly related to their immediate nuclear family.

Practice

Some younger men who were sealed by the law of adoption were called “sons” and took the surname of the older man, whom they called their “father”. In the law of adoption, “the sons were to give to the fathers the benefit of their labor while the fathers offered their children not only some measure of security but counsel and direction in the world as well.”[1] One sociological reason for the practice was because “[a]t this early stage in the church's history the membership was dominated by adult converts, whose new religious beliefs and westward migration with the Saints often estranged them from their birth families. Intra-church adoption in some measure compensated for this.”[2]

History

Early references to the "law of adoption"

The first known use of the term "law of adoption" within Mormon doctrine was by Parley P. Pratt; however, the doctrine Pratt referred to was not a sealing ordinance, but rather the means whereby Mormons, through baptism, were said to obtain a birthright as an "adopted" son of God and a member of the heavenly kingdom.[3][4] There is no surviving evidence that the "law of adoption" sealing practice was taught by Joseph Smith, Jr. or his contemporaries prior to Smith's death in 1844. However, adoptions appeared on the records of the Nauvoo Temple in 1846, and scholars generally assume that the practice was instituted by Brigham Young.

Brigham Young

Brigham Young had been sealed by the law of adoption to Joseph Smith, and in January and early February 1846 (before leaving for theRocky Mountains on 15 February 1846), Young was sealed to 38 young men by the law of adoption in the Nauvoo Temple.[5] On 23 February 1847, Young “went to see Joseph” in a dream and Young said that he spoke with Joseph about the law of adoption.[6]

On April 6, 1862, Brigham Young said of the law of adoption: “By this power men will be sealed to men back to Adam, completing and making perfect the priesthood from this day to the winding up scene.”[7] It is reported by Brigham Young’s grandson, Kimball Young (chairman of the Department of Sociology atNorthwestern University) that in a letter Brigham Young stated that there will be a future time “when men would be sealed to men in the priesthood in a more solemn ordinance than that by which women were sealed to men, and in a room over that in which women were sealed to man.”[8]

Wilford Woodruff

Wilford Woodruff, the fourth president of the LDS Church, stated in August 1896 that between 1843 and 1894 he “officiated in adopting 96 men to men”.[9] Woodruff also stated that by 1885, he had “had 45 persons adopted to me”.[10] Woodruff recorded in his diary that when the sealing rooms of the St. George Temple were dedicated in January 1877, Woodruff—who was the temple president—adopted two couples to Brigham Young.[11] Of the seventeen LDS Church apostles who died in the faith prior to 1894, fourteen had persons adopted to them.[12]

Problems

The practice fell into disrepute partly because “in a few cases it led to jealousy and conflict between sons for their adoptive father's attentions, and because it had in some other cases caused a scramble for status between potential sons seeking adoption by higher-ranking elders, and between elders by accumulating large numbers of adoptive sons”.[2] Another factor was that after the settlement of Utah Territory, “fewer members of the church arrived separated from their birth families (because they were born into the church)”.[2]

Placed in abeyance

In a church general conference address on 8 April 1894, Wilford Woodruff stated that “I have not felt satisfied, nor has any man since the Prophet Joseph Smith who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt there was more to be revealed on this subject than we have received … and the duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is let every man be adopted to his father.”[13]

Thus, as of 1894, the practice of the law of adoption ceased in the LDS Church.

Significance today

There is no evidence to suggest that homosexual sex was involved as part of the original practice of the law of adoption in the 19th century.[14] However, beginning in the 1970s, some members of Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons began to suggest that the leadership of the LDS Church should restore the law of adoption in order to allow same-sex couples to be sealed to each other in the temple in a kind of quasi-celestial marriage. It has been argued that this would preserve the primacy of heterosexual marriage but would allow an ecclesiastical equivalent of homosexual civil unions—a homosexual ecclesiastical union.[citation needed]The LDS Church did not respond directly to these suggestions, but continues to oppose homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

The restoration of the law of adoption was implemented when some members of Affirmation in 1985 established the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (commonly referred to as the Gay Mormon Church) and the First Presidency of that church restored the law of adoption, citing it as the theological justification for their practice of homosexual celestial marriage.[15]

Edited October 10, 2014 by Daniel2

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You are correct that Joseph taught it, though apparently Brigham claimed to have been sealed himself to Joseph, presumably while Joseph was still living.

You are incorrect in asserting that men were not being sealed to other men, but to opposite-gendered parents. The adoption sealings were not homosexual, although they were between two men, and did not include women:

Wiki is not a trustworthy source and you are incorrect on most of the facts. The definitive treatment on this subject is a pair of article written by Sam Brunson and J Stapely. Per stapely's article, the idea that Brigham was sealed to Joseph was incorrectly made up by Brooks:

Elsewhere Brooks hypothesized (incorrectly) that Joseph Smith had sealed to himself the first members of the Council of Fifty. Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Fron- tier: The Diaries of Hosea Stout, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964), 1:178 note 50. Young, a senior member of the Council of Fifty, alluded to his unadopted state when lecturing against misconceptions of adoption in 1847. Kenney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 3:130. Later Young explicitly declared that he was not adopted to anybody and that he wished to be sealed to his father. “Discourse by President B. Young, Delivered at the General Conference in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 8, [sic, April 9] 1852,” Millennial Star 16 (May 27, 1854): 326; Kenney, Wilford Wood- ruff’s Journal, 4:124; Brigham Young, September 4, 1873, Journal of Dis- courses, 16:187.

Snip

78Young claimed that if he died without being sealed to his father and his posterity failed to perform that sealing, then when he was resurrected, he would personally direct the work in the temple. “Discourse by President B. Young, Delivered at the General Conference in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 8, [sic, April 9] 1852,” Millennial Star 16 (May 27, 1854): 326.

As to statements about man to man sealings, that's all they were: statements. The mothers involved in such sealings (and there were always mothers involved) weren't worth mentioning. Go read J Stapley's article and then we can talk.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885588

Edited October 10, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[VideoGameJunkie]

I am so glad I'm not in a position to make rules or show leadership. There will always be backlash and questioning. I trust our leaders in the church that they will make the right decisions.

[cipriano]

This has become a fascinating thread, despite it's cultural wars beginning. I love the delving into D&C 132, and, the now defunct, Law of Adoption.

 

Also, the discussion of "Eternal Increase" (AKA having reproductive powers eternally) was cool. Are we being Telestialcentric, when we conflate earthly sex with what we dream of the eternities consisting of? 

[Stone holm]

This has become a fascinating thread, despite it's cultural wars beginning. I love the delving into D&C 132, and, the now defunct, Law of Adoption.

 

Also, the discussion of "Eternal Increase" (AKA having reproductive powers eternally) was cool. Are we being Telestialcentric, when we conflate earthly sex with what we dream of the eternities consisting of?

In my opinion, the early Fathers of the Restoration had a vision of the hereafter which was much different than that of Christianity in general. It was a vision which saw this life as a crude pattern of what was to come. That vision, in my opinion, included Celestial sex. Stop and think about it. Why surround sex with so many taboos and restrictions? Surely God doesn't create such a powerful drive and then place brakes and cultural obstacles in its way for no good reason especially with regards to consensual activity where there is no real objective harm occurring. That being the case, then consider the immense power of an exalted celestial being who has not trained him or herself to control the urges that come with that drive. So it is a deep part of Mormon philosophy that this life is a training ground for the next and that includes developing control of the sex drive. There would be absolutely no reason to develop such control if sex was not part of the hereafter.

[JLHPROF]

 Are we being Telestialcentric, when we conflate earthly sex with what we dream of the eternities consisting of? 

 

No, I don't think so.  And neither did President Young.

 

[JLHPROF]

Absolutely NO connection to same-sex marriage, except for the similarity of sealing two adult men together in an eternal familial bond.

 

Yes, the bond being father/child, not homosexual spouse.  It's not that complicated.

And as SeekingUnderstanding pointed out, they weren't just sealed to their new spiritual fathers, but to their new spiritual mothers as well.

[JLHPROF]

Wiki is not a trustworthy source and you are incorrect on most of the facts. The definitive treatment on this subject is a pair of article written by Sam Brunson and J Stapely. Per stapely's article, the idea that Brigham was sealed to Joseph was incorrectly made up by Brooks:

As to statements about man to man sealings, that's all they were: statements. The mothers involved in such sealings (and there were always mothers involved) weren't worth mentioning. Go read J Stapley's article and then we can talk.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885588

 

To me the most interesting line from Pres. Woodruff's address changing the method of adoptions is:

 

They are one step forward in the work of the ministry and in the work of the endowment in these temples of our God. When you get to the last man in the lineage, as I said before, we will adopt that man to the Prophet Joseph, and then the Prophet Joseph will take care of himself with regard to where he goes.  A man may say: "I am an Apostle, or I am a High Priest, or I am an Elder in Israel, and if I am adopted to my father, will it take any honor from me." I would say not. If Joseph Smith was sealed to his father, with whom many of you were acquainted, what effect will that have upon his exaltation and glory? None at all. Joseph Smith will hold the keys of this dispensation to the endless ages of eternity.

- Wilford Woodruff

 

Eventually Joseph Smith will be ALL of our great,great,great,great,great,great....etc Grandpa in the eternities.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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"...?

What do you believe is the significant distinction between "a statement" vs. "a proclamation"?

 

I never said that. What I was looking for was something comparable to the proclamation of the family that was later "questioned". There is nothing comparable.

 

 

Is an I phone 5 the same thing as an I phone 6? Are there difference between the 2? Are they significant?

 

For one the proclamation was released in a very official way and was signed by all those that we call prophets. all 15 where in agreement. The "Statement" appears to be something that was clarifying doctrinal matters at the time and not released in the same manner.

Do you agree? 

 

However you still have another issue. And that is that in the statement there were things in it that fore told a time when the blacks would receive the priesthood. There have been absolutely 0 responses from the prophets that gay marriage will one day happen in the temple. So even if I took the "statement" to be on the same playing field as the PotF it still has things in it that differ considerably to what Rockpond claims.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, the bond being father/child, not homosexual spouse.  It's not that complicated.

And as SeekingUnderstanding pointed out, they weren't just sealed to their new spiritual fathers, but to their new spiritual mothers as well.

Some think sealing means a marriage. I mean do some people envision a giant free for all orgy because we will all be sealed to each other?

[thesometimesaint]

I never said that. What I was looking for was something comparable to the proclamation of the family that was later "questioned". There is nothing comparable.

 

 

Is an I phone 5 the same thing as an I phone 6? Are there difference between the 2? Are they significant?

 

For one the proclamation was released in a very official way and was signed by all those that we call prophets. all 15 where in agreement. The "Statement" appears to be something that was clarifying doctrinal matters at the time and not released in the same manner.

Do you agree? 

 

However you still have another issue. And that is that in the statement there were things in it that fore told a time when the blacks would receive the priesthood. There have been absolutely 0 responses from the prophets that gay marriage will one day happen in the temple. So even if I took the "statement" to be on the same playing field as the PotF it still has things in it that differ considerably to what Rockpond claims.

 

All true, except that the PotF has never been put forward in GC for sustaining. Maybe next GC.

[JLHPROF]

Some think sealing means a marriage. I mean do some people envision a giant free for all orgy because we will all be sealed to each other?

 

This never ceases to amaze me.  There are two sealing ceremonies in the Church.  One seals a man and woman together as husband and wife for eternity.  The other seals children to their parents for eternity.

That's it, that's all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All true, except that the PotF has never been put forward in GC for sustaining. Maybe next GC.

OK yeah, that would be to canonize it, would that be right? Which I was never arguing for.

[thesometimesaint]

OK yeah, that would be to canonize it, would that be right? Which I was never arguing for.

 

It's a little more complicated than that. When we consider that the canon is our doctrine.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

Personally I think we still have many unresolved problems from the canon on a Mother-in-Heaven. Not that I'm opposed to it, but I do think we need more clarifying canon before we can accept her as doctrine.

[DJBrown]

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??

 

I believe that same-gender attraction is probably the result of many factors.  And I don't claim to understand it well.  

 

I do believe that it is temporary.  I know that can make a person feel invalidated.  That is not my intention.  I suppose for me, I go to the very basics- what do I really know.  

 

I think an individual with same-sex attraction who lives the commandments will one day be healed of the same-sex attraction.  Maybe it is like depression- Elder Holland's talk recently discussed how one day, at the resurrection, those who suffer their whole lives with depression will be free of it.  

Bottom line- I believe every person who obeys God's commandments will somehow, somewhere receive all that God promises them and be free from every emotional, psychological, or  physical difficulty.  And that includes same-sex attraction.

 

That probably does nothing in offering a satisfying answer.

[rockpond]

I never said that. What I was looking for was something comparable to the proclamation of the family that was later "questioned". There is nothing comparable.

 

 

Is an I phone 5 the same thing as an I phone 6? Are there difference between the 2? Are they significant?

 

For one the proclamation was released in a very official way and was signed by all those that we call prophets. all 15 where in agreement. The "Statement" appears to be something that was clarifying doctrinal matters at the time and not released in the same manner.

Do you agree? 

 

However you still have another issue. And that is that in the statement there were things in it that fore told a time when the blacks would receive the priesthood. There have been absolutely 0 responses from the prophets that gay marriage will one day happen in the temple. So even if I took the "statement" to be on the same playing field as the PotF it still has things in it that differ considerably to what Rockpond claims.

 

The point we were discussing (see post #205 on page 11) was that clear doctrines, taught by multiple prophets/apostles (even written and signed onto) can and have been later rejected.

Edited October 10, 2014 by rockpond

[california boy]

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.

Oh yeah.  Count me in.  I want a scepter that shoots out happiness.  If we are going to rule hell, we might as well have a fun time.

[Daniel2]

SCOTUS speaks again, lifting the ban in Idaho:

BREAKING NEWS: Idaho!

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/10/breaking-idaho-idaho-idaho.html?m=1#disqus_thread

From the National Center for Lesbian Rights:

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a request by State of Idaho officials to put on hold the federal appeals court decision that struck down as unconstitutional Idaho’s laws prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples. The Supreme Court’s decision allows the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to enter an order allowing its October 7th decision in the Idaho case to go into effect. Upon entry of such an order by the Ninth Circuit, the State of Idaho would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.

On October 7th, the Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 that Idaho’s ban on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Later that day, the Ninth Circuit ordered that its decision take effect immediately, which would have required Idaho to begin issuing marriage licenses the following morning.

On October 8th, United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily stayed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in response to a request by State of Idaho officials to keep that decision from taking effect while the state officials either ask for further review of the case by a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges or ask the Supreme Court to review the case. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court rejected that request and cleared the way for the Ninth Circuit to enter an order allowing its decision to take effect.

The four couples who successfully challenged Idaho’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples in the Ninth Circuit are represented by Boise attorneys Deborah A. Ferguson and Craig Durham of Ferguson Durham, PLLC, Deanne Maynard and Marc Hearron of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

It would seem the handwriting is on the wall.

[JLHPROF]

SCOTUS speaks again, lifting the ban in Idaho:

It would seem the handwriting is on the wall.

 

Agreed.  I think SSM will be 100% legal across the country within a few years (once every state has ruled any ban unconstitutional and every state has exhausted its appeals).

 

It won't take long until SSM is legal in every state.  The fight really is over (on this subject).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Agreed.  I think SSM will be 100% legal across the country within a few years (once every state has ruled any ban unconstitutional and every state has exhausted its appeals).

 

It won't take long until SSM is legal in every state.  The fight really is over (on this subject).

It really is a shame. Nothing like real freedom getting squashed all in the name of redefining something and in the name of making 2 things, that are not the same, the same.

[rockpond]

It really is a shame. Nothing like real freedom getting squashed all in the name of redefining something and in the name of making 2 things, that are not the same, the same.

 

What freedom has been "squashed"?

[JLHPROF]

Oh yeah.  Count me in.  I want a scepter that shoots out happiness.  If we are going to rule hell, we might as well have a fun time.

 

Well, you could do as Joseph said:

"And, if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it."

[The Nehor]

Oh yeah.  Count me in.  I want a scepter that shoots out happiness.  If we are going to rule hell, we might as well have a fun time.

Shoot it out of your stomach so we can make it a Care Bear Stare. Not sure if you are allowed to have happiness in hell though. Maybe shoot fun?