thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 It all goes back to the zeitgeist—the spirit of the times. The fact of the matter is that as time rolls forward, a greater and greater percentage of the population--both inside and outside the church--will see same-sex marriage as a good, virtuous thing. Sure, this will cause some tension between the Church, its members, and society at large. Some of the Mormons who are with the zeitgeist will leave the church over this issue. Others will stay and be gadflies. Still others will be quiet and faithful. People in that third group will include people at all ranks in the Church, many of whom will be moving up the hierarchy. Then there will be an announcement that God has heard the Mormons’ prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long promised day has come when the blessings of temple marriage will be extended to all… Don't hold your breath. 1
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 It all goes back to the zeitgeist—the spirit of the times. The fact of the matter is that as time rolls forward, a greater and greater percentage of the population--both inside and outside the church--will see same-sex marriage as a good, virtuous thing. Sure, this will cause some tension between the Church, its members, and society at large. Some of the Mormons who are with the zeitgeist will leave the church over this issue. Others will stay and be gadflies. Still others will be quiet and faithful. People in that third group will include people at all ranks in the Church, many of whom will be moving up the hierarchy. Then there will be an announcement that God has heard the Mormons’ prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long promised day has come when the blessings of temple marriage will be extended to all… Amen, Brother Analytics. I'll just add that everything you describe, except your final sentence, is already occurring. But will, of course, increase as you have noted.
DJBrown Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 It all goes back to the zeitgeist—the spirit of the times. The fact of the matter is that as time rolls forward, a greater and greater percentage of the population--both inside and outside the church--will see same-sex marriage as a good, virtuous thing. Sure, this will cause some tension between the Church, its members, and society at large. Some of the Mormons who are with the zeitgeist will leave the church over this issue. Others will stay and be gadflies. Still others will be quiet and faithful. People in that third group will include people at all ranks in the Church, many of whom will be moving up the hierarchy. Then there will be an announcement that God has heard the Mormons’ prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long promised day has come when the blessings of temple marriage will be extended to all… No offense, but I think this is extremely naive. How in the world can you reconcile same sex marriage with the plan of salvation (or the scriptures)? Temple marriage is the ordinance that is necessary for exaltation- meaning eternal increase and eternal life with one's spouse. Eternal increase- it all is based upon that. How in the world can two males or two females have eternal increase? Same-sex marriage is so antithetical to God and His plan for His children. It turns His work and glory on its head. Believing that we just have it wrong as a result of our earthly biases opens up such a huge can of worms, it is truly amazing to me that people believe that. If marriage is not really ordained of God to be only between a man and a women, then we really cannot claim to know anything about ourselves, God, or the universe. If that is true, we have no basis upon which to make a single faith claim. 1
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 No offense, but I think this is extremely naive. How in the world can you reconcile same sex marriage with the plan of salvation (or the scriptures)? Temple marriage is the ordinance that is necessary for exaltation- meaning eternal increase and eternal life with one's spouse. Eternal increase- it all is based upon that. How in the world can two males or two females have eternal increase? Same-sex marriage is so antithetical to God and His plan for His children. It turns His work and glory on its head. Believing that we just have it wrong as a result of our earthly biases opens up such a huge can of worms, it is truly amazing to me that people believe that. If marriage is not really ordained of God to be only between a man and a women, then we really cannot claim to know anything about ourselves, God, or the universe. If that is true, we have no basis upon which to make a single faith claim. I find it to be a rather myopic view to suggest that our entire claim to faith rests on an "eternal increase" that you define as requiring male/female. Some of us see the gospel and Christ's teachings in a very different way.
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 I find it to be a rather myopic view to suggest that our entire claim to faith rests on an "eternal increase" that you define as requiring male/female. Some of us see the gospel and Christ's teachings in a very different way. D&C 132 does disagree with you. 1
DJBrown Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 I find it to be a rather myopic view to suggest that our entire claim to faith rests on an "eternal increase" that you define as requiring male/female. Some of us see the gospel and Christ's teachings in a very different way. The point is that those we esteem as modern prophets, seers, and revelators have spoken more clearly, consistently, and emphatically about this topic than almost any other topic. And if we dismiss their position on this issue, we can do so with any topic- whether it is the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ- anything. If same sex marriage is on the table, everything is on the table. I honestly cannot understand how people can be familiar with the scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets and at the same time feel justified in following the lead of hollywood and politicians over apostles of Christ. This conflict and the associated trifling and dismissal of the Lord's servants is so incredibly predictable if one believes the scriptures. 1
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) The point is that those we esteem as modern prophets, seers, and revelators have spoken more clearly, consistently, and emphatically about this topic than almost any other topic. And if we dismiss their position on this issue, we can do so with any topic- whether it is the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ- anything. If same sex marriage is on the table, everything is on the table. By your logic, everything already IS on the table: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng, https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng,%C2'> I honestly cannot understand how people can be familiar with the scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets and at the same time feel justified in following the lead of hollywood and politicians over apostles of Christ. This conflict and the associated trifling and dismissal of the Lord's servants is so incredibly predictable if one believes the scriptures. My feelings and beliefs on this matter have nothing to do with Hollywood or politicians and everything to do with my faith in the gospel and plan of salvation. Edited October 8, 2014 by rockpond
Buckeye Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 No offense, but I think this is extremely naive. How in the world can you reconcile same sex marriage with the plan of salvation (or the scriptures)? Temple marriage is the ordinance that is necessary for exaltation- meaning eternal increase and eternal life with one's spouse. Eternal increase- it all is based upon that. How in the world can two males or two females have eternal increase? Same-sex marriage is so antithetical to God and His plan for His children. It turns His work and glory on its head. Believing that we just have it wrong as a result of our earthly biases opens up such a huge can of worms, it is truly amazing to me that people believe that. If marriage is not really ordained of God to be only between a man and a women, then we really cannot claim to know anything about ourselves, God, or the universe. If that is true, we have no basis upon which to make a single faith claim. While not advocating for a change of church doctrine, I can envision a way to unify homosexual marriages with eternal increase. It comes by focusing on Christ, to whom we give the title Father, but who we clearly do not believe has any procreative role for us. If Christ can be a father then fatherhood (and parenthood) does not need to be tied to sexual reproduction, whether in this life or in the eternities. For me, parenthood is about giving up oneself for the betterment of another who has not progressed as far. It is about sacrificing one's own interests to give another what they cannot provide for themselves. To understand this point, I highly recommend Sister Dew's 2001 conference address "Are We Not All Mothers" (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng) in which she argues that all women are mothers even if they do not bear children. I agree. Bearing children certainly is one way to practice parenthood, but it is not a requirement to be a parent. Christ became our Father by condescending to our level, sacrificing his time, resources, and even life for us, and providing teachings and examples so we could become like him. In a similar manner, my parents condescended to my level, sacrificed their time, resources, and in a real sense their lives for me, and provided me with teachings and examples so I could become like them. I try to emulate their example is performing the same work for my biological children. My sister and her husband (who together cannot have children) have been blessed to adopt a child. Watching them, I see that they are parents to their adopted child in the fullest sense, the same degree I am for my biological children. If heterosexuals, such as my sister and her husband, can be parents without reproduction, I cannot see why homosexuals cannot perform the same labor. In fact, I do see them perform the same labor. If you really want to understand better, try inviting a gay family to your house for dinner and listening as they explain the labor they do for their children and the blessing that marriage is (or could be) in their life. You may find, as I have, that your eyes are opened to possibilities you knew not. Final note. I am not convinced there will be homosexuals in the next life because I'm not convinced there will be any sexuality. Regardless, I am convinced that those who identify as homosexuals in this life can and will be parents in the next because I see them serving as parents here and now. 2
Analytics Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 No offense, but I think this is extremely naive. How in the world can you reconcile same sex marriage with the plan of salvation (or the scriptures)? Temple marriage is the ordinance that is necessary for exaltation- meaning eternal increase and eternal life with one's spouse. Eternal increase- it all is based upon that. How in the world can two males or two females have eternal increase?... With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 4
Buckeye Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 I honestly cannot understand how people can be familiar with the scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets and at the same time feel justified in following the lead of hollywood and politicians over apostles of Christ. This conflict and the associated trifling and dismissal of the Lord's servants is so incredibly predictable if one believes the scriptures. I echo Rockpond. If you really want to understand, stop assuming the basis for conversion is Hollywood and politicians. Talk to us and really listen. The Mormons I know who support civil SSM, do not do so because of popularity (we face significant opposition in our families and wards), but because we've seen the fruit of SS families and judge the fruit to be good. At the same time, I do not condemn my family or church leaders who see things different. Time may prove their view correct, in which case I would confess my error and repent. But time can also prove my view correct. Peter initially was convinced that the gospel could not be taken to the gentiles. But then a new apostle joined the quorum and the eyes of Peter's understanding were expanded. 2
DJBrown Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 By your logic, everything already IS on the table: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng, My feelings and beliefs on this matter have nothing to do with Hollywood or politicians and everything to do with my faith in the gospel and plan of salvation. That essay does not state that the prohibition was wrong. That is a big detail to consider. I do not think the brethren were wrong. More than one prophet prayed for guidance on the topic and felt the Lord did not want the policy changed at the time. Not having an explanation for the Lord's answer does not mean the Lord was wrong. Nothing to do with Hollywood or politicians? Society (which I represented as Hollywood and politicians) has not had an influence on your position on same sex marriage? I find that hard to believe. Have you ever held the belief than same sex marriage was wrong? If so, what led to the change? We are all enormously influence by the chronocentric nature of society. That is why we look down our noses at polygamy and many other practices of former generations. 1
DJBrown Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. With that logic, with God, good can actually be bad and bad can be good. You can apply that to anything. With God, it is possible that my cheating on my wife is actually not a bad thing. 1
Buckeye Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 That essay does not state that the prohibition was wrong. That is a big detail to consider. I do not think the brethren were wrong. More than one prophet prayed for guidance on the topic and felt the Lord did not want the policy changed at the time. Not having an explanation for the Lord's answer does not mean the Lord was wrong. Nothing to do with Hollywood or politicians? Society (which I represented as Hollywood and politicians) has not had an influence on your position on same sex marriage? I find that hard to believe. Have you ever held the belief than same sex marriage was wrong? If so, what led to the change? We are all enormously influence by the chronocentric nature of society. That is why we look down our noses at polygamy and many other practices of former generations. The essay on the priesthood ban says that the justifications for the ban are wrong (they are "repudiated"). Regardless of whether the ban itself was wrong, prophets and apostles in previous ages taught those justifications that are now repudiated (try googling "1949 first presidency statement) and therefore taught incorrectly. There's simply no getting around that. You are correct that our society shapes the bounds of what we can consider. (That's true for you too) For myself, I can say that most of Hollywood's teachings have been a hindrance to my support of SSM. Gay pride parades turn me away. What has lead to my conversion is coming to know actual gay families in my work and community. They convinced me to judge them on their own merits (not by the flamboyant displays of others). It is just as wrong to judge gay marriages by what happens at a gay pride parade, as it is to judge straight marriages by what happens at Mardi Gras. As for polygamy, I'm open to that practice so long as all marriage partners are wholly supportive. I'm hopeful that someday the US will come around to apologizing for its wrongful condemnation of Mormon polygamy in the 1800s. It would poetic justice if the gay marriage movement helped that reconciliation to happen. 3
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) That essay does not state that the prohibition was wrong. That is a big detail to consider. I do not think the brethren were wrong. More than one prophet prayed for guidance on the topic and felt the Lord did not want the policy changed at the time. Not having an explanation for the Lord's answer does not mean the Lord was wrong. Nothing to do with Hollywood or politicians? Society (which I represented as Hollywood and politicians) has not had an influence on your position on same sex marriage? I find that hard to believe. Have you ever held the belief than same sex marriage was wrong? If so, what led to the change? We are all enormously influence by the chronocentric nature of society. That is why we look down our noses at polygamy and many other practices of former generations. You said that we can't dismiss the positions taught by our prophets/seers/revelators. The essay I linked to does exactly that. There was a time when I opposed SSM. What led to the change? Serving as YM Pres & an early morning seminary teacher to gay YM. That prompted me to really study it out and to pray. And that led to the change. p.s. I don't look down my nose at polygamy. So maybe I'm not so influenced by the chronocentric nature of society as you might believe. Edited October 8, 2014 by rockpond 2
Calm Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 "People in that third group will include people at all ranks in the Church, many of whom will be moving up the hierarchy. Then there will be an announcement that God has heard the Mormons’ prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long promised day has come when the blessings of temple marriage will be extended to all…" Right…because those who are in the only position that could actually change doctrine so significant, apostles, are the types that keep silent about their true beliefs and ideas and are willing to do so for decades while serving in various leadership positions, lying about sustaining prophets, teaching what they don't believe in, etc. etc. just so they can get to the top ranks and manipulate changes for the Church to match what they think is important…. 2
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 "People in that third group will include people at all ranks in the Church, many of whom will be moving up the hierarchy. Then there will be an announcement that God has heard the Mormons’ prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long promised day has come when the blessings of temple marriage will be extended to all…" Right…because those who are in the only position that could actually change doctrine so significant, apostles, are the types that keep silent about their true beliefs and ideas and are willing to do so for decades while serving in various leadership positions, lying about sustaining prophets, teaching what they don't believe in, etc. etc. just so they can get to the top ranks and manipulate changes for the Church to match what they think is important…. I don't think that Analytics was suggesting any form of deceit or malevolence in those individuals. Just that as this younger generation of leaders ages in the church, they will carry with them different attitudes and "softer" beliefs with respect to homosexuality. Just as now, I am aware of other bishopric members who are not opposed to gay marriage. There will likely soon (if not already) be stake presidency members who support gay marriage. And so the story goes.
ksfisher Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 There was a time when I opposed SSM. What led to the change? Serving as YM Pres & an early morning seminary teacher to gay YM. That prompted me to really study it out and to pray. And that led to the change. Why would the Lord reveal this to you and not the prophet. Why would the prophet and apostles continue to preach against SSM and uphold the traditional family if He was revealing to individual members that SSM was ok?
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Why would the Lord reveal this to you and not the prophet. Why would the prophet and apostles continue to preach against SSM and uphold the traditional family if He was revealing to individual members that SSM was ok? My guess -- for the same reason that temple marriage and the priesthood was denied to an entire race for over a century. Whatever reason that is... it seems like they might be linked. p.s. I also firmly uphold the traditional family.
Analytics Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 I don't think that Analytics was suggesting any form of deceit or malevolence in those individuals. Just that as this younger generation of leaders ages in the church, they will carry with them different attitudes and "softer" beliefs with respect to homosexuality. Just as now, I am aware of other bishopric members who are not opposed to gay marriage. There will likely soon (if not already) be stake presidency members who support gay marriage. And so the story goes. Exactly. I described the third group as "quiet and faithful," not a deceitful fifth column. Imagine a Saint with the attitude of, "my personal inclination would be to accept same-sex marriages in the church. However, because I sustain the Prophet, I keep my personal inclination on the matter on a back shelf and follow the bretheren on the matter." I predict people with that attitude will be successful in the Church, and will eventually be in charge. 1
ksfisher Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 My guess -- for the same reason that temple marriage and the priesthood was denied to an entire race for over a century. Whatever reason that is... it seems like they might be linked. p.s. I also firmly uphold the traditional family. I don't think you answered my question, perhaps my fault for phrasing it poorly. What I'm asking is why would the spirit tell the members of the church one thing, and the apostles and prophets something different? Would not the spirit then be divided? Wouldn't that cause the membership of the church to lose faith in the ability of the leaders of the church?
ksfisher Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Exactly. I described the third group as "quiet and faithful," not a deceitful fifth column. Imagine a Saint with the attitude of, "my personal inclination would be to accept same-sex marriages in the church. However, because I sustain the Prophet, I keep my personal inclination on the matter on a back shelf and follow the bretheren on the matter." I predict people with that attitude will be successful in the Church, and will eventually be in charge. So these people are saying "I don't believe what the prophet teaches, but I'll follow him anyway?" And these people are whom the Lord will one day choose to lead the church? 1
DJBrown Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Exactly. I described the third group as "quiet and faithful," not a deceitful fifth column. Imagine a Saint with the attitude of, "my personal inclination would be to accept same-sex marriages in the church. However, because I sustain the Prophet, I keep my personal inclination on the matter on a back shelf and follow the bretheren on the matter." I predict people with that attitude will be successful in the Church, and will eventually be in charge. I think a statement from President Lynn G. Robbins from Sunday's session of General Conference is relevant: "Lowering the Lord’s standards to the level of a society’s inappropriate behavior is—apostasy. Many of the churches among the Nephites two centuries after the Savior’s visit to them began to “dumb down” the doctrine, borrowing a phrase from Elder Holland. As you listen to this passage from 4 Nephi, look for parallels in our day: “And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness” (4 Nephi 1:27)." 2
Analytics Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) So these people are saying "I don't believe what the prophet teaches, but I'll follow him anyway?" And these people are whom the Lord will one day choose to lead the church? God choses people based upon their loyalty to the Church, their obedience, and their talents--not upon how easily they accept everything the Prophet says without thought, question, or doubt. If His plan is to someday reveal great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God, He will likely choose somebody in whose heart He has already planted the inclination to understand and accept those things. I think a statement from President Lynn G. Robbins from Sunday's session of General Conference is relevant: "Lowering the Lord’s standards to the level of a society’s inappropriate behavior is—apostasy. Many of the churches among the Nephites two centuries after the Savior’s visit to them began to “dumb down” the doctrine, borrowing a phrase from Elder Holland.... Did the Church lower the Lord's standards when they finally decided blacks could hold the priesthood? There is a difference between raising standards and lowering standards. Edited October 8, 2014 by Analytics 2
Stone holm Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Well, it's a very big deal for gay people and their loved ones. But I don't think that's what you were asking.It's a big deal for gays and it has been a big deal politically because it used to be a wedge issue, but there are so many Log Cabin Republicans, that for the most part both parties would like it to just go away. Its likely to simmer just below overt expression in parts of the South, but as the years go by, it will be less of a issue as fewer and fewer GAs find it distasteful to pick at the issue. I think, however, that Mormonism will have morphed into something doctrinally foreign if SSM is ever accepted in the Temple because it is structurally incompatible with our view of the hereafter. We may see women holding the PRiesthood, but not SSM in the Temple. It will be like coffee and alcohol, fine for you, but none for me thanks.
Recommended Posts