thesometimesaint Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 From MormonsandGays.org as well as other similar statements by prophets and apostles: "Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next." Not really an answer. We Seal man and woman in the Temple as husband and wife. Not man and man as husband and wife.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 D&C 132 15-19 disagrees. Those verses teach that if you don't marry in the covenant in this life that you "neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory". The Church no longer stands by that doctrine. From MormonsandGays.org as well as other similar statements by prophets and apostles: "Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next." Not really an answer. We Seal man and woman in the Temple as husband and wife. Not man and man as husband and wife. I've copied in the string of replies above. The scriptures you cited teach that you must marry in the covenant in this life or you will not be married or given in marriage in the next life. But we have disregarded those verses in our teaching that a gay person who lives a celibate worthy life will be blessed with an eternal marriage and all associated blessings.
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Wrong. What both Rockpond and I have stated repeatedly is that God has not revealed his will on this subject. No revelation has come. Of all the doctrines of the church, temple marriage has been the one that has changed the most. If you were to ask a prophet of the church in 1830, what the will of God was on marriage, they would have said marriage is one man and one woman If you were to ask a prophet what temple marriage was in 1840's and for the next 50 years, they would state emphatically that temple marriage is one man, many women. That doctrine was introduced by Joseph Smith himself.Him and Brigham Young would be rolling over in their graves if the church changed that doctrine, If you were to ask a prophet what temple marriage was in 1900's until 1978 what temple marriage was, they would say One man, one woman, no blacks. Now if you ask a prophet what temple marriage is, they are saying marriage is between one man and one woman. So which prophet understands the will of the Lord better? And is it possible that doctrine can change once again? So what do you think The Family: A Proclamation To The World is? (Not to mention the many, many, many statements from the brethren on this specific topic since)
thesometimesaint Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I've copied in the string of replies above. The scriptures you cited teach that you must marry in the covenant in this life or you will not be married or given in marriage in the next life. But we have disregarded those verses in our teaching that a gay person who lives a celibate worthy life will be blessed with an eternal marriage and all associated blessings. It is still a requirement that you must be Sealed in marriage in the Temple in this life, either for yourself or for others, to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. There is no other provision, and we don't Seal homosexual couples. There is no sin in being tempted. It is what we actually do that is determinative. What we have abandoned is the idea that the mere temptation is a sin. So yes a person can be tempted by homosexuality and still receive all the blessing of the Celestial Kingdom.
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 So what do you think The Family: A Proclamation To The World is? (Not to mention the many, many, many statements from the brethren on this specific topic since) You really don't have an answer to my post do you. I could cite you more statements by prophets of God that state Celestial Marriage is a polygamist marriage. I could cite you more statements by prophets proclaiming that blacks can not be married in the temple until all the sons of Adam get their chance first. So will the real prophet who knows the unchangeable will of God on marriage please stand up. Or perhaps they are all right in the time they lived. I am not stating that the current prophet doesn't believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I am only stating that the concept of marriage and what it is has changed so many times in the history of the church, that it has become the single most changed piece of doctrine the church claims. And as such it is not unrealistic to believe that it can change again to simply state "The time has come when all of worthy members can now partake of the blessings of temple marriage." God seems to be pretty fluid on what temple marriage is. When that day comes, gay members will have a place in the plan of salvation just like every other child of God. Marriage for all fits more into the plan of salvation than a doctrine of celibacy in this life and for eternity or marrying someone you are not attracted to for eternity. Creating worlds without end and spirit children through the power of the priesthood sounds more in keeping with the plan of salvation than eternal pregnancies. We already know that male Gods created the earth, or has that doctrine changed as well?? And we aren't really sure that eternal pregnancies for the daughters of God is what is in store for them in the next life. Or do you have a reference that is how spirit children are created?? 1
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 It is still a requirement that you must be Sealed in marriage in the Temple in this life, either for yourself or for others, to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. There is no other provision, and we don't Seal homosexual couples. There is no sin in being tempted. It is what we actually do that is determinative. What we have abandoned is the idea that the mere temptation is a sin. So yes a person can be tempted by homosexuality and still receive all the blessing of the Celestial Kingdom. 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. 1
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 You really don't have an answer to my post do you. I could cite you more statements by prophets of God that state Celestial Marriage is a polygamist marriage. I could cite you more statements by prophets proclaiming that blacks can not be married in the temple until all the sons of Adam get their chance first. So will the real prophet who knows the unchangeable will of God on marriage please stand up. Or perhaps they are all right in the time they lived. I am not stating that the current prophet doesn't believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I am only stating that the concept of marriage and what it is has changed so many times in the history of the church, that it has become the single most changed piece of doctrine the church claims. And as such it is not unrealistic to believe that it can change again to simply state "The time has come when all of worthy members can now partake of the blessings of temple marriage." God seems to be pretty fluid on what temple marriage is. When that day comes, gay members will have a place in the plan of salvation just like every other child of God. Marriage for all fits more into the plan of salvation than a doctrine of celibacy in this life and for eternity or marrying someone you are not attracted to for eternity. Creating worlds without end and spirit children through the power of the priesthood sounds more in keeping with the plan of salvation than eternal pregnancies. We already know that male Gods created the earth, or has that doctrine changed as well?? And we aren't really sure that eternal pregnancies for the daughters of God is what is in store for them in the next life. Or do you have a reference that is how spirit children are created?? I am responding to your claim that there has not been a revelation on the matter of same-sex marriage. And I do not know what you think constitutes a "revelation" if it is not a "proclamation" by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles. I heard with my own ears Elder Ballard state that every single word in that proclamation was studied, prayed over, and chosen very carefully. And since it was first released 19 years ago, it has been a standard and reference point for the church and its leaders in countless ways. You might think it is no different, but it is different when those fifteen men make a proclamation in such a manner. The doctrine of eternal marriage has not changed. Policies have changed. And Jacob 2 alludes to that possibility for change. And the prohibition on blacks receiving those blessings was understood as a temporary policy- they knew there would come a day when the Lord would extend the blessings to them. There wasn't a change in doctrine. And as evidence of that, one man can currently be sealed to multiple women. A change that allowed same sex marriage would turn the doctrine of eternal families on its head along with so much of the restored gospel. As far as the mechanism by which procreation occurs in the eternities- we don't know. But we know that the earthly form is modeled after the Celestial form- requiring male and female. Homosexual individuals have "a place" in the plan of salvation now. We all have the natural man to overcome. Do alcoholics not have a place in the plan of salvation? A change in our doctrine that accepted same sex marriage would be next to a change allowing for murder. Don't murderers have a place in the plan of salvation? (Note- I am not saying homosexual behavior is on the same plane as murder. But sexual sin is second only to murder according to our canon).
DJBrown 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. Celestial marriage is required for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. There are two other orders in that Kingdom that do not require celestial marriage.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I am responding to your claim that there has not been a revelation on the matter of same-sex marriage. And I do not know what you think constitutes a "revelation" if it is not a "proclamation" by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles. I heard with my own ears Elder Ballard state that every single word in that proclamation was studied, prayed over, and chosen very carefully. And since it was first released 19 years ago, it has been a standard and reference point for the church and its leaders in countless ways. Perhaps you should inform Elder Packer. In his October 2010 conference address he called it a revelation, but later retracted this in the printed version of his talk. Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Perhaps you should inform Elder Packer. In his October 2010 conference address he called it a revelation, but later retracted this in the printed version of his talk. So you conclude that the Proclamation was not a revelation? You really think you can speak on the reason for any change between what the President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles stated in conference and what was produced in the Ensign?
thesometimesaint 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. Yes. I know the doctrine. It is hard and fast rule that we must be Sealed in marriage in this life to gain the Celestial Kingdom. Either for ourselves or by proxy for others whom are dead. We still Seal men to men. I'm sealed to my parents(Dad) neither one whom were members of the Church at their deaths. Whom I'm not Sealed in marriage to is my dad. JS, or any other Prophet was not Sealed in marriage to any other man. The issue of ordaining of black members is a Red Herring. No one will be denied any blessing based on skin color, or lack of Priesthood in this life. IE; Women do not currently hold the Priesthood. They can receive every blessing of the Priesthood either through their husband or Bishop.
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Yes. I know the doctrine. It is hard and fast rule that we must be Sealed in marriage in this life to gain the Celestial Kingdom. Either for ourselves or by proxy for others whom are dead. We still Seal men to men. I'm sealed to my parents(Dad) neither one whom were members of the Church at their deaths. Whom I'm not Sealed in marriage to is my dad. JS, or any other Prophet was not Sealed in marriage to any other man. The issue of ordaining of black members is a Red Herring. No one will be denied any blessing based on skin color, or lack of Priesthood in this life. IE; Women do not currently hold the Priesthood. They can receive every blessing of the Priesthood either through their husband or Bishop.So no Celestial Kingdom for faithful members if you don't get married in this life? That is the doctrine? The sealings I am referring to during the time of Joseph Smith were not father to son, they were a man to a man not related to each other. I think that is what gay couples are once again looking forward to the church going back to. And are you really saying it is a red herring that blacks were not allowed the blessings of temple marriage because of their skin color?? Am I missing something here??
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 It is still a requirement that you must be Sealed in marriage in the Temple in this life, either for yourself or for others, to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. There is no other provision, and we don't Seal homosexual couples. There is no sin in being tempted. It is what we actually do that is determinative. What we have abandoned is the idea that the mere temptation is a sin. So yes a person can be tempted by homosexuality and still receive all the blessing of the Celestial Kingdom. But that isn't what your scripture citation says. It says that in order to enjoy marriage and the full blessings of exaltation, you need to be married in the covenant in THIS life. And yet we now have the promise from prophets and apostles that if you are gay and celibate (never partaking of a temple marriage in this life) then you can still receive an eternal marriage and all the blessings of it in the next life. So you can't use those verses in Section 132 to tell me I'm wrong in my beliefs because those verses have been disregarded by the current prophets/seers/revelators.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 So you conclude that the Proclamation was not a revelation? It is not a revelation. Read the text. It's not written as a revelation. It doesn't even claim to be a revelation. It has not been called a revelation other than the retracted statement by President Packer. More importantly -- it says nothing about homosexuality or SSM so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up as revealed truth from God about homosexuality and SSM. 2
thesometimesaint Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 So no Celestial Kingdom for faithful members if you don't get married in this life? That is the doctrine? The sealings I am referring to during the time of Joseph Smith were not father to son, they were a man to a man not related to each other. I think that is what gay couples are once again looking forward to the church going back to. And are you really saying it is a red herring that blacks were not allowed the blessings of temple marriage because of their skin color?? Am I missing something here?? That's not what I said. The ceremony must be done in this life either for ourselves while living or by proxy after we are dead. Again JS was not Sealed in marriage to other men. They were Sealed in as the family of JS. We don't know the reason(s) for the Ban on Priesthood. Every rationale given so far has been denied, including that of skin color.
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 It is not a revelation. Read the text. It's not written as a revelation. It doesn't even claim to be a revelation. It has not been called a revelation other than the retracted statement by President Packer. More importantly -- it says nothing about homosexuality or SSM so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up as revealed truth from God about homosexuality and SSM. Revelation vs. divine doctrine. Is there really a difference. Call it what you want. Is there any reason to think it is not the will of the Lord? I don't think so. The proclamation "says nothing about homosexuality or ssm?" Wow. I see it in every single paragraph. It could not be any clearer in that document that God see marriage as only between a man and a woman. Yours is a truly amazing claim from my perspective. 1
california boy Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I am responding to your claim that there has not been a revelation on the matter of same-sex marriage. And I do not know what you think constitutes a "revelation" if it is not a "proclamation" by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles. I heard with my own ears Elder Ballard state that every single word in that proclamation was studied, prayed over, and chosen very carefully. And since it was first released 19 years ago, it has been a standard and reference point for the church and its leaders in countless ways. You might think it is no different, but it is different when those fifteen men make a proclamation in such a manner. I always thought one of the unique doctrines of Mormonism is the belief in modern revelation by a prophet of God not a committee carefully wording a guide to it's members. When did our definition of revelation become the same as any protestant church who gather leadership together to determine doctrine???? As one thread has asked, are we now a church of "best hunches"? The doctrine of eternal marriage has not changed. Policies have changed. And Jacob 2 alludes to that possibility for change. And the prohibition on blacks receiving those blessings was understood as a temporary policy- they knew there would come a day when the Lord would extend the blessings to them. There wasn't a change in doctrine. And as evidence of that, one man can currently be sealed to multiple women. So Joseph Smith's revelations of polygamy were just policy changes? President Kimballs revelation on allowing blacks to receive temple marriage was just a policy change? Well I guess temple marriage for all worthy members would be just a policy change as well. A change that allowed same sex marriage would turn the doctrine of eternal families on its head along with so much of the restored gospel. How would that doctrine change? Are gay couples not allowed eternal families in the restored gospel?As far as the mechanism by which procreation occurs in the eternities- we don't know. But we know that the earthly form is modeled after the Celestial form- requiring male and female. Homosexual individuals have "a place" in the plan of salvation now. We all have the natural man to overcome. Do alcoholics not have a place in the plan of salvation? So tell me, what place do homosexual individuals have in the plan of salvation now? A change in our doctrine that accepted same sex marriage would be next to a change allowing for murder. Don't murderers have a place in the plan of salvation? (Note- I am not saying homosexual behavior is on the same plane as murder. But sexual sin is second only to murder according to our canon). You are going to have to explain this one. If God states that the law of chastity is no sex outside the bonds of marriage and now all worthy members can be married in the temple, how is that like murder?
Daniel2 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 From MormonsandGays.org as well as other similar statements by prophets and apostles: "Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next."Wow. That was an exceptional answer to the CFR. 3
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Revelation vs. divine doctrine. Is there really a difference. Call it what you want. Is there any reason to think it is not the will of the Lord? I don't think so. The proclamation "says nothing about homosexuality or ssm?" Wow. I see it in every single paragraph. It could not be any clearer in that document that God see marriage as only between a man and a woman. Yours is a truly amazing claim from my perspective. It may be clear to you but the text doesn't say or imply that God sees marriage as "only between a man and a woman". There is just nothing in there about homosexuality.
Analytics Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 ...The issue of ordaining of black members is a Red Herring. No one will be denied any blessing based on skin color, or lack of Priesthood in this life. IE; Women do not currently hold the Priesthood. They can receive every blessing of the Priesthood either through their husband or Bishop. An interesting case study is that of Dr. Lowry Nelson. Dr. Nelson was a faithful Mormon socioligist who was asked by a mission president friend if there were enough people with "pure white blood" in Cuba to justify establishing the Church there. Dr. Nelson made a detailed reply that mainly said, "the attitude of the Church in regard to the negro makes me very sad." He went into great detail about his views on race and how he thought the Church was wrong on the matter. A letter exchange ensued with the First Presidency. With 20/20 hindsight, Dr. Nelson had views that were absolutely correct and were eventually adapted by the Church, while the First Presidency ended up looking like old bigots. Scanned copies of the letters are here: https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n0/mode/2up If you can see how time has vindicated Dr. Nelson in his disagreement with Geroge Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay, then it's easy to imagine time could vindicate rockpond with what he is saying here. 2
SmileyMcGee Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) So what I seem to be understanding from this is that you believe that you and Rockpond understand the will of the Lord in this matter, and that His chosen apostles and prophets do not. Is that a fair summary? Let's first provide good support for the assumptions that the 15 are actually god's prophets and what they say is god's word... Edited October 9, 2014 by SmileyMcGee
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I always thought one of the unique doctrines of Mormonism is the belief in modern revelation by a prophet of God not a committee carefully wording a guide to it's members. When did our definition of revelation become the same as any protestant church who gather leadership together to determine doctrine???? As one thread has asked, are we now a church of "best hunches"? So Joseph Smith's revelations of polygamy were just policy changes? President Kimballs revelation on allowing blacks to receive temple marriage was just a policy change? Well I guess temple marriage for all worthy members would be just a policy change as well. How would that doctrine change? Are gay couples not allowed eternal families in the restored gospel? So tell me, what place do homosexual individuals have in the plan of salvation now? You are going to have to explain this one. If God states that the law of chastity is no sex outside the bonds of marriage and now all worthy members can be married in the temple, how is that like murder? For me, the statements of any of the apostles are authoritative. But some folks think statements are only binding or significant when they are in the form of a proclamation from all 15 apostles. Either way, I think they have made authoritative and clear statements about same-sex marriage. Yes- the change in the practice of polygamy was not a change of doctrine. Same with blacks and the Priesthood. In both of these instances, it is a matter of timing. When the Lord feels it is necessary, He ordains or commands polygamy to be practiced. Outside of those commands, it is wrong and sinful. With the Priesthood, it was a matter of timing- waiting for the Lord to reveal His will on ordaining black members. You may disagree, but the precedent for such things is clearly found in the Bible with Israel and the preaching of the gospel. It is now an extremely clear doctrine that any sexual relations between members of the same sex is sinful- in any context. Unlike polygamy, there has never been a time when anybody was given any reason through the prophets to think that homosexual relations are not sinful. No. Gay couples "are not allowed eternal families in the eternities." The foundation of those unions is sinful. There is absolutely nothing in our canon or prophetic teachings to suggest any acceptable context for homosexuality. If you want to suggest that there is an acceptable context, than can also conjecture that there could be a possible acceptable context for anything. Hence my statement above to murder (or any other sin). 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.
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 It may be clear to you but the text doesn't say or imply that God sees marriage as "only between a man and a woman". There is just nothing in there about homosexuality. "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children." "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." "THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." These are the most obvious statements that rule out homosexual relationships as being acceptable in the eyes of God. 1
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 It is now an extremely clear doctrine that any sexual relations between members of the same sex is sinful- in any context. Unlike polygamy, there has never been a time when anybody was given any reason through the prophets to think that homosexual relations are not sinful. The following were also held to be "extremely clear doctrines" at one point but not now. Things change in this church. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.” The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. Both of those statements were made & repeated by men we sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Even extremely clear doctrine can change.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children." "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." "THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." These are the most obvious statements that rule out homosexual relationships as being acceptable in the eyes of God. They don't rule out homosexual relationships. They only say that God ordains marriage between man and woman. I'm not suggesting that He doesn't. Nor am I in any way suggesting that man/woman marriage isn't essential to His eternal plan. I firmly believe in everything you've quoted there.
Recommended Posts