Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 So no Celestial Kingdom for faithful members if you don't get married in this life?No it isn't doctrine. What is doctrine is that you must be married. "In this life" is not in scripture.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) 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.Glad I am not the only one that thinks this. For some reason Rockpond thinks that "sexual orientation" is eternal. I have no idea were he gets this idea. Rockpond,Don't accuse me of speaking for you. You have stated that That you think it would be cruel to have members with SSA be celibate for all of eternity. You assume that SSA is eternal. Where is your evidence for your assertion that gay people will be celibate for all if eternity if they are not allowed to marry a person of the same sex? Edited October 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 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.Yes they do rule them out. When they say that "marriage is between a man and a woman" that rules out gay marriage right there. Your beef is with the word ordained. So God wills it, ie, ordains it but there is wiggle room for SSM how? The instruction is that a man and a woman are required to bring children into the world. gay people cannot do this. How does that square with anything you believe?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I don't. And you really ought to stop speaking for me. It's impolite and you are usually wrong.What ever you told me that you received a revelation that one day gay marriage will be in the temple we just have not received the revelation for the church. Any time we bring up what is official you constantly try and tell us that "nothing in there precludes gay marriage". It sounds as if you think you know more that that apostles. Gay marriage and acting on homosexual urges are a sin. They have proclaimed a sin for ages. You ignore the proclamation and its plain language. I have not once "spoken for you" I have interpreted what you said and you clearly think you know more than the apostles and prophets.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 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.I am sorry was this ever once printed in an official proclamation and signed by the 1st presidency and the quorum of the 12? The answer is no. You don't have a case.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 No it isn't doctrine. What is doctrine is that you must be married. "In this life" is not in scripture. From Section 132... 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they 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.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I am sorry was this ever once printed in an official proclamation and signed by the 1st presidency and the quorum of the 12? The answer is no. You don't have a case. The answer is yes: http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 From Section 132... 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they 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.So what of those that don't have the chance?
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 For some reason Rockpond thinks that "sexual orientation" is eternal. I have no idea were he gets this idea. I get it from the Proclamation: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." And I understand that they are not using the term "sexual orientation" because that's not really a term I see the Brethren using often. So I am not claiming that "sexual orientation being eternal" is a clear doctrine being taught by the Church. But that statement (and others similar to it) are where I personally get the idea and my own private belief that sexual orientation is eternal.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) The answer is yes: http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/Fail. The whole quorum did not sign it did they. BTW it is not a proclamation but a "statement". And there are other glaring issues with this that has no bearing on that of the PotF. Edited October 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I get it from the Proclamation: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." And I understand that they are not using the term "sexual orientation" because that's not really a term I see the Brethren using often. So I am not claiming that "sexual orientation being eternal" is a clear doctrine being taught by the Church. But that statement (and others similar to it) are where I personally get the idea and my own private belief that sexual orientation is eternal.And you are wrong. Do you know more the the prophets and apostles in this regard? They have never once even once hinted at this. Gender is not orientation. I think sexual orientation is a modern construct and really has no bearing in reality. Edited October 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 So what of those that don't have the chance? I think they'll still have a chance. What do you think?
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Fail. The whole quorum did not sign it did they. BTW it is not a proclamation but a "statement". And there are other glaring issues with this that has no bearing on that of the PotF. So you reject what was written and sent out by the First Presidency?
Buckeye Posted October 9, 2014 Author Posted October 9, 2014 I am sorry was this ever once printed in an official proclamation and signed by the 1st presidency and the quorum of the 12? The answer is no. You don't have a case. That the definition of 'official doctrine' may have changed in the present day does that alter the fact that Joseph and Brigham believed they alone could decide doctrine in their day. One of the main problems with the question "what is doctrine" is that the definition has changed over time. In 1949, the FP apparently thought they alone had authority to declare doctrine. Doctrinal statements by prior prophets, seers, and revelators cannot be undone by simply saying, "but it isn't doctrine under today's definition." If that were so, what would stop the FP/Q12/Q70 from saying 50 years from now, "we know that in prior days the FP/Q12 said SSM was sin, but since doctrine is defined only by a unified FP/Q12/Q70, that teaching was never doctrine"? Here's a sports example. Suppose that in 1960 BYU and Utah played basketball. At the time, there was no 3-point shot. The final score was Utah 60: BYU 56. But in 1976 the 3-point line was added. Suppose a BYU fan today were to pull video from the 1960 game and digitally impose a 3-point line on the court. Suppose that that line showed that BYU hit 7 more "3-pointers" than Utah, so that if played under today's rules, the final score would be Utah 63: BYU:66. Would it be reasonable to say that "BYU won the game"? Of course not. You can't apply new rules in the future to retroactively get a different score for a game that was finished years ago. Likewise, you can't apply the definition of "doctrine" that governs the church today to declarations of doctrine 50, 100, or 150 years ago.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Yes they do rule them out. When they say that "marriage is between a man and a woman" that rules out gay marriage right there. Your beef is with the word ordained. So God wills it, ie, ordains it but there is wiggle room for SSM how? The instruction is that a man and a woman are required to bring children into the world. gay people cannot do this. How does that square with anything you believe? The text of the Proclamation does not say "marriage is between a man and a woman". Can God only ordain one thing?
Calm Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) 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. ……. 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.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)? Edited October 9, 2014 by calmoriah
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 What ever you told me that you received a revelation that one day gay marriage will be in the temple we just have not received the revelation for the church. Any time we bring up what is official you constantly try and tell us that "nothing in there precludes gay marriage". It sounds as if you think you know more that that apostles. Gay marriage and acting on homosexual urges are a sin. They have proclaimed a sin for ages. You ignore the proclamation and its plain language. I have not once "spoken for you" I have interpreted what you said and you clearly think you know more than the apostles and prophets. Any revelation I have received is for me personally and does not apply to the church. I don't think that I know more than the apostles and prophets. Not even close. So, once again, you are incorrect about me.
Buckeye Posted October 9, 2014 Author Posted October 9, 2014 Fail. The whole quorum did not sign it did they. BTW it is not a proclamation but a "statement". And there are other glaring issues with this that has no bearing on that of the PotF. See my post 214. Also, regardless of the title of the document, the FP statement in 1949 (which was reissued under a new FP in 1951) referred to the now-repudiated teachings as "doctrine." They used the "D" word. Are you really suggesting that a member in 1949 could say, "yeah, I know the FP said this is doctrine, but they only did so in a 'statement' ... and besides, in a few decades the definition of doctrine will change ... so I don't need to abide by their teaching today because it isn't doctrine"? Of course not! 1
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 And you are wrong. Do you know more the the prophets and apostles in this regard? They have never once even once hinted at this. Gender is not orientation. I think sexual orientation is a modern construct and really has no bearing in reality. From MormonsandGays.org: The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. I am glad you are comfortable in your beliefs. I am as well.
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 The text of the Proclamation does not say "marriage is between a man and a woman". Can God only ordain one thing? "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." You are really splitting hairs here. I really cannot understand how you cannot see the equivalent statement in these sentences from the proclamation. "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." Is that really different than "marriage is between a man and a woman?"
SeekingUnderstanding 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. Do you really believe this as a possibility?It's important also to remember that adoption sealings were done to couples. For example John D Lee was sealed to Brigham and one of his wives. Not solely to Brigham. I don't think this is a valid precedent. I will add also, that while I a am a firm supporter of gay marriage, and while I see many parallels between the priesthood restriction and today's homosexuality, I think that the hope that the church can or will change on this issue is vain. One key relief valve on the priesthood restriction was the understanding that in the eternities past prophets had allowed for the possibility that Black Africans would receive full blessings (the Brethren were not unanimous on this as can be seen from some of Elder Peterson's talks). Because of this, we were able to get from the 1949 letter to the 1978 long promised day. I don't see any parallel here that would allow for gay marriage. Being gay is viewed as a temporary earthly affliction that will be resolved in the eternities. I hold out some (very) small hope that this could change in my lifetime, but I sincerely doubt it. If one of my sons is gay, I would advise him to prayfully make a decision, but if it were me, I would leave the church.
Buckeye Posted October 9, 2014 Author Posted October 9, 2014 ... You are really splitting hairs here. I really cannot understand how you cannot see the equivalent statement in these sentences from the proclamation. "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." Is that really different than "marriage is between a man and a woman?" For the record, I personally believe that the signers to the PotF believed (and still believe) it to teach that marriage is only between a man and woman. That said, I agree with Rockpond that the document can be read to allow for SSM. Consider the following sentence: "Reading the Old Testament is pleasing to God." If that statement is true, it does not mean that reading the New Testament is not pleading to God. Omission does not necessarily mean disapproval. God could easily approve of both. Likewise, the fact that male-female marriage is ordained of God does not necessarily mean that it is the only marriage ordained of God. I think that's what Rockpond is saying. It is technically correct. But also not what the authors of the document believe. FWIW, I think the strongest language in the PotF regarding SSM is the phrase "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother ..." Technically, this language can also be parsed to allow for SSM (at least child-less SSM), but that is not the intent of the authors. 2
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." Is that really different than "marriage is between a man and a woman?" Yes, it is really different. Those two sentences say different things.
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Being gay is viewed as a temporary earthly affliction that will be resolved in the eternities. Though there was a time when we taught that it was a choice and something that could be "routinely corrected" (Ref: Packer, To The One). So even our current view is exactly that... "current".
rockpond Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 If one of my sons is gay, I would advise him to prayfully make a decision, but if it were me, I would leave the church. I agree with you here. If one of my children is gay/lesbian I would support them in whatever decision they choose. And if they want to go to a different church that is more affirming and welcoming of homosexuals, I participate with them.
Recommended Posts