Could Matthew 19 Pave The Way For Gay Marriage In The Church?

[blooit]

 

The scriptures are full of example of the Lord adjusting "the gospel" based on the overwhelming culture of the time. The law of moses, in fact, is a religious law adapted to the needs of the society of that time. Early saints were released from their obligation to build the temple in Missouri. The examples go on and on.

Talking about divorce, Jesus said:
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So even with the new gospel that Jesus brought, he allowed for divorce even though the fullness of the gospel does not allow for it. This is because of "the hardness of your hearts." Many believed (or may still believe) that polygamy was eliminated because of the hardness of the hearts of the United States. Could a similar situation occur here, regarding gay marriage? Could the church basically say, "you forced this on us... the responsibility is on you" but then allow it?

10 ¶His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I found these scriptures interesting. I've never really studied them in depth, but could "eunuchs from birth" be homosexuals too?

I'm not advocating for anything here, but recognizing that I've seen dramatic swings in many areas in the church in my short 40 years, and there were many before that. I'm also convinced that God often makes pretty big adjustments based on the condition of the surrounding world at that time. I'm not for it, just starting to wonder if it is more possible than I had ever considered.

 

I'm not sure I mean temple marriage.  I think (if it were to happen at all) it would be simply a refusing to discipline monogamous, legally married gay couples.

Edited October 14, 2014 by blooit

[JAHS]

Nope. The church will never allow gay married couples to be members of the church. They will always be welcome to attend church, but not as active members.

I know we should never say never, but this a line that I am sure will never be crossed.

[Avatar4321]

Eunuchs don have sex. I don't think gays would qualify

[Rob Osborn]

Gay marriage is an abomination.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Gay marriage is an abomination.

 

Says you...

[Boanerges]

Nope. The church will never allow gay married couples to be members of the church. They will always be welcome to attend church, but not as active members.

I know we should never say never, but this a line that I am sure will never be crossed.

Elder Christofferson's brother? Are you unaware of his situation? While I don't know that he is actually married, he does live in a relationship which his bishop is fully aware of. he is also active and holds a calling.

[thesometimesaint]

Gay marriage is an abomination.

 

So are a lot of other things that we accept now without hesitation. but I don't believe we'll ever accept SSM in the Church.

[JAHS]

Elder Christofferson's brother? Are you unaware of his situation? While I don't know that he is actually married, he does live in a relationship which his bishop is fully aware of. he is also active and holds a calling.

Then he is probably not actually married.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Says you...

Wait, no prophet or apostle ever came out and said it was good and wholesome thing that was ordained of God?

 

 

Yup, that is what I thought.

[Buzzard]

Elder Christofferson's brother? Are you unaware of his situation? While I don't know that he is actually married, he does live in a relationship which his bishop is fully aware of. he is also active and holds a calling.

What calling would that be? Because he may attend church, but he was excommunicated years ago and has not been re-baptized. 

[Rock_N_Roll]

Wait, no prophet or apostle ever came out and said it was good and wholesome thing that was ordained of God?

 

 

Yup, that is what I thought.

 

Nope, and they never said it was "an abomination" either. 

[Rob Osborn]

Says you...

Says God...

[Rock_N_Roll]

Says God...

 

CFR

[Rob Osborn]

CFR

Its called the Bible.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR

Lev. 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

[JLHPROF]

 

So even with the new gospel that Jesus brought, he allowed for divorce even though the fullness of the gospel does not allow for it. This is because of "the hardness of your hearts." Many believed (or may still believe) that polygamy was eliminated because of the hardness of the hearts of the United States. Could a similar situation occur here, regarding gay marriage? Could the church basically say, "you forced this on us... the responsibility is on you" but then allow it?

 

God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance - so says the scriptures.

 

But unlike other posters here and given the history of the Church in "adapting" to public pressure I am not so sure the Church will never allow SSM or give the priesthood to women.

 

There is ample precedence of the Church changing its longheld policies and doctrines in the face of public pressure.  And then spending the next few decades explaining away the original position.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is ample precedence of the Church changing its longheld policies and doctrines in the face of public pressure.  And then spending the next few decades explaining away the original position.

I am not sure this is accurate. Some perceive it this way.

 

One thing is for sure, if they change their stance on gay marriage. I am not sure how you can explain that one away. I would have little faith that the church is what it claims to be at this point and it would challenge everything I believe, and it would then be able to explain away any sin.

[Guest]

The scriptures are full of example of the Lord adjusting "the gospel" based on the overwhelming culture of the time. The law of moses, in fact, is a religious law adapted to the needs of the society of that time. Early saints were released from their obligation to build the temple in Missouri. The examples go on and on.

Talking about divorce, Jesus said:

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So even with the new gospel that Jesus brought, he allowed for divorce even though the fullness of the gospel does not allow for it. This is because of "the hardness of your hearts." Many believed (or may still believe) that polygamy was eliminated because of the hardness of the hearts of the United States. Could a similar situation occur here, regarding gay marriage? Could the church basically say, "you forced this on us... the responsibility is on you" but then allow it?

10 ¶His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I found these scriptures interesting. I've never really studied them in depth, but could "eunuchs from birth" be homosexuals too?

I'm not advocating for anything here, but recognizing that I've seen dramatic swings in many areas in the church in my short 40 years, and there were many before that. I'm also convinced that God often makes pretty big adjustments based on the condition of the surrounding world at that time. I'm not for it, just starting to wonder if it is more possible than I had ever considered.

 

I'm not sure I mean temple marriage.  I think (if it were to happen at all) it would be simply a refusing to discipline monogamous, legally married gay couples.

No, not in any way, the scriptures also say that they are not for private interpretation. You are reading into the Scriptures things that are not there, and the "new gospel" you speak of" did not mean you could not divorce, just warning about doing it for other than Biblical reasons, noting you may sin in doing so as well as your spouse. Also our Church allows for divorce. There in nothing in anything you posted about gays, nor a suggestion that gay marriage would be acceptable to God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nope, and they never said it was "an abomination" either. 

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/chapter-31-alma-36-39?lang=eng

 

Fail.

 

Alma 39 makes it clear that sexual sin is an abomination. Acting on homosexual urges is a sexual sin.

 

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

 

 

They did say that sexual sin is an abomination. Acting on homosexual  sexual urges is a sexual sin. And that is an abomination. Time to get out of la la land.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Rock_N_Roll]

Lev. 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

There are a lot of things in the bible that are “abominations”.   Lev 11:12.  Shellfish anyone? .  I’m having a hard time finding the word “marriage” in your CFR.  You specifically said in #5 “Gay marriage is an abomination”.  Then in #12 you said it was God who says so.  My CFR was specifically where God says so. 

[wenglund]

To me, a better way to ask the OP question is: "Will the Church legitimize and encourage sodomy sex between men by bestowing upon the practice the sacred sanction of marriage?"

 

When put this way, the answer seems obvious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2014 by wenglund

[Stargazer]

Then he is probably not actually married.

You mean that he is proably not actually in a "gay marriage", As I've said before in this context, there is no gay marriage. There are solemnized relationships that some are pleased to call "marriage".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You mean that he is proably not actually in a "gay marriage", As I've said before in this context, there is no gay marriage. There are solemnized relationships that some are pleased to call "marriage".

I mean after all definitions have certain meanings, even in light of recent pop culture and some activist judges, to change it.

[Rock_N_Roll]

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/chapter-31-alma-36-39?lang=eng

 

Fail.

 

Alma 39 makes it clear that sexual sin is an abomination. Acting on homosexual urges is a sexual sin.

 

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

 

 

They did say that sexual sin is an abomination. Acting on homosexual  sexual urges is a sexual sin. And that is an abomination. Time to get out of la la land.

 

- Double Fail - 

 

I agree that sexual sin is an abomination.  I was specifically saying that no prophet or apostle has called SS Marriage “an abomination”.  I read your link and it’s not in there either. 

Edited October 14, 2014 by Rock_N_Roll

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

When put this way, the answer seems obvious.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It seems obvious but for some they struggle with the idea that acting on homosexual urges is an abomination. There is no X factor that makes it ok.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram