Exalting Gays (Thought Experiment)

[california boy]

On the other hand, it reaffirms what has always been taught, since the inception of the church.  Always.

 

I would think that when one reaffirms what has always been emphatically taught for nearly 200 years, it certainly does not signal that a change is imminent

Seriously?  Since the beginning of THIS church?  Did you miss the polygamy period?  Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman?  For almost a third of the history of the church, one man and one woman was preached AGAINST.

[CV75]

Oh I agree that it does not signal any imminent change, but I just dont find that it restricts a possible future change.

Yes that could happen I suppose, but then we would not be "we" any longer, "we" would be something else.

I agree that we certainly would not be "we" any longer.

“…marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and…is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” This puts any other arrangement outside of His plan.

Saying "The central covenant upon which the eternal plan is fulfilled is open to change" is like saying “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and these are possible to change in order to bring in new appendages to our religion.”

[california boy]

This is nothing like opening up the priesthood in 1978

 

In that case, there had always been ambiguity about the policy- "oh it will be changed some day" or "we don't really know why the Lord has done this". and then there were always those historical precedents - the Blacks who had been ordained in the early church, previous statements by Joseph Smith sympathetic to Black people, etc.

 

This is totally different.  There has never been a hint that this issue could change, and only reaffirmations that it will always be this way.  To me, changing this would be as fundamental as declaring the Book of Mormon as non-scriptural, or optional.

 

It would change the whole character of the church into something totally alien- it would essentially make us Protestants.

 

Yes that could happen I suppose, but then we would not be "we" any longer, "we" would be something else.

IF there ever is a change in the policy through revelation of not allowing gay couples to receive temple marriage, there will be apologists on this board pointing out the fact that in the early days of the church men were sealed to men.  "Proof" that God has always been opened to that idea. Perhaps they will say that it was Brigham Young, the man, not Brigham Young the prophet that stopped this holy practice.

[CV75]

gays in loving relationships should put off the natural man and be required to live their lives without a loving partner.

Because marriage between a man and a woman is central to the Creator’s plan, this counsel is sound for all God's children. Granted, not all of God's children believe the plan but that is not the central principle.

[Calm]

Well if being celibate is how we are to put off the natural man, then should it be required of all saints? Are you willing to be celibate in order to put off the natural man? Come on, you only say this about being gay because it is something you don't have to worry about. You are straight. It is easy for you to say gays in loving relationships should put off the natural man and be required to live their lives without a loving partner.

There are plenty of straights who have chosen to be celibate for their entire life in our faith.

And many of them have no greater hope of finding a partner in this life than a homosexual who believes celibacy means no intimate companion in mortality, but trusts the Lord that someday there will be someone to love eternally.

You may think they are wrong, but that hardly affects their certainty.

Even for heterosexuals, not knowing who that companion will be (I am talking attributes, not just identification) can be very troubling and thus completely a matter of having faith in God that they will have joy.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

IF there ever is a change in the policy through revelation of not allowing gay couples to receive temple marriage, there will be apologists on this board pointing out the fact that in the early days of the church men were sealed to men.  "Proof" that God has always been opened to that idea. Perhaps they will say that it was Brigham Young, the man, not Brigham Young the prophet that stopped this holy practice.

I highly doubt that, at least not serious ones who know the law of adoption was a father son sealing.

I for one would be saying it came completely out of nowhere.

[Calm]

Seriously? Since the beginning of THIS church? Did you miss the polygamy period? Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman? For almost a third of the history of the church, one man and one woman was preached AGAINST.

Go look at family group sheets. The wives were not sealed to each other. Each child has one mother, one father. Each marriage was independent of the others. The husband's other marriages could be dissolved and have no religious significance on his remaining marriages.

Allowing a man or woman to have more than one marriage at a time is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Well if being celibate is how we are to put off the natural man, then should it be required of all saints?  Are you willing to be celibate in order to put off the natural man?  Come on, you only say this about being gay because it is something you don't have to worry about.  You are straight.  It is easy for you to say gays in loving relationships should put off the natural man and be required to live their lives without a loving partner.

You have no clue.

Missionaries are "celibate".

Single people who are active are "celibate"

I have had vast portions of my life unmarried AND "celibate" because I believed God wanted me to be so.  VAST portions.  Decades.

 

Vast numbers of sisters in the church are single through no choice of their own and are celibate.

 

Young women and men who do not engage in premarital sex are celibate, all because they believe they should be.

 

Do you think these people have no sex drives?  Do you think these people want to spend their lives alone?

 

Get a clue.  You are not the only person in the universe.

Edited December 31, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Seriously?  Since the beginning of THIS church?  Did you miss the polygamy period?  Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman?  For almost a third of the history of the church, one man and one woman was preached AGAINST.

In case you hadn't noticed this thread is about homosexuality.  Arguably we still believe in "celestial polygamy", but it is illegal in this life- so far.

 

This gets more ridiculous by the minute. 

Edited December 31, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I agree that we certainly would not be "we" any longer.

“…marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and…is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” This puts any other arrangement outside of His plan.

Saying "The central covenant upon which the eternal plan is fulfilled is open to change" is like saying “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and these are possible to change in order to bring in new appendages to our religion.”

Agree completely.  This IS a central foundational doctrine, without question.

[mfbukowski]

Go look at family group sheets. The wives were not sealed to each other. Each child has one mother, one father. Each marriage was independent of the others. The husband's other marriages could be dissolved and have no religious significance on his remaining marriages.

Allowing a man or woman to have more than one marriage at a time is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.

Indeed- and we know that polyandry has also been practiced.

[Calm]

Indeed- and we know that polyandry has also been practiced.

While I think it is important we do not attempt to ignore the presence of plural marriage in our history when in discussion about how marriage is defined, it is not helpful at all to blur the difference between polygamous marriages and polyamorous ones. It would have been thought immoral I believe for a man to be having sex with two of his wives at the same time and any sexual relationship between the wives would also be seen as immoral whether or not the husband was present.

Plural marriage simply allowed for a number of marriages to coexist, it in no way redefined what those marriages were like.

Therefore there is nothing inherent in the existence of plural marriages that expands marriage to homosexual relationships....other arguments need to be made.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

Why do we need to endlessly debate this? Homosexuality is an abomination and no part of it is holy before God.

[Calm]

Why do you bother even asking the question?

Do you really think everyone agrees with you or thinks your POV should define their conversation?

If not, then you already knew the answer.

If you think they do, you need to seriously reevaluate your influence over others .

You don't think it should be debated, then don't debate it.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

While I think it is important we do not attempt to ignore the presence of plural marriage in our history when in discussion about how marriage is defined, it is not helpful at all to blur the difference between polygamous marriages and polyamorous ones. It would have been thought immoral I believe for a man to be having sex with two of his wives at the same time and any sexual relationship between the wives would also be seen as immoral whether or not the husband was present.

Plural marriage simply allowed for a number of marriages to coexist, it in no way redefined what those marriages were like.

Agreed.  And as Brian Hales has shown, I think, there is a vast difference between spiritual reasons for sealings and sexual practices.

 

Implying that men were sealed for sexual purposes is simply a perverse distortion.  I am sealed to my son and my father and all the males in my family really, as are all men in the church.  That this would even be mentioned in this context is......  let's just say beyond belief, and proof of the level of desperation involved in justifying these practices.

[JLHPROF]

While I think it is important we do not attempt to ignore the presence of plural marriage in our history when in discussion about how marriage is defined, it is not helpful at all to blur the difference between polygamous marriages and polyamorous ones. It would have been thought immoral I believe for a man to be having sex with two of his wives at the same time and any sexual relationship between the wives would also be seen as immoral whether or not the husband was present.

Plural marriage simply allowed for a number of marriages to coexist, it in no way redefined what those marriages were like.

Therefore there is nothing inherent in the existence of plural marriages that expands marriage to homosexual relationships....other arguments need to be made.

:clapping: :clapping:

[Robert F. Smith]

Why do we need to endlessly debate this? Homosexuality is an abomination and no part of it is holy before God.

 

While I think it is important we do not attempt to ignore the presence of plural marriage in our history when in discussion about how marriage is defined, it is not helpful at all to blur the difference between polygamous marriages and polyamorous ones. It would have been thought immoral I believe for a man to be having sex with two of his wives at the same time and any sexual relationship between the wives would also be seen as immoral whether or not the husband was present.

Plural marriage simply allowed for a number of marriages to coexist, it in no way redefined what those marriages were like.

Therefore there is nothing inherent in the existence of plural marriages that expands marriage to homosexual relationships....other arguments need to be made.

We do need to distinguish between LDS Church law and civil law.  What is currently forbidden in one may be lawful in the other, and we should all be tolerant of free choice for those who prefer non-traditional forms of marriage, just as we once demanded that our practice of polygyny be allowed by civil authorities in the USA.

 

We are free to preach against any non-traditional form of marriage, but we should not arrogate to ourselves the right to actually prevent others from their preferred civil  or religious practices.  Neither should they be able to coerce us into some practice of which we do not approve.  Some mutual respect is in order.  Too many voices preaching, but not tolerating.

[california boy]

You have no clue.

Missionaries are "celibate".

Single people who are active are "celibate"

I have had vast portions of my life unmarried AND "celibate" because I believed God wanted me to be so.  VAST portions.  Decades.

 

Vast numbers of sisters in the church are single through no choice of their own and are celibate.

 

Young women and men who do not engage in premarital sex are celibate, all because they believe they should be.

 

Do you think these people have no sex drives?  Do you think these people want to spend their lives alone?

 

Get a clue.  You are not the only person in the universe.

There are plenty of straights who have chosen to be celibate for their entire life in our faith.

And many of them have no greater hope of finding a partner in this life than a homosexual who believes celibacy means no intimate companion in mortality, but trusts the Lord that someday there will be someone to love eternally.

You may think they are wrong, but that hardly affects their certainty.

Even for heterosexuals, not knowing who that companion will be (I am talking attributes, not just identification) can be very troubling and thus completely a matter of having faith in God that they will have joy. 

 

 

 

 

I never said that others in the church do not choose celibate lives.  I am only pointing out (once again) that ONLY gay members have been TOLD they MUST be celibate throughout their lives.  If you were making the argument that gays, like straight members must be celibate unless married, then you would have a point.  But as you know, that is not the case.

 

You are comparing completely different expectations and requirements.  This kind of comparison is disingenuous at best and pretends that gays are treated the SAME as all other members.  As you well know, they are not.  No other group is told they should not marry.

 

If the person is gay, then not getting married is "overcome the natural man"  If you are straight, then getting married is following God's plan.  Straight members are not told to be celibate to "overcome the natural man".  They are told to get married.  How can you disagree with this?

[california boy]

Go look at family group sheets. The wives were not sealed to each other. Each child has one mother, one father. Each marriage was independent of the others. The husband's other marriages could be dissolved and have no religious significance on his remaining marriages.

Allowing a man or woman to have more than one marriage at a time is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.

 

 

Oh pleeezzzzzze. Arguing that plural marriage is the same as one man and one woman marrying is ridiculous.  This ain't gonna play in Peoria.  Is all this points out to is Mormons are willing to go through linguistic gymnastics to try and keep current beliefs with reality of past teachings

Edited December 31, 2014 by california boy

[thesometimesaint]

I never said that others in the church do not choose celibate lives.  I am only pointing out (once again) that ONLY gay members have been TOLD they MUST be celibate throughout their lives.  If you were making the argument that gays, like straight members must be celibate unless married, then you would have a point.  But as you know, that is not the case.

 

You are comparing completely different expectations and requirements.  This kind of comparison is disingenuous at best and pretends that gays are treated the SAME as all other members.  As you well know, they are not.  No other group is told they should not marry.

 

If the person is gay, then not getting married is "overcome the natural man"  If you are straight, then getting married is following God's plan.  Straight members are not told to be celibate to "overcome the natural man".  They are told to get married.  How can you disagree with this?

 

Engaging in premarital and/or extramarital sex makes any member subject to Church discipline.

 

No one should get married to change the other person.

 

Straight members are told to conform their lives to Gospel standards, even the married ones.

[Calm]

I did not say plural marriage when speaking of it as everyone it involves is the same as one man and one woman marrying.  It is not.  It is a man or a woman having multiple marriages, each marriage itself being one man and one woman relationship.

 

If a marriage ceremony for someone involved in plural marriage does not just involve one man and one woman, then please explain who else is getting married at the same time.

[california boy]

Agreed.  And as Brian Hales has shown, I think, there is a vast difference between spiritual reasons for sealings and sexual practices.

 

Implying that men were sealed for sexual purposes is simply a perverse distortion.  I am sealed to my son and my father and all the males in my family really, as are all men in the church.  That this would even be mentioned in this context is......  let's just say beyond belief, and proof of the level of desperation involved in justifying these practices.

 

 

Once again, we are looking at church history through todays eyes.  There were sealings between men THAT WERE NOT RELATED in any way.  That practice was abandoned under Wilford Woodriff, who also said he was looking for more revelation on how sealings should be conducted and to whom.  

 

Look, I am not arguing that those same sex sealings were the same in any way to marriage.  There is no record that they were treated as such.  What I am stating is that such sealings took place.  I have read enough of Mormon revisionists linguistic gymnastics used to streghten changes in doctrine.  Cal exhibited one such exercise just a couple of posts ago.  Is all I am stating is that I think at some time IF policy changes and all of God's children are allowed temple marriage, there will be those who will point to those same sex sealings as proof that it was always ok with God, the prophets just misunderstood His will.  Not too hard of leap to make. 

 

According to Wikipedia, 78% of youth support gay marriage.  There is a thread asking why youth are leaving the church.  Perhaps ONE reason is the youth think the church should treat all of God's children the aame.  But hey, what do I know.

[california boy]

I did not say plural marriage when speaking of it as everyone it involves is the same as one man and one woman marrying.  It is not.  It is a man or a woman having multiple marriages, each marriage itself being one man and one woman relationship.

 

If a marriage ceremony for someone involved in plural marriage does not just involve one man and one woman, then please explain who else is getting married at the same time.

 

Ahhh, the marriage would include one man and several women, all married at the same time...

 

If pural marriage is the same as marrying one man and one woman, then why did the government make it illegal??????????  The law of the land has always been one man and one woman in this country.  It is the Mormon Church that changed the definition of marriage to include one man and multiple women.

[JLHPROF]

Ahhh, the marriage would include one man and several women, all married at the same time...

 

If pural marriage is the same as marrying one man and one woman, then why did the government make it illegal??????????  The law of the land has always been one man and one woman in this country.  It is the Mormon Church that changed the definition of marriage to include one man and multiple women.

 

Because for some reason the government felt it had to limit the number of marriages a person can have.

Marriage never included one man and multiple women.  The women are not married to each other.  The man has multiple marriages, not a marriage with multiple partners.

 

Husband has one marriage with wife #1

Husband has a second marriage with wife #2

Each wife has her own marriage with her husband.

Husband does not have one marriage with wives 1&2

[Calm]

Ahhh, the marriage would include one man and several women, all married at the same time...

Then a divorce would have erased all relationships and not just one father, mother set.

The children were sealed to one mother, one father. In every sealing for a couple, one man, one woman's name given as sealed together. Unless you can demonstrate this is not so, a marriage was one man, one woman.

The law didn't allow someone to participate in more than one marriage at a time.

It is a simple concept.

If a wife died, none of her inheritance went to the other wives along with the husband. She was not in a marriage with other women.

Please show that there was any claim to polyamory in plural marriages if you wish to claim that it was taught there was one marriage with a father and multiple mothers.

In my family, the sister wives were called Aunties by the kids showing that they did not consider them anywhere close to the relationships they had with their own parents.

Edited December 31, 2014 by calmoriah