Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?

[Teancum]

Well, I know you admit to being a doubting member or something similar, but the Millennium is biblical, christian, LDS, and probably a couple of others.

It's no more "fantasy" than that carpenter from Galilee that returned from the dead.

There are a lot of Christian interpretations of what the millennium is, what it means, what will or will not happen, whether it is literal, figurative or even if it is or has happened that differ from the LDS view on the topic. Edited March 22, 2015 by Teancum

[JLHPROF]

There are a lot of Christian interpretations of what the millennium is, what it means, what will or will not happen, whether it is literal, figurative or even if it is or has happened that differ from the LDS view on the topic.

 

Well I think the key point to it in scripture is that Satan will be bound and Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years before the final judgement.

There's your theocracy.  And that's biblical, christian, and LDS - Revelation 20.

 

So much for Church and State.

Edited March 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Kenngo1969]

I just returned from a session in the Temple, and, with due respect and empathy for the plight of my gay brothers and lesbian sisters, I don't know how any of my fellow Saints can listen carefully to the Endowment ceremony and think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever would sanction gay marriage. I'm at a complete loss.

[JLHPROF]

I just returned from a session in the Temple, and, with due respect and empathy for the plight of my gay brothers and lesbian sisters, I don't know how any of my fellow Saints can listen carefully to the Endowment ceremony and think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever would sanction gay marriage. I'm at a complete loss.

 

There's the everlasting hope that social pressure (or even internal member pressure) will force a change.

I agree with you, but I am less hopeful about the Church's ability to withstand pressures given our historical changes.

Edited March 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Kenngo1969]

There's the everlasting hope that social pressure (or even internal member pressure) will force a change.

I agree with you, but I am less hopeful about the Church's ability to withstand pressures given our historical changes.

All "historical changes" aren't created equal.  While I don't want to get bogged down in the historical "weeds" (quoting Steven R. Covey, I've said many times that we don't see things (especially history or the past) as they are; we see them as we are). Many people who are hopeful that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one day will allow gay couples to be sealed in Temples point to the lifting of the Priesthood ban.  I may be in the minority (indeed, I may be in a minority of one) but I don't see the lifting of the Priesthood ban as an example of how social pressure forced change in the Church of Jesus Christ; I think if that were all there was to it, the ban would have been lifted ten or fifteen years earlier than it was; I see the lifting of the ban as an example of how the Church can resist social pressure for change ... unless and until the Lord says otherwise, which He did. Who gets the Priesthood, though, is not a fundamental doctrine in the same way that "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" and "Sex outside of marriage is wrong" are fundamental doctrines.

[rockpond]

I just returned from a session in the Temple, and, with due respect and empathy for the plight of my gay brothers and lesbian sisters, I don't know how any of my fellow Saints can listen carefully to the Endowment ceremony and think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever would sanction gay marriage. I'm at a complete loss.

 

Temple ceremonies have changed a couple of times within my short lifetime.  And revelation trumps all.

[rockpond]

Who gets the Priesthood, though, is not a fundamental doctrine in the same way that "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" and "Sex outside of marriage is wrong" are fundamental doctrines.

 

Remember, the race-based priesthood ban also restricted who could be married/sealed in the temple as well as receive saving ordinances there.

[Mormonmaniac]

I wonder how much of impact other religions have made upon members in our church that allows them to believe that change is coming? We have seen changes now with the Presbyterians and have seen numerous changes within other Christian religions involving gay issues.

[Teancum]

Well I think the key point to it in scripture is that Satan will be bound and Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years before the final judgement.

There's your theocracy.  And that's biblical, christian, and LDS - Revelation 20.

 

So much for Church and State.

 

Well here is my take. If Jesus is the Son of God and what the scriptures claim about his attributes are true then I will be quite happy to submit it his theocracy.

 

Till then nope.  Anything less than that in the form of a theocracy is evil and as bad as any tyrannical rule the earth has seen. I think history and current events even bear this out.  I will take Jesus. I won't take some man who claims to be speaking for him or for God and thus wants to set up a theocracy.  Pure evil and abuse.

[Teancum]

I just returned from a session in the Temple, and, with due respect and empathy for the plight of my gay brothers and lesbian sisters, I don't know how any of my fellow Saints can listen carefully to the Endowment ceremony and think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever would sanction gay marriage. I'm at a complete loss.

 

 

I agree.  Not in its doctrine or theology of view of the past and future eternities. Too much would have to change to accommodate it. 

[JLHPROF]

Well here is my take. If Jesus is the Son of God and what the scriptures claim about his attributes are true then I will be quite happy to submit it his theocracy.

 

Till then nope.  Anything less than that in the form of a theocracy is evil and as bad as any tyrannical rule the earth has seen. I think history and current events even bear this out.  I will take Jesus. I won't take some man who claims to be speaking for him or for God and thus wants to set up a theocracy.  Pure evil and abuse.

 

Well THAT I agree with.

But the alternative isn't a true theocracy.  For  a theocracy (government by God) to be a true theocracy it has to actually be God or his authorized representative that is ruling.

 

Separation of Church and State will have an abrupt end, depending on your take on time, in the not too distant future.

[Teancum]

Well THAT I agree with.

But the alternative isn't a true theocracy.  For  a theocracy (government by God) to be a true theocracy it has to actually be God or his authorized representative that is ruling.

 

Separation of Church and State will have an abrupt end, depending on your take on time, in the not too distant future.

 

 

Like I said if Jesus comes and is who the scriptures say he is I can live with His theocracy if he will have an evil skeptic like me.  

 

But I don't think I will be alive to see it nor will you.

[Teancum]

Well THAT I agree with.

But the alternative isn't a true theocracy.  For  a theocracy (government by God) to be a true theocracy it has to actually be God or his authorized representative that is ruling.

 

Separation of Church and State will have an abrupt end, depending on your take on time, in the not too distant future.

  And additionally here is the problem with Theocracies.  All the ones we have seen and we have all think theirs is of God.  Personally I don't think there has ever been one that really is of God 100% and it has to be 100% to work.

[JLHPROF]

Like I said if Jesus comes and is who the scriptures say he is I can live with His theocracy if he will have an evil skeptic like me.  

 

But I don't think I will be alive to see it nor will you.

 

Elder Packer aside, I still hold out hope...

Scripture says 6000 yrs then Millennium.  We've got to be close-ish.

[Teancum]

Elder Packer aside, I still hold out hope...

Scripture says 6000 yrs then Millennium.  We've got to be close-ish.

 

 

Well my friendly opponent.... I hope that is not offensive to you... I actually quite like you..... I think you are going to be disappointed.  Paul thought Jesus was coming back in his lifetime.  He was clearly wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

Well that is fair al ML tolerated a plural marriage or two as well. Do LDS accept him as a prophet?

 

I don't, and I see no teaching in the Church that he was. However I and the Church are more than willing to agree that he was inspired by God in more than one area. Devils and farts not withstanding.

[Teancum]

I don't, and I see no teaching in the Church that he was. However I and the Church are more than willing to agree that he was inspired by God in more than one area. Devils and farts not withstanding.

 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Temple ceremonies have changed a couple of times within my short lifetime.  And revelation trumps all.

There are two kinds of change: (1) changes in outward ceremonies and (2) changes in underlying ordinances and covenants. Just because the first change has occurred doesn't mean the second one has or will.  To argue otherwise is akin to saying, for example, that none of the baptisms or administrations of the sacrament performed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today are valid because of slight changes in wording between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.  So it is with temple ceremonies: changes in the outward ordinances are not akin to changes in the fundamental covenant.

 

Remember, the race-based priesthood ban also restricted who could be married/sealed in the temple as well as receive saving ordinances there.

Christ was only sent to the House of Israel.  Later on, Peter was commanded to take the Gospel to all the world.  So here.  There was no change in the fundamental covenants, only in the timing of who could receive them.  I know I'm not apt to convince you (to put it mildly!)  We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

There are two kinds of change: (1) changes in outward ceremonies and (2) changes in underlying ordinances and covenants. Just because the first change has occurred doesn't mean the second one has or will.  To argue otherwise is akin to saying, for example, that none of the baptisms or administrations of the sacrament performed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today are valid because of slight changes in wording between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.  So it is with temple ceremonies: changes in the outward ordinances are not akin to changes in the fundamental covenant.

 

Agreed 100%.

 

But because I am SO good at I will say once again, that to my understanding it was the underlying ordinances and covenants that were changed, not just the outward ceremonies (theatre).  We are no longer taught the same methods and information as we once were, and we no longer make the exact same promises we once did.    There are elements we learned how to do in the temple that members are no longer taught, resulting in them leaving with less power and blessings.  It is unavoidable according to the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Theatrical changes notwithstanding.

[Kenngo1969]

Agreed 100%.

 

But because I am SO good at I will say once again, that to my understanding it was the underlying ordinances and covenants that were changed, not just the outward ceremonies (theatre).  We are no longer taught the same methods and information as we once were, and we no longer make the exact same promises we once did.    There are elements we learned how to do in the temple that members are no longer taught, resulting in them leaving with less power and blessings.  It is unavoidable according to the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Theatrical changes notwithstanding.

I know you were asked on another thread, but I don't know if (or if so, how) you ever answered.  If you did, I missed it.  On a personal level, I don't know that it makes much difference to me either way, but I am curious: this seems very "Denver-Snufferesque" to me.  Other than the fact that you have not (I hope! ) attempted to attract a following as he has, what's the difference?  And even assuming you're right, even with all of the bounteous blessings available through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in mortality, Christ Himself will bestow the most important blessings available through the Gospel upon us in the life to come.  As humbled and honored as I am to have the Priesthood and to be endowed, I haven't yet received the full blessings available by virtue of them because I have not yet been sealed to anyone.  I don't know at what point, if at all, I might receive those blessings, but I do know that there are no second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God and that "they shall not be ashamed who wait for [Him]."

[JLHPROF]

On a personal level, I don't know that it makes much difference to me either way, but I am curious: this seems very "Denver-Snufferesque" to me.  Other than the fact that you have not (I hope! ) attempted to attract a following as he has, what's the difference?

 

  - me?  attract a following?  :rofl:

Nah, I sink when I try to walk on water.

 

As for Denver Snuffer - he simply doesn't recognize or understand the order of priesthood.  He violates as much scripture as he upholds.

 

 

And even assuming you're right, even with all of the bounteous blessings available through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in mortality, Christ Himself will bestow the most important blessings available through the Gospel upon us in the life to come.

 

Very true.

 

 

In the end my issues are a very simple thing.

 

God said by revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith:

If you want to pray and get an answer do A, B, and C as was established before the foundation of the earth.

We now don't teach C.  Therefore, God is not bound to answer.

 

God said by revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith:

If you want to pass by the angels that stand as sentinel into my presence, here is the method for doing that as was established before the foundation of the earth..

We now don't teach the method for doing that therefore we cannot enter his presence.

 

God said by revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith:

I require you to enter into the following 5 covenants to receive the attendant blessings as was established before the foundation of the earth..

We have altered at least one, maybe more so that the covenants we enter aren't the same and some blessings aren't received.

 

God said by revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith:

I require you to wash and anoint and clothe my saints in these garments and I will honor the pronounced blessings as was established before the foundation of the earth..

We no longer wash and anoint as directed and have altered the garments and now clothe ourselves.  Therefore God is not bound to honor those blessings.

 

How can anyone think the actual ordinances haven't changed is beyond me.

Edited March 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

There's the everlasting hope that social pressure (or even internal member pressure) will force a change.

I agree with you, but I am less hopeful about the Church's ability to withstand pressures given our historical changes.

I think very few are asking the church to change the current doctrine and start marrying/sealing them in the temple.

[Kenngo1969]

I think very few are asking the church to change the current doctrine and start marrying/sealing them in the temple.

Not now, no.  But even gay civil marriage was barely a blip on the radar, if even that, 20 years ago.

[Daniel2]

In LDS belief and practice, there are already two configurations of marriage for time and all eternity (polygamous marriage and monogamous marriage) and there is a third that exists here in mortality: marriage for time, only.

Who knows if God may allow for another configuration of marriage in the future for his gay children, either merely for time alone or also for eternity, for an as-yet unidentified purpose.

Should that happen, it would not alter nor undermine the nature of the Plan of Salvation for the 95ish% of His children who are heterosexual... it would merely give meaning to his plan for His gay sons and lesbian daughters.

Like the elder brother of the Prodigal Son, some Latter-day Saints may resent what they deem to be special treatment by God for their gay family members... Others may rejoice that their gay family members are finally given the opportunity to experience the joy and blessings that come from belonging to and being a spouse.

[Buckeye]

There are two kinds of change: (1) changes in outward ceremonies and (2) changes in underlying ordinances and covenants. Just because the first change has occurred doesn't mean the second one has or will.  To argue otherwise is akin to saying, for example, that none of the baptisms or administrations of the sacrament performed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today are valid because of slight changes in wording between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.  So it is with temple ceremonies: changes in the outward ordinances are not akin to changes in the fundamental covenant.

 

 

Does the same principle apply for ordinances outside the temple? If my daughter is scared of being immersed, can we baptize her by sprinkling (outward ceremony) without changing the underlying ordinances and covenants?