Jump to content

Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?


Recommended Posts

No you don't.

 

If this were the case you'd be opposed to any wedding ceremony done outside of a church or by any authority other than a religious one. If that's how you really feel that would be an extreme view.

 

So which religious ceremony should be required? Jewish, islamic, Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan? Or should only temple marriages count as a real marriage?

 

Opposed is too strong a word.  But I certainly don't give them the same amount of recognition as a temple marriage.

 

Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner

Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsiblity for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees.

 

Pg 46-47 - quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married."

and quoting Increase McGee - "it is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she had been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another;"

 

 

So if worldly marriages were thought that highly of by the Prophet, imagine how little he would think of a SSM.

Link to post

 

Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner

Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsiblity for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees.

 

Pg 46-47 - quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married."

and quoting Increase McGee - "it is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she had been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another;"

 

 

So if worldly marriages were thought that highly of by the Prophet, imagine how little he would think of a SSM.

 

Yes, that is why JS could practice plural marriage while denying it because they weren't legal marriages.

 

If this is true then we are likely part of the .0001% of people who have ever existed and been fortunate enough to truly be married. That's absurd.

 

Marriage is a social and legal contract. It is ALSO a religious ritual but refusing to acknowledge the legal and social implications is an act of willful foolishness.

Link to post

Good summary tonie.

 

 

Conspicuous in its absence from her index is this very important portion near the end of the interview that I transcribed and posted in another thread:

 

 

 

Question: What would you say to those members who wonder: Is it possible, would the Church ever one day accept monogamous, same-sex marriage or move further beyond the position that you’re currently at?

 

Answer: I don’t think so, because that’s such a fundamental aspect of what we see as the purpose of life. You know we talk about the plan of salvation, as we call it, and we take into account the pre-mortal existence, this current existence and what comes hereafter, marriage between a man and a woman, the family, grows out of that. All of that is so fundamental to what has happened, what needs to happen here and what comes hereafter, that without it, it falls apart.

 

So, I don’t think we can take away the cornerstone without everything else coming down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I half-expected he would, the interviewer tried to make something equivocal out of Elder Christofferson's phrasing:

 

 

Quote

Q: You say you “don’t think.” Are you leaving any room at all for …

 

 

 

 

 

Before the question was finished, Elder Christofferson gently but firmly replied with a one-word answer:

 

No.

 

 

It's just my speculation, but this appears to be a planned effort to clarify the church's position as to members who support SSM. There's been a lot of confusion on that point. It's good to have some clarity, even if not all situations are addressed.

 

I don't see it as a "planned effort" so much as a generous and gracious agreement on the part of Elder Christofferson to submit to a one-on-one interview and candidly answer questions put to him by a local television news reporter. He has been very open lately to the media, not just KUTV.

 

It was the KUTV reporter who steered the course of the interview, not Elder Christofferson. If you think it was scripted beforehand with the apostle dictating what questions would be asked and how and when, well, you don't know Salt Lake news media as I do.

 

 

And, as I was at pains to point out in the other thread, this interview did not break any new ground. Elder Christofferson expressed what has been the consistent position of the Church all along on this matter. No doctrine has changed, no concessions have been made, nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as the Church moving toward acceptance of homosexual behavior, the irrational exuberance of wishful thinkers notwithstanding.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

If this is true then we are likely part of the .0001% of people who have ever existed and been fortunate enough to truly be married.

 

Now you are starting to get it.

Fortunately we have work for the dead and the 1000 year Millennium to finish joining in marriage any unions that will make it into the next life.

The only true marriages - those that are eternal.  But they are there for the taking if people are faithful.

 

 

refusing to acknowledge the legal and social implications is an act of willful foolishness.

 

Oh, I recognize the legal and social implications.  Never said I didn't.  But there is only one real marriage.  There rest is just mortal men making stuff up.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Question: What would you say to those members who wonder: Is it possible, would the Church ever one day accept monogamous, same-sex marriage or move further beyond the position that you’re currently at?

Answer: I don’t think so, because that’s such a fundamental aspect of what we see as the purpose of life. You know we talk about the plan of salvation, as we call it, and we take into account the pre-mortal existence, this current existence and what comes hereafter, marriage between a man and a woman, the family, grows out of that. All of that is so fundamental to what has happened, what needs to happen here and what comes hereafter, that without it, it falls apart.

So, I don’t think we can take away the cornerstone without everything else coming down.

To be opposed to SSM and to be opposed to Homosexual behavior is really more about explanation then it is about revelation it seems--personal opinion.

I guess that's where the room is for people to feel differently. If we recall back in the day alluding to the whole plan including the pre-mortal world was also used as an explanation for the priesthood ban, not allowing blacks to enter the temple, to hold back on preaching the gospel to them...all of that.

This is all very interesting on that front. Perhaps there is far more to the eternal worlds that we simply don't know--not so much perhaps but it must be so.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

We can support it as long as it doesnt become an organized effort. Not sure exactly how I feel about this stance- kind of wishy-washy if you ask me.

No it can be an organized effort as well.  Just not an organized effort to attack or get the Church to change its position on it.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

To be opposed to SSM and to be opposed to Homosexual behavior is really more about explanation then it is about revelation it seems--personal opinion.

I guess that's where the room is for people to feel differently. If we recall back in the day alluding to the whole plan including the pre-mortal world was also used as an explanation for the priesthood ban, not allowing blacks to enter the temple, to hold back on preaching the gospel to them...all of that.

This is all very interesting on that front. Perhaps there is far more to the eternal worlds that we simply don't know--not so much perhaps but it must be so.

 

SSM and the Priesthood ban are NOT the same thing.

One is about sin, the other is not.  This comparison is getting old and is false.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Upvote 3
Link to post

So God will not let our leaders make a mistake regarding gay marriage, but He will allow them to make a mistake by allowing members to support gay marriage?  Hmmmmm.

It is called agency.  The Church position on gay marriage remains and will always remain.  But members have the right to support things that are contrary to the teachings of the Church.   The only opinions that will count in the end are those of God the Father and Jesus on the subject matter.  I think it is far more wise to side with their opinion then have to explain myself to Christ at the judgement bar of why I did not accept his view on the issue but that is just me.

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

SSM and the Priesthood ban are NOT the same thing.

One is about sin, the other is not.  This comparison is getting old and is false.

Yes it is apples and oranges.  The Priesthood ban was unique to one period in human history and no evidence to suggest that it has been carried out on other worlds.  SSM is against all eternal law from the days of Adam until the end and there is no reason to believe God would remotely allow it on the billions of other worlds in the Universe that God has his children on. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post

I support the legalization of prostitution and all drugs including meth and heroin.  Positions that are completely against gospel.  I support the legalization not because I think they are good but people should have the right to make bad decisions.  The government does not own our bodies.  They don't have a right to tell me what I can put in my body.  I have the right to put whatever I want in my body and accept whatever consequence that comes from it.

Link to post

SSM and the Priesthood ban are NOT the same thing.

One is about sin, the other is not.  This comparison is getting old and is false.

 

Agreed. The best comparison I can come up with is when folks of a certain political persuasion are accused of being communists by those holding opposing viewpoints. I think the comparison between the priesthood band and homosexual marriage is even more ludicrous than the other (and they are both very ludicrous).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

SSM and the Priesthood ban are NOT the same thing.

One is about sin, the other is not.  This comparison is getting old and is false.

 

It got old long ago.

 

But in a way, I can understand their desperation in clinging to it. Fallacious as it is, it's the only argument they have in the face of clear, repeated, unequivocal and unanimous assertions by the Brethren that the doctrine with regard to homosexual behavior has not changed and will not change.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Upvote 3
Link to post

SSM and the Priesthood ban are NOT the same thing.

One is about sin, the other is not.  This comparison is getting old and is false.

I didn't say they were the same thing. But the comparison was in that the explanation for the ban and the explanation for opposing SSM are similar, it seems to me.

Link to post

It got old long ago.

 

But in a way, I can understand their desperation in clinging to it. Fallacious as it is, it's the only argument they have in the face of clear, repeated, unequivocal and unanimous assertions by the Brethren that the doctrine with regard to homosexual behavior has not changed and will not change.

...until it does change. Certainly the attitude and rhetoric has changed. Someone somewhere is going to have to agree with that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

...until it does change. Certainly the attitude and rhetoric has changed. Someone somewhere is going to have to agree with that.

 

Yes the rhetoric and attitude have changed.  Yes, I can see a day when SSM might be embraced in the Church (talking 20 years+ here) and yes, it will still be wrong and the participants still won't be married.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

No, I think God will absolutely allow our leaders to make a mistake regarding gay marriage. And this is one of them.

Or maybe this is an inspired step towards fixing the human errors in the Bible that led to it being banned in the first place ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Or maybe this is an inspired step towards fixing the human errors in the Bible that led to it being banned in the first place ;)

 

Yep - let's drop those verses in Leviticus and Romans...

Link to post

Yep - let's drop those verses in Leviticus and Romans...

along with a long list of other verses we have already dropped.

Link to post

along with a long list of other verses we have already dropped.

 

If it wasn't so late, and I thought it would make any difference (I have done this before to no avail) I would point out to you the huge difference you are missing. So huge in fact, you have to be willfully blind not to see it.

Link to post

I find it interesting that the uniquely LDS books of scripture are silent on homosexuality.

 

You know I honestly think the issue didn't come up...sounds weird I know, but Joseph probably never had a reason to ask God about homosexuality in order to produce a revelation for the D&C.  Perhaps he never had to deal with the issue or knew of it and just assumed it didn't exist among the saints.

Link to post

I find it interesting that the uniquely LDS books of scripture are silent on homosexuality.

And yet, we are led by living prophets who continue to reveal Gods truth and laws. In our immoral society, how many of Gods holy prophets have spoken about the immorality of homosexuality?

Link to post

And yet, we are led by living prophets who continue to reveal Gods truth and laws. In our immoral society, how many of Gods holy prophets have spoken about the immorality of homosexuality?

If there's a revelation let's include it in scripture. Canonize it. Add it to the D&C. Otherwise there is no official doctrine that binds the church regarding homosexuality. We are left to cite old testament scriptures to denounce the practice and we all know the old testament is full of errors. Canonized scripture would make clear what is doctrine as opposed to the personal opinions of leaders based on time and culture.

Link to post

What I find interesting is that many are so doggedly taking a stance that what is said today is carved in stone.  How many times has this board discussed the Doctrinal pronouncement regarding the Priesthood ban? Yes, it was stated that at some point God would remove it; but the ban was always regarded as being from God. Yet, many, even those who claim to be faithfull LDS, will say the essay demonstrates the ban was not of God was but conceived out of racism of the day.  

 

So what similarity do we have today? Decades of rhetoric towards homosexuals. Rhetoric that many regard as Doctrinal. How do know that the rhetoric today, wont be brushed aside as in the future as bigotry?  Well, we do not know.

 

 

As for marriage itself.

Do LDS even live the marriage that God instituted?  Or

Has God "groaned within Himself" and permitted the LDS to live marriage as found in Western culture today?

How about all the anti-monogamy rhetoric from the LDS Leaders of the polygamy days?

 

Marriage, as recorded in scriptures has been a man and woman, though a "married life" has not always been just one man with one lawfully wedded wife.

Edited by tonie
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...