Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I wouldn't expect her to be "slapped down" for using the word revelatory. To some it is revelatory. But that is not the same thing as a revelation from God. "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim..." That strikes me as a pretty clear declaration of authorship by the 15 men who signed it. Not God.It's a declaration of men acting in their capacity as spokesmen for God. As I said, self evident. ETA: I'm not sure how we got back on this since the thread is about SSM and the PotF does not speak to SSM. Not my fault.
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 So what point does that serve in what you brought up? That they have a challenge but for some reason they should be allowed to act on their feelings and get a free pass? Why should they be allowed to sin? The point is that you said gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't have kids. But the alternative you have for them (celibacy) also precludes the possibility of kids. So either way -- they aren't having kids -- why not let them marry? I've never suggested they should have a "free pass" or "be allowed to sin" so I'm not sure what those questions refer to.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I'm curious, Scott, how do you personally reconcile that current teaching of the Church with 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. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. What's to reconcile? 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) The point is that you said gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't have kids. But the alternative you have for them (celibacy) also precludes the possibility of kids. So either way -- they aren't having kids -- why not let them marry? I've never suggested they should have a "free pass" or "be allowed to sin" so I'm not sure what those questions refer to.Yeah in this life. They cannot have kids in this life. So, the alternative is for them to enter into sin ie a homosexual relationship. If they remain faithful they will be made whole. They will have their chance. That has been spoken of in GC. And the very nature that you are advocating for gay marriage in the temple is a free pass on sin. You don't get it. Gay marriage is a sin. Nothing can change that. We don't need a revelation. It can't happen. It goes against the plan of salvation. Edited May 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 2
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 It's a declaration of men acting in their capacity as spokesmen for God. As I said, self evident. And when BY made declarations in his capacity as spokesman for God that we now consider to be wrong... were those also revelations from God or do we discount them through the benefit of hindsight? I live by the PotF. And believe in it. But nowhere does it claim to be a revelation from God. It actually very clearly claims to be a proclamation from those 15 men.
smac97 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) On what basis? Just life. Other than procreation, what can heterosexual couples do that gay couples cannot?Well, procreation is a biggie. It's not just a nifty side effect of heterosexual marriage. It's the perpetuation of our species. In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" 388 U.S. 1, 12 (citing Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)). The Court goes on to describe marriage as "fundamental to our very existence and survival." Id. Think about that for a moment. The Supreme Court found marriage to be a "basic civil right" because of its relationship with procreation. The Skinner case cited above was not a dispute about marriage, and was instead about an Oklahoma state statute authorizing sterilization for habitual criminals, which the Court found unconstitutional. The point, then, is that marriage is a civil right precisely because of its relationship with procreation. This is why Loving was "anchored to the concept of marriage as a union involving persons of the opposite sex." Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. 2004). So it's a bit odd to see procreation so glibly tossed aside as a consideration. It is, in many ways, the consideration. Societal huzzahs for a same-sex couple are just not a compelling reason to rardically re-define the bedrock of civilization. As the Standhardt court put it: "(A) homosexual person's choice of life partner is an intimate and important decision. However, not all important decisions sounding in personal autonomy are protected fundamental rights." In any event, another thing that heterosexual couples do that gay couples cannot is provide children with a mother and a father. Lesbian couples necessarily and by definition deprive their children of fathers, and gay (male) couples necessarily and by definition deprive their children of mothers. Here are a few resources explaining the importance of having both a father and a mother:Why Children Need a Male and Female ParentHow absence of a loving father can wreck a child's life: New study shows relationship with both parents is crucialThe Importance of FathersThe Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of ChildrenThe Effects of Father Involvement: An Updated Research Summary of the EvidenceNo more 'Mr. Mom:' Research shows the importance of dadsNew Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research (I thought this one was pretty compelling.)Disadvantages of children from same sex marriageI have six children. I am grateful beyond words that I am raising them with my wife. She brings skill sets, insights, and attributes into our parenting which I lack (or in which I am deficient). My wife says the same thing about me. Many of my wife's skill sets, insights and attributes are strongly correlated with her life experience as a female, and many of my skill sets, etc., are strongly correlated with my life experience as a male.Thanks, -Smac Edited May 12, 2015 by smac97 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 What's to reconcile?There is nothing to reconcile. Rockpond thinks he found justification for his position.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Maybe you can point out what needs to be reconciled. The prophets have specifically stated that those that are faithful that did not have the chance to get married will be made whole.I predict you'll be accused of being "obtuse." That's been happening a lot here lately.
Duncan Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I don't know why God organized it the way he did but he has always repudiated homo-sexual actions even to the extent of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. he didn't destroy them for only that though according to Ezekiel, it seems there were a few issues
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Yeah in this life. They cannot have kids in this life. So, the alternative is for them to enter into sin ie a homosexual relationship. If they remain faithful they will be made whole. They will have their chance. That has been spoken of in GC. And the very nature that you are advocating for gay marriage in the temple is a free pass on sin. You don't get it. Gay marriage is a sin. Nothing can change that. We don't need a revelation. It can't happen. It goes against the plan of salvation. You can believe that. I still believe in the power of revelation and that we've never received revelation from God regarding his plan for his homosexual children. Nobody can point to a single one. If you know of a revelation from God expressing His desire/plans for his homosexual children, please point us to it. Otherwise, I'll continue to hope and pray.
Tacenda Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Just life? That is pretty big. And you diminish it with your comments. That is one of the main purposes of this life is to have kids per LDS doctrine. The whole "multiple and replenish the Earth"? Did you forget that. Also you cheat kids out of a mother and a father when you do the gay thing. 2 dads or 2 moms cannot give the same things as a mom and dad.A few posts back, I linked a commercial put out by Wells Fargo of a lesbian couple who are learning sign language to prepare to adopt a deaf older child.Since the gay population is so few by comparison to heterosexuals and the amount of children in foster care so large. Wouldn't having these children be in a loving gay family outweigh a life of being shuffled around in foster care until age18. I understand where you're coming from with the male and female influence, but in this particular scenario, isn't it practically a Godsend to have these couples adopt? And think about all the single moms that adopt babies...that can be a discussion all its own. Not saying gay couples don't adopt babies. But trying to see this through the eyes of all thoses children that want a permanent home.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) And when BY made declarations in his capacity as spokesman for God that we now consider to be wrong... were those also revelations from God or do we discount them through the benefit of hindsight? I live by the PotF. And believe in it. But nowhere does it claim to be a revelation from God. It actually very clearly claims to be a proclamation from those 15 men.And who are those men Rockpond? Just some dudes acting as a board for a large company? Edited May 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) And when BY made declarations in his capacity as spokesman for God that we now consider to be wrong... were those also revelations from God or do we discount them through the benefit of hindsight?Whatever you're referring to here, was it issued with the imprimatur of the entire Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? I live by the PotF. And believe in it. But nowhere does it claim to be a revelation from God. It actually very clearly claims to be a proclamation from those 15 men. Pardon my candor, but this strikes me as crap. You can't say you believe in and live by it when you advocate against its content and when you disparage it as being "culturally influenced" and not of God. Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Duncan Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Calm down. Did you read Scott's post? http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction I did but I ask again if it didn't exist before and won't exist hereafter why are so against it? why not allow gay marriage? why are we excommunicating people then? If it doesn't matter in the eternities then why are we making such a big deal about it here? if you ex people you only further alienate people and are people condemned forever because they got exed from the Church? "The same spirit that posseses"
ERayR Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 he didn't destroy them for only that though according to Ezekiel, it seems there were a few issues But that seems to be a biggie in the mix.
ERayR Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I did but I ask again if it didn't exist before and won't exist hereafter why are so against it? why not allow gay marriage? why are we excommunicating people then? If it doesn't matter in the eternities then why are we making such a big deal about it here? if you ex people you only further alienate people and are people condemned forever because they got exed from the Church? "The same spirit that posseses" There seems to be a bunch of life's afflictions that did not exist before nor will they exist after. All of these seem to be things that tend to test our faith in God and our willingness to be compliant to his will. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I did but I ask again if it didn't exist before and won't exist hereafter why are so against it? why not allow gay marriage? why are we excommunicating people then? If it doesn't matter in the eternities then why are we making such a big deal about it here? if you ex people you only further alienate people and are people condemned forever because they got exed from the Church? "The same spirit that posseses"That is why you don't let them marry. Those relationships are not authorized by God. And "That same spirit that possess" read it in context. What is Alma talking about? Is it talking about sexual orientation? You are actually making the case against same sex marriage by bringing this up.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Pardon my candor, but this strikes me as crap. You can't say you believe in and live by it when you advocate against its content and when you disparage it as being "culturally influenced" and not of God.There is more to this whole thing than just "wishing for a revelation that will clear the matter up". Hence the other thread.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 A few posts back, I linked a commercial put out by Wells Fargo of a lesbian couple who are learning sign language to prepare to adopt a deaf older child.Since the gay population is so few by comparison to heterosexuals and the amount of children in foster care so large. Wouldn't having these children be in a loving gay family outweigh a life of being shuffled around in foster care until age18. I understand where you're coming from with the male and female influence, but in this particular scenario, isn't it practically a Godsend to have these couples adopt?And think about all the single moms that adopt babies...that can be a discussion all its own. Not saying gay couples don't adopt babies. But trying to see this through the eyes of all thoses children that want a permanent home.Yes, Because all kids deserve to have a mom and a dad. It's not like only gay couples adopt. No one ever wants to talk about the kids. Its only about the people who are gay. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 You can believe that. I still believe in the power of revelation and that we've never received revelation from God regarding his plan for his homosexual children. Nobody can point to a single one. If you know of a revelation from God expressing His desire/plans for his homosexual children, please point us to it. Otherwise, I'll continue to hope and pray.His plan for them? Why would it be any different for a person that was not given the opportunity to marry that was heterosexual? Because when you boil away the water it is the same thing. Gays were not given the opportunity to marry. Something tells me you did not read the article Scott posted. 1
Duncan Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 That is why you don't let them marry. Those relationships are not authorized by God. And "That same spirit that possess" read it in context. What is Alma talking about? Is it talking about sexual orientation? You are actually making the case against same sex marriage by bringing this up. no, I am saying if you are gay when you die why won't you be gay when in the next life? death won't change anything just as if you are unrepentant her,e like we learn from the Lazarus and the rich dude in Luke 16, death won't change anything
smac97 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) And when BY made declarations in his capacity as spokesman for God that we now consider to be wrong... were those also revelations from God or do we discount them through the benefit of hindsight? I live by the PotF. And believe in it. But nowhere does it claim to be a revelation from God. It actually very clearly claims to be a proclamation from those 15 men.They weren't speaking as "15 men." They were speaking as "The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."I concede what is perhaps your underlying point that the Proclamation is not canonized. Frankly, that can be an important distinction. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).So the question, really, is whether the Proclamation "square(s) with the revelations," that is, with the scriptures. With respect, I think the nigh-unto-inevitable answer to this is "Yes." To say other wise is, as I see it, to run afoul of these scriptures. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 12, 2015 by smac97 4
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 What's to reconcile? Section 132:15-17 says that those who do not marry in this world, will not marry in the next. 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. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. Currently the Church teaches that if we do everything we can but are not able to marry in this life, we won't be denied that in the next. How do you, personally, reconcile these conflicting doctrines?
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Maybe you can point out what needs to be reconciled. The prophets have specifically stated that those that are faithful that did not have the chance to get married will be made whole. I agree that the our modern day prophets and apostles have taught that. But the verses in 132 that I quoted say that those who do not marry in this life cannot marry in the next nor can they receive exaltation. How do you reconcile those conflicting doctrines?
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 And who are those men Rockpond? Just some dudes acting as a board for a large company? Prophets, seers, and apostles who signed a proclamation and did not credit it to God as a revelation from Him.
Recommended Posts