Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

See Smac's post on this.

 

I don't cop to being "insensitive and wrong."  Your leveling the accusation doesn't make it so.

 

But apparently you either missed or are choosing to ignore the quote I provided from Elder Lance B. Wickman in the Q and A setting with Church Public Affairs, the one that also involved Elder Dallin H. Oaks, the one that is still up on LDS Newsroom section of lds.org. What I've said is consistent with the statement he made.

 

And I'm not going to concede that homosexual behavior is normal or wholesome, if that's what you're demanding. Get used to it.

SMACs post doesn't answer the question. He said "Nevertheless, everything will be sorted out."

This is a standard cop out answer which essentially means, "we don't know how it will work so don't worry about it."

That's fine as long as people like you don't act like you know how it will all work out and write fiction to justify yourself for condemning those with SSA. We don't know how it will work. It will be worked out. This means we don't know enough to condemn SSA or even pretend to know how they will fit into the eternal plan. Revelation is needed for this, yet you seem content to accuse and condemn people of having a malady or you will require them to be alone for eternity. Very charitable.

[Russell C McGregor]

I also agree that all will be sorted out.  And I agree that there is more revelation to come to help us through that process.  That's how I reconcile some of the contradictions that I see in our doctrine but the nature of my hope is very offensive to some here.

Announcing that God is going to "reveal" that the Church should be practicing "same sex temple marriage" as soon as the Church is "ready" for it (i.e. once the brethren become as "enlightened" as you are) is properly offensive to faithful Latter-day Saints; not merely because it is barf-worthy in its own right, and not even because it is outright apostasy for anyone to presume that the Lord has told him something applicable to the whole Church before He has revealed it to His appointed servants; but mostly because it would be a hideous distortion of LDS theology and soteriology, and a hideous desecration and defilement of the Lord's Holy House.

Which no faithful Latter-day Saint would stand for.

 

If you chose merely to hope that the Lord would provide revelation that would resolve any apparent current difficulties -- and left it at that -- nobody would be objecting.  But your "hope" goes far beyond the mark, all the way to an unsupportable apostate position.

 

For which you daily proselytize.

[Calm]

We don't currently have an ordinance for sealing someone who was not married in this life.  

People have gotten exceptions on occasion for sealing of those engaged who were killed prior to being married.

 

If there are children between a couple, in many cases in genealogy a couple is proxy sealed even if there is no knowledge of a marriage.

 

Women were sealed to JS after he died.

 

Smac's comment about the same principle for proxy baptism being applied to marriage.

 

In the millennium there were be spirits and resurrected beings mingling with those who have not yet died, plenty of chance for those who are not recorded to even exist to share the info they need to have ordinances done.

 

So why couldn't they who were single in mortality as easily share info on who they want to be married to as well as their birth date?

 

And once all that is done for those who have existed on earth at one time, judgment time comes and we all move on to the next stage of existence with the issue of marriage having been resolved for all one way or the other.

 

Not that complicated imo given what we already believe about proxy ordinances, the Millennium, the postmortal spirit world, Judgment and eternity in the Kingdoms of God.

[rockpond]

People have gotten exceptions on occasion for sealing of those engaged who were killed prior to being married.

 

If there are children between a couple, in many cases in genealogy a couple is proxy sealed even if there is no knowledge of a marriage.

 

Women were sealed to JS after he died.

 

Smac's comment about the same principle for proxy baptism being applied to marriage.

 

In the millennium there were be spirits and resurrected beings mingling with those who have not yet died, plenty of chance for those who are not recorded to even exist to share the info they need to have ordinances done.

 

So why couldn't they who were single in mortality as easily share info on who they want to be married to as well as their birth date?

 

And once all that is done for those who have existed on earth at one time, judgment time comes and we all move on to the next stage of existence with the issue of marriage having been resolved for all one way or the other.

 

Not that complicated imo given what we already believe about proxy ordinances, the Millennium, the postmortal spirit world, Judgment and eternity in the Kingdoms of God.

 

I agree... I don't see it as that complicated.  But it is a change from the current process we follow (with some exceptions as you noted).

[rockpond]

Announcing that God is going to "reveal" that the Church should be practicing "same sex temple marriage" as soon as the Church is "ready" for it (i.e. once the brethren become as "enlightened" as you are) is properly offensive to faithful Latter-day Saints; not merely because it is barf-worthy in its own right, and not even because it is outright apostasy for anyone to presume that the Lord has told him something applicable to the whole Church before He has revealed it to His appointed servants; but mostly because it would be a hideous distortion of LDS theology and soteriology, and a hideous desecration and defilement of the Lord's Holy House.

Which no faithful Latter-day Saint would stand for.

 

If you chose merely to hope that the Lord would provide revelation that would resolve any apparent current difficulties -- and left it at that -- nobody would be objecting.  But your "hope" goes far beyond the mark, all the way to an unsupportable apostate position.

 

For which you daily proselytize.

 

Can't argue with "barf-worthy".

[Scott Lloyd]

We don't currently have an ordinance for sealing someone who was not married in this life.  We can't seal someone to an unknown spouse.

 

Once a marital relationship has been determined in the hereafter, it is only reasonable to assume that a vicarious temple ordinance will be performed in mortality to seal that couple as husband and wife after it has been made known to those who can perform the vicarious ordinance. Whether that is done during the Millennium or at some other time is of no great moment.

 

And if you consider it an assurance it's because a modern day prophets have made the promise in contradiction to Section 132, which I believe you consider to be a revelation of God, right?

 

I don't see it as a contradiction. The passages you refer to apply to those who, through their own choice and in defiance of divine law, refused to marry when they had that capability and opportunity.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I don't see it as a contradiction. The passages you refer to apply to those who, through their own choice and in defiance of divine law, refused to marry when they had that capability and opportunity.

 

Where does it qualify it as only those who "refused to marry when they had that capability and opportunity"?  You're adding to the text, Scott.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

See Smac's post on this.

 

I don't cop to being "insensitive and wrong."  Your leveling the accusation doesn't make it so.

 

But apparently you either missed or are choosing to ignore the quote I provided from Elder Lance B. Wickman in the Q and A setting with Church Public Affairs, the one that also involved Elder Dallin H. Oaks, the one that is still up on LDS Newsroom section of lds.org. What I've said is consistent with the statement he made.

 

And I'm not going to concede that homosexual behavior is normal or wholesome, if that's what you're demanding. Get used to it.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here, for your edification, is the quote I provided before from Elder Wickman, with a bit that Elder Oaks added that I didn't quote before:

 

And here's another statement, showing that Elder Wickman regards it as an "affliction," as do I:

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

Part of the problem is the link you provided didn't work for me so I couldn't (still can't) look at the site. So I still have no idea when this was said.

The other part of the problem is I don't accept Wickman's comments as authoritative for the church as I don't sustain him and never did, as a prophet, seer and revelator.

I chalk his up to a good man who is mistaken because he's a product of his time and centuries of bias culture against gays.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Once a marital relationship has been determined in the hereafter, it is only reasonable to assume that a vicarious temple ordinance will be performed in mortality to seal that couple as husband and wife after it has been made known to those who can perform the vicarious ordinance. Whether that is done during the Millennium or at some other time is of no great moment.

 

I don't see it as a contradiction. The passages you refer to apply to those who, through their own choice and in defiance of divine law, refused to marry when they had that capability and opportunity.

 

It is only reasonable to assume that people will find each other and marry in the next life and THEN have those marriages solemnized through sealing in the temple. You're stretching big time. It's absolutely a contradiction

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

Part of the problem is the link you provided didn't work for me so I couldn't (still can't) look at the site. So I still have no idea when this was said.

The other part of the problem is I don't accept Wickman's comments as authoritative for the church as I don't sustain him and never did, as a prophet, seer and revelator.

I chalk his up to a good man who is mistaken because he's a product of his time and centuries of bias culture against gays.

Your Internet connection is not my problem.

 

Nor is your refusal to recognize what has continuously remained on the official Church web site as the formal position of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

It is only reasonable to assume that people will find each other and marry in the next life and THEN have those marriages solemnized through sealing in the temple. You're stretching big time. It's absolutely a contradiction

Again, your ill-reasoned declaration does not make a thing so.

[smac97]

I also agree that all will be sorted out.  And I agree that there is more revelation to come to help us through that process.  That's how I reconcile some of the contradictions that I see in our doctrine but the nature of my hope is very offensive to some here.

 

Your "hope" is understandably offensive when you couch it in ways like this / this (you lauding and celebrating a website designed specifically to help and encourage Latter-day Saints to violate the Law of Chastity) and this / this (you accusing the Church and its members of causing gay suicides) and this (you mocking non-gay Latter-day Saints who struggle with adhering to the Law of Chastity) and this (you advocating a double standard in the Law of Chastity, namely, one which effectively exempts people with SSA from it).

 

What you advocate is not innocuous.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

Where does it qualify it as only those who "refused to marry when they had that capability and opportunity"?  You're adding to the text, Scott.

I'm responding to what is self-evident, when considered in the broader context of Church teaching.

[ksfisher]

 

 

The other part of the problem is I don't accept Wickman's comments as authoritative for the church as I don't sustain him and never did, as a prophet, seer and revelator.

 

 

So you are considering a statement by a general authority, posted in the official web site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for all the world to read and ultimately overseen by those whom we consider prophets, seers, and revelators, to not reflect the position of the church on the matter?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Your Internet connection is not my problem.

 

Nor is your refusal to recognize what has continuously remained on the official Church web site as the formal position of the Church.

 

Continuously since when?

Is everything I find on lds.org, in every talk, every song, every picture, every interview, the "formal position of the church"? Or do you have some other reason for claiming it is the church's formal position since...?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

Continuously since when?

Is everything I find on lds.org, in every talk, every song, every picture, every interview, the "formal position of the church"? Or do you have some other reason for claiming it is the church's formal position since...?

The portion I have cited is on the "Newsroom" section of the website, which is the go-to source for inquiring journalists and others who need a quick and reliable exposition of the Church's position on this or that topic.

 

Again, your refusal to recognize it as such is not my problem.

[ERayR]

 

 

Continuously since when?

Is everything I find on lds.org, in every talk, every song, every picture, every interview, the "formal position of the church"? Or do you have some other reason for claiming it is the church's formal position since...?

 

Nope.  Only those things you agree with. 

[smac97]

SMACs post doesn't answer the question. He said "Nevertheless, everything will be sorted out."

This is a standard cop out answer which essentially means, "we don't know how it will work so don't worry about it."

It's not a cop out to concede limitations on understanding how the God's logistics work.

That's fine as long as people like you don't act like you know how it will all work out and write fiction to justify yourself for condemning those with SSA.

First, you are bearing false witness. AFAICS, nobody is "condemning those with SSA."

Second, you also bear false witness when you characterize opposing viewpoints as "fiction to justify yourself." Can you accommodate the possibility that people have have a principled, reasoned, and - most of all - doctrinal/scriptural/spiritual basis for opposing endorsement of same-sex behavior? Or is it your way or the highway?

Third, you falsely imply that those who oppose endorsement of same-sex behavior are speaking without guidance from God on the subject. We have guidance from prophets, both ancient and modern, regarding same-sex attraction.

We don't know how it will work. It will be worked out.

True and true.

This means we don't know enough to condemn SSA or even pretend to know how they will fit into the eternal plan.

Not true. Again, we have guidance from prophets, both ancient and modern, regarding same-sex attraction.

And again, you are bearing false witness. Nobody is "condemn(ing) SSA." If you want to have a discussion on this topic, at least have the courtesy of not distorting views which diverge from your own.

Revelation is needed for this,

You speak as if we have not receive "revelation ... for this." We have.

yet you seem content to accuse and condemn people of having a malady or you will require them to be alone for eternity. Very charitable.

Again, you are bearing false witness. This is a troubling defect in your writing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

HappyJackWagon, on 12 May 2015 - 3:15 PM, said:

Revelation is needed for this,

SMAC- You speak as if we have not receive "revelation ... for this." We have.

HappyJackWagon, on 12 May 2015 - 3:15 PM, said:

yet you seem content to accuse and condemn people of having a malady or you will require them to be alone for eternity. Very charitable.

SMAC- Again, you are bearing false witness. This is a troubling defect in your writing.

Please point me to the revelation on this.

False witness? Get serious. I was responding to Scott and that is what he said.

[rockpond]

I'm responding to what is self-evident, when considered in the broader context of Church teaching.

 

Well, I was referring to the actual text of the revelation.  I agree that you need to add latter-day teachings/revelation to reconcile the conflicting doctrines.

[rockpond]

 

Your "hope" is understandably offensive when you couch it in ways like this / this (you lauding and celebrating a website designed specifically to help and encourage Latter-day Saints to violate the Law of Chastity) and this / this (you accusing the Church and its members of causing gay suicides) and this (you mocking non-gay Latter-day Saints who struggle with adhering to the Law of Chastity) and this (you advocating a double standard in the Law of Chastity, namely, one which effectively exempts people with SSA from it).

 

What you advocate is not innocuous.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I believe you are misrepresenting my comments (as is commonly the case on these boards).  I cannot view that thread so if you want to discuss what I said you'll have to provide actual quotes.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have to believe the leaders wouldn't support anyone saying their stance regarding gays is that they suffer with a "congenital malady". Where have you read that Scott? Or is that just your opinion?

I suggested that as a possibility. I don't know its cause.

 

I can only declare with confidence that it is not normal or wholesome -- or eternal.

 

If you prefer, I'll call it an "affliction." That's the word Elder Wickman used in the link I have provided.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I was referring to the actual text of the revelation.  I agree that you need to add latter-day teachings/revelation to reconcile the conflicting doctrines.

We don't agree if you insist they are conflicting.

 

My position is that they don't conflict when viewed with a proper frame of reference.

[smac97]

I believe you are misrepresenting my comments (as is commonly the case on these boards).  I cannot view that thread so if you want to discuss what I said you'll have to provide actual quotes.

It's kinda hard to misrepresent your comments when I provide a direct link to them.

And no, I didn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

It's kinda hard to misrepresent your comments when I provide a direct link to them.

And no, I didn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I can't access them because I was banned from that thread (I can't remember why it was ages ago).