Two New Ensign Articles Affirming Marriage Between A Man And A Woman

[Calm]

Enjoyable blog read, thanks for the link.

[rockpond]

The doctrinal teachings of the Church are clear: You don't strengthen marriage as an institution or the family unit bu redefining it to excuse or rationalize the breaking of the law of chastity, whether that be the allowing of non-marital relationships or homosexual ones.

From the statement I quoted yesterday:

Also,

These things have been expressed and repeated so often, it is not realistic to expect the Church will ever capitulate on or back away from them.

Expressing them and repeating them, even "very often" doesn't make them rational, correct, or true.

[rockpond]

I am not using new definitions (see the last link below), neither are these new applications of the principle. As you pointed out, Lehi is scripturally applying each application in just those few verses of scripture in 2 Nephi 2.

“Compound in one” does not mean two opposite genders. It means a union or placement of any two opposing principles. The two opposing genders (as in opposite sexes) are brought together through marriage to create their “compound in one” (Genesis 2:24). That they are “opposite” is shown in the several scriptures that use the two genders in the contrasting sense (showing “oppositeness”, along with other contrasting principles:

1 Nephi 8: 27, “And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female…”

2 Nephi 10: 16, “Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female…”

2 Nephi 26: 33, “… he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…”

Alma 1: 30, “… therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church…”

Alma 11: 44, “Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous…”

As far as “an help meet” goes, I think Eve is consistently referred to as a female character, a woman, one of the first the parents (meaning mother and father, as defined by Nephi). The only time the phrase is ever used in scripture is in reference to Eve. That “declares” everything!

Every other use of the phrase is a human invention, and completely corrupt at that: The word “helpmeet” was a new word created in the late 17th century (c. 1670), from an erroneous reading of the 1611 Bible (Genesis 2:18, 20). The noun-adjective phrase was hyphenated and mistaken as a modified noun. It's a non-existent, make-believe word (scripturally speaking)! http://blog.oup.com/2009/01/helpmeet/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opposition

Look at 5-11 definitions of “opposition”; these are not at all adversarial relationships. To me, #11 is interesting in relation to gender because gender is likewise the most basic, distinct unit of character or attribute that distinguishes the children of God from one another. I also like the tie-in of this definition of “opposition” with the concept of “the Word.”

Throwing out a bunch of scripture that mention "male and female" doesn't define "compound in one" as opposite genders. There is simply not a reference to gender there as being in opposivition. Further, as I've stated, a heterosexual male-female coupling is complimentary not opposing. And your linked list of definitions does not support the additional definitions that you are trying to apply to opposition. It's all just too much of a stretch.

Yes, Eve, a female is referred to as a helpmeet. She was Adam's helpmeet. I have nothing against heterosexual marriage - I'm rather fond of mine.

Since were unlikely to convince each other of our interpretations is 2 Nephi 2, could I ask this: What do you feel is Heavenly Father's plan for his homosexual children here on Earth?

[Storm Rider]

Hello Rock,

I assume that our Father has the same plan for all of his children.  He desires that we repent of our sins, follow his Son, and return to him. 

 

Some of our Father's children have a wide degree of homosexual tendencies, urges, attractions, etc.  I believe our Father loves them just as he loves each of his children and wants the same things for them.  I also expect that he desires that they be as committed to righteousness as he requires of all disciples of Christ.  He expects them to reject all forms of unrighteousness in the same way that he desires of all his children. 

 

I don't think his desires change whether a child is a practicing homosexual or not - repent, follow Christ, and seek after all righteousness. 

 

In preparing for tomorrow's Gospel lesson I was reading 1 Cor 6:9: 

 

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived:  neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

 

It is clear from this verse that God does not distinguish between these sins - they are all condemned equally.  Our Father also clearly states what the cost of these sins are - they shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 

 

With this foundation, what do you think is God's plan for his children, regardless of their choice of sins?  Are the demands any less for a gay child as they are for those who are not gay?

[CV75]

Throwing out a bunch of scripture that mention "male and female" doesn't define "compound in one" as opposite genders. There is simply not a reference to gender there as being in opposivition. Further, as I've stated, a heterosexual male-female coupling is complimentary not opposing. And your linked list of definitions does not support the additional definitions that you are trying to apply to opposition. It's all just too much of a stretch.

Yes, Eve, a female is referred to as a helpmeet. She was Adam's helpmeet. I have nothing against heterosexual marriage - I'm rather fond of mine.

Since were unlikely to convince each other of our interpretations is 2 Nephi 2, could I ask this: What do you feel is Heavenly Father's plan for his homosexual children here on Earth?

Looking at how “male and female” is used in the same juxtaposing as other opposing yet non-adversarial principles shows that “male” and “female” are also opposing principles. And that the opposition is in a sense other than adversarial. In most of these contexts, the examples demonstrate the reach of the Lord’s work to each end of a spectrum (each end in opposition to the other).

 

Note that the scriptural terms is “an opposition” – meaning “oppositeness,” which is so much more than an adversarial relationship as Lehi demonstrates, and all you seem to wrapping your mind around.

 

You haven't reciprocated, and simply can’t support your position with scripture passages and related documentation, which speaks volumes. You are simply “just throwing out” refutations without any explanation of how or why. At least my documented dictionary definitions and links match up with Lehi’s various applications of the meaning of opposition. I don't care that you don't agree, just try to be rational about it in attempting to refute my position.

 

Eve certainly helped Adam, and I would go so far as to say she saved (another meaning of “help”)  him from an existence devoid of everything that followed her arrival and their marriage (including those forms of opposition which Lehi brings up), that lead us to eternal life. She was “meet” not only because she was up to the task, but because he now had a means to apply himself to save her from the same fate. And in a way, they were even a compound of one to start with (she on the inside and he on the outside, for she came out of him). And in all this, you say that the concept of “opposite sex” is not represented in the eternal principles of opposition and atonement.

 

As I’ve stated, His plan for all His children is the same, no matter how you want to label them. I’d like to keep the discussion around the necessity of opposing gender, marriage (the compound on one of these opposing genders) and the Atonement in the Lord’s common plan for each and all of His children, no matter how obsessed one may be over individual sexuality or any other quality or condition.

 

P.S. LOL—I just realized: you talk about redefining “opposition” being a problem in the face of redefining “marriage.” Look at how Lehi uses the term and applies the principle; at least the definitions I’ve linked to match scripture!

Edited September 6, 2015 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

Hello Rock,

I assume that our Father has the same plan for all of his children.  He desires that we repent of our sins, follow his Son, and return to him. 

 

Some of our Father's children have a wide degree of homosexual tendencies, urges, attractions, etc.  I believe our Father loves them just as he loves each of his children and wants the same things for them.  I also expect that he desires that they be as committed to righteousness as he requires of all disciples of Christ.  He expects them to reject all forms of unrighteousness in the same way that he desires of all his children. 

 

I don't think his desires change whether a child is a practicing homosexual or not - repent, follow Christ, and seek after all righteousness. 

 

In preparing for tomorrow's Gospel lesson I was reading 1 Cor 6:9: 

 

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived:  neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

 

It is clear from this verse that God does not distinguish between these sins - they are all condemned equally.  Our Father also clearly states what the cost of these sins are - they shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 

 

With this foundation, what do you think is God's plan for his children, regardless of their choice of sins?  Are the demands any less for a gay child as they are for those who are not gay?

In this regard, some excerpts from the Church-published pamphlet "God Loveth His Children," (which I have recently perused) are relevant:

 

 

In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing.

Self-Mastery

In order to qualify for the blessings of our Heavenly Father’s plan, each of us was sent to this earth for a period of probation, during which we face a variety of temptations and challenges. Some of these challenges are associated with our physical bodies. Because we did not possess physical bodies before this life, we must learn to live with their inadequacies and interpret their signals, urges, and needs. And we must often learn to say “no.” This self-mastery of the physical body is very important because we will possess these bodies, in perfected form, in the next life. ...

True happiness depends on more than the expression of physical urges. These urges diminish as more fundamental emotional needs are met—such as the need to interact with and serve others. True happiness comes from self-control, self-respect, and positive direction in life. It comes from a testimony of true doctrine—including who you are and who you may become—and from living according to God’s plan of happiness.

 

Many people with same-gender attractions have strong testimonies of the gospel and, therefore, do not act on those attractions. Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction. The First Presidency stated, “There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior” (letter, Nov. 14, 1991).

 

This principle applies to all of God’s children, for He has declared that all sexual relations outside of marriage are unacceptable. Everyone has temptations, but one of the purposes of mortality is to learn to overcome them. President David O. McKay beautifully defined spirituality as “the consciousness of victory over self” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1969)  These temptations, which are generally uninvited, may be powerful, but they are never so strong as to deprive us of our freedom of choice. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior” (“Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 1995, 9). Improper thoughts diminish if you replace them immediately with uplifting, constructive thoughts.

 

Some important points to consider from this:

 

• Bodies, feelings and desires will be perfected in the next life so that all may experience the joy of a family consisting of husband, wife and children. Ergo, the burden of same-sex attraction will not continue beyond mortality.
• True happiness depends on more than the expression of physical urges; it comes from self-control, self-respect and self-mastery. This is true for anyone regardless of sexual orientation.
• Many people with same-gender attractions have strong testimonies of the gospel and therefore do not act on those attractions.
• Urges alone do not make a person unworthy. Behavior is the determining factor. This is true regardless of sexual orientation.
• Improper thoughts and urges diminish as one replaces them with uplifting, constructive thoughts and deeds.

 

It has occurred to me that it's probable we mostly never hear of those Church members who have successfully overcome their same-gender attraction. This stands to reason: Why publicize a matter that is so personal and intimate if there is no need to do so? Therefore, we are apt to get a false sense that this is a losing, nigh-unto-impossible struggle, because we generally don't hear of the successes.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

It has occurred to me that it's probable we mostly never hear of those Church members who have successfully overcome their same-gender attraction. This stands to reason: Why publicize a matter that is so personal and intimate if there is no need to do so? Therefore, we are apt to get a false sense that this is a losing, nigh-unto-impossible struggle, because we generally don't hear of the successes.

Our stake presidency has reminded the wards on occssion that several temple-married couples ("you would be surprised how many") in the stake where one or both are gay or lesbian or struggle with SSA have successfully married, enjoy their relationship and raised successful families in the Church. They say it is difficult but worth it for the promised blessings they have enjoyed a taste of in this world.

 

I don't hear anyone questioning Heavenly Father's plan (eternal marriage) for asexual or bisexual people either, whom I am sure have also married in the temple, enjoyed loving relatoinships with their spouse and raised successful families as well.

[Teancum]

I would like to make a few comments about this thread.

First I am actually very sympathetic to the position of the LDS church on the issues of marriage in general...at least their current ideals. More in that in a moment. While on secular front I do not oppose same sex marriage I do worry about the long term impact on society because I do believe the best environment for raising children is in Monogamous Marriage of one man and one woman.

Next, I too do not think the LDS church will ever change the or positions on this. The doctrine of enternal marriage, eternal increase and the idea that our gender is enternal as well all oppose this. However we must keep in mind the idea of continuing revelation and that things can and do change in the LDS world.

Earlier I this thread I posted a question on something Joseph Smith argued when trying to convince Nancy Rigdon to marry him. He is what he said :

"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."

"A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost."

"This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had."

Be wise today; 'tis madness to defer:

Next day the fatal precedent may plead.

Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time

Into eternity.

"Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;" but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy."

- Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, See also "The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon," Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives

Once again I do not think the church will ever recognize same sex marriege. But the ideas Joseph taught above leaves the door open for that or many other things. Personally I find the ideas Joseph espouses above very dangerous but that is another topic. Still this does leave the door open for same sex marriage even in an LDS temple if that which was wrong can someday be right.

Next I feel bad for poor Rockpond. Why can't he believe God has answered his personal prayers differently on this than so many here as well as different than the church position in this? So much for praying on your own to get an answer. Why pray if the only acceptable answer is what the prophet or church says? Again another topic for another day.

Last of all I still do not believe same sex marriage threatenew monogamous marriage and family what so ever. Why would it? Heterosexuals will continue to marry at the same rate.

I think the 19th century LDS Church redefined marriage is such a way that harmed families and the well being of children far more than same sex marriage does. 19th century LDS leaders argued monogamy was evil and the root of prostitution and other sexual sin. Yet a father with five wives and 20 kids may not be much of a father at all as far a investing time in his children's lives as well as developing an intimate relationship with a spouse (emotionally and physically). Plural marriage is horrible for children as well as a fully intmate marriage,

I find it ironic and even hypocritical that the LDS church whose history had an institutional marriage system that redefined marriage in a horrible way at least for fostering what the Church now argues for monogamy as the standard for marriage and for family.

Take all that for what you will.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Teancum

[HappyJackWagon]

Our HPG lesson was focused on Elder Hafen's 2 articles as well as Pres. Nelson's "Disciples and the Defense of Marriage" and Elder Ballard's "The Temple and the Natural Order of Marriage."

 

This exact issue was hashed out in the group with about as much agreement as we see here. In fact it was a bit of a train wreck, mostly because there was only one side presented as the "faithful" side and then the other side presented as the "apostate" side. Despite this line of demarkation we had a couple of brave souls share differing opinions about the separation of the SSM issue on a religious and political grounds.

 

In some ways the meeting was fascinating as some of the older men especially struggled with the conflict between their religious belief and what they perceived as a political position with the Arkansas Clerk.

 

This issue isn't going away. Even though the conservative/orthodox members are the majority in church now, I expect this will change dramatically with the next generation. This faithful/apostate paradigm is going to need to shift some or those who continually get labeled as apostates will simply leave.

[stemelbow]

This issue isn't going away. Even though the conservative/orthodox members are the majority in church now, I expect this will change dramatically with the next generation. This faithful/apostate paradigm is going to need to shift some or those who continually get labeled as apostates will simply leave.

it has changed and will probably change more. I think that members in your ward daring challenge the status quo shows it's changing. Every once in a while you used to see someone. But now a days you'll often see more than one.

[rockpond]

Looking at how “male and female” is used in the same juxtaposing as other opposing yet non-adversarial principles shows that “male” and “female” are also opposing principles. And that the opposition is in a sense other than adversarial. In most of these contexts, the examples demonstrate the reach of the Lord’s work to each end of a spectrum (each end in opposition to the other).

 

Note that the scriptural terms is “an opposition” – meaning “oppositeness,” which is so much more than an adversarial relationship as Lehi demonstrates, and all you seem to wrapping your mind around.

 

You haven't reciprocated, and simply can’t support your position with scripture passages and related documentation, which speaks volumes. You are simply “just throwing out” refutations without any explanation of how or why. At least my documented dictionary definitions and links match up with Lehi’s various applications of the meaning of opposition. I don't care that you don't agree, just try to be rational about it in attempting to refute my position.

 

Eve certainly helped Adam, and I would go so far as to say she saved (another meaning of “help”)  him from an existence devoid of everything that followed her arrival and their marriage (including those forms of opposition which Lehi brings up), that lead us to eternal life. She was “meet” not only because she was up to the task, but because he now had a means to apply himself to save her from the same fate. And in a way, they were even a compound of one to start with (she on the inside and he on the outside, for she came out of him). And in all this, you say that the concept of “opposite sex” is not represented in the eternal principles of opposition and atonement.

 

As I’ve stated, His plan for all His children is the same, no matter how you want to label them. I’d like to keep the discussion around the necessity of opposing gender, marriage (the compound on one of these opposing genders) and the Atonement in the Lord’s common plan for each and all of His children, no matter how obsessed one may be over individual sexuality or any other quality or condition.

 

P.S. LOL—I just realized: you talk about redefining “opposition” being a problem in the face of redefining “marriage.” Look at how Lehi uses the term and applies the principle; at least the definitions I’ve linked to match scripture!

 

You say I haven't reciprocated but I have explained that I view the "opposition in all things" as spiritual and certainly not having application to the genitalia of one's spouse.  I didn't post the list (a number of pages back) but I agreed with it... the list of scriptural examples of opposition is, I believe, the correct interpretation.

 

I have, however, listened to and considered your exegesis.  I just don't see it as scripturally supported (the linked definitions don't support it) and don't agree with your interpretation.

 

That said, I think the next step is important:  How you take your understanding and place it into a pastoral approach.  This is why I asked, given your understanding of marriage, what do you believe is God's plan for his homosexual children.  I'd like to understand how you apply your belief on the matter.  You said, His plan is the same for all His children but that's not a particularly useful statement given that you're position on marriage proscribes gays from full participation in marriage/family.

 

p.s.  I have not and am not suggesting that we redefine marriage.

[CV75]

You say I haven't reciprocated but I have explained that I view the "opposition in all things" as spiritual and certainly not having application to the genitalia of one's spouse.  I didn't post the list (a number of pages back) but I agreed with it... the list of scriptural examples of opposition is, I believe, the correct interpretation.

 

I have, however, listened to and considered your exegesis.  I just don't see it as scripturally supported (the linked definitions don't support it) and don't agree with your interpretation.

 

That said, I think the next step is important:  How you take your understanding and place it into a pastoral approach.  This is why I asked, given your understanding of marriage, what do you believe is God's plan for his homosexual children.  I'd like to understand how you apply your belief on the matter.  You said, His plan is the same for all His children but that's not a particularly useful statement given that you're position on marriage proscribes gays from full participation in marriage/family.

 

p.s.  I have not and am not suggesting that we redefine marriage.

I think you’re missing out on a couple of points:

 

The principle of opposition is both temporal and spiritual (2 Nephi 2:5). For example, life and death, corruption and incorruption, wickedness and happiness, and sense and insensibility are each both temporal and spiritual concepts (2 Nephi 2:11).

 

In the end all things are spiritual or course, even the intimate makeup of our physical bodies, whether male or female (Alma 11:43-45). This passage refers to the opposite sexes along with other opposing temporal and spiritual things to demonstrate the full spectrum of the Lord’s eternal purposes for His children and their resurrected bodies, who in this temporal sphere face being old or young, bond or free, male or female, and wicked or righteous. (D&C 88:27-28 also says a resurrected body is a spiritual body after its natural form).

 

The Lord’s eternal plan doesn’t proscribe anyone from full participation in His design for marriage and family, as established with our first parents under the laws of opposition and atonement as Lehi described. All He requires is that they are willing to submit to Him as a child. For this reason, and because no personal situation is ever so narrowly defined, I don’t have a particular pastoral approach for anyone, unless you want to get very general (in which case I'd refer to the Handbooks).

[rockpond]

I think you’re missing out on a couple of points:

 

The principle of opposition is both temporal and spiritual (2 Nephi 2:5). For example, life and death, corruption and incorruption, wickedness and happiness, and sense and insensibility are each both temporal and spiritual concepts (2 Nephi 2:11).

 

In the end all things are spiritual or course, even the intimate makeup of our physical bodies, whether male or female (Alma 11:43-45). This passage refers to the opposite sexes along with other opposing temporal and spiritual things to demonstrate the full spectrum of the Lord’s eternal purposes for His children and their resurrected bodies, who in this temporal sphere face being old or young, bond or free, male or female, and wicked or righteous. (D&C 88:27-28 also says a resurrected body is a spiritual body after its natural form).

 

The Lord’s eternal plan doesn’t proscribe anyone from full participation in His design for marriage and family, as established with our first parents under the laws of opposition and atonement as Lehi described. All He requires is that they are willing to submit to Him as a child. For this reason, and because no personal situation is ever so narrowly defined, I don’t have a particular pastoral approach for anyone, unless you want to get very general (in which case I'd refer to the Handbooks).

 

I.  2 Nephi 2, verses 5 & 11 don't change what I've said.  Nothing we haven't already covered there.

 

II. The Alma 11 and D&C 88 verses you highlighted discuss resurrection.  I'm not seeing the relevance to your point that the principle of opposition requires marriage to be only male-female.

 

III.  I agree that the Lord's eternal plan doesn't proscribe anyone from full participation.  But your "plan" does seem to prohibit God's homosexual children from fully participating in marriage and family (which are part of the Lord's plan).  Without a pastoral application, your interpretation of the above discussed scriptures are not particularly useful to me as a father, priesthood holder, member, and leader in the church.

Edited September 8, 2015 by rockpond

[CV75]

I.  2 Nephi 2, verses 5 & 11 don't change what I've said.  Nothing we haven't already covered there.

 

II. The Alma 11 and D&C 88 verses you highlighted discuss resurrection.  I'm not seeing the relevance to your point that the principle of opposition requires marriage to be only male-female.

 

III.  I agree that the Lord's eternal plan doesn't proscribe anyone from full participation.  But your "plan" does seem to prohibit God's homosexual children from fully participating in marriage and family (which are part of the Lord's plan).  Without a pastoral application, your interpretation of the above discussed scriptures are not particularly useful to me as a father, priesthood holder, member, and leader in the church.

I. Just more proof that the principle has temporal as well as spiritual application; doesn't change what you've said but certainly disproves it in a major way.

 

II. The Alma 11 and D&C 88 verses do discuss resurrection, and in a particular way which adds further weight and meaning to the principle that “an opposition in all things” is expressed spiritually--which includes materially or physically and temporally, and eternally. The resurrection transforms a dead temporal body (separable spirit and element) into a living spiritual body (inseparable spirt and element), and two such bodies, even of opposing traits, are both resurrected in their proper (or spiritual) frame “even as we are now” (or temporal). So two principles are proven: 1. “Male and female” are as opposing as other opposing traits such as “old and young,” “bond and free,” and “wicked and righteous” (whether they are expressed temporally or spiritually); and 2. “an opposition”  is expressed in both the temporal and spiritual sense.

 

III. My understanding of God’s plan does not prohibit any of His children from fully participating in marriage and family (which are part of the Lord's plan) on His terms, and in His way and timetable. This has broad pastoral application, but I’m not going to entertain a premise that relegates a person in need to only one trait or circumstance for its practice.

[rockpond]

III. My understanding of God’s plan does not prohibit any of His children from fully participating in marriage and family (which are part of the Lord's plan) on His terms, and in His way and timetable. This has broad pastoral application, but I’m not going to entertain a premise that relegates a person in need to only one trait or circumstance for its practice.

 

Well, I find scriptural exegesis only productive to the extent that it brings us to some useful application for the lives of people I care about (as well as myself).  You interpret a male-female marital mandate through the scriptures we've discussed.  That's great for heterosexual people who can make such a union work.  But it doesn't provide much of a place for our homosexual brothers and sisters.  This is why I asked about your pastoral application for them.

Edited September 8, 2015 by rockpond

[KevinG]

In essence homosexuals have the same place and opportunity in our church as other people whose behavior does not align with gospel standards.

 

Repent.

 

This is not due to some mistake in interpreting doctrine, or cruel whim on the part of God.  It is due to Christ wanting us to return to the Father, through the atonement, without spot or blemish, ready to become joint heirs with Him.

 

Active homosexuals are not the only group bargaining with God to accept their sins as normal, but they are a very prominent group arguing to reclassify their sins as acceptable behavior.

[CV75]

Well, I find scriptural exegesis only productive to the extent that it brings us to some useful application for the lives of people I care about (as well as myself).  You interpret a male-female marital mandate through the scriptures we've discussed.  That's great for heterosexual people who can make such a union work.  But it doesn't provide much of a place for our homosexual brothers and sisters.  This is why I asked about your pastoral application for them.

I care about all for whom I rightly serve in a pastoral capacity. I do it individually, personally, and in a live situation with all its complexities and nuances, taking the whole person into account. I don't have a stand-alone application for "them" because there is no other generalized solution than the basics for drawing closer to the Lord, which everyone can do. Any specifics to helping someone through their difficulties regarding the LDS covenant of marriage have to be discovered individually.

[rockpond]

I care about all for whom I rightly serve in a pastoral capacity. I do it individually, personally, and in a live situation with all its complexities and nuances, taking the whole person into account. I don't have a stand-alone application for "them" because there is no other generalized solution than the basics for drawing closer to the Lord, which everyone can do. Any specifics to helping someone through their difficulties regarding the LDS covenant of marriage have to be discovered individually.

 

Yes, each individual is unique.  But your interpretation of scripture leaves our gay brothers and sisters without a place.  I didn't think it was too much to ask for an explanation of how they fit in.  Here you refer to specifics of "helping someone through their difficulties regarding the LDS covenant of marriage".  How might a homosexual member of the Church even begin to navigate that in the exclusive male-female marriage paradigm you've outlined.  What are their options?

 

You see (to tie back into the articles from the OP), I'm baffled by the strong and repeated emphasis by church leaders on "one man, one woman" marriage.  From where I sit, the problem is not heterosexual people choosing to enter gay marriages.  The problem is gay church members not being able to see a place for themselves in the Plan.  I don't see repeated preaching about the importance of male-female marriage being particularly useful to homosexual church members.  I'm not sure where it gets us.

[CV75]

Yes, each individual is unique.  But your interpretation of scripture leaves our gay brothers and sisters without a place.  I didn't think it was too much to ask for an explanation of how they fit in.  Here you refer to specifics of "helping someone through their difficulties regarding the LDS covenant of marriage".  How might a homosexual member of the Church even begin to navigate that in the exclusive male-female marriage paradigm you've outlined.  What are their options?

 

You see (to tie back into the articles from the OP), I'm baffled by the strong and repeated emphasis by church leaders on "one man, one woman" marriage.  From where I sit, the problem is not heterosexual people choosing to enter gay marriages.  The problem is gay church members not being able to see a place for themselves in the Plan.  I don't see repeated preaching about the importance of male-female marriage being particularly useful to homosexual church members.  I'm not sure where it gets us.

Your assertions are simply not supported by scripture. On the contrary, everyone fits in and has options if they are willing. Every righteous desire to enter every covenant on the Lord’s terms, and the promised fulness of joy will be realized. He must be the priority for each of us; otherwise we’ll fail to find a place in His kingdom.

 

One man, one woman marriage is important and warrants the current emphasis from our leaders. It has less to do with members’ personal sexual orientation than with their needing to strengthen their marriages, families, communities, societies and Zion with proper attitudes and understanding of marriage in these times. All over the world. “True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.” (Boyd K. Packer, “Little Children,” Oct. 1986 General Conference). This is relevant for anyone finding a place in the Plan.

 

“The problem?” Seeing their place the Plan is an ongoing problem for everyone, which is why we have so many resources repeatedly touching on so many issues, so many General Conference talks, correlation, etc. Sometimes some things get emphasized more than others; I attribute that to the Lord. He thus clarifies the vision so we can find our place in the Plan (see Lehi’s tree of life dream).

[rockpond]

Your assertions are simply not supported by scripture. On the contrary, everyone fits in and has options if they are willing. Every righteous desire to enter every covenant on the Lord’s terms, and the promised fulness of joy will be realized. He must be the priority for each of us; otherwise we’ll fail to find a place in His kingdom.

 

One man, one woman marriage is important and warrants the current emphasis from our leaders. It has less to do with members’ personal sexual orientation than with their needing to strengthen their marriages, families, communities, societies and Zion with proper attitudes and understanding of marriage in these times. All over the world. “True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.” (Boyd K. Packer, “Little Children,” Oct. 1986 General Conference). This is relevant for anyone finding a place in the Plan.

 

“The problem?” Seeing their place the Plan is an ongoing problem for everyone, which is why we have so many resources repeatedly touching on so many issues, so many General Conference talks, correlation, etc. Sometimes some things get emphasized more than others; I attribute that to the Lord. He thus clarifies the vision so we can find our place in the Plan (see Lehi’s tree of life dream).

 

Your assertions are not supported by scripture either.  We are both making the best interpretations we can.

 

I agree with what you've written and quoted regarding the importance of marriage and strengthening our marriages and families.  What I don't see in your zealous defense of "one man, one woman marriage" is anything to help gay church members, their families, and loved ones.

[CV75]

Your assertions are not supported by scripture either.  We are both making the best interpretations we can.

 

I agree with what you've written and quoted regarding the importance of marriage and strengthening our marriages and families.  What I don't see in your zealous defense of "one man, one woman marriage" is anything to help gay church members, their families, and loved ones.

But you said that already so you’ve canceled yourself out! LOL. Plus, my interpretation does not leave anyone without a place; I don't see why you insist that it does. All are welcome to enter all the covenants.

 

Everyone has something major (to oneself at least) to get over, to give up, to go through, etc. in order to receive the full blessings of the Lord. His grace is ultimately the key for all of us in accomplishing this. I think it is more that you don’t agree with that or with my pastoral approach.

 

If we follow the example of our Savior and our Church Leaders, a person’s sexual orientation is not a barrier to being offered pastoral care, attention and blessing through any challenge(s) he might have with the principle of marriage.

 

“Kanai” help you further?

 

CV75 the Zealot

קנאי

[Thinking]

In essence homosexuals have the same place and opportunity in our church as other people whose behavior does not align with gospel standards.

 

Repent.

 

 

This is not due to some mistake in interpreting doctrine, or cruel whim on the part of God.  It is due to Christ wanting us to return to the Father, through the atonement, without spot or blemish, ready to become joint heirs with Him.

 

Active homosexuals are not the only group bargaining with God to accept their sins as normal, but they are a very prominent group arguing to reclassify their sins as acceptable behavior.

 

Basically what we have is one group of people A telling another group of people B that God told them A that the behavior of people B is unacceptable to God.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Thinking

[rockpond]

But you said that already so you’ve canceled yourself out! LOL. Plus, my interpretation does not leave anyone without a place; I don't see why you insist that it does. All are welcome to enter all the covenants.

Everyone has something major (to oneself at least) to get over, to give up, to go through, etc. in order to receive the full blessings of the Lord. His grace is ultimately the key for all of us in accomplishing this. I think it is more that you don’t agree with that or with my pastoral approach.

If we follow the example of our Savior and our Church Leaders, a person’s sexual orientation is not a barrier to being offered pastoral care, attention and blessing through any challenge(s) he might have with the principle of marriage.

“Kanai” help you further?

CV75 the Zealot

קנאי

How does a gay church member enter the covenant of marriage?

Also, with your "give up, get over" line, are you suggesting that gay church members can give up or get over their sexual orientation?

[Storm Rider]

 

 

Basically what we have is one group of people  A telling another group of people B that God told them A that the behavior of people B is unacceptable to God.

 

I think a clearer statement is that for thousands of years God has stated that homosexual behavior is a sin.  At no time in history has the world stated that homosexual behavior is not a sin.  That is not to say that there have been those who have always practiced this behavior.  However, just because one or many seek to make homosexual behavior not a sin, does not make it so.  

[stemelbow]

I think a clearer statement is that for thousands of years God has stated that homosexual behavior is a sin.  At no time in history has the world stated that homosexual behavior is not a sin.  That is not to say that there have been those who have always practiced this behavior.  However, just because one or many seek to make homosexual behavior not a sin, does not make it so.

If all you take is other people's word for it, than God commanded a lot of things, most of which not many regard as coming from God. Some of us actually question whether something that someone claims to be of God is of God. I also question whether God commanded the slaughtering of defenseless women and children. Some, I guess, want to call that an unfaithful approach, I suppose. I call it a pretty fair assumption.