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

[Buckeye]

To think ssm may someday be OK with God is not much different than thinking we may one day receive a new revelation that states families really can't be sealed for eternity.  Or that Christ really wasn't the Son of God.  The relationship between husband and wife could hardly be more fundamental in the plan of salvation.  To think such can be redefined seem irrational to me.  There is absolutely no conceivable (pun intended) role for a male-male or female- female sexual relationship in the eternities.  It seems to me that people are trying a little too hard to reconcile the philosophies of men with eternal truth.  

 

How about the role that such sexual relationships provide right now; i.e., the same role that sexual relationships provide for infertile hetero couples? If there is value to a sexual relationship outside of conception - and the church has (recently) made very clear that there is - why wouldn't that value be considered for SS couples as with heteros?

[Gray]

To think ssm may someday be OK with God is not much different than thinking we may one day receive a new revelation that states families really can't be sealed for eternity.  Or that Christ really wasn't the Son of God.  The relationship between husband and wife could hardly be more fundamental in the plan of salvation.  To think such can be redefined seem irrational to me.  There is absolutely no conceivable (pun intended) role for a male-male or female- female sexual relationship in the eternities.  It seems to me that people are trying a little too hard to reconcile the philosophies of men with eternal truth.  

 

It would be a smaller change than the ending of polygamy in the church. 

[KevinG]

How about the role that such sexual relationships provide right now; i.e., the same role that sexual relationships provide for infertile hetero couples? If there is value to a sexual relationship outside of conception - and the church has (recently) made very clear that there is - why wouldn't that value be considered for SS couples as with heteros?

 

Cementing the bonds of marriage and engendering feelings of affection is certainly an important part of physical intimacy, but intimacy without hope of eternal progression (which even childless couples can hope for) is not the fullness of the promises of eternal marriage.

 

The plan fact of the matter is that a same sex couple cannot hope for a righteous progeny in this life or the next.  Not unless God has the power to change the basic nature of our creation.  That is a much bigger issue than infertility.

[ALarson]

No.  I did not.

 

Look, I'm not going to continue arguing this point with you, as I'm done with this after this post.  But you definitely did state that President McKay's quote didn't just refer to the Priesthood ban.  You only gave a partial quote (leaving out what I included that clearly specifies the reason the leaders issued the statement).  

 

Then you wrote that it:

referred to the Gospel plan not just the priesthood ban.

 

 

What President McKay is quoted as saying in the statement issued is clearly directed to blacks regarding the Priesthood ban (direct quote from the statement):

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

 

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[rockpond]

Where is it stated by the church that the ban never came from God?  It isn't stated anywhere.  The theories proposed to explain the ban have been disavowed.  That is not the same thing as stating that the ban did not come from God.

 

I agree.  I was just relaying the sentiment from that discussion on the other thread.

[Buckeye]

Cementing the bonds of marriage and engendering feelings of affection is certainly an important part of physical intimacy, but intimacy without hope of eternal progression (which even childless couples can hope for) is not the fullness of the promises of eternal marriage.

 

The plan fact of the matter is that a same sex couple cannot hope for a righteous progeny in this life or the next.  Not unless God has the power to change the basic nature of our creation.  That is a much bigger issue than infertility.

 

Couples can have eternal progression without conception. The church seals adopted kids to infertile hetero couples all the time. So if hetero couples can be eternal parents to children then did not conceive, why can't same-sex couples do the same, particularly in the common situation where one of the parents actually is a biological parent?

 

I see creation as much broader than just passing DNA. Christ is our ultimate example of fatherhood. Yet that role does not include any biological passing of genes. True, eternal, creation comes through the sacrifice, example, and exalting of another beyond what they can achieve on their own. It's so much more than passing DNA. And it's equally available to SS couples as any other.

 

Edit to add: As Sheri Dew famously taught the sisters, "Motherhood is more than bearing children ... It is the essence of who we are as women." https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng

Edited September 1, 2015 by Buckeye

[KevinG]

Couples can have eternal progression without conception. The church seals adopted kids to infertile hetero couples all the time. So if hetero couples can be eternal parents to children then did not conceive, why can't same-sex couples do the same, particularly in the common situation where one of the parents actually is a biological parent?

 

I see creation as much broader than just passing DNA. Christ is our ultimate example of fatherhood. Yet that role does not include any biological passing of genes. True, eternal, creation comes through the sacrifice, example, and exalting of another beyond what they can achieve on their own. It's so much more than passing DNA. And it's equally available to SS couples as any other.

 

If God at some future point reveals that as an eternal principle I won't leave the church over it or protest it.

 

Right now we have repeated assurances that marriage in our time is between a man and a woman, and that this type of marriage is the design for our families.  The greatest distinction between a childless couple desiring children, and a same sex couple desiring children is that heterosexual relations in marriage is not considered a sin (going all the way back to the old testament) while homosexual relations are expressly forbidden.

 

There is evidence that both a male and female influence is healthy and needed for the development of children.

 

A childless couple gaining eternal children is a matter of changing their condition or health in the resurrection not a wholesale reassignment of gender roles and gospel laws.

 

There are some important distinctions that are being swept away with the declaration that "God could do it if He wanted".

[DJBrown]

How about the role that such sexual relationships provide right now; i.e., the same role that sexual relationships provide for infertile hetero couples? If there is value to a sexual relationship outside of conception - and the church has (recently) made very clear that there is - why wouldn't that value be considered for SS couples as with heteros?

 

There is, indeed, a role for physical intimacy in marriage- between a man and woman.  That relationship provides security, support, and safety to husband and wife.  But in the eternities, that physical relationship is fundamentally tied to having "eternal increase."  There has never been a same-sex couple who begat biological children together.  How can homosexual relationship be tied to eternal increase if such a couple cannot create?  You are equating the mortal condition of infertility with same sex attraction.  That is a big leap with nothing- absolutely nothing in our canon or history to support it.

 

The fundamental relationship in same sex couple is sinful.  There is no context in which same sex sexual relationships is not sin.  There is no role for such a relationship within the plan of salvation.  I think it is very risky to base one's position with the church on ground that depends upon the theoretical possibility that the church will change its position dramatically on a subject about which it has been more clear than almost any other.   

[Buckeye]

 

I'm a big believer in roles, just not gender-limitations on roles. You're probably not surprised by that.

 

To the degree that gender is eternal and spirit children need instruction and guidance from those of their own gender, I have no doubt that aunts, uncles, friends, etc. could fill in very nicely. It's no different than here. Every SS couple I know who is raising kids intentionally brings into the child's life many father or mother figures.

 

If it helps (it'll probably just confuse things more) I don't think our eternal parenthood will be limited to just pairs. As here, raising children will take a village. I also don't believe I have just one father and mother in heaven. There are probably 1,000s.

[Buckeye]

There is, indeed, a role for physical intimacy in marriage- between a man and woman.  That relationship provides security, support, and safety to husband and wife.  But in the eternities, that physical relationship is fundamentally tied to having "eternal increase."  There has never been a same-sex couple who begat biological children together.  How can homosexual relationship be tied to eternal increase if such a couple cannot create?  You are equating the mortal condition of infertility with same sex attraction.  That is a big leap with nothing- absolutely nothing in our canon or history to support it.

 

The fundamental relationship in same sex couple is sinful.  There is no context in which same sex sexual relationships is not sin.  There is no role for such a relationship within the plan of salvation.  I think it is very risky to base one's position with the church on ground that depends upon the theoretical possibility that the church will change its position dramatically on a subject about which it has been more clear than almost any other.   

 

When primary children are asked "what does it mean that God is our Father" exactly zero times has the answer been "it means that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother had sex." Always the answer is that God loves us, provides for us temporarily, provides for us spiritually, and patiently helps us to become like him. That is fatherhood and motherhood. Sex is irrelevant.

[DJBrown]

When primary children are asked "what does it mean that God is our Father" exactly zero times has the answer been "it means that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother had sex." Always the answer is that God loves us, provides for us temporarily, provides for us spiritually, and patiently helps us to become like him. That is fatherhood and motherhood. Sex is irrelevant.

 

But every single one of those children can say that they have exactly one biological mother and one biological father.  I wouldn't expect a primary child to know or understand the precise process by which spirit children are created.  But we do know that it is a process that takes place within eternally married man and woman, upon which earthly marriage is modeled.  

 

Maybe we will be able to mate with trees in heaven.  I know that is a far-out example.  But not far off.

[CV75]

There are some important distinctions that are being swept away with the declaration that "God could do it if He wanted".

As with a similar declaration that is touted: "Church doctrine can change (especially if we can force its framing into a moral issue)!!!"

[Buckeye]

But every single one of those children can say that they have exactly one biological mother and one biological father.  I wouldn't expect a primary child to know or understand the precise process by which spirit children are created.  But we do know that it is a process that takes place within eternally married man and woman, upon which earthly marriage is modeled.  

 

Maybe we will be able to mate with trees in heaven.  I know that is a far-out example.  But not far off.

 

Nope. There is actually no scriptural authority for celestial sex. And the answer to my question would be the same in adult gospel doctrine as in primary. And kids of same-sex parent - both young and old - frequently talk about their mothers or fathers with just as much meaning and reverence as I talk about my earthly mother and father.

[DJBrown]

Nope. There is actually no scriptural authority for celestial sex. And the answer to my question would be the same in adult gospel doctrine as in primary. And kids of same-sex parent - both young and old - frequently talk about their mothers or fathers with just as much meaning and reverence as I talk about my earthly mother and father.

 

I never said there was scriptural citation of celestial sex.  There is absolutely no reason to think that the restored gospel offers any context or role for same sex couples in the eternities.  In fact, there is much that insists there is no role.  

 

Children speaking fondly of parents does not dictate eternal truth or the basis of eternal families.  

[HappyJackWagon]

If God at some future point reveals that as an eternal principle I won't leave the church over it or protest it.

 

Right now we have repeated assurances that marriage in our time is between a man and a woman, and that this type of marriage is the design for our families.  The greatest distinction between a childless couple desiring children, and a same sex couple desiring children is that heterosexual relations in marriage is not considered a sin (going all the way back to the old testament) while homosexual relations are expressly forbidden.

 

There is evidence that both a male and female influence is healthy and needed for the development of children.

 

A childless couple gaining eternal children is a matter of changing their condition or health in the resurrection not a wholesale reassignment of gender roles and gospel laws.

 

There are some important distinctions that are being swept away with the declaration that "God could do it if He wanted".

You provided the correct caviats.

 

"Right Now" we are taught that in  "our time" marriage is between a man and a woman. This clearly has not been the church stance at other times so why not consider the possibility that at a "later time" marriage could be redefined by the church...yet again?

 

Is anyone aware of any source declaring it LDS church doctrine that spirit children are conceived the same as biological children? In other words, is there a doctrine that would eliminate SS couples from being able to organize spirit children without end in the eternities?

[ALarson]

Is anyone aware of any source declaring it LDS church doctrine that spirit children are conceived the same as biological children? In other words, is there a doctrine that would eliminate SS couples from being able to organize spirit children without end in the eternities?

Good question (and I'd love to know this too).

 

But if one believes in the immaculate conception.....

[KevinG]

Is anyone aware of any source declaring it LDS church doctrine that spirit children are conceived the same as biological children? In other words, is there a doctrine that would eliminate SS couples from being able to organize spirit children without end in the eternities?

 

This certainly implies as much:  https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

 

...and the caveats are more inclusive of polygamy than homosexual marriage given Biblical doctrines.  But as I said before if the Prophets change the current practice and I receive confirmation from the Holy Spirit that their judgement is right, then I won't argue the point.

[DJBrown]

You provided the correct caviats.

 

"Right Now" we are taught that in  "our time" marriage is between a man and a woman. This clearly has not been the church stance at other times so why not consider the possibility that at a "later time" marriage could be redefined by the church...yet again?

 

Is anyone aware of any source declaring it LDS church doctrine that spirit children are conceived the same as biological children? In other words, is there a doctrine that would eliminate SS couples from being able to organize spirit children without end in the eternities?

 

Maybe the church will one day change its doctrine to allow adultery.  Maybe adultery is actually a good thing and the prophets have it wrong.  That is essentially the mindset of those who insist the prophets may be wrong on ssm.

[ALarson]

Maybe the church will one day change its doctrine to allow adultery.  Maybe adultery is actually a good thing and the prophets have it wrong.  That is essentially the mindset of those who insist the prophets may be wrong on ssm.

SS marriage does not equate to adultery.  Do you know the definition of adultery?

[Russell C McGregor]

Sounds familiar.

 

Again, from N. Eldon Tanner:

 "The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God." 

And we didn't change it.

The Lord did.

[HappyJackWagon]

This certainly implies as much:  https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

 

...and the caveats are more inclusive of polygamy than homosexual marriage given Biblical doctrines.  But as I said before if the Prophets change the current practice and I receive confirmation from the Holy Spirit that their judgement is right, then I won't argue the point.

So the answer is "no". There is no description for how spirit children are "organized" from the intelligences.

 

 

Maybe the church will one day change its doctrine to allow adultery.  Maybe adultery is actually a good thing and the prophets have it wrong.

 

Some consider polygamy to be adulterous, especially secret relationships entered into prior to the restoration of sealing keys with women named Fanny.

Edited September 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

SS marriage does not equate to adultery.  Do you know the definition of adultery?

They both fall under the category of sexual sin. (You do realize that "SS marriage" is not marriage in the eyes of God, right?)

[KevinG]

So the answer is "no". There is no description for how spirit children are "organized" from the intelligences.

 

 

Some consider polygamy to be adulterous, especially secret relationships entered into prior to the sealing keys with women named Fanny.

 

For a guy who likes issuing CFRs you are doing a lousy job of answering #141.  

[KevinG]

They both fall under the category of sexual sin. (You do realize that "SS marriage" is not marriage in the eyes of God, right?)

 

Draw a Venn Diagram - that might help.

[Scott Lloyd]

To think ssm may someday be OK with God is not much different than thinking we may one day receive a new revelation that states families really can't be sealed for eternity.  Or that Christ really wasn't the Son of God.  The relationship between husband and wife could hardly be more fundamental in the plan of salvation.  To think such can be redefined seem irrational to me.  There is absolutely no conceivable (pun intended) role for a male-male or female- female sexual relationship in the eternities.  It seems to me that people are trying a little too hard to reconcile the philosophies of men with eternal truth.  

Indeed. Not viable options.