DJBrown Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 SS marriage does not equate to adultery. Do you know the definition of adultery? So- Hollywood actors, liberal politicians, those who tend to side with immorality in general support same sex marriage. The prophets, the scriptures, and the church insist that any sexual relationships between any two individuals outside of a man and woman who are legally married is sin. Are LDS to side with the prophets in defining adultery or with Hollywood and the secular world of Babylon?
Buckeye Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 So- Hollywood actors, liberal politicians, those who tend to side with immorality in general support same sex marriage. The prophets, the scriptures, and the church insist that any sexual relationships between any two individuals outside of a man and woman who are legally married is sin. Are LDS to side with the prophets in defining adultery or with Hollywood and the secular world of Babylon? We are to side with whatever is good. That's the bind right now. When people get to know same-sex families, they find that they are good. 3
CV75 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 is there a doctrine that would eliminate SS couples from being able to organize spirit children without end in the eternities?I see the doctrine of opposition in all things doing just that, especially in light of the temple doctrine of how the atonement is received (per one of the Ensign articles). "The story of Adam and Eve is the story of receiving the Atonement" https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/the-temple-and-the-natural-order-of-marriage?lang=eng
HappyJackWagon Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 For a guy who likes issuing CFRs you are doing a lousy job of answering #141. I don't see a CFR at #141. Can you check the number. I'm not sure what you're referring to. BTW- asking if anyone is aware of a source for a doctrine is not the same thing as me issuing a CFR. It's called being curious and expecting others on this board may have information I don't have. What's the problem? 1
ttribe Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Comes now the September issue of the Ensign magazine with two articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen affirming the Lord's definition of marriage, particularly as it pertains to the temple... In other news, water is wet. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I see the doctrine of opposition in all things doing just that, especially in light of the temple doctrine of how the atonement is received (per one of the Ensign articles). "The story of Adam and Eve is the story of receiving the Atonement" https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/the-temple-and-the-natural-order-of-marriage?lang=engI don't see how this relates to the question of how spirit children are organized. I ask the question because many people like to act like a SS couple couldn't possibly create spirit children in eternity because it doesn't fit our temporal model of procreation. I'm not aware of anything that says spirit babies are created in the same way as mortal babies. If there is a reference for such doctrine I'd love to see it. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Good question (and I'd love to know this too). But if one believes in the immaculate conception.....FYI, the immaculate conception refers to Mary's conception in that she was conceived without original sin.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception 2
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 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. You're right, up to a point. Actually what they are doing is cheerfully throwing eternal truth under the bus in order to accommodate the philosophies of men.
DJBrown Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 We are to side with whatever is good. That's the bind right now. When people get to know same-sex families, they find that they are good. So it just takes some conditioning for our perspective to change, eh? Do you think the adversary understands this? Did not Isaiah speak of good being evil and evil good? Seems to me that one major reason God sends prophets to oversee the vineyard is to be a standard for what is good, especially in changing times. You seem to be saying that such a process doesn't really work or isn't reliable. By the way, there is plenty of data that suggest same sex couples cannot raise kids in as healthy a way as biological mom and dad can. But I don't want to jump off into that rabbit hole.
ALarson Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And we didn't change it.The Lord did.I never said that "we" changed it.
KevinG Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I don't see a CFR at #141. Can you check the number. I'm not sure what you're referring to. BTW- asking if anyone is aware of a source for a doctrine is not the same thing as me issuing a CFR. It's called being curious and expecting others on this board may have information I don't have. What's the problem? My bad #141 on the Ordain Women thread.
CV75 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I don't see how this relates to the question of how spirit children are organized. I ask the question because many people like to act like a SS couple couldn't possibly create spirit children in eternity because it doesn't fit our temporal model of procreation. I'm not aware of anything that says spirit babies are created in the same way as mortal babies. If there is a reference for such doctrine I'd love to see it.A SS couple won't make it to exaltation (hence no organization of children) without the Atonement, and the atonement is not fully received outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, according to the temple doctrine Elder Hafen describes. Plus the doctrine of opposition requires a male and a female so as not to "remain as dead" (no organization of spirit children).
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 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? I'm sorry, but that is an outright canard. The Church has always held that marriage is between a man and a woman. That there was a time when a man could enter into multiple concurrent marriages does not change that fact, and it is clearly dishonest to pretend that it did. 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? Yes. 1
Buckeye Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 A SS couple won't make it to exaltation (hence no organization of children) without the Atonement, and the atonement is not fully received outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, according to the temple doctrine Elder Hafen describes. Plus the doctrine of opposition requires a male and a female so as not to "remain as dead" (no organization of spirit children). Wait, eternal marriage is a state in when men and women are perpetually placed in opposition to one another? So if Heavenly Father is good, then I guess that makes Heavenly Mother into .... the adversary??
HappyJackWagon Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 A SS couple won't make it to exaltation (hence no organization of children) without the Atonement, and the atonement is not fully received outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, according to the temple doctrine Elder Hafen describes. Plus the doctrine of opposition requires a male and a female so as not to "remain as dead" (no organization of spirit children).This is a thought experiment. A lot of our idea about why SS couples couldn't be exalted is because of assumptions we place on the role of gender in eternal creation. We assume there will be similar procreative processes as exist in mortality. I'm trying to see if there is any revelation to back up that assumption. I'm not understanding your doctrine of opposition for male and female not to "remain dead". Can you elaborate on this so I can make sense of it? 1
Calm Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 It would be a smaller change than the ending of polygamy in the church.The rate of plural marriages had dropped on its own prior to the federal prosecution. It might have been minimal all on its own if left alone, affecting percentagewise few families.Church members were aware of a time when plural marriage had not existed. There was Jacob that taught it was only to be done when God commanded it.In what way would ending of plural marriage been larger then?
Calm Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Dup Edited September 1, 2015 by calmoriah
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I never said that "we" changed it. In which case, you agree that President Tanner's statement doesn't preclude what happened in 1978. Thank you. 1
DJBrown Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 This is a thought experiment. A lot of our idea about why SS couples couldn't be exalted is because of assumptions we place on the role of gender in eternal creation. We assume there will be similar procreative processes as exist in mortality. I'm trying to see if there is any revelation to back up that assumption. I'm not understanding your doctrine of opposition for male and female not to "remain dead". Can you elaborate on this so I can make sense of it? "ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
HappyJackWagon Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I'm sorry, but that is an outright canard. The Church has always held that marriage is between a man and a woman. That there was a time when a man could enter into multiple concurrent marriages does not change that fact, and it is clearly dishonest to pretend that it did. Yes.You're claiming that it is a lie to suggest the church has not always held to the standard of a (one) man, a (one) woman? Interesting. My statement regarded the number of marriage participants which is widely accepted church history. I can provide you links if you need to research this. You're making an assumption that I am claiming more than this. As I stated, the church has altered it's official position on the constitution of marriage a couple of times now in its relatively brief history. I'm suggesting that it is not out of the realm of possibility that it could be altered yet again. Please show me the lie. "Yes"- you have a reference describing how spirit children are created in the eternities? Would you mind sharing this reference to enlighten the rest of us?
ALarson Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) In which case, you agree that President Tanner's statement doesn't preclude what happened in 1978.Well, the change happened even though Pres. Tanner stated it wouldn't. And, change can happen again. Stating that it won't does not preclude that it can happen. We agree. Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson
HappyJackWagon Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 The rate of plural marriages had dropped on its own prior to the federal prosecution. It might have been minimal all on its own if left alone, affecting percentagewise few families.Church members were aware of a time when plural marriage had not existed. There was Jacob that taught it was only to be done when God commanded it.In what way would ending of plural marriage been larger then?The end of polygamy was a MASSIVE change. I don't think it can be overstated. For generations it was taught as essential for exaltation. It was prophesied that it must always be practiced. Eliminating polygamy not only destroyed existing families but it altered the trajectory of the entire church. It was a huge change. It's obviously a very complex issue in 19th century Utah as they struggle to attain state hood, face ever escalating laws aimed to stop the practice, federal prosecution, refusal to seat elected state officials in congress, the need for multiple manifestos. The change effected the entire fabric of the church. 2
Buckeye Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 The rate of plural marriages had dropped on its own prior to the federal prosecution. It might have been minimal all on its own if left alone, affecting percentagewise few families.Church members were aware of a time when plural marriage had not existed. There was Jacob that taught it was only to be done when God commanded it.In what way would ending of plural marriage been larger then? Plural marriage was synonymous with eternal marriage. Stopping the practice - even just as a "pause" to obey the law of the land - presented a division within the upper leadership that led to disfellowship and excommunication of apostles, and the creation of splinter sects that frustrate the church to this day. On the personal level, it led to the break up of families and cut off wives from their marriages and wives/children from temporal support. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) My bad #141 on the Ordain Women thread. Geesh. You're challenging me here on not answering a CFR on a different thread? I'll have to go look that up because I don't recall seeing it. ETA- From the other thread Can you provide links to those requests or documentation that they were made? I'm interested in seeing how they were presented. Sorry. I didn't see this "CFR" Edited September 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 Well, the change happened even though Pres. Tanner stated it wouldn't. And, change can happen again. Stating that it won't does not preclude that it can happen. We agree. He said "we" can't change it. He never said God couldn't do it. And in fact, there were statements already on record that, at some time in His eternal timetable, God would indeed change it. You're insisting on taking the statement out of context again. I thought we had discussed this already.
Recommended Posts