What Do We Know Of Marriage From The Bible, Book Of Mormon, And Latter-Day Revelation?

[The Nehor]

What if you're sterile? Have you lost your purpose as a man since procreation is the goal. My dad is sterile so my brother and I are not from his blood and DNA, we're the result of test tubes and donors who we'll never meet.

 

You have lost a purpose. There are plenty of others to pursue.

[Stargazer]

What if you're sterile? Have you lost your purpose as a man since procreation is the goal. My dad is sterile so my brother and I are not from his blood and DNA, we're the result of test tubes and donors who we'll never meet.

 

I am sealed to a woman who was married previously in the temple to a man who eventually divorced her and was excommunicated.  All of their children were either sealed to them or were born in the covenant.  But their sealing was cancelled by Spencer W. Kimball, and I am now sealed to her (with BIC children).  What about those of hers who were sealed to him and her?  Well, he's no longer in the picture, is he?  But the doctrine is that those children are still promised eternal parenthood no matter what happens to their actual parents. 

 

What this means to me is that though I am not biologically related to any of his and her children, nevertheless through the sealing power I am their Daddy, if I remain faithful.  This may be my opinion and not a matter of doctrine, but I would be surprised if it were otherwise.  Likewise, are you sealed to your mother's husband?  Then regardless of biological relationship, he is your Daddy.  Same deal as if an infertile couple adopted one or more children -- they seal adopted children to their adoptive parents all the time.

 

It's OK, VGJ!  You will have eternal parentage.  You're good to go.

[Daniel2]

What if you're sterile? Have you lost your purpose as a man since procreation is the goal.

 

According to the BOM, procreation is not the purpose of man--the purpose of man is to have joy.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I would reject such a revelation as being completely false.

 

Some reacted the same way when polygamy was recinded, as some did when the priesthood ban was lifted.

[The Nehor]

If Thomas S Monson got revelation that gays could get married how would members of the church and the world react?

"Cool."

I would then have questions as to whether they could be sealed and how this fits within the eternal families doctrine. Doubt it will happen but if it does I am fine with it.

[Daniel2]

I think this betrays a very basic and very serious misunderstanding that colors all your other comments, so I will focus on this.

 

 

I'm disappointed that you chose not to answer the majority of my questions, but I can do nothing more than respect your decision to avoid further discussion to clarify your previous points.  Having said that, I'll respond to your comments in your subsequent post:

 

“Human sexuality is the capacity of human beings to have erotic experiences and responses.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality As with race, relatively modern efforts have categorized and labeled sexuality, but neither has ever been done in scripture.

 

We're in agreement that scripture is silent about any attempts to categorize or label sexuality. 

 

The scriptures about sexual sins make no reference to the sexual orientation of the perpetrators. We may call them hetero- or homosexual sins, but such taxonomy (or an alternate) isn’t scriptural or used in scripture.

 

Again, we're in agreement here.

 

Further, the scriptures silence about sexual orienation of the perpetrators is understandable, because throughout all the time that the Standard Works were all written, modern scientific, medical,and psychological knowledge about sexual orientation was unknown and unheard of, so it wouldn't have crossed the minds of the human writers, and wouldn't have made sense if God had attempted to address the issue, which was beyond the scope of understanding and social practices of the day.

 

Your various arguments against the scriptures rely on what you don’t know, on replacing that with imagined possibilities of what could or might happen,

 

That is definitely true.  Because the scriptures are silent on sexual orientation, my various proposals of how LDS scripture could potentially accomodate same-sex partnerships must of necessity rely on "what we don't know," and "imagining possiblities of what could or might happen."

 

But then again, acknowledging these gaps in current revelation fits with the scope of this thread, which is  to explore "how would you support...the idea that same sex marriage can be accommodated with the revelations we now have?"

 

and on confounding human sexuality with eternal covenant.

 

I've thought about this phrase, but I'm not sure what you mean by it... 

 

If you're solely using the definition of "Human sexuality is the capacity of human beings to have erotic experiences and responses," then I would remind you that sexual orientation is far MORE than merely "having erotic expereinces and responses."

 

"Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender."

 

I point this out because I think it would be a mistake to presume that gay relationships are ONLY about "erotic experiences and responses"--gay relationships include "enduring patterns of romantic (as distinct from sexual) attractions."  In other words, just as the covenant that binds heterosexual partnerships through marriages is not solely about sex, the same is true of homosexual partnerships through marriage.  The covenent doesn't bind solely to authorize and permit sexual activity--the covenant includes professing and incorporating a holistic committment between spouses on multiple levels--one's self in all aspects, be they emotional, spiritual, sexual, and importantly, care-giving.  That is why marital vows often use words along the lines of "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, give yourself to him/her, receive him/her" etc.

 

In all those aspects, gay couples are just as capable as straight couples of forming a marital committment bound by covenant before God, angels, and any assembled witnesses.  Therefore, I believe it's entirely appropriate to contemplate the possibility of God allowing and expecting them to.

 

For example, it was not imperative that Adam and Eve were heterosexual (the scriptures don’t say, and we don’t know!), only that they were married and produced offspring.

 

Your clarification is what I meant, when I previously posted that "It was necessary that Adam and Eve were heterosexual."  I meant, "It was necessary that Adam and Eve heterosexually-procreated to produce children."

 

Regarding opposition, same-sex relationships simply (and ultimately) lack the required male-female opposition that opens the way for the exalted blessings offered in scripture.

 

I and others on the board have contemplated two possible responses to this assertion:

 

1. The process of "eternal increase" (in so far as that refers to "organizing intelligences into spirit children") hasn't been specified in the Standard Works, so it's unclear as to whether or not celestial reproduction relies on male/female genitalia.

 

2. Even if we were to assume that celestial reproduction does require male/female genitalia, same-sex relationships could quality for all other non-procreative aspects of an eternally-sealed marital partnership within the celestial kingdom (albeit not at the "highest level of exaltation").

 

This is evidenced by same-sex relationships not being acknowledged or reflected in the eternal marriage covenant anywhere in scripture.

 

I don't believe the fact that they haven't yet been acknowledged or reflected in the eternal marriage covenant in scripture is evidence that they never could or never will be--and again, that's the point of this thread.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

I'm disappointed that you chose not to answer the majority of my questions, but I can do nothing more than respect your decision to avoid further discussion to clarify your previous points.  Having said that, I'll respond to your comments in your subsequent post:

 

 

We're in agreement that scripture is silent about any attempts to categorize or label sexuality. 

 

 

Again, we're in agreement here.

 

Further, the scriptures silence about sexual orienation of the perpetrators is understandable, because throughout all the time that the Standard Works were all written, modern scientific, medical,and psychological knowledge about sexual orientation was unknown and unheard of, so it wouldn't have crossed the minds of the human writers, and wouldn't have made sense if God had attempted to address the issue, which was beyond the scope of understanding and social practices of the day.

 

 

That is definitely true.  Because the scriptures are silent on sexual orientation, my various proposals of how LDS scripture could potentially accomodate same-sex partnerships must of necessity rely on "what we don't know," and "imagining possiblities of what could or might happen."

 

But then again, acknowledging these gaps in current revelation fits with the scope of this thread, which is  to explore "how would you support...the idea that same sex marriage can be accommodated with the revelations we now have?"

 

 

I've thought about this phrase, but I'm not sure what you mean by it... 

 

If you're solely using the definition of "Human sexuality is the capacity of human beings to have erotic experiences and responses," then I would remind you that sexual orientation is far MORE than merely "having erotic expereinces and responses."

 

"Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender."

 

I point this out because I think it would be a mistake to presume that gay relationships are ONLY about "erotic experiences and responses"--gay relationships include "enduring patterns of romantic (as distinct from sexual) attractions."  In other words, just as the covenant that binds heterosexual partnerships through marriages is not solely about sex, the same is true of homosexual partnerships through marriage.  The covenent doesn't bind solely to authorize and permit sexual activity--the covenant includes professing and incorporating a holistic committment between spouses on multiple levels--one's self in all aspects, be they emotional, spiritual, sexual, and importantly, care-giving.  That is why marital vows often use words along the lines of "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, give yourself to him/her, receive him/her" etc.

 

In all those aspects, gay couples are just as capable as straight couples of forming a marital committment bound by covenant before God, angels, and any assembled witnesses.  Therefore, I believe it's entirely appropriate to contemplate the possibility of God allowing and expecting them to.

 

 

Your clarification is what I meant, when I previously posted that "It was necessary that Adam and Eve were heterosexual."  I meant, "It was necessary that Adam and Eve heterosexually-procreated to produce children."

 

 

I and others on the board have contemplated two possible responses to this assertion:

 

1. The process of "eternal increase" (in so far as that refers to "organizing intelligences into spirit children") hasn't been specified in the Standard Works, so it's unclear as to whether or not celestial reproduction relies on male/female genitalia.

 

2. Even if we were to assume that celestial reproduction does require male/female genitalia, same-sex relationships could quality for all other non-procreative aspects of an eternally-sealed marital partnership within the celestial kingdom (albeit not at the "highest level of exaltation").

 

 

I don't believe the fact that they haven't yet been acknowledged or reflected in the eternal marriage covenant in scripture is evidence that they never could or never will be--and again, that's the point of this thread.

I didn't answer them because I felt they were rooted in your concluding paragraphs, which i wanted to focus on. Maybe we can pick them up later; I saw them as minor points that have been discussed at length on other threads, and not key to the discussion of the scriptures not supporting same-sex marriage.

 

yes, I understand “you support...the idea that same sex marriage can be accommodated with the revelations we now have” by suggesting support of revelations we don’t have. I'm trying to focus on scriptures we do have.

 

Categorizing sexual orientation depends on a scientifically or otherwise developed system, just as race. The categorization in either case is largely a social construct, not a part of the eternal design and categorization of God’s children, which I take to be simply male and female. Even with the noble and great ones, there is always someone greater. Scripturally-speaking, of course; it is easy to interpret the scriptures through more worldly lenses.

 

Ooops, I meant “conflate…” not "confound..." Competent adults of any human-defined/categorized sexuality can form eternal marital commitments, “marital” being the operative word describing the bonded state shared by the man and the woman. To say that either spouse must be labeled a specified or agreed-upon sexuality conflates the design of the covenant (which acknowledges the eternal nature of the two genders or “opposite sexes”) with human sexuality and with human categorizations of sexuality.

 

According to scripture, Adam knew his wife (scriptural), and thus we might say they “heterosexually-procreated to produce children.” This was necessary (also scriptural). If you want to discuss whether they could have accomplished this through other means, I’ll refer back to my first paragraph.

 

I am not talking about the mechanics, physiology, or partners’ sexuality involved with eternal increase, only the requirement that a man and woman be partnered per the marriage covenant to accomplish it. Again, I am trying to discourage conflating non-scriptural concepts of human sexuality with the covenant which builds on the unique gender opposition that all marriage partners share.

 

I think the point of this thread is to bring out what we do know from scripture, not what we could know (or imagine) from new scripture.

 

Speaking of which, there is another principle to consider along with opposition as it pertains to the impossibility of same-sex marriage:

 

D&C 88:36-40, “All kingdoms have a law given; And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

 

This is a counterpart to the principle of an opposition in all things. All “same” things cleave to their own irrespective of any sealing power. Male already cleaves to male; female already cleaves to female. But they are not activated for existing in a higher kingdom of law until they are brought together with their opposite, through the atonement and the sealing power.

 

President Hunter spoke of opposition in terms of gravity, friction and resistance—not in an adversarial but in a strengthening sense. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/god-will-have-a-tried-people?lang=eng

 

For example, while intelligence, wisdom, virtue, etc. while they cleave to each other, they are not activated unto exaltation until they are strengthened in the face of an opposing condition, which is realized through the atonement. In the same way, the male and the female spouses are not activated unto exaltation until they face the opposite state and are brought together through the atonement and sealing power.

[djf1981]

As someone who is openly gay and was raised in the church, I'd like to offer my two cents and perspective on this issue in hopes that it could create just a little better understanding. As I mentioned, I grew up in the church in a very strong LDS family but am I choose no longer to practice.

Due to my upbringing, I can fully appreciate and intellectually understand the Church's (and many members') concerns and perspectives on not only the gay marriage issue but the issue of homosexuality as well and I respect that they have a different opinion on it than I do.

Please understand that I nor anybody I know has any desire to get married in the temple or in a church meeting house or to infringe on your beliefs just as I wouldn't want you to infringe on mine. I can't speak for other gay people, but at the end of the day, all I want and ask for is what I deem a fundamental to human happiness: the chance to experience and fall in love with someone and have that love be recognized just like everybody else's. And if you don't want to call it marriage than that's your right to do so. As I mentioned above, I can understand the church's doctrinal position on an intellectual level, but since these feelings are all I've ever known, in my heart I can't comprehend why love between two people is wrong. But that's just me.

Contrary to what I assume many people would believe, most homosexuals are not part of some nefarious, satanic plot to destroy society or undermine goodwill. We're just trying to make our way through life just like everyone else. But we don't want to (and can't) walk through life alone. Many of us are entirely capable of sustaining loving, long term, monogamous relationships just like our straight brothers and sisters. And that's all we want. I and many other homosexuals believe in God and we believe that he loves us just the way we are.

I would even hazard to guess that most of us are good, decent people just as I believe that most people of traditional faith are good and decent as well. With that said, I believe that if both sides as a whole came to that same understanding, there would be a whole lot more mutual appreciation, compromise, and goodwill and a whole lot less mistrust, bitterness and alienation.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I can only speak for myself. But I believe that one voice can be just as powerful as a thousand. Take it or leave it.

[thesometimesaint]

Welcome to the glass menagerie.

 

I agree with the Church and you. Doctrinally the Church will not accept gay marriage. However the state is under legal requirement to issue marriage license to gay couples whom so desire it. Anyway stay in touch.

[Tacenda]

As someone who is openly gay and was raised in the church, I'd like to offer my two cents and perspective on this issue in hopes that it could create just a little better understanding. As I mentioned, I grew up in the church in a very strong LDS family but am I choose no longer to practice.

Due to my upbringing, I can fully appreciate and intellectually understand the Church's (and many members') concerns and perspectives on not only the gay marriage issue but the issue of homosexuality as well and I respect that they have a different opinion on it than I do.

Please understand that I nor anybody I know has any desire to get married in the temple or in a church meeting house or to infringe on your beliefs just as I wouldn't want you to infringe on mine. I can't speak for other gay people, but at the end of the day, all I want and ask for is what I deem a fundamental to human happiness: the chance to experience and fall in love with someone and have that love be recognized just like everybody else's. And if you don't want to call it marriage than that's your right to do so. As I mentioned above, I can understand the church's doctrinal position on an intellectual level, but since these feelings are all I've ever known, in my heart I can't comprehend why love between two people is wrong. But that's just me.

Contrary to what I assume many people would believe, most homosexuals are not part of some nefarious, satanic plot to destroy society or undermine goodwill. We're just trying to make our way through life just like everyone else. But we don't want to (and can't) walk through life alone. Many of us are entirely capable of sustaining loving, long term, monogamous relationships just like our straight brothers and sisters. And that's all we want. I and many other homosexuals believe in God and we believe that he loves us just the way we are.

I would even hazard to guess that most of us are good, decent people just as I believe that most people of traditional faith are good and decent as well. With that said, I believe that if both sides as a whole came to that same understanding, there would be a whole lot more mutual appreciation, compromise, and goodwill and a whole lot less mistrust, bitterness and alienation.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I can only speak for myself. But I believe that one voice can be just as powerful as a thousand. Take it or leave it.

Thanks for joining this conversation, we need your voice.  It will open some eyes to the fact that you're not trying to bust in and marry in the temple, or even in our chapels.  But to have the same rights as every other human being promised in this life and country. 

[djf1981]

Welcome to the glass menagerie.

 

I agree with the Church and you. Doctrinally the Church will not accept gay marriage. However the state is under legal requirement to issue marriage license to gay couples whom so desire it. Anyway stay in touch.

 

Thank you for your open-mindedness!

[djf1981]

Thanks for joining this conversation, we need your voice.  It will open some eyes to the fact that you're not trying to bust in and marry in the temple, or even in our chapels.  But to have the same rights as every other human being promised in this life and country. 

 

Thank you! I just hoped that by adding my two cents, it could add a new perspective for at least one person to consider.

[Ahab]

I didn't answer them because I felt they were rooted in your concluding paragraphs, which i wanted to focus on. Maybe we can pick them up later; I saw them as minor points that have been discussed at length on other threads, and not key to the discussion of the scriptures not supporting same-sex marriage.

yes, I understand “you support...the idea that same sex marriage can be accommodated with the revelations we now have” by suggesting support of revelations we don’t have. I'm trying to focus on scriptures we do have.

Categorizing sexual orientation depends on a scientifically or otherwise developed system, just as race. The categorization in either case is largely a social construct, not a part of the eternal design and categorization of God’s children, which I take to be simply male and female. Even with the noble and great ones, there is always someone greater. Scripturally-speaking, of course; it is easy to interpret the scriptures through more worldly lenses.

Ooops, I meant “conflate…” not "confound..." Competent adults of any human-defined/categorized sexuality can form eternal marital commitments, “marital” being the operative word describing the bonded state shared by the man and the woman. To say that either spouse must be labeled a specified or agreed-upon sexuality conflates the design of the covenant (which acknowledges the eternal nature of the two genders or “opposite sexes”) with human sexuality and with human categorizations of sexuality.

According to scripture, Adam knew his wife (scriptural), and thus we might say they “heterosexually-procreated to produce children.” This was necessary (also scriptural). If you want to discuss whether they could have accomplished this through other means, I’ll refer back to my first paragraph.

I am not talking about the mechanics, physiology, or partners’ sexuality involved with eternal increase, only the requirement that a man and woman be partnered per the marriage covenant to accomplish it. Again, I am trying to discourage conflating non-scriptural concepts of human sexuality with the covenant which builds on the unique gender opposition that all marriage partners share.

I think the point of this thread is to bring out what we do know from scripture, not what we could know (or imagine) from new scripture.

Speaking of which, there is another principle to consider along with opposition as it pertains to the impossibility of same-sex marriage:

D&C 88:36-40, “All kingdoms have a law given; And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

This is a counterpart to the principle of an opposition in all things. All “same” things cleave to their own irrespective of any sealing power. Male already cleaves to male; female already cleaves to female. But they are not activated for existing in a higher kingdom of law until they are brought together with their opposite, through the atonement and the sealing power.

President Hunter spoke of opposition in terms of gravity, friction and resistance—not in an adversarial but in a strengthening sense. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/god-will-have-a-tried-people?lang=eng

For example, while intelligence, wisdom, virtue, etc. while they cleave to each other, they are not activated unto exaltation until they are strengthened in the face of an opposing condition, which is realized through the atonement. In the same way, the male and the female spouses are not activated unto exaltation until they face the opposite state and are brought together through the atonement and sealing power.

An awesome line of thought, bro!!!

Thank you for getting me revved up some more!

[CV75]

An awesome line of thought, bro!!!

Thank you for getting me revved up some more!

Rev away!

 

I should add that in the true order of heaven, couples (married) cleave unto couples, and we have a means that teaches us about that.

[Ahab]

As someone who is openly gay and was raised in the church, I'd like to offer my two cents and perspective on this issue in hopes that it could create just a little better understanding. As I mentioned, I grew up in the church in a very strong LDS family but am I choose no longer to practice.

Due to my upbringing, I can fully appreciate and intellectually understand the Church's (and many members') concerns and perspectives on not only the gay marriage issue but the issue of homosexuality as well and I respect that they have a different opinion on it than I do.

Please understand that I nor anybody I know has any desire to get married in the temple or in a church meeting house or to infringe on your beliefs just as I wouldn't want you to infringe on mine. I can't speak for other gay people, but at the end of the day, all I want and ask for is what I deem a fundamental to human happiness: the chance to experience and fall in love with someone and have that love be recognized just like everybody else's. And if you don't want to call it marriage than that's your right to do so. As I mentioned above, I can understand the church's doctrinal position on an intellectual level, but since these feelings are all I've ever known, in my heart I can't comprehend why love between two people is wrong. But that's just me.

Contrary to what I assume many people would believe, most homosexuals are not part of some nefarious, satanic plot to destroy society or undermine goodwill. We're just trying to make our way through life just like everyone else. But we don't want to (and can't) walk through life alone. Many of us are entirely capable of sustaining loving, long term, monogamous relationships just like our straight brothers and sisters. And that's all we want. I and many other homosexuals believe in God and we believe that he loves us just the way we are.

I would even hazard to guess that most of us are good, decent people just as I believe that most people of traditional faith are good and decent as well. With that said, I believe that if both sides as a whole came to that same understanding, there would be a whole lot more mutual appreciation, compromise, and goodwill and a whole lot less mistrust, bitterness and alienation.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I can only speak for myself. But I believe that one voice can be just as powerful as a thousand. Take it or leave it.

The "take it or leave it" attitude can be applied to anything, and I believe all of us have the right to feel that way about anything. But what we take and what we leave should be based on something better than what each of us likes or doesn't like.

The goal should be to be a good person and to do only good things, not just to be whatever or however we each want to be. And yes if you want to point out the obvious to say that we have the right to be bad or do something bad as long as it is legal you can take that or leave it wherever you want to.

My main thought about marriage is that there is a good way to be married and a bad way to be married, regardless of whatever laws us mortals can make, and that the good way to be married rwquires being married to someone of the opposite sex. And that just because that is the kind of opposition that is required in any good marriage.

Making something that is bad legal isn't really changing what is bad into a good thing.

[Daniel2]

 

Regarding opposition, same-sex relationships simply (and ultimately) lack the required male-female opposition that opens the way for the exalted blessings offered in scripture. This is evidenced by same-sex relationships not being acknowledged or reflected in the eternal marriage covenant anywhere in scripture.

 

I've been thinking about the concept that male-male or female-female partnerships "lack the required male-female opposition."

 

What does that mean, exactly?

 

Specifically, I often hear assertions that males and females apparently universally "compliment" each other in a relationship in ways that same-sex couples universally don't or can't.  I'd be curious if anyone would be willing to attempt to specify what that means...?

Edited September 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

I've been thinking about the concept that male-male or female-female partnerships "lack the required male-female opposition."

 

What does that mean, exactly?

 

Specifically, I often hear assertions that males and females apparently universally "compliment" each other in a relationship in ways that same-sex couples universally don't or can't.  I'd be curious if anyone would be willing to attempt to specify what that means...?

Asgender is eternal then there are some fundamental differences and attributes that each gender lacks that can only be fulfilled by the Union of both. God is a couple and an individual cannot be made perfect without the opposite gender. That is my take based on what the Brethren have taught.

[Daniel2]

Asgender is eternal then there are some fundamental differences and attributes that each gender lacks that can only be fulfilled by the Union of both.

What are these "fundamental differences and attributes" that each gender lacks? That's my question.

God is a couple and an individual cannot be made perfect without the opposite gender. That is my take based on what the Brethren have taught.

Interesting. This is certainly a unique perspective I am unfamiliar with.

I've read the scriptures that say "come into Christ and be perfected in Him" so I am aware that Mormons believe that only through Christ can an individual become perfect. I'm not aware of a scripture that specifies that marriage to a spouse of the opposite sex is a requirement for "perfection." Do you therefore believe that the 2/3 of unmarried inhabitants of the celestial kingdom won't have been "perfected" through Christ? That is, that even after becoming "perfected" by Christ enough to inherent the Celestial Kingdom, they still require a spouse to become truly "perfect"...?

How do you define "perfection"?

Edited September 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Danzo]

What are these "fundamental differences and attributes" that each gender lacks? That's my question.

Interesting. This is certainly a unique perspective I am unfamiliar with.

I've read the scriptures that say "come into Christ and be perfected in Him" so I am aware that Mormons believe that only through Christ can an individual become perfect. I'm not aware of a scripture that specifies that marriage to a spouse of the opposite sex is a requirement for "perfection." Do you assert that the 2/3 of unmarried inhabitants of the celestial kingdom haven't been "perfected" through Christ? That they require a spouse to become perfect...??

 

Do you think there are differences between men and women? (Other than the plumbing)

[Daniel2]

Do you think there are differences between men and women? (Other than the plumbing)

I think there are differences between all individuals. Additionally, I think we can identify common trends among certain "types" or "classes" of people based on some traits, including gender (as well as sexual orientation, among many others). Of course, any given "difference" doesn't exist as the direct result of any one trait. So, both gender AND sexual orientation (or education, or race, or economic status) all can influence personality differences that may affect "complimentary-ness."

Your question, however, differs from mine, which is what differences are "fundamentally different" between the genders (at a minimum so as to presume that marriage must exclusively endorse complematary dymanics within ALL opposite-sex couples, while simultaneously precluding similar complimentary-ness between ALL same-sex couples).

Edited September 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Danzo]

I think there are differences between all individuals.

The question, however, is what differences are "fundamentally different" between the genders (at a minimum so as to presume that marriage must exclusively endorse opposite-sex dymanics, while simultaneously precluding similar complimentary-ness between same-sex couples).

 

Before we argue whether differences are "fundamental" or not, perhaps it would be beneficial to see if we can agree that there are any differences between men and women.

 

Do you think that there are any differences between male and female behavior?

 

For example do you think the ratio of males to females (7% female to 93% male according to professor google)  incarcerated is only due to prejudice?

[Daniel2]

Before we argue whether differences are "fundamental" or not, perhaps it would be beneficial to see if we can agree that there are any differences between men and women.

Do you think that there are any differences between male and female behavior?

For example do you think the ratio of males to females (7% female to 93% male according to professor google) incarcerated is only due to prejudice?

My previous post-edit crossed paths with your post, above.

[Ahab]

I've been thinking about the concept that male-male or female-female partnerships "lack the required male-female opposition."

What does that mean, exactly?

Specifically, I often hear assertions that males and females apparently universally "compliment" each other in a relationship in ways that same-sex couples universally don't or can't. I'd be curious if anyone would be willing to attempt to specify what that means...?

...be willing to attempt to specify ???

Um, yeah, but that still leaves me pretty much speechless since words alone are insufficient.

Let's start with how men are men and how women are women. That's a fundamental difference right there. And no man can be a woman just as no woman can be a man, despite how the body of either can be made to seem that way through surgery or pills or whatever because a man is still fundamentally a man no matter what happens to him, and the same goes for any woman. She is a she and he is a he and always will be forever and ever.

Now add to that how one of each is needed to create offspring and you still will have only caught a glimpse of why a man needs a woman and why a woman needs a man to be able to be a complete complimentary unit able to create their own kingdom in heaven forever.

People of the same sex just can't do it all by themselves and will always be missing a necessary component without someone of the opposite sex to help them.

[Danzo]

Your question, however, differs from mine, which is what differences are "fundamentally different" between the genders (at a minimum so as to presume that marriage must exclusively endorse complematary dymanics within ALL opposite-sex couples, while simultaneously precluding similar complimentary-ness between ALL same-sex couples).

 

 

I think the way you phrase the question isn't very useful.   Your use of "ALL" in caps is the type of logic that would invalidate any rule by immaging an exception to kill it.

 

(could I find a 15 year old that is mature enough to drive? Does that mean that the 16 year minimum age for drivers licenses is invalid?)

(Could I find someone who has the skill to drive safely at 100MPH? Does that mean the speed limit should be changed to 100mph?)

(Could I imagine a scenario where someone could be justified robbing a bank to save their dying child?  Would that justify repealing the law against robbery?)

 

I think a rule can be developed where "most of the time" their is a difference that "most of the time" is beneficial. 

[CV75]

I've been thinking about the concept that male-male or female-female partnerships "lack the required male-female opposition."

 

What does that mean, exactly?

 

Specifically, I often hear assertions that males and females apparently universally "compliment" each other in a relationship in ways that same-sex couples universally don't or can't.  I'd be curious if anyone would be willing to attempt to specify what that means...?

Keeping on track with the idea of an opposition in all things, a same-sex relationship simply lacks the required opposite sex criterion to qualify as a relationship between a male and female. I know this is very, very basic and seemingly easy to overlook.

 

When it comes to the eternal application of this principle, please see post #132, especially from the D&C 88:36-40 paragraph onward. It is impossible for a same-sex relationship to enjoy the same blessings as a married ad sealed male-female couple. Because like cleaves unto like, they are not activated for anything better until they are brought together with their opposite, through the atonement and the sealing power. Think of how justice and mercy, faith and knowledge, beginning and end, first and last, etc. are brought together from their individual states through the atonement and become a dynamic greater for the blessing of all. Think of how these heavenly complements are enacted, both in the natural world and in the spiritual lives of the saints, through the sealing power. Male and female follow suit.

 

On the other hand, "like cleaving unto like" happens and exists naturally ("it is what it is"), without any atonement or sealing power.