Being Mormon in the 21st century

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Exactly.  That's what Joseph Smith taught (see the quoted posts above).

Exactly.  That's what one of Joseph Smith's successors will eventually teach... (sometime within 39 years and change... just ask Scott for the exact countdown )

No, they won't.  Because no matter what is "wrong under one circumstance and right under another" cannot include violating eternal laws.

God may adapt things to the circumstances, but he cannot violate law or he would cease to be God.  One of those laws is the furtherance of progression towards life.  Homosexual acts take those things designed to created life and wastes them and uses them in a way other than they were created for.  EVERYTHING in the things God has instituted has been designed to lead to furtherance of life - either on earth or eternally.

SSM cannot create life, and therefore can never be from God.  To condone it would be to pursue a course away from life.

It really is just that simple.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

No.

They will not.

 

Yes.

He (or she) will.

[Zakuska]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, they won't.  Because no matter what is "wrong under one circumstance and right under another" cannot include violating eternal laws.

God may adapt things to the circumstances, but he cannot violate law or he would cease to be God.  One of those laws is the furtherance of progression towards life.  Homosexual acts take those things designed to created life and wastes them and uses them in a way other than they were created for.  EVERYTHING in the things God has instituted has been designed to lead to furtherance of life - either on earth or eternally.

SSM cannot create life, and therefore can never be from God.  To condone it would be to pursue a course away from life.

It really is just that simple.

Yes but SSM couples are basically... for all intents and purposes... Eunuchs.  Who can't create life by design.  Yet they are promised better blessings than us breeders.

Isaiah 56

 1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

 3 ¶Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

 4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

 8 The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

 9 ¶All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.

 10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

 11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

 12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

Theres a pretty strong indictment for Prophets who won't inquire of the Lord what to do with the "Outcasts" of Israel too. Gay couples would fall under those "beasts of the forest" who are invited to the Marriage feast of the lamb yet are being turned back by the blind watchemen from walking the halls of his holy house. God's "House of Prayer" is for ALL people not just a select few with the right decoder rings.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[Daniel2]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, they won't.  Because no matter what is "wrong under one circumstance and right under another" cannot include violating eternal laws.

God may adapt things to the circumstances, but he cannot violate law or he would cease to be God.  One of those laws is the furtherance of progression towards life.  Homosexual acts take those things designed to created life and wastes them and uses them in a way other than they were created for.  EVERYTHING in the things God has instituted has been designed to lead to furtherance of life - either on earth or eternally.

SSM cannot create life, and therefore can never be from God.  To condone it would be to pursue a course away from life.

It really is just that simple.

I appreciate that that is your position and your adamant belief. However, "the creation of life" is not an LDS doctrinal necessity to qualify for a sealed familial relationship.  

In fact, thus far, LDS doctrinal canon is entirely silent regarding the permissiveness or exhaustive preclusion of eternal same-sex relationships. While current policy regarding same-sex marriage being a state of apostasy is clear, history demonstrates that LDS policies can change - even those which past generations just as adamantly believed were based on doctrine.

Until a canonical revelation has been received, it really is that simple.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Daniel2

[Hamba Tuhan]

I find the restrictive relative clause in verse 4 interesting: 'For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant'.

[Russell C McGregor]

18 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes.

He (or she) will.

 

Thank you for your opinion, which appears to be based upon a combination of wishful thinking and a rather inflated sense of entitlement.

As a member of the New Privileged Class, your sense of entitlement is perhaps not to be wondered at.

But it is, in this case, mistaken.

Sorry.

 

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Yes but SSM couples are basically... for all intents and purposes... Eunuchs.  Who can't create life by design.  Yet they are promised better blessings than us breeders.

Not at all.  They haven't lost the gift of procreation.  They have rejected it by choosing to use the tools for other purposes.

They are the fig tree that refuses to bear fruit as is the measure of their creation.  Not people who are denied that privilege.  And as is always the case with rejected blessings, they will lose further opportunity to reject it in the eternities.

Edited December 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Zakuska]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find the restrictive relative clause in verse 4 interesting: 'For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant'.

It is intresting isn't it that non-breed-ables (ie Eunuchs, or Same Sex Couples, Gay/Lesbian) could lay hold on the Marriage Covenant with God!

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I appreciate that that is your position and your adamant belief. However, "the creation of life" is not an LDS doctrinal necessity to qualify for a sealed familial relationship.

It absolutely is.  Check the commandment given at the conclusion of the sealing ceremony, not to mention the instruction contained within the ceremony itself to keep all the laws pertaining to the order of marriage.

 

[Teancum]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, they won't.  Because no matter what is "wrong under one circumstance and right under another" cannot include violating eternal laws.

God may adapt things to the circumstances, but he cannot violate law or he would cease to be God.  One of those laws is the furtherance of progression towards life.  Homosexual acts take those things designed to created life and wastes them and uses them in a way other than they were created for.  EVERYTHING in the things God has instituted has been designed to lead to furtherance of life - either on earth or eternally.

SSM cannot create life, and therefore can never be from God.  To condone it would be to pursue a course away from life.

It really is just that simple.

You are reinterpreting what JS said to fit your own paradigm.

[Zakuska]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.  They haven't lost the gift of procreation.  They have rejected it by choosing to use the tools for other purposes.

They are the fig tree that refuses to bear fruit as is the measure of their creation.  Not people who are denied that privilege.  And as is always the case with rejected blessings, they will lose further opportunity to reject it in the eternities.

You're right so whats wrong with a Lesbian couple going to a sperm bank and having children that way or adopting.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

You're right so whats wrong with a Lesbian couple going to a sperm bank and having children that way or adopting.

Wow.

Apparently you will never get the point.

[Zakuska]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Wow.

Apparently you will never get the point.

I get the point. Its you who is refusing to see things from a different perspective.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Zakuska said:

I get the point. Its you who is refusing to see things from a different perspective.

You are the one who seems to feel that the eternal design of male and female has no relation to eternal families, or that the law of Chastity should be followed in conceiving a child.  You also seem to understand nothing of lineage and heirship.  Or exaltation.  Or really any principle of the gospel relating to families and children.

The evidence showing SS relationship to be against all the laws of God and the universe is absolutely overwhelming, with or without a direct prohibition from God.  A commandment against something so clearly out of order is not necessary, and wouldn't be accepted even if it were given to our society today.

[Zakuska]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are the one who seems to feel that the eternal design of male and female has no relation to eternal families, or that the law of Chastity should be followed in conceiving a child.  You also seem to understand nothing of lineage and heirship.  Or exaltation.  Or really any principle of the gospel relating to families and children.

The evidence showing SS relationship to be against all the laws of God and the universe is absolutely overwhelming, with or without a direct prohibition from God.  A commandment against something so clearly out of order is not necessary, and wouldn't be accepted even if it were given to our society today.

I get all that.  I think God is a little more engenious and accepting than to limit things like that.  Take Polygamy for example. It really only takes 1 male to keep things rolling from a procreative standpoint.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

It is intresting isn't it that non-breed-ables (ie Eunuchs, or Same Sex Couples, Gay/Lesbian) could lay hold on the Marriage Covenant with God!

It is not just interesting but beautifully merciful that literally anyone who truly desires it can choose the things that please God and lay hold of His covenant! As the Saviour taught, 'If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me'.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[carbon dioxide]

Daniel "In fact, thus far, LDS doctrinal canon is entirely silent regarding the permissiveness or exhaustive preclusion of eternal same-sex relationships."

Perhaps the reason for this is that up until the last couple of years, nobody ever took the issue seriously because the idea was just too silly to consider.  I can think of other relationships that are not discussed in the scriptures but I should not even think the Lord or any of the writers of those scriptures would seriously consider them to be acceptable.  The scriptures are not going to address every wicked practice that man will do.  Satan is constantly finding new ways and schemes to pervert the right ways of God.

[janderich]

14 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

janderich,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  As a gay man who ultimately left the church because of many of the experiences you describe above, I can appreciate and have shared feelings of disappointment when certain populations don't arrive at the same beliefs that I have, as well as disappointment knowing that I will have to repeatedly face people who refuse to understand.  I can even relate to the sorrow of knowing that the loving relationship I have with my husband, which I have come to cherish as one of the most fulfilling relationships I have on this earth, is and will increasingly become the object of more and more hatred and derision by LDS society righteously bent on "hating" what they consider to be a sin, and ostracized more and more in the coming years for my beliefs and relationship.  As the recent policy change demonstrates, it's likely to get worse for gays and lesbians who desire to maintain activity in relation to or within Mormonism before it gets better.  As a gay kid who spend my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood deathly afraid of and doing everything I could to avoid losing the love and acceptance of my parents, friends, Faith, and community but ultimately faced a church court and either resignation or excommunication from the community which I trusted and loved, I can attest that it's never easy to confront being ostracized, let alone social, religious, or cultural rejection of (or, at best, a mandatory, enforced waiting period for membership for) our children, because of who we are or what we feel and believe.  But... like you, I squared my shoulders and will continue to move forward.  Love is love, a divine gift and, as the scriptures teach us, love is the greatest of all, even more than hope or faith.  Mistaking or musjudging love for sin is not something I can unclear about, for it ultimately will do no one any good.

Here's the good news: despite our divergent approaches to the subject of the inherent worthiness of same-sex relationships, there is and should be room for us both.  While many Latter-day Saints may hate same-sex relationships (which they perceive as sin), and while many LGBT allies may hate religious beliefs (which they believe to be outmoded bigotry), BOTH groups have a choice when it comes to how we treat one another.  And far too many on both sides allow themselves to be drawn into hateful manifestations of what they believe are good intentions.  Yes, there is room on this earth even for religious folk who don't believe gays and lesbians will ultimately ever be happy or right---so long as such individuals treat gays and lesbians with respect and the same considerations they claim for themselves.  Yes, there is room on this earth even for LGBT allies who don't believe Latter-day Saints and other LGBT-averse religions will ultimately ever be happy or right---so long as such individuals treat Latter-day Saints and other religious people with respect and the same considerations they claim for themselves.  I came across a Facebook Meme recently that I thought was the epitome of The Golden Rule, as applied to the issues involving the struggle between Gays and Religion: "Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself."  Ultimately, I maintain faith that love CAN and WILL conquer misunderstanding and division, even in the face of divergent beliefs.

I agree that in in our nation, in the world, and in society in general there should be room for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. So long as my freedom does not impose upon your freedom we can simply have different views without any need for hatred or bigotry. By that same token, different groups within society can have their own beliefs. I may not agree with such a groups stance but I will support their right to gather and believe as they will, so long as it does not limit my right to do the same. And if for some reason I find myself in disagreement with with the groups practices I am free to go my own way. However, it is not right to put societal pressure on such a group in order to change their beliefs.  

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I can even relate to the sorrow of knowing that the loving relationship I have with my husband, which I have come to cherish as one of the most fulfilling relationships I have on this earth, is and will increasingly become the object of more and more hatred and derision by LDS society righteously bent on "hating" what they consider to be a sin, and ostracized more and more in the coming years for my beliefs and relationship.  As the recent policy change demonstrates, it's likely to get worse for gays and lesbians who desire to maintain activity in relation to or within Mormonism before it gets better.

For what it's worth, Daniel, I have a more optimistic view of this....possibly because I'm fairly young and my peer group are millenials....ie. this would be the generation that would decide whether or not this policy would breed "more and more hatred and derision." I simply haven't seen the seeds of this within my age group. When the topic of LGBT came up, even before this when the other public concern and the letter that was sent out soon after SSM was ratified nationally. My ward of 20 somethings were fairly unanimous about the fact that no matter what, we should love and care for our gay brothers and sisters even if we end up disagreeing with the direction they make in their lives. It's important to maintain good relationships. And that's the message that I hear more overwhelmingly. There are still those whose opinions are still harsh, divisive, doomsday-ish, or erring to heavily on the "hate the sin" mantra....but those voices are a minority and most I've seen are isomorphic to the church's public stances....which entails compassion and reaching out while maintaining a fairly strict line as to what is doctrinally acceptable. Ie. Most are able to manage complexity and it need not be either love or hate.     

I would give examples of what I've seen, but would prefer to not use my friends/family as poster-children for my points (I hate when people do that for me based on my minority status). What I can say, is a promise about how my children will be raised and what I will continue to harp to my bros. It will not be a message of hating. It will be a message of acceptance of differences and to remember to treat and talk about people as you would wish they talk about you and your beliefs/practices. The people I do know who are gay will be welcome into my home at any occasion (and that includes their partners). If I see a gay couple in church I will not question why they're there, but welcome them. Etc. I can guarantee of several people who would say/do the same. And though I'm one person and they're equally just one person....it does make a difference and there will be soft places of LGBT to find fellowship with the saints because of it.  

This policy hasn't changed that in the least, though I don't outright disagree with it (even though it is a difficult policy).

 

With luv,

BD  

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Most are able to manage complexity and it need not be either love or hate.     

 

Perfectly said.

[Daniel2]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Thank you for your opinion, which appears to be based upon a combination of wishful thinking and a rather inflated sense of entitlement.

As a member of the New Privileged Class, your sense of entitlement is perhaps not to be wondered at.

But it is, in this case, mistaken.

Sorry.

 

Russ,

These types of posts in which two people go round and round, asserting that one is right and the other are wrong, are ridiculously futile.

Your assertions carry no more weight that my responses back to you.  We each assert we're right, and that the other is mistaken.

We've already expressed our assurances, but case in point: in response to the above, I could--again!--simply re-assert, "Thank YOU for your opinion, which appears to be based on a combination of wishful thinking and a rather inflated sense of self-righteous hubris.  As a member of the Former Privileged Calls, your anguish at the advancement of my newfound equality with yours is something to be wondered at.  But, in this case, you are mistaken.  Sorry."

In sum... doesn't accomplish much, and I don't think is particularly helpful.  Time will march on, and eventually history will demonstrate which of our predictions on this matter was closest to how reality ultimately played out.

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, janderich said:

I agree that in in our nation, in the world, and in society in general there should be room for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. So long as my freedom does not impose upon your freedom we can simply have different views without any need for hatred or bigotry. By that same token, different groups within society can have their own beliefs. I may not agree with such a groups stance but I will support their right to gather and believe as they will, so long as it does not limit my right to do the same. And if for some reason I find myself in disagreement with with the groups practices I am free to go my own way.

I'm TOTALLY and ENTIRELY with you, in the above... until your last sentence:

Quote

 

However, it is not right to put societal pressure on such a group in order to change their beliefs.  

 

I have NO problem with anyone putting social or societal pressure on me or any group I belong to with regard to challenging or suggesting we change our beliefs.  I think anyone who expects to avoid influence or even social pressure from others has unrealistic expectations.  In fact, Mormonism's evangelistic spirit through it's missionary program instilled in me the importance of approaching others and dialoguing with them with the specific intent to share the "good fruit" of my values in the hopes that others will discover the joy they have brought to me, and adopt these same new values as their own--again, not through coercion or force, but by thoughtful and sincere testimony bearing and living by example.

To clarify, social or societal pressure is a VERY different thing than government coercion or mandate--which I would STRONGLY disagree with.  However, putting social or societal pressure on many groups (whether social, religious, or otherwise) has been the cause of many positive gains in mutual respect and equality in the world AND our nation, including social and societal equality based on religion, race, gender, national origin, ability status, etc.

Truth, if it be such, will not only withstand the pressure, it will endure by growing stronger through the adversity.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It absolutely is.  Check the commandment given at the conclusion of the sealing ceremony, not to mention the instruction contained within the ceremony itself to keep all the laws pertaining to the order of marriage.

 

You've missed my point, which is that it is entirely possible that same-sex relationships could be eternally bound with a different nature and purpose than procreation--and perhaps, even a different title/designation than "marriage."  Familial relationships are made eternal through the sealing powers, without being dependent on procreation (children being sealed to parents, for example.... even non-blood-related adults being sealed through 'The Law of Adoption'--a non-marital familial relationship).  The sealing power exists independent of the marriage covenant.

Since LDS doctrine is entirely silent on the 2/3 members of the Celestial Kingdom who are not "exalted, pro-creative married" couples or plural-married groupings, no one can say with certainly or finality what the nature or purpose of the remaining 2/3 of the Celestial Kingdom's population is or may be.

And anyone who is adamant that they KNOW for certainty that same-sex relationships will NEVER, EVER be recognized, in my opinion, denies the possibility of future revelation.  I am always puzzled by such' individuals' absolutist denial or refusal that God COULD reveal something they've never previously considered... it reminds me of the passages of the Book of Mormon"

 

Quote

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible...

Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

 

Rather, the church today rests on the principle of ongoing revelation, and that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

Yes, I know and understand that the beliefs of most Latter-day Saints today lead them to strongly reject the notion that God could someday endorse eternal same-sex relationships.  But I still marvel that such folks entrench themselves SO firmly in the possibility that God could someday reveal more light and knowledge about non-procreative partnerships among the 2/3 of the Celestial Kingdom.  The entrenchment of attitudes suggest, to me, that God would be entirely justified in continuing to wait to reveal more on the matter until society advanced to a place of greater acceptance-----JUST as He allegedly waited until society was prepared to remove the prohibition of priesthood blessings for negroes.  The similarities are striking. And I would think that Mormons, above all people, would be understanding that God can reveal surprising--and previously unheard of--truths that rival literally centuries of sectarian thinking of religions who have misinterpreted scripture to mean things that God never apparently intended.

"

Edited December 9, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, Teancum said:

You are reinterpreting what JS said to fit your own paradigm.

I know I already gave you a rep point for the above, Teancum, but I wanted to state publically that I find your comment above to be very insightful.  Well said, and thanks for sharing.

I think we all do the same (interpret the world around us and often fit it to our paradigm--myself included).  Somewhere in the middle of all of our interpretations and misinterpretations, we may eventually be blessed enough to stumble into the external reality.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

57 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

You've missed my point, which is that it is entirely possible that same-sex relationships could be eternally bound with a different nature and purpose than procreation--and perhaps, even a different title/designation than "marriage."  Familial relationships are made eternal through the sealing powers, without being dependent on procreation (children being sealed to parents, for example.... even non-blood-related adults being sealed through 'The Law of Adoption'--a non-marital familial relationship).  The sealing power exists independent of the marriage covenant.

There are only two kinds of sealings, and only one exception known, and that is all there have ever have been.

1. Man to woman (marriage)

2. Child to parent (heirship)

Exception - Jane Manning to Joseph Smith

Law of Adoption falls under #2.  If two men want a Father Son relationship I'm good with that.  If two men want a marriage, that is out of order.