Daniel2 Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: 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. The only change I would make to the above is to preface it by saying, "Thus far, we know of only two kinds of sealings..." If two men want a marriage, that is out of order. And I would change the above to say, "If two men (or two women) want a marriage, that is beyond the scope of what has been revealed thus far." This leads me to something that I've been thinking about lately: why do so many Latter-day Saints seem to oppose--on what seems to be some sort of fundamental, personal level--the possibility of same-sex unions? Let me attempt to clarify: I can understand if members would say something like, "Look... I can appreciate that you gays and lesbians maintain hope that someday God might sanction your relationships. I value my relationship with my (obviously opposite-sex) husband/wife, and if your relationship is even partially as personally enriching as mine is--if it gives you as much identity and purpose as my marriage and spouse does--I can totally understand that you would want to be together forever... I'm just not sure that God will ever change the permissibility of same-sex relationships. The way I currently understand the Plan of Salvation, it just seems like it wouldn't work--at least, in the same way that opposite-sex marriage works. The way I understand and interpret things, both genders are required to create life, so if you're suggesting that a same-sex couple could pro-create... well, that would be hard fro me to accept. God hasn't revealed anything about such relationships, and technically, we don't know much about how intelligences are "organized" into spirit bodies... so you're really speculating about a gray area that we know nothing about." What I don't understand is what seems to be a sharp criticism of those of us who express value in our relationships, as if we're REALLY asking for something so horrific and heinous and unimaginable that you would be really upset or angry with the church and it's leadership if they ultimately revealed that God would or could ever came back and revealed that He DOES, in fact, have a different path in mind for the 3% of his children who identify as gay and lesbian... and that although gays and lesbians have a different eternal purpose and identity which is similar (in the sense that they could form permanent, creative partnerships) but slightly different (in that they their partnerships wouldn't be procreative--i.e. they could assist in creative efforts in the flora, fauna, geology, mechanics of world creation and maintenance OR supportive child-rearing functions of others' eternal offspring; but different un the sense of not being procreative by bearing children of their own), the clarification on gays and lesbians' eternal existence and expectation does NOT undermine OR alter ANY other aspects, expectations, and commandments for the 97% of God's heterosexual children. I mean, I would expect that everyone who values the loving, reciprocal relationships they have with their families would want to be together forever.... that's AT LEAST understandable, right....?? Why the vehemence over the idea, instead of a compassionate, 'I can understand... we just don't know yet"....?
CV75 Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 44 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: why do so many Latter-day Saints seem to oppose--on what seems to be some sort of fundamental, personal level--the possibility of same-sex unions? I think it is because the practice isn’t congruent with their present moral sense (ideology); absent a crisis, one’s ideology does not change (in either direction); and, the consideration of future possibilities is not part of a fundamental, personal (ideological) analysis.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 31 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think it is because the practice isn’t congruent with their present moral sense (ideology); absent a crisis, one’s ideology does not change (in either direction); and, the consideration of future possibilities is not part of a fundamental, personal (ideological) analysis. Yes, you could patronise those who disagree with same sex "marriage" on the grounds of their obvious intellectual inferiority. Alternatively, you might consider the possibility that those who prioritise the Gospel, and use its doctrines as the yardstick by which to measure worldly values -- instead of doing it the wrong way around -- grasp something about those doctrines that others do not. 2
CV75 Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 21 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Yes, you could patronise those who disagree with same sex "marriage" on the grounds of their obvious intellectual inferiority. Alternatively, you might consider the possibility that those who prioritise the Gospel, and use its doctrines as the yardstick by which to measure worldly values -- instead of doing it the wrong way around -- grasp something about those doctrines that others do not. Huh? I’m saying that as one who opposes the possibility of same-sex unions on a fundamental, personal level. I embrace my ideology as much as I embrace my intellect, but my ideology is the stronger basis for my opposition on this issue.
why me Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) Being mormon is the 21st century is certainly not easy. It is a constant swim against the tide. And also, the values of the 21st century when it comes to believing in metanarratives such as mormonism is very difficult since there seems to be an antichristian tide in the west. However, where I am now in Europe, and seeing many muslim women with the veil covering their faces or wearing clothes that cover all their body, I would think that such clothing can be alittle difficult. And recently, I watched a muslim primary school class walking down the street with little girls in the hijab etc. It is quite amazing. I think that being mormon is quite okay and not much out of the ordinary. And we need to remember that for muslims, western moral values are not that accepted too. So, mormons and muslims are feeling the pressure which is one reason why many muslim women and girls are dressing in traditional hijabs as a way to separate themselves from the influence of the west. Talking with a muslim street preacher the other day, I asked him why are little girls wearing the hijab and he said: to get them used to it at an early age so that when they are teenagers, they will know what is expected of them and they will not complain. I know that our young people also feel the pressure of being mormon in the 21st century and behaving in ways that are expected of them. It is not easy being apart of any metanarrative that has a strict moral code http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Metanarrative Look at the examples of metanarratives from the link and see where christians and muslims fit in. Of course, mormonism has its own take on christianity but it is a metanarrative nonetheless. Edited December 9, 2015 by why me 1
Recommended Posts