Elder Bednar - "There are no homosexual members of the church."

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope, not in the Doctrine and Covenants.  I never said there was.  But there is a lot that is not in there or in the Bible that I believe will be taken care of or allowed by God after this life.  Everything does not have to be spelled out in the scriptures.

I believe that those who are in a SSM and have lived a good life, will be allowed to be with their spouse who they love.  I firmly believe that God will not force them to be apart. Their love is as deep and good as any love between any other married individuals.  I know of several of these couples (some that I've very close to) and their love and goodness is evident just being around them.

We can continue going back and forth, but I feel there's nothing that will change your mind just as there's nothing that will change my mind on this.  I respect your right to believe as you do, and I hope you'll do the same in return.

.

It's interesting how many Christians out there firmly believe that their families will be together after death.  For them, it's just a natural understanding that God will respect and honor the commitments and love that they have built in this life.

It's Mormonism that puts all the hurdles in the way... that says only *these* couples get the full measure of the Atonement, of God's plan, and of the Lord's love.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting how many Christians out there firmly believe that their families will be together after death.  For them, it's just a natural understanding that God will respect and honor the commitments and love that they have built in this life.

It's Mormonism that puts all the hurdles in the way... that says only *these* couples get the full measure of the Atonement, of God's plan, and of the Lord's love.

How many is "many?"  How many of the "many" belong to a religion that interprets Matt 22:30 to preclude the possibility of family ties after death?  How many other religions teach eternal families?

What you may or may not have observed [vs intuited] may have more to do with the Church's teachings' attractiveness than any actual religion actually teaching such a thing.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting how many Christians out there firmly believe that their families will be together after death.  For them, it's just a natural understanding that God will respect and honor the commitments and love that they have built in this life.

It's Mormonism that puts all the hurdles in the way... that says only *these* couples get the full measure of the Atonement, of God's plan, and of the Lord's love.

As an ex-mormon, I still think that I will be able to be with my husband again..if we so choose to be.  For me, love is the sealing power.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Nothing in what you quoted above which basically affirms the need for opposite-sex marriages to be authorized by God ipso-facto precludes the possibility that God could someday sanction a covenant-based, eternally-sealed relationships between same-sex couples.  None. At all. 

As I said earlier in this thread: 

Quote

I suppose there is some sort of theoretical hope that, per the 9th Article of Faith, the Lord may reverse everything His prophets and apostles have taught about the Law of Chastity relating to same-sex behavior, that He may reverse everything His presiding high priests and apostles have been doing for years to protect marriage from being radically re-defined to include same-sex couples, that He will instruct His presiding high priest and apostles to stop teaching against same-sex marriage now that it is a reality, and that He will instead instruct His Church to embrace same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage, and that He will instruct His presiding high priest and apostles to implement sealing ordinances for same-sex couples.

Yes, I suppose it's theoretically possible that these things will happen.  But I think that possibility is extraordinarily small.  Negligible.  Not worth serious discussion or consideration.

...

At the end of the day, there is not a cognizable basis for the Saints to suggest that the Church's teachings about eternal marriage are going to change in such a way as to accommodate the concept of same-sex relationships in the eternities.  Let me emphasize here that I am a big, big fan of the 9th Article of Faith.  I truly believe that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  But c'mon.  

Although we may differ as to the remoteness of the possibility "that God could someday sanction a covenant-based, eternally-sealed relationships between same-sex couples" (I think that possibility is nigh unto zero), this is really neither here nor there.  No Latter-day Saint is justified in disregarding the current counsel of the Lord's presiding high priest and apostles.  As I said previously (same link as above):

Quote

I don't think we as Latter-day Saints can excuse or ignore conduct that we are unequivocally being taught is sinful now by pointing to some future conjectural departure from "all that God has revealed" and "all that He does now reveal" regarding same-sex behavior.  To do so is, in my mind, to wrest the scriptures and the counsel from the Brethren so as to potentially run afoul of Alma 13:20 ("Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.").

No Latter-day Saint can justify violating the Word of Wisdom now by theorizing that God may repeal it in the future.

No Latter-day Saint can justify violating the Law of Chastity in regards to adultery now by theorizing that God may excuse such behavior in the future.

No Latter-day Saint can justify disregarding the counsel of His anointed servants now by theorizing that God may alter His instructions through them in the future.

Quote

The foregoing scriptures appear to be entirely silent about same-sex relationships, and God could reveal a new covenant which may have seemed entirely implausible to earlier generations of church members.

Thanks,

Daniel

I recommend you re-read D&C 132.  Particularly verse 7 ("All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.").

"All ... associations ... that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... have an end when men are dead."

"All ... connections ... that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... have an end when men are dead."

We can't say that this verse is "entirely silent" about same-sex relationships when it uses the word "all."

In any event, speculation about what God might do in the future does not excuse the Saints from obeying Him in the here and now.

And His present counsel about same-sex relationships given through His presiding high priest and apostles is quite clear.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

How many is "many?"  How many of the "many" belong to a religion that interprets Matt 22:30 to preclude the possibility of family ties after death?  How many other religions teach eternal families?

What you may or may not have observed [vs intuited] may have more to do with the Church's teachings' attractiveness than any actual religion actually teaching such a thing.

I don't have a count.  And Matt 22:30 applies to us as well as other Christian faiths.

I suspect that it is just the Spirit of Christ in those individuals of other faiths teaching them that they will be together as an eternal family, even if they don't use those words.  My experience from my mission is that people readily accepted our doctrine of eternal families because they already believed in it before we landed on their doorstep.

I feel like in recent years, our doctrine of eternal families has become more of a stick to beat people with than a blessing proffered.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm sure some same-sex couples may "want to be" together in the eternities.  But such a concept is not compatible with the Restored Gospel.  Not as a matter of doctrine.  Not as a matter of hope.  

 

What are you talking about?  Not only is such an idea "compatible" by the doctrine of the Restored Gospel, it is pretty much demanded by it.

Let's take my employee and his husband, Chris and Randy.  They "want to be" together in the eternities.  They die.  They have both lived roughly morally equivalent lives.  They are resurrected and judged.  They end up in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdom for eternity.  So now what?

They live together for all eternity.  Obviously, we don't know exactly what they'll be doing, but whatever it is, I think we can assume they'll do it together if they choose.  Playing chess?  Riding bikes?  Long walks on a terrestrial beach?  Why not?

And after the resurrection, they're going to have perfected, physical bodies that the scriptures tell us will be perfect versions of our earth bodies.

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body

Alma 11

So, not to be vulgar, but will they be able to have physical contact with each other?  Of course they can.  Everything will be restored to its "perfect frame."  So I think what they think of when you say "together in the eternities" is exactly what they'll have.  And they can apparently do it without any help from the Church (in fact the Church seems to be doing everything it can to convince them that they won't get what the scriptures tell them they're going to have).

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What are you talking about?  Not only is such an idea "compatible" by the doctrine of the Restored Gospel, it is pretty much demanded by it.

Let's take my employee and his husband, Chris and Randy.  They "want to be" together in the eternities.  They die.  They have both lived roughly morally equivalent lives.  They are resurrected and judged.  They end up in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdom for eternity.  So now what?

They live together for all eternity.  Obviously, we don't know exactly what they'll be doing, but whatever it is, I think we can assume they'll do it together if they choose.  Playing chess?  Riding bikes?  Long walks on a terrestrial beach?  Why not?

And after the resurrection, they're going to have perfected, physical bodies that the scriptures tell us will be perfect versions of our earth bodies.

So, not to be vulgar, but will they be able to have physical contact with each other?  Of course they can.  Everything will be restored to its "perfect frame."  So I think what they think of when you say "together in the eternities" is exactly what they'll have.  And they can apparently do it without any help from the Church (in fact the Church seems to be doing everything it can to convince them that they won't get what the scriptures tell them they're going to have).

What are your thoughts about D&C 132:7?

For me, I have a hard time imagining that sinful conduct will be a thing in the kingdoms of glory.  I'm not sure how things will work, but I don't think there will be things like murder, rape, drug abuse, fornication, adultery, and so on.

To be honest, it seems a bit . . . odd that you would suggest otherwise.  So what are you talking about?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2016 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Nope, not in the Doctrine and Covenants.  I never said there was.  But there is a lot that is not in there or in the Bible that I believe will be taken care of or allowed by God after this life.  Everything does not have to be spelled out in the scriptures.

I believe that those who are in a SSM and have lived a good life, will be allowed to be with their spouse who they love.  I firmly believe that God will not force them to be apart. Their love is as deep and good as any love between any other married individuals.  I know of several of these couples (some that I've very close to) and their love and goodness is evident just being around them.

We can continue going back and forth, but I feel there's nothing that will change your mind just as there's nothing that will change my mind on this.  I respect your right to believe as you do, and I hope you'll do the same in return.

.

 

Last night at the Provo Temple open house Elder Holland was shown in a video and he made an emotional appeal about the eternal nature of his familial relationships. He said:

Quote

I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me. Now you can say that’s wishful thinking, or you can say that’s just because you love each other and you have gotten cozy hear on earth and you like each other’s company. It’s a lot more than that.

 

To think that homosexual couples love their spouses or children any less or will be comforted by the fact that in heaven they will turn straight and find some woman to marry just boggles my mind a bit. Elder Holland didn't focus his attention in appeal to scriptural authority, but rather to the emotional ties that bind him to his family.

 

ETA: JLFPROF rightly points out that Elder Holland then goes on to quote scripture. My point was not to disingenuously omit this, but rather point out Elder Hollands focus on an emotional appeal to our familial bonds and how heaven cannot be heaven without those we love most.

Edited March 1, 2016 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I said earlier in this thread: 

Although we may differ as to the remoteness of the possibility "that God could someday sanction a covenant-based, eternally-sealed relationships between same-sex couples" (I think that possibility is nigh unto zero), this is really neither here nor there.  No Latter-day Saint is justified in disregarding the current counsel of the Lord's presiding high priest and apostles.  As I said previously (same link as above):

No Latter-day Saint can justify violating the Word of Wisdom by theorizing that God may repeal it in the future.

No Latter-day Saint can justify violating the Law of Chastity in regards to adultery by theorizing that God may excuse such behavior in the future.

No Latter-day Saint can justify disregarding the counsel of His anointed servants by theorizing that God may alter His instructions through them in the future.

I recommend you re-read D&C 132.  Particularly verse 7 ("All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.").

"All ... associations ... that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... have an end when men are dead."

"All ... connections ... that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... have an end when men are dead."

We can't say that this verse is "entirely silent" about same-sex relationships when it uses the word "all."

In any event, speculation about what God might do in the future does not excuse the Saints from obeying Him in the here and now.

And His present counsel about same-sex relationships given through His presiding high priest and apostles is quite clear.

Thanks,

-Smac

The existence of this very thread ought to give pause to those who entertain such fantasies. Elder Bednar, as one of the more recently called members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, is likelier than others to become president of the Church one day in, say, 30-40 years from now, which is when Dehlin and others have predicted that the Church will eventually cave in, change its doctrine, capitulate, however you choose to put it, on this matter.

And the countdown clock, still ticking, now stands at 38 years, 11 months, 1 week, 2 days, 5 hours, 28 minutes and 55 seconds.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Last night at the Provo Temple open house Elder Holland was shown in a video and he made an emotional appeal about the eternal nature of his familial relationships. He said:
I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me. Now you can say that’s wishful thinking, or you can say that’s just because you love each other and you have gotten cozy hear on earth and you like each other’s company. It’s a lot more than that.

To think that homosexual couples love their spouses or children any less or will be comforted by the fact that in heaven they will turn straight and find some woman to marry just boggles my mind a bit. Elder Holland didn't focus his attention in appeal to scriptural authority, but rather to the emotional ties that bind him to his family.

 

Total out of context quoting.  Very disingenuous.
You should include all of Elder Holland's quote (one of my favorites of his) in which he DID go to scriptural authority.  The full quote reads:

Quote

"I don’t know how to speak of heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven…I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven without my wife, or my children. It would not be heaven for me. Now, you can say that’s wishful thinking, you can say, ‘ Well that’s just because you love each other and you’ve gotten cozy here on earth and you like each other’s company.’ It’s a lot more than that. There is something eternal in the statement that neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord. That isn’t just good sociology it’s good theology, it’s eternal."

Apparently Elder Holland correctly knows full well that male and female together in the Lord is the eternal order.
 

Edited March 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't have a count.  And Matt 22:30 applies to us as well as other Christian faiths.

Matthew 22:30 doesn't apply to us any more than do the other divine scriptures embraced by the Latter-day Saints, including those revealed in latter days that also have Jesus Christ as their origen.

Quote

I suspect that it is just the Spirit of Christ in those individuals of other faiths teaching them that they will be together as an eternal family, even if they don't use those words.  My experience from my mission is that people readily accepted our doctrine of eternal families because they already believed in it before we landed on their doorstep.

If the Spirit of Christ is thus working on them, it is by way of the process of leading the to the Church of Jesus Christ, which is the only church I know of that has the doctrine of eternal marriage and continuation of the family unit as one of its core doctrines.

Quote

I feel like in recent years, our doctrine of eternal families has become more of a stick to beat people with than a blessing proffered.

The truth is sharper than a two-edged sword. I take that to mean that it is just as effective in destroying falsehood what would lead people away from the plan of happiness as it is in directing them toward that plan.

 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The existence of this very thread ought to give pause to those who entertain such fantasies. Elder Bednar, as one of the more recently called members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, is likelier than others to become president of the Church one day in, say, about 40 years from now, which is when Dehlin and others have predicted that the Church will eventually cave in, change its doctrine, capitulate, however you choose to put it, on this matter.

And the countdown clock, still ticking, now stands at 38 years, 11 months, 1 week, 2 days, 5 hours, 28 minutes and 55 seconds.

This thread is certainly . . . illuminating.  Conjecture, guesswork, and unfounded speculation about what God might do in the future somehow excuses the Saints from adhering to God's commandments now (per Daniel, ALarson, etc.).

The Restored Gospel requires the continuation of same-sex relationships in the eternities (per Cinepro), despite D&C 132.

I think I am witnessing a manifestation of the wholesale disregarding and/or wresting of scriptures and of counsel from the Lord's anointed.

It's not a pretty sight.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2016 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting how many Christians out there firmly believe that their families will be together after death.  For them, it's just a natural understanding that God will respect and honor the commitments and love that they have built in this life.

It's Mormonism that puts all the hurdles in the way... that says only *these* couples get the full measure of the Atonement, of God's plan, and of the Lord's love.

Poppycock.  Mormonism merely recognizes as God has always stated that all blessings require obedience to law.
The very existence of the atonement is proof of that.  If justice wasn't satisfied mercy couldn't have been applied.  Laws must be followed.  It's NOT all about what makes us happy.  Some would be very happy if they could choose sin and still go to heaven.

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As an ex-mormon, I still think that I will be able to be with my husband again..if we so choose to be.  For me, love is the sealing power.

I think you will too, once you agree to abide by the conditions of that relationship set by God.
Everyone will have their opportunities to choose God's laws and ordinances.  We get 1000 years of temple work to put all the relationships from the beginning of time in order as they should be.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Poppycock.  Mormonism merely recognizes as God has always stated that all blessings require obedience to law.
The very existence of the atonement is proof of that.  If justice wasn't satisfied mercy couldn't have been applied.  Laws must be followed.  It's NOT all about what makes us happy.  Some would be very happy if they could choose sin and still go to heaven.

 

Occasions like this is when I recall one of my favorite C. S. Lewis quotations:

Quote

What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven- a senile benevolence who, as they say, liked to see young people enjoying themselves’, and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all’. . . . I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines. But since it is abundantly clear that I don’t, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Total out of context quoting.  Very disingenuous.
You should include all of Elder Holland's quote (one of my favorites of his) in which he DID go to scriptural authority.  The full quote reads:

Apparently Elder Holland correctly knows full well that male and female together in the Lord is the eternal order.
 

I wonder what Elder Holland would have to say if he knew someone were using his quoted words to support the notion that homosexual behavior will exist in the kingdoms of glory.

I'm fairly confident he would not approve.

 

[rockpond]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...predicted that the Church will eventually cave in, change its doctrine, capitulate, however you choose to put it, on this matter.

Receive "further light and knowledge" would be the appropriate terminology.

Edited March 1, 2016 by rockpond

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Receive "further light and knowledge" would be the appropriate terminology.

As you like.  But what are your thoughts about following the current counsel from the Brethren?

Isn't it rather a slippery slope?  This seems like a built-in get-out-jail-free card.  Anytime anyone wants to disobey a commandment, he or she can simply say "Hey, God may change His mind about this commandment in the future, so it's okay for me to disobey it now." 

This is a particularly dangerous precedent to set when the individual asserting it does so publicly, but also secretly.  Online.  Behind a pseudonym.  Without disclosing it to his or her priesthood leaders.

Matthew 7:15 warns us against such things, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2016 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Total out of context quoting.  Very disingenuous.
You should include all of Elder Holland's quote (one of my favorites of his) in which he DID go to scriptural authority.  The full quote reads:

Apparently Elder Holland correctly knows full well that male and female together in the Lord is the eternal order.
 

My apologies. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I do not think that any of the apostles or general authorities secretly support gay marriage or even that someday the church will necessarily change. (I have edited my original post to reflect this). Only that when we present our best selves to others to explain our view of heaven, Elder Holland didn't lead with scriptures, but with an emotional appeal how he could not imagine or describe a Heaven without his spouse and his children. The same emotion that binds him to his family binds our gay brothers and sisters to theirs. It is cheap comfort to offer those in such a loving relationship a description of heaven devoid of those that they love most. A heaven where they are straight and leave their earthly loved ones behind. 

Edited March 1, 2016 by SeekingUnderstanding

[consiglieri]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The truth is sharper than a two-edged sword. I take that to mean that it is just as effective in destroying falsehood what would lead people away from the plan of happiness as it is in directing them toward that plan.

 

So when your two-edged sword is busy cutting asunder happily married gay people and their children, that is supposed to make them happy both here and in the hereafter?

Do you actually believe what it is you are saying?

Do you see how limited, how narrow, how mind-boggling bigoted this belief is?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I think I am witnessing a manifestation of the wholesale disregarding and/or wresting of scriptures and of counsel from the Lord's anointed.

It's not a pretty sight.

 

I agree.

The counsel from the Lord's anointed is not a pretty sight.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  But what are your thoughts about following the current counsel from the Brethren?

Isn't it rather a slippery slope?  This seems like a built-in get-out-jail-free card.  Anytime anyone wants to disobey a commandment, he or she can simply say "Hey, God may change His mind about this commandment in the future, so it's okay for me to disobey it now." 

This is a particularly dangerous precedent to set when the individual asserting it does so publicly, but also secretly.  Online.  Behind a pseudonym.  Without disclosing it to his or her priesthood leaders.

Matthew 7:15 warns us against such things, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do follow the current counsel from the Brethren.

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Isn't it rather a slippery slope you are proposing here?  You are suggesting a built-in get-out-jail-free card.  Anytime anyone wants to disobey a commandment, he or she can simply say "Hey, God may change His mind about this commandment in the future, so it's okay for me to disobey it now." 

 

Such an argument would carry less weight if history were not replete with instances of God changing his mind . . .

[smac97]

Just now, consiglieri said:

I agree.

The counsel from the Lord's anointed is not a pretty sight.

Now you're wresting my words.

But then, you knew that.

Nope, not a pretty sight at all.

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I do follow the current counsel from the Brethren.

I wasn't referring to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[PeterPear]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So when your two-edged sword is busy cutting asunder happily married gay people and their children, that is supposed to make them happy both here and in the hereafter?

Do you actually believe what it is you are saying?

Do you see how limited, how narrow, how mind-boggling bigoted this belief is?

It's odd you assume married gay people have "their" children. A sword isn't even required to figure that out.