In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

[CMZ]

These kinds of threads (and there are many of them) are all handicapped to some extent because they never fully explain all that the prophets and seers can see on this subject. While much of it should be extremely logical (i.e., "Neither is the man without the woman in the Lord... ") somehow much of it appears to be hard for some people to grasp and perhaps to some extent we simply need to trust the prophets. These threads are also handicapped by the fact that many people presume feelings of same-sex attraction to be set in stone, so we end up with people acting like their temporary mortal feelings are the most powerful force in the universe and that everything must bow to them. It is true that some may have powerful feelings in this regard, but the gospel holds out the hope that all feelings can eventually be gently persuaded to align with the actual gospel plan (not the substitute one being presented of, "Well, sure it's the true church but gays must find a way outside of the Church to live the Plan of Happiness."). And it's not a matter of God zapping you into being a heterosexual.

Quote

 

He’ll call, persuade, direct aright,

  And bless with wisdom, love, and light,

In nameless ways be good and kind,

  But never force the human mind.

 

https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/know-this-that-every-soul-is-free?lang=eng

 

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Let's take a look at the whole of verse 3

I think the Holy Ghost is referring to the abstaining of meat, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.  

Forbidding to marry is not the same thing as abstaining of meat.  They are clearly unrelated issues.  

In the time of Paul though there were ascetic sects such as the Therapeutae in Egypt and some gnostics who did these things. I think his target are ascetics not gay marriage. Such ascetic movements have made comebacks at times such as the Shakers spoken of in D&C 49. Whether one should target Catholic monastic orders with the verse is of course controversial although Protestants have loved to do so since they first broke off.

[CMZ]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think his target are ascetics not gay marriage.

Agreed, which I explained to California Boy in another thread.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Absolutely.  I knew I was gay from the time I was 12.  I felt like if I just did everything God asked me to do, then with him, all things are possible and I could overcome this attraction to men.  So I did just that.  I did everything that God asked me to do.  When I retuned from my mission I could not understand why I was still gay.  Church leaders promised me in the name of God himself that if I just married a woman, then I would loose this attraction for men and would no longer be gay.   I asked them this is really a promise from God and they told me yes, that they knew the will of God on this issue.  So I trusted those what were suppose to know what God wanted of me.

Obviously that proved to not be true at all.  Someone does not stop being gay even if they marry a woman.  Church leaders no long make this promise in the name of God.  In fact, they now explicitly say that marriage is not therapy and will not make you straight.  Think about all the heartache and sadness that counsel brought to so many families.  So yes, the church has been very wrong about what the will of God is when it comes to marriage for gay members.  Not a little wrong.  Completely wrong.

I have never been instructed to advise gay men to marry in order to be "cured," and that goes back to being a bishop in 1981. What is your proof that this was the general policy of the Church and not a personal or local error?

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

Paul makes a claim of a prophecy from God.  I doubt very much if he understood what that prophecy was even referring to.  He probably related it to his time and his day.  But the prophecy was not for his time and his day.  It was for the latter day.  You are free to reject the revelation that Paul recorded 2000 years ago.  No one is compelling you to do anything.  And no one is going to interpret the prophecy for you.  But if it is as Paul recorded it, then what are the implications of that prophecy?

Thank heaven you have come forth to give the correct interpretation of the prophecy. Paul needed you to do that for him. 

The Church is not forbidding marriage between one man and one woman but follows the commandment in Jacob 2, so you must have other kinds of marriage in mind. We need to know exactly what is being forbidden. Any old marriage or just certain marriages? The implications could be determined only if one had a specific definition of marriage. What is yours? Between one man and one woman, as the scriptures and the Church define it, or is it something else? . 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

Just how easily is it to dismiss this prophecy of Paul "latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;....Forbidding to marry".

Seriously??

The same Paul who said this in Romans 1??

Quote

 

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Uh, it's pretty easy.

Not the greatest pick of sources for your point.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Not really.  When you receive a prophecy from God it is really irrelevant what you personally were thinking.  Is all Paul is doing is relating what was revealed to him.  It is up to each one of us to decide whether that revelation came from God or not.

So now you are a fundamentalist and take the bible literally??

Ever read Leviticus?  

None of this argument makes the least bit of sense.  You could rationally argue that the bible was written in other times, that those verses are incorrect or that times have changed due to social conditions etc.

But taking the bible literally to say what you want to say while condemning other parts that don't say what you want is kind of contradictory.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage- it is just plain poor logic.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

At the time Paul wrote this, there was no such thing as gay marriage neither among the Jews nor the Christians, nor, in point of fact, among the Pagans.  At the time he wrote this, "marriage" meant a personal union between persons of the opposite sex.

And you think that Paul meant that forbidding gay marriage was a sign of the times? I imagine that he would have been surprised to learn this. Especially since if this is what he meant, the "latter times" were there already.

Nice try, CB, but your logic destroys itself.

 

Especially when you read the rest of what Paul allegedly said on homosexuality in other places.   The logic just does not work.

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Thank you for taking the time to try and understand my perspective and thoughts on this issue.  I have done the same with what you wrote.  I fully believe that telling someone they can never marry and enjoy all the joy and happiness that come with that part of life is wrong.  I fully believe that it goes against the Plan of Happiness.   And yes, I believe that Paul did receive a  revelation concerning these latter days.  I know that church leaders have a different point of view.  But I have learned through sad experience that church leaders do not have all the answers to this question.  And that they have been wrong about this issue in the past.  So I trust in God.  I know that I am on a path back to Him.  And I think you know that you can also trust God and the path you are on also leads back to God.  Putting our faith in God is a much more sure place than man no matter how sincere they strive to be.  They are still fallible men.  We have learned the lesson over and over again.  

I would not presume to try and convince you otherwise. Obviously from what I've already stated my beliefs and own sense of things through study, prayer, thought, and at times some course correction. I don't expect my church leaders to be 100% correct. I expect there is still plenty to learn. But I do believe that it's built on what truths we already do have. My faith is always in God first and man second. But I am also cautious when my opinions or beliefs diverge from those called to be prophet, seers, and revelators. I am equally aware that I have been and can be wrong. I guess at some point we will both see what God wanted and sees in the long term at some point. My guess is both of us will probably experience some needs for a little tweaking to better align with God's ultimate will  

 

with luv,

BD 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Of course you would expect Paul to want women and men to marry.  It is key to the gospel plan as I mentioned earlier.  And I would agree with you that we can not find anything in Paul's writings concerning gay marriage.  In fact it would be absurd to think that there would be since gay marriage was not around during Paul's lifetime.  

But this is what is so interesting about these verses.  They do not represent the beliefs of Paul.  He clearly states that these thoughts came to him by the Spirit of God.  And they are not relevant during his lifetime.  They will become relevant in the latter days.  It is not often that the scriptures so clearly differentiate between the thoughts and beliefs of the writer from the word of God.  But this is one of those times where it is crystal clear where that prophecy came from.  "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly"  It is not Paul speaking at all is it.

There you go.  It's God breathed?  Just this one verse?  And the rest of the bible is not?

OK that's enough from me.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

In the time of Paul though there were ascetic sects such as the Therapeutae in Egypt and some gnostics who did these things. I think his target are ascetics not gay marriage. Such ascetic movements have made comebacks at times such as the Shakers spoken of in D&C 49. Whether one should target Catholic monastic orders with the verse is of course controversial although Protestants have loved to do so since they first broke off.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Seriously??

The same Paul who said this in Romans 1??

Uh, it's pretty easy.

Not the greatest pick of sources for your point.

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So now you are a fundamentalist and take the bible literally??

Ever read Leviticus?  

None of this argument makes the least bit of sense.  You could rationally argue that the bible was written in other times, that those verses are incorrect or that times have changed due to social conditions etc.

But taking the bible literally to say what you want to say while condemning other parts that don't say what you want is kind of contradictory.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage- it is just plain poor logic.

We have talked about these issues already discussed in this thread.  I appreciate your questions, but if you really want to contribute to this thread, you should at least read what has been discussed several times. I think if you have an interest in what those that are discussing, they deserve the courtesy of you actually reading their point of view before just coming into this thread with guns blazing.

Now if you would like to talk about how I have already addressed what you bring up, I would be more than happy to share my opinion or clarify what I have already said.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have never been instructed to advise gay men to marry in order to be "cured," and that goes back to being a bishop in 1981. What is your proof that this was the general policy of the Church and not a personal or local error?

I can't tell you how many former members of the church I have run into that were all told a similar promise.   It is not hard to find stories of marriages that ended in shambles because of this wide spread practice by church leaders.  This was the go to solution church leaders used in the 60's and 70's.   It became so rampant and such a miserable failure that Gordon B. Hinkley finally spoke out against this practice.  He famously said that marriage is not therapy and effectively ended this practice.  I think if you ask around even members of the church, you will get the answer you are looking for.

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I can't tell you how many former members of the church I have run into that were all told a similar promise.   It is not hard to find stories of marriages that ended in shambles because of this wide spread practice by church leaders.  This was the go to solution church leaders used in the 60's and 70's.   It became so rampant and such a miserable failure that Gordon B. Hinkley finally spoke out against this practice.  He famously said that marriage is not therapy and effectively ended this practice.  I think if you ask around even members of the church, you will get the answer you are looking for.

 

How many have you run into? Ballpark figure.

Do you think Pres Hinckley may have been correcting something that was wrong and not officially approved?

Regarding your interpretation of Paul's prophecy, how do you define the marriage that he says will be forbidden?

Quote

in the latter times some shall depart from the faith

In order for your interpretation to be correct, those forbidding marriage are departing from the faith.

How did the Church depart from the faith by opposing ssm?

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Rock_N_Roll]

16 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Leviticus 20:13.

Yup.  It's there alright.  Thanks for that.  It's right there in the same chapter that says "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death:"  Good thing we don't follow this any longer.  There'd be a lot of "puttin' to death". 

[Rock_N_Roll]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I can't tell you how many former members of the church I have run into that were all told a similar promise.   It is not hard to find stories of marriages that ended in shambles because of this wide spread practice by church leaders.  This was the go to solution church leaders used in the 60's and 70's.   It became so rampant and such a miserable failure that Gordon B. Hinkley finally spoke out against this practice.  He famously said that marriage is not therapy and effectively ended this practice.  I think if you ask around even members of the church, you will get the answer you are looking for.

 

My BIL was told this same thing, right about the same time they had him going through shock therapy at BYU.  Didn’t work by the way.  In fact it turned his heart strongly away from the church.

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

Yup.  It's there alright.  Thanks for that.  It's right there in the same chapter that says "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death:"  Good thing we don't follow this any longer.  There'd be a lot of "puttin' to death". 

So, it would be reasonable that both practices....and all the others listed in Lev 20....are sinful by their nature, but the severe penalty is no longer required?

Edited August 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

My BIL was told this same thing, right about the same time they had him going through shock therapy at BYU.  Didn’t work by the way.  In fact it turned his heart strongly away from the church.

That is lamentable.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How many have you run into? Ballpark figure.

Do you think Pres Hinckley may have been correcting something that was wrong and not officially approved?

Regarding your interpretation of Paul's prophecy, how do you define the marriage that he says will be forbidden?

I don't know if it was general practice, but I have no doubt that it was at times a prevalent belief, particularly in the time frame CB mentioned and probably was getting married in. In or outside the church, what it meant to be attracted to the same sex just wasn't understood and there weren't exactly a lot of open examples running about period for people to learn from. Plus most People in the LGBT category fall under  some form of the B end of things....meaning they often could make an opposite sex relationship work, even if the same sex desires were fairly strong....which could have perpetuated the myth (I'm guessing here). There was also a heavy stigma toward divorce in the 60's and 70's particularly....so many once married may have stuck with it anyways, which would again perpetuate the myth in a time where frank discussion about it was unlikely to happen (again, guessing here). etc. So from what a bishop or leader may have seen with those coming to them confessing some form of same sex attraction, it easily could have looked like a success from the outside over the years. 

 I don't know, and haven't seen, solid evidence that it was church policy rather than widely held and uncontested belief at the time. But for older LDS LGBT folks, it is a common theme in their stories/journeys. Younger ones, notsomuch. Though some I've met do have an internal belief about this that doesn't have an immediate root to something in church. More like a desperate hope to be "normal" and have a "normal" life. This can also happen in or out of the church. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 18, 2017 by BlueDreams

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

We have talked about these issues already discussed in this thread.  I appreciate your questions, but if you really want to contribute to this thread, you should at least read what has been discussed several times. I think if you have an interest in what those that are discussing, they deserve the courtesy of you actually reading their point of view before just coming into this thread with guns blazing.

Now if you would like to talk about how I have already addressed what you bring up, I would be more than happy to share my opinion or clarify what I have already said.

I had read all your comments and I honestly don't think you addressed this. Your argument was that because it dealt with "the latter days" that Paul's knowledge doesn't matter. I don't think that's correct. For one, Paul's understanding would be in terms of what he sees around him. He likely interpreted this in terms of gnostic and ascetic expansion. Indeed there are compelling reasons to think that was his worry from his epistles. As such I don't think you can simply ignore that context. 

More importantly though your interpretation depends upon separating the bit about meat from the bit about marriage. My point is that in Paul's mind they were related and that his future prediction was tied to his understanding. You want Paul to have no conception just the words with their meaning being determined purely now. I'm just not sure I buy that as either a hermeneutic principle nor a conception of how prophecy works. That is I am fully on board with prophets not fully understanding the import of their words. Yet I think the prophet has to have some vague understanding of them for it to work. In this case Paul appears to be saying it's the concept that is coming from the spirit which he interprets in light of gnosticism and ascetic movements.

[mnn727]

On 8/17/2017 at 2:04 AM, california boy said:

 

 

Quote

 

I don't believe there is any other single issue that is dividing faithful members of the church more than this issue.  

 

I don't see any division over this at all in my Stake

[mnn727]

On 8/17/2017 at 3:53 AM, california boy said:

And perhaps you have identified why so many members of the church are feeling so strongly the whisperings of the Spirit on this issue..  

Ahh, but which 'spirit' are they listening to?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

 

 

We have talked about these issues already discussed in this thread.  I appreciate your questions, but if you really want to contribute to this thread, you should at least read what has been discussed several times. I think if you have an interest in what those that are discussing, they deserve the courtesy of you actually reading their point of view before just coming into this thread with guns blazing.

Now if you would like to talk about how I have already addressed what you bring up, I would be more than happy to share my opinion or clarify what I have already said.

Sorry, I read it but I did not see a reply to my question.

Could you direct me to the post which answers your inconsistency in biblical interpretation?  Was it the part about the bible being only partially inspired with some parts being more "God breathed" than others?

For me, that was part of the problem.  Inconsistency. On one hand you are demanding a literal interpretation with some passages and taking a more non-literal interpretation with others.

If you are saying that you have a "testimony" of those parts which support your premise and reject those portions which do not, that is actually fine with me, because that is the standard LDS position I take myself.  "We believe the bible is the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly" obviously gives us a lot of leeway when Joseph has re-written swaths of the bible as he sees fit.  It seems clear to me that you want to affirm LDS doctrine insofar as you personally can accept it and reject what you cannot.  That works for me.

But if that is the basis for your argument I would like to know?  At least it would shut me up.   I am just looking for consistency.

That just limits your ability to convince others like me who have a different testimony.  At that point we agree to disagree and it's done.

 

[DJBrown]

On 8/17/2017 at 1:04 AM, california boy said:

 

I have not started a thread in several years.  So deciding to do this is not without careful thought.  In another thread, I brought this scripture up with several very interesting reactions to it. I felt like I would like to explore this prophecy of Paul, and it should be done in it's own thread.  Two things make these verses very interesting.  First, Paul clearly states that unlike some of his writings, this is not just his opinion.  He starts his point out saying specifically "Now the Spirit speakers".  The second important distinction from other writings of Paul is this part. " In the latter times".  Paul is not talking about his opinion or his time and issues of his day.  He is talking specifically about our time, the latter days under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  

Growing up, these Bible verses were used to point at "that other church" as proof that they had strayed from the teachings of Christ.  Looking back at it now, I see how wrong that belief was.  Because while my church teachers were pointing to "that other church" the church itself was forbidding to marry.  Perhaps the worse part of the discrimination against blacks was not the denying of the priesthood to them, but the denying families of temple marriage.

At the very core of the gospel is the Plan of Happiness.  And at the very core of that Plan of Happiness is the family.  You take eternal marriage and the importance of family out of that plan and you have nothing.  In fact the whole reason for the gospel collapses.  Yet, in these latter days, when the church forbids gay couples from marrying, that is exactly what that policy does to gay members.  It takes away from them the Plan of Happiness simply because they are gay.  It excludes them from the very fundamental core of the gospel in exactly the same way as past policies took away the Plan of Happiness simply because they were black.

I don't believe there is any other single issue that is dividing faithful members of the church more than this issue.  According to the documents posted on Mormon leaks 70% of the young people are leaving the church.  Many of them point specifically to the policy concerning gays as the reason they can no long in good consciousness stay involved in the church.  On this board we have those serving in leadership positions who reject the church policy of forbidding marriage simply because someone is gay.  In just ONE year, the church has seen a drop of 11% opposing gay marriage.  Ultimately, where is this policy headed.  Why is the Spirit whispering to so many members that something is wrong. in baring someone from core fundamental teachings of the gospel.

Just how easily is it to dismiss this prophecy of Paul "latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;....Forbidding to marry".

 

 

It is very important to recognize some extremely important confounding variables here.

The marriage rate is at an all-time low in America.  The percentage of Americans choosing to marry at all is lower than ever before.  And there are many factors contributing to that- education, cultural and socioeconomic influences, not to mention a general decline in the way society views marriage.

So maybe Paul was referring to the general decline in the status of marriage.  

But there are also groups seeking to dismantle marriage entirely.  Many 'thinkers' in the feminist and gay movements have advocated getting rid of marriage altogether.  They feel it is a primitive institution that robs both men and women (primarily women) of their rights and potential.  Some behind the campaign to legalize 'gay marriage' are of this mindset and even admitted that their true motive was to destroy marriage completely.  I am not claiming that everybody in these movements feels this way.  But there are many who behind closed doors do.  

So maybe Paul was speaking of these matters instead of people and institutions opposing gay marriage.  I think the latter is extremely unlikely.  

Another point- the number of people traveling a given path does not demonstrate the rightness or virtue of that path.  In fact, the scriptures suggest that the more people going down a path, the less likely that path is one God desires us to follow.  In fact, the scriptures predict that many people will fall away from the path God has prepared.  So the argument that maybe the church is wrong because X number of young people are falling away is not a scriptural or necessarily valid argument.

My 2 cents. 

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if it was general practice, but I have don't doubt that it was at times a prevalent belief, particularly in the time frame CB mentioned and probably was getting married in. In or outside the church, what it meant to be attracted to the same sex just wasn't understood and there weren't exactly a lot of open examples running about period for people to learn from. Plus most People in the LGBT category fall under  some form of the B end of things....meaning they often could make an opposite sex relationship work, even if the same sex desires were fairly strong....which could have perpetuated the myth (I'm guessing here). There was also a heavy stigma toward divorce in the 60's and 70's particularly....so many once married may have stuck with it anyways, which would again perpetuate the myth in a time where frank discussion about it was unlikely to happen (again, guessing here). etc. So from what a bishop or leader may have seen with those coming to them confessing some form of same sex attraction, it easily could have looked like a success from the outside over the years. 

 I don't know, and haven't seen, solid evidence that it was church policy rather than widely held and uncontested belief at the time. But for older LDS LGBT folks, it is a common theme in their stories/journeys. Younger ones, notsomuch. Though some I've met do have an internal belief about this that doesn't have an immediate root to something in church. More like a desperate hope to be "normal" and have a "normal" life. This can also happen in or out of the church. 

 

With luv,

BD

Thank you for the information. I recall a rapidly growing acceptance of divorce inthe 60s and 70s, but maybe I'm wrong.

[kllindley]

51 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if it was general practice, but I have don't doubt that it was at times a prevalent belief, particularly in the time frame CB mentioned and probably was getting married in. In or outside the church, what it meant to be attracted to the same sex just wasn't understood and there weren't exactly a lot of open examples running about period for people to learn from. Plus most People in the LGBT category fall under  some form of the B end of things....meaning they often could make an opposite sex relationship work, even if the same sex desires were fairly strong....which could have perpetuated the myth (I'm guessing here). There was also a heavy stigma toward divorce in the 60's and 70's particularly....so many once married may have stuck with it anyways, which would again perpetuate the myth in a time where frank discussion about it was unlikely to happen (again, guessing here). etc. So from what a bishop or leader may have seen with those coming to them confessing some form of same sex attraction, it easily could have looked like a success from the outside over the years. 

 I don't know, and haven't seen, solid evidence that it was church policy rather than widely held and uncontested belief at the time. But for older LDS LGBT folks, it is a common theme in their stories/journeys. Younger ones, notsomuch. Though some I've met do have an internal belief about this that doesn't have an immediate root to something in church. More like a desperate hope to be "normal" and have a "normal" life. This can also happen in or out of the church. 

 

With luv,

BD

Excellent points.  And if forced to choose between "gay" and "straight,"  as a label, many of the B individuals in heterosexual relationships would even self identify as straight.  Thus people who had homosexual attractions and desire would be likely to report that after marriage they were straight. 

I am so grateful that there was a clear condemnation of expecting marriage to "cure" sexual orientation.  I am equally grateful that we don't completely remove the option that LGBT members may in fact develop an attraction and desire for a heterosexual marriage.