Polygamy & SSM Thread

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The 2015 policy was stated (later) as a revelation...who got that..if Pres. Monson did not?

kind of weird stuff.  it feels like protocols have been broken in recent years on some of this.  Pres Monson, of course, did not claim revelation.  Pres Nelson claimed revelation for him and then told us.  So it's not as if we're to trust revelation given to us through his prophet, but the claim of revelation by another to his prophet, and we don't have that revelation to know even what the claim means.  

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The 2015 policy was stated (later) as a revelation...who got that..if Pres. Monson did not?

It was stated it came by revelation, not that it was a revelation.
Whatever information was passed through the veil to the leaders of the Church we don't know.  All we have is the press release of the policy, how it was prepared for public consumption.
What God actually said we have no idea.  What the leaders felt was the will of God led them to prepare the policy.  Whatever the policy document may be it is not a revelation.

This is a revelation:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1

• 1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.

  2 For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.

This is not, although it may have resulted from one according to President Nelson:
https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

• Dear Brethren and Sisters:

  The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people.

The real question is how can we discuss it when political correctness prohibits half the discussion participants from participating?

The real question is freedom of religion and respect for others with different opinions and civility in discussions.  Those no longer exist. 

Nothing to discuss.    The reality is that SINCE nothing is know about family organization in the next life nor can it be realistically it is a moot point and ssm advocates get to fight an amorphous majority who are not allowed to say what they think so there IS and cannot be a real discussion.   That applies to many issues today and is why Trump got elected while the liberals were positive they were right because they yell the loudest and are usually the only voices one can hear through the din.

But loud voices are not votes or real opinions.

Best wishes and welcome to reality. 

poster removed

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not that I ever heard.  The Church has become very good at blurring the line between revelation (God said) and inspiration (we feel by the spirit).

Don't you mean bad?   

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I am sure many things were prayed over, felt like an answer was given, and were thus labelled revelation.
Sadly, such revelations cannot be examined like the ones in scripture.

And such revelations are as prone to error as anything out there.  So how do we possibly take such seriously?  

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And such revelations are as prone to error as anything out there.  So how do we possibly take such seriously?  

Faith.
Either we believe God leads his Church and honors the offices he bestows upon its leaders or we don't.

And frankly, if we don't then we don't believe Mormonism and our concern with what the Church believes/doesn't believe becomes irrelevant.

Edited January 31, 2018 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Faith.
Either we believe God leads his Church and honors the offices he bestows upon its leaders or we don't.

And frankly, if we don't then we don't believe Mormonism and our concern with what the Church believes/doesn't believe becomes irrelevant.

There's probably something there.  Of course I think the term faith has been misused here.  I think the problem is, somehow it was decided we need to move our faith from being in God and put it in the corporation and those who run it, while claiming it is God who wants it that way.  

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Faith.
Either we believe God leads his Church and honors the offices he bestows upon its leaders or we don't.

And frankly, if we don't then we don't believe Mormonism and our concern with what the Church believes/doesn't believe becomes irrelevant.

Just one question...does a regular member know the difference between revelation...and come by revelation?? 

[juliann]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

And D&C 130 alone teaches something about the afterlife: we'll have bodies of flesh and bone, there are men (and by extension women), there is a planet like unto crystal, there is are orders of kingdoms, there is a sociality that continues, time continues, acquired knowledge and intelligence continue, there is a white stone and a key word.

 

Using "by extension" to include women isn't advisable. When we have based our views of the afterlife on mortality, it is going to be a very male oriented picture because that is what we have now. Someone bringing up celestial "strip clubs" is all the proof we need for that.  So it is very hard to get out of the male view, but once that is done, things don't add up.

Some questions that must be answered to move past the question begging responses:

1. What is the pure love of Christ. 

2. Do we really believe that God loves us all equally. 

3. Are we to become divine? 

4. Is a sealing only between an exclusive group of people or are we being sealed into an inclusive heavenly family?

 

 

[juliann]

I can see this is not a comfortable topic since so many have already decided to talk about something else. 

So more questions:

1. What is an intelligence?

2. What is a spirit? 

3. How are spirits created? 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just one question...does a regular member know the difference between revelation...and come by revelation?? 

It doesn't appear so.  Or if they do they view it as inconsequential.

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There's probably something there.  Of course I think the term faith has been misused here.  I think the problem is, somehow it was decided we need to move our faith from being in God and put it in the corporation and those who run it, while claiming it is God who wants it that way.  

Not exactly.
For a person with a testimony of Joseph Smith and the restoration (and the doctrines that came with it) they place their faith in God as demonstrated in the restoration.
So as far as the actions of the Church are concerned that only leaves a couple of choices:

1. I don't believe the restoration (ie Joseph, the Book of Mormon, the Church) came from God.  Which makes their opinion of whether the Church follows God irrelevant.
2. I do believe in the restoration, that God directed it.  Which leaves us with two choices:
   1. The Church was once directed by God but no longer is.  So it become necessary to decide when and why the change happened.
   2. The Church is still directed by God.  So we can still place faith in how it operates.

Faith in God vs Faith in the Church only matter if you don't believe the Church is God's church and then your opinion of how the Church operates is pretty meaningless from a religious perspective.  Just another outside observer.
But if you DO believe the Church was established by God you either have faith that God leads his Church or believe the Church is in apostasy.

[mfbukowski]

Does being "born that way" excuse immoral behavior?

Quote

The last scan in the pile was strikingly odd. In fact it looked exactly like the most abnormal of the scans I had just been writing about, suggesting that the poor individual it belonged to was a psychopath—or at least shared an uncomfortable amount of traits with one....When I found out who the scan belonged to, I had to believe there was a mistake....But there had been no mistake. The scan was mine.

https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Inside-Neuroscientists-Personal-Journey/dp/1591846005

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/

Let's see if a mature discussion is possible in a spirit of free speech and freedom of religion.

Or not.  

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

I can see this is not a comfortable topic since so many have already decided to talk about something else. 

So more questions:

1. What is an intelligence?

2. What is a spirit? 

3. How are spirits created? 

None of these are definable in any objective way- meaning that we could all agree on the definitions. 

But I am sure we will make up something, people will get frustrated and drop out and we will be right where we are now, as usual. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So let me clarify, I am asking for you to point to the revelation, not the statements that claim revelation.  

Again, I'll point you to Pres. Nelson's remarks.

"Revelation" is an event or experience, not a letter.  All writings which we have which we characterize as "revelations" are "statements that claim revelation."

OD-1 and OD-2 both describe "revelation."  We don't know the precise nature and/or wording of those events/experiences (to Pres. Woodruff and Pres. Kimball, respectively).  But they are still plainly "revelations."

Quote

Quote

Take a look at the texts of OD-1 and OD-2.  I don't see much in the way of verbatim transcripts of "words from God."  But these are revelatory nonetheless.

What makes them revelatory?  both seem to announce revelation was had.  

All written "revelations" are an announcement that "revelation was had."  Again, God does not deliver letters to His prophets.  He inspires them, and they then can (though don't always) make a record of the revelation.

Quote

Oh.  Then revelation is published statements from Pres. Nelson?  

Revelation is what Pres. Nelson described.  The event.  Again, God is not a mailman.

Quote

Quote

I think it's a stretch to say "Hey, until and unless the Brethren publish a verbatim transcript of the 'words of God,' they have nothing to say by way of revelation."

I don't.  I prefer to have revelation if revelation is so key to the Church. 

The policy changes are not "key to the Church."  They affect a very, very small number of individuals.

And your preferences are noted, but not binding on the Brethren.

Quote

I don't want people telling me they had revelation so I must believe what they say.  I want the revelation.  Seems reasonable to me.

So you practice polygamy?  You object to the Church's ordination of black men?

Or do you, as I suspect, accept OD-1 and OD-2 as revelatory, even if they do not contain verbatim transcripts of the "words of God?"

In any event, what do you mean "I want the revelation?"  What if the "revelation" was a strong spiritual confirmation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve enact the policy changes that had been developed and proposed?  How do you propose the Brethren to let you "see" that?

You apparently reject Pres. Nelson's recitation of the event.  Okay.  So what is it that you are looking to receive?

Quote

Quote

I disagree.  I think the concept of revelation in these days is robust and ongoing.  

I think the concept of accepting revelation is getting some short shrift, though.

It can be both, I think.  From the EOM:

In the present context, those "strong confirming impressions" came not only to Pres. Monson, but the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Every single one.

Unless, of course, Pres. Nelson is a liar.  That's the standard dodge.

K.  I suppose I'm still stuck on whether or not revelation is in any sense foolproof. 

Not really.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  2 Cor. 5:7.  It's a question of faith.  It pretty much will always be a question of faith.

We are dealing with a controversial issue.  A very controversial issue.  There are valid points on both sides.  So the Saints are tasked with choosing a side: A) the prophets and apostles, or B) those arrayed against the prophets and apostles.

For me, this is a pretty easy call.  I think the Brethren are saying and doing things that are eminently congruent with the role of prophets and apostles.  They aren't doing anything obviously problematic.  They aren't calling for homosexuals to be stoned, or thrown off rooftops, or beheaded.  They are not saying that homosexuals must be hounded from our midst and shunned.  They are, instead, moving heaven and earth to accommodate people with SSA as much as possible, while also fulfilling the scriptural mandates that fall on them.

So in the absence of the Brethren being patently wrong, we are left with them being possibly wrong.  This seems, for me, a bit far-fetched.  All fifteen wrong about the same things?  At the same time? 

Moreover, if they are wrong, then that is on them, really.  It's our job to sustain them in all that is right.  To the extent that we are asked to sustain them in something which A) they declare to be right, B) is controversial, and C) nevertheless will within the generalized parameters of the Restored Gospel, then I am going to go along with them.  Pretty much every time.  I have given these matters a lot of time and study and prayer and consideration, and I think what they are doing is right.  Unpopular, to be sure.  But still right.

So consider this my own variation of Pascal's Wager.  I choose to sustain the Brethren.  If they are wrong, then I am hard-pressed to believe that God will punish me for sustaining his servants in a decision that is reasonable, that is congruent with the scriptures, and that is presented with the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  On the other hand, if the Brethren are right, then by sustaining them I . . . have done what God asks of us in the first place.  Either way, I win.

Quote

I suppose it quite possible, and perhaps on this topic likely, that the brethren had felt their own already determined beliefs on this matter confirmed through their strong confirming impressions. 

These men, with literally centuries of experience in the Church between them (prayer, fasting, study, temple worship, discussion, seeking revelation, etc.), were all deluded?  About the exact same thing?

All fifteen have uniform "already determined beliefs on this matter" that are in perfect harmony?

This is, in your view, not only "possible," but also "likely?"

That is quite a stretch.

What about the contrary possibility?  That you and your "already determined beliefs" are in error?  Any chance of that?  Just food for thought.

Quote

That's all I really need to know on this.  Thus, I can feel quite happy and comfortable to note, we simply don't have revelation on this matter from which we can consult. 

We have clear guidance from prophets and apostles.  They are telling us that they are seeking, and receiving, revelatory guidance.  They are saying these things in a unified voice.  

If you are "quite happy and comfortable" to disregard their counsel, then I'll leave you to it.  I hope you have a change of heart, though.

Quote

We'd have to trust that the impressions that the brethren have had are God's explicit will. 

Yes.  Trust.  Faith.  

I trust the scriptures.  I trust the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  I'm comfortable with that.

Quote

It is quite possible, and perhaps likely on this topic, that it is not God's will. 

It is quite possible, and perhaps likely on this topic, that it is God's will.

I can choose to listen to the Brethren on this, or to voices of those who are setting themselves up as being alternative and superior to those of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

You probably won't be surprised at where I end up.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 31, 2018 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Using "by extension" to include women isn't advisable. When we have based our views of the afterlife on mortality, it is going to be a very male oriented picture because that is what we have now. Someone bringing up celestial "strip clubs" is all the proof we need for that.  So it is very hard to get out of the male view, but once that is done, things don't add up.

Some questions that must be answered to move past the question begging responses:

1. What is the pure love of Christ. 

• Good question.  In many ways beyond our understanding.

2. Do we really believe that God loves us all equally. 

• Cares about us equally yes.  Applies justice and mercy to us equally sure.  Will accept all of our personal error in belief and behavior because he loves us?  Nope.

3. Are we to become divine? 

• Some.  IE, those that choose to follow the requisite laws and pattern.

4. Is a sealing only between an exclusive group of people or are we being sealed into an inclusive heavenly family?

• Sealing is the authoritative binding into the eternal family order.  Anyone can receive that blessing but only within that order.  Outside of that order the sealing would be ineffective.

 

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

1. What is an intelligence?

• According to the scripture "truth and light".  What truth would provide identity?  Probably self awareness.

2. What is a spirit? 

• An intelligence contained within spirit matter, ie a spirit body.

3. How are spirits created? 

• Scripture does not say.  Some prophets have stated through reproduction.  This is not official doctrine, but there is no official doctrine.  So official status becomes irrelevant to the truthfulness of the prophetic teaching.   Scripture does refer to the continuation of seed, a very biological term.

 

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, juliann said:

Using "by extension" to include women isn't advisable. When we have based our views of the afterlife on mortality, it is going to be a very male oriented picture because that is what we have now. Someone bringing up celestial "strip clubs" is all the proof we need for that.  So it is very hard to get out of the male view, but once that is done, things don't add up.

Some questions that must be answered to move past the question begging responses:

1. What is the pure love of Christ. 

2. Do we really believe that God loves us all equally. 

3. Are we to become divine? 

4. Is a sealing only between an exclusive group of people or are we being sealed into an inclusive heavenly family?

There are other scriptures that specify women in the afterlife, but because I was using D&C 130 to illustrate a point that a few lines list many descriptors of the afterlife, I used “extension”.

I think the pure love of Christ is the power that makes the reconciliation of all things possible, and is expressed and realized in the Atonement of Christ. I think this love is extended to each of God’s children (yes to #2) so we can become divine (yes to #3). I think all God’s children are offered to be sealed into His heavenly family, and I think we have to be reconciled unto God to do that. I believe His family allows marriage as a feature for couples to enjoy within that heavenly family and that unmarried family members, if sufficiently reconciled, may be sealed to someone other than a spouse. (yes and yes to the statements in #4). Degrees and kinds of sealing perhaps? *

I think people who are not sealed up in the same kingdom can be administering angels appointed to minister to loved ones in other kingdoms by the power of the pure love of Christ according to the glory that has been reconciled within the respective kingdoms.

* this gets back to my first post as to which kinds of covenants are valid, where I think generational (and other sealings that seem to have been practiced in our history; friends, servants, etc.) and marriage sealing are not identical covenants.

[juliann]

Thanks, JLH. I pretty much agree with that. When I began to analyze how our ideas of a small nuclear family just don't compute when based on what we do think we know about the afterlife, I began to think there may be a solution for gays. Really, all we get hung up on here is the sex. I think for the most part, the only thing standing in the way of acknowledging there is no reason to believe there is sex or childbirth in the afterlife is....men.  But on other topics that are of extreme importance to us now, like some men's attachment to polygyny, is that all the women will really like it in heaven. The same can be said about sex in the reversal, it will be fine, nobody will care when we have the big heavenly picture. 

We also very much believe that God doesn't play favorites, he loves all equally. There won't be clusters of extra special love for a few lucky people. 

We always talk about sealings as a couple but when we break it down, we actually believe sealings apply to a heavenly family, to the point that is used to explain why people are sealed to their ancestors even though a generation is missing. 

So I see a picture of a heavenly family. I look to the Heavenly Council creating the earth and living things. A council can contain couples but it doesn't have to.  

When I see "gender" as eternal, it either mean high heels and make up, or it means gendered roles in creation. 

So when we stop trying to force fit sex into the eternities, we are left with a situation where love is the same towards all. That tells me that is like a covenant based life, we form groups to create. If JS was trying to build a celestial vision, this would make polygamy make sense....but only if polyandry was included. Once that was removed, it no longer is a full council which needs both sexes. 

Under this scenario, everyone is changed, not just gays, because our obsession with sex is only part of mortality. There supposedly being no blood in resurrected bodies should be the tip off, the hormones that make us want it will be gone. Thus, we all enter eternal life as equals. 

[HappyJackWagon]

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

I can see this is not a comfortable topic since so many have already decided to talk about something else. 

So more questions:

1. What is an intelligence?

2. What is a spirit? 

3. How are spirits created? 

Yep. It all starts with those questions.

If the church doesn't have consistent answers to those questions, and/or the leaders don't demonstrate that they understand the answers to those questions, then how can we trust policies that arise out of what may or may not be accurate understandings? That would go for sealing practices as well as SSM. If it is believed by leaders that spirits are created through celestial intercourse then the policies could be vastly different than if they believe pre-existing intelligences are organized (molded) into spirits.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Using "by extension" to include women isn't advisable. When we have based our views of the afterlife on mortality, it is going to be a very male oriented picture because that is what we have now. Someone bringing up celestial "strip clubs" is all the proof we need for that.  So it is very hard to get out of the male view, but once that is done, things don't add up.

Some questions that must be answered to move past the question begging responses:

1. What is the pure love of Christ. 

2. Do we really believe that God loves us all equally. 

3. Are we to become divine? 

4. Is a sealing only between an exclusive group of people or are we being sealed into an inclusive heavenly family?

 

 

The pure love of Christ is always feeling, thinking and doing that which is in the eternal best interests of others. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[kiwi57]

Another one! Obviously there aren't enough of them running today.

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.

Okay, you've sucked up to the boss enough for one day. Let's see what she wrote.

Quote

 

I know a woman who is sealed to two husbands.

So do I.

Quote

I know of others that have been reported. So it happens, it just isn't advertised. Women are sealed to all husbands after death.

None of which is news.

Quote

So there are two options: We can believe in the efficacy of sealings, or we can believe in the efficacy of the sealings that benefit men.

And here we see the problem.  Poster A, being a feminist, sees everything in terms of the Great Gender Struggle. This is a classic illustration of how feminism is really just a minor branch of socialism, which sees everything in terms of the Great Class Struggle. Swap a few terms - "men" for "bourgeoisie" and "women" for "proletariat" - and socialist and feminist writings, especially from the last third of the 20th century, become virtually interchangeable.

However, the mute poster B, whom poster A is berating, is not a feminist, and is looking at the question from a different angle. I suspect that angle is something like this: What do the scriptures say? What do the authorities say? What does the contemporary evidence tell us?

Not very helpful to an ideological agenda, but there you are.

Quote

I think those men who can only elevate themselves by lowering women

Can anyone else here get away with stereotyping their ideological targets that way?

Apart from that, the notion that there are "men who can only elevate themselves by lowering women" is a classic bit of feminist projection.

Quote

probably assume celestial women will be physically producing babies for them when there is no scriptural evidence that creation happened through anything but speaking or "molding."

Eliza R. Snow wasn't a man who could only elevate herself by lowering women, and she seemed to think that she had "a mother there."

Quote

There also seems to have been a mixed sex Council involved for earth. That alone is a stronger basis for deciding how the whole sequence works than anything mortal bodies can tell us. 

Well, it's a factor in the equation.

Quote

But the most insurmountable obstacle to our honeymoon cottages in heaven scenario is that scriptures do tell us that God loves all of us. It tells us of charity, the perfect love, not the "I like you better" love that we are limited to on earth. I find it hard to imagine a God that has favorites. So, if we have....

          Equal love for all

          Family (council) without boundaries

          Creation by word (women/men have unique contributions)

We are suddenly talking about something quite different. So the problem isn't the gay issue, it is that we don't know what the afterlife even looks like. 

"Equal love for all" is an assumption that is not supported by scripture. (Remember scripture?)

"Family (council) without boundaries" - what does that even mean? If a family has no boundaries, then doesn't it include everybody? One of the paradoxes of having no boundaries is that in trying to include everyone, you end up including nobody at all, because that which has no boundaries ultimately has no territory. "Inclusiveness" is one of the great (substitute) virtues of our time; but not only is it essentially meaningless, those who preach it the loudest are usually the first to start excluding those they don't like.

"Creation by word" - Exactly how much weight should an obviously ideologically-determined interpretation of that expression really carry?

It's true that we don't really know what the afterlife looks like. That doesn't mean we get to construct one to match the current cultural needs of the effete, decadent west.

Quote

Hales needed Josephine to be away from Mr. Lyons. Finding out that Josephine was Mr. Lyons daughter, meaning Sylvia was indeed still a wife to her husband while seeing Joseph, must have thrown him for a loop. Because Joseph was in the same timeline, he needed Joseph to be the father  and Mr. Lyons to be out of the picture to maintain a denial of polyandry.

 
And so, who gets thrown for a loop when they discover that Joseph wasn't Josephine's father, as Ugo Perego demonstrated?

poster removed.  Every other poster has been civil. It is possible and those that can't express themselves without being nasty need to find another forum.

 

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

We also very much believe that God doesn't play favorites, he loves all equally. There won't be clusters of extra special love for a few lucky people. 

I think the bigger, unanswered question where most of the differences lie is
"What does the fact that God loves us mean for our future?"

There seems to be a misconception that God's love will require him to accept us back no matter what.
Scripture is clear, this is a false doctrine.

There is no "special love" for lucky people, but there are blessings for obedience to laws that God will not bestow on those who are disobedient.  No matter how infinite his love for them may be.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

Under this scenario, everyone is changed, not just gays, because our obsession with sex is only part of mortality. There supposedly being no blood in resurrected bodies should be the tip off, the hormones that make us want it will be gone. Thus, we all enter eternal life as equals. 

This certainly allows men and women to be happily sealed in marriage regardless of their orientation in mortality, thus keeping the eternal covenant of marriage between men and women. I think many couples have achieved this sacred level of happiness even in this life regardless of their orientation. And regardless of their orientation, some may have sex, and some may not, but n any case they have certainly overcome the world.

[blueglass]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Moreover, I have found SSM to be incompatible with scripture.  I have also given the matter considerable study and consideration, and have concluded that the message of the Church on this issue is substantially correct and reflective of the will of God.

Why do you privilege Joseph's heterosexual violations of marriage laws (Leviticus 18:18, Romans 7:3, Leviticus 20:14, Deut. 22:5)  over the homosexuality laws (Leviticus 18:22, Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:9–10)?    Why are you so confident that God will overlook Joseph's sins but not the sins of a committed homosexual couple?  

[juliann]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There is no "special love" for lucky people, but there are blessings for obedience to laws that God will not bestow on those who are disobedient.  No matter how infinite his love for them may be.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a sealed Mormon who doesn’t think they would love their spouse and children more than others because that is what we do here. I don’t think that is how charity or the true love of Christ works. 

[Darren10]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.

She wrote...

Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.

Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.

So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.

Julianne also stated...

How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.

So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.

 

*Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.

With equal authority to any and all scripture, the modern-day prophets have said, “ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” 

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

Is it me or are he bretheren speaking of “heavenly parents” and even HeavenlyMother more often now than in the past? If so, is it coincidence? True enough that we do not know the exact or even much at all to the structure of families in the eternities but modern-day revelation makes it clear that a Heavenly Mother (at least one) was part of the creation of our spirits. We are children of God and (a) Goddess. Why would this be any different for us in the eternities?

And as for Happy Jack, I am so glad to know he is white. I mean, wihtout knowing that his post would have been thrown into a great ball of confusion. Thanks for pointing that out Happy. Here’s to your whiteness.

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I get tired of the SSM debate, but I seem to disagree with your take. Just because I personally disapprove of SSM doesn't mean I "condemn others." I don't think the issue is a constitutional issue but a state issue, which the Supreme Court usurped. In other words, I believe that state laws which have a rational basis should not be overturned by the Supreme Court in this area. It should be up to states whether they want to allow SSM or not - not the Federal Government. The reality in this country is that the Federal Government has taken control of just about all state functions, leaving states as a shell of what power they used to have. States are now more like local administrative branches of the federal gubbermint. 

Anyway, on the issue of LGBTQ, I know gay men, and I treat them as I do others in my life. I converse with them and respect their privacy, and in turn I am welcomed into their homes and lives, etc. However, if they asked, which they don't, I would tell them my personal opinion of their particular lifestyle choice. Same with heterosexuals shacking up together. My personal disagreement with their lifestyle choice doesn't mean I condemn them either IMHO. God is their judge - not me. So, I disagree with your choice of words.

But, I am responding because I believe you are right that we don't really know a lot about life in the Celestial Kingdom. I for one, don't particularly agree with the idea that there are spirits being birthed into existence in the celestial kingdom. I believe spirits have always existed. I have to admit that I just don't know everything though. Does the spirit of a plant have the ability to grow in intelligence? I just really don't know. How about the spirit of Koko the gorilla who learned how to sign words and communicate with people? I do not believe in reincarnation in the Buddhist meaning of that word. but in the eternities between worlds, I do believe that men can progress by going to new worlds. I believe that is scriptural.  It may not be a very "LDS" idea right now, but hey, sometimes all it takes is one...

Societies have stages. I see the United States in its last stage. I see it starting to die. The ideals and morals of the people are different than what started the nation, and made it great. I am not preaching doom and gloom. These cycles can repeat, and societies can rebirth themselves. The Chinese have done that several times. Nevertheless, the US is now in the last stage of profligate sexual norms, and commercialism. The sense of oneness which built the country is gone or almost gone - it is definitely in the minority. When this happens to countries, God normally steps in and starts them over. From what God has said in scripture, He created man to be with woman, and aberrations from that can be viewed as societal. There is nothing in scripture suggesting that if man decides to be with man that God will welcome him into the celestial kingdom with open arms. However, I don't take the same view on eternal families as others in the Church have. I believe my wife and I were "foreordained" to be together for a reason. For a reason similar to why prophets are foreordained. LDS just haven't understood that yet. Men who didn't have that foreordination can see that differently, but that is my take. I believe my children were known to me in a prior life, which I don't really remember, but they are not unfamiliar spirits. They were born to me for a reason according to the foreknowledge of God as the NT says. That is how I answer your questions.

 

Convention of the states, brother!

Also, I like your response of gay people. A couple of years ago I did a long term Spanish class (I was a substitute tezcher but thst classroom’s de facto teacher) and a student approached me after tutorials one day and said she was gay. Thst the fruend she was brining into thr tuorials was really her girlfriend. I simply told her that thst was fairly ibvious. She looked concerned and told me how her having a girlfriend created acrift between her and her legsl gusrdian (who were nit her biologiczl parents, thry gave up on her the year before but not for this reason). She then asked me what I think of homosexuality. I told her right off the bat that I personally disagree with it but as her teacher I really do not care that she is gay nor would I treat her any different than I do anyone else. That I firmly believe thst everyone is a child of God and deserves respect. She smiled and gave me a big hug. The year anded and everytime she saw my in the halls on the days I returned to that campus the year after she’d stop to give me a hug. She was a sweet girl and I truly wish her well. The other person, her girlefirmed (I think they broke up soon after that day, typical teenage romance, lol) have sen her in the Local Walmart from time to time and we smile and say hi to each other. 

By the way Hally Jack, that student was black. Not that that makes any difference to my story bit it seems important that you’d know.