Same sex relationships will soon be entered into Family Search database

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not self evident that respect for and observance of law and commandments rules out love. 

Which is not at all what I stated.  

Loving God and others are the greatest commandments.....nothing about ruling out love.

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I have a quote in my sig line ....

I don't read sig lines.. and I'm not going to start reading them now either.  I always just read the actual post and choose to skip those (especially when there are many).

Edited June 14, 2018 by ALarson

[Okrahomer]

I agree with Orrin Hatch as reported in the Deseret News today:

"Civility starts with the words we use," he said. "Whether in person or online, we can be softer in our language, kinder in our actions and stronger in our love. We can combat coarseness with compassion, choosing empathy instead of anger."

[Ahab]

44 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yeah, about that. See Section 121 here:

https://archive.org/stream/revisedlawsofill00illi#page/198/mode/2up

It would probably be better to argue that he didn't have the power from the state to perform marriages (and those who performed his polygamous marriages also didn't have that power).  At least then they could only be accused of pretend breaking-the-law, and cohabitation in those cases where they cohabited.  

I'll side with the folks who think he probably had authority from the state of Illinois, as well as in New York and even Missouri and Ohio, to wed for time, if not also eternity. If not from state then at least from God.  Authority from God is all that matters for eternal wedlock. 

44 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If they actually had legal authority to perform marriages, then the people getting married polygamously were totally breaking the law (and according to the law, should have been fined $1,000 and sentenced to jail for no more than two years).

How very barbaric.  Try to share they light of God with some people and they'll put you in jail and take your money too!

Oh well.  You know what they say.  You can please some people sometimes but never everybody every time.  How typical.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why unexpected? 

The use of "immediate" and other phrasing came across to me as eagerness to show LDS had throughly accepted SSM in all ways in our society, save one...still against our spiritual doctrine.  I would have expected the doctrine point to come first and foremost rather almost just tacked on at the end because most discussions of SSM I read these days are currently in part about how it comes in conflict with Gospel standards.

Familysearch is a service for the world now that benefits as well unique LDS goals.  It makes sense that in general it follows the legal structures of that world rather than insists on everyone else use our standards when that would prevent Familysearch from doing what it was meant to do, link people together.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I'll side with the folks who think he probably had authority from the state of Illinois, as well as in New York and even Missouri and Ohio, to wed for time, if not also eternity. If not from state then at least from God.  Authority from God is all that matters for eternal wedlock. 

 

I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.  Joseph couldn't have the authority from the state of Illinois to perform polygamous marriages.  Those marriages would have been illegal, and thus null and void.

I would also need you to explain to me by what power Joseph was married to Fanny Alger, since the marriage took place in 1833, and the sealing power wasn't restored until 1836.  Can you provide a reference for one of the powers of the Priesthood being the gift of performing illegal polygamous marriages for time-only?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Which is not at all what I stated.  

Loving God and others are the greatest commandments.....nothing about ruling out love.

 

God said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

Quote

I don't read sig lines.. and I'm not going to start reading them now either.  I always just read the actual post and choose to skip those (especially when there are many).

Then I'll gladly quote it for you here in the "actual post":

Quote

Loving kindness is required, but a follower of Christ – just like the Master – will be firm in the truth – Elder Dallin H. Oaks

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.  Joseph couldn't have the authority from the state of Illinois to perform polygamous marriages.  Those marriages would have been illegal, and thus null and void.

I get it .  If he had authority to wed a man to more than one woman and he didn't get that authority from the state then he must have received that authority from God.  State authority was then limited to wedding one man to only one woman, unless that woman was dead, and then he could marry that man to another woman.

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I would also need you to explain to me by what power Joseph was married to Fanny Alger, since the marriage took place in 1833, and the sealing power wasn't restored until 1836.  Can you provide a reference for one of the powers of the Priesthood being the gift of performing illegal polygamous marriages for time-only?

I don't know much about that.  I don't think we teach that.  We don't talk much about that and I don't concern myself with how another man was wed to his wife.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

God said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

Yes, I know.  And what are the two greatest commandments? 

How is a person entering a SSM disobeying those commandments in any way?  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The use of "immediate" and other phrasing came across to me as eagerness to show LDS had throughly accepted SSM in all ways in our society, save one...still against our spiritual doctrine.  I would have expected the doctrine point to come first and foremost rather almost just tacked on at the end because most discussions of SSM I read these days are currently in part about how it comes in conflict with Gospel standards.

Given that the Church is into having as many people as possible contribute to the FamilySearch Family Tree database -- thus benefiting everyone -- it is hardly surprising to me that FamilySearch would be anxious to avoid turning people off by too heavy-handed emphasis on ideology or doctrine.

At the same time, I don't see this as a reason to conclude that the Church is "thoroughly" accepting same-sex marriage other than in observing the laws of the land where such marriage is concerned. Indeed, we must be wary of conveying the impression -- especially to our own people and to our investigators -- that any violation of the law of chastity, homosexual relations included, is in any way acceptable to God.

Quote

Familysearch is a service for the world now that benefits as well unique LDS goals.  It makes sense that in general it follows the legal structures of that world rather than insists on everyone else use our standards when that would prevent Familysearch from doing what it was meant to do, link people together.

Indeed. That's why I don't view this as unexpected.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/14/2018 at 4:12 PM, ALarson said:

Yes, I know.  And what are the two greatest commandments? 

How is a person entering a SSM disobeying those commandments in any way?  

 

 

If one accepts that keeping God's commandments shows love to Him, the corollary is that rejecting such commandments diminishes the love one has for Him.

Nothing I see in the teachings of God warrants the conclusion that one can pick and choose which commandments to obey and which to reject.

Furthermore, since the commandments of God are calculated to bring about the welfare of God’s children, all of them, it would follow that one shows love to others by striving to obey all of the laws and commandments of God. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I know.  And what are the two greatest commandments? 

How is a person entering a SSM disobeying those commandments in any way?  

 

They’re not from those I know.  I admit I only am acquainted with one person in a gay relationship and then I also have a family member who’s gay and married.  They are all some of the most loving, selfless, Christlike people I know.  They truly love others just as Christ spoke about.

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I know.  And what are the two greatest commandments? 

How is a person entering a SSM disobeying those commandments in any way?  

 

SSM is not an act of love.  It may be what each of them wants, and they may think they're doing a good thing for each other, but it is not a good thing and therefore love is not what motivates it.

When someone loves another person they want to do what is good for that person, something that will help them to fulfill the full measure of their creation happily wed to someone of the opposite sex so they can have their own family together.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Given that the Church is into having as many people as possible contribute to the FamilySearch Family Tree database -- thus benefiting everyone -- it is hardly surprising to me that FamilySearch would be anxious to avoid turning people off by too heavy-handed emphasis on ideology or doctrine....

Indeed. That's why I don't view this as unexpected.

 

And that is why I said it made sense.  I just hadn't considered it that way before so it was unexpected for me.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, EdGoble said:

I suppose so.  But the polygamous marriages in those sects are not legal marriages.

I don't think that matters.  I've done temple sealings for some of my own ancestors for whom we had no evidence of legal marriage -- and some of them might not even have gone through the formality.  Who can tell?

My great great grandparents Alfred Burr Clark (a Vermonter who came to California for the Gold Rush) and Yo-e-ma (a full-blood California Indian) were by family tradition married three times. Once by tribal ceremony, once by local justice-of-the-peace, and once by a Christian ceremony.  The first one was OK with the tribe, but not the whites, the second was OK with the tribe but not all the whites, and the third apparently got grudging acceptance by all.  We have no record of any of these ceremonies, and for all I know the ceremonies were never carried out -- at least the "white" ones.  Were they legally married?  Who the heck knows?  There is no doubt they spent their lives together, and had seven children, all of whom lived to adulthood.

You have to be aware that marriage has not always involved the same legal-beagle horse manure our Western tradition has mandated for the last millenium or so.  We talk about "legally and lawfully", but what does that mean, ultimately?  The particular tradition of my Indian ancestors did not involve paperwork (no paper, and no officials to grant permission, either).  The prospective groom came to the prospective bride's parents and basically moved in with them, did chores, helped out hunting and gathering, until they agreed that he was sufficiently provident for their daughter.  They then gave him permission to take her as his wife, and from then on they just started procreating. No marriage ceremony; they were just acknowledged as being together. 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

SSM is not an act of love.

Maybe it wouldn't be for you (I don't know your orientation).....but I believe that those who enter a SSM have as deep a love for each other as heterosexual couples share.   I know a few gay couples who have extremely loving relationships.  It's wrong for you to claim there isn't love involved.

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When someone loves another person they want to do what is good for that person, something that will help them to fulfill the full measure of their creation happily wed to someone of the opposite sex so they can have their own family together.

Gay couples become parents and form very loving families.  What you have stated above very clearly defines many (most?) who enter into a SSM.  All don't want children, but then all heterosexual couples don't want to have children either.

Edited June 14, 2018 by ALarson

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe it wouldn't be for you (I don't know your orientation).....but I believe that those who enter a SSM have as deep a love for each other as heterosexual couples share.   I know a few gay couples who have extremely loving relationships.  It's wrong for you to claim there isn't love involved.

It is not a loving thing to do, even for men or women who think it is.  It is a fact that it is nether a good thing or a loving thing to do. Some people just don't know the difference between good and bad anymore, thinking it is all about personal preference or inclination.

I won't keep saying this to you because all you will likely do is disagree with me, but I am saying it now, again, one more time, to put it to you as clearly as I know how to say it.

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Gay couples become parents and form very loving families.  What you have stated above very clearly defines many (most?) who enter into a SSM.  All don't want children, but then all heterosexual couples don't want to have children either.

When I said "their own" children I was talking about how a man and woman are able to create their own children biologically using their own seed and sperm.  I wasn't talking about adoption where they take a child created by the child's biological parents, or something else from another person.  

A child is always the child of both a mother and a father, regardless of whether or not that child is adopted by some other people.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is not a loving thing to do, even for men or women who think it is.

That's your opinion.  But you have no right to say that a man or woman doesn't love their spouse.  That's extremely judgmental and wrong to do.  I'm sure you'd hope that no one would claim this about how you feel regarding your partner or spouse (if you're with someone).   

I hope you're not claiming that gay people are unable to love.  But by making the statements you are making, you are giving that impression.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When I said "their own" children I was talking about how a man and woman are able to create their own children biologically using their own seed and sperm.

I know....and many heterosexual couples marry knowing they won't be able to "create their own children biologically" as well.  Do you believe they don't really love each other if they still get married knowing that?

[Rain]

On 6/13/2018 at 11:22 PM, gmormon said:

I hope they add both the birth lines and adoptive lines for people who are adopted. I know my birth and adoptive parents (of course), but as of now I can only do my legally adoptive lines which is fine, but knowing my birth parents I would like to add to my family group sheets...their information too.

My grandma was born to a couple out of wedlock. Then she was adopted. Her birth parents wre later married. Then they divorced and her birth mom married someone else. She searched out her birth parents and later joined the church.

I can't remember exactly how it was done, but she was sealed to her adoprive parents, her birth parents and her birth mom and new husband. This all shows on family search. If I remember right she was sealed by her own actions to her birth mom and one of the husbands. We were surprised to discover she was sealed to her adoptive parents the same day since we uderstood otherwise till I found it on family search. At the same time I found she was sealed by proxy to her birth mom and the other husband by someone who is not of our family. So it can be done, but maybe you are saying you are hoping it is shown in a different way on family search?

Edited June 15, 2018 by Rain

[Thinking]

41 minutes ago, Rain said:

My grandma was born to a couple out of wedlock. Then she was adopted. Her birth parents wre later married. They they divorced and her birth mom married someone else. She searched out her birth parents and later joined the church. I can't remember exactly how it was done, but she was sealed to her adoprive parents, her birth parents and her birth mom and new husband. This all shows on family search. If I remember right she was sealed by her own actions to her birth mom and one of the husbands. We were surprised to discover she was sealed to her adoptive parents the same day since we uderstand otherwise till I found it on family search. At the same time I found she was sealed by proxy to her birth mom and the other husband by someone who is not of our family. So it can be done, but maybe you are saying you are hoping it is shown in a different way on family search?

It doesn't get any more it will all be worked out in the next life than this.

[Thinking]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

SSM is not an act of love.  It may be what each of them wants, and they may think they're doing a good thing for each other, but it is not a good thing and therefore love is not what motivates it.

I'm trying to imagine how you would react if a non-mormon said the following to you.

"Mormon temple marriage is not an act of love.  It may be what each of them wants, and they may think they're doing a good thing for each other, but it is not a good thing and therefore love is not what motivates it."

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

When someone loves another person they want to do what is good for that person, something that will help them to fulfill the full measure of their creation happily wed to someone of the opposite sex so they can have their own family together.

Is it better to be unhappy in a heterosexual marriage or fulfilled (I used a different word so as not to play the semantics game with you) in a same sex marriage?

I ask this question because I know some heterosexual couples who are definitely not happy.

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

A child is always the child of both a mother and a father, regardless of whether or not that child is adopted by some other people.*

*Science: "Challenge accepted."

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

It is not a loving thing to do, even for men or women who think it is.  It is a fact that it is nether a good thing or a loving thing to do. Some people just don't know the difference between good and bad anymore, thinking it is all about personal preference or inclination.

I won't keep saying this to you because all you will likely do is disagree with me, but I am saying it now, again, one more time, to put it to you as clearly as I know how to say it.

I'm not sure I understand your definition of "love" as it pertains to married couples.

There are two couples in my ward where one spouse isn't LDS.  Using your definition, would you say that the non-member spouses don't (and can't) "love" their spouses since they haven't taken the proper steps to work towards exaltation?