Jump to content

Were Those Members Who Opposed The 2015 Policy Right To Do So?


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, why me said:

I think that the lds church needs to be careful about the amount of change it expects to go through in a short amount of time. People need a rock that can stay in place at times. Shifting rocks and boulders mean a fall and hitting the ground hard.

The Church is changing policies like length of meetings, getting out of scouts, and so forth.  It has not done any changes in doctrine.  If I had been in a coma for the last 18 months and I just woke up, I would still see no changes in what the church teaches. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I read this, I found myself wondering why they didn't just release the stake president in Seattle early on, as he had clearly gone off the rails.

 

Calm already posted the link to this blog earlier.  Who is the author, do you know?

Also, do you know if  that story even been confirmed regarding what took place in Seattle (is there a reference or source documenting it)?

Link to post
10 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Actually, recent social changes have made it entirely unnecessary, in the future, for the Church to allow same-sex temple marriages. Same-sex couples can now simply identify as temple married.

For that matter, given how things can be redefined in whichever way the social winds are blowing at the time, the word "heterosexual" can be redefined to include homosexuals. Same-sex can be redefined to mean opposite sex. And, it wouldn't take much to expand the laws requiring that people be called by their preferred gender identity, to include their preferred marital identity.

As you can see, many, if not all of the social ills can be solved by redefining them. So simple! Gender wage gap? No problem, just redefine "female" as "male" Age discrimination? No problem, just redefine everyone as having the same age. Etc. etc.

In fact, given the social belief that gender is a social construct, and given the trend in constructing a rapid proliferation of genders, it is conceivable that the notion of "gender," itself, will expand into oblivion and meaninglessness (not unlike how proliferation in the types of "marriages" and "families" have rendered these terms less meaningful), such that in the not too distant future, there will be no such thing as gender.

It has already occurred somewhat with the word "sex", which has been replaced with "gender," making the term "same-sex" entirely outdated, which puzzles me why those who are so sensitive and acquiescent to.social trends (pop culture) would continue to use the term "same-sex."  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Some of us have referred to this as lexical duplicity. (I think it was Kiwi57 who coined the term, though I could be wrong on that).

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

How does a gay person meet those requirements?  I don’t know because it doesn’t say. It is silent on the matter. 

This is exactly what is frustrating to me. Section 132 doesn't specify that it only applies to heterosexual individuals. It applies to everyone. I don't know why you are so intent on making LGBT individuals a separate class.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Calm already posted the link to this blog earlier.  Who is the author, do you know?

Also, do you know if  that story even been confirmed regarding what took place in Seattle (is there a reference or source documenting it)?

I read it earlier from Calm's link, but I'm afraid I can't help you on the author. Maybe Calm can enlighten us. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Section 132 does not disqualify a gay person from exaltation. 

How does a gay person meet those requirements?  I don’t know because it doesn’t say. It is silent on the matter. 

On the other hand, the section does not qualify them either.  I have some dogs in our family that love to be sealed to.  I plan to be buried with their ashes when I die.  They are a part of my family like my kids are.  The scripture are silent on us being sealed to our pets.  I can hope for it all I want but I have to be very realistic and keep my expectations low on this.  I don't think God is going to alter eternal principles for me.   D&C 132 may be silent on gay relationships but I would not take any hint from that it might be allowed.  It could be silent on it simply due to the fact that the idea is so unreasonable that it was not even something to be considered.

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Like 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Section 132 does not disqualify a gay person from exaltation. 

How does a gay person meet those requirements?  I don’t know because it doesn’t say. It is silent on the matter. 

I appreciate your candor.  I respectfully submit that we owe our gay brothers and sisters more than the I don’t know that you offer them.

All of God’s children deserve clear direction on how to return to His presence.  I believe He has provided that direction.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is exactly what is frustrating to me. Section 132 doesn't specify that it only applies to heterosexual individuals. It applies to everyone. I don't know why you are so intent on making LGBT individuals a separate class.

What about bisexuals.  Can a man be sealed to a man and a woman?  Bisexuals are just as much of the LGBT group as gays?  D&C 132 is silent on the issue so perhaps there is a chance. 

I am much more receptive to the Mosiah Hancock vision of the pre-mortal existence and what it has to say on this stuff than using arguments in silence to think something may be possible.  It may not be official doctrine or revelation for the church but at least if mostly makes sense and does not conflict with thousands of years of scripture teaching.  Long story short,  in that vision all of God's children where created in pairs.  One male spirit and one female spirit.  Everyone was created with a companion.  After Satan fell with his followers, the female spirits who lost their companions to Satan where joined to couples who sided with Jesus.  So basically we had the basic start of polygamy like structure in the premortal world.  Homosexuality my be a condition in this mortal existence but did not exist prior and most likely will not continue on.  Like many other things that are just a part of this mortal existence.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to post
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I read this, I found myself wondering why they didn't just release the stake president in Seattle early on, as he had clearly gone off the rails.

Kindness and forbearance and presumption of good faith: exercise them and they'll always come around and bite you in the butt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Kindness and forbearance and presumption of good faith: exercise them and they'll always come around and bite you in the butt.

Yeah. Sorry to say that I don't expect the Brethren to reap much of a goodwill benefit from this policy reversal of late.

  • Like 2
Link to post
56 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

On the other hand, the section does not qualify them either.  I have some dogs in our family that love to be sealed to.  I plan to be buried with their ashes when I die.  They are a part of my family like my kids are.  The scripture are silent on us being sealed to our pets.  I can hope for it all I want but I have to be very realistic and keep my expectations low on this. 

Hey...anything is possible.  I know many who love their pets more than they seem to love their own kids 😂

There is nothing in that section about a person being able to be sealed to someone as their servant for eternity either ("eternal servitor"), but it happened.

Is there anything in Section 132 regarding the Law of Adoption that was practiced between 1846 and 1896 (where men were sealed to other men as father and son)?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism)

And yet, those took place.

And some believe those sealings apply this topic:

Quote

 

There is no evidence to suggest that homosexual sex was involved as part of the original practice of the law of adoption in the 19th century. However, beginning in the 1970s, some members of Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons began to suggest that the leadership of the LDS Church should restore the law of adoption in order to allow same-sex couples to be sealed to each other in the temple in a kind of quasi-celestial marriage. It has been argued that this would preserve the primacy of heterosexual marriage but would allow an ecclesiastical equivalent of homosexual civil unions—a homosexual ecclesiastical union.

The restoration of the law of adoption was implemented when some members of Affirmation in 1985 established the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (commonly referred to as the "Gay Mormon Church") and the First Presidency of that church restored the law of adoption, citing it as the theological justification for their practice of homosexual celestial marriage.

 

To be clear, I do not believe the Law of Adoption had anything to do with SSM.  However, it's an example of the changes that have already occurred regarding temple sealings.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What about bisexuals.  Can a man be sealed to a man and a woman?  Bisexuals are just as much of the LGBT group as gays?  D&C 132 is silent on the issue so perhaps there is a chance.

Bisexuals are more than double the number of gays and lesbians combined. But you'd never know that from the "inclusive" LGBT community. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is exactly what is frustrating to me. Section 132 doesn't specify that it only applies to heterosexual individuals. It applies to everyone. I don't know why you are so intent on making LGBT individuals a separate class.

I’m not.  I was just answering the question posed to me. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I appreciate your candor.  I respectfully submit that we owe our gay brothers and sisters more than the I don’t know that you offer them.

All of God’s children deserve clear direction on how to return to His presence.  I believe He has provided that direction.  

We do owe them much more.  I agree. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 9:42 PM, MustardSeed said:

My teen nearly lost her faith over the original policy.  Those were trying times in our family.  I know other families struggled, and I know that many people were impacted negatively by the policy.

Why did she nearly lose her faith over this? 

And how were the many people you speak of impacted negatively?

I get the impression that gay married couples with children wanting to join the church are not only everywhere, but everyone knows at least one such couple. I find this a little perplexing, because I would imagine that there are darned few. Or is the concern that absolutely nobody should be denied?

On 4/4/2019 at 9:42 PM, MustardSeed said:

I wonder if for some the change of policy is in any way painful, in that they wonder if it didn't have to happen to begin with?  for those, what is needed is acknowledgement which will not come.  I wish peace for them.  It will be a journey they will take alone if they choose to take it, to forgive the hurts created.  

Those who opposed and left - was it wrong to leave?  None of us know.  I feel guilty that I froze.  But I'm glad I'm still here.  It's both/and.

I'm glad you're still here, too.

Link to post

In the sphere of politics people project power by seeking to affect or undermine votes by protests, combined actions against individuals, groups and concerns and the like. Other than methodologies employed these strategies are indistinguishable from mob actions.

It is my considered view that anything smelling of mobocracy has no place among a Zion-seeking people, and that individuals engaging in or encouraging such actions are deceiving themselves if they think they're supporting Zion-seeking.

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Section 132 does not disqualify a gay person from exaltation. 

How does a gay person meet those requirements?  I don’t know because it doesn’t say. It is silent on the matter. 

What utter rot.  D&C 132 defines exaltation as male and female with posterity.  A gay person can never qualify without meeting those conditions.  The blessings require obedience to the requisite laws.

  • Like 4
Link to post
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not.  I was just answering the question posed to me. 

By saying it is silent on the matter, you absolutely do separate us. 

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We do owe them much more.  I agree. 

Thank goodness Heavenly Father has given us that more. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hey...anything is possible.  I know many who love their pets more than they seem to love their own kids 😂

There is nothing in that section about a person being able to be sealed to someone as their servant for eternity either ("eternal servitor"), but it happened.

Is there anything in Section 132 regarding the Law of Adoption that was practiced between 1846 and 1896 (where men were sealed to other men as father and son)?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism)

And yet, those took place.

And some believe those sealings apply this topic:

 

I’ve read about those types of sealings.

For sure, there’s a lot we don’t know.  So many messy and complicated sealings and combinations of sealings!

Is Brigham Young going to be with John D. Lee (or any of the men who were sealed to him as his son) in the afterlife as a father and his posterity?  Seems weird.

But we keep being told it’ll all be sorted out.  We have no idea if families will just be a husband and wife (or wives)and their posterity.  For one thing, all the posterity will have partners too. It’s not like we will all be living in cookie cutter family units (at least I don’t think so).

For sure things have already changed with different types of sealings.  There’s no reason more changes can’t occur, imo.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What utter rot.  D&C 132 defines exaltation as male and female with posterity.  A gay person can never qualify without meeting those conditions.  The blessings require obedience to the requisite laws.

Why? I know gay couples all over that have children. Either through adoption or if lesbian, through a donor. Won't they take their children with them? I know this goes against the grain of everything most have grown up with, but what I'm saying is that it can happen. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why? I know gay couples all over that have children. Either through adoption or if lesbian, through a donor. Won't they take their children with them? I know this goes against the grain of everything most have grown up with, but what I'm saying is that it can happen. 

Of course it can.  Look at the examples I gave above (the Law of Adoption where men were sealed to men as father and son or where a sister was sealed to Joseph as his eternal servant).  We know from these, that there are many different types of sealings other than just between a man and a woman as husband and wife (wives).  It's silly to claim there has not already been changes made regarding temple sealings.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1
Link to post
47 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Why did she nearly lose her faith over this? 

I’m sure mustard seed will give you details, but you must be aware of the general faith-struggle that thousands of people dealt with in result of the policy. It felt morally wrong. For many it felt wrong to bar children’s baptisms. For example, among my immediate family (parents and siblings), four of six church members were vocally opposed. The dissonance of faith and moral opposition to a revealed policy can of course create doubts, a faith-crisis, or even a complete loss of faith. This was the very real circumstance for thousands of people. I’ve known plenty of people personally who were somewhere on the spectrum I’ve described.

 

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
  • Like 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’m sure mustard seed will give you details, but you must be aware of the general faith-struggle that thousands of people dealt with in result of the policy. It felt morally wrong. For many it felt wrong to bar children’s baptisms. For example, among my immediate family (parents and siblings), four of six church members were vocally opposed. The dissonance of faith and moral opposition to a revealed policy can of course create doubts, a faith-crisis, or even a complete loss of faith. This was the very real circumstance for thousands of people. I’ve known plenty of people personally who were somewhere on the spectrum I’ve described.

 

So ... you seem to judge the Author, reporters, supporters, and defenders of the former policy immoral. Do I read correctly?

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, USU78 said:

So ... you seem to judge the Author, reporters, supporters, and defenders of the former policy immoral. Do I read correctly?

I’m morally opposed to the policy. I generally don’t want to judge people. Circumstances, motives, and beliefs tend to be much too complicated for that. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...