Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

What is God's law on marriage? Can you give me an example? I only ever see it taught as between a man and a woman. I have never seen it taught that it is between SS individuals, unless you can provide otherwise.

how many men and how many women? IIRC there was a brief time in the 1840's that women could be sealed to multiple men, well heck even now men can be sealed to multiple women and on a case by case basis women can be sealed to 2 men-with the idea that God will work it out in the next life. That isn't SS marriage but it isn't just one man and one woman either, it's a variety of options

[Buckeye]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think maybe you've gone a bit too far with this statement. Would you consider reconsidering it? I have been married to a wonderfully Godly woman for 52 years now. We were not married in a temple. We were married in my sister's living room with my father, a Brethren and Baptist ordained minister officiating.  Our marriage and relationship was consecrated before God with covenants to both Him and each other. He has richly blessed our lives.

We have never had any children. My wife had tumors, probably already growing inside her when we were married. So what did we do? We adopted a severely disabled baby who has been with us ever since. We care for him the best we can even though he is in his forties. There is nothing empty about either the love we share with him or he with us. So please don't consider our marriage or our relationship empty, especially before a just and merciful God. Neither seed nor a temple make a marriage blessed by God. The absence of either does not make a marriage empty before God. I implore you to reconsider your comment.

Navidad, rest assured that the church doesn’t teach or practice this idea either. Quite the contrary. My sister and her husband have been unable to conceive. They adopted two wonderful children and they are all sealed together in the temple with the same promises any other family has. Adoption is strong part of our history and doctrine, and is a great hope for how same-sex couples could be included in the covenant path. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

How does this work with civil marriages?  Sincere question because I've wondered about this before. 

For example, if an atheist couple goes to the courthouse and gets married by the justice of the peace, are they "married according to God's law" because they are male and female, or is there more to be married according to God's law than just the sex of the participants?  What about if two theistic satanists (I had to look that one up to make sure those were the ones who actually believes satan exists and is worthy of worship ) got married civilly?  Are they still married according to God's law?

Is "married according to God's law" just a fancy way to say heterosexual marriage, or does it mean something more?

Yes, I'm sure that's what that particular phrase means, and why it was added. It is simply "code" for man-woman marriage. When the heat gets turned up for the Church to recognize gay marriage because it's legal, it can simply say that it is legal as far of the law of the land, but not "according to God's law."

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

So you say, but what is wrong with what I am saying. I try to only preach church teachings. LGBT people exist yes, but teaching that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is fine is only bad for LGBT people, but an awfully convenient teaching for members and me alike. The problem as I see it though, is that the gospel isn’t supposed to be convenient and match society’s trends.

There is nothing harmful about the teachings though, although some people are not enough loving, but the general trend right now seems to be to be overly tolerant to the degree that society rejects it as even being sinful.

Gender is eternal and the family is fundamental. Something being convenient or prominent doesn’t make it right. 

Eternal gender doesn't interfere with same-sex relationships, which by the way are also components of families. "Convenient or prominent", aside from being a straw man justification, fall incredibly short of what a relationship can be, including same-sex relationships. They are far more than convenient and prominent. 

Breaking down to essentials, a couple of any orientation can show love including Christlike love, can be completely united, supportive, sustaining, edifying. Love can be a beautiful spiritual experience, and same-sex love is no exception to that. And that's the core of it: it can be every bit as good as heterosexual relationships. Good fruit. And good despite inconvenience or convenience, and good fruit regardless of popularity. The good fruit is a reality.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And there is a problem with that?

News Flash! We have an open canon!

News flash!  If anything can be changed by revelation then we have no actual beliefs.

[MrShorty]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If anything can be changed by revelation then we have no actual beliefs.

Again, if the only two choices are to stay at the top of the slope where everything is known with absolute certainty now or to be at the bottom of the slippery slope where nothing can be known, then you are probably right. I, personally, reject the clean binary here, and believe that God wants us to wrestle some with the slippery slope and maybe even find places of stability between the bottom and top of the slope. Sometimes it seems that the hardest part of being on the slippery slope is that the people at the top and bottom don't like to see me on the slope -- they want me to either come to the top or fall to the bottom, never content to let me exist in the middle.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

What is God's law on marriage? Can you give me an example? I only ever see it taught as between a man and a woman. I have never seen it taught that it is between SS individuals, unless you can provide otherwise.

You'd have to ask Rongo what he meant when he used that phrase, but I would guess that it's a man and a woman joined by God or with His authority.  Something like that.  And I've also only ever seen it taught as between a man and a woman, married by God's authority. 

BUT, just because have no examples of civil marriage in the scriptures, for example, does not mean that civil marriage is sinful, right?  We actively teach that people who are married civilly (as in, not according to God's law on marriage as I understand it), are still keeping the LoC.  

That doesn't mean that SSM isn't breaking the LoC, but it does mean that it's not breaking the LoC just because it's not according to God's law on marriage.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Yes, I'm sure that's what that particular phrase means, and why it was added. It is simply "code" for man-woman marriage. When the heat gets turned up for the Church to recognize gay marriage because it's legal, it can simply say that it is legal as far of the law of the land, but not "according to God's law."

You are probably right but I just think it makes the whole concept kind of a farce if that's all it means.  Because trying to argue that two satanists, or two atheists, who marry civilly, are married according to God's law seems to water down the idea to a practically unusable degree. 

As if all that God cares about is the sex of those who are getting married, and that He will literally endorse any union under any legal circumstances as long as it's not SS.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The belief that Adam and Eve were married for Latter-day Saints comes from modern revelation, not scripture. 

Genesis 4:1 " And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

And translation doesn't seem to make much difference https://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/4-1-compare.html

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Again, if the only two choices are to stay at the top of the slope where everything is known with absolute certainty now or to be at the bottom of the slippery slope where nothing can be known, then you are probably right. I, personally, reject the clean binary here, and believe that God wants us to wrestle some with the slippery slope and maybe even find places of stability between the bottom and top of the slope. Sometimes it seems that the hardest part of being on the slippery slope is that the people at the top and bottom don't like to see me on the slope -- they want me to either come to the top or fall to the bottom, never content to let me exist in the middle.

I'm out of rep points for the day but heck yeah to this.

[2BizE]

How is it based on unchanging doctrine when the doctrine of plural marriage has already changed? 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, they removed the priesthood requirement so that spouses of non-members could receive endowments.

Or they made it consistent with single sister missionaries being allowed to be endowed prior to a mission.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

because have no examples of civil marriage in the scriptures

What would civil marriage look like in the scriptures?  How could we tell if it was civil or not?

[Fether]

20 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

How is it based on unchanging doctrine when the doctrine of plural marriage has already changed? 

Because plural marriage was not based in unchanging doctrine.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

What would civil marriage look like in the scriptures?  How could we tell if it was civil or not?

Very true.  Civil marriages wouldn't normally be the area of scripture.  

Edited April 5, 2022 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Again, if the only two choices are to stay at the top of the slope where everything is known with absolute certainty now or to be at the bottom of the slippery slope where nothing can be known, then you are probably right. I, personally, reject the clean binary here, and believe that God wants us to wrestle some with the slippery slope and maybe even find places of stability between the bottom and top of the slope. Sometimes it seems that the hardest part of being on the slippery slope is that the people at the top and bottom don't like to see me on the slope -- they want me to either come to the top or fall to the bottom, never content to let me exist in the middle.

When we think about which option requires us to have the closest relationship to God, I think it’s the one in the middle, because it requires constant communication between us and Him.

Its the hardest option to pull off too because it takes so much work. I know I’m not very good at it. Not at all. 

[filovirus]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

how many men and how many women? IIRC there was a brief time in the 1840's that women could be sealed to multiple men, well heck even now men can be sealed to multiple women and on a case by case basis women can be sealed to 2 men-with the idea that God will work it out in the next life. That isn't SS marriage but it isn't just one man and one woman either, it's a variety of options

Exactly. Between man and woman for marriage. I’m yet to see the church endorse a marriage between SS individuals.

[2BizE]

45 minutes ago, Fether said:

Because plural marriage was not based in unchanging doctrine.

If that were the case the the PoF would make space for plural marriage between a man and many women.

[filovirus]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You'd have to ask Rongo what he meant when he used that phrase, but I would guess that it's a man and a woman joined by God or with His authority.  Something like that.  And I've also only ever seen it taught as between a man and a woman, married by God's authority. 

BUT, just because have no examples of civil marriage in the scriptures, for example, does not mean that civil marriage is sinful, right?  We actively teach that people who are married civilly (as in, not according to God's law on marriage as I understand it), are still keeping the LoC.  

That doesn't mean that SSM isn't breaking the LoC, but it does mean that it's not breaking the LoC just because it's not according to God's law on marriage.

Next question: If a person in a SS marriage wanted to be baptized, what would be the process? Would the process be different for someone in a heterosexual marriage? If the process if different, does that mean that God sees the civil marriages between SS and heterosexual as different?

[filovirus]

47 minutes ago, Fether said:

Because plural marriage was not based in unchanging doctrine.

I believe you are both right and wrong. I doubt God will ever support child pornography. I think that is unchanging. Marriage between man and woman has changed multiple times. Some of the Israelites could practice plural marriage. The Nephites could not. Joseph and Brigham could. We can not. But I guess that’s why we have modern revelation.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Would the process be different for someone in a heterosexual marriage?

Personal issue, but the term 'heterosexual marriage' drives me crazy. The historical, anthropological, and linguistic consensus is that heterosexuality is a late 19th-century social construct in the exact same way that homosexuality is, lacking historical precedent. The vast majority of marriages across human history, therefore, have not been heterosexual despite being almost entirely comprised of men marrying women. I'm not aware of any scriptural or prophetic injunction for the Saints to become 'heterosexuals', and in fact, men are expressly commanded by the Lord in both ancient and modern scripture not to be.

<end of rant/derail>

Edited April 5, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

If that were the case the the PoF would make space for plural marriage between a man and many women.

No, because that's not what polygamy was.

It wasn't one man and multiple women in one marriage.  It was one man with multiple marriages, each to one woman.

Marriage is always one man and one woman, even if the man has more than one marriage.

Edited April 5, 2022 by JLHPROF

[filovirus]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Personal issue, but the term 'heterosexual marriage' drives me crazy. The historical, anthropological, and linguistic consensus is that heterosexuality is a late 19th-century social construct in the exact same way that homosexuality is, lacking historical precedent. The vast majority of marriages across human history, therefore, have not been heterosexual despite being almost entirely comprised of men marrying women. I'm not aware of any scriptural or prophetic injunction for the Saints to become 'heterosexuals', and in fact, men are expressly commanded by the Lord in both ancient and modern scripture not to be.

<end of rant/derail>

Didn’t mean to offend, just trying to draw a distinction. Is there a more proper way to designate between the two?

[jerryp48]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Aug 17, 1949
First Presidency statement: The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which
we now are entitled to." President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order t
hat they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. (3)

So it was doctrine that the priesthood was to be withheld at that time.  Thanks for looking that up.

[OGHoosier]

34 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Personal issue, but the term 'heterosexual marriage' drives me crazy. The historical, anthropological, and linguistic consensus is that heterosexuality is a late 19th-century social construct in the exact same way that homosexuality is, lacking historical precedent. The vast majority of marriages across human history, therefore, have not been heterosexual despite being almost entirely comprised of men marrying women. I'm not aware of any scriptural or prophetic injunction for the Saints to become 'heterosexuals', and in fact, men are expressly commanded by the Lord in both ancient and modern scripture not to be.

<end of rant/derail>

A mere upvote is insufficient recompense for this comment. 

Unraveling culturally bounded constructs which masquerade as iron realities is a necessary skill.