Jump to content

Same-sex sealings


Nofear

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

It still suggests that they can and will get the priesthood. Not the case with same sex sealings.

So you do believe in the prophesy of Brigham Young came from God??

Link to comment
On 10/1/2022 at 7:03 PM, MiserereNobis said:

This is a great question for LDS. How far can continuing revelation go? Does the current leadership always trump the previous leadership? Is there a line in the sand, so to speak?

I know @JLHPROF has thoughts on this. What about others?

A similar thing has been playing out in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council.

Speaking of councils...when can we get Council of Trent 2.0?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is puzzling to me that people claim the ending of forbidding blacks from receiving the priesthood was fulfillment of a prophesy that has since been disavowed.   And granting blacks the priesthood in 1978 goes completely against that prophesy which clearly states when that will happen. They want it both ways.  Someday the blacks will hold the priesthood, but we disavow the revelation that makes that promise and we disavow when that promise was prophesied to happen.   

I don’t use the quote as a prophecy, but to show expectations. Exclusion was not eternal even in the eyes of the man who excluded blacks from the Priesthood. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t use the quote as a prophecy, but to show expectations. Exclusion was not eternal even in the eyes of the man who excluded blacks from the Priesthood. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Wasn't that statement by Brigham Young regarded as prophecy for 150 years until the ban was lifted?   And aren't people like JHAS still using it as prophecy to say that it was foretold that one day blacks would receive the priesthood?

I guess I don't understand how you view that statement.  Prophecy?  BY's own opinion?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, california boy said:

So you do believe in the prophesy of Brigham Young came from God??

Brigham Young believed that denial of the priesthood to the blacks was made known through revelation. As to when they would receive the priesthood, his statements on this may have been influenced by the knowledge he had on the subject at the time and the current status of the black race in the country at that time. So I don't know if it was revelation or simply his own opinion.  Too often we unfairly pass judgment on what someone did or said 200 years ago based on the current attitudes and standards of today.

Link to comment
Just now, california boy said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Wasn't that statement by Brigham Young regarded as prophecy for 150 years until the ban was lifted?   And aren't people like JHAS still using it as prophecy to say that it was foretold that one day blacks would receive the priesthood?

I guess I don't understand how you view that statement.  Prophecy?  BY's own opinion?

The ban was considered as revelation by most members in my youth and I thought it was as well till I learned of the actual history behind it, so just because something has been considered a prophecy by many doesn’t require it to be a prophecy in my view.

How anyone else views it is not for me to say when they can answer for themselves. I only mention my own view to point out seeing it as a revealed prophecy isn’t a given for a believer.  I see it as a prophecy that was most likely a reasoned position based on false beliefs mixed with true ones. 
 

I regard it as BY’s personal belief that was influenced by his own prejudices and likely influenced as well by some revelation of the future as iirc he did speak of at least one such vision (I haven’t studied BY much as I don’t connect at all with him).  At the very least he spoke of a vision that Joseph told him and perhaps the detail of all races associating in the presence of God was shared.  If he personally saw a vision of heaven and recognized that there were blacks who were exalted there, he would have to figure out how that worked if they were cursed with no priesthood…logically they would have to receive the Priesthood at some time.  Why he came up with only after everyone else got it, maybe it was his sense of ‘fairness’.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Brigham Young believed that denial of the priesthood to the blacks was made known through revelation. As to when they would receive the priesthood, his statements on this may have been influenced by the knowledge he had on the subject at the time and the current status of the black race in the country at that time. So I don't know if it was revelation or simply his own opinion.  Too often we unfairly pass judgment on what someone did or said 200 years ago based on the current attitudes and standards of today.

But it appears that you still consider it a prophecy when you want to support your statement that unlike SSM sealings, blacks were promised they would get the priesthood eventually. 

I am not passing judgement on Brigham Young.  I am questioning you using his statement to support your argument against SSM sealings when you don't believe he was speaking for God about the priesthood ban.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The ban was considered as revelation by most members in my youth and I thought it was as well till I learned of the actual history behind it, so just because something has been considered a prophecy by many doesn’t require it to be a prophecy in my view.

How anyone else views it is not for me to say when they can answer for themselves. I only mention my own view to point out seeing it as a revealed prophecy isn’t a given for a believer.  I see it as a prophecy that was most likely a reasoned position based on false beliefs mixed with true ones. 
 

I regard it as BY’s personal belief that was influenced by his own prejudices and likely influenced as well by some revelation of the future as iirc he did speak of at least one such vision (I haven’t studied BY much as I don’t connect at all with him).  At the very least he spoke of a vision that Joseph told him and perhaps the detail of all races associating in the presence of God was shared.  If he personally saw a vision of heaven and recognized that there were blacks who were exalted there, he would have to figure out how that worked if they were cursed with no priesthood…logically they would have to receive the Priesthood at some time.  Why he came up with only after everyone else got it, maybe it was his sense of ‘fairness’.

I guess what I am really asking is, do you believe there was a promise from God that the Blacks would some day be able to hold the priesthood?  If so, what do you use to support that belief?

Link to comment
Just now, california boy said:

I guess what I am really asking is, do you believe there was a promise from God that the Blacks would some day be able to hold the priesthood?  If so, what do you use to support that belief?

I don’t believe blacks should ever have been excluded, so why should there be a promise that they would eventually be given it? I do believe that Pres McKay was told “not yet” but I believe that was in reference to the removal of a false belief (I do not know why God instructed delay, my pure speculation is maybe because he knew that not all the apostles would agree even if risking a charge of apostasy for refusing to believe the prophet received a revelation removing the ban and it was vital to sustain the principle of unity of the highest quorums in order for the Church to properly function in the future) rather than a restoration of blessings that were in God’s view always available to blacks in the sense of worthiness. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, california boy said:

But it appears that you still consider it a prophecy when you want to support your statement that unlike SSM sealings, blacks were promised they would get the priesthood eventually. 

I am not passing judgement on Brigham Young.  I am questioning you using his statement to support your argument against SSM sealings when you don't believe he was speaking for God about the priesthood ban.

I said I don't know if it was a revelation, but it clearly makes sense that the blacks would have to someday receive the priesthood and that attitude has been verified and supported by many subsequent Apostles and Prophets since then. SSM sealings (as married spouses) have not ever been supported nor even suggested by any Church leader as something that will happen in the future, and I don't see how it could happen considering God's eternal plan for His children.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

But it appears that you still consider it a prophecy when you want to support your statement that unlike SSM sealings, blacks were promised they would get the priesthood eventually. 

I am not passing judgement on Brigham Young.  I am questioning you using his statement to support your argument against SSM sealings when you don't believe he was speaking for God about the priesthood ban.

You suggested that the situation with SSM sealings is similar to the situation with the priesthood ban.
Leaving aside the questioned prophecy that blacks would receive the priesthood eventually, I see zero relationship between the two situations.
I'm still not sure why you would think that SSM sealings would be authorized in the future because the 1978 revelation happened.  There is no relationship between the two situations that I can see.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You suggested that the situation with SSM sealings is similar to the situation with the priesthood ban.
Leaving aside the questioned prophecy that blacks would receive the priesthood eventually, I see zero relationship between the two situations.
I'm still not sure why you would think that SSM sealings would be authorized in the future because the 1978 revelation happened.  There is no relationship between the two situations that I can see.

The relationship between the two is a total lack of revelation from GOD about the two. I remember the scriptural "proof" and doctrinal logic supporting the ban before it was denounced. All the sudden, that scriptural proof and doctrinal logic was no longer important.  So what is similar between the two is that scriptural proof or even doctrinal proof immediately disappears if a revelation from God comes to allow SSM sealings.

The relationship is also that God will decide what he wants to do despite your opinion or the opinion of anyone else including  the 15 if you believe that God actually does give revelation.  So whether it makes sense to you is really irrelevant.

I am not saying that SSM sealings eventually will happen.  I am saying that those who say it will never happen have no more support for that position than people who thought the Blacks would not receive the priesthood until every single descendant of Able got the chance.  It is just their belief, just like those that think it will happen have an opposite belief. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, JAHS said:

I said I don't know if it was a revelation, but it clearly makes sense that the blacks would have to someday receive the priesthood and that attitude has been verified and supported by many subsequent Apostles and Prophets since then. SSM sealings (as married spouses) have not ever been supported nor even suggested by any Church leader as something that will happen in the future, and I don't see how it could happen considering God's eternal plan for His children.

If you don't know it was a revelation, then it is just your opinion and the opinion of subsequent apostles and prophets that the blacks would eventually receive the priesthood.  

I also might add that while you don't know if it was a revelation, subsequent apostles and prophets believed it was a revelation and taught it for years.  They were all wrong.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you don't know it was a revelation, then it is just your opinion and the opinion of subsequent apostles and prophets that the blacks would eventually receive the priesthood.  

I also might add that while you don't know if it was a revelation, subsequent apostles and prophets believed it was a revelation and taught it for years.  They were all wrong.

Even if it wasn't a revelation at the time it seemed the right thing to do based on the status of the blacks at the time and the PofGP scripture that says they were "cursed ... as pertaining to the Priesthood."
(Abr 1:26)

Still this situation cannot be fairly compared to SSM sealings.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, california boy said:

The relationship is also that God will decide what he wants to do despite your opinion or the opinion of anyone else

There's that false idea again - God doesn't do "what he wants".  He does what eternal law requires.
Whatever God requires may be right, but God can't require anything he wants.  He is as bound to follow law as we are.  The idea that God can violate eternal law to authorize something like SSM sealings is simply fantasy.
Eternal lives according to all revealed truth on the subject consists of the father/mother/child relationship.  Not even God can change that, even if he wanted to.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
19 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess what I am really asking is, do you believe there was a promise from God that the Blacks would some day be able to hold the priesthood?  If so, what do you use to support that belief?

2 Nephi 26:33 comes to mind:

Quote

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

The preface to OD-2, included in the scriptures published by the Church, cites this passage:

Quote

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33)...

The Church's "Race and the Priesthood" essay invokes this passage in its first paragraph:

Quote

In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”
...

{F}or much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. ...

Elder McConkie quoted this passage on August 18, 1978, shortly after OD-2:

Quote

These words have now taken on a new meaning. We have caught a new vision of their true significance. This also applies to a great number of other passages in the revelations. Since the Lord gave this revelation on the priesthood, our understanding of many passages has expanded. Many of us never imagined or supposed that they had the extensive and broad meaning that they do have.
...
You know this principle: God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him” (Acts 17:26–27)—meaning that there is an appointed time for successive nations and peoples and races and cultures to be offered the saving truths of the gospel. There are nations today to whom we have not gone—notably Red China and Russia. But you can rest assured that we will fulfill the requirement of taking the gospel to those nations before the Second Coming of the Son of Man.
...

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

I recently came across this excellent timeline, published by Doctrine & Covenants Central, pertaining to the Priesthood Ban.  One of its first cited points in the timeline is the 1829 publication of the Book of Mormon and its reference to "all are alike unto God":

Quote

Blacks and Priesthood/Temple Ban Timeline

Introduction: The history surrounding the priesthood and temple restriction on those of African descent in the Church is perhaps best understood in three phases: Phase 1: Priesthood and Temples Available to All (1830-1852), Phase 2: Priesthood and Temple Ban in Effect (1852-1978), and Phase 3: Priesthood and Temples Available to All Again (1978-Present). Additionally, it is vital in seeking an accurate understanding of history—particularly this history—that statements and actions of individuals are understood in their proper contexts, otherwise misunderstanding is certain. Hence, throughout the following timeline the record of actions and statements will often be preceded by a contextual preface indicated in yellow

Table of Contents (for Quick Access)

-2.2 1829
-2.3 1833
-2.4 1835
--2.4.2 D&C 134
-2.5 1836
-2.6 1840
-2.7 1842
-2.8 1843
-2.9 1844
-2.10 1845
-2.11 1847
--2.11.2 THE MCCARY DEBACLE
-2.12 1849

It looks like "Phase 2" and "Phase 3" are a work in progress.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's that false idea again - God doesn't do "what he wants".  He does what eternal law requires.
Whatever God requires may be right, but God can't require anything he wants.  He is as bound to follow law as we are.  The idea that God can violate eternal law to authorize something like SSM sealings is simply fantasy.
Eternal lives according to all revealed truth on the subject consists of the father/mother/child relationship.  Not even God can change that, even if he wanted to.

One of those "God would cease to be God " things.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Even if it wasn't a revelation at the time it seemed the right thing to do based on the status of the blacks at the time and the PofGP scripture that says they were "cursed ... as pertaining to the Priesthood."
(Abr 1:26)

Only if it is assumed Blacks with African heritage are the only ones who are descendants of Ham/Cain/Pharaoh, which is nonsense.

Link to comment
On 10/3/2022 at 11:43 AM, The Nehor said:

So if I intentionally (and consensually) impregnated a woman I might break the fornication law but I would be keeping the higher “multiply and fill the Earth” law?

So what do you do when you have two mutually inconsistent commandments. If only there were some story in scripture on whether you can break a lesser commandment in order to obey a higher one. What if it even used the same higher commandment? That would make it clear right? Pity there isn’t I suppose.

Elder Maxwell noted that a doctrine of Christ broken away from the rest goes wild and mad. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Else Maxwell noted that a doctrine of Christ broken away from the rest goes wild and mad. 

Yes, the same principle applies in philosophy in general. You go around happily proving things and then you hit an abhorrent conclusion. What you do with it probably qualifies as a moral test.

Link to comment
On 10/1/2022 at 7:03 PM, MiserereNobis said:

How far can continuing revelation go? Does the current leadership always trump the previous leadership? Is there a line in the sand, so to speak?

Sure.

Your own testimony. We are encouraged to have a testimony of EVERY principle, and the church has never claimed "infallibility". 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, the same principle applies in philosophy in general. You go around happily proving things and then you hit an abhorrent conclusion. What you do with it probably qualifies as a moral test.

It is prudent to keep a clear eye. 
 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...