Same-sex sealings

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 speaks of a continuation of seeds in eternity.  Seed would imply a biological component - perhaps even a genetic one.

"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities." - Bruce R. McConkie

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." - Brigham Young

 

Given the number of things said by both those individuals that are now effectively disavowed, I'm not sure it's wise to rely upon them for your argument.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 speaks of a continuation of seeds in eternity.  Seed would imply a biological component - perhaps even a genetic one.

"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities." - Bruce R. McConkie

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." - Brigham Young

 

I appreciate this attempt.

"Seed" is metaphor.

Exalted bodies will not have blood yet we should expect them to have other fluids? I think it is easy to assume that since it's the only thing we experience and understand, but it doesn't make it correct.

With respect to McConkie and Young, I believe both full-heartedly believed what they were saying but again, I have no reason to believe they are perfect in their understanding and/or language around this topic. They aren't exactly examples of perfection in accuracy in their teachings.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

First- maybe a new type of sealing would be required, but I don't think so. Instead of calling it "husband/wife" sealing, it could just as easily be termed "spousal sealing", which could easily include SSM. It's really just a semantic argument and not a very strong one.

Do the two ordinances not explicitly state "I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity" or "I seal you to your father and to your mother for time and all eternity, as an heir"?
Those are the two sealings, the ONLY two sealings that have been revealed.  Pronounced husband and wife or pronounced heirs.

We could call it a spousal sealing but that would be incorrect based on the ordinance itself.  It's not a spousal sealing because that's not what the ordinance is.  It's a husband/wife sealing.
Again, not semantics but a new third kind of sealing ordinance would be necessary.

Quote

Second, assuming that this is correct and that ordinances instituted in heavens from the foundation of the world (yet not known until the 1830's) cannot be changed or altered we would have to assume that our understanding of those ordinances is 100% complete and accurate. In other words, our understanding and language would have to be perfect to dismiss SS sealing on this basis. Personally, I don't trust that we/anyone has a perfect understanding of anything, let alone the knowledge of how God works.

The answer to not understanding something should not be to change it into something different that we can understand.  That is not a form of understanding.  Quite the opposite.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Given the number of things said by both those individuals that are now effectively disavowed, I'm not sure it's wise to rely upon them for your argument.

You know me better than that.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You know me better than that.

Well, you got me there.

Still standing by your previous statements that if the Church began performing SSM sealings, that would be the last straw for you?

Edited September 29, 2022 by ttribe

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Do the two ordinances not explicitly state "I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity" or "I seal you to your father and to your mother for time and all eternity, as an heir"?
Those are the two sealings, the ONLY two sealings that have been revealed.  Pronounced husband and wife or pronounced heirs.

We could call it a spousal sealing but that would be incorrect based on the ordinance itself.  It's not a spousal sealing because that's not what the ordinance is.  It's a husband/wife sealing.
Again, not semantics but a new third kind of sealing ordinance would be necessary.

The answer to not understanding something should not be to change it into something different that we can understand.  That is not a form of understanding.  Quite the opposite.

You mean the ordinance and language that has changed multiple times in the past 180 years in myriad ways?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You mean the ordinance and language that has changed multiple times in the past 180 years in myriad ways?

Those would be the ones.
You already know how I feel about the majority of those changes.

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, you got me there.

Still standing by your previous statements that if the Church began performing SSM sealings, that would be the last straw for you?

It's all moot for me anyway.  I decided a long time ago that most current ordinances aren't complete or correct so probably aren't valid anyway and will need to be redone in the Millennium when things have been set in order and Christ has returned.
There's virtually nothing left of the temple ordinances Joseph restored.  Most of it has been removed leaving a shadow of the true ordinances.

[T-Shirt]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yep.

”I want to marry a husband.”

”That would be like marrying a horse”

It kind of is implied. It is so baked into the discourse that it is the immediate go to response that we see again and again and again. It may not be intentional but it is reflexive which might be worse.

Total BS

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 speaks of a continuation of seeds in eternity.  Seed would imply a biological component - perhaps even a genetic one.

"Seed" in scriptural language is often understood to mean offspring and not semen.  For example:

Quote

“I will greatly bless you and will greatly multiply your seed, as the stars in the heavens and as the sand on the shore of the sea.” 

 

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities." - Bruce R. McConkie

 This is speaking of the creation/birth of our spirit bodies, which process we know nothing about.

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." - Brigham Young

This is speaking of the creation/birth of our physical bodies.  I wouldn't consider Brigham Young's comment as doctrinal fact.  I know that you believe in Adam/God theory, but our church doesn't support it.  For Adam/God theory to be true, then the children of Adam would be literal begotten children of the Father, making them equivalent to Jesus Christ in that regard.  The scriptures assure us however that Jesus Christ is the "only" begotten of the Father.  Seth, Cain, and Abel are no exceptions. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

On 9/28/2022 at 10:01 AM, Nofear said:

I haven't read it yet. I have no expectation of agreeing with it. Nonetheless, I'll read it. It represents thoughts that go through the agitators in the Church.
https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind
Thought I'd post it and get some reactions from you guys too.

First off, he reverses DC 9 : 9 which says that if one has a stupor of thought, what one has asked the Lord is NOT right.

He says a stupor of thought precedes a revelation.

This kind of thing destroys the author's credibility instantly imo.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Seed" in scriptural language is often understood to mean offspring and not semen.  For example:

It may not be semen but it still strongly implies a biological component as opposed to a spiritual one.

Quote

 This is speaking of the creation/birth of our spirit bodies, which process we know nothing about.

True.  McConkie doesn't specify method.  But he clearly refers to a spirit birth process.

Quote

This is speaking of the creation/birth of our physical bodies.  I wouldn't consider Brigham Young's comment as doctrinal fact.  I know that you believe in Adam/God theory, but our church doesn't support it.  For Adam/God theory to be true, then the children of Adam would be literal begotten children of the Father, making them equivalent to Jesus Christ in that regard.  The scriptures assure us however that Jesus Christ is the "only" begotten of the Father.  Seth, Cain, and Abel are no exceptions. 

Now that's an interesting take.  (Thanks!  You know I like new perspectives that make me think.)
Christ was the only begotten of the Father while the Father was a resurrected being.  He is the only one who has a physical body sired by an immortal being.
Seth, Cain, and Abel were sons of a mortal father, one who was not in a resurrected body at the time and who instead taught his children to obey his Heavenly Father.

This however doesn't preclude them being the same being at all.

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Total BS

Don’t sign your posts.

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Totally illogical and unmoored with the scriptures. 1) The scriptures abundantly attest that the children of Abraham, of which you speak, must first be born in the flesh by means of  a mother and a father before their bodies can be raised from the dead in the holy resurrection. 2) Why would celestial parents (the human bodies of exalted men and women will be raised from the dead fully functional and anatomically correct) want to give away their children to others to raise? Will they not have enough money and resources, or not yet finished their educations, or will some perfect celestial parents have their children come along at a time when they’re too immature and emotionally unprepared to raise their own children according to God’s holy commandment?

Actually, with the very first couple, it’s anything but clear they were born of a mother and father. Adam came from dust. Eve from a rib. I don’t actually believe that to be literally true, but I do believe bodies can be created outside of heterosexual relationships. We’re currently doing that with modern science. Surely gods can do even more. 
 

As to giving up spirit babies for adoption, the motive would not be money, time, education, or lack of preparedness. My wife and I will still be raising some children ourselves … sands of the seas, worlds without number, all that.

The reason to adopt out some of them derives simply from a love of siblings who cannot bear children on their own. Seeing how wonderful of parents these SS siblings are, my wife and I would be happy to give some of our children for them to raise. You may choose otherwise. But I’m confident there are many couples like us. With infinite time, there will no shortage of adopted children for SS exalted couples to raise. 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Those would be the ones.
You already know how I feel about the majority of those changes.

It's all moot for me anyway.  I decided a long time ago that most current ordinances aren't complete or correct so probably aren't valid anyway and will need to be redone in the Millennium when things have been set in order and Christ has returned.
There's virtually nothing left of the temple ordinances Joseph restored.  Most of it has been removed leaving a shadow of the true ordinances.

So why stand in the way of further corruption? The sooner we hit rock bottom the sooner we can reverse course. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

SS exalted couples

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

So why stand in the way of further corruption? The sooner we hit rock bottom the sooner we can reverse course. 

I don't think I stand in the way.
I don't have any authority to stand in the way of anyone.  I personally think the Church WILL allow same sex relationships at some point.
But it won't be from God.

I'm entitled to maintain correct beliefs and standards.

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

How is Nate Oman a prominent voice?  Prominent how?  Who can he influence in any meaningful way on this issue?  Who is he?

He has a wiki page so he must be important. 
 

Seriously, though, apart from being a notable legal scholar on religious issues, he stated T&S (one of the two most prominent LDS blogs), is a regular contributor to farms, dialogue, and other LDS journals, and even writes for the DN from time to time.
 

His name is known in the CoB. This article will not go unnoticed. 

[Nofear]

Ok, finally read Nate Ohman's article. What kept returning to my mind was Ty Mansfield's 2022 FAIR conference talk (if one hasn't it -- watched it! I highly recommend it). Mansfield's talk was inspiring and soul enlarging. I understood a little bit better about the eternities from his comments. In comparison, Nate Ohman's essay is downright pedantic and uninspired. That doesn't many everything he said was wrong but enough of it was that the whole of his advocacy falls to tatters.

Argument 1: People are gay and heaven won't be about making people heterosexual. Physical sexual attraction is core to one's identity.
Response 1: Heaven won't be about hormonal sexual attraction at all. It won't be about either homosexuality or heterosexuality. The love that we will experience will far transcend any form of physical sexual attraction. Hormonal sexual attraction is entirely irrelevant to the functions of the eternities.

Argument 2: We don't know much about sealings. The concept has changed and evolved and therefore argument against same-sex sealings based on ignorance is insufficient to justify policy decisions.
Response 2: Quite agreed that we don't know much about sealings. There is much more to what the sealing power provides than even the orthodox among us generally realize (including myself). Nevertheless, we do know that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Direct and explicit revelation is justification for a radical change in policy -- not a change simply because maybe, might, perhaps this might be true.

Argument 3: Sealings of all kinds occurred early on and some even now (adoption, husband to wives, wife to husbands, etc.). Therefore, why not have more of different kinds?
Response 3: We undoubtedly did some things incorrectly. Just because it was done, even by proper authority, doesn't always mean that it will be binding or that things won't be "fixed".

Argument 4: Ignorance is not justification for policy.
Response 4: Ignorance is not justification for policy.

Like Ohman, I could craft a theological interpretation that would bless same-sex sealings. But any theology he has or I could imagine falls flat, uninspired. If one is hungry and starving, the sight of moldy bread can be very appealing. Having partook, with Ohman, they may exclaim "moldy bread for everyone!" I, however, will not partake. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." I believe that Ty Mansfield caught a glimpse. And because of that, my eyes were opened just a little bit more too. That is the direction I will go.

[Calm]

23 hours ago, BluePlanet said:

I genuinely ask anyone to provide "persuasive evidence" that same-sex marriage poses a threat to heterosexual unions.

I think it is less about having an effect on heterosexual unions and more about contributing to the changing perspective of the purpose of marriage overall.  There is a decrease in viewing the purpose of marriage as creating the best environment for reproduction and raising of children and doing so as a permanent social structure.  Studies show that there is less abuse and neglect when both parents are the biological parents, but this is not even always possible even when desired, such as if one parent dies or one or both are infertile.  And these days we see in some countries couples not bothering to marry until they have their second child.  

There are many other factors contributing to this change of view of marriage as something that is not the ideal nor even necessary, some factors are positive in other ways, such as the education and financial independence of women and some negative and positive, such as attitudes and laws about divorce and others negative, such as laws and policies that penalize marriage and having both parents in the home and the move away from close extended family caring for multiple related families, such as in multigenerational homes.  Some of these have a significantly higher impact, imo, on attitudes towards marriage than same sex marriage, but I do believe acceptance of same sex marriage as mainstream contributes as it becomes more acceptable and as the queer community becomes seen as less other and more us (a good thing imo), the varied attitudes towards marriages in the queer community will become blended into mainstream attitudes and thus contribute to a move away from the more permanent, biological parents married at the beginning of adulthood or at least before having most of their children (historically many lower status couples were married after the woman became pregnant, but before birth of the first child) committed to stay married till death.

Some factors contributing towards lower numbers of marriage overall may be worth it as it protects women and therefore children, such as education of women, so just because something may in part decrease marriage appeal doesn’t mean, imo, we should try to decrease those changes.  I can see why many members looking at the overall picture judge the addition of same sex marriage as a plus while other view it as a negative because these groups weight the value of some positive changes higher than the other so the overall net benefit will be judged differently.

Historically speaking, marriage wasn’t for the purpose of romance, but for the purpose of having a socially acknowledged/recognized family, protecting both mother and children and determining inheritance, protecting property rights, etc.  In the Church this is translated to having posterity that is sealed to the parents eternally.

While a same sex couple can currently adopt (even if one partner is the biological parent, the other must adopt), they cannot between the two of them produce offspring.  If eternal families through biological offspring ever becomes less the primary purpose of marriage in the view of the church (speaking generally as a society, not as individual relationships), perhaps doctrine might be expanded to include eternal non child producing marriages, we already accept nonbiological parenthood after all.  I don’t see this as likely though, society would have to have a significant change of view towards biological children (there is a reason why even men prefer to have biological children in many (most?) cases rather than adopted), the idea of family legacy, etc.  Or once science makes it possible for same sex parents to biologically produce children similar to in vitro fertilization techniques, that might provide impetus to view same sex relationships closer to or identical to opposite sex relationships, but I don’t see the change in attitudes occurring in less than a few generations after the technology becomes possible.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ was the only begotten of the Father while the Father was a resurrected being. 

Huh?  Father is no longer a resurrected being?   Please explain

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Don’t sign your posts.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are some great analogies though. Like the analogy to interracial relationships. If God wanted different races to marry each other he wouldn’t have separated them geographically or put a mark on them “cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.”

I don't think that analogy works at all though, because the main doctrine behind the illegitimacy of SS-sealings is that SSM cannot produce offspring.  Any analogy that was used would need to have a couple that had that in common in the very least to actually be analogous. 

Interracial couples can have offspring, so using those relationships would be like trying to make an analogy about apples but using oranges.  The differences would be too great to be at all useful.

Quote

But seriously, if you can’t come up with a working analogy that doesn’t involve rape (of children or animals), that is pretty telling. 

I would be incredibly incredibly incredibly surprised if JLH had sex with animals at all in mind when he used that analogy.  Some people might automatically imply rape from his statement, but not all people.  In that case, it's the minds that do go there that could be said to have the telling motives, not the minds that didn't make the connection until it was pointed out.

Edited September 29, 2022 by bluebell

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that analogy works at all though, because the main doctrine behind the illegitimacy of SS-sealings is that SSM cannot produce offspring.  Any analogy that was used would need to have a couple that had that in common in the very least to actually be analogous. 

Interracial couples can have offspring, so using those relationships would be like trying to make an analogy about apples but using oranges.  The differences would be too great to be at all useful.

I would be incredibly incredibly incredibly surprised if JLF had sex with animals at all in mind when he used that analogy.  Some people might automatically imply rape from his statement, but not all people.  In that case, it's the minds that do go there that could be said to have the telling motives, not the minds that didn't make the connection until it was pointed out.

Really? Or is that we have seen it done so many times that when it presents itself in another form it is still just as obvious?

Edited September 29, 2022 by ttribe

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Really? Or is that we have seen it done so many times that when it presents itself in another form it is still just as obvious?

No, it's really.  Because honestly, how many times has JLH compared homosexuality to having sex with animals?  As far as I can tell, you've seen that done zero times.

Edited September 29, 2022 by bluebell

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?  Father is no longer a resurrected being?   Please explain

We were referencing Adam-God.