Same-sex sealings

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In a latter-day saint discussion of gay marriage, the likelihood of a comparison of gay relationships to rape approaches one as the page count increases past 3?

Only Gui can declare GUI’s Laws. Feel free to propose your own laws under your own name. 
 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Under this logic, neither President Nelson nor President Oaks should have married their current wife. Both marriages began after menopause and have had no chance of bearing children. What a horrible example to set for others. Imagine if everyone got married to someone with whom they couldn’t have children. 

I would suggest you know nothing about their relationships. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It seems to me a brother who apparently had no intention to link the two and had no history of such is being made an offender for a word. I think he should be taken at his word and given the benefit of the doubt. 

Yet it keeps being repeated. Imagine someone showed up and started analogizing church members to cultists. He is corrected and asked to stop but keeps doing it. Others start doing the same thing. Each time they are asked to stop. Would you give the benefit of the doubt after about a dozen times?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Outrage Machine simply cannot tolerate any disapproval of same-sex couplings. One just has to walk past the gnashing of teeth and keep going.

When that disapproval comes when it is compared to pedophilia and bestiality is the outrage maybe a little justified?

What can you expect I guess? It is projection I suppose. With all the child abuse accusations coming out aren’t all Mormons basically pedophiles?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, I don’t believe that but imagine if every time we had an abuse story I wandered in and made that suggestion. Would there possibly be a bit of outrage?

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Under this logic, neither President Nelson nor President Oaks should have married their current wife. Both marriages began after menopause and have had no chance of bearing children. What a horrible example to set for others. Imagine if everyone got married to someone with whom they couldn’t have children. 

In light of Church doctrine, this is totally illogical. The central purpose of temple sealings between a man and a woman is for the couple to prepare to eventually rise in glory in the first resurrection and live eternally as a procreating married couple in the celestial kingdom. If faithful sealed married couples are are, for whatever reason, unable to bring forth children in this life, by virtue of the sealing they testify to the Lord that they will joyfully bring forth children in the world to come, after youth and fertility are restored.

Edited September 30, 2022 by teddyaware

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yet it keeps being repeated. Imagine someone showed up and started analogizing church members to cultists. He is corrected and asked to stop but keeps doing it. Others start doing the same thing. Each time they are asked to stop. Would you give the benefit of the doubt after about a dozen times?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

…

And no, I don’t believe that but imagine if every time we had an abuse story I wandered in and made that suggestion. Would there possibly be a bit of outrage?

Imagine someone repeatedly shows up on an LDS discussion board that was once dedicated to a vigorous and informed defense of the faith and berates the Church and scolds its past and present leaders, seeks to alter it’s most unique, fundamental, and sacred doctrines and ordinances, and accuses their brothers and sisters of ignorance, intolerance, hatred, and various phobias when they object. Would you give them the benefit of the doubt after many, many times?

Quote

When that disapproval comes when it is compared to pedophilia and bestiality is the outrage maybe a little justified?

Has the brother in question has done these things?

 

An observation…

It’s interesting that some folks often bewail the lack of attention given to their Mother, but then champion movements that would question Her nature and purpose.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/29/2022 at 2:01 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.

From the article:

Quote

There is simply nothing in the canonized revelations of the Church to suggest that homosexual orientation is eternal. Perhaps less obviously, the theology of heterosexual exaltation rests on a similarly thin foundation in the canon. The idea of heavenly parents is not contained in the scriptures

This is found in the scriptures. Maybe I read it wrong.

Quote

D&C132: 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.
22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

And, 

Quote

D&C133: 1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

These seem to be fairly firm foundations.

Our author sympathetically provides a revelatory declaration for the Prophet to read at Conference from his teleprompter (perhaps with one or two revisions), but it only addresses two of the many sexual identities, so the struggle will inevitably continue.

Quote

For many years we have struggled with how best to minister to gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints while affirming the importance of chastity outside of marriage, fidelity to husbands and wives, the priority of children, and the promises of eternal families made in the temple. After pleading with the Lord, we have received a revelation that same-sex couples may be sealed in the temple. Throughout the Restoration changes have been made under prophetic direction in temple ordinances and practices. Today’s change is the latest chapter in that continuing story. Like prophets going back to Nephi we “do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Ne. 11:17), but we know that today’s decision will bless the lives of those who live worthy to be sealed in the temple and that all of the ordinances – past, present, and future – performed in the Lord’s House contribute to his great plan for the human family. The Church continues to affirm that sexual relations outside of marriage violate God’s commandments, and same-sex couples are subject to the same standards of behavior as opposite sex couples.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Imagine someone repeatedly shows up on an LDS discussion board that was once dedicated to a vigorous and informed defense of the faith and berates the Church and scolds its past and present leaders, seeks to alter it’s most unique, fundamental, and sacred doctrines and ordinances, and accuses their brothers and sisters of ignorance, intolerance, hatred, and various phobias when they object. Would you give them the benefit of the doubt after many, many times?

I don’t think being anti-ssm is that unique in the religious world. It isn’t particularly sacred either. I don’t make those accusations. Some do but they usually come after the inevitable pedophilia or bestiality comparison.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Has the brother in question has done these things?

It happens very regularly.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

An observation…

It’s interesting that some folks often bewail the lack of attention given to their Mother, but then champion movements that would question Her nature and purpose.

No one is doing that though.

Oh wait, are you really going that way? Suggesting some hypocrisy in the idea that if she is not strictly and exclusively needed for reproduction then her nature and purpose must be irrelevant? If men can reproduce without women they are useless?

Ewwww….stop talking about my Mom that way. She is better then that. Gross!

Also wouldn’t the Father be equally useless by this standard if two exalted women could create a child?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In light of Church doctrine, this is totally illogical. The central purpose of temple sealings between a man and a woman is for the couple to prepare to eventually rise in glory in the first resurrection and live eternally as a procreating married couple in the celestial kingdom. If faithful sealed married couples are are, for whatever reason, unable to bring forth children in this life, by virtue of the sealing they testify to the Lord that they will joyfully bring forth children in the world to come, after youth and fertility are restored.

So marriages for time when both have been sealed to other partners and cannot have more children are an egregious sin?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

With all the child abuse accusations coming out aren’t all Mormons basically pedophiles?

I have read almost exactly this multiple times on apostate forums, and the more 'progressive' the poster/forum, the more common it is.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think being anti-ssm is that unique in the religious world. It isn’t particularly sacred either. I don’t make those accusations. Some do but they usually come after the inevitable pedophilia or bestiality comparison.

It happens very regularly.

No one is doing that though.

Oh wait, are you really going that way? Suggesting some hypocrisy in the idea that if she is not strictly and exclusively needed for reproduction then her nature and purpose must be irrelevant? If men can reproduce without women they are useless?

Ewwww….stop talking about my Mom that way. She is better then that. Gross!

Also wouldn’t the Father be equally useless by this standard if two exalted women could create a child?

I hadn’t noticed our brother doing that on a regular basis. 
 

Yeah they are doing that to sacred things. 
 

I don’t recall using the word useless. It has not been revealed, but it does diminish Her role and His. It does indicate some hypocrisy. What is gross?
 

Do you have any source that suggests a same-gender partnership can produce an earthly or a celestial child?

Edited September 30, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Outrage Machine simply cannot tolerate any disapproval of same-sex couplings. One just has to walk past the gnashing of teeth and keep going.

 

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

With all the child abuse accusations coming out aren’t all Mormons basically pedophiles?

 

 

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have read almost exactly this multiple times on apostate forums, and the more 'progressive' the poster/forum, the more common it is.

Stop with the outrage machine already. The outrage machine can’t tolerate any disapproval of Latter-day Saint teachings or theology. '2 + 2 = 5' is certainly easy to say.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Stop with the outrage machine already. The outrage machine can’t tolerate any disapproval of Latter-day Saint teachings or theology.

LOL.

You've got one major problem: I'm not outraged by disapproval.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Since we are talking about eternal increase between two sealed spouses, the mortal ability to have offspring is irrelevant.

I totally agree.  And since we have no idea how spiritual offspring is created, needing a male/female couple to produce offspring is irrelevant as well.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

LOL.

You've got one major problem: I'm not outraged by it.

And neither is anyone on the opposite side in this thread. Didn’t stop you from posting. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And neither is anyone on the opposite side in this thread.

Thanks, mate!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, mate!

Your welcome. Glad to see that you can still laugh. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That sacred process has not been revealed and probably won’t be in this life, but the First Presidency statement taken context makes it clear that a man and a woman are essential.

It's a statement or proclamation about what they believe based on their personal knowledge, experience, culture, bias. That's all.

[california boy]

I don't worry too much about these endless threads on allowing gay couples access into the temple.  I think it will all work out.  It reminds me of a song by Calum Scott, Boys in the Street.  The Church is at verse 3.

When I was younger, my daddy told me I would never
Never amount to nothing special
He'd come at me from every angle
He'd say, you're the last thing I wanted
The last thing I need
How am I gonna answer when my friends tell me
My son was kissing boys in the street?
My son was kissing boys in the street

 

Tried to change me
Say I'm embarrassing my country
How could I do this to my family?
Do I wanna grow up being lonely?
He'd say, we've worked for our money, we put you in school
Is this how you repay us? Do you think this is cool?
My son, stop kissing boys in the street
My son, stop kissing boys in the street

 

Now that I'm older
My daddy's heart's a little warmer
But he still won't hold me like my brother
And he still won't kiss me like my mother
He'd say, you're a part of this family, I made you myself
But the way that you act isn't good for your health
My son, stop kissing boys in the street
My son, stop kissing boys in the street

 

My daddy's dying
And he's finally realized I'm not lying
We sit in silence but we're smiling
Because for once we are not fighting
He'd say, there was no way of knowing 'cause all I was taught
Is men only love women, but now I'm not sure
My son, keep kissing boys in the street
My son, keep kissing boys in the street
And when I'm gone, keep kissing boys in the street

 

If you were only taught that men should only love women, then it is understandable that you interrupt scripture that way.  In the words of Bruce R. McConkie when many grew up with the idea that interracial marriage would never lead to exaltation because that is what they were always taught:

 

Quote

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever 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.

 

If it happens, then there will be plenty of justification for the change.  If it doesn't happen, then God will deal with it.

 

 

 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but STILL, we come up against how interracial couples were always able to reproduce offspring and SS couples never will be.  That's the main doctrinal problem with SSM so that is where the analogy has to be applicable, or it's a worthless analogy. 

If God can create male seahorses to get pregnant and give birth, then I am pretty sure God can figure out a way for gay couples to have eternal offspring if that is His plan.

 

 

Male seahorses not only become pregnant and give birth, but do so in ways that take different forms, which make them unique research subjects to understand the evolution of pregnancy, according to Dr Olivia Roth from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR) in Germany.

[Buckeye]

This new DN poll seems pertinent. Interesting that LDS have moved towards acceptance more quickly than other Christian groups. I tie that mostly to our family sizes, but the church does deserve some credit too.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/9/29/23373642/utahns-support-same-sex-poll-marriage-respect-for-marriage-act

 

The article does have one misleading statement that caused me to chuckle. 
 

When same-sex marriage became recognized in Utah in 2014 — a year ahead of the Supreme Court decision — it had support from less than half of Utahns

What’s missing is that the law changed in 2014 via court decision, not a vote of the people or legislature. 

[Buckeye]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would suggest you know nothing about their relationships. 

Precisely. That was the point. Pot, meet kettle. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

48 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

but the church does deserve some credit too.

Sincere question. What role do you think the church has played in moving Utahans towards acceptance of gay marriage as a civil right?

Edited September 30, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sincere question. What role do you think the church has played in moving Utahans towards acceptance of gay marriage as a civil right?

Among others, church leaders have avoided harsh and unkind rhetoric towards LGBT, preached kindness with those with whom the church disagrees, and supported legislation that protects gay rights (while carving out exceptions for religious groups). Some may see those moves cynically. I think they’re sincere. 
 

As I see things, the key issue moving forward is how the church responds to the increasing numbers of members who support SSM publicly and want to be fully engaged in the church. Can they serve as missionaries? Temple workers? Bishops? If we can make that transition, we’ll both continue to grow and we’ll have gay marriages in the church within a decade or two. 
 

On a personal note, when I came to fully support SSM I held a calling that could require me to be involved in disciplining members in such marriages. I was very fortunate to have an understanding priesthood leader who - while upholding the church’s doctrine - worked out a plan with me where I stayed in the calling and could step out of such disciplining scenarios if they arose, with him stepping in. Fortunately the scenario never arose for me. But the experience of working through this with the leader strengthened my testimony in the church and is a bedrock of my hope for better days. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have read almost exactly this multiple times on apostate forums, and the more 'progressive' the poster/forum, the more common it is.

I know. I have seen them too. That is why I used it as an example.