Same-sex sealings

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

It is gross to imagine a goddess would be diminished because weren’t vital in reproduction.

Earthly child? Give it two or three decades. Celestial child? Insufficient data.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

LOL.

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

For someone who is dispassionate on the issue you sure seem to project a lot of outrage onto opponents. Why is that?

[Durangout]

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is gross to imagine a goddess would be diminished because weren’t vital in reproduction.

Earthly child? Give it two or three decades. Celestial child? Insufficient data.

Since the sealing power is used according to the Lord’s will in the earth to sustain physical and spiritual life in preparation for heaven (and the converse; it is used in heaven to sustain spiritual and physical life on earth), who would be opposed to its application on behalf of willing human beings, pre-mortal, mortal, resurrected and exalted alike? The person/god decides whether to receive a fulness of the divine nature and purpose; I do not see anything gross in that principle simply because it has natural and purposeful ramifications for the way life goes in heaven.

[california boy]

In reading through this thread, I am astounded how many people have such clear views of what God has to say about SSM.  Especially since there has NEVER been a revelation from God on this issue.  People self confirm their own beliefs where ever they can find something that supports their beliefs on both sides.

Truth is, no one knows the will of God on SSM until he actually reveals that will.  Since God has never actually given a revelation, all of this is just speculation and repeating self affirming opinions.  

Am wrong?  Has there been any claims of revelation from God on SSM?  The closest we got was Russel M. Nelson proclaiming that the no baptizing underage children of gay couples and calling them apostates as being a revelation (something that Scott Lloyd and a few others jumped all over on as finally being the revelation from God) until it was disavowed less than 2 years later.

Put in proper context, this thread should be labeled pure speculation on SSM.  

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is gross to imagine a goddess would be diminished because weren’t vital in reproduction.

Earthly child? Give it two or three decades. Celestial child? Insufficient data.

The Gods are not diminished by the disrespect of their children.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

In reading through this thread, I am astounded how many people have such clear views of what God has to say about SSM.  Especially since there has NEVER been a revelation from God on this issue.  People self confirm their own beliefs where ever they can find something that supports their beliefs on both sides.

Truth is, no one knows the will of God on SSM until he actually reveals that will.  Since God has never actually given a revelation, all of this is just speculation and repeating self affirming opinions.  

Am wrong?  Has there been any claims of revelation from God on SSM?  The closest we got was Russel M. Nelson proclaiming that the no baptizing underage children of gay couples and calling them apostates as being a revelation (something that Scott Lloyd and a few others jumped all over on as finally being the revelation from God) until it was disavowed less than 2 years later.

Put in proper context, this thread should be labeled pure speculation on SSM.  

This idea is the equivalent of a child that says "you never said I couldn't have ice cream for dinner".

God says marriage is between a man and woman.  You say "he didn't say it can't be between two men".

That's not a strong argument at all.  Everything God has ever revealed on marriage, eternal relationships, and sealing is limited to male/female/posterity and establishes that as the correct pattern.  He has no need to enumerate every incorrect pattern.

So go ahead and have ice cream for dinner but don't pretend it's acceptable because it wasn't expressly banned.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Durangout said:

 

So Jesus didn’t actually address it except by not mentioning it in another context (marriage) in which context he definitely would have mentioned it because same sex marriage was such a hot topic in 1st century Judea.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Gods are not diminished by the disrespect of their children.

“The roots of the trees grow stronger against adversity.”

Since we are just throwing out random statements now.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This idea is the equivalent of a child that says "you never said I couldn't have ice cream for dinner".

God says marriage is between a man and woman.  You say "he didn't say it can't be between two men".

That's not a strong argument at all.  Everything God has ever revealed on marriage, eternal relationships, and sealing is limited to male/female/posterity and establishes that as the correct pattern.  He has no need to enumerate every incorrect pattern.

So go ahead and have ice cream for dinner but don't pretend it's acceptable because it wasn't expressly banned.

As someone who is eating ice cream for dinner as he types: Thanks.

Blue Bell Strawberry Lemonade flavor. First time trying it. Really good.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As someone who is eating ice cream for dinner as he types: Thanks.

Blue Bell Strawberry Lemonade flavor. First time trying it. Really good.

In your case it might be "you said I have to love everyone, you never said I couldn't punch a Nazi while loving them.". 

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In your case it might be "you said I have to love everyone, you never said I couldn't punch a Nazi while loving them.". 

The most loving thing you can do for a Nazi is punch them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

For someone who is dispassionate on the issue you sure seem to project a lot of outrage onto opponents. Why is that?

My father lived under a communist regime. Every word he spoke in a public setting had to be written out and submitted for approval first. His notes would then be handed back to him with words, phrases, and entire sentences blacked out. When he spoke, members of the secret police would sit in the audience to ensure that he never went off-script.

On one occasion, he spent a couple of nights in a cold gaol cell, not because he had said or done anything unapproved but just because authorities had, quite correctly, determined that he wasn't fully buying into their 'progressive' agenda, and he needed to be reminded of what could happen to those guilty of thought-crime.

From the time I was young, he actively taught me to recognise language use designed to silence, to make dissent difficult, to limit the natural range of thought, to manipulate, to intimidate, and -- as you tried to do above -- to entrap.

My father also taught me to stand up to bullies.

Edited October 1, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Blue Bell Strawberry Lemonade flavor. First time trying it. Really good.

You should try the Mango Lemonade from the Kroger prestige label, Private Section. I've had both, and I think the Mango Lemonade is superior.

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My father lived under a communist regime. Every word he spoke in a public setting had to be written out and submitted for approval first. His notes would then be handed back to him with words, phrases, and entire sentences blacked out. When he spoke, members of the secret police would sit in the audience to ensure that he never went off-script.

On one occasion, he spent a couple of nights in a cold gaol cell, not because he had said or done anything unapproved but just because authorities had, quite correctly, determined that he wasn't fully buying into their 'progressive' agenda, and he needed to be reminded of what could happen to those guilty of thought-crime.

From the time I was young, he actively taught me to recognise language use designed to silence, to make dissent difficult, to limit the natural range of thought, to manipulate, to intimidate, and -- as you tried to do above -- to entrap.

My father also taught me to stand up to bullies.

The LGBT secret police will be visiting shortly to have a chat about this post. 🙄

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The LGBT secret police will be visiting shortly to have a chat about this post.

I have no strawberry lemonade flavoured ice cream to serve them. Any other suggestions?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This idea is the equivalent of a child that says "you never said I couldn't have ice cream for dinner".

God says marriage is between a man and woman.  You say "he didn't say it can't be between two men".

Well actually not.  This is equivalent to saying that Brigham Young didn't actually have a revelation on the priesthood ban, so it was just his opinion.   We all fell for that one if you remember.  How is this any different?

No one is saying that marriage can not be between a man and a woman.  That question has been settled.  What hasn't been settled is whether gay couples can be sealed.  And THAT is what everyone is guessing about.

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's not a strong argument at all.  Everything God has ever revealed on marriage, eternal relationships, and sealing is limited to male/female/posterity and establishes that as the correct pattern.  He has no need to enumerate every incorrect pattern.

So go ahead and have ice cream for dinner but don't pretend it's acceptable because it wasn't expressly banned.

So the heavens are now sealed and no further revelation on marriage is ever coming again?

Seriously, what is the purpose of claiming the prophet gets revelation from God when he actually never really gets any revelation, he is just giving it his best shot at what he thinks God wants him to do??  

I think the thing that causes so many anguish over this topic is the flippant answers that come from asking sincere questions   It would be much more honest to say, we don't have the answer at this time, but we do know that marriage between a man and a woman is ok with God.

Edited October 1, 2022 by california boy

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Making comparisons between gays and seahorses?  That's not offensive to you?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well actually not.  This is equivalent to saying that Brigham Young didn't actually have a revelation on the priesthood ban, so it was just his opinion.   We all fell for that one if you remember.  How is this any different?

It's different because God already defined, described, and explained marriage.  It's nothing like the priesthood ban.  You're not asking for a new revelation.  You're asking for a redefinition.  For God to change existing word, not claimed word.  You cannot direct me to Brigham's revelation on the priesthood ban.  There are dozens of scriptures, sermons, and information God provided on marriage etc and they all exclusively describe it as requiring male and female.

Quote

No one is saying that marriage can not be between a man and a woman.  That question has been settled.  What hasn't been settled is whether gay couples can be sealed.  And THAT is what everyone is guessing about.

I think it's absolutely settled, no guesswork involved.  You cannot seal a relationship that goes against every design God has ever revealed about this probation.

Quote

So the heavens are now sealed and no further revelation on marriage is ever coming again?

It may but not one that contradicts EVERY scripture on families we've previously been given.

Quote

I think the thing that causes so many anguish over this topic is the flippant answers that come from asking sincere questions   It would be much more honest to say, we don't have the answer at this time, but we do know that marriage between a man and a woman is ok with God.

I hope I explain my doctrinal belief and understanding clearly as opposed to tossing off flippant retorts.  We don't know that marriage between a man and a woman is simply ok.  We know that God defines the marriage relationship as being between a man and a woman.  Always has since the beginning and the first recorded marriages.  The instruction from God is that marriage is to multiply and replenish the earth, that a man and woman leave their parents and unite, that the only unions that extend to eternity are when a husband takes a wife by priesthood authority.  These ARE marriage, not just one option.

All that said, I think there probably will be a revelation of some sort announced in the not too distant future, say 15 years.  And pronoun allowances even sooner. But it won't have come from God (it won't have actually come at all).

Edited October 1, 2022 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Making comparisons between gays and seahorses?  That's not offensive to you?

Seahorse on seahorse love is beautiful. The previous comparison was a man (possibly a Rider of Rohan) with an unnatural affection for his horse that ended in matrimony.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have no strawberry lemonade flavoured ice cream to serve them. Any other suggestions?

Lemon bars.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Seahorse on seahorse love is beautiful. The previous comparison was a man (possibly a Rider of Rohan) with an unnatural affection for his horse that ended in matrimony.

Or ducks with geese...

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or ducks with geese...

Birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. And dinosaurs were very depraved. Just saying.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

“The roots of the trees grow stronger against adversity.”

Since we are just throwing out random statements now.

A little Hebraism for you.
 

Sometimes you get the bear, 

and sometimes the bear gets you. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/29/2022 at 6:22 PM, Rivers said:

I’ve always thought that the very thought of Same-sex sealings was too outlandish to take seriously.  But just maybe, open theism opens the door for such a thing.

How about revelation instead of open theism?