Same-sex sealings

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

A little Hebraism for you.
 

Sometimes you get the bear, 

and sometimes the bear gets you. 

“The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection.” -Gandhi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

“The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection.” -Gandhi

Sometimes you go in for a fill up,

but all you get is bad gas.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

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.

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

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).

Your mind seems to be completely made up with no room to change.  That's fine.  But there are many who disagree with your conclusions.  I remember the same dig in with both heels over the priesthood ban.  

[california boy]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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

Whatever.  If you don't see the difference between what you did and me pointing out that God is all powerful, then, you really are clueless.

[MiserereNobis]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

The dinosaurs are coming for you...

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Your mind seems to be completely made up with no room to change.  That's fine.  But there are many who disagree with your conclusions.  I remember the same dig in with both heels over the priesthood ban.  

Sure.  Still not remotely the same situation but sure.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Your mind seems to be completely made up with no room to change.  That's fine.  But there are many who disagree with your conclusions.  I remember the same dig in with both heels over the priesthood ban.  

The LGBT situation will possibly be a greater stumblingblock. The Priesthood Ban largely caused those who would fall under it to not be in the Church and there were very few babies who were unexpectedly born into church families that fell under the Priesthood ban. The LGBT kids just keep coming.

[Durangout]

22 hours ago, The Nehor 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.

Fail…but you knew that.

[Durangout]

23 hours 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.  

Your failed attempt to justify sin is terribly amusing.  Thanks for the entertainment.

[CV75]

A few minutes go, Elder Christofferson, echoed ideas in his last General Conference talk (“In the end, it is the blessing of a close and abiding relationship with the Father and the Son that we seek.”).

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Durangout said:

Fail…but you knew that.

 

2 hours ago, Durangout said:

Your failed attempt to justify sin is terribly amusing.  Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Your mind seems to be completely made up with no room to change.  That's fine.  But there are many who disagree with your conclusions.  I remember the same dig in with both heels over the priesthood ban.  

Surely there were a few, but I have never met a member who “dug in with both heels over the priesthood ban.”

Is there a line beyond which some changes become unacceptable? 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is there a line beyond which some changes become unacceptable? 

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.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is there a line beyond which some changes become unacceptable? 

I would like to think and hope that the goal is to align ourselves more closely with God's Eternal Truths. When our false traditions had us believing that skin color was an indicator of something meaningful, we were eventually able to change that to be more in line with the Eternal Truth that all are alike unto God. The real challenge is that we are not all in agreement what God's Eternal Truths are, so we bicker and argue over which of our traditions represent Eternal Truth and which of our traditions are represent the philosophies of men.

[3DOP]

30 minutes ago, 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.

Jesse. Hey. We must have development and progress. The Fathers, esp. St. Vincent of Lerins, Cardinal Newman (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine), and the First Vatican Council affirm this. But there are Catholics and Latter-day Saints who want to affirm reversal of moral and doctrinal positions as progress. Catholics take snippets from St. Vincent and Cardinal Newman out of context. Many of these emphasize "progress" without interacting with what those Church leaders said about corruption, false "progress". No. Just renounce your past. What was once a sin that cried to heaven for vengeance does not develop  into a virtue that can be praised as a Gospel teaching. The Catholic or Latter-day Saint who cares not for what their fathers believed has implicitly declared the church of their fathers to be apostate. Continuous development, growth, and progress, yes. Novelty, reversal, and opposition to what was once revealed truth, no. If one wants to be aligned with a religion that is unconcerned with defending  moral and doctrinal continuity with their historical positions, I would suggest that neither the Catholic Church, nor the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a viable option. There is too much attention on both sides for continuity and apostasy to just be flip-flopping around every few hundred years with morals and doctrine. I don't care about what the true Church teaches, from homosex to infant baptism. I truly don't care. I just want to be able to defend my not apostate church and religion as having always taught the same things.   

Edited October 2, 2022 by 3DOP

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, 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.

In my opinion it's not an issue of who is in charge.

It's an issue of whether the doctrine is traceable directly to God's words or just to our interpretation of them.  We have plenty of both.

We have in scripture that Christ said to love our enemies.  Continuing revelation cannot declare we don't have to love our enemies.

We believe that God cannot lie, that his laws are eternal, etc.  If we can clearly attribute a teaching to God we'd better think twice before changing it or even claiming God changed it.

[MustardSeed]

A cartoon referencing kink has no place here IMO. I think some of us are given much more leniency than others. 

[MiserereNobis]

35 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Jesse. Hey. We must have development and progress. The Fathers, esp. St. Vincent of Lerins, Cardinal Newman (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine), and the First Vatican Council affirm this. But there are Catholics and Latter-day Saints who want to affirm reversal of moral and doctrinal positions as progress. Catholics take snippets from St. Vincent and Cardinal Newman out of context. Many of these emphasize "progress" without interacting with what those Church leaders said about corruption, false "progress". No. Just renounce your past. What was once a sin that cried to heaven for vengeance does not develop  into a virtue that can be praised as a Gospel teaching. The Catholic or Latter-day Saint who cares not for what their fathers believed has implicitly declared the church of their fathers to be apostate. Continuous development, growth, and progress, yes. Novelty, reversal, and opposition to what was once revealed truth, no. If one wants to be aligned with a religion that is unconcerned with defending  moral and doctrinal continuity with their historical positions, I would suggest that neither the Catholic Church, nor the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a viable option. There is too much attention on both sides for continuity and apostasy to just be flip-flopping around every few hundred years with morals and doctrine. I don't care about what the true Church teaches, from homosex to infant baptism. I truly don't care. I just want to be able to defend my not apostate church and religion as having always taught the same things.   

Rory, hey! Yes, we are mainly in agreement. It seems like @Saint Bonaventure is on the traditional leaning side of things, so he may agree, too.

Our understanding of the Deposit of Faith develops and progresses, and thank God for that. As I like to point out to our LDS friends, we, too, have "continuing revelation" (as they might understand the term), most recently with the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950.

[Peacefully]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

A cartoon referencing kink has no place here IMO. I think some of us are given much more leniency than others. 

I assumed it was a gaming term, some trait built into the software. I’m probably just not in the know, lol. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I would like to think and hope that the goal is to align ourselves more closely with God's Eternal Truths. When our false traditions had us believing that skin color was an indicator of something meaningful, we were eventually able to change that to be more in line with the Eternal Truth that all are alike unto God. The real challenge is that we are not all in agreement what God's Eternal Truths are, so we bicker and argue over which of our traditions represent Eternal Truth and which of our traditions are represent the philosophies of men.

I don’t agree that that was a false tradition, but you are entitled to your opinion. I do not believe the situation is the same. 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, 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.

Its a question for anyone,not just the LDS. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Rory, hey! Yes, we are mainly in agreement. It seems like @Saint Bonaventure is on the traditional leaning side of things, so he may agree, too.

Our understanding of the Deposit of Faith develops and progresses, and thank God for that. As I like to point out to our LDS friends, we, too, have "continuing revelation" (as they might understand the term), most recently with the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950.

What you've written about the Deposit of Faith, and continuing revelation, is spot on. 

When it comes to Vatican II, I find Ralph Martin very insightful.

Also, I receive The Eucharist on the tongue....

Edited October 2, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[3DOP]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Rory, hey! Yes, we are mainly in agreement. It seems like @Saint Bonaventure is on the traditional leaning side of things, so he may agree, too.

Our understanding of the Deposit of Faith develops and progresses, and thank God for that. As I like to point out to our LDS friends, we, too, have "continuing revelation" (as they might understand the term), most recently with the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950.

I think I can guess why we are only "mainly in agreement":  "I don't care about what the true Church teaches, from homosex to infant baptism."? Or maybe this: "The Catholic or Latter-day Saint who cares not for what their fathers believed has implicitly declared the church of their fathers to be apostate."? Those statements were a little imprecise, unclear, and perhaps too provocative. 

I think my point for everybody is that it isn't some kind of homophobia that makes me oppose changes in the church's teaching on the subject at hand. It would be to expose the Church to a charge of having taught a disgustingly uncharitable and oppressive form of Christianity for 2,000 years if She were to announce so many hundreds of years too late that after all homosexual behavior is alright according to the Church. "Thanks for that," say all the poor souls who lived in shame and persecution, under laws that made their love illegal in most places, while the Catholic Church supported. Two stinking thousand years after the Lord preached the Gospel the Catholic Church finally figures it out? Its too late! There is no way I believe that the Bride of Christ, Jesus' Mystical Body of who He is the Head, was led by the Holy Ghost to teach all Her distinctive doctrines unerringly, but at the same could not figure out that God loves homosexuality and it is potentially beautiful, fitting, and pleasing to God.

I am not being sarcastic. This is what I meant when said I don't care what the true church teaches. It may have been exaggeration because there are natural law arguments which might make many wary of approving homosexual practice. Before I became Catholic, I gained an admiration of Christianity through the sacrificial valor of the first three centuries of Christian in the catacombs and the Coliseum. I want to believe what they believed and still do. If they didn't believed in infant baptism, okay. I want to be a member of their Church. I do not want to believe what they did not believe. I see no evidence for 2,000 years that homoseuxal activity should be permissible. The new post-Vatican II catechism says it is forbidden and even disordered (natural law). It would not work. I would destroy our faith in the Church of all-time to admit how long she has been wrong about something so important to so many. The true church can't be reversing itself like that and retain credibility. What was once dreadful is now almost a sacrament, and can be blessed by a priest? That is incredible, literally.    

[Rain]

 

On 9/29/2022 at 8:39 PM, Buckeye said:

Wait, so exalted people are all the exact same height, weight, hair color, blood type?

And are male.

On 9/29/2022 at 8:39 PM, Buckeye said:

And they have the same preference for ice cream flavors, beach vs mountains, and so forth? 
The truth is we only have to be the same as Christ in things pertaining to righteousness. There can be (and thankfully are) many great diversities on things not pertaining to righteousness - such as skin color. Sexual orientation falls into that same category. It is a beautiful diversity. Not a deviation from righteousness. 

 

 

[JAHS]

On 10/1/2022 at 7:26 AM, california boy said:

Your mind seems to be completely made up with no room to change.  That's fine.  But there are many who disagree with your conclusions.  I remember the same dig in with both heels over the priesthood ban.  

Brigham Yong said, referring to blacks, that the "time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more." (Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives, Feb. 5, 1852).
It seems that it was expected that the blacks would some day get the priesthood. Not the same attitude  with same sex sealings.