Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Same-sex sealings


Nofear

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

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. 

There will never be same sex sealings.  Not because they're prohibited.  But because they are unable to be eternal.  You cannot force something to adhere that is not designed by the plan to be together.  The work of all the Gods is entirely based around the father/mother/posterity model.

If ever they are permitted we will be operating against the design of existence and the plan of exaltation.  It's not a simple issue of God's permission.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There will never be same sex sealings.  Not because they're prohibited.  But because they are unable to be eternal.  You cannot force something to adhere that is not designed by the plan to be together.  The work of all the Gods is entirely based around the father/mother/posterity model.

If ever they are permitted we will be operating against the design of existence and the plan of exaltation.  It's not a simple issue of God's permission.

That too 👍

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Its a question for anyone,not just the LDS. 

It is a much bigger question for those who believe in one true visible church. This would include Catholics and LDS. Those who deny that they are the one true church cannot be upset if their "church" has been wrong in the past, in the same way as those concerned to maintain apostolic unity. If you are not fundamentally concerned to establish that you have found the one true visible church, because you believe the visible churches are more or less equal, it would follow that there would be less concern about inconsistencies with past teaching. Such groups cannot have the same concern to maintain continuity with an ancient past. If there is not one true visible church as almost all non-Catholics and non-LDS claim, there is no such thing as apostasy. Nor is there any official orthodoxy. One find the religion that suits them best now. Today. Yesterday does not have a vote.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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. 

And the OT begins with God decreeing that it is not good for man to be alone. Seems like it’s been expected from the beginning that all should included in sealing - straight or otherwise. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

And the OT begins with God decreeing that it is not good for man to be alone. Seems like it’s been expected from the beginning that all should included in sealing - straight or otherwise. 

All are included in sealings. When we are sealed to our parents we all become members of God's one eternal patriarchal family, so long as we remain faithful and patient God will not withhold any blessing that we deserve. Although we may not understand how that will happen at this time. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

It is a much bigger question for those who believe in one true visible church. This would include Catholics and LDS. Those who deny that they are the one true church cannot be upset if their "church" has been wrong in the past, in the same way as those concerned to maintain apostolic unity. If you are not fundamentally concerned to establish that you have found the one true visible church, because you believe the visible churches are more or less equal, it would follow that there would be less concern about inconsistencies with past teaching. Such groups cannot have the same concern to maintain continuity with an ancient past. If there is not one true visible church as almost all non-Catholics and non-LDS claim, there is no such thing as apostasy. Nor is there any official orthodoxy. One find the religion that suits them best now. Today. Yesterday does not have a vote.

Nevertheless, they still must wrestle with the meaning of such things as the Savior’s instructions about lustful thoughts and adultery. Remember what it did to Jimmy Carter.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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.    

Hey Rory. I'm sorry if my word "mainly" came off the way it appears it did. I do not have any specific objections or reservations to what you wrote. Perhaps I would have worded it differently, as you note, but I agree with the ideas completely.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

And the OT begins with God decreeing that it is not good for man to be alone. Seems like it’s been expected from the beginning that all should included in sealing - straight or otherwise. 

The very first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth.  It was the first commandment to all forms of life - plant, animals, and mankind.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,

He's never revoked that commandment.  It's included with the sealing ceremony and stands today.

It was commanded before prayer, before faith, before sacrifice.  It is absolutely the first law.  And God will never honor mankind in choosing to reject it.  It ends God's work if allowed.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The very first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth.  It was the first commandment to all forms of life - plant, animals, and mankind.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,

He's never revoked that commandment.  It's included with the sealing ceremony and stands today.

It was commanded before prayer, before faith, before sacrifice.  It is absolutely the first law.  And God will never honor mankind in choosing to reject it.  It ends God's work if allowed.

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.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, 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.

Way to ignore the point I was making.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey Rory. I'm sorry if my word "mainly" came off the way it appears it did. I do not have any specific objections or reservations to what you wrote. Perhaps I would have worded it differently, as you note, but I agree with the ideas completely.

No worries my brother. We don't need to be clones! 

I had lunch on Saturday with a new priest here who was assigned to the mission in Albuquerque for the past few years. He was very optimistic about the diocesan priests of his diocese, many saying the Old Mass. He was in the diocese of Santa Fe. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There will never be same sex sealings.  Not because they're prohibited.  But because they are unable to be eternal.  You cannot force something to adhere that is not designed by the plan to be together.  The work of all the Gods is entirely based around the father/mother/posterity model.

If ever they are permitted we will be operating against the design of existence and the plan of exaltation.  It's not a simple issue of God's permission.

I'm impressed by your vast and perfect knowledge of eternity.  ;) 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm impressed by your vast and perfect knowledge of eternity.  ;) 

I'm amazed at the imagination of others.  I prefer to go with scripturally established patterns.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm amazed at the imagination of others.  I prefer to go with scripturally established patterns.

That's fair.

Imagination. Speculation. I tend to think that most (almost everything) we learn in the scriptures is imagination or speculation. The difference is in who is making it. If it's an authority figure it is accepted. Personally, I prefer the label of speculation or imagination over dogma.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fair.

Imagination. Speculation. I tend to think that most (almost everything) we learn in the scriptures is imagination or speculation. The difference is in who is making it. If it's an authority figure it is accepted. Personally, I prefer the label of speculation or imagination over dogma.

It will be interesting to see what the fate will be of those members who are slow to faithfully obey the prophets due to the fact that they believe the counsel the prophets impart in based on mere guesswork and speculation rather than on revelation from God? I often wonder what the “free spirit” members of the Church think when they read verses like the following?

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory. 

7 For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I INSPIRED to move the cause of Zion  in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard. (Doctrine and Covenants 21)

At any rate, one cannot reasonably expect that those who only halfheartedly believe will ever be able to act as if they fully believe. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

It will be interesting to see what the fate will be of those members who are slow to faithfully obey the prophets due to the fact that they believe the counsel the prophets impart in based on mere guesswork and speculation rather than on revelation from God? I often wonder what the “free spirit” members of the Church think when they read verses like the following?

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory. 

7 For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I INSPIRED to move the cause of Zion  in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard. (Doctrine and Covenants 21)

At any rate, one cannot reasonably expect that those who only halfheartedly believe will ever be able to act as if they fully believe. 

I agree. It will be interesting to see how things play out. I'm not worried, but I am curious :)

I don't recall ever seeing a reference about "free spirit" members so I'm not exactly sure if I'd fall into that group or not. However, when I see verses like these I tend to consider them to be very self-serving to the one making such proclamations

Link to comment

error

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 10/2/2022 at 4:16 PM, JAHS said:

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. 

I don’t really like going back and forth on this issue.  But it does irritate me that this quote always gets truncated.  No one using this quote includes the part that it won’t happen until after EVERYONE else gets the opportunity.   

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don’t really like going back and forth on this issue.  But it does irritate me that this quote always gets truncated.  No one using this quote includes the part that it won’t happen until after EVERYONE else gets the opportunity.   

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

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don’t really like going back and forth on this issue.  But it does irritate me that this quote always gets truncated.  No one using this quote includes the part that it won’t happen until after EVERYONE else gets the opportunity.   

The quote actually hasn't been truncated at all. I think you may be thinking of some comments in the previous paragraph?

Quote

The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.

I haven't read the entirety of this speech in a very long time, and doing so again today, I noticed that Brigham refers to 'a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews'. I am confused exactly whom he meant by, to use his term again, these 'negro Jewes', but near the end of his speech, it appears he may have used the term to describe nearly everyone in the Asia-Pacific region: 'Supose that five thousands of them come from the pacific Islands, and ten or fifteen thousands from Japan, or from China, not one soul of them would know how to vote for a Government officer, they therefore ought not in the first thing have anything to do in Government afairs'. Interesting stuff!

Also this: 'I never saw a white man on earth. I have seen persons whoes hair came pretty nigh being white, but to talk about white skins it is something intirely unknown, though some skins are fairer than others; look at the black eye and the jet black hair, we often see upon men and women who are called white, there is no such things as white folkes. We are the children of Adam, who receive the blessings, and that is enough for us if we are not quite white'.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sometimes I think I am an apostate and then someone starts making absolute statements of what God can and cannot do (breaking out in Julie Andrew’s voice) and then I don’t feel……….so bad!

We really don't know a whole lot about how spirits are created, do we? 

If "God is love", and if we are made of the same stuff that God is, then perhaps love rather than biology is not our true identity, but also how spirits are created. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The quote actually hasn't been truncated at all. I think you may be thinking of some comments in the previous paragraph?

The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.

I haven't read the entirety of this speech in a very long time, and doing so again today, I noticed that Brigham refers to 'a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews'. I am confused exactly whom he meant by, to use his term again, these 'negro Jewes', but near the end of his speech, it appears he may have used the term to describe nearly everyone in the Asia-Pacific region: 'Supose that five thousands of them come from the pacific Islands, and ten or fifteen thousands from Japan, or from China, not one soul of them would know how to vote for a Government officer, they therefore ought not in the first thing have anything to do in Government afairs'. Interesting stuff!

Also this: 'I never saw a white man on earth. I have seen persons whoes hair came pretty nigh being white, but to talk about white skins it is something intirely unknown, though some skins are fairer than others; look at the black eye and the jet black hair, we often see upon men and women who are called white, there is no such things as white folkes. We are the children of Adam, who receive the blessings, and that is enough for us if we are not quite white'.

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.   

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...