Mormon church comes out in support of same-sex marriage law

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I will assume since you did not satisfactorily answer my question but instead asked one of your own and referred me to someone else.... that you know nothing about the Mormon priesthood ban yourself.   Correct?  If you do, in fact, understand the issue then why didn't you simply explain it?

 

Why would you badger a stranger on the internet for an answer when you have at your fingertips an essay from an authoritative source that is only a mouse click/finger tap away? Are you intentionally being argumentative?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Uum.. what is your problem actually according to my post?

I just say that i would be happy if it would be like that. For me. Offcourse i know that it probably would never happen.

And have you not read the titel of this topic? I am just being ontopic. 

I am just curious about your point of view of the Church’s and members’ beliefs.  I hang out on this board because I am curious and like to hear others’ perspectives of belief, not because I like to debate or lecture people.  I ask questions mostly out of curiosity and not because I think someone is mistaken (I will come right out and say someone is making a mistake if I think there is a problem that I should say something about).

I have been meaning to ask you what it is that you like about the Restored Gospel so much, why it is so meaningful for you to be baptized.  Always interested in conversion stories too.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I will assume since you did not satisfactorily answer my question but instead asked one of your own and referred me to someone else.... that you know nothing about the Mormon priesthood ban yourself.   Correct?  If you do, in fact, understand the issue then why didn't you simply explain it?

 

Actually I know quite a bit about it, enough to know it is not a simple topic nor will a simple explanation be enough for someone interested in understanding it in-depth.  But I didn’t want to bore you with the basics if what you were asking about were the more obscure details.  I also don’t see a reason to write a dissertation if what is wanted is a paragraph or two summary.  The Church has done a great job putting together the highlights surrounding the ban, but there are some historic details that have come to light since it was written…still if you don’t know the facts that are in the essay, it would be foolish to jump right into the more recent research.

There are also several issues involved with the Ban and your question is vague enough I am not sure what you are interested in.  Did you want the facts of origin or a speculative commentary of motivations, a timeline from beginning to end, placing it within the Mormon Experience, or the impact of the ban on church culture, something else?  
 

If you really want to understand the Ban, there are a couple of books that I believe are necessary reading.  No way will a post or two on this board provide a thorough understanding of the ban.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I was baptized a Mormon in 1974.   I've never heard anything about this issue of bans on   the priesthood.   That is, until I cam to this discussion forum.  I am left with no alternative but to think that this whole website is run by anti-LDS trolls.

I gave you a link to the well written essay on the Church’s own website and you think this is a response by an anti?  How many antis send people to the Church for answers?

If you want a doctrinal explanation (alll you had to do was say so), then the best and simplest doctrinal information is this:

 

Quote

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

Topics that defy simple explanations have no place in religious doctrine.

Okay, this is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

[Dario_M]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I am just curious about your point of view of the Church’s and members’ beliefs.  I hang out on this board because I am curious and like to hear others’ perspectives of belief, not because I like to debate or lecture people.  I ask questions mostly out of curiosity and not because I think someone is mistaken (I will come right out and say someone is making a mistake if I think there is a problem that I should say something about).

I have been meaning to ask you what it is that you like about the Restored Gospel so much, why it is so meaningful for you to be baptized.  Always interested in conversion stories too.

Because i am in a crises. Life have never been so though for me as these days (oh wait last year it whas even worse😖)

I am really sick. It is not clear what is wrong with me. But sometimes i wonder if i will life long if i take a look to myself and notice how bad i feel. And i am scared of the hell. I wanna go to heaven. I also wanted to get baptize because it would give me some hope. Hope that thinks will get better from now on. Hope that this will make me a better person because i have the holy ghost with me. And hope that the church.... (the people there) just that i will find some friends there you know. And because i have lost all my FRIENDS in the stupid Netherlands and my ex don't wanna have contact with me ever again and my sister also don't wanna have contact with me ever again...i really need some new ones. And me being a active member of the church will make that more easy to accomplish that. Plus i do believe in God. 

Those where the reasons i wanted to get baptized.

Some people in my ward (church) also know that i am gay. They don't make a fuss about that. While in the Netherlands i have been bullied a lot for me being gay. 🤧

Edited December 20, 2022 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I was baptized a Mormon in 1974.   I've never heard anything about this issue of bans on   the priesthood.   That is, until I cam to this discussion forum.  I am left with no alternative but to think that this whole website is run by anti-LDS trolls.

And the laughs just keep on coming.

[Dario_M]

3 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I was baptized a Mormon in 1974.   I've never heard anything about this issue of bans on   the priesthood.   That is, until I cam to this discussion forum.  I am left with no alternative but to think that this whole website is run by anti-LDS trolls.

Will i am a active member of the church of later day saints if you don't mind. I am not anti LDS at all. Things just have changed in the church in all those years. It is not 1974 anymore maybe you did not noticed that yet??

Besides.. if you don't like it here you can always leave. Nobody makes you stay here right? 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Dario_M

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

Topics that defy simple explanations have no place in religious doctrine.

Well you’d be hard pressed to find more than one or two people here defending it as a religious doctrine so I guess you’re good. 

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

Topics that defy simple explanations have no place in religious doctrine.

You mean like..."God"?

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

 

Sorry but your continued insistence that I do all the work doesn't cut it amigo.   If you can't back up your comments directly, you to me, then be silent.

11 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I was baptized a Mormon in 1974.   I've never heard anything about this issue of bans on   the priesthood.   That is, until I cam to this discussion forum.  I am left with no alternative but to think that this whole website is run by anti-LDS trolls.

Wow.

I'm not sure which is more astounding: the rudeness or the ignorance.

You should check out this book. You may find it helpful because you are failing spectacularly.

There is a recent talk about "lazy learners" you may want to look up as well. I get it. Reading is hard. But I suggest you give it a try.

Edited December 20, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Dario_M]

🤣!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow.

I'm not sure which is more astounding: the rudeness or the ignorance.

You should check out this book. You may find it helpful because you are failing spectacularly.

There is a recent talk about "lazy learners" you may want to look up as well. I get it. Reading is hard. But I suggest you give it a try.

I get the feeling he spends all his free time imagining what gay couples do in the bedroom. No time for reading. 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I was baptized a Mormon in 1974.   I've never heard anything about this issue of bans on   the priesthood.   That is, until I cam to this discussion forum.  I am left with no alternative but to think that this whole website is run by anti-LDS trolls.

Speaking of trolls......😏

[sunstoned]

On 12/19/2022 at 10:18 PM, Jakob42 said:

 

Sorry but your continued insistence that I do all the work doesn't cut it amigo.   If you can't back up your comments directly, you to me, then be silent.

Dude, you might consider adjusting your tone.  This comes across as confrontational.  That is not what this forum is about.

[Rivers]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:23 AM, Jakob42 said:

Can you explain the Priesthood ban? 
 

The priesthood ban is best explained, in my opinion, as a mistake of men that God allowed to exist.  It is not based in scripture.  Plural marriage is.

[MustardSeed]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:30 PM, Jakob42 said:

I was baptized a Mormon in 1974.   I've never heard anything about this issue of bans on   the priesthood.   That is, until I cam to this discussion forum.  I am left with no alternative but to think that this whole website is run by anti-LDS trolls.

You’ve been a member 50 years and you never knew that black men couldn’t have the priesthood back in the day?  Are you actively involved in the church? 

Edited January 8, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Mark Beesley]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:21 PM, Jakob42 said:

Topics that defy simple explanations have no place in religious doctrine.

Hilarious!

Edited to add:

Ok, my initial response, like Nehor, was one of amusement. But I am trying to practice charity, and so I want to look at what Jacob42 has said, and see if there is some validity to the statement.

Jacob42 does not claim that simple explanations have no place in religious discussions. He says that simple explanations have no place in religious doctrine. If one accepts the revealed truths of the Scriptures and the prophets, who wrote repeatedly  that they wrote with plainness, then one might conclude that religious doctrines should be plain and not require convoluted explanations. The problem arises when we lack the same spirit that the prophets had when they wrote their inspired words, and so we get lost in the morass of trying to read with temporal eyes that which was written by a spiritual hand.  Further, Nephi tells us that plainness is lost when men “look beyond the mark.”

Thus, one might read Jacobs42’s comment as an invitation to us all to seek that same spirit through which the doctrines have come to be revealed by the Lord through the prophets and to avoid discussing that which has not been revealed. That may also be the best understanding of the mistake of the Priesthood Ban, as Rivers notes.  Had it been revealed doctrine, it likely would not require a convoluted discussion.

Disagreement with revealed doctrine can also lead to convoluted explanations. 😎

Were it not for Jacob42s’ declared reluctance to “do all the work,” I would consider removing my smiley face from his posts.😇

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Mark Beesley

[smac97]

On 12/13/2022 at 4:40 PM, smac97 said:

An update:

Section 6 of the Act states:

I think this is pretty good.

The full statement: "Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect."

Again, this is pretty good.

Indeed.  I hope this helps reduce tensions.

Cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

An update on the Church's position re: the Respect for Marriage Act: Why Latter-day Saints leaders supported the Respect for Marriage Act; President Oaks clarifies the Church’s position

Quote

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported the Respect for Marriage Act — signed into law Dec. 13, 2022, by U.S. President Joe Biden — because the legislation provided necessary protections for religious liberty, said President Dallin H. Oaks on Saturday, Feb. 11.

Speaking to mission leaders and stake presidents and their wives from Illinois and Wisconsin, President Oaks, first counselor in the First Presidency, said some Latter-day Saints have expressed concerns that the new national law is in conflict with the Church’s teachings against same-sex marriage. 

“We see a need to clarify the Church’s position on that new law,” said President Oaks, speaking on behalf of the First Presidency.

Huh.  I guess the prior statement ("Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.") was not sufficient.

Quote

While the Respect for Marriage Act codified same-sex marriage in federal law, the act also provided needed protections for religious expression, said President Oaks.

He explained that the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had already established a federal right to same-sex marriage in the United States.

The focus of the Church’s efforts in support of the national Respect for Marriage Act “was not on same-sex marriage, but on ensuring the act contained the necessary protections for religious freedom,” he said, adding that at the time the act was adopted, “the Church publicly reaffirmed our Church doctrine approving only marriage between one man and one woman.”

Marriage bills previously proposed in Congress made no attempt to protect religious freedom, said President Oaks. “The Church came out in favor of amendments that added religious freedom protections to the proposed Respect for Marriage Act,” he said. “The amended bill was signed into law, but its overall effect was misunderstood because many news stories focused on only the part of the act that affirmed same-sex marriage.”

He may have a point here.

Quote

President Oaks said the Respect for Marriage Act, as signed into law:

• Includes valuable provisions to assure no federal or state laws could be used to harm the religious or conscience rights of faith-based institutions or their members. 
• Ensures that religious organizations, religious schools and their staff do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations.
• Protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. 
• Protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. 
• Provides that its own provisions cannot be used to violate anyone’s rights to religious freedom. 

“Putting such protections in the federal law was a big step forward,” said President Oaks. “We will be alert to proposed future state action and legislation as we continue our defense of religious freedom.”

The original statement from the Church on the RMA focused on "diverse beliefs," whereas the foregoing focuses on and emphasizes the "religious liberty" aspect of the RMA.

Quote

The clarification of the Church’s support for the Respect for Marriage Act came 15 months after President Oaks called for a peaceful resolution to the “painful conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination.”

“Let us unite with those who advocate nondiscrimination to seek a culture and laws that respect the rights of all to the equal protection of the law and the right to the free exercise of religion,” President Oaks said on Nov. 12, 2021, in an address offered from the Dome Room of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia.

In doing so, he added then, Latter-day Saints must not allow fears about losing religious freedoms make them insensitive to others’ claims for freedoms.

Here Pres. Oaks returns to the theme of consideration for other people's rights.  Good on him!

Quote

In that address, President Oaks said he is distressed at the way the nation is handling divisive issues.

“We have always had to work through serious political conflicts, but today too many approach that task as if their preferred outcome must entirely prevail over all others, even in our pluralistic society,” he said. “We need to work for a better way — a way to resolve differences without compromising core values. We need to live together in peace and mutual respect, within our defined constitutional rights.”

It is imperative, he said in Virginia, that both sides should not seek total dominance for their own position but should seek “fairness for all.”

Kudos to Pres. Oaks!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

An update on the Church's position re: the Respect for Marriage Act: Why Latter-day Saints leaders supported the Respect for Marriage Act; President Oaks clarifies the Church’s position

Huh.  I guess the prior statement ("Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.") was not sufficient.

He may have a point here.

The original statement from the Church on the RMA focused on "diverse beliefs," whereas the foregoing focuses on and emphasizes the "religious liberty" aspect of the RMA.

Here Pres. Oaks returns to the theme of consideration for other people's rights.  Good on him!

Kudos to Pres. Oaks!

Thanks,

-Smac

I saw this Church News article just before I noticed your post citing it.

I believe there has been widespread misunderstanding about the Church leaders’ support of the Respect for Marriage Act — among our own people as well as among outsiders. In my view, this statement of clarification by President Oaks was sorely needed. I earnestly welcome it. 
 

Not long ago, there was a post on this board that included the Church leaders’ support for the Act on a list of examples of how the Church is changing. I responded at the time — and still feel — that the Church statement was, if anything, a doubling down on and a reaffirmation of the Church’s doctrinal view of marriage being between a man and a woman. I pointed out in my response that the Church’s expression of support focused on amendments to the legislation that sustain and protect religious freedom. I made essentially the same points then that President Oaks is making now in this statement of clarification. 
 

One thing that ought to draw our attention is the reaffirmation that the Church’s doctrinal position on marriage “has not changed” and, as stated at the time of the legislation’s enactment, “will not change.” This is very important in view of the continuing baseless and untenable expectation by some that the Church will one day abandon the Lord’s doctrine pertaining to marriage being between a man and a woman. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

On 2/12/2023 at 5:37 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I saw this Church News article just before I noticed your post citing it.

I believe there has been widespread misunderstanding about the Church leaders’ support of the Respect for Marriage Act — among our own people as well as among outsiders. In my view, this statement of clarification by President Oaks was sorely needed. I earnestly welcome it. 
 

Not long ago, there was a post on this board that included the Church leaders’ support for the Act on a list of examples of how the Church is changing. I responded at the time — and still feel — that the Church statement was, if anything, a doubling down on and a reaffirmation of the Church’s doctrinal view of marriage being between a man and a woman. I pointed out in my response that the Church’s expression of support focused on amendments to the legislation that sustain and protect religious freedom. I made essentially the same points then that President Oaks is making now in this statement of clarification. 
 

One thing that ought to draw our attention is the reaffirmation that the Church’s doctrinal position on marriage “has not changed” and, as stated at the time of the legislation’s enactment, “will not change.” This is very important in view of the continuing baseless and untenable expectation by some that the Church will one day abandon the Lord’s doctrine pertaining to marriage being between a man and a woman. 

I stand by my belief and prediction that the LDS Faith will eventually recognize, allow, and authorize martial temple sealings between committed same-gender couples after newer, future leadership replaces many/most of the current quorum.

After all, this is not the first time in which former prophets have affirmed “this [thing] will never change,” only to see changes to said thing in subsequent generations.  In fact, it's happened quite a few times over multiple aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since it's inception.

But you keep doing you, Pres. Oaks and Scott Lloyd! 👍

Edited February 14, 2023 by Daniel2

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I stand by my belief that the LDS Faith will eventually recognize, allow, and authorize martial sealings of committed same-gender couples in its temples after newer leadership replaces many/most of the current quorum.

After all, this is not the first time former prophets have affirmed “this [thing] will never change,” only to see changes in subsequent generations.

But you keep doing you, Pres. Oaks and Scott Lloyd! 👍

I stand by my belief that the Church will not do this, that there has never been any indication that such a change will happen, that there have been ample statements that the doctrines on this point are set, that same-sex relationships and behavior simply do not jibe with either the temporal or eternal elements of the Plan of Salvation, and that notions to the contrary are purely wishful thinking.

This could make an interesting discussion all on its own.  How would such relationships work relative to eternal progression and increase?  

I can certainly appreciate and respect the strongly-held desires of folks like you, Daniel.  But I can't help but view your hope/expectation as a radical eisegesis of the Restored Gospel.  That is, you are reading into the Church, its scriptures, its doctrines, etc., things that you want to see, rather than what the scriptures and doctrines actually say.

I fully affirm the 9th Article of Faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  

And 2 Nephi 28:30 - "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."

I cannot get on board with the notion that I can justify a marked and calculated disobedience to revealed doctrines now because I hope or believe something will happen in the future to allow my current behavior. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2023 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I stand by my belief that the Church will not do this, that there has never been any indication that such a change will happen, that there have been ample statements that the doctrines on this point are set, that same-sex relationships and behavior simply do not jibe with either the temporal or eternal elements of the Plan of Salvation, and that notions to the contrary are purely wishful thinking.

And I stand with you. Eloquently stated. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I stand by my belief and prediction that the LDS Faith will eventually recognize, allow, and authorize martial temple sealings between committed same-gender couples after newer, future leadership replaces many/most of the current quorum.

After all, this is not the first time in which former prophets have affirmed “this [thing] will never change,” only to see changes to said thing in subsequent generations.  In fact, it's happened quite a few times over multiple aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since it's inception.

But you keep doing you, Pres. Oaks and Scott Lloyd! 👍

It’s not just President Oaks and me. The Church News piece indicated he was speaking for the First Presidency. I know from experience the Church News would not have written that in the article unless they were so instructed. 
 

So “you do you,” Daniel2. I’ll cast my lot with the prophets. 

[Daniel2]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I stand by my belief that the Church will not do this, that there has never been any indication that such a change will happen, that there have been ample statements that the doctrines on this point are set, that same-sex relationships and behavior simply do not jibe with either the temporal or eternal elements of the Plan of Salvation, and that notions to the contrary are purely wishful thinking.

This could make an interesting discussion all on its own.  How would such relationships work relative to eternal progression and increase?  

I can certainly appreciate and respect the strongly-held desires of folks like you, Daniel.  But I can't help but view your hope/expectation as a radical eisegesis of the Restored Gospel.  That is, you are reading into the Church, its scriptures, its doctrines, etc., things that you want to see, rather than what the scriptures and doctrines actually say.

I fully affirm the 9th Article of Faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  

And 2 Nephi 28:30 - "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."

I cannot get on board with the notion that I can justify a marked and calculated disobedience to revealed doctrines now because I hope or believe something will happen in the future to allow my current behavior. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I stand with you. Eloquently stated. 

While we don't believe the same things, I fully stand in favor of you both advocating for your beliefs that church doctrine won't change on this issue.  It's no skin off my nose that you believe as you do--at least, not now that we (meaning, all couples, regardless of orientation and/or religious affiliation) share equal access to civil marriage.

In no way am I holding my breath or hope for the LDS Faith to change its policies on the matter; if it does so in my lifetime, it will not change my current affiliation as a Unitarian Universalist. I do not forsee me ever returning to membership in your church.

I've just seen enough change within it and it's history--even after "doubling down" on some doctrines in proclamations by the full First Presidency--to believe that the church will never change on this issue, especially in light of the church’s historical and ongoing changes with what marriage and sealings mean. Devout members who aren’t aware of or don’t understand those numerous changes may not know their own history. 

Smac, I absolutely see a few different paths the church could take to integrate the acceptance of sealed same-gender couples into its doctrinal tapestry without unravelling the whole.  And I am certainly not alone in this thread of thinking (though I certainly agree a majority of Latter-day Saints might not agree--yet).  A couple links to articles illustrating that others, even devout members of the Faith in good standing, are searching, pondering, and praying their way towards such possibilities:

"A Welding Link of Some Kind": Exploring a possible theology of same-sex marriage sealings

Oman, A Possible Theology of Same-Sex Marriage Sealings (the comments on this post are also a worthy read and illustrate diversity in reactions to these types of discussions, too).

As for whether or not following one's own spiritual answers/revelations counts as marked and calculated disobedience to revealed doctrines... well, I leave that between each of us and the divine.  Personal revelation is personal, and this recent poll in a separate thread on this very board demonstrated the vast majority of those who post here support following personal revelation, even when it contradicts what a prophet may say. 

And thanks for your support, Scott--I'll cast my lot with God. 

Best,

D

Edited February 15, 2023 by Daniel2