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

[Teancum]

On 2/11/2023 at 3:03 PM, 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

Ah ok.  So the Church did not really give a rats rump about the rights of others, though he did give a bit of lip service again. They just wanted extra promises that they would be protected.  And make sure that tax exempt status is preserved.

[JLHPROF]

6 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 may not be for decades - I'd bet post-Bednar Presidency.
Assuming we have that long before the whole world hits its end.

Edited February 15, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Daniel2]

From the first link:

This essay has been long, but the change it contemplates could be easily and simply explained. The Church could say:

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.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It may not be for decades - I'd bet post-Bednar Presidency.
Assuming we have that long before the whole world hits its end.

I would assume that the church would first restart polygamy before that.  At least there is historical and scriptural precedent to that.   That makes it a lot easier to be accepted.   I do think that if the church was to do something like that, it would go through the same division and split as seen in other churches.   Dividing property and temples between the two groups would be interesting.  

Edited February 15, 2023 by carbon dioxide

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would assume that the church would first restart polygamy before that.  At least there is historical and scriptural precedent to that.   That makes it a lot easier to be accepted.   I do think that if the church was to do something like that, it would go through the same division and split as seen in other churches.   Dividing property and temples between the two groups would be interesting.  

Polygamy has never been fully abandoned or renounced by the church from both an eternal or doctrinal perspective. Men are still sealed to multiple women today (the only qualification being only one at a time while in her mortal state), while women have to have any prior sealings cancelled before being sealed to another husband (unless this has been changed since I left ~20 years ago).

I’m not sure that enough members have a desire to return active polygamy for it to ever make a comeback (active, as in its practice while all parties are still living).

I’m curious if you read the links I posted previously about how the church could allow same-sex sealings from a doctrinal perspective?

Edited February 15, 2023 by Daniel2

[california boy]

20 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

Your biggest weakness of your whole bluster is that there has never been any revelation claimed on this subject, unless you count President Nelsons declaration of a revelation about preventing underaged gay couples from baptism and declaring all gay couples as apostates.  Something that was completely rescinded months later.   

If the Church hasn't received a revelation on this, then at this point, they don't really know the will of God.  They just know how they personally feel about this issue.  And we all know how personal feelings can be quite different than how God feels.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

while women have to have any prior sealings cancelled before being sealed to another husband (unless this has been changed since I left ~20 years ago).

We get to have them all once we are dead though, just like the guys. 

[Durangout]

On 11/15/2022 at 5:07 PM, Daniel2 said:

A huge kudos to the Church.  Heartening to see how far it's leaders and members have come. 

The Church's actions are in keeping with a September 2022 poll showing broad support among Utahn's for marriage equality for same-sex couples:

Do Utahns support same-sex marriage?

Dennis Romboy - Sep 29

Do Utahns support same-sex marriage? (msn.com)Do Utahns support same-sex marriage? (msn.com)

As the Senate considers legislation to protect same-sex marriage a new poll shows nearly three-fourths of Utahns support legal same-sex marriage.

The new Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics survey found 72% of residents agree that marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The poll shows 23% disagree, while 5% don’t know.

“For a state that less than 20 years ago passed laws and a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, there has been a seismic shift in opinion,” said Jason Perry, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah.

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. A January 2014 Deseret News/KSL poll amid the legal battle and contentious public debate over the issue found a majority of Utahns (57%) opposed same-sex marriage.

“Now, it has majority support from nearly every group across the political, demographic and religious spectrum,” Perry said.

The Desere

Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, said he’s not surprised to see that a majority of Utahns now support marriage equality.

“Utah is a pro-family state, and we recognize that families come in all shapes and sizes. When we see loving, committed couples joining in matrimony, our natural impulse is to support and encourage that love. This gives me great hope for the future,” he said.

Williams said he also hopes Utah Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Mitt Romney will follow the example of their congressional colleagues in the House and vote in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, “so that all Utah families will be protected by state and federal law.” 

RPoll results come amid negotiations in the Senate over the Respect for Marriage Act, which the House passed in July with 47 Republicans, Utah’s four GOP congressmen among them, joining all Democrats in supporting the bill.

 

Compromise

 

On 2/1/2023 at 10:16 AM, Tacenda said:

I don't know why but the first thing that entered my mind was the teaching way back about playing with face cards. Through my many years of being full on believer and active in the church, I do remember different things that bothered me that we were told that came from the top perhaps.

1. No more Bunco parties (maybe it's too close to gambling?)

2. No Levi skirts or dresses in church on Sunday's.

3. No being bare foot (women only not sure my husband was told this) when Home Teachers, now called Ministers, come for visits.

4. Only one pair of earrings. (there was a talk by an apostle that spoke about a young man worrying over whether he should go further (seek marriage) with a girl because she chose to have double piercings in her ear lobes.

5. Wear church clothes all day long on the Sabbath.

6. No watching TV unless it's a spiritual one.

7. Scriptures morning and evening.

8. Family Home Evening

9. No caffeine (not a problem any longer).

10. Thee, Thou, and Thy in prayers.

11. Take the Sacrament with the right hand.

12. Accept every calling because it comes from God. 

Can't think of anymore. But I'm more at peace when I'm not crossing all the t's and dotting all the I's. Or not checking off everything I'm supposed to be doing whether I believe it to be right or not. 

@pogi I just read the post above. Maybe I wasn't suppose to list things like I did. From what I think you mean't in the post. Is my list being too specific because I can delete it. 

com·pro·mise

 

noun

1. an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

   "an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both"

    

    

    

   verb

   1. 1. 

      settle a dispute by mutual concession.

      "in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"

       

       

       

      • 2. 

        accept standards that are lower than is desirable.

        "we were not prepared to compromise on safety"

         

        Horrifically The Church is following the world standards.  It appears that The Church lawyers pretty much run things ha now.  What?  Are we just so afraid of the world now?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Your biggest weakness of your whole bluster is that there has never been any revelation claimed on this subject,

I don't know what you mean by "this subject," as I referenced quite a few items: same-sex marriage, "the temporal or eternal elements of the Plan of Salvation," the 9th Article of Faith, 2 Nephi 28:30, and so on.  There have been ample revelations on these subjects.  

If the Church is what it claims to be, then I see nothing more than a de minimis basis for hoping/believing/predicting that the Church will alter its doctrines to accommodate same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, the Law of Chastity, doctrines pertaining to marriage (such as D&C 132:7), and so on.

Providing a candid and accurate assessment of the Church and its doctrines is not "bluster."  Unlike you, I have no particular dog in this fight.  If a revelation were to be announced regarding the recognition and legitimization of same-sex behavior/relationships as part of the Restored Gospel, I would give it a lot of thought and prayer, and - assuming receipt of a spiritual confirmation of the revelation - I would get on board with it.

Contrary to your various nasty characterizations of me through the years, I harbor no ill will to LGBT folks in any categorical sense.  I want us all to pursue and obtain happiness and joy in life.  On this point I think you and I differ not in the ends, but in the means.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.

"In obedience there is joy and peace . . . and as God has designed our happiness . . . , He never has — He never will . . . give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed." (History of the Church, 5:134-135.)

"However, unless one follows without deviation the path laid out by the Lord, that happiness can become an illusion. In the October 1989 general conference, Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin of the Quorum of the Twelve pointed out the differences between these paths. "Satan will try, at every step of the way, to lead you off course. His objective is to make you unhappy and miserable like he is. (See 2 Nephi 2:27.) Vast sums of money are spent each year to package and disguise sin and evil to make them appear enticing, attractive, even harmless.

"However, regardless of appearances, 'wickedness never was happiness' (Alma 41:10) and never will be. Never find yourselves in the position of the Nephites just a few years before the birth of the Savior. They 'sought . . . for that which [they] could not obtain, . . . for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.' (Helaman 13:38.) You cannot find happiness in sin and iniquity.

"The Lord has given you the gift of agency (see Moses 7:32) and instructed you sufficiently to know good from evil. (See 2 Nephi 2:5.) You are free to choose (see 2 Nephi 2:27) and are permitted to act (see 2 Nephi 10:23; Helaman 14:30), but you are not free to choose the consequences. With absolute certainty, choices of good and right lead to happiness and peace, while choices of sin and evil eventually lead to unhappiness, sorrow and misery."

If same-sex behavior/marriage were to be, by revelation, ratified and incorporated into the doctrines and teachings of the Church, I would embrace it.  The thing is, I just don't see that ever happening.  Not that it wouldn't be nice, at least for a little while.  You and yours might feel vindicated in your strongly-held feelings and beliefs, while folks like me might get a reprieve from the endless disparagements thrown at us for espousing the Law of Chastity as previously revealed and taught and construed and applied.

As it is, however, I invest essentially no time or attention or effort in exploring What-Would-Things-Be-Like-If... scenarios like this.  The way the Restored Gospel is structured, it is not for me to foist my expectations of "how things ought to be" on the Church.  

I want everyone to obtain joy and happiness, both in this life and the next.  2 Nephi 2:25 states: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."  1 Cor. 2:9 states: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  Per the Family Proclamation, "{h}appiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Obedience to teachings about family and sexual behavior is a big part of the equation.

I just don't see same-sex relationships as a viable part of the Plan of Salvation.  Those outside the Celestial Kingdom "cannot have an increase."  That is not an indictment or condemnation.  It is a statement of belief regrading the way things are pursuant to God's laws.  So there are clearly some material differences between how we live now and the eternities.  Marriage and "increase" is available to saint and sinner alike in this world, but not in the world to come.  In the world to come, those blessings are limited to the Celestial Kingdom.  We are also told that "[a]ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."   We are also taught that those who do not enter into a celestial marriage "are not bound by any law when they are out of the world," that such persons "neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants," and that such persons - as angels - "cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity."  So I don't see family units, either heterosexual or homosexual, existing in the lower kingdoms.

Again, if tomorrow our understanding of these things were to be radically revised via revelation to the Lord's anointed, I would get on board with such changes.  But not only do I have no such expectation (beyond a de minimis reservation per AoF 1:9), I affirmatively think (at present) that the alterations Daniel hopes to see will never happen.  Not because I harbor animus toward his or anyone else's sincerely-held hopes, but because those hopes are, in my view, utterly wrongheaded and futile and incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  If I am proven wrong on this in the future, I will happily eat crow and revise my perspective.  Until then...

4 hours ago, california boy said:

If the Church hasn't received a revelation on this, then at this point, they don't really know the will of God.  

Speaking of "bluster"...

 

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  As between what you say/imply "the will of God" is, versus what the prophets and apostles have said and continue to say, I'll go with the latter.

For me, perhaps the pinnacle of faith is to declare, as the Savior did, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."  (Luke 22:42.)  To overcome and "put off" the "natural man" and "and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19.)  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)

4 hours ago, california boy said:

They just know how they personally feel about this issue.  

Is it possible that this assertion might apply to you as well?

Or are you claiming to have received revelation from God?

4 hours ago, california boy said:

And we all know how personal feelings can be quite different than how God feels.

I agree.  All the more reason to look beyond "personal feelings."  The Latter-day Saints are, in the main, good and decent people.  They are good and decent largely because they seek to follow Jesus Christ and keep His commandments.  These precepts are espoused by prophets and apostles, who are also - in the main and collectively - good and decent people.  I recently made this comment:

Quote

I am glad to see there are grounds for people with disparate viewpoints to nevertheless find a consensus.

Last night my family had FHE (we do it on Sunday nights now because too many of our kids are gone on Monday evenings) we had a discussion about building relationships of trust.  One theme we addressed was "Détente," or "the relaxation of strained relations, especially political ones, through verbal communication."  We analogized this to familial relationships and suggested that sometimes we can build up "strained relations" with each other, which can and ought to be eased/relaxed "through verbal communication."  

I had, and have, some qualms about the Respect for Marriage Act (mostly pertaining to individual, as opposed to organizational, rights), but I am nevertheless glad it was passed.  Compromise is the name of the game in a pluralistic society, and I think the RFMA reflects that.

I strongly supported Jack Phillips' original action to challenge the state-court finding against him, but that was about "Free Speech" (more particularly, it was about resisting compelled speech).  I think the current case will help both sides start to see the boundaries between their respective positions.  LGBT folks are rightly entitled to the same things everyone else is, which is what some folks on my "side" of the debate need to acknowledge.  Conversely, notably absent amongst these "things" to which we are all entitled is any right to compel speech, which is what some folks on the other side of the debate need to acknowledge.

I think the Brethren have spent many years working very hard to be as kind and compassionate and accommodating as possible.  But in the end, they are bound to teach and propound the revelations, some of which are not popular, and some of which can cause resentments, even anger and hatred.

Life would be so much easier if the tension and pressures imposed on the Church and its members over these issues were eased.  No more ugly disparagements and slanders.  Estrangements and hard feelings, some of them, might begin to resolve.  I imagine some (many?) of the 19th-century Saints felt this way about polygamy.  However, its practice in the 19th-century Church is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."   Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

I think that the Saints of this century are being called upon to live out-of-step with their neighbors as to doctrines and beliefs regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity.  What you deem "{not} really know{ing} the will of God," I deem to be knowing His will and following it - even if it means regularly getting raked across the proverbial coals for it.  Christ had warnings for us along these lines.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   

I will not submit to efforts to bully or shame me and mine into capitulating to a worldview that is incompatible with following and upholding the commandments of God.  I am open to attempts at reasoned persuasion, but not to coercion.

I hope, in the end, we can achieve some semblance of Détente.  We need to be able to get along despite substantial disagreements about Big Issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 15, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ah ok.  So the Church did not really give a rats rump about the rights of others,

Actually yes, it did.  

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

though he did give a bit of lip service again.

Heads we lose, tails we lose.  We either "don't give a rats rump about the rights of others," or we lied via "lip service."

There is no satisfying faultfinders.  Ever.  They just move the goalposts and carry on with their self-appointed duties.

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

They just wanted extra promises that they would be protected. 

The Church can walk and chew gum at the same time.  It can both willingly support protections about "the rights of others" and pursue protections for the rights of the Latter-day Saints.

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

And make sure that tax exempt status is preserved.

There are segments of society who want to punish the Church because of its doctrines about marriage and sexuality.  One of the chief aspirations of such persons is to punish the Church financially, such as by depriving it of its tax exempt status.

I find it disturbing that there are people who are openly advocating that the State punish religious groups because of their beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually yes, it did.  

Heads we lose, tails we lose.  We either "don't give a rats rump about the rights of others," or we lied via "lip service."

There is no satisfying faultfinders.  Ever.  They just move the goalposts and carry on with their self-appointed duties.

Oh stop whining.  Oaks had to clarify the topic because the members were in a tizzy.  So he focused on the fat that the bill gave special protections to the Church and other religions and that clearly was the main reason they supported it.  Then he tossed a conciliatory comment about neither side should force view on others.  Ok that was nice.  But personally had society not moved in the direction it has over the past 30 years on LBGT issues IMO the church would be doubling down opposing ay bills giving such people rights we all enjoy and more along the prop 8 mode of operation.

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church can walk and chew gum at the same time.  It can both willingly support protections about "the rights of others" and pursue protections for the rights of the Latter-day Saints.

Sure.  Do you think the church would have supported this bill had it not had the extra language put their to assuage religious groups?

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are segments of society who want to punish the Church because of its doctrines about marriage and sexuality.  One of the chief aspirations of such persons is to punish the Church financially, such as by depriving it of its tax exempt status.

Maybe.  I do though I think a healthy debate is in order to examine whether Church's should have tax exempt status especially those that are extremely wealthy. Mayen there needs to be soen requirements on wealth accumulation for religion's similar to private foundations.  Also it is pretty clear that tax exempt status pretty important to the Church leadership.

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I find it disturbing that there are people who are openly advocating that the State punish religious groups because of their beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

Who is doing that?  

Also again, tax exempt status is a privilege and not a promise or guarantee.  Any organization has to meet certain requirements to maintain it.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It may not be for decades - I'd bet post-Bednar Presidency.
Assuming we have that long before the whole world hits its end.

Don't worry.  The world is not ending anytime soon. They humans may be gone in the next few hundred years.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by "this subject," as I referenced quite a few items: same-sex marriage, "the temporal or eternal elements of the Plan of Salvation," the 9th Article of Faith, 2 Nephi 28:30, and so on.  There have been ample revelations on these subjects.  

If the Church is what it claims to be, then I see nothing more than a de minimis basis for hoping/believing/predicting that the Church will alter its doctrines to accommodate same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, the Law of Chastity, doctrines pertaining to marriage (such as D&C 132:7), and so on.

Providing a candid and accurate assessment of the Church and its doctrines is not "bluster."  Unlike you, I have no particular dog in this fight.  If a revelation were to be announced regarding the recognition and legitimization of same-sex behavior/relationships as part of the Restored Gospel, I would give it a lot of thought and prayer, and - assuming receipt of a spiritual confirmation of the revelation - I would get on board with it.

Contrary to your various nasty characterizations of me through the years, I harbor no ill will to LGBT folks in any categorical sense.  I want us all to pursue and obtain happiness and joy in life.  On this point I think you and I differ not in the ends, but in the means.  See, e.g., here:

If same-sex behavior/marriage were to be, by revelation, ratified and incorporated into the doctrines and teachings of the Church, I would embrace it.  The thing is, I just don't see that ever happening.  Not that it wouldn't be nice, at least for a little while.  You and yours might feel vindicated in your strongly-held feelings and beliefs, while folks like me might get a reprieve from the endless disparagements thrown at us for espousing the Law of Chastity as previously revealed and taught and construed and applied.

As it is, however, I invest essentially no time or attention or effort in exploring What-Would-Things-Be-Like-If... scenarios like this.  The way the Restored Gospel is structured, it is not for me to foist my expectations of "how things ought to be" on the Church.  

I want everyone to obtain joy and happiness, both in this life and the next.  2 Nephi 2:25 states: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."  1 Cor. 2:9 states: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  Per the Family Proclamation, "{h}appiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Obedience to teachings about family and sexual behavior is a big part of the equation.

I just don't see same-sex relationships as a viable part of the Plan of Salvation.  Those outside the Celestial Kingdom "cannot have an increase."  That is not an indictment or condemnation.  It is a statement of belief regrading the way things are pursuant to God's laws.  So there are clearly some material differences between how we live now and the eternities.  Marriage and "increase" is available to saint and sinner alike in this world, but not in the world to come.  In the world to come, those blessings are limited to the Celestial Kingdom.  We are also told that "[a]ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."   We are also taught that those who do not enter into a celestial marriage "are not bound by any law when they are out of the world," that such persons "neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants," and that such persons - as angels - "cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity."  So I don't see family units, either heterosexual or homosexual, existing in the lower kingdoms.

Again, if tomorrow our understanding of these things were to be radically revised via revelation to the Lord's anointed, I would get on board with such changes.  But not only do I have no such expectation (beyond a de minimis reservation per AoF 1:9), I affirmatively think (at present) that the alterations Daniel hopes to see will never happen.  Not because I harbor animus toward his or anyone else's sincerely-held hopes, but because those hopes are, in my view, utterly wrongheaded and futile and incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  If I am proven wrong on this in the future, I will happily eat crow and revise my perspective.  Until then...

Speaking of "bluster"...

 

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  As between what you say/imply "the will of God" is, versus what the prophets and apostles have said and continue to say, I'll go with the latter.

For me, perhaps the pinnacle of faith is to declare, as the Savior did, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."  (Luke 22:42.)  To overcome and "put off" the "natural man" and "and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19.)  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)

Is it possible that this assertion might apply to you as well?

Or are you claiming to have received revelation from God?

I agree.  All the more reason to look beyond "personal feelings."  The Latter-day Saints are, in the main, good and decent people.  They are good and decent largely because they seek to follow Jesus Christ and keep His commandments.  These precepts are espoused by prophets and apostles, who are also - in the main and collectively - good and decent people.  I recently made this comment:

I think the Brethren have spent many years working very hard to be as kind and compassionate and accommodating as possible.  But in the end, they are bound to teach and propound the revelations, some of which are not popular, and some of which can cause resentments, even anger and hatred.

Life would be so much easier if the tension and pressures imposed on the Church and its members over these issues were eased.  No more ugly disparagements and slanders.  Estrangements and hard feelings, some of them, might begin to resolve.  I imagine some (many?) of the 19th-century Saints felt this way about polygamy.  However, its practice in the 19th-century Church is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."   Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

I think that the Saints of this century are being called upon to live out-of-step with their neighbors as to doctrines and beliefs regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity.  What you deem "{not} really know{ing} the will of God," I deem to be knowing His will and following it - even if it means regularly getting raked across the proverbial coals for it.  Christ had warnings for us along these lines.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   

I will not submit to efforts to bully or shame me and mine into capitulating to a worldview that is incompatible with following and upholding the commandments of God.  I am open to attempts at reasoned persuasion, but not to coercion.

I hope, in the end, we can achieve some semblance of Détente.  We need to be able to get along despite substantial disagreements about Big Issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

You fisking my simple statement into one of your diatribes to the point where what I stated is hardly recognizable any more.

It is still a matter of fact.  No revelation has been received from God concerning same sex marriage.   None.  Church leaders may think they are doing the right thing, but it is based on their opinions.

Edited February 15, 2023 by california boy

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh stop whining. 

Oh stop faultfinding and gaslighting.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oaks had to clarify the topic because the members were in a tizzy. 

Maybe.  I don't see how that is a problem.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So he focused on the fat that the bill gave special protections to the Church and other religions and that clearly was the main reason they supported it. 

Again, the Church can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Another thing that faultfinders do is impute base motives and claim to know things to which they have no particularized access.  Again, from December 2022:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement on Tuesday, December 13, 2022.

We extend a heartfelt thank you and our congratulations to all who played a part in the passage of the amended Respect for Marriage Act. Their efforts to protect religious freedom as Congress sought to codify the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision are both historic and commendable.

"Their efforts to protect religious freedom as Congress sought to codify the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision."

Quote

The amended Respect for Marriage Act specifically recognizes that “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.”

As restated last month, “the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.” Congress has now reaffirmed that our beliefs “are due proper respect.”

The new law demonstrates that respect. The law states that it can't be used to harm religious or conscience rights for faith-based institutions. It protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. And it ensures that religious organizations, religious schools and their employees do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations. No law is perfect. But putting such protections in the federal code is a big step forward.

The Church has been pleased to participate with many others in the difficult but worthy work of civil engagement that accompanied the passage of this bill. Like the Church-supported Utah law in 2015, our efforts are helping the nation pursue freedom, fairness and respect for all.

Fast-forward to Pres. Oaks recent clarification:

Quote

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.”

 

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.”

Seems like some members of the Church did not really get the memo from the Church as to why it supported the passage of the act.

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.

I will give Pres. Oaks (and, by extension, the Church for whom he speaks) credit for both seeking protection of religious liberty and "respect{ing} the rights of all to the equal protection of the law."

Perhaps some day you can set aside your antipathy and do the same.  

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Then he tossed a conciliatory comment about neither side should force view on others.  Ok that was nice.  But personally had society not moved in the direction it has over the past 30 years on LBGT issues IMO the church would be doubling down opposing ay bills giving such people rights we all enjoy and more along the prop 8 mode of operation.

Probably so.  But so what?  Surely reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  And even then, Pres. Oaks spoke against being "insensitive to others’ claims for freedoms."  

The Church, like any other group or individual, has a right to speak its minds as to unsettled questions of law.  Once those questions are settled, however, things change.  Here, the Church worked against the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Nothing wrong with that.  Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized, the Church has taken steps to account for that.  Nothing wrong with that, either.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The Church can walk and chew gum at the same time.  It can both willingly support protections about "the rights of others" and pursue protections for the rights of the Latter-day Saints.

Sure.  Do you think the church would have supported this bill had it not had the extra language put their to assuage religious groups?

No.  Because "the extra language" was necessary to protect religious liberty.

I assume you place at least some value on religious liberty.  But even if you do not, surely you can appreciate and respect that others do?  And that acting to protect that liberty would therefore be a worthwhile endeavor?

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

There are segments of society who want to punish the Church because of its doctrines about marriage and sexuality.  One of the chief aspirations of such persons is to punish the Church financially, such as by depriving it of its tax exempt status.

Maybe. 

Not "maybe."  The weaponization of tax exempt status has been attempted quite a few times.  Do you want examples?

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do though I think a healthy debate is in order to examine whether Church's should have tax exempt status especially those that are extremely wealthy.

I'm fine with such a debate.  I have concerns about (un)equal protection under the law.  I strongly suspect such a "debate" would almost immediately devolve into a "The State Picks the Winners" scenario where popular religious and other non-profit groups would maintain their tax exemptions, while less popular groups (such as the Latter-day Saints) would not.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mayen there needs to be soen requirements on wealth accumulation for religion's similar to private foundations. 

Again, I'm fine with such a discussion.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Also it is pretty clear that tax exempt status pretty important to the Church leadership.

And that is . . . bad?  

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I find it disturbing that there are people who are openly advocating that the State punish religious groups because of their beliefs.

Who is doing that?  

LGBT activist plans ad blitz targeting Mormon church’s tax-exempt status

Quote

A prominent gay-rights activist and former U.S. presidential candidate hopes to build "the biggest, loudest and most comprehensive" legal case ever mounted for revoking the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church.

Republican political operative Fred Karger, a longtime critic of LDS Church involvement in California's 2008 Proposition 8 campaign, said Thursday he has amassed a network of lawyers, researchers, investigators and like-minded organizations to help take his fight to the IRS.

Karger, 66, visited Salt Lake City to stage on-camera auditions with young Mormons and ex-Mormons aggrieved by the Utah-based faith's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender policies.

Activists are attempting to challenge the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church, over its war against LGBT equality.

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, known as the Mormon Church, preaches a rejection of homosexuality unless members remain celibate for life.

The religion also rejects the children of gay couples unless they actively disavow their parents’ “lifestyle”, and has been linked to a number of dangerous gay ‘cure’ practises.

A clampdown on LGBT people in the church has been linked to a surge in Mormon youth suicides – while the church has also used its influence to block LGBT rights legislation in Utah and channel funding to anti-LGBT campaign groups.

In a bid to challenge the church’s assault on LGBT people, Republican gay activist Fred Karger has launched a campaign targeting their tax-exempt status – which means taxpayers effectively subsidise the church’s activities.

Should The Mormon Church Pay Taxes?

Quote

We have taken several successful actions against the Mormon Church before. This was accomplished because of the excellent information that we received from Mormon Church members, former Mormons and non-Mormons alike.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently did a big front page story on our effort.

As we undertake the biggest, loudest and most comprehensive IRS challenge to a Church's tax-exempt status in history, we will keep you posted on what we uncover.

LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision

Quote

The LDS Church's area presidency in California sent out a letter seeking support for the initiative that was read from the pulpit to some 740,000 members. Word of that action, and subsequent fundraising and financial support, pushed San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Mark Leno to publicly question whether the church's tax-exempt status should be revoked.

Mormon critics challenge church’s tax-exempt status

Quote

Mormon critics are asking the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to investigate allegations that the church uses a Hawaii cultural center to commit tax fraud.

Gay-rights activist and Mormon critic Fred Karger delivered a complaint to a Honolulu IRS office Thursday asking for an investigation into possible tax abuses involving the Polynesian Cultural Center, Brigham Young University-Hawaii and a Hawaii land management company.

The complaint comes after Mormon critics aired television ads last year seeking information that could harm the church’s tax-exempt status.

A church spokesman declined to comment. An IRS spokeswoman says the agency doesn’t comment on taxpayer cases and doesn’t confirm whether there’s an investigation.

Karger says it’s unlikely the tax-exempt status will be revoked, but he hopes the attention forces changes. He’s also seeking investigations from other government agencies.

Beto O'Rourke says religious institutions should lose tax-exempt status if they oppose gay marriage

Quote

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said religious institutions should be stripped of their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage, a position that sparked swift and fierce criticism from social conservatives.

The former El Paso congressman made the comment Thursday night during a CNN town hall on LGBTQ rights. Anchor Don Lemon asked O'Rourke, "Do you think religious institutions — like colleges, churches, charities — should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"

"Yes," O’Rourke replied without hesitating, drawing a round of applause. "There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us, and so as president, we are going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans."

Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign

Quote

In the wake of Proposition 8's passage, opponents are railing that churches that supported the ballot measure violated their tax-exempt status.

It's a common accusation at the now-weekly protests, gaining enough traction that Geoff Kors, a member of the No on 8 executive committee, said lawyers are investigating the issue.

"The Mormon church overstepped its boundaries by being a tax-exempt organization," said Sharone Negev, 54, of San Francisco, who has gone to protests in San Francisco and the Mormon temple in Oakland. "They clearly are not supposed to be involved in political activities."

Mormon Church should not be tax exempt

Quote

Californians Against Hate, a nonprofit organization working to publicize the names of contributors to Prop 8, filed a complaint Thursday with California's Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the church did not report non-monetary contributions in support of the measure.

Jeff Flint, a strategist with Protect Marriage, estimates that Mormons made up at least 80 percent of the early volunteers who went door-to-door, according to The New York Times.

The church is currently tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

This status requires an organization to not be an action organization or a group that attempts to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities, according to the IRS Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (Publication 1828).
...

Mormons were persuaded to support Prop. 8 because they believed God expected it. When the prophet asks, they tend to listen.

The church didn't devote just "substantial effort," it fully dedicated the church to the effort.

The church prophet, Thomas Monson, made a mistake by allowing it to believe action was required.

A request from the prophet surpasses "substantial;" it was the single biggest, most effective move the church could have made.

Monson wasn't trying to save the "sacred institution of marriage." Mormons think that civil marriage is an earthly contract and celestial marriage performed in a church temple and is a sacred covenant according to an article in the church magazine Ensign.

Temple marriages were not being threatened.

So his move was not religious, it was political.

As a result, the Mormon church should be stripped of its tax-exempt status.

Gay activists protest Mormon church

Quote

Much of the anger rippling through the crowds has focused on the Mormons and the leaders of their Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). Church leaders asked members to support the ban, and they did – to the tune of more than $15 million, by one estimate.

Now petitions are circulating that call for the LDS church's tax-exempt status to be revoked. Gay marriage supporters are also trying to organize a boycott of Utah, and have picketed Mormon temples in Oakland, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City.

How the Supreme Court’s decision for gay marriage could affect religious institutions

Quote

Some scholars believe that the ruling in favor of gay marriage will not lead to widespread acrimony and legal battles. They note, for example, that there is no federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. And, of the 22 states that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a majority (13) have at least some protections for religious groups written into their anti-discrimination statutes.

“There’s a big difference between something that could be an issue and something that’s likely to be an issue,” says Robert Tuttle, who teaches religion and law at George Washington University. Tuttle says he believes there may be some lawsuits, but he predicts that in more cases than not, accommodation and compromise are likely to win out. “After all, we still allow institutions, like universities, to discriminate based on gender,” he says.

But University of Illinois law professor Robin Fretwell Wilson says it’s possible that institutions will be pressured to give ground on gay marriage by federal authorities (such as the Internal Revenue Service, which could take away an institution’s tax-exempt status), state civil rights commissions or private lawsuits. She notes, for example, that the federal government now reads its laws against sex discrimination “to include sexual orientation discrimination, which opens a whole layer of potential threat” to religious organizations.

And yet she also says it is possible that all sides will “be able to live in peace,” noting a recent compromise in Utah, “where you saw an extension of gay rights in exchange for religious protections.”

American Culture Just Shifted a Bit

Quote

In American religious life, something interesting just happened. Last week, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, long viewed as opponents of gay rights, publicly opened a dialogue about how to balance needed expansion of legal protections for gays and lesbians with reasonable exemptions intended to protect religious freedom. American culture just shifted a bit.

Some of the instant reactions to the news seemed to come right out of the Culture War Handbook. On one side, prominent gay-rights leaders voiced skepticism. The Human Rights Campaign called the LDS Church’s new stance “deeply flawed.” On Twitter, Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry — a man I know and respect — called the church’s statement a “nod” toward nondiscrimination, but worried that religious exemptions can be “licenses to discriminate.”
...
 

But I don’t like the Culture War Handbook, and for that reason alone, I believe that the LDS Church must be doing something right here. Yes, some advocates seem determined to use the cause of religious liberty to justify blatant discrimination. And yes, other advocates insist that any and all exemptions from nondiscrimination laws are illegitimate. But this kind of no-compromise, winner-take-all culture war is not the only possibility. I’m not a Mormon, and I have no special knowledge of LDS Church leaders’ motives on this issue. But I was struck, and deeply encouraged, by three aspects of last week’s announcement.

First, the church is clearly seeking to do more to recognize and respect gay and lesbian people and families. To me, that’s morally right. Is it everything that gays and lesbians want? No. Is it a good step to take? Yes.

Second, the LDS leaders are clearly advocating a model of engagement in which both sides get something of value. Gays and lesbians gain a more welcoming church and new statewide legal protections. (Remember, in a majority of U.S. states, there are no laws protecting citizens from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in fundamental areas such as housing, public accommodations, and employment.) Houses of worship gain protection from coercion by the state in matters of conscience and religious practice. (Remember, many churches fear that they could face public or private lawsuits or the loss of their tax-exempt status by, for example, refusing to host weddings to which they object on religious grounds.) Such a model of engagement, done in the right spirit, makes it possible for both sides to win — and in the process show that diverse groups of Americans can find creative ways to live together.
...

Finally, there’s the question of tone. In the Culture War Handbook, we’re taught that the correct tone is anger. We’re fed up, and we’re not taking it anymore. We’re offended by the brazen behavior of our opponents, who are acting in bad faith. This is a battle, and we’re going to win it!

Last week the LDS leaders ignored the Handbook. They argued for what they called a “fairness for all” approach, which might help to “overcome the sharp divisions and present cultural divide in our nation.” They called for a “mutually respectful dialogue” in which “neither side may get all that they want.”

The editors and students of the Culture War Handbook are unhappy over this surprising turn of events. But I’m not.

And more.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Also again, tax exempt status is a privilege and not a promise or guarantee. 

I did not suggest otherwise.  My concern is selective and punitive enforcement of laws pertaining to tax exempt status.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Any organization has to meet certain requirements to maintain it.

I'm all for compliance with the law.  So is the Church.  "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  (AoF 1:12.)

• "In a bid to challenge the church’s assault on LGBT people, Republican gay activist Fred Karger has launched a campaign targeting their tax-exempt status – which means taxpayers effectively subsidise the church’s activities."
• "Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said religious institutions should be stripped of their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.  ... 'Do you think religious institutions — like colleges, churches, charities — should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?' 'Yes,' O’Rourke replied without hesitating, drawing a round of applause. 'There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us, and so as president, we are going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.'"
• "University of Illinois law professor Robin Fretwell Wilson says it’s possible that institutions will be pressured to give ground on gay marriage by federal authorities (such as the Internal Revenue Service, which could take away an institution’s tax-exempt status), state civil rights commissions or private lawsuits."

My concern is that the Church has run afoul of certain interest groups, and as a result has had its tax exempt status targeted.  I find that problematic.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You fisking my simple statement into one of your diatribes to the point where what I stated is hardly recognizable any more.

You relying on emotional rhetoric and hyperbole, in lieu of substantive and reasoned analysis, is . . . pretty predictable.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is still a matter of fact.  

It is not.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

No revelation has been received from God concerning same sex marriage.   None.  

Moving the goalposts, I see.

Yes, there have been revelations received.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Church leaders may think they are doing the right thing, but it is based on their opinions.

"California boy may thin he is doing the right thing, but it is based on his opinion."

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You relying on emotional rhetoric and hyperbole, in lieu of substantive and reasoned analysis, is . . . pretty predictable.

It is not.

Moving the goalposts, I see.

Yes, there have been revelations received.

"California boy may thin he is doing the right thing, but it is based on his opinion."

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

I acknowledged that there have been revelations concerning marriage of straight couples.  That is not the issue, nor has it ever been the issue. (straw man) But no revelation concerning same sex couples has ever been declared.  It is not emotional rhetoric or hyperbole.  It is a statement of fact.

You claim a revelation has been received on same sex marriages.  CFR.  Pretty simple request.  

As far as my opinion, I don't have one.  I could care less whether the Church ever allows or never allows same sex marriages and have stated that countless times.  What I don't go along with is claims that this policy came from God when no such revelation has ever been declared.  So again.  If you think my statement of a lack of revelation on gay marriage from God is not true, just give me the revelation that was received from God.  (The requested CFR).  Sounds pretty simple and doesn't require cutting and slicing my post into unrecognizable positions and assumptions you make about me.  Just quote the revelation or quit claiming the policy came from God.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh stop faultfinding and gaslighting.

Gaslighting?  Sure...😏

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Maybe.  I don't see how that is a problem.

Again, the Church can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Another thing that faultfinders do is impute base motives and claim to know things to which they have no particularized access.  Again, from December 2022:

"Their efforts to protect religious freedom as Congress sought to codify the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision."

Fast-forward to Pres. Oaks recent clarification:

Seems like some members of the Church did not really get the memo from the Church as to why it supported the passage of the act.

I will give Pres. Oaks (and, by extension, the Church for whom he speaks) credit for both seeking protection of religious liberty and "respect{ing} the rights of all to the equal protection of the law."

Look I am fine with the provisions of the law that helps religion.  I do not know whether or not they were necessary.  For the record, in the past, I said even if same sex marriage is legal I would oppose forcing religions to perform such marriages if it was against their religious creeds.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps some day you can set aside your antipathy and do the same.  

It is not antipathy. It is just a fact that you admitted. The Church would not have supported the law had it not given special exemptions to religions. That is it. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Probably so.  But so what?  Surely reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  And even then, Pres. Oaks spoke against being "insensitive to others’ claims for freedoms."  

The Church, like any other group or individual, has a right to speak its minds as to unsettled questions of law.  Once those questions are settled, however, things change.  Here, the Church worked against the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Nothing wrong with that.  Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized, the Church has taken steps to account for that.  Nothing wrong with that, either.

The church took steps in the past to vigorously oppose same sex marriage and to influence legislation which can cause a tax exempt organization to lose its tax exempt status per the Internal Revenue Code. So there actually was something wrong with the activity of the church in regards to its prior attempt to keep same sex marriage illegal. Same with the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  Because "the extra language" was necessary to protect religious liberty.

Was it though? I really do not know. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume you place at least some value on religious liberty.  But even if you do not, surely you can appreciate and respect that others do?  And that acting to protect that liberty would therefore be a worthwhile endeavor?

I place a high value on religious liberty as well as liberty from religion.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not "maybe."  The weaponization of tax exempt status has been attempted quite a few times.  Do you want examples?

Looks like you gave some.  Whether they have merit or not I do not know.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm fine with such a debate.  I have concerns about (un)equal protection under the law.  I strongly suspect such a "debate" would almost immediately devolve into a "The State Picks the Winners" scenario where popular religious and other non-profit groups would maintain their tax exemptions, while less popular groups (such as the Latter-day Saints) would not.

I could be problematic as you note but for other organizations that are not religions there is a vigorous review of whether their stated activities really do qualify fo tax exempt status. Maybe rules for religions need more scrutiny.  Or better said, guidelines.  For example, EPA. It's profits are not subject to tax. Yet not a dime of it has been used for any charitable purpose nor any other qualifying tax exempt activity other that I can see, other than it is under the umbrella of the Church and its exemption.  

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

And that is . . . bad?  

To want to keep its tax exempt status?  I would not say it is bad per say.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I did not suggest otherwise.  My concern is selective and punitive enforcement of laws pertaining to tax exempt status.

I agree the application should not be capricious and weaponized.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm all for compliance with the law.  So is the Church.  "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  (AoF 1:12.)

• "In a bid to challenge the church’s assault on LGBT people, Republican gay activist Fred Karger has launched a campaign targeting their tax-exempt status – which means taxpayers effectively subsidise the church’s activities."
• "Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said religious institutions should be stripped of their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.  ... 'Do you think religious institutions — like colleges, churches, charities — should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?' 'Yes,' O’Rourke replied without hesitating, drawing a round of applause. 'There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us, and so as president, we are going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.'"
• "University of Illinois law professor Robin Fretwell Wilson says it’s possible that institutions will be pressured to give ground on gay marriage by federal authorities (such as the Internal Revenue Service, which could take away an institution’s tax-exempt status), state civil rights commissions or private lawsuits."

My concern is that the Church has run afoul of certain interest groups, and as a result has had its tax exempt status targeted.  I find that problematic.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Personally I would oppose revoking the Church's exempt status because it does not perform as well as does not support same sex marriages.  But when it uses its power and wealth to influence legislation then I think the such activity should be examined to see if it runs afoul of the rules.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I acknowledged that there have been revelations concerning marriage of straight couples.  

But you do not acknowledge that there have been revelations about marriage.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

That is not the issue, nor has it ever been the issue. (straw man)

That is precisely the issue.  Your position is entirely predicated on a singular, and yet profound, equivocation.  You are free to re-define basic terms to suit your religious preferences and beliefs, but you can't foist such re-definitions onto others.  That just doesn't work.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  That it was radically re-defined five minutes ago (historically speaking) does not retroactively alter the revelations.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

But no revelation concerning same sex couples has ever been declared.  

Wow.  Shifting the goal posts again.

• First Iteration: "{T}here has never been any revelation claimed on this subject."
• Second Iteration: "No revelation has been received from God concerning same sex marriage."
• Third Iteration: "But no revelation concerning same sex couples has ever been declared."

This won't do.  

Your reasoning, such as it is, would be akin to saying "No revelation has been received from God concerning snorting cocaine," or "concerning pornography," or "concerning elective abortion," or "concerning" pretty much anything you want to rationalize and justify.

This won't do.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is not emotional rhetoric or hyperbole.  

It is nothing but.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is a statement of fact.

It is not.  It is a contrived and facile and hostile and unreasoned and unsubstantiated assertion.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

You claim a revelation has been received on same sex marriages.  CFR.  Pretty simple request.  

Oh, plenty of options there. 

There isn't a single instance of a man's spouse being another man, or a woman's spouse being another woman.  Conversely, the scriptures are replete with referencing marriage as between a man and a woman: Gen. 2:18, Gen. 2:24, Gen. 3:16, Prov. 12:4, Prov. 31:11, Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:7, 1 Cor. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:3, 1 Cor. 7:13, 1 Cor. 7:14, D&C 74:1, Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, Eph. 5:25, Col. 3:19, Eph. 5:33, 1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6, Titus 2:4, 1 Pet. 3:1, Rev. 21:2, Jacob 3:7, D&C 25:14, D&C 83:2, D&C 132:19, Moses 3:18, Moses 3:24, Moses 4:22, Abr. 5:14, Abr. 5:18, and many, many more.

Here are the ones I think are perhaps most pertinent: Gen. 2:24 (Mark 10:7; Moses 3:24; Abr. 5:18), Matt. 4-6, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Cor. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:39, 1 Cor. 11:11, Eph. 5:25, Eph. 5:31, Jacob 3:7, D&C 132:15, D&C 132:19.

Of these, perhaps D&C 132 is the most clear.  I will parse it out a bit:

Verses 13-14: "And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.  For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed."

Parsed a bit further:

1. "Everything that is in the world" is pretty ubiquitous.  I think it will be hard for you to say that same-sex marriage is not part of it.
2. Same-sex marriage has, as of a few minutes ago (historically speaking), been "ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers" and so on.
3. Same-sex marriage has not, however, been "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord" (unlike man-woman pairings, which have been so "ordained" - see above).
4. Same-sex marriage is one of most things in life that have not been "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord," and which things therefore, per verse 13, "shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection."
5. The foregoing verses explain that only those things which the Lord has chosen to preserve shall "remain," and all other things - including relationships not so "preserved," shall "be shaken and destroyed.

Verse 15-17: "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.  Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.  For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

An opposite-sex marriage "not by my {the Lord's} word" is, like same-sex marriages, part of the "{e}verything that is in the world" that, because it was not "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord," will be "not of force."  Persons in such marriages, having "not abide{d}" the Lord's law, "cannot be enlarged," and will instead "remain separately and singly."

"And singly" applies to "{e}verything that is in the world" that is not "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord."  This category necessarily includes participants in same-sex marriages.

Verse 18: "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God."

Even marriages which are made under covenant "for time and for all eternity," are "not valid" and "neither of force when they are out of the world" unless they are "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise."  

There is no revelation authorizing the sealing of same-sex marital relationships.

Verse 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."

And there it is.  The components of eternal relationships are spelled out quite clearly here.  

If

• a man and a woman ("if a man marry a wife...")
• get married ("if a man marry a wife")
• by "the new and everlasting covenant," and if 
• their marriage is "sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise," and if
• they "commit no murder," and if
• they "abide in my {the Lord's} covenant," then

their relationship "shall be of full force when they are out of the world."

There is no provision here for same-sex marital relationships.  The only relationships which can survive "out of the world" are those described here.  All others fall into the category of "{e}verything that is in the world" referenced in verses 13-14 above.

Verses 21-24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.  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.  But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.  This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law."

"{E}xcept ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory."

"Strait is the gate, and narrow the way ... and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world..."

"But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation. ... This is eternal lives ... Receive ye, therefore, my law."

I don't see how you can read these verses and say they do not apply to "{e}verything that is in the world," including same-sex marriages.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

As far as my opinion, I don't have one.  

Um, what?  

"{T}here has never been any revelation claimed on this subject" is not an opinion?

"No revelation has been received from God concerning same sex marriage" is not an opinion?

"But no revelation concerning same sex couples has ever been declared" is not an opinion?

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I could care less whether the Church ever allows or never allows same sex marriages and have stated that countless times.  

I think you meant to say "I could not care less..."

And it sure doesn't seem that way.  How many times have you repeated your assertions about there being no revelations?

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I don't go along with is claims that this policy came from God when no such revelation has ever been declared.  

What "policy" are you talking about?

There have been ample "declared" revelations about this.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

So again.  If you think my statement of a lack of revelation on gay marriage from God is not true, just give me the revelation that was received from God.  (The requested CFR).  

See above.  Not that I think it will do much good, as you'll just trot out the No True Scotsman and/or Moving the Goalposts and/or Equivocation fallacies.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sounds pretty simple and doesn't require cutting and slicing my post into unrecognizable positions and assumptions you make about me.  

I typically quote you verbatim because you are so into melodrama and histrionics that I feel the need to be precise.

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just quote the revelation or quit claiming the policy came from God.

Quoted.  At length.  And I provided a large number of additional scriptural citations as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But you do not acknowledge that there have been revelations about marriage.

That is precisely the issue.  Your position is entirely predicated on a singular, and yet profound, equivocation.  You are free to re-define basic terms to suit your religious preferences and beliefs, but you can't foist such re-definitions onto others.  That just doesn't work.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  That it was radically re-defined five minutes ago (historically speaking) does not retroactively alter the revelations.

Wow.  Shifting the goal posts again.

• First Iteration: "{T}here has never been any revelation claimed on this subject."
• Second Iteration: "No revelation has been received from God concerning same sex marriage."
• Third Iteration: "But no revelation concerning same sex couples has ever been declared."

This won't do.  

Your reasoning, such as it is, would be akin to saying "No revelation has been received from God concerning snorting cocaine," or "concerning pornography," or "concerning elective abortion," or "concerning" pretty much anything you want to rationalize and justify.

This won't do.

It is nothing but.

It is not.  It is a contrived and facile and hostile and unreasoned and unsubstantiated assertion.

Oh, plenty of options there. 

There isn't a single instance of a man's spouse being another man, or a woman's spouse being another woman.  Conversely, the scriptures are replete with referencing marriage as between a man and a woman: Gen. 2:18, Gen. 2:24, Gen. 3:16, Prov. 12:4, Prov. 31:11, Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:7, 1 Cor. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:3, 1 Cor. 7:13, 1 Cor. 7:14, D&C 74:1, Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, Eph. 5:25, Col. 3:19, Eph. 5:33, 1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6, Titus 2:4, 1 Pet. 3:1, Rev. 21:2, Jacob 3:7, D&C 25:14, D&C 83:2, D&C 132:19, Moses 3:18, Moses 3:24, Moses 4:22, Abr. 5:14, Abr. 5:18, and many, many more.

Here are the ones I think are perhaps most pertinent: Gen. 2:24 (Mark 10:7; Moses 3:24; Abr. 5:18), Matt. 4-6, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Cor. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:39, 1 Cor. 11:11, Eph. 5:25, Eph. 5:31, Jacob 3:7, D&C 132:15, D&C 132:19.

Of these, perhaps D&C 132 is the most clear.  I will parse it out a bit:

Verses 13-14: "And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.  For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed."

Parsed a bit further:

1. "Everything that is in the world" is pretty ubiquitous.  I think it will be hard for you to say that same-sex marriage is not part of it.
2. Same-sex marriage has, as of a few minutes ago (historically speaking), been "ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers" and so on.
3. Same-sex marriage has not, however, been "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord" (unlike man-woman pairings, which have been so "ordained" - see above).
4. Same-sex marriage is one of most things in life that have not been "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord," and which things therefore, per verse 13, "shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection."
5. The foregoing verses explain that only those things which the Lord has chosen to preserve shall "remain," and all other things - including relationships not so "preserved," shall "be shaken and destroyed.

Verse 15-17: "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.  Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.  For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

An opposite-sex marriage "not by my {the Lord's} word" is, like same-sex marriages, part of the "{e}verything that is in the world" that, because it was not "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord," will be "not of force."  Persons in such marriages, having "not abide{d}" the Lord's law, "cannot be enlarged," and will instead "remain separately and singly."

"And singly" applies to "{e}verything that is in the world" that is not "ordained ... by me or by my word, saith the Lord."  This category necessarily includes participants in same-sex marriages.

Verse 18: "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God."

Even marriages which are made under covenant "for time and for all eternity," are "not valid" and "neither of force when they are out of the world" unless they are "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise."  

There is no revelation authorizing the sealing of same-sex marital relationships.

Verse 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."

And there it is.  The components of eternal relationships are spelled out quite clearly here.  

If

• a man and a woman ("if a man marry a wife...")
• get married ("if a man marry a wife")
• by "the new and everlasting covenant," and if 
• their marriage is "sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise," and if
• they "commit no murder," and if
• they "abide in my {the Lord's} covenant," then

their relationship "shall be of full force when they are out of the world."

There is no provision here for same-sex marital relationships.  The only relationships which can survive "out of the world" are those described here.  All others fall into the category of "{e}verything that is in the world" referenced in verses 13-14 above.

Verses 21-24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.  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.  But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.  This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law."

"{E}xcept ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory."

"Strait is the gate, and narrow the way ... and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world..."

"But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation. ... This is eternal lives ... Receive ye, therefore, my law."

I don't see how you can read these verses and say they do not apply to "{e}verything that is in the world," including same-sex marriages.

Um, what?  

"{T}here has never been any revelation claimed on this subject" is not an opinion?

"No revelation has been received from God concerning same sex marriage" is not an opinion?

"But no revelation concerning same sex couples has ever been declared" is not an opinion?

I think you meant to say "I could not care less..."

And it sure doesn't seem that way.  How many times have you repeated your assertions about there being no revelations?

What "policy" are you talking about?

There have been ample "declared" revelations about this.

See above.  Not that I think it will do much good, as you'll just trot out the No True Scotsman and/or Moving the Goalposts and/or Equivocation fallacies.

I typically quote you verbatim because you are so into melodrama and histrionics that I feel the need to be precise.

Quoted.  At length.  And I provided a large number of additional scriptural citations as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

You quoted revelations on straight marriage, something that I have already agreed that there has been revelation on.  Not a single one of your quotes says anything about same sex marriage.  The goal post has never been moved.  I have never asked for a reference on straight marriages.  

CFR that there has been a revelation on same sex marriage.  

I don't want speculation or scriptures, or quotes that have nothing to do with what I am actually asking about, I want the claimed revelation on gay marriage and how it applies to those of us who are gay.  Does God recognize those marriages or doesn't he?  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I could care less whether the Church ever allows or never allows same sex marriages and have stated that countless times.

Truth!

[The Nehor]

On 2/14/2023 at 6:52 PM, JLHPROF said:

It may not be for decades - I'd bet post-Bednar Presidency.
Assuming we have that long before the whole world hits its end.

How about tonight while I am asleep. That would be nice.

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Don't worry.  The world is not ending anytime soon. They humans may be gone in the next few hundred years.

A hundred years? But I am depressed now.