BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that quote is speaking specifically about mortality.  But maybe you're asking Smac about something more than just that quote.  If so then ignore me.  

“Our purpose in mortality is to become like our heavenly parents. Our divine understanding and use of sexual intimacy are essential to that process of becoming.”

Our use of sexual intimacy is essential to becoming like our heavenly parents. Am I misreading? Maybe I am missing something, which is why I asked (“help me understand this”)

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Help me understand this. Are you saying there is sex in heaven?

I am saying there is eternal increase in heaven. I am saying that marriage - between a man and a woman - is apparently the central component of that.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

"Eternal lives" is a term that refers to the right and power to beget children after the resurrection, granted to those who are exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. This is an aspect of eternal progression. "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase" (D&C 131:1-4).

This distinctive doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was taught by Joseph Smith and was especially articulated on May 16-17, 1843, at Ramus, Illinois, where he often visited and preached. Conversing on spiritual topics with a small party of friends, the Prophet Joseph Smith shed light on the concept of eternal increase: "Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory" (TPJS, pp. 300-301). Doctrine and Covenants, section 131,is largely concerned with this subject, and was first included in 1876.

A husband and wife who are married in the new and everlasting covenant and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise under the proper priesthood authority are promised that they shall inherit "thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers," and their "glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever" (D&C 132:19). They are likened to gods, having no end. They share in the promises of eternal posterity made to Abraham and Sarah: "Both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars" (D&C 132:30).

Brigham Young, in 1862, spoke of eternal lives, stating that the opportunity to become heirs to all things, and to become a "King of kings and Lord of lords,…is promised to the faithful, and are but so many stages in that ceaseless progression of eternal lives…. There will be no end to the increase of the faithful" (JD 10:5). He described such a situation as a pleasing one, creating happiness beyond mortal comprehension. In 1864 he elaborated: "In like manner, every faithful son of God, becomes, as it were, Adam to the race that springs from his loins, when they are embraced in the covenants and blessings of the Holy Priesthood…in the progress of eternal lives…. We have not yet received our kingdoms, neither will we, until we have finished our work on the earth, passed through the ordeals, are brought up by the power of the resurrection, and are crowned with glory and eternal lives" (JD 10:355).

Latter-day Saints believe that all worthy men and women, through righteous living and being sealed by the power of the priesthood, will in eternal life inherit, with Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and all the faithful, those same blessings and enjoy a continuation of seeds forever, or eternal increase.

(Emphases added.)

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What is the purpose of sex in heaven? Procreation? Like fluids exchanged, resulting in spirit babies? Like a woman’s role in heaven is non stop pregnancy and birth to endless babies? I’m just trying to understand what exactly the connection is between sexual intimacy in a fallen world and heaven. 

I don't think we can speak intelligently about "what exactly the connection is."

However, I think we can reasonably ascertain that same-sex sexual behavior/relationships are incompatible with the foregoing doctrines.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we can speak intelligently about "what exactly the connection is."

However, I think we can reasonably ascertain that same-sex sexual behavior/relationships are incompatible with the foregoing doctrines.

Nothing reasonable here. Only arbitrary.  “We have no idea what’s it’s like, we just [ arbitrarily] pronounce no gays!”

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“Our purpose in mortality is to become like our heavenly parents. Our divine understanding and use of sexual intimacy are essential to that process of becoming.”

Our use of sexual intimacy is essential to becoming like our heavenly parents. Am I misreading? Maybe I am missing something, which is why I asked (“help me understand this”)

It may be through sexual intimacy and physical parenthood we develop aspects of a loving relationship that are somewhat different than when such is lacking and that relationship is what leads us to becoming more like our heavenly parents rather than it being the activity that will continue in the next life.  I suspect there are several experiences we will need to somehow have in order to exercise and develop all our relationship muscles and skills in order to be capable of both having and caring for eternal increase, no relationship provides all that are needed I am guessing, at least in mortality. 

But I hope there is something analogous in the next life to having sexual fun because I get shorted anll the time imo due to restlessness (there needs to be a better word for this).  My family members have bruises from when they sat next to me when I was not paying attention and the reflex kicked in and kicked out. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I don't think we can speak intelligently about "what exactly the connection is."

However, I think we can reasonably ascertain that same-sex sexual behavior/relationships are incompatible with the foregoing doctrines.

Nothing reasonable here. Only arbitrary.  

Way too conclusory for my tastes.  You ask for information, then summarily dismiss it and don't interact with it in any way.

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“We have no idea what’s it’s like,

We have some idea "what it's like."

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

we just [ arbitrarily] pronounce no gays!”

No, not "arbitrarily."

And no, not "no gays!"  The notion of sexual preference/orientation as an "identity" is, historically speaking, about five minutes old.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may be through sexual intimacy and physical parenthood we develop aspects of a loving relationship that are somewhat different than when such is lacking and

Something that is present in the physical intimacy and parenting of opposite sex couples, but absent for same sex couples? What is that exactly? You were asking about what analogy to use? Elucidate the difference, and then base your analogy on that. Current analogies that focus on lack of consent, deceit, or addiction miss the mark. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Something that is present in the physical intimacy and parenting of opposite sex couples, but absent for same sex couples?

Yes.

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What is that exactly?

A man and a woman.

Eternal marriage.

Procreative capacity.

Fatherhood and motherhood.

I think we have only the meanest grasp of what is involved in "eternal increase."  But what little we do know involves these things, all of which are "absent for same sex couples."

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You were asking about what analogy to use? Elucidate the difference, and then base your analogy on that. Current analogies that focus on lack of consent, deceit, or addiction miss the mark. 

Fornication can likewise be analogized.  There is, in a heterosexual context, "a man and a woman," but neither "marriage" nor "procreative capacity" nor "fatherhood and motherhood" in the eternities.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 8, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

However, I think we can reasonably ascertain that same-sex sexual behavior/relationships are incompatible with the foregoing doctrines.

 

With the doctrines, yes, but accepting the doctrines is a faith position and therefore accepting same sex sexual behaviour/relationships is also a faith position and therefore such a position can be said to be arbitrary.  Unless someone agrees to assume the doctrines are truth, then why would we expect them to see reasoning from these assumptions as anything but arbitrary?

Since we know circumstances now where it does not require a male and female to produce offspring in mortality, logic does not allow us to exclude the possibility in the eternities based on the knowledge we currently have.  Even though technology is not there yet, there appears to be nothing that will prevent cloning or eventually even rewriting DNA so as to be able to create both males and females (and possibly other variations) that way rather than the egg/sperm natural route.  Any advanced race could technically produce offspring with only one sex, though there may be reasons they refrain from doing so (perhaps the natural process is better for evolutionary opportunities…though when advance computers can run simulations on possible mutations, I am not sure how viable that argument is).  But there may be some unknown moral reason why natural is better (less suffering because nature is less like to produce viable, but damaged offspring?). Still an all knowing race could surely avoid that issue.

All that for me to get to the point that if we posit God and his exalted family members have such advanced knowledge and awareness as we believe, then it is logical they will be able to avoid any difficulties technological reproduction creates unless it is some currently unknowable inherent problem.  Therefore reasonably it seems that if eternal increase is modeled on mortal increase, offspring won’t always require a mother and father.  It doesn’t even make sense to claim one needs more than one perfect parent when infinite time to parent is available. 

So saying an eternal mother and father are not only superior, but essential is a position of faith, not reason in my opinion. 

Are faith positions inherently arbitrary (in the sense they are dependent on the personal experience)?  I think they may be because we can choose to have or reject these positions and we do so based on what we value. 

Arbitrariness isn’t inherently wrong or bad as long it is recognized for what it is, imo. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A man and a woman.

Which is important why?

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Eternal marriage.

Circular reasoning. We ban same sex couples from eternal marriage because they lack eternal marriage. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Procreative capacity.

This is an extremely limited view. Infertility is rampant, one. Two, even with our meager man made tools we will soon be able to have children with same gendered parents. Three, according to you we have no idea what procreation involves in the next life. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fatherhood and motherhood.

 

And what does this mean exactly. In aggregate men and women are different. Sure. But individuals? They are always exceptions. What is it in particular (please be specific) that every divine father has that every divine mother lacks? Why are women in the church told to emulate Christ along with the men, if gender roles are so gosh darn important?

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Something that is present in the physical intimacy and parenting of opposite sex couples, but absent for same sex couples? What is that exactly? You were asking about what analogy to use? Elucidate the difference, and then base your analogy on that.

I can’t. I am merely speculating of what there might be that we are not aware of that could lead to the need eternally for a male and female as eternal parents. I don’t think we can conclude that it is impossible that there is such a limit even when we can reasonably speculate that the future will allow mortal increase without both sexes and in fact with technology, many variations of parenthood could occur.   But the only thing I can think of that might prevent multiple variations of eternal parenthood is something unknown. 

And it seems very arbitrary to me to say we can’t know why, but it must be this way. 

If God has told us this is so, then that is a very good reason to believe it must be a certain way, but expecting someone who does not believe that God has spoken on this to see things the same way, to see it as logical seems unreasonable to me. 
 

Quote

Current analogies that focus on lack of consent, deceit, or addiction miss the mark. 

I see the discussion of the LoC as separate, though related to the discussion of whether or not we need male and female parents. The first is about morality, the second is about biology and psychology.  The LoC is the result of assumptions/faith positions about parenthood.  So I don’t see why those three would be involved in a discussion about reproduction.  I am trying to get my head around how one might incorporate the LoC into the logic chain one uses and I can sort of see how one might use it, but too vague to be useful, so no analogies of any kind are coming to mind. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

However, I think we can reasonably ascertain that same-sex sexual behavior/relationships are incompatible with the foregoing doctrines.

With the doctrines, yes, but accepting the doctrines is a faith position and therefore accepting same sex sexual behaviour/relationships is also a faith position and therefore such a position can be said to be arbitrary.  

"Arbitrary" as in "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"?

I respectfully disagree.  The doctrines of the Restored Gospel have any number of intersections with "reason or system," and are not "based on random choice or personal whim."

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless someone agrees to assume the doctrines are truth, then why would we expect them to see reasoning from these assumptions as anything but arbitrary?

Because "arbitrary" denotes the absence of "any reason or system," and that's not the case with the Restored Gospel.

I don't agree with many of the presuppositions of, for example, atheism, but I don't think it is an "arbitrary" philosophy.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Since we know circumstances now where it does not require a male and female to produce offspring in mortality, logic does not allow us to exclude the possibility in the eternities based on the knowledge we currently have.

See, this looks a lot like "personal whim" to me.  

There are folks who really really want to legitimize same-sex relationships.  I understand that.  I appreciate the sincerity of it.  I even respect it to an extent.  But there is no basis for the concept in the paradigm of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  None.  To the contrary, there is ample evidence and reasoning against it.  D&C 131-132.  The Proclamation.  The cumulative counsel of modern prophets and apostles.

I have not entirely foreclosed "the possibility in the eternities."  I've commented on this several times.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

You're young enough that you may still be alive if the church accepts gays to be married, even in the temple.

Theoretically, in a de minimis sort of way, I am open to that possibility.  I have seen zero indication that it will ever happen, though. 

Quote

What would you think of that, if it were to ever happen?

I need to be open to further light and knowledge.  Something of that magnitude will be given to us through revelation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

But meanwhile, I cannot rely on a hugely speculative and highly unlikely hypothetical about what might happen in the future as a basis for disobeying the commandments given to us now.

and in more depth here:

Quote

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.

...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.

...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...
...
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.)
...
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.

.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Even though technology is not there yet, there appears to be nothing that will prevent cloning or eventually even rewriting DNA so as to be able to create both males and females (and possibly other variations) that way rather than the egg/sperm natural route.

We'll see what happens in the future, I suppose.  I don't think that matters much, though.  What is biologically possible/feasible now does not demarcate the boundaries of what happens in the eternities.  A couple can procreate outside of marriage in the here and now, but not in the eternities.  See D&C 131:1-4.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

All that for me to get to the point that if we posit God and his exalted family members have such advanced knowledge and awareness as we believe, then it is logical they will be able to avoid any difficulties technological reproduction creates unless it is some currently unknowable inherent problem.  Therefore reasonably it seems that if eternal increase is modeled on mortal increase, offspring won’t always require a mother and father.  

With respect, I disagree with the premise.  I don't think that "eternal increase is modeled on mortal increase," but rather the opposite, that mortal increase is modeled on eternal increase.  In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, the only people who will have an increase are those who are in "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (D&C 131:2).  See also here:

Quote

"Eternal lives" is a term that refers to the right and power to beget children after the resurrection, granted to those who are exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. This is an aspect of eternal progression. "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase" (D&C 131:1-4).

This distinctive doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was taught by Joseph Smith and was especially articulated on May 16-17, 1843, at Ramus, Illinois, where he often visited and preached. Conversing on spiritual topics with a small party of friends, the Prophet Joseph Smith shed light on the concept of eternal increase: "Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory" (TPJS, pp. 300-301). Doctrine and Covenants, section 131,is largely concerned with this subject, and was first included in 1876.

A husband and wife who are married in the new and everlasting covenant and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise under the proper priesthood authority are promised that they shall inherit "thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers," and their "glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever" (D&C 132:19). They are likened to gods, having no end. They share in the promises of eternal posterity made to Abraham and Sarah: "Both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars" (D&C 132:30).

Brigham Young, in 1862, spoke of eternal lives, stating that the opportunity to become heirs to all things, and to become a "King of kings and Lord of lords,…is promised to the faithful, and are but so many stages in that ceaseless progression of eternal lives…. There will be no end to the increase of the faithful" (JD 10:5). He described such a situation as a pleasing one, creating happiness beyond mortal comprehension. In 1864 he elaborated: "In like manner, every faithful son of God, becomes, as it were, Adam to the race that springs from his loins, when they are embraced in the covenants and blessings of the Holy Priesthood…in the progress of eternal lives…. We have not yet received our kingdoms, neither will we, until we have finished our work on the earth, passed through the ordeals, are brought up by the power of the resurrection, and are crowned with glory and eternal lives" (JD 10:355).

Latter-day Saints believe that all worthy men and women, through righteous living and being sealed by the power of the priesthood, will in eternal life inherit, with Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and all the faithful, those same blessings and enjoy a continuation of seeds forever, or eternal increase. 

(Emphases added.)

At present, there is no provision in the Restored Gospel for same-sex marital relationships.  None.  There is also, in my view, zero indication that there ever will be such a provision.  I have previously stated my position here:

Quote

We also "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."  (AoF 1:9.)  It is perhaps this verse, more than any other in scripture, that has allowed me to retain an accommodation for one of the more fervently-hoped-for "changes" in the Church: expanding the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity and marriage to include same-sex behaviors and relationships.  I am overwhelmingly persuaded that this will never happen, for a variety of reasons.  However, I maintain in my faith the allowance of a de minimis possibility of a contrary development.  

And here:

Quote

Quote

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

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 is still where I stand on these issues.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

It doesn’t even make sense to claim one needs more than one perfect parent when infinite time to parent is available. 

I don't know what this means in the context of D&C 131-132.

14 hours ago, Calm said:

So saying an eternal mother and father are not only superior, but essential is a position of faith, not reason in my opinion. 

I think virtually nothing in the Restored Gospel is a matter of faith and not reason.  

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Are faith positions inherently arbitrary (in the sense they are dependent on the personal experience)?  

I think they may be because we can choose to have or reject these positions and we do so based on what we value. 

Arbitrariness isn’t inherently wrong or bad as long it is recognized for what it is, imo. 

It looks like we may have different understandings/usages of the term ("arbitrary").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 8, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

It may be through sexual intimacy and physical parenthood we develop aspects of a loving relationship that are somewhat different than when such is lacking and

Something that is present in the physical intimacy and parenting of opposite sex couples, but absent for same sex couples?

 

Yes.

Quote

What is that exactly?

A man and a woman.

Which is important why?

As I noted previously: "I think we have only the meanest grasp of what is involved in 'eternal increase.'  But what little we do know involves these things, all of which are 'absent for same sex couples.'"

As I also noted previously (just now) : "I don't think that 'eternal increase is modeled on mortal increase,' but rather the opposite, that mortal increase is modeled on eternal increase."

This is "important" in the sense that, in the Restored Gospel, a marriage between a man and a woman, ratified and sealed by the power of God, is the only means whereby "eternal increase" can occur.  

This is important in the sense of my prior comment: "At present, there is no provision in the Restored Gospel for same-sex marital relationships.  None."  And here: "{S}ame-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 is important in the sense of Luke 22:42 ("{N}evertheless not my will, but thine, be done"), and Jacob 4:10 ("Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand"), and D&C 22:4 ("Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God"), and Isaiah 55:8 ("For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord") and D&C 121:38 ("Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God"), and Mark 10:22 ("And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions"), and Romans 10:2-3 ("For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.  For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.").

This is important because, as I have noted previously:

Quote

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 think the constraints on and parameters for sexual behavior and marriage are important because they come from God, and because there is immense social pressure to abandon them.  

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Eternal marriage.

Circular reasoning. We ban same sex couples from eternal marriage because they lack eternal marriage. 

Well, no, it's not circular reasoning, which is "an argument that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is true."  

If the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then a statement of the law is just that, and not an argument.

D&C 131-132 define marriage - eternal marriage - as between a man and a woman.  The Proclamation defines marriage this way.  The cumulative counsel from modern prophets and apostles defines marriage this way.  

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Procreative capacity.

This is an extremely limited view.

To the contrary, it is an expansive, even eternal, view.  See D&C 131-132.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Infertility is rampant, one.

In the here and now.  In the eternities, "infertility" is not an issue.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Two, even with our meager man made tools we will soon be able to have children with same gendered parents.

In the here and now, maybe.  In the eternities, no (at least, no indication of any such thing).

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Three, according to you we have no idea what procreation involves in the next life. 

I have not said that "we have no idea what procreation involves in the next life."  Rather, I said this:

Quote

Quote

What is the purpose of sex in heaven? Procreation? Like fluids exchanged, resulting in spirit babies? Like a woman’s role in heaven is non stop pregnancy and birth to endless babies? I’m just trying to understand what exactly the connection is between sexual intimacy in a fallen world and heaven. 

I don't think we can speak intelligently about "what exactly the connection is."

However, I think we can reasonably ascertain that same-sex sexual behavior/relationships are incompatible with the foregoing doctrines.

Again, see D&C 131-132.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Fatherhood and motherhood.

And what does this mean exactly.

Fatherhood and motherhood obviously mean fairly different things now, and I suspect their perfected forms will continue in the eternities.

Again, see D&C 131-132.  I don't think we can speak comprehensively ("what does this mean exactly") about "eternal increase," but what we can speak to is that, at present, there is no provision for either same-sex couples in the eternities, or for same-sex couples having it (eternal increase).  I also see no indication that there will, in the future, be light and knowledge that varies from this.  I also think that hoping for it amounts to wishful thinking and kicking against the pricks.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In aggregate men and women are different. Sure.

And individually as well.  From the Proclamation: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But individuals? They are always exceptions.

I don't know what this means.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What is it in particular (please be specific) that every divine father has that every divine mother lacks?

Absent revealed light and knowledge, I can't speak intelligently on this.  I can surmise, however, that fathers and mothers have overlapping, yet still distinct, roles in parenting.  How this works in the eternities, by and between two glorified and perfected persons who are perfectly united in purpose and righteousness, I don't know.

What I do know, however, is that there is no presently-revealed provision in the Restored Gospel for same-sex couples in the eternities.  There is also no indication that there ever will be.  So while I - per the Ninth Article of Faith - maintain a de minimis proviso that this could change via future revelations, at present we go with what we've got.

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why are women in the church told to emulate Christ along with the men, if gender roles are so gosh darn important?

Women in the church are told to emulate Christ for the same reason men are told to emulate Him.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 8, 2023 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we have only the meanest grasp

 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At present, there is no provision

 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we can speak intelligently about

 

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect

 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we can speak comprehensively

 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Absent revealed light and knowledge, I can't speak intelligently on this

 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.

I find it morally reprehensible that not only does your church require men and women to sacrifice the chance for intimacy in this life based on a whole lot of “I don’t know”, but also that your church was involved in attempting to legislate said beliefs onto the populace at large. YMMV. Feel free to have the last word. 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“Our purpose in mortality is to become like our heavenly parents. Our divine understanding and use of sexual intimacy are essential to that process of becoming.”

Our use of sexual intimacy is essential to becoming like our heavenly parents. Am I misreading? Maybe I am missing something, which is why I asked (“help me understand this”)

It’s weirdly worded but I read it as saying, that being married and exercising that creative power, and understanding how children are created in mortality , is all a part of our “education” here, a part of us ultimately becoming like heavenly parents.

Edited September 8, 2023 by bluebell
Clarification

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I find it morally reprehensible that not only does your church require men and women to sacrifice the chance for intimacy in this life based on a whole lot of “I don’t know”, but also that your church was involved in attempting to legislate said beliefs onto the populace at large. YMMV. Feel free to have the last word. 

I am grateful that we live in the United States, which allows my church to exercise of its constitutional rights (Speech, Free Exercise, etc.), even when folks such as yourself object or disagree.

I find nothing wrong with what the Church did, morally, legally or otherwise.  To the contrary, I found it quite healthy and good that the Church participated in the process.

I find it interesting that you have no reasoned response to my arguments, just baldly asserted and conclusory moral condemnation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 8, 2023 by smac97

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am grateful that we live in the United States, which allows my church to exercise of its constitutional rights (Speech, Free Exercise, etc.), even when folks such as yourself object or disagree.

I find nothing wrong with what the Church did, morally, legally or otherwise.  To the contrary, I found it quite healthy and good that the Church participated in the process.

Thanks,

-Smac

You find it "healthy and good" that the Church participated in trying to limit non-members' rights to marry someone of their choosing?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

You find it "healthy and good" that the Church participated in trying to limit non-members' rights to marry someone of their choosing?

Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.

You find it problematic that a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.

That is a load of horse poop. Prop 8 was explicitly designed to remove the constitutional right to marry in the state of California. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.

That is a load of horse poop. Prop 8 was explicitly designed to remove the constitutional right to marry in the state of California. 

It is a statement of reality.  Prop 8 passed on November 4, 2008.  There was no "constitutional right" to same-sex marriage recognized at law until the Supreme Court created it years later in 2015 via Obergefell v. Hodges.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is a statement of reality.  Prop 8 passed on November 4, 2008.  There was no "constitutional right" to same-sex marriage recognized at law until the Supreme Court created it years later in 2015 via Obergefell v. Hodges.

Thanks,

-Smac

So the California Supreme Court that found differently is what to you? 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

“n re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (Cal. 2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.^[1]”

Edited September 8, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

It is a statement of reality.  Prop 8 passed on November 4, 2008.  There was no "constitutional right" to same-sex marriage recognized at law until the Supreme Court created it years later in 2015 via Obergefell v. Hodges.

So the California Supreme Court that found differently is what to you? 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

“n re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (Cal. 2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.^[1]”

You did not quote this part:

Quote

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. 

First, I was speaking of the U.S. Constitution, not the California Constitution.

Second, the "right" to same-sex marriage under the California Constitution didn't exist until May 15, 2008, and did take effect until June 19, 2008.  Prop 8 passed on November 4, 2008.  So the issue was in flux, and Prop 8 addressed a putative "right" that had only been created a few months earlier by judicial fiat.

Third, notwithstanding the foregoing, I acknowledge that same-sex marriage is the law of the land.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You did not quote this part:

First, I was speaking of the U.S. Constitution, not the California Constitution.

You said “Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.” Nothing about the constitution at all. Just a fundamentally incorrect statement. 

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, the "right" to same-sex marriage under the California Constitution didn't exist until May 15, 2008, and did take effect until June 19, 2008.  Prop 8 passed on November 4, 2008.  So the issue was in flux, and Prop 8 addressed a putative "right" that had only been created a few months earlier by judicial fiat.

You know when you are wrong, it’s okay to admit. You said no right existed. You were wrong. I corrected you and you dig deeper. You were wrong. It’s ok. 

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, notwithstanding the foregoing, I acknowledge that same-sex marriage is the law of the land.

Thanks,

-Smac

How magnanimous of you. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Nofear]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

So saying an eternal mother and father are not only superior, but essential is a position of faith, not reason in my opinion. 

Are faith positions inherently arbitrary (in the sense they are dependent on the personal experience)?  I think they may be because we can choose to have or reject these positions and we do so based on what we value. 

Arbitrariness isn’t inherently wrong or bad as long it is recognized for what it is, imo. 

Quite agreed. I adopt the faith assumption that as celestial beings we have ultimate control over our physiology -- that we can make it whatever we want it to be (e.g. if I wanted to have blond hair, fuller lips, be an inch shorter, etc. etc. if I were a celestialized being I would have the ability to make it so). I further adopt the position that in many respects exaltation is the ultimate freedom -- that my existence is not tossed to and fro by the dictates of nature but that I would have ultimate control over my being no matter what*. Given that level of mastery and control, the question might be asked why our celestial parents "chose" a sexual binary for their and their children's existence as opposed to another scenario. Why, why do that? I do have a hypothesis but it is not an idea that I can test and so much be taken on faith for the time being. It (my unnamed, unexplained hypothesis) makes reasonable sense to me, but, again still a faith based personal hypothesis.

* Having a society of omnipotent beings could/would be disastrous if they were ever at odds with each other. Thus, rules were placed by the gatekeepers of omnipotent abilities that would only allow others that same level of power (ie exaltation) to those that had fully and completely internalized social norms/behaviors/ideals that allow for peaceful and harmonious coexistence with other** omnipotent beings.

** That opens up a whole 'nother thread of questions as why would an omnipotent being or couple, possessing perfect felicity, choose to expand their existence to others? We know that we give our Heavenly Parents all kinds of grief and sorrow because of our sometimes bad choices. Why bother? They are happy. Why bother with the "nuisance" of having kids?

Edited September 8, 2023 by Nofear

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.

You find it problematic that a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

Thanks,

-Smac

I just don't get why you think the Church should have any say in how non-members live their lives. That makes no sense to me.

Edited September 8, 2023 by ttribe

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I just don't get why you think the Church should have any say it how non-members live their lives. That makes no sense to me.

It wasn’t the Church that was voting and having a say, it was its members, citizens of the US.  The Church as an institution was trying to persuade people, especially its own members, but it had no control over how people voted any more than any activist group does,

Do you feel the same way about activists trying to get people to support their positions and vote their way?

I don’t see a difference in activists trying to get out the vote to alter laws to create the society they want and believe people will be happier in and the Church wanting to do the same.

If you do, please share. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Calm