How to reconcile mixed messages from The Church

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I very much like the idea of opposites coming together to make a whole and God being the joining of a male and a female just feels right to me, so my criticism here is as much to see if you can offer correction for them.  This is going to be a ramble as several ideas popped into my head about a hour or two after I read your above post.

Natural law as apparently defined by you does not appear to coordinate exactly with biology.  Intersex individuals can, for example, reproduce/have children. One can assume they are anomalies, but this seems to me more about wanting to instinctually or maybe culturally divide humanity into two categories.  There is something quite satisfying annd elegant about just dealing with two opposites, a binary language is simple and easy to understand for most….but life isn’t that binary.  

Biologically male and female are almost identical genetically. Biology turns a female into a male by the minor (percentage wise) differences in one chromosome out of 23.  Male and female are only opposites in symbolic language. There are some brain differences such as females have more grey matter, but they use more white matter than males.  Still size and variation of functions overlap significantly.  You can find plenty of men and women with the same brain size, etc.  And even with averages, it’s not that men are dominant left brain and women right brain, but that women typically use their hemispheres equally (we have stronger side to side connections).  Male and female brains are way more alike than they are different, so there is no way one can legitimately use “opposite” to describe actual male and female brain function, which reflects personality and intelligence. 

I agree that marriage can work great when the two individuals’ attributes complement each other, but I don’t see these attributes besides reproduction being that typically tied to biological sex.  For example, in many ways my parents were the perfect team.  My mom was the artist and educator, my dad was an engineer and boss; she was nurturing, he was good with discipline.

My own marriage somewhat mirrors this, so I think we also make a good team….except I have many of the attributes my dad had and my husband shares attributes with my mother in many areas. I repaired and renovated the home, managed the money better, I was the one who disciplined when needed.

So why would it not be possible for a woman who had attributes like my mother and another woman whose attributes were more like mine not be viewed as complementing each other enough as a couple?

I also think there is great benefit to shared attributes.  My mother loved to study and would spend hours almost every day reading, but Dad wasn’t interested…at most he wanted a condensed version delivered in 5 minutes, so Mom was quite lonely in that part of her life.  I also view my husband as a bit too nurturing as we were never able to establish good family routines because he didn’t want to see the kids suffer, such as if they didn’t eat their dinner, I would figure if they got hungry enough they would eat what I made, but he would end up making Mac and cheese or hot dogs for them later.  As a result there is one person in the family with a great diet…me…and three with not so great.  And I am not the least bit interested in going to watch sports or watch old movies over and over again. Our dates are pretty much going to restaurants and occasionally action movies (as long as they weren’t realistic).  Thank goodness we both love Tolkien and the early Star Wars.  It can be harder to share visions and work as a team if there is not significant overlap.

So overall I can see one could argue that given the overlap of attributes between males and females and the need for shared characteristics that it might be possible to achieve the ideal kind of balance/completeness in a couple with two of the same sex.

Honestly at times the ideal of male and female being the perfect complement for each other feels to me more like the Platonic desire for an unchanging God, wanting the universe to have some perfect standard one can rely upon when reality looks really variable.

We are not talking about science here, but a consistent paradigm for a religion.

How did God create worlds in this view?

Spirit is matter.

What kind of INTERPRETATION would we need to have an intersex God for all to emulate?

One must look at the FUNCTION EACH BELIEF SERVES within the overall paradigm.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Can you share where LDS scripture supports any of the above?

Oh my gosh

Where are YOUR scriptures for gay marriage?

Again I think Evangelical Christians have it all wide open with their vague ex nihilo creation story, but that does not work for us.  I would not be LDS if I was gay,because we are to love everyone, and it's "til death do we part"

Easy!

But LDS are to EMULATE their paradigm of GOD to become like Him/Her.

How can you have that theory with a gay God producing spirit children under natural law?

Find a way to define the paradigm logically, and consistently or just see THE LDS paradigm as wrong, and follow Jesus.  Fine.

No eternal marriage under natural law.  The good folks still go to heaven etc

But now gay folks who want to be sealed are trying to make a square into a circle.

Who needs that logical conflict?

Create another paradigm and start another church.

Honestly that's what I would do even if it meant a congregation of one.

Does everyone want to be God?

 

Edited February 2, 2024 by mfbukowski

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Same sex couples are seen as unnatural, in our paradigm based on natural law and an immanent organizer who puts together opposing substances to makes something new.

@Calm's comment seemed to cover some of this, but I will venture my own response. I see two things in this paradigm:

1) That we answer the Euthyphro dilemma with a concept of a "natural law" that is above God and constrains what He does. As a vague notion, I don't object to the idea of a natural law that is above God, but, in practice, I find that the only way I know anything about this natural law is what God has told me (or, more accurately, what other people tell me that God has told them to tell me). I find that any appeal to this "natural law" assumes that we completely and accurately understand this natural law. Change is easy, as long as we accept that we don't understand natural law as accurately or as clearly or as confidently as we tend to claim.

2) That we believe in some form of "complementarianism" (sometimes claiming it is rooted in natural law). Again, as a vague notion, I don't object to the idea that two people who complement each other well can build things that neither could alone. You draw the comparison to hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms and how they "complement" each other to make water. One place where the analogy breaks down is in variability. There is very little variability among hydrogen atoms or oxygen atoms, even though hydrogen atoms are very different from oxygen atoms. People, on the other hand, can vary dramatically. To the point that, in most traits (other than the anatomical/physiological traits related to reproduction), there is more variability within men or women than there is between men and women. We can randomly select two people and almost certainly we can find complementary traits between those two people independent of the biological sex of those two people.

So, while I can appreciate both principles, I find myself wondering just how well we truly and fully understand the natural laws that drive our opposition to same sex marriage. How certain we are that complementarity depends necessarily on biological sex.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We are not talking about science here, but a consistent paradigm for a religion.

I may not understand the concept of “natural law” as I haven’t spent much time with philosophy, but I thought the idea was you could find and reason out moral laws of existence (qualities of the universe, our environment, humanity, whatever) by observing and then deducing/reasoning out these laws (patterns of behaviour) from those observations because they are inherent properties of humanity, the universe, etc.  I have understood that much of the appeal of the concept of natural law was that it could be reasoned out (researched through observation at least, possibly even experimented upon at least in theory….one could say life is an experiment of discovering what natural law is through the results of our choices) and discovering what the principles are is not dependent on inspiration/revelation, which is why it became quite popular during the Age of Enlightenment with its adoration of science and intellect, etc. though the idea has been around a lot longer.  Natural law was said (I thought) to reflect the order of the universe and is objective, not influenced by the whims of men or even gods.  Natural law may not be science (since it deals with morality), but its justification (as I understand it) seems to appeal to the same ideas of why we can ‘trust’ science.

 If I am wrong (which I most likely am given the quality of my knowledge of philosophy), could you please inform me what is typically viewed as the source of natural law?

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, gopher said:

… black members were denied opportunities and blessings in the church because of policy. LGBT members are only denied opportunities and blessings in the church because of disobedience.

Marriage between black and white couples was, to use your phraseology, “an act of disobedience,” just as marriage between same-gender couples is “an act of disobedience.”

Edited February 2, 2024 by Daniel2

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Marriage between black and white couples was, to use your phraseology, “an act of disobedience,”

While such couples were not allowed to go to the temple, as far as I am aware they weren’t excommunicated for marrying.  Are you aware of this happening?

Edited February 2, 2024 by Calm

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh

Where are YOUR scriptures for gay marriage?

This is EXACTLY my point. There haven’t been any, as of yet. 

I’ve been traveling the last 30 hours and don’t have a full keyboard to type, so I will respond to this and your other posts with more substance when I’m back in front of a full-sizes keyboard and not just on my phone. 

I have quite a few thoughts to share on how such a paradigm fits in with natural law and LDS theology, and would like to take time and effort to adequately answer your great questions. More to come in the days to come. 

Edited February 3, 2024 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

While such couples were not allowed to go to the temple, as far as I am aware they weren’t excommunicated for marrying.  Are you aware of this happening?

I don’t find much comfort in, “OK, yes, both types of couples have been prohibited from getting sealed for time and all eternity, but at least interracial couples didn’t get excommunicated”…. Even then, my understanding is the church has backed away from mandated excommunication for married same-sex couples, as well—is that not the case?

Edited February 3, 2024 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How did God create worlds in this view?

According to LDS theology, scripture, and temple ordinances, two male deities, God the Father, Elohim, and His son, Jehovah, were responsible for creating the heavens and earth and all its inhabitants.

I’m unaware of a female deity being involved according to LDS scripture or official doctrine. Are you?

Edited February 3, 2024 by Daniel2

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Calm's comment seemed to cover some of this, but I will venture my own response. I see two things in this paradigm:

1) That we answer the Euthyphro dilemma with a concept of a "natural law" that is above God and constrains what He does. As a vague notion, I don't object to the idea of a natural law that is above God, but, in practice, I find that the only way I know anything about this natural law is what God has told me (or, more accurately, what other people tell me that God has told them to tell me). I find that any appeal to this "natural law" assumes that we completely and accurately understand this natural law. Change is easy, as long as we accept that we don't understand natural law as accurately or as clearly or as confidently as we tend to claim.

2) That we believe in some form of "complementarianism" (sometimes claiming it is rooted in natural law). Again, as a vague notion, I don't object to the idea that two people who complement each other well can build things that neither could alone. You draw the comparison to hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms and how they "complement" each other to make water. One place where the analogy breaks down is in variability. There is very little variability among hydrogen atoms or oxygen atoms, even though hydrogen atoms are very different from oxygen atoms. People, on the other hand, can vary dramatically. To the point that, in most traits (other than the anatomical/physiological traits related to reproduction), there is more variability within men or women than there is between men and women. We can randomly select two people and almost certainly we can find complementary traits between those two people independent of the biological sex of those two people.

So, while I can appreciate both principles, I find myself wondering just how well we truly and fully understand the natural laws that drive our opposition to same sex marriage. How certain we are that complementarity depends necessarily on biological sex.

Ok.

But how do we correct our lack of knowledge of "the natural laws that drive our opposition to same sex marriage."

What experiments do we do? How would we possibly observe this?

How do Gods in other universes work this out?

Again y'all are looking at this scientifically, and it's not a scientific problem!

But the problem is the logic of the entire paradigm, the STORY, the logic that justifies the belief

Yes ALL of this is to be accepted by faith and testimony but then what is the story behind "the natural laws that drive our opposition to same sex marriage" that make our current beliefs "false"?

In your interpretation how would anyone SHOW these attitudes to be false, while "Complementarianism" is true and part of natural law?

Get to work!  😏☺️

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This is EXACTLY my point. There haven’t been any, as of yet. 

I’ve been traveling the last 30 hours and don’t have a full keyboard to type, so I will respond to this and your other posts with more substance when I’m back in front of a full-sizes keyboard and not just on my phone. 

I have quite a few thoughts to share on how such a paradigm fits in with natural law and LDS theology, and would like to take time and effort to adequately answer your great questions. More to come in the days to come. 

You've got it Bro!   Looking forward to it!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

don’t find much comfort in, “OK, yes, both types of couples have been prohibited from getting sealed for time and all eternity, but at least interracial couples didn’t get excommunicated”

I wouldn’t expected anyone to find any comfort in that.  I am only addressing using them as comparable topics and where comparisons are accurate or not.  I am not in any way trying to justify either the ban (which I don’t believe was based on revelation, though it was thought to be….and that might be true for the ban on SSM as well) or the Church’s position SSM…which I believe is based on a belief in revelation and if the revelation is actually lacking, should be changed, but if it is there, should be backed with all devotion as should any revelation from God be done…even while understanding humans screw up about what is revelation all the time.  While on a totally different subject, I think the awareness of the human element in interpretation of revelation such as discussed here  https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2019/a-paradoxical-preservation-of-faith by Ben needs to be part of our consideration of what obedience to revelation should be; I particularly appreciated this quote he referenced:

Quote

There is clearly divine and repeated revelation at the root of these massive changes about the kosher laws and the Gentiles. The end result, as the early Christians experienced it and scripture records it, involved a lot of people making a lot of humanly reasoned judgment calls and interpretations. Although it began with revelation, as perceived in the pew in Galatia or Corinth or Jerusalem it probably seemed like it had an awful lot of human aspects to it, maybe a “convenient” decision on the part of the Jerusalem leaders. They did their best to implement God’s will as it had come, as seemed best to them and the Spirit. I’m reminded of a comment by early LDS apostle Amasa Lyman, who, talking about polygamy, said, “We obeyed the best we knew how and no doubt made many crooked paths in our ignorance.”[22]

 

Edited February 3, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn’t expected anyone to find any comfort in that.  I am only addressing using them as comparable topics and where comparisons are accurate or not.  I am not in any way trying to justify either the ban (which I don’t believe was based on revelation, though it was thought to be….and that might be true for the ban on SSM as well) or the Church’s position SSM…which I believe is based on a belief in revelation and if the revelation is actually lacking, should be changed, but if it is there, should be backed with all devotion as should any revelation from God be done…even while understanding humans screw up about what is revelation all the time.  While on a totally different subject, I think the awareness of the human element in interpretation of revelation such as discussed here  https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2019/a-paradoxical-preservation-of-faith by Ben needs to be part of our consideration of what obedience to revelation should be; I particularly appreciated this quote he referenced:

 

Wait.  Are you saying that the ban on same sex anything is based on revelation????  As far as I know, there has never been a claim about any revelation concerning same sex anything.  If you have such a revelation declared, I would love to hear about such a claim.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you saying that the ban on same sex anything is based on revelation????

I thought I said something quite different.  Maybe read it again?

My personal belief is we have a lot of revelation supporting male-female marriage (temple rituals for example).  I assume there is a reason for this and I am leaning towards male female being the ultimate creative relationship because of the description of exaltation, which I assume is also based on revelation in that I believe Joseph and other prophets have had visions of heaven, including marriage relationships.  I have personal testimony about temple marriage, especially my own.

As to revelation on SSM, I would hope that those leaders who define doctrine for the Church have asked this question over and over, asking for greater illumination on why not since that is how it is currently understood (it is forbidden), but I see it as possible there is so much security in the male-female relationship that there has been a sense with top leadership that would be asking God after he already gave an answer (interpreted as “no, because it is not my way”) and that can get you into trouble (116 lost pages)….and leadership may be very wrong on that.  I don’t know, I have not received anything in regards to others’ marriages, only my own.  At this point, I believe that means I am to wait and see and trust God, SSM is not something I should advocate one way or the other as I don’t assume that just because something is right for me that it’s right for everyone else. 

 As far as SS relationships, I don’t know.  I think we are allowed to do a lot of things that aren’t the best for us and even to feel good about it, but others claim experiences that are telling them that same sex relationships can be what is best eternally and if I accept my right to believe my revelation, how can I tell them they are wrong when I haven’t received revelation myself on this?

I know I received a witness from God that my daughter’s journey, though different than my own and what I was expecting, would lead her to the right destination and she is queer and appears to be attracted to more women than men, so that could mean that in the end SS relationships can be as celestial as OS, but she is also agnostic and I firmly believe she will later learn the truth that God exists, so perhaps her being queer will not ultimately be part of who she is, except as part of how she got there (and if so, I don’t believe my own heterosexuality will be part of who I ultimately am, just part of how I got there as why would we need any generalized attraction attributes as we would just be attracted to the person that is our spouse once we have become eternal couples?)

Edited February 3, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I thought I said something quite different.  Maybe read it again?

My personal belief is we have a lot of revelation supporting male-female marriage (temple rituals for example).  I assume there is a reason for this and I am leaning towards male female being the ultimate creative relationship because of the description of exaltation, which I assume is also based on revelation in that I believe Joseph and other prophets have had visions of heaven, including marriage relationships.  I have personal testimony about temple marriage, especially my own.

As to revelation on SSM, I would hope that those leaders who define doctrine for the Church have asked this question over and over, asking for greater illumination on why not since that is how it is currently understood (it is forbidden), but I see it as possible there is so much security in the male-female relationship that there has been a sense with top leadership that would be asking God after he already gave an answer (interpreted as “no, because it is not my way”) and that can get you into trouble (116 lost pages)….and leadership may be very wrong on that.  I don’t know, I have not received anything in regards to others’ marriages, only my own.  At this point, I believe that means I am to wait and see and trust God, SSM is not something I should advocate one way or the other as I don’t assume that just because something is right for me that it’s right for everyone else. 

 As far as SS relationships, I don’t know.  I think we are allowed to do a lot of things that aren’t the best for us and even to feel good about it, but others claim experiences that are telling them that same sex relationships can be what is best eternally and if I accept my right to believe my revelation, how can I tell them they are wrong when I haven’t received revelation myself on this?

I know I received a witness from God that my daughter’s journey, though different than my own and what I was expecting, would lead her to the right destination and she is queer and appears to be attracted to more women than men, so that could mean that in the end SS relationships can be as celestial as OS, but she is also agnostic and I firmly believe she will later learn the truth that God exists, so perhaps her being queer will not ultimately be part of who she is, except as part of how she got there (and if so, I don’t believe my own heterosexuality will be part of who I ultimately am, just part of how I got there as why would we need any generalized attraction attributes as we would just be attracted to the person that is our spouse once we have become eternal couples?)

Thanks for clarifying what you said.  The part that confused me is when you said: "the Church’s position SSM…which I believe is based on a belief in revelation". I took that to mean you believed there was some kind of revelation on SSM.  I thought I might have missed something.  

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

According to LDS theology, scripture, and temple ordinances, two male deities, God the Father, Elohim, and His son, Jehovah, were responsible for creating the heavens and earth and all its inhabitants.

I’m unaware of a female deity being involved according to LDS scripture or official doctrine. Are you?

The women who have received the endowment ordinances know there was one, if they think about it. So do the men who have had the opportunity to read these ordinances.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Thanks for clarifying what you said.  The part that confused me is when you said: "the Church’s position SSM…which I believe is based on a belief in revelation". I took that to mean you believed there was some kind of revelation on SSM.  I thought I might have missed something.  

There is no revelation on dry baptism, proxy temple work for the living, or sign-on and retention bonuses either, as wonderful as those practices might be for bringing more people into the fold.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I thought I said something quite different.  Maybe read it again?

My personal belief is we have a lot of revelation supporting male-female marriage (temple rituals for example).  I assume there is a reason for this and I am leaning towards male female being the ultimate creative relationship because of the description of exaltation, which I assume is also based on revelation in that I believe Joseph and other prophets have had visions of heaven, including marriage relationships.  I have personal testimony about temple marriage, especially my own.

As to revelation on SSM, I would hope that those leaders who define doctrine for the Church have asked this question over and over, asking for greater illumination on why not since that is how it is currently understood (it is forbidden), but I see it as possible there is so much security in the male-female relationship that there has been a sense with top leadership that would be asking God after he already gave an answer (interpreted as “no, because it is not my way”) and that can get you into trouble (116 lost pages)….and leadership may be very wrong on that.  I don’t know, I have not received anything in regards to others’ marriages, only my own.  At this point, I believe that means I am to wait and see and trust God, SSM is not something I should advocate one way or the other as I don’t assume that just because something is right for me that it’s right for everyone else. 

 As far as SS relationships, I don’t know.  I think we are allowed to do a lot of things that aren’t the best for us and even to feel good about it, but others claim experiences that are telling them that same sex relationships can be what is best eternally and if I accept my right to believe my revelation, how can I tell them they are wrong when I haven’t received revelation myself on this?

I know I received a witness from God that my daughter’s journey, though different than my own and what I was expecting, would lead her to the right destination and she is queer and appears to be attracted to more women than men, so that could mean that in the end SS relationships can be as celestial as OS, but she is also agnostic and I firmly believe she will later learn the truth that God exists, so perhaps her being queer will not ultimately be part of who she is, except as part of how she got there (and if so, I don’t believe my own heterosexuality will be part of who I ultimately am, just part of how I got there as why would we need any generalized attraction attributes as we would just be attracted to the person that is our spouse once we have become eternal couples?)

She's so fortunate to have a loving mom that accepts her, I believe this will help her tremendously in her life going forward. 

BTW, you've most likely read/heard about Charlie Bird (former Cosmo mascot for BYU) and his husband being able to attend their ward and even hold callings and take the Sacrament. I believe the activities director or something like that. So I think the church is definitely experiencing change and more acceptance. It's just going to take some time and hopefully things will settle down to a point that all will accept that it can be from God.  

Found this MS's youtube and at the 00:47:33 point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN4zFTCQL5w

 

[MrShorty]

On 2/2/2024 at 7:57 AM, CV75 said:

So, my question is perhaps better phrased as, “What doctrinal change would offset your conviction about the items I listed, and their tie to exaltation?” For example, “I have a personal conviction regarding X revelation, which I think promotes exalting same sex couples.”

If you won't be specific, and if I'm guessing correctly at this "list," I guess I will go first:

1) the first estate (Heavenly Mother) -- I am confident in believing that we existed before our birth and that "we have a Mother there." I see no reason to extrapolate from this belief that all exalted couples consist of a father/mother male/female pair. I might go so far as to say that I am confident such an extrapolation is in error.
2) Creation (Adam and Eve) -- I am okay believing that there was a "first couple" of some kind that God used to "start" the human race. There's a lot of questions about mechanisms and such around the origins of this first couple. Because humans are obligated to reproduce sexually, and God was going to withhold the knowledge and technology that would circumvent that necessity, it seems perfectly practical and reasonable that God would choose a male-female breeding pair for this first couple. Again, I see no reason to extrapolate from this vague account of human origins that God rejects same-sex pair bonding.
3) the mortal estate and eternal covenants made in a temporal estate (D&C 132 and the like) -- I am confident that God likes to deal with mortal people through covenants. Among those covenants are covenants related to marriage/pair bonding. Again, I see no reason to believe that God's desire to be a part of our pair-bond covenants does not include same-sex pair bonds.
3) the physical resurrection -- I am confident in the resurrection, and that the resurrection includes a process of curing human frailty. I see no reason to believe that same sex attraction or transgender tendencies are included in the human frailties that will be cured in the resurrection.
4) and the eternal round -- another rather vague notion, and I'm not sure what you mean. I see nothing in the basic ideas of our "plan of salvation" (God consists of a male-female pair bonded couple, that our species began with a first breeding pair couple, that God interacts with His people through covenants including covenants related to pair bonding, that we can look forward to a physical resurrection to an incorruptible state) that precludes same sex couples from marrying with God's blessing.

As I've already said, everything I see used to explain why God "must" reject same-sex couples is an extrapolation into unknown details about basic doctrines.

[MrShorty]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In your interpretation how would anyone SHOW these attitudes to be false, while "Complementarianism" is true and part of natural law?

Get to work!

There's already a solid body of work out there arguing for "egalitarianism" and against "complementarianism." I enjoyed Beth Allison Barr's The Making of Biblical Womanhood, for example. I find that our complementarian assumptions are quite weak, usually rooted in mere tradition.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

There is no revelation on dry baptism, proxy temple work for the living, or sign-on and retention bonuses either, as wonderful as those practices might be for bringing more people into the fold.

Whatever.  Denying gay couples full participation in the church is a bit more important than dry baptism.  Sorry you can't see that and just blow off this issue as being unimportant.  

I guess it doesn't really matter all that much.  Those that don't like the policy can and do just leave the Church.  It is one of the most common reasons for people leaving.  Not just those that are gay, but brothers. sisters, parents and children that know people that are gay and don't feel quite as glib as you do about this issue.  Not seeing that kind of thing happening over your dry baptism comparison.

Personally, I don't really care all that much.  I wouldn't go back to the Church if they did change the policy.  I have found a very happy and fulfilling life outside of the Church.  I just feel bad for those that are affected by this policy that want to desperately stay in the Church without forfeiting a chance of the happiness and experience that marriage brings.  

What I say to you is, just don't make some claim that this policy came from God when there is no such revelation claimed.  That is my only point.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Whatever.  Denying gay couples full participation in the church is a bit more important than dry baptism.  Sorry you can't see that and just blow off this issue as being unimportant.  

I guess it doesn't really matter all that much.  Those that don't like the policy can and do just leave the Church.  It is one of the most common reasons for people leaving.  Not just those that are gay, but brothers. sisters, parents and children that know people that are gay and don't feel quite as glib as you do about this issue.  Not seeing that kind of thing happening over your dry baptism comparison.

Personally, I don't really care all that much.  I wouldn't go back to the Church if they did change the policy.  I have found a very happy and fulfilling life outside of the Church.  I just feel bad for those that are affected by this policy that want to desperately stay in the Church without forfeiting a chance of the happiness and experience that marriage brings.  

What I say to you is, just don't make some claim that this policy came from God when there is no such revelation claimed.  That is my only point.

We do make the claim that our marriage doctrines, covenants and policies come from God and that other marriage arrangements such as same-sex marriage did not. My only point is that some things simply are not put forth by God.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If you won't be specific, and if I'm guessing correctly at this "list," I guess I will go first:

1) the first estate (Heavenly Mother) -- I am confident in believing that we existed before our birth and that "we have a Mother there." I see no reason to extrapolate from this belief that all exalted couples consist of a father/mother male/female pair. I might go so far as to say that I am confident such an extrapolation is in error.
2) Creation (Adam and Eve) -- I am okay believing that there was a "first couple" of some kind that God used to "start" the human race. There's a lot of questions about mechanisms and such around the origins of this first couple. Because humans are obligated to reproduce sexually, and God was going to withhold the knowledge and technology that would circumvent that necessity, it seems perfectly practical and reasonable that God would choose a male-female breeding pair for this first couple. Again, I see no reason to extrapolate from this vague account of human origins that God rejects same-sex pair bonding.
3) the mortal estate and eternal covenants made in a temporal estate (D&C 132 and the like) -- I am confident that God likes to deal with mortal people through covenants. Among those covenants are covenants related to marriage/pair bonding. Again, I see no reason to believe that God's desire to be a part of our pair-bond covenants does not include same-sex pair bonds.
3) the physical resurrection -- I am confident in the resurrection, and that the resurrection includes a process of curing human frailty. I see no reason to believe that same sex attraction or transgender tendencies are included in the human frailties that will be cured in the resurrection.
4) and the eternal round -- another rather vague notion, and I'm not sure what you mean. I see nothing in the basic ideas of our "plan of salvation" (God consists of a male-female pair bonded couple, that our species began with a first breeding pair couple, that God interacts with His people through covenants including covenants related to pair bonding, that we can look forward to a physical resurrection to an incorruptible state) that precludes same sex couples from marrying with God's blessing.

As I've already said, everything I see used to explain why God "must" reject same-sex couples is an extrapolation into unknown details about basic doctrines.

Thank you for describing your beliefs. I understand that you do not extrapolate from these that only man-woman couples can become exalted due what is unknown around the edges. But what is your extrapolation from these that same-sex couples are exalted -- what do you know around the edges? Or are you suggesting that you fill in the unknown with something you prefer that has not been revealed through prophetic revelation?*

I am asking about that which @mfbukowski described much better: “One must look at the FUNCTION EACH BELIEF SERVES within the overall paradigm.” So if the overall paradigm is that all couples can be exalted, which beliefs, and their function, support the exaltation of same-sex couples (in conjunction with the beliefs you already described for discussion purposes)?

I use “the eternal round” to describe the system represented in the temple endowment and marriage.

*This suggests why faithful members can believe all sorts of controversial things despite the consternation of other faithful members.

[gopher]

On 2/2/2024 at 5:38 PM, Daniel2 said:

Marriage between black and white couples was, to use your phraseology, “an act of disobedience,” just as marriage between same-gender couples is “an act of disobedience.”

Don't forget, my objection was to the comparison with the priesthood ban not marriage between black and white couples.  But there are still significance differences with this comparison too.  Maybe there doesn't exist an accurate comparison that can be used.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So if the overall paradigm is that all couples can be exalted, which beliefs, and their function, support the exaltation of same-sex couples

I have seen all are alike before God used.