GaySaint

I know it isn't a very popular belief among the LDS faithful that God can command someone to do something contrary to what he has commanded someone else, but if we look at the entire story of Lehi and his family we see examples of this. During the time period of Lehi's departure, the prophets were all commanded by Jeremiah to preach repentance to the city of Jerusalem. THAT was the commandment of the time – but Lehi did not obey that commandment. Instead, he was told by God to take his family and to leave the city. I have a feeling that other “members of the church” at the time knew, there would be many who would claim Lehi was breaking the commandments himself, and leading his family away on “false inspiration.” After all, Lehi WASN’T the leader of the church at this time… Jeremiah was. But if Lehi had not disobeyed and instead followed what the Lord told him specifically, we wouldn’t have the record that later became the Book of Mormon and God’s entire plan for the restoration of the church in the latter days would have been frustrated. Now that is probably just going to give your friend more doubts about the Book of Mormon, but there are the same examples that occur throughout all scripture, BOM and Bible, where men are commanded to do something a little “unconventional” by God, only to then be rewarded with furthering revelation, and sometimes, a call to prophet-hood – AFTER they obey. So in my book, Nephi didn’t have to lie, because God COULD have commanded him to kill Laban, just as he commanded Lehi to disobey Jeremiah and leave Jerusalem.

Bytor: I don't know how to answer that without bias, but SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, or politically speaking (as gender is a protected class), I don't think there is evidence that a child will be HARMED by a same-sex adoption. In fact, a recent study suggested that lesbian couples provide even a more stable home, because of the preparation that has to go into having children (IE, there are no mistakes. Every child in a same-sex headed household was planned for extensively. The study did not include gay men). If I had spent time and thousands of dollars to adopt a child, and it went to anther couple simply because they had a heterosexual relationship, I would be hurt. But I also do see that if a heterosexual couple did the same thing, and the child went to me simply because I had a homosexual relationship, how that would also be unfair. Which is why I don't think the sexuality of the parents should be considered. But, from an LDS perspective, of course a worthy heterosexual couple should (and will) be given preference. But as long as there are other opportunities for me to adopt, I'm fine with some organizations discriminating on the basis of religious freedom. Does that help?

Tarnished: Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Yes, some gays are promiscuous. Yes, some straights are promiscuous. Yes, some gays are monogamous. Yes, some straights are monogamous.

In the "about us" section of the OP link, take note of what this news site is for: " Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias" I think whenever a news outlet is "too liberal" or "too conservative" we tend to get biased reporting. This site, in my opinion, is doing the same exact thing the "liberal" media outlets are doing, and therefore are just as guilty of the exact same type of reporting that they blame on others. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I don't read the judge’s ruling or quotes in his ruling as saying children have no right to a father or a mother, just that the science points to children being raised in homosexual households to have equal opportunities in sociodevelopment as those raised in heterosexual households. The APA studies, nor Judge Walker's ruling, use the phrasing "right to a mother" or "right to a father." It is the opinion of the writer of the article that that is what the judge is trying to say, but I don't read his ruling that way at all. If you read the quotes in the article that was linked, or the ruling itself, I think the nuances are clear.

Also, if you are worried about the spiritual well-being of children, you might find this interesting: The Barna Group - Spiritual Profile of Homosexual Adults Provides Surprising Insights

Carli: Do adoption agencies that are not religiously affiliated take into consderation religious conviction? I think it is obvious that the LDS adoption agencies would favor LDS couples (and are free to discriminate in a world where SSM is allowed - at least in this country - as long as they don't accept any tax breaks or dollars from the government, which is why the LDS agencies are still discriminating in states where gay marriage IS legal), and other religious agencies the members of their own faith. I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

Wow. I’m kinda glad I missed this thread until now Bytor: I still must not be understanding your definition of risky behavior. How is what a committed monogamous homosexual couple does differ at all in risk assessment from what a committed monogamous heterosexual couple does (and for the record, there are many heterosexual couples that do the very exact same things homosexual couples do). I agree that promiscuous behavior is risky. I’ll even agree that the gay community has an issue where promiscuity is looked upon as the “norm” (which is why, I believe, stats for disease transmission among gay men are high), but we as a community haven’t really been given the CHANCE to be accepted into society’s accepted form of monogamy… so I think it’s a silly for you to deny us society’s accepted form of monogamy, only to then tell us the reason we don’t get it (or it’s benefits like health insurance) is because we aren’t monogamous. Should an HIV positive person be charged more for health insurance, regardless of orientation? Probably… and I think they are (any pre-existing condition can raise health insurance premiums, especially if switching health care providers). But I don’t think an equally situated heterosexual couple should get a “discount” because both genders are represented in their relationship. As to the adoption question – the chances of EVERYTHING being on equal footing is highly unlikely. One couple is bound to make more money, or have a stay-at-home parent, etc. etc. But if it is equal, I like the first come first served idea. Please also note the following: From the American Psychological Association: Redirect Page "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." The full study is available online in pdf format (88 pages) From the Child Welfare League of America: Child Welfare League of America: Culture/Diversity: Sexual Orientation/Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Youth Issues: Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults "Based on more than three decades of social science research and our 85 years of service to millions of families, CWLA believes that families with LGBTQ members deserve the same levels of support afforded other families. Any attempt to preclude or prevent gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals or couples from parenting, based solely on their sexual orientation, is not in the best interest of children. CWLA, therefore, affirms that gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

Seminary: She is a member NOW, which is why she agrees with you about the importance of covenants - but she still remembers when she wasn't a member, and with that life experience can look back and see how the Lord guided her steps so that she would be ready when the it was time for her to make the covenant. And no doubt she still values those baby steps. To pose an example to you: The endowment is a necessary covenant for exaltation, but we don't just give it to anyone and everyone as they walk through the church door. The steps you take to prepare for the covenant may not be as important as the covenant itself, but could still be... ahem... "celebrated." So, likewise, being committed to another faith CAN (and we are taught WILL), lead people to be ready to be committed to Christ. Anatess: If I'm misrepresenting you here in anyway please feel free to chime in

How do you guys reconcile the Bible story where Christ says "For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40) with the idea that all other churches are of the devil? I don't think I ever reconciled this myself. Does that mean that in regards to Prop 8, the church got into bed with the devil by forming a coalition with the Catholic and Christian churches?

I suddenly have Saturday's Warrior running through my head: "Line upon line, precept on precept..."

Seminary: I think you and Anatess are sort of saying the same thing, just either not understanding each other or letting emotions run wild. You said you would celebrate a baptism because it "is a step towards God's goal of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man." I think Anatess is saying the same thing - she is saying that a baptism in another faith (or any sort of outward showing of a commitment to God) is also a step towards God's goal of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man - even if that step is just one that is preparatory to the "correct" step. Anatess is saying that there may be many preparatory steps that God leads someone through in life before they can be ready to make covenants with priesthood authority. Some people may not be ready even in this life, but every preparatory step that leads them closer to God is a good thing. As a member of the church, I never understood how we made people feel like outsiders. Now, as an outsider, I'm often shocked how easy it is for some members of the church to put people into "us" or "them" categories. I never thought it happened because I was always one of the "us" group. I really do get both points of view, and I think you are both right... but Anatess is approaching the subject as someone who has been outside of the church, and you are approaching the subject as someone who has never been outside of the church. But I think everyone can agree that we have all taken preparatory steps, and can hopefully see how much good those steps have done for us in our lives. Does that help, or make things worse?

Matthew: I think that depends on what you believe "sustain" to mean. If you think it is synonymous with "obey," then I suppose someone actively supporting same-sex marriage would not be eligible for a temple recommend (especially if the interviewer of said person views it this way), but I don't think that is what it means. Sustain means to support, in my view, and I do believe it is possible for someone to support someone else, even if not necessarily agreeing with their point of view 110%. Take me, for example. Let's say I decide to go back to church, and live a celibate life. Is there EVER a possibility of me NOT supporting same-sex marriage? Probably not. My own life experience has led me to see the importance of it for gay couples. Whether it is because I sympathize, or whatever, I simply cannot in good conscience vote to take away a couple's ability to protect their family. Will that keep me from getting rebaptized? A temple recommend? I'm sure it would depend on the bishop (and I've had some say yes and some say no) - but in my mind I can still sustain the church leadership without necessarily believing everything they say is revelation all of the time. But I am curious on the thoughts of others on this subject.

Seminary: While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your conclusion. A civil marriage MUST mean more to God than a simple legal contract, because a legal civil marriage somehow removes the sin associated with the relationship (IE, the couple is no longer breaking the law of chastity by having physical relations). Somehow, there is a provision in the case of civil marriage where the Lord allows these relations soley because of earthly authority. I can't think of any other legal contract that results in something sinful becoming non-sinful. Can you?

Gwen: Am I wrong in assuming the same authority will still be used in either case? When authority is given to man simply based on him/her having dominion over the earth, regardless of worthiness (after all, a justice of the peace doesn't have to go through any worthiness requirements to perform a civil marriage), it makes sense that there would be abuses of that power - whether on purpose or not - by using it against God's particular will. I was taught as a missionary that if a missionary/person is unworthy and performs a baptism, blessing, whatever, that God will still recognize that action, but will hold the missionary/person responsible for using his authority unjustly. Obviously we can't force God to recognize same-sex marriages, but I'm wondering the opinion of people here regarding the validity of that binding in light of such knowledge (or in the lack of such knowledge). You all rock. Thank you for hashing this out with me. It’s been an issue that’s bothered me for quite some time, and I don't think I've ever felt as comfortable with it as I do now. I'm still not sure I could successfully argue a case for the sanctity of civil marriage, but I feel I'm having the majority of my questions answered.

Funky: I think we are in agreement on the authority issue – simply that man has the ability to bind on earth and that God chooses to recognize that binding because it furthers his purpose (and with his recognition comes the removal of the sin of fornication). I get that… mostly. At first Traveler’s comment seemed contradictory when he said: “Civil marriages are allowed by G-d but only until a person dies. What G-d recognizes is eternal.” I think the point he was trying to make, however, was with the word choice and difference between “allowed” and “recognizes.” I’m I right? God may allow something to be temporal, but only recognizes that which is eternal? So you are saying that God doesn’t recognize civil marriages at all… he just allows them? RanMan: “…they have the authority to marry for the duration of mortality.” First of all, who is ‘they?’ Second, from whence does this authority come? And third, WHY are they given this authority when there is a higher law required for exaltation? Ok, now to take this to a more personal level (after 10 pages I think I can do this). If man is given the authority to bind on earth with no stipulations, why can’t that same authority be used to bind two men and two women? Would that be considered “unrighteous dominion?” Would the man performing the binding be held accountable? Would that binding still have the ability to remove the sin of fornication? We have already discussed how certain relationships that do have a marriage certificate could still be called out for fornication during judgment. Is this the same place church doctrine would put homosexuals who were married if God doesn’t approve of such a relationship?

Thank you Hemi. If your disclaimer is correct, I certainly wish one of the bretheren would contact me :) I have a lot of questions I would love to ask if I had one alone for 20 minutes, haha. Of course, I realize they have better things to do, but I'm just putting that out there - ha!

Traveler: Did God command that man and woman should marry civilly? I don't think God commands anything for this life only, and if that is the case then the only commandment, covenant, etc. is eternal marriage - which brings us back to the original question as to why the church would recognize a union that is NOT the union God commanded (because it isn't the new and everlasting covenant). As Wing pointed out, civil marriage is not a religious covenant at all, it's a legal one. It makes even less sense that the church would recognize a civil marriage for its own members. God's marriage is not civil marriage. God's marriage is the temple sealing. Or did I miss something in your post that explained how this works.

But Hemi: I still do see value in such a marriage, even from that point of view, if and only if to exclude one from the sin of fornication. Even though they won't carry the marriage into the next life, they won't carry the sin either. So although they will be like they were never married, they will also be like they never committed that sin, which is, at least, a good thing.

Hemi: This brings up a very interesting point that clouds my understanding on why God recognizes these marriages at all... yet again...

Ah... so since they aren't married in the eternities, they aren't married here at all... Am I on the right brainwave?

Hemi, I'm sure there is more to this story that we don't know, but when you say her sin was "knowing and turning against knowledge received" is this solely in regard to getting married outside of the temple? There is a quote on the other thread from Bruce R. that YOU posted stating that marrying outside of the temple "...are proper and honorable and there is no sin attached to the relationship that results from them." So I don't understand how you resolve these two statements, unless there is more involved (which you don't have to say... haha).

Hemi: I highly doubt it. JAG: So you don't support civil marriages for heterosexual couples, for the same reason? Or was your last post limited to same-sex unions? Wing: As Pam has put it on these forums before: So I think there are wholesome justifications for physical relations more than simply procreation. But I do believe that a gay couple is fully capable of filling this particular (quoted) purpose of physical relations in marriage as well.

Hemi: But COULD you have without giving up your desire for her to be sealed in the temple? I think so. If this relationship is a stepping stone for your child to avoid sin that will eventually lead her to the temple wouldn't God, in his infinite timeless wisdom celebrate the union? As you look back on it, do you think choosing your disappointment over the other emotions of the day was worthwhile (if you don’t mind getting personal with me)? Perhaps we are all missing each other on the definition of 'celebrate.'

Ah yes. I went back to look, and here is what got me started on this line of discussion: So celebrate was the wrong word, but my point was to show that I believe it is possible to 'support' someone even if you don't agree with every action (as in you would be showing your support by going to a baptism of another faith - even if that was just to support them taking steps to get closer to Christ - even though you don't believe that baptism is entirely correct). And I think the same principle can be applied to SSM: It is possible to support the couple by maintaining focus on the positives, without necessarily agreeing with their actions. That said, my own family wouldn't show up to my wedding, so maybe I'm wrong . I just see no reason why it CAN'T be done, and have seen many examples of when it HAS been done.