Biden's prediction


ADoyle90815
 Share

Recommended Posts

Same-sex marriage already is acceptable in certain circles, though obviously not in American society at large. VP Biden may be right--it could be just a matter of time before mainstream Americans accept the idea of SSM. However, as CaptMoroniRM said, it seems likely that the Church's position will not change anytime soon (if ever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the repeal of DADT, Vice President Biden is predicting that homosexual marriage may become acceptable.

Biden predicts acceptance of gay marriage - Press-Telegram

Mods, feel free to move this if this isn't the right section.

I will make another prediction to add to vice president Biden's - To all those that accept homosexual marriage - that among such, homosexual marriage will eventually become the norm rather than an acceptation.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I'm a touch confused by this, could you please clarify what you are saying. :) thank you.

Pam is correct the word should have been exception and not acceptation.

There are two primary factors (or trends) that are changing both how we view marriage and family and are evolving behaviors in our society. The first factor is what we know and understand as agency; a process that includes choice and consequence. The second factor is that there are forces, dominions and powers at play – some of which intend to end agency and choice.

There exists a very coordinated effort to convince individuals that there really is not any agency or choice involved in the processes by which an individual passes from childhood to the role of full adulthood which must include becoming a mother or father in a permanent and holy relationship. I would point out that anciently the concept of Holy was well connected and coupled with the concepts of whole and complete.

Man is not whole without the woman and vice versa. Each gender has unique and exclusive physical abilities that must be disciplined and matched with spiritual intelligent choices and desires in order that the health, well being and preservation of family and society can not only exist but flourish within the challenging settings of life struggles. Being an adult is not a simple matter of age but must also include adult responsibilities which are not just a default reaction toward pleasures but a learned and disciplined work and effort to acquire specific abilities and skills not just in private but also manifested openly in a beneficial way throughout all of society.

Being responsible with an opposite gender in a marriage is not an easy default response to a partner but a difficult challenge of acquired, disciplined and learned skills and abilities. Not just for individuals attempting to be parents but for all responsible entities of society as well. And as always when subversive forces can be convincing enough to sell the idea that equal results can be obtained and just as valued without the effort or labor – it is the natural reaction to forgo the effort and demand by expectation the same results as an entitlement or right.

And so with the propaganda that undisciplined relationships based entirely on passions, attractions and personal desires should be viewed as inclusive with the norm and just as beneficial and needed as any other possibility; comes the result that such will be the standard and norm from which expectation will dictate perceived necessity for desired outcome.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it become acceptable socially and politically, the Church's stance on it will be the same.

Can we at this point of time with SURETY say so? Personally and seeing the CHANGE on certain issues in the past (that at time were thought as "unchangeable) I would say no, we cannot. My opinion of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we at this point of time with SURETY say so? Personally and seeing the CHANGE on certain issues in the past (that at time were thought as "unchangeable) I would say no, we cannot. My opinion of course.

Something to consider concerning “CHANGE”. If by some means tomorrow when everybody woke up everyone was homosexual and there were no heterosexual desires or tendencies – could we intelligently assume that mankind would continue beyond the current generation?

But if tomorrow when everybody woke up, everyone was heterosexual and there were no homosexual desires or tendencies – is there any intelligent concern at all?

If we desire change should we not have some intelligence reason to prosper it?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we at this point of time with SURETY say so? Personally and seeing the CHANGE on certain issues in the past (that at time were thought as "unchangeable) I would say no, we cannot. My opinion of course.

I'm fairly certain this is not going to change just like women given priesthood authority outside of temple workers is not going to change.

That's what we know now, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, my point is that I don't think I could say in surety that the Church will never change its stance on homosexual marriage (I am not for or against it, just to clarify). My main point being that the church has changed certain issues in the past despite the controversy so even though I think there is a big probability they won't, I don't think I could say that they will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There exists a very coordinated effort to convince individuals that there really is not any agency or choice involved in the processes by which an individual passes from childhood to the role of full adulthood which must include becoming a mother or father in a permanent and holy relationship. I would point out that anciently the concept of Holy was well connected and coupled with the concepts of whole and complete.

Would this then mean anyone who does not become a parent or spouse is not an adult?

Being an adult is not a simple matter of age but must also include adult responsibilities which are not just a default reaction toward pleasures but a learned and disciplined work and effort to acquire specific abilities and skills not just in private but also manifested openly in a beneficial way throughout all of society.

Which has no real bearing on the topic at hand, unless you'd like to list the abilities and skills you think would be lacking?

And as always when subversive forces can be convincing enough to sell the idea that equal results can be obtained and just as valued without the effort or labor – it is the natural reaction to forgo the effort and demand by expectation the same results as an entitlement or right.

The idea is though that people of the same sex are looking to take on many if not all of these same challenges and are willing to fight to make it work just as any other couple, not sure what's easy about that.

And so with the propaganda that undisciplined relationships based entirely on passions, attractions and personal desires should be viewed as inclusive with the norm and just as beneficial and needed as any other possibility; comes the result that such will be the standard and norm from which expectation will dictate perceived necessity for desired outcome.

Really this is already the norm in many ways. People don't get married expecting the hassles and hard times most of the time. They get married because of love, attraction and desire and build from there. To assume that a same sex marriage would only be based on this while flawed would still put them on par with many of the "traditional" marriages out there and could not do much more harm that has already been done by the masses in general over the years. One need only read through this forum alone to see that even LDS who should "know" what marriage means are not always capable of rising to the standards they would like to seem to hold others to before allowing them to marry. Marriage isn't a sure thing, and while one might think that homosexuals are taking some kind of easy way out, there isn't much easy about any emotional relationship on the level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain this is not going to change just like women given priesthood authority outside of temple workers is not going to change.

That's what we know now, of course.

Except that the Church's stance on this has already changed once before, but in the reverse direction. That is, at one time, women did exercise priesthood authority outside of the temple, and the change was to take that away.

In any case, it only takes a single counter example of the Church changing policy to discredit any statement that the Church would "never" change its policy. The fact that it has in the past opens the door to possibility. What remains to be established is plausibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that the Church's stance on this has already changed once before, but in the reverse direction. That is, at one time, women did exercise priesthood authority outside of the temple, and the change was to take that away.

In any case, it only takes a single counter example of the Church changing policy to discredit any statement that the Church would "never" change its policy. The fact that it has in the past opens the door to possibility. What remains to be established is plausibility.

I can say for sure that women will never hold the priesthood. They never did. They may have been acting under the direction of the priesthood, but they never have had the priesthood conferred to them, or been ordained to one of its offices. I'd like to see your source saying that they have.

As for the Church approving of Same sex marriages, that will also never happen. The Proclamation of the Family is explicitly clear on this. No matter how controversial this issue gets, the Brethren are clear: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain this is not going to change just like women given priesthood authority outside of temple workers is not going to change.

That's what we know now, of course.

As I mentioned in my above post, female temple workers do not hold the priesthood. They are acting under its direction and its authority, but they neither have the priesthood conferred upon them nor hold an office within it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can say for sure that women will never hold the priesthood. They never did. They may have been acting under the direction of the priesthood, but they never have had the priesthood conferred to them, or been ordained to one of its offices. I'd like to see your source saying that they have.

As for the Church approving of Same sex marriages, that will also never happen. The Proclamation of the Family is explicitly clear on this. No matter how controversial this issue gets, the Brethren are clear: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

You need to read D. Michael Quinn "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843" as well as study more (if you haven't) about the "Anointed Quorum" as well as references of Joseph Smith in his diary and in the history of JS that mentions Emma Hale Smith becoming the first woman to receive priesthood and its fullness.

But just a couple of quotes:

Sidney Rigdon said: "Emma was the one to whom the female priesthood was first given." (Sidney Rigdon to Stephen Post, LDS Archives)

Brigham Young wrote in his diary: "Mary A. Young admitted in to the hiest [highest] orderer [order of] Preasthood [sic]."

Bathsheba W. Bigler Smith said: "I have always been pleased that I had my endowments when the Prophet lived. He taught us the true order of prayer. I never like to hear a sermon without hearing something of the Prophet, for he gave us everything every order of the priesthood," And then she continues, "He said he had given the sisters instructions that they could administer to the sick and he wanted to make us, as the women were in Paul's day, 'A kingdom of priestesses.'"(LDS Archives, Pioneer Stake Relief Society minutes, 9 June 1905)

I hope this can just be just a jump start to your research, Church history is fascinating and complex at times that's why I try my best not to make absolutes such as "never...". You just never know. (no pun intended)

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can say for sure that women will never hold the priesthood. They never did. They may have been acting under the direction of the priesthood, but they never have had the priesthood conferred to them, or been ordained to one of its offices. I'd like to see your source saying that they have.

As for the Church approving of Same sex marriages, that will also never happen. The Proclamation of the Family is explicitly clear on this. No matter how controversial this issue gets, the Brethren are clear: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

To follow up on Suzie's comments, you can read Quinn's treatment on the subject online.

Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843

The article is very thoroughly documented. Enjoy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will change and what will remain constant? This is a toughie. Those with more flexible views on SSM likely hope that this is just a manner of time--much like blacks and the priesthood. Others may be hoping the priesthood is eventually opened up to women.

I remember when I was in seminary, and we heard that other Protestant denominations were struggling with their policies towards gays and lesbians, in terms of ordination. Many of our number proclaimed proudly, "This will never be a battle in our fellowship!" Ironically, we are one of the few conservative evangelical groups that have ordained females since our inception. In fact, at the very first national organizing meeting one-third of our clergy were female.

So, why this apparent "liberal" approach to females in ministry, but not for gays and lesbians? The answer is that we never saw gender as sin being acted upon. It was never even a temptation. Our understanding of scripture, and especially of the coming of the Holy Spirit as fulfillment of prophecy, was such that we believed both the sons and daughters would prophesy. So, if a female was called, who were we to quench the Spirit?

I do not mention this to advocate for a female priesthood amongst LDS. Rather, to see the line between that which might be changeable, and that which is a revealed scriptural standard. It is easier for me to understand blacks being rather suddenly allowed the priesthood than it is to foresee your church embracing same sex marriage, since the chasity law is grounded in ancient scriptural doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this then mean anyone who does not become a parent or spouse is not an adult?

Not a complete adult.

Which has no real bearing on the topic at hand, unless you'd like to list the abilities and skills you think would be lacking?

To love someone more than the self and percieved needs of self

The idea is though that people of the same sex are looking to take on many if not all of these same challenges and are willing to fight to make it work just as any other couple, not sure what's easy about that.

It is the concept of putting self and the needs of self first. It is this concept that is destroying the family.

Really this is already the norm in many ways. People don't get married expecting the hassles and hard times most of the time. They get married because of love, attraction and desire and build from there. To assume that a same sex marriage would only be based on this while flawed would still put them on par with many of the "traditional" marriages out there and could not do much more harm that has already been done by the masses in general over the years. One need only read through this forum alone to see that even LDS who should "know" what marriage means are not always capable of rising to the standards they would like to seem to hold others to before allowing them to marry. Marriage isn't a sure thing, and while one might think that homosexuals are taking some kind of easy way out, there isn't much easy about any emotional relationship on the level.

Jesus said to find one's self, one must lose one's self. Our society has chosen to move in a very different direction and has become more of a ME society where individuals look to satisfy their perceived needs first. Once THEY are happy they think they can do anything else anybody else is doing and so should be entitled by right.

Obviously a person willing to define their homosexuality as more important than the parenting of children is not as fit a parent as one that has is disciplined and willing to sacrifice self to put children first. Pointing to other's failures and selfishness does not help or correct anything but rather helps to create an excuse for more failure. But you are correct in the argument that it may be the best possibility available or as good as other possibilities in a society where "self first" is the norm and the expectation.

The example of Jesus is a stunning example for all when he said not mine but thy will be done. Is there any doubt what the will of G-d is concerning marriage? It appears to me that this has become a generation that believes - not thy will but my will be done.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, my point is that I don't think I could say in surety that the Church will never change its stance on homosexual marriage (I am not for or against it, just to clarify). My main point being that the church has changed certain issues in the past despite the controversy so even though I think there is a big probability they won't, I don't think I could say that they will not.

In a sense I believe you are correct. The laws of G-d will provide a “kingdom” according to the choices (agency) of every individual. It is quite possible that something like homosexual marriage will exist in some kingdom. But for those that sacrifice self for others according to the example of Jesus – same sex marriage does not appear to be what will be – ever.

Like you I believe every person is responsible for their agency. We are all free to select whatever path we will. My objection is when one refuses to acknowledge discipline over self indulgence. I believe discipline is the first step towards righteousness as self indulgence is the first step towards evil. Therefore choosing your next step is your right and agency.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a complete adult.

I guess this depends on what one sees as a complete adult. Being there are many straight members of the church that have never gotten married or had kids and yet strive to live the gospel and serve others one would think they might mind being told they are not adults.

To love someone more than the self and percieved needs of self

This can be done outside of marriage and even outside of heterosexuality. Just because the sexual acts are deemed sin, doesn't lessen the emotional devotion though i have seen people try to assume it does as to try and make this suggestion in the past.

It is the concept of putting self and the needs of self first. It is this concept that is destroying the family.

And again you are dismissing the emotional level of the relationships. Aside from the sexual acts, the emotional aspect of the relationships is no different in most cases than most straight relationships. The amount of selfishness vs selflessness is based on the individuals actions within the relationship. To dismiss the fact that a homosexual can be selfless and put the needs of their partner or others before themselves is kinda silly.

Obviously a person willing to define their homosexuality as more important than the parenting of children is not as fit a parent as one that has is disciplined and willing to sacrifice self to put children first. Pointing to other's failures and selfishness does not help or correct anything but rather helps to create an excuse for more failure. But you are correct in the argument that it may be the best possibility available or as good as other possibilities in a society where "self first" is the norm and the expectation.

Again one would ask why do you assume a gay person would put their orientation before a child? Discipline and sacrifice come in many shapes and sizes, and while you might belittle what others go through in the end you are not who says if they are disciplined or if they have sacrificed.

Also wasn't so much pointing out others failures as i was showing that your own examples really don't contribute to your case. You operate off a flawed understanding of the other side of the argument while upholding a flawed example. All marriages and relationships are struggles in balancing the needs of yourself with the others in your relationship( spouse, children ect) No marriage instantly makes that balance happen, it comes with work on the part of all involved. Many straight people in marriage never reach the level you hold as the norm, and yet many homosexuals i've come to know have it with out marriage. The ability to be selfless lies with in the individual not their relationship. All people are capable no matter orientation and like it or not just cause some people view being gay as nothing but being selfish doesn't make it so, it's a part of the person, not the definition or limit of what they do or can become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The night of my last reply, I read through some of that website's text. I have spent probably the last hour doing so again. Everything there doesn't pass the gospel "sniff" test. The conclusions being drawn from the essays on that site are not in harmony with what has been revealed as doctrine of the Church.

The first reason why comes from scripture. Doctrine and Covenants 107 which reads:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

In all the essays I read or the accounts referenced was there a statement as to which priesthood women held. LDS doctrine teaches that a man of 12 years or older can have the Aaronic priesthood conferred upon him. 18 year old men receive the Melchizedek. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to the Melchizedek priesthood. That is the word of God, revealed through his prophets, and I give a lot more weight to that than a collection of essays by LDS Femenists regardless of how many degrees they may hold.

The second conflict I see is their historical referneces of women recieving authority use the word "ordained" or "appointed." This creates an idiomatic disconnect between the two time periods. All the references of beign ordained are usually followed by "to a calling" or "to act as. (specifically references made regarding the organization of the Relief Society.) Ordain and appoint can have many uses in giving someone a task, calling, duty, or priesthood office. Technnically by definition, according to dictionary.com, it can mean to give to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon, to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon, or to order, establish, or enact with authority.

To understand how ordained is used in conjuction with the priesthood, I point to the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist. John declared "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron." The language matches the words of how the priesthood is given today. You confer the priesthood upon them." Ordain is used to designate a specific office in the Church (which is why John did not "ordain" them at that time. It wasn't until the organization of the Church in 1830 that Joseph was "ordained" first Elder in the church. Thus, the priesthood is "conferred" and they are "ordained" to an office within the priesthood. Additional callings are ordinations are essentially ordinations, but one must have the priesthood conferred upon them first.

Third, the many cited examples of women healing by way of the priesthood show no indication that priesthood authority was used, even with the washings and annointings outside of the temple. A few examples:

Sarah Studevant Leavitt's laying hands on her daughter: She was commanded by a heavenly messenger to lay hands on her head and in the name of Jesus Christ and administer. It was through Christ's name that she was healed, and her faith in the Lord. No priesthood was used, despite the laying on of hands.

1849 Eliza Jane Merrick's annointing her sister with oil and praying for her to be healed-the oil was consecrated by priesthood authority (probably her husband as the account is not specific as to who she was talking to when she said she used the "oil consecrated by you") and the prayer was in the name of the Lord. No priesthood was invoked by her. It's only factor in the equation was consecrating the oil that was used for the healing of the sick and the afflicted.

Joseph Smith once declared "respecting females administering for the healing of the sick he further remarked, there could be no evil in it, if God gave His sanction by healing; that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on and praying for the sick, than in wetting the face with water; it is no sin for anybody to administer that has faith, or if the sick have faith to be healed by their administration" -- Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

Ultimately whether one is administered to by a male priesthood holder, or a woman with sufficient faith, it is the power of God that performs the actual healing. It does not even have to be the prayer of one who a member of the Church. If a Catholic woman kneels and pleads to God with unwavering faith that her child be healed, if it be the Lord's will, he will be healed. Priesthood authority is not the key component and never has been.

Lastly, why would the Church choose to hide it if women could and did hold the priesthood since the 1840s like you claim? What purpose would it serve? If there were a change in the policy which has been clear to the saints and accepted by the majority for 180 years, why isn't there an official declaration like the big policy changes of the past, that was unanimously upheld by the 1st Presidency and submitted for a sustaining vote in a general conference? Why does every article found on LDS.org and every scripture regarding the priesthood in the standard works speak of only men holding the priesthood?

That is because only worthy men have ever had, or will have, the priesthood conferred to them, and be ordained to one of its offices. That is LDS doctrine. While the essays you reference may quote Church leaders throughout its history, it conflicts with the doctrine of the priesthood in every way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share