Biden's prediction

[pam]

I couldn't take it any more. I had to correct the spelling in the title of this thread. :)

[Traveler]

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.

I do not believe that following the commandments is a perception. Same sex marriage is not considered obedient to any commandment.

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.

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.

There is a way prepared to keep all commandments.

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.

The fact that they define themself as gay first rather than a parent first.

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.

You misunderstand - I am not defining failure. I am defining success. I define marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose defined by G-d as a success. I encourage all to seek to be successful in doing as the L-rd commands and nothing less. I do not think that sacrificing a success marriage thinking that some other success will compensate will work out – regardless of the excuse. I do not believe that there is a successful marriage that did not have to get past one or both parties having to make an extremely difficult sacrifice that often appeared and seemed impossible (in some cases sacrificing perceived sexual gratification) and forgetting themselves – they put themselves last.

I realize that many do not succeed and that not all that do not succeed should be punished – But I believe society must provide some incentive for successful marriage. If not having the benefit of success is taken as punishment – that is a matter of perception.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

I do not believe that following the commandments is a perception. Same sex marriage is not considered obedient to any commandment.

There is a way prepared to keep all commandments.

The fact that they define themself as gay first rather than a parent first.

You misunderstand - I am not defining failure. I am defining success. I define marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose defined by G-d as a success. I encourage all to seek to be successful in doing as the L-rd commands and nothing less. I do not think that sacrificing a success marriage thinking that some other success will compensate will work out – regardless of the excuse. I do not believe that there is a successful marriage that did not have to get past one or both parties having to make an extremely difficult sacrifice that often appeared and seemed impossible (in some cases sacrificing perceived sexual gratification) and forgetting themselves – they put themselves last.

I realize that many do not succeed and that not all that do not succeed should be punished – But I believe society must provide some incentive for successful marriage. If not having the benefit of success is taken as punishment – that is a matter of perception.

The Traveler

This makes more sense now. You've set everything under a purely religious perspective vs a more open examination of the people. In that case you are quite right, under purely mainstream christian views you would be correct in most of your thinking, not all but most and i'll leave the nit picking over the disagreements to the Christians.

The issue is not all society gauges themselves by Christian values and the country isn't supposed to set laws by Christian dictate. Through a much broader view of the terms you've used you are far off base. Views of selfish, sacrifice, discipline and such are not viewed by all people the same and even the majority can differ over what these terms mean and what is considered acceptable.

The issue with the "gay" parent thing could be said the same as "christian parents" I've heard many who must make it clear that term comes before the term parent and yet it's not seen as putting church before child's well being, it's a term to identify for the masses. When i was helping raise kids i didn't make an issue with being gay, but in communication with people it's a way of identifying myself when showing that there are misconceptions. In most every day settings a gay parent doesn't say i'm a gay parent instead they tend to say "i"m so and so's father/mother" with no indication of orientation. Also the increase of the term "gay parent" is usually used to highlight " gee you just commented on how wonderful my child behaves and what a great child they are and yes i'm one of those gay parents you swore would destroy a child by raising them." It's a term used with some pride to show people "see we told you we could do it not matter what you threw at us"

As for the success being a marriage between a man and a woman, either way that's not usually happening for gays in christian society and the church has done a very large turn about even suggesting it. So either the gay stay single ( the church's suggestion) or they marry and stay with one partner( their ideal), either way they are going to be a failure as adults in your view, which the church denies and says they are just fine if they stay single and follow the gospel.

By your church standards you win, though it's a very closed minded win because in doing so you've diminished the emotional connections of anyone not just gays who have never married but formed deep emotional and self sacrificing relationships, while in the same breath demoted them to sub-adult status because they haven't had the chance or ability to marry and produce children. I tend to think it would be easier to look at the people themselves and see if they have learned these lessons that you say are required by yourself to be adults, while at the same time asking for documentation from the church saying specifically that these people are some how less. While I know of the commandment multiply, and know the church's stance, I'm not sure they've ever stated that there is a sub-class for people who have not met that criteria either by their own doing or outside forces.

[Suzie]

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.

I don't know what's the "sniff" test however I was thinking you may have been interested in reading the sources presented rather than Brother Quinn's conclusions. They are well documented.

In all the essays I read or the accounts referenced was there a statement as to which priesthood women held.

If you read it, you would have seen that said the "highest order of the 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.

I don't think this is a matter of LDS Femenists or scholars, it's a matter of whether or not those sources are accurate and so far, it doesn't seem to be the problem. Of course, you are free to believe as you wish (like everyone) however doesn't undermine what has been recorded.

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.

There is an explanation to it. If you have read early journals you will have seen that the word "Confer" is hardly used (if used at all). Usually their ordinations have been recorded, I believe with the assumption that we (those who read the journals) would understand that the Priesthood was given to them. Before the 1900's it was understood that a person being "ordained" was being given the Priesthood. It was then Joseph F. Smith who as Church President in 1901 said that conferring should precede ordination and after him

Heber J. Grant made a few changes himself....(but that's for another thread)

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 we didn't vote in general conference when the ban on black men holding the Priesthood was put in place? After all several black men at the time of Joseph Smith held the Priesthood and he even ordained at least one of them. Why the change? Who put it in place and Why we didn't vote? You may think there are two completely different scenarios but they are not. If women hold the Priesthood in the past, what happened? If black men hold the Priesthood in the past why then they were banned after Joseph Smith's death and until 1978? Many questions, few answers and even fewer that make sense to me.

However, going back to to the topic I think the quotes and sources of Brother Quinn are valid and well documented, we may or may not agree with his conclusions but what has been recorded is very clear concerning women and the Priesthood.

[MarginOfError]

I've moved part of this discussion to a new thread.

But the point being, the Church has made changes in the past, so it's a little difficult to say that it will never make changes in the future. Do I think it's likely that the Church will accept same sex marriage? No. But I'm not going to be so bold as to say it could never happen.

[Suzie]

But the point being, the Church has made changes in the past, so it's a little difficult to say that it will never make changes in the future. Do I think it's likely that the Church will accept same sex marriage? No. But I'm not going to be so bold as to say it could never happen.

Exactly my thoughts.

[prisonchaplain]

This issue actually can help me to understand LDS culture vs. doctrine better. Some are hesitating to say the church will NEVER change its opposition to same sex marriage. Others are adamant it never will change. The most obvious comparison is to blacks having the priesthood. To me, the change in the latter was possible, because being black was never deemed a sin by scriptures, and "black behavior" was never the issue. On the other hand, homosexual behavior has been condemned throughout LDS history, and beforehand, by Christian scripture for centuries. "Gay behavior" violates the law of chasity, which is not culture, but scripture.

I'm I understanding correctly, or missing something? If I am right, it would seem quite safe to say the church will never change on this. If it does, would that not be a sign of a new apostasy? (this is a question, not a statement)

[captmoroniRM]

This issue actually can help me to understand LDS culture vs. doctrine better. Some are hesitating to say the church will NEVER change its opposition to same sex marriage. Others are adamant it never will change. The most obvious comparison is to blacks having the priesthood. To me, the change in the latter was possible, because being black was never deemed a sin by scriptures, and "black behavior" was never the issue. On the other hand, homosexual behavior has been condemned throughout LDS history, and beforehand, by Christian scripture for centuries. "Gay behavior" violates the law of chasity, which is not culture, but scripture.

I'm I understanding correctly, or missing something? If I am right, it would seem quite safe to say the church will never change on this. If it does, would that not be a sign of a new apostasy? (this is a question, not a statement)

I agree with you, PC. The issue of blacks having the priesthood vs acceptance of same-sex marriage are two complete arguments.

Before they were allowed to have the priesthood, it wasn't due to unworthiness or any LDS doctrine. There was nothing sinful about blacks holding the priesthood. The Lord simply revealed that they couldn't have the priesthood. Letting them hold the priesthood was only disallowed because the Lord said so, through his prophet. People can come up with reasons why they weren't allowed, but in the end, it was the Lord's will. When the change came about, the Lord revealed to a prophet and said they could hold it.

Even the change in the Church's acceptance of polygamy is a different argument. D&C 132 says that plural marriage is an aspect of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, though not the defining or key aspect. God has permitted his people to have more than one wife in the past, but reserves the right to change it back to strict monogamy. In Jacob 2, the Lord explains monogamy is the rule, but explains that "if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to have multiple wives]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [monogamy]. Polygamy is only currently wrong because God as commanded us to stick with monogamy. The practice itself is not inherently sinful.

Homosexual acts are, like you said, a violation of the law of Chastity. The Lord is explicit throughout the scriptures that any sexual relation outside of the bonds of marriage, (defined by God as between a man and a woman legally and lawfully married) is sin. Be it two guys, two girls, a hetero-sexual couple not married, or be it with one's self, it is, has always, and forever will be sin. God will not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

Thus, it can be said with confidence that the LDS church will Never compromise its position on the issue.

As for your question about if it did, would it be a sign of a new apostasy? Not neccisarily as Latter-Day Saints believe that the Great Apostasy didn't exactly end with the restoration of the Church. LDS members like the saying "the standard of truth has been erected." The LDS Church serves as a rally-point for those seeking truth in a world where Christ's teachings are still vigorously debated between the denominations. Even within the ranks of the Church you can see debates over various doctrines and teachings where people mingle the teachings of men with scripture. I'm convinced, at times, that the only reason the Church hasn't fallen into another apostasy is that we do have a Prophet who receives instructions and revelations to essentially reel the saints back in from time to time. Still, there are those who reject what Mormons teach and establish their own off-shoot groups that teach many LDS truths. RLDS (community of Christ) rejected Brigham Young as Joseph Smith's successor. FLDS, still embrace polygamy. There was a new offshoot in Cali a few years ago that broke away because they disagreed with minor changes in the Endowment ceremony over the years. It still happens, usually on a more personal level.

Edited December 30, 2010 by captmoroniRM

[MarginOfError]

I agree with you, PC. The issue of blacks having the priesthood vs acceptance of same-sex marriage are two complete arguments.

Before they were allowed to have the priesthood, it wasn't due to unworthiness or any LDS doctrine. There was nothing sinful about blacks holding the priesthood. The Lord simply revealed that they couldn't have the priesthood. Letting them hold the priesthood was only disallowed because the Lord said so, through his prophet. People can come up with reasons why they weren't allowed, but in the end, it was the Lord's will. When the change came about, the Lord revealed to a prophet and said they could hold it.

It's this same pattern that makes me hesitant to say something like, "The Lord will never approve of same sex marriage." I don't know the mind of the Lord, and I presume to know what exactly he will or will not command in the future.

As I said before, based on what I know, I find it unlikely that he would make such an announcement. But, if the First Presidency drafted the letter and said that same sex marriage was now acceptable in the eyes of the Lord, I'd give it some serious thought.

The attitude of "it could never happen" is precisely what has resulted in the FLDS, and the group in California. "God would never change the endowment, so the Church must be in apostasy." I'm not going to box myself in like that. I prefer to remain open to being taught and persuaded to receive greater truths, regardless of what those truths are.

[prisonchaplain]

Margin, but being open to anything a prophet might say, there seems to be no anchor at all. Is it impossible that a prophet might be seduced by the approval of men, and perhaps offer a personal opinion as prophecy, in order to win favor for the church? If so, it would not be the first time one called of God made the mistake of trying to help God out, or hurry along God's work, without his approval.

Is this not why some of these matters must be sustained?

[MarginOfError]

Margin, but being open to anything a prophet might say, there seems to be no anchor at all. Is it impossible that a prophet might be seduced by the approval of men, and perhaps offer a personal opinion as prophecy, in order to win favor for the church? If so, it would not be the first time one called of God made the mistake of trying to help God out, or hurry along God's work, without his approval.

Is this not why some of these matters must be sustained?

You mean like denying blacks the priesthood?

Notice also I didn't say that I'd flat out accept it once it was stated. I only said I'd give it serious thought. I don't know what conclusion I'd come to and will be happy to deal with it at the time. But I'm open to hearing the explanation.

In the meantime, I have enough trouble remembering to say my prayers, read my scriptures, be kind to my neighbor, and temper my arrogance to make a big deal about if God changes his mind and decides to accept same sex marriage.

[prisonchaplain]

You mean like denying blacks the priesthood?

Is denying gays and lesbians temple marriage the same as denying blacks the priesthood? The former is a rejection of ancient scriptural standards of morality. The latter is a prohibition that some have argued was based in God's reading of what society would tolerate.

I have no interest in defending the prohibition on blacks in the priesthood. It's not my place. However, since my fellowship concurs with the LDS stand against gay marriage, it is easy for me to see the rationale--especially for religious recognition of the marriages.

[Suzie]

The attitude of "it could never happen" is precisely what has resulted in the FLDS, and the group in California. "God would never change the endowment, so the Church must be in apostasy." I'm not going to box myself in like that. I prefer to remain open to being taught and persuaded to receive greater truths, regardless of what those truths are.

I think this attitude maybe is purely psychological, a need to self-convince that it truly can "never" happen because if it does we will surely be in hot water. I think topics such as this that opens the possibility of the unthinkable make people very uncomfortable (hence the reply of "never...").

I believe it is very possible that it won't happen, however I cannot say what the Lord will think or do in the future. If we just take time to analyze some of the things He has done or instructed in the Old Testament, we will know that we don't always understand his purposes.

[Suzie]

Is it impossible that a prophet might be seduced by the approval of men, and perhaps offer a personal opinion as prophecy, in order to win favor for the church? If so, it would not be the first time one called of God made the mistake of trying to help God out, or hurry along God's work, without his approval.

Is this not why some of these matters must be sustained?

Exactly. Hence the issue of the Blacks and the Priesthood is such a controversial topic within the LDS doctrine since no revelation was presented for vote in general conference even though blacks held the Priesthood prior to the ban. Again, one of those topics people either don't know much about or rather not talk about it because the possibility of prejudice coming from Church leaders make some people uncomfortable.

So I think the possibility is there, however if that ever happens I hope we (as members) get the possibility to decide by common consent.

[bytor2112]

Maybe the Lord will change HIS mind on fornication or adultery....many don't think it's that big of a deal. Mists of darkness...........

[bytor2112]

Exactly. Hence the issue of the Blacks and the Priesthood is such a controversial topic within the LDS doctrine since no revelation was presented for vote in general conference even though blacks held the Priesthood prior to the ban. Again, one of those topics people either don't know much about or rather not talk about it because the possibility of prejudice coming from Church leaders make some people uncomfortable.

So I think the possibility is there, however if that ever happens I hope we (as members) get the possibility to decide by common consent.

There was obviously prejudice among church leaders....yet it doesn't mean that they weren't acting in accordance with the will of the Lord at the time....even though they conferred the Priesthood on blacks earlier and perhaps/likely/probably in error.

Edited December 31, 2010 by bytor2112

[HEthePrimate]

There was obviously prejudice among church leaders....yet it doesn't mean that they weren't acting in accordance with the will of the Lord at the time....even though they conferred the Priesthood on blacks earlier and perhaps/likely/probably in error.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but it is still possible they were not acting under the Lord's direction.

[bytor2112]

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but it is still possible they were not acting under the Lord's direction.

I am going to side with the Lord's church and say they were........JMO.

[HEthePrimate]

I am going to side with the Lord's church and say they were........JMO.

Ok, it's a free country! (I see you're in the U.S. ) Though I don't know that it's a matter of siding with the Lord's church...

[bytor2112]

Ok, it's a free country! (I see you're in the U.S. ) Though I don't know that it's a matter of siding with the Lord's church...

Wel....rather than say it was a esult of prejudice....I am going to believe that they were acting in accordance with the will of the Lord. Just like plural marriage....just like....