The Abomination of Desolation

[Smeagums]

Spoken of in Daniel and Joseph Smith History...

What is an abomination? To make something holy unholy. Homosexuality mockingly makes marriage/love/companionship between a man and a woman unholy.

What is desolation? To be desolate. Wasted. Barren. Those who are homosexuals are barren or desolate. They do not want to produce children or offspring. Notice my emphasis on want. Some good, worthy couples cannot have children by no fault of their own.

We also know that the generation that sees the Abomination of Desolation occur in the Temple will see the coming of Christ.

This is what I think the Abomination of Desolation is. I borrowed these thoughts from someone more intelligent than I. It wasn't my own thoughts but it makes sense to me and I wanted to share it.

[Wingnut]

Homosexuals are not barren. They are unable to reproduce with their chosen partners, but it doesn't mean that their bodies are incapable of it, which is actually what it means to be barren.

[Smeagums]

Homosexuals are not barren. They are unable to reproduce with their chosen partners, but it doesn't mean that their bodies are incapable of it, which is actually what it means to be barren.

I understand that they are not barren but they choose to be so. Yes, a homosexual man or woman can have sex with the opposite sex and conceive.

[Anddenex]

Spoken of in Daniel and Joseph Smith History...

What is an abomination? To make something holy unholy. Homosexuality mockingly makes marriage/love/companionship between a man and a woman unholy.

What is desolation? To be desolate. Wasted. Barren. Those who are homosexuals are barren or desolate. They do not want to produce children or offspring. Notice my emphasis on want. Some good, worthy couples cannot have children by no fault of their own.

We also know that the generation that sees the Abomination of Desolation occur in the Temple will see the coming of Christ.

This is what I think the Abomination of Desolation is. I borrowed these thoughts from someone more intelligent than I. It wasn't my own thoughts but it makes sense to me and I wanted to share it.

This is a very interesting interpretation, but not one I would honestly jump on board with. People acting upon their homosexual tendencies and those who are seeking to destroy the kingdom of God on the earth are fruits of the abomination of desolation.

I would need more clarification regarding homosexuals as not wanting children, because I know a lot of homosexuals who want children, more so than heterosexual couples I know. As a caveat, I am not condoning their desire either. Children are "entitled" to birth within a marriage and between a mother and father.

I honestly don't see any homosexual marriages being performed in the temples, unless this temple has been overrun by ungodly men and women. Thus, it would have to have been a temple which has been overrun, by force, not by authorization from the First Presidency.

Interesting interpretation, not one however I would agree with in totality.

Homosexuals are not barren.

Technically, those who chose a homosexual lifestyle, and remain with their same sex partner, are barren with regard to having children. The companionship is incapable of producing offspring. No matter how long they are companions they will habitually fail to produce any offspring. It really depends on the strict or lenient interpretation of the word barren.

Example, in a particular year a land may be barren of any crops, but it doesn't mean the land is fully incapable of barring fruit the next year.

Example, a couple may be barren for a number of years, incapable of producing offspring for a short period of time, but after visiting a specialist -- now they have triplets. Careful what you pray for Wingnut.

[Gwen]

Spoken of in Daniel and Joseph Smith History...

What is an abomination? To make something holy unholy. Homosexuality mockingly makes marriage/love/companionship between a man and a woman unholy.

What is desolation? To be desolate. Wasted. Barren. Those who are homosexuals are barren or desolate. They do not want to produce children or offspring. Notice my emphasis on want. Some good, worthy couples cannot have children by no fault of their own.

We also know that the generation that sees the Abomination of Desolation occur in the Temple will see the coming of Christ.

This is what I think the Abomination of Desolation is. I borrowed these thoughts from someone more intelligent than I. It wasn't my own thoughts but it makes sense to me and I wanted to share it.

What is an abomination? To make something holy unholy. Couples that go to the temple casually and then fail to keep their covenants for flippant reasons mock the sacred covenants of the temple. They make something holy (temple covenants of eternal marriage) unholy (unjustified divorce).

What is desolation? To be desolate. Wasted. Barren. Couples that enter into eternal marriage covenants who don't want children and fail to seek personal revelation in the decision making process become wasted. They fail to keep the covenant made to counsel with the lord in making childbearing decisions. Or how about couples that divorce for flippant reasons torturing their children with yrs and yrs of custody battles and arguing while breaking the eternal family they covenanted to protect. Or those that walk away completely leaving children without a mother or father when they have covenanted to teach and love that child/children. That's a pretty wasted and barren state.

We also know that the generation that sees the Abomination of Desolation occur in the Temple will see the coming of Christ. I doubt we'll ever see gay marriage in the temple. However this generation has seen and will continue to see ppl go to the temple casually. We get questions every day from ppl asking about 2nd temple marriages after divorce. This generation has seen an abomination of desolation occur in the temple.

I borrowed these thoughts from the op...... with some revisions of my own to make it make sense to me.... thought I would share.

[Smeagums]

@ Anddenex

I don't see marriages being performed by authority from the First Presidency but rather by coercion from government.

The Church is alarmed about the growing potential for conflict between social and cultural "rights" on the one hand, and the free exercise of religion on the other.

The deeper problem the Church has with their position on this legal conflict in California, is the position taken on the Salt Lake City ordinance the Church endorsed a several weeks ago. In that decision, the Church announced that employment and housing were "fundamental rights" which same-sex attraction could not forfeit. The Church endorsed the use of coercive governmental power to compel employers and property owners to permit homosexual employees and renters, upon pain of punishment by the Courts. This was an extraordinary departure from past positions of the Church, and represented the first time the Church approved governmental compulsion against employers and property owners to protect homosexual conduct.

The effect of the Church's change in view on the Salt Lake City ordinance was almost immediate. A follow-on state-wide survey after the Church's changed position showed that there was a dramatic shift in Utah's view of tolerance toward homosexual behavior. Essentially, Mormons all over Utah fell in line behind the Church's new attitude.

Now the Church is attempting to sound the alarm about legal encroachment of cultural/social views (read homosexuality) into other areas which will inevitably conflict with religious liberty. But the Church has already conceded the argument. By extension of the Church's position with respect to housing and employment, the only question to answer is what to define as a "fundamental right." If housing and employment, then why not marriage? How does that distinction get made? And if any judge, anywhere, or ultimately five of the nine Supreme Court Justices, decide that marriage is a "fundamental right," then the result will follow that religion cannot prevent the practice. And if religion cannot prevent the practice of this "fundamental right" to marry despite a couple's homosexual orientation, then the LDS Church cannot prohibit or limit homosexual marriage practices anywhere. Not even in their own marriage ceremonies. For to do so would invade a "fundamental right" of the persons involved.

[Smeagums]

@ Gwen

I agree with your assessment concerning couples that enter the Temple.

I think though the Abomination of Desolation is something more specific. An event. I think it will be when gay couples are allowed, by rule of law, to enter the Temple to be sealed or wed.

A couple being married, whether they love each other or not, is not really an abomination. It is unfortunate. Married homosexuals is an abomination because it is unholy. It distorts what God intended for man and woman. Yes, some homosexuals couples treat their partners better than man and woman couples but that doesn't change what they are doing.

Two men will never be able to create life. In essence, IMO, they are damning themselves. Same with two women.

[estradling75]

I think though the Abomination of Desolation is something more specific. An event. I think it will be when gay couples are allowed, by rule of law, to enter the Temple to be sealed or wed.

I see a way for the Church to stop this if it becomes the rule of law... We simply stop doing marriages in the temple and only do Sealings. Sealing are a purely religious ceremony. Its only in our more recent history that we have combined the Sealings and legal marriages. We would simply need to go back to having them be separate events.

[Smeagums]

I see a way for the Church to stop this if it becomes the rule of law... We simply stop doing marriages in the temple and only do Sealings. Sealing are a purely religious ceremony. Its only in our more recent history that we have combined the Sealings and legal marriages. We would simply need to go back to having them be separate events.

I've thought that the Church should have done this all along. I don't agree that I need a license to be married. What if the state doesn't want to issue the license?

The Church does perform civil marriages in the Temple though so they'd have to stop doing this also.

[Gwen]

Even now in the temple they are separate events. There are no "marriages" performed in the temple. You sign all the legal documents in advance of the sealing, the sealing is the only ceremony performed. That's how it was for me anyway. There are already countries that keep the sealing and marriage totally separate due to laws (all marriages must be public). It's not that big of a deal. The church can not be forced to allow gay sealings in the temples.

@ Gwen

I agree with your assessment concerning couples that enter the Temple.

I think though the Abomination of Desolation is something more specific. An event. I think it will be when gay couples are allowed, by rule of law, to enter the Temple to be sealed or wed.

A couple being married, whether they love each other or not, is not really an abomination. It is unfortunate. Married homosexuals is an abomination because it is unholy. It distorts what God intended for man and woman. Yes, some homosexuals couples treat their partners better than man and woman couples but that doesn't change what they are doing.

Two men will never be able to create life. In essence, IMO, they are damning themselves. Same with two women.

I'm not so sure Heavenly Father would agree with you that a couple who does not love each other or take the covenant seriously is not an abomination. The sealing covenant is the crowning ordinance of this life, it is of the most sacred of anything else that will happen in the temples. Treating that casually is certainly an abomination.

Where much is given much is required.

[NeuroTypical]

They do not want to produce children or offspring. Notice my emphasis on want.

This is uncharitable, unchristlike, and unrighteously judgemental. People do things that result in them not getting what they want all the time. Take you, for example. You're trying to make points people will accept, but you're using a bunch of inflammatory language which turns a lot of people off, so even though you want something, you're acting in ways keeping you from getting it.

Two men will never be able to create life. In essence, IMO, they are damning themselves. Same with two women.

Phooey. My wife will never be able to create life again. Neither will I. Neither of us have damned ourselves or each other.

Smeagums, have you ever known a homosexual well enough to love them as God commanded? You should give it a try.

[Smeagums]

This is uncharitable, unchristlike, and unrighteously judgemental. People do things that result in them not getting what they want all the time. Take you, for example. You're trying to make points people will accept, but you're using a bunch of inflammatory language which turns a lot of people off, so even though you want something, you're acting in ways keeping you from getting it.

Phooey. My wife will never be able to create life again. Neither will I. Neither of us have damned ourselves or each other.

Smeagums, have you ever known a homosexual well enough to love them as God commanded? You should give it a try.

I put emphasis on want because I didn't want people, apparently like yourself, who can't have children be offended by what I wrote.

You shouldn't be accusing me of not loving someone or a group of people. I gave my opinion about the Abomination of Desolation. Homosexuals choose the life they live like all of us do. They will never be able to produce children with their partners. That's the cold, hard truth. Truth is a doubled edged sword for all of us. A heterosexual couple can usually have children. It is one of the great reasons we came to earth; to procreate.

I'm sorry your wife and you cannot have any more children. I am not aware of your situation but I never was talking about good, loving couples who want to have children but can't or who can no longer for some unknown reason. This post isn't about them.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Smeagums

[NeuroTypical]

I'm not offended at all.

Even if you removed the bolding and underlining, your statement was factually incorrect. There are many same-sex couples who want children.

[Anddenex]

There are no "marriages" performed in the temple.

Gwen please clarify what you are defining as "marriage" performed in the temple.

I understand, via Church handbook, that civil marriages are actually performed in the temple as well as sealings.

[Smeagums]

I'm not offended at all.

Even if you removed the bolding and underlining, your statement was factually incorrect. There are many same-sex couples who want children.

Okay, yes they want children but they can't create them. End of story. That's the truth that is a double edged sword. I'm sure there are probably many homosexual couples who want children and would raise them lovingly and kindly. Unfortunately it wasn't in the program for them to procreate. There is a reason for that.

[NeuroTypical]

Okay, yes they want children but they can't create them. End of story.

Now see, that's not true either. The biological functions don't stop just because of orientation. There are other ways to "have babies" besides the God-ordained way.

God gave us bodies, and minds to discover how things work. We figured out IVR, and surrogate parenting, and adoption, and fostering and guardianship of children, and maybe even cloning in the next 100 years. No really - all the different ways we humans go against God's program, are in God's program.

No really Smeagums - you're coming from an idealogical perspective, which is fine, but you keep trying to justify/support your idealogical perspective in factually incorrect and uncharitable ways.

I restate my question - have you ever known one of these people well enough to love them?

If not, I restate my suggestion - you ought to. I'm guessing you would grow from the experience.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Traveler]

I believe we can come to better agreement and understanding by using more general terms.

Because of the fall all man kind are in a state of misery and unable to abide divine glory. But at the same time we recognize - or should recognize that it is possible for all to repent and come unto Christ. But our efforts need to go beyond our own repentance to the encouragement for all to repent. Many of us come to Church to renew our covenants struggling; having done things which we should not every week. Some think themselves better because their list of infractions are shorter than others or we consider our shortcoming insignificant compared to others.

I do not know of anyone that enjoys their sins of difficulty being highlighted when trying to join with the saints of G-d. I believe that there are several important points to be considered concerning repentance:

First Point: We should encourage one another to repent.

Second Point: We should not consider that our sins have less need of repentance that the sins of others.

Third Point: We should forgive others of their sins. Even (especially) if they are having difficulty repenting.

Forth Point: We should forgive ourselves of our sins. Even (especially) if we are having difficulty repenting.

Fifth Point: I see no profit in discussion sins in a group that are being so tempted. Rather, I believe, It is wiser to focus on sins what are applicable to us. (ie. I see no reason to discuss sins with children not involved in such things - better to discuss things that would be of direct benefit).

Sixth Point: I do not believe we should not exclude from our personal circle of friends - those that wish to repent and associate with the saints of G-d.

Seventh Point: We should not encourage any one to sin - regardless of how difficult it may be for them to avoid and particular sin.

Eight Point: All sins are harmful both to individuals and societies. This includes those that are not involved in a particular sin but do not care if others are engaged. My Father use to tell me - lets not talk about what is okay under the circumstance -- Lets discuss what is the good and right thing (the very best possible) that everyone should do and respect.

Perhaps there are more - but I will end my list now.

The Traveler

Edited June 11, 2013 by Traveler

[Anddenex]

Now see, that's not true either. The biological functions don't stop just because of orientation. There are other ways to "have babies" besides the God-ordained way.

LM, the message you have responded to from Smeaguns is factual. Same-sex partners are biologically incapable of producing offspring together, they are barren.

The only way a same-sex partnership could produce any offspring is through the opposite sex.

Smeaguns, is specifically referring to the companions of a homosexual or lesbian relationship. When you add the opposite sex to the relationship this is no longer a homosexual relationship creating a child.

I restate my question - have you ever known one of these people well enough to love them?

If not, I restate my suggestion - you ought to. I'm guessing you would grow from the experience.

Yes, I see him every Easter, Christmas, and other times throughout the year. My love for him isn't going to change the fact without adding the opposite sex -- male partners, female partners, are barren without adding the opposite sex into the equation. They are incapable alone, even with science. Two sperms will not produce an egg. Two eggs will not produce sperm. Two sperms, or millions, will not produce a living cell which creates the embryo, neither will two eggs create an embryo. The relationship is infertile.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Anddenex

[Gwen]

Gwen please clarify what you are defining as "marriage" performed in the temple.

I understand, via Church handbook, that civil marriages are actually performed in the temple as well as sealings.

The same "marriage" that is under debate.

A civil "marriage" is the signing of the paperwork. You get a marriage license and then someone legally qualified watches you sign and they sign saying that it was you and it was your agency and not by force. That paperwork is then sent back to the county of the state you received the license and they record it in their records and they send you a certificate. You are civilly married. That can be done with as much or little fanfare as the couple desires.

I have never been to a civil marriage in the temple but I would guess it's similar to the sealing ceremony with some changes. For example the command to multiply and replenish is not in the proxy ceremony. I assume what makes it a "civil" ceremony is that there is no eternal command/promise given. So there is a temple ceremony for this life only instead of the traditional eternal that we talk about.

However, the civil marriage part of it is simply signing the civil paperwork in the temple presidents office before going back to the sealing room for the ceremony. The ceremony has nothing to do with the signing of the paperwork. The "civil" part of it is given very little recognition. All the focus is on the ceremony/religious portion of it.

To be overly technical we don't perform marriage ceremonies. We perform sealings of those marriages in the temple. We make covenants with god and each other that go above and beyond "marriage".

I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong to do it this way. Most church/religious ceremonies do it this way. The signing of the paperwork is done before or after privately with the preacher, no one actually signs paper in public.

One thing I think that could be a good change however, is that the could do that signing before going in, say in the lobby instead of the temple pres office. Then parents who are not members could at least see that part. But I guess if not careful that could get out of hand to end up having mock ceremonies in the lobby and that wouldn't be cool at all. But I'm sure something could be figured out with enough thought. lol

[Gwen]

I don't understand why "the most abominable" sins are always thought of to be coming from someone that hasn't even got a testimony. When I read about the abominable things that are so great to offend god I usually end up thinking along the lines of denying the holy ghost. They aren't sins coming from ppl that don't know better. It's the sins from his covenant ppl that are so offensive and abominable.

Satan is waging a war on marriage and things that are sacred but he's not doing it from the outside with the fanfare that so many think they see. That's the distraction so he can sneak into the ranks of the covenant and deceive them. He's doing it from within with rationalizations in breaking very serious covenants. I truly believe the divorce rate and the amt of single parents in our very own covenant ppl is the greater war on marriage. If we want to solve the marriage problem, protect the sanctity of marriage, then we need to start in our own home. I know there are times when things are permitted and maybe even necessary. I just have a hard time accepting there are as many exceptions as we are seeing happening.

[Anddenex]

To be overly technical we don't perform marriage ceremonies. We perform sealings of those marriages in the temple. We make covenants with god and each other that go above and beyond "marriage".

I am still not sure I have understood your meaning correctly; however, "marriage ceremonies" are performed in the temple which are for time only.

Couples who have already been sealed, and who have lost their spouses, may actually be married in the temple for time only.

[Gwen]

A marriage ceremony would contain the "marriage" part of it, the signing of the paperwork. Most do not make that part of the ceremony. The paperwork is a formality that is kept separate from the rest. However, without it there is no "marriage".

There is an experation date on the marriage license and if you wait too long to send it in then you are not married, you have to start all over at marriage license stage.

Before the days of marriage licenses and public records then preachers could marry ppl. They would do the whole thing and whatever ceremony they did was enough to be considered married. But all that has changed, "marriage" is not really in the hands of any religion. You can't show up at the temple or a church and get "married", you have to have the proper legal paperwork first. There is no ceremony for the paperwork, the ceremony is religious.

[Traveler]

I don't understand why "the most abominable" sins are always thought of to be coming from someone that hasn't even got a testimony. When I read about the abominable things that are so great to offend god I usually end up thinking along the lines of denying the holy ghost. They aren't sins coming from ppl that don't know better. It's the sins from his covenant ppl that are so offensive and abominable.

Satan is waging a war on marriage and things that are sacred but he's not doing it from the outside with the fanfare that so many think they see. That's the distraction so he can sneak into the ranks of the covenant and deceive them. He's doing it from within with rationalizations in breaking very serious covenants. I truly believe the divorce rate and the amt of single parents in our very own covenant ppl is the greater war on marriage. If we want to solve the marriage problem, protect the sanctity of marriage, then we need to start in our own home. I know there are times when things are permitted and maybe even necessary. I just have a hard time accepting there are as many exceptions as we are seeing happening.

I think there are limits and we need to also concern ourselves about the welfare of the society in which we live. It is by concern for the welfare of society that we pass laws. Some say we should not attempt to legislate morals. But the reality is that human morals are the only things we can legislate and create laws for. We will not change the seasons or the value of pi by passing a law. What we can and should do is define and support in society our best understanding of things - both concerning necessary behavior to maintain and preserve good society. It is also wise to discourage behavior that is not or cannot be beneficial to society.

We know that respect for the property and stewardship of others is necessary for a stable society but we also know that over-reacting to such respect (ie - putting someone to death for picking a flower from a garden) is not beneficial to society.

Specifically - my main concern revolving around homosexuality is the appearance of many that seems to imply that such behavior is as necessary for the preservation and benefit of society as the traditional family (marriage). My response to such outlandish claims is - until someone can demonstrate the necessary benefit to society of such behavior - I think their logic has completely failed them in suggesting that we reward such behavior and say it is beneficial.

The Traveler

[Leah]

I am still not sure I have understood your meaning correctly; however, "marriage ceremonies" are performed in the temple which are for time only.

Couples who have already been sealed, and who have lost their spouses, may actually be married in the temple for time only.

From the 2013 schedule for the Portland, Oregon Temple:

"Please call to schedule an appointment for a Living Endowment; a Licensed Marriage, a Sealing After Civil Marriage, a Marriage for Time Only, or a Child-to-Parent Sealing."

There seem to be three distinctions involving marriage.

[Gwen]

I'm not making an argument for or against the homosexuality and the marriage debate. I'm saying it's a distraction and a false sense of security to point the finger at someone else. There is a major problem among the covenant ppl when it comes to protecting the sanctity of marriage. If we don't admit and address that then it won't matter what gays do, the downfall will come from within. Remove the mote from your own eye before focusing on the beam in your neighbors.

However, I do agree with you Traveler, we do legislate morals and we do need to be very concerned with the morals of society. I just think we better shape society by managing ourselves and saying "come follow me" than we do by saying "you should be/do....." while we break our own covenants. Many would call that hypocritical.