- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A thought occurred to me in response to MtnMan’s post today about same sex temple marriages…let’s just assume that it’s happened — that the Prophet has had a revelation you can be a full-fledged member of the Church and be in a full-blown same sex marriage. What reasons would apologetics give for this reversal of doctrine and policy? Particularly given the Proclamation to the World and its near doctrinal status? How would faithful members rationalize this, or deal with the cognitive dissonance that would result from such a reversal of policy? With blacks and the priesthood, it was easy — growth of the Church, need for priesthood in African parts of the world, and renewed interest in racial equality. But a reversal of policy that files in the face of the Proclamation — what reasons do you think apologetics might give for something like this?
SilentDawning wrote:A thought occurred to me in response to MtnMan’s post today about same sex temple marriages…let’s just assume that it’s happened — that the Prophet has had a revelation you can be a full-fledged member of the Church and be in a full-blown same sex marriage.
What reasons would apologetics give for this reversal of doctrine and policy? Particularly given the Proclamation to the World and its near doctrinal status? How would faithful members rationalize this, or deal with the cognitive dissonance that would result from such a reversal of policy? With blacks and the priesthood, it was easy — growth of the Church, need for priesthood in African parts of the world, and renewed interest in racial equality. But a reversal of policy that files in the face of the Proclamation — what reasons do you think apologetics might give for something like this?
The reasons you give for blacks and the priesthood are not the apologists reasons, as far as I know. It was simply the Lord’s time to make the change.It would be the same here with gay marriage – and you’d get some TBM standing there in conference saying exactly what Elder McConkie said: “forget what I said and what Brother Brigham said. We were wrong, we had limited light. Continuing revelations is the way to go.” Bet on it.
HiJolly
All the prophet has to do is say it was a revelation with no explanation. After that there would be no need for apologist arguments. The way members tout “follow the prophet” there would be no wiggle room. I’m not so sure. We had a major change a while ago when missions were adjusted to be only 1.5 years. This went on for about 2 or three years, and they reversed the policy back to 2 year missions. The reasons were flying for why this was so. I think people will always invent reasons for why reversals of policy happen. They amount to a form of mental gymnastics, in my view. Fwiw, I think there is a HUGE difference between “mental gymnastics” and just trying to understand reasons. Cadence wrote:All the prophet has to do is say it was a revelation with no explanation. After that there would be no need for apologist arguments. The way members tout “follow the prophet” there would be no wiggle room.
This.
SilentDawning wrote:A thought occurred to me in response to MtnMan’s post today about same sex temple marriages…let’s just assume that it’s happened — that the Prophet has had a revelation you can be a full-fledged member of the Church and be in a full-blown same sex marriage.
Perhaps my imagination isn’t as strong as yours, but I would prefer to modify your proposal.
Suppose that same sex civil marriages are offered in all states of the land.
The Prophet declares that the doctrine of the Proclamation stands however, due to the hardness of our hearts and the general complexities of living in a fallen world, Heavenly Father is waiving the strict enforcement of the “no homosexuality clause.” This would have as a precedent the hardliner anti-divorce stance of some scriptures and the law of consecration.
I do not envision same sex temple sealings as this would imply that these relationships would continue into the next life and I’m not sure how to justify that with traditional Mormon theology. But there could be same sex marriage partners that participate in the church and are not classified as sinners for the intimacy shared within the marriage.
If I was a GA and same sex civil marriages were widely available, I would quietly push for this change.
I can see this progression happening more easily than full-blown temple blessings. I could see full-fellowship for individuals in a legal marital reliationship happening first. However, you sort of took the fun out of my question because the reason for the shift — the hardness of the hearts and living in a fallen world — is given in your answer. That would be one form of justification I was talking about. By the way, I seem to remember a commandment mentioned in Mormon Doctrine (which I know is no longer published and never was doctrine) that fell into this category — an eternal law, but one that was not in force. I can’t remember what it was, but that would be another form of justification people would accept, I’m sure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.