- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yes, and I for one appreciate that distinction. I think that the family proclamation just solidifies the church’s view of the book of Genesis and the creation of Adam and Eve. Yes, much of Genesis is symbolic since it is used to teach fundamental principles of religious faith. Also, it was recorded many thousands of years ago to Moses after the fact. In Western Christianity near the decline of the Roman Empire, one of the theologians by the name of Augustine (c 354-430 AD) believed that the desires for procreation or lust that were to be used within marriage were a necessary evil. Because of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (which some religionists believe had something to do with sexuality going awry), the Catholic Church viewed marriage itself as a necessary evil and those who would lead a fully celibate (sexless life) as following the divine path or higher path. Now, lets juxtapose this to today. Much of the problem in our current day is that people have a tremendous amount of freedom sexually with birth control and abortion and alternative lifestyles. The fabric of family life in the United States and the rest of the world has already deteriorated. The U.S. has already overextended itself because of its active role at playing peace keeper and keeping the war machine alive, much like the Roman Empire. Trends in history in some ways are repeating themselves. There may become a time when sexuality will be deemed evil in itself because of the widespread discord that sexuality unchecked unleashes on a society through both heterosexual and homosexual activities (i.e. adultery, fornication, pornography, prostitution, sexually abused children, etc.) During the rise of monasticism in Augustine of Hippos day, any form of sexuality was deemed a sin; thus heterosexuality as well as homosexuality, and bestiality would all be condemned. In restored Christianity (Mormonism), the reverse is true. Celibacy is deemed a sin because it disrupts God’s enterprise to procreate to multiply and replenish the earth; the primary purpose of marriage (even though many marry to prevent fornication in my opinion and put off having children to get degrees and make money.) The apostle Paul did say that it would be better to get married than to burn. Purposely not getting married is deemed a sin, because you are not following God’s law to get married and raise a family. Anything contrary to the original intent of Marriage doctrine in essence is a sin. I didn’t always believe this, but I do now. It isn’t the church that society is mad at, it is God; because God does not change. But, cultures and society do change. Satan through time knows this. For example, he has disembodied God through the Council of Nicea. The theory of evolution is misapplied to destroy any concept of God as a creator. Just as the Revised Standard Version of the holy bible humanized Christ and stripped him of his divinity. As a culture, marriage is often perceived as a man made enterprise that is social in nature. In essence, God could not be God without following his own doctrine: “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. The Family Proclamation isn’t “new” doctrine it just provides doctrinal emphasis due to a new threat to Heavenly Father’s enterprise of clothing spiritual children into temporal bodies to one day be exalted as God is. doug wrote:If you are ‘legally and lawfully married’, what’s the problem? I know I’m missing something obvious, but as I recall there are no TR questions that specifically ask the question, nor is there anything in the endowment that would specifically disqualify a gay-but-legally-married person from participating. Speaking from a west coast perspective, I’m thinking that both of those things (TR interview and the endowment itself) would have to change in the eventuality of SSM becoming the law. But of course it’s already legal in other parts of the world, so what gives?
Widely recognized same sex marriage might lead to changes in the wording, but not necessarily. On my mission, we frequently ran into common law marriages, where the state considered cohabitating couples to be married after they’d been together a certain length of time. My mission president considered those marriages to be illegal, so I’d imagine the church would consider marriages to be “legal and lawful” according to its own definitions and not based on how the state views them.
observant wrote:Same-sex marriage becomes legal in most if not all states/countries in the next 15-20 years. The church recognizes SSM as being legal marriages but those marriages cannot be sealed in the temple nor can any children adopted into these marriages be sealed to either partner. Basically, it’s like looking at these marriages as member to non-member marriages. They are legal so the partners are not engaging in un-chastelike behavior so they could participate in the church in any capacity except temple. The partners would know they are making a compromise and yet would still have the agency to choose.
Of course, they would certainly be limited in what sort of callings they’d receive. If you aren’t sealed in the temple very likely you would not be a Bishop, SP or the like.
I think this outcome or some variant is what will likely happen eventually, and I don’t think the proclamation necessarily precludes it. Just as encouraging gays to marry someone of the opposite gender wound up not working, I think the church’s current “super-celibacy” recommendation is nonviable long-term. I believe the church will eventually admit that legally married gays are not violating the law of chastity as long as they remain faithful to their spouses and will allow them greater participation.
As it currently stands, celibate gays are limited in callings they can receive anyway. By discouraging gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex, they’re ineligible to be anything higher than a bishop’s counselor. Also, for reasons I don’t care to discuss here, it might make sense for a gay man to receive his endowment in the temple, but it doesn’t make any sense for a lesbian.
I don’t think the church will lose it’s stance on the status quo of marriage. However, I do perceive that the US will follow the rest of the world in its course. I just think it will take such a change in a Constitutional marriage law to finally wake up the church to realize that has been subjugated since 1890 to the despotic US federal government. Since, the church lost its fight for polygamy in the 1890s, I don’t think it wants to lose the current fight for the status quo of marriage. I see a lot of irony in the Church’s position. However, the church is poised and has a lot of support from the Christian right on this matter. Many outsiders may see this as another Religion versus secularism affair-which would also be another fair assessment. Historically, Abraham Lincoln was a saint that told congress to leave the Mormon’s alone. Lincoln more than likely would have left polygamy up to popular sovereignty. (I wonder why Satan had Lincoln killed?) It is pretty obvious so that true Christianity would once again be subject to earthly law and limited by corrupt government just like it was during the time of the Roman Empire. At least this time, the government will not take the Church completely over like Emperor Constantine did. Lincoln almost always went with Brigham Young’s way to lead n lieu of any federally appointed territorial governor. I hate politics and to some degree hate government because it destroyed many of my ancestors’ families. If you were white, believed in polygamy, were a Member of the Church in 1890 and lived in Idaho, but did notpractice polygamy you were disenfranchised. At least bi-sexual, trans-gendered, gay and lesbian citizens have a right to vote. Polygamists did not have the right to vote as well as any Mormon for that matter in 1890. At least polygamy had a biblical precedent. Martin Luther the great reformer even sanctioned polygamy, because it was based upon scripture. I guess even sola scritura can lead you into the right direction. Hallelujah for the Bible. I always thought if people could just live the basic ten commandments how better off we would be. I guess that is why God has to keep talking to prophets and give us more word, because as a world we are still not listening. Personally, I’d like to see the government get out of the marriage business, and stick to civil unions. People would then be free to solemnize their union in whatever way they see fit, rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s. As I recall, this is the way it is done in many parts of Europe. Has it been a problem?
I’m with you doug. Leave the business of marriage contracts to the civil government. We all too often forget the public law aspect of these “romantic” arrangements. A large part of the marriage arrangement is a literal legal contract between the spouses, AND a contract between the married couple and their society (everyone else agrees to treat their relationship different, giving certain legal preferences and rights). Let people make their own spiritual and romantic meanings how they want. You don’t need the government for that. Religion is the science of making meaning out of life. So that tends to be the tool of choice for that purpose.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.