- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
swimordie wrote:
Are you saying that the acceptance of SSA and SSM is leaning away from family values?
Yes. I believe in “traditional” family values … father, mother and children. I firmly believe in the message of
The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Quote:The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.
Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a motherwho honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Was President Hinckley inspired when he spoke those words, or was he just speaking as a man and was merely making suggestions?
As I wrote, I am, no doubt, way old-fashioned in my thinking. I cannot help but feel that some people are wanting to change God’s laws (as far as marriage and children, not dietary laws, etc.) in favor of human desires.
If cloning becomes the norm, then I will have the answer as to whether God was also man-made. That would also, at least in my line of thinking, mean that ALL religions were indeed man-made.
The world is changing too rapidly for this old woman.
Kalola wrote:Was President Hinckley inspired when he spoke those words, or was he just speaking as a man and was merely making suggestions?
Kalola, I am in your camp that the publishing of the Proclamation on the Family is an important factor in this discussion. You can certainly make the point that Pres. Hinckley and the brethren were inspired to be ahead of the game to know that this was an important issue that needed to be addressed, and by publishing that document, doctrines were established on the gender of spirits in the eternities. To me, that is as paramount as Pres Woodruff publishing the Manifesto on plural marriage to establish church policy which affects lots of poeple.
The other side, as I see it, is that this shows the current leadership’s position on the topic of SSM. But like other “opinions” of leaders in times past, it can change with new revelation.
Your question is a good one. Was it inspired or just the opinion of a man? I don’t see the Proclamation as a Larry King interview where an opinion on cola drinks was thrown out there, but this was a carefully orchestrated move by the First Presidency and the Q12 to have the document published and the doctrine established. It would be hard for me to believe they were not inspired by revelation to do such a formal step, and by stating that, if they have to revise or rescind that, it would hurt my trust in their ability to receive revelation and I would have to start letting go of a lot of things about the church that I continue to hold on to right now. Although I do admit, I have become more open-minded and have had to let go of many things I previously thought were straight forward and cut and dry…yet I still believe through personal revelation that the First Vision did occur and the Lord continues to lead the church by revelation today. Because of that, I am very interested in watching these events develop and hope the members of the church can deal with a social issue like this without losing any Christ-like love for all people. My testimony of the church is a living thing that depends upon ongoing confirmation that the Church is being led to help bring people closer to God, and that is more important than if church policies or procedures change over time.
Fwiw, there is a HUGE distinction between attraction, activity and sexual intercourse. That gets mixed up in many of these discussions. I could see the Church sanctioning “celibate” homosexual unions. It could be done VERY easily from a doctrinal standpoint, and the only “change” that would have to occur would be a loosening of the restrictions on “activity” to allow homosexuals to express their feelings in non-intercourse ways that are allowed to heterosexuals.
Iow, a non-married heterosexual couple can do quite a few things without breaking the Law of Chastity. If homosexual couples were allowed to do those same things, then “living together” would NOT have to mean “living in sin” – and civilly joined homosexual couples could attend the temple in full compliance with the Law of Chastity. I know that wouldn’t satisfy those who want to simulate intercourse, but there are MANY gay members (and people, in general) who really want the open intimacy of expression far more than they want specific sexual actions.
Gay sealings? I’m not sure. The theological possibility is there in our past for a concept of communal, sexual-activity-less sealing and eternal creation that does not involve “sex” (my own belief), but I don’t see it happening without direct revelation of the highest magnitude – since it require an embrace of such communal sealing, imo.
Quote:I know that wouldn’t satisfy those who want to simulate intercourse, but there are MANY gay members (and people, in general) who really want the open intimacy of expression far more than they want specific sexual actions.
Are you saying it is realistic that some people would really be able to and be ok with living together celebate, or just theoretical to make the point that the important thing is the Law of Chastity, which wouldn’t change?
Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, there is a HUGE distinction between attraction, activity and sexual intercourse. That gets mixed up in many of these discussions.
I could see the Church sanctioning “celibate” homosexual unions. It could be done VERY easily from a doctrinal standpoint, and the only “change” that would have to occur would be a loosening of the restrictions on “activity” to allow homosexuals to express their feelings in non-intercourse ways that are allowed to heterosexuals.
Iow, a non-married heterosexual couple can do quite a few things without breaking the Law of Chastity. If homosexual couples were allowed to do those same things, then “living together” would NOT have to mean “living in sin” – and civilly joined homosexual couples could attend the temple in full compliance with the Law of Chastity. I know that wouldn’t satisfy those who want to simulate intercourse, but there are MANY gay members (and people, in general) who really want the open intimacy of expression far more than they want specific sexual actions.
Gay sealings? I’m not sure. The theological possibility is there in our past for a concept of communal, sexual-activity-less sealing and eternal creation that does not involve “sex” (my own belief), but I don’t see it happening without direct revelation of the highest magnitude – since it require an embrace of such communal sealing, imo.
While I consider this possibility and admire Ray’s voice on this my honest opinion is probably very heretical, even for a heretical group. Here goes:I’m deviating from the Prop 8 discussion a bit here, so feel free to moderate me. I just can’t, for the life of me, figure out why God is so interested in my sexuality. Fornication, adultery, oral sex, masturbation, pornography etc. etc. I just don’t get it. I think adultery is wrong, but I think it’s wrong because it violates a commitment. I believe masturbation can lead to addiction problems. I believe fornication was a big deal before adequate birth control. And pornography is addictive, and demeans women (in some but not all cases IMHO). Mind you this comes from someone who has never deviated from the law of chastity. I don’t say this to brag, but to demonstrate that I’m not just trying to excuse “sinful” behavior. Anyway, I think some of these things have natural consequences that used to be a bigger deal than they are today.
The worst part about my dilemma is that I cannot find a satisfactory explanation of why God is so interested. The best attempt was Elder Holland’s “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments.” But even his remarks seemed like a stretch. Many have implied the emotional aspects. Yeah, so what if a 24 year old woman and 25 year old man have been “dating” for 5 years and plan to stay together. Can they not consummate this relationship yet because someone hasn’t pronounced them “man and wife”? It just doesn’t make sense for me. Incidentally, I know a guy who has been cohabitating with a woman for like 25 years and had kids. What’s the big deal? They are “married” for all intents and purposes, yet their behavior is sinful? Just doesn’t ring true to me. Womanizing is not acceptable, and sleeping around is not wise, but for reasons other than the immoral nature of the acts themselves when not married. I would understand if God was interested in helping us reign in the creative powers since there is an obligation associated with children. But that is largely a moot point given modern birth control options.
Hence for me, I just don’t see why homosexual sex is such a big deal. I recognize that for many gays, it is the emotional component, not the sexual one that is really the driving force. Ray alluded to this. Even so, why do I care if it’s “normal” or “natural” or anything else?
Sorry, for the small threadjack, this has been something that I haven’t understood even when I was a mere teenager.
Heber, both. jmb, I have NO problem with the general concept of the Law of Chastity – of loyalty and fidelity and avoidance of addiction and stuff like that. I have a major problem with some cultural aspects of how that Law is interpreted. Fundamentally, I don’t like but understand the idea of competing extremes – that the more one side moves away from the middle, the more the other side tends to move in the opposite direction to maintain equalibrium. I wish it wasn’t so, but I understand the mentality – and, as the basis of GENERAL consensus, I’ve come to accept it.
Granted, I’ve just carved out room for exceptions by labeling it “general consensus” – and I’m OK with that, as well. I don’t mind being taught correct principles, it’s the attachment of detailed safeguards around those principles that bother me – even as, again, I understand the social need to do so in times of rampant promiscuity.
Old-Timer wrote:jmb, I have NO problem with the general concept of the Law of Chastity – of loyalty and fidelity and avoidance of addiction and stuff like that. I have a major problem with some cultural aspects of how that Law is interpreted. Fundamentally, I don’t like but understand the idea of competing extremes – that the more one side moves away from the middle, the more the other side tends to move in the opposite direction to maintain equalibrium. I wish it wasn’t so, but I understand the mentality – and, as the basis of GENERAL consensus, I’ve come to accept it.
Sorry, Ray, to be clear I wasn’t trying to undermine your position or anything. I maybe shouldn’t have quoted you. Your remarks just got me thinking. I suppose my comment had little to do with prop 8, but more to do with God dictating our sexuality.Having sad that, I really want to understand what you’re saying here – but I don’t. Can you help me understand? Maybe elaborate a little more. To be more clear in my position, I honestly just don’t understand why God is so interested. It seems more likely to me that our current cultural understanding is more based on historical puritanism. I’m not trying to be extreme – saying everything goes. I think there are limits, but my limits usually involve someone else’s rights, or honoring commitments rather than obeying a law just because someone told me God said so.
Ray wrote:Granted, I’ve just carved out room for exceptions by labeling it “general consensus” – and I’m OK with that, as well. I don’t mind being taught correct principles, it’s the attachment of detailed safeguards around those principles that bother me – even as, again, I understand the social need to do so in times of rampant promiscuity.
Sorry, again, I’m trying to understand, but it’s too cryptic for me. Can you help me understand? How do we know what “correct principles” are? Where does the “detailed safeguards” and “social need to do so” line end, and the “correct principle” line begin? Or is this a personal question, or too nuanced to know? I generally try to understand the reason for a particular law, or rule, or principle. A claim from authority usually doesn’t carry much weight for me.Old-Timer wrote:I could see the Church sanctioning “celibate” homosexual unions. It could be done VERY easily from a doctrinal standpoint, and the only “change” that would have to occur would be a loosening of the restrictions on “activity” to allow homosexuals to express their feelings in non-intercourse ways that are allowed to heterosexuals.
The other option, of course, would be to not change anything. Gay marriage is already legal in several states and many countries and the “Law of Chastity”, as defined in the temple ceremony, is all sexual activity bounded my marriage.
There is, imho, the big underlying question of choice. It is a HUGE irrational leap to lump all homosexuals into the “you’re choosing to act this way”. Just because the thought of something makes us queasy or uncomfortable, does not make it a sin. Inter-racial marriage was branded in the exact same way. (Until it was changed “doctrinally”)
I’m not insinuating that any of you are irrational and I understand the “doctrinal” context of the Proclamation. But, of course, there are ideas in that document that HAVE changed over time, so I guess I choose to see it as a living document. Ironically, (or not) the LDS church is the only mainstream Christian church that even assigns two genders to “God”. Everyone else calls God, “Him”, but doesn’t allow for a spouse, God-mother, whatever. And, as I stated earlier, I’m not sure that even the church feels the Proclamation is doctrine since DC 132 is still “doctrine” and there’s a glaring contradiction.
Kalola wrote:Yes. I believe in “traditional” family values … father, mother and children. I firmly believe in the message of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
This may sound confrontational but I don’t intend it to be. “Traditional” is so dubious since the idea of monogamous heterosexual marriage is an extremely novel idea in the context of human history. Not traditional at all. (just ask Brigham Young).
If the church feels so strongly about SSM as to make it untenable and unacceptable to the extreme, shouldn’t temple divorces be banned if there are children involved? I feel this is a HUGE double standard. Heterosexual couples can freely marry, have children, and divorce at will but one gay couple who is committed to monogamy for eternity is NOT allowed to marry?
I feel as if there is something deeper going on here that, I guess, I don’t understand. Grasping so tightly to an OT notion of “abomination” when we’ve already discarded a vast majority of the other “abominations”? What am I missing? I assume it’s just a matter of time before “revelation” allows this change. In my heart, God has already spoken and is waiting patiently for His/Her children to listen. All we need is love.
jmb275 wrote:To be more clear in my position, I honestly just don’t understand why God is so interested.
Jmb275, I think the commandments stem from certain things. In other words, there is a plan and to carry out that plan, there needs to be some rules that help keep things under control or we couldn’t achieve the plan. Use a sports analogy or something like that, where little white lines on the football field grass don’t inherently make sense or having meaning and purpose in and of themselves, but because we agree they are in the rules defined as “out of bounds”, then they have meaning because they are agreed upon by all players.
Maybe I’m going off on a tangent, but that is how I view this whole topic around SSM and the Law of Chastity. Does God ultimately care what we do with our bodies? He gave them to us, and wants us to enjoy them and have eternal bliss as a result of having them and using them. But in order to “Bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of [His children]” – the rules for s3x stem from a need to procreate and bring spirits to earth. Based on that need, the “rule” of the Law of Chasitity defines what is acceptable and what is not for us while we play the game down here on earth and how we’ll be judged in the next life.
Can we argue that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual? Maybe…but instead of changing all the rules to fit our specific needs, we should openly voice our opinions and openly debate what we feel is right, then accept what is told to us is God’s rules, and if we need confirmation we go to Him in prayer to ask if we should accept that rule. That applies to the Word of Wisdom, and other commandments too.
Could we have just as much fun in football with 5 downs per possession instead of 4? Maybe, but to make the game work, the rules are set and it then challenges us to be creative to succeed under those conditions. I think it is also interesting they review the NFL rules each year, and sometimes make changes based on the drive to continue to make it better, but then they are agreed upon by the teams prior to playing the next games, not the players trying to change the game in the middle of a game. If you want to paly in the NFL, you play by their rules. If you want to return to live with God, live by His rules.
Heber13 wrote:the rules for s3x stem from a need to procreate and bring spirits to earth.
I’m not sure if this is entirely true. The rules for sexual relations go far beyond just procreation (or on the other side, the lack of rules). And, again, you’re devaluing millions of heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate. What is the purpose of their sexuality if unable to procreate? If they can’t procreate, shouldn’t they be subject to the same celibacy rules that homosexual couples are?
Heber13 wrote:an we argue that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual? Maybe…but instead of changing all the rules to fit our specific needs, we should openly voice our opinions and openly debate what we feel is right, then accept what is told to us is God’s rules, and if we need confirmation we go to Him in prayer to ask if we should accept that rule. That applies to the Word of Wisdom, and other commandments too.
Wonderfully said Heber! I completely agree and I also agree with your analogy of the NFL needing to change/update the rules over time when circumstances deem it necessary.
jmb275, I’m going to have to tackle your questions when I have a little more time than I do right now. It’s short answer time for me today, and your questions deserve more than that. Heber13 wrote:Jmb275, I think the commandments stem from certain things. In other words, there is a plan and to carry out that plan, there needs to be some rules that help keep things under control or we couldn’t achieve the plan.
Why does there need to be rules to carry out that plan? Why does there need to be control? Have you ever read “The Shack”? It asks this very question, and I believe provides the answer. I don’t think we do. I don’t think God has rules. I think He has one objective, to help us become one with Him. He transcends the rules. I guess I just don’t accept that God has a plan and that there has to be rules to carry out the plan. This sounds like man’s projection of God onto God, rather than God Himself.
Heber13 wrote:Use a sports analogy or something like that, where little white lines on the football field grass don’t inherently make sense or having meaning and purpose in and of themselves, but because we agree they are in the rules defined as “out of bounds”, then they have meaning because they are agreed upon by all players.
Yes, I understand the need for rules in human endeavors. But I think that has to do with our desire for control. Doesn’t God and our relationship with Him transcend rules?Heber13 wrote:Could we have just as much fun in football with 5 downs per possession instead of 4? Maybe, but to make the game work, the rules are set and it then challenges us to be creative to succeed under those conditions. I think it is also interesting they review the NFL rules each year, and sometimes make changes based on the drive to continue to make it better, but then they are agreed upon by the teams prior to playing the next games, not the players trying to change the game in the middle of a game. If you want to paly in the NFL, you play by their rules. If you want to return to live with God, live by His rules.
Excellent analogy. There is one problem though, and it is the ultimate one. This assumes that we actually know God’s will. The fact is, we know what a lot of people tell us is God’s will. Those two are not the same IMHO.What jmb said. jmb275 wrote:There is one problem though, and it is the ultimate one. This assumes that we actually know God’s will. The fact is, we know what a lot of people tell us is God’s will.
Yes, that is the ultimate problem. I believe the doctrine is that His will can be known, which is why we need prophets and the Spirit to confirm to us individually. It is part of the rules, part of the plan, that we need to walk by faith in this life. But we can have faith we will be led to know His will…He wants us to know Him as a Father…not a myserious universal being that cannot be comprehended. He has used prophets throughout time and that is His pattern of delivering truth.
We have prophets that have told us there was a grand council in Heaven where the plan was laid out, and the rules established. To keep our first estate, we agreed to play by those rules. I believe our spirits have gender. I believe we agreed on the rules to bring children into the world through the pattern first established with Adam and Eve…one man and one woman to start a family.
Alma talked to his son about how God Himself must keep to the rules:
Quote:22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.
24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.
25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.
26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.
Maybe part of these rules and ideas of justice and mercy are ways we make sense of God’s ways, like a symbolic parable of a seed so that farmers understands the principle. But if that is how God is teaching us, it still helps us learn of the universal truths in a way we can comprehend it so it benefits our lives. And that is what it is all about…how it impacts my life I’m living so I can get closer to God. From this line of thinking, the Law of Chastity has been revealed as the way most likely to achieve happiness in this life, and breaking it will bring justice, unless mercy is received through the Atonement. There are unique circumstances that require accommodation, but God will be the judge according to the rules we agreed to prior to playing the game. And if that is what God is telling His prophets, then that is what the prophets are obligated to teach to the masses. I don’t see how homosexual partners acting on their desires is any different than out of wedlock partners engaging in their desires, all of which go against God’s plan as revealed by His prophets, and we should protecte marriage as the standard for raising a family, so people are taught how God wants us to live.
Each person can accept or reject those teachings, but the church leaders want to teach those principles, and preserve marriage so it doesn’t change the standard our kids should learning as they grow up deciding what is right and what is wrong, from God’s perspective.
Heber13 wrote:…we need prophets and the Spirit to confirm to us individually.
I believe that. I need prophets (Thoreau, Saint Francis, T.S. Monson, Heber13 and the StayLDS company, my wife, my dad, my kids, George Ritchie, etc.) and the Spirit (spiritual gifts and sensitivity). But when you throw priesthood into the mix and bake it into the historical LDS recipe, it gets troublesome.
Heber13 wrote:…there was a grand council in Heaven where the plan was laid out, and the rules established. To keep our first estate, we agreed to play by those rules.
Hmm. I totally feel like I understand where you are coming from. But for some reason in the past 6 years I am no longer seeing it that way, as a bunch of rules. Rather I see I kept my first estate by being courageous (faith-filled) enough to accept the second estate. And I agreed to invest fully in the experience to glorify the Father.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.