- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If gay marriage became the law of the land, it would be easy to allow married, gay members to attend the temple – assuming they were monogamous. It would be much, much harder to allow those gay members to be sealed in the temple. William Bradshaw’s talk changed my mind about the whole gay issue. His conclusion that they can’t help it based on biological evidence was a bit of a turning point for me. Prior to coming to this site, I felt it was all sexual perversion. Now, I realize the plight they must feel — disenfranchised from their Church life, and not allowed any kind of outlet for it. I know some have thought of committing suicide simply because of who they are. I remember how frustrated I felt as a single, heterosexual person in the Church; to have to live with that for your life, believing there was something wrong with you that whole time — what a terrible life to have to live!!!! One thing he said has become part of my DNA now…”It’s a burden to be odd”. Amen in and out of the Church.
As I’ve said in another thread, at least once, if sexual activity as we know it in mortality is removed from the eternal picture, many of these issues simply disappear. I believe our theology can allow for that extremely easily, and I think it makes SO much more sense, but it’s really hard for people to think outside their earthly paradigm in this manner. Over my dead body. Just kidding, sort of, because I’m willing to bet $1 it will never happen before then. The comparison was made with blacks getting the priesthood, but that was just a piffling administrative detail by comparison. The entire temple ceremony is built around a heterosexual model. The entire dogma of exaltation … same thing. I mean, who’s going to wear the veil?
In order for practicing homosexuals to be able to attend — let alone be sealed in — the temple, all sorts of barriers would have to come down first. Any reference to a difference in the roles of the sexes would have to be done away. How could male-only priesthood be justified? A vast segment of past pronouncements and doctrine would have to be swept away. The last time something even approaching this in magnitude happened, it took the government threatening to completely disenfranchise the church. Who or what is going to do that?
Though I am not by any means anti-gay, I have to say that even I would rather not see this come to pass in my lifetime, because it would mean the end of the church, such as it is, as we know it.
Some Mormon sect already marries gays… and I believe that they even have homosexual polygamy too. doug wrote:Over my dead body.
Just kidding, sort of, because I’m willing to bet $1 it will never happen before then. The comparison was made with blacks getting the priesthood, but that was just a piffling administrative detail by comparison. The entire temple ceremony is built around a heterosexual model. The entire dogma of exaltation … same thing. I mean, who’s going to wear the veil?
No kidding, I mean who is going to preside over whom in the home?
Also, if it were two women marrying, that would leave no priesthood in the home, which is a terrible thing, right?
Okay. I admit that I don’t believe it will ever happen. It was only wishful thinking and positive attitude at the time that allowed me state that i think it might happen. My bad. They’ll have to allow polygamous marriage again if they would allow this change. My prediction would be that within my lifetime, gay marriage will become legal throughout the US and that gay members who are monogamously chaste in civil marriages will be allowed full fellowship, but not sealing. Restricted on callings, too. The bigger issue I see is that the doctrine of man + woman = eternal family unit is very core. It’s hard to get past it. I think most of those at high levels who accept that these tendencies are inate would also say it’s equivalent to a disability that will be gone after resurrection. Under those conditions, sealing would be moot. cwald apologizing for being optimistic. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! 😆 Old-Timer wrote:cwald apologizing for being optimistic. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
😆 That made laugh.
🙂 I haven’t felt in a prognosticating mood, but the Hawk gets my vote. MtnMan wrote:Hey forum! School has been keeping me extra busy, but I’m back for a moment.
I proposed to my wife that within our lifetime we might see same sex marriage in the temple. She didn’t agree. I said that 40 years ago many members couldn’t image that blacks would ever hold the priesthood. Yet here we are in 2011, and an African man blessing the sacrament on Sunday in my ward doesn’t even raise a brow. I believe that “same sex marriage?” will be the “blacks and the priesthood” of my generation. Any thoughts?
-Greg
I’m with your wife on this one. I don’t know her reasoning, but mine is this: The scriptures make it pretty clear that same-sex intimacy is a no-no. In other words, it’s doctrinal. The whole Blacks and the priesthood thing never was doctrine. It was strictly a matter of policy. There’s a big difference. (Personally, I’d be satisfied if the Church would just back off on getting involved in the issue of same-sex marriages, period. I’d think we’d taken a big step forward if we could just mind our own business on this issue.)hawkgrrrl wrote:My prediction would be that within my lifetime, gay marriage will become legal throughout the US and that gay members who are monogamously chaste in civil marriages will be allowed full fellowship, but not sealing. Restricted on callings, too. The bigger issue I see is that the doctrine of man + woman = eternal family unit is very core. It’s hard to get past it. I think most of those at high levels who accept that these tendencies are inate would also say it’s equivalent to a disability that will be gone after resurrection. Under those conditions, sealing would be moot.
^^^ This gets my vote.
observant wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:
My prediction would be that within my lifetime, gay marriage will become legal throughout the US and that gay members who are monogamously chaste in civil marriages will be allowed full fellowship, but not sealing. Restricted on callings, too. The bigger issue I see is that the doctrine of man + woman = eternal family unit is very core. It’s hard to get past it. I think most of those at high levels who accept that these tendencies are inate would also say it’s equivalent to a disability that will be gone after resurrection. Under those conditions, sealing would be moot.
^^^ This gets my vote.
If the proceeding is the most likely step towards allowing gay persons to participate in the church, then it is especially sad that the LDS church has been so active in making sure that it never happens.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.