My friend I hope you are right. The church has already authorized a transgender man to be baptized it has already happened. Biological born man who transitioned to a woman and whose name is on the roles of the church as a female. It has already begun. I hope you can foster a meaningful relationship with the Savior Jesus Christ so that your faith in him is not shattered in the coming years when the church caves to society.
I agree. They might come up with some second-class position to allow gays to still be in good standing (and not be celibate). But I don't see the church marring gays in the temple or anything until it's changed so much is completely unrecognizable from what we know now. Maybe in 100 years.
No. I don't believe they will change that. It goes against one of the main doctrines of the church: which is that of the Family. Homosexuality is still seen as a perversion of who we were created to be. The attraction is not a sin, probably because Jesus was tempted, and yet remained sinless.
Precisely. There is a reason that God, through the prophets, released "The Family; A Proclamation to the World" decades before this hit mainstream culture.
@@teehee4096 If I’m interpreting Hebrews 4:15 correctly. “15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” I also seem to remember something in my denomination’s theology about Him also feeling all of our temptations… ah yes: “11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.” Alma 7:11 There might be more in Isaiah, or a reiteration of the same thing. So based on those two scriptures, yes. We as members of the church also believe that the Atonement actually happened in the Garden, and not on the Cross. The Cross was also important for the mission of the Christ, but anyway, during the Atonement, He not only took the punishment for our sins, but he also chose to feel all of our fears, worries, and I believe temptations so that He could succor us the best. So, if He didn’t experience that directly, He most likely did experience it through the Atonement. If that makes sense.
@@teehee4096 If I am interpreting Hebrews 4:15 correctly: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15 However I am also remember something else from my denominations own theology… ah yes. “11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.” Alma 7:11 There might even be something similar in Isaiah.
@jondxxxiii But it's not the same thing. Priesthood ban was weird and contrary to Gospel principles while eternal marriage is based upon scriptures. If God created man and woman there's no space for gay marriage in the Temple.
I sincerely hope that you can discern the amusement in my voice. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to you for your contribution. It is my belief that The Church functions as an entity dedicated to implementing changes in its policies, which it may have embraced as doctrines.
Thank you for naming these women. I read read the book in 1993. I didn't know about the JS polygamy, and thought the book was anti-mormon literature! I would defend him! We were so bamboozled. Good work. ❤
Nope! That's the one thing the Church will never budge because it would be in direct contradiction to the great plan of Salvation. Additionally; every change that occurred within the Church regarding policies was done because: either the Lord saw it wise to make those changes in order to preserve the Church (as in the abolition of polygamy,) which means at some point it will be re-instated, or because the Lord, in his mercy and wisdom, had decided it should be so, as in the case of extending the Priesthood to all worthy black members of the Church, but on this issue there will be no compromise.
My sincere hope is that you, and others in this comment section, save and read these posts five years from now. I wonder how your justifications will sound when the prophet reveals it is time to accept gay marriage. Of course, none of these folks will remember saying or writing any of this.
@@woodystube1000 Thats hilarious. I wonder how you’ll feel when it NEVER happens. You really think it will change after the proclamation where it says a man and a woman united in marriage. God’s laws NEVER change.
@@surelooksresourceful6032 My “feelings” are not invested in this one way or the other. I have zero vested interest in this issue, other than my fascination with the ever-changing “truth” of the LDS church. However, the church has established a very clear pattern of total capitulation to contemporary social issues. It is inevitable. It will absolutely happen. When it does, all the “it will never happen” folks will have a decision to make. Predictably, most will decide to roll with it and accept the new norm, as happens each time there is a fundamental change in church doctrine.
The only thing I know for sure is that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. Just because you’re doing a great job at sharing man-made ideology, doesn’t mean it will happen. Sorry to burst your bubble…
The very fact that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, is precisely the reason why there are SO many countless people constantly fighting against God. Man made theology is indeed created, (not ideology), but some actual genuine truth does actually exist out there. You just need to know where to find it -
God changes drastically with every era, and from denomination to denomination, theology to theology. Who speaks directly for god? The same people who change constantly change their minds about what god wants? The "Prophets" are regularly altering and contradicting themselves and their predecessors. Why do you think that is, if god is "the same forever?"
The government can't take away the tax-exempt status of a religious organization simply because that religious organization doesn't allow certain practices. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that right.
People here are saying no it won’t happen because its contrary to the plan of salvation. With that logic, according to the church monogamy is contrary to the plan of salvation, but here we are. Btw - I do think it’s contrary to the plan of salvation, as is polygamy.
These comments are eye-opening. The knowledge of the plural marriage "commandment" being revoked is ok with you and doesn't shake your faith. The knowledge that the scripture about cursed people who are not "white and delightsome" was eventually ignored as though it wasn't really in the B of M, didn't shake your faith. The sudden admission by the church that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in his hat to search for buried treasure before he used it to "translate" the B of M, didn't shake your faith. When (not if) the church accepts and supports gay marriage, that will not shake your faith either. You still somehow convince yourself that the leaders of the church are just people and fallible, but the people who wrote your scriptures somehow were not. edited for typos
I'm gay and even I know that this will never happen. I'm no longer a member but I still believe quite a bit of the Church's teachings but to remotely think the teachings of eternal marriage will change is ridiculous.
probably, Church rules changed a lot , we love everyone and if it existed poligamy why not gay marriage? but Somoda and Gomorra were destroyed because of that, but church needs members of all kind isn’t?
@@Mabeylater293In Leviticus 20:13" If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Not a sin? Don't lie to yourself, you know its wrong. Jews would put these people to death because God determined they were harmful to the collective The desires of a man is supposed to be for the mother of his children. Anything else is a sin.
Is that why the practice of plural marriage...changed? Is that why in 2015, a policy to ban children of LGBTQ couples from being blessed and baptized...CHANGED just 4 years after...back to it's okay to bless and baptize children of LGBTQ couples? In the latter case, it was declared "doctrine", just to be changed 4 years after...did God change his mind on that? Banned on blacks to receiving the Priesthood and Temple blessings...changed?
The sad part about some of these comments is that people's relationship and salvation with God is so dependent on an organization/religion that things like this even being hypothesized is a threat to them in some way, shape or form. My relationship with God and belief in Jesus Christ is completely detached from any organized religion that it simply doesn't matter to me what any of them decide on their so-called doctrines of salvation. I read the Bible for me personally because I don't want/need a middle-man or middle-organization rather standing in-between and rearing it's ugly head. Salvation is personal so there is absolutely no reason I need authorization from some other mortal/imperfect human to help decide my salvation. The entire concept is ridiculously asinine. Do any of you really believe that God will base someone's acceptance to Celestial glory based on a ceremony in a building over someone who actually devoted their entire life to being loving to others. Even the idea that they still have to accept the true church at some point just to get in is so ridiculous. It's absolutely petty. Who you become is monumentally more important than making sure you've checked the "covenant path" boxes. Many who check those boxes haven't become loving. Of course those ordinances are to help them to become loving, but that's reliant on conformity. If someone's mission in life is to help innovate a way to cure cancer and never affiliate with the church in this life or the next and don't accept it any point, that's a pretty petty God if you ask me. I utterly refuse to believe in that kind of God. Someone motivated by love to cure cancer or other things is what its all about, not going through some "priesthood authority" to be "allowed" to live with God and your family. That's not a loving God in anyway. "you believed in the catholic christ, sorry no eternal family for you" "Oh your family was baptized and kids later married in the temple but stopped attending church weekly, sorry can't live with them." That's a heartless God.
deeper happiness for sure! I feel a deeper love for humans than I ever did while believing in so many as perceived sinners and judging that others don't have access to the most happy thing "the gospel." It's absolutely liberating.
The Savior will not let that happen in his Holy House. Just because man changes man s laws, it is not Gods laws. Sin is still sin. So, same sex marriage will never Happen ever in this lifetime or in the life to come!!!!
m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iKVwHaB-XxM.html This video, by a Latter-day Saint, makes the claim that this change is unlike the race and priesthood or polygamy, and therefore could not occur or it would be destroying to the churchs claims
Yep. We need only look at historical references regarding these topics. Polygamy has been practiced in the scriptures and multiple church leaders have taught the conditions of its practice. Priesthood bans based on genealogy are taught in the scriptures and multiple church authorities have expounded on this. There is no historical reference or church authority who has referenced gay temple If this happens, it would be the same as the church ending the practice of baptism. Something never before taught or practiced
Well it won't be a change for the better that's for sure. It will drive more diehard conservatives out of the church who will either go Fundamentalist, or start a LDS circa 1978 mark 2. As much as I hate polygamy she racism, the squishy nature of the LDS hierarchy is concerning.
Sorry... but I brought this up with a Gay friend of mine years ago.... at that time I claimed that temple marriage for homosexuals was the goal of the gay community. But one only need read 3 Nephi 16 to know that if the church were 'forced' to allow such marriages.... ALL temples would shut down for live marriages. That would be the rejection of the gospel by the gentiles and lead to the destruction spoken of by early prophets.
Total nonsense. The church is ultimately going to recognize that gay money and influence is just as powerful and valuable as straight money and influence. You may choose to believe the current set of church doctrine if you wish, but do not fool yourself into believing the church is not first an foremost a multi-billion dollar corporation. They will not shut down anything that brings in money. You must pay a "full tithe" to have a temple recommend. You must have a temple recommend to enter the temple for a "live marriage."
I'm not expecting it. More likely are the disasters and calamities prophesied by prophets past and present, causing people to rethink their values and priorities as they witness horrific disasters, most likely of which they will be sorely afflicted participants. If you're brave enough to test the waters, be prepared for the consequences.
Christians back then had iron clad beliefs and didn’t stomach anything that deviated from the Christian faith like polygamy and put pressure on the Mormons. However, Christian’s in the U.S. is dying and ironically people can have open polygamous lifestyles and society now doesn’t bat an eye. Mormons need to stand firm and society around will indeed change, but they can whether it. Also Mormons are a lot more powerful now than they were back then to resist change. Catholic Church won’t allow gay marriage. If they do people will leave the church.
Brother@ The Chuch has to comply with ALL governmental deceees no matter what the subject matter is. Otherwise, it's illegal and the Church will never put itself in this position and put its members in illegal position. Plus laws vary from one country to the next. Wherever the Chuch is legally in it has to comply with the laws of the country it's in. While Polygamy is wildly debated by non mormons. Remember one thing. It's about selflessness. About the priesthood, it was a political issue so it was outside the Church control. Same sex marriage, you will need to revise the entire Bible first. Cos the Bible is CLEARLY anti-queer in this debate. That's the first filter you need to cross line with before touching the Chuch. You can identify as "queer" in the Chuch but you can't act on it. Remember it's about protecting the family unit as prescribed in scripture. Not about "social emancipation". In other words, about promoting a program for selfish reasons.
Because a marriage with two men or two women doesn’t exist in Heaven, it won’t happen in the temple. This set up wouldn’t do God’s children any good anyway.
I'd like to reiterate that FEELING same-sex attraction is not a sin, but ACTING on it and dating or marrying someone of one's own sex IS. That's what President Hinckley meant when he said that people would only be punished for their actions.
The problem is the church hasn't clarified for those feeling same sex attraction exactly where the line is drawn. Growing up as a straight member, we were taught not tafter women. Now the gay members are confused, apparently because the church hasn't made this clear that you can't be kissing a guy if you are a guy. Some liberal bishops are even allowing it.
But they still can live a homosexual life, as long as they repent repeatedly. That is the same as a temple married LDS man having an affair with another lady...over and over again. These "temple recommend" holding LDS men are masters in the law of repentance. We are now being taught the importance of repentance. It seems like 30 years ago, we were taught murder, suicide, and denying God was "game over". Now, we are taught that LDS people who engage in "suicide or murder" can be forgiven by God. Think about the temple recommend holding LDS man from an area near Cedar City who murdered his whole family last year...is it "game over" for him? Most LDS people think not. Looks like the "bar has been lowered" since my earlier days as a Latter Day Saint. To me, suicide, murder, denying God, denying the gospel, temple married person cheating on wife (after holy commitments made with the Lord in the holy temple), pedophile church leaders are all worst then two same-gender adult couples living a homosexual life. At the end of the day, most of the world's population (regardless of religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc) will be "punished", but will make it back to so-call "heaven" (Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial kingdoms)...due to the grace of the Lord and law of repentance.
No, it will not happen...however, they may allow gay marriages or at least receptions in local church buildings. Give it 20-30 years down the road. But Temple marriages...never.
Yes. Any religious mythology must adapt to society at some point in order to maintain relevance and to avoid conflict with civil rights groups and governmental friction for holding outdated, discriminatory beliefs and translating them into organizational policy. “God’s Law” is the law of the men who currently act as the representatives and curators of LDS mythology, in much the same way that the Pope, Cardinals etc. act as the curators of Catholic mythology. Give it time, churches come around to societal betterment like the acceptance and full social integration of gay people into society. The church’s approach to gays has changed so much even in my short thirty years on the planet. When I was in the young men, open disgust and hatred of gays was still socially acceptable, and so the leaders treated it that way. Nowadays, leaders and members have attempted to incorporate a friendlier, more “compassionate” (at least on the surface) approach to gays overall and members who suffer from “SSA”. In two or three decades’ time, that’s my guess anyway, in order to avoid being labeled a hate group, the church will allow gay members to fully participate in the church as fully realized people who are allowed to be gay AND upstanding members of Mormon society albeit in a monogamous, highly patriarchal structure similar to the current exclusively heterosexual institution of marriage that reigns supreme. Wait until the Millennials begin to take the highest positions in the church hierarchy, then you’ll see the changes start to happen.
if they do not engage in sex before marriage they can hold a calling and take sacrament, FINE. If a gay married couple is having gay sex, it’s a sin married or not, and continuing to do so why would they be worthy to take sacrament or hold callings? Just because they are married does not make it ok to have homosexual sex. It’s still sin in Gods eyes. As God loves all of us, he still wants us to turn to him for help to over come our sins instead , NOT STAY IN IT. WE ARE TO LOVE THE PERSON YET NOT APPROVE THE SIN. Or condone it. If you go to pastor Voddie click on his sermon “LOVE IS LOVE. He nails it.
@@i.est.del2991 He takes a dim view on mocking and scoffing. I hope you find salvation. I said a prayer for you, that's about all I can do. Have a blessed day.
True, but JS and BY used the law of adoption to seal themselves to their bros. I don't think it was a gay thing, but it could be repurposed to accommodate gay sealings.
I wonder if priesthood for women will ever become a thing. On the one hand, they changed the doctrine for black people so they could now receive it, so perhaps they could do the same for women. On the other hand, I struggle to imagine the leaders being willing to concede any power to women, ever. Gay temple marriages are probably more likely, actually.
They’ll never have a black president! They took until 1978 to receive special revelation that racism was unacceptable. It’s frankly amazing that God’s supposed one true church was almost 20 years behind secular society
Women do have significant leadership roles in the church and without women in those roles, much of the work of salvation would cease to be done. Also, did you know that women officiate in priesthood ordinances in the temple?
@@praestant8 I don't know any Black people who like for us to be called "the blacks" and I'm guessing I know a lot more Black people than you because I am Black.
@@JYDIVISN That law was actually given to the tribes of Israel, and Jesus Himself disobeyed that commandment on the basis of the greater good and to teach the Sadducees a lesson on how to follow the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.
God does not change. God's nature does not change. You have to go by God's word and the scriptures. There are several references in the old and new testaments pertaining to homosexual interactions. It's very specific writing. Homosexuality is condemned by God. Not the feelings, but the actions. This is not because God doesn't love everyone equally. It is because it goes against natural law and therefore has consequences. Medically speaking, there are countless reasons why homosexual activity, particularly in males, leads to disease. Many laws exist to protect us, even if we don't like their restrictions. I don't believe that homosexuals choose their feelings. But as free agents, all human beings can choose their actions and lifestyles. The Mormon church seems to be constantly changing their rules. That's just not even logically ideal, much less spiritually. God loves us and we are saved by grace, not by works. But the sexual sins are on a category of their own because God's word says that they are sins against our own bodies and therefore they have more severe consequences. Again, God still loves us, but for every action there is a natural law reaction. As for the Mormon church accepting gay marriage, perhaps, but that would go against its family teachings. In gay relationships, there cannot be natural offspring. However, there is a lot of money in the gay community, and having church faithful gay members would greatly add to the loot....
Nope. It goes against the entire purpose of God's plan; "to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man." This process can only survive if men and women have families. I support everyone's right of agency but that doesn't change the plan of salvation.
Honestly, I can respect this perspective. While I want the LGBTQ community to receive better treatment and support, I agree that allowing them to marry in the temple contradicts everything I was taught at church growing up.
It still won’t happen, even then. It would be the equivalent of the church changing the doctrine of infant baptism. It would go against centuries of modern church authority quotes, and against established core doctrines taught in scripture
The church never should have compromised on Celestial Marriage then, and they shouldn't compromise now. Looking into the 1886 Revelation, maybe it's time to look for the Priesthood in another lineage of prophets.
Won't happen. Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. The polygamy argument is a non-starter. God allowed polygamy in the OT. The BOM says it is not preferred, but allowed in extreme circumstances.
Deuteronomy 22:28-39 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Let's not use the Bible as a moral authority hun, it's an evil book
Plural marriage: practiced in the scriptures. Priesthood restrictions based on genealogy: practiced in the scriptures. Gay temple marriage: never practiced in the scriptures. You’re giving false hope. Stop it
First of all, comparing polygamy and race to being gay is a controversial and unwise comparison. Secondly the Bible is very clear on this issue, unlike polygamy and race. And btw, Joseph Smith was not a polygamist
@Looker I'm not offended at all. I don't mind defending Joseph Smith. He might have engaged in spiritual sealings but they were not earthly marriages. Joseph Smith also sealed himself to other men and sealed children to parents so obviously the context was not "earthly marriage"
@@Freddy78909 The sealing of children to their own parents, came decades later. My GGGGrand Aunt, the last living wife of JS spoke at BYU and said the exact opposite of what you said. Who do you think knows about about what JS said and did in private? Her or you?
The Church literally left the United States of America rather than cave to outside pressure. It will never cave, certainly not for something as petty as tax exemption.
I think that is some huge wishful thinking. You had some good points, but you got the History of Polygamy wrong. If you really understood what most older males in the church look fondly on the future day when polygamy is re-instated. It is not going to happen. I suggest you just walk away with whatever dignity you have left.
Sadly, we are on the pathway for it to happen. This will defile the temple and its purpose. Since God is the same yesterday, today and forever it will be unjust for God to condemn this practice in the past and reverse it now.
Yeah, the doctrine of eternal families will broaden to include the modern family in heaven. The sealings that have happened from the churches' beginning are a complete stew. I reckon everyone will be sealed to everyone. it's a joke.
Polygamy and blacks obtaining the Priesthood have absolutely nothing to do with so-called gay marriage. I say so-called because anything involving something other than men and women married is not marriage at all, but a perversion. It amazes me how left-leaning members conflate the issues of priesthood and the doctrine of polygamy with being gay. Polygamy is between men and women - always! And when and how the priesthood is granted is not a matter of whimsy but follows doctrinal necessity. The men under Moses (certainly the prophets had priesthood, but that's another matter) excepting the Levites were all denied the priesthood until the time of the meridian saints.
These changes were from scriptures and society and the scriptures don’t support gay marriage. Yes polygamy was commanded in the Bible during the law of Moses.
FWIW, I don't believe Joseph was a polygamist. I know, I know, the church narrative says that he was, but a deeper dive into history would suggest otherwise.
@giuliom3564 let me get the strawman out of the way. I don't believe the world is flat. As far as Joseph Smith practicing polygamy. If you dive into the actual evidence and sources, you will find gapping holes in the narrative and problematic sources that have been altered. The reality is that there is no actual contemporary evidence and that Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and many others only fought against it. They published articles in the newspaper, gave sermons condemning it, they canonized scripture, and excommunicated members for practicing it. The evidence points to Brigham Young and associates as the primary practitioners.
@giuliom3564 First of all, let's get the strawman out of the way. I don't believe the world is flat. Now, as far as Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, if you study the contemporary evidence you'll find gapping holes in the narrative and problematic sources. The evidence shows that Joseph, Hyrum, Emma and many others did everything they could to denounce and condemn the practice of polygamy.
@@giuliom3564 First of all, let's get the strawman out of the way. I don't believe the world is flat. Now, as far as Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, if you study the contemporary evidence you'll find gapping holes in the narrative and problematic sources. The evidence shows that Joseph, Hyrum, Emma and many others did everything they could to denounce and condemn the practice of polygamy
@giuliom3564 just fyi, I don't believe the world is flat. Now, as far as Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, if you study the contemporary evidence you'll find gapping holes in the narrative and problematic sources. The evidence shows that Joseph, Hyrum, Emma and many others did everything they could to denounce and condemn the practice of polygamy
Doctrine, theology, practices, etc. change so much in the LDS church in order to go along with the times that it won’t surprise me at all if it happens.
Lol. Bitsa information. The internet is awesome. Great learning how to decipher false teaching like this channel. Thankfully anyone who has the spirit as their guide would never be fooled by this rubbish.
