The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day.
That's what I was trying to get at in my
earlier post about whether gay marriage could ever be endorsed by the church.
When I asked how you knew that gay marriage would never be allowed in the LDS church, you said in
post 58 "Because homosexual activity is against Eternal Law and the reasons for our mortal existence."
I could never get you to cite scripture to explain how you knew it was an eternal law, unlike other things which the prophets could receive revelation about as times changed.
How do
you know which are eternal laws and which are subject to revelation? Your answer seems to be personal revelation, but that's not how it works for church-wide things; it works the way you explained in your full post above (which I've snipped for brevity, but of course it's at the arrow link).
I still stand behind my statement that the LDS-doctrine-supported answer to: "Will the church ever approve of gay marriage?" would be: "We don't know, but if God wants us to, he will reveal it through the prophet." Just as you explained in your post above.
If you can cite scripture, revelation or a prophet speaking as a prophet, saying that the concept of marriage being between one man and one or more women, cannot be changed by revelation, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can cite something similar explaining how individuals can predict what can't be changed by future revelations, same thing.
The core doctrine, that families can be together forever and that marriages continue beyond death, would not be disrupted by two gay men or women and their adopted children continuing as a family forever.
That would actually disrupt the core doctrine less, than the strange problem of a widow remarrying, and therefore having sex and children with a man who isn't her celestial mate. And yes, Mormons realize how awkward that's gotta be in the afterlife:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...toid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
If two people who have been sealed to their spouses in the temple are left alone when those spouses die, is it really all right for the pair of them to fall in love and get married? I remember asking that question of a Mutual teacher when I was about twelve. The answer was “Yes, of course.” Still, I was never quite sure if the Lord would endorse it.
...
Richard [the widow's prospective second husband years later] responded by telling me that if he and I were to marry, he imagined that after we passed on, we would be eager to introduce our spouses to each other and that they would thank us respectively for taking good care of each other. He felt that love worthy of continuing into the celestial kingdom would not be cheapened by jealousy and that we would still have an interest in each other’s children, whom we would grow to love as we cared for them on earth
If the LDS church can justify
that, as well as
encourage adoption and sealing of adopted children to their new parents, it can certainly justify the simple problem of two gay parents and their kids meeting in heaven when social pressure becomes strong enough, just as they justified giving blacks the priesthood when racism went out of style.
