Gays to be married in Denmark Temple?

[SpeedRacer]

It seems like a lot of people on this forum are losing their faith in the restored gospel. This thread is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of church history and doctrine. The church will never capitulate to the demands to "accept" homosexual behavior. It won't happen. Even if Denmark tried to force us we would just pick up and leave the place.

With polygamy it had always been understood that it is not always necessary to practice the principle in this life. If you doubt that then you need to read the Book of Mormon a little more closely. Early leaders of the church indicated that it was possible that the practice would not continue. But the church has never done away with polygamy entirely, there are plenty of men who are sealed to more than one woman, including several members of the twelve, and those men will have all of their wives in the life to come.

With blacks and the priesthood, it was understood, even by Brigham Young that at some time in the future the ban would be lifted and the priesthood would be extended to them. Some people thought it would not be until the millennium, but the Lord decided to do it sooner, which makes sense because the whole purpose of the church in the last days is to spread the gospel across the whole earth. We can't skip over an entire continent and still accomplish the Lord's purposes.

Is this church led by modern prophets or is it not? So long as the brethren were guided by revelation then their is nothing wrong with the changes they made and they were guided by revelation. Now homosexuality is a different thing all together. It has only ever been condemned in the scriptures. Never is it indicated that it is possible under any circumstances for the practice of homosexuality to anything less than an abomination in God's sight. There is no prophecy saying that it will one day be acceptable as there were with both polygamy and the priesthood ban. The church will never accept the practice of homosexuality. We love and accept those who are tempted just as we love and accept people who are tempted to commit any other sin, but we will never accept the behavior.

If you believe that the church will cave to pressure on this subject then you believe that the church is already fallen and subject to the dictates of corrupt earthly governments. If you believe that then I don't know what you are doing in the church still. I wouldn't stay for one minute in a fallen church that has no authority from God. But the church is not fallen, our leaders are called by God and they are following his direction for how to lead this church. I testify that this is true.

:ymapplause:

[A Random Phrase]

For those who think the church will never give in on this issue - Do you realize that the Lord gives the people what they want? The people wanted a king to rule them in the Old Testament. Samuel was disheartened. God told him to give them what they wanted and said, "They have not rejected you; they have rejected me."

It is very possible for the church to give in, to the condemnation of the members who insisted that was what they wanted. The prophet could know, very well, what the laws of God says but if the people want it and God allows it to their condemnation, it will be allowed. God has never forced people to follow Him, and He has never forced people to obey any prophet He has sent. (Isn't there a scripture about God shutting the mouths of the prophets?) He has allowed people who claim to be part of His church to massacre women and children in a fire (Book of Mormon, book of Alma). He allows freedom.

This is not to say that all people will follow this course. It is possible that God will lead out a few people (like Alma leaving and taking a group with him, or Lehi #1, or Nephi #1) who still follow His laws.

[awake]

For those who think the church will never give in on this issue - Do you realize that the Lord gives the people what they want? The people wanted a king to rule them in the Old Testament. Samuel was disheartened. God told him to give them what they wanted and said, "They have not rejected you; they have rejected me."

It is very possible for the church to give in, to the condemnation of the members who insisted that was what they wanted. The prophet could know, very well, what the laws of God says but if the people want it and God allows it to their condemnation, it will be allowed. God has never forced people to follow Him, and He has never forced people to obey any prophet He has sent. (Isn't there a scripture about God shutting the mouths of the prophets?) He has allowed people who claim to be part of His church to massacre women and children in a fire (Book of Mormon, book of Alma). He allows freedom.

This is not to say that all people will follow this course. It is possible that God will lead out a few people (like Alma leaving and taking a group with him, or Lehi #1, or Nephi #1) who still follow His laws.

I totally agree. That is so true & possible.

[Ben McClintock]

For those who think the church will never give in on this issue - Do you realize that the Lord gives the people what they want? The people wanted a king to rule them in the Old Testament. Samuel was disheartened. God told him to give them what they wanted and said, "They have not rejected you; they have rejected me."

It is very possible for the church to give in, to the condemnation of the members who insisted that was what they wanted. The prophet could know, very well, what the laws of God says but if the people want it and God allows it to their condemnation, it will be allowed. God has never forced people to follow Him, and He has never forced people to obey any prophet He has sent. (Isn't there a scripture about God shutting the mouths of the prophets?) He has allowed people who claim to be part of His church to massacre women and children in a fire (Book of Mormon, book of Alma). He allows freedom.

This is not to say that all people will follow this course. It is possible that God will lead out a few people (like Alma leaving and taking a group with him, or Lehi #1, or Nephi #1) who still follow His laws.

Samuel, Alma etc are all dead prophets didn't you know? We shun dead Prophets and the lessons we learn from their experiences

[A Random Phrase]

Samuel, Alma etc are all dead prophets didn't you know? We shun dead Prophets and the lessons we learn from their experiences

)
Ben, I like you.

[Fiannan]

With polygamy it had always been understood that it is not always necessary to practice the principle in this life.

If our society, and church, continues on a road that is contrary to reproduction then God will have to reinstate polygamy just to keep the Church alive.

[Silas]

For those who think the church will never give in on this issue - Do you realize that the Lord gives the people what they want? The people wanted a king to rule them in the Old Testament. Samuel was disheartened. God told him to give them what they wanted and said, "They have not rejected you; they have rejected me."

It is very possible for the church to give in, to the condemnation of the members who insisted that was what they wanted. The prophet could know, very well, what the laws of God says but if the people want it and God allows it to their condemnation, it will be allowed. God has never forced people to follow Him, and He has never forced people to obey any prophet He has sent. (Isn't there a scripture about God shutting the mouths of the prophets?) He has allowed people who claim to be part of His church to massacre women and children in a fire (Book of Mormon, book of Alma). He allows freedom.

This is not to say that all people will follow this course. It is possible that God will lead out a few people (like Alma leaving and taking a group with him, or Lehi #1, or Nephi #1) who still follow His laws.

Samuel, Alma etc are all dead prophets didn't you know? We shun dead Prophets and the lessons we learn from their experiences

On the contrary people love dead prophets because you can always make a dead prophet say whatever you want him to because he isn't there to correct you. It is those pesky living prophets who are always saying things that you don't want to hear.

[A Random Phrase]

On the contrary people love dead prophets because you can always make a dead prophet say whatever you want him to because he isn't there to correct you. It is those pesky living prophets who are always saying things that you don't want to hear.

So true: The dead ones cannot tell you what they really meant.

[chase]

It seems like a lot of people on this forum are losing their faith in the restored gospel. This thread is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of church history and doctrine. The church will never capitulate to the demands to "accept" homosexual behavior. It won't happen. Even if Denmark tried to force us we would just pick up and leave the place.

With polygamy it had always been understood that it is not always necessary to practice the principle in this life. If you doubt that then you need to read the Book of Mormon a little more closely. Early leaders of the church indicated that it was possible that the practice would not continue. But the church has never done away with polygamy entirely, there are plenty of men who are sealed to more than one woman, including several members of the twelve, and those men will have all of their wives in the life to come.

With blacks and the priesthood, it was understood, even by Brigham Young that at some time in the future the ban would be lifted and the priesthood would be extended to them. Some people thought it would not be until the millennium, but the Lord decided to do it sooner, which makes sense because the whole purpose of the church in the last days is to spread the gospel across the whole earth. We can't skip over an entire continent and still accomplish the Lord's purposes.

Is this church led by modern prophets or is it not? So long as the brethren were guided by revelation then their is nothing wrong with the changes they made and they were guided by revelation. Now homosexuality is a different thing all together. It has only ever been condemned in the scriptures. Never is it indicated that it is possible under any circumstances for the practice of homosexuality to anything less than an abomination in God's sight. There is no prophecy saying that it will one day be acceptable as there were with both polygamy and the priesthood ban. The church will never accept the practice of homosexuality. We love and accept those who are tempted just as we love and accept people who are tempted to commit any other sin, but we will never accept the behavior.

If you believe that the church will cave to pressure on this subject then you believe that the church is already fallen and subject to the dictates of corrupt earthly governments. If you believe that then I don't know what you are doing in the church still. I wouldn't stay for one minute in a fallen church that has no authority from God. But the church is not fallen, our leaders are called by God and they are following his direction for how to lead this church. I testify that this is true.

The general tone of your first couple of paragraph seems to piece together facts based on an already held conclusion, rather than to base a conclusion on facts. The fact is, we see gay marriage differently from polygamy and the priesthood ban only in retrospect. These issues, each in their time, were highly controversial. There were revelations claiming that these past doctrines would never change. We have those same assurances regarding gay marriage, but if history repeats itself, that will make no difference. I haven't written gay marriage in temples off as a foregone conclusion, but it wouldn't surprise me to see us move in that direction, as much as I am against it.

As far as your concluding paragraph-I think it is possibly a little unwise to make such a sweeping statement. "Either the church is 100% right on everything or it is fallen and I'm out if it is." That seems rash. If you found some of the church's history disturbing (which I guarantee you would if you started to get into a good depth of history), I would hope that you would look at the church for what it is and make a methodical, logical, well thought out decision about what the church might still have to offer you, even if it is not as perfect as we may have thought at one point in our lives. Even if the church has fallen (and I'm not necessarily saying that it has or hasn't), it still remains extremely relevant. The ordinances of the temple are still a roadmap. The Book of Mormon is still true. Joseph Smith still remains the latest and most outspoken person to connect with heaven. I don't know where you think you would go if you found out the church was fallen. Even if the apostles had lost some faith in their Savior when He made claims that were too fantastic for their small minds, they remained with Him because they knew that they had no where else to go. To make such a blanket statement as "I would be out of the church if I found out it was fallen" is a bit reckless in my opinion and probably not the best recommendation to those struggling with their faith. Such a statement rejects the much good that is to be had within the church, even if that good is not a fullness.

[Ben McClintock]

On the contrary people love dead prophets because you can always make a dead prophet say whatever you want him to because he isn't there to correct you. It is those pesky living prophets who are always saying things that you don't want to hear.

There are more options than either just following the dead or just following the living.

[ATL Wake]

Like following who the prophets themselves were following.

[SmallFarm]

Like following who the prophets themselves were following.

I like to think of the living and dead prophets as the two pointers on my Liahona. When it seems they are not speaking in unison, I use it as my sign that I am out of sinc and not relying on the Spirit as I should be.

[Vision]

It seems like a lot of people on this forum are losing their faith in the restored gospel. This thread is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of church history and doctrine. The church will never capitulate to the demands to "accept" homosexual behavior. It won't happen. Even if Denmark tried to force us we would just pick up and leave the place.

With polygamy it had always been understood that it is not always necessary to practice the principle in this life. If you doubt that then you need to read the Book of Mormon a little more closely. Early leaders of the church indicated that it was possible that the practice would not continue. But the church has never done away with polygamy entirely, there are plenty of men who are sealed to more than one woman, including several members of the twelve, and those men will have all of their wives in the life to come.

With blacks and the priesthood, it was understood, even by Brigham Young that at some time in the future the ban would be lifted and the priesthood would be extended to them. Some people thought it would not be until the millennium, but the Lord decided to do it sooner, which makes sense because the whole purpose of the church in the last days is to spread the gospel across the whole earth. We can't skip over an entire continent and still accomplish the Lord's purposes.

Is this church led by modern prophets or is it not? So long as the brethren were guided by revelation then their is nothing wrong with the changes they made and they were guided by revelation. Now homosexuality is a different thing all together. It has only ever been condemned in the scriptures. Never is it indicated that it is possible under any circumstances for the practice of homosexuality to anything less than an abomination in God's sight. There is no prophecy saying that it will one day be acceptable as there were with both polygamy and the priesthood ban. The church will never accept the practice of homosexuality. We love and accept those who are tempted just as we love and accept people who are tempted to commit any other sin, but we will never accept the behavior.

If you believe that the church will cave to pressure on this subject then you believe that the church is already fallen and subject to the dictates of corrupt earthly governments. If you believe that then I don't know what you are doing in the church still. I wouldn't stay for one minute in a fallen church that has no authority from God. But the church is not fallen, our leaders are called by God and they are following his direction for how to lead this church. I testify that this is true.

The general tone of your first couple of paragraph seems to piece together facts based on an already held conclusion, rather than to base a conclusion on facts. The fact is, we see gay marriage differently from polygamy and the priesthood ban only in retrospect. These issues, each in their time, were highly controversial. There were revelations claiming that these past doctrines would never change. We have those same assurances regarding gay marriage, but if history repeats itself, that will make no difference. I haven't written gay marriage in temples off as a foregone conclusion, but it wouldn't surprise me to see us move in that direction, as much as I am against it.

As far as your concluding paragraph-I think it is possibly a little unwise to make such a sweeping statement. "Either the church is 100% right on everything or it is fallen and I'm out if it is." That seems rash. If you found some of the church's history disturbing (which I guarantee you would if you started to get into a good depth of history), I would hope that you would look at the church for what it is and make a methodical, logical, well thought out decision about what the church might still have to offer you, even if it is not as perfect as we may have thought at one point in our lives. Even if the church has fallen (and I'm not necessarily saying that it has or hasn't), it still remains extremely relevant. The ordinances of the temple are still a roadmap. The Book of Mormon is still true. Joseph Smith still remains the latest and most outspoken person to connect with heaven. I don't know where you think you would go if you found out the church was fallen. Even if the apostles had lost some faith in their Savior when He made claims that were too fantastic for their small minds, they remained with Him because they knew that they had no where else to go. To make such a blanket statement as "I would be out of the church if I found out it was fallen" is a bit reckless in my opinion and probably not the best recommendation to those struggling with their faith. Such a statement rejects the much good that is to be had within the church, even if that good is not a fullness.

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

[Silas]

The general tone of your first couple of paragraph seems to piece together facts based on an already held conclusion, rather than to base a conclusion on facts. The fact is, we see gay marriage differently from polygamy and the priesthood ban only in retrospect. These issues, each in their time, were highly controversial. There were revelations claiming that these past doctrines would never change. We have those same assurances regarding gay marriage, but if history repeats itself, that will make no difference. I haven't written gay marriage in temples off as a foregone conclusion, but it wouldn't surprise me to see us move in that direction, as much as I am against it.

As far as your concluding paragraph-I think it is possibly a little unwise to make such a sweeping statement. "Either the church is 100% right on everything or it is fallen and I'm out if it is." That seems rash. If you found some of the church's history disturbing (which I guarantee you would if you started to get into a good depth of history), I would hope that you would look at the church for what it is and make a methodical, logical, well thought out decision about what the church might still have to offer you, even if it is not as perfect as we may have thought at one point in our lives. Even if the church has fallen (and I'm not necessarily saying that it has or hasn't), it still remains extremely relevant. The ordinances of the temple are still a roadmap. The Book of Mormon is still true. Joseph Smith still remains the latest and most outspoken person to connect with heaven. I don't know where you think you would go if you found out the church was fallen. Even if the apostles had lost some faith in their Savior when He made claims that were too fantastic for their small minds, they remained with Him because they knew that they had no where else to go. To make such a blanket statement as "I would be out of the church if I found out it was fallen" is a bit reckless in my opinion and probably not the best recommendation to those struggling with their faith. Such a statement rejects the much good that is to be had within the church, even if that good is not a fullness.

What I was pointing out was that in the case of polygamy and the priesthood ban the revelations left the matters wide open for change. Jacob from the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the practice of polygamy is the exception not the rule and can only be done in righteousness when commanded by God. I believe in the doctrine of polygamy. The church has never done away with that doctrine. D&C 132 is still scripture and it is still true. If I were commanded by the Lord through his prophet to practice polygamy I would. But now I am commanded not to so I won't. There is no contradiction there. The very nature of the righteous practice of polygamy is that it is not always to be practice by the Lord's people at all times. When the Lord commands it at specific times and for specific purposes then we do it and when he commands not to we don't. The early days of the church was a time when it was commanded. Latter we were commanded not to, it was in the midst of a lot of political pressure sure, but since they had been weathering that pressure for decades I believe Wilford Woodruff when he said he would have continued the practice if that is what the Lord wanted. The doctrine of polygamy hasn't changed, we have simply been told that now is not the time to practice it.

As for the priesthood I think everyone accepts that even Brigham Young taught that blacks would one day receive the priesthood. If anyone doesn't I can provide relevant quotes to show it. People were just wrong about the timing of it. No doctrinal problem there. We knew from prophecy that it would happen eventually and it turned out to be sooner rather than later. How wonderful for my black brothers and sisters.

Now If I believed that the church was not led by revelation and the brethren merely responded to outside pressures in an effort to be more accepted, then I would accept your view that the church may capitulate on this issue. I don't accept that view. This does not mean that I think the church is 100% right on everything. I am sure the brethren make mistakes, but I believe that the Lord will not allow those mistakes to steer the church astray. If you show me a prophecy in the scriptures or by any modern prophet/apostle that indicates that there may be a way that homosexual behavior can be accepted then you might have something. My point is that even if people at the time debated the issue like we do now it isn't the same situation. Trying to characterize it as something that everyone knew would never change is flawed because the prophecies clearly taught that change is something that would or could happen with those issues. Such is not the case with homosexuality.

It does not necessarily follow that if I am not deeply bothered by church history that I am either ignorant of it or in denial of it. But in spite of the fact that everything isn't always a perfect sunday school lesson the church is still true. Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God and he holds the keys of the priesthood. All is not well in Zion, there is much wickedness among us a cleansing will be necessary before the Lord returns if we are to be accepted by him. We are living beneath our privileges, we can and should be doing more to perfect ourselves and receive the greater things of the Kingdom. I trust that the Lord will correct it in time. It is not a part of the Lord's plan for the church to fall into apostasy again in the last days.

I don't think that people should just leave the church if they are struggling with church history. If you are then stay here, not because their are a few left overs from fallen church but because this is the true Church of Christ and you will find salvation no where else. I am not a member of the church because it is a wonderful social organization or because their are a few redeeming qualities about it. I am a member of the church because I know that it is the only true church of Jesus Christ and it is the only organization which holds the priesthood authority that I require in order to obtain my salvation and exaltation. If it didn't have that I would leave because that is the whole point of being here in the first place.

[Silas]

On the contrary people love dead prophets because you can always make a dead prophet say whatever you want him to because he isn't there to correct you. It is those pesky living prophets who are always saying things that you don't want to hear.

There are more options than either just following the dead or just following the living.

I would not argue with that point, but when there appears to be a conflict I deffer to the living one and seek further revelation to understand God's purposes.

[Matthew.B]

For those who think the church will never give in on this issue - Do you realize that the Lord gives the people what they want? The people wanted a king to rule them in the Old Testament. Samuel was disheartened. God told him to give them what they wanted and said, "They have not rejected you; they have rejected me."

Another example, worth mentioning because of its gravity, was Aaron creating the golden calf. He escaped the death sentence passed on the rebellious members of Israel because he had only been enacting the wishes of the stiffnecked people, as their proxy leader in Moses' absence. This truth- that God will grant the people the desires of their hearts- is so profound and so critical to the Plan of Salvation that Aaron did not fall from his earthly position of grandeur and power, despite leading the people in breaking the covenant they had literally just made with the Lord their God.

Anyone who thinks that it would be impossible for the modern Church to accept/allow, at least in some places, same sex marriage into the temple does not know the patterns taught in scriptures, and has a need to remove themselves from the condemnation of the Church members by remembering the "new covenant" of the Book of Mormon, and its intended purpose (growing together with the Bible to the confounding of false doctrine and establishing the Gospel of Christ).

The only real issue is whether the LDS people would accept, in their hearts, SSA into the temples. There is already a significant, vocal segment that would very gladly welcome it- ultimately, every "tare" in the Church could be brought to accept that idea. You could take every apostle, turn them into beings with the humility and strength of Christ Himself, and yet if the people were to reject this foundational pillar of the gospel (marriage), there would be no changing the eventual outcome: shutting down the temples, changing the ordinances, or losing the temples to the government.

That is, assuming the Lord does not intervene miraculously.

[HeirofNumenor]

He has allowed people who claim to be part of His church to massacre women and children in a fire (Book of Mormon, book of Alma).

NOT True...the people of Ammonihah clearly stated they were not part of the Nephite Church of which Alma was the High Priest:

Alma 8
11 Nevertheless, they hardened their hearts, saying unto him: Behold, we know that thou art Alma; and we know that thou art high priest over the church which thou hast established in many parts of the land, according to your tradition; and we are not of thy church, and we do not believe in such foolish traditions.

(Mormon says they were of Nehor - chpt. 14-15)

Likewise, The Zoramites (Alma 31), Amalickiah, Ammoron, Coriantumur (Book of Helaman), etc, all the great troubles and persecutions came primarily via dissenters from the Church - people who thought they knew it better...and got puffed up in their pride, worldliness riches, and desires for power...some followed false prophets (Sherem, Nehor, Korihor), others followed political figures (Amalickiah, Ammoron, Coriantumer, Paanchi, King Jacob, etc).

[awake]

I would not argue with that point, but when there appears to be a conflict I deffer to the living one and seek further revelation to understand God's purposes.

Actually we have been taught that it's the other way around, the 'deceased' prophets in the scriptures 'take precedence' when there is a conflict between what living prophets say or do and what the scriptures say.

The prophetic words and teachings in the standard works, especially the Book of Mormon, have been approved by God to be our standard, to discern the truth or error of all doctrines and teachings of all future prophets or persons that come after Joseph Smith.

Prophets can be and have been wrong, the problem is not necessarily our misinterpretation of scriptures, though it could be.

"One of the reasons we call our scriptures the standard works is that they are the standard judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence."
Bruce R. McConkie, "Finding Answers to Gospel Questions".

"If anyone regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the PoGP, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. If any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard works, you may know by that same token what it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."
Pres. Harold B. Lee

[Matthew.B]

He has allowed people who claim to be part of His church to massacre women and children in a fire (Book of Mormon, book of Alma).

NOT True...the people of Ammonihah clearly stated they were not part of the Nephite Church of which Alma was the High Priest:

Alma 8
11 Nevertheless, they hardened their hearts, saying unto him: Behold, we know that thou art Alma; and we know that thou art high priest over the church which thou hast established in many parts of the land, according to your tradition; and we are not of thy church, and we do not believe in such foolish traditions.

(Mormon says they were of Nehor - chpt. 14-15)

The women and children who were burned were those who believed on the words of Alma and repented and believed. While not technically members of the Church (that we can tell, because there was no record of baptism) had they not been killed they would have undoubtedly followed the pattern of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, which was to seek baptism and enrollment of the Church of God.

The Anti-Nephi-Lehites are another good example of what A Random Phrase is talking about: massacred for their belief (and they truly did belong to the Church of God), despite the goodness of God. Free agency is the penultimate characteristic of mankind, next to life itself.

Of course, there was a specific reason those two group of believers were killed... Notice who did all the killing, in both cases? The same groups that HeirofNemenor talked about: Nephites, dissenters from the Gospel. Now, we are about to enter a period where many will dissent away from our own Church, and the plain and precious Gospel- and who will be the most hardened, wicked people in America at that point?

[SpeedRacer]

Like following who the prophets themselves were following.

I like to think of the living and dead prophets as the two pointers on my Liahona. When it seems they are not speaking in unison, I use it as my sign that I am out of sinc and not relying on the Spirit as I should be.

Brilliant!

[freedomforall]

I would think it would be all the churches in Denmark but even if it isn't it will soon be. I think they are very liberal over there. Plus like the above post said it could be that Denmark as well follows the civil union first. But I'm sure in time they will be pushing to be sealed too.

It would be interesting if in fact they did have to conduct marriages of gays what the response would be. I don't necessarily think they will shut it down. Instead they will bend as they normally seem to be doing. However I hope and pray that is not the case.

Time will only tell.

It all boils down to this...is a temple the Lord's house or not? Does he walk within the temples or not? Would he want his house desecrated or not?
How could we be told to keep temples holy and then turn around and have these types of activities occur?

[LukeAir2008]

If all doctrine has to conform to existing printed scripture then there cannot be any new revelation or revealed doctrine.

We would have to reject everything added to existing scripture which didn't conform to the original. How far do you take it? Back to the five books of Moses? Anything which doesn't conform to that must be rejected as false?

It's a ridiculous and false idea. There would be no restoration of the gospel and no need for prophets. We would have all we need. This is exactly what the apostate Christian world believes

Revelation comes through holy men as moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Councils and Conferences do not decide truth.

It's interesting that the two proponents of that ridiculous idea didn't last very long as the President of the Church. I suppose they didn't have very much use for the keys of prophet, seer and revelator if they didn't believe they could actually receive any new revelation,

[A Random Phrase]

How could we be told to keep temples holy and then turn around and have these types of activities occur?

Because we are as unstable as water. Because we, like dogs, turn back to our vomit; and, like pigs, back to our wallowing in the mire. Because we have not overcome the "natural man" and often don't want to for various reasons. Because we don't like to listen to true prophets if the sayings are "hard" or go against our preconceived beliefs. Because we refuse to listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd.

Heir, you're right. I should have looked at the scripture first.

Matthew, thank you for your post.

[ldsfireguy]

Here is the way it would be done, in my opinion.

The temple will not close, unless all other attempts at compromise fail. Couples will be "married" (meaning in the eyes of the law) in a ceremony OUTSIDE the temple, by a bishop, justice of the peace, magistrate, etc... The temple ceremony will remain what it has always been ... an ordinance of the priesthood, with no ties to civil law.

The sealing ceremony has two parts to it: a legal component, which results in the marriage being recognized by the state, and the spiritual component. The legal component is NOT required by the priesthood in order to make the ceremony eternally binding. This is evidenced by the sealing of a living spouse to a deceased spouse, and by the sealing of a couple who were previously married civilly.

So, in order to comply with the law, if the government attempted to apply it to the temple, just take civil marriage OUT of the temple. Couples are married legally outside the temple, either just before or just after ... the temple is a religious ceremony that is NOT a marriage, and NOT subject to the laws.

[natasha]

Do we "marry" in the temple or do we "seal" in the temple? I know that in some countries people are required to have a civil marriage....and this affects lds couples only in the fact that they have to be married civily first. Here in the U.S., I'm not sure how it works. I "think", but don't know for sure, that sealers in our temples also have licenses to marry civily. Therefore, the sealing ordinance kills two birds with one stone....married and sealed. If push comes to shove, it seems to me that all lds couples could meet the requirement of getting married civily first and then enter the temple to be sealed....sealing is an ordinance that I don't think non-members would consider "getting married" nor do I think it would meet the definition of "getting married civily". And I note that ldsfireguy already posted what I am trying to say just before me.