LDS, FLDS or CA, which is first...

[_Mahonri]

To recognize Gay Plural Marriage?

Gay marriage is on the way with California (and Mass, but we don't talk about that because MittRomney, he who would be Prez and King of the Universe was the Governor) in the lead. All the challenges will only make it easier for a full restoration of Plural Marriage.

Then the biggie is who leads the way with Gay Plural Marriage? Can't be the Reorgs as they still deny it ever happened. Won't be the Temple Lot Mormons of the Pennsylvania Church of Jesus Christ. Just not enough of them around.

That leaves Texas, Utah and California. CA leads in wierdness. Texas likes to be #1 and Utah lets others take the lead, work stuff out and then says "it was us who gave them the idea" so we were really first.(see Blacks and LDS Prieshood here)

Who will be the first? And will the LDS have to wait a bit after reinstituting plural marriage for the members before letting gay members practice it? When they do will a number of BYU faculty and students finally get to come out of the closet instead of spending time in SLC gay bars while wearing fake mustaches, beards and wigs?

[_Bee Eff]

To recognize Gay Plural Marriage?

Gay marriage is on the way with California (and Mass, but we don't talk about that because MittRomney, he who would be Prez and King of the Universe was the Governor) in the lead. All the challenges will only make it easier for a full restoration of Plural Marriage.

Then the biggie is who leads the way with Gay Plural Marriage? Can't be the Reorgs as they still deny it ever happened. Won't be the Temple Lot Mormons of the Pennsylvania Church of Jesus Christ. Just not enough of them around.

That leaves Texas, Utah and California. CA leads in wierdness. Texas likes to be #1 and Utah lets others take the lead, work stuff out and then says "it was us who gave them the idea" so we were really first.(see Blacks and LDS Prieshood here)

Who will be the first? And will the LDS have to wait a bit after reinstituting plural marriage for the members before letting gay members practice it? When they do will a number of BYU faculty and students finally get to come out of the closet instead of spending time in SLC gay bars while wearing fake mustaches, beards and wigs?

When I look at the question from a purely secular perspective:

CA has already caved on the Trinity issue and has waffled a bit on the Book of Mormon, they will be the first to acknowledge gay marriage.

FLDS may be last due to their resistance to change on the polygamy issue.

The LDS Church has shown some waffling on issues when under political pressure (e.g. polygamy and racism).

When I look at the question from my religious perspective:

If the LDS Church caves on this issue I will become a Taoist, such acceptance conflicts with my understanding of the religion. Nothing personal against homsexuals themselves, but it does not fall in line with the eternal perspective of the LDS religion which is the progression, through reproduction, of the species of Deity. So, I believe the CoJCoLDS will be last if ever.

CA and FLDS will follow my above statements due to my belief that they are not led by a true prophet and thus are viewed as secular in their faith, more strongly influenced by people than a Church leaning entirely on God.

[_Sethbag]

CA and FLDS will follow my above statements due to my belief that they are not led by a true prophet and thus are viewed as secular in their faith, more strongly influenced by people than a Church leaning entirely on God.

The FLDS are even more rigid in their adherence to and sticking with certain beliefs, than are the LDS. As far as the changing of the institutional mind is concerned, the LDS church has changed its mind far more, and in far more obvious ways, than the FLDS ever have. For heaven's sake man, the FLDS are still teaching what Brigham Young and John Taylor and Joseph Smith taught, which the LDS church now claims is either folklore, or else "I don't know that we teach that", or else "not doctrine" by some particular technical definition.

And as far as not being led by a prophet, well, that's what I see in the LDS church. There's no evidence whatsoever that the LDS church is actively being instructed and lead by someone who is in real, two-way communication with a deity who actually exists. This deity, if she/he/it does actually exist, has chosen to leave us all ignorant of the most basic facts regarding the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, things like Noah's Ark, the nature of the Fall of Adam as it has to do with what we now know through science, etc. For heaven's sake, you can't even come up with any recorded commandment or revelation from an LDS prophet actually initiating the black priesthood ban, or explaining (in a way that we now will still own up to) why it existed.

If there's a church out there that really does appear to be led by a prophet who actually communicates regularly with a deity who actually exists, it certainly doesn't appear to be the LDS one. And, frankly, I haven't seen another church that looks any better, and many that are worse.

And that makes perfect and total sense in the context of manmade churches. What we see is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see with manmade churches.

[_Bee Eff]

CA and FLDS will follow my above statements due to my belief that they are not led by a true prophet and thus are viewed as secular in their faith, more strongly influenced by people than a Church leaning entirely on God.

The FLDS are even more rigid in their adherence to and sticking with certain beliefs, than are the LDS. As far as the changing of the institutional mind is concerned, the LDS church has changed its mind far more, and in far more obvious ways, than the FLDS ever have. For heaven's sake man, the FLDS are still teaching what Brigham Young and John Taylor and Joseph Smith taught, which the LDS church now claims is either folklore, or else "I don't know that we teach that", or else "not doctrine" by some particular technical definition.

And as far as not being led by a prophet, well, that's what I see in the LDS church. There's no evidence whatsoever that the LDS church is actively being instructed and lead by someone who is in real, two-way communication with a deity who actually exists. This deity, if she/he/it does actually exist, has chosen to leave us all ignorant of the most basic facts regarding the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, things like Noah's Ark, the nature of the Fall of Adam as it has to do with what we now know through science, etc. For heaven's sake, you can't even come up with any recorded commandment or revelation from an LDS prophet actually initiating the black priesthood ban, or explaining (in a way that we now will still own up to) why it existed.

If there's a church out there that really does appear to be led by a prophet who actually communicates regularly with a deity who actually exists, it certainly doesn't appear to be the LDS one. And, frankly, I haven't seen another church that looks any better, and many that are worse.

And that makes perfect and total sense in the context of manmade churches. What we see is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see with manmade churches.

Hence from my "a secular position".

[_bcspace]

I predict the LDS Church will never recognize gay marriages.