The future is almost here.

[_JohnStuartMill]

That scenario is certainly possible, but I find it pretty damn unlikely. Mormonism's theology is unique enough that I don't think that people disaffected with mainstream Christianity's steady liberalization would be enticed by it too much. Moreover, I think there will always be some Christian sect ready to cater to conservative values (as a historical analog, look at the Christian denominations that were accepting of racism for much longer than their peers), so there will be little reason for conservatives to convert to Mormonism anyway.

[_TAK]

So when the government decides to use it's powers to selectively persecute religions that they don't agree with? At that point I think we will have much bigger problems.

LOL ! LD$ Inc does not mind using the government when it suits them..

If it were not for the Government momons would still be practicing polygamy and racist against blacks..

[_Darth J]

The real problem that the Church has with same-sex marriage is that it is incompatible with the Church's doctrine about the ultimate purpose of marriage and sex (male and female, not necessarily the act).

In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the leaders of the Church summarized the Church's doctrine on the eternal nature of male and female:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Notice that stereotypical Ozzie and Harriet gender roles are eternal. Then stop noticing it and relate this to the OP.

The purpose of marriage in the LDS Church is not just a legal relationship in society. Marriage ultimately is supposed to be sealed by priesthood authority in the temple, so that a man and a woman can be married forever and become gods and have spirit children, with the same relationship to these children that God has to us. It is debatable whether the Church teaches or implies that gods and goddesses actually have sexual intercourse to create spirit children, but it is clear that there has to be a male god and a female goddess for this creation of spirit children to happen. Since the ultimate purpose of the Mormon gospel is literally to become a god, we're talking about the heart of the LDS religion now.

The idea that sex is somehow necessary to have spirit children is also implicit in the Church continuing to practice posthumous polygamy. A man can be sealed to both a wife who has died and a current, living wife. In LDS theology, this means that when this man is exalted, he will have two goddess wives with whom he can have spirit children. In the normal world, the practical result of polygamy is making lots of kids a lot faster. You can have numerous wives being pregnant at the same time, so you're reproducing at a geometric rate, rather than the linear rate with one wife. The only reason to be sealed to more than one woman would be if there is a similar process when gods and goddesses have spirit children.

Obviously, two men or two women cannot sexually reproduce. Since eternal marriage is about having spirit children, not merely companionship, two gods married to each other would frustrate the big picture of unknown generations of gods having spirit children who go through a life like we're currently living and someday become gods themselves, who then raise up their own spirit children, ad infinitum.

This is the core reason why the LDS Church is so vigorously opposed to same-sex marriage. If same-sex marriage becomes socially acceptable, and the Church caves to social pressure to change its marriage practices (as it did with polygamy), then the entire story of the plan of salvation is going to have to be rewritten, because somehow there will have to be an explanation of how two gods or two goddesses can have spirit children, and the doctrine that God is an exalted human being with a wife (notice the "heavenly parents"), which is perhaps the defining doctrine of Mormonism, has to be retconned somehow.

It's one thing with black people getting the priesthood to just say, "never mind, just forget about the seed of Cain and being less valiant in the war in heaven and all that" (which the Church has never repudiated; it just ignores all this now). It is quite different to reinvent the plan of salvation to make room for homosexual gods and goddesses, and that's where the conflict really is, which many people are either overlooking or not realizing.

[_Darth J]

So when the government decides to use it's powers to selectively persecute religions that they don't agree with? At that point I think we will have much bigger problems.

Nehor, are you asserting, contra Reynolds v. United States, that there is a constitutional right to practice polygamy?

[_JohnStuartMill]

The real problem that the Church has with same-sex marriage is that it is incompatible with the Church's doctrine about the ultimate purpose of marriage and sex (male and female, not necessarily the act).
[...]

Notice that stereotypical Ozzie and Harriet gender roles are eternal. Then stop noticing it and relate this to the OP.

The purpose of marriage in the LDS Church is not just a legal relationship in society. Marriage ultimately is supposed to be sealed by priesthood authority in the temple, so that a man and a woman can be married forever and become gods and have spirit children, with the same relationship to these children that God has to us. It is debatable whether the Church teaches or implies that gods and goddesses actually have sexual intercourse to create spirit children, but it is clear that there has to be a male god and a female goddess for this creation of spirit children to happen. Since the ultimate purpose of the Mormon gospel is literally to become a god, we're talking about the heart of the LDS religion now.

The idea that sex is somehow necessary to have spirit children is also implicit in the Church continuing to practice posthumous polygamy. A man can be sealed to both a wife who has died and a current, living wife. In LDS theology, this means that when this man is exalted, he will have two goddess wives with whom he can have spirit children. In the normal world, the practical result of polygamy is making lots of kids a lot faster. You can have numerous wives being pregnant at the same time, so you're reproducing at a geometric rate, rather than the linear rate with one wife. The only reason to be sealed to more than one woman would be if there is a similar process when gods and goddesses have spirit children.

Obviously, two men or two women cannot sexually reproduce. Since eternal marriage is about having spirit children, not merely companionship, two gods married to each other would frustrate the big picture of unknown generations of gods having spirit children who go through a life like we're currently living and someday become gods themselves, who then raise up their own spirit children, ad infinitum.

This is the core reason why the LDS Church is so vigorously opposed to same-sex marriage. If same-sex marriage becomes socially acceptable, and the Church caves to social pressure to change its marriage practices (as it did with polygamy), then the entire story of the plan of salvation is going to have to be rewritten, because somehow there will have to be an explanation of how two gods or two goddesses can have spirit children, and the doctrine that God is an exalted human being with a wife (notice the "heavenly parents"), which is perhaps the defining doctrine of Mormonism, has to be retconned somehow.

It's one thing with black people getting the priesthood to just say, "never mind, just forget about the seed of Cain and being less valiant in the war in heaven and all that" (which the Church has never repudiated; it just ignores all this now). It is quite different to reinvent the plan of salvation to make room for homosexual gods and goddesses, and that's where the conflict really is, which many people are either overlooking or not realizing.

Darth, I think you underestimate the speed with which religions can evolve, especially when they're subject the intense societal pressures that the Church is about to experience. Let's continue with your War in Heaven example: that was just as integral a part of Church doctrine as the idea of Heavenly Parents. If the former can be reworked so much as to be almost unrecognizable in a mere generation, why not the latter? The only reason you've articulated is that the limited possibilities of biological parentage, combined with the Church's reproductive conception of the purpose of marriage, require it to restrict marriage to heterosexuals. But science is expanding the possibilities for mortal reproduction, so it's not clear that the biological constraint on this aspect of Mormon thought will be around much longer. And why should scientific possibility be such a roadblock in the first place? There have always been Saints who have been obviously infertile in mortal life: the ad hoc presto-change-o that grants those people the ability to procreate in the afterlife should work just as well for gays and lesbians.

[_The Nehor]

So when the government decides to use it's powers to selectively persecute religions that they don't agree with? At that point I think we will have much bigger problems.

Nehor, are you asserting, contra Reynolds v. United States, that there is a constitutional right to practice polygamy?

No. I'm asserting that attempts to silence religions on political matters are wrong. Threatening them with taxation to get them to shut up is scary.

Whether polygamy should be a protected religious practice I do not know. The question back then was settled. It will probably reopen soon and I expect the final answer will make it moot.

[_schreech]

No. I'm asserting that attempts to silence religions on political matters are wrong. Threatening them with taxation to get them to shut up is scary.

When has this happened? I have heard that the govt threatened to remove the LDS tax exempt status if they continued to practice institutionalized racism by denying blacks the priesthood but i have never heard of any situation in which a religion was threatened "with taxation to get them to shut up"...seems like that wouldn't go very far considering the first amendment...

[_The Nehor]

No. I'm asserting that attempts to silence religions on political matters are wrong. Threatening them with taxation to get them to shut up is scary.

When has this happened? I have heard that the govt threatened to remove the LDS tax exempt status if they continued to practice institutionalized racism by denying blacks the priesthood but i have never heard of any situation in which a religion was threatened "with taxation to get them to shut up"...seems like that wouldn't go very far considering the first amendment...

It has not happened but there are people clamoring for it to happen. I think a judicious reminder of the dangers of that kind of thing (such as the Catholic leader's in this thread) is appropriate. I think LDS agreement with it is appropriate. Some here seem to think it is something worthy of ridicule. I'm simply pointing out that these people should go to hell.

[_Darth J]

Nehor, are you asserting, contra Reynolds v. United States, that there is a constitutional right to practice polygamy?

No. I'm asserting that attempts to silence religions on political matters are wrong. Threatening them with taxation to get them to shut up is scary.

Actually, the question should be why religious entities should be tax-exempt to begin with. Although "churches don't pay taxes" is long-established, I don't know of any convincing rationale for this policy, and there are many legal commentators who don't see it, either. To me, not taxing churches because of freedom of religion makes as much sense as not taxing bookstores because of freedom of the press.

[_schreech]

It has not happened but there are people clamoring for it to happen. I think a judicious reminder of the dangers of that kind of thing (such as the Catholic leader's in this thread) is appropriate. I think LDS agreement with it is appropriate. Some here seem to think it is something worthy of ridicule. I'm simply pointing out that these people should go to hell.

Clamoring for what to happen? The LDS church to lose their tax exempt status because they wont "shut up"? Who is "clamoring" for this to happen? - i must have missed it... Your post makes no sense....who should go to hell? People who "ridicule" Mormonism and its ridiculous beliefs? What dangers are you talking about?

Lds agreement with what is appropriate? institutionalized bigotry, racism and discrimination? Again, your post makes no sense and i think the LDS church should lose their tax exempt status if they discriminate based on sexuality, gender or race...