The Next Mormon Schism

[Moliere]

I'm really disappointed in all you jokers for getting off the topic.

I think the schism is going to occur in about 50 years, and I think it's going to be over ordination of actively gay married men (men married to men) to the priesthood and leadership positions.

Women will get the PH first and be able to openly exercise it before your prediction happens.

[SoonerCoug]

Women will get the PH first and be able to openly exercise it before your prediction happens.

Yeah, I think that'll happen in 30 years and won't be a big deal.

Gay male bishops in 50 years will cause a schism. By then gay marriage will be no big deal and a significant percentage of Mormons will be sympathetic to the gay bishop.

Interestingly, the RLDS have already ordained gay males to the clergy and then stopped doing it (but did not rescind previous ordinations).

[Sizzle]

I'm really disappointed in all you jokers for getting off the topic.

I think the schism is going to occur in about 50 years, and I think it's going to be over ordination of actively gay married men (men married to men) to the priesthood and leadership positions.

Law of Consecration would have a bigger impact IMO.

[Indy Coug]

The reinstitution of polygamy.

[Sizzle]

The reinstitution of polygamy.

The 2nd coming

[wally]

The reinstitution of polygamy.

And the next, next mormon schism will be when it is repealed, again.

[Flystripper]

Not a chance. If the culture of the Church were to even get so far as to be open to the possibility of gay male bishops, a lot more paradigm shifts will have happened before that time and led to schisms over other matters. Gay male bishops may lead to a schism in some splinter group years from now, but not the main body of the Church.

Gay male bishops in the Church won't happen in a millenia, let a lone 50 years.

That sounds a lot like some members opinion of Polygamy one hundred and fifty years ago.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The reinstitution of polygamy.

I would give that about a 1% chance.

If it happens, I am out.

[Indy Coug]

I would give that about a 1% chance.

If it happens, I am out.

What if it happens during the Millennium with Christ on the throne?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What if it happens during the Millennium with Christ on the throne?

Yeah, I guess if Jesus told me I would accept it. I am giving that 0.0001% odds.

[Indy Coug]

Yeah, I guess if Jesus told me I would accept it. I am giving that 0.0001% odds.

LOL. Are the low odds based on a projection of your expected longevity?

[Jeff Lebowski]

LOL. Are the low odds based on a projection of your expected longevity?

No, that's how likely I think it is that Jesus is behind polygamy.

[Indy Coug]

No, that's how likely I think it is that Jesus is behind polygamy.

So D&C 132 isn't worth the paper it's written on?

Furthermore, what about the eternal fate of a person who married a woman in the temple, the woman dies and then he marries another woman in the temple?

[Jacob]

I'm really disappointed in all you jokers for getting off the topic.

I think the schism is going to occur in about 50 years, and I think it's going to be over ordination of actively gay married men (men married to men) to the priesthood and leadership positions.

I really don't think we'll get close to that. A first step would be changing the policy and doctrine on gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

I thought I'd ask a very orthodox person what he'd think if the church ever changed it's teaching on gays and marriage. The response was that he'd leave the church. The answer surprised me because I expected the response to be that they'd follow the prophet. But it shouldn't have surprised me because of the logic behind such a conclusion. Most of us members really like the idea of modern revelation and when it turns out that the prophets haven't been prophetic at all, then there isn't much reason to stay in the church.

I realize that there have been other changes that haven't resulted in such a problem i.e. Blacks and the priesthood, but those were before my time .

I guess I'm saying that if the church started teaching that gay sex was not a sin, that would be a schism that would end the church. And I don't think it will ever happen. Likewise, the church cannot and will not change it's official teachings re: same sex marriage, though it could get out of the campaigning business.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So D&C 132 isn't worth the paper it's written on?

Furthermore, what about the eternal fate of a person who married a woman in the temple, the woman dies and then he marries another woman in the temple?

I have no idea what it means in the long run to be sealed to another person. And it doesn't make sense to me that men can be sealed to multiple women but not the other way around.