Jump to content

Daniel2

Contributor
  • Content Count

    3,178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,081 Excellent

About Daniel2

  • Rank
    Culturally-Mormon Gay Dad
  • Birthday 01/01/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Utah

Recent Profile Visitors

3,777 profile views
  1. If I'm following you correctly, you're suggesting that "because of the hardness of [our] hearts," God doesn't currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard, by which (from what I can tell) you mean to say that because of the hardness of our hearts, God currently allows and recognizes remarriage between couples who were previously divorced and doesn't hold them accountable for the stain of immorality (which their remarriage normally should/would be under, if they were living the specified higher law, which is what you call the celestial standard). Do I have that right? If I have the above right, isn't God overlooking that same so-called celestial standard by permitting such couples (previously divorced and subsequently remarried) to be sealed in the temple and then granted access into the Celestial Kingdom? Or are they forced, at some point, to actually change their lower-law behavior of adultery by way of divorce and remarriage and then requalify for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom by your so-called higher law? If they are automatically granted/grandfathered in to the blessings of your so-called higher law--in this case, entrance into the Celestial Kingdom but based on behaviors they engaged in while under the lower law--what's the point of even having a 'higher law' vs a 'lower law'? And if same-sex couples are ultimately accepted as a function of the existing so-called 'lower law,' then they could just as easily be grandfathered into a path of inclusion in the celestial kingdom just the same as their heterosexual counterparts who only lived the lower law when remarrying after divorce....?
  2. The problem with your last statement, as I see it, is that the Family Proclamation doesn't address, prohibit, or preclude any future leaders' ability to accept and embrace marriage for same-sex couples. The wording of the Family Proclamation is vague enough that while it clearly says God endorses marriage between a man and a woman, it's wording stops well short of suggesting that God can't likewise endorse other marital formations. In other words, canonizing the Family Proclamation still wouldn't clarify the issue as to if/when God may yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the exaltation of his same-gender-married gay and lesbian children in the eternities.
  3. I would agree with the statement that the LDS church's "change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and temple marriage." Especially since current LDS church leaders, including the very member of the First Presidency who announced the policy reversal (President Dallin Oaks), have taught that in some cases, there are very significant differences between "transgression" and "sin": In the context of identifying marriage between two individuals of the same gender as a serious "transgression" instead of a serious "sin," Oaks has left the door wide open for future clarification that same-gender marriage may ultimately be historically viewed as something that wasn't "inherently wrong or immoral" (which would'n't have been the case if he chose to classify it as "sin"), but was classified as a transgression "only because it [was hisorically legally] prohibited" by the LDS church (since it's classified--again, currently--as prohibited by the rules of the LDS Church). In the above context, the reversal can be seen as a significant step in the direction of someday recognizing the legality of marriage between same-gender couples within the LDS Church. In answer to your second question of "doesn't it logically follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy/acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?," my answer would be, No, that doesn't logically follow. Adultery is between unmarried partnerships, so that's different than intimacy between couples who are legally and lawfully married. Finally, while I welcome the change of the abolition of the exclusion policy and definitely see it as a positive (albeit seemingly small in the manner and scope it was presented) step in the right direction, the LDS Church still has a long way to go, as summarized by one of the better opinion pieces I've seen on the subject is Craig Mangum, a gay former member of the LDS Faith and BYU Alumnus:
  4. I do. My own personal witness as a survivor of sucidal ideation and the personal witnesses of countless other gay men and women who are survivors of the same.
  5. My maternal great-great-grandmother was one of three wives and the last of a few generations of my polygamist ancestors who fled to and lived among in the Mormon Mexican colonies. My grandmother was a small girl when her monogamist parents sought refuge back in Arizona to flee the invasive attacks by Poncho Villa and his men. We have many bound personal family histories in my parents’ bookcases which my Mom would read to us as kids. While such stories were held my my extended LDS family as cherished sources of family connections to the testimonies and personal sacrifices by our ancestors, I always wondered why the histories of the church didn’t feature their sacrifices, or any even associated with them that I can recall, as much as my extended famiy did amongst and at our family reunions. The days when the attendeees to our multi-day, multi-generational, and multi-wife-decendant extended summer vacation family reunions numbered in the hundreds at beautiful Arizonan campgrounds died out around the same time I started BYU over 25 years ago. Now that those gatherisngs have dissipated, my guess is that my own LDS children, neices, and nephews have no idea of how recently our family was involved in polygamy, or of the legacy of polygamist-yet-faithfully-LDS accounts our ancestors left behind.
  6. I think previous generations of church leaders would have supported this website, but in answer to your question: No... in light of recent comments by many current LDS leaders, I think they don’t and wouldn’t support many of the type of discussions that we have here, even those that illustrate pro-LDS apologetic inquiry. The current administration is more along the lines of “research is not the answer/focus on the primary questions only” instead of “if we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
  7. Thanks for these additional thoughts and info; they have helped me better understand North Star. Ty Mansfield and I became acquainted online when we both lived on the east coast during his single days, before his book publication, and as I was going through my divorce around 2005. Back then, Ty and I had many chats about how we both identified as gay, even as he held a strong desire to live according to LDS ideals. Back then, he often said he believed he’d never marry a woman and expected to be celibate his whole life. As I moved further away from identifying with my previous Latter-day Saint identify, and when he moved back to Utah, our communication subsided and ultimately stopped. Due to our conversations together and knowing his openness to the concept of identifying as gay, it doesn’t surprise me that an organization he was instrumental in founding/co-founding included those who identify as gay. I recall Ty feeling that there was no incongruence between acknowledging his homosexuality (and in using the word gay) and being an active Latter-day Saint, with the understanding that the attraction itself was not sinful, only acting upon it would be (again and probably obviously, that was his position, not mine). I was appreciative that LDS leadership also began using the terminology of and acknowledging “gays and lesbians” around that time, too, and I’m grateful if North Star had any role in so-influencing the church. I recall my surprise (in a good way) when Michael Otterson used the term “gay” more than once in his 2010 response to the HRC:
  8. Thanks for the additional info. That’s helpful in delineating some of the differences. And thanks for posting their mission. Though I didn’t take the time to repost it here, that’s exactly in line with what I remember reading on my last visit to the NS website. Is there any reason to think LDS leadership, (individually and collectively at any level) couldn’t, wouldn’t, or doesn’t support the mission or ideals of North Star? As I understand it, North Star doesn’t promote any therapies that are out of line with the tennents of the LDS Faith, and has distanced itself from the same disavowed therapeutic practices the LDS Faith has. I’m not trying to imply the Church has any official financial investment in North Star... I’m just somewhat perplexed that it seems controversial to imply that North Star isn’t closely aligned with and takes its cues from the same paradigms that the LDS Faith and its leaders promote, or, in the context of all that you and I have both suggested, is supportive of the organization.... What is your hesitancy, if any, to acknowledge that...? Is it simply out of an abundance of caution to acknowledge that the leadership hasn’t officially gone on record, per se? (Which would be a fair stance, btw.... just trying to see how you’re approaching your views).
  9. As I mentioned previously, I found the video beautiful. And while I didn’t and still don’t get the impression the church is using the men and women who chose to so-beautifully record and express their feelings and beliefs to share with others, and while I understand and agree with your desire to be clear about the church’s relationship to/with North Star, I think it may be helpful to clarify what appears to be an inference that the church doesn’t support North Star. It seems clear to me that North Star is ‘highly influenced’ by the LDS church (given their mission to help men and women live in accordance with LDS principles). Is that inaccurate? Additionally, I’ve presumed that the LDS Church unofficially and non-monetarily ‘supports’ North Star and it’s mission in the same way the Church supported Evergreen... that local, regional, and global members of LDS Leadership support North Star activities by occasionally attending and speaking at them to offer encouragement and impart the Lord’s and Church’s endorsement/blessings to individuals so-engaged, and that local LDS leaders share/recommend North Star as a possible resource to members experiencing attractions to members of their own gender who desire to live in accordance with principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Has any/all of the above changed since Evergreen was folded into North Star?
  10. The big problem with (not to mention irony of) your point above is that when upholding and enforcing civil rights and public accommodation laws, the government did indeed force restaurant- and diner-owners to serve customers who went out to dinner (and all other times of day) that the owners did not want to serve (see here). Business owners who serve protected classes of patrons differently than the rest of their patrons (such as offering sub-par service out of any type of retaliation) are also in violation of the law.
  11. Can you please provide a link to your source(s) showing that the court’s discovery found out that “the couple was actually looking for a baker would turn their business away”....?
  12. Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear the latest appeal involving religious liberty invocations of the first amendment vs gender/sexual orientation discrimination:
  13. Absolutely; and often. I’ve changed views on a variety of topics since I started posting here 15+ years ago.
×
×
  • Create New...