Damien the Leper Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Good point. I have never managed to understand why people expect the Church to cave in on abominations that are committed by a small percentage of the population when it hasn't budged on lesser sins that are committed by at least half of everybody at some time in their lives.Abomination is not a literal translation of to'ebah in Leviticus. Sex outside marriage is a sin, theologically speaking. Homosexual sex, again theologically speaking, is no worse than premarital or extramarital sex. Sin is sin. No sin is greater or lesser than another. 1 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) The Family: A Proclamation to the World (An LDS Perspective)The prophet, seer, revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet to the world, whether anyone (inside or outside of the Church of Jesus Christ) hearkens or not. The Twelve collectively are ordained prophets, seers, and revelators to the world, whether anyone (inside or outside of the Church of Jesus Christ) hearkens or not. No one's prophetic calling is dependent upon who hearkens; boiled down to its essence, the prophetic calling simply is to proclaim truth and to stand as a witness to the results. The title of the Proclamation makes crystal clear who its intended audience is, whether anyone (inside or outside of Church of Jesus Christ) hearkens or not. Right is right, even if nobody listens to it, believes it, or does it; and wrong is wrong, even if everybody listens to it, believes it, and does it. While the Lord loves you; while He knows your particular circumstances; while, thus, only He ultimately is qualified judge you (though His servants may be called upon to do so with respect to your standing in the Church of Jesus Christ, if necessary); and while He will do so as mercifully as those circumstances might allow, a couple of scriptures do come to mind: Isaiah 5:20 and 1 Nephi 16:2. A third scripture also comes to mind: "Choose ye this day ..." (Joshua 24:15). Edited September 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969 3 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 ... Sin is sin. No sin is greater or lesser than another.In the sense that all sin separates us from God, that's true, but that doesn't mean that the degree of difficulty of repenting is equal. 2 Link to comment
busybee Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I have no desire to be in any of the kingdoms. If God thinks for one minute that he's going to put me in one of those 3 kennels...we are going to have a serious problem.Careful what you wish for. Link to comment
Saint Sinner Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Nevermind. Edited September 1, 2015 by Saint Sinner Link to comment
Damien the Leper Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Careful what you wish for.I'm not wishing for anything. I'm the author of my own destiny. Not him. Link to comment
Damien the Leper Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 In the sense that all sin separates us from God, that's true, but that doesn't mean that the degree of difficulty of repenting is equal.Never suggested such. Link to comment
Damien the Leper Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 The prophet, seer, revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet to the world, whether anyone (inside or outside of the Church of Jesus Christ) hearkens or not. The Twelve collectively are ordained prophets, seers, and revelators to the world, whether anyone (inside or outside of the Church of Jesus Christ) hearkens or not. No one's prophetic calling is dependent upon who hearkens; boiled down to its essence, the prophetic calling simply is to proclaim truth and to stand as a witness to the results. The title of the Proclamation makes crystal clear who its intended audience is, whether anyone (inside or outside of Church of Jesus Christ) hearkens or not. Right is right, even if nobody listens to it, believes it, or does it; and wrong is wrong, even if everybody listens to it, believes it, and does it. While the Lord loves you; while He knows your particular circumstances; while, thus, only He ultimately is qualified judge you (though His servants may be called upon to do so with respect to your standing in the Church of Jesus Christ, if necessary); and while He will do so as mercifully as those circumstances might allow, a couple of scriptures do come to mind: Isaiah 5:20 and 1 Nephi 16:2. A third scripture also comes to mind: "Choose ye this day ..." (Joshua 24:15).That's fine but I reject it. Monson and the 13 others have no place or stewardship in my life. What they teach no longer applies to me in any possible way. Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I don't expect the church will ever accept SSM in the temple. They are very clear and there is sustantial history and teaching that support their current position about that. I accept that this could change like the priesthood and temple ban, which also had significant history and teaching AND scriptur to support it, but I don't expect it. However, I do expect the church will ease up significantly on non-temple SSM. At some point they will realize that they cannot enforce church ideology of marriage on the entire world. This would be a minor move. It would merely require them to change their acceptance of a word (marriage) since they already support SS unions for legal rights. I hope that some day the church will find ways to be inclusive of SS couples and families within the church. This would require them to have 1 uniform law of chastity, no relations outside of legal marriage, instead of 2 separate expectations they claim are the same. The problem is, if they define the law of chastity as it currently is stated in the temple (spouse legally and lawfully married) then it will put pressure on them to accept SSM in the temple. But to accept SSM in the temple the church would need to change it's vague understanding that spirit children are procreated the same way physical children are. New understanding about how spirit children are created/organized would be needed, OR at least a definitive acceptance that we don't know how spirit children are created. Link to comment
Gray Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 What would have happened if the church had not discontinued the priesthood ban? I believe it would have lost most of its members by now and would exist only as a very small Utah church of less than a hundred thousand members. What will happen in 40 years if the church still bans gay couples from marriage (or even from being members in good fellowship), given the trajectory of public opinion on gay marriage? I believe the results would be the same. They church would essentially be damaged beyond repair. To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm, theology finds a way. 1 Link to comment
ALarson Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) I don't expect the church will ever accept SSM in the temple. They are very clear and there is sustantial history and teaching that support their current position about that. I accept that this could change like the priesthood and temple ban, which also had significant history and teaching AND scriptur to support it, but I don't expect it. However, I do expect the church will ease up significantly on non-temple SSM. At some point they will realize that they cannot enforce church ideology of marriage on the entire world. This would be a minor move. It would merely require them to change their acceptance of a word (marriage) since they already support SS unions for legal rights. These are my feelings on this topic too. I really don't hold out much hope that SS sealings will take place in the temple (but I think that would be great). However I do believe that in years to come, those who enter SS marriages and are faithful to their spouses, will be able to hold callings and will be treated as other worthy married couples in the church. Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson 3 Link to comment
CV75 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 rockpond asserted a few days ago that the expectation that the Church will one day drop its doctrine regarding the definition of marriage and begin solemnizing homosexual relationships in the temples is "ahead of schedule" on the arbitrary 40-year timeline and even ventured the suggestion that we shave five to 10 years off the timeline. Comes now the September issue of the Ensign magazine with two articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen affirming the Lord's definition of marriage, particularly as it pertains to the temple: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/08/the-proclamation-on-the-family-transcending-the-cultural-confusion.p1?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/the-temple-and-the-natural-order-of-marriage?lang=eng So, as reflected in the official magazine of the Church of Jesus Christ, we are nowhere closer to the change that rockpond and Dehlin predict than we were seven months ago when I started the countdown clock. Which now shows this much time remaining in the 40 years: 39 years, 5 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 29 seconds.I was just reading 2 Peter 2 yesterday and was thinking how General Conference and the Church publications with their frequent and current reminders are so essential. Link to comment
KevinG Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Some, I suppose, probably just feel the need to badger others. You just did a wonderful job of describing a large number of critics of Mormonism and the Latter-day Saints. 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Are you sure it's okay for you to call people "devout members" if I'm not allowed to call people anti-Mormons? Sauce for the goose, and all that. Fair point. I'm taking people at their word. Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I would hardly call the statement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding its affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America a complete 180. Good. Neither did I. Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I do think that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ are attempting to find common ground and a workable compromise regarding LGBT issues, recognizing that one's sexual orientation should have no bearing on, e.g., the ability and opportunity to earn a living, to have a roof over one's head, and so on. I think that to say that such gestures portend an eventual wholesale abandonment or change of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ respecting marriage is unwarranted. Companionship is an important element of marriage; it may be the primary motivation behind many marriages. But the Church of Jesus Christ has always been clear that opposite-sex marriage provides the best environment for rearing and nurturing families. The Church's change in position regarding LGBT rights doesn't, on its own, "portend an eventual wholesale abandonment or change of doctrine". It's just a step in the right direction. Link to comment
ALarson Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Context. It can be read as meaning there would be nothing they could do on their own to change the law of God.But that's not what he said. N. Eldon Tanner stated: "The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God." When you try to change what he stated or qualify it with your own words, do you think about how the same words can be added to qualify statements from leaders today regarding SSM? Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson 2 Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 And I countered by disputing that the Church had backed down from anything and by pointing out that issues of civil rights (specifically, employment and housing) have no bearing on the morality of homosexual behavior or the genuineness in the eyes of God of so-called homosexual marriage. As if to bear that out, the September Ensign appears with these two superb articles by Elder Hafen. But again, let's keep this thread focused, please. I thought I was keeping it focused... since you started the thread by commenting on my assertion. I agree that the Church has not backed down on its position regarding marriage. But several decades is a long time and my point is that if a revelation changing our position on gay marriage is going to be received, some of these smaller steps are going to need to happen. As I've stated before, I don't expect our leaders to stop teaching man-woman marriage anytime soon. In fact, teachings on this subject will intensify as more and more members cease to believe them. Link to comment
KevinG Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 For those who are paying attention the church policy on homosexuality was never "hate the sinner". It seems that LGBT advocacy groups and the LDS Church are doing a better job on communicating to each other what exactly we agree with each other about, and what we disagree about. For the LDS this means we must be cautious about excusing our favorite sins while judging others harshly. Especially when their beliefs differ from ours. For the LGBT groups this means reciprocal respect of others beliefs while affirming their own rights to equal protection under the law. Where both groups can work together and agree is in providing equal access to public accommodation, jobs, housing, and other basic needs. We can do all of this, and respect others, while holding firm to our own beliefs that marriage in the LDS Church is between a man and a woman, the sexual standard for being a Scout leader in the LDS Church is chastity, and our teachings to the world will continue to encourage behavior we see as consistent with Gospel laws. Link to comment
KevinG Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Rockpond... Why do you have a quote on your tag line from a book that was censured by the President of the church, including false doctrines that we no longer teach? 2 Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 For those who are paying attention the church policy on homosexuality was never "hate the sinner". It seems that LGBT advocacy groups and the LDS Church are doing a better job on communicating to each other what exactly we agree with each other about, and what we disagree about. For the LDS this means we must be cautious about excusing our favorite sins while judging others harshly. Especially when their beliefs differ from ours. For the LGBT groups this means reciprocal respect of others beliefs while affirming their own rights to equal protection under the law. Where both groups can work together and agree is in providing equal access to public accommodation, jobs, housing, and other basic needs. We can do all of this, and respect others, while holding firm to our own beliefs that marriage in the LDS Church is between a man and a woman, the sexual standard for being a Scout leader in the LDS Church is chastity, and our teachings to the world will continue to encourage behavior we see as consistent with Gospel laws. Yes, it took some time but it is nice to have reached agreement on those points. Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 These are my feelings on this topic too. I really don't hold out much hope that SS sealings will take place in the temple (but I think that would be great). However I do believe that in years to come, those who enter SS marriages and are faithful to their spouses, will be able to hold callings and will be treated as other worthy married couples in the church. I am not sure how this is possible. Maybe a shack up couple who are loving and faithful will be able to hold callings and will be treated as other worthy married couples in the church? Sin is sin. Gay marriage is a sin. 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Rockpond... Why do you have a quote on your tag line from a book that was censured by the President of the church, including false doctrines that we no longer teach? It's a reminder of where we were and how far we've come. 1 Link to comment
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Comes now the September issue of the Ensign magazine with two articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen affirming the Lord's definition of marriage, particularly as it pertains to the temple: and we know that, I think the church needs to clarify other important issues Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 But that's not what he said. N. Eldon Tanner stated: "The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God." When you try to change what he stated or qualify it with your own words, do you think about how the same words can be added to qualify statements from leaders today regarding SSM? It's called reading for comprehension -- or accepting the reality that we can't know the context of an interview that took place 50 years ago to which only President Tanner and the writer were privy. Do you deny that the context in which a statement was made can make a great deal of difference in its meaning? I have suggested a plausible interpretation of the quoted statement in light of known facts (i.e. that God, through revelation, changed the practice in the Church, a development that was not unexpected). If you've never had the experience of being quoted out of context before, you are indeed fortunate -- but perhaps the disadvantage is you don't seem to grasp the importance of context. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts