Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Broaden your parameters a bit. 

What is going to happen to all of us in the next life? 

What is going to happen to those who do not marry in this life, for whatever reason? 

What is going to happen to those who keep their covenants?  

I'm not sure there is a "position" specific to "gays in the afterlife."  I'm not sure there needs to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmm...  sounds like you are either dodging my question, the church doesn't have a position on what happens to gays and gay relationships in the afterlife, or the position has such bad optics to put it in writing.  

Would it help if I said I promise not to criticize the position in this thread, I will declare a Switzerland status for this particular thread.  I honestly just want to know if the church actually does have a position on this subject, because I sincerely haven't heard one articulated before.  

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I know a lot of people who hold this same opinion, but I'd like to know if the church has officially sanctioned these ideas. 

The scriptures teach that, through Christ, we can become new people.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

(Revelation 21)

I'm certainly looking forward to being free from some of the challenges that I face in this life.

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What if you assume that prophets are not perfect and also, that God does nothing, except He reveals His will to His prophet?  It's one thing to say that prophets are not perfect and another to say that prophet's don't always know God's will for His church and sometimes He expects members to step in, isn't it? 

Fair enough there are more possibilities.  But, again, I don't see the two statements at odds. 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually there is only one recorded occasion where the Church has ended a practice, and none where it has changed its doctrines, in response to outside pressure. And since the pressure in question would have ended the practice of Plural Marriage anyway, it was a reasonably clear choice.

Not to intrude too much, but this is completely inaccurate.  The church has changed doctrines on every single topic to at least some degree.  Some more than others.  There have been many essays and books written with a myriad of examples.  The idea that doctrines haven't changed is a myth and its actually in contradiction to a basic doctrine of the church, the doctrine of line upon line continuing revelation.  Never changing doctrine is a borrowed idea, not really a Mormon concept, it wasn't promulgated by Joseph, its not in our articles of faith, and Joseph demonstrated during his lifetime that he was a catalyst for changing doctrines. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Do you know of anyone who claims that any sins persist beyond this fallen world? 

Its an interesting question.  I think the concept of eternal progression is one way of recognizing that just because we've died and are resurrected, doesn't mean we are immediately perfected.  That implies there will be mistakes or sins in the next life as we continue to learn and grow.  But I would like to also state that the church no longer claims that being gay is a sin, so my question about what happens to gays in the next life is still a relevant question.  I also don't personally believe that committed and monogamous gay relationships are a sin.  

16 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, I'm sure it's a challenge to always get one's way just by demanding it.

As someone who observes history, there are many instances in Mormonism and in the culture at large where change happened because of people brave enough to advocate for it.  I don't include myself in that category as I'm not an activist, but I do recognize the importance of those who publicly advocate for positions.  Many of these people are the ones we hold up as hero's in American history, and I honor their contributions and sacrifices.  

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Everyone, whether gay or straight, is under commandment to curb impure thoughts.

Yes, but romantic love and sexual thoughts between married opposite-sex couples are God-ordained, whereas according to Mormonism's current policies and doctrines, romantic love and sexual thoughts between any same-sex couples (married or not) are never pure.

Hence.... if one is being actively gay, it's a sin.... hence, if "being" is a verb, as in "proactively involved in BE-ing" gay, then it's a sin. 

As you yourself said earlier in this thread, Scott, it depends on what definition of "being" is emphasized; so technically, BOTH sides can be accurate, depending on one's audience.

Variety isn't likely geared towards a predominantly LDS audience who are apt to understand LDS nuances over the issue.  For most, it's understood that it's accurate to say that "Mormonism believes that being gay is a sin," in that, so far as a "state of being," Mormons are highly averse to even acknowledging that some people "are" gay, and certainly the vast majority believe that since it's NOT a "state of being" from an eternal perspective, any "so-called gays and lesbians" who inherit the Celestial Kingdom are likely to be 'healed' or 'relieved' of their same-sex attractions in the eternal Celestial Kingdom.

D

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that's a fair statement of what "most" people believe.  To the contrary, I think "most" people comprehend the distinction between thought and deed, between impulse and action, between feelings and behaviors.

Correct.  So "lusting" is not the same as "being gay" (or heterosexual, for that matter).  "Lusting" appears to be more a matter of volition.  Choice.

Conflating "lust" with sexual orientation does not help your position.  This is not a "reason" that explains your "distinction without a difference" claim.

Yes.  God has authorized marriage between a man and a woman.  He has not authorized marriage between persons of the same sex.

This is not a "reason" that explains your "distinction without a difference" claim.

Yes.  But "being straight" isn't the end of it.  A person can "be straight" and fornicate or commit adultery or commit rape or some other form of sexual abuse.  None of these behaviors - despite being manifested by a "straight" person - "are God-approved."

This is not a "reason" that explains your "distinction without a difference" claim.  To the contrary, it strengthen's the LDS Church's position, which states that it is actions which are sinful.

Well, no.  I don't think the LDS Church recognizes sexual orientation as a state of "being."  And the Church does not condemn anyone for merely having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

Nope.  We can't take that context as a "given."  it is not an accurate representation of the LDS Church's doctrines and teachings on this point.

I do.  There seems to be plenty of room for both inferences (mine and yours).

The problem, though, is that Bro. Reynolds' remarks feed prejudice and animosity.  He grew up in the Church, and he served a mission, so he should know better.  And now he apparently harbors resentment against the Church for delaying his entry into BYU because he violated the Law of Chastity.  Given that context, his mischaracterizations of the Church's position do not come across as inadvertent, but as deliberate.  

We agree on one point, though.  Reynolds was certainly intending to convey a message to a particular "audience."  One that is not familiar with the LDS Church. One that is far less likely to be aware of the Church's teachings on this issue, including the obviously profound and important distinction between thoughts and deeds.  By conflating them he appears to seek to make the Church look bad.  To embarrass it.  To cast it in the worst possible light.  For an "audience" that will, by and large, not know any better.

You can chalk all that up to inadvertence if you like.  Given the context, though, I'm coming to a different conclusion.

So Bro. Reynolds can disregard the Church's emphasis on that distinction, and mislead his audience regarding that distinction, because . . . the audience probably wouldn't agree with that distinction if they knew about it?

You're just making Bro. Reynolds look worse.  The Church's position is predicated on the distinction between thoughts and actions.  Bro. Reynolds, in making representations about the Church's position to an otherwise generally uninformed audience, affirmatively chooses to mischaracterize the Church's teaching by withholding that distinction from his audience.  And he also injects other risible (and easily misunderstood) characterizations of the Church to this same audience (such as the notion of "religious 'shaming'") to that same audience.  And all of this is . . . benign?  Harmless?  Inadvertent?

I think . . . not.

The distinction between thoughts/desires/inclinations/passions/preferences/orientations and actions is real.  It is axiomatically real.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think some posters on here believe that we have the memory of a goldfish.  For decades the church refused to use the word gay because they taught that gay did indeed represent a lifestyle.  So the church used the term same sex attraction.  

Now Reynolds uses the term gay in the exact way that the church used the word for decades and you go on post after post insisting that he is misrepresenting the church. Kind of ironic

 

But then I find your argument that the church policies on gay marriage is similar to the church policy on straight members that don't marry to be pretty. disingenuous as well.  So it is probably just me.

Edited December 1, 2017 by california boy

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually there is only one recorded occasion where the Church has ended a practice, and none where it has changed its doctrines, in response to outside pressure. And since the pressure in question would have ended the practice of Plural Marriage anyway, it was a reasonably clear choice.

I know you have a history of declaring that you would side with the Church if the Gay Jihad ever targeted religious freedoms, and an even more conspicuous history of retreating from that every single time religious freedoms are actually threatened; but not everyone is as malleable as that.

Ah yes, the Radiant Future, in which the mighty "gay" juggernaut irresistibly sweeps all before it.

It won't happen. Sorry.

Either you don't know your own church's history, or you are ignoring it.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the pressure brought to bear on the church with regards to it's racial policies, both academically at BYU, as well as in it's sports programs.

Just as 'faith precedes the miracle,' one can see that 'social pressure precedes the revelation.'

I haven't seen religious freedoms come under thread yet, so far as gay rights are concerned, and as such, am unaware of any retreat.  Can you cite any examples, please?

It WILL happen.  Sorry.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hmm...  sounds like you are either dodging my question, the church doesn't have a position on what happens to gays and gay relationships in the afterlife, or the position has such bad optics to put it in writing.  

Would it help if I said I promise not to criticize the position in this thread, I will declare a Switzerland status for this particular thread.  I honestly just want to know if the church actually does have a position on this subject, because I sincerely haven't heard one articulated before.  

I think the Church has a position in that D&C 76 lays out the promises for the three general kingdoms of glory in the afterlife. These promises are relative to keeping covenant (verses 69, 101). Of course the various covenants that comprise it (baptism, sacrament, priesthood and marriage covenants), are treated in greater detail elsewhere in the scriptures. But these promises, covenants and conditions for fulfillment are universal in nature, thus her position is about what happens to any and all of God’s children in the afterlife.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fair enough there are more possibilities.  But, again, I don't see the two statements at odds. 

 

I think they are at odds, when you take into consideration the mormon belief on the topic.  Mormon doctrine concerning prophets is that God does nothing without revealing it to His prophets.  

I don't know how to reconcile the idea that it's so great that mormons believe that God never does anything unless He reveals it with his prophets, with the idea that if members don't like what the prophets are teaching, they should try to get the teaching changed.

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Oh, so you think when Jesus said "Love one another" he actually meant "Have sex with one another?"

If they are married and love each other..that is what love is and expression of that.  Why do you make me answer such dumb questions.you knew what I meant.

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Church has a position in that D&C 76 lays out the promises for the three general kingdoms of glory in the afterlife. These promises are relative to keeping covenant (verses 69, 101). Of course the various covenants that comprise it (baptism, sacrament, priesthood and marriage covenants), are treated in greater detail elsewhere in the scriptures. But these promises, covenants and conditions for fulfillment are universal in nature, thus her position is about what happens to any and all of God’s children in the afterlife.

This doesn't really answer the question about what happens to a gay person in the afterlife.  The church's current position as I understand it, is that being gay isn't a sin, that people are born this way and that they are to be respected and loved.  But what happens to them in the next life?  Are they still gay?  Are they eternally celibate?  Are they eligible for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, and if so, how?  

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, for one, the LDS definition of the "law of chastity" is an interpretation in the first place.  Its a cobbling together of a multitude of disparate passages, traditions, and interpretations of various scriptures.  It also has evolved and been interpreted and emphasized differently over our relatively short Mormon historical timeline.  

Well, while I don’t agree with your assertions, that response does not answer the question.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I know a lot of people who hold this same opinion, but I'd like to know if the church has officially sanctioned these ideas.  Also, its sad to me when people describe homosexual attraction as a challenge.  The only way its a challenge is with respect to how they are treated by many people in society.  

I agree with you.  I don't find homosexual attraction to be any challenge at all.  I live my life just like everyone else.  Sure there are issues with my very Mormon family, but even that has softened.  Sure there are prejudices and ignorant people that I have to occasionally deal with.  But I certainly don't let them affect my life.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, while I don’t agree with your assertions, that response does not answer the question.

Besides the fact that the interpretations have changed over time, I also personally don't know exactly what you mean by the law of chastity, its not clearly described anywhere that I'm aware of.  Maybe we could start with you providing evidence for what the official LDS definition of the law of chastity is now in 2017, and then I can explain any potential exceptions to it.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In the interests of keeping Reynolds' views grounded in what he's actually saying instead of unfounded conjecture, I don't see any evidence that he is suggesting doing away with all standards related to chastity, but seems probable he doesn't agree with a) prohibiting ANY/ALL expressions of intimacy between at least some same-sex couples, and b) how those standards are implemented

1. Being sex “shamed” by the Church and not allowed to attend a church school after violating the law of chastity is evidence.

2. Expecting the Church to conform to his view of what is appropriate is evidence.

3. Public opposition to the standard is evidence.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree with you.  I don't find homosexual attraction to be any challenge at all.  I live my life just like everyone else.  Sure there are issues with my very Mormon family, but even that has softened.  Sure there are prejudices and ignorant people that I have to occasionally deal with.  But I certainly don't let them affect my life.  

Yes, this is the same with others I've spoken with.  Some people that describe LGBT orientation as a challenge may not realize that they are immediately placing a negative judgment on those who have different identity.  Other people do this intentionally so as to set their position up as superior.  For both groups of people, I think its important to educate them that this kind of language needs to stop as it isn't accurate or kind.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Besides the fact that the interpretations have changed over time, I also personally don't know exactly what you mean by the law of chastity, its not clearly described anywhere that I'm aware of.  Maybe we could start with you providing evidence for what the official LDS definition of the law of chastity is now in 2017, and then I can explain any potential exceptions to it.  

It is clearly defined in the temple covenant, the Proclamation on the Family, and every time one has a worthiness interview. Let’s move past this specious sidetrack.

Quote

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.

It doesn’t get any clearer or more official than this. At least during my lifetime - 70 years - this has been the unwavering standard. Let’s not quibble about it. So, please give your exceptions.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It is kind of like "love ye one another...but not you two!!

Or you three, or you 10, or you and your (fill in the blank).

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or you three, or you 10, or you and your (fill in the blank).

Please...don't pretend that you don't know what I mean...it is insulting to both of us.

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is clearly defined in the temple covenant, the Proclamation on the Family, and every time one has a worthiness interview. Let’s move past this specious sidetrack.

Quote

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.

Quote

It doesn’t get any clearer or more official than this. At least during my lifetime - 70 years - this has been the unwavering standard. Let’s not quibble about it. So, please give your exceptions.

This answer points out crystal clear that you can not come up with a definition of the law of chastity that has not changed in the history of the church.  It seems like a simple request until one actually has to try and come up with a definition that has not changed numerous times over the past 150 years.  

For starters, does that mean that all those polygamist marriages that were not legal and lawful marriages breaking the law of chastity? 

Edited December 1, 2017 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't accept and never have accepted the notion that homosexual attraction will persist beyond death.

I think that is the fundamental question around which everything else revolves. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Particularly with the way Church members enjoy keeping divisiveness front and center in any discussions that pertain to it.

Enjoy?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

If they are married and love each other..that is what love is and expression of that.  Why do you make me answer such dumb questions.you knew what I meant.

That’s one component of marital love, but not the most important one, by far.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is clearly defined in the temple covenant, the Proclamation on the Family, and every time one has a worthiness interview. Let’s move past this specious sidetrack.

Temple language is about fidelity to your legal spouse, which I think the those married in same sex marriages would technically qualify under.  The proclamation only uses the word chastity once towards the bottom as a warning and doesn't explain what the law includes or excludes.  Worthiness interviews don't talk about any specifics, just ask if you're keeping the law.  Seriously, if we don't have starting point for what the law of chastity is, then how can we talk about exceptions to this nebulous law.  

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

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.

It doesn’t get any clearer or more official than this. At least during my lifetime - 70 years - this has been the unwavering standard. Let’s not quibble about it. So, please give your exceptions.

All this really tells me is that the sacred powers of procreation are to be between legally married individuals only.  What specifically are the "sacred powers of procreation", does this mean sexual relationships?  Also, how would this apply to those that aren't fertile?  Also, what about those extra-legal polygamous marriages, did this statement change after the manifestos?