Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel2

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well...and what is homosexual behavior?  If someone who is gay has thoughts about someone of his/her same sex, is that homosexual behavior? 

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

People her are trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming is a Law of Chastity issue.  It isn't just about having sex but homosexual behavior which is defined as "any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate".  So heterosexual couples can hold hands, go on a date, and have a goodnight kiss without committing a transgression. A gay couple could not. 

Phaedrus 

So would a gay person who is married to another of the opposite sex yet who might flirt with someone of the same sex be guilty of homosexual conduct?  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Yep.  My point exactly.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Yep.  My point exactly.  

Therefore, what?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree here.  My understanding as a former TBM is that being gay is a sin...

In the which "understanding," you would be incorrect.

As a "former TBM" maybe you should have paid more attention.

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

why else would one excommunicate a couple or expel their children from baptism...?

Thank you for asking. They are excommunicated for committing a specific sin, namely, entering into a legally binding agreement to commit sinful sexual acts. They are not excommunicated for "being gay."

Likewise, their children are not baptized because baptism is not merely a social event. It's a binding covenant with God; one which the children in question have virtually no chance of keeping.

That's why.

"Being gay" has nothing to do with it.

Any other questions?

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

  Sure, we love you..but...

But what, exactly?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree, but if that's what he means it's confusing and also doesn't adequately/accurately engage with the church's teachings on the subject in a way that nonmembers will understand them (regardless of whether or not they agree with them).

Yes.

I, like Smac97, suspect that he intentionally muddled the definition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Therefore, what?

You snipped the post.  I had supposed you read it all.  If not, then be my guest and read the rest.  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

These specific statements seem to be at odds with one another-

“If the leaders aren’t going to change their teachings, then it’s the members who have to say, ‘this doesn’t feel right, and we’re not okay with this,’” he says.

“A great thing about Mormonism is that they believe...that God still talks to the prophets..."

It sounds like he's saying that even though the premise of the mormon church is that God leads the prophet, if members don't like something the prophet teaches, they have to do what they can to change it.  

I disagree.  These statements work tougher when you assume the Church leaders are not perfect and therefore do not know all things, nor receive God's will perfectly.  If you make imperfection of leaders part of it, then you know exactly why and how mistakes have been made in the past.  The only way these statements are at odds if one assumes perfection from the leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Characterizing his expulsion from BYU for having engaged in premarital sex as "religious shaming" reflects an entitlement mentality. Enrollment at the university is a privilege and conformity to the law of chastity is but one of the requirements for eligibility. I fell certain there are thousands of young people in the Church who are in full compliance with the law of chastity who would love to attend BYU but can't for other reasons.

Agreed.  Worse, however, is the false impression he gives in tying "religious 'shaming'" to his postponed entry to BYU.  Those not familiar with BYU might easily construe his remarks as claiming that he was publicly "outed" or "shamed," when in fact his misconduct was handled privately, with discretion and tact and decorum and compassion (as evidenced by the fact that he was later allowed to enroll).

Bro. Reynolds threw BYU and the Church under the bus because the Church believes the Law of Chastity is important, and because it actually expects its members to obey it.

Not impressed, Bro. Reynolds.  Not impressed at all.

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

They, meaning church leaders.  I don't think church leaders want negative publicity of excommunicating a high profile person like Dan Reynolds.  

I also hope he doesn't resign as well.  I hope he continues to respectfully work for the benefit of the LGBT community including calling out Church policies and practices and using his platform in a positive way to reduce the harm these things have on good people.  I hope that church leaders will eventually be inspired to receive the light and knowledge that their traditional understanding of the law of chastity was basically flawed when it comes to LGBT individuals.  We need a 1978 kind of moment and leaders open to receiving inspiration on this subject.  

I hope that the Church's critics will eventually be inspired to receive the light and knowledge that their opportunistic understanding of the Law of Chastity was completely flawed.

But I don't see that happening any time soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

I hope that the Church's critics will eventually be inspired to receive the light and knowledge that their opportunistic understanding of the Law of Chastity was completely flawed.

But I don't see that happening any time soon.

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

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So would a gay person who is married to another of the opposite sex yet who might flirt with someone of the same sex be guilty of homosexual conduct?  

As it's currently defined by the church that would be homosexual behavior because that could give an "expression to homosexual feelings".  A married person romantically pursuing someone has only been allowed when an authorized man is seeking additional wives between the years 1830 and 1904. 

Phaedrus 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you even point me in the direction of where to look?  I follow Mormon topics closely enough and I've yet to see an articulation of this idea of what happens to gay people in the next life. 

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?  

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I remember hearing Greg Prince who's just finishing a book on this subject and who presented recently in SLC for the Sterling McMurrin lecture series and I believe he even said the church has no position on this topic for gays in the afterlife.  You sound like you know something, but you don't want to share.  Is there a reason you can't give me a hint at the very least?  

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

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, phaedrus ut said:

As it's currently defined by the church that would be homosexual behavior because that could give an "expression to homosexual feelings".  A married person romantically pursuing someone has only been allowed when an authorized man is seeking additional wives between the years 1830 and 1904. 

Phaedrus 

That's a tough position to hold since what is flirting is such a subjective determination.  I wonder if women seeking an additional husband, particularly in the Nauvoo period was sinning.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 It's not about whether something will make me feel better or not--my feelings are irrelevant. 

The LDS Church has a history of caving and changing it's previous doctrines in light of social change; it's not unique in that regard--EVERY institution does, in order to adapt and survive.

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.

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The Church has changed before, and assuming it continues to endure, will have to change on this issue in order to remain relevant.

What you see as a small band of antagonistic and self-centered misfits who want the church to change from the bottom up and who will be ineligible to lead represent the minority today, but in a decade or two, they will represent the majority, and ultimately, the super majority.  People will continue to see that gays and lesbians can form loving, committed families, can be as capable parents as our straight counterparts, and can be valuable, contributing members of our communities, churches, civic organizations, and groups.

 

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

It won't happen. Sorry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This is nice.  Being one who is hopeful for change for the better, I'm glad to see this by a prominent member.  It may take way too long for most of us, but I'm guessing changes are coming, on this issue and others.  Of course changes come.  They always have.  Pressure mounts--the Church learns and then caves and pretends it is leading a good movement or something.  

 

 

Well said, Stemelbow. +1 rep point.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Too bad.  I've found that many members who are gay feel that this is the Church's position.  I realize there are plenty who stay in the Church, remain celibate or try to force heterosexuality.  I find it rather divisive to try and separate it the way the Church does.  I also realize the Church rather enjoys the notion from the NT where this issue is worthy to divide families, though.  

I think this'll all change in time.  It's taking way too long and probably won't change any time soon, though.  Sadly.  

 

And again... well said. :good:

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

People her are trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming is a Law of Chastity issue.  It isn't just about having sex but homosexual behavior which is defined as "any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate".  So heterosexual couples can hold hands, go on a date, and have a goodnight kiss without committing a transgression. A gay couple could not. 

Phaedrus 

You're right. Courtship activity is inappropriate if it has no possibility of leading to an authentic marriage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  These statements work tougher when you assume the Church leaders are not perfect and therefore do not know all things, nor receive God's will perfectly.  If you make imperfection of leaders part of it, then you know exactly why and how mistakes have been made in the past.  The only way these statements are at odds if one assumes perfection from the leaders.

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? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You're right. Courtship activity is inappropriate if it has no possibility of leading to an authentic marriage.

You opinion is an accurate reflection of the current church policy.  That's why I don't feel it's inaccurate when people say "being gay is a sin" in the eyes of the LDS church.  It's also the reason why so many Mormons, like the New Zealand Prime Minister and myself, have chosen to leave the church. 

Phaedrus 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

You opinion is an accurate reflection of the current church policy.  That's why I don't feel it's inaccurate when people say "being gay is a sin" in the eyes of the LDS church.

No, it's not "inaccurate," it's an outright falsehood.

3 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

  It's also the reason why so many Mormons, like the New Zealand Prime Minister and myself, have chosen to leave the church. 

Phaedrus 

Yes, you're in great company. Our esteemed socialist leader left the Church in her university days, when she'd hardly been a regular attender for quite some time.

Edited by kiwi57
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Saw the title and knew this would be an entertaining thread. Was not disappointed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't accept and never have accepted the notion that homosexual attraction will persist beyond death. Therefore, every person who obeys the commandments of God, including those who area challenged with same-sex attraction, will be one day be provided with the blessing of marriage as God has ordained it, whether in this life or the next.

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 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.

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

Just now, hope_for_things said:

  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.  

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...