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 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

romantic love and sexual thoughts between any same-sex couples (married or not) are never pure.

Are there any other “couple” categories where such thoughts and actions are erroneously considered impure? Why is this limited to just “couples”?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

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?  

You want lists? The law of chastity as explained applies to all who have entered or want to enter into covenants....from baptism to sealing. Post-manifesto is long gone. I don’t think it is relevant today.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

I agree...but you mentioned sex...or someone did and I took it from there  I believe those gay married couples...all gays...have those other components that make a love and marriage...just like yours. 

Edited by Jeanne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Temple language is about fidelity to your legal spouse, which I think the those married in same sex marriages would technically qualify under.

Current temple language, just to be clear.  Only since the 1930s has it been about legal and lawful and only since 1990s has it used the generic term spouse. 
It used to be much more specific.  If they don't want to put it back to the original, perhaps it's time to change it again to be more specific to Church teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Current temple language, just to be clear.  Only since the 1930s has it been about legal and lawful and only since 1990s has it used the generic term spouse. 
It used to be much more specific.  If they don't want to put it back to the original, perhaps it's time to change it again to be more specific to Church teachings.

Well, that’s getting close to 100 years ago. Perhaps not many of us that were being frisky back then care much it now. I think it is less specific now, if it is, because parameters were being expanded and people were asking for lists. I don’t understand how using the term spouse changes anything.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree...but you mentioned sex...or someone did and I took it from there  I believe those gay married couples...all gays...have those other components that make a love and marriage...just like yours. 

I don’t think I mentioned it, but it is relevant.

So do other combinations. And those varieties seem to expand regularly. Are we to allow this just to gay and traditional marriages? If so, why?

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t think I mentioned it, but it is relevant.

So do other combinations. And those varieties seem to expand regularly. Are we to allow this just to gay and traditional marriages? If so, why?

Married humans who love eachother...no animals..nothing bazaar...but then I am talking to a group of people who think marrying 14 year old's is a good idea????

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Current temple language, just to be clear.  Only since the 1930s has it been about legal and lawful and only since 1990s has it used the generic term spouse. 
It used to be much more specific.  If they don't want to put it back to the original, perhaps it's time to change it again to be more specific to Church teachings.

It’s been a while since I looked at older versions, but that’s interesting.  Do you know if the old language was more friendly to those practicing polygamy?  

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that’s getting close to 100 years ago. Perhaps not many of us that were being frisky back then care much it now. I think it is less specific now, if it is, because parameters were being expanded and people were asking for lists. I don’t understand how using the term spouse changes anything.

Your assertion is that the law of chastity has never changed.  I assume by your answer that you are now recanting that assertion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

So heterosexual couples can hold hands, go on a date, and have a goodnight kiss without committing a transgression. 

Not if one or both are married, they are siblings, and probably a few other conditions might draw some counseling about inappropriate behavior....say if one was prepubescent, in some of the more significant mentally or emotionally challenged cases where there might be concern over taking advantage or lack of understanding...

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

A married person romantically pursuing someone has only been allowed when an authorized man is seeking additional wives between the years 1830 and 1904.  

So you recognize the current inability, so why did you not included it in your first description?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"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."

Spencer W Kimball taught, iirc, that anyone truly living a celestial life would be able to be married happily to anyone else living a truly Celestial life.  I think this speaks more to how we will perceive others as individuals as the whole person with less focus on certain physical or other attributes once we have altered our thinking to Celestial perceptions rather than to the idea we will somehow be able to make do with whomever we get hooked up with just because we are both perfect.

I think this has occurred at times in mortality where gays, straights, asexuals, etc. have grown to love and then become physically attracted to someone outside their usual limit of attractions.

I suspect a lot of people visualize heterosexuals will be happy because there will be someone available who will match what they are attracted to in mortality, but most I know have much more detailed desires than just breasts or biceps, so I think that reasoning is rather naive and definitely oversimplistic.  The question becomes, imo, how much sexual attraction programming can be overcome by Celestial refinement?  Could a woman repulsed by fat or hairy men become sexually attracted to a particular man who happened to be fat or had a chest rug if she started interacting with him on a more Celestial level than a telestial one?  I think I have seen that happen (and the reverse).  While most probably think gender sexual orientation is a stronger restriction than other sexually attractive attributes, I think that is an assumption based on superficial knowledge.  I think it most likely varies from person to person.

I am not suggesting that being fat is an equivalent characteristic to gender (defining that here as outward sexual appearance to allow use of "sexual" for sexual physical attraction), I am just pointing out there are often numerous attributes that are part of why individuals find others sexually attractive and many aren't even physical.  Some of these are currently dealbreakers for many people.  If we can be assured that all dealbreakers besides gender will be rendered irrelevant for two people living Celestial lives, why would sexual orientation be the only thing that remains eternal programming?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

It answers the question perfectly. Study D&C 76 and the covenants I mentioned from the perspective of a faithful gay person. Walk a mile in his shoes.

It helps to recognize that the personality of a gay person is a lot more than just gay. There are other attributes of his makeup that he is sent to earth to prioritize and cultivate, just like those who are not gay. The top priorities as far as I am concerned are those spiritual attributes that emulate Christ. Elder Bednar spoke about this in some detail to the youth about this a couple of years ago.

Nothing happens “to” people in the next life; it is really about what they become, which is merely a reflection of what they are willing to choose and to receive, i.e. to obey (receiving commandments), sacrifice (receive something better) and consecrate (receiving God). All are eligible for exaltation through the merits of Christ. This is one key message from D&C 88, and why the Church does not teach in terms of what happens to us. Agency is too crucial a fundamental principle.

We have a divine nature and are made to become like God, and we are given every opportunity to do what it takes to make and keep the covenants of exaltation prior to our resurrection. It is obvious from what the Church says and doesn’t say in her teaching that sexual orientation has nothing to do with, or has no eternal significance in, the way the covenants are structured (immersion from air into water for baptism; the juxtaposition of bread and water for the sacrament; receiving servants, the Son and the Father, in that order, for priesthood; and a man and a woman for eternal marriage).

I think that all social issues can be resolved through the Gospel, by allowing the doctrine of the priesthood to distill upon our souls as the dews from heaven. The attributes from D&C 121:41-46 bring that about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

God does tons without revealing it to prophets according to Mormonism.  God works with individuals teaching and directing. He certain boy doesn’t reveal to the prophet where the Gibdetsons should live for instance.  I agree that Mormonism has used the ot passage about revealing secrets but I doubt any Mormon thinks, aside from perhaps you and calm that god does nothing without revealing it to prophets. 

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

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.

 

That’s fine.  I wouldn’t try to reconcile those ideas either.  But I don’t think that’s a good represention of the statements you initially took issue with. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s been a while since I looked at older versions, but that’s interesting.  Do you know if the old language was more friendly to those practicing polygamy?  

Yes.  For men it specified wife or wives.  For women husbands.  And for both it required they be given by the priesthood (ie sealed).  All else violated chastity covenant.

Piece by piece it was changed and now it only forbids anyone not a legal spouse.  Which although not intended to allow for SSM no longer forbids them either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/30/2017 at 9:42 PM, Daniel2 said:

Well... it looks like Dan Reynold’s days as a member of the LDS Church are numbered...

I realize most conservative members will adamantly disagree with his conclusions about members driving change, but whether or not you agree with him, Reynold’s seems to be representing a cultural wave that the church will have difficultly holding back as the older generation passes and the younger ranks assume leaderships positions. As many of us have said repeatedly, for the younger generation, attitudes about LGBT acceptance seems to be mirroring interracial acceptance of the current/previous adult generations.

On a movie nerd note: I’m still stunned he got the likes of Hans Zimmer to score his film. Wow!!!

Not really. The Catohlic Church has been doing it for 2,000 years. Today’s wave may be more intense than in the past and it’s definitely much more world wide and organized than has been in the past but the principles are the same. The LDS Church, I think, will always continue to love gays and condemn homosexual activity. 

Edited by Darren10
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree here.  My understanding as a former TBM is that being gay is a sin...why else would one excommunicate a couple or expel their children from baptism...?  Sure, we love you..but...

Being gay is not being a sin and being a heterosexual is not a sin.  There are two kinds of sins.  Sins of commission and sins of omission.  Being gay or straight is not an act of commission or omission.  What one does with their sexual orientation whether they be gay or straight determines whether it is a sin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

What one does with their sexual orientation whether they be gay or straight determines whether it is a sin.

In LDS theology heterosexuals have opportunities to do without it being a sin. If a gay member ever does, it is a sin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours 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.  

Here is a quote from Gospel Principles Chapter 41: The Postmortal Spirit World

Does this speak to your question?

Quote

What Is the Nature of Our Spirits?

Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth. All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith[1998], 131–32).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Thinking said:

In LDS theology heterosexuals have opportunities to do without it being a sin. If a gay member ever does, it is a sin.

How standards affect people will definitely vary. Some choices will be much easier for some than others. This said, I am very glad the the same stadards from the Church apply to everyone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

HFT, I didn't say that the Church had never changed any doctrines. I agree that continuing revelation does indeed entail changes. I said, and I quote:

"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."

Just in case you missed it, here it is again:

"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."

Did you see it that time?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2017 at 2:07 PM, Daniel2 said:

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

I do, and I'm not.

Quote

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.

Well, let's test me out, shall we?

There was one school that threatened to take its bat and ball and go home. There was another where some of the players wore black armbands in a game.

The President of BYU at the time was a man named Dallin H. Oaks. (Perhaps you've heard of him.) Under his direction, BYU started offering athletic scholarships (now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one) to black students. The college sport protests - which were never very great, and which happened at a time when "protesting" anything and everything was the leading extracurricular activity on American campuses - petered out after that.

So, how did I do?

Did you want to raise the subject of the NAACP lawsuit about LDS scout troops? You know, the one that was settled in 1974, and thus was simply not a factor in 1978? Or how about the fictitious threat to the Church's tax exempt status, that did not and could not eventuate?

I know all about these old chestnuts, Daniel. Nobody who actually knows anything about the real history of the Church thinks that "social pressure" had anything to do with the 1978 revelation.

I think that particular libel only persists because there are some people who can't bear the thought of giving any credit to a group of people against whom they are bitterly prejudiced; so they have to try to find an explanation for the 1978 revelation that casts the Church and its leaders in the most unflattering light possible.

What do you think?

Quote

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

Well, one can wish.

Quote

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?

Bakers. Florists. Jewellers. A church in New Jersey that didn't want its property to be used for a "gay wedding" reception.

Every single time, without fail, that you have had the opportunity to choose between supporting someone's right to hold a principled position in favour of marriage sanctity, or forcing them to affirmatively support SSM, you have opted to uphold the jihad.

I seem to remember that, early on, you gave a certain amount of lip service to the idea that these were moral conundrums for you, but recently that has given way to what can only be described as undisguised triumphalism.

Quote

It WILL happen.  Sorry.

Like I said: one can wish.

poster removed, inflammatory language

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours 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.

Because that is certainly not what Jesus was talking about. At all.

He first uttered the New Commandment at the Last Supper. Present were his apostles: commandment-keeping Jewish men, every one of them. Sexual activity simply wasn't in view.

I'm astonished that you just don't get that.

  • Like 2

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...