Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel2

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

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That's an interesting quote and it sounds logical to believe that a gay person would continue to be gay in the next life.  However, I'm not sure the church is comfortable with this idea, and I haven't heard it expressed that way.  Do you know if this idea of appetites and desires would also apply to sexual orientation in the next life?  

It's the closest thing I could think of that addressed the issue.  I was hoping others would come up with other statements or scriptures related to this, but maybe there are none.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2017 at 2:29 PM, 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.  

Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman in a Q and A on Mormon Newsroom, a web page on the official LDS.org website. 

It’s inconvenient for me to look it up and link to it just now, because I’m on a mobile device, but it shouldn’t be too difficult to find, if you’re really interested. 

Quote

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.  

For those who are determined to obey the laws and commandments of God, it seems to me it would be a challenge, a very difficult one. I honor those who strive to overcome it. 

For those who have decided to give themselves over to the carnal and natural man, maybe in that respect it’s not such a challenge for them. It is they who sadden me. 

Edited 12 hours later to add:

I'm now at my laptop computer and can more easily link to the Q and A interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman that I cited above. I recommend reading the whole thing; it addresses a number of misconceptions. But here is a passage specific to the question you raise:
 

Quote

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think we need to ask gays if they feel loved by the LDS Church.

I do. Thank you. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't feel loved by the church, I feel attacked.

I suggest a therapy puppy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

An interesting concession, Kenngo. 

Perhaps it's a topic for another thread--but I am curious how you think the Federal Government should have responded to a group of citizens flagrantly breaking the law.  Do you think a blind eye should have been turned?  Do you think there should have been some negotiated compromise?  Do you think the law should have been changed?  Do you believe the United States would be a better country if polygamy was a recognized & acceptable practice (e.g., polygamous wives could have married-filing-jointly tax brackets)?

--Erik

I find it interesting that when the group of people were practicing polygamy in the West, they were not in the United States. Only later did the US take that territory from a sovereign nation. It was a little different than a group of citizens deciding to start breaking a law. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

No one will be altered in the next life.  The orientations and identities we have will continue.

So would that include people with a pedophilic orientation? Or polyamorous individuals? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So would that include people with a pedophilic orientation? Or polyamorous individuals? 

Or people who think they are Napoleon or Teddy Roosevelt?

Or guys who think Taylor Swift is stalking them? 

You did say “identities ... will continue” right, Hope_for _Things?

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No one will be altered in the next life.  The orientations and identities we have will continue.

So sexual relations exists in heaven, with immortal beings?  Honestly, I have no idea how the biology of immortal beings is supposed to work in LDS theology.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2017 at 4:55 PM, Jeanne said:

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????

Which group might that be? Can there be more than 2 married humans in a group that love each other? Are close relatives too bizarre? If they love each other, why? 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

So sexual relations exists in heaven, with immortal beings?  Honestly, I have no idea how the biology of immortal beings is supposed to work in LDS theology.

Please note your quote you ascribed to me was in fact a quote from hope_for_things. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your words sound to me like cryptic predudice.  Because there is a spectrum of sexual identity, that doesn’t mean it’s fluid and changing for everyone.  Spectrum vs fluidity are two different concepts.  

Honestly this sounds like the same kind of rational that was once promulgated about different races to explain why those spirits were inferior.  

Let me tell you what I think.  I think there are different people with different sexual orientations and gender orientations and that neither are binary.  I believe for some these orientations may change over time and for others they probably don’t change.  But I think there are a multitude of different experiences on these subjects.  I also think that God loves everyone wherever they are at and since God is the author of all this diversity God is no respecter of persons and everyone is a part of that plan.  No one will be altered in the next life.  The orientations and identities we have will continue.  Heaven, however you conceive of it will include all the diversity of mortality in its glorious beauty.  Those who expect that God will be   a tribal God with small minded exclusionary ideas will be surprised to learn otherwise.  

Of course no one will be altered: Nothing happens “to” people. I think that is where you might step up and develop some more questions to seek clarity and understanding*: Posted Friday at 09:26 PM

With agency, changeable is the opposite of static, not fluid. I think understanding (the emphasis on the "-able," not on the "–ic/-id") this would change your understanding of what people can do (versus what happens to them) in the next life. Just as human race, so is human sexuality: we are all of one human race and of one human sexuality no matter how divisive some may try to be, or how superficial expressions may be given unwarranted importance in the spirit of enmity and ignorance. Who came up with these divisions? Not God!

Agency is the key here, otherwise there is no existence. The covenants as designed by God, which are the appendages to the fundamental principles (the elements of the central covenant of the Atonement of Jesus Christ per Joseph Smith), maximize agency.

* and try to set aside any unrecognized prejudice, biased rationale, intolerance, tribalism, small minded exclusionary ideas of your own!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, kllindley said:

Please note your quote you ascribed to me was in fact a quote from hope_for_things. 

Sorry, the auto-quote quote tool in this website is kind of quirky at times - it doesn't seem to always get the right name ;)

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suggest a therapy puppy. 

 I am sure I could get more out of a therapy puppy than church leaders.  So thanks for the suggestion.  But like I said,  I don't need the church to love me.  My life is quite fine without the kind of assaults from church leaders in it.  Other than trying to take away the civil rights of gays and hoping to institute legal discrimination against gays, what the church does has little affect on my life.  And as has been shown in the past, justice and the constitution seems to be protecting me just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which group might that be? Can there be more than 2 married humans in a group that love each other? Are close relatives too bizarre? If they love each other, why? 

It would be difficult for a Mormon to have a problem  with someone marrying another man's wife or other polyamorous relationships.  After all, the very founder of the Mormon church had no problem with doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not substantively.

They were recognized by the Church, though.  

In accordance with OD-1, yes.

Not substantive changes, though (which is, I suspect, why you are merely alluding to them instead of itemizing them).

Some of the terminology has been revised, but that's about it.  The Law of Chastity has always limited sexual relations to those between a husband and his wife.  There have not been any substantive deviations from this basic formula.  Ever.

But you are correct that it has been "adapted" to address changes in society, such as the novelty of same-sex marriage.

It is odd that you are approaching these adaptations as a point of criticism.  The Restored Gospel contemplates continuing revelation, both individually and through living prophets and apostles.  So "adapting" to things like same-sex marriage is part and parcel of what prophets and apostles are supposed to do.

Put another way, such adaptations are not, as you suggest, a "bug," but a feature of the Restored Gospel.  And I am glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well at least you are willing to admit that the law of chastity has changed in the church over time.  Though you sluff off those changes as being insignificant.  Though I would bet that many in the church would think a change would be more significant than you if the church announced that you don't have to be legally married to obey the law of chastity as the church once taught.  

Or if the church said that you could now marry other men's wives and still be living the law of chastity.

Yeah, not that big of change, as long as church leaders made the announcement, you would be fine with those redefinitions of the law of chastity.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well at least you are willing to admit that the law of chastity has changed in the church over time.  

Not substantively, though.  

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Though you sluff off those changes as being insignificant.  

Yes.  And you have yet to articulate any changes as being significant.

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Though I would bet that many in the church would think a change would be more significant than you if the church announced that you don't have to be legally married to obey the law of chastity as the church once taught.  

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means.

The legalization of same-sex marriage was an innovation, so the Church provided clarification.  The prohibition against homosexual behavior did not change.  The only thing that did change was to clarify that the newly-minted concept of same-sex marriage does not operate as a workaround for the Law of Chastity, and more than would the secular legalization of polygamy.

So, no substantive changes.

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or if the church said that you could now marry other men's wives and still be living the law of chastity.

If you want to have a substantive discussion about a handful of 19th century polygamous marriages, we can do that.  But there would need to be some basic decorum and civility accorded the topic, so perhaps not.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We see this quite often: Control the terminology and you control the dialogue. Another example is “marriage equality” when what is really meant is marriage redefinition. 

Which is why I continue to ask,  “Given the redefinition, why must marriage be limited to only same-sex and heterosexual couples?” There is no such thing as “marriage equality.”

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Oliblish said:

It's the closest thing I could think of that addressed the issue.  I was hoping others would come up with other statements or scriptures related to this, but maybe there are none.

Maybe this contributes something, but may not be anything new:

“…that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” (Alma 34:34). That body will be in its “perfect form” and “perfect… proper” frame.

The proclamation on the family says that gender is an essential characteristic of our identity and purpose. We are resurrected with many apparently “non-essential” physical characteristics (“not so much as a hair of their heads be lost” – Alma 11:44) as well, but they still contribute to our eternal identity and purpose.

What about such things as sexual orientation, temperament, personality type, learning style, talent, interest, etc.? “Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.” (D&C 130:18). Of course this is an advantage only if we attain godly principles through diligence and obedience (verse 19). Otherwise, “…our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us…” (Alma 12:13-14). Are these things affected by genetics, so much that we might not gain an advantage? Of course they are, but thank God for grace: they will not still be affected, if we desire it, after the imperfect form and imperfect, improper frame are removed in death, and especially once the perfect form and perfect, proper frame are restored in the resurrection. And we won’t be resurrected until we have had every opportunity to qualify for exaltation.

So where does this leave us with our sexual orientation, temperament, personality type, learning style, talent, interest, etc.? Fortunately in this difficult mortal probation the Lord gives us commandments, covenants and ordinances to keep, and we will be given every opportunity to bring all these things into alignment with God’s according to our willingness to enjoy them. This is all driven by our agency.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, kllindley said:

I find it interesting that when the group of people were practicing polygamy in the West, they were not in the United States. Only later did the US take that territory from a sovereign nation. It was a little different than a group of citizens deciding to start breaking a law. 

It's a curious point to make, kllindley.  The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (ending the Mexican - American War) was signed in early February, 1848 - less than 7 months after Brigham Young arrived on the scene bringing the LDS practice of polygamy to the Salt Lake Valley.  But you're clinging to the barest technicality, since the outcome was established and understood well before then.  

And in any event--the astute reader will notice you never actually answered the question in the post you responded to.  You merely offered the months between Young's arrival and the treaty as a sort of excuse/dodge.  But you got a couple of "likes" for it--suggesting you're not the only one with a hazy view of American history. 

;0)

This probably does merit it's own thread/discussion.  Time permitting. 

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2017 at 7:57 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

We see this quite often: Control the terminology and you control the dialogue. Another example is “marriage equality” when what is really meant is marriage redefinition. 

Another example, from decades ago, occurred attendant to the excommunication of the so-called “September Six”. They were constantly referred to in the media as “Mormon intellectuals,” as though the Church were the enemy of all intellectuals or vice versa. What they really were is Mormon dissidents or, if one insists, Mormon academic dissidents. 

A great example is "defending traditional marriage" which is a kind of code for  attacking the marriage rights of gay couples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is there any interest in the thread on the biological mechanics of homosexuality from a neurological perspective?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Not Sure said:

Is there any interest in the thread on the biological mechanics of homosexuality from a neurological perspective?  

Probably a different thread.  And what is the point of such a thread.  There are those that believe homosexuality is just a choice and others that think it is not a choice.  Personally I couldn't care less what the reasons I am gay are.  At the end of the day, I am still gay.  If people think I made my orientation up, what difference does that make to me.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 3:21 AM, kiwi57 said:

I do, and I'm not.

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?

Well, one can wish.

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.

Like I said: one can wish.

poster removed, inflammatory language

I'm not sure who reported Kiwi's post here or how he was recommended for removal from the thread, but as I was the subject of his thread and took no personal offense, and in the interests of not squelching opposing voices and honoring everyone's views, can he be reinstated to allow the conversation to continue?

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/7/2017 at 9:54 AM, Daniel2 said:

I'm not sure who reported Kiwi's post here or how he was recommended for removal from the thread, but as I was the subject of his thread and too no personal offense, and in the interests of not squelching opposing voices and honoring everyone's views, can he be reinstated to allow the conversation to continue?

I didn't report Kiwi either.  Perhaps no one did.  And while I appreciate your tolerance , I don't really agree that anyone in this forum should tolerate inflammatory language. We should all be capable of having a civil discussion on any issue even when we disagree with a fellow poster.  I appreciate moderators using judgement in stopping that kind of dialogue, even, or maybe especially, when I have said something inappropriately.  I learn from it.  I hope Kiwi will as well.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2017 at 6:05 PM, Bernard Gui said:

That's been asked and answered about a dozen times already on this thread. See the Proclamation to the World for the current definition which is the only one that counts for us right now.

 

Ahh....

So ever changing and never constant.

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...