why me Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: When we start being compelled to solemnize all heterosexual marriages in the temple I will worry about them trying to compel SSM in the temple. Until then this is hyperbolic worry. It is not a worry at all. Just perhaps the future. If three years ago, I would have written that this policy would be reversed, people would think that I am off the mark. But... 1 Link to comment
why me Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, USU78 said: Advocacy of desecration is an act of war. America is in flux and in great change. I do believe that the changes we are now seeing in the lds church are a product of such changes in the US landscape. The pressure is on all christian churches to submit to the will of the politically correct. Islam however, has not been pressured to do so. 1 Link to comment
Exiled Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, USU78 said: You really have a poor opinion of Church authorities, don't you? Here is what Pres. Oaks said: "At the direction of the First Presidency, President Oaks shared that effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make. A nonmember parent or parents (including LGBT parents) can request that their baby be blessed by a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder. These parents need to understand that congregation members will contact them periodically, and that when the child who has been blessed reaches 8 years of age, a Church member will contact them and propose that the child be baptized. Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way. The very positive policies announced this morning should help affected families. In addition, our members’ efforts to show more understanding, compassion and love should increase respect and understanding among all people of goodwill. We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it." ......... Notice how he says that "[t]hese parents need to understand that congregation members will contact them periodically ...." He then says, "[w]hile we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression ...." So, it's as if he is saying "be careful what you ask for, lgtb detractor, because we will periodically be in your business and teach your kids that you are sinful, so be aware." It also tells me that the policy was walked back due to society reactions that affected the church and not "revelation." I would think God could have foreseen the effects of his "revelations" prior to giving them, but perhaps not. Edited April 6, 2019 by Exiled Link to comment
MiserereNobis Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Advocacy of desecration is an act of war. If the prophet declared SSM in the temple, it wouldn't be desecration, though, right? It would be the will of God? Or would SSM in the temple have you conclude the LDS church is no longer true? ETA: serious question about your stance. I'm not trying to make a point one way or another. Edited April 6, 2019 by MiserereNobis 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 2 hours ago, why me said: America is in flux and in great change. I do believe that the changes we are now seeing in the lds church are a product of such changes in the US landscape. The pressure is on all christian churches to submit to the will of the politically correct. Islam however, has not been pressured to do so. Ah yes, the great Islamic conspiracy. I miss the Illuminati and the Jewish bankers. This new conspiracy is relatively dull. 2 Link to comment
LAB Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the policy stated that ultimately it was up to the local leaders and the situation. ??? I understand that it is better to have it the way it is now because I know how biased church leaders can be. Link to comment
Gray Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: No, it is every member’s duty to align themselves with the Will of God and to be empowered by his Spirit to know what is right. Necessarily this will involve disagreeing and criticizing church leaders from time to time, who are not God nor are they the infallible slaves of God. Quote An ant could starve on that distinction in practice. Evil Speaking: "you're a 9/11 denying terrorist because you disagree with me" Criticism: "I believe you got it wrong on this issue because xyz" Edited April 6, 2019 by Gray Link to comment
why me Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Ah yes, the great Islamic conspiracy. I miss the Illuminati and the Jewish bankers. This new conspiracy is relatively dull. Islam is a very conservative religion, especially the salafis who side with saudi arabia and the shia who support the leadership in iran. No conspiracy at all. Just religious policy. However not very favorable toward homosexuality. When a christian church has a policy that is thought to be against the gay community, problems occur. But these sects within islam get a free pass. Have you read salafi literature toward homosexuality? That was my point. Why pick on christianity? https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2189136/149332_346_2359_2_PB.pdf see page 53 of the academic article. Link to comment
Gray Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I would compare it to the military. A soldier may not agree with his superiors and their decisions but it is the obligation of the soldier to do their duty and only disobey under the most extreme circumstances. God probably does not care as much as if we agree or disagree with a decision but sees whether we will be faithful even when we disagree. We might find that as we obey to something that we have a problem with, that in time we might see the other side of coin and find ourselves to be wrong. The question is do we endure and push through our difficulties or just give up when things get tough. This isn't the military. Blind obedience trains us to be ministering angels, not Gods. Gods must learn to discern right from wrong on their own. If we can't do that, then we're also not capable of discerning who are the right people to do it for us. Edited April 6, 2019 by Gray 1 Link to comment
USU78 Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: If the prophet declared SSM in the temple, it wouldn't be desecration, though, right? It would be the will of God? Or would SSM in the temple have you conclude the LDS church is no longer true? ETA: serious question about your stance. I'm not trying to make a point one way or another. Homosexuality, if anything about it is clear, is a set of behaviors. Beyond that lands us in magical thinking land. I F, and I mean IFF, it were de-sinified via revelation, we would still have pretty much the entirety of LDS scripture, ancient and modern, plus the Proclamation, which enjoys near canonical status, to overcome and leave behind as apocryphal, before we could begin thinking about temple SSMs. It would destroy us as a people. It's that serious a matter. Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 40 minutes ago, USU78 said: Homosexuality, if anything about it is clear, is a set of behaviors. Beyond that lands us in magical thinking land. I F, and I mean IFF, it were de-sinified via revelation, we would still have pretty much the entirety of LDS scripture, ancient and modern, plus the Proclamation, which enjoys near canonical status, to overcome and leave behind as apocryphal, before we could begin thinking about temple SSMs. It would destroy us as a people. It's that serious a matter. Hyperbole much? Book of Mormon is silent on homosexuality. D&C is silent on homosexuality. Proclamation is silent on homosexuality. Four gospels are silent on homosexuality. Old Testament... do you really want to abide by all the "laws" in there? You're left with a few passages in the New Testament and some random statements by modern day church leaders, many that we've tried to walk back from. 4 Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Hyperbole much? Book of Mormon is silent on homosexuality. D&C is silent on homosexuality. Proclamation is silent on homosexuality. Four gospels are silent on homosexuality. I can find a lot of other issues that these sources are silent on. Should we explore those issues and see if its ok? Link to comment
ALarson Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, USU78 said: Homosexuality, if anything about it is clear, is a set of behaviors. Beyond that lands us in magical thinking land. I F, and I mean IFF, it were de-sinified via revelation, we would still have pretty much the entirety of LDS scripture, ancient and modern, plus the Proclamation, which enjoys near canonical status, to overcome and leave behind as apocryphal, before we could begin thinking about temple SSMs. It would destroy us as a people. It's that serious a matter. Or, we'd just start treating those who are gay like everyone else. We'd welcome them and those they are dating and marrying (along with their children) to attend as families, participate and hold callings....and we'd welcome them with open arms. And not much else would change. As a matter of fact, some wards are already doing this. The only thing left to change is allowing them to hold callings, and go to the temple and be sealed together as a family for eternity. I believe some day that will happen, but I don't know if it'll be in my lifetime. I'd love to still be around to see it though. Edited April 6, 2019 by ALarson 1 Link to comment
ALarson Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Hyperbole much? Book of Mormon is silent on homosexuality. D&C is silent on homosexuality. Proclamation is silent on homosexuality. Four gospels are silent on homosexuality. Old Testament... do you really want to abide by all the "laws" in there? You're left with a few passages in the New Testament and some random statements by modern day church leaders, many that we've tried to walk back from. Exactly. Changes have been happening all along regarding this issue. No need to stop now (and they'd be small changes in any of the writings mentioned). Edited April 6, 2019 by ALarson 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I can find a lot of other issues that these sources are silent on. Should we explore those issues and see if its ok? You can misdirect to your heart's content. I was just correcting @USU78's overstatement. Link to comment
bdouglas Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: Hyperbole much? Book of Mormon is silent on homosexuality. D&C is silent on homosexuality. Proclamation is silent on homosexuality. Four gospels are silent on homosexuality. Old Testament... do you really want to abide by all the "laws" in there? You're left with a few passages in the New Testament and some random statements by modern day church leaders, many that we've tried to walk back from. No, not hyperbole at all. An atom is composed of a proton (positive) and an electron (negative). What happens if you say, “Oh, to hell with it, I’m going to put two protons together?" What happens is the entire world, all of creation really ... it all comes apart. Literally. The world, the universe . . . it is all composed of opposites. Homosexuality is not treated much in the scriptures because, up until a few years ago, it was obvious to any thinking person that two men (or two women) don’t get married. Such a relationship can never be productive. On gut level (apart from what your reason tells you), there is something deeply wrong about it. In short, it is contrary to natural law. “In the beginning, God created man, male and female created he them . . .” Marriage, heterosexual marriage, is at the core of the Gospel. It is basic. If you dispense with it and say, “Male with male, female with female, or male and female . . . it’s all good, man! Love who you want!” Once you say that, you are tinkering with something that ought not to be tinkered with. On a moral level, it is no different that tinkering with a proton and electron, the most basic building block of nature. 1 Link to comment
bdouglas Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 Lest any think I am callous towards the plight of gay Latter Day Saints . . . . I have a very large extended family, all LDS. And I have gay nieces, nephews that I am very close to. I am very sympathetic to their plight. But tinkering with something so basic as "male/female" would bring disaster upon the church. Were the church to start doing SSMs in the temple ... well the church would cease to exist. Male/female. It is basic. It is at the very heart of the Gospel. 1 Link to comment
ALarson Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, bdouglas said: No, not hyperbole at all. An atom is composed of a proton (positive) and an electron (negative). What happens if you say, “Oh, to hell with it, I’m going to put two protons together?" What happens is the entire world, all of creation really ... it all comes apart. Literally. No one is advocating that everyone enters into same sex relationships. So no, it literally would not "all" come "apart". There would still be more in heterosexual relationships and marriages. Also many gays have their own children and then enter into a same sex marriage or relationship later. Edited April 6, 2019 by ALarson 2 Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, bdouglas said: Homosexuality is not treated much in the scriptures because, up until a few years ago, it was obvious to any thinking person that two men (or two women) don’t get married. Such a relationship can never be productive. On gut level (apart from what your reason tells you), there is something deeply wrong about it. I agree. The scriptures don't get involved in every possible sinful practice that man can devise. It would be an almost endless list. There is no reason to believe that any writer of those sources would mention gay marriage as the concept was an absurdity to them. Homosexuality existed but it was probably pretty much a given in those days that it was wrong. There are things that have or are developing in society today. We don't talk about them because most everyone does not take them seriously at this time. Most of use know they are not compatible in the gospel sense so nobody starts threads on them. This might not be true 50 years from now. I have always believed that God gave us brains and not hard drives to think with. We should not have to be told every little thing. The scriptures give us the overall pattern and we should be able to look at an issue and say does issue X fit or not fit. As to whether homosexuality can be productive I would disagree with you here. Who decides what productive or not. What is the standard. Some would say that Hugh Hefner lead a very productive life. He died old and rich. He got pretty much everything he wanted. In the standards of the world, he lead a successful life. So saying gays can't live a productive life really becomes one based on individual opinion. Edited April 6, 2019 by carbon dioxide Link to comment
rockpond Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, bdouglas said: No, not hyperbole at all. An atom is composed of a proton (positive) and an electron (negative). What happens if you say, “Oh, to hell with it, I’m going to put two protons together?" What happens is the entire world, all of creation really ... it all comes apart. Literally. The world, the universe . . . it is all composed of opposites. Homosexuality is not treated much in the scriptures because, up until a few years ago, it was obvious to any thinking person that two men (or two women) don’t get married. Such a relationship can never be productive. On gut level (apart from what your reason tells you), there is something deeply wrong about it. In short, it is contrary to natural law. “In the beginning, God created man, male and female created he them . . .” Marriage, heterosexual marriage, is at the core of the Gospel. It is basic. If you dispense with it and say, “Male with male, female with female, or male and female . . . it’s all good, man! Love who you want!” Once you say that, you are tinkering with something that ought not to be tinkered with. On a moral level, it is no different that tinkering with a proton and electron, the most basic building block of nature. 7 minutes ago, bdouglas said: Lest any think I am callous towards the plight of gay Latter Day Saints . . . . I have a very large extended family, all LDS. And I have gay nieces, nephews that I am very close to. I am very sympathetic to their plight. But tinkering with something so basic as "male/female" would bring disaster upon the church. Were the church to start doing SSMs in the temple ... well the church would cease to exist. Male/female. It is basic. It is at the very heart of the Gospel. Yes, your post comes across as callous and a shallow metaphor. I don’t imagine anything will sway you from you POV but if you were truly sympathetic to your gay nieces and nephews they might be able to help you understand the problem with the goofy proton analogy. Link to comment
Calm Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Homosexuality existed but it was probably pretty much a given in those days that it was wrong. Only in certain cultures though. Link to comment
bdouglas Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: As to whether homosexuality can be productive I would disagree with you here. Who decides what productive or not. What is the standard. Some would say that Hugh Hefner lead a very productive life. He died old and rich. He got pretty much everything he wanted. In the standards of the world, he lead a successful life. So saying gays can't live a productive life really becomes one based on individual opinion. Two men or two women coming together sexually will never produce offspring. This is all I meant when I said it gay marriage can never be productive. Link to comment
Calm Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, bdouglas said: Two men or two women coming together sexually will never produce offspring. This is all I meant when I said it gay marriage can never be productive. 12% of married couples have problems with fertility. There are probably a lot more infertile heterosexual couples out there than there are actual homosexual couples (ignoring surrogacy and adoption or medical intervention for either couple). https://resolve.org/infertility-101/what-is-infertility/fast-facts/ I am not suggesting the difference should therefore be ignored, just that if we are looking at impact on society, the infertility of heterosexual couples likely has greater impact on society than the lack of procreativity in a same sex relationship. For me, it is the doctrine of marriage that is the issue. Edited April 6, 2019 by Calm 1 Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, bdouglas said: Two men or two women coming together sexually will never produce offspring. This is all I meant when I said it gay marriage can never be productive. Heterosexual couples that have fertility issues don't have kids and still can be productive. Lesbians can go to a sperm bank and have kids. I get what you are saying but I don't think that is a good argument against gays being married. If one looks at marriage as a secular thing, I don't see why gays can't be married. Sure it departs from the traditional norm but the secular world always changes. Where it hits a brick wall is it that its not compatible with the gospel as many other secular things that are approved are not compatible with the gospel. Edited April 7, 2019 by carbon dioxide 1 Link to comment
Storm Rider Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 5 hours ago, why me said: America is in flux and in great change. I do believe that the changes we are now seeing in the lds church are a product of such changes in the US landscape. The pressure is on all christian churches to submit to the will of the politically correct. Islam however, has not been pressured to do so. I don't think they ever will be chastised for their religious beliefs. We recently saw a few Hollywood types speak up about the Nation of Brunei's renewed commitment to observe Sharia law and stone gay people - they will also stone adulterers too, but that is an almost ignored position. Think about it - it was not an attack on Islam and Sharia law, but on a hotel chain owned by the Sultan of Brunei's investment group. Who does that? Did anyone say let's boycott Catholic hospitals because of the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality? Did they call for a boycott of SLC's downtown mall because of the Mormon Church's stance on gay marriage? Nope, not a peep. They attacked the respective churches. Obviously, there is a lot to be said for keeping people in respectful fear - you defame Islam and we will kill you - to keep the Gay Activists muzzled. Is it really this threat of death that is required or does Islam get a pass for another reason? 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts