Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Interpreter Podcast: Dehlin is an "idiot" for leaking the 11/5 policy. Also, "we don't hide policies."

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don’t really follow Dehlin.  So I can’t really answer that.  What do you think he did?  Come out against the policy along with a whole lot of other people?  

 

 

Well this whole topic, remember, was initiated by people claiming the blame for the hurt should be in n Dehlin because he leaked it and not for something else.  If someone has put any blame on Dehlin in this thread for anything besides pointing it out and suggesting he thought it was bad, I don’t think I’ve seen it

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, CV75 said:

These, like those examples listed in the OP, seem like misperceptions to me. You attributed some of this to the proponents missing or misunderstanding some key information. It also seems as faulty that someone would conclude that the Church “had turned against gays,” and for the same reason.

How did the subject of the former policy come up during a temple recommend interview? Did applicants voice disapproval of it during the interview, or in some other way that draw the attention of the interviewer?

Exacty what did President Nelson say that made your stomach being made sick?

It would seem that the area authority’s response to your question about opposing the original policy seems to apply to its reversal as well. President Eyring gave an interesting talk about this last conference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2019/04/34eyring?lang=eng .I think his counsel hinges on cultivating the spiritual power to judge righteously and charitably. And of course, there can be several takes on the articles quoting President Oaks’ leadership training announcement, and how he framed the message.

It makes sense to me that members in a same gender marriage were designated as apostates for disciplinary purposes in the former policy, and that now they are not. I think the multi-layered conditions that the Lord responded to in arriving at that policy have changed, and He has now responded with its reversal. I would be very interested in seeing how this shows up in writing. As you noted, not everything is rolled-out in a crisp training and publication format, and I think this might also get to the points of President Eyring's message.

Why is it faulty that someone who is married to a same sex individual and attends our church would have concluded that the church "had turned against gays" considering that mandatory disciplinary council on the charge of apostasy was the instruction given?

question4

using the language of a revelation pattern of 1978 for a policy which I could not see Christ endorsing.  

I listened to Eyring's talk and agree with most of it, that we should sustain with faith those who lead us (notwithstanding their imperfections).  What should we do when there is a dissonance or incongruity with the teachings of the Spirit and what the prophet or apostle teaches as revelation?

I'm looking at the quote from George Q. Cannon in Eyring's talk and trying to reconcile this with the statement of Oaks at the 40th anniversary and McConkie after the 78 revelation.  

Quote

President George Q. Cannon “God has chosen His servants. He claims it as His prerogative to condemn them, if they need condemnation. He has not given it to us individually to censure and condemn them. No man, however strong he may be in the faith, however high in the Priesthood, can speak evil of the Lord’s anointed and find fault with God’s authority on the earth without incurring His displeasure. The Holy Spirit will withdraw itself from such a man, and he will go into darkness. This being the case, do you not see how important it is that we should be careful? However difficult it may be for us to understand the reason for any action of the authorities of the Church, we should not too hastily call their acts in question and pronounce them wrong.” 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think he intentionally stoked the fear and anger, but he was not unique in that.  Nor unexpected imo.  I have never seen him as the "villain" of that particular event.  My attitude towards him is based more on other things, including somethings that didn't happen in the public sphere so the strength of my dislike of him may not seem reasonable to some.

Came across this blog that explains the timeline of the "leak".  I pretty much agree with the writer in terms of impact and the process.  Since the interpretation by some leaders of the info provided by the Church initially included children with a gay parent no matter the custody arrangements (and this was a reasonable interpretation imo though I think there were others as well), there would have been cancelations of blessings and baptisms rather quickly and therefore the policy would have been public knowledge that way in a few days even if Denlin and others (including the writer) hadn't drawn attention to it.  The online discussion simply moved up the appearance of the storm. The Church if they had prepared for the release of the info more like they did with the recent change might have been able to lessen the attention of the media and the level of trauma that got ramped up by Dehlin and others, but given how they did act the trauma would still have existed imo because of the uncertainty of parents and children that could only be diffused by very precise descriptions of applications of the policy from official church sources which were lacking imo.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/11/05/who-leaked-the-policy/

The process the Church went about makes no sense to me and never did if intentional...now if the email and handbook info were drafts based off of the polygamous family policy that got sent out early by mistake and more info was meant to be included, I can see that (but this does not explain the lack of training and solid info that followed; if it was a mistake, did they figure it was too late and just decided to leave it as is?)...but it was never something that wouldn't cause a massive reaction imo.

IMO the church had 3+years to better explain the policy.  Nothing they said made much difference to how people initially reacted to the policy.  I didn’t hear a lot of ‘’Oh now I get it”.  Their reasoning never made any sense .  So how the church rolled it out wouldn’t have mattered to most people   

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, CV75 said:

These, like those examples listed in the OP, seem like misperceptions to me. You attributed some of this to the proponents missing or misunderstanding some key information. It also seems as faulty that someone would conclude that the Church “had turned against gays,” and for the same reason.

 

How did the subject of the former policy come up during a temple recommend interview? Did applicants voice disapproval of it during the interview, or in some other way that draw the attention of the interviewer?

 

Exacty what did President Nelson say that made your stomach being made sick?

 

It would seem that the area authority’s response to your question about opposing the original policy seems to apply to its reversal as well. President Eyring gave an interesting talk about this last conference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2019/04/34eyring?lang=eng .I think his counsel hinges on cultivating the spiritual power to judge righteously and charitably. And of course, there can be several takes on the articles quoting President Oaks’ leadership training announcement, and how he framed the message.

 

It makes sense to me that members in a same gender marriage were designated as apostates for disciplinary purposes in the former policy, and that now they are not. I think the multi-layered conditions that the Lord responded to in arriving at that policy have changed, and He has now responded with its reversal. I would be very interested in seeing how this shows up in writing. As you noted, not everything is rolled-out in a crisp training and publication format, and I think this might also get to the points of President Eyring's message.

 

The Church “turned against the gays” long before this policy. It started back in Hawaii even before Prop 8.  The policy was just another in a long series of actions against gay couples.  I think most of the outside world already thought of the Church as being anti gay.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Why is it faulty that someone who is married to a same sex individual and attends our church would have concluded that the church "had turned against gays" considering that mandatory disciplinary council on the charge of apostasy was the instruction given?

question4

using the language of a revelation pattern of 1978 for a policy which I could not see Christ endorsing.  

I listened to Eyring's talk and agree with most of it, that we should sustain with faith those who lead us (notwithstanding their imperfections).  What should we do when there is a dissonance or incongruity with the teachings of the Spirit and what the prophet or apostle teaches as revelation?

I'm looking at the quote from George Q. Cannon in Eyring's talk and trying to reconcile this with the statement of Oaks at the 40th anniversary and McConkie after the 78 revelation.  

As with the examples listed in the OP, which you attributed to the “apologists” missing or misunderstanding some key information, so is the conclusion that the Church “had turned against gays.” They are on a par. An exposure to and understanding of the doctrine and teachings of the Church on same-sex attraction and relevant concepts and themes (per the available Church online resources for example) would eventually dispel the more visceral reactions and sentiments. For example, the former policy was not about gays (identity) or same-sex attraction (a trait or a desire), but about same-gender marriage (an act).

It seems your response to my “question 4” about President Nelson and your reaction to it got cut off. Can you offer the quote of what he said and why it made you feel sick?

It seems you are making a comparison with the priesthood ban and its reversal. Could you provide those quotes which are bothersome? It is hard for me to comment without them. But lacking that, President Canon’s words, for me, offer some consolation: that God will certainly condemn, presumably eventually, those who need it, and He gives to us individually His personal comfort and guidance through the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and even others.

My take is that President Canon is saying that it is key to keep the Holy Spirit with us no matter the insult or injury (as Christ exemplified in His passion), and not the spirit of contention, nor to have this be the driving influence for our disputation, indignation, anger, etc. Those who have righteous indignation still have charity and can moderate their reactions to things they do not understand or control. They will be guided as to what to do, and it may differ from person to person as much as their opportunities and circumstances. This might get to your question about what can be done when there is a dissonance or incongruity between what we hold as our sacred understanding and what the prophet or apostle teaches as revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Church “turned against the gays” long before this policy. It started back in Hawaii even before Prop 8.  The policy was just another in a long series of actions against gay couples.  I think most of the outside world already thought of the Church as being anti gay.  

And George Q. Cannon lived long before that and is still being quoted today!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks CV75.  I admit I'm struggling to make sense of all that you've said about this (i'm sure it's my fault so no worries), but that doesn't change the fact that you don't see the wrong roads teaching really applying I guess, huh?  So...good to hear your position, and all the best to you.  

Now regarding the idea that Church leadership made mistakes periodically in the process of getting on the right path from various decision points or “forks” throughout the decades in dealing with ssm as a broader social issue and then as a Church membership issue:

Some say the policy is a reversal, but in my mind, you can never really go back since it is not the same world. For example, before the policy, ssm was not treated as apostasy for disciplinary purposes. With the policy, it was. And now with the reversal, it isn’t considered apostasy anymore for disciplinary purposes. Some see this as increased tolerance for ssm, or an admission that calling it apostasy was too hardline and a mistake, or an admission that she had no business being in the public square in the first place. But I see these developments as a trend toward less tolerance of ssm and more tolerance toward members engaged in ssm. My thinking goes like this:

Marriage can be seen as both a secular/civil and an ecclesiastic/religious construct/institution. The Church has never condoned ssm, and when it became a topic of public debate (long before the policy), she opposed politically as a civil institution. By the time of the policy, she had stopped that and resorted to recognizing it only from the ecclesiastical standpoint (discipline for apostasy). These steps seem more like transitions appropriate for dealing with the changing world.

I see these steps as a trajectory of greater active opposition to the construct or institution of ssm in both circles because it is now treated as irrelevant to her doctrine and mission. It is a cipher. When she actively fought it civilly, or treated it as apostasy, ssm was at least recognized as a force to be reckoned with, but now it is a non-issue, which I take to be the most profound form of intolerance. But this is also a trajectory of more tolerance toward individuals in that those members who engage in ssm are treated just as any other member in serious transgression.

Now the come-back is the Church could have and should have avoided all this turmoil by doing what they are doing today from the beginning (not addressing ssm as a singular problem either civilly nor disciplinarily, but just stay out of it). However, the Church always deals with the present head-on while preparing for the future, recognizing that everyone’s agency contributes to the future outcomes that become the next set of present circumstances. Who knows how things would have played out had ssm not taken hold in the world?

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/11/2019 at 12:24 PM, CV75 said:

Now regarding the idea that Church leadership made mistakes periodically in the process of getting on the right path from various decision points or “forks” throughout the decades in dealing with ssm as a broader social issue and then as a Church membership issue:

Some say the policy is a reversal, but in my mind, you can never really go back since it is not the same world. For example, before the policy, ssm was not treated as apostasy for disciplinary purposes. With the policy, it was. And now with the reversal, it isn’t considered apostasy anymore for disciplinary purposes. Some see this as increased tolerance for ssm, or an admission that calling it apostasy was too hardline and a mistake, or an admission that she had no business being in the public square in the first place. But I see these developments as a trend toward less tolerance of ssm and more tolerance toward members engaged in ssm. My thinking goes like this:

Marriage can be seen as both a secular/civil and an ecclesiastic/religious construct/institution. The Church has never condoned ssm, and when it became a topic of public debate (long before the policy), she opposed politically as a civil institution. By the time of the policy, she had stopped that and resorted to recognizing it only from the ecclesiastical standpoint (discipline for apostasy). These steps seem more like transitions appropriate for dealing with the changing world.

I see these steps as a trajectory of greater active opposition to the construct or institution of ssm in both circles because it is now treated as irrelevant to her doctrine and mission. It is a cipher. When she actively fought it civilly, or treated it as apostasy, ssm was at least recognized as a force to be reckoned with, but now it is a non-issue, which I take to be the most profound form of intolerance. But this is also a trajectory of more tolerance toward individuals in that those members who engage in ssm are treated just as any other member in serious transgression.

Now the come-back is the Church could have and should have avoided all this turmoil by doing what they are doing today from the beginning (not addressing ssm as a singular problem either civilly nor disciplinarily, but just stay out of it). However, the Church always deals with the present head-on while preparing for the future, recognizing that everyone’s agency contributes to the future outcomes that become the next set of present circumstances. Who knows how things would have played out had ssm not taken hold in the world?

A retcon with a healthy dose of gaslighting; well done.

Do not accuse posters of lying.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think I get what @CV75 is saying and it's a good perspective for those who believe the church's position against gay marriage specifically (and homosexuality, more generally) cannot or should not change anymore than it already has.

However, if this is the thinking of the Brethren, there is a flaw:  Intolerance for SSM and tolerance for members engaged in SSM will not, in the long run, coexist.

As church members embrace that tolerance, we will see our fellow brothers and sisters who are gay enter into loving marriages.  We will observe them and their families and develop an even stronger sense of our similarities.  More and more will join the current small chorus of church members who cannot comprehend the kingdom without a place for these families and and cannot fathom a god who doesn't honor their love and commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think I get what @CV75 is saying and it's a good perspective for those who believe the church's position against gay marriage specifically (and homosexuality, more generally) cannot or should not change anymore than it already has.

However, if this is the thinking of the Brethren, there is a flaw:  Intolerance for SSM and tolerance for members engaged in SSM will not, in the long run, coexist.

As church members embrace that tolerance, we will see our fellow brothers and sisters who are gay enter into loving marriages.  We will observe them and their families and develop an even stronger sense of our similarities.  More and more will join the current small chorus of church members who cannot comprehend the kingdom without a place for these families and and cannot fathom a god who doesn't honor their love and commitment.

But the point is that the Church has been and is making a distinction between ssm specifically (an act or behavior), homosexuality more generally (a trait), and additionally, our identity as children of God with attendant covenants. This distinction opens the way to develop that stronger sense of similarity, an aspect of charity that all followers of Christ take upon ourselves just as He did.

The tolerance for the members engaged in ssm is that they are treated as any other member engaged in serious transgression (interpersonally and procedurally). Serious transgression is addressed irrespective of how much love there is in or between the guilty, or how much love have toward the guilty. This gets to the age-old issue that loving people can perform some serious transgression. That is the tragedy of sin. The presence and amount of love of anyone involved, whether the actor or the observer, doesn’t ameliorate the seriousness of the transgression, and it can’t be said that something isn’t a transgression simply because it is done by a loving and committed person, couple or group or because we love them.

And in a sense God does honor all levels of love and commitment, and any other state one is in while exercising the most precious gift of agency, from the most depraved that can be found in mortality to the divine, and so we have the kingdoms of glory.

The Lord’s aim and invitation is that these principles are comprehended by all, irrespective of any hope or effort toward or prognostication of how many will or won’t.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

As church members embrace that tolerance, we will see our fellow brothers and sisters who are gay enter into loving marriages.  We will observe them and their families and develop an even stronger sense of our similarities.  More and more will join the current small chorus of church members who cannot comprehend the kingdom without a place for these families and and cannot fathom a god who doesn't honor their love and commitment.

Have attitudes changed much when members have seen committed heterosexual couples living together without marriage for a number of decades?  Certainly we are well aware of our similarities with them and their families.

If not, why would it need to be different towards married gay couples?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Have attitudes changed much when members have seen committed heterosexual couples living together without marriage for a number of decades?  Certainly we are well aware of our similarities with them and their families.

If not, why would it need to be different towards married gay couples?

The difference is marriage.  And though the church likes to paint gay marriage as be ininvalid and sinful, it is not the same couples living together without marriage.  What will change, is. not the sin of sex outside of marriage, but the idea that just because a couple is gay, their marriage is invalid.  

It is pretty easy for a future prophet to say once again, "All worthy married couples may now enter the temple and be sealed.  

There. is a difference, just not right now in the eyes of Church leaders.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Calm said:

Have attitudes changed much when members have seen committed heterosexual couples living together without marriage for a number of decades?  Certainly we are well aware of our similarities with them and their families.

If not, why would it need to be different towards married gay couples?

There's a difference between a couple who...

...lives together and has children and could enjoy all the blessings of the restored gospel if they just chose to solemnize their union.

and a couple who...

...has solemnized their union but is being blocked from enjoying all the blessings of the restored gospel because of church doctrine and/or policies.

 

And, specifically to your question:  No, I don't think church member attitudes have changed much with respect to opposite sex couples who are committed without being married.  But I do think we've seen a trend toward greater acceptance by church members of same sex marriage over the past decade.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Have attitudes changed much when members have seen committed heterosexual couples living together without marriage for a number of decades?  Certainly we are well aware of our similarities with them and their families.

If not, why would it need to be different towards married gay couples?

I agree, I don't think it would be. Back in the nineties a coworker entered a civil union. I don’t remember the exact conversation, but it touched on his sexuality, high school in the sixties, etc. and we both said, “We’re all the same” almost simultaneously (but I said it first!).

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Have attitudes changed much when members have seen committed heterosexual couples living together without marriage for a number of decades?  Certainly we are well aware of our similarities with them and their families.

If not, why would it need to be different towards married gay couples?

Because of the inherent unfairness. More and more in and out of the church people feel like gay people deserve the same chance for love, family, and commitment as straight people. My wife and I have left the church. My wife on two separate occasions recently had lunch with two separate friends from different regions of the country. Both friends are still in the church with deep seemingly unshakable faith. This topic came up and to my wife’s surprise, both of them really genuinely struggle with this issue. They are all around 40. I can only imagine the younger generation struggles even more. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There's a difference between a couple who...

...lives together and has children and could enjoy all the blessings of the restored gospel if they just chose to solemnize their union.

and a couple who...

...has solemnized their union but is being blocked from enjoying all the blessings of the restored gospel because of church doctrine and/or policies.

 

And, specifically to your question:  No, I don't think church member attitudes have changed much with respect to opposite sex couples who are committed without being married.  But I do think we've seen a trend toward greater acceptance by church members of same sex marriage over the past decade.

The difference you pointed out is not a matter of tolerance of personal differences as to what constitutes solemnization or a union, but of tolerance of what is and isn’t a covenant within the Church. That members increasingly accept ssm does not make it a covenant within the Church, and as members increasingly accept others who are "different" from teh Church's standard in this regard makes it easier for everyone to keep the covenants.

I was reading a great talk by Elder Gong this morning that gets to the feelings of confidence, belonging and unity when we keep the covenants, no matter how we may otherwise feel different. This feeling comes from the Spirit and not from others, and influences how we each treat each other to facilitate that feeling. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2019/04/53gong?lang=eng

“Come find love, healing, connection, and covenant belonging in Him, including in God’s holy temple, where sacred ordinances of salvation can bless all family members, thus gathering Israel on both sides of the veil.

“Our Savior assures us, whatever our circumstances, whoever we are, in the words of Isaiah: “He shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.

“Brothers and sisters, our Good Shepherd calls us in His voice and in His name. He seeks, gathers, and comes to His people. Through His living prophet and each of us, He invites all to find peace, purpose, healing, and joy in the fulness of His restored gospel and on His covenant path.”

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

The difference is marriage.  And though the church likes to paint gay marriage as be ininvalid and sinful, it is not the same couples living together without marriage.  What will change, is. not the sin of sex outside of marriage, but the idea that just because a couple is gay, their marriage is invalid.  

It is pretty easy for a future prophet to say once again, "All worthy married couples may now enter the temple and be sealed.  

There. is a difference, just not right now in the eyes of Church leaders.

It both is and isn’t the same. The love and commitment I mentioned above is there, but the rub is that the covenant as the Church defines it is not. I think the serious transgression or sin outside of marriage is a technical point but still valid, and the invalidity of the marriage as a point of definition is also valid. I think what is hopefully changing is that everyone is treated as a child of God while the Church articles and covenants on marriage do not change. Individuals of all stripes may find it difficult to do both, and that is sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, I don't think church member attitudes have changed much with respect to opposite sex couples who are committed without being married

My experience when young was couples living together unmarried were seen as more selfish and immoral rather than just not interested or invested in the ceremony.  They were seen as making a rebellious or sinful choice.  Nowadays, unmarried couples are more often treated in my experience as another family variation, one that many people see as very similar to their own family situations.  There is less judgment imo about the motivation of their choice not to get married.  But there still exists the insistence/policy that they must be married to be baptized to become members.  So even though it appears to me the cultural acceptance of unmarried couples has softened, the requirements are the same as in the past in terms of the law of Chastity.

Polygamous couples in countries where polygamy is legal are still denied baptism (and are encouraged to stay together rather than be baptized from what I hear).  While that may be more distant emotionally for church leaders located primarily in SLC, it is still an issue they have had to deal with for decades...a culture accepts the family and marriage as completely valid yet the Church still applies restrictions.

I see it as quite possible the same happening with same sex couples and their families.  While there may be growing acceptance of similarities just as happened imo with unmarried couples, the requirements for baptism or other ordinances will likely remain the same.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, CV75 said:

It both is and isn’t the same. The love and commitment I mentioned above is there, but the rub is that the covenant as the Church defines it is not. I think the serious transgression or sin outside of marriage is a technical point but still valid, and the invalidity of the marriage as a point of definition is also valid. I think what is hopefully changing is that everyone is treated as a child of God while the Church articles and covenants on marriage do not change. Individuals of all stripes may find it difficult to do both, and that is sad.

I fully acknowledge the distinction the church makes now.  The church made the same distinction with inter racial couples. I remember ward members freaking out when a guy I grew up with married a black woman. It just wasn’t acceptable and his family could not go to the temple.  Now there are whole generations who think nothing of inter racial marriages and can’t quite understand why that was ever a problem.   

It won’t be long when gays marrying has always been legal in their lifetime.  They won’t understand why it ever was a problem.  

Church rules may stay as they are, but more and more it will be harder to justify.  When the next generation asks why can’t gays marry.  Why is sex within a gay marriage immoral.  The answers will start sounding as weak as the answers to why can’t inter racial couples marry.in the temple when I was growing up.  

This is an issue that will accelerate not diminish don’t you think?  At some point it will come to a head. 

‘Would you want to be living in a church that kept inter racial couples out of the temple today?  Or are you relieved that chapter is behind us?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, CV75 said:

It both is and isn’t the same. The love and commitment I mentioned above is there, but the rub is that the covenant as the Church defines it is not. I think the serious transgression or sin outside of marriage is a technical point but still valid, and the invalidity of the marriage as a point of definition is also valid. I think what is hopefully changing is that everyone is treated as a child of God while the Church articles and covenants on marriage do not change. Individuals of all stripes may find it difficult to do both, and that is sad.

I am not sure love has anything to do with marriage - at least initially. I don't recall God ever asking Adam, "Do you love her?" Nor does love have anything to do with arranged marriages in the world. Love is something that grows with a marriage. 

In the US, I suspect the vast majority of marriages start out more in lust than love. Ask any older couple if their love today is the same as the love when they were first married. 

Should sinners be treated like children of God? Of course. However, society has often chosen throughout history to strongly disapprove of certain things. These things change from one thing to another; humans are fickle beings and when left to their own devices they cannot decide what they like or not. 

There have been periods in history when what was once bad becomes acceptable only to fall back into disfavor. I won't be taking any bets on how the future deals with this topic that troubles the moral fiber of today's society. 

I don't any Christian church that states they believe in the Bible as the Word of God will ever begin to teach that homosexuality is acceptable in any degree. There will be and there are a number of Christian churches that have begun to change their belief systems and necessarily forfeit many of the theological bulwarks they have held from the beginning of their belief systems. The Church of God and the Body of Christ will become more clearly delineated from those churches of created in the minds of men. This was foretold and should not be a surprise to anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post

How about using "attraction" rather than "lust"?  There is an immoral dimension in the connotation of "lust" that I would hope was not present at the beginning of most relationships,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't any Christian church that states they believe in the Bible as the Word of God will ever begin to teach that homosexuality is acceptable in any degree. There will be and there are a number of Christian churches that have begun to change their belief systems and necessarily forfeit many of the theological bulwarks they have held from the beginning of their belief systems. The Church of God and the Body of Christ will become more clearly delineated from those churches of created in the minds of men. This was foretold and should not be a surprise to anyone. 

It’s pretty easy to believe that the Bible is the word of god and that homosexuality is acceptable (and I assume you meant “acting on one’s homosexuality” since our church already accepts homosexuality as an orientation that is largely outside of an individual’s agency). 

First, one could dismiss OT teachings against homosexuality as the old law that is no longer practiced once Christ came. 

Then you are only left with some statements from Paul.  Since prophets and apostles are fallible, he could have been in error or a product of his environment. 

Within the framework of the restored gospel you’ve got no teachings on homosexuality within our restoration scripture. 

Past teachings of prophets and apostles of this dispensation are easily disavowed.  We have examples of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

First, one could dismiss OT teachings against homosexuality as the old law that is no longer practiced once Christ came. 

While penalties are different (no more stonings for example), I am curious as to what OT commandments against sin you do not see as also included in Christ's laws even if treated differently.  Circumcision, kosher, and animal sacrifice no longer are necessary, but those weren't restrictions on behaviour seen as sinful, but more what one needed to do as a member of the faith community.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Calm said:

While penalties are different (no more stonings for example), I am curious as to what OT commandments against sin you do not see as also included in Christ's laws even if treated differently.  Circumcision, kosher, and animal sacrifice no longer are necessary, but those weren't restrictions on behaviour seen as sinful, but more what one needed to do as a member of the faith community.

Just for one.  Divorce was allowed under the OT.  Christ made clear statements against divorce.  

Matthew 5:32

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
 
 
Last time I checked adultery was a pretty serious sin.  While the Church has no problem ignoring these words of Christ, they are all over this whole homosexality thing being a sin.  Wonder why is that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

That is the reverse of what I asked for and what rockpond was suggesting would happen...a law being removed (homosexual sexual behaviour no longer considered a sin) as opposed to a law being tightened up (no divorce being allowed). 

Do you know of any law that was removed by Christ in terms of what was considered sinful behaviour as opposed to tightening things up (not only acts, but thoughts would be judged, etc).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...