Utah - more progressive on LGBTQ issues?

[CV75]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I find that 98% of all instances where the word "homophobia" is used, an actual phobia does not exist.  Simply not liking or agreeing with something does not constitute an actual phobia.  I would not have a rainbow flag on my lawn as it may give an impression that I accept certain things when I don't.   I wonder where this is going however.  Given technological advancement into AI and 5G and the development of what is called "sex robot",  perhaps we may see a day when these robots are given rights and perhaps its legal to humans to marry them.  Sounds crazy but 30 years ago, gay marriage was a crazy notion.  We have no clue what society will accept 20 or 30 years from now.  I am sure many of us would be shocked if we had the chance to see 25 years in the future just as people from 1995 would be shocked to see what exists today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot)

Back in 2017, Sophia was given citizenship in Saudi Arabia, and is the first non-human given a title (Innovation Champion) by the UN. She also was given a visa by Azerbaijan and appointed a Belt and Road Innovative Technology Ambassador by China. 

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It can't be reconciled.  I will continue to assert that it thousand times more likely that the church will practice polygamy again before accepting gay marriage let alone gay temple sealing.

The church hates the "polygamy" word like the plague, I bet the opposite would happen before it was brought back. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Tacenda

[USU78]

Some thoughts are too scary to be voiced.

[MustardSeed]

11 hours ago, tulip said:

LGBTQ is a mental disorder.   Anyone who encourages mental disorders to continue is insane.

You are wrong.  And even the church disagrees. 

I’m a faithful card carrying member btw.  FWIW. 

[Tacenda]

My first gay pride parade!

[CV75]

On 6/1/2019 at 12:14 PM, why me said:

I do believe that the optimism in the video is not misplaced. Mormons seem to be caving in to societal pressure and I think that it will continue. How mormons accept such changes is quite another thing. But I can see a day when the same sex marriage will receive a temple marriage. However I do not see islam changing anytime soon. In Britain, muslim parents are protesting schools that are teaching that children can have two moms or two dads etc. And there is quite a backlash.

I don't see the Utah saints caving in to societal pressure, but applying the great two commandments as neighbors in a changing society. They are not compromising their doctrine.

From D&C 132:19-21,30 and Abraham 2:11:

“And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood… they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue [v. 30, out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them]; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.”

“And …in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood) …and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal [their exaltation and glory in all things].”

How can the children of God really have all things without having that condition of one flesh with their male and female counterpart (as God ordained from the beginning, for the purpose that was ordained from the beginning), no matter the actual mechanics?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't see the Utah saints caving in to societal pressure, but applying the great two commandments as neighbors in a changing society. They are not compromising their doctrine.

From D&C 132:19-21,30 and Abraham 2:11:

“And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood… they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue [v. 30, out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them]; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.”

“And …in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood) …and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal [their exaltation and glory in all things].”

How can the children of God really have all things without having that condition of one flesh with their male and female counterpart (as God ordained from the beginning, for the purpose that was ordained from the beginning), no matter the actual mechanics?

Who says gays even want to be gods/goddesses?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Who says gays even want to be gods/goddesses?

This is the one thing that does not appeal to me.  Very few things in the Celestial Kingdom do...although I would wish the Savior to meet with me once in awhile and smile.

[SteveO]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I would be glad to answer your question if you can tell me exactly how spirit children and worlds are created. 

God made them.  I don't know how that helps to answer my question though.

If you look at the leadership of Joseph Smith, there is no documented case of blacks being denied the priesthood or temple blessings during his lifetime.  Brigham Young said three years after Joseph's death praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”  Even in the act of imposing the ban in 1852, Brigham also promised that it would be lifted at some future day, and that black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.  Even after the ban, already ordained black men still held the priesthood, and Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors, but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances.  

President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy (kind of interesting no?) that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.

The point being, is that when 1978 came around, it wasn't a surprise when the ban was reversed.  The guy who instituted the ban in the first place said it would be reversed in the same breath.  SSM and the priesthood ban are not the same thing.  I say this to preemptively discourage anyone from falling back to "...but what about the priesthood ban?".

What we have with Same Sex relations (and I don't know what is or isn't offensive terminology anymore, just know it's not my intention to belittle or offend) is a restriction falling under the broader boundaries the Lord has anciently and today proscribed with regards to sexual conduct.  To break any of them, to break any other restriction sexual or not, we are promised alienation from God and spiritual death if we continue to rebel and refuse repentance.  If there are regulations on our conduct, if there are promised blessings for obeying, and promised consequences for disobeying, if Christ died for our sins and requires us to make covenants, and expects us to take the sacrament and repent when we break those covenants...well, you'll have to explain to me why you can justify reversing one regulation, and not any of the others. 

And you'll probably say that's because it isn't a regulation, and the brethren are wrong.  Again, you'll have to explain to me the justness of a God who has permitted His children to be taught and believe that something was sinful, when in fact, the entire time it wasn't.  Remember, the church is instructed to excommunicate people who enter into SSM.  This isn't just a policy, this is serious stuff.  And while i don't believe it, there are howls of protest that "people are dying" because of all this.  Again, you'll refer me back to leadership as the root cause.   

So let me share how I view leadership with regards to Same Sex relations.  It involves a number of scenarios.  I really can't think of any more to add, so feel free to offer them.  But to me, they are these:

1)  The brethren do not receive revelation from God.  They either never have, or have ceased being able to long ago.  They are either charlatans of the worst kind, or well intentioned men who can't come to the reality that they are left to their own devises.  Either way, this opens up a far more serious problem for members of the church that SSM.

2) The brethren receive revelation, but have not, or refuse to ask the Lord regarding the matter

3) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, but have received no answer.  Meanwhile, a number of members have received revelation contrary to the church's position.   

4) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, and have received an answer instructing them that His position on the matter remains unchanged.  Meanwhile, a number of members have received revelation contrary to the brethren's.  

5) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord,  and are being told "not yet, but eventually".  All the while the brethren give no indication in public discourse as that being the case.  (I'll refer you to the priesthood ban above and how its just a few of the many ways the two issues are not the same)

6) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, but are so biased and stuck in their old ways that they can no longer reflect the will of the Lord in their teachings and policies.  The new blood of the up and coming generations are far more sensitive to the message, "love is love is love", and are therefore more in tune with the spirit and can more accurately reflect the will of the Lord if/when given the chance.  (Again, I'll refer you to the priesthood ban above and how its just a few of the many ways the two issues are not the same)

7) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, and have received an answer instructing them that His position on the matter remains unchanged.  Meanwhile, a number of members have mistakenly confused revelation with confirmation bias.  (Start your own thread on that one if you want, or look at the countless others that already discuss this)

I obviously tend to lean towards number 7.  I would imagine you more identify with the others, or have your own.  I think any of the others would cause serious problems.  You may address SSM, but then I think we'd be starting back at square one where each person would be walking after whatever seems best for them.  You would never be able to have faith in counsel from leadership.  And then what would be the point of ever having it?  I'm not saying church leadership doesn't make mistakes, but we have a question to an existing position of the church that affects thousands directly and many more indirectly.  If the position is indeed wrong, why is there absolutely no direction to the contrary from the Lord to His Church?  

These questions aren't rhetorical, I'm honestly asking how can someone reconcile all this?

With regards to the OP, I guess I'm surprised that there's surprise.  My opposition to SSM in the church and the opposition from other members isn't uncharitable.  Certainly we can always work on being kinder to others and loving them.  But the opposition comes from being unable to reconcile SSM with established teachings.  And I would include that being unable to reconcile SSM with revelation, as I see the Proclamation as representing the mind and will of the Lord concerning the matter.

I go to Church every Sunday, and every time I go as a sinner in need of repentance.  I am taught that who I am currently is not good enough spiritually.  That I need, have, and can do better.  My wife does the same.  Everyone there does the same.  We can always make it a more loving and inclusive space, but we do no favors when the appointed physicians, in a misguided effort to show compassion, refuse to treat the patient. 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Who says gays even want to be gods/goddesses?

I view gay people as children of God as not as comprising a bloc incapable of holy ambition.

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is the one thing that does not appeal to me.  Very few things in the Celestial Kingdom do...although I would wish the Savior to meet with me once in awhile and smile.

Bingo. The Celestial Kingdom, exaltation, godhood etc. are the result of personal ambitions and choices.

Edited June 2, 2019 by CV75

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The church hates the "polygamy" word like the plague, I bet the opposite would happen before it was brought back. 

The scriptural and historical connections however would not be difficult to establish.  I don't predict it will be brought back.  I just say that it would be a thousand times easier for the church to do it than gay marriage.  The foundation for polygamy is there. 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I view gay people as children of God as not as comprising a bloc incapable of holy ambition.

Bingo. The Celestial Kingdom, exaltation, godhood etc. are the result of personal ambitions and choices.

We did not leave the comforts of the premortal world to have a few moments of worldly pleasure.  The fact that we were willing to take a great risk to come suggests that exaltation is the goal for all that are born and anything less is failure.

Edited June 3, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

10 hours ago, SteveO said:

God made them.  I don't know how that helps to answer my question though.

If you look at the leadership of Joseph Smith, there is no documented case of blacks being denied the priesthood or temple blessings during his lifetime.  Brigham Young said three years after Joseph's death praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”  Even in the act of imposing the ban in 1852, Brigham also promised that it would be lifted at some future day, and that black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.  Even after the ban, already ordained black men still held the priesthood, and Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors, but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances.  

President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy (kind of interesting no?) that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.

The point being, is that when 1978 came around, it wasn't a surprise when the ban was reversed.  The guy who instituted the ban in the first place said it would be reversed in the same breath.  SSM and the priesthood ban are not the same thing.  I say this to preemptively discourage anyone from falling back to "...but what about the priesthood ban?".

What we have with Same Sex relations (and I don't know what is or isn't offensive terminology anymore, just know it's not my intention to belittle or offend) is a restriction falling under the broader boundaries the Lord has anciently and today proscribed with regards to sexual conduct.  To break any of them, to break any other restriction sexual or not, we are promised alienation from God and spiritual death if we continue to rebel and refuse repentance.  If there are regulations on our conduct, if there are promised blessings for obeying, and promised consequences for disobeying, if Christ died for our sins and requires us to make covenants, and expects us to take the sacrament and repent when we break those covenants...well, you'll have to explain to me why you can justify reversing one regulation, and not any of the others. 

And you'll probably say that's because it isn't a regulation, and the brethren are wrong.  Again, you'll have to explain to me the justness of a God who has permitted His children to be taught and believe that something was sinful, when in fact, the entire time it wasn't.  Remember, the church is instructed to excommunicate people who enter into SSM.  This isn't just a policy, this is serious stuff.  And while i don't believe it, there are howls of protest that "people are dying" because of all this.  Again, you'll refer me back to leadership as the root cause.   

So let me share how I view leadership with regards to Same Sex relations.  It involves a number of scenarios.  I really can't think of any more to add, so feel free to offer them.  But to me, they are these:

1)  The brethren do not receive revelation from God.  They either never have, or have ceased being able to long ago.  They are either charlatans of the worst kind, or well intentioned men who can't come to the reality that they are left to their own devises.  Either way, this opens up a far more serious problem for members of the church that SSM.

2) The brethren receive revelation, but have not, or refuse to ask the Lord regarding the matter

3) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, but have received no answer.  Meanwhile, a number of members have received revelation contrary to the church's position.   

4) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, and have received an answer instructing them that His position on the matter remains unchanged.  Meanwhile, a number of members have received revelation contrary to the brethren's.  

5) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord,  and are being told "not yet, but eventually".  All the while the brethren give no indication in public discourse as that being the case.  (I'll refer you to the priesthood ban above and how its just a few of the many ways the two issues are not the same)

6) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, but are so biased and stuck in their old ways that they can no longer reflect the will of the Lord in their teachings and policies.  The new blood of the up and coming generations are far more sensitive to the message, "love is love is love", and are therefore more in tune with the spirit and can more accurately reflect the will of the Lord if/when given the chance.  (Again, I'll refer you to the priesthood ban above and how its just a few of the many ways the two issues are not the same)

7) The brethren receive revelation, have asked the Lord, and have received an answer instructing them that His position on the matter remains unchanged.  Meanwhile, a number of members have mistakenly confused revelation with confirmation bias.  (Start your own thread on that one if you want, or look at the countless others that already discuss this)

I obviously tend to lean towards number 7.  I would imagine you more identify with the others, or have your own.  I think any of the others would cause serious problems.  You may address SSM, but then I think we'd be starting back at square one where each person would be walking after whatever seems best for them.  You would never be able to have faith in counsel from leadership.  And then what would be the point of ever having it?  I'm not saying church leadership doesn't make mistakes, but we have a question to an existing position of the church that affects thousands directly and many more indirectly.  If the position is indeed wrong, why is there absolutely no direction to the contrary from the Lord to His Church?  

These questions aren't rhetorical, I'm honestly asking how can someone reconcile all this?

With regards to the OP, I guess I'm surprised that there's surprise.  My opposition to SSM in the church and the opposition from other members isn't uncharitable.  Certainly we can always work on being kinder to others and loving them.  But the opposition comes from being unable to reconcile SSM with established teachings.  And I would include that being unable to reconcile SSM with revelation, as I see the Proclamation as representing the mind and will of the Lord concerning the matter.

I go to Church every Sunday, and every time I go as a sinner in need of repentance.  I am taught that who I am currently is not good enough spiritually.  That I need, have, and can do better.  My wife does the same.  Everyone there does the same.  We can always make it a more loving and inclusive space, but we do no favors when the appointed physicians, in a misguided effort to show compassion, refuse to treat the patient. 

 

Thanks for your answer.  You certainly have thought a lot about this.  Most of it, while interesting to hear your point of view has. nothing to do with your question.  This is what you asked.

Quote

 

How could this even be reconciled with church doctrine?  I don’t care one way or another about gay marriage,  except I just can’t see how the church could make this decision without some serious problems being raised.

 

 

1. If we don't know how spirit children are created or worlds created, then what is preventing two guys coming together to do that?  

2. The church has already changed what was once considered sexual sin.  We recently had a whole thread about Chrisst declaring that a marriage after a divorce is considered adultery.  Pretty serious sexual sin.  Yet today in the church, a second marriage after divorce is not considered adultery even after Christ Himself declaired it to be.

3. While church leaders have instituted policies against gay marriage, and as a body they are in agreement on this issue, no revelation from God on this subject has ever been announcced,

I am sure you see things different than me.  And I am not saying that the church will ever embrace SSM.  But this does answer your question as to HOW it could be reconciled with church doctrine.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My first gay pride parade!

Were you actually in the parade or just watching?  What did you think?

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Who says gays even want to be gods/goddesses?

 

11 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This is the one thing that does not appeal to me.  Very few things in the Celestial Kingdom do...although I would wish the Savior to meet with me once in awhile and smile.

Does't appeal to me either.   I don't get the attraction of having billions of spirit children and watching them self destruct on some planet I created.  I am thinking I would like to create amazing outfits for gods to wear on important occasions. Less stress, more fun.  Or maybe designing those huge super expensive homes where there is no budget.  Maybe some of you could keep me in mind for future projects in the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited June 3, 2019 by california boy

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Does't appeal to me either.   I don't get the attraction of having billions of spirit children and watching them self destruct on some planet I created.  I am thinking I would like to create amazing outfits for gods to wear on important occasions. Less stress, more fun.  Or maybe designing those huge super expensive homes where there is no budget.  Maybe some of you could keep me in mind for future projects in the Celestial Kingdom.

Being an angel appeals to me, if angels get to help those on earth!

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Were you actually in the parade or just watching?  What did you think?

It was pretty funny because I was all alone. My husband was nice enough to go with me, but then last minute and some wheelbarrows in his truck made him say he didn't want to park it and leave the equipment in the back so he dropped me off nearby and I walked about one block down to it. I was on 200 South and 200 East, I believe. He went to his work's parking lot nearby and sat and waited for about a half hour to an hour, thank goodness for his phone and social media! And I enjoyed being around a great group of people, and one young woman and I talked throughout it. Maybe there were some risque outfits here and there but everyone was very congenial and it was nice. I even got emotional, and had to stop myself from crying. But I felt something, some might say I felt the spirit, but it was nice to see that so many lives can be affected for the good, and it is long overdue. Thanks for asking CB! 

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Being an angel appeals to me, if angels get to help those on earth!

I like that too.  WE could use some real help here!!

[mfbukowski]

On 6/1/2019 at 8:54 AM, JLHPROF said:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/30/opinions/lgbtq-stories-red-america-united-shades-pride-progress-allen

Interesting article.

Considering all the negative claims about how Utah culture, especially Mormon culture treats LGBTQ citizens apparently we're "more progressive" than evangelical states like those in the South.

Is that representative of a values shift here, or simply evidence that we make a greater effort to show love and understanding even if we consider it immoral.

Are there any states NOT more progressive than the South?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Are there any states NOT more progressive than the South?

Probably not.  But Utah gets lumped in with that group for better or worse.

I'm torn between liking this article because it shows that Utah isn't out to get that community driving up depression and suicide and ostracizing them.

But at the same time tolerance of sin rapidly becomes embracing sin.  Every single time.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Does't appeal to me either.   I don't get the attraction of having billions of spirit children and watching them self destruct on some planet I created.  I am thinking I would like to create amazing outfits for gods to wear on important occasions. Less stress, more fun.  Or maybe designing those huge super expensive homes where there is no budget.  Maybe some of you could keep me in mind for future projects in the Celestial Kingdom.

We all end up with our peers, I am convinced! That's what the different kingdoms are for. And I don't mean that as a put-down. I would hate feeling like the guy that everyone was staring at because he didn't belong. The whole idea that that could happen for eternity is abhorrent.

I personally love kids and would love to have as many as I can and to shepherd them along the best that I can.

I can't think of anything better than serving my family for eternity.

To each his own.

But I'm not much of a fan of big houses.

Who knows if any of that will actually happen. But I love the paradigm. For me it's something to live for, not "to die for".

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably not.  But Utah gets lumped in with that group for better or worse.

I'm torn between liking this article because it shows that Utah isn't out to get that community driving up depression and suicide and ostracizing them.

But at the same time tolerance of sin rapidly becomes embracing sin.  Every single time.

Yup.  It starts, probably, with "If you loved me, Mom, you'd wear a badge and carry a banner and march in this here parade with me  ...  oh, yeah, and leave the Church."

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yup.  It starts, probably, with "If you loved me, Mom, you'd wear a badge and carry a banner and march in this here parade with me  ...  oh, yeah, and leave the Church."

I think it plays on sympathies more than guilt complexes.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yup.  It starts, probably, with "If you loved me, Mom, you'd wear a badge and carry a banner and march in this here parade with me  ...  oh, yeah, and leave the Church."

My aunt commented on my FB post that I posted the pic of the parade and I had posted: My first Utah pride parade! Many great and awesome groups spreading the love!. She posted: "Why"

I don't know what to say back. I've had many "loves" and many "likes"... And many nice comments except hers. I just don't know what to think or how to respond. I'm constantly looking at my post for fear my children will something mean to her and then I'll take it down. 

And now your comment! 😫

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 6/1/2019 at 11:54 AM, JLHPROF said:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/30/opinions/lgbtq-stories-red-america-united-shades-pride-progress-allen

Interesting article.

Considering all the negative claims about how Utah culture, especially Mormon culture treats LGBTQ citizens apparently we're "more progressive" than evangelical states like those in the South.

Is that representative of a values shift here, or simply evidence that we make a greater effort to show love and understanding even if we consider it immoral.

I think that we as members of the Church, are taught, and reinforced, to be kind to all. To be as our scripture tells us, “liberal (not liberal politics) to all. We are taught to love both our Neighbors, and those that we might see as our enemies. It is woven into the very fabric of what it means to take upon ourselves the name of Christ. A title once given, demands that we also take upon us his countenance, and the “pure love of Christ”. So, no surprise knowing we are alway try living up to that (or struggling to do so) responsibility. Thank God, it is showing, if the cameras are rolling, great, and even better when thay are not rolling, this is how you know it is real, and born of integrity.