Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I am under the impression that the LDS Church and science both agree now that same sex preference is not a choice, so where does this claim that everybody is being told that they must be hetero come from?  The LDS Church is not seeking legislation to require everyone to be heterosexual, or even to require all marriages to be between a man and a woman only.  In the past, the LDS Church, most states, and even the Feds wanted same sex marriage to be illegal.  I thought that issue was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that everyone is now on board with the new concept of civil liberties including SSM.  I thought we all accepted those norms.  Yet you seem to be battling all the old wars over again.  Is there no end to it?

I think that we have come a long way as a nation, and that real pluralism has been enhanced.  Am I wrong?

Or is it just LDS theology which has got you so exercised?

This is in reference to the idea Elder Haden has that when gay people die they will become straight.  You have to be married to a woman if you are a gay guy in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But wouldn't ordinary boundary maintenance give the same result anyhow?  Humans are always going to make errors, no matter their best intentions.  The LDS Church, after all, doesn't function at all like the Hutterites or Amish.  The culture is utterly different.  What key recommendations do you feel would make a crucial difference for the Church -- such that your critique might be softened?  Is it more a matter of style, or substance?

I honestly don't have any hope for the LDS church which also means I'm probably wasting my time discussing a subject that will never have peace and also will never provide a solution. Perhaps I'll soften my critique when the church humbles itself and softens its heart. The church can keep its standards and I'll keep my humanity and dignity.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

do find it strange that when Gay people feel compelled to being Gay first and then a child of God. The world goes to hell in a handbasket, but what is most important is that you, the collective you, be gay. Why is that? I don't think that exists among those that are straight

That’s just what happens when you are an oppressed minority.  Have you ever had that experience? 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Then let me clarify. I am a child of God divinely created to be attracted to men.

Val, when you talk to God do you use your sexuality as a talking point or as a necessary part of your identity? That is what I was trying to get at - I have never once talked with our Father in Heaven feeling compelled to inform him that he was required to first see me as a straight man. The parameters are how do I become like thee rather than anything else. Demanding that he accept me and my choice of behavior was never been part of the equation.

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

 Perhaps I'll soften my critique when the church humbles itself and softens its heart. The church can keep its standards and I'll keep my humanity and dignity.

Wow.  Job 38.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I honestly don't have any hope for the LDS church which also means I'm probably wasting my time discussing a subject that will never have peace and also will never provide a solution. Perhaps I'll soften my critique when the church humbles itself and softens its heart. The church can keep its standards and I'll keep my humanity and dignity.

I don’t know. I think you should at least counteroffer giving up your dignity in exchange for church standards. Dignity is overrated. It is more fun not to have it.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I figured this would come up. Jesus is not unrealistically expecting us to be perfect like God. He's telling us to strive for more and better and to be the very best of ourselves that glorifies the Father.

He stated "be ye therefore perfect".  That is pretty straightforward. 

 Where does he say your interpretation above? (Serious question, I would like to see the reasoning)

(I don't think he is expecting us to be perfect in mortality though he doesn't say that, but eternity when it becomes possible, yes)

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

He stated "be ye therefore perfect".  That is pretty straightforward. 

 Where does he say your interpretation above? (Serious question, I would like to see the reasoning)

(I don't think he is expecting us to be perfect in mortality though he doesn't say that, but eternity when it becomes possible, yes)

This comes from an analysis of the Greek where it suggests completeness and wholeness as opposed to perfection. It is also tied in to Jesus not claiming he is “perfect” in the Bible when in fallen flesh but claiming it with the Nephites once He has risen.

I still think perfection is the goal but some ascribe sin to what is just human weakness. Forgetting something is not a sin. A bad slip of the tongue is not a sin. Feeling emotions that are inappropriate is not a sin. Coming to a wrong conclusion about something is not a sin. These things are often mitigated by virtue but they are part of this life and experiencing them is not a spiritual flaw.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, ALarson said:

"Other"?  I would not include being gay as being a part of what you describe here. 

Of course you wouldn't. You've made that clear. But that wasn't really my question, was it? Making your response a deflection in line with my earlier statement:

22 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

To argue that Christ can't or won't fix all faithful and repentant sinners is a distraction from the real disagreement: is the millennia-old standard of Christian sexual morality -- vigorously reinforced, for Latter-day Saints at least, by men claiming to be authorised prophets -- really of God or not?

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Of course you wouldn't. You've made that clear. But that wasn't really my question, was it? 

Here's the question I was responding to:

Quote

Are there any other conditions or identities that you would personally place beyond the curative reach of the Atonement without a specific revelation to include them?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72098-inclusiveness-and-gay-children-of-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209920084

If you want to discuss the atonement, then my belief is that Christ made a perfect atonement for all mankind.  And, all are covered unconditionally as pertaining to the Fall of Adam.  We will all rise from the dead with immortal bodies because of Jesus’ Atonement. 

However, I also believe that the Atonement is conditional, so far as each person’s individual sins are concerned.

But, being gay is not a sin or disease that needs to be fixed or cured as any part of what you term "the curative reach of the Atonement", IMO.  

You may believe it is and you're certainly entitled to your own opinion regarding that.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Val, when you talk to God do you use your sexuality as a talking point or as a necessary part of your identity? That is what I was trying to get at - I have never once talked with our Father in Heaven feeling compelled to inform him that he was required to first see me as a straight man. The parameters are how do I become like thee rather than anything else. Demanding that he accept me and my choice of behavior was never been part of the equation.

I demand nothing of God. God doesn't care about my sexual orientation or who I choose to faithfully commit to. He is simply concerned that I'm my best self and use the gifts he's given me to His glory.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Calm said:

He stated "be ye therefore perfect".  That is pretty straightforward. 

 Where does he say your interpretation above? (Serious question, I would like to see the reasoning)

(I don't think he is expecting us to be perfect in mortality though he doesn't say that, but eternity when it becomes possible, yes)

Then perhaps we should ask Jesus exactly what he meant by perfect rather than attempting to project a 21st century understanding of a word.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Then perhaps we should ask Jesus exactly what he meant by perfect rather than attempting to project a 21st century understanding of a word.

I have no problem with saying we can’t know what he meant simply from the text. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I honestly don't have any hope for the LDS church which also means I'm probably wasting my time discussing a subject that will never have peace and also will never provide a solution. Perhaps I'll soften my critique when the church humbles itself and softens its heart. The church can keep its standards and I'll keep my humanity and dignity.

Sounds like an amicable divorce in which the parties keep their distance, despite mutual contempt.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, california boy said:

This is in reference to the idea Elder Haden has that when gay people die they will become straight.  You have to be married to a woman if you are a gay guy in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

I don't know whether objectifying our earthly preferences and transferring them to heaven applies to any of this. Particularly if LDS theology is not acceptable anyhow.

What this discussion does point up, however, is the odd notion that sexuality should be placed front and center.  Is that really what exaltation is all about?  Or should it be an afterthought?  And what of us ordinary mortals who get to the other side and find ourselves in non-sexual status as ministering angels, or as denizens of the terrestrial or telestial glories?  Sounds pretty genderless to me.  Maybe, just maybe, we ought to place our real values elsewhere.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I figured out a long time ago, despite reluctance to accept it, that the church doesn't want nor need me to be a part of it. 

Sounds like you find yourself an ineluctable part of Mormon culture.  Reminds me of the sadness of "the Chosen" in having to leave behind his ultra-Orthodox Jewish community (Chaim Potok, The Chosen), which was a true story.  Perhaps you ought to write a novel about it as a way to exorcise the Mormon ghosts.  Otherwise they will continue to haunt you.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

However, I also believe that the Atonement is conditional, so far as each person’s individual sins are concerned.

But, being gay is not a sin or disease that needs to be fixed or cured as any part of what you term "the curative reach of the Atonement", IMO.  

So you accept that the Atonement is infinite and eternal in its reach (which is clearly taught by Latter-day prophets), but you reject that sexual behaviour outside of male/female marriage is contrary to God's plan of happiness (which is also clearly taught by Latter-day prophets). This sounds to me not so much that Church doctrine is unclear without further revelation but rather that you disagree with one important aspect of Church doctrine. Does it make sense to you that those of us who don't reject the second teaching don't see any lack of clarity (or need for further revelation) on this point?

Personally, I revel in the fact that Christ is eager and able to redeem and perfect me after the manner of His own perfection. I have no interest in being the butterfly who so thoroughly identifies as a pupa that he cannot be convinced to leave his chrysalis.

Quote

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What this discussion does point up, however, is the odd notion that sexuality should be placed front and center.  Is that really what exaltation is all about?

The absolute oddness is compounded when we consider that fixed, gendered sexual identity -- including, importantly, so-called 'heterosexuality'* -- has a known and relatively recent genealogy. Why would we assume that exaltation will consist of late 19th-century social constructs that temporarily gained ascendance in certain Western and Western-influenced cultures in the early 21st century?

-----

* On this point, nearly all of us are in equal need of the curative power of the Atonement: 'And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out'.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment

Rick Phillips, “Saints in Zion, Saints in Babylon: Religious Pluralism and the Transformation of Mormon Culture,” doctoral dissertation (Rutgers Univ., 2001).  Online at https://www.academia.edu/9832129/Saints_in_Zion_Saints_in_Babylon_Religious_Pluralism_and_the_Transformation_of_Mormon_Culture?email_work_card=title .

Rick Phillips, Saints in Zion, Saints in Babylon: Religious Pluralism and the Transformation of Mormon Culture (CreateSpace, 2014).

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'd rather be gay in the deepest pit of hell than a gay turned straight man in heaven.

I see zero evidence in the sum total of scripture that Jesus the Christ was ever a 'straight man' as that term is generally understood. When He instructed us what manner of men to be, He set Himself as the model, not Hugh Hefner.

Regarding the first part of your assertion, however, the Plan of Salvation is designed to deliver to people their deepest desires, including -- and I absolutely love this part! -- allowing us to change our minds. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know whether objectifying our earthly preferences and transferring them to heaven applies to any of this. Particularly if LDS theology is not acceptable anyhow.

What this discussion does point up, however, is the odd notion that sexuality should be placed front and center.  Is that really what exaltation is all about?  Or should it be an afterthought?  And what of us ordinary mortals who get to the other side and find ourselves in non-sexual status as ministering angels, or as denizens of the terrestrial or telestial glories?  Sounds pretty genderless to me.  Maybe, just maybe, we ought to place our real values elsewhere.

I absolutely agree with you.  When I read you post, I though of the requirements of becoming a member of the Church given in Mosiah 18

 

Quote

 

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are adesirous to come into the bfold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

9 Yea, and are awilling to mourn with those that bmourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as cwitnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the dfirst resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being abaptized in the bname of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a ccovenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

 

These seem like the real values one should have when desiring to join the followers of Christ.  If I was to request baptism, the interview would go something like this.

 

Church:  Are you willing to bear one another's. burdens that they might be light?

Me:  Yes

Church:  How about mourn and comfort those that need comfort?

Me: Yes

Church:  Will you stand as a witness of God at all times and all places?

Me: Yes.

Church:  And are you gay and in love with another man.

Me Yes

Church.  Well sorry that is a no starter.  You can't enter baptism when you are with another man.

Me:  I am gay, who do you expect me to love?

Church:  Either a woman or no one.

Me:  Having sex with a woman creeps me out.

Church:  Just get married to a woman, everything will work out.

Me: I tried that for over 20 years because you promised me I would no longer be gay. 

Church:  Well you didn't try hard enough.

Me:  Seriously?  I want to bear one another's burdens, mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that need comfort, I want to give to those that thirst and serve those that are in prison.  I want to be more charitable.  I want to visit the sick and help lift those that need God in their lives.

Church:  Sorry,  Being with a guy trumps all those.  You are out.  Those are our rules and we know God would never want you to be a part of His Church if you want to love another man.  And you are not getting into heaven unless things change as well.  So don't think you can just hold out until after you die.  You are NEVER being a part of God's Church.  Good luck.  Let us know if anything changes.

 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I demand nothing of God. God doesn't care about my sexual orientation or who I choose to faithfully commit to. He is simply concerned that I'm my best self and use the gifts he's given me to His glory.

I don't think of God as a cheerleader on the sideline cheering us on so that we can be as good as we want to be. It makes me think of the Savior when he said, "Come, follow me." There is an invitation to go to him; there is a specific direction to go. Yes, he rejoices in our obeience, but the idea of, "You just be you" is foreign to scripture and to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The scripture seems to direct us to die to ourselves that we might arise a new creature, a new man in the Lord. How does that play into your thinking?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you accept that the Atonement is infinite and eternal in its reach (which is clearly taught by Latter-day prophets), but you reject that sexual behaviour outside of male/female marriage is contrary to God's plan of happiness (which is also clearly taught by Latter-day prophets). This sounds to me not so much that Church doctrine is unclear without further revelation but rather that you disagree with one important aspect of Church doctrine. Does it make sense to you that those of us who don't reject the second teaching don't see any lack of clarity (or need for further revelation) on this point?

I think the disagreement is that you seem to be saying that to become perfect, you need to be cured of being gay like it’s a defect or illness.  Not whether only certain sins (behaviors) are covered by the atonement. 

Different opinions have been expressed on that and we all won’t agree.  We do agree that sins need to be repented of as part of the atonement, just not that being gay is a disease that needs to be cured after this life in order to be perfect.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...