Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rivers

Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Nope.  Not if change if off the table.  if the position is anyone who is LGBT should be excluded, then I don't see how you can be inclusive.  You can be nice and smile and talk to them, but they'll not be able to participate in church fully and will thus be excluded by definition.  

The Church's position is not that anyone who is LGBT be excluded from full participation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Then basically the Church has to just write off anyone who is gay as not being eligible for exaltation.  There is no promise that if you are gay, you will be straight after you die.  And even if such a promise was given, who would believe it?  We all remember previous promises of becoming straight if you just marry a woman.  Maybe discarding  all gay children of God is an acceptable gospel stance to take.  It seems like the church is willing to make that their position even in absence of ANY direct revelation on what happens to someone who is gay.  

The gays will join the rest of the 99% people in the world and be happy in heaven, haha!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Church's position is not that anyone who is LGBT be excluded from full participation.

So, for instance, a married gay man (that is married to another man) can fully participate in church?  

A transgendered married (married to one who is of the same gender as the transgender was born as) person, too, can fully participate?

Someone who has sexual relations with both male and female can fully participate?

A lesbian who, says, lives with her girlfriend can fully participate? 

That covers those letters.  If not, then what do you mean?  Do you mean someone who is a gay man, married to a woman and yet not acting on his gay feelings can fully participate?  Well, ok.  But I thought the Church distinguished from one who is gay and one who struggles with same-sex attraction?  

As it is I can't fully participate in Church, am excluded, and I don't fall on the LGBT spectrum.  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was speaking solely of civil liberties for gay people, which the LDS Church supports.  Sorry I was unclear.

Accepting something as the rule of law is not the same as approving of it. Heterosexual cohabitation outside of marriage is no longer unlawful in most locales these days, yet we don’t approve of it. 

The Church has advocated for equal housing and employment opportunity for gays. It has never advocated for gay marriage. Just the opposite, in fact. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, rpn said:

There will be single people in the celestial kingdom, and all of them somehow will be included in the government of eternity which is establish by family.    How can you claim your statement above as being church doctrine?   (And I quoted this out of CV75 quoting california boy.  So these aren't CV75's words.)

He said there is no exaltation without marriage between a man and a woman. And he is quite right. What you are describing is not exaltation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International said the following:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex." (Link to talk)

Which I suppose means during the Millennium they will no longer be gay and will be able to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex and eventually obtain exaltation in the highest kingdom of heaven.

Anyone have an opinion about this statement?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International said the following:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex." (Link to talk)

Which I suppose means during the Millennium they will no longer be gay and will be able to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex and eventually obtain exaltation in the highest kingdom of heaven.

Anyone have an opinion about this statement?

I wholeheartedly agree with it. 

Moreover, it reflects the expressed position of Church leaders on official platforms. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He said there is no exaltation without marriage between a man and a woman. And he is quite right. What you are describing is not exaltation. 

Exactly. I don’t care how your involved in heaven, but if you want to be like Christ then you must be exalted. To be exalted requires a legitimate marriage between man and women. The revelations state that there will be single angels In the celestial kingdom but have no increase, perhaps this is what the Lord was speaking of.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wholeheartedly agree with it. 

Moreover, it reflects the expressed position of Church leaders on official platforms. 

I agree as well, but I also see how this could be very offensive to some people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

I agree as well, but I also see how this could be very offensive to some people.

There is much about the doctrines of the gospel that some find offensive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:
12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wholeheartedly agree with it. 

Moreover, it reflects the expressed position of Church leaders on official platforms. 

I agree as well, but I also see how this could be very offensive to some people.

It would take someone with a lot of patience and faith to believe in this and to be able to wait for it to happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International said the following:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex." (Link to talk)

Which I suppose means during the Millennium they will no longer be gay and will be able to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex and eventually obtain exaltation in the highest kingdom of heaven.

Anyone have an opinion about this statement?

Sure.  He's talking out of his caboose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is much about the doctrines of the gospel that some find offensive. 

Indeed.  That was true from the beginning.  And at various times as doctrines proved too offensive to maintain, the Church was forced to change.  The two most obvious is polygamy and the priesthood ban.  I realize looking back now many would suggest those weren't doctrines, they were policies and practices.  But, I'd say that's well contradicted by history itself.  And of course doctrine happens to be a belief or set of beliefs held by the Church.  "it wasn't official", may come the cry but again, I'd say that's pretty well contradicted by the historic record as well.   

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wholeheartedly agree with it. 

Moreover, it reflects the expressed position of Church leaders on official platforms. 

Can you point to a declared revelation on the matter?  Or is it something that some day will be relegated to the mistaken assumptions by the leaders of our day--since they were so heavily influenced by the greater culture that they are a part of?

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wholeheartedly agree with it. 

Moreover, it reflects the expressed position of Church leaders on official platforms. 

While I also quite agree with the statement, many gay and lesbian people are anywhere from annoyed to utterly horrified at the sentiment that they might be attracted to a member of the opposite sex in the eternities. It is as if dying will take a huge aspect of their personality, rip it out, and put in a strange, new thing that's ... not them.

Though, for my own personal part, I don't think along those lines. I, frankly, don't expect to be attracted to other women. I expect there to be "attraction" to my wife and that there to be expressions of physical intimacy and affection, but I don't anticipate we'll have the biological urge to procreate with others that we feel in mortality and we so often confuse with "attraction". Does that position solve the conundrum of homosexual people facing the prospect that their mortal life partner will not be their "eternal companion"? No, not really. I don't know what the answer is, but if I suspect the answer to why  we choose an eternal companion during a period where we are the most ignorant, sinful, and know the smallest pool of individuals* will be part of the answer. To put it more bluntly, I don't think homosexual people really have any concept of what celestial companionship will entail. For that matter, I don't think the rest of us do either. While the "same sociality" that now exists will exist in the eternities (D&C 130:2), the "coupled with eternal glory" part of the equation could mean a lot.




* I expect that I know far, far, fewer women now than I did in my premortal life. What if the person who could have been my "perfect match" (whatever that means (and something I don't subscribe too)) was somebody who came to earth thousands of years prior? There is no way we would be sealed together.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wholeheartedly agree with it. 

Moreover, it reflects the expressed position of Church leaders on official platforms. 

Can you point to a declared revelation on the matter?  Or is it something that some day will be relegated to the mistaken assumptions by the leaders of our day--since they were so heavily influenced by the greater culture that they are a part of?

I think the following scripture would apply:
"Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.  (D&C 137: 7-9)

In the same sense all those (eg. gay people) who in their hearts desire exaltation and are worthy of it will not be denied. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So, for instance, a married gay man (that is married to another man) can fully participate in church?  

A transgendered married (married to one who is of the same gender as the transgender was born as) person, too, can fully participate?

Someone who has sexual relations with both male and female can fully participate?

A lesbian who, says, lives with her girlfriend can fully participate? 

That covers those letters.  If not, then what do you mean?  Do you mean someone who is a gay man, married to a woman and yet not acting on his gay feelings can fully participate?  Well, ok.  But I thought the Church distinguished from one who is gay and one who struggles with same-sex attraction?  

As it is I can't fully participate in Church, am excluded, and I don't fall on the LGBT spectrum.  

As you point out, there may be voluntary behaviors or beliefs that prevent someone such as yourself from receiving or keeping the ordinances and covenants. But being gay or having ssa (however you want to put it) -- or struggling with either -- is not one of them.

Partial participation, full participation and exclusion are three entirely different things. Saying that you cannot fully participate, ergo you are excluded, does not make sense. Have you been excommunicated? Even that is not exclusion since there is a means offered for you to be reinstated. You may be temporarily barred from certain activities and privileges until you decide to forsake whatever is holding you back. This honors your agency in choosing whether to fully participate. I know and know of LGBT and “not straight” individuals who fully participate.

I think it helps to identify primarily as a child of God, whether you are including, feeling the need to be included, or being included.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International said the following:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex." (Link to talk)

Which I suppose means during the Millennium they will no longer be gay and will be able to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex and eventually obtain exaltation in the highest kingdom of heaven.

Anyone have an opinion about this statement?

I think this is true but also very subjective since we can only surmise what '"normal" might be in an exalted context. With agency, covenant, charity and other godhead attributes  being the driving forces for exaltation, this will mean something different to the "not straight" person who keeps the temple marriage covenants in every respect, and thereby has a normal attraction, and the more carnally, sensually and devilishly-minded individual whose normal attraction is a function of other considerations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think the following scripture would apply:
"Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.  (D&C 137: 7-9)

In the same sense all those (eg. gay people) who in their hearts desire exaltation and are worthy of it will not be denied. 

Thanks, JAHS.  I'm curious what is meant by "this gospel" in the opening lines from the LORD?  

If what is meant is Jesus and HIm crucified, then I fear you are largely wrong in your interpretation, because as it were, many have died with some knowledge of that gospel and likely had a desire for exaltation.  Or would you say someone has to have knowledge of something more specific?  I mean the Church is many things and many have some knowledge of it, at the very least.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, JAHS.  I'm curious what is meant by "this gospel" in the opening lines from the LORD?  

If what is meant is Jesus and HIm crucified, then I fear you are largely wrong in your interpretation, because as it were, many have died with some knowledge of that gospel and likely had a desire for exaltation.  Or would you say someone has to have knowledge of something more specific?  I mean the Church is many things and many have some knowledge of it, at the very least.  

I wasn't necessarily interpreting that scripture I was simply saying that it implies that anyone who desires exaltation in their heart will not be denied. 
If those people don't have enough knowledge in this life they will get it in the next and can then obtain exaltation according to their desires.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

He followed up by saying:

“Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”[v]

In other words, this is his opinion.  It is not something we should be teaching as truth or doctrine.  The best, most honest answer we have is “I don’t know”.

An opinion from a leader in an official platform is still just an opinion.

I agree. I was simply asking what others here feel about that possibility. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As you point out, there may be voluntary behaviors or beliefs that prevent someone such as yourself from receiving or keeping the ordinances and covenants. But being gay or having ssa (however you want to put it) -- or struggling with either -- is not one of them.

That is my point.  The question was, as I understood it, how do members be more inclusive to those LGBT who supposedly behave, strive to behave in a way that excludes them?  Afterall, it appears the Church isn't going to change, was the OPs opinion, so those who behave as such to be excluded are excluded and there's nothing members can do about that exclusion.  As the OP suggests, they are excluded due to the doctrines already, and according to the OP those aren't changing (there's no discussion to be had in including them).  

If you suggest they can be included by dropping their heartful goals and desires, well, be my guest, but then you are counting on someone else changing.  

Let's assume this next Sunday you get a visitor in the ward.  He feels great about church on his visit and is pleased to announce at the end that he would like to become a member.  Unbeknownst to you and the other members he is a man who is married to another man and does not know of the Church's position assuming he is included as he is.  What conversation should missionaries and leaders have with him before he can be included, as it pertains to the topic of LGBT?  of course it would have to come down to him needing to give up his marriage, for starters, else he wouldn't be included at all.  Right?  

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Partial participation, full participation and exclusion are three entirely different things. Saying that you cannot fully participate, ergo you are excluded, does not make sense. Have you been excommunicated? Even that is not exclusion since there is a means offered for you to be reinstated. You may be temporarily barred from certain activities and privileges until you decide to forsake whatever is holding you back. This honors your agency in choosing whether to fully participate. I know and know of LGBT and “not straight” individuals who fully participate.

I think it helps to identify primarily as a child of God, whether you are including, feeling the need to be included, or being included.

No.  I haven't been excommunicated.  I'm excluded on the grounds of the welfare of my soul, and that which drives it.  That is my deep held thoughts and feelings exclude me to some extent.   How does the Church include people who are excluded to some extent more without the Church changing at all?  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

He followed up by saying:

“Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”[v]

In other words, this is his opinion.  It is not something we should be teaching as truth or doctrine.  The best, most honest answer we have is “I don’t know”.

An opinion from a leader in an official platform is still just an opinion.

And people have an opinion even when the statement is not an opinion, rendering it an opinion... So I think it serves everyone best to live so as to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost to help them out. "Normal" is a wonderful term, i think because it allows a broad range of subjective interpretation.

For example, we can only surmise what '"normal" might be in an exalted context. With agency, covenant, charity and other godhead attributes as the driving forces for exaltation, statements of doctrine like these will mean something different to the "not straight" person who keeps the temple marriage covenants in every respect and thereby enjoys a normal attraction, and the more carnally, sensually and devilishly-minded individual whose normal attraction is a function of other considerations and arguably less enjoyable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wasn't necessarily interpreting that scripture I was simply saying that it implies that anyone who desires exaltation in their heart will not be denied. 
If those people don't have enough knowledge in this life they will get it in the next and can then obtain exaltation according to their desires.

I'm not sure I"m seeing that in the passage you quoted.  It merely says "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel"  that is not suggesting anything but "a knowledge of" it doesn't say anything about enough knowledge of.   "who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry,"  This does not suggest that anyone who desires exaltation in their hearth will not be denied.  It says those who would have "received it [the gospel]"  I'm not sure what is this gospel, particularly, being referred to.  Do you?   "shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;"  Which is not necessarily exaltation--there are various levels of the celestial.  

"Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;"  It does not say there is some amount of knowledge of it, it merely suggests no knowledge of it.  So this doesn't appear to include anyone who has some knowledge of it.  But again, what is it?  

"For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.  (D&C 137: 7-9) "

Great.  

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...