Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rivers

Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God

Recommended Posts

17 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.

I wish I could give thumbs ups again.  What a good post and point, pogi.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?  

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?  

In all your examples, the Church is not doing the excluding. The Church’s mission is not to exclude gay people from the grace of Christ, but to invite everyone to partake and describe how that is done. Defining or identifying one’s sexuality has nothing to do with that mission. People need to know what is expected and then decide what they will do, but the Lord asks us to make these choices based on personal revelation, not our sexuality. Absent such personal revelation and choices, they can participate and be fellowshipped on an appropriate level.

Have you been officially pushed out or told you cannot participate fully due to your soul's deeply held thoughts and feelings? Or is that more a social or cultural matter in whcih you have settled into a working compromise with your fellow saints in how you interact?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, CV75 said:

In all your examples, the Church is not doing the excluding. The Church’s mission is not to exclude gay people from the grace of Christ, but to invite everyone to partake and describe how that is done.

Well forgive me, but what you describe as the church not excluding is in my mind by definition excluding.  I suppose you can say and believe that it's not the Church that's doing it but God, but either way, one is excluded.  According to Mormonism God will exclude many from exaltation too.  So I"m not sure why this is a sticking point.  

Just now, CV75 said:

Defining or identifying one’s sexuality has nothing to do with that mission. People need to know what is expected and then decide what they will do, but the Lord asks us to make these choices based on personal revelation, not our sexuality. Absent such personal revelation and choices, they can participate and be fellowshipped on an appropriate level.

Ok.  That's kind of what I meant by saying members can talk to them and be nice to them.  But ultimately LGBT folks are excluded and there's not much members can do to change that exclusion if policy, teaching and practice can't change.  

Just now, CV75 said:

 

Have you been officially pushed out or told you cannot participate fully due to your soul's deeply held thoughts and feelings? Or is that more a social or cultural matter in whcih you have settled into a working compromise with your fellow saints in how you interact?

There's no need to get into it.  It has nothing to do with how I interact, or have interacted, as far as I know.  It is largely I cannot accept many of the official teachings, policies and positions of the church, because of how I feel and think.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  He's talking out of his caboose.  

 

47 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?  

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?  

The 'church' isn't the one who changes.  It is the individual who will change, that is, if they want all that the Father offers.

D&C 130:20-21  "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."  It seems to be very popular these days for people to not want to submit to the will of God; they chafe at his requirements and insist that the Church must accommodate the changing views of society and if they don't, they are wrong and must eventually give in-- but this simply is not true, it is, imo, the mists of darkness that Satan uses to confuse us.  For a marriage to meet the requirements God has placed for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, it needs to be between a man and a woman and it must take place in a Temple, performed by proper authority.  That's the first step, but it is crucial.  Anything else is right off, invalid and you can't build on a foundation of sand.  I see no way for gay marriage to be acceptable as a way to exaltation, in this life and I think the Church must uphold this standard.  But, I put my trust in a just and loving God to sort it out in the next.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

Anyone that believes God can take any inherently deeply flawed human being and refine/gift them through the Atonement into exaltation material.

If God can purge the highly biologically triggered practically uncontrollable*** lust that is in so many of our hearts (straight or not), why couldn't he refine us in a way that we are attracted to the individual's qualities that have less to do with gender and more to do with how we are charitable?

***in terms of just popping up when we see someone we are highly physically attracted to, I think we can control our response to that initial reaction

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, alter idem said:

 

The 'church' isn't the one who changes.  It is the individual who will change, that is, if they want all that the Father offers.

D&C 130:20-21  "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."  It seems to be very popular these days for people to not want to submit to the will of God; they chafe at his requirements and insist that the Church must accommodate the changing views of society and if they don't, they are wrong and must eventually give in-- but this simply is not true, it is, imo, the mists of darkness that Satan uses to confuse us.  For a marriage to meet the requirements God has placed for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, it needs to be between a man and a woman and it must take place in a Temple, performed by proper authority.  That's the first step, but it is crucial.  Anything else is right off, invalid and you can't build on a foundation of sand.  I see no way for gay marriage to be acceptable as a way to exaltation, in this life and I think the Church must uphold this standard.  But, I put my trust in a just and loving God to sort it out in the next.

Thank you Alter idem.  You have helped to buttress up my point.  

People are most certainly excluded and from the point of view of members that exclusion is happening because the other people who are excluded don't know God and don't know the truth...kind of stuff.  Of course from an outsiders perspective that is just trying to explain why the exclusion is happening.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Rivers said:

I often hear talk about how the Church needs to be more inclusive rather than exclusive.  And I am all for inclusiveness.  Jesus was all about being inclusive to everybody.   We, as the body of Christ, can always do better.  

But when it comes to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, things get complicated.  According to our theology, sexual relations are forbidden outside marriage. We also believe that marriage, by definition, is the union of male and female.  Thus homosexual relations are always wrong.  That is a rule members of the Church must follow.  It's part of the buy-in to be a Latter-day Saint.  And you can argue that it is a stupid and unfair rule.  Regardless its the rule and its not changing.  

So given that fact that the theology is what it is and it isn't changing, is there anything more we can do policy-wise to be more inclusive?  I'm all ears.  I know that we can start by simply not being jerks.  But are there any policy changes that could help?

Things only get complicated because the Church interprets the gospel of Christ as exclusionary. So if "Jesus was all about being inclusive to everybody" yet the church excludes people, then it gets sticky. Either your statement about Christ is wrong, or the church's understanding of Christ's gospel is wrong.

IMO- most of what the church does around this issue is policy and could change. For example, the way the church requires "worthiness" prior to participation in many activities purposely excludes those who are "unworthy" according to the standards (policies of the church). Does Jesus say that a person must prove worthiness prior to being able to teach a class or speak in church? Or is that a policy? Does Jesus say that a person must be "worthy" according to current church standards prior to being allowed to exercise priesthood, partake of the sacrament, (I know there will be disagreement on this but from my perspective, these worthiness issues are church policies, not unchanging doctrines of Jesus)?

IMO-  the way the church defines and enforces worthiness standards is a series of policies that exclude others, including lgbtq. I suspect they are policies enacted in good faith based on current interpretations of doctrines, but interpretations change over time, and therefore so do worthiness standards, and therefore levels of allowed participation. This would be true of issues such as race and priesthood, word of wisdom, divorce, even SSA. I don't see why the church couldn't allow LGBTQ members to participate fully in church organizations, teaching, speaking, praying etc, except for the church's hyper-focus on "worthiness".

I know that most people here will defend the church's worthiness requirements as being sanctioned by God, but I'm suggesting that maybe the church could change in this basic understanding and practice. If people are excluded, it's only because the church intends for them to be excluded. Then it's up to each individual to choose whether or not they believe Jesus is exclusionary or if the church is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well forgive me, but what you describe as the church not excluding is in my mind by definition excluding.  I suppose you can say and believe that it's not the Church that's doing it but God, but either way, one is excluded.  According to Mormonism God will exclude many from exaltation too.  So I"m not sure why this is a sticking point.  

Ok.  That's kind of what I meant by saying members can talk to them and be nice to them.  But ultimately LGBT folks are excluded and there's not much members can do to change that exclusion if policy, teaching and practice can't change.  

There's no need to get into it.  It has nothing to do with how I interact, or have interacted, as far as I know.  It is largely I cannot accept many of the official teachings, policies and positions of the church, because of how I feel and think.  

I’m saying it’s you, that you are self-excluding. The Church has not excluded you based on your sexual orientation, and she will include you irrespective of your using it as a basis of inclusion or self-exclusion. Your participation is voluntary and is a full or partial as your willingness to engage.

You keep focusing on sexuality as the driver for decision-making, whether by the Church or by the individual, when it is irrelevant.

From what I can tell, you are excluding the Church (whether fully or partially) because you cannot accept many of the official teachings, policies and positions, and because of how you feel and think. When someone makes his sexuality the basis of choice, he is misunderstanding the official teachings, policies and positions of the Church.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, stemelbow said:

Thank you Alter idem.  You have helped to buttress up my point.  

People are most certainly excluded and from the point of view of members that exclusion is happening because the other people who are excluded don't know God and don't know the truth...kind of stuff.  Of course from an outsiders perspective that is just trying to explain why the exclusion is happening.  

You think I buttressed your point?  Was your point that you, Stemelbow, have all the power within yourself to be make choices which are obedient to the will of God in this matter?  Each of us was sent here to earth to exercise agency, to choose.  Your choices determine the outcome for yourself.  If you choose to be obedient to the Laws of God, then you will receive the blessings that pertain to those laws.  The Gospel teaches that all will have the opportunity to choose, even those who 'don't know God and don't know the truth'.  They will one day, and they will be able to choose and enjoy all blessings.  Like the parable of the workers, it doesn't matter if you find out the truth in the morning, the afternoon, or the evening of the day you are invited to labor, you will receive the reward.  God has decreed it.  I don't know how it works in the next life, but as I said, I trust that God is what he claims to be, a loving, perfectly just Heavenly Father.  With the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be redeemed and become like them.  God does not excludes anyone, they choose to exclude themselves.

A person who is gay and knows the laws of God, excludes him/herself from his blessings, if they decide to act on their sexual impulses which God has called 'sin' and if they do not repent. If they are obedient to his laws, if they accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and do his will, then they will receive all that God has to offer, just like anyone else.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

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

There are probably a number of teachings of qualities we will need to leave on the altar that are very offensive to many, especially in cultures that don't have the same typical,standards as Christians do (though I suspect when Christians get to the spirit world, they will find out  some of their treasured attributes need to be purged as part of the natural man).  I can imagine someone who has lived their life elevating competiveness to an art form might be offended if told that was not a quality they could carry with them into exaltation.  Others perhaps their ability to manipulate to get their way....

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m saying it’s you, that you are self-excluding. The Church has not excluded you based on your sexual orientation, and she will include you irrespective of your using it as a basis of inclusion or self-exclusion. Your participation is voluntary and is a full or partial as your willingness to engage.

 

You keep focusing on sexuality as the driver for decision-making, whether by the Church or by the individual, when it is irrelevant.

 

From what I can tell, you are excluding the Church (whether fully or partially) because you cannot accept many of the official teachings, policies and positions, and because of how you feel and think. When someone makes his sexuality the basis of choice, he is misunderstanding the official teachings, policies and positions of the Church.

 

That's simply isn't correct unless you define "willingness to engage" as "proving yourself worthy" to church standards prior to actually engaging.

A willingness to engage would be a person coming to church wanting to participate in prayer, lessons, sacrament, etc. Perhaps they want to engage by serving others and having a calling like everyone else. But just because they are willing to engage in participation, doesn't mean they'll be allowed to participate. You'd agree with that, right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

You think I buttressed your point?  Was your point that you, Stemelbow, have all the power within yourself to be make choices which are obedient to the will of God in this matter?  Each of us was sent here to earth to exercise agency, to choose.  Your choices determine the outcome for yourself.  If you choose to be obedient to the Laws of God, then you will receive the blessings that pertain to those laws.  The Gospel teaches that all will have the opportunity to choose, even those who 'don't know God and don't know the truth'.  They will one day, and they will be able to choose and enjoy all blessings.  Like the parable of the workers, it doesn't matter if you find out the truth in the morning, the afternoon, or the evening of the day you are invited to labor, you will receive the reward.  God has decreed it.  I don't know how it works in the next life, but as I said, I trust that God is what he claims to be, a loving, perfectly just Heavenly Father.  With the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be redeemed and become like them.  God does not excludes anyone, they choose to exclude themselves.

A person who is gay and knows the laws of God, excludes him/herself from his blessings, if they decide to act on their sexual impulses which God has called 'sin' and if they do not repent. If they are obedient to his laws, if they accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and do his will, then they will receive all that God has to offer, just like anyone else.

If a person is willing to follow the rules of the club, the club will accept them. If they don't follow the rules, the club won't accept them. It's pretty basic.

What I don't understand, is how/why people claim that the club isn't excluding people. They absolutely are. One might argue that the exclusion is proper, warranted, righteous, to which we can debate. But claiming that it isn't exclusionary seems pretty silly.

It's almost as if people are afraid to admit the obvious, which is that the church excludes many people for various reasons, including LGBTQ individuals. If that's what a person believes is godly, then they should own it. But it a person believes the exclusion isn't godly, then they should fight for more inclusion ;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is an interesting thing to say, but what gay couple has been escorted out of Church meetings? The excommunication of gay couples is not because the partners are gay. Where does it say that either action ensures the exaltation of other couples? There is no revelation on what happens to anyone vis-a-vis their sexual orientation, so i don't understand what you mean. What would you say are the requirements for exaltation?

I didn't say that a gay couple couldn't sit in church.  I only said they couldn't be a part of the Church.  And yeah, they are excommunicated because they are gay and partners.  

As I understand Church doctrine, one must be married to the opposite sex to be exalted, as in enter the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom..  No temple covenants.  No Sealings.   Do you disagree with this?  If this is a fundamental requirement, then no gay married partners would be allowed in the Celestial Kingdom.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So no amount of change in LDS policy has any meaning for you?  The LDS can never obtain forgiveness?  So it is not true that "The LDS Church previously taught that same-sex attraction is a curable condition, but now states that 'individuals do not choose to have such attractions'."  And it is not true that "In April 2019, . . . the LDS Church reversed the controversial November 2015 policy."  Do you know about the reversal of the November Policy, or should I explain it to you?

So it is not true that "in 2015, top LDS leaders worked alongside LGBTQ advocates and Utah lawmakers to pass a statewide non-discrimination bill that protects LGBTQ people in housing and employment, while offering exemptions for churches and other religious-liberty protections" (https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saint ).  Nothing like that has even been discussed?

Mormons bad.  At least he's consistent on that issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Being in favor of something is quite different from tolerating something.  The LDS Church obviously stands against drinking booze as well as against same sex marriage, but has given up on Prohibition -- which did not work -- and accepted the notion of regulation of booze, even in Utah.  My impression is that the Church likewise does not oppose civil same sex marriage by non-members, even though it once did so.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Being in favor of something is quite different from tolerating something.  The LDS Church obviously stands against drinking booze as well as against same sex marriage, but has given up on Prohibition -- which did not work -- and accepted the notion of regulation of booze, even in Utah.  My impression is that the Church likewise does not oppose civil same sex marriage by non-members, even though it once did so.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

I read Elder Oaks' statements on the subject to be in the nature of:  "We are living in Babylon now and henceforth will have very little ability to affect changes to/preservation of the Good, as much as that pains us -- "

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Can you point to a declared revelation on the matter?  

Probably nothing that’s going to satisfy <you.> But in the sense that any inspired teaching from a general priesthood leader acting in the authority of his calling is tantamount to declaring the mind of the Lord, yes I can. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Being in favor of something is quite different from tolerating something.  The LDS Church obviously stands against drinking booze as well as against same sex marriage, but has given up on Prohibition -- which did not work -- and accepted the notion of regulation of booze, even in Utah.  My impression is that the Church likewise does not oppose civil same sex marriage by non-members, even though it once did so.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

“Does not oppose” is a far cry from advocating in favor of. I still say it is highly misleading to imply that the Church supports gay marriage in the sense that it supports equality in housing opportunity. 

Ask yourself this question: If a judicial ruling were to come along that overturns Obergefell** in favor of letting the individual states decide the matter, do you really think the Church would oppose that ruling?

**This is not so far-fetched as we might at first suppose. All my adult life, I have viewed Roe v. Wade as being a done deal. Now, it is apparently in such jeopardy that Democrats in the Senate were quite eager to assassinate the character of Brett Kavenaugh because they were convinced he presents a threat to the abortion-enabling ruling of a generation ago. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

If a person is willing to follow the rules of the club, the club will accept them. If they don't follow the rules, the club won't accept them. It's pretty basic.

What I don't understand, is how/why people claim that the club isn't excluding people. They absolutely are. One might argue that the exclusion is proper, warranted, righteous, to which we can debate. But claiming that it isn't exclusionary seems pretty silly.

It's almost as if people are afraid to admit the obvious, which is that the church excludes many people for various reasons, including LGBTQ individuals. If that's what a person believes is godly, then they should own it. But it a person believes the exclusion isn't godly, then they should fight for more inclusion ;) 

It's your choice to dismiss the Gospel of Jesus Christ as some kind of 'club'; I'm sorry you see it that way and considering your perception, I don't expect you to understand.  As such, I can see why you think it's exclusionary.  I don't see it that way, because I know by faith that God makes requirements of his children.  He requires that we live the 10 commandments, he requires that we complete certain ordinances in this life and he makes certain requirements on how we behave toward each other and how we live our lives.  But given our ability to choose, we all can meet  these requirements(for some it will be harder than for others, there's no question), if we choose to--therefore, it's not exclusionary. God does not exclude anyone by making requirements that certain people are incapable of meeting.  2 Nephi 26:33 tells us that the Lord does not exclude anyone, all are alike and all are invited to 'come unto him' none are excluded; but yet, verse 33 right before says that the Lord give commandments.   Living the Commandments are part of those requirements, but we're all can choose, God does not force.

I think many don't have a testimony of God being the author of these requirements (regardless of the scriptures, since they are considered suspect as well) and they perceive the church as a man-made organization which has simply made up these requirements and claimed they come from God.  For anyone who believes this, we're not going to be able to find common ground.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So no amount of change in LDS policy has any meaning for you?  The LDS can never obtain forgiveness?  So it is not true that "The LDS Church previously taught that same-sex attraction is a curable condition, but now states that 'individuals do not choose to have such attractions'."  And it is not true that "In April 2019, . . . the LDS Church reversed the controversial November 2015 policy."  Do you know about the reversal of the November Policy, or should I explain it to you?

I think I was pretty clear in what I meant.

Quote

  You can't just wipe out Prop 8 and the Oct policy with a rainbow pin and a hug.  I would be much more impressed if the Church made a stance against businesses from discriminating against gay couples, but I doubt that is even being discussed.  

I didn't mean to imply this was how I felt about the Church. I was commenting on what I believe would be required to make LGBT couples welcome in the church.  I don't think the church has ever said they regret any of the actions they have taken against the LGBT community.  Do you even think the Church regrets prop 8 or the Oct policy?  Do you think the LGBT community views the Church as a Church that welcomes gay families?

 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So it is not true that "in 2015, top LDS leaders worked alongside LGBTQ advocates and Utah lawmakers to pass a statewide non-discrimination bill that protects LGBTQ people in housing and employment, while offering exemptions for churches and other religious-liberty protections" (https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saint ).  Nothing like that has even been discussed?

I didn't say the Church has done nothing to help the LGBT community.  I am well aware of their effort to help pass legislation to protect LGBT in housing and employment discrimination.  Is that enough for most people in the LGBT community to feel like the Church is welcoming to gay families?  Robert, do you sincerely believe the Church is welcoming and inclusive  towards gay families??

Do you think the Church supports discrimination by businesses based on religious beliefs?  Didn't the Church file a legal brief supporting businesses right to discriminate against the LGBT community?

This thread is asking what would make gay people feel more inclusive.  Do you think they should feel welcomed because they helped pass anti discrimination legislation on employment and housing, while excommunicating them when they get married?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

What bases do you have in common with her members that would make you want to be included in the Church as well as the gay community? Are political alignments really that essential?

A belief in Christ.  But if I wanted to join any religious group to worship with them, I would want to feel like I could be a part of their community.  Since the Church doesn't allow me and my partner to be a member, then the decision to join is not really my decision to make.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, california boy said:

This thread is asking what would make gay people feel more inclusive.  Do you think they should feel welcomed because they helped pass anti discrimination legislation on employment and housing, while excommunicating them when they get married?

Well of course they won't feel welcome, but they were the ones who made the choice to get married. I can't think of anything else the Church can do, short of changing main doctrines, that would make them feel more welcome. Making them feel more welcome will have to come from the individual members. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours 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.)

Single people will not be exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  They will become administrating angels according to Mormon doctrine, unless that has changed.  If being married to an opposite sex partner is not a requirement for exaltation, then why doesn't the Church allow gay couples to be members?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours 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?

On whose authority did Elder Hafen make this statement?  A revelation from God?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, california boy said:
3 hours 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?

On whose authority did Elder Hafen make this statement?  A revelation from God?

He didn't say. I would suppose you might categorize it under spiritually inspired logical thinking.

  • Like 1

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...