Elder Gilbert, new Q12 member

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The challenge is that it is effectively impossible to square these things with the Restored Gospel,

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is difficult to have a preconceived, and strongly-held, position on this or that sociopolitical issue, and then reconcile it with the "big tent" concept where that position seemingly conflicts with the Church's clear guidance/doctrine.

Perhaps, then, we could say that the church is neither a big tent nor a small tent but more of a Goldilocks sized tent -- just the right size. Big enough to include the people who believe and practice the right things and small enough to exclude the people who believe and practice the wrong things.

Every church needs to decide just how "big" it wants its tent to be, and what boundaries will determine who is "in" and who is "out," and I don't know that there will ever be a universally accepted answer to those kinds of questions. Thus, we get a proliferation of different churches and denominations, each deciding to draw in and out boundaries differently. I don't know that this should be surprising. At this point, perhaps the controversy is as much about whether, as Pres. Oaks said this week, God really wants each of us to be an active participating member of the LDS church. I sometimes think that the real controversy isn't about big or small tents, but about the nature of "strait gates" and "narrow paths."

 

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, mbh26 said:

Were we to have a prophet like Pope Francis, I could be going through the same struggle.  

Would you care to elaborate? Why do you think you would struggle with a prophet like Pope Francis?

[Rain]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it would be helpful to create some parameters for the "big tent" / "small tent" concept.

I asked Grok: "Help me understand what Latter-day Saint leaders likely mean when they describe the Church as a 'big tent' organization."

The response:

Two parts of this stick out to me:

• The quoted statements from Elder Cook ("big tent for people of all racial and cultural backgrounds"), Pres. Uchtdorf ("Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church") and Pres. Nelson (urging members to “abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice” and make the Church a place of unity for everyone) seem to capture the essence of what the Church is referencing by "big tent."
• The "big tent" concept "is not a call for doctrinal pluralism ('believe {EDIT TO ADD} and do} whatever you want and still be fully in good standing')."

What stuck out to me:

It Does NOT Mean

• It is not a call for doctrinal pluralism (“believe whatever you want and still be fully in good standing”).

But also It Does NOT Mean:

• The tent has firm “poles”: faith in Jesus Christ, the restored gospel, living prophets, temple covenants, the law of chastity, Word of Wisdom, tithing, etc.

So it neither means a call for doctrinal pluralism nor the firm poles of Jesus Christ, living prophets, temple covenants etc.   

Grok says it means something in between believing whatever you want and believing in something firmly. 

 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Next query to Grok: "Now tell me what is likely meant when people, whether in or out of the Church, characterize it as a 'small tent' organization."

The response:

Third query to Grok:

The response:

"Aspirational sense" of "big tent."  That seems about right.  We may not yet be as "big tent"-ish as we aspire to be.  I hope we are moving in that direction.

"{A}nyone can enter who is willing to come unto Christ on His terms."  Yep.

For a lot of people these days, the Church's teachings on marriage, gender and Law of Chastity seem to create tension with personal worldviews pertaining to these aspects of the human condition.

"The tent shelters all who accept those poles."

"{S}inners receive healing through Christ, but healing requires following the prescribed treatment (repentance and obedience)." 

Yep.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps, then, we could say that the church is neither a big tent nor a small tent but more of a Goldilocks sized tent -- just the right size. Big enough to include the people who believe and practice the right things and small enough to exclude the people who believe and practice the wrong things.

Metaphors are nice that way.

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Every church needs to decide just how "big" it wants its tent to be, and what boundaries will determine who is "in" and who is "out," and I don't know that there will ever be a universally accepted answer to those kinds of questions.

Our lot, then, is to leave such things to the Lord and His servants.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

What stuck out to me:

It Does NOT Mean

• It is not a call for doctrinal pluralism (“believe whatever you want and still be fully in good standing”).

But also It Does NOT Mean:

• The tent has firm “poles”: faith in Jesus Christ, the restored gospel, living prophets, temple covenants, the law of chastity, Word of Wisdom, tithing, etc.

So it neither means a call for doctrinal pluralism nor the firm poles of Jesus Christ, living prophets, temple covenants etc.   

Grok says it means something in between believing whatever you want and believing in something firmly. 

I took this second bullet point and supplementing/complementing the first.

The Church as a "big tent" is "not a call for doctrinal pluralism" because the "tent has firm 'poles': faith in Jesus Christ," etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

I’m curious to what this “place” looks like that is said is available for those with “shaky and weak testimonies “.  That includes people with doubts and varying degrees of disbelief.  Anybody care to describe what they think that space would look like in this big tent?

[california boy]

On 2/15/2026 at 10:57 AM, BlueDreams said:

Yes, and when I was born my white rural idaho/oregon family still called my Nigerian father a negro. I was the first person of African ancestry said family met. My great-grandmother told me stories with a sambo doll in "black voice." My mother was the first one I knew IRL who confirmed a belief about the mark of Ham being Black skin....because she still believed it. I have witnessed and heard countless other stories around race and ethnicity in the church much of my life. Racial issues in the church has been just as, if not more, personal for me. Maybe because of it, I don't enjoy narrating "the church" with a singular and broad brush. Anymore than I would right my relatives in such tones. Nor am I going to hold people to what they may have believed 50 years ago. It sets up as much of a false narrative as it would to insist the church has never had issues around race and/or has arrived in terms of racial relations. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Probably wasting my time writing this.  I am glad things have improved for you and your family. I remember being taught all those attitudes and doctrine towards blacks as well. I also remember all those derogatory comments made towards those that are LGBT .  The name calling has subsided but attitudes have not.  What happens if a member brings a gay friend to a church dance?  What happens if they dance with that gay person if they are the same sex even if the member isn’t gay?  What happens if the member is gay?   What if they hold hands? Has anyone actually done anything immoral? Would that stop all the gossip like you experienced?
 

Can a married gay couple hold the priesthood?   Can they attend the temple?  Has there ever been a revelation on this doctrine or is it just “men of their time”

  The same type of men continue to run the church as we’re running it during its racist past.  
 

Being gay is the new black.  We just need our Spencer W Kimball to receive a revelation.  Probably not gonna happen for another generation 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Probably wasting my time writing this.  I am glad things have improved for you and your family. I remember being taught all those attitudes and doctrine towards blacks as well. I also remember all those derogatory comments made towards those that are LGBT .  The name calling has subsided but attitudes have not.  What happens if a member brings a gay friend to a church dance?  What happens if they dance with that gay person if they are the same sex even if the member isn’t gay?  What happens if the member is gay?   What if they hold hands? Has anyone actually done anything immoral? Would that stop all the gossip like you experienced?
 

Can a married gay couple hold the priesthood?   Can they attend the temple?  Has there ever been a revelation on this doctrine or is it just “men of their time”

  The same type of men continue to run the church as we’re running it during its racist past.  
 

Being gay is the new black.  We just need our Spencer W Kimball to receive a revelation.  Probably not gonna happen for another generation 

Based on ages with conservatives like Bednar and Gilbert likely leading the Church for long periods I wouldn't expect it at all.

Although if Uchtdorf takes the reigns briefly after Oaks his liberal viewpoint might slip it through.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Senator said:

I’m curious to what this “place” looks like that is said is available for those with “shaky and weak testimonies “.  That includes people with doubts and varying degrees of disbelief.  Anybody care to describe what they think that space would look like in this big tent?

I attend church services every Sunday.  I suspect there may be people in my ward who have "shaky and weak testimonies," who have "doubts and varying degrees of disbelief."  I don't really know which is which.  We all come, and we are all welcome.

An individual may go out of his way to broadcast his "doubts" or degree of "disbelief," but even then, he would be welcome.  We are all on a journey together, after all.

The calculus may change if and when an individual seeks to persuade others to join him in his doubts and disbelief, or sets himself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, or tears down the faith of others rather than build it up, or sows dissension and discord - rather than harmony and unity - in the Church.  Such a person would not be trying to strengthen or enlarge the tent, but to damage it, or even burn it down.  

I think we all know people who have gone through periods of doubt and disbelief.  Some of us have done so.  Hopefully, the momentum arising from years of effort at keeping our covenants will carry us through such turbulent times until we again find peace and solace in the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I remember being taught all those attitudes and doctrine towards blacks as well.

I don't.  Of course, I was 4 years old in 1978.  I do not recall hearing any disparaging remarks about black folks in a church setting.  I heard some at school and in my neighborhood.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I also remember all those derogatory comments made towards those that are LGBT.

Same with this.  I never heard derogatory comments in a church setting.  I did hear encouragement to keep the Law of Chastity.

Unfortunately, I heard some derogatory comments in school and in the neighborhood.  In hindsight, I had some friends and classmates who were gay, but did not broadcast or talk about it.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

The name calling has subsided but attitudes have not.  

Oh, I think things have changes a lot in the Church in the last many years.  A lot.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

What happens if a member brings a gay friend to a church dance?  

From the handbook, all people—including those who identify as gay or have same-sex attraction—are welcome to attend sacrament meetings, other Sunday meetings, and social events like dances. The emphasis is on creating a welcoming environment.  Identifying as gay or experiencing same-sex attraction isn't considered a sin and full participation in the Church (callings, temple attendance if living the law of chastity, etc.) is encouraged for those striving to keep covenants.

That said, the Church draws a clear line on behavior.  It teaches the Law of Chastity as sexual relations only between a man and woman who are legally and lawfully married. So "overt romantic behavior" (which could include things like prolonged holding hands, kissing, or anything seen as romantic/sexual in context) is discouraged at Church events for everyone, not just LGBTQ+ individuals.  The intent is about maintaining an atmosphere where the Spirit can be present and respecting age-appropriate guidelines. Dances are meant to be wholesome, with dress, grooming, lighting, styles, music and behaviors to be aligned with that.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

What happens if they dance with that gay person if they are the same sex even if the member isn’t gay?  What happens if the member is gay?   What if they hold hands? Has anyone actually done anything immoral? Would that stop all the gossip like you experienced?

If I as a married man took a woman other than my wife to a dance, and behaved romantically with her, that would be discouraged as inappropriate, as a deviation from another aspect of the Law of Chastity (and, for that matter, of basic notions of decorum and respect).

Generally, friends are welcome at social events. No official policy bars inviting non-member gay friends, and many wards/stakes are inclusive in that way.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Can a married gay couple hold the priesthood?

Couples do not "hold the priesthood."  Individuals do.

A person openly violating the Law of Chastity, regardless of sexual orientation, would face limitations on his/her membership.  See Section 32.6.2.5 of the Handbook.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Can they attend the temple?

A person openly violating the Law of Chastity, regardless of sexual orientation, would not be able to attend the temple.  See Section 32.6.2.5 of the Handbook.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Has there ever been a revelation on this doctrine or is it just “men of their time.”

You have asked this question many times over the years.

King Benjamin taught, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29).  Respectfully, I reject the notion that the Church can only be governed by "Thus Sayeth the Lord"-style published revelations.  The canonized scriptures are the foundation of our doctrine.  Here's an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

7 hours ago, california boy said:

The same type of men continue to run the church as we’re running it during its racist past.  

Being gay is the new black.  We just need our Spencer W Kimball to receive a revelation.  Probably not gonna happen for another generation 

I said this to you in 2021:

Quote

The "Law of Chastity" is an amalgam of various portions of scripture and counsel from modern prophets and apostles.

You have long relied on an anything-I-don't-like-in-the-teachings-of-the-Church-I-summarily-declare-to-be-manmade line of reasoning, helped along with a few healthy doses of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

There is no reasonable dispute about what the Church teaches regarding the Law of Chastity and marriage as being between a man and a woman.  None.  It's pretty easy to find in any number of places.  The Church's website.  Various church manuals.  For the Strength of Youth, and so on.

Now, is there a reasonable dispute about whether these things are - as you put it - "given by God?"  Sure.  But then, pretty much everything we believe is, in the end, a matter of faith and choice.

Positivism.  Fundamentalism.  Hyper-literalism.  Proof-texting.  Legalism.  These are your go-to resources whenever same-sex marriage and/or homosexual behavior comes up on this board.  But they just don't work.  Your insistent "Show me chapter and verse where God descended from heaven and prohibited homosexual behavior" legalisms just don't work, any more than, say, someone trying to argue that injecting heroin is okay since it's not itemized in the Doctrine & Covenants, or that pornography is acceptable because it is not specifically prohibited in the scriptures, and on and on and on.

I also understand that you draw a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like.  For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly.  For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule.  {EDIT TO ADD: And the OD-2 is the rule nullifying the exception.}
...
Broadly speaking, I think you conflate "doctrine" with "principles" and "applications," and this conflation doesn't work, either for you or as a framework for those who, like me, actually believe in these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[MrShorty]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Our lot, then, is to leave such things to the Lord and His servants.

"Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be." It's not quite fatalism, but it's something of an expression of powerlessness to cause change, so we must just accept whatever is. I agree that, for those of us at the grass roots, we must leave such things to the Lord and His servants, because we are not part of those governing councils and have no influence on those councils. I think the same thing could be said about Catholicism, the various flavors of Protestantism, and so on around the world of religion. The vast majority of us navigating the religious landscape cannot influence the leadership of individual tents, so we just leave God to sort out the tents while we choose which tent we find most comfortable -- ultimately trusting that God wouldn't let us choose a tent that is completely outside of His ability to influence and redeem.

As I've deconstructed/reconstructed this, what stands out to me is that God's tent seems to be larger than any church's tent. In which case, I tend to reflect on Is 54 where the church is told to "enlarge the place of [its] tent." If God's tent knows how to include and redeem people in all religions (and even LGBTQ+ people in same sex marriages or who transition genders), why should the church not seek to expand its boundaries to eventually include all of those whom God will redeem? Perhaps it is because it isn't possible? As so many conservative Christian commentators like to point out, those Christian tents that try to be too inclusive end up being "weak" tents. Perhaps there is something about the task of building churches that requires God to subdivide His tent into multiple smaller tents, and tolerate the inevitable contentious divisions that result?

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Probably wasting my time writing this

FWIW I’m always interested in what you have to say whether I agree with it or not.

[Senator]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I attend church services every Sunday.  I suspect there may be people in my ward who have "shaky and weak testimonies," who have "doubts and varying degrees of disbelief."  I don't really know which is which.  We all come, and we are all welcome.

An individual may go out of his way to broadcast his "doubts" or degree of "disbelief," but even then, he would be welcome.  We are all on a journey together, after all.

While idealistically this may be true, I suspect individual MMV. I don't know how ,in church settings,  one could express disagreements(disbelief) with certain church policies and or doctrines, which obviously includes statements from church leadership. My experience is that those that are in such a place, quickly learn to hold those thoughts close to the chest, lest he be seen as "going out of his way to broadcast his "doubts"  or degree of "disbelief"".  (speaking for friend :))

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Our lot, then, is to leave such things to the Lord and His servants.

"Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be." It's not quite fatalism, but it's something of an expression of powerlessness to cause change, so we must just accept whatever is.

A man has gotta know his limitations, even regarding things about which he has strong feelings.

It is not within my stewardship or province to administer the affairs of the Church.  I can express my viewpoint (if I did, I would do so privately and with decorum), but that's about it.  Fatalism is a form of inevitability thinking that denies meaningful influence, while realism is evidence-based acceptance that still leaves room for agency and hope within constraints.  I think the latter is more accurate than the former.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that, for those of us at the grass roots, we must leave such things to the Lord and His servants, because we are not part of those governing councils and have no influence on those councils. I think the same thing could be said about Catholicism, the various flavors of Protestantism, and so on around the world of religion. The vast majority of us navigating the religious landscape cannot influence the leadership of individual tents, so we just leave God to sort out the tents while we choose which tent we find most comfortable -- ultimately trusting that God wouldn't let us choose a tent that is completely outside of His ability to influence and redeem.

As I've deconstructed/reconstructed this, what stands out to me is that God's tent seems to be larger than any church's tent.

In a sense, yes.  The metaphor can only go so far.  I do not think the Lord has multiple "tents" in the world (insofar as tent = divinely-ordained institution containing the Lord's priesthood and helmed by the Lord's only Presiding High Priest), but I do think He can and does work with other groups and institutions and individuals far more than we Latter-day Saints may be prone to think.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In which case, I tend to reflect on Is 54 where the church is told to "enlarge the place of [its] tent." If God's tent knows how to include and redeem people in all religions (and even LGBTQ+ people in same sex marriages or who transition genders), why should the church not seek to expand its boundaries to eventually include all of those whom God will redeem?

I think because the Lord's Plan is to redeem us from our sins, not in them.

Helaman 5:10-11 ("And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins.  And he hath power given unto him from the Father to redeem them from their sins because of repentance; therefore he hath sent his angels to declare the tidings of the conditions of repentance, which bringeth unto the power of the Redeemer, unto the salvation of their souls."), 

Matthew 1:21 ("And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins."),

Alma 11:27, 34 ("And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins. ... And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word."),

Mosiah 15:26 ("But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.")

Heterosexuals who violate the Law of Chastity likewise face this issue.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps it is because it isn't possible?

"It" being what?  To invite people to come unto Christ without repenting of their sins?

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As so many conservative Christian commentators like to point out, those Christian tents that try to be too inclusive end up being "weak" tents.

Yep.  

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps there is something about the task of building churches that requires God to subdivide His tent into multiple smaller tents, and tolerate the inevitable contentious divisions that result?

Here's how I see it: God endows His children with agency, sends them to Earth, gives them prophets and apostles to testify of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and exhort us all to repent and obey God, and then let each individual's exercise of his agency play out.  And that playing out will inevitably result in some people choosing to not enter into the tent, or not stay in it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

individual may go out of his way to broadcast his "doubts" or degree of "disbelief," but even then, he would be welcome.

Unless they were oh so highly annoying, but then they could be the most devout member and they would be just as welcomed.  😛 

[The Nehor]

The verbal derogatory racist and homophobic comments have mostly left the Church. Treating black people and queer people as an “other” still persists.

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"It" being what?  To invite people to come unto Christ without repenting of their sins?

Sorry to be unclear. I meant impossible for a single church -- even one with divinely appointed leaders -- to be as all encompassing as God's tent.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think because the Lord's Plan is to redeem us from our sins, not in them.

How do you understand the distinction between "from" and "in?" My understanding is that God can only redeem us after some kind of repentance process that involves recognizing our sins and then repenting of them. I find that most church friendly discussion of the priesthood and temple ban, though, seem to promote the idea that 19th and 20th century leaders and members will be redeemed from their racist sins without ever recognizing or repenting of those sins. Theologically, we lean pretty heavily into beliefs that people can recognize and repent of sin after death to close this loophole. I guess it works, but, at least from the point of view of this life, their doesn't seem to be a lot of distinction between "from" and "in" when we insist that the 19th century church members and leaders' redemption is not seriously at risk.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

God endows His children with agency, sends them to Earth, gives them prophets and apostles to testify of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and exhort us all to repent and obey God, and then let each individual's exercise of his agency play out.  And that playing out will inevitably result in some people choosing to not enter into the tent, or not stay in it.

I think this is a decent summary. Perhaps only because it is a central part of my own deconstruction/reconstruction, but how completely does God make sure that His children "know" (or, at least, "strongly suspect") who the correct prophets and apostles are? How clearly do they understand what God has commanded so they know what commandments to obey? How clearly do people understand when they have violated divine commandments and need to repent? When people choose to enter or not into the church's tent, are they in possession of the knowledge that the church's tent is the only true tent (assuming it is the only true tent)? As I have studied the processes of discernment and epistemology, it seems pretty clear to me that there is always some uncertainty in everyone's ability to discern God's will, which handicaps people's ability to exercise their agency. This is a big part of why atonement is needed, and a big part of why I think that God's tent will always be bigger than any one church's tent. Amidst all of this uncertainty, good and sincere and well-intentioned people are going to choose incorrectly (assuming there are strict correct and incorrect choices). Since God, Himself, is often the gatekeeper of knowledge and testimony, it seems to me that some of this inherent uncertainty is intended to be a part of this process.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I find that most church friendly discussion of the priesthood and temple ban, though, seem to promote the idea that 19th and 20th century leaders and members will be redeemed from their racist sins without ever recognizing or repenting of those sins.

This is one reason why I believe the distinction between paradise and spirit prison is more a mortal concept than an eternal one born out of our need for categories and hierarchy. While baptism symbolically cleanses us of all sins, the first sinful thought (which might be as trivial as being resentful the heat isn’t turned up higher in the changing room) technically we have lost that purity the way our doctrine is taught, at least until we take the sacrament and then the process starts again.  I don’t see why God would remove all trace of sin before teaching us why something was a sin in the first place, how it was harming us and others.  To me that feels like being a puppet, without choice or awareness, not developing toward a purer, higher spiritual state.

And since all have sins of some sort (our cultures probably load us down with many we are not aware of or don’t realize are sins if we are aware of them) throughout our lives, there is a high likelihood we carried many with us into the next life, no matter who we were.  So people in paradise are going to be doing the same thing as people in Spirit Prison, learning the finer details of what is right and wrong and being cleansed of them in some fashion through the Atonement.  So except for the Hell side of things, I don’t see much difference between Spirit Prison and Paradise…it’s a time of learning about sins including selfawareness of our own, choosing to forsake the sins to draw closer to God and redemption for all.  
 

If there is a significant difference, I would see Paradise as being of those who possess additional tools for learning and forsaking of sins received through baptism, confirmation, and temple ordinances.  Perhaps also a mentality that predisposes us to accepting we have sins and desiring to be rid of them, but since I don’t have access to others’ inner thoughts and we appear to have plenty of arrogance in the Church as well as I’ve seen a lot of humility outside the Church, I have my doubts our predispositions in this area are any more advanced generally speaking than those outside  the Church.

Edited February 18 by Calm

[california boy]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

FWIW I’m always interested in what you have to say whether I agree with it or not.

I appreciate your comment more than you will know.  I don't expect everyone to agree with what I post.    That is not even the goal.  I just want to provide a viewpoint that maybe others haven't considered before or have a hard time recognizing.  I learn a lot from all of you, even those that I disagree with.  It is what I love about this forum.  I try to always do that in a respectful way.  

[california boy]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't.  Of course, I was 4 years old in 1978.  I do not recall hearing any disparaging remarks about black folks in a church setting.  I heard some at school and in my neighborhood.

Same with this.  I never heard derogatory comments in a church setting.  I did hear encouragement to keep the Law of Chastity.

Unfortunately, I heard some derogatory comments in school and in the neighborhood.  In hindsight, I had some friends and classmates who were gay, but did not broadcast or talk about it.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen.  And doesn't mean it was very hurtful.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I think things have changes a lot in the Church in the last many years.  A lot.

From the handbook, all people—including those who identify as gay or have same-sex attraction—are welcome to attend sacrament meetings, other Sunday meetings, and social events like dances. The emphasis is on creating a welcoming environment.  Identifying as gay or experiencing same-sex attraction isn't considered a sin and full participation in the Church (callings, temple attendance if living the law of chastity, etc.) is encouraged for those striving to keep covenants.

That said, the Church draws a clear line on behavior.  It teaches the Law of Chastity as sexual relations only between a man and woman who are legally and lawfully married. So "overt romantic behavior" (which could include things like prolonged holding hands, kissing, or anything seen as romantic/sexual in context) is discouraged at Church events for everyone, not just LGBTQ+ individuals.  The intent is about maintaining an atmosphere where the Spirit can be present and respecting age-appropriate guidelines. Dances are meant to be wholesome, with dress, grooming, lighting, styles, music and behaviors to be aligned with that.

If I as a married man took a woman other than my wife to a dance, and behaved romantically with her, that would be discouraged as inappropriate, as a deviation from another aspect of the Law of Chastity (and, for that matter, of basic notions of decorum and respect).

Generally, friends are welcome at social events. No official policy bars inviting non-member gay friends, and many wards/stakes are inclusive in that way.

You really can't see the difference between someone who is married and a teenager who is single?  Are you saying that it is a sin for a single person of either gender to hold hands or dance with someone?   Is that what you consider to be "overt romantic behavior" ?  That kinda explains a lot about your comments.  

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Couples do not "hold the priesthood."  Individuals do.

I am well aware that the church does not give the priesthood to women.  But that is not what I was talking about was I.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

A person openly violating the Law of Chastity, regardless of sexual orientation, would face limitations on his/her membership.  See Section 32.6.2.5 of the Handbook.

A person openly violating the Law of Chastity, regardless of sexual orientation, would not be able to attend the temple.  See Section 32.6.2.5 of the Handbook.

I was questioning why the Law of Chastity is not the same for straight couples as they are for gay couples and where that policy came from. 

 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have asked this question many times over the years.

King Benjamin taught, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29).  Respectfully, I reject the notion that the Church can only be governed by "Thus Sayeth the Lord"-style published revelations.  The canonized scriptures are the foundation of our doctrine.  Here's an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

I said this to you in 2021:

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah I remember all of those arguments used to support the priesthood ban.  How did that work out?  Were church leaders still right to ban support the ban because they could justify doing so in the same way you are doing here?

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

You really can't see the difference between someone who is married and a teenager who is single?  

Yes, I can see differences.  Marriage is a difference.  Age is a difference.

I also see similarities.  A Latter-day Saint engaging in same-sex behavior does so in violation of the Law of Chastity.  A Latter-day Saint who has sex outside of marriage also does so in violation of the Law of Chastity.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you saying that it is a sin for a single person of either gender to hold hands or dance with someone?

Is that what you consider to be "overt romantic behavior" ?  That kinda explains a lot about your comments.  

Same-sex romantic behavior is discouraged and/or prohibited for members of the Church who wish to remain in good standing in the Church, and who wish to obey the Law of Chastity. 

From the Church: 

Quote

Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. President M. Russell Ballard said: “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is.

And here (from the kerfuffle at BYU a few years ago about the Honor Code) :

Quote

“Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles in the honor code,” said the letter, which was written by Elder Paul V. Johnson, commissioner of the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
...
“Recently the language of the principle-based Church Educational System Honor Code was updated. Those adjustments included significant doctrinal and behavioral matters that have led to much discussion and some misinterpretation. Out of respect for all concerned, we are providing the following clarifying statement.

“One change to the honor code language that has raised questions was the removal of a section on ‘homosexual behavior.’ The moral standards of the church did not change with the recent release of the General Handbook or the updated honor code. There is and always has been more to living the Lord’s standard of a chaste and virtuous life than refraining from sexual relations outside of marriage. Lasting joy comes when we live the spirit as well as the letter of God’s laws.

“A foundational doctrine of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is that ‘marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of his children’ (‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’). Church leaders have long taught these principles.

“Same-sex romantic behavior cannot lead to eternal marriage and is therefore not compatible with the principles in the honor code.

“We are grateful for the commitment that all students and employees in the Church Educational System make to live the principles and spirit of the honor code.”

The foregoing is what I had in mind when I spoke of "romantic behavior."

I'm not particularly interested in a "how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin"-style arguments about the exacting parameters of this principle.  This would be akin to trying to parse out how much behavior can I get away with in interacting with or dating a woman other than my wife, short of actual sexual intercourse, before I violate my covenants to her and to God.  That's just not how a Latter-day Saint should approach the Law of Chastity.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Couples do not "hold the priesthood."  Individuals do.

I am well aware that the church does not give the priesthood to women.  But that is not what I was talking about was I.

You said: "Can a married gay couple hold the priesthood?"

I responded: 

Quote

Couples do not "hold the priesthood."  Individuals do.

A person openly violating the Law of Chastity, regardless of sexual orientation, would face limitations on his/her membership.  See Section 32.6.2.5 of the Handbook.

 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I was questioning why the Law of Chastity is not the same for straight couples as they are for gay couples

The Law of Chastity is exactly the same for all of us.  Nobody in the Church is allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage, or engage in same-sex behavior.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

and where that policy came from. 

The Law of Chastity is propounded throughout scripture, as have the Church's teachings regarding same-sex behavior and the divinely-instituted meaning and purpose of marriage.

But c'mon.  You are not really asking these things.  We've had these discussions dozens of times over the years.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah I remember all of those arguments used to support the priesthood ban.  

You have, for many years now, drawn a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like.  For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly.  For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule.  And the OD-2 is the rule nullifying the exception.

 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

How did that work out?

Broadly, we sorted things out.  The OD-2 is coming up on its half-century mark.  The Church's growth in Africa is doing quite well.

The priesthood ban apparently had no revelatory provenance.  The same cannot be said for the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity and marriage.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Were church leaders still right to ban support the ban

No.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

because they could justify doing so in the same way you are doing here?

You have long relied on an anything-I-don't-like-in-the-teachings-of-the-Church-I-summarily-declare-to-be-manmade line of reasoning, helped along with a few healthy doses of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

There is no reasonable dispute about what the Church teaches regarding the Law of Chastity and marriage as being between a man and a woman.  None.  It's pretty easy to find in any number of places.  The Scriptures.  The Church's website.  Various church manuals.  For the Strength of Youth, and so on.

Now, is there a reasonable dispute about whether these things are - as you have previously put it - "given by God?"  Sure.  But then, pretty much everything we believe is, in the end, a matter of faith and choice.

Positivism.  Fundamentalism.  Hyper-literalism.  Proof-texting.  Legalism.  These are your go-to resources whenever same-sex marriage and/or homosexual behavior comes up on this board.  But they just don't work.  Your insistent "Show me chapter and verse where God descended from heaven and prohibited homosexual behavior" legalisms just don't work, any more than, say, someone trying to argue that injecting heroin is okay since it's not itemized in the Doctrine & Covenants, or that pornography is acceptable because it is not specifically prohibited in the scriptures, and on and on and on.

If the Church were to issue a published-to-the-world, "Thus Sayeth the Lord"-style "revelation," and canonize it in our Standard Works, would you accept it?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

On 2/17/2026 at 10:00 AM, smac97 said:

I do not recall hearing any disparaging remarks about black folks in a church setting.

Thankfully I have only heard a few, but the worst was in 2006 from a girl in Achievement Days repeating a joke she heard from a relative she thought was the funniest thing calling Blacks apes.  Myself and the other leader quickly, but gently let her know that wasn’t appropriate.  It horrified us that such was still be taken for humor in a devout LDS home.  If I had known the family at all, I would have talked with the mother, but I was clueless about the home life and unless I know how parents are likely to react, I am not going to get a kid in trouble with them unless it’s absolutely necessary. (Living in BYU married housing exposed me to two or three parents that way overreacted to their kids’ mistakes that I would not have expected if I just knew them from church, also ran into the same thing a few times volunteering at schools, always a shock)

Edited February 18 by Calm

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thankfully I have only heard a few, but the worst was in 2006 from a girl in Achievement Days repeating a joke she heard from a relative she thought was the funniest thing calling Blacks apes.  Myself and the other leader quickly, but gently let her know that wasn’t appropriate.  It horrified us that such was still be taken for humor in a devout LDS home.  If I had known the family at all, I would have talked with the mother, but I was clueless about the home life and unless I know how parents are likely to react, I am not going to get a kid in trouble with them unless it’s absolutely necessary. (Living in BYU married housing exposed me to two or three parents that way overreacted to their kids’ mistakes that I would not have expected if I just knew them from church, also ran into the same thing a few times volunteering at schools, always a shock)

Some may find this BYU report interesting, it's 80 pages but it's about the African American LDS experience

https://byu.app.box.com/s/ltxf5sdfzg3czyb3nj9g1uy3qe71s7gk?fbclid=IwY2xjawQDChlleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETJWTFNocHpZdnNUNTl6UlRTc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtSJ2VE7G2LfUnyt0WEcAYsB_tosAtWeG32bsBPpyITpAdKZAcBK3t2lZdmo_aem_PFjPS9u7V71LY2rIss_vcg

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity is exactly the same for all of us.  Nobody in the Church is allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage, or engage in same-sex behavior.

And the Word of Wisdom is exactly the same for us all…but it’s going to mean something very different to a BIC who gets almost sick at the thought of smoking or drinking alcohol, etc (I overreact to foods…well, anything with the ‘wrong’ smell or texture, beans were my archnemesis) as opposed to someone who is an older adult convert whose family celebrates life with wine and fellowship at big family gatherings or whose favorite pasttime before joining the Church was having a cup of coffee with friends at a cafe catching up on what everyone is doing or perhaps drinking such cuddled up under a blanket with a good book on a day off when it looks like it does today (snow covering everything).  Both substances are likely not that harmful to one’s body*** and therefore the only reason to view these as sinful is because of the covenant one makes.

The rule of tithing is the same for all of us, but it means something very different to a family who chooses to pay tithing and let their kids go to school in third or fourth hand clothes or whose kids can’t participate in afterschool activities with friends, go on field trips etc because those won’t fit into the very tight family budget or whose grades suffer because they can’t put in the hours needed because they have an afternoon job to help out the family than it means to a family who not only have more than enough to support their children all the way through college including getting them tutors or paying for extra classes and providing them with extracurricular activities that look great on a high end college application, but can also send them on trips to Europe, buy them cars, etc.

Of course those versions of giving up something that you love or that you want to do for another you love because of Church teachings pale in comparison to giving up a romantic loving companionship or potential lifelong marriage solely because the Church teaches that same sex relationships are sinful.

PS:  recognition of the immensity of what the Church requires here does not equate to a rejection of church teachings.

*** alcohol in small or moderate amounts is looking more dangerous than once thought, but may still be less harmful than other things Saints happily do to their bodies without risking losing a temple recommend.  Coffee and tea, otoh, may have some beneficial health effects depending on how they are used and by whom, so what we are requiring may only be based on a commitment to the faith as opposed to something any rational person would choose to do if they knew the science, etc.  I was taught growing up that science backed the WoW, which is unfortunate because science has gotten better at observing what substances actually do to the body and conclusions can change based on new information.

Edited February 18 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 2/17/2026 at 11:00 AM, smac97 said:

I don't.  Of course, I was 4 years old in 1978.  I do not recall hearing any disparaging remarks about black folks in a church setting.  I heard some at school and in my neighborhood.

I have heard several. I suspect because I grew up in more multi-racial environments.

On 2/17/2026 at 11:00 AM, smac97 said:

Same with this.  I never heard derogatory comments in a church setting.  I did hear encouragement to keep the Law of Chastity.

Unfortunately, I heard some derogatory comments in school and in the neighborhood.  In hindsight, I had some friends and classmates who were gay, but did not broadcast or talk about it.

I doubt this. Homophobic banter was endemic in youth culture both inside and outside the church. Unless by “in a church setting” you only mean from the pulpit.

On 2/17/2026 at 11:00 AM, smac97 said:

That said, the Church draws a clear line on behavior.  It teaches the Law of Chastity as sexual relations only between a man and woman who are legally and lawfully married. So "overt romantic behavior" (which could include things like prolonged holding hands, kissing, or anything seen as romantic/sexual in context) is discouraged at Church events for everyone, not just LGBTQ+ individuals.  The intent is about maintaining an atmosphere where the Spirit can be present and respecting age-appropriate guidelines. Dances are meant to be wholesome, with dress, grooming, lighting, styles, music and behaviors to be aligned with that.

If I as a married man took a woman other than my wife to a dance, and behaved romantically with her, that would be discouraged as inappropriate, as a deviation from another aspect of the Law of Chastity (and, for that matter, of basic notions of decorum and respect).

Please stop comparing two single men or two single women being interested in each other to unfaithfulness. It is a silly analogy.

On 2/17/2026 at 11:00 AM, smac97 said:

You have asked this question many times over the years.

King Benjamin taught, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29).  Respectfully, I reject the notion that the Church can only be governed by "Thus Sayeth the Lord"-style published revelations.  The canonized scriptures are the foundation of our doctrine.  Here's an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Yeah, you’re just going on a ‘vibes’ based thing here. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the existence of gay behavior so therefore it must be a sin. Probably why the Torah said some kinds of same-sex sexual behavior was wrong.

On 2/17/2026 at 11:00 AM, smac97 said:

God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

Why do we ignore about half of the Word of Wisdom and have unofficially added new requirements to it?

Also substance abuse was a much bigger problem in Joseph’s day than it is now. Do you know how much alcohol they were drinking? It was also a “problem” in most cultures. Really these days we are doing a relatively good job.

Also you gave out the standard bit about same-sex desire not being a sin but that acting on it is. That is a very recent change. The Bible says the opposite.

Good old Romans 1 lays out where Paul thinks same sex lust comes from:

Quote

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 

29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Paul states that the existence of the Abrahamic God is obvious to all since the creation of the world (lol). Then although everyone knows God exists intuitively some are just perverse and reject him. Therefore God gives them over to shameful lusts so they worship idols and turn gay. God uses gayness as an affliction to punish the wicked. Then Pauls continues on to a litany of other sins. Who knew that anyone who gossips in your ward are all secretly gay? Better keep an eye on them.

Many Evangelicals still hold on to this tripe. It is why their worldview is so warped and there is a strange assumption that everyone secretly knows that they are right but just want to sin so bad that they reject it. It is also why a lot of their missionary efforts are so bizarre.

LDS don’t generally teach these verses much. At least not anymore. They did hold on to the idea that the main reason for disbelief in the gospel is a desire for sin for a long time and the apostles have recently been beating down that idea. These are all recent changes though. The teachings about where homosexuality came from were baked in with Paul’s reasoning.

Of course we know now that Paul was absolutely wrong. The existence of an all-powerful God is not intuitively obvious and history backs that up. Devout believers in the Abrahamic God and Christians specifically are not immune to having same-sex desires. It is not something that belongs to the pagan others that Paul (and other biblical writers) play up as evidence of depravity. This is the same supposed depravity that other biblical writers used to justify genocide of other peoples. Play up them being a bunch of incestuous depraved orgy-havers and you can justify killing them. So what Paul says is factually wrong and those facts are used to justify moral evils.

This is why I want a clear-cut revelation. The scriptural references about gay behavior are tainted by hatred, are often tied to fallacious reasoning that has been proved wrong again and again, and is often used as a rhetorical weapon to justify oppression and/or ethnic cleansing. Yet Christianity as a whole and the LDS Church hold on to the part they like while disavowing or ignoring the attached parts that are wrong. We can make it go away. Christianity as a whole decided slavery was wrong even though the Bible is pro-slavery from cover to cover. It is more pro-slavery than it is anti-gay. Or God could speak authoritatively and end this discussion.

So God chooses to be silent or no one is listening if He does want to speak authoritatively. Church leaders point to the Bible to condemn us while ignoring virtually everything about those condemnations that is objectively wrong. Why are we still doing this?