Elder Gilbert, new Q12 member

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Homophobic banter was endemic in youth culture both inside and outside the church.

The worse used words that you wouldn’t hear at Church in my youth as I remember, so I think that lowered the number of overall comments, but from what I heard around my kids (my eldest is 45), while not as extreme, juvenile humor did include a lot of derogatory remarks about those in the queer community.  I think it could be easy to phrase out and not register because they often lacked the edge, were throwaway lines not meant to be terribly insulting, but that’s the way racism and bigotry can stay in our culture for so long, imo, as it’s dismissed as ‘it doesn’t really mean anything’.

Edited February 18 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The worse used words that you wouldn’t hear at Church in my youth as I remember, so I think that lowered the number of overall comments, but from what I heard around my kids, while not as extreme, juvenile humor did include a lot of derogatory remarks about those in the queer community.  I think it could be easy to phrase out and not register because they often lacked the edge, were throwaway lines not meant to be terribly insulting, but that’s the way racism and bigotry can stay in our culture for so long, imo, as it’s dismissed as ‘it doesn’t really mean anything’.

I knew being gay was bad before I knew what it even was and when I only had a vague idea of what sex was.

We played “Smear the Queer” when I was a kid. It is a shame about the name. It was actually a fun game.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

My (Tahitian) brother has told me that he endured racist taunts in the neighborhood.  However, I did not hear any such things.

As for "homophobic banter," again, I never hear derogatory comments about gay folks in a church setting.  Not in Sunday meetings, not in weekday events (youth, scouts, etc.).  

I heard use of "qu**r" and "don't be a f*g" in school.  

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Unless by “in a church setting” you only mean from the pulpit.

From the pulpit.  In the three-hour block.  During weekday activities.  I never heard any racialist comments.  My brother did, though (he was the target of them, sadly).

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

I think I'll keep the comparison.  I will likewise keep the comparison to fornication.

There are a variety of ways to violate the Law of Chastity.  None of them is appropriate for Latter-day Saints.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

No, I'm going on a "published to the world statements from the Church" thing here.  The EoM is not a source of doctrine, but I think Elder Bednar's comments, which I quoted, are a good guy.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Lots of people are uncomfortable with the existence of gay behavior so therefore it must be a sin.

No, that's not the point.

The Church does not prohibit same-sex behavior because of uncomfortable vibes.  Rather, Elder Renlund explained things rather well:

Quote

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife. In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

Sex, then, is something intended by God to A) take place only between husband and wife to B) facilitate procreation and/or C) strengthen the relationship between husband and wife.

Fornication does not comport with God's purposes.  Nor does adultery.  Nor does same-sex behavior.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also you gave out the standard bit

"Standard bit" = reasoned counsel from modern prophets and apostles.  

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

about same-sex desire not being a sin but that acting on it is. That is a very recent change.

A good and appropriate one, though.  It gives each of us the benefit of the doubt.  I suppose it is theoretically possible to intentionally cultivate "same-sex desire" in one's self (see, e.g., this Wikipedia article discussing "Bisexual Chic," with "bisexual" being a label sometimes used to describe someone who is "free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves"), but I am more inclined to think of sexual "identity" categories being superseded by the concept of "sexual fluidity," which in turn results from " a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."  YMMV. 

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Bible says the opposite.

Well, no.  Not the "opposite."  Romans 1 speaks of "vain" and "foolish" people who succumbed to "the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" and "vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" and "men" who similarly "{left} the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly."  I've never thought of this as a descriptor of any category of persons except those who volitional behavior placed themselves within it.  Or, put another way, "{same-sex} attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is."

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

LDS don’t generally teach these verses much. At least not anymore.

I think the modern guidance we have received is more helpful and clear.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is why I want a clear-cut revelation.

I would like that, too.  But meanwhile, I find the current counsel to be amply sufficient.

Out of curiosity, if the Presiding High Priest were to stand up in General Conference, announce the receipt of just such a "clear-cut revelation" prohibiting same-sex behavior, present it for a sustaining vote, and then (assuming the vote is sufficient) canonize the revelation in our Standard Works, would you accept it and obey it?

I have previously said this:

Quote

If the Church is what it claims to be, then I see nothing more than a de minimis basis for hoping/believing/predicting that the Church will alter its doctrines to accommodate same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, the Law of Chastity, doctrines pertaining to marriage (such as D&C 132:7), and so on.
...
If same-sex behavior/marriage were to be, by revelation, ratified and incorporated into the doctrines and teachings of the Church, I would embrace it.  The thing is, I just don't see that ever happening.  Not that it wouldn't be nice, at least for a little while.  You and yours might feel vindicated in your strongly-held feelings and beliefs, while folks like me might get a reprieve from the endless disparagements thrown at us for espousing the Law of Chastity as previously revealed and taught and construed and applied.

As it is, however, I invest essentially no time or attention or effort in exploring What-Would-Things-Be-Like-If... scenarios like this.  The way the Restored Gospel is structured, it is not for me to foist my expectations of "how things ought to be" on the Church.  

I want everyone to obtain joy and happiness, both in this life and the next.  2 Nephi 2:25 states: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."  1 Cor. 2:9 states: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  Per the Family Proclamation, "{h}appiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Obedience to teachings about family and sexual behavior is a big part of the equation.

I just don't see same-sex relationships as a viable part of the Plan of Salvation.  Those outside the Celestial Kingdom "cannot have an increase."  That is not an indictment or condemnation.  It is a statement of belief regrading the way things are pursuant to God's laws.  So there are clearly some material differences between how we live now and the eternities.  Marriage and "increase" is available to saint and sinner alike in this world, but not in the world to come.  In the world to come, those blessings are limited to the Celestial Kingdom.  We are also told that "[a]ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."   We are also taught that those who do not enter into a celestial marriage "are not bound by any law when they are out of the world," that such persons "neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants," and that such persons - as angels - "cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity."  So I don't see family units, either heterosexual or homosexual, existing in the lower kingdoms.

Again, if tomorrow our understanding of these things were to be radically revised via revelation to the Lord's anointed, I would get on board with such changes.  But not only do I have no such expectation (beyond a de minimis reservation per AoF 1:9), I affirmatively think (at present) that the alterations Daniel hopes to see will never happen.  Not because I harbor animus toward his or anyone else's sincerely-held hopes, but because those hopes are, in my view, utterly wrongheaded and futile and incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  If I am proven wrong on this in the future, I will happily eat crow and revise my perspective.  Until then...

So that's where I stand.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The scriptural references about gay behavior are tainted by hatred,

Some, perhaps.  But "hatred" of what?

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So God chooses to be silent or no one is listening if He does want to speak authoritatively.

Or He has not spoken yet.

Or He expects us to listen to prophets and apostles, who have spoken amply about this.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Church leaders point to the Bible to condemn us

Well, no.  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.

I have a good friend who died a few years ago.  His death was slow, and he knew it was coming, so we had plenty of discussions.  He had spent a good portion of his life living, as he put it, "the lifestyle" of a gay man.  But over time he repented, changed his behavior, returned to Church, and died in full fellowship.  Near his final days he spoke of how important it had been for him to reject the "identity" of "being" gay.  He said he didn't like the label, as it allowed him to justify immoral conduct.

There are all sorts of perspectives on this stuff these days.

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

while ignoring virtually everything about those condemnations that is objectively wrong.

Is it possible that the "change" you note above ("the standard bit about same-sex desire not being a sin but that acting on it is" and "LDS don’t generally teach these verses much. At least not anymore.") is specifically intended to not "ignore" biblical condemnations of same-sex behavior (laden as they are with connotations, contextual gaps, etc.), and to re-state the Lord's will in a way that is more clear, more compelling, more accurate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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: 

And here (from the kerfuffle at BYU a few years ago about 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.

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

I responded: 

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

No.

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

The law of chastity certainly exists for all of us, but it is not the same for all of us.  You can have sexual relations with someone you are romantically and sexually attracted to under certain conditions and still be keeping the law of chastity.  A gay person cannot have sexual relations with someone they are romantically and sexually attracted to and keep the law of chastity under any conditions.

I don't see a reason to deny those realities.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The law of chastity certainly exists for all of us, but it is not the same for all of us. 

Same standard, disparate impact. 

Not sure what you mean by "not the same for all of us."  The speed limit is "the same for all of us," but some of us - those of us more prone to driving fast - are more impacted by it.  Not because the law unfairly targets some people, but because some people are less willing to abide by it. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You can have sexual relations with someone you are romantically and sexually attracted to under certain conditions and still be keeping the law of chastity. 

Right.  And those "certain conditions" apply to everyone in the same way.  Nobody can commit adultery, even if the other person is "someone you are romantically and sexually attracted to."  Same with fornication.  Same with same-sex behavior.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

A gay person cannot have sexual relations with someone they are romantically and sexually attracted to and keep the law of chastity under any conditions.  I don't see a reason to deny those realities.

And a heterosexual person cannot have sexual relations with someone they are romantically and sexually attracted to and not married to and keep the law of chastity under any conditions.

I don't deny the reality that sexual relations are verboten under "certain conditions."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 19 by smac97

[gopher]

On 2/17/2026 at 4:18 AM, california boy said:

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

How do you see gay as the new black?  Gay members today can hold the priesthood if they are male, attend the temple, serve in callings as long as they are faithful and keep the commandments as revealed to God's prophets.  Black members during the ban couldn't hold the priesthood, attend the temple, and serve in many callings no matter how faithful and obedient they were.

[gopher]

On 2/17/2026 at 9:08 AM, JLHPROF said:

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.

If a future liberal prophet "might slip it through", why do you think God would wait until right before the second coming to permit it after instructing His previous prophets to preach against it?  The progressive members may cheer, but it's hard to imagine it not causing a lot of confusion why God didn't just allow it since the beginning.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think I'll keep the comparison.  I will likewise keep the comparison to fornication.

Okay, then I will go ahead and call the church and its leaders homophobic.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church does not prohibit same-sex behavior because of uncomfortable vibes.  Rather, Elder Renlund explained things rather well:

Elder Renlund’s statement is ridiculous from a historical point of view. Sexual relations must respect the agency of both partners? Has he not read the Bible at all? Sex then was something one person did to another person. One acted. One was the object of that action. Consent of the object was not really a consideration.

I think this is a good aspirational concept but acting like that is God’s intended plan is a stretch unless you are willing to toss most of the Bible. The idea of the ‘submissive’ partner, usually a woman, getting a say is a very modern concept.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sex, then, is something intended by God to A) take place only between husband and wife to B) facilitate procreation and/or C) strengthen the relationship between husband and wife.

Also not something you will find in the Bible. The idea of it strengthening the relationship……meh…..the Greco-Roman sexual ethic that Christianity latched onto said sex was for procreation only and having sex for other purposes is a bad thing. People did it anyway but again, this is modern sexual ethics. Acting like this is God’s plan suggests God only very recently got around to announcing it.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fornication does not comport with God's purposes.  Nor does adultery.  Nor does same-sex behavior.

And those come from the same texts we now ignore. Hooray for inconsistency.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Standard bit" = reasoned counsel from modern prophets and apostles.  

Reasoned or revealed? The difference matters. The Church has the habit of copying the sexual ethic of apostate Christianity. Not exactly a reliable source.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

A good and appropriate one, though.  It gives each of us the benefit of the doubt.  I suppose it is theoretically possible to intentionally cultivate "same-sex desire" in one's self (see, e.g., this Wikipedia article discussing "Bisexual Chic," with "bisexual" being a label sometimes used to describe someone who is "free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves"), but I am more inclined to think of sexual "identity" categories being superseded by the concept of "sexual fluidity," which in turn results from " a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."  YMMV.

You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. No one who understands things says that sexual fluidity supersedes sexual identities. Sexual fluidity does happen but it is rare and most people don’t experience it. You aren’t judging based on evidence. You are just throwing a bunch of things you read a wikipedia article about together in a manner that gratifies your own desires for how you would like things to be.

Bisexual chic died decades ago. I haven’t once heard the term in the wild and I hang out around a fair number of bisexual and pansexual people. I only know of it because I am familiar with LGBT history. It hasn’t been a thing since at least the 80s, it barely limped on after the 70s. Using it a ‘flash in the pan’ temporary trend as a way of understanding sexuality is silly. Also what you are talking about is faux sexuality.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Not the "opposite."  Romans 1 speaks of "vain" and "foolish" people who succumbed to "the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" and "vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" and "men" who similarly "{left} the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly."  I've never thought of this as a descriptor of any category of persons except those who volitional behavior placed themselves within it.  Or, put another way, "{same-sex} attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is."

Which is not what Paul said at all. You may have thought that is what Paul means but that is only because you brought your preconceptions to the text. If you take the text as written that is not what it says.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the modern guidance we have received is more helpful and clear.

If I thought it was revealed and not the Church just adapting to new data about sexuality I might think it was revealed. I don’t though.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like that, too.  But meanwhile, I find the current counsel to be amply sufficient.

I do not.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Out of curiosity, if the Presiding High Priest were to stand up in General Conference, announce the receipt of just such a "clear-cut revelation" prohibiting same-sex behavior, present it for a sustaining vote, and then (assuming the vote is sufficient) canonize the revelation in our Standard Works, would you accept it and obey it?

No, but I would applaud their courage in taking a solid stand and would know I am not welcome. Problem solved.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some, perhaps.  But "hatred" of what?

The foreigner, other religions, and gross gay stuff. The Bible loves to ascribe all kinds of “deviant” sexual practices to the peoples that oppress them or that they want to genocide. Lot and his daughters was a polemic against two ethnic groups.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Or He has not spoken yet.

Or He expects us to listen to prophets and apostles, who have spoken amply about this.

Welp, he has the omniscience to know that is not going to work for many people so I guess that is God’s call. 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  From the Church:

Again, that is not some longstanding truth. Have homosexual desires was considered sinful for most of the Church’s history. The tendency to backdate current views to forever in the past has solid 1984 vibes. “We have always only said behavior is sinful, also we have always been at war with Eastasia.”

Also the Book of Mormon is standing in the background talking about how even our thoughts will condemn us so………yeah.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have a good friend who died a few years ago.  His death was slow, and he knew it was coming, so we had plenty of discussions.  He had spent a good portion of his life living, as he put it, "the lifestyle" of a gay man.  But over time he repented, changed his behavior, returned to Church, and died in full fellowship.  Near his final days he spoke of how important it had been for him to reject the "identity" of "being" gay.  He said he didn't like the label, as it allowed him to justify immoral conduct.

There are all sorts of perspectives on this stuff these days.

And that man was Albert Einstein.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible that the "change" you note above ("the standard bit about same-sex desire not being a sin but that acting on it is" and "LDS don’t generally teach these verses much. At least not anymore.") is specifically intended to not "ignore" biblical condemnations of same-sex behavior (laden as they are with connotations, contextual gaps, etc.), and to re-state the Lord's will in a way that is more clear, more compelling, more accurate?

Then why not give this new instruction actual scriptural status to counter all the wrong scripture? I cynically suspect that Church leadership likes the ambiguity. It allows them to shift if things change.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, gopher said:

If a future liberal prophet "might slip it through", why do you think God would wait until right before the second coming to permit it after instructing His previous prophets to preach against it?  The progressive members may cheer, but it's hard to imagine it not causing a lot of confusion why God didn't just allow it since the beginning.

A lot of the stuff that prophets teach are part of Heavenly Father’s Plan are very modern. Exalting our current concept of the nuclear family, elevating romantic feelings in marriage as desirable and something that will continue in the next world, thinking women’s consent to have sex matters, the idea that men and women are equal, etc.

And that is just in that one area. In modern scripture God talks up the value of liberal democracy but somehow waited until the last days to bring it about. God is supposedly opposed to slavery but only recently started making that clear. Trying to put together a coherent and logical history of God’s dealings with humanity and trying to understand what God wants is a monumental task. God cannot lie but also God did lie. God hates those who lust after death but also commands genocide. God tells people in the First Century CE that Jesus will return shortly but still hasn’t come.

[Senator]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

If a future liberal prophet "might slip it through", why do you think God would wait until right before the second coming to permit it after instructing His previous prophets to preach against it?  The progressive members may cheer, but it's hard to imagine it not causing a lot of confusion why God didn't just allow it since the beginning.

Hmm does make one wonder🤔

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

why do you think God would wait until right before the second coming to permit it after instructing His previous prophets to preach against it? 

Like President Nelson saying God is offended by using the title of Mormon? After that whole big “ I’m a Mormon” movement?

As far as I’m concerned anything other than solid “declared-as-doctrine” stuff  has potential to change in this church- in other words, most everything about this church can change at any minute. 
In fact, some stuff that I thought was doctrine my whole life actually is “church.”  So yes, why not the sentiment that  homosexuals can live a righteous life? 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same standard, disparate impact. 

Not sure what you mean by "not the same for all of us."  The speed limit is "the same for all of us," but some of us - those of us more prone to driving fast - are more impacted by it.  Not because the law unfairly targets some people, but because some people are less willing to abide by it. 

Right.  And those "certain conditions" apply to everyone in the same way.  Nobody can commit adultery, even if the other person is "someone you are romantically and sexually attracted to."  Same with fornication.  Same with same-sex behavior.

And a heterosexual person cannot have sexual relations with someone they are romantically and sexually attracted to and not married to and keep the law of chastity under any conditions.

I don't deny the reality that sexual relations are verboten under "certain conditions."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The certain conditions required to keep the law of chastity are not applied to everyone though.  That's like saying that a race to the top of a tree between an eel and a squirrel is the same for both because they are both required to go the same distance. When conditions favor one person and disfavor another, through no fault of anyone involved then the conditions do not apply equally, the conditions are not the same.

That alone doesn't mean that the conditions are unfair.  That's a different topic.

 

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's like saying that a race to the top of a tree between an eel and a squirrel is the same for both because they are both required to go the same distance.

And they get the same rewards…nuts.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And they get the same rewards…nuts.

Exactly.

[california boy]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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: 

And here (from the kerfuffle at BYU a few years ago about 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.

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

I responded: 

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

No.

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

Your whole argument is based on one overriding concept.  The Law of Chastity as defined, not by revelation from God, but by group thinking of men who are products of their own time.  Isn't that kinda the point of the problem??  The priesthood ban had MORE claims of revelation than the current definition of the Law of Chastity.  Growing up, the Law of Chastity was "no sexual relations outside of marriage".  God didn't change that definition, man did.

Since the churches war against gay marriage has fortunately failed, the one thing that has become clear to most people; gay marriage is a net positive to the lives of many couples and to society as a whole.  Marriage stabilizes gay relationships in the exact same way as marriage for straight couples.  Preaching that marriage is not a good thing for gay couples makes people wonder why it isn't also unnecessary for straight couples, and may very well be a significant factor in younger generations current trend not seeing the need to marry either.  So maybe the change in the definition of what the Law of Chastity instituted by these men is based on their own prejudices just like the priesthood ban.  Maybe God is not in line with the thinking that marriage is only important for some of His children and not others.  Kinda like the priesthood may be good for all who strive to be worthy regardless of what color skin they are born with.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

How do you see gay as the new black?  Gay members today can hold the priesthood if they are male, attend the temple, serve in callings as long as they are faithful and keep the commandments as revealed to God's prophets.  Black members during the ban couldn't hold the priesthood, attend the temple, and serve in many callings no matter how faithful and obedient they were.

Well not if they are married to the person they love.  You have to argue that marriage is not important if you happen to be gay.  Is any of this thinking sounding familiar?  Let me connect the dots.  Temple marriage and the priesthood are not important for you to have in your life if you happen to be born black.

[MustardSeed]

It would be awesome if the church were to say regarding homosexuality: go ahead and get married. Remain faithful committed relationships. Get sealed.
We as an organization do not believe you will make it to the celestial kingdom, but if you believe it, you will live better lives, and we will all be better for it. 

And then, everyone truly is accountable for their own decisions. As we should be.
 

The rule is, no sex without marriage. That is the blanket rule that applies to absolutely every person, and there is no exception. Make the race fair.
Just like you don’t want trans girls wrestling biological girls. Make it fair.

I see no fairness in telling humankind that regardless of how you were born, you have to pretend to be something you are not in order to have all of the joys that are promised to us in life. We are promised joy if we have committed, faithful, legally bonded relationship sex. Assuming everyone is consenting to said  relationship I think nobody should be forced to not experience that godly joy if they want to be righteous. That’s nonsense to me.

 

Edited February 19 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your whole argument is based on one overriding concept.  The Law of Chastity as defined, not by revelation from God, but by group thinking of men who are products of their own time.  Isn't that kinda the point of the problem??  The priesthood ban had MORE claims of revelation than the current definition of the Law of Chastity.  Growing up, the Law of Chastity was "no sexual relations outside of marriage".  God didn't change that definition, man did.

Since the churches war against gay marriage has fortunately failed, the one thing that has become clear to most people; gay marriage is a net positive to the lives of many couples and to society as a whole.  Marriage stabilizes gay relationships in the exact same way as marriage for straight couples.  Preaching that marriage is not a good thing for gay couples makes people wonder why it isn't also unnecessary for straight couples, and may very well be a significant factor in younger generations current trend not seeing the need to marry either.  So maybe the change in the definition of what the Law of Chastity instituted by these men is based on their own prejudices just like the priesthood ban.  Maybe God is not in line with the thinking that marriage is only important for some of His children and not others.  Kinda like the priesthood may be good for all who strive to be worthy regardless of what color skin they are born with.

Also on a historical level that is not what the scriptures as a whole say. The Old Testament doesn’t forbid unmarried men from having sex with women unless those women “belonged” to someone else. The idea that the Law of Chastity is some kind of hallowed principle that all of scripture and every dispensation accepted as we follow it today is just projecting our beliefs into the past.

The Rabbis expanded the Torah to make this wrong. Yeah, the best we can tell it was the Pharisees that made that happen.

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

The Rabbis expanded the Torah to make this wrong. Yeah, the best we can tell it was the Pharisees that made that happen.

The freaking Pharisees, man! 
When we were kids and we were being naughty, my dad would call us pharisees.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Out of curiosity, if the Presiding High Priest were to stand up in General Conference, announce the receipt of just such a "clear-cut revelation" prohibiting same-sex behavior, present it for a sustaining vote, and then (assuming the vote is sufficient) canonize the revelation in our Standard Works, would you accept it and obey it?

My partner and I just celebrated our 17 anniversary of being together 5 days ago.  We are not married.  A large part of that decision is me no longer carrying about the institution of marriage pounded into me by past church relationship.

If such a revelation was presented, I would consider it.   Honestly at this point, not really sure it would matter.  Our happiness together has had nothing to do with our marital status.  The only thing that I believe really matters is my conversation with God about the life choices I have made.  I have been ready for that conversation for decades.  I know I have made the right decisions in my life.  I know my life is better with my partner in it.  I know it has brought me so much happiness and joy that I don't believe for a second God would take that happiness and joy from me just because I am gay.  "By the fruits ye shall know."  Yeah I have a clear confirmation of that good fruit.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It would be awesome if the church were to say regarding homosexuality: go ahead and get married. Remain faithful committed relationships. Get sealed.
We as an organization do not believe you will make it to the celestial kingdom, but if you believe it, you will live better lives, and we will all be better for it. 

And then, everyone truly is accountable for their own decisions. As we should be.
 

The rule is, no sex without marriage. That is the blanket rule that applies to absolutely every person, and there is no exception. Make the race fair.
Just like you don’t want trans girls wrestling biological girls. Make it fair.

I see no fairness in telling humankind that regardless of how you were born, you have to pretend to be something you are not in order to have all of the joys that are promised to us in life. We are promised joy if we have committed, faithful, legally bonded relationship sex. Assuming everyone is consenting to said  relationship I think nobody should be forced to not experience that godly joy if they want to be righteous. That’s nonsense to me.

 

You nailed it.  It is nonsense to me as well.  

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

You nailed it.  It is nonsense to me as well.  

And I believe that homosexuals should not have sex unless they’re married, just the way I believe heterosexuals should not have sex without being married. Although we do know how well that’s going.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The freaking Pharisees, man! 
When we were kids and we were being naughty, my dad would call us pharisees.

The irony is that in terms of what he was teaching about the law in Matthew Jesus pretty much was a Pharisee.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Your whole argument is based on one overriding concept.  The Law of Chastity as defined, not by revelation from God, but by group thinking of men who are products of their own time.  

No.  That's your concept, not mine.  I believe the Law of Chastity is in the Scriptures, and has been systematized and summarized by inspired prophets and apostles.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Isn't that kinda the point of the problem??  

I reject the premise.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The priesthood ban had MORE claims of revelation than the current definition of the Law of Chastity.  

It did not.  The priesthood ban has no known revelatory provenance.  In contrast, the Law of Chastity is found amply throughout the Standard Works.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Growing up, the Law of Chastity was "no sexual relations outside of marriage".  God didn't change that definition, man did.

I respectfully disagree.  What "man" did do, however, was radically re-define "marriage."

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Since the churches war against gay marriage has fortunately failed, the one thing that has become clear to most people; gay marriage is a net positive to the lives of many couples and to society as a whole.  

Time will tell, I suppose.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Marriage stabilizes gay relationships in the exact same way as marriage for straight couples.  

Gay relationships have a fertility rate of 0.00%.

Gay relationships by design lack either a husband or a wife.

Gay marriage is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from "marriage" as set forth in scripture and in counsel from modern prophets and apostles.

Frankly, I'm glad that you are happy.  I also have a friend who is "happy" in her relationship with a man to whom she is not married (and which man is instead married to another woman).  My paradigmatic worldview characterizes marriage as not only intending to create happiness now, but also to procreate, and also to be perpetuated in the eternities.  You do not share that worldview, and I respect that.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Preaching that marriage is not a good thing for gay couples

Would like to see some examples of this "preaching."  I don't think that has happened.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

makes people wonder why it isn't also unnecessary for straight couples,

Marriage between a man and a woman was and is instituted by God.  I do not believe that same-sex marriage is similarly situated.

Marriage between a man and a woman is designed to facilitate procreation, and to give a child a mother and a father.  Same-sex marriage is not so designed, and instead has a fertility rate of 0.00%, and if any children are involved, they are by design deprived of a mother or a father.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a bond that I believe can persist into the eternities.  I do not believe that same-sex marriage is similarly situated.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

and may very well be a significant factor in younger generations current trend not seeing the need to marry either.

In a roundabout way, I sort of agree with you.  I think the net effect of same-sex marriage has been to weaken and lessen the legitimacy of the institution of marriage overall.  Indeed, this seems to have been the result sought by some in the movement:

Quote

For example, here is a link to some comments about the intended effects of re-defining marriage (compiled in 2013) :

Quote

Death of marriage = "progress"
1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

Who needs marriage anymore
2. "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
-- David Vakalis

Redefine the institution
3.  "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- Michelangelo Signorile,
OUT magazine, December/January 1994

We are advocating destruction
4.  "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
-- Ryan Conrad

Next step: Abolish
5.  "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn,
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

The death of marriage
6.  "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."
-- Alex Gabriel, 
Politics.co.uk

Stoke the flames
7.  "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

Marriage erodes "freedom"
8.  "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes."
-- David McGee

A moral revolution
9.  "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
-- Paul Varnell,
Chicago Free Press

Abolish the family
10.  "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,
London, 1971, revised 1978

Transform society
11. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]
-- Paula Ettelbrick
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Marriage should not exist
12. "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, journalist
During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival

(link)

• "{O}nly the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality."
• "{I}s marriage really something we need anymore?"
• "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry ... to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."
• "{W}e are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage."
• "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
• "We must aim at the abolition of the family."
• "The institution of marriage is going to change ... I don’t think it should exist."

Do you think these folks, having succeeded in re-defining marriage, can say "Mission Accomplished" as to "the death of marriage," "radically alter{ing}" it, "stoking the flames" of its destruction, abolishing "the family," working so that "the institution of marriage ... {does not} exist"?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So maybe the change in the definition of what the Law of Chastity instituted by these men is based on their own prejudices just like 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.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe God is not in line with the thinking that marriage is only important for some of His children and not others.  Kinda like the priesthood may be good for all who strive to be worthy regardless of what color skin they are born with.

Or maybe not.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The priesthood ban has no known revelatory provenance.  In contrast, the Law of Chastity is found amply throughout the Standard Works

This is just a laughable falsehood. From the FP in 1949: 

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

 

From Mormon doctrine with scripture support:

https://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/13/mormon-doctrine-blacks/
 

See Cain, Ham, Pre-existence, Priesthood, Races of Men.In the pre-existent eternity various degrees of valiance and devotion to the truth were exhibited by different groups of our Father’s spirit offspring. One-third of the spirit hosts of heaven came out in open rebellion and were cast our without bodies, becoming the devil and his angels. (D&C 29:36-41; Rev 12:3-9.) The other two-thirds stood affirmatively for Christ; there were no neutrals. To stand neutral in the midst of war is a philosophical impossibility. The Lord said: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. 12:30)
 

Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others. Adam and all the prophets so distinguished themselves by diligence and obedience as to be foreordained to their high earthly missions. (Abr. 3:20-24) The whole house of Israel was chosen in pre-existence to come to mortality as children of Jacob. (Deut. 32:7-8) Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8, 12, 22.) Noah’s son Ham married Egyptus, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. (Abr. 1:20-27.)
 

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abr. 1:20-27) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), although sometimes negroes search out the truth, join the Church, and become by righteous living heirs of the celestial kingdom of heaven. President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man. (Way to Perfection, pp. 97-111.)