Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[semlogo]

What about adoption?

Interestingly, gay men typically make more money than average, but they still are inclined to be more violent. We, as a nation, are more inclined to deny adoption to low-income homes, too, and whether the parents seem able and willing. It's not acceptable to be politically correct, when it comes to protecting children.

No idea. Maybe they did testify but Walker threw it out. Regardless, my point is that gay unions are significantly and inherently different in sociologically relevant ways. A man is a man, and that's not going to change. For that reason, shouldn't a male homosexual union have different treatment? Why shouldn't it? It's not a person, after all. It's a behavior. Men don't domesticate men. Men are more prone to violence. Those are inescapable, unless you want to genetically alter them or give hormone therapy or something.

Furthermore, why would we call something with considerable differences by the same name? Again, are we going to call lead, "gold," so we don't discriminate against lead?

Black men are more likely to go to jail. Should we prohibit them from getting married?

[Vance]

What canonized revelation have we received about homosexuality?

Oh, I don't know that the word "homosexuality" is any where found in scripture. But then again "homosexuality" is likely a modern word.

But hey, there is this.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And I am sure you can and will produce a flimsy explanation as to why I should believe that this doesn't mean what it says.

[Vance]

What canonized revelation have we received about homosexuality?

It really comes down to just one thing. Does the Holy Spirit of God approve of or sanctify homosexual activity? If not, is there any indication that it will, at some point in the future?

[semlogo]

Oh, I don't know that the word "homosexuality" is any where found in scripture. But then again "homosexuality" is likely a modern word.

But hey, there is this.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And I am sure you can and will produce a flimsy explanation as to why I should believe that this doesn't mean what it says.

Paul is discussing male prostitution.

[semlogo]

It really comes down to just one thing. Does the Holy Spirit of God approve of or sanctify homosexual activity? If not, is there any indication that it will, at some point in the future?

Well, does it?

[Vance]

Well, does it?

Well, I was expecting you to tell me, since you seem to what to jam your concept down our throats.

But since you asked, No! and No! Homosexual activity, like immoral heterosexual activity, offends the Spirit. I don't see ANY reason to expect this to change.

[Vance]

Paul is discussing male prostitution.

Is that the same as homosexual activity or not?

" . . . burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly . . ." is "male prostitution" and not homosexual activity? RRIIIIIGHT!

[Daniel2]

Is that the same as homosexual activity or not?

" . . . burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly . . ." is "male prostitution" and not homosexual activity? RRIIIIIGHT!

Vance,

Clearly, the scripture attributed to Paul is referring to a manifestation of SOME type of homosexual activity. But is it a blanket condemnation of ANY and ALL types homosexual activities or relationships?

After all, every apple can be accurately characterized as "fruit." But not all "fruit" can accurately be described as "apples."

To paraphrase Idigo Montoya... "You keep using that [scripture]. I don't think it means what you think it means."

In order to see if that scripture is definitively a blanket statement that must be condemning ANY and ALL instances of same-sex affection/homosexual activity, let's see if your interpretation of it as such would be equally condeming of ANY and ALL instances of opposite-sex affection/heterosexual activity, if we were to apply your interpretation in the same way:

Would you say it would be accurate to say that some straight men have ever "burned in their lust toward" women, and have "worked that which is unseemly" with such women...?

If you agree that straight men have "burned in their lust" towards women and are capable of "working that which is unseemly" with women, does that mean that the phrase "straight men burned in their lust towards women" and "worked that which is unseemlyl" means that ANY and ALL instances of male-to-female physical intimacy must be condemned...?

Or are there ever instances in which a man may relate to a woman--even in physically-intimate ways--which don't equate to the man "burning in his lust" and/or "working that which is unseemly" with her...?

Darin

[Mordecai]

Romans suggests homosexuality is vile and unnatural. Hardly an endorsement.

[semlogo]

Well, I was expecting you to tell me, since you seem to what to jam your concept down our throats.

But since you asked, No! and No! Homosexual activity, like immoral heterosexual activity, offends the Spirit. I don't see ANY reason to expect this to change.

Well, I respect your right to express your opinion. Of course, you don't speak for the Spirit.

[semlogo]

Is that the same as homosexual activity or not?

" . . . burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly . . ." is "male prostitution" and not homosexual activity? RRIIIIIGHT!

Is regular prostitution the same as sex between a husband and wife?

[semlogo]

Romans suggests homosexuality is vile and unnatural. Hardly an endorsement.

Homosexual prostitution, like heterosexual prostitution, is a bad thing. I agree with Paul. Of course, I don't really agree with Paul's pro-lifetime of celibacy stance.

[Vance]

Vance,

Clearly, the scripture attributed to Paul is referring to a manifestation of SOME type of homosexual activity. But is it a blanket condemnation of ANY and ALL types homosexual activities or relationships?

So, then, which type of homosexual activity, according to the canon, IS acceptable?

What exactly is "the law of chastity"?

[Vance]

Is regular prostitution the same as sex between a husband and wife?

With regard to the law of chastity or with regard to the sexual act?

[Mordecai]

Homosexual prostitution, like heterosexual prostitution, is a bad thing. I agree with Paul. Of course, I don't really agree with Paul's pro-lifetime of celibacy stance.

It doesn't say that. It simply suggests homosexuality in itself is vile and unnatural. Just use your common sense and your best reading comprehension, and Paul is quite clear on the matter.

As far as celibacy, Paul mentions his "yolk fellow," which is feminine in the Greek. This is widely believed to allude to his wife. He was likely a widower.

[elguanteloko]

I finally listened to Dr. William Bradshaw's (of BYU�s Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology) presentation on the biological basis for homosexuality. It's a great listen and even I was surprised by the dramatic biological differences between gay and straight men and women.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158

As I was listening, it occurred to me that there is still a lot of wiggle room in this issue for the church to change its stance on homosexuality, without contradicting its teachings on gender. Essentially, as I was listening to the marked physical differences between gay and straight people, it occurred to me that in effect, gay men and gay women make up a 3rd and 4th gender. So while gender characteristics and the application of them from the The Family: A Proclamation to the World still apply to straight men and women, they don't apply to gay men and women, because, essentially, they can be thought of as a 3rd & 4th gender, which we did not previously understand to be the case based on our limited light and knowledge.

Perhaps I should say 4th & 5th gender, since 3rd gender has often been used to describe hermaphrodites & transsexuals.

For a short intro to one of the biological differences talked about by Dr. Bradshaw, see:

http://www.unl.edu/r...omo_finger.html

This discusses differences in finger length ratios between gay and straight men and women. Just one of the issues also discussed by the BYU professor.

There are several ways to reconcile being pro-SSM and fully accepting the teachings of the Church. For one, that LDS believe heterosexual marriage is the one preferred by God for society does not translate into the other forms of marriage not being recognized legally by a Government. For example, LDS may not believe that pre-marital sex is right (and in fact think it's wrong) but that doesn't mean one should try to make pre-marital sex between consenting adults illegal. To think SSM is wrong does not translate into a state not permitting it legally just as someone thinking her 18 year old son shouldn't get a driving license doesn't automatically translate into making it illegal for her son to get the license. That church authorities suggest that heterosexual marriage should be promoted and strengthened does not translate into not allowing other forms of marriage and recognize them, legally, as such. That church authorities suggest that SSM can potentially threaten religious freedoms does not translate into not allowing SSM any more than to say alcohol consumption increases the chance of esophageal cancer translate into making alcoholic beverages illegal (assuming state recognition of SSM does in fact threaten some expressions of religiosity).

[Mars]

I don't at all agree with semlogo's take on Paul and homosexuality, but this is of interest and is relevant:

Renan has suggested that yoke-fellow means Lydia (Acts 16:14, 15, 40), and that she had been married to Paul. But the fact that the adjective gnesios, "true," qualifying "yoke-fellow" is masculine and not feminine shows that it is not a woman but a man who is referred to.

Source: http://topicalbible.org/y/yoke-fellow.htm

[Mordecai]

There are several ways to [rationalize] being pro-SSM and fully accepting the teachings of the Church.

I fixed it.

For one, that LDS believe heterosexual marriage is the one preferred by God for society does not translate into the other forms of marriage not being recognized legally by a Government.

Actually, the Proclamation to the World indicates otherwise.

To think SSM is wrong does not translate into a state not permitting it legally...

Permission is one. Officially recognizing it as if it's identical to the real thing is another.

That church authorities suggest that heterosexual marriage should be promoted and strengthened does not translate into not ...recognize them, legally.

To recognize them as if they are the same is to assert their equality.

[semlogo]

With regard to the law of chastity or with regard to the sexual act?

Take your pick.

[semlogo]

It doesn't say that. It simply suggests homosexuality in itself is vile and unnatural. Just use your common sense and your best reading comprehension, and Paul is quite clear on the matter.

As far as celibacy, Paul mentions his "yolk fellow," which is feminine in the Greek. This is widely believed to allude to his wife. He was likely a widower.

In Greek, it's talking about prostitution. Prostitution is of course vile and unnatural.

Homosexuality, on the other hands, is perfectly natural, if you're gay.

Paul himself said he was celibate. Do you think he lied?

[Daniel2]

So, then, which type of homosexual activity, according to the canon, IS acceptable?

What exactly is "the law of chastity"?

I agree with semlogo. The LDS Standard Works do not contain an unambiguous or officially-identified revelation specifically about the morality or immorality of committed, monogomous same-sex relationships.

As far as my own comfort-level is concerned about entering into a romantic same-sex relationship, I personally am completely indifferent and feel no need for the LDS church to sanction same-sex relationships--I do not recognize LDS authority over my own life, and seek no approval or allowance. As I've said in the past, I am not awaiting any analogous "long promised day" when I and my husband would be welcomed into full fellowship within Mormon worship or sealings. Even if that were to happen, I would not seek a return to LDS activity or admittence. I don't say this to be hurtful or put on any airs of superiority--I merely share that because I want to be clear that even though I don't have an emotional tie by having a horse in this race, I still don't see any specific revelation on the subject, and support Mormons' right to preach the immorality of same-sex relationships and refuse to accept them as moral, so long as they see fit.

Darin

[semlogo]

Actually, the Proclamation to the World indicates otherwise.

Not official doctrine.

[elguanteloko]

Actually, the Proclamation to the World indicates otherwise.

Quote the part you think solves the gap I posed. CFR, that is.

Permission is one. Officially recognizing it as if it's identical to the real thing is another.

SSM marriage isn't "one more marriage" but allowing some to enter into it. Marriage is a building where some are allowed (justifiably) and some are not. SSM is not creating another building.

To recognize them as if they are the same is to assert their equality.

Their equality in a legal context, not in the religious or spiritual context. If a religion happened to believe that a woman obtaining a driving license at 18 was a sacred ritual and that without the proper initiation it would be wrong to get the license for her and everyone else, that doesn't translate into that religion trying to make driving licenses for everyone not of their beliefs illegal or not let them enter into the "legal drivers" club.

Now, you may say there are other reasons why not to let homosexual couples enter into the legal form of marriage but that is beside my point. My point here is that one can very well be an LDS believer and still support SSM.

[Daniel2]

Actually, the Proclamation to the World indicates otherwise [in other words, Mordecai is suggesting that the Proclamation to the World contradicts semlogo's suggestion that "LDS believe heterosexual marriage is the one preferred by God for society does not translate into the other forms of marriage not being recognized legally by a Government."]

Not only is The Proclamation "not official doctrine," as semlogo says, but The Proclamation doesn't even say what Mordecai claims it says. The Proclamation does not say that "other forms of marriage" should "not be recognized legally by a Government."

Here's the text, again:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim 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. [nothing in this statement exlcudes the possiblity that God could someday reveal that in addition to God's ordination of marriage between a man and a woman, same-sex relationships could likewise be ordained--just as polygamy can be ordained of God in certain ages and situations, but prohibited in others].

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. [again, the fact that gender "is an essential characteristic of... identity and purpose" doesn't mean that gender isn't essential to both straight and gay men and women's identity and purpose].

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. [gay and lesbian couples are currently biologically incapable of procreating together, so they don't violate this prohibition against using "powers of procreation" within their relationships].

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. [the promotions of opposite-sex marriage and parental roles described within families headed by couples of the opposite sex does not have to come at the expense of a simultaneous allowance for same-sex couples to receive legal recognition and the promotion of responsible marriage and parenting among same-sex couples].

If one reads the exact words of the document, it's clear that the wording actually doesn't say anything about prohibiting civil same-sex relationships, at all--and, in fact, doesn't even touch on the morality or immorality of same-sex relationships. Either God was being obtusely coy in this document, or He was hedging His bets for plausible deniability at some future date when a new "revelation" might come out that makes some sort of allowance for a committed same-sex relationships.

My view,

Darin

[Vance]

All,

You could just search the OFFICIAL LDS WEB SITE and see what you find regarding the Law of Chastity.

Like this,

http://lds.org/search?query=%22LAW+OF+CHASTITY%22〈=eng

By doing so you find such gems as these.

"God has commanded us that only in marriage between a man and a woman are we to have sexual relations. This commandment is called the law of chastity."

"We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse."

"Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations."

"Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage."