Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[BCSpace]

Now, can you point out anywhere that the above text refers specifically to homosexuality or same-sex actions or relationships?

Yes. Everywhere it refers to fornication or adultery since all homosexual actions or relationships are of one form or the other depending on the particular circumstances.

Also, "none else".

[Rivers]

The only clear teachings on homosexuality in the scriptures are in the Bible. And I think there is plenty of room for interpretation in those scriptures.

[Mordecai]

The only clear teachings on homosexuality in the scriptures are in the Bible. And I think there is plenty of room for interpretation in those scriptures.

How can they be "clear" and not clear, i.e. "having plenty of room for interpretation," at the same time?

[Mordecai]

[duplicate]This thing is killing me with duplicate posts.

[thews]

semlogo:

Not even in 1880 was polygamy an essential doctrine. Only a small percentage of Mormons actually practiced it. Further we have established Scripture that monogamy is to be practiced until/unless God commands otherwise.

I come from a Mormon polygamous lineage and disagree that a small percentage practiced it. How can you say this when, according the D&C 132:4, it's essential for salvation?

D&C 132:4

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

[Deborah]

I come from a Mormon polygamous lineage and disagree that a small percentage practiced it. How can you say this when, according the D&C 132:4, it's essential for salvation?

Uh, the New and Everlasting Covenant is this:

All 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, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), 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.

Plural marriage is a separate issue and is part of the Covenant only when so ordered by God. The Abrahamic Covenant isn't even mentioned until verse 29.

[Rivers]

How can they be "clear" and not clear, i.e. "having plenty of room for interpretation," at the same time?

There clearest condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible come from the Old Testament. But, these O.T. can easily be ignored since they are part of law that we no longer live (the law of Moses). The New Testament references come Paul. It can be argued that Paul is speaking specifically about homosexuality as part of Pagan rituals.

[Mordecai]

It can be argued that Paul is speaking specifically about homosexuality as part of Pagan rituals.

Actually, Paul talks about homosexuality being caused by idol worship. But he's speaking about homosexuality in itself (Rom 1:26-27). There is no allusion here to any particular type of homosexuality nor homosexuality in a certain context. Paul simply asserts that homosexuality, being unnatural and "vile," is caused by idol worship.

[sandyk]

Actually, Paul talks about homosexuality being caused by idol worship. But he's speaking about homosexuality in itself (Rom 1:26-27). There is no allusion here to any particular type of homosexuality nor homosexuality in a certain context. Paul simply asserts that homosexuality, being unnatural and "vile," is caused by idol worship.

If Paul was writing to people where pagan same sex rituals were the norm and associated with The Gods and not jesus' God, why would Paul spell out those details in a letter to people who knew them better than he did?

[Mordecai]

If Paul was writing to people where pagan same sex rituals were the norm and associated with The Gods and not jesus' God, why would Paul spell out those details in a letter to people who knew them better than he did?

It's pretty clear what he means. He mentioned "vile affections," and "burned in their lust," which are not ritual at all but biological.

Paul's use of the term "unnatural" is also consistent with what Jesus taught about the woman being made for the man; therefore, shall a man leave his mother and father, and they (the man and woman, being made for each other) shall be one flesh.

[Sky]

If scriptural passages from the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are too ambiguous for people to accept that God does not approve of homosexual relationships, we also have the words of modern, living prophets who speak by the power of Holy Ghost which confirm that for us. To me, that ought to be enough.

But the truth is that many people just don’t want to believe it. It doesn’t matter how many scriptures or modern day General Authorities are quoted as saying it is wrong because they don’t want to hear that. It’s like going in circles. Like anything else, people on both sides of the debate can easily come up with justifications for why they believe they are right and the other side is wrong.

In the end, it comes down to who you choose to believe. Everybody (whether they are faced with this challenge themselves or not) has to use the best information they have available and think about it for themselves as well as ponder and pray about it, and come to the conclusion that they believe is right.

[bpettey]

The LDS church will NEVER and I repeat NEVER change its policies on homosexuality! It is a sin, is against nature, and most of all its against God! If God had wanted a young man to be a young woman then God would have made him a girl! FYI not even Catholics (one of the most prized and accepting Christian religion) will not change their policy on it! Did you learn nothing from Proposition 8 in California? The Catholic church came running to the LDS church for financial help against that fight, because If gay marriage ever became legal it would mean that legally both churches would be obligated to marry gays into their religions! That would mean the LDS church would have to be allow gays to marry inside of the temple for time and all eternity! I will repeat it over and over and over again! IT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER CHANGE! Oh, and the fact that you compaired gay people to black people is just dispicable!

[Jaybear]

The LDS church will NEVER and I repeat NEVER change its policies on homosexuality!

Unless, of course, God tells your prophet to make a change.

It is a sin, is against nature, and most of all its against God!

As was eating shellfish, or women talking in church.

If God had wanted a young man to be a young woman then God would have made him a girl!

By that logic, God would not have made homosexuals. But then again, he made pigs so tasty, but then told his chosen not to eat them. So who really know why he makes things.

If gay marriage ever became legal it would mean that legally both churches would be obligated to marry gays into their religions! That would mean the LDS church would have to be allow gays to marry inside of the temple for time and all eternity!

That "fact" explains why Prop 8 passed.

I will repeat it over and over and over again! IT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER CHANGE!

Unless God changes his mind. Or did God tell you that he would never change his mind about this one?

Oh, and the fact that you compaired gay people to black people is just dispicable!

What is wrong with black people, that would cause you to say that?

[AmorLibertas]

The Catholic church came running to the LDS church for financial help against that fight, because If gay marriage ever became legal it would mean that legally both churches would be obligated to marry gays into their religions! That would mean the LDS church would have to be allow gays to marry inside of the temple for time and all eternity!

That is complete and utter garbage and anyone who believes it is falling for deliberately deceptive scare-mongering nonsense.

Oh, and the fact that you compared gay people to black people is just despicable!

Though you are not referencing my post, I too have pointed out the greater similarities between the religiously based prohibitions against inter-racial marriages as well as the Black Civil Rights movement in general, and the religiously based prohibitions against same-sex marriages and the Gay Rights movement. I believe a very strong and valid argument has been made that the struggle for equal protection and treatment under the law for homosexuals and homosexual couples and the struggle for equal protection and treatment under the law for Blacks and mixed-race couples has far and away more and significant similarities than differences. The only reason why anyone might feel the comparison to be despicable is the despise they feel for homosexuality.

[Mordecai]

Black Civil Rights...

Remember when black people had a biological urge to behave differently and then had a civil rights movement to get the government to pretend their behavior was the same, despite the fact that it was different? I don't.

[Deborah]

As was eating shellfish, or women talking in church.

Seriously, Jaybear, are you comparing custom to a moral behavior? They are not the same. Morality has always been constant with God, though it has certainly changed in the eyes of the world.

[Nathair/|\]

Unless, of course, God tells your prophet to make a change.

He's not our prophet, he is the Lord's. Sorry.

As was eating shellfish, or women talking in church.

I reject the "sin against nature" argument as it is usually presented since we see it in the animal kingdom all the time. (I even saw a gelding trying to mount a steer once. Not sure what to make of that.) However, as a magician and a pahtheist, I find the female/male relationship to be extremely important, as demonstrated by the Great Rite. I think that may be part of why the plan of salvation is built around eternal marriage.

By that logic, God would not have made homosexuals. But then again, he made pigs so tasty, but then told his chosen not to eat them. So who really know why he makes things.

That "fact" explains why Prop 8 passed.

Unless God changes his mind. Or did God tell you that he would never change his mind about this one?

What is wrong with black people, that would cause you to say that?

What's wrong with black people that would cause you to equate their struggle for their natural rights with your struggle for ssm?

[AmorLibertas]

Remember when black people had a biological urge to behave differently and then had a civil rights movement to get the government to pretend their behavior was the same, despite the fact that it was different? I don't.

Remember when Mormons wanted to practice their own unique form of marriage which the majority of people in the rest of society thought was odd or even morally responsible, and the Mormons did it anyway and were subsequently driven out of their homes for this and other reasons, and how later they petitioned the U.S. Government to allow them to practice their so-called marriages, but the Government said no? Yeah, that was right too, huh?

Just as I believe the LDS were unjustly denied their rights to engage in polygamy, and mixed-race couples have been denied their rights to engage in miscegenation (something which Brigham Young considered a sin which could only be forgiven through the shedding of the participants' blood), homosexuals are unjustly denied their rights to have their committed relationships afforded the same legal protections and status afforded other couples engaging in consensual domestic partnerships commonly referred to as marriage.

I find your (mordecai) particular religiously based prejudice against homosexuality revolting and despicable.

[Mordecai]

Remember when Mormons wanted to practice their own unique form of marriage which the majority of people in the rest of society thought was odd or even morally responsible, and the Mormons did it anyway and were subsequently driven out of their homes for this and other reasons, and how later they petitioned the U.S. Government to allow them to practice their so-called marriages, but the Government said no? Yeah, that was right too, huh?

Polygamy does represent different behavior, which is why it isn't necessarily discriminatory to ban it. That's why it's still illegal and mixing races is not.

...homosexuals are unjustly denied their rights to have their committed relationships afforded the same legal protections and status afforded other couples engaging in consensual domestic partnerships commonly referred to as marriage.

Unjust by what measure? Do you even know what justice is?

I find your (mordecai) particular religiously based prejudice against homosexuality revolting and despicable.

I find your lack of argument and leaps to conclusion sad.

[AmorLibertas]

Polygamy does represent different behavior, which is why it isn't necessarily discriminatory to ban it. That's why it's still illegal and mixing races is not.

First, it is behavior based upon a religious belief in the case of 19th (and early 20th) century Mormons. Secondly, it was discriminatory to ban it because the basis of the ban was emotional sentiment against the strange religious beliefs and practices of Mormons, not because it was shown to be violating the rights of anyone involved.

Unjust by what measure?

By the same measure which caused the colonies to rebel against Great Britain ultimately resulting in their Declaration of Independence from Britain. When people are compelled to pay taxes and otherwise fund a government which does not afford them the same rights and privileges as others, they are being treated unjustly by their government.

Do you even know what justice is?

Yes. Do you?

I find your lack of argument and leaps to conclusion sad.

I apologize if my failure to provide a long and cogent argument in defense of my positions which you erroneously mistake as leaps to conclusions has troubled you to the point of sadness. If it would cheer you, I would be happy to make a lengthy argument with premises, propositions and conclusions on the matter.

[Mordecai]

First, it is behavior based upon a religious belief in the case of 19th (and early 20th) century Mormons.

I thought it was behavior based on heterosexuality mostly. Lots of ancient people's also practiced it. It's not like it requires a religion to figure out that a man can reproduce and function with multiple wives, without getting confused about which kids he is responsible for.

Secondly, it was discriminatory to ban it because the basis of the ban was emotional sentiment against the strange religious beliefs and practices of Mormons, not because it was shown to be violating the rights of anyone involved.

I would say that argument has validity. That said, that doesn't mean it was inherently unjust. I think it was unjust, because they were arresting Mormons for practicing it. No one is arresting homosexuals for acting like homosexuals. Big. Huge. Difference.

When people are compelled to pay taxes and otherwise fund a government which does not afford them the same rights and privileges as others, they are being treated unjustly by their government.

How about when a government adopts an obviously false dogma, that a gay union is the same as a marriage. How is that different than England siding with the Anglican church over Baptists and Methodists in court repeatedly, due to the "truth" of Anglicanism.

Yes. Do you?

Absolutely, but I'm not the one without an argument. You are. You just claimed it was unjust. How about you explain what justice is and why not giving gay unions the same name as a marriage is an injustice. You and I have different names, do we not? Is that also an injustice?

I would be happy to make a lengthy argument with premises, propositions and conclusions on the matter.

I would be very happy if you were made happy in making an argument.

[AmorLibertas]

I thought it was behavior based on heterosexuality mostly.

I guess it depends on which apologist you talk to and which person was engaged in the practice. If my ancestor's journals are to be believed, he was certainly not eager to engage in the practice and only did so because he was commanded to do so.

No one is arresting homosexuals for acting like homosexuals. Big. Huge. Difference.

Yes, the recent case in Texas put an end to that.

How about when a government adopts an obviously false dogma, that a gay union is the same as a marriage.

You err on two points, first, it is far from obvious, and second, from the standpoint of the government, there is no fundamental difference which must be recognized between the union of heterosexuals and homosexuals in a domestic partnership.

How is that different than England siding with the Anglican church over Baptists and Methodists in court repeatedly, due to the "truth" of Anglicanism.

Because the recognition of homosexual marriages does not adversely affect heterosexual marriages the way the state siding with the Anglican church's doctrine adversely affected Baptists and Methodists.

Absolutely, but I'm not the one without an argument. You are.

You're mistaken.

You just claimed it was unjust. How about you explain what justice is and why not giving gay unions the same name as a marriage is an injustice.

Justice is fairness, it is symbolized by the balancing scale. When deprived of something by someone, it is having them replace it. When an agreement is made between two or more parties, it is the terms being fulfilled by both parties or neither. When it comes to government, it is equal protection and treatment according to the principles which this nation was founded... that all men (people) are created equal and have equal claim for protection and treatment under the law regardless of race, creed, color, sex, age, or any other characteristic one might distinguish one from another. The reason why the word marriage matters is the vast amount of protections and benefits associated with the word in state and federal laws. If the government were to only use the term "domestic partnership" or "civil union" instead of marriage, it wouldn't bother me at all.

You and I have different names, do we not? Is that also an injustice?

Only if the government treats us differently because our names are different.

[Mordecai]

Yes, the recent case in Texas put an end to that.

It had pretty much ended prior to that, actually, but it was recently removed from the books. Not sure this is a point in your favor, since this has nothing to do with "gay marriage" per se.

You err on two points, first, it is far from obvious...

So a gay union and a marriage aren't obviously different? If so, then a man and a woman aren't different. So a group of men is just as diverse as a group of men and women. Also, a group of men is just as diverse as a group of men, male and female homosexuals and women. If "diversity is our greatest strength," I guess gays and women don't make men stronger. Gays and women don't represent diversity, then?

...from the standpoint of the government...

What's your rationale for what the government's standpoint is? The gov't is supposed to ignore what I think is important and pay attention to what you think is important?

....there is no fundamental difference which must be recognized between the union of heterosexuals and homosexuals in a domestic partnership...

You imply that there is a fundamental difference, then? Of course, you've pretty much said nothing here. Nothing must be recognized. The question is what should be recognized and why.

Because the recognition of homosexual marriages does not adversely affect heterosexual marriages the way the state siding with the Anglican church's doctrine adversely affected Baptists and Methodists.

The gov't adopting an obviously false dogma would be unjust in itself, even if we can't prove the future (and we never can).

When deprived of something by someone, it is having them replace it.

This is an awfully specific example, which doesn't explain much about many circumstances. What does a justice system do, when the thing can't be replaced. How do they determine a just way to fix what can't be fixed?

When an agreement is made between two or more parties, it is the terms being fulfilled by both parties or neither.

Not really, when one part was too young/naive or mentally incompetent to enter into the deal. That would hardly be fair nor just, by any standard, if one party took advantage of the disadvantaged in this context. You imply that following mutually agreed upon rules is just. But what if the rules themselves are unjust? As Martin Luther King said, quoting Saint Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all." That you can have unjust laws (or rules), clearly following the rules or any sort of contract can't be a good way to define what just is and isn't, as it relies on the definition of just to define what justice is (at least if Saint Augustine's maxim can be believed).

When it comes to government, it is equal protection and treatment according to the principles which this nation was founded... that all men (people) are created equal and have equal claim for protection and treatment under the law regardless of race, creed, color, sex, age, or any other characteristic one might distinguish one from another.

Again with the bonus word treatment. That is hilarious. If people all behaved the same, they would be entitled to equal treatment. Interestingly, treating everyone the same, despite very different behavior varying from heroic to vile, is the opposite of justice. Horrible.

If the government were to only use the term "domestic partnership" or "civil union" instead of marriage, it wouldn't bother me at all.

Great, so you're willing to compromise. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough for me. That's what civilized people do. I'm sure a couple of people on this site will not like this, though. They aren't civilized enough to accept such a rational and fair compromise.

Only if the government treats us differently because our names are different.

They might, if they go by alphabetical order or something like that. heh heh

For the record, a simple definition of justice might be, "People get what they deserve." A Biblical definition might be found in, "Reap what you sow," which I think is the clearer definition. Of course, one would have to elaborate to really apply these to everything, but it works pretty well for debate purposes, at least as a starting point.

Your point about the contract would be a good example of justice, assuming both parties were knowledgeable and both people's wills were respected. They reaped what they sewed, in the sense that they got something out of their mutual agreement. That said, if you reap what you sew, literally, beans will never turn into carrots. Nature or nature's God is not going to stab you in the back. Similarly, in a contractual agreement, if you're naive and are purposely fooled, the perpetrator of the injustice is being unjust simply because they purposely tricked the person. You could say, "Well, the person shouldn't be such a sucker! They reaped what they sowed!" but again, nature (or nature's God) doesn't trick you. It has no malice nor intent to deceive. Similarly, in order to be just, a person must do the same.

I could babble on and on, but I'll wait to see what criticisms I receive first. This definition of justice, I think, will be good for my case. I got it from my philosophy of ethics class as well as the Bible.

[AmorLibertas]

It had ended prior to that, actually, but it was recently removed from the books. Not sure this is a point in your favor, since this has nothing to do with "gay marriage" per se.

Perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with the facts of the arrest leading to the case of Lawrence v. Texas. As to its relevance, you were the one that brought up the idea that no one was being arrested for engaging in homosexual activity prior to or during the years of struggle for "Gay Rights". (The term "Gay Rights" is every bit the misnomer as "Black Rights", they're inalienable rights and civil rights irrespective of sexual orientation or "race".)

So a gay union and a marriage aren't obviously different?

Not in any material way as far as the rights, benefits, and privileges being sought.

If so, then a man and a woman aren't different.

Blacks and Whites aren't different?

So a group of men is just as diverse as a group of men and women.

So a group of Whites or Blacks is just as diverse as a group of Whites and Blacks?

Also, a group of men is just as diverse as a group of men, male and female homosexuals and women.

Not really sure where you're going here.

If "diversity is our greatest strength," I guess gays and women don't make men stronger. Gays and women don't represent diversity, then?

Diversity is not a requirement for marriage, in fact your religious teachings advise against too much diversity in marriage as being hazardous to a successful marriage.

What's your rationale for what the government's standpoint is? The gov't is supposed to ignore what I think is important and pay attention to what you think is important?

The rationale is plain and simple and found in the ideals of our Founding Fathers about the duties and limitations on government power. The primary job of government is to secure, protect and defend the individual rights of those under its protection. It is to do so with the minimum amount of infringement upon those rights that is possible while executing its duties. It is to do so impartially, that is without respect for anything that might distinguish one individual from another, whether sex, race, religion, creed, national origin, age, etc. Government is NOT supposed to give preferential treatment to one individual or group of people over another. As such, the statutes which govern the special protection of rights, or extension of privileges or protections to domestic partnerships should not be afforded one group of consenting adults and not another. It is this rationale (albeit expressed differently) which caused the end of anti-miscegenation laws, and it is the same rationale which should ultimately lead to the end of anti-homosexual marriage laws as well as anti-polygamy laws between consenting adults.

You imply that there is a fundamental difference, then?

The implication was unintentional in my attempt to convey that as far as the government should be concerned there are no fundamental differences between heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships entered into be consenting adults; therefore, there as there are no fundamental differences, there are none to be recognized and no reason for government to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual unions.

I wouldn't argue that "gay marriage" in itself would be harmful to society. I'm arguing that the gov't adopting an obviously false dogma would be harmful.

As I stated before, it is neither obvious, nor false. In fact, the only false dogma which I see the government has adopted is the dogma that homosexual marriages are somehow harmful to society and heterosexual marriage and shouldn't be afford the same legal status as heterosexual marriages.

If they can't replace it, justice is served by sending them to prison instead, is it not? Not entirely fair (which illustrates your use of fair as a synonym being flawed, in my view), but it is a type of justice. Not ideal but still just.

No, it is not. Society may be protected from the individual committing further crimes, but justice is not served by depriving the individual of their liberty. Why would you think that would be justice? Do you consider causing misery to those who have caused misery justice? How does that restore what was lost? How is making one man blind because they made another man blind justice? How is making one man lame because they made another man lame justice? How is killing one man's child because they killed another man's child justice? That's patently absurd in my opinion.

Not really, when one part was too young/naive or mentally incompetent to enter into the deal. That would hardly be fair nor just, by any standard, if one party took advantage of the disadvantaged in this context.

Agreed, which is why contracts should only be considered valid when they are entered into with informed consent. The naive or mentally incompetent are not capable of informed consent and should thus be barred from such contracts, including marriage or military service.

Again with the bonus word treatment. That is hilarious. If people all behaved the same, they would be entitled to equal treatment. Interestingly, treating everyone the same, despite very different behavior varying from heroic to vile, is the opposite of justice. Horrible.

Again with the ridiculous leaps to absurdity. You know very well the intended meaning behind the words "equal protection and treatment" and your denial of knowing their intended meaning is every bit as disingenuous as those who say that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage; that they too can marry a member of the opposite sex who consents to marry them. Do at least attempt to avoid inane tangents like this in the future. And if, per chance, you are grossly naive as to the intended meaning of the word "treatment" in the phrase, "equal protection and treatment", it refers in a rather general sense to the privileges afforded to individuals by way of law and not merely the protections afforded one by law; for example, the privilege of uncontested inheritance of one's widow's estate in the absence of a will.

Great, so you're willing to compromise. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough for me. That's what civilized people do. I'm sure a couple of people on this site will not like this, though. They aren't civilized enough to accept such a rational and fair compromise.

Unfortunately, my experience has been such that I agree with you about a couple of people on this site as well, and I suspect the board is fairly representative of society as a whole.

They might, if they go by alphabetical order or something like that.

I doubt in matters of serious importance it would matter and would simply be a minor injustice we must all put up with to live in a society with so many other greater benefits.

For the record, a simple definition of justice might be, "People get what they deserve." A Biblical definition might be found in, "Reap what you sow," which I think is the clearer definition. Of course, one would have to elaborate to really apply these to everything, but it works pretty well for debate purposes, at least as a starting point.

As a very simple definition, it works; it is essentially no different from the law of cause and effect. However, when it comes to people meteing out justice according to what they believe another person deserves, I am less than sanguine, as evidenced by our disagreement about sending to prison someone who is unable to restore what they have taken from another. One might even argue that the person who is a victim of a crime reaped what they sowed; else how did they become a victim of crime; and who then are we to step in and attempt to balance the scales when this crime might have been the balancing of a previously disturbed scale. Our attempt to balance the scales might actually be taking the scales of justice out of balance once more. How certain are you of your knowledge of where people are in the karmic circle?

On the other hand, justice or karma might just be a load of hogwash and we don't deserve anything, good or ill. Furthermore, whether something is good or bad is itself a judgment of preference and not any expression of absolute truth. But this is a discussion perhaps better left to a different thread.

[california boy]

Seriously, Jaybear, are you comparing custom to a moral behavior? They are not the same. Morality has always been constant with God, though it has certainly changed in the eyes of the world.

If God allowed gay marriage, it would no longer be moral behavior since the sex would be within the bonds of matrimony