Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Ahab,It wouldn't be done per the Bishop's prerogative, because as you already correctly understand, they cannot (or at least should not) and are instructed not to ask questions beyond that which they are instructed to ask.It is possible that those questions will change. That they haven't, despite some states' legalization of homosexual marriage, doesn't mean they wouldn't change if gay marriage became the federal law of the land and states had to follow. Edited June 17, 2011 by Mars
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Well, there were a great many who believed blacks were born cursed because they were less valient in the pre-existence. Heck, I'm sure there are some who may even still feel that all blacks born "from Cain" until 1978 needed (or perhaps deserved) to be cut off from the Priesthood. I think it's all a bunch of crap, as does Elder Holland.However, that doesn't mean there aren't otherwise great and faithful members in the Church who do feel that way.Agreed. That might have been a deal breaker for my baptism actually- I was baptized in 1980.As I saw it at the time, practically all Christian churches were racist in those days, (pre- 1970's) and at least the LDS acknowledged that they should not be, where others remained racist at least de facto. I never bought the Cain/curse thing.I have had 2 kids serve missions in the South, and both say that they see "black churches" and "white churches" all the time- whereas our congregations are integrated fully.I don't know- I haven't been there, but that's what I hear.
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) The first commandment was to "multiply and replenish the earth", not to have sex with just one person. "Married" homosexuals cannot multiply with their "spouses". Then is it your opinion that infertile couples, - who would by definition just be having sex with one person and not being able to multiply and replenish the earth - do not fit the standard for a marriage pleasing in God's eyes? Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Coime on- You know this stuff!Yes, performing homosexual sex is against the law of chastity, and thus prohibits one from getting a recommend.CFR from someone with more authority than either of us, please.I've already shared my understanding of what the law of chastity involves... and to state it again, the law of chastity limits sexual relations to only a person's legally and lawfully wedded spouse... so where are you getting the idea that the law of chastity includes a restriction to not have sexual relations with someone of the same sex?I'd like to see such a definition for someone with an appropriate level of authority, and I'd like to see it in writing.
Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I did a fair amount of growing up in Texas, and yes, I can personally attest to the fact that many Churches are still split racially, though of course not 100%. Some larger "megachurches," or at least a mega-Church for a specific area, are more racially integrated because by their very definition they have a huge congregation and naturally attract people from all walks of life.That is not to say, however, that your garden variety American Protestant Church today is racist by having a white-only or black-only congregation when the population around you is more mixed. It has more than likely persisted by tradition, whereas the genesis of the divide was in all probability racially motivated.
zerinus Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 If the bishop discovered they were gay, for example, how would that affect receiving a recommend? Does the CHI or some other authoratative source state practicing homosexuals are disqualified from receiving a temple recommend?I'm just trying to understand the specifics on this.Law of Chastity test, for me, as I see it = am I limiting my sexual relations to only my legally and lawfully wedded spouse?What makes you think someone who is legally and lawfully married to someone of the same sex couldn't pass that same test with a "Yes" answer???One of the temple recommend interview questions asks, "Do you live the law of chastity?" So the question is, How is "the law of chastity" defined by the Church? The most reliable definition is probably the one that is given in the temple itself; and that doesn't say anything about "spouse". It mentions "husband or wife," which are gender related words. Husband is male, and wife is female. I don't see any ambiguity in that definition. It excludes homosexual relationships.
Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Then is it your opinion that infertile couples, - who would by definition just be having sex with one person and not being able to multiply and replenish the earth - do not fit the standard for a marriage pleasing in God's eyes?Infertile couples are not the same as homosexual couples. There are no exceptions to the rule that two men or two women cannot procreate. The infertile state of a heterosexual couple is the lamentable exception to the rule that they normally can. 1
Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Whoops, double post. Edited June 17, 2011 by Mars
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 One of the temple recommend interview questions asks, "Do you live the law of chastity?" So the question is, How is "the law of chastity" defined by the Church? The most reliable definition is probably the one that is given in the temple itself; and that doesn't say anything about "spouse". It mentions "husband or wife," which are gender related words. Husband is male, and wife is female. I don't see any ambiguity in that definition. It excludes homosexual relationships.As I recall, the language in the temple uses the word "spouse", rather than "husband or wife", so I think you have it backwards, but to be sure I'm willing to go back and have another listen while reading the captioning on the monitor while accepting that as an appropriate definition.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Good grief. Sorry. My computer went wacko. Would somebody please delete all but one of my most recent posts?
LeSellers Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 When do you suppose the authorities of the Church will rephrase the question to something like that?When a LDS homosexual marries. You do realize that same sex marriage is already legal and lawful in some states of America, don't you?I read the papers. Why aren't they asking that question something like that way right now, do you suppose?Has any LDS homosexual "married" another homosexual, and then requested a Temple Recommend? I doubt it. So there is no need. As I see it, all bishops are supposed to ask only the questions that are now asked in the temple recommend interview, and exactly as they are stated.As I see it, there's no leeway for bishops to rephrase the questions, or to ask additional questions they think should be asked in the process.You finally see it correctly. If I'm not right about that, though... meaning if I don't see it as it is now... please go ahead and straighten me out by quoting someone with more authority than either of us.There is no one quote that would satisfy your call for reference. There is a mountainof evidence that supports my understanding. Since you are the one hypothesizing that "married" people can engage in legal homosex, why do you not produce some sort of evidence that the Lord would authorize them to enter His Holy House.I am old enough to recall that oral and ana1 sex were, at one time, disqualifiers for married people seeking a Temple ecommend. This was pooh-poohed and ridiculed at the time (and has been since), but I also recall seeing more than one reference to it on two continents (i.e., it was not local). I strongly suggest that what was sauce for the geese would be sauce for the platypi. Lehi
LeSellers Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Then is it your opinion that infertile couples ... do not fit the standard for a marriage pleasing in God's eyes?No.Lehi
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I'd like to see such a definition for someone with an appropriate level of authority, and I'd like to see it in writing.LOLSomeone with an appropriate level of authority would not quote the CHI.You are a funny guy. 1
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) LOLSomeone with an appropriate level of authority would not quote the CHI.You are a funny guy.Yeah, I know I'm funny, but I'd still like to see a definition of what the law of chastity is all about from someone with more authority than either of us, preferably from someone who is or has been a President of the whole Church. Edited June 17, 2011 by Ahab
Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Ahab,Is the only driving force behind the law of chastity is that the couple make a state sanctioned commitment to each other? Is that how you see it? Do I understand you properly?
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Yeah, I know I'm funny, but I'd still like to see a definition of what the law of chastity is all about from someone with more authority than either of us, preferably from someone who is or has been a President of the whole Church.HereDig it out yourself.There are plenty of Biblical references too. Don't believe you would ask! Edited June 17, 2011 by mfbukowski
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) No.LehiSo what is it, in your opinion, that makes the inherent urges and love of an infertile heterosexual couple more pure and deserving of expression than the inherent urges and love of an infertile homosexual couple?In both, the potential for natural children is not an issue. Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Ahab,Is the only driving force behind the law of chastity is that the couple make a state sanctioned commitment to each other? Is that how you see it? Do I understand you properly?As I see it, the law of chastity is simply a declaration of the fact that sexual relations outside of a marriage is wrong. Plain and simple.I do believe it's better for those who are married to be married for eternity, rather than only for mortality, but I see that as another issue on top of the issue of chastity, just as actually showing affection is another issue on which a good marriage is built.A good marriage involves a lot more than just being chaste and affectionate, too, as you probably know, and it's just that rather than considering all of the elements that make up a good marriage to fall under the umbrella of "chastity", I see them each as separate issues, although all of them together can be said to fall under the umbrella of "charity".
Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) So what is it, in your opinion, that makes the inherent urges and love of an infertile heterosexual couple more pure and deserving of expression than the inherent urges and love of an infertile homosexual couple?In both, the potential for natural children is not an issue.There's more to defining a couple than their ability, or even desire, to have children...But like I said earlier, every homosexual couple is biologically incapable of procreation. Not every heterosexual couple is burdened with the same state. For the former, it's the rule. For the latter, it's the exception. Edited June 17, 2011 by Mars
Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 As I see it, the law of chastity is simply a declaration of the fact that sexual relations outside of a marriage is wrong. Plain and simple.I see it differently, though my view encompasses what you've outlined here. Sexual relations are also for bearing children, something central to the plan of salvation. The spiritual laws and counsel given regarding marriage, sexual relations, and chastity are intended to foster the greatest probability that children will grow up learning the Gospel and choose to accept it when they're old enough. It would be unwise to lose that focus.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 So what is it, in your opinion, that makes the inherent urges and love of an infertile heterosexual couple more pure and deserving of expression than the inherent urges and love of an infertile homosexual couple?In both, the potential for natural children is not an issue.I can explain that one, but I'll have to use a word that some people don't like around here.Do you know the difference between good and evil? Do you know what makes something evil?Some people think that whatever they "like" is "good", with "good" being based on whether or not they "like" something, but people can end up liking something that is actually "evil" while calling that evil thing "good".So, to put it simply, sexual desires between heterosexual people who are married is "good", but sexual desires between homosexual people is "evil".Thus, what makes the inherent urges of a heterosexual couple "good" is that what they are doing is "good", while the homosexual couple is doing something "evil".That's what makes the difference. One is good, and the other is evil.I'll say good-bye now just in case the Moderators want to kick me off of the board now.Good-bye.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I see it differently, though my view encompasses what you've outlined here. Sexual relations are also for bearing children, something central to the plan of salvation. The spiritual laws and counsel given regarding marriage, sexual relations, and chastity are intended to foster the greatest probability that children will grow up learning the Gospel and choose to accept it when they're old enough. It would be unwise to lose that focus.It isn't the bearing of children that makes it good, though, in my perspective. It's the fact that it's between members of the opposite sex, rather than members of the same sex.One is good, while the other is evil.
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I can explain that one, but I'll have to use a word that some people don't like around here.Do you know the difference between good and evil? Do you know what makes something evil?Some people think that whatever they "like" is "good", with "good" being based on whether or not they "like" something, but people can end up liking something that is actually "evil" while calling that evil thing "good".So, to put it simply, sexual desires between heterosexual people who are married is "good", but sexual desires between homosexual people is "evil".Thus, what makes the inherent urges of a heterosexual couple "good" is that what they are doing is "good", while the homosexual couple is doing something "evil".That's what makes the difference. One is good, and the other is evil.I'll say good-bye now just in case the Moderators want to kick me off of the board now.Good-bye.You didn't address the question at all. You restated the source of the question.I asked what makes one thing pure, and the other impure.You said because one is good (pure), and the other is evil (impure).
Mars Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I'm not commenting on the 'good' vs 'bad.'I'm just explaining the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.
Recommended Posts