Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[Damien the Leper]

There is no such thing as righteous rebellion in the Church of Jesus Christ. Remember, obedience is better than sacrifice.

So YOU say. Dissent has always been and will always be a part of the ever changing religious experience. Your reference is to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not to the Church of Jesus Christ which is the all inclusive banner under which all believing Christians belong. There is a huge difference. Keep in mind that the LDS church is not God nor is God the LDS Church. Such lines of thought are equivolent to the practices of idolatry.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Valentinus

[Bob Crockett]

I have. Maybe you could read what I wrote before name dropping. Maybe you could provide one example from the church's standard works that discusses the issue that is of such prominence socially and within the church. I again submit to you that is not a trivially matter for your position.

Citing published authorities is not "name dropping."

You asked for proof about the over 1000 years of commentary contrary to the moral relativism view that homosexuality is not condemned in the scriptures. The patristic literature is full of links to traditional Biblical commentary, for example. I consider that a fairly significant response to your CFR demand. For easy reference I cite you to the entry on "Homosexuality" in David Bercot's work, "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs." All he does is compile entries; he doesn't comment on them. A very good source for somebody who may not want to search through the ANF, although at one time it was all online.

Maybe you could provide one example from the church's standard works that discusses the issue that is of such prominence socially and within the church. I again submit to you that is not a trivially matter for your position.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying or that what you are saying is grammatically sufficient to understand. The Brethren have constantly hammered the theme of homosexual conduct. A General Authority was excommunicated in the 1940s or 50s for homosexual behavior. That seems sufficient for me.

Again, I don't really condemn the act myself. I say let live and keep the government out of the business of regulating consensual behavior. But it seems intellectually dishonest to claim the Bible doesn't say what it really says.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

.

Cannon, Justin R. (2008-07-14). The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality (pp. 23-24). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition.

I think this book is frivolous. Written by a gay Christian activist. Self-published. Not peer reviewed. There are better authorities than that.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[mikwut]

Bob,

So we are clear my position is that the scriptures do not provide us any source material for 1) the homosexual condition and 2) the proper view of loving committed adult homosexual relationships and/or marriage that can provide us guidance in the present discussion about homosexuality in that context. It condemns certain specific homosexual conduct, but that provides us nothing for numbers 1 and 2 above because the same heterosexual conduct is likewise condemned. The verses often used to attempt to counter what I have said isn't there too often have been used as simple tools of homophobic polemic that has tried to claim too much from strained verses. Just as all heterosexual acts are not condemned by the Bible it is silly to think the few utilized verses condemn all of homosexuality. If that is intellectually dishonest it would seem obvious that you should simply provide source material and substance that clearly shows otherwise.

I find your reference of Bercot's work rather silly. You make a claim (maybe mis typed?) That biblical commentary for a thousand years is being overturned. I don't have Bercot's work on my shelf but google tells me it isn't 1000 years old.

regards, mikwut

[Bob Crockett]

Considering that the Hebrew word to'evah does not actually translate to the poorly translated abomination such a claim as this becomes problematic. My Hebrew Bible professor stated that the appropriate translation of to'evah is "not part of this particular culture and practice".

It is of particular interest that malakoi and arsenokoitai did not define homosexual until the 1958 Amplified Version and the phrase used is "those who participate in homosexuality".

Sodomite was never synonymous with homosexual. It was synonymous with **** intercourse...at least from a cultural and sociological perspective.

In the NRSV Bible, one of the best in circulation, malakoi is the equivalent to a male prostitute. Arsenokoitai is the equivalent to that of a sodomite. Bruce Metzger and company, IMO, nailed it. A great reference is his Greek Lexical Aid.

In conclusion, the context doesn't fit the condemnation.

Yes, I am familiar with this argument, and I think it is a canard. I think it is a canard principally because it is of very recent derivation. Seems the patristic commentators might have a good view of the propriety of homosexual behavior. At

[mikwut]

I think this book is frivolous. Written by a gay Christian activist. Self-published. Not peer reviewed. There are better authorities than that.

Good grief, respond to the argument for heavens sake. John Boswell I couldn't cut and paste from Kindle but the arguments are the same. They in fact well known of. What part of the arguments do you disagree with?

regards, mikwut

[mikwut]

Bob,

Yes, I am familiar with this argument, and I think it is a canard. I think it is a canard principally because it is of very recent derivation. Seems the patristic commentators might have a good view of the propriety of homosexual behavior.

Please provide one quote where a patristic writer discusses sexual orientation and loving and committed sexual relationships.

mikwut

[Scott Lloyd]

Benefits of exaltation require access to temple ordinances. It seems to me that, theologically/doctrinally, if people are ineligible for temple work posthumously then there would be no argument to suggest they should for the same posthumous temple work in the millennium.

It suggests the logic and reasoning behind the denial of blacks receiving the priesthood also produced a theological view that created the belief that Blacks could not be exalted until God specifically stated otherwise. This idea, linked with the strong textual evidence that the early church members did not believe this would change until after this temporal existence, if at all, is interesting.

I think we forgot that the denial of blacks the priesthood was saying, as things stand God does not find you eligible the promise of exaltation; that is not even the HOPE of it even with righteous living.

Obviously, God, who knows the end from the beginning, had it in mind that Church members of African descent would eventually have the privileges that others do. Since the priesthood ban was never intended to be permanent, and since none of us gain the Celestisl Kingdom until after the final judgment in any case, I don't understand your problem.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

A General Authority was excommunicated in the 1940s or 50s for homosexual behavior. That seems sufficient for me.

Say what? Do you mean Richard R. Lyman? He was excommunicated for heterosexual adultery (specifically unlawful cohabitation, which he regarded as a polygamous relationship).

And other than George P. Lee, he's the only 20th Century GA I know of to be excommunicated. To my knowledge, neither man was involved in homosexual behavior.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So YOU say. Dissent has always been and will always be a part of the ever changing religious experience. Your reference is to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not to the Church of Jesus Christ which is the all inclusive banner under which all believing Christians belong. There is a huge difference. Keep in mind that the LDS church is not God nor is God the LDS Church. Such lines of thought are equivolent to the practices of idolatry.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the authentic Church of Jesus Christ, and it is governed by divine revelation through anointed leaders, not by popular vote. And adhering to that Church is definitely not idolatry.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Please provide one quote where a patristic writer discusses sexual orientation and loving and committed sexual relationships.

Wouldn't the lack of commentary about homosexual orientation (as opposed to extensive commentary about heterosexual relationships) possibly indicate a rejection of such as a valid human relationship?

[Calm]

Since the priesthood ban was never intended to be permanent, and since none of us gain the Celestisl Kingdom until after the final judgment in any case, I don't understand your problem.

An analogy would be theatre goers waiting to be seated, some have tickets and are seated immediately, others have to wait until until it gets close to opening and any empty seats are opened up to those waiting. Of course the 'theatre' in this case is infinite so we can think of no reason why people would have to wait for tickets/ordinances, especially nothing connected with race so please don't take the analogy as a commentary on worthiness or anything else besides the simple fact about whether or not access to exaltation is available to all whether or not they already have ordinances done or have been put on hold for now for whatever reason. Everyone who wants to be in the 'exalted' section will be seated there when the curtain goes up and they will enjoy the same experience of the 'show' whether they were seated in their seats for thousands of years or just seconds before the conductor begins the overture.

Does anyone interpret the delay of ordinance for holocaust victims and celebrities as instructed by church authorities as indicating God does not find them eligible for the promise of exaltation? From what I've read, it is clear that delay of ordinances for these individuals is seen as having absolutely no effect on their actual status in the here and now of the spirit world they currently abide in, especially eternal status.

Edited April 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[mikwut]

Wouldn't the lack of commentary about homosexual orientation (as opposed to extensive commentary about heterosexual relationships) possibly indicate a rejection of such as a valid human relationship?

No I think the logical interpretation would be that it doesn't say anything at all.

mikwut

[Bob Crockett]

Say what? Do you mean Richard R. Lyman? He was excommunicated for heterosexual adultery (specifically unlawful cohabitation, which he regarded as a polygamous relationship).

And other than George P. Lee, he's the only 20th Century GA I know of to be excommunicated. To my knowledge, neither man was involved in homosexual behavior.

Wrong general authorities. A church patriarch. I believe his name was Joseph F Smith, but not the Joseph F Smith. Could be wrong on the name. Church patriarchs after him were not general authorities.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Bob,

Please provide one quote where a patristic writer discusses sexual orientation and loving and committed sexual relationships.

mikwut

Please see my prior reference to Bercot. My prior post explaining his work should be sufficient for most. The book is in most major libraries.

[Programmer]

It will never happen because sex outside of a marriage is a sin. It has always been so and always will. Perhaps some of the doubters should kneel down to pray to God and see what he says about it. If they have the faith and humility enough they perhaps can get their own revelation from God on the subject.

In the end, it's not really what the church leadership wants, It's what the Lord wants. You see the Lord is at the head of the church, not men. That is something the gay marriage crowd doesn't believe in. But it will turn around on them someday.

[Calm]

A General Authority was excommunicated in the 1940s or 50s for homosexual behavior.

Apparently not excommunicated, but released from his position as Patriarch for reasons of "ill health" (which homosexuality would have been considered at the time).

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=1&id=280

[Scott Lloyd]

Wrong general authorities. A church patriarch. I believe his name was Joseph F Smith, but not the Joseph F Smith. Could be wrong on the name. Church patriarchs after him were not general authorities.

The last Patriarch to the Church to hold that position and title before it was discontinued was Eldred G. Smith. He is still alive and is 105 years old. In fact, there was a Church News story about President Monson visiting him on his birthday in January. He can't be the one you're talking about, because he became an emeritus General Authority in 1979, not long after the emeritus status was created. It was only then that the position of Patriarch to the Church, a General Authority position, was discontinued.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently not excommunicated, but released from his position as Patriarch for reasons of "ill health" (which homosexuality would have been considered at the time).

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=1&id=280

The very brief mention of Joseph F. Smith II here does not speak of a release. I assume that is discussed in the source cited in the footnote.

And it says here that Smith overcame his problems. There was no excommunication involved.

It is obvious Bob is confused in his recollection.

[Scott Lloyd]

I’m certainly not going to argue with you about what God really thinks about this issue. You are convinced that you already know God’s will on the issue, and it’s pointless to argue about it—especially with a disbeliever. What I am reminding you is that your faith believes that there will be future revelation. What will that revelation look like? The Jews thought the teachings of Jesus were so radical that he was destroying the law. New revelation can be shockingly unexpected, can’t it?

The revulsion that the Jews felt regarding the teachings of Jesus was a function of their own apostate understanding of what the law was and what it meant.

Church members in the 1890s should not have been shocked over the Manifesto if they clearly understood the teaching in Jacob about monogamy being the default commandment and plural marriage being the exception, depending on the time and setting.

And many years prior to 1978 it had clearly been taught in formal Church statements that black Church members one day would have the priesthood. In fact, I don't recall the reaction in 1978 being shock, certainly not resistance. There was surprise, but it was mainly elation and relief that "the long promised" day had come.

In each of the above instances, the supposedly "radical" change in the status quo was not inconsistent with what had been taught before.

By contrast, what you and others are suggesting here is so extremely contrary to what has been taught by God and His prophets going back to antiquity, so alien to the doctrine of the Church regarding the family and the plan of exaltation, as to not merit reasonable conjecture, much less serious consideration.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

The revulsion that the Jews felt regarding the teachings of Jesus was a function of their own apostate understanding of what the law was and what it meant.

Church members in the 1890s should not have been shocked over the Manifesto if they clearly understood the teaching in Jacob about monogamy being the default commandment and plural marriage being the exception, depending on the time and setting.

And many years prior to 1978 it had clearly been taught in formal Church statements that black Church members one day would have the priesthood. In fact, I don't recall the reaction in 1978 being shock, certainly not resistance. There was surprise, but it was mainly elation and relief that "the long promised" day had come.

In each of the above instances, the supposedly "radical" change in the status quo was not inconsistent with what had been taught before.

By contrast, what you and others are suggesting here is so extremely contrary to what has been taught by God and His prophets going back to antiquity, so alien to the doctrine of the Church regarding the family and the plan of exaltation, as to not merit reasonable conjecture, much less serious consideration.

Perhaps. But the people who didn't understand what the law was and what it meant thought they understood it quite well at the time. Maybe in 100 years the Latter-day Saints will be saying the same thing about you?

It brings to mind the nature of what hasn't been publicly revealed. Joseph Smith said things like, If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me. And even more to the point, Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps. But the people who didn't understand what the law was and what it meant thought they understood it quite well at the time. Maybe in 100 years the Latter-day Saints will be saying the same thing about you?

So at it's core, then, it devolves back to the question of whether the Church is what it professes to be, God's authorized instrument led by revelation to anointed prophets.

Sooner or later we always end up back there, it seems.

If the answer to that question is yes, all this talk about admitting practicing homosexuals to full fellowship and privilege is moot, a conversational pastime for unbelievers.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

So at it's core, then, it devolves back to the question of whether the Church is what it professes to be, God's authorized instrument led by revelation to anointed prophets.

Sooner or later we always end up back there, it seems.

If the answer to that question is yes, all this talk about admitting practicing homosexuals to full fellowship and privilege is moot, a conversational pastime for unbelievers.

Perhaps. I have two points. First, from my unbelieving perspective, I can quite easily see the church eventually coming around on this issue. Second, if the church is true, then there is a lot more truth and understanding out there that is yet to be revealed. Who knows whether or not future knowledge will confirm or correct the church's current position on this issue?

[Buzzard]

Perhaps. I have two points. First, from my unbelieving perspective, I can quite easily see the church eventually coming around on this issue. Second, if the church is true, then there is a lot more truth and understanding out there that is yet to be revealed. Who knows whether or not future knowledge will confirm or correct the church's current position on this issue?

I have two points back. I humbly submit that from an unbelieving perspective (your words), changing a doctrine is easy. From a believing perspective, Eternal Marriage-the man/woman kind-is the very heart of God's plan. THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM. None, not now, not ever. And current leaders, while calling for christlike love for all of God's children, have stated that same thing. Specifically, that it will never happen. So all those who think that gay relationships will ever be sanctified in the temple, get over it. It's not going to happen as long as the Plan of Salvation, which predates our earth, exists.

Second, the truth, light, and understanding that has come into the world since 1820 has never taken what is deep dark sin and said it's no longer a sin.

[Bob Crockett]

The very brief mention of Joseph F. Smith II here does not speak of a release. I assume that is discussed in the source cited in the footnote.

And it says here that Smith overcame his problems. There was no excommunication involved.

It is obvious Bob is confused in his recollection.

No. I'm not. He was excommunicated, or disfellowshipped, and then readmitted where he later became a high councilor in Hawaii. Because of him Elredge was not a general authority, as that part of the calling was dropped. Eldredge was a somewhat vocal fellow and complained about his circumstances.