Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[Calm]

Seriously??

Because for the straight person, living a life of chastity includes the option to get married and have lots of wild sex with the person they love and also the gender which they find attractive.

Not for all straight individuals. Some have reason to believe they will never get married (whether this is true or not is irrelevant since we are talking about what an individual anticipates for his or her future, not what that future actually is).

[LDSToronto]

I would say to any Gay person, if a straight single man can be happy in the church and live a life of chastity, why cant you?

Presuming this isn't a rhetorical question and you are seeking an answer, I find it odd that any LDS man would choose to live a life of chastity. Many men endure periods of chastity (if chastity is defined as no sex outside marriage) but I can't think of any who willingly choose chastity as a way of life. Additionally, I think if we are completely honest with ourselves, we would acknowledge that sexuality and sex drive is not a part of us that we can simply turn off and turn on at will. Thus, it seems reasonable for a gay person, or straight person, to answer, "Because I don't want to live a sex-less life devoid of sexual intimacy".

H.

Edited April 7, 2012 by LDSToronto

[BlueDreams]

The father and mother struggled to know what to do... Did the desires and attitudes of their youngest son and daughter undermine the plan for their family? Could they be happy, fulfilling other roles beyond "doctorhood" or "motherhood"? Could they allow them to have a space in the family neighborhood?

Likewise, I very much understand the perspective. The problem to me is that it is not an accurate analogy for the Gospel itself. It's not merely strong parental desire and expectations. It's God's Law, period. There are plenty of things that are mobile, changeable, exceptional, etc. within the church. Not in his ultimate Plan though. All will align to that in the end....because we all agreed to it in the beginning. There can be "space" in the "family neighborhood." Not everybody will get married (whether gay or straight), not everybody will have children, not everybody will live some ideal mormon dream. Not everybody will easily fit, in this life into some ideal. We all have our callings in life, we all have our struggles that leave our pillows wet at night, and are simply unfair. But there are things that simply will not, cannot, and should not change. I have had my own struggles that have brought me to my knees and are unlikely to change any time soon. I thank my creator for that. These are gifts that make our small triumphs profound, has humbled me, made me rely on God day-to-day, and will make the day where all is made right as He wipes away our tears truly blessed. Lastly, no one can undermine God's "plan for the family"...it's not nearly as simplistic in nature as the analogy.

The analogy works well for a world based understanding....but it is inadequate for a heaven-based one.

Thank you for the time to respond, though.

With luv,

BD

[Bob Crockett]

Who is Eldredge?

Add- on:

Do you mean Eldred G. Smith? If so you are still wrong. From the time of his call in the 1940s until he received emeritus status in 1979, he was not only a General Authority but the only one other than the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to be sustained in general conference as prophet,

I am not wrong. And my iPad autocorrected the name. Elred was not a general authority and complained about it. He had some trappings but didn't participate in any quorum meetings and did not have general assignments other than to provide blessings in parts of the world without stakes.

Joseph Fielding Smith had multiple homosexual relationships, at least historians allege, including with underaged boys. Whether these historians are correct or not I can't say. I recommend Gary Smith's Lost Legacy book and his Dialogue article. Also see the wiki entry for LDS patriarch.

According to Gary Smith, this caused the Brethren to rethink the value of a hereditary calling. There is a lot more to this story but I refer you to the book. Gary Smith could be wrong and lying, I suppose, but his book was published by the University of Illinois which uses peer review.

Again, I am not talking about Pres. Smith.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not wrong. And my iPad autocorrected the name.

I hate when that happens. My iPod Touch changed "revelator" to "revelatory" and I had to go back in and fix it.

Eldred was not a general authority and complained about it. He had some trappings but didn't participate in any quorum meetings and did not have general assignments other than to provide blessings in parts of the world without stakes.

I did check the Wikipedia entry, not on LDS Patriarch, but on Eldred G. Smith. It confirmed what I already knew, that he was a General Authority who was sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator while he functioned as Patriarch to the Church. He was not a frequent visitor at stake conferences, and he did not participate in the organization of stakes, but that was not his function as patriarch.

And his current designation is General Authority emeritus. Following direction, we have identified him as such for years in the Church News, which is a Church-correlated publication. How can he be a General Authority emeritus if he was never a General Authority to begin with?

Joseph Fielding Smith had multiple homosexual relationships, at least historians allege, including with underaged boys. Whether these historians are correct or not I can't say. I recommend Gary Smith's Lost Legacy book and his Dialogue article. Also see the wiki entry for LDS patriarch.

According to Gary Smith, this caused the Brethren to rethink the value of a hereditary calling. There is a lot more to this story but I refer you to the book. Gary Smith could be wrong and lying, I suppose, but his book was published by the University of Illinois which uses peer review.

Again, I am not talking about Pres. Smith.

As I acknowledged, I know next to nothing about Joseph F. Smith II. If he was engaged in homosexual acts and especially pedophilia, that definitely seems grounds for severe Church discipline.

I'll take a look at Gary Smith's book if I can get hold of a copy.

Add on:

This wiki link about the position of patriarch confirms what I said about Eldred G. Smith being a General Authority:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_(Latter_Day_Saints)#section_1

Further add-on: Bob, since writing the above, I've done some Internet browsing. It appears the case of Joseph F. Smith II is substantially as you describe it except that no excommunication or disfellowshipping took place, and the boys who had been involved were college age. Apparently the discipline was handled quietly and informally through what we today might call probation.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

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.

This is an opinion and not a proven fact.

Edit: I was unkind in my words. Sincerest apologies.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

There has already been revelation in this matter. It is expressed in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

In light of subsequent events (illustrated by the discussion we are having in this thread) it is more clear to me than ever why God inspired the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to issue the proclamation when they did. It is a manifesto of sorts, one that is not being taken seriously enough in public discourse. I too believe it might one day be canonized, this in response to increasing pressure on the Church to alter the laws of God.

The Proclamation isn't revelation. It is a statement given at a General Relief Society Meeting in 1995. No more, no less.

[TAO]

The Proclamation isn't revelation. It is a statement given at a General Relief Society Meeting in 1995. No more, no less.

The Proclamation of the Family may or may not be revelation - It hasn't been classified as either at this point. It is emphasized pretty consistently though, especially in the Youth Pamphlets.

Edited April 7, 2012 by TAO

[Scott Lloyd]

This is an opinion and not a proven fact. Your argument is worthless. You are making unsubstantiated claims that cannot be validated by personal testimony.

It is worth at least as much as your railing against it.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The Proclamation isn't revelation. It is a statement given at a General Relief Society Meeting in 1995. No more, no less.

The setting in which it was first announced is of no great moment. It has been published far and wide. It is not just directed to Church members, but to leaders of governments and to people everywhere, indeed to the entire world, just as the title.states, "The Family, a Proclamation to the World."

When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve unite behind a formal proclamation such as this one, it is an act inspired by God, and that makes the content revelation.

A document doesn't have to be canonized as scropture to be inspired, though I predict this one day will be.

Your ignorant dismissal of it above bears out what I said, that it is not being taken seriously enough in public discourse. At the very least, it conveys to government leaders and the world in general that regardless of how they redefine terms, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does and always will regard marriage as between a man and a woman.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

It is worth at least as much as your railing against it.

I apologize. Let me kindly rephrase. I understand the sanctity of personal testimony and the sacred nature and context from which it stems. My testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ stems deeply from my experiences of God's love for me. The LDS church is a pivitol piece in my own spiritual journey. I am forever indebted to the church for the wonderful things that the church has taught me and helped me to cope with. But I must be clear, my testimony is not of the church because it is a physical institution and vessel that provides one of many pathways back to the Father. My testimony is not of Joseph Smith but the divine work accomplished by the Divine through him. My testimony is not of scripture but the valuable teachings contained therein.

I sincerely apologize for demeaning what is probably your testimony in an earlier post. I've modified it.

Shalom.

[Damien the Leper]

Your ignorant dismissal of it above bears out what I said, that is not being taken seriously enough in public discourse. At the very least, it conveys to government leaders and the world in general that regardless of how they redefine terms, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does and always will regard marriage as between a man and a woman.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm just not going to make it more than it is. It is a statement that appears to be a binding theological position and policy for the membership of the LDS Church. It holds no bearing on the rest of the world nor the government. The LDS church has every right to its religious liberties but by government we are granted our own civil liberties. I'm not asking or demanding that the LDS church change. I know what battles to fight. The LDS church must remember its place. It is not an authoritative governing body for any policies except for those within its organization.

[KevinG]

"Because I don't want to live a sex-less life devoid of human intimacy".

Why would celibacy be devoid of human intimacy?

[KevinG]

I'm not dismissing it. I'm just not going to make it more than it is. It is a statement that appears to be a binding theological position and policy for the membership of the LDS Church. It holds no bearing on the rest of the world nor the government. The LDS church has every right to its religious liberties but by government we are granted our own civil liberties. I'm not asking or demanding that the LDS church change. I know what battles to fight. The LDS church must remember its place. It is not an authoritative governing body for any policies except for those within its organization.

Included in "our place" and guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution is the right to have a voice in the public forum about community standards. You or I disagreeing with the institutional position of the church does not change this one iota.

[Damien the Leper]

Included in "our place" and guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution is the right to have a voice in the public forum about community standards. You or I disagreeing with the institutional position of the church does not change this one iota.

I agree. This is part of individual liberty. Perhaps the church should stay out of my liberties an the civil forum and keep its position in its private forum. I want nothing from the church but its non-involvement in my secular life. And I will have enough respect for the church and its position on homosexuality and not cry for change or reform. It's a simple two way street of courtesy.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Valentinus

[LDSToronto]

Why would celibacy be devoid of human intimacy?

Sorry, I meant to say sexual intimacy.

H.

[KevinG]

I agree. This is part of individual liberty. Perhaps the church should stay out of my liberties an the civil forum and keep its position in its private forum. I want nothing from the church but its non-involvement in my secular life. And I will have enough respect for the church and its position on homosexuality and not cry for change or reform. It's a simple two way street of courtesy.

The debate is exactly where is the line between my right to swing my fist and your right to stick you nose in?

Churches cannot impose their rules on society unless they are a part of community standards. Secular institutions and movements cannot impose their rules on the religious unless they are a part of community standards. Exactly who owns the concept of marriage? That is fair game for free speech on both sides of the debate.

Asking me as a religious person (or my kindred organizations) to shut up is not consistent with your desire for free speech. The debate itself is healthy exercise of freedom. You may want me to shut up - but forcing someone to withdraw from public discourse does no one any good under our representative constitutional democracy.

Edited April 7, 2012 by KevinG

[LDSToronto]

The debate is exactly where is the line between my right to swing my fist and your right to stick you nose in?

Churches cannot impose their rules on society unless they are a part of community standards. Secular institutions and movements cannot impose their rules on the religious unless they are a part of community standards. Exactly who owns the concept of marriage? That is fair game for free speech on both sides of the debate.

Asking me as a religious person (or my kindred organizations) to shut up is not consistent with your desire for free speech. The debate itself is healthy exercise of freedom. You may want me to shut up - but forcing someone to withdraw from public discourse does no one any good under our representative constitutional democracy.

I agree. Society and the church both have horses in the race. Thing is, it's a long race, and society will redefine marriage well before the church comes around to change. But the church will change because it will no longer be socially relevant if it maintains it's current stance for another 50-100 years.

H.

[Damien the Leper]

The debate is exactly where is the line between my right to swing my fist and your right to stick you nose in?

Churches cannot impose their rules on society unless they are a part of community standards. Secular institutions and movements cannot impose their rules on the religious unless they are a part of community standards. Exactly who owns the concept of marriage? That is fair game for free speech on both sides of the debate.

Asking me as a religious person (or my kindred organizations) to shut up is not consistent with your desire for free speech. The debate itself is healthy exercise of freedom. You may want me to shut up - but forcing someone to withdraw from public discourse does no one any good under our representative constitutional democracy.

I get what you're saying. I agree that its okay to have an opinion. However, for me, it is best that religious institutions remain out of my romantic and relationship life. If I want to marry a man then churches should stay out of my way to do so. My sexual orientation or expressions of emotional intimacy and so forth should mean absolutely nothing to these institutions. If they want to protest against it...great. Let them waste their time on a matter that is trivial to them. They aren't going to change their minds and I've accepted that. Just don't get in the way of my joy that I have every right to have.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. This is part of individual liberty. Perhaps the church should stay out of my liberties an the civil forum and keep its position in its private forum. I want nothing from the church but its non-involvement in my secular life. And I will have enough respect for the church and its position on homosexuality and not cry for change or reform. It's a simple two way street of courtesy.

Typically in the past, I have stayed out of threads on this board dealing with same-gender attraction. This one grabbed my attention because the aggressive nature of the topic is so alarming to me. It's the first time I've seen a thread devoted to the notion that the Church will or must at some time in the future relinquish it's beliefs, doctrines and teachings on chastity, marriage and the family It suggests to me that, asit pertains to the Church, the pressure groups won't be content to get their way in government and the secular arena, that they will eventually come after the Church and try to force it to admit practicing homosexuals and to recognize and perhaps even perform their marriages. I see it as eventually becoming an issue of liberty and freedom of association.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. Society and the church both have horses in the race. Thing is, it's a long race, and society will redefine marriage well before the church comes around to change. But the church will change because it will no longer be socially relevant if it maintains it's current stance for another 50-100 years.

H.

Some of those who were advocating free love and the abolition of traditional marriage when the sexual revolution got under way nearly 50 years ago were probably saying the same thing. Yet the Church remains as socially relevant today as it ever was.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[LDSToronto]

Some of those who were advocating free love and the abolition of traditional marriage when the sexual revolution got under way nearly 50 years ago were probably saying the same thing. Yet the Church remains as socially relevant today as it ever was.

I dunno, Scott. Marriage equality seems like a bigger thing than free love. I mean, we've got nations and US states adopting legislation. Did any states adopt 'free-love' legislation?

H.

[David T]

When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve unite behind a formal proclamation such as this one, it is an act inspired by God, and that makes the content revelation.

A document doesn't have to be canonized as scropture to be inspired, though I predict this one day will be.

Would you expect to see the former proclamations canonized alongside the latest one?

Edited April 7, 2012 by David T

[Damien the Leper]

Typically in the past, I have stayed out of threads on this board dealing with same-gender attraction. This one grabbed my attention because the aggressive nature of the topic is so alarming to me. It's the first time I've seen a thread devoted to the notion that the Church will or must at some time in the future relinquish it's beliefs, doctrines and teachings on chastity, marriage and the family It suggests to me that, asit pertains to the Church, the pressure groups won't be content to get their way in government and the secular arena, that they will eventually come after the Church and try to force it to admit practicing homosexuals and to recognize and perhaps even perform their marriages. I see it as eventually becoming an issue of liberty and freedom of association.

This is disrespectful to the right of religious freedom the church is entitled to. I don't care either way as to what the church decides to do. All I ask for is the courtesy that religious institutions stay out of my future marriage, relationship and bedroom. I'm not asking for much. My marriage won't hurt the 14 million member church. That's just ridiculous.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Valentinus

[KevinG]

I dunno, Scott. Marriage equality seems like a bigger thing than free love. I mean, we've got nations and US states adopting legislation. Did any states adopt 'free-love' legislation?

H.

No. But many of them dropped fornication and adultery laws or chose not to enforce them. As a closet libertarian I find that to be a good thing.