Mormonsandgays

[canard78]

I agree and have now provided sources for all my statements. But, I also feel that you have to leave a certain amount of room for civil discussion. An over reliance on referencing every sentence will turn all the posts into bibliographies.

Then this may not be the board for you If you make a statement of fact you have to include a bibliography. If I read a statement of fact, especially about mormonism. I want a reference to see if that statement of fact carries weight (for and against).

Yes, the LDS definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman. But, as far as I can tell, that appears to be a policy decision not a doctrinal revelation. And, as we've seen, policies are subject to change.

Given it has been stated by prophets and apostles and formalised it is still enough for the church to take action on. The fact it could change doesn't mean you (hypothetically) supporting your son in a gay marriage would be approved of by church leaders while it stands.

[rockpond]

Given it has been stated by prophets and apostles and formalised it is still enough for the church to take action on. The fact it could change doesn't mean you (hypothetically) supporting your son in a gay marriage would be approved of by church leaders while it stands.

Yes, policy is acted upon by church leaders. And I realize that a gay marriage by my son (hypothetically) would not be approved of and he could be excommunicated. But even an excommunication doesn't mean that *that* definition of the LoC is revealed doctrine. It's still just policy.

[canard78]

Yes, policy is acted upon by church leaders. And I realize that a gay marriage by my son (hypothetically) would not be approved of and he could be excommunicated. But even an excommunication doesn't mean that *that* definition of the LoC is revealed doctrine. It's still just policy.

It would make no difference in a disciplinary hearing. The website today does nothing to justify your (hypothetical) decision today. That doesn't stop you holding the view, but it will lead to people here disagreeing with it.

It may be a view you'd want to reconsider. And that's fine. I'm forever u-turning. That's why I'm here, to form and shape my understanding with a group of the extremes in (and out of) the church.

[rockpond]

The website today does nothing to justify your (hypothetical) decision today. That doesn't stop you holding the view, but it will lead to people here disagreeing with it.

That's basically my point. I think that the website is a wonderful move in the Brethrens' ongoing attempts to encourage love & compassion for LGBT persons. Unfortunately, it does little to advance a doctrinal or revealed understanding. I don't see the website as progress, just as a new glossed up version of what the Brethren have been espousing for the past few years. And while I'm happy that they continue to spread that extremely important message, I think if we are truly to be at the "forefront" as Elder Cook said, we need to arrive there via revealed truth rather than policy statements.

As for reconsidering my position with respect to a hypothetical gay married son... I'm always open to it. But for now, I am more inclined to feel that "man is not meant to be alone" and that the need for true love and companionship outweighs the need to follow current church policy.

[california boy]

The purpose of my post was to:

1) Point out that, with all the assertion that the Church must or will change, let’s keep an open mind about it and accept that people may change as well, especially when life-changing events such as death and the memory of pre-mortal life and eternal relationships undoubtedly would change one’s perspective. Yes, this is an LDS viewpoint (and why not?), in reply to another LDS' post.

2) Address the point of spousal or romantic love in the post I replied to—which was made by a LDS: This is a member-to-member communique where it is reasonable to presume he understands the "Mormon way" context. If one follows Mark 12:30-31 (puts God first), his affections will certainly take on an eternal character even in romantic and social affairs. This perspective invites non-LDS to consider this perspective without condemning how they currently express spirituality and the best that selfless human love has to offer.

Perhaps you are right. I can't really foresee the future and what it might bring. What I am pretty sure of Is I will remain gay throughout my mortal experience. I don't foresee such an integral part of me changing in the afterlife any more that you can imagine that your orientation will change when you die. Maybe heaven will be a place without an orientation, but I highly doubt that any more than I highly doubt your orientation will change after death.

I identify myself as an exmormon, and I am no longer on the rolls of the church. I am also only expressing how I feel about things and I am not in any way representing any community or group. I am sure you can all appreciate that. I don't mind saying how I feel about things. It is at least a different perspective than a straight members perspective.

[Linda]

Yes, policy is acted upon by church leaders. And I realize that a gay marriage by my son (hypothetically) would not be approved of and he could be excommunicated. But even an excommunication doesn't mean that *that* definition of the LoC is revealed doctrine. It's still just policy.

We had such a case years ago in Berlin which went also through the gay press. A young man, member of the church, married his companion through life with whom he was together for fifteen years. This means: For fifteen years he had to hide his companion through life from the church. Had to deny to be homosexual. Shortly after it was known, that he had got married (a member of the church worked in the registry office); was he excommunicated; since he wanted to give up neither his partner nor his "homosexual lifestyle".

He complained in front of court, right, however, was not. The court led; that the LDS is a body "of the public law" with laws of its own. Rules which stand outside the German justice/law.

[canard78]

We had such a case years ago in Berlin which went also through the gay press. A young man, member of the church, married his companion through life with whom he was together for fifteen years. This means: For fifteen years he had to hide his companion through life from the church. Had to deny to be homosexual. Shortly after it was known, that he had got married (a member of the church worked in the registry office); was he excommunicated; since he wanted to give up neither his partner nor his "homosexual lifestyle".

He complained in front of court, right, however, was not. The court led; that the LDS is a body "of the public law" with laws of its own. Rules which stand outside the German justice/law.

I don't know the case, nor German law, but I would imagine the church is very much inside the law, the law likely stating that a religious organisation has the legal right to set standards for membership.

[Calm]

We had such a case years ago in Berlin which went also through the gay press. A young man, member of the church, married his companion through life with whom he was together for fifteen years. This means: For fifteen years he had to hide his companion through life from the church. Had to deny to be homosexual. Shortly after it was known, that he had got married (a member of the church worked in the registry office); was he excommunicated; since he wanted to give up neither his partner nor his "homosexual lifestyle".

He complained in front of court, right, however, was not. The court led; that the LDS is a body "of the public law" with laws of its own. Rules which stand outside the German justice/law.

For clarification, the man took the Church to court in an attempt to prevent his own excommunication?

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR!

I have provided all the references that I've been asked for. I didn't ever intend to derail this thread -- I was just responding to Calmoriah.

In any case, if you are going to say that I have not substantiated my claims, after I've provided references for all of them, please provide your sources for saying that I have not substantiated my point rather than just stating it.

You asserted that there had been "numerous" this-will-never change statements. You said you had provided three examples. They were not really examples but flat assertions of your own. All three were (and still are) highly debatable. One of them you retracted.

Pressed for documentation, you cherry-picked a number of obscure, 19th century quotations, all but one or two dealing with polygamy, and all looking suspiciously like standard anti-Mormon boilerplate. All are of questionable context, especially in light of the Book of Mormon doctrine that plural marriage is a commandment of God but the institution of which is only occasional and temporary.

So my <opinion> stands that your assertion about "numerous" statements lacks substantiation.

And just to be clear here, I don't have to provide a source for my own opinion. I am the source of my opinion. And I am free to evaluate or scrutinize whatever sources or documentation are given.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

You asserted that there had been "numerous" this-will-never change statements. You said you had provided three examples. All three were (and still are) highly debatable. One of them you retracted.

Pressed for documentation, you cherry-picked a number of obscure, 19th century quotations, all but one dealing with polygamy, and all looking suspiciously like standard anti-Mormon boilerplate. All are of questionable context, especially in light of the Book of Mormon doctrine that plural marriage is a commandment of God but the institution of which is only occasional and temporary.

So my <opinion> stands that your assertion about "numerous" statements lacks substantiation.

I provided authoritative quotes for three examples (which I have clarified without changing the underlying point), only one dealt with polygamy. Those references provided that polygamy must always be practiced, that blacks would not hold the priesthood until well into the Millenium, and that blacks would never be allowed to intermarry with whites.

The quotes were from the 19th century because we are dealing with an historical issue. I don't consider Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Heber C. Kimball to be obscure and anti-Mormon. Do you? These men were our past prophets and apostles.

You've claimed that I took the quotes out of context. Please provide your references for that.

Or, we could try to minimize some of the churn and see if we can find an area of agreement (something that I thought we were once close to). I agree that the current teaching of our prophet and apostles is that the Lord will never approve of homosexual behavior. But past prophets and apostles have also made similarly sweeping statements about race and polygamy that turned out to be incorrect. Is that something we can agree on?

I don't believe that makes them any less prophetic or apostolic. I think it makes them human and mortal. I think it's all part of this glorious process that we call the restoration. And I celebrate its progress.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or, we could try to minimize some of the churn and see if we can find an area of agreement (something that I thought we were once close to). I agree that the current teaching of our prophet and apostles is that the Lord will never approve of homosexual behavior. But past prophets and apostles have also made similarly sweeping statements about race and polygamy that turned out to be incorrect. Is that something we can agree on?

I don't believe that makes them any less prophetic or apostolic. I think it makes them human and mortal. I think it's all part of this glorious process that we call the restoration. And I celebrate its progress.

Your cited examples essentially boil down to two items: polygamy and the withholding of the ordination of black men to the priesthood. Within the doctrinal framework of the Church of Jesus Christ, it was always foregone (though perhaps not fully understood by everybody) that those things could change in accordance with the revealed word of God. Not so with the expression of same-gender attraction. That has always been condemned as an abominable sin, punishable by the most severe penalty the Church can issue. The reason, of course, is that it conflicts so starkly with the very fabric of the Plan of Salvation. The Church and The Lord have only ever recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman. This was declared by the First Presidency and Quorum in The Family: a Proclamation to the World and affirmed more recently when the Church encouraged members to become involved in the effort to enact Proposition 8 and thus hinder the societal redefinition of marriage.

You have called the Church's definition of marriage a policy. It is part and parcel of the Plan of Salvation, which is very much doctrine. It is important to recognize this for the reason I have already given, so that individuals beset with same-gender attraction can have a greater motivation to live the Law of Chastity (as the Lord, not rockpond, defines it) and one day receive the blessings that come from faithfulness.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It should also be noted that statements that homosexuality is a sin have been much more sweeping and widespread than comments about the always acknowledged temporary limitations of the priesthood and polygamy and the alleged comment (unless I have missed the actual quotation rather than your citation of your memory...which isn't inherently a bad thing, just limits the usefulness of the cite) of forbidding of intermarrying with the races. If desired, I will come up with numerous quotations about homosexuality as a sin after I get some work done to demonstrate the difference.

If it is a policy (and I like Scott do not see it as a policy but doctrine due to what is to me the overwhelming commentary on it), it is possible that it might be changed, but the hurdle it has to overcome is in my opinion much, much higher than for any of the three examples you gave based on the stated temporary nature of two examples you quoted and the one alleged quote you gave (which may have rather than actually forbidding a marriage, only reflected the counsel to choose one's partner from one's race which was in place for quite some time...I believe that part of Pres. Kimball's quote has now been removed from the Celestial marriage manual, but was more, imo, about culture/background conflict than anything else as could be seen from the other things that were suggested to be aware of such as education level and economic status).

[rockpond]

Within the doctrinal framework of the Church of Jesus Christ, it was always foregone (though perhaps not fully understood by everybody) that those things could change in accordance with the revealed word of God.

And when you say "not fully understood by everybody" you are, apparently, including the prophets and apostles that I quoted. Additionally, you cannot substantiate that "it was always foregone". That said, I agree that you will be able to find quotes to support your point just as I have found quotes to support mine. A complete clarity among the Brethren simply did not exist.

The Church and The Lord have only ever recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Well, the Church and the Lord have also recognized marriage between a man and multiple women. And I don't think you can provide a reference wherein the Lord has stated that no other form of marriage could be recognized.

This was declared by the First Presidency and Quorum in The Family: a Proclamation to the World and affirmed more recently when the Church encouraged members to become involved in the effort to enact Proposition 8 and thus hinder the societal redefinition of marriage.

Neither of which constitute the revealed word of the Lord on the matter.

You have called the Church's definition of marriage a policy. It is part and parcel of the Plan of Salvation, which is very much doctrine. It is important to recognize this for the reason I have already given, so that individuals beset with same-gender attraction can have a greater motivation to live the Law of Chastity (as the Lord, not rockpond, defines it) and one day receive the blessings that come from faithfulness.

CFR: Please provide for me the reference wherein the Lord defines the Law of Chastity.

I do believe that those homosexual members who choose to follow the Church's current understanding of the LoC and remain celibate will receive great blessings for their faithfulness. I also believe that those homosexual members who feel that the correct path for them is that of a committed same-sex relationship, will not be punished by our Father in Heaven for that choice.

[rockpond]

It should also be noted that statements that homosexuality is a sin have been much more sweeping and widespread than comments about the always acknowledged temporary limitations of the priesthood and polygamy and the alleged comment (unless I have missed the actual quotation rather than your citation of your memory...which isn't inherently a bad thing, just limits the usefulness of the cite) of forbidding of intermarrying with the races. If desired, I will come up with numerous quotations about homosexuality as a sin after I get some work done to demonstrate the difference.

I certainly agree that it feels that way in our time period... an era when those issues have been resolved for many decades. I would imagine that back in the 19th Century it may not have felt the same. The quotes I provided by prophets/apostles certainly don't support your statement that these principles were "always acknowledged" to be temporary.

If it is a policy (and I like Scott do not see it as a policy but doctrine due to what is to me the overwhelming commentary on it), it is possible that it might be changed, but the hurdle it has to overcome is in my opinion much, much higher than for any of the three examples you gave...

I certainly agree that an acceptance of same-gender marriage by the Church has huge hurdles to overcome. And I agree that it feels like those hurdles are larger than what it took to change the practices of polygamy and not allowing blacks to have the priesthood or participate in temple ordinances. But, I think that feeling (that we agree exists today) is a function of the era we live in. In my opinion, if you were able to time-travel back to 1860's Utah and spend some time there you might feel differently with respect to polygamy. And if you went to back and lived in early 20th century Mormonism, the hurdles for blacks to be allowed to hold the priesthood and be married in the temple might also have seen impossible to surpass.

[Scott Lloyd]

Neither of which constitute the revealed word of the Lord on the matter.

Like other so-called "New Order Mormons" (yes, I've checked you out) you have defined "the revealed word of the Lord" to exclude what is promulgated by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acting as a united council. I'm afraid we are so far apart on this subject that we have nothing more to say to each other that would be productive.

CFR: Please provide for me the reference wherein the Lord defines the Law of Chastity.

I'm not allowed to quote temple content on this board, but I woudn't even if I could.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Like other so-called "New Order Mormons" (yes, I've checked you out) you have defined "the revealed word of the Lord" to exclude what is promulgated by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acting as a united council. I'm afraid we are so far apart on this subject that we have nothing more to say to each other that would be productive.

I'm not sure what you are saying... when the First Presidency and Q12 give us the revealed word of the Lord I certainly accept it. Are you suggesting that they can, as a council, provide the word of the Lord without it actually being revealed to them? Can you cite a reference for that?

CFR: Please provide for me the reference wherein the Lord defines the Law of Chastity.

I'm not allowed to quote temple content on this board, but I woudn't even if I could.

I wouldn't want you to. So is that the only reference we have to work from? Because I use those words (the quote from the temple) frequently when discussing the LoC with other fellow members. And, it refers simply to a legally married spouse. Since there are now 9 states in the U.S. where gay couples can be legally married, a literal interpretation would allow for them to be living the LoC.

* And yes, I have participated on the NOM boards though lately I've not found the discussions there to be particularly productive because I prefer to have these conversations with people who remain believing members who are interested in learning not criticizing our jointly held faith. I feel like I can find more of that here.

[rongo]

So is that the only reference we have to work from? Because I use those words (the quote from the temple) frequently when discussing the LoC with other fellow members. And, it refers simply to a legally married spouse. Since there are now 9 states in the U.S. where gay couples can be legally married, a literal interpretation would allow for them to be living the LoC.

If/when the time comes that same-sex marriage is legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court (and I've shared Elder Perry's statement that he doesn't think traditional marriage will ultimately be upheld by the USSC), I think the Church will simply clarify the definition of the law of chastity as given in the temple with the definition in the Proclamation: legally married as husband and wife.

That is what is meant (and has always been meant), but the sea change in culture and society will necessitate the spelling out of things that formerly didn't need to be because some actually would try to insist that since they are "legally married in [_______]," they are now living the LoC!

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure what you are saying... when the First Presidency and Q12 give us the revealed word of the Lord I certainly accept it. Are you suggesting that they can, as a council, provide the word of the Lord without it actually being revealed to them? Can you cite a reference for that?

I'm saying that when they act unitedly as a body like that, I'm confident that their output is the revealed word of God. I'm funny that way.

* And yes, I have participated on the NOM boards though lately I've not found the discussions there to be particularly productive because I prefer to have these conversations with people who remain believing members who are interested in learning not criticizing our jointly held faith. I feel like I can find more of that here.

You refer repeatedly in posts to your "TBM wife." That to me implies that you place yourself outside the orthodox mainstream.

[rockpond]

That is what is meant (and has always been meant)...

By the Church and statements by the Brethren, but we don't yet have the revealed word of the Lord on the matter.

[rockpond]

I'm saying that when they act unitedly as a body like that, I'm confident that their output is the revealed word of God. I'm funny that way.

Okay, just as long as we are clear that it is your opinion. I apologize if I have become overly sensitive to that since I've been asked to back up just about every statement I've made with a clear, documented reference.

You refer repeatedly in posts to your "TBM wife." That to me implies that you place yourself outside the orthodox mainstream.

Yeah, that is a nomenclature used among that group. "TBM" is a term that I am not particularly fond of but am definitely guilty of using. As you've noticed, I probably am outside the orthodox mainstream of the church. Though it is not my goal to be an "outsider". I assure you that I am an active, temple-recommend holding member with a testimony of the restoration and a firm faith in God and his Son. My goal here is to help work through answers to some of the questions that rattle around in my head and heart.

[halconero]

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 1)

This is why I believe, respectfully, that within the Church marriage will always be between man and a woman. "Man" and "him" is first represented as a whole representing humanity. Humanity is created in the image of God. Man is then divided into two sexes, man and woman, male and female, showing that the full expression of humanity is found in these sexes. This demonstrates that the full expression of God, the idea of Deity,, is found in the coming together of two sexes.

We do not believe in a metaphysical being with no parts, or in a hermaphroditic being, but in a God, Male and Female together. While Heavenly Father may be properly addressesd as God it is only because a Heavenly Mother exists.

In a case where this is not so, at least one of the sexes cannot properly be said to be made in the image of God.

I do not think that homosexuals, whether they are sexually active or not, are depraved children of God. I even believe that those who do choose to find someone to spend their life with can find fulfillment, happiness and love. I believe government should respect property, insurance and medical benefits of those living together, regardless of sex. I don't think police should storm in and break up a commitment ceremony between anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, if they choose to have such a ceremony and can find someone to perform it. I may not agree with it, or even recognize it as a marriage, I may even verbally protest, but I will recognize the reality of it.

I do not believe the Church will ever recognize the legitimacy of same sex marriages, as I do not believe that Heavenly Father will allow the performance of oridnances that are ultimately self defeating in the plan of salvation. To borrow from Ghandi, in talking about Pakistan's separation from India, I think the Church is and will better recognize the reality of same sex marriages, if not the legitimacy.

[rongo]

By the Church and statements by the Brethren, but we don't yet have the revealed word of the Lord on the matter.

How do you figure that we "don't yet have the revealed word of the Lord on the matter?" Whenever the two leading Quorums are united enough to codify it in worthiness, temple recommend, etc. interviews, isn't it "revealed?" Barring what I guess you and others are holding out for ----- God to say something like "Uh, yeah guys, I kind of got that one wrong in the past. Sorry ----- both same and opposite sex married couples are good to go with full sanction" ---- it's as revealed as it ever will be.

The ironic thing is that those who agitate for changes along these lines would realize that a change has been made ----- when, exactly? Oh, yeah ---- when the two leading Quorums unitedly declare it so (in words and policy actions). But under your past logic (under this hypothetical scenario), couldn't the "traditionalists" just say at that point (as you and others are doing now) "It isn't revealed ----- and just wait ----- God's going to change it back in the future."

[rongo]

Another question I have is whether same-sex marriage advocates within the Church believe that marriage actually is the line of demarcation in the Law of Chastity (where the rubber hits the road)? That is: as long as committed homosexuals get legally married, homosexuality is not a sin. Would unmarried homosexuality be sinful then? Come to think of it, would heterosexual fornication or adultery be sinful, because there is no legal marriage component?

It seems to me that legal marriage is actually a surface issue, and the real issue is the core belief that the traditional cultural and ecclesiastical sexual mores period are wrong, misguided, hurtful, etc.

[rockpond]

How do you figure that we "don't yet have the revealed word of the Lord on the matter?" Whenever the two leading Quorums are united enough to codify it in worthiness, temple recommend, etc. interviews, isn't it "revealed?" Barring what I guess you and others are holding out for ----- God to say something like "Uh, yeah guys, I kind of got that one wrong in the past. Sorry ----- both same and opposite sex married couples are good to go with full sanction" ---- it's as revealed as it ever will be.

The ironic thing is that those who agitate for changes along these lines would realize that a change has been made ----- when, exactly? Oh, yeah ---- when the two leading Quorums unitedly declare it so (in words and policy actions). But under your past logic (under this hypothetical scenario), couldn't the "traditionalists" just say at that point (as you and others are doing now) "It isn't revealed ----- and just wait ----- God's going to change it back in the future."

Well, even what is codified in the recommend interview process doesn't define the LoC. While I don't think God would use that kind of language, we (as a Church) have been told that we need to change what we are doing (in the prior instances as noted previously).

There are statements, like the one published in "God Loveth His Children" by Elder Holland (linked at the bottom of the MormonsandGays.com site) suggesting that we don't have a fulness yet: "Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life."

And yes, I would anticipate that if a change were to come it would be announced by the prophet (as has been done in the past) or the two leading quorums. I would also expect it to be announced as a revelation.

Edited December 11, 2012 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Another question I have is whether same-sex marriage advocates within the Church believe that marriage actually is the line of demarcation in the Law of Chastity (where the rubber hits the road)? That is: as long as committed homosexuals get legally married, homosexuality is not a sin. Would unmarried homosexuality be sinful then? Come to think of it, would heterosexual fornication or adultery be sinful, because there is no legal marriage component?

It seems to me that legal marriage is actually a surface issue, and the real issue is the core belief that the traditional cultural and ecclesiastical sexual mores period are wrong, misguided, hurtful, etc.

I believe in the value of marriage. And I believe that the Lord values and honors this commitment. And so I believe that yes, legal marriage is a line of demarcation.