Internal Conflict Over Lgbt Protest By Lds

[Daniel2]

Yeah.. fighting for sin isnt a heavenly cause. I thought it was self-evident.

I agree that fighting for sin isn't a heavenly cause. Of course, it's highly probable that you and I disagree on what constitutes "sin" regarding LGBT issues, so that aspect isn't so "self-evident." Heavenly causes that I consider worth fighting for include increased understanding and mutual reapect between Latter-day Saints and gays, lesbians, and transsexuals, as well as issues such as familial acceptance, social respect and marital recognition for same-sex couples, parents, and their children, and decreasing LGBT suicide rates. In many ways, LGBT individuals like myself and our families are raising our own Standard of Liberty and sincerely feel we are fighting on behalf of our families, our lives, and our God, as well. Though I know it may seem jarring to those who reject same-sex relationships or the possibility of transgendered individuals, from our perspective, we certainly would not characterize our struggle for equal dignity and recognition as 'fighting for sin.'

Daniel2

[Glenn101]

Just to clarify – in LDS terminology, an "Official Declaration" has a very specific meaning (in that two Official Declarations have been adopted into the LDS cannon in the D&C), and the proclamation on the family is not a "official declaration" in that sense. As has been pointed out, several other First Presidency Proclamations have come and gone, and are no longer remembered, binding, or considered scripture. It's also worth noting that the family proclamation was not sustained to be included in the current revised LDS Scriptures, as previous "Official Declarations" have been.

Daniel2

That all being said, the intent is fairly plain and any clarification of any points should be left to the official oracles. That was the point I was making.

Glenn

[Gillebre]

It is my hope that the Proclamation on the Family be presented for sustaining vote this upcoming Conference as part of the Standard Works, Official Declaration 3.

[bluebell]

It is my hope that the Proclamation on the Family be presented for sustaining vote this upcoming Conference as part of the Standard Works, Official Declaration 3.

I think that would be really cool, but with the new edition of scripture coming out in August (and the online version already out) it seems less likely. There's always still a chance though.

[Daniel2]

It is my hope that the Proclamation on the Family be presented for sustaining vote this upcoming Conference as part of the Standard Works, Official Declaration 3.

The proclamation on the family was signed 18 years ago. That's over 35 General Conferences ago. I'm curious, Gillibre, if your hope is that it's presented for a sustaining vote this upcoming Conference, why you think the G.A.'s haven't taken the chance to do so in the Conferences? Do you think church membership is more or less likely to sustain that document today than in any of the sessions since 1995?

[Buzzard]

The proclamation on the family was signed 18 years ago. That's over 35 General Conferences ago. I'm curious, Gillibre, if your hope is that it's presented for a sustaining vote this upcoming Conference, why you think the G.A.'s haven't taken the chance to do so in the Conferences? Do you think church membership is more or less likely to sustain that document today than in any of the sessions since 1995?

We have waited a lot shorter time than we waited for Sections 137 and 138 to be added to the standard works. In the meantime, the church has put out the proclamation in a format "suitable for framing", and I have heard it referred to numerous times in conference talks and in church publications.

As the divide between the standards of the gospel and the standards of the world widen, I suspect that the Proclamation will become more cited and more relevant, not less.

[Gillebre]

Maybe the Brethren were giving the members time to realize that the Proclamation was indeed revelation and prophecy about what would be coming in the world.

If presented for sustaining vote soon after it's publication, would the members support it? I'm sure they would.

However, today, we can powerfully see how accurate and applicable the contents are for us, in our day, specifically in the time we're going through right now (Prop 8, DOMA, etc...).

Now, we possess a clarity that comes from seeing the Prophet and Apostles speak and warn us, and the very things they said are coming to pass and are increasingly relevant to our place in the world and where we stand as a faith.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A local television station ran coverage of a protest by the "Mormons building bridges" group on the Utah state capitol grounds yesterday. Here is the link: http://www.abc4.com/...Lr2ysF-XWg.cspx

As I watched, I found myself conflicted, because while I agree with the idea that all of us are God's children, and we all have free agency, here was a mom (you have to watch the video to see this) talking about her "three sons". No, you have two sons and a daughter who has decided to live as a male. If you are a Sunday School teacher, as you profess to be, you should have read the Proclamation on the Family, which makes it clear that gender is an eternal characteristic.

I don't know if the daughter has or is planning to have a sex-change operation, but I do know that to do so is an excommunicable offense against the church, and that those who have had such a procedure are not candidates for baptism. If my child was going to make a change that would disqualify them forever from eternal life, I would hope I would love them enough to make the consequences of such an action crystal clear. Doesn't mean I don't love them, but acceptance of people does not mean acceptance of abominable sin.

Am I being uncharitable, or is there a line here that needs defending?

The Church is God's earthly Gov't. God will decide who will have eternal life as he is a perfect righteous judge. By "God", I mean Christ to whom all judgement has been assigned. We do the best we can as men and with the Priesthood, God knows us and our weaknesses, so it will all be dealt with in the resurrection by someone who understands all things, with an eye single to the glory of God. Proptests will not change this...

[Damien the Leper]

That all being said, the intent is fairly plain and any clarification of any points should be left to the official oracles. That was the point I was making.

Glenn

Oracles? Are you a pagan now?

[The Nehor]

Oracles? Are you a pagan now?

That is not an uncommon phrase to use when referring to the prophets. Usually the phrase is "oracles of God".

[Damien the Leper]

Whether or not the proclamation is added to the standard works is absolutely irrelevant to politics. You will still have the Mormons for Marriage group and like minded people who will continue to believe as they do according to their conscience.

I'm reminded of Mark Driscoll, an Acts 29 Reformed pastor, who authored a called Doctrine. It was essentially his groups interpretation of what to believe and why. Such publications and arguments to enforce a position are silly.

[Damien the Leper]

That is not an uncommon phrase to use when referring to the prophets. Usually the phrase is "oracles of God".

Prophets like Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr? I bet those three are beyond celestialized.

[Calm]

who will continue to believe as they do according to their conscience.

Doesn't everyone believe according to their "conscience"?

[Damien the Leper]

Doesn't everyone believe according to their "conscience"?

Of course. I'm just saying that whether or not the proclamation is canonized will not have as much effect as some may boast. It's exactly how things have always been with scripture. No big deal.

[Calm]

Of course. I'm just saying that whether or not the proclamation is canonized will not have as much effect as some may boast. It's exactly how things have always been with scripture. No big deal.

Got it. It sounded as possibly saying that those who weren't part of Mormon for Marriage and "like minded" individuals weren't basing their beliefs on their conscience (perhaps following leaders blindly without thinking). Glad to hear that isn't what it meant.

[Damien the Leper]

Got it. It sounded as possibly saying that those who weren't part of Mormon for Marriage and "like minded" individuals weren't basing their beliefs on their conscience (perhaps following leaders blindly without thinking). Glad to hear that isn't what it meant.

Yikes! I went back and re-read that. I didn't mean for it to sound like it does. Thanks, Calmoriah.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I agree that fighting for sin isn't a heavenly cause.

And the scriptures are clear, sex outside marriage is a sin, and man was not made to be married to each other and the same applies to women. If the policy ever changes it will not be because God commanded it, it will be because mankind has ignored it. There are men and women both out there who may never marry but live according to God's law and we admire them for their obedience.

Should SSA issues have a different standard?

[DH]

Yeah.. fighting for sin isnt a heavenly cause. I thought it was self-evident.

True, but... fighting for the freedom to commit sin most definitely IS a heavenly cause. Think about the War in Heaven.

[Zeta-Flux]

True, but... fighting for the freedom to commit sin most definitely IS a heavenly cause. Think about the War in Heaven.

True, but... fighting for the freedom to commit sin without consequences most definitely IS a satanic cause.

[Daniel2]

Yeah.. fighting for sin isnt a heavenly cause. I thought it was self-evident.

I’ve pondered this comment (and the resulting comments, above) a lot in the last few days. I try really, really hard to avoid taking offense where none is intended, especially on this issue, and especially in LDS circles. I recognize that most LDS members are really good-hearted, caring, and compassionate people. They are people I worship with regularly, as I take my children each week they are with me. I feel of their goodness and sincerity. In my experience, many haven’t had to think about LGBT issues in a concrete fashion. Meaning, most Latter-day Saints have a doctrinal belief about the sinfulness of homosexual actions, but to most, this specific belief is rather abstract… I would hesitate to use the word ‘dogma,’ because I believe that word tends to have a negative connotation in LDS culture, but I think there’s an aspect to that word that is applicable in this context (without my intending to be derogatory, in using it). To most members, it ‘makes sense’ that same-sex relationships would be ‘sinful’ or ‘an abomination,’ because most Latter-day Saints associate godhood, heaven, celestial glory, and the entire purpose of humanity’s existence to be explicitly linked to a biological heterosexual imperative—the presumption that in the eternities, dual genders are required ‘to become like our Father in Heaven’ and ‘beget’ spirit children (though I don’t believe LDS cannon is actually as specific as most members believe it is on that point--but I'm digressing, as that particular belief of mine is really beside the point of the point I'm about to discuss...).

The more I consider conversations that result in comments like Avatar’s, above, the association of same-sex couples’ marriages and families with “sin” (or, in this case, “defending sin”) is such a frustrating oversimplification that it definitely requires a degree of conscious willpower not to take offense. Like most LGBT individuals, I’m well aware that conservative Christian denominations have historically condemned homosexual relations in no uncertain terms—in fact, often through violent means (though, thankfully, that has changed in the last several centuries!) So, the use of the word ‘sin’ is not unsurprising to describe sexual acts, and of themselves. That’s almost to be expected—and I believe that striving for mutual respect means that I must respect the deeply-held religious beliefs of those who cannot fathom how same-sex relationships could ever be ‘heavenly’ (to use the verbiage of our previous conversation).

However, in light of the LDS church’s call for an increased need to approach this issue thoughtfully and with respect (via www.mormonsandgays.com), I feel like I would be remiss in my desire to help build bridges if I didn’t share my thoughts on how inappropriate I believe using ‘sin’ to be dismissive of an entire class of people’s families. Of course, I realize that in the context of this thread, it wasn’t clear how ‘sin’ was being used—the post in question is short, and fairly open to interpretation as to what it actually was referring to. Additionally, it’s worth trying to live up to the attitude expressed in the adage that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”

When I think of the gay couples that I know… And I especially think of the beautiful children that they are raising… And I think of the love that I have witnessed and felt from these families… And I think of the relatively few transgender individuals that I’ve known, and the unimaginable (and, for me, completely unrelatable) and often-times life-threatening struggles they’ve faced, as well as the total lack of understanding that society, by and large, has offered them… And I think, most of all, of the incredible love I have for my own three children… It is tough for me to stand by and watch that oversimplification of same-sex relationships and families merely as “defending sin.” I think some may have viewed my quotation of Man of La Mancha’s “The Impossible Dream” as trite or flippant. And, if one has mostly thought of same-sex relationships in a conceptual manner, I can see how that might be the case. From my perspective based on the experiences with the incredible LGBT individuals and families I have known, I feel the words of that “Impossible Dream” in a very real way. I know many hear don’t agree that LGBT rights are civil rights. For those of us who do believe they are, we’re keenly aware of other great civil rights leaders who also had impossible “Dreams” of equality… where they would be judged not by outward appearance, but by the content of their character. It is in that same spirit that I quoted Don Quixote, and with his same earnestness.

So… why am I writing this post? I have no idea. Faceless message boards have often proven that they aren’t the places to change attitudes. And I suppose I anticipate some will dismissively wave off my post as sentimental drivel. I don’t imagine I’ll change the minds or hearts of any of ‘the regulars’ that post on the same-sex marriage topics. But I believe in my Mormon family and friends. I believe that the Church is making great advances in trying to ‘do right’ by fostering respectful dialogue with the LGBT community, and those members who are struggling as they encounter LGBT family members and friends, and I’m thankful for the progress we all make in understanding and appreciating each other for who we are, what we believe, and the inherently wonderful belief that we’re all connected by bonds of family, whether of earthly or divine origin.

Daniel2

[Danzo]

I find it difficult to understand why people who are unhappy with the way the are would think that they would be happier if they pretend to be something they are not.

That some go to the extreme of mutilating themselves is beyond me.

That some people think this mutilation is healthy is even more of a puzzle.

[Daniel2]

I find it difficult to understand why people who are unhappy with the way the are would think that they would be happier if they pretend to be something they are not.

That some go to the extreme of mutilating themselves is beyond me.

That some people think this mutilation is healthy is even more of a puzzle.

I personally find those three statements difficult to relate to, as well (whether the comments above are about transgendered folks, or those that choose to have plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons). Even though some things are hard for those of us who haven't experienced those struggles to understand, I think there's value in the effort. For example, I understand that most transgendered folks would not feel they are "pretending to be something they are not," and the more I learn about the discussion about what gender vs. biological sex vs. gender identity vs. gender expression, the more I realize I am unprepared to appropriately judge someone else's self-identity. As someone who has never experienced gender dysphoria, I don't feel my experience is enough to presume I can speak authoritatively on who they are, or not. Daniel2

[Danzo]

I recognize that it is impossible to truly see into another persons experience, however, we cannot use that to say whatever anyone does is great because there must be a reason for it.

I Think that mutilating oneself (with or without the help of another person) just because one is not happy with their own parts is bad, and probably an indication that ones thinking is off. I do not think it is appropriate to advocate or condone Self Mutilation, just because you are not happy with yourself.

I am not the final judge of ones behavior, but members of society still have a duty to advocate some standards in behavior. I feel comfortable teaching that to my children, or whoever bothers to inquire of me.

Gender roles and behavior are largely social constructs, one has only to study other cultures and other times to realize that.

[Tacenda]

I recognize that it is impossible to truly see into another persons experience, however, we cannot use that to say whatever anyone does is great because there must be a reason for it.

I Think that mutilating oneself (with or without the help of another person) just because one is not happy with their own parts is bad, and probably an indication that ones thinking is off. I do not think it is appropriate to advocate or condone Self Mutilation, just because you are not happy with yourself.

I am not the final judge of ones behavior, but members of society still have a duty to advocate some standards in behavior. I feel comfortable teaching that to my children, or whoever bothers to inquire of me.

Gender roles and behavior are largely social constructs, one has only to study other cultures and other times to realize that.

You are misinformed about gender roles. Just as some are born with autism, dyslexia, etc. Transexuals feel they were born the wrong gender. It has nothing to do with their environment. Please do more research before saying what you have of it being a cultural thing. It's a slap in the face to those that have suffered terribly.

[Calm]

I agree with Tacenda. There are many culturally determined concepts surrounding the sense of gender, but not all are social constructs and to dismiss those very strong and vital attributes because others are socially determined leads to greater confusion and misinformation.