Lds Man Denied Missionary Service, Temple Recommend B/C Of His Views On Ssm

[Wanderer7]

I'm trying to support the U.S. Constitution so that it will protect all. That's why I believe that DOMA & Prop 8 must be overturned.

As a side note, I am not aware of the word "homosexual" appearing in the KJV Bible. Have I missed that somewhere? Are we strictly talking about other versions? I did a search and I can't find the word homosexual anywhere in the actual text of our canon (though it does appear in the study aids).

As for the constitution, I support it as far as it was intended. I don't believe marriage was ever an issue with the founding fathers, so it is not really a constitutional issue. However, when constitution and church diverge, I will follow the prophet, every time.

I don't really know why homosexuality has to be condemned in the standard works for the prophet to speak out on it. I recall a story about a meeting in Kirtland where a man got up and said that we need to stick to the standard works and that the revelations we receive now need to conform to them. Joseph Smith asked Brigham to get up and give his opinion on the matter, and Brigham said, referring to the standard works, "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me." Joseph Smith then said, "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." The full story is in this landmark talk by Ezra Taft Benson.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

[rockpond]

I don't really know why homosexuality has to be condemned in the standard works for the prophet to speak out on it.

I wasn't suggesting that it needed to be, I was just responding to MormonMason's point about the correct translation of homosexual in the Bible.

[CASteinman]

Why would anyone be surprised that Joanna Brooks would work to subvert the Church? It is practically her life's calling.

[rockpond]

Why would anyone be surprised that Joanna Brooks would work to subvert the Church? It is practically her life's calling.

Subvert the church? If you have evidence to suggest that what she wrote is incorrect, please bring it forward.

[CASteinman]

Subvert the church? If you have evidence to suggest that what she wrote is incorrect, please bring it forward.

Why are you asking me to support something I did not say?

[rockpond]

Why are you asking me to support something I did not say?

I don't think you are saying that Brooks wrote something that is incorrect. My point is just that I don't view reporting actual events or real experiences from the lives of people as subverting the church.

[Yep]

Are you able to provide a link where we could study that? Or would we have to learn Greek first?

I hope this is ok, if it is not, would a mod remove the link, please.

I like using the Blue Letter Bible online. I haven't had a lot of problems with it, but I'm not sure how it actually stands up as a resource, if anyone has an opinion or information on it, it would be appreciated.

Blue Letter Bible

[Scott Lloyd]

What if a white man in 1977 said in his pre-mission interview he disagreed with the church's policy on Blacks and priesthood. Should he not be allowed to serve. He turned out correct!

That the man in your hypothetical example turned out to be correct is not self-evident to me. To assert that, you would have to know that the pre-1978 position of the Church was not in conformity with the mind and will of God. I submit that you don't.

[DBMormon]

Please provide the source where homosexuality is just a temporary curse that will be broken and homosexuals are then allowed into the House of the Lord. While you're at it, add the one about God not being the same yesterday, today, and forever. You know, the one where His principles are always changing.

Please provide a source that ... let's say between 1900 and 1950 that Blacks would receive the Priesthood "again"?

Revelation by it's very nature doesn't require prescedent. Whether there is a source or not has no bearing on whether God will send a revelation allowing it at some point.

My use of the 1977 example is simply that one can be right even when they disagree with a church policy. The difference is whether one outwardly fights against it or privately shares their disagreement.

If God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow why could some not have priesthood at one time and others not at another time. Why was the gospel on the earth at some times and not at others. Why are only .2% of the World LDS. Why did Jesus only visit a handful of civilzations?

I am not debating God's sameness only that your reasoning is flawed. If God decides that it is our prejudice and ignorance that has kept homosexuality at distance from the church, then who am I to argue.

If on the other hand it is kept at distance for eternity, who am I to argue with that as well.

I worry that just as some hardliners left when polygamy ended or the 78' revelation came, that some may leave if a revelation of this sort ever came.

It is always those who believe too much that are at the most risk of losing faith.

Edited March 28, 2013 by DBMormon

[alter idem]

“Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe how I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled.” --Joseph Smith

I think we allow people to have more liberty in what they personally believe, but the situation in question is regarding a young man who wanted to be authorized to speak for the church as a representative of the church and there is not as much leeway there. I'm sure Joseph Smith would have agreed.

I don't blame his Stake Pres. for feeling he could not in good conscience send this man out. If he's not able to acknowledge and teach the church's position on gay marriage, I don't see how he can serve as a missionary.

[DBMormon]

That the man in your hypothetical example turned out to be correct is not self-evident to me. To assert that, you would have to know that the pre-1978 position of the Church was not in conformity with the mind and will of God. I submit that you don't.

This essentially demonstrates that while we believe our leaders can be wrong we are never really willing to acknowledge when they actually are. One can preach prophet infallibility and still not actually allow it in practice.

Edited March 28, 2013 by DBMormon

[alter idem]

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the correct translation of what appears in the KJV as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is homosexual? How do we know that to be the case? Are there other citations where homosexual should be used?

Are you suggesting that unless it was specifically called 'homosexuality' it did not exist? I can assure you homosexuality did exist in ancient times, but they had other terms for it--as you can see from the Bible.

[rockpond]

Are you suggesting that unless it was specifically called 'homosexuality' it did not exist? I can assure you homosexuality did exist in ancient times, but they had other terms for it--as you can see from the Bible.

No, I wasn't suggesting that. It is my understanding that the word "homosexual" did not even exist until long after the bible was recorded. And, like you, I'm confident that homosexuality existed in ancient times.

I was just trying to understand the translation claims.

[ERayR]

This essentially demonstrates that while we believe our leaders can be wrong we are never really willing to acknowledge when they actually are. One can preach prophet infallibility and still not actually allow it in practice.

Oh I am willing to acknowledge they can be wrong it is just that it is beyond my pay grade to tell them when they are wrong.

[MormonMason]

I hope this is ok, if it is not, would a mod remove the link, please.

I like using the Blue Letter Bible online. I haven't had a lot of problems with it, but I'm not sure how it actually stands up as a resource, if anyone has an opinion or information on it, it would be appreciated.

Blue Letter Bible

Sites like this tend to web publish a lot of out-of-date material that could lead to misunderstanding. If you use such sites, use caution. You can be misled.

[webbles]

Please provide a source that ... let's say between 1900 and 1950 that Blacks would receive the Priesthood "again"?

I went to http://en.fairmormon...hood/Statements and found a statement from 1949. They were repeating something that Brigham Young said but it should fit your criteria.

And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

Edited March 28, 2013 by webbles

[Hamba Tuhan]

It is my understanding that the word "homosexual" did not even exist until long after the bible was recorded. And, like you, I'm confident that homosexuality existed in ancient times.

As I've pointed out before, this depends on how you wish to define 'homosexuality'. The word (and its companion) didn't exist until the end of the 19th century because that was the genesis of the idea that people have sexual identities/orientations which are somehow bounded by gender. As a consequence, we can not only expect such words not to show up in the Bible, but we ought not be surprised when the Bible is silent on late 19th-century social constructs full-stop. Sexual behaviour between/amongst people of the same sex has, of course, been around for a long time, and consequently that's what we find addressed in scripture.

[DBMormon]

Oh I am willing to acknowledge they can be wrong it is just that it is beyond my pay grade to tell them when they are wrong.

Then in actual application they are never wrong it is only a possibility. You allow them to be wrong but are unable with certainty to know when those moments are....

Then what is the point in allowing them to have human frailities and not have to be perfect if you still are unwilling to cite any example where they in actuality were imperfect?

[DBMormon]

I went to http://en.fairmormon...hood/Statements and found a statement from 1949. They were repeating something that Brigham Young said but it should fit your criteria.

So was it a policy or a doctrine to withhold PH

[CASteinman]

I don't think you are saying that Brooks wrote something that is incorrect. My point is just that I don't view reporting actual events or real experiences from the lives of people as subverting the church.

That you do not view yellow journalism as potentially subversive doesn't change the fact.

[MormonMason]

So is that the only instance of where homosexual is a correct translation?

No. There is also 1 Timothy 1:10. But, in the previous of these I mentioned there are two words that speak to homosexuality. One is the active partner and the other is the passive or receiving partner. Following is what we find in Gingrich's and Danker's Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament for the two words in question.

For the active partner in a same sex relationship:

ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ one who engages in same-sex activity, sodomite, pederast 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Ti 1:10.*

For the passive partner in a same sex relationship:

μaλaκός, ή, όν soft Mt 11:8; Lk 7:25; effeminate, of the passive partner in a same-sex relationship. 1 Cor 6:9.*

These words also get mention in various early Christian writings, for what it is worth. But, these are not the only passages that speak of homosexuality. These are the most direct due to the vocabulary but there are others that speak of such behaviors--both gay and lesbian practices--such as Romans 1:26-27. This passage speaks of their acts as working of indecent acts.

Jude 1:7 mentions the practices of Sodom and Gomorrah. The KJV speaks of "going after strange flesh" but the Greek of the passage obliquely mentions going after the wrong kind of flesh to indulge in their sexual activities. We all can see what is meant by that when we read of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah being perfectly willing to have sex with male angels. The fate of the angels who fell and those of Sodom and Gomorrah are spoken of as being an example of suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

And then there is the passage from the Old Testament I mentioned before that man is not supposed to do with men what men are supposed to do with women.

And, then there are Jesus' own remarks about marriage, the Greek words of which are clear that male and female are spoken of as being the intent of God for marriage from the beginning.

[cinepro]

This essentially demonstrates that while we believe our leaders can be wrong we are never really willing to acknowledge when they actually are. One can preach prophet infallibility and still not actually allow it in practice.

That's the difference between Catholics and Mormons. Catholics say the pope is infallible, but they don't really believe it. Mormons say the prophet is fallible, but they don't really believe it.

[DBMormon]

That's the difference between Catholics and Mormons. Catholics say the pope is infallible, but they don't really believe it. Mormons say the prophet is fallible, but they don't really believe it.

Strange isn't it.

[teddyaware]

I strongly believe the church has no right, or reasonable voice, in the question of SSM outside of the church; especially my political beliefs on the subject that do not impact the church. Marriage outside the church is the provence of political discourse, plain and simple.

The Proclamation on the Family solemnly warns the entire world -- not just members of the LDS Church -- that failure to uphold the sacnctity of the traditional family (husband, wife, children), as plainly and unambiguously set forth within the text of proclamation itself, will bring about the dreadful tribulations and cataclysmic destructions of the last days that have been prophesied by many prophets both ancient and modern. Therefore, the Church likely took up the unpopular cause of supporting Proposition 8, against civil gay marriage in California, in the hope of stemming the tide of destruction that awaits the world if its inhabitants willfully violate the will of the Lord as declared by his living prophets. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)

Edited March 28, 2013 by teddyaware

[klakak]

The Proclamation on the Family solemnly warns the entire world -- not just members of the LDS Church -- that failure to uphold the sacnctity of the traditional family (husband, wife, children), as plainly and unambiguously set forth within the text of proclamation itself, will bring about the dreadful tribulations and cataclysmic destructions of the last days that have been prophesied by many prophets both ancient and modern. Therefore, the Church likely took up the unpopular cause of supporting Proposition 8, against civil gay marriage in California, in the hope of stemming the tide of destruction that awaits the world if its inhabitants willfully violate the will of the Lord as declared by his living prophets. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)

The Church did it because it was the right thing to do, not because if The Church didn't, then the end of the world would soon follow.