Clarify The Sin

[rockpond]

I think this is a really interesting perspective on questions that the church will need to face as marriage equality for gay people becomes more widespread. CHI1 only uses the term "homosexual behavior"... a term that will likely need to be more clearly defined in upcoming editions.

http://www.nomorestrangers.org/clarify-the-sin/

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think this is a really interesting perspective on questions that the church will need to face as marriage equality for gay people becomes more widespread. CHI1 only uses the term "homosexual behavior"... a term that will likely need to be more clearly defined in upcoming editions.

http://www.nomorestrangers.org/clarify-the-sin/

"Homosexual behavior" is already defined.. ."sex outside of marriage" which is clearly defined by the Church. Making a clear distinction that simply feeling homosexual is not. This makes it clear that thinking about the sin is different than committing the sin. One cannot be ex'ed or disfellowshipped for thinking about sin, only for acting upon it. This is appropriate for God's true Church, unlike a Church such as Westboro where though could even end you up in help.

This (in simple terms), does not required, nor make it necessary for the Church to even have the need to deal with the topic, even if it becomes the "law of the land"...we are forever done with the topic. The Proclamation on the Family" has already done so, by supporting in writing the word and will of God, forever and always...throughout the generations of men and throughout all eternity. We Thank Thee O God For A Prophet(s).

Edited July 16, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[rockpond]

"Homosexual behavior" is already defined.. ."sex outside of marriage" which is clearly defined by the Church.

I never seen that definition provided in CHI1. Do you have a reference?

This (in simple terms), does not required, nor make it necessary for the Church to even have the need to deal with the topic to del with the Church, even if it becomes the "law of the land"...we are forever done with the topic. The Proclamation on the Family" has already done so, by supporting in writing the word and will of God, forever and always...throughout the generations of men and throughout all eternity. We Thank Thee O God For A Prophet(s).

Did you read the article linked in the OP?

[Mark Beesley]

I read the article. Most of it is irrelevant to the LDS marriage construct. Marriage is not about love, sex, affection, commitment, or any of those other things we try to cultivate to make a marriage last. Marriage is about a man and a woman agreeing to partner with God to create temples for God's spirit children. Given that construct, SSM cannot exist, and it is silly to call those unions "marriage."

[rockpond]

I read the article. Most of it is irrelevant to the LDS marriage construct. Marriage is not about love, sex, affection, commitment, or any of those other things we try to cultivate to make a marriage last. Marriage is about a man and a woman agreeing to partner with God to create temples for God's spirit children. Given that construct, SSM cannot exist, and it is silly to call those unions "marriage."

I disagree that marriage is not about love, sex, affection, & commitment. I'm pretty sure my wife would strongly disagree if I went home tonight and repeated that. I might end up on the couch.

I suspect that President Packer might disagree as well: “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is unattainable in the absence of it” (BYU Fireside, Nov. 3, 1963)

When my 85 year old grandfather was married and sealed to his second wife, he had no ability to create temples for God's children here on earth. Their marriage was truly (and beautifully) about love, caring, and commitment.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I read the article. Most of it is irrelevant to the LDS marriage construct. Marriage is not about love, sex, affection, commitment, or any of those other things we try to cultivate to make a marriage last. Marriage is about a man and a woman agreeing to partner with God to create temples for God's spirit children. Given that construct, SSM cannot exist, and it is silly to call those unions "marriage."

I think I mostly agree. The part that I don't fully agree with is that marriage is not about certain things. I would say that all those other things are secondary to the primary thing. THe primary being what you said it was. It is about a covenant between a man a woman and God. Edited July 16, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Kenngo1969]

Rockpond,

I disagree that marriage is not about love, sex, affection, & commitment. I'm pretty sure my wife would strongly disagree if I went home tonight and repeated that. I might end up on the couch.

I suspect that President Packer might disagree as well: “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is unattainable in the absence of it” (BYU Fireside, Nov. 3, 1963)

OK, marriage is about those things, but it isn't solely about those things. Those things are not ends in themselves; rather, they are means through which God accomplishes His purposes. My $0.02, which, according to very precise calculations using a difficult formula, is actually worth $0.156379525.

[rockpond]

OK, marriage is about those things, but it isn't solely about those things. Those things are not ends in themselves; rather, they are means through which God accomplishes His purposes.

Agreed... that's why I think the article I posted is so interesting.

[Ahab]

I think this is a really interesting perspective on questions that the church will need to face as marriage equality for gay people becomes more widespread. CHI1 only uses the term "homosexual behavior"... a term that will likely need to be more clearly defined in upcoming editions.

http://www.nomorestr...larify-the-sin/

The "behavior" they're talking about is homosexuals having sexual relations with each other. That is what is wrong with and bad about homosexual "marriage", and what the term "marriage" actually refers to. The uniting of two to become one, physically. When it's homosexuals who are doing that, it's wrong and will always be wrong even if the whole world says that behavior is an acceptable form or part of marriage.

But, yeah, if people need that wording to be more clear in the future I'm sure someone will update the CHI to make it more clear.

[bluebell]

I read the article and it seems to just be a veiled attempt to showcase all that is noble, normal, and good about SSM. I don't think it's a bad thing for a gay person to try to do that, but it seemed a bit like bait and switch for the author to do it in an article which is supposed to be about trying to clarify what issues the church has with homosexuality. In other words, I read the article thinking i'd get sincere questions pertaining to the topic, and not a disingenuous promo for SSM, given that it seems obvious that it's the homosexual sexual/romantic relationship which the church believes to be sinful.

[rockpond]

I read the article and it seems to just be a veiled attempt to showcase all that is noble, normal, and good about SSM. I don't think it's a bad thing for a gay person to try to do that, but it seemed a bit like bait and switch for the author to do it in an article which is supposed to be about trying to clarify what issues the church has with homosexuality. In other words, I read the article thinking i'd get sincere questions pertaining to the topic, and not a disingenuous promo for SSM, given that it seems obvious that it's the homosexual sexual/romantic relationship which the church believes to be sinful.

I don't think that I read it the same way. It didn't seem veiled as I knew where he was headed early on. The thought I had while reading it was this:

When I was on my mission, if we found an unmarried couple "living in sin" there was a path to baptism and full fellowship within the church. And that path did not have to include splitting them up.

Today, if missionaries are to come across and begin teaching a married homosexual couple, possibly raising kids together, there isn't really a viable path.

We actually had that happen in my ward not long ago. It was a committed lesbian couple that welcomed the missionaries into their home where they were also raising children. They weren't legally married because that isn't an option here but had they not discontinued the missionary lessons, it would have been a difficult issue.

[bluebell]

I don't think that I read it the same way. It didn't seem veiled as I knew where he was headed early on. The thought I had while reading it was this:

When I was on my mission, if we found an unmarried couple "living in sin" there was a path to baptism and full fellowship within the church. And that path did not have to include splitting them up.

Today, if missionaries are to come across and begin teaching a married homosexual couple, possibly raising kids together, there isn't really a viable path.

We actually had that happen in my ward not long ago. It was a committed lesbian couple that welcomed the missionaries into their home where they were also raising children. They weren't legally married because that isn't an option here but had they not discontinued the missionary lessons, it would have been a difficult issue.

I really do understand that, and I agree that it's a difficult issue, but is there really anyone who is confused on whether or not the church finds it sinful for two gay people to have religious or philosophical discussions together? That's what I mean by disingenuous. It doesn't seem like the author is really asking the church for any answers. The article only seems to be designed to make a point and not to seek understanding.

Edited July 16, 2013 by bluebell

[rockpond]

I really do understand that, and I agree that it's a difficult issue, but is there really anyone who is confused on whether or not the church finds it sinful for two gay people to have religious or philosophical discussions together? That's what I mean by disingenuous. It doesn't seem like the author is really asking the church for any answers. The article only seems to be designed to make a point and not to seek understanding.

I agree that the author is trying to make a point more than actually asking for answers.

But I do think that the questions asked are relevant. The church handbook (CHI1) still only uses the term "homosexual behavior" and does not define it further. If sex is really the only sin then could, for example, an older gay married couple state that they will swear off sexual relations and be in good standing with the church?

[Danzo]

I agree that the author is trying to make a point more than actually asking for answers.

But I do think that the questions asked are relevant. The church handbook (CHI1) still only uses the term "homosexual behavior" and does not define it further. If sex is really the only sin then could, for example, an older gay married couple state that they will swear off sexual relations and be in good standing with the church?

What do you think?

[Storm Rider]

When individuals become so confused about what is sin then one thing is evident, the Holy Spirit has completely left the building. The purpose of God ordained marriage is to reproduce; it does not guarantee that man and wife will have children, but that we are commanded to do so. I have stated many times before, but government can dictate civil unions, but it cannot dictate marriage, which is a religious rite, sacrament, or ordinance. It is disingenuous to dumb the topic down by putting on rose colored glasses and see everything in wonderful shades of love and commitment. Those are two qualities that make a marriage successful, but they are not the purpose of marriage. One of the fundamental principles of the gospel is to follow the Spirit; to gain a knowledge of truth by the Holy Spirit just as Peter did. The mere fact that some sexual acts are found in heterosexual relationships and in homosexual relationships does not make it acceptable before the Lord. At one time the Church condemned these acts; however, they have pulled back from commanding us in every little thing. There are things that I have learned that are acceptable for our marriage and things that are not. I suspect that others learn the same things. After being battered by the sheer lunacy of free love in the 60's, it is not surprising that we are reaping the fruits of that era in a nearly universal loss of any understanding of fatherhood, manhood, or the role of male gender and the corresponding confusion within motherhood, womanhood, and the role of the female gender. The simple lessons of the gospel bring peace and joy. We can be as confused as we choose to be.

[Questing Beast]

"The church needs to clarify the sin. There are many of us already in same-sex marriages, and if we want to be part of the church, then we need to know specifics about what is sinful."

First sentence, and already disingenuous alright. The church has never been more clear on anything than what constitutes sexual sin. LGBTs are right out if they think that they can "marry", remain monogamous and somehow be the "same" as heterosexual marrieds. It won't happen.

Speaking personally, the more this becomes pervasive, the more I feel that I either need to live in a world where sex is a plaything, like sports and hobbies - or non existent. I will definitely have trouble going about in public seeing the various manifestations of public displays of affection/expression by all the various "ilks" of sexual preferences. And in my family? Am I supposed to attend "weddings" for lesbian daughters to their significant others, and then have them over for Sunday dinners, and feel that nothing is wrong or weird or different about all of that?

"I was born in the wrong universe" (-Voss)....

Edited July 16, 2013 by Questing Beast

[rockpond]

What do you think?

I keep praying for the Prophet and Apostles to receive more revelation on the matter.

[rockpond]

When individuals become so confused about what is sin then one thing is evident, the Holy Spirit has completely left the building. The purpose of God ordained marriage is to reproduce; it does not guarantee that man and wife will have children, but that we are commanded to do so. I have stated many times before, but government can dictate civil unions, but it cannot dictate marriage, which is a religious rite, sacrament, or ordinance. It is disingenuous to dumb the topic down by putting on rose colored glasses and see everything in wonderful shades of love and commitment. Those are two qualities that make a marriage successful, but they are not the purpose of marriage. One of the fundamental principles of the gospel is to follow the Spirit; to gain a knowledge of truth by the Holy Spirit just as Peter did. The mere fact that some sexual acts are found in heterosexual relationships and in homosexual relationships does not make it acceptable before the Lord. At one time the Church condemned these acts; however, they have pulled back from commanding us in every little thing. There are things that I have learned that are acceptable for our marriage and things that are not. I suspect that others learn the same things. After being battered by the sheer lunacy of free love in the 60's, it is not surprising that we are reaping the fruits of that era in a nearly universal loss of any understanding of fatherhood, manhood, or the role of male gender and the corresponding confusion within motherhood, womanhood, and the role of the female gender. The simple lessons of the gospel bring peace and joy. We can be as confused as we choose to be.

So my grandpa's marriage was not ordained of God then?

[Ahab]

I agree that the author is trying to make a point more than actually asking for answers.

But I do think that the questions asked are relevant. The church handbook (CHI1) still only uses the term "homosexual behavior" and does not define it further. If sex is really the only sin then could, for example, an older gay married couple state that they will swear off sexual relations and be in good standing with the church?

That's a good question, and I would think the answer to that would be yes even though they still wouldn't be allowed to be sealed together in a temple.

Life long friends who are the same sex, no problem.

People of the same sex living together in the same house, no problem.

People of the same sex sharing all that they have in this world and using the same bank account, no problem.

The only thing we don't condone is people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other, or committing a crime.

Everything else they can do is hunky dory.

[rockpond]

"The church needs to clarify the sin. There are many of us already in same-sex marriages, and if we want to be part of the church, then we need to know specifics about what is sinful."

First sentence, and already disingenuous alright. The church has never been more clear on anything than what constitutes sexual sin. LGBTs are right out if they think that they can "marry", remain monogamous and somehow be the "same" as heterosexual marrieds. It won't happen.

Speaking personally, the more this becomes pervasive, the more I feel that I either need to live in a world where sex is a plaything, like sports and hobbies - or non existent. I will definitely have trouble going about in public seeing the various manifestations of public displays of affection/expression by all the various "ilks" of sexual preferences. And in my family? Am I supposed to attend "weddings" for lesbian daughters to their significant others, and then have them over for Sunday dinners, and feel that nothing is wrong or weird or different about all of that?

"I was born in the wrong universe" (-Voss)....

Unless you've spoken with the author or know him personally, I don't think you can declare that it is disingenuous. Do we have reason to believe that NO gay married couples want to remain members of the church in full fellowship? I imagine that such couples do exist.

Several people here have stated that it's just sex that is the sin. If that's the case, it's possible that gay couples might be willing to give up sex to stay in the church. It's possible that young gay members of the church might choose to have a same-sex marriage without "sexual relations" in order to remain temple worth (if that were an option).

But based on the responses here, it seems that there either isn't a lot of clarity or the only sin is the actual sexual relations.

As it stands right now, our Bishops are left to interpret what "homosexual relations" actually means.

[CV75]

If sex is really the only sin then could, for example, an older gay married couple state that they will swear off sexual relations and be in good standing with the church?

No, because the marriage covenant itself is established only between a man and a woman. The reasons for that are eternal, and do have to do with those exclusive things that only a man and a woman can accomplish together, which is far more than meets the eye. But if one doesn't have the faith that sex (the most obvious thing to understand as being or manifetsing the sin) is the sin, then these exclusive things won't be seen or understood, and therein lies the fuller context of the sin. But no handbook can teach you that.

Edited July 16, 2013 by CV75

[Danzo]

I keep praying for the Prophet and Apostles to receive more revelation on the matter.

Until they agree with you?

[Questing Beast]

...

As it stands right now, our Bishops are left to interpret what "homosexual relations" actually means.

I don't believe for one second that any bishops are out to lunch on this one. It's as plain as day. "Sexual sin". Cohabiting, even within a "domestic partnership" (for Tasmanians, and possibly others), does not in any way require that sexual relations be a part of it. The bishop and stake president would want to know through interviews if the couple is in any way being sexually sinful together. Barring that there is no sexual sin to address, is there? "Marriage" civilly is not marriage under Mormonism....

[rockpond]

No, because the marriage covenant itself is established only between a man and a woman. The reasons for that are eternal, and do have to do with those exclusive things that only a man and a woman can accomplish together, which is far more than meets the eye. But if one doesn't have the faith that sex (the most obvious thing to understand as being or manifetsing the sin) is the sin, then these exclusive things won't be seen or understood, and therein lies the fuller context of the sin. But no handbook can teach you that.

Where do I read about the eternal reasons for marriage to be only between a man and a woman?

[rockpond]

I don't believe for one second that any bishops are out to lunch on this one. It's as plain as day. "Sexual sin". Cohabiting, even within a "domestic partnership" (for Tasmanians, and possibly others), does not in any way require that sexual relations be a part of it. The bishop and stake president would want to know through interviews if the couple is in any way being sexually sinful together. Barring that there is no sexual sin to address, is there? "Marriage" civilly is not marriage under Mormonism....

So a young man dating, holding hands, and kissing his boyfriend is okay as long as they don't have sex?