Clarify The Sin

[canard78]

Time for me to come out on this issue. I have already told of my experiences of leaving the church & that I am in the process of making my way back. The issue that I left the church over is that I am gay, so I am intimately aware of the repentance process involved in this issue, and to be perfectly frank this is nonsense. In fact there is an openly gay man that has recently been call as a Bishops exec sec in San Francisco. My Bishop has no problem with me being gay, only that I keep the LoC. I have actually been really lucky that one of the missionaries who's reactivating me is the grandson of one of the apostles and was kind enough to take my questions to his grandfather when he was talking at a mission conference recently & there is no problem with the way I am returning to church. And this isn't a new practice, doctrine or whatever. When Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith In the 1940's was discovered to be having homosexuality problems he was not excommunicated, nor did he face church discipline, but was released from office, and he moved to Hawaii to concentrate on dealing with the issue. There is also another quote somewhere (if anyone wants I will try to find it but I have been through so many websites studying this issue I may not be able to remember where it was) that one of the apostles under George Albert Smith(?) when asked about this issue and what was the church's stand responded "up until now we have only removed them from office...nothing more"

In fact the church's stand on the issue only seemed to become harsh under Spencer W Kimball in the 60's after he was asked by the 1st Pres to look into the issue, a stand that seems to have lasted through the latter half of the 20thC but it seems is now being reversed, at no time was there a policy change, but just the way the issues were dealt with.

Thanks for you contribution on the matter.

I strongly hope that one day the church leaders will spend some time examining their assumptions.

As I've discussed on the LeGrand Richards thread, the change of policy was based on the brethren's ability to step back, review the evidence and pray about it with an open mind.

I hope that one day they will do the same. I doubt it will be in my lifetime and perhaps not even my children's.

[Questing Beast]

We learn, we grow, we progress. Isn't that why we are here? There doesn't have to be a historical precedence. And marriage has certainly evolved over the millenia... women are no longer viewed as chattel and concubines aren't an accepted practice. I don't see the clinging to history/tradition has having some inherent value.

Spiritually, we are in the midst of a restoration. As that restoration progresses, we can also expect things to change.

As for pressure building and religious people running scared and angry... I don't see it. The world I see around me is one of increasing love and acceptance.

Yes, you repeated the only argument from a position of strength that flies in the world of today. Try that one even one generation ago and it would be met with vehement assertions of denial, such as "Those not familiar with history are doomed to repeat it", followed up with historical evidence for the destruction of civilizations, all centered on selfishness and unbridled vice. All of that is being swept away and renamed: "tolerance, acceptance, fairness, justice, equal rights, equality, etc." If anyone holds a traditional religious view today, he's as "out of step" as Elijah, who felt entirely alone in decadent Israel....

[CV75]

As such, a gay couple kissing is not breaking the LoC because an unmarried straight couple kissing is not.

A gay couple holding hands is not breaking the LoC because an unmarried straight couple doing is not.

A gay couple supporting each other and their extended family is not breaking any law because it is not when an unmarried couple do it.

If this is the case, then:

When a married straight man and a straight woman married to someone else are kissing, it is not breaking the LoC because any unmarried couple kissing is not.

The same separately-married couple holding hands is not breaking the LoC because any unmarried couple doing the same is not.

The same separately-married couple supporting each other and their extended family is not breaking any law because it is not when unmarried couples do it.

[rockpond]

Yes, you repeated the only argument from a position of strength that flies in the world of today. Try that one even one generation ago and it would be met with vehement assertions of denial, such as "Those not familiar with history are doomed to repeat it", followed up with historical evidence for the destruction of civilizations, all centered on selfishness and unbridled vice. All of that is being swept away and renamed: "tolerance, acceptance, fairness, justice, equal rights, equality, etc." If anyone holds a traditional religious view today, he's as "out of step" as Elijah, who felt entirely alone in decadent Israel....

I'm not suggesting that we ignore history. We must study and learn from history. I'm just refuting your assertion that because there has never been an accepted form of homosexual marriage that there must never be. Just because something was never done before does not mean that it must never be done in the future.

I see nothing wrong with an emphasis on the virtues you highlighted: "tolerance, acceptance, fairness, justice, equal rights, equality, etc." I think that all of those are wonderfully Christian attributes to foster in our faith community and our larger society.

[rockpond]

If this is the case, then:

When a married straight man and a straight woman married to someone else are kissing, it is not breaking the LoC because any unmarried couple kissing is not.

The same separately-married couple holding hands is not breaking the LoC because any unmarried couple doing the same is not.

The same separately-married couple supporting each other and their extended family is not breaking any law because it is not when unmarried couples do it.

Those hypotheticals are morally wrong because the individuals involved are violating promises they made to their respective spouses, right?

How is an unmarried gay couple holding hands or kissing violating any moral law?

[Questing Beast]

I'm not suggesting that we ignore history. We must study and learn from history. I'm just refuting your assertion that because there has never been an accepted form of homosexual marriage that there must never be. Just because something was never done before does not mean that it must never be done in the future.

I see nothing wrong with an emphasis on the virtues you highlighted: "tolerance, acceptance, fairness, justice, equal rights, equality, etc." I think that all of those are wonderfully Christian attributes to foster in our faith community and our larger society.

When righteously applied, yes they are true and virtuous qualities that bless society. But when co-opted, like the definition of "marriage" has been, by advocacy groups that are vehement in their agenda-driven determination to rewrite the laws and remake the Nation, and their private lives are the opposite of virtuous, even hedonistic, then I say that the movement you admire is flawed, corrupt, from the outset. It offends religious people, the very majority who either believe in, or suspect, that the prophesies of the "last days" are being fulfilled and nothing can stop them. You mistake acquiescence for support, silence and giving up for agreement. The undercurrent is apathy in the face of an inbred conviction that the world is evil, fallen and as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah and in the days of Noah. What you praise as virtues are being manipulated by clever word smiths, advocates for retribution. They want the newly minted laws proposed to specify them and turn the changes into a kind of reverse discrimination, empowered by the highest court of the land. We haven't seen anything yet....

[rockpond]

When righteously applied, yes they are true and virtuous qualities that bless society. But when co-opted, like the definition of "marriage" has been, by advocacy groups that are vehement in their agenda-driven determination to rewrite the laws and remake the Nation, and their private lives are the opposite of virtuous, even hedonistic, then I say that the movement you admire is flawed, corrupt, from the outset. It offends religious people, the very majority who either believe in, or suspect, that the prophesies of the "last days" are being fulfilled and nothing can stop them. You mistake acquiescence for support, silence and giving up for agreement. The undercurrent is apathy in the face of an inbred conviction that the world is evil, fallen and as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah and in the days of Noah. What you praise as virtues are being manipulated by clever word smiths, advocates for retribution. They want the newly minted laws proposed to specify them and turn the changes into a kind of reverse discrimination, empowered by the highest court of the land. We haven't seen anything yet....

You are quite the wordsmith as well.

For the record, I am not an advocacy group. Nor am I part of one.

I am a religious person. It is inseparable from me. My religion, my faith, and my belief are why I am vehemently in favor of marriage equality.

I believe that our lack of epistemic humility on this subject is one of the reasons we have yet to receive further revelation. This may be why the Brethren have asked us to change our attitudes. I imagine that we both agree that a reliance on the wisdom of man and not on God is one thing that will lead to the last days.

[Questing Beast]

How far do you expect (not hope) this to go? Will the LDS faith include recognized "marriages" between same-sex couples? If not, then what are you expecting to gain? Just civil equality under the law? But it won't benefit you personally if you intend to remain LDS "in good standing". You'll have to remain single, and abstain from public displays of affection, no public dating either, etc. Family gatherings will continue to remain problematic and stressful for the LDS, because of the religion's prohibitions on "unacceptable activities" between same-sex couples, even though unmarried. And if "married" civilly, then such family members will of course have been "cut off" from the Church, which will pose family problems by association. It is a very hard thing to contemplate....

[CV75]

Those hypotheticals are morally wrong because the individuals involved are violating promises they made to their respective spouses, right?

How is an unmarried gay couple holding hands or kissing violating any moral law?

These are not hypotheticals, they happen every day! But even with immediate and extended family members aside: where do marital promises stipulate that a married couple cannot kiss, hold hands, or support someone else?

I'm sensing a double standard here! Do unmarried gay couples not make promises to each other? I think we're getting into the realm of sins of the heart here (see the Sermon on the Mount).

[rockpond]

How far do you expect (not hope) this to go? Will the LDS faith include recognized "marriages" between same-sex couples? If not, then what are you expecting to gain? Just civil equality under the law? But it won't benefit you personally if you intend to remain LDS "in good standing". You'll have to remain single, and abstain from public displays of affection, no public dating either, etc. Family gatherings will continue to remain problematic and stressful for the LDS, because of the religion's prohibitions on "unacceptable activities" between same-sex couples, even though unmarried. And if "married" civilly, then such family members will of course have been "cut off" from the Church, which will pose family problems by association. It is a very hard thing to contemplate....

I'm not sure who you are addressing in this post. I'm already married & sealed to my wife. But...

What I expect is that we as church members will change attitudes as the Brethren have asked... a change such as this would need to come through revelation and as with the 1978 revelation, it can only come when we are ready to receive it and IF it is the Lord's will.

[rockpond]

These are not hypotheticals, they happen every day! But even with immediate and extended family members aside: where do marital promises stipulate that a married couple cannot kiss, hold hands, or support someone else?

I'm sensing a double standard here! Do unmarried gay couples not make promises to each other? I think we're getting into the realm of sins of the heart here (see the Sermon on the Mount).

I agree.

[bluebell]

I'm not sure who you are addressing in this post. I'm already married & sealed to my wife. But...

What I expect is that we as church members will change attitudes as the Brethren have asked... a change such as this would need to come through revelation and as with the 1978 revelation, it can only come when we are ready to receive it and IF it is the Lord's will.

Why would the brethren ask us to make a change that we aren't capable of making until/unless they receive revelation on the issue?

[rockpond]

Why would the brethren ask us to make a change that we aren't capable of making until/unless they receive revelation on the issue?

I was only referring to statements like Elder Cook's: "As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender."

And the counsel given by Elder Holland is his article on "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction".

[Bikeemikey]

Time for me to come out on this issue. I have already told of my experiences of leaving the church & that I am in the process of making my way back. The issue that I left the church over is that I am gay, so I am intimately aware of the repentance process involved in this issue, and to be perfectly frank this is nonsense. In fact there is an openly gay man that has recently been call as a Bishops exec sec in San Francisco. My Bishop has no problem with me being gay, only that I keep the LoC. I have actually been really lucky that one of the missionaries who's reactivating me is the grandson of one of the apostles and was kind enough to take my questions to his grandfather when he was talking at a mission conference recently & there is no problem with the way I am returning to church. And this isn't a new practice, doctrine or whatever. When Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith In the 1940's was discovered to be having homosexuality problems he was not excommunicated, nor did he face church discipline, but was released from office, and he moved to Hawaii to concentrate on dealing with the issue. There is also another quote somewhere (if anyone wants I will try to find it but I have been through so many websites studying this issue I may not be able to remember where it was) that one of the apostles under George Albert Smith(?) when asked about this issue and what was the church's stand responded "up until now we have only removed them from office...nothing more"

In fact the church's stand on the issue only seemed to become harsh under Spencer W Kimball in the 60's after he was asked by the 1st Pres to look into the issue, a stand that seems to have lasted through the latter half of the 20thC but it seems is now being reversed, at no time was there a policy change, but just the way the issues were dealt with.

Thanks so much for sharing your experience.

[bluebell]

I was only referring to statements like Elder Cook's: "As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender."

And the counsel given by Elder Holland is his article on "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction".

What confused is me is that after saying that we need to change our attitudes as the brethren have asked (and I agree), the ellipses caused me to believe that you were saying that such a change could only happen after revelation was received. I know see that you were actually talking about two different changes.

[rockpond]

What confused is me is that after saying that we need to change our attitudes as the brethren have asked (and I agree), the ellipses caused me to believe that you were saying that such a change could only happen after revelation was received. I know see that you were actually talking about two different changes.

Yep... bad punctuation on my part. Sorry, it was unclear.

[Buzzard]

I think we can all stipulate that we should be kind, loving, and Christlike to all of God's children, those we agree with, those we don't, those who are living gospel standards in regards to the LoC, and those who are not.

Now that that is out of the way, may I be so bold as to observe that those in favor of same sex marriage in society and especially in the church are only looking at this through an earthly lens, not a heavenly one.

The church is not the reason for marriage. Eternal, HETEROSEXUAL marriage is the reason for the church. The entire Plan of Salvation comes down to a man and a woman (in some cases, women, that's another thread) being married and having eternal increase (churchspeak for spirit children). For those married without the gospel, we can seal them by proxy in the temple, and they can become part of that great eternal family. That, I would speculate, is one of the main reasons that the church has injected itself in the societal marriage debate, that secular married couples, may become "Mormon" married couples in the world to come.

But homosexual couples cannot be sealed. I don't see the wiggle room theologically. Heterosexual couples who can't have mortal children for biological reasons can have spirit children if they inherit the Celestial Kingdom. This option of internal increase is just not available to same sex couples. So even if a gay/lesbian couple finds happiness in this life, it will damn their eternal progression and lead to misery and regret in the eternities.

And in the end, God is more concerned with your eternal happiness than what floats your boat this weekend.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Buzzard

[rockpond]

I think we can all stipulate that we should be kind, loving, and Christlike to all of God's children, those we agree with, those we don't, those who are living gospel standards in regards to the LoC, and those who are not.

Now that that is out of the way, may I be so bold as to observe that those in favor of same sex marriage in society and especially in the church are only looking at this through an earthly lens, not a heavenly one.

The church is not the reason for marriage. Eternal, HETEROSEXUAL marriage is the reason for the church. The entire Plan of Salvation comes down to a man and a woman (in some cases, women, that's another thread) being married and having eternal increase (churchspeak for spirit children). For those married without the gospel, we can seal them by proxy in the temple, and they can become part of that great eternal family. That, I would speculate, is one of the main reasons that the church has injected itself in the societal marriage debate, that secular married couples, may become "Mormon" married couples in the world to come.

But homosexual couples cannot be sealed. I don't see the wiggle room theologically. Heterosexual couples who can't have mortal children for biological reasons can have spirit children if they inherit the Celestial Kingdom. This option of internal increase is just not available to same sex couples. So even if a gay/lesbian couple finds happiness in this life, it will damn their eternal progression and lead to misery and regret in the eternities.

And in the end, God is more concerned with your eternal happiness than what floats your boat this weekend.

I'm not aware of the process for creating spirit children. l certainly think it's possible that a God who created homosexual people could also make it possible for them to likewise have eternal increase. Or maybe they have another but equally wonderful role in the eternities... one that hasn't yet been revealed to us.

[Ahab]

I think we can all stipulate that we should be kind, loving, and Christlike to all of God's children, those we agree with, those we don't, those who are living gospel standards in regards to the LoC, and those who are not.

Now that that is out of the way, may I be so bold as to observe that those in favor of same sex marriage in society and especially in the church are only looking at this through an earthly lens, not a heavenly one.

The church is not the reason for marriage. Eternal, HETEROSEXUAL marriage is the reason for the church. The entire Plan of Salvation comes down to a man and a woman (in some cases, women, that's another thread) being married and having eternal increase (churchspeak for spirit children). For those married without the gospel, we can seal them by proxy in the temple, and they can become part of that great eternal family. That, I would speculate, is one of the main reasons that the church has injected itself in the societal marriage debate, that secular married couples, may become "Mormon" married couples in the world to come.

But homosexual couples cannot be sealed. I don't see the wiggle room theologically. Heterosexual couples who can't have mortal children for biological reasons can have spirit children if they inherit the Celestial Kingdom. This option of internal increase is just not available to same sex couples. So even if a gay/lesbian couple finds happiness in this life, it will damn their eternal progression and lead to misery and regret in the eternities.

And in the end, God is more concerned with your eternal happiness than what floats your boat this weekend.

Ah, you said that as well as I could have said it on one of my best days. Well said. And of course you are right.

[CV75]

I agree.

Great--and so deciding on what someone does in the pews at Church, or at home / in private,or brings up with the Bishop, or keeps to himself requires some clear conscience, childlike sensitivity and inspired forethought so as not to intentionally offend or judge their brothers and sisters, which is another plce where the sin is found.

[Buzzard]

I'm not aware of the process for creating spirit children. l certainly think it's possible that a God who created homosexual people could also make it possible for them to likewise have eternal increase. Or maybe they have another but equally wonderful role in the eternities... one that hasn't yet been revealed to us.

We have every reason to believe that the process for creating spirit children is the same as the process for creating mortal children, minus labor pains for the woman. Might I humbly, lovingly suggest that for you to speculate that homosexual couples will have the ability to procreate in the eternities is um....reaching a bit?

[Ahab]

We have every reason to believe that the process for creating spirit children is the same as the process for creating mortal children, minus labor pains for the woman. Might I humbly, lovingly suggest that for you to speculate that homosexual couples will have the ability to procreate in the eternities is um....reaching a bit?

For those who don't accept the analogy of the birds and the bees there are many other options to choose from, like babies being brought by storks from nobody knows where, or eternally living in the heavens without having been created by any parents.

You have to know what is true before you can know that the options that aren't true are false options.

[rockpond]

We have every reason to believe that the process for creating spirit children is the same as the process for creating mortal children, minus labor pains for the woman. Might I humbly, lovingly suggest that for you to speculate that homosexual couples will have the ability to procreate in the eternities is um....reaching a bit?

I disagree. Organizing intelligences into spirit children may have very little resemblance to the process of creating physical bodies for those spirits. Might I humbly, lovingly suggest that your speculation is also a reach?

[Buzzard]

I disagree. Organizing intelligences into spirit children may have very little resemblance to the process of creating physical bodies for those spirits. Might I humbly, lovingly suggest that your speculation is also a reach?

You can suggest all you want, but I would hold that my speculation is a lot closer to the words of prophets, both modern and ancient, while the only other time I heard your theory was reading a paper presented at Sunstone. Let's not get so determined to be nice and loving and tolerant that we end up promoting demonstrably false doctrine.

Before you go all CFR on me, Here's one by Elder Bednar:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/06/marriage-is-essential-to-his-eternal-plan?lang=eng

" The unique combination of spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females were needed to implement the plan of happiness."

Edited July 17, 2013 by Buzzard

[rockpond]

You can suggest all you want, but I would hold that my speculation is a lot closer to the words of prophets, both modern and ancient, while the only other time I heard your theory was reading a paper presented at Sunstone. Let's not get so determined to be nice and loving and tolerant that we end up promoting demonstrably false doctrine.

Alright... what is it that makes you believe that organizing intelligences into spirit children would happen similarly to the process for creating mortal bodies for spirits to inhabit?