DBMormon Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 http://www.millennialstar.org/the-law-of-chastity-is-not-changing/ This article speaks of the prevailing idea that our Doctrine on Chastity will not change to allow same sex marriage to be in the Church as non-sin. I agree with that being the likelyhood. I also "again" do not have a horse in the race. By that I mean that I see the LDS church as God's restored Church and agree to abide it's doctrine until new insight comes. If someday the Lord chooses to allow practicing gays to be completely included more power to it and I would applaud it, and if he doesn't then you won't have a bitter argument out of me. That said I wondered if anyone had ideas about how to allow more inclusion without changing the Doctrine. some of mine- allow them to have small callings (people with WOW issues serve, people seen by their Bishops as less then worthy still can participate in ordinances with their children. - allow them the sacrament? this is a hard one for me to see as an option though I recognize we are all sinners an all of us have some thing that is negative that we choose to hold onto (Sabbath activity, overeating WOW, tithing, not serving or witnessing of Christ in all situations we could, ect..) and yet most of us are partaking of the sacrament - recognize their marriages - Once the law changes, and like it or not it eventually will to allow gay marriage in all 50 states (imagine Utah being the only holdout, they will cause a constitutional amendment) This would allow them to be married, but since it is doctrinally sin, temple sealings would be forbidden. My goal here is not to push for change of Doctrine but rather to discuss how we keep the Doctrine and yet find a place for them in the midst of their "sin" just as there is a place for you and me in the midst of our sins. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 http://www.millennialstar.org/the-law-of-chastity-is-not-changing/ This article speaks of the prevailing idea that our Doctrine on Chastity will not change to allow same sex marriage to be in the Church as non-sin. I agree with that being the likelyhood. I also "again" do not have a horse in the race. By that I mean that I see the LDS church as God's restored Church and agree to abide it's doctrine until new insight comes. If someday the Lord chooses to allow practicing gays to be completely included more power to it and I would applaud it, and if he doesn't then you won't have a bitter argument out of me. That said I wondered if anyone had ideas about how to allow more inclusion without changing the Doctrine. some of mine- allow them to have small callings (people with WOW issues serve, people seen by their Bishops as less then worthy still can participate in ordinances with their children. - allow them the sacrament? this is a hard one for me to see as an option though I recognize we are all sinners an all of us have some thing that is negative that we choose to hold onto (Sabbath activity, overeating WOW, tithing, not serving or witnessing of Christ in all situations we could, ect..) and yet most of us are partaking of the sacrament - recognize their marriages - Once the law changes, and like it or not it eventually will to allow gay marriage in all 50 states (imagine Utah being the only holdout, they will cause a constitutional amendment) This would allow them to be married, but since it is doctrinally sin, temple sealings would be forbidden. My goal here is not to push for change of Doctrine but rather to discuss how we keep the Doctrine and yet find a place for them in the midst of their "sin" just as there is a place for you and me in the midst of our sins. I can see them teaching, preaching, expounding upon Scripture, taking the sacrament, doing all within the Church as long as they/we obey the rules of the Church.We have no rules against having the temptation to act in sexually inappropriate ways, only in the acts themselves. I don't know as we can prevent SSM, or its legal recognition by the state. I can foresee no time in which the Church will approve of SSM. 1
sdc999 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I would say handle them the same way you handle the Relief Society Pres. who spends her weekends gambling at the local casino, the fat elder's quorum teacher who eats a large pizza in a setting, or any other sinner in the building (which is all to some degree).
canard78 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Can you clarify DB? When you say "them" do you mean people who are celibate but have same-sex attraction? In which case, no difference at all.If by "them" you mean people who engage in homosexual activity (whether married or not)... I would hope they are treated in exactly the same way as a heterosexual member is treated who has sex outside of marriage. Why should they have any other standard? If one day the church recognises gay marriages then that's a different conversation. But until they do, or if they never do, why should a gay person be treated differently to a straight person? I don't really like the situation a gay member is put into. It must be horribly uncomfortable. I don't understand why God has some people born that way. But... I don't believe in double standards.
DBMormon Posted October 30, 2013 Author Posted October 30, 2013 I can see them teaching, preaching, expounding upon Scripture, taking the sacrament, doing all within the Church as long as they/we obey the rules of the Church.We have no rules against having the temptation to act in sexually inappropriate ways, only in the acts themselves. I don't know as we can prevent SSM, or its legal recognition by the state. I can foresee no time in which the Church will approve of SSM. I am speaking only of those who are practicing. How can we be more inclusive of practicing gays?
canard78 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I am speaking only of those who are practicing. How can we be more inclusive of practicing gays? How would you answer that question of practicing straight but not married members (assuming they were not interested in marrying). I fully appreciate that the teaching of the straight couple would be different: "get married and then carry on what you're doing." For practicing gays, as long as the current doctrine is in place, there is no room for "do this and then carry on." It's stop. Much as I like the idea of being more inclusive I think the best that is available is a welcome hand-shake when they attend church. I'm not even sure membership is a viable option.
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 http://www.millennialstar.org/the-law-of-chastity-is-not-changing/ This article speaks of the prevailing idea that our Doctrine on Chastity will not change to allow same sex marriage to be in the Church as non-sin. I agree with that being the likelyhood. I also "again" do not have a horse in the race. By that I mean that I see the LDS church as God's restored Church and agree to abide it's doctrine until new insight comes. If someday the Lord chooses to allow practicing gays to be completely included more power to it and I would applaud it, and if he doesn't then you won't have a bitter argument out of me. That said I wondered if anyone had ideas about how to allow more inclusion without changing the Doctrine. some of mine- allow them to have small callings (people with WOW issues serve, people seen by their Bishops as less then worthy still can participate in ordinances with their children. - allow them the sacrament? this is a hard one for me to see as an option though I recognize we are all sinners an all of us have some thing that is negative that we choose to hold onto (Sabbath activity, overeating WOW, tithing, not serving or witnessing of Christ in all situations we could, ect..) and yet most of us are partaking of the sacrament - recognize their marriages - Once the law changes, and like it or not it eventually will to allow gay marriage in all 50 states (imagine Utah being the only holdout, they will cause a constitutional amendment) This would allow them to be married, but since it is doctrinally sin, temple sealings would be forbidden. My goal here is not to push for change of Doctrine but rather to discuss how we keep the Doctrine and yet find a place for them in the midst of their "sin" just as there is a place for you and me in the midst of our sins. My thoughts... Homosexual members who are not having sexual relations outside of marriage are welcomed with full fellowship in the church. No calling off limits except for those callings in which you are supposed to be married/sealed. I would consider this to include those homosexual members who are dating as long as they are not violating the Law of Chastity. If a homosexual member is legally married (to someone of the same gender) in any jurisdiction, we could view that as not having violated the law of chastity (since they are married) and receive them in full fellowship but recognize that they are not temple worthy since we don't recognize same gender marriage.
sdc999 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Much as I like the idea of being more inclusive I think the best that is available is a welcome hand-shake when they attend church. I'm not even sure membership is a viable option.Did you just give a black man a hardy hand-shake prior to 78' because God wasn't ready for him yet? At least for the temple.
canard78 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Did you just give a black man a hardy hand-shake prior to 78' because God wasn't ready for him yet? At least for the temple. It feels slightly odd to be on this side of the argument. I make personally make no distinction between a sexually active gay member and a sexually active straight (unmarried) member. I would welcome gay marriage being recognised by the church. I hope it is one day. But at the moment it is not. As long as it is not I'm saying that a sexually active member (regardless of their sexual persuasion) should be treated the same. Whatever that treatment may be.
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I am speaking only of those who are practicing. How can we be more inclusive of practicing gays? In the same way we now include practicing adulters. 2
canard78 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 In the same way we now include practicing adulters. I always think this comparison is unfair. A practicing gay is not the same as an adulterous straight man/woman. If temple sealed the adulterer is breaking both a commitment to their spouse and a temple covenant. I think the fairer comparison is to an unmarried but sexually active straight man or woman. 1
DBMormon Posted October 30, 2013 Author Posted October 30, 2013 I always think this comparison is unfair. A practicing gay is not the same as an adulterous straight man/woman. If temple sealed the adulterer is breaking both a commitment to their spouse and a temple covenant. I think the fairer comparison is to an unmarried but sexually active straight man or woman.I agree
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 So far, the only post on this thread that has thread that has made much sense is the one from thesometimesaint. You guys don't get it. Homosexual behavior is, by nature, grievously immoral in the eyes of God. It always will be. No amount of rationalization is going to change that. You need to get over it. 3
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 So far, the only post on this thread that has thread that has made much sense is the one from thesometimesaint. You guys don't get it. Homosexual behavior is, by nature, grievously immoral in the eyes of God. It always will be. No amount of rationalization is going to change that. You need to get over it. Unless you speak for God Himself, you cannot say "it always will be." 1
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) So far, the only post on this thread that has thread that has made much sense is the one from thesometimesaint. You guys don't get it. Homosexual behavior is, by nature, grievously immoral in the eyes of God. It always will be. No amount of rationalization is going to change that. You need to get over it. CFR where God has said that committed relationships between homosexuals are "grieviously immoral". Seriously, Scott. The thread is about how we might find a way to welcome homosexual members into the church without changing doctrine. If you don't have something to say with respect to that topic, maybe you should skip participation on this one. Edited October 30, 2013 by rockpond
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) Unless you speak for God Himself, you cannot say "it always will be." Deleted - so that we can stay on topic. Edited October 30, 2013 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Unless you speak for God Himself, you cannot say "it always will be."OK, you're right. I can't say it with any greater degree of certainty than I can say that the sun will rise tomorrow. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 CFR where God has said that committed relationships between homosexuals are "grieviously immoral".What's the point? You will dismiss it as just the personal opinion of whichever prophet or apostle I quote. I've seen the pattern here long enough now to have it down. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 It surprises me when anyone uses the "it will always be" phrase in our theology of continuing revelation. But, men who do actually have more of a claim to speaking for God, have also tried it. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." --Brigham Young, JoD, 10:110Like I just said. 1
canard78 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 It surprises me when anyone uses the "it will always be" phrase in our theology of continuing revelation. But, men who do actually have more of a claim to speaking for God, have also tried it. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." --Brigham Young, JoD, 10:110 A while back I got a mind-bending reply that said that when BY said this he didn't really mean always, he just meant it was this way until it no longer was. But that this didn't apply to gay marriage... that will really always be so. (confused?) 2
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 What's the point? You will dismiss it as just the personal opinion of whichever prophet or apostle I quote. I've seen the pattern here long enough now to have it down. Exactly. So let Bill's thread continue without derailing it.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 If I were a believer, and I had a gay child, I'd say he or she would have to choose between living as a gay person or as a faithful member of the church. Tough choice, IMO. As an unbeliever, I'd just tell my child that, given the reality of his or her sexual identity, the church is probably not a good fit, so something else would be better. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) If I were a believer, and I had a gay child, I'd say he or she would have to choose between living as a gay person or as a faithful member of the church. Tough choice, IMO. I agree with this -- though I think it would be less tough for one who was bi-sexual. At the same time, I would try earnestly to help him understand that "weeping endureth for a night, but joy cometh in the morning" (Psalm 30:5). As an unbeliever, I'd just tell my child that, given the reality of his or her sexual identity, the church is probably not a good fit, so something else would be better. This is certainly understandable from perspective of an unbeliever. As a believer, I might try to persuade the child otherwise, however. Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 If I were a believer, and I had a gay child, I'd say he or she would have to choose between living as a gay person or as a faithful member of the church. Tough choice, IMO. As an unbeliever, I'd just tell my child that, given the reality of his or her sexual identity, the church is probably not a good fit, so something else would be better. There's a young man that I was Priests Quorum advisor to who chose to leave the church despite his very strong and very large LDS family. He told me: "The Church wants me to give up every chance I have at a happy and fulfilling life on the hope that I'll be given all of that in the next life. Sorry, I can't do that." That's not a "test" that we as heterosexuals are given. So I think it's appropriate to approach their circumstances with an extra measure of compassion. 3
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) I always think this comparison is unfair. A practicing gay is not the same as an adulterous straight man/woman. If temple sealed the adulterer is breaking both a commitment to their spouse and a temple covenant. I think the fairer comparison is to an unmarried but sexually active straight man or woman. Within the Church it can not recognize SSM no matter its legality or not(Thou shalt not commit adultery, or anything like unto it). Both can result in serious Church Discipline. So yours is an artifical distinction. Edited October 30, 2013 by thesometimesaint 1
Recommended Posts