rockpond Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 That's what I said, yes. Okay. That was just my shock replying. You couldn't identify the revelation or the scriptures that you claimed exist. You read stuff into scripture that isn't there. So please don't expect me to put any weight on a conversation you claim to have had with an unnamed individual.
Mystery Meat Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Fair enough. But I completely disagree with your characterization of my comments. I am out of this one. It is clear that you will only accept an answer that conforms with your personal beliefs.
rockpond Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Fair enough. But I completely disagree with your characterization of my comments. I am out of this one. It is clear that you will only accept an answer that conforms with your personal beliefs. In post #188 you claimed that God's will regarding his homosexual children had already been revealed. I asked where (post #190) but you never provided a source. In post #201 you said: "Homosexuality as sin is mentioned in just about every book of canonized scripture." When I pointed out that it is only mentioned in the Bible (not in the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price) and asked if you agreed, you never answered. In post #205 you claimed modern day revelation on the subject. A revelation you can't seem to identify. So today, in post #224, you came back with a response that "church leaders believe" the revelation has been given. Your source? An anonymous conversation. So, I don't think it's that I am only accepting answers that conform with my beliefs. It would appear that you actually haven't provided any answers for me to consider.
BlueDreams Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 On the OP, If I had to make my prediction: on list of rights, socially this is going somewhere in between civil rights for minorities and abortion laws. For some it will be seen as something that society will slowly change their view on based on exposure, education, better law securities, etc. For others this will continually take on a moral view. Faiths like catholicism, LDS, etc are unlikely to alter their view based on popular demand. For other faiths, as already seen, there is more leeway for change and some will change to accommodate it. Basically I don't see the stratification changing anytime soon. So the social pressure is likely to be uneven. I do think there will be some things that will be used to pressure the church (such as boycotts and possible lawsuits) on policies viewed as discriminatory or beliefs clash against the larger social perspective. As a faith, I think there will, in general, be greater discussion and clarification about sexuality and marriage. It's already happening. I think there will be some people who will push from the inside for what they view as correct changes. I don't think that most of these changes will happen, but that it will lead to a clarification of what our stance is, why, and what is not our stance/acceptable behavior when dealing with people that differ. Mainly, more emphasis in caring for and welcoming all people into our congregations without necessarily changing key doctrines to fit social acceptance. So what I don't see changing: - the definition of marriage as a heterosexual union- the belief that acts outside of this marital relationship is a sin/not condoned by God What I do see changing:- more outreach and acceptance of members who don't fit these standard (basically a more institutionalization of the big tent idea). Utilizing them in callings/activities as much as is allowed within their standing in the faith- softening of harsher language that can alienate/put unnecessary shame on youth struggling to get a grasp of their sexuality With luv,BD
Scott Lloyd Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 I can tell you based on a conversation I had yesterday that the leaders of the Church believe that revelation on God's feelings about SSM and homosexual sex within such marriages has been given. There has been no equivocation on the matter. That's my impression.
rockpond Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 That's my impression. When did we receive it? What did it say? Why isn't it shared with any of us?
BlueDreams Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Homosexuality is actually rarely condemned in the scriptures. There are a handful of verses in the Old Testiment along with more than a dozen handful of scriptures condemning other things that are no longer followed or believed..... You can not say there is scriptural support for current church policy against gay marriage. You can not say there is any revelation on whether gay marriage is consistent with the law of chastity. Is ALL you can say is that current church policy developed by church leaders are guessing that homosexual marriage is not acceptable to God. Certainly God has not weighed in on this issue. As a church we are waiting for such a revelation. Until then, the current POLICY will probably remain in place. What we also have to acknowledge is that church policy is not always correct.I don't know about that. I personally don't think you have to prove that there's overt scripture pointedly condemning homosexual behavior in order to get the idea that such is against LOC, specifically eternal marriage. The point of the LoC is to cement an eternal marriage. And it's possible with just the bible to point that marriage = a binding relationship between man+woman. This may have more wiggle room for certain faiths, but this is even less so in the LDS church where you get not only the bible, but D+C, PoGP, and the temple indicating the eternal nature of marriage being between men/women and not between men/men or women/women. LDS, afterall, put huge emphasis on the creation and GoE account. The image of God is man+woman sealed together as eternal partners for eternity. The marriage of A+E are meant as a symbolic process that all of us are called to be willing to partake in. There is plenty of evidence and strong indications of what marriage is defined as in LDS scripture and their further resonance in the temple endowment/sealing ceremonies. The LoC is anything that breaks or takes away from that relationship. There is no evidence or indication that the definition of marriage has room for expansion based on scriptural accounts/LDS doctrine. None. Where there are exceptions to a man and a woman formula, they are relationships that are still occurring between/within the immediate parameters of husband/wife. And though there are strong relationships between men/men or women/women in the scriptures and early adoption sealings, the language used to describe them are quite clear: friend, parent, disciple, brother....but never husband or wife. My problem with gay marriage is that there is no spiritual precedence within any judeo-christian scripture and specifically the LDS faith. I don't need, nor really expect most of these books to have any strong denunciations against homosexual relationships. There wasn't likely an abject need, no group within these texts were actively seeking permanent intimate relationships with same-sex, so it wasn't likely to be seen as a needed topic to address. They had bigger fish to fry for their people (like genocides and idols and such ). All I need is a working definition for what marriage is for God and that is pretty easy to make a case for as being an opposite sex covenant from the beginning on out. If the sexual relationship doesn't fit the parameters God has set for the marriage covenant than the relationship doesn't follow the law of Chastity. There is literally no scriptural indication that marriage was meant or allowed to occur between members of the same sex by God at any given time. Plenty evidence that it is/was condoned when between the opposite. And plenty more that this fundamental relationship held great importance both in use of symbols and ordering by God of his people. That's the far bigger problem, in my mind, when it comes to gay marriage and its potential recognition in the LDS faith. With luv,BD
rockpond Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 My problem with gay marriage is that there is no spiritual precedence within any judeo-christian scripture and specifically the LDS faith. There is no spiritual precedence within any Judeo-Christian scripture for a number of things that we received as part of the Restoration.
guerreiro9 Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 There is no spiritual precedence within any Judeo-Christian scripture for a number of things that we received as part of the Restoration.rockpond you seem to really want homosexuality to be viewed as acceptable by the church and society as a whole.Based on previous comments you seem to strongly believe that our sexuality is inborn and immutable. What if you are wrong?If our sexuality is strongly influenced by our culture as I and many others believe would that change your opinion on whether it should be promoted by our church and society?If by promoting homosexual relationships the number of people enticed by those relationships is increased would you still think the church should promote them?All hypothetical of course.-guerreiro9
rockpond Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 rockpond you seem to really want homosexuality to be viewed as acceptable by the church and society as a whole.Based on previous comments you seem to strongly believe that our sexuality is inborn and immutable. What if you are wrong?If our sexuality is strongly influenced by our culture as I and many others believe would that change your opinion on whether it should be promoted by our church and society?If by promoting homosexual relationships the number of people enticed by those relationships is increased would you still think the church should promote them?All hypothetical of course.-guerreiro9 I'm open to being corrected if I am wrong. If sexual orientation was exclusively created by culture (and therefore malleable through cultural changes) than I would likely alter my opinions. What the Church promotes should be dependent on God's revealed will.
Mystery Meat Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 In post #188 you claimed that God's will regarding his homosexual children had already been revealed. I asked where (post #190) but you never provided a source. In post #201 you said: "Homosexuality as sin is mentioned in just about every book of canonized scripture." When I pointed out that it is only mentioned in the Bible (not in the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price) and asked if you agreed, you never answered. In post #205 you claimed modern day revelation on the subject. A revelation you can't seem to identify. So today, in post #224, you came back with a response that "church leaders believe" the revelation has been given. Your source? An anonymous conversation. So, I don't think it's that I am only accepting answers that conform with my beliefs. It would appear that you actually haven't provided any answers for me to consider. Post 188. This is not true. I have shown several places where he has said it. You just don't accept Mormon Doctrine that prophets and apostles speak on behalf of God. Post 201. You are probably right on this one, however never once in any of these do we get referrences to sanctioned gay marriages. In fact the New and Everlasting covenant in the D&C explicitly defines it as marriage between man and woman. Post 205. I can identify revelation. I think the problem is you need a disclaimer in big red font that says, "Warning: The Following is Revelation." And that is not always how it works. Refer to the scriptures in the Bible, The Proclamation on the Family, the numerous talks on SSM in this dispensation at general conference and you have your revelation. But again none of them said "Thus saith the Lord" (Look up Elder McConkie for this one...) so you don't think they were revelation or interpretations of God's will. Post 224. I don't expect anyone to believe it. I am not going to name who I talked with. It doesn't matter. Suffice it to say that a conversation took place with someone who knows. Take it...or don't. I'm just an internet dude. So, I think to reach the conclusion you have about the Lord's seeming absence on this issue can only be explained by your desire for the answer to be different then what the Lord has taught through his servants over a several thousand year span.
Mystery Meat Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 What the Church promotes should be dependent on God's revealed will. Good thing it has.
Danzo Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 There is no spiritual precedence within any Judeo-Christian scripture for a number of things that we received as part of the Restoration. Since we haven't received this as part of the Restoration, you can't claim it is there.
rockpond Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Since we haven't received this as part of the Restoration, you can't claim it is there. Correct. And you can't claim it won't be.
Danzo Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Correct. And you can't claim it won't be. I don't recall that the scriptures prohibit pigs from flying either, but anythings possible.
rockpond Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Post 188. This is not true. I have shown several places where he has said it. You just don't accept Mormon Doctrine that prophets and apostles speak on behalf of God. Post 201. You are probably right on this one, however never once in any of these do we get referrences to sanctioned gay marriages. In fact the New and Everlasting covenant in the D&C explicitly defines it as marriage between man and woman. Post 205. I can identify revelation. I think the problem is you need a disclaimer in big red font that says, "Warning: The Following is Revelation." And that is not always how it works. Refer to the scriptures in the Bible, The Proclamation on the Family, the numerous talks on SSM in this dispensation at general conference and you have your revelation. But again none of them said "Thus saith the Lord" (Look up Elder McConkie for this one...) so you don't think they were revelation or interpretations of God's will. Post 224. I don't expect anyone to believe it. I am not going to name who I talked with. It doesn't matter. Suffice it to say that a conversation took place with someone who knows. Take it...or don't. I'm just an internet dude. So, I think to reach the conclusion you have about the Lord's seeming absence on this issue can only be explained by your desire for the answer to be different then what the Lord has taught through his servants over a several thousand year span. We do not believe that whatever prophets and apostles speak is the will of God. That is not Mormon doctrine. The New and Everlasting covenant does not exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Proclamation is not a revelation, nor does it say anything about homosexuality... though I'm sure you like to see it there because that seems to be what you do. I don't need a disclaimer but I do hope for something that actually presents itself as revelation from God on His will for His homosexual children. We don't have that yet and you have not been able to identify it. Regarding your conversation with someone who knows... generally speaking, the rules of this board are that if you make a claim, you must provide the evidence or reference for that claim. Or withdraw it.
guerreiro9 Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 I'm open to being corrected if I am wrong.If sexual orientation was exclusively created by culture (and therefore malleable through cultural changes) than I would likely alter my opinions.What the Church promotes should be dependent on God's revealed will. In my experience this seems to be the crux of the matter.I strongly believe that culture and experiences have a stronger effect on our sexuality than the DNA we are born with. DNA plays a part, but does not entirely define us.If I believed that sexuality was innately inborn I would be much more inclined to encourage homosexuality amongst those who desired it.So all of our bickering boils down to nature vs nurture.-guerreiro9(Edited to add). Just out of curiosity would you argue the side of nature on all issues or just this one? If just this one, why is this issue different than others?
Mystery Meat Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 In my experience this seems to be the crux of the matter.I strongly believe that culture and experiences have a stronger effect on our sexuality than the DNA we are born with. DNA plays a part, but does not entirely define us.If I believed that sexuality was innately inborn I would be much more inclined to encourage homosexuality amongst those who desired it.So all of our bickering boils down to nature vs nurture.-guerreiro9 What if its both (nature and nurture), as I believe? See: Mosiah 3:19. I don't need a disclaimer but I do hope for something that actually presents itself as revelation from God on His will for His homosexual children. We don't have that yet and you have not been able to identify it. We don't have it in the exact form requirements that you have stipulated be there in order for it to be valid, but you don't get to make the rules. That doesn't mean God's will on the matter hasn't been revealed.
guerreiro9 Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 What if its both (nature and nurture), as I believeI believe it is both, but I believe with this issue as with most others nature plays the smaller role.-guerreiro9
Danzo Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 I believe it is both, but I believe with this issue as with most others nature plays the smaller role.-guerreiro9 The argument of nature (my parents made me do it), or nurture (my parents(society, friends,etc) made me do it), while interesting scientifically is irrelevant. To live the gospel, we must overcome both our nature and our nurture if we are to get where we are going. Otherwise we are just saying that some people do not have agency and are doomed to live the life they were programmed (by nature or nurture)
CV75 Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 I did. I asked it. On this thread about what comes next now that SSM is legal in Utah. Is there something wrong with looking at what we learn from the past and applying it to the future?There is a problem with touting the priesthood ban as a parallel to LDS teachings on marriage--many have discussed the specifics already so I won't. Conflating a past ban with a current teaching that is not a ban, and conflating disavowed “theories advanced in the past” with actual scripture does not help anyone learn about how the Lord leads or will lead His Church through revelation. Using the common canon to study how scriptural doctrine evolved in the past between the various dispensations and up until now, and continues to evolve, will help avoid conflating personal socio-political observations with what is actually citable as doctrine, and avoid the problem of advancing theories, whether for or against Church teachings.
rockpond Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 In my experience this seems to be the crux of the matter.I strongly believe that culture and experiences have a stronger effect on our sexuality than the DNA we are born with. DNA plays a part, but does not entirely define us.If I believed that sexuality was innately inborn I would be much more inclined to encourage homosexuality amongst those who desired it.So all of our bickering boils down to nature vs nurture.-guerreiro9(Edited to add). Just out of curiosity would you argue the side of nature on all issues or just this one? If just this one, why is this issue different than others? I don't find nature vs nurture particularly important. So I don't think that I'm really arguing the "side of nature".
Rock_N_Roll Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Guerreiro - I strongly believe that sexual orientation is inborn, as I have seen it in my own family and have spoken with many LGBT persons who have indicated as such for them. I have seen no evidence that it is brought on by cultural or environmental factors. You mentioned (in a previous post) that you could see yourself being sexually attracted to men if you had been raised in such a culture. I can tell you - I cannot see myself EVER being attracted to men, no matter the environment or culture. There was never a time where I "chose" my orientation. I was born heterosexual. If sexual orientation can be molded by environment, then why was my brother-in-law not able to change his, even after fasting, prayer and therapy, yes - even 'shock therapy', at BYU no less?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.