Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[Gray]

People are entitled to their idiosyncratic definitions, even for the purpose of completely missing the obvious point.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. 

[thesometimesaint]

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. 

 

Technically true, but limited. It was how they treated the poor, and how they treated visitors.

[Gray]

Technically true, but limited. It was how they treated the poor, and how they treated visitors.

 

 

Yes, thank you! In which case I think all of us are guilty of "sodomy" sometimes (lack of hospitality, lack of caring for the poor). It's not something we can hope to pin on any minority group.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, thank you! In which case I think all of us are guilty of "sodomy" sometimes (lack of hospitality, lack of caring for the poor). It's not something we can hope to pin on any minority group.

 

Languages change over the years. So sodomy has come to have a sexual meaning, Whereas Sodomite just meant some one from Sodom(a city) albeit an evil one at that.

[Gray]

Languages change over the years. So sodomy has come to have a sexual meaning, Whereas Sodomite just meant some one from Sodom(a city) albeit an evil one at that.

 

Even basing it on more modern meanings of the word, "sodomy" is something committed by a majority of straight married couples (without being too explicit, sodomy referred to any non-procreative sexual act)

[CV75]

I stated the policy in the post you quoted. Thanks!

Please repost then, because I didn't recognize any source given.

To be clear: all you wrote was: "The policy is that romantic relationships between those of the same sex are interpreted as violating the law of chastity and as causing those in those relationships to be branded as "unworthy""

 

A CFR requires you to provide the source of the quote and the proper quotation.

Edited March 10, 2014 by CV75

[Gray]

Please repost then, because I didn't recognize any source given.

 

Do you need a source? The church's policy is that same sex romantic relationships are inherently sinful and against the law of chastity. 

 

Are you disputing that this is the policy or are you disputing that this is harmful?

[thesometimesaint]

Even basing it on more modern meanings of the word, "sodomy" is something committed by a majority of straight married couples (without being too explicit, sodomy referred to any non-procreative sexual act)

 

Agreed. Fortunately for most of the LDS, the Church many years ago gave up on telling what a married couple could do in the privacy of their own home.

[Gray]

Please repost then, because I didn't recognize any source given.

To be clear: all you wrote was: "The policy is that romantic relationships between those of the same sex are interpreted as violating the law of chastity and as causing those in those relationships to be branded as "unworthy""

 

A CFR requires you to provide the source of the quote and the proper quotation.

 

This does seem to me like a nuisance request, then, since this should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with Mormonism. 

 

No offense intended, that's just how I see it. I hope you understand why I feel that way. 

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4#21.4.6

 

 

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Gray

[CV75]

This does seem to me like a nuisance request, then, since this should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with Mormonism. 

 

No offense intended, that's just how I see it. I hope you understand why I feel that way. 

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4#21.4.6

Now I will show you why it is not a nuisance request. I am bolding the items that show your representation of the Church’s position is false.

Compare what you said -- The policy is that romantic relationships between those of the same sex are interpreted as violating the law of chastity and as causing those in those relationships to be branded as "unworthy"

With what the link says –

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

There is no branding [labeling so as to cause someone public shame or disgrace] of individuals as “unworthy”!!! Instead, there is loving invitation to repent and to do one's best.

[california boy]

Now I will show you why it is not a nuisance request. I am bolding the items that show your representation of the Church’s position is false.

Compare what you said -- The policy is that romantic relationships between those of the same sex are interpreted as violating the law of chastity and as causing those in those relationships to be branded as "unworthy"

With what the link says –

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

There is no branding [labeling so as to cause someone public shame or disgrace] of individuals as “unworthy”!!! Instead, there is loving invitation to repent and to do one's best.

Interesting that you did not bold this phrase which for me is the core of the problem.

 

and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life 

 

 

The church recognizea the very important human need for close relations that only a family can fulfil, yet their solution to being gay is to be celibate throughout life.  It is unfortunate that gays are not treated the same under the law of chastity which defines sexual sin is sex outside of marriage.

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this,

[CV75]

Interesting that you did not bold this phrase which for me is the core of the problem.

The church recognizea the very important human need for close relations that only a family can fulfil, yet their solution to being gay is to be celibate throughout life.  It is unfortunate that gays are not treated the same under the law of chastity which defines sexual sin is sex outside of marriage.

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this,

The core of the problem is sin. Sin deprives people of the blessings, not the Church. Church discipline is not the deprivation of blessings since that has already taken effect by breaking eternal law, whether teh Church disciplines or not. I was taking excpetion to the false accusation that the Church brands people, and as you can see there is no branding involved.

Celibacy is not a solution to being gay, and the Church is not promoting celibacy as a solution for being gay. She promotes absintence from sinful sexual expression as the solution to breaking the law of chastity.

You may not agree with the Church's stance that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but that is the basis for the law of chastity, which is taught and applied equitably across Church memebrship.

[Gray]

Now I will show you why it is not a nuisance request. I am bolding the items that show your representation of the Church’s position is false.

Compare what you said -- The policy is that romantic relationships between those of the same sex are interpreted as violating the law of chastity and as causing those in those relationships to be branded as "unworthy"

With what the link says –

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

There is no branding [labeling so as to cause someone public shame or disgrace] of individuals as “unworthy”!!! Instead, there is loving invitation to repent and to do one's best.

 

The official position supports my statement - people in SS relationships ARE considered unworthy within the church. Those relationships are not considered valid. No matter how gently you go about this, it's going to have a negative effect on their emotional health 

 

You're not suggesting that a SS couple in the church would be pronounced worthy by their bishop, are you? It's an excommunicable (is that a word?) offense 

Edited March 11, 2014 by Gray

[Damien the Leper]

So, being an alcoholic is OK ... as long as one is functional?

 

How did you get that from my post?

[CV75]

The official position supports my statement - people in SS relationships ARE considered unworthy within the church. Those relationships are not considered valid. No matter how gently you go about this, it's going to have a negative effect on their emotional health

No, your statement (in the form of an accusation) was that they are branded as "unworthy". The official position doesn't support that in the least. The official statement indicates that Church leaders are to encourage that the members have a positive emotional, spiritual and social experieince whether they need to repent of sin or not. But the leaders cannot have that experieince for the gay memebs, or force them to have it. Wickedness never was happiness.

 

 

You're not suggesting that a SS couple in the church would be pronounced worthy by their bishop, are you? It's an excommunicable (is that a word?) offense 

Not at all. And Chruch discipline is not "branding" as you argued it is. There is no indication that the policy calls for official labeling so as to cause someone public shame or disgrace.

 

And how does a bishop go about "pronouncing" someone worthy or not? Does he stand up with the sinner in sacrament meeting, make a ritual gesture with his hands and say, "Thou art unworthy!" and tear his coat? Where is the policy on that?

 

I think you need to educate yoruself on disciplinary dotrine and procedure.

[Gray]

No, your statement (in the form of an accusation) was that they are branded as "unworthy". The official position doesn't support that in the least. The official statement indicates that Church leaders are to encourage that the members have a positive emotional, spiritual and social experieince whether they need to repent of sin or not. But the leaders cannot have that experieince for the gay memebs, or force them to have it. Wickedness never was happiness.

 

 

Not at all. And Chruch discipline is not "branding" as you argued it is. There is no indication that the policy calls for official labeling so as to cause someone public shame or disgrace.

 

And how does a bishop go about "pronouncing" someone worthy or not? Does he stand up with the sinner in sacrament meeting, make a ritual gesture with his hands and say, "Thou art unworthy!" and tear his coat? Where is the policy on that?

 

I think you need to educate yoruself on disciplinary dotrine and procedure.

 

You seem to be undermining your own argument when you refer to their relationships as "wickedness"

 

 

 

And how does a bishop go about "pronouncing" someone worthy or not? Does he stand up with the sinner in sacrament meeting, make a ritual gesture with his hands and say, "Thou art unworthy!" and tear his coat? Where is the policy on that?

 

Temple recommend interviews and misc worthiness interviews. If a sexually active gay couple were called in to see the bishop, what would be his judgement call regarding their worthiness?

[california boy]

The core of the problem is sin. Sin deprives people of the blessings, not the Church. Church discipline is not the deprivation of blessings since that has already taken effect by breaking eternal law, whether teh Church disciplines or not. I was taking excpetion to the false accusation that the Church brands people, and as you can see there is no branding involved.

Celibacy is not a solution to being gay, and the Church is not promoting celibacy as a solution for being gay. She promotes absintence from sinful sexual expression as the solution to breaking the law of chastity.

You may not agree with the Church's stance that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but that is the basis for the law of chastity, which is taught and applied equitably across Church memebrship.

If the core of the problem is sin, why can't a gay couple who does not have sex be considered active faithful members of the church?  Tell me what sin they are committing?

 

Church leadership is more than against the sexual sin, they are against gay couples with or without a sexual transgression.  

 

If wickedness never was happiness, then why am I so completely happy living with my boyfriend.  It is a much more fulfilling relationship then I ever had with my wife.  I think of that scripture often when I wonder how God actually looks upon my relationship with my boyfriend.

[wenglund]

If the core of the problem is sin, why can't a gay couple who does not have sex be considered active faithful members of the church? 

 

I am not gay, but I have never been denied a temple recommend for having very strong male friendships.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

I am not gay, but I have never been denied a temple recommend for having very strong male friendships.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well perhaps the fact that you are not gay is why you have not been denied a temple recommend for having very strong male friendships.  

[thesometimesaint]

Well perhaps the fact that you are not gay is why you have not been denied a temple recommend for having very strong male friendships.  

 

Being gay is not the sin. You can be as gay as they come and still be a active believing Temple Recommend holding member. Having a gay sexual relationship is the sin, and that is what make you subject to Church Discipline.

[california boy]

Being gay is not the sin. You can be as gay as they come and still be a active believing Temple Recommend holding member. Having a gay sexual relationship is the sin, and that is what make you subject to Church Discipline.

This issue has been talked about before on this forum.  The church does not allow gay members to hug, date, kiss, and even discourages gay members from associating with anyone who is gay.  I was told very specifically that I was not allowed to do any of those things.  I asked if I could have a male room mate and was told no.  I asked if I could have a female room mate and was told no. The only option given to me to be a faithful member was to spend the rest of my life living alone.

 

The church does not treat gay members the same as they do straight members.  

[wenglund]

Well perhaps the fact that you are not gay is why you have not been denied a temple recommend for having very strong male friendships.  

 

It isn't relevant. When sex or sexual behavior is not a factor in relationships, such relationships are considered as asexual, or platonic, or as we in the English language like to call them, friends. The same is true for we heterosexuals who have very close, though non-sexual relationships with females.

 

I haven't been denied a temple recommend for having very close, non-sexual relationships with the opposite sex. A little more than half of my blood relations fall into that category.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This issue has been talked about before on this forum.  The church does not allow gay members to hug, date, kiss, and even discourages gay members from associating with anyone who is gay.  I was told very specifically that I was not allowed to do any of those things.  I asked if I could have a male room mate and was told no.  I asked if I could have a female room mate and was told no. The only option given to me to be a faithful member was to spend the rest of my life living alone.

 

The church does not treat gay members the same as they do straight members.  

 

I have hugged and even kissed the cheeks of my father and brothers and even some male friends, as well as a male homosexual blood relation. No problem.

 

However, wisdom dictates that members not put themselves at high risk for committing sin and to avoid the appearance of sin. This applies to members regardless of sexuality. It is why the heterosexual youth in the Church are strongly discouraged from dating before a certain age, and not allowed to have mixed camp-outs, etc..

 

Besides, homosexuality is different from heterosexuality and so it makes sense that the two are treated different. For example, dating is encourage, and some kissing and hugging is tolerated, among heterosexuals because it is intended to eventually lead to the appropriate sexual expression called traditional marriage and family. The same is not true for homosexuals. In terms of the Church, there is no point to homosexuals kissing and dating since it can't lead to an appropriate sexual expression, but rather puts them at risk of committing sin.

 

This isn't rocket science, and it is separate and apart from the point being made that mere friendships (heterosexual or homosexual) is not a sin.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 12, 2014 by wenglund

[CV75]

You seem to be undermining your own argument when you refer to their relationships as "wickedness"

Huh? Sexual relationships outside of marriage are wickedness.

 

 

Temple recommend interviews and misc worthiness interviews. If a sexually active gay couple were called in to see the bishop, what would be his judgement call regarding their worthiness?

Why would they be called in? How would he find out they are sexaully active? At any rate, sexual relationships outside of marriage are acts unworthy of a faithful saint.

 

You should also consider that sexual relations really requires two different sexes to participate. Sexually active gay couples really aren't engaging in sex, but are nevertheless abusing their procreative powers. I understand the need to use shorthand and call it "sex" even though it legitimately isn't.

[CV75]

Church leadership is more than against the sexual sin, they are against gay couples with or without a sexual transgression.  

CFR -- we need to be on the same page when discussing this one.

 

 

If wickedness never was happiness, then why am I so completely happy living with my boyfriend.  It is a much more fulfilling relationship then I ever had with my wife.  I think of that scripture often when I wonder how God actually looks upon my relationship with my boyfriend.

Alma 41:10 is "concerning restoration," not immediate gratification. You sorely misunderstand the scripture and that whole chapter.

 

Maybe you can meditate upon Job 20:4-5 or Alma 40:13-14' Luke 6:25, and the like.