My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[mfbukowski]

Or being scourged, or wearing a crown of three-or-four-inch thorns, or being mocked, or having people tell you that you cast out devils by the prince of devils (or that you have a devil yourself) or having the people in your own home town (many of whom were probably friends and family) reject you, or bleeding from every pore, or suffering, both body and spirit, for the sins of every man, woman, and child who has ever been (or ever will be) born, or having the religious leaders of the day continually oppose you verbally and try to trip you up (not to mention plotting to kill you), or being hailed by the masses and then being rejected by them in favor of a robber (all in the same week), having most of your disciples abandon you after you declare hard truths (you mean, like, that God cannot approve homosexual behavior?) and asking your apostles, "Will ye also go away?", or having no permanent residence ...

 

Christ didn't do anything to deserve any of this, but He got it anyway.

 

But, hey, I've got it really hard!  I don't think He can possibly understand any of my trials!

Yeah but I don't get to have sex with anyone I want.

 

Surely that is worse. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[why me]

I don't why members believe that god is a western god who submits to equal rights in regards to whom one can marry. I don't think that god is influenced by theories of justice that come out of 21st century america or from the western world. 

 

I didn't realize that god became a postmodernist.

[Gray]

I don't why members believe that god is a western god who submits to equal rights in regards to whom one can marry. I don't think that god is influenced by theories of justice that come out of 21st century america or from the western world. 

 

I didn't realize that god became a postmodernist.

 

On the other hand, is God someone who values 50's Americana, or bronze-age cultural norms?

 

Inspiration is a long slow process. It's not that God changes. It's that we slowly awaken to God, over centuries and millennia. We'll always have a lot more to learn

Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray

[bluebell]

I don't think that's how it works. And I think Jesus taught that living the commandments shouldn't be heavy or painful. That part should be joyful - you know, my yoke is light, etc. 

 

It's not painful for me to live the commandments. It's pretty easy. But then again I'm not gay. 

 

Have you ever had to choose between your family and being a member of the church?

 

Or had to choose to stay celibate and single because the man you were in love with (who loved you back) had no interest in being in a relationship that wasn't intimate and never planned to marry?

 

Or became the subject of intense and prolonged bullying because you wouldn't break the WOW?

 

Or needed to quite smoking but struggled for years to do so, to be able to get baptized which was your greatest dream?

 

Or been on a mission when a loved one suddenly died and you hadn't had the chance to speak or see them in almost 2 years?

 

I know people who have suffered all of these things, and none of them were gay.  Wickedness never was happiness, which means that when we live the commandments, happiness should follow (gay or straight).

 

But the gospel, and following Christ, is about sacrificing things (like the natural man, for example) and sacrifice isn't easy.  If it was, then it wouldn't be a sacrifice.    

[teddyaware]

On the other hand, is God someone who values 50's Americana, or bronze-age cultural norms?

 

Inspiration is a long slow process. It's not that God changes. It's that we slowly awaken to God, over centuries and millennia. We'll always have a lot more to learn

The LDS religion creates some problems with this view. Based on the fact that there were previous dispensations when the fullness of the Gospel was on the earth, it's hard to imagine, for instance, that the Enochian dispensation was at all behind this dispensation in spiritual enlightenment. After all, a whole holy city (the City of Enoch) was taken into heaven in that day and many of that same dispensation thereafter followed the inhabitants of the City of Enoch into heaven. Now that's spiritual enlightenment and true holiness! The notion that we're more spiritually advanced than those of previous generations is based more on a sort secular humanist view.

Edited April 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[ksfisher]

 

But the gospel, and following Christ, is about sacrificing things

 

Lots of rep points for this!

[Scott Lloyd]

But I do think that there is more understanding because of the time that we live in and as such, less likely for being excommunicated. But back in my day as a young adult, there would be an excommunication most likely for returned missionaries who succumbed. But the young ladies were not excommunicated. At least not the ones that I knew.

Since Church disciplinary councils are individual affairs that depend on the circumstances of the cases that are heard, it's hard to extrapolate a pattern.

 

But I think it's safe to say, or rather, reiterate what I did before: There is no allowance for sexual sin in the Church of Jesus Christ and no forgiveness for the unrepentant.

[Teancum]

??? 

 

I am trying to figure out why my thought-provoking and exploratory question, in response to your equally thought-provoking and exploratory question,  would be a barrier to a discussion with you, let alone a pat on someone else's back? 

 

Did I somehow touch a nerve by comparatively directing the magnifying glass of scrutiny from Church leaders back to you?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Here's the deal Wade.  I asked if prophets and apostles are infallible when someone here was using a position given that they felt backed up their argument.  Essentially the argument was "Because the LDS Leaders say so."  So I asked if they were infallible.  You came back and said "As Compared to You?"  I thought that was snarky.  If you think it wasn't then fine but I don't claim revelation and expect millions to follow what I say. I don't make arguments like "Because President Monson said so."  

 

One poster here thinks my posts are not at all relevant to the discussion.  I think they are.  When asked about the logic of the of the Church's policies one proposition is the eternal nature of men and women.  Another is God commands and too bad we have weaknesses and problems in this life.  Your job is to be tested and tried.  That is when I started discussing the reasoning and logic behind evil and suffering of which the weakness of the human condition is part of. 

 

One ornery poster basically accused my of simply wanting easy street.  Of course that was not my point.  The point is reconciling a loving God, the type of God we and to some extent, the rest of the Christian world believes in (though we differ in many aspects) . Then I was told basically that all this has been discussed before and WHY AM I EVEN POSTING here.  This poster was also very flippant about what I believe are honest questions.

 

Anyway , I will bow out of this thread.  Maybe if I have the energy at some point and if you sincerely have an interest I will start a thread on the problem of evil and suffering and why I think the various theodicy’s are lacking. I am not an expert on this but I am reading on it. A current easy light book on the subject is called God's Problem. It’s by Bart Ehrman.

[Teancum]

Yet you reject the answers.  Why ask the question if you refuse the answer?

 

 

I don't reject answers that are reasonable and true?   Are you afraid of the questions?

[Mystery Meat]

On the other hand, is God someone who values 50's Americana, or bronze-age cultural norms?

 

Inspiration is a long slow process. It's not that God changes. It's that we slowly awaken to God, over centuries and millennia. We'll always have a lot more to learn

 

Our world is full of promiscuity, corruption, pornography, drugs, and all kinds of evil and you honestly believe that the culture this world created has had the effect of drawing us closer to God?

[Gray]

Have you ever had to choose between your family and being a member of the church?

 

Or had to choose to stay celibate and single because the man you were in love with (who loved you back) had no interest in being in a relationship that wasn't intimate and never planned to marry?

 

Or became the subject of intense and prolonged bullying because you wouldn't break the WOW?

 

Or needed to quite smoking but struggled for years to do so, to be able to get baptized which was your greatest dream?

 

Or been on a mission when a loved one suddenly died and you hadn't had the chance to speak or see them in almost 2 years?

 

 

Some of these things are just unfortunate events, like the death of a loved one. But you do bring up some good points. Sometimes it IS hard doing the right thing. But doing the right thing shouldn't ruin your life.

 

 

 

 

I know people who have suffered all of these things, and none of them were gay.  Wickedness never was happiness, which means that when we live the commandments, happiness should follow (gay or straight).

 

This is one of the main reasons why I cannot consider homosexuality a sin. Gay people who "live the commandment" by and large end up miserable, and those who find committed SS relationships end up happy

Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

The LDS religion creates some problems with this view. Based on the fact that there were previous dispensations when the fullness of the Gospel was on the earth, it's hard to imagine, for instance, that the Enochian dispensation was at all behind this dispensation in spiritual enlightenment. After all, a whole holy city (the City of Enoch) was taken into heaven in that day and many of that same dispensation thereafter followed the inhabitants of the City of Enoch into heaven. Now that's spiritual enlightenment and true holiness! The notion that we're more spiritually advanced than those of previous generations is based more on a sort secular humanist view.

 

I'm definitely not orthodox in my views. I'm not a scriptural literalist. For me, if it leads to kindness, it's a true revelation. If it leads to misery, it's not. I don't think God transmits anything into our brains. I think instead we awaken to deeper truths when we open ourselves up to them. And of course we sometimes fall asleep again. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Our world is full of promiscuity, corruption, pornography, drugs, and all kinds of evil and you honestly believe that the culture this world created has had the effect of drawing us closer to God?

 

The world has always been full of those things, but arguably the worst evils are diminishing a little

 

The world is also full of goodness, kindness, light, and beauty - literally everywhere. These things attract us and help us understand a little of the nature of God.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray

[Teancum]

 

 

No but it has always been an abomination.

  According to whom?

[ksfisher]

Some of these things are just unfortunate events, like the death of a loved one. But you do bring up some good points. Sometimes it IS hard doing the right thing. But doing the right thing shouldn't ruin your life.

 

 

 

 

 

9 Now Abinadi said unto him: I say unto you, I will ^anot recall the words which I have spoken unto you concerning this people, for they are true; and that ye may know of their surety I have suffered myself that I have fallen into your hands.

 10 Yea, and I will ^asuffer even until death, and I will not recall my words, and they shall stand as a ^btestimony against you. And if ye slay me ye will shed ^cinnocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day.

 13 And it came to pass that they took him and bound him, and ^ascourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto ^bdeath.

 

Mosiah 17

 

Doing the right thing seemed to have "ruined" Abinadi's life.

Edited April 7, 2014 by ksfisher

[Gray]

9 Now Abinadi said unto him: I say unto you, I will ^anot recall the words which I have spoken unto you concerning this people, for they are true; and that ye may know of their surety I have suffered myself that I have fallen into your hands.

 10 Yea, and I will ^asuffer even until death, and I will not recall my words, and they shall stand as a ^btestimony against you. And if ye slay me ye will shed ^cinnocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day.

 13 And it came to pass that they took him and bound him, and ^ascourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto ^bdeath.

 

Mosiah 17

 

I'm not sure that's a good model for living your life

[Teancum]

Thank you thank you thank you.

  You know for some reason we seem to have started on the wrong footing. I am happy to discuss things with you and I am open. Honestly though it seemt to me you jumped down my throat in your first post to me on this thread. 

[Teancum]

Don't get your hopes up. If I remember correctly, he made the same pledge to me on one occasion. It turned out to be an empty promise.

 

 

Wow Scott.

 

Are differing view really so unwelcome?  I think I try to be polite.  If not feel free to call me out on it.

 

Thanks for the welcoming posts though.  I wonder if you treat questioning members of your ward in such a way.

 

And no Scott. But I have pointed out that you tend to be unpleasent and strident in your tone rather often as well.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Since I don't drop in too often these days, and seeing DBMormon's thread, I figured I would add my two cents.

 

The church already allows same-gender marriage. In fact, the church already allows people of the same gender to be sealed in the temple.

 

It is an issue of ambiguity, and it is (at least in part) caused by the continuing remnants of the idea that same-sex attraction is immoral, not just acting on it (although changes have been made moving away from this, it is clear that this sort of editing is an ongoing process). Where does this occur? The church has a well defined policy with regards to gender reassignment surgery. That is, if you are a child when the surgery happens, the church pretends like it never happened. The CHI only distinguishes holding the priesthood, being sealed, being baptized and all of that for those who elect to have a gender reassignment surgery. For those who are assigned or reassigned at birth (for any number of reasons including being born intersex), the church treats you as if your current biological gender was your only gender. These individuals have simply been assigned a biological gender, and they function within the church within the proscribed boundaries of their assigned biological gender - including marrying those of the opposite sex, holding the priesthood, and all of the other aspects of church and gospel participation that are linked to gender.

 

The problem, of course, is that per the Proclamation on the Family, gender isn’t actually a biological characteristic, but a spiritual characteristic. Changing the biological gender of an infant doesn’t change their spiritual gender. And this creates the ambiguity. In fact, it seems that while for most of us, our spiritual gender identity is reflected in our biological gender identity, in any given instance this isn’t necessarily the case. In separating the two (a notion of a biological gender identity and a spiritual gender identity), the church, at least doctrinally recognizes that biological gender identity is no longer capable of providing us with the spiritual gender identity. However, since we cannot determine spiritual gender identity, the church remains stuck with biological gender as the standard way to determine spiritual gender.

 

Cdows in post #4 lays out three concerns (I am not trying to single out cdowis – he just outlines succinctly some of the major points in the discussion):

 

 

1. Moral purity is a commandment of God, regardless of one's sexual orientation.   The church's "policy" is that sexual immorality is a sin.

2. Sex is moral only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married.  Outside that relationship it is a sin.

3. Having homosexual OR heterosexual desires is not a sin as long as one keeps the law of chastity.

But these three concerns are problematic within the context. First, the notion of sexual immorality isn't very descriptive. Homosexuality isn't viewed as being sexual immorality on the same level as say premarital sex. This is clear in the various policies that distinguish between heterosexual immorality and homosexual immorality. Homosexual immorality creates significantly greater hurdles than does heterosexual immorality. There is clearly a distinction that is made, and a much greater weight is assigned to homosexual activity. Consider too that Heterosexual activity isn't inherently sinful. That is, we are told that there is an appropriate time and place for it in which it is not a sin and it is not immoral. For homosexual; activity it is always considered immoral. Consider that homosexual activity results in an annotated membership record. Does pre-marital sex ever result in this sort of stigma? Sexual immorality may be a sin, but, there is a wide range of both kinds of sexual immorality and the relative seriousness of those actions. By lumping it together, there seems to be an effort to make it no different from the rest at least in our dialogue, while there is clearly something different about it in our response to it. And this creates something of a barrier to these discussions.

 

The second concern is also problematic. This is a narrower definition that has been applied by the church only relatively recently. Originally, it was simply that it was a sin because the couple was not legally or lawfully married (and couldn’t be). But that isn’t the case anymore. So now we have to more narrowly define it as between a man and a woman. There was, of course the problem that raised its ugliness while we were going through this transition. We want to both view it as this simple sexual immorality on the one hand, caused by the couple having sex outside of marriage, and at the same time working as hard as we could to prevent them from being married. (It is in areas like this that the correlation to racial restrictions is most apropos – like the argument that it isn’t a sin when a mixed couple has sex, it’s a sin because they aren’t married, and then making sure we have laws preventing them from getting married). We disguise the uglier bias and then we struggle to redefine our position more acceptably when the underlying argument is taken away. It can no longer be a sin simply on the basis that there is no lawful or legal marriage (since they can get that now). So we forge a narrower distinction, only now, with the notion that same-gender attraction may well be a natural occurence, this perspective becomes less conherent.

 

The third issue is also a problem – because while it sounds nice, it isn’t actually an accurate description of our beliefs. We have a great deal of commentary in the church about heterosexual desire as a sin, right? One doesn’t have to go very to discover that inappropriate heterosexual desire is in fact a sin – even if you keep the law of chastity. And of course there are lots of citations of Matthew 5:28 – “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Or from the 2004 True to the Faith manual: “Merely refraining from sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sufficient in the Lord’s standard of personal purity.” And let’s not try to introduce President Kimball’s comments on this topic, right? We have a mixed message here – a message that is shifted only because of our desire to avoid the conflict that would result from the earlier thought – that in fact homosexual tendencies were a symptom of illness, or were themselves a sin. Once we stepped back from the position that same-gender attraction was unnatural and only a choice we had to produce a corresponding shift here. And by the way, we haven’t stepped that far back – we can all still remember Elder Packer’s redacted 2010 Conference talk, right? The one, where speaking of homosexuality he said: “Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father.” It was of course edited to come more in line with the current set of statements issued by the church. The church recognizes officially that same-gender attraction is often not a choice (and by this, they don’t mean anything more specific – that is, they don’t take a stance on the causes of same-gender attraction). With that recognition we have the recognition that same-gender attraction cannot be sinful in and of itself. But when we get statements like this, we have a sort of confused mess caused by the various changes in view, and the difficulty in dealing with the ambiguous nature of the problem.

 

And then we have the absolutely bigoted comments that suggest that most people with same-gender attraction chose that lifestyle. Not only is this contrary to the published views of church leadership, it tries to reinforce the notion that same-gender attraction (and not just actions) is sinful – because the same-gender attraction (long before we get to homosexual acts) is already represented as an action – as a choice.

 

It isn't so much about being tested and tried (that may be an element at work here). Such a view misses an entire aspect of this issue opened up by the reality that our biological identies and our spiritual identities may not be in synch. At the same time, it is not hard to understand the frustration of the minority group defined by this attraction. On the one hand we are taught in church that a successful marriage (in the temple) represents the apex of our mortality – and on the other hand, they are specifically told that they should not aim for that apex. As long as we have conflict of this sort, we will continue to struggle in finding ways to include these individuals in the church as God wants us to. Much like society, the church's view has shifted over time. I suspect that it will continue to move (although it may not move very far or very fast). I am confident that over the next few years, there will be greater conformity in the message that the church delivers - and that the language we use and our doctrinal understanding will help encourage more understanding and promote a more healthy response within our congregations to our brothers and sisters who experience same-gender attraction.

 

Clearly, the problem of ambiguity is going to remain. You cannot create policies by dealing primarily with the exceptions. Perhaps we will receive further light and knowledge in the future (whether we see changes in Church policy directed by inspiration or our communities produce a better understanding of the nature of same-gender attraction). No matter how we deal with this challenge, the Proclamation on the Family with its doctrinal stance separating biological and spiritual gender seems to be a good starting place to have a better dialogue with those who deal with same-gender attraction than our current stance of be celibate, ignore everything else we teach about family and marriage, and deal with your eternal loneliness.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Benjamin McGuire

[ksfisher]

the Proclamation on the Family with its doctrinal stance separating biological and spiritual gender

 

What exactly do you mean by this? 

[Deborah]

The church has already changed its mind on several issues once considered sinful. A lot of this is about defining what sin is and what sin isn't, and how we can reliably tell the difference.

 

Such as.....?

[ERayR]

I don't reject answers that are reasonable and true?   Are you afraid of the questions?

 

Nope I have ask the questions and accepted the answers.  Reasonableness is a matter of personal choice and paradigm. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Wasn't it clear? A person can have their biological gender changed. But, gender is an eternal attribute set in the pre-existence before we are born. So our biological gender and our spiritual gender (as the eternal attribute) don't always match. This is particularly true in cases where people are born into a gender indeterminate state (called intersexed) and often for those individuals, a surgery is performed to move the infant towards one gender or another. Hence, infant gender reassignement surgery.

[ksfisher]

Wasn't it clear? A person can have their biological gender changed. But, gender is an eternal attribute set in the pre-existence before we are born. So our biological gender and our spiritual gender (as the eternal attribute) don't always match. This is particularly true in cases where people are born into a gender indeterminate state (called intersexed) and often for those individuals, a surgery is performed to move the infant towards one gender or another. Hence, infant gender reassignement surgery.

 

That would seem to leave the door open for someone justifying their actions by saying that they were another gender in the premortal life.  I've never heard of that interpretation of the Proclamation and I think that you would be hard pressed to find any reference to the church teaching that ones gender may change as you progress throught the plan of salvation.

[Teancum]

Nope I have ask the questions and accepted the answers.  Reasonableness is a matter of personal choice and paradigm. 

 

 

Fair enough. DO you beleive good and decent people can come up with different anwers to the same questions?