My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Benjamin McGuire]

Stone holm writes:

As much as I dislike the practice, CFR that Mormonism teaches we did not have a gender before this life.

Mormonism does teach that we had a gender in the pre-existence (that's from the Proclamation on the Family). However, it is clear that our biological gender isn't fixed or permanent in every case. So, when we combine the idea of a gender attribute assigned to a preexisting spirit with the recognized problem of gender ambiguity for some people (i.e. people whose biological gender is indeterminate for whatever reason, and for whom a gender is often selected through medical procedures for them), this means that our biological gender here in mortality does not have to match up to the gender which we had as a spirit in the pre-existence (and for some individuals its not merely a possibility, but a reality). This creates an ambiguity that the church naturally has a hard time dealing with. As Calmoriah pointed out, during mortality, our biological gender may be a temporary shift from our eternal gender.

[Calm]

As much as I dislike the practice, CFR that Mormonism teaches we did not have a gender before this life.

Who is saying that?

[Calm]

Stone holm writes:

Mormonism does teach that we had a gender in the pre-existence (that's from the Proclamation on the Family). However, it is clear that our biological gender isn't fixed or permanent in every case. So, when we combine the idea of a gender attribute assigned to a preexisting spirit with the recognized problem of gender ambiguity for some people (i.e. people whose biological gender is indeterminate for whatever reason, and for whom a gender is often selected through medical procedures for them), this means that our biological gender here in mortality does not have to match up to the gender which we had as a spirit in the pre-existence (and for some individuals its not merely a possibility, but a reality). This creates an ambiguity that the church naturally has a hard time dealing with. As Calmoriah pointed out, during mortality, our biological gender may be a temporary shift from our eternal gender.

One might not even describe is as a shift but rather a discrepancy. Do we believe that if someone is physically born missing an arm, his spiritual body is shaped without an arm as well? The mortal physical body does not always match our immortal spiritual body. I see no reason why gender couldn't be an attribute that may be affected in this way.

[Stone holm]

Since we didn't have biological gender in the previous life, how can that be said to chane due to progression? The idea is, I believe, not having a changing gender, but rather a temporary biological one that does not reflect correctly the eternal nature.

 

 

Sounds pretty close.

[wenglund]

I posted this on another thread, but it also has pertinence here, so please forgive the dual posting:

 

Regarding government policies concerning homosexuals, the federal courts have upheld the New Mexico law in the case involving a photographer and a gay couple. (See HERE)

 

Can someone please explain to my why it is wrong and bigoted and illegal for a business to refuse services on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage, but it isn't wrong or bigoted or illegal for:

 

1. Businesses to refuse employment services on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage--as in the case of Mozilla? *See HERE)

2. Customers to refuse the services of businesses on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage--as in the case of Chick-fil-a? (See HERE)

3. Governments to refuse business licensing services on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage--as in the case of Chick-fil-a? (See HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Gray]

Cowardice and wishywashy morals are preferable, in your view?

 

I don't think it's cowardly to avoid poking hornet's nests. Missionaries build relationships of trust before calling anyone to repentance. 

[ksfisher]

Since we didn't have biological gender in the previous life, how can that be said to chane due to progression? The idea is, I believe, not having a changing gender, but rather a temporary biological one that does not reflect correctly the eternal nature.

 

 

While this may be true (emphasis on may) I don't see anything the the Proclamation on the Family as teaching this in the way that Benjamin McGuire was indicating.  Namely that our biological gender may be different than our eternal gender.  Where has the church taught that?  McGuire does bring up infantile reassigment surgery.  While this is a fact (and not to diminish it's impact on those effected) the number of people effected by this is so small that I can't see that this is something the brethren had in mind in forming the Proclamation.

 

Also suspect is McGuire's assertation that the church "already allows same-gender marriage."  Where does the church teach that this is permissable or being done?

 

McGuire's interpretation of the Proclamation would seem to turn it from a document which makes clear the churches support for marriage between man and woman, to one which leads to all types of marriage and family arrangements that the church has long taught against.

[Gray]

Contraception was never considered sin, nor was mixed race marriage, though it was counseled agains because of societal pressures and prejudices at the time. Polygamous marriage wasn't a sin and is only considered wrong if not authorized. Oral sex? Seriously? As I recall the message was always what goes on between a husband and wife is between them.

 

"Officers, members of the Relief Society, herein you have the word of the Lord, on this subject. Can anything be clearer or more emphatic? It is a very strange thing that people can believe that the Lord of Life could countenance for one moment, the refusal of his children to comply with the first commandment given to Adam and Eve. It is so easy to avoid parenthood, if people wish to do so, and that, too, innocently, even if selfishly. Men and women can remain unmarried. That is all there is too it.”  First Presidency 1917

 

Polygamy is so serious that it will result in excommunication. And briefly in 1982 a first presidency letter went out condemning oral sex. That was quickly revised to the current policy of it being no one's business

Edited April 8, 2014 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

One might not even describe is as a shift but rather a discrepancy. Do we believe that if someone is physically born missing an arm, his spiritual body is shaped without an arm as well? The mortal physical body does not always match our immortal spiritual body. I see no reason why gender couldn't be an attribute that may be affected in this way.

Yes!  Rather than being bald(ing), four-eyed, gimpy, and kinda flabby, my spiritual body actually looks a lot like this guy (scroll down slightly):

 

http://stronglifts.com/strength-training-lessons-from-thor-chris-hemsworth/

[Danzo]

Stone holm writes:

 

 

Mormonism does teach that we had a gender in the pre-existence (that's from the Proclamation on the Family). However, it is clear that our biological gender isn't fixed or permanent in every case. So, when we combine the idea of a gender attribute assigned to a preexisting spirit with the recognized problem of gender ambiguity for some people (i.e. people whose biological gender is indeterminate for whatever reason, and for whom a gender is often selected through medical procedures for them), this means that our biological gender here in mortality does not have to match up to the gender which we had as a spirit in the pre-existence (and for some individuals its not merely a possibility, but a reality). This creates an ambiguity that the church naturally has a hard time dealing with. As Calmoriah pointed out, during mortality, our biological gender may be a temporary shift from our eternal gender.

 

What do you mean it isn't fixed or permanant?  As far as I know, there isn't a way to change ones chromosomes.

[wenglund]

Stone holm writes:

 

 

Mormonism does teach that we had a gender in the pre-existence (that's from the Proclamation on the Family). However, it is clear that our biological gender isn't fixed or permanent in every case. So, when we combine the idea of a gender attribute assigned to a preexisting spirit with the recognized problem of gender ambiguity for some people (i.e. people whose biological gender is indeterminate for whatever reason, and for whom a gender is often selected through medical procedures for them), this means that our biological gender here in mortality does not have to match up to the gender which we had as a spirit in the pre-existence (and for some individuals its not merely a possibility, but a reality). This creates an ambiguity that the church naturally has a hard time dealing with. As Calmoriah pointed out, during mortality, our biological gender may be a temporary shift from our eternal gender.

 

To my mind, there is a salient point to the saying that the use of extreme cases make for bad policy (which is a paraphrase of the saying "hard cases make bad law"). If we look at the Proclamation on the Family as a general rule, and consider it in terms of the general rule regarding biological gender, then, in my opinion, the "ambiguity" isn't problematic for the Church in the least. The rare exceptions can be worked out in the eternities by an infinitely wise God.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Benjamin McGuire]

You are right, Wade. The fringes make for bad policy. But, dealing with the fringes is a necessity for the theology (and not a luxury as it is with policy). Kicking the proverbial can down the road doesn't actually work as well when you are dealing with issues that are immediately important to individuals, and which have immediate implications (as I pointed out). The changes that the church is making in terms of rhetoric are still in progress, and I expect to see more related changes (at least in the rhetoric) than we have seen so far. As far as how rare it is, you really have no idea. How exactly would we determine it? Our struggle with the nature of marriage in the church is compounded by the radical shifts in rhetoric we have seen since 1830 - with the introduction of polygamy and its removal, with the issues related to blacks and the priesthood, and so on. Our dialogue today about marriage and its role in the gospel is quite different today than it was a hundred years ago, or a hundred and fifty years ago (just as our understanding of the Celestial Kingdom is radically different today that it was a hundred and fifty years ago). In another hundred and fifty years, we should expect any number of things to be radically different than they are now.

[Calm]

Yes!  Rather than being bald(ing), four-eyed, gimpy, and kinda flabby, my spiritual body actually looks a lot like this guy (scroll down slightly):

 

http://stronglifts.com/strength-training-lessons-from-thor-chris-hemsworth/

And my spirit is about five inches taller...it must be since currently my head is too big proportionwise for the rest of my body (genetics, my brother looked like a bobble head doll as a kid...thankfully he is now 6'3" so it isn't a problem...but it is for me at 5'5", can't wear most hats without looking idiotic).

[Calm]

What do you mean it isn't fixed or permanant? As far as I know, there isn't a way to change ones chromosomes.

Chromosones aren't always clear on which gender a person has and there is the issue of appearance and actual function being confusing as well (some individuals have both sets of sexual organs). In the case of such a child, the Church allows for parents and doctors to make a decision that in the past at least has been based on appearance and not strictly genetics and does not restrict temple attendance. The child was therefore one gender or both at birth and is now a different gender after surgery in the sense of how they function even if the genes haven't changed. The identical operation as an adult OTOH may prevent someone from getting a recommend. Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Benjamin McGuire]

Danzo writes:

What do you mean it isn't fixed or permanant?  As far as I know, there isn't a way to change ones chromosomes.

If you had read the link I provided earlier you would note that chromosomes are one of five related factors that determine biological gender. Just because you are XY doesn't mean that you can't be born with a uterus. And of course, we have individuals born as XXY, XYY, XO, XXXXY, and so on.

[wenglund]

You are right, Wade. The fringes make for bad policy. But, dealing with the fringes is a necessity for the theology (and not a luxury as it is with policy). Kicking the proverbial can down the road doesn't actually work as well when you are dealing with issues that are immediately important to individuals, and which have immediate implications (as I pointed out).

 

I disagree. It is only a necessity for theology if theology deals only with universals and absolutes. In the case of biological gender vs eternal gender, I don't believe it does.

 

And, while the question may be of current significance to a relative few exceptions to the rule, there isn't anything that I can think of that necessitates tweaking the general rule to accommodate the exceptions anytime soon or in this life at all, if then--any more than what may have been necessitated over the last nearly 200 years that the restored gospel has been on the earth.

 

But, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, I should be clear that I am not an advocate for changing Church policy on this issue right now. Wade I think is right that we deal with what we see as normal situations and we create policy that works there. My concern is about the dialogue, and the outreach. And I note that this dialogue has changed a great deal, and I suspect that it will continue to change a great deal (even while I do not expect changes in policy). Nor does this sort of approach deal well with the idea of same-sex attraction directly. I assume that at some point, we will discover various contributing factors to same-sex attraction - and then we will have a very different discussion (both inside and outside the church) - particularly if, for example, we were to discover that same-sex attraction is preventable during fetal development. That's an entirely different set of issues.

 

The whole point of my intrusion here is exactly what you point out Wade. We all know that there are situations where things will have to be sorted out later - because the Church simply isn't able to work things out at the present time - and some of these issues are related to gender identity (a point that you agreed with). I can envision a future where for those individuals for whom same-sex attraction isn't a choice, we stop worrying about whether or not they are getting married to each other. It isn't that we will seal them in the temples (because we don't believe that their eternal future will exist in that form). But we can perhaps move beyond where we are are now to recognize that we can let it be sorted out later. Clearly the Church has already experienced major shifts in their view. We no longer view SSA as an illness that can be corrected through the proper procedures (and we now teach against attempting this). We no longer view SSA as a choice and by extension as sinful (and we have plenty of statement now to that effect - even if some here in this thread refuse to recognize them). Perhaps someday we may return to the idea that homosexual relations are a sin just like heterosexual relations outside the bounds of marriage and just leave it at that. Marriage for time (but not eternity) with the understanding that it "can be worked out in the eternities by an infinitely wise God." And let's not forget that an infinite atonement covers a great deal. If it can save a child soldier who has committed terrible atrocities, it can certainly save someone who acts on the SSA that God gave them.

 

So let's continue to disagree.

[Teancum]

The discussion has moved on from here, but at the risk of intruding, I think this is still relevant to it.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are asked by those who favor homosexual intimate relationships and marriages to recognize that being gay but not being allowed to form physically intimate relationships with people of the same gender in the same way that people of opposite genders are allowed to form such relationships is, essentially, The Trial of All Trials.  Surely, a loving God wouldn't do that to His children.  I'm not sure how we, with finite minds and limited perspectives, are supposed to be able to conclude with any degree of certainty that a "loving" god (quotation marks and small "g" intentional) wouldn't do that to his children.  Is He infinite and omniscient or not?  Does He have an eternal perspective or not?  Does God, should God, care whether we think He's racist or sexist or homophobic or politically incorrect?  Are we, by contrast, finite beings with limited knowledge and a limited perspective or not?  Calmoriah earlier posted this:

 

My original reply was via PM, and she graciously allowed me to repost it here.  I said:

  At the same time if we cannot understand God due to our finite minds how can you be sure he objects to homosexual unions?  This works both ways does it not?

[Teancum]

So. . . you can dish it but not take it, neh?

 

 

Seems that applies more to you than to me.

[Teancum]

I posted this on another thread, but it also has pertinence here, so please forgive the dual posting:

 

Regarding government policies concerning homosexuals, the federal courts have upheld the New Mexico law in the case involving a photographer and a gay couple. (See HERE)

 

Can someone please explain to my why it is wrong and bigoted and illegal for a business to refuse services on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage, but it isn't wrong or bigoted or illegal for:

 

1. Businesses to refuse employment services on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage--as in the case of Mozilla? *See HERE)

2. Customers to refuse the services of businesses on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage--as in the case of Chick-fil-a? (See HERE)

3. Governments to refuse business licensing services on the basis of people's beliefs and practices regarding gay marriage--as in the case of Chick-fil-a? (See HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

None are correct in my view.

[JLHPROF]

  At the same time if we cannot understand God due to our finite minds how can you be sure he objects to homosexual unions?  This works both ways does it not?

 

We can be sure that according to our religious doctrine God objects to homosexual unions.  If youbelieve the scriptures and the words of the prophets then it's pretty clear God objects.

If you don't believe the scriptures and the words of the prophets then I suppose it really doesn't matter to you anyway.

 

But scripturally and doctrinally, homosexual unions are wrong, both from a morality standpoint and from an eternal law standpoint (although I suppose that the violation of eternal law is what makes it immoral).

[MAsh]

Mormonism does teach that we had a gender in the pre-existence (that's from the Proclamation on the Family).

 

The PotF says: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

 

I'll be honest, I'm not sure if I accept such a position-- at least not when based on how we understand gender on a biological mortal level. It may be completely true, or it may be true in a sense that is different than they way we would currently understand such a statement, or it could just be an erroneous.

 

In 1909 the FP put forth "The Origin of Man" which, in part, said: "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

 

While race is a not strictly a biological construct, I'm not sure if the FP meant to use the word in the common sense or not. I don't accept that a 6000 year-old Adam was the first "man" from a biological standpoint. So, from my position, either the FP was wrong, or the statment is true in a sense that is different than they way most people would understand the statement.

 

I think there is so much more going on with genders/spirits/eternal families/sealings/divinization, etc.-- stuff that we can't possibly image-- that it doesn't bother me if some of our ideas are a bit off or just plain wrong (and, quite frankly, I think this gets to heart of some other confusing/tough issues like Polygamy & Polyandry). From a pragmatic position, however, I have empathy for our SSA brothers and sisters and I'm grateful that I don't carry that cross (although I carry a different cross). I think Kevin C. made some good points about the crosses that can arise in any relationship.

 

I don't have any answers but I do honestly believe that the Brethren have genuine love and empathy for SSA individuals and earnestly seek the Lord's direction in knowing how to ease the pain of those who struggle (or what policies to keep/change, or what further revelation need be given on the topic). My job is to show Christ-like love for all God's children and to pray for the Brethren that they will be guided by God's will.

[thesometimesaint]

The crux of the problem is how do we hate the sin, but love the sinner.

[wenglund]

By the way, I should be clear that I am not an advocate for changing Church policy on this issue right now. Wade I think is right that we deal with what we see as normal situations and we create policy that works there. My concern is about the dialogue, and the outreach. And I note that this dialogue has changed a great deal, and I suspect that it will continue to change a great deal (even while I do not expect changes in policy). Nor does this sort of approach deal well with the idea of same-sex attraction directly. I assume that at some point, we will discover various contributing factors to same-sex attraction - and then we will have a very different discussion (both inside and outside the church) - particularly if, for example, we were to discover that same-sex attraction is preventable during fetal development. That's an entirely different set of issues.

 

The whole point of my intrusion here is exactly what you point out Wade. We all know that there are situations where things will have to be sorted out later - because the Church simply isn't able to work things out at the present time - and some of these issues are related to gender identity (a point that you agreed with). I can envision a future where for those individuals for whom same-sex attraction isn't a choice, we stop worrying about whether or not they are getting married to each other. It isn't that we will seal them in the temples (because we don't believe that their eternal future will exist in that form). But we can perhaps move beyond where we are are now to recognize that we can let it be sorted out later. Clearly the Church has already experienced major shifts in their view. We no longer view SSA as an illness that can be corrected through the proper procedures (and we now teach against attempting this). We no longer view SSA as a choice and by extension as sinful (and we have plenty of statement now to that effect - even if some here in this thread refuse to recognize them). Perhaps someday we may return to the idea that homosexual relations are a sin just like heterosexual relations outside the bounds of marriage and just leave it at that. Marriage for time (but not eternity) with the understanding that it "can be worked out in the eternities by an infinitely wise God." And let's not forget that an infinite atonement covers a great deal. If it can save a child soldier who has committed terrible atrocities, it can certainly save someone who acts on the SSA that God gave them.

 

So let's continue to disagree.

 

Well said.

 

However, while there is value in learning to live amicably with the changing tide of pop culture on issues of homosexuality, and looking with hope to the eternities in faith in the atonement, I think there is still room and value in lovingly standing firm these days and being publicly vocal on certain principles, which is why I posted the following in various locations:

 

I wish to join with others of my religious faith in expressing genuine love for family and friends and neighbors with same-sex attraction.

We desire only their fullness of joy, edifying fulfillment, and all the very best for them in this life and throughout the eternities.

Does this mean that we condone homosexual behavior and encourage homosexual relationships?

No…quite the opposite. We believe such things are contrary to the will of God, and thus contrary to true and eternal happiness of man. And, so, our love compels us to advocate against such things and for that which we believe to be God’s will.

I get that many, if not most people, may not currently share my belief in this regard, and may even view my beliefs as unfounded and bigoted and perhaps even worthy of ridicule and spite and grounds for firing—as in the case of the Mozilla executive.

That is their choice, just as it is my choice to stand firm in and to proclaim and promote my belief in love and gratitude. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[wenglund]

None are correct in my view.

 

I, personally, have determined not to discriminate on the bases of people beliefs and actions in relation to the issue of SSM. I still shop at Amazon, and use Mosilla Firefox and MIcrosoft and Adobe and T-Mobil products even though they have publicly and financially supported SSM contrary to my beliefs.

 

And, while that is what I have decided, I respect the right of others to choose otherwise.

 

If people do not wish to eat at Chick-fil-a because its owner has donated in support of Prop 8, to me this is their private business choice, just as it is mine to ramp up my patronage in response to the boycott.

 

Likewise, if a business owner objects, on religious grounds, to catering or photographing an event they find objectionable, to me, they ought to have that free choice.

 

And, if a business decides to hire only those people who share their political viewpoint, to me that also ought to be their right..

 

In short, while I may choose to do things in a business way I think best and right, I am not going to use the government to preventing others from acting in a business way as they think best--which is ironic since advocates of SMM falsely assume that my position uses the government to force my religious beliefs onto others (it doesn't, but on a secular basis it merely retains the status quo in state endorsements), and yet they are using the government to force their beliefs onto religion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-