mfbukowski Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Certainly key for me would be KNOWING what God promises me in the next life. If for example the promise is to be wed to a woman for eternity, then I would probably give it a pass. If it were something else, then I may very well sacrifice what it would take to achieve such a reward. Yes I know that some FEEL they know what is in store. Perhaps for me, this part of the revelation would be the most important part. It is also the least understood at this point. Other than the opinion of Elder Oaks, little has been said about this.Unfortunately no one knows for certain what will happen in the next life, and everyone would love to have what you are asking for as well.
canard78 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Is it your role to receive revelation to govern the entire Church?The prophets and apostles do have that role.No, it's not my role. Nor do I seek it. You pointed out that they are "ours" because you/the members embrace the doctrines. I don't embrace them. You also stated you believe the policy is divine. I don't believe it is. That's probably as mch as can be said.
mfbukowski Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 No, it's not my role. Nor do I seek it. You pointed out that they are "ours" because you/the members embrace the doctrines. I don't embrace them.You also stated you believe the policy is divine. I don't believe it is. That's probably as mch as can be said.We disagree on this one but I certainly respect you and your arguments and your right to stand up for what you find to be right, and also be my brother. 2
why me Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 You and me both.I think that mormon cultural assumptions about gay marriage is shared by most of the world which deems marriage between between a woman and a man to be correct. Most of the world has not be affected by the new cultural assumption that marriage should be permitted between people of the same sex. Of course postmodernism and its influence is catching on. The point is that the mormon cultural assumption is no different than the catholic, the anglican, the muslim etc. Not to mention various protestant groupings. s
DBMormon Posted April 7, 2014 Author Posted April 7, 2014 None of us chooses which trials, weaknesses, etc. we are going to have. I don't think God makes anyone a homosexual anymore than he makes people have a temper, addiction, urge to commit adultery, etc. Many NDE experiences would disagree. Many in their NDE became aware they chose their trial before they came here.
Stone holm Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Unless a gay person stays firmly in the closet, and is willing to enter into a heterosexual marriage and try to make it work, the Church really doesn't work for them. We should be honest and straight forward about that. If a member comes out of the closet, but keeps the law of chastity, he or she will be relegated to a half life and a rather huge burden of guilt as a member. I have absolutely no idea why a person would choose that route for themselves. The Church position is for them to be restricted in the callings they hold, remain celebrate and be "fixed" in the resurrection. A Bishop with any sympathy at all for people with SSA persons in the Church who want to stay active, would advise them to stay in the closet and never, ever mention their SSA to anyone except their therapist who is under contract to maintain their confidences.
CV75 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Unless a gay person stays firmly in the closet, and is willing to enter into a heterosexual marriage and try to make it work, the Church really doesn't work for them.No one is obligated to declare his sexuality as a condition of fellowship. To call this lack of obligation "closeting" is both disingenuous and disrespectful to members of any orientation. 3
bluebell Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Unless a gay person stays firmly in the closet, and is willing to enter into a heterosexual marriage and try to make it work, the Church really doesn't work for them. We should be honest and straight forward about that. If a member comes out of the closet, but keeps the law of chastity, he or she will be relegated to a half life and a rather huge burden of guilt as a member. I have absolutely no idea why a person would choose that route for themselves.Maybe they understand something that you don't. 2
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Unless a gay person stays firmly in the closet, and is willing to enter into a heterosexual marriage and try to make it work, the Church really doesn't work for them. We should be honest and straight forward about that. If a member comes out of the closet, but keeps the law of chastity, he or she will be relegated to a half life and a rather huge burden of guilt as a member. I have absolutely no idea why a person would choose that route for themselves. The Church position is for them to be restricted in the callings they hold, remain celebrate and be "fixed" in the resurrection. A Bishop with any sympathy at all for people with SSA persons in the Church who want to stay active, would advise them to stay in the closet and never, ever mention their SSA to anyone except their therapist who is under contract to maintain their confidences. Anyone who does that will have to have a pretty strong chin. Such a person will be treaty with many insensitive comments that he or she would not be able to contest for the most part. That alone seems pretty hellish. Someone is probably better off coming out, as they say, being open about it. Accept some will hold it against him or her. But in the long run I think this would be a better situation. But to each his/her own. Everyone's different.
Stone holm Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Anyone who does that will have to have a pretty strong chin. Such a person will be treaty with many insensitive comments that he or she would not be able to contest for the most part. That alone seems pretty hellish. Someone is probably better off coming out, as they say, being open about it. Accept some will hold it against him or her. But in the long run I think this would be a better situation. But to each his/her own. Everyone's different. Possibly, but we are talking about reality here in Mormon culture. There is no real upside in coming out. If a brother comes out, he will automatically get blacklisted for youth callings and the Church cannot appoint him to any BSA related calling. It might not be so bad for a woman to come out since they do not have as broad a range of leadership opportunities, but my guess would be they would get blacklisted for Primary callings and would not be able to serve as Den Mothers in Cub Scouts. They probably would be considered for RS callings, but it would have a chilling effect on fellowship. I am not saying this is right, I am just saying its reality. So it would not make sense for a person to come out, yes it might cause other members to think twice before take a headshot at gays and lesbians -- but it would be because they are walking on egg shells around the person. I suppose if the person craved some form of attention and drama, no matter what kind that it would make sense -- but not otherwise. I suppose I am going to take a bunch of heat for this, but being honest about our culture tends to do that.
halconero Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Unless a gay person stays firmly in the closet, and is willing to enter into a heterosexual marriage and try to make it work, the Church really doesn't work for them. We should be honest and straight forward about that. If a member comes out of the closet, but keeps the law of chastity, he or she will be relegated to a half life and a rather huge burden of guilt as a member. I have absolutely no idea why a person would choose that route for themselves. The Church position is for them to be restricted in the callings they hold, remain celebrate and be "fixed" in the resurrection. A Bishop with any sympathy at all for people with SSA persons in the Church who want to stay active, would advise them to stay in the closet and never, ever mention their SSA to anyone except their therapist who is under contract to maintain their confidences. I wholeheartedly disagree. From personal experience and that of some close friends. I don't think it's fair to generalize and speak for an entire group. 4
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Possibly, but we are talking about reality here in Mormon culture. There is no real upside in coming out. If a brother comes out, he will automatically get blacklisted for youth callings and the Church cannot appoint him to any BSA related calling. It might not be so bad for a woman to come out since they do not have as broad a range of leadership opportunities, but my guess would be they would get blacklisted for Primary callings and would not be able to serve as Den Mothers in Cub Scouts. They probably would be considered for RS callings, but it would have a chilling effect on fellowship. I am not saying this is right, I am just saying its reality. So it would not make sense for a person to come out, yes it might cause other members to think twice before take a headshot at gays and lesbians -- but it would be because they are walking on egg shells around the person. I suppose if the person craved some form of attention and drama, no matter what kind that it would make sense -- but not otherwise. I suppose I am going to take a bunch of heat for this, but being honest about our culture tends to do that. A young man came out. I was in young men's during his entire time in Young men's. He turned 18 graduated from High School, and came out, but intends to stay celibate and participate in church fully. He was recently called into the young men's leadership. So it happens. No one has called for his head yet. We need to be open to learn from other people. If they stay quiet and hide, the rest of us become less. We aren't learning from that individual. That's my take, but I also grant it might be better and easier for an individual to stay quiet about it--depending on the person and situation. Edited April 7, 2014 by stemelbow 4
Stone holm Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 A young man came out. I was in young men's during his entire time in Young men's. He turned 18 graduated from High School, and came out, but intends to stay celibate and participate in church fully. He was recently called into the young men's leadership. So it happens. No one has called for his head yet. We need to be open to learn from other people. If they stay quiet and hide, the rest of us become less. We aren't learning from that individual. That's my take, but I also grant it might be better and easier for an individual to stay quiet about it--depending on the person and situation. Well that is great, he needs to stay in that Ward as it is treating him right -- but I don't think that would be the general situation in the Church. I am not concerned about "the rest of us", I am concerned about the impacts on the person who comes out. Still fail to see any upside.
Maestrophil Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) It is indeed a heartbreaking subject filled with difficult emotional baggage. While I support trying to work out a secular solution that provides a union with benefits for SS couples, I still feel strongly that the Lord only intended sexual relations to be between married men and women (I clarify - married to EACH OTHER) :-) That is why, as many have said previously, in my mind this is a sex issue and how much importance we place as a society and individuals on sex. I have had much struggle and pain associated with individuals not keeping the law of chastity. Including a failed temple marriage. I have come to resent the line of thought that seems to declare "I have a 'right' to be sexually satisfied." This line of thinking is not something Christ-like or doctrinal and seems very carnal and selfish to me. If you take the extreme focus on sexual activity out of the picture, there is much less struggle and pain (note, I don't say NO struggle and pain) in this and other marital issues. Don't get me wrong - I feel for the longing and incompleteness that I imagine/believe so many with SSA feel - I have felt just a small amount of that feeling I would never marry again and deciding I would remain celibate and without sexual intimacy for the remainder of my days if that was what the Lord required of me, and I know this is only a fraction of what my gay brothers and sisters feel. I think the church as a membership and as a whole is trying to approach this in a way that reduces the pain and difficulty of 'coming out', which I applaud and am happy to see. There are and will be great strides to attempt to better understand and find a place for people with SS attraction. Yet, I do not see how the church could ever change it's views on sexual practice outside of marriage between an man and a woman without opening a BIG can of worms. EDITED to add - I wouldn't be surprised to find that sexual relations in heaven carry much less importance and have much less of a place, if any, in our lives. Edited April 7, 2014 by Maestrophil 3
ERayR Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I am asking why would an omnipotent being that is also omniscient want, or allow, his children to be put in a position where they love the Church they are members of and they have likely been born with an issues that is so opposed to the very core of what it means to be a son or daughter of God and what their potential is in the eternities. Yet you reject the answers. Why ask the question if you refuse the answer?
ERayR Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Many NDE experiences would disagree. Many in their NDE became aware they chose their trial before they came here. Then why are you so eager to remove the consequences of the trial? 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Unless a gay person stays firmly in the closet, and is willing to enter into a heterosexual marriage and try to make it work, the Church really doesn't work for them. We should be honest and straight forward about that. If a member comes out of the closet, but keeps the law of chastity, he or she will be relegated to a half life and a rather huge burden of guilt as a member. I have absolutely no idea why a person would choose that route for themselves. The Church position is for them to be restricted in the callings they hold, remain celebrate and be "fixed" in the resurrection. A Bishop with any sympathy at all for people with SSA persons in the Church who want to stay active, would advise them to stay in the closet and never, ever mention their SSA to anyone except their therapist who is under contract to maintain their confidences.They don't need to stay in the closet. They can come out. What they can't do is act on it. And I disagree this church does work for them. And no they don't need to get married. Thanks for playing. 2
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Very simply SSA is a condition of mortality. It will not be so when one has become perfected by the Atonement. I don't think it's ethical to ask people to suffer, justifying it by reasoning that their suffering will end after 80 years or so
bluebell Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I don't think it's ethical to ask people to suffer, justifying it by reasoning that their suffering will end after 80 years or so Is God not ethical then? One of the conditions of mortality is that we will all suffer 3
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Given the assumption that sexual fulfillment is the most important thing in life, and that to be denied or frustrated in complete sexual fulfillment is to be horribly, and uncharitably and unjustifiably oppressed Marriage is about a lot more than just that, be it a gay or a straight marriage
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Is God not ethical then? One of the conditions of mortality is that we will all suffer I don't think God intends for anyone to suffer specifically. It just happens. We as moral agents realize that one of our principle duties is to reduce suffering wherever we can.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I say again, this is not a legitimate comparison. One is a temporal medical issue, but the eternal outlook is the same - posterity, increase, and eternal lives.The other is against the order of the universe - it specifically prevents the continuing of life, and whatever prevents life/progression is fallen. Not necessarily. LDS theology isn't really clear on the matter.
wenglund Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I don't think God intends for anyone to suffer specifically. It just happens. We as moral agents realize that one of our principle duties is to reduce suffering wherever we can. ...which is why the Church is lovingly opposed to homosexual behavior and relationships. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 2
Recommended Posts