Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[smac97]

You can't see the difference between a committed, gay married couple and a straight man sneaking out to cheat on his wife? 

 

I can see some differences (the latter involves infidelity to a spouse, the former does not).  I can also see some similarities (the sexual aspects of both are violative of the Law of Chastity).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Calling a neighbor is fine if you live in Utah, but when I lived in rural Wisconsin the nearest LDS member to me was 8 miles away (the chapel was 30 miles). You do what you must.

It would have been nice if my husband had got the memo that in special circumstances he could bless her on his own. Maybe I could have held her, and try not to touch her head or have a bad spirit about me.

[Buzzard]

Wow, it just never ends. Women are indeed left out or put out of the circle, compared to yesteryear.

Lest you get too offended, during the time that you seem to pine for (my apologies if my assumption is incorrect), sisters did not speak in General or Stake conferences, and did not offer prayers in Sacrament meeting even at the ward level. Life, both inside and outside the church, is full of tradeoffs like that. 

Are you going to be more offended that the church no longer has women stand in blessing circles or happy that they pray regularly in Sacrament meeting?

[teddyaware]

You can't see the difference between a committed, gay married couple and a straight man sneaking out to cheat on his wife?

Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that God's ways are not the ways of fallen humanity?

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55)

Have you ever paused to consider the possibility that the Lord may have perfectly good, loving and eternally justifiable reasons for disapproving of gay sexual relationships, reasons that for the present time lie beyond the purview of your fallen human perspective?

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

43 But the things of the wise and the prudent shall be hid from them forever—yea, that happiness which is prepared for the saints. (2Nephi 9)

Have you ever pondered the meaning of the following verse of scripture that clearly indicates a man can be fully persuaded in his own mind that something is just and good, when in reality that thing that he esteems as good is the very poison of eternal death?

 

12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 14)

 

Another question: If a Latter-day Saint with same sex attraction chooses to remain single, living his or her entire life (a mere twinkling of an eye in the breadth of endless eternity) in faithful obedience to the standards of sexual morality as plainly set forth by the General Authorities of the Church, what possible harm will come to that individual in the eternal world?

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

Edited June 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

Lest you get too offended, during the time that you seem to pine for (my apologies if my assumption is incorrect), sisters did not speak in General or Stake conferences, and did not offer prayers in Sacrament meeting even at the ward level. Life, both inside and outside the church, is full of tradeoffs like that. 

Are you going to be more offended that the church no longer has women stand in blessing circles or happy that they pray regularly in Sacrament meeting?

nevermind

Edited June 20, 2014 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Calling a neighbor is fine if you live in Utah, but when I lived in rural Wisconsin the nearest LDS member to me was 8 miles away (the chapel was 30 miles). You do what you must.

I live in Utah, and I give priesthood blessings often in our home.

 

I don't remember the last time I performed one assisted by someone else. The reason for that is the requests for blessings nearly always occur late at night or in the early hours of the morning. It seems a bit much to call someone out of bed to come to my home for that purpose and to insist that the family member who is suffering wait for the other person to arrive.

 

Aware that Church policy allows for both the anointing and the sealing to be performed by one person, I feel no guilt whatsoever regarding this.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It would have been nice if my husband had got the memo that in special circumstances he could bless her on his own.

Before Frank posted the links to the Church Handbook, I posted a link to the "Family Guidebook," a publication of the Church that all Latter-day Saint families ought to have in their homes and that parents ought to peruse often. There is a chapter therein on priesthood ordinances containing nearly identical wording to what is in the handbook.

 

Also, I think it has long been the policy that one priesthood holder could do it unassisted, as I remember my dad on occasion giving me a blessing on the sick without calling in someone else to assist.

 

Moreover, prior to the days when we began studying the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series in priesthood meeting, there was a section of the Melchizedek Priesthood study manual published each year that gave instruction on performing priesthood ordinances.

 

As I said earlier, we rely too much on custom, tradition and assumption in the Church and fail to check written authoritative sources from time to time. This is not the fault of the Church, which makes such sources readily available.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

It would be wonderful if we had something like The Teachings of Eliza Snow

 

Try Tullidge's Women of Mormondom - it's not exactly the Teachings of Eliza Snow but there is a lot of that in there.

[JLHPROF]

Can you post an example of a male deacon in the Bible being ordained to the priesthood?

 

No, but I can post a commandment saying that they had to have a wife.  I Timothy 3:12.  Same for Bishops.

I think it would have said spouse or husband if women were eligible.

[JLHPROF]

You can't see the difference between a committed, gay married couple and a straight man sneaking out to cheat on his wife? 

 

There is a difference in the cheaters loyalty, love, honesty and other traits.  But there is no difference in eternal law.

Homosexual relationships violate eternal law.  The commandment in place against them is for no other reason than the preservation of eternal law.

That which can lead to the continuation of eternal lives is good.  That which prevents the continuation of eternal lives is sin.  It really is that simple.  So a commandment was issued through the prophets in various dispensations to uphold this eternal law.  This is also why sexual sin is placed next to murder although not quite as bad.

Edited June 20, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

There is a difference in the cheaters loyalty, love, honesty and other traits.  But there is no difference in eternal law.

Homosexual relationships violate eternal law.  The commandment in place against them is for no other reason than the preservation of eternal law.

That which can lead to the continuation of eternal lives is good.  That which prevents the continuation of eternal lives is sin.  It really is that simple.  So a commandment was issued through the prophets in various dispensations to uphold this eternal law.  This is also why sexual sin is placed next to murder although not quite as bad.

There seems to be implicit in the question the notion of "victimless crimes."

 

When it comes to the violation of the law of chastity, even where mutually consenting individuals are involved, there are victims in that the one aids, abets, facilitates or participates in the corruption of the other.

 

Each individual is precious to our Heavenly Father, and it can't be pleasing to Him when any of us does anything to cause someone else to disobey a commandment as serious as the law of chastity.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[BlueDreams]

I would view your approach here as a positive and necessary reinterpretation and rehabilitation, but it's clear the intention was to refer to skin color 

 

That, to me, is in the eye of the beholder and in how you view JS and the methods of translation. I personally feel that he translated fairly correctly (nothing on earth is perfect, of course)....but his and others' interpretations of the text to their current folk beliefs of the era were wrong. At that point it is a matter of opinion, not actual fact. The fact remains that in the PoGP and the Bible accounts of Cain and Ham (including the JST) there is not a single reference to skin color. So to state that it's written in our scriptures is absolutely false. 

 

With luv,

BD

[california boy]

Another question: If a Latter-day Saint with same sex attraction chooses to remain single, living his or her entire life (a mere twinkling of an eye in the breadth of endless eternity) in faithful obedience to the standards of sexual morality as plainly set forth by the General Authorities of the Church, what possible harm will come to that individual in the eternal world?

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

 

This is actually the reason why I decided to leave the church.  If the only prospect of living alone my entire life without a helpmate was the promise of eternal glory married to a woman, just did not seem that attractive to me.  Why would I want to be married to a woman for eternity if I didn't want to be married to one here on earth.  Such a promise of glory was no promise for me.  A gay person is doomed to fail on earth and doomed to fail in eternity.  Joseph Smith's clear statement that our same desires we have in this life will rise up with us in the next did little to encourage me. 

[USU78]

Modern revelation about Bishops refers to them as "judges in Israel."

 

There were women who were judges in Israel. 

 

I saw what you did there.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is actually the reason why I decided to leave the church.  If the only prospect of living alone my entire life without a helpmate was the promise of eternal glory married to a woman, just did not seem that attractive to me.  Why would I want to be married to a woman for eternity if I didn't want to be married to one here on earth.  Such a promise of glory was no promise for me.  A gay person is doomed to fail on earth and doomed to fail in eternity.  Joseph Smith's clear statement that our same desires we have in this life will rise up with us in the next did little to encourage me. 

The above is addressed in this 2012 Q and A featuring Elders Dallin H.Oaks and Lance B. Wickman, to wit:

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

Also,

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction.

We live in a very self-absorbed age. I guess it’s naturally human to think about my own problems as somehow greater than someone else’s. I think when any one of us begins to think that way, it might be well to look beyond ourselves. Who am I to say that I am more handicapped, or suffering more, than someone else?

I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage. What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.

 

 

Moreover, for someone who has SSA and absolutely no sexual attraction to the opposite sex (I understand that there are degrees along a continuum, as explained by the Kinsey Scale) it is hardly surprising that the prospect of eternal sealing to someone of the opposite sex would have no appeal for the moment. But I can conceive of a faithful Latter-day Saint who has SSA looking forward to the time when all the joy and exaltation that is in store for any faithful child of God will be his/hers to enjoy.

 

Finally, I think your quotation from Joseph Smith is misapplied.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Oh, I remember now.  We had this discussion a while back.  You don't believe that God speaks directly (ie, with words).  You only believe that revelations are inspired.  If that is the case, then of course cultural bias could still be there.

However, I believe that when are revelation features "thus saith the Lord" or otherwise identifies the Lord as speaking that the words are actually his, not just inspiration received by the revelator.

 

And if I believe that revelations calling men to priesthood offices are not leaders being inspired but God actually speaking the name of the person called, then the fact that he has never spoken a woman's name negates the cultural bias.  But if you are right that revelation is only who the leaders feel inspired to call then the cultural bias argument is valid.

 

So it comes down to "does God speak actual instructions to man or does he just prompt with inspired feelings?"

 

Yes, when I say revelation what I mean is really something like inspiration. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, when I say revelation what I mean is really something like inspiration. 

A distinction without a difference.

[Gray]

I don't need to do that because we have it in today's church. So your argument is very very weak. And the president was set that it was men.

 

So, just for the record, you can't find an example of a male deacon being ordained in the Bible? 

[Gray]

I am sorry but you are wrong on the first point and I disagree with your second point. "Secret revelations"  So I stand by my assertion you think it is OK just to ignore what is taught at GC. After all it is just mere opinion.

 

That's a caricature of my view. I think we should consider counsel given in GC prayerfully. 

[JAHS]

This is actually the reason why I decided to leave the church.  If the only prospect of living alone my entire life without a helpmate was the promise of eternal glory married to a woman, just did not seem that attractive to me.  Why would I want to be married to a woman for eternity if I didn't want to be married to one here on earth.  Such a promise of glory was no promise for me.  A gay person is doomed to fail on earth and doomed to fail in eternity.  Joseph Smith's clear statement that our same desires we have in this life will rise up with us in the next did little to encourage me. 

 

 I am wondering what you think about the following statement made by Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, which you probably have already heard.  While speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International he made this promise:

 

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex." 

 

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Bruce_C._Hafen

 

Which means during the Millennium they will be able to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex and eventually obtain exaltation in the highest kingdom of heaven. If he is right this means they are not doomed to fail in eternity.

[Gray]

I can see some differences (the latter involves infidelity to a spouse, the former does not).  I can also see some similarities (the sexual aspects of both are violative of the Law of Chastity).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I think maintaining sexual fidelity to one's legal spouse is fulfilling the law of chastity 

[Scott Lloyd]

I think maintaining sexual fidelity to one's legal spouse is fulfilling the law of chastity 

Then you are applying your own, custom-made, definition to the law of chastity, not the Church's -- or the Lord's.

[frank_jessop]

I think maintaining sexual fidelity to one's legal spouse is fulfilling the law of chastity

As the Law of Chasity is currently "worded" I would say you have a basis for your position. As ssm becomes legal throughout the United States, I think the Church will "change" the wording to make specifically clear that sexual relations outside a heterosexual marriage violate the Law of Chastity.

[USU78]

There seems to be implicit in the question the notion of "victimless crimes."

 

When it comes to the violation of the law of chastity, even where mutually consenting individuals are involved, there are victims in that the one aids, abets, facilitates or participates in the corruption of the other.

 

Each individual is precious to our Heavenly Father, and it can't be pleasing to Him when any of us does anything to cause someone else to disobey a commandment as serious as the law of chastity.

 

The common law crime of adultery assumed there was a something that was damaged when one spouse strayed:  the marriage itself was an entity corporate, a subset of the state, which was damaged thereby, and the judges had jurisdiction to impose penalties commensurate with the harm done.

 

I do not remember consenting to establishing homosexual "marriages" as things, damage to which is worth imposing penalties on the one doing the damage.  /threadjack

[Gray]

Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that God's ways are not the ways of fallen humanity?

This passage seems to be brought up a lot by more orthodox people from numerous faiths, often directed at people in support of progressive ideals. But I'd say, it's equally applicable to orthodoxy . 

 

Have you ever paused to consider the possibility that the Lord may have perfectly good, loving and eternally justifiable reasons for disapproving of gay sexual relationships, reasons that for the present time lie beyond the purview of your fallen human perspective?

I've considered that, and have been forced to reject it due to the harm caused by traditional teachings on homosexuality.  John 7:17 "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."  A true doctrine cannot cause misery for those who try to live by it. Gay people have increased well being when they marry. They are miserable when they try to live by the proscriptions of orthodox religion.

Have you ever pondered the meaning of the following verse of scripture that clearly indicates a man can be fully persuaded in his own mind that something is just and good, when in reality that thing that he esteems as good is the very poison of eternal death?

 

Wickedness never was happiness. Gay people who marry are happier than gay people who remain single or enter mixed orientation marriages for religious reasons. Ergo, gay marriage cannot be wickedness. 

 

Another question: If a Latter-day Saint with same sex attraction chooses to remain single, living his or her entire life (a mere twinkling of an eye in the breadth of endless eternity) in faithful obedience to the standards of sexual morality as plainly set forth by the General Authorities of the Church, what possible harm will come to that individual in the eternal world?

No harm in the eternal world, but a great deal of harm in their ~80s years of life.