Do Our Ward And Stake Leaders Recognize The Room They Have To Include?

[rockpond]

Okay...

Our current prophets and apostles have stated emphatically that homosexual behavior is sinful and that that doctrine cannot ever change. You can disbelieve all you want but it doesnt change the facts.

 

There's also that fact that the church has "undone" plenty of "nevers" from our past.

[rockpond]

It's pretty obvious that the vain hope that the Lord's servants will one day declare unsinful that which is sinful and even sanctify it in our temples has been driven by society's very recent legalization of the redefinition of marriage.

 

Well, obviously, something has to bring it to our collective consciences.  Since I am not someone who wants to enter a gay marriage, I need to know of someone who desires that before it's gonna be something I think about.

 

In this case, the push for marriage equality may have created the discussion.  It doesn't mean that supporting gay marriage implies that one has simply caved to societal pressure.  That would be a rather one-dimensional interpretation of what has happened in and out of the church over the past 20 years.

[Rob Osborn]

So in the case of the OP, you think the ward should welcome Christofferson and his husband but also encourage them to split up and be celibate?

Under direction of the bishop the couple should be made aware of their transgression and offer ways to overcome it and change. If they just want to come but remain together anyway then I am not sure what the point of the church is even for. People attend church to become like God. Remaining in an active homosexual relationship prevents one from even entering in at the gate to enter the path leading to salvation. Church isnt made to be some social experience for sinners to remain sinful and feel justified in sinful behavior.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think such questions often conveniently ignore the role of enmity.

 

For example, if I was living in 1947 and was “ahead of my time” and concluded that the First Presidency’s position was wrong (or would change or become wrong in some future year) and if I allowed the expression (verbal or not) of my conviction to engender disputation and a spirit of contention in 1947, I would be wrong. I find that those who enjoy greater light and knowledge than others, even than their “superiors,” do not promote enmity among the saints.

 

So, as I am living in 2014 and were to allow the expression of my conviction that the “Race and Priesthood” article is correct to engender enmity against earlier leaders and practices to the point of undermining attitudes toward living prophets and apostles, and creating disputation and a spirit of contention about it I would also be wrong.

Of course you are correct here in all respects.  However, I have been around a long time and have encountered virulent, unquestioning racism in several Mormon and non-Mormon venues. I was young and so kept my mouth shut, but I knew that those exhibiting such evil talk or behavior  were horribly wrong.  At the same time, I also realized that they were fallible humans just like me.  I had compassion for them, despite their inability to apply the grace of Jesus Christ perfectly in their lives.  How could they?  Indeed, I was just as fallible as they, but in different ways.  If Peter could deny Christ, I reasoned, then none of us are likely to be perfect or to demand perfection in our friends and neighbors.

 

In this case, realization of unrighteousness was a long-term process requiring a good deal of careful examination of the historical record.  Beginning with David O. McKay, when it became clear that denial of LDS priesthood to some men based on race was a policy and not a doctrine, and when it was realized that Joseph Smith himself had not practiced that policy, change finally came.  It took time and sensitive discussion.  Spencer Kimball recognized that he had to have complete unanimity in the matter, and that it required revelation to overcome resistance.  I am thankful that the Lord saw fit to answer President Kimball's prayers.

[rockpond]

Under direction of the bishop the couple should be made aware of their transgression and offer ways to overcome it and change. If they just want to come but remain together anyway then I am not sure what the point of the church is even for.

 

Do you think the couple is not already aware of the church's view of them as transgressing?  Do you think they don't know how to "overcome" that transgression?  (Meaning become celibate.)

 

I'm not sure what "change" you are suggesting.

 

I imagine that the point of the church for them is to come and worship, learn, serve, and have a fellowship with the saints.

[rockpond]

As a side note...

 

Tom Christofferson is the guest speaker at a fireside in Los Angeles on Jan 31.  His topic is a perspective on the gospel for SSA/LGBT church members and their families.

 

For more information, look up "LDS Family Fellowship" on Facebook.

[Rob Osborn]

Do you think the couple is not already aware of the church's view of them as transgressing?  Do you think they don't know how to "overcome" that transgression?  (Meaning become celibate.)

 

I'm not sure what "change" you are suggesting.

 

I imagine that the point of the church for them is to come and worship, learn, serve, and have a fellowship with the saints.

Its all too apparent that Gay couples who are returning to church are doing so looking for acceptance or change within doctrine that will allow their behavior as acceptable. Thus, they are returning for the wrong reason. And, I believe, we are sending the wrong message by inviting them to come back and sending a message that we will accept them and their partners with open arms. The wrong message is being sent by kind of telling them by doing this that we also accept their behavior.

[rpn]

God's set up the governing unit of heaven to be a family of a mother father and their children.    On earth mortals do lots of other arrangements and yes they bring peace and joy and are often really good, inspite of not being how God envisions it.   

 

I have no doubt at all that those who choose a same sex partner can make a good life with one (though gay people will generally admit that gay relationships are not typically known for being long term and stable).   But just like single parents and children being raised by grandparents, the relationships are not the best of everything that God has set them up to be (true also of many of the families that look like what He has set up, unfortunately).  

 

And the biggest problem of gay marriage is that they cannot continue in heaven.  I can understand why God would be unable to approve in any way, relationships on earth that cannot continue in the eternities ---- approving would set up same sex attracted people for the horrible problem of reaching eternities with no ability to be with those with whom they have fostered loving relationships.   Neither He nor His church would participate in that deception.

[Kenngo1969]

Of course you are correct here in all respects.  However, I have been around a long time and have encountered virulent, unquestioning racism in several Mormon and non-Mormon venues. I was young and so kept my mouth shut, but I knew that those exhibiting such evil talk or behavior  were horribly wrong.  At the same time, I also realized that they were fallible humans just like me.  I had compassion for them, despite their inability to apply the grace of Jesus Christ perfectly in their lives.  How could they?  Indeed, I was just as fallible as they, but in different ways.  If Peter could deny Christ, I reasoned, then none of us are likely to be perfect or to demand perfection in our friends and neighbors.

 

In this case, realization of unrighteousness was a long-term process requiring a good deal of careful examination of the historical record.  Beginning with David O. McKay, when it became clear that denial of LDS priesthood to some men based on race was a policy and not a doctrine, and when it was realized that Joseph Smith himself had not practiced that policy, change finally came.  It took time and sensitive discussion.  Spencer Kimball recognized that he had to have complete unanimity in the matter, and that it required revelation to overcome resistance.  I am thankful that the Lord saw fit to answer President Kimball's prayers.

I don't disagree with what you write here.  However, "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," and "Sex outside of marriage is wrong" are foundational, fundamental principles of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in ways that "blacks are not entitled to the priesthood at the [then] present time" are not.  While I would prefer that you ignore it because you've already indicated that you don't think much of my Blog (you're not alone in that regard, by the way, if that makes you feel any better), I expand on the idea here (if anybody is interested, scroll down to the December 28, 2013 update):

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/backlash-against-lds-opposition-to-gay-marriage/ 

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't disagree with what you write here.  However, "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," and "Sex outside of marriage is wrong" are foundational, fundamental principles of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in ways that "blacks are not entitled to the priesthood at the [then] present time" are not.  While I would prefer that you ignore it because you've already indicated that you don't think much of my Blog (you're not alone in that regard, by the way, if that makes you feel any better), I expand on the idea here (if anybody is interested, scroll down to the December 28, 2013 update):

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/backlash-against-lds-opposition-to-gay-marriage/ 

A very thoughtful post, Ken.

 

And I agree about the fundamentally misguided nature of comparisons between the theoretical desinfulization (to coin a term) of homosexual behavior and the lifting of the restriction on the priesthood or the discontinuance of the practice of plural marriage.

[Buckeye]

Its all too apparent that Gay couples who are returning to church are doing so looking for acceptance or change within doctrine that will allow their behavior as acceptable. Thus, they are returning for the wrong reason. And, I believe, we are sending the wrong message by inviting them to come back and sending a message that we will accept them and their partners with open arms. The wrong message is being sent by kind of telling them by doing this that we also accept their behavior.

 

Every ward I've been in has included people who regularly attend but openly reject one church teaching or another. In my current ward I know of people who regularly violate the WOW, who are living with someone but not married, who work on some Sundays even though they could find other employment, and who do not pay a full tithe because they do not believe they can afford to.

 

Should we treat all of the people as you would Tom Christofferson? Or would it be better to accept their participation so long as they do not actively fight against church teachings while they are with us? I think the real concern is that members, when exposed to a happy gay couple, start to see the good that comes with such relationships.

[CV75]

Of course you are correct here in all respects.  However, I have been around a long time and have encountered virulent, unquestioning racism in several Mormon and non-Mormon venues. I was young and so kept my mouth shut, but I knew that those exhibiting such evil talk or behavior  were horribly wrong.  At the same time, I also realized that they were fallible humans just like me.  I had compassion for them, despite their inability to apply the grace of Jesus Christ perfectly in their lives.  How could they?  Indeed, I was just as fallible as they, but in different ways.  If Peter could deny Christ, I reasoned, then none of us are likely to be perfect or to demand perfection in our friends and neighbors.

 

In this case, realization of unrighteousness was a long-term process requiring a good deal of careful examination of the historical record.  Beginning with David O. McKay, when it became clear that denial of LDS priesthood to some men based on race was a policy and not a doctrine, and when it was realized that Joseph Smith himself had not practiced that policy, change finally came.  It took time and sensitive discussion.  Spencer Kimball recognized that he had to have complete unanimity in the matter, and that it required revelation to overcome resistance.  I am thankful that the Lord saw fit to answer President Kimball's prayers.

I agree, and when “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form,” they do it without undermining the calling and office of their predecessors. I don’t think you gave a bad answer to the question; I saw in the question a set-up to undermine past leaders to support a position against current leaders (denying all of them grace). I think the LDS prophets responsible for the policies of the past and who are now charged with being “wrong” or “unrighteous” carried out their calling with as much “worthiness” as today’s (looking to the future, sentiment toward members, proclaiming redemption through Jesus Christ, etc.).

[Buckeye]

God's set up the governing unit of heaven to be a family of a mother father and their children.    On earth mortals do lots of other arrangements and yes they bring peace and joy and are often really good, inspite of not being how God envisions it.   

 

I have no doubt at all that those who choose a same sex partner can make a good life with one (though gay people will generally admit that gay relationships are not typically known for being long term and stable).   But just like single parents and children being raised by grandparents, the relationships are not the best of everything that God has set them up to be (true also of many of the families that look like what He has set up, unfortunately).  

 

And the biggest problem of gay marriage is that they cannot continue in heaven.  I can understand why God would be unable to approve in any way, relationships on earth that cannot continue in the eternities ---- approving would set up same sex attracted people for the horrible problem of reaching eternities with no ability to be with those with whom they have fostered loving relationships.   Neither He nor His church would participate in that deception.

 

If the relationships bring peace, joy and goodness in this life, why would the next be any different? If God does not interfere with such relationships now, why would be prevent them from continuing in the eternities?

[Scott Lloyd]

If the relationships bring peace, joy and goodness in this life, why would the next be any different? If God does not interfere with such relationships now, why would be prevent them from continuing in the eternities?

I wonder if you would ask the same thing about a heterosexual couple who had "shacked up" out of wedlock.

[Buckeye]

I wonder if you would ask the same thing about a heterosexual couple who had "shacked up" out of wedlock.

 

Sure, and my answer would be nearly the same.

 

The world is full of non-married couples whose relationship produces good fruit and who it is apparent (at least to me) that God approves. For very many of these, they would marry if they could but their circumstances do not allow it at the present. God does not break up these couples. To the degree they wish to remain together forever, I can't see why He or anyone else with power would try to separate them. If the relationship really is bad, it will eventually end.

 

The main difference between these couples and gay couples is that, until very recently, the opportunities for marriage were much more available to the heterosexual couple than the gay one.

[rockpond]

Its all too apparent that Gay couples who are returning to church are doing so looking for acceptance or change within doctrine that will allow their behavior as acceptable. Thus, they are returning for the wrong reason. And, I believe, we are sending the wrong message by inviting them to come back and sending a message that we will accept them and their partners with open arms. The wrong message is being sent by kind of telling them by doing this that we also accept their behavior.

 

Well, I guess since you apparently know the motivations of all the gay couples who are returning to the church, there isn't much more I can say.  

 

But I will say that I think our primary responsibility is to love and fellowship.

[california boy]

I don't know, but, per The Proclamation on the Family,  one of the purposes of marriage and of mortality is child-bearing and child-rearing.  I know, I know: What about sterile/childless couples?  By analogy, the purpose of an athletic team is to win.  That doesn't mean the team does so every game it plays; in any given contest, one team is certain to lose, and a team might, in fact, lose every game it plays.  But that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the team is to win.  Why does God apparently not "want" me to have a companion, or to reproduce (although, if I'm honest with myself, that one is much easier to understand ) in this life?  I don't know.  If life were fair, God would do [x].  But, even though it's not fair, that doesn't mean God loves either of us, me or you, any less.  It's just one of mortality's mysterious vicissitudes.

 

 

I don't know.  There are a lot of things that, given the chance, I might "change" about myself in this life.  I have both a physical disability and a psychiatric diagnosis.  Depending on whom you talk to, some people think I'm not very much fun to be around; they might even say they're a bit (or even more than a bit) ill at ease in my company.  I can do the best I can to change the third of those things, but there isn't much chance I'll change the first two of them in mortality.  All we can do is the best we can do.  Whatever we might change about ourselves, that doesn't mean that God loves either of us, me or you, any less.

 

 

 

God wants straight men to overcome the flesh in this life as much as he wants gay men to overcome the flesh in this life.  If the standard is, no sex outside of heterosexual marriage, and if I never marry, that means no sex, period.  So yes, God may, in fact, and often does, require more than a few straight men to be celibate.  But that doesn't mean that God loves any of his children, gay or straight, married or celibate, any less.  It's simply one of mortality's vicissitudes.

 

 

The Law of Chastity is two-pronged: (1) sex outside of marriage is wrong; and (2) marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.  Whatever the world says about those two things, that's what the Lord has said about them.  And, while I'm sure your mileage varies, I accept The Family: A Proclamation to the World as scripture, even though it has never been canonized.  (See Doctrine & Covenants 68:3-4).

 

Any disagreements I'm sure we have notwithstanding, I wish you well.  

I want to thank you for having the courage to answer my questions.  And also to freely admit that we don't really have answers to all of these questions.  I think you identify a lot with the situations gay members find themselves in.  But no matter how similar your situation is, the HUGE difference is that the church wants you to marry does everything it can to encourage you to marry, and doesn't want you to live a celibate life.  Since you were nice enough to answer my questions, I think your answers deserve some comment.

 

I know that the church and many members strongly believes that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.  It is their belief.  Any rational discussion of why that belief could be changes is irrelevant if you believe that is the way things should be.  But I am sure you can understand why not all agree with this view of what marriage should or can be.  Perhaps the hardest thing for me to agree with is that God only has a plan for His straight children.  And the idea of Him making everyone straight in the next life in order to allow all of his children happiness just seems not only wrong but not really anything that I can get excited about.  If God is looking for me to change and become straight, it seems to me He should give me that path while still on earth. Perhaps if I viewed  being gay as some kind of disease, or deformity or handicap, I would feel differently.

[california boy]

Its all too apparent that Gay couples who are returning to church are doing so looking for acceptance or change within doctrine that will allow their behavior as acceptable. Thus, they are returning for the wrong reason. And, I believe, we are sending the wrong message by inviting them to come back and sending a message that we will accept them and their partners with open arms. The wrong message is being sent by kind of telling them by doing this that we also accept their behavior.

 

You are so clueless about gay people and their motivations to have a relationship with God.  Evidently they are not welcome to pursue that relationship in YOUR church.

[Rob Osborn]

Every ward I've been in has included people who regularly attend but openly reject one church teaching or another. In my current ward I know of people who regularly violate the WOW, who are living with someone but not married, who work on some Sundays even though they could find other employment, and who do not pay a full tithe because they do not believe they can afford to.

 

Should we treat all of the people as you would Tom Christofferson? Or would it be better to accept their participation so long as they do not actively fight against church teachings while they are with us? I think the real concern is that members, when exposed to a happy gay couple, start to see the good that comes with such relationships.

I do not see how it is possible to "see the good" that can come from homosexual relationships. Perhaps this is the paramount point where we differ and will never see eye to eye.

I have my own sins and imperfections I am trying overcome- thats why I go to church. If active homosexuals come to church and want to repent, then church will be good for them. If they want to come but wish to remain in their relationships and expect others to accept them, it isnt going to work.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Faithfulness should be to God.  Not an institution.

 

You seem to want to disentangle attitudes towards the Lord's authorised servants and attitudes towards the Lord Himself, but Christ repeatedly made it clear that there is a direct and causal link between the two.

 

When he called and commissioned the Twelve: 'He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me'.

 

Even clearer language when he called and commissioned the Seventy: 'He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me'.

 

And for anyone who prefers a more 'graphic' illustration of how walking away from the prophets is ultimately an expression of our lack of loyalty to the Father, the Saviour's words specifically to those who questioned the authority of those sent to them:

 

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

 

And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

 

And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

 

Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

 

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

 

But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

 

And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

 

[Rob Osborn]

You are so clueless about gay people and their motivations to have a relationship with God.  Evidently they are not welcome to pursue that relationship in YOUR church.

Are you willing to stop being an active homosexual?

[rockpond]

You seem to want to disentangle attitudes towards the Lord's authorised servants and attitudes towards the Lord Himself, but Christ repeatedly made it clear that there is a direct and causal link between the two.

 

When he called and commissioned the Twelve: 'He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me'.

 

Even clearer language when he called and commissioned the Seventy: 'He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me'.

 

And for anyone who prefers a more 'graphic' illustration of how walking away from the prophets is ultimately an expression of our lack of loyalty to the Father, the Saviour's words specifically to those who questioned the authority of those sent to them:

 

One should follow the leaders to the degree that the Spirit tells them those leaders are following the Lord and doing His will.

 

I speak of these youth as faithful because they are believing, active, worthy members of the church.  But they don't see the exclusion of LGBT people as something that is consistent with God's will.

 

You can tell me I'm wrong and I have no specific data to support my position, it's only my personal experience with these youth.  But I think we have enough data and statements from general authorities to conclude that we do have a problem with keeping youth in the church.  And that problem obviously does not bode well for the future strength of the church.

[california boy]

Are you willing to stop being an active homosexual?

No which is why I am not attending your church.  And it does become your church when you start to decide who gets to go and who does not.

 

Like many, my relationship between me and God is not dependent on whether I am allowed to attend your church service.  Yes I have sins. I have long ago been willing to accept the judgement of God for those sins.  His judgement is the ONLY judgement that I care about.  I am not seeking your approval for the choice I have made nor any other person.  I am not even seeking the approval of of God for my weaknesses.  He can judge me as He sees fit. 

 

When your church decides to not allow me to attend because of my sins, then it is time to find another way to connect with God.  Just because I have sins does not mean that I should abandon God.

[Kenngo1969]

... Perhaps the hardest thing for me to agree with is that God only has a plan for His straight children.  And the idea of Him making everyone straight in the next life in order to allow all of his children happiness just seems not only wrong but not really anything that I can get excited about.  If God is looking for me to change and become straight, it seems to me He should give me that path while still on earth. Perhaps if I viewed  being gay as some kind of disease, or deformity or handicap, I would feel differently.

I can't imagine what exaltation is going to be like for anybody.  I think, try as it might, that such a glorious state is incomprehensible to the mortal, finite mind ... yours, mine, anyone's.  I've heard people say that the LDS concept of exaltation (and these people are, as far as I know, LDS, and many of them are even faithful) doesn't appeal to them because it seems like too much work.  Personally, I can't fathom what it'll be like to have a glorious, immortal, perfected, resurrected body that's free from all of the mortal constraints I've been working so hard to make peace with since practically the moment I arrived in mortality.  I'm sure it will be a joyful experience, but I think, perhaps, that it's naive to assume that such an adjustment won't carry with it its own set of challenges.  

 

I don't have a reference, but Joseph Smith taught that we will be resurrected as we are, and we will gradually advance in glory: if I'm right that ... the fact that it's a good, positive, joyful experience notwithstanding ... it will require an adjustment, that makes sense.  And I wish to reiterate something I said earlier in the thread. (I think it was this one; there have been so many posts on so many threads ... )  I don't think an All-Loving, Omniscient, Omnipotent God's going to have to tell anyone who remains faithful, when it comes to the final judgment, "Sorry.  I know you were expecting something more, or better, or different, so it sucks to be you but ... this is the best I could do." 

[Scott Lloyd]

It's pretty obvious that the vain hope that the Lord's servants will one day declare unsinful that which is sinful and even sanctify it in our temples has been driven by society's very recent legalization of the redefinition of marriage.

 

 

Well, obviously, something has to bring it to our collective consciences.  Since I am not someone who wants to enter a gay marriage, I need to know of someone who desires that before it's gonna be something I think about.

So it's not something that's worth worrying about until the federal judiciary gets heavy-handed about it, then suddenly, the law of chastity needs to be repealed?

 

Elder Nelson was right.