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

[canard78]

So, Joseph Smith renders a correct translation of women being silent in the church (instead, he rendered it to they can't lead in the church) and you think this is support for the view that the church might extend full fellowship to homosexuals?

I just don't get that logic one iota. It is an appeal to ignorance of sorts. Just because the church hasn't done it yet means it might. Aren't you better off, as a faithful member of the church, counseling members to adhere to the positions expressed by the First Presidency in the Proclamation unless we hear otherwise?

I mean, I'm a Libertarian. I opposed Prop 8, but because my Stake President asked me to support it I did. I continue to support gay marriage on libertarian principles. but I also teach and acknowledge that the Church does not.

I'd love a conversation about the "correctness" of the Joseph Smith translation given it corrects KJV passages also found in the Book of Mormon.

[Bob Crockett]

I'd love a conversation about the "correctness" of the Joseph Smith translation given it corrects KJV passages also found in the Book of Mormon.

 

The passage I mentioned above is not contained in the Book of Mormon.  

[Teancum]

I'd love a conversation about the "correctness" of the Joseph Smith translation given it corrects KJV passages also found in the Book of Mormon.

It also corrects a few passages that supports LDS doctrine as they stood and opposes as corrected. One in Hebrews about we noy being able to be saved without our dead comes to mind.

For Bob Crockett last I checked the JST is not considered official LDS canon.

[Teancum]

So, Joseph Smith renders a correct translation of women being silent in the church (instead, he rendered it to they can't lead in the church) and you think this is support for the view that the church might extend full fellowship to homosexuals?

I just don't get that logic one iota. It is an appeal to ignorance of sorts. Just because the church hasn't done it yet means it might. Aren't you better off, as a faithful member of the church, counseling members to adhere to the positions expressed by the First Presidency in the Proclamation unless we hear otherwise?

I mean, I'm a Libertarian. I opposed Prop 8, but because my Stake President asked me to support it I did. I continue to support gay marriage on libertarian principles. but I also teach and acknowledge that the Church does not.

How sad you felt a need to compromise your personal well felt views at the request of a church leader.

How did it make you feel?

And LDS members why some view the LDS church as cult like.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Teancum

[DBMormon]

It also corrects a few passages that supports LDS doctrine as they stood and opposes as corrected. One in Hebrews about we noy being able to be saved without our dead comes to mind.

For Bob Crockett last I checked the JST is not considered official LDS canon.

Don't let the facts get in the way of his stomping out my view.

[SamIam]

My point with this anecdotal story is that Tom Christofferson is not an exception to a rule... rather it is a viable way that we can treat our gay brothers and sisters.  The problem (and yes I am guessing) is very few bishops and Stake presidents have ever heard more less consider such possibilities as viable options on the table. How much different would our leaders react is such options were taught to them as a viable option?

 

I doubt he is an exception to the rule.  It would be interresting to know if he retains his membership.  I would suspect not and hope, for the shadow of preferential treatment, that he is not.  If he does then indeed he is an exception to the rules but unfortunately so.

 

Like any individual that wishes to attend our services, we generally do and always should wecome all who will maintain appropriate decorum.  If you are calling for them to be warmly received and charitably welcomed, here! here!. I raise my frosty mug of rootbeer in a confirming clink.  However the distinction is realtive to membership.

 

Like any behavior that would void membership, until he is willing to conform his lifestyle to the expectations of the Lord in repentance, he can never truly rejoice with the saints and hope for continued habitation in the far more weighty and important celestial realms beyond this life.  It is simply a marriage that cannot be.

 

Is it better to be an unrepentant soul warmly welcomed at church, or a humble member striving to walk the narrow path?  At some point that becomes the greatest and most charitable concern. If we love them, it is not wrong to teach them the truth and indeed should be an anxious endeavor of careful consideration.

Edited January 12, 2015 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Again, many said the same thing in 1975 about PH and blacks.  It is a faulty argument.  It may change, it may not.  Only God can determine that and while we interpret his scriptures as condemning homosexuality, wew have been wrong before about how we interpret his word. (relationship of doubt and faith, PH blacks, Grace after all we can do, women keep quiet in the church, Dynastic sealings vs the right way)  There are examples and while I would 100% agree we are painted further into this corner, With God, all things are possible.

 

I think the argument holds fine and that it is better to be intellectually honest and acknowledge the multitude of quotes that foretold of a day when the blacks would eventually hold the priesthood. Thus that that day did arrive and was as foretold is only a strengthening point of testimony that this church is led by revelation.

 

Find even one such quote from a legitimate spokesman of Jesus Christ where the gays are promised full blessings with the saints of God of exaltation in the celestial kingdom or any residency promise higher than a telestial kingdom and I will be possibly persuaded that you have a legitimate discussion point. 

 

An expectation of a revelation that would undermine the faith of the saints, which has not been previously provided, such as the prophecy of blacks and the priesthood, to act as a buffer to preserve testimony, is a fanciful expectation.  If you contemplate the impact of a revelation that would be accepted and taken advantage of by a mere tiny fraction of God's gay children, that impact would most likely result in the loss of thousands of faithful members.  In this sense I consider the issue of the Blacks and Gays near equal except that God did provide a venue for the sincere believers who did have difficulty to search out the mind of the Lord on the matter of the blacks and priesthood.  Many may have left but they had no cause for claiming surprise or the shock of conflict with all doctrine of exaltation as we understand it. God in his wisdom provided an appropriate precursor to an inevitable event.  The absence of such preparations and salving revelation in the case of the gays speaks volumes.   

 

We must be candid with ourselves, lest we ultimately blur the lines of our own faith in God and his church, and realize that the lifestyle chosen by these folks has always only been touted as a precursor or symptom of a world ripening in wickedness.  It is what it is and any other expectation is authored by Aesop.  

Edited January 12, 2015 by SamIam

[Bob Crockett]

Don't let the facts get in the way of his stomping out my view.

It is official canon. Check the notes to your LDS set.

[Bob Crockett]

How sad you felt a need to compromise your personal well felt views at the request of a church leader.

How did it make you feel?

And LDS members why some view the LDS church as cult like.

Libertarians believe in freedom to choose. We also believe that freedom involves participation in a religion with an organized system of belief and action. Until the Church came out against Prop 8 I didn't know its views.

Because I strongly believe in the mission of the Prophet, I post with my real name here to state my views.

[Rob Osborn]

Libertarians believe in freedom to choose. We also believe that freedom involves participation in a religion with an organized system of belief and action. Until the Church came out against Prop 8 I didn't know its views.

Because I strongly believe in the mission of the Prophet, I post with my real name here to state my views.

Bob, meet Rob. I too post with my real name.

[HappyJackWagon]

See the D. Todd Christofferson quote from the "Mormons and Gays" website earlier in this thread.

I only had to scroll through 17 pages to find this. Thanks for the quote.

 

 

Here is a specific quote from Elder Christofferson on that website:

 

Quote

There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that. The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter. So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression. It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us.

So we have an apostle declaring a doctrine that will never change. Ever. In a church that believes in continuing revelation I hope he's extremely certain that his current understanding is God's understanding. Otherwise new revelation could alter the way we view this. In any case, I asked for a quote and you showed me. Thanks.

 

We'll see, but I'm skeptical of declarations of absolute, unalterable truth. Perhaps he's right, but I'm not convinced. I seem to recall other statements of absolute, unalterable truth relating to black men holding the priesthood. I also recall apostles (BRM) having to apologize for making such absolute statements.

[Rob Osborn]

I only had to scroll through 17 pages to find this. Thanks for the quote.

 

So we have an apostle declaring a doctrine that will never change. Ever. In a church that believes in continuing revelation I hope he's extremely certain that his current understanding is God's understanding. Otherwise new revelation could alter the way we view this. In any case, I asked for a quote and you showed me. Thanks.

 

We'll see, but I'm skeptical of declarations of absolute, unalterable truth. Perhaps he's right, but I'm not convinced. I seem to recall other statements of absolute, unalterable truth relating to black men holding the priesthood. I also recall apostles (BRM) having to apologize for making such absolute statements.

Do you also think that someday adultery will become an acceptable practice before God and His holy angels?

[HappyJackWagon]

Do you also think that someday adultery will become an acceptable practice before God and His holy angels?

Nope.

Adultery hurts people. It is a betrayal. It is breaking the law of chastity in that it is extramarital relations.

 

Gay marriage doesn't have those problems. It brings people together. It is an expression of love and devotion. It is relations within marriage.

 

There is no similarity between gay marriage and adultery.

[Rob Osborn]

Nope.

Adultery hurts people. It is a betrayal. It is breaking the law of chastity in that it is extramarital relations.

 

Gay marriage doesn't have those problems. It brings people together. It is an expression of love and devotion. It is relations within marriage.

 

There is no similarity between gay marriage and adultery.

They are both sexually immoral sins

[Scott Lloyd]

I only had to scroll through 17 pages to find this. Thanks for the quote.

 

 

 

 

Your question was this:

Can you show me where any prophet or apostle as ever said that it can never change?

 

The quote answers the question. To repeat it in response to you, I would have had to search for it again myself.

 

And if you went looking for it, you ought to know by now that the statement has been quoted before on this board. Yet the question keeps cropping up.

 

Will you remember it now, or you will you be like DBMormon, who told us to keep the quote at the ready because he is likely to forget about it "in the near future"?

Edited January 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope.

Adultery hurts people. It is a betrayal. It is breaking the law of chastity in that it is extramarital relations.

 

Gay marriage doesn't have those problems. It brings people together. It is an expression of love and devotion. It is relations within marriage.

 

There is no similarity between gay marriage and adultery.

Like adultery, homosexual behavior involves not just oneself but one or more others in actions that violate the laws of God. Like adultery, it breaks the hearts of family members and friends who had higher hopes and dreams for the person drawn into it and puts them in the agonizing position of trying to maintain a loving relationship with the person while seeing him engage in behavior they deeply disapprove of.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

So we have an apostle declaring a doctrine that will never change. Ever. In a church that believes in continuing revelation I hope he's extremely certain that his current understanding is God's understanding. Otherwise new revelation could alter the way we view this.

 

Well, Elder Christofferson has been called and ordained as a special witness of Christ. I have had some personal, face-to-face interaction with him in his office on more than one occasion and have taken my measure of him as a man of impeccable morality, integrity, kindness and humility who takes his calling very, very seriously, and one who, with a background in the law (attorney and former law clerk to federal Judge John J. Scirica, who presided over the trial of the Watergate burglars) chooses his words carefully.

 

You are some anonymous poster on a message board.

 

With all due respect, I choose to go with him on this matter.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Like adultery, it breaks the hearts of family members and friends who had higher hopes and dreams for the person

My not becoming a doctor like my parents wanted broke their hearts because they had high hopes and dreams for me. Unfortunately I let them down. Apparently that is a sin.

 

I'd take Christofferson's side over an internet poster as well. Hopefully he doesn't have to endure the same kind of embarrassing retraction of his teachings as Bruce R McConkie did.

[Scott Lloyd]

My not becoming a doctor like my parents wanted broke their hearts because they had high hopes and dreams for me. Unfortunately I let them down. Apparently that is a sin.

 

 

Obviously not the same thing, in either quality or degree. Only the most narrow-minded of parents would be ashamed or truly hurt after a son or daughter chose to pursue an honorable profession or vocation, even it was not the one the parents had wished for. A parent would be understandably hurt, however, if a child adopted a course or lifestyle in clear and egregious violation of the laws of God.

 

 

I'd take Christofferson's side over an internet poster as well. Hopefully he doesn't have to endure the same kind of embarrassing retraction of his teachings as Bruce R McConkie did.

 

I'm not worried in the least about that.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Gay marriage doesn't have those problems. It brings people together. It is an expression of love and devotion. It is relations within marriage.

There is no similarity between gay marriage and adultery.

Oh, more new age political correct descriptions of homosexual relations. I'm surprised you didn't use the phrase, "loving and committed."

Homosexuals are entitled to be married if the law provides marriage certificates and I don't see any legitimate legal reason to withhold that right to homosexuals. Whether they are loving and devoted is rather immaterial to the question of being gay or straight. There are many straight couples who made a mockery of their marriage.

But, it is highly disingenuous for you and others (yours is a very common argument amongst anonymous critics of the church) to say or suggest that because the law legitimizes their relationship with a marriage certificate the Church must also or will likely in the future. Abortion is legal in all states; marijuana legal in some. That doesn't mean the Catholic, Mormons and Baptists must acknowledge abortion and marijuana as legitimate, much less holy.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[california boy]

Oh, more new age political correct descriptions of homosexual relations. I'm surprised you didn't use the phrase, "loving and committed."

Homosexuals are entitled to be married if the law provides marriage certificates and I don't see any legitimate legal reason to withhold that right to homosexuals. Whether they are loving and devoted is rather immaterial to the question of being gay or straight. There are many straight couples who made a mockery of their marriage.

But, it is highly disingenuous for you and others (yours is a very common argument amongst anonymous critics of the church) to say or suggest that because the law legitimizes their relationship with a marriage certificate the Church must also or will likely in the future. Abortion is legal in all states; marijuana legal in some. That doesn't mean the Catholic, Mormons and Baptists must acknowledge abortion and marijuana as legitimate, much less holy.

You are absolutely right on all counts.  But the question that seems to be unanswered by revelation is

 

Does God view sex within the context of marriage the same as sex outside of marriage whether gay or straight?

 

Most in the church think that God views someone with SSA differently than God views someone with opposite sex attraction.  Whether that is God's view or not is, at this time unknown.  What is known is that gay relations outside of marriage is wrong and straight relations outside of marriage is wrong.  No one disputes that.  And no one is asking the church to change it's views.  As far as I can tell, everyone is only asking for clarification.  You seem to need no further clarification.  

 

But can you see that some would like more clarification.  This is a very important issue since it is directly related to how a gay person fits into the Plan of Salvation.  It is the very first time in recorded history that the church leaders are counseling anyone to never marry.  Some people are uncomfortable with this decision being made by a committee.  If modern revelation is still a viable place for answering questions in the church, this seems like an important enough question to receive some divine guidance.

[maxrep12]

 I would not want them holding hands or kissing their partner at Church in front of the youth

The youth, in fact most see gay couples in high school, would not be surprised. It is the middle age members that will feel discomfort, but even not all of that aging demographic. Really, who is afraid to see two women sitting close together with one of their arms around the shoulder of the partner they love during sacrament meeting?

 

Is it you?

 

"Protecting" the youth is a cop out. The youth will lead the way for SSA in church later, if the current 40 to 50 somethings can't accomplish this now. 

 

About 8 years ago, I mentioned to my TBM BIL that gay married would take place in every state soon in the coming years. His words; "You're retarded".

[Bob Crockett]

You are absolutely right on all counts.  But the question that seems to be unanswered by revelation is

 

Does God view sex within the context of marriage the same as sex outside of marriage whether gay or straight?

 

Most in the church think that God views someone with SSA differently than God views someone with opposite sex attraction.  Whether that is God's view or not is, at this time unknown.  What is known is that gay relations outside of marriage is wrong and straight relations outside of marriage is wrong.  No one disputes that.  And no one is asking the church to change it's views.  As far as I can tell, everyone is only asking for clarification.  You seem to need no further clarification.  

 

But can you see that some would like more clarification.  This is a very important issue since it is directly related to how a gay person fits into the Plan of Salvation.  It is the very first time in recorded history that the church leaders are counseling anyone to never marry.  Some people are uncomfortable with this decision being made by a committee.  If modern revelation is still a viable place for answering questions in the church, this seems like an important enough question to receive some divine guidance.

 

I don't see that clarification is necessary given the Proclamation.   It is clear.  

 

I think we just need a detente.   Homosexuals -- quit telling the Church it is wrong to exclude gays from temples, marriage and priesthood service.  Members of the Church -- quit denying the fact that marriage is an essential civil right in American that can't, for a compelling reason, be denied gays.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[california boy]

Sounds fair to me, especially since I have never stated that the church is wrong for excluding gays.  In fact, I have always stated that the church has the right to exclude anyone they want.  

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't see that clarification is necessary given the Proclamation.   It is clear.  

 

I think we just need a detente.   Homosexuals -- quit telling the Church it is wrong to exclude gays from temples, marriage and priesthood service.  Members of the Church -- quit denying the fact that marriage is an essential civil right in American that can't, for a compelling reason, be denied gays.

1- The proclamation is not canonized or even held up as revelation. It is a statement.

2- Maybe church leaders could explain to gays how they fit into the plan of salvation. Maybe they could explain their role in the eternities. Isn't that what the church does? But it doesn't for gays. All it says now is "You're not good enough" and "We don't want you".