carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Nice try. But:Lying.Murder.Polygamy.The greatest offenses on that list, according to Mormonism, were NOT merely part of the Law of Moses. They are all intrinsic to Latter-day Saint practice and belief, if Joseph was truly a prophet, and God truly commanded those things as part of the Restoration.I said many of those things. Not ALL. God makes the rules and makes the exceptions but they are done an an individual basis. Personally the issue with murdering the babies is one issue in the Old Testament that I have trouble with. Why do they have to be killed when they can be taken and put into good families.
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I do find the whole idea of LDS even remotely finding homosexual relationships being acceptable to be a little shocking. All I know is if the Church ever was to take that seriously, it would cause a deep schism in the Church. Much larger and profound than when Joseph Smith died. I know what group I will go with if such a thing was to ever occur.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I know what group I will go with if such a thing was to ever occur. Same. I will humbly heed the authorised servants of the Lord as they act in unity -- which is no more nor less than I hope all Saints do now.
california boy Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Nobody will be alone alone forever. I am sure those who are in outer darkness will not be alone. The law chastity is that no sexual relations except between a husband wife who is lawfully married. To change to allow gays makes as much sense allowing sexual relations between man and animals. I love my dog very much. I am not asking however to be sealed or married to my dog even though I treat her as a member of my family. I just hope the Lord sees how much I love her and treat her and she will be allowed to stay with me for eternity. My reading of the scriptures is that we came to earth to be tested to see if we would submit our will to what the Lord commands. It is not a test to see how far we can get Lord to bend to our will. The natural man is an enemy to God. We are to master the flesh. Not let the flesh be our master. A gay man who follows God, puts off what is natural to him will overcome the flesh. He will lose his same sex orientation at some point perhaps in the spirit world. He will find a spouse of the opposite gender and be with them for eternity. There simple is nothing to suggest that there has ever been a gay married couple in the celestial kingdom. There is nothing to suggest that one will be found in the next 100 trillion years. I am going to ignore the part where you compare marrying two consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex the same as bestiality for reasons that hopefully most will understand. But I do have a few questions for you based on your outlook of things. 1. If God wants gays to be with a companion in the next life, why doesn't he want gays to have a companion in this life. 2. If God plans to change the orientation of a gay person in the next life, why won't He change the orientation in this life? 3. If God wants gays to overcome the flesh in this life by not marrying, why doesn't he want straight men to overcome the flesh in this life. Does God not love straight men enough to require them to be celibate? 4. The law of Chastity has always been no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. Has God ever prohibited gay couples to marry anywhere in the scriptures? Does this all really make sense to you? Or is it just blindly following what is presently taught to you. Why is it so hard for you to imagine a gay couple can also be a family just like any other couple. And like some straight couples, can also raise children that need a loving home. Gay couples do a great service in taking children out of the foster care program and raising them in a loving home. Many straight couples do the same thing. Where is the problem. Your views on how God looks at things don't even make sense. Is God not consistent in His instruction to us? 2
Rob Osborn Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Laws like:Don't eat shellfish--it's an abomination?Don't eat pork--it's an abomination?Don't touch a menstruating woman--it's an abomination?Don't wear clothes thst mix wool and cotton--it's an abomination?Don't intermarry between races--it's an abomination?Don't lie--it's an abomination?Don't marry and have sex with more than one woman and lie to your first wife about it--it's an abomin.... oh, wait... never mind... this one's ok, as long as I tell you to.Don't kill--it's an abomin.... oh, wait... never mind... this one's ok, too... even for innocent suckling babies and cattle and drunk passed out men, if I command it....Could gay sex actually be worse than murdering babies...?Come to think of it, everything's subject to change, if God says so.Rob, do you even read your Scriptures? Do you know your history...?!Yes I read them. God condemns homosexuals. You must hate the Mormon religion because they will not justify your sin.
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I am going to ignore the part where you compare marrying two consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex the same as bestiality for reasons that hopefully most will understand. It should not be ignored as I don't believe God cares if an action is done between two consenting adults or not. A violation of God's law is not lessened because those involved agree to it.
california boy Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 It should not be ignored as I don't believe God cares if an action is done between two consenting adults or not. A violation of God's law is not lessened because those involved agree to it. gues you didn't have the answers to the tough questions. Understandable.
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 1. If God wants gays to be with a companion in the next life, why doesn't he want gays to have a companion in this life. 2. If God plans to change the orientation of a gay person in the next life, why won't He change the orientation in this life? 3. If God wants gays to overcome the flesh in this life by not marrying, why doesn't he want straight men to overcome the flesh in this life. Does God not love straight men enough to require them to be celibate? 4. The law of Chastity has always been no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. Has God ever prohibited gay couples to marry anywhere in the scriptures? Does this all really make sense to you? Or is it just blindly following what is presently taught to you. Why is it so hard for you to imagine a gay couple can also be a family just like any other couple. And like some straight couples, can also raise children that need a loving home. Gay couples do a great service in taking children out of the foster care program and raising them in a loving home. Many straight couples do the same thing. Where is the problem. Your views on how God looks at things don't even make sense. Is God not consistent in His instruction to us? God did have to formally prohibiit gay couples to get married in the scriptures just as he did not have to prohibit people from marrying trees. The issue did not need to be brought up as I am sure it was pretty much a given to the people back then that something like gay marriage would be ridiculous to consider. We are to overcome our weaknesses. Part of our test in life is not to celebrate them but overcome them. God will not take them away without effort on our part. I am not sure how gay marriage helps those with same sex attraction overcome anything. The person is basically surrendering to it. Straight men have to live the law of chastity the same as gays. The only difference is straight men can marry and gays can not (in the standards of God). Secular marriage by gays God does not count as valid. It is still a breakage of the laws of chastity. Intimate relations between two gay married men is the same as two unmarried gay men. God is not going to fall for this mockery.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 In 1947 the first presidency called inter-racial marriage "repugnant" and against God's doctrine.Were they wrong to say that?Of course such racist language was always wrong. It was wrong for Bob Jones University, and for the Southern Baptist Convention, and many other racist churches.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 ..........................................http://jeffbenedict.com/…/blog/35…/378-maybe-ill-meet-a-girl .......................................................... I can not access this article now. Do you have a better access URL? Rob Osborn tells me that Tom Christofferson was excommunicated, and that excommunicants cannot hold a calling. Therefore he holds no calling. Is this true?
Bob Crockett Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I can not access this article now. Do you have a better access URL? Rob Osborn tells me that Tom Christofferson was excommunicated, and that excommunicants cannot hold a calling. Therefore he holds no calling. Is this true?http://www.jeffbenedict.com/index.php/blog/35-blog/378-maybe-ill-meet-a-girl Here you go. Bill would very unlikely know the answer to your question.
CV75 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Of course such racist language was always wrong. It was wrong for Bob Jones University, and for the Southern Baptist Convention, and many other racist churches.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.
rockpond Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Invite them to church- of course. Embrace them and their behaviors as acceptable? NO. The church will never change o this issue- it cant.So from the OP, do you think Christofferson's ward has cross that line into embracing their behaviors as acceptable?And the church can change on the issue... We believe in continuing revelation and an ongoing restoration.
Buckeye Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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. You raise a good point, though of course avoiding enmity does not require silence. Things only change because people speak out. But in speaking, it's important to focus on the wrongness of an idea or practice rather than put down the individual. I see a good example of this in the Race and Priesthood essay which renounces the doctrinal ideas taught by previous leaders, but does not renounce the leaders themselves and even provides context to show the leaders were not so different from their peers (unfortunately). We should emulate this practice in our efforts to push for progress today. One need not condemn church leaders as sexist or homophobic. A much better (and more accurate) approach would be to focus on the errors of certain teachings, in particular through lived examples. So when the high counselor teaches that women are inherently more spiritual, simply respond that "in my experience as a YM president and father, I see boys who are just as spiritual as any girls." When someone comments in gospel doctrine that gay people cannot have eternal families, simply respond that "I've watched my gay neighbors for two years and so I know God is working through their family just as much as mine or any other I've seen. It's really a beautiful thing."
Buckeye Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Yes, except for actually changing His laws- that is not possible. God is unchanging in this area God is unchanging, but our understanding of him is and will continue to change, including in ways we currently think impossible. The scriptures and our own church history are rife with examples of things once thought impossible to change but which did. That's not to say that this particular teaching will change, only that it can change. If there is continual revelation, and if future leaders are not bound by past leaders (one of the 14 fundamentals), then by extension no current leader can say with authority that this or that teaching will never change. They can state a belief or opinion. And they may actually be right. But they don't have authority to bind the future. Their keys end at death, which comes to all.
Rob Osborn Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 So from the OP, do you think Christofferson's ward has cross that line into embracing their behaviors as acceptable?And the church can change on the issue... We believe in continuing revelation and an ongoing restoration.Need more information to decide if they crossed a line. The article is written with some pro-gay sway so hard to tell. Wards can cross the line the moment they invite them back and welcome them and then do nothing to help them overcome their sin.
Rob Osborn Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 God is unchanging, but our understanding of him is and will continue to change, including in ways we currently think impossible. The scriptures and our own church history are rife with examples of things once thought impossible to change but which did. That's not to say that this particular teaching will change, only that it can change. If there is continual revelation, and if future leaders are not bound by past leaders (one of the 14 fundamentals), then by extension no current leader can say with authority that this or that teaching will never change. They can state a belief or opinion. And they may actually be right. But they don't have authority to bind the future. Their keys end at death, which comes to all.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.
Buckeye Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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. I believe they are sincere, but the simple fact is they do not have authority to say "never." President Woodruff was not bound by prior statements (including his own) that polygamy would never be renounced. President Kimball and the Q12 in 1978 were not bound by prior statements (including by members of the Q12) that blacks would never receive the priesthood until all non-blacks had a chance to receive it. And future leaders will not be bound by what our current leaders say, no matter how well intentioned. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I believe they are sincere, but the simple fact is they do not have authority to say "never." President Woodruff was not bound by prior statements (including his own) that polygamy would never be renounced. President Kimball and the Q12 in 1978 were not bound by prior statements (including by members of the Q12) that blacks would never receive the priesthood until all non-blacks had a chance to receive it. And future leaders will not be bound by what our current leaders say, no matter how well intentioned.So until they say what you want them to say you will justify your sin. Perhaps they will change the doctrine of adultery too and make it holy to cheat on ones spouse.
california boy Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 God did have to formally prohibiit gay couples to get married in the scriptures just as he did not have to prohibit people from marrying trees. The issue did not need to be brought up as I am sure it was pretty much a given to the people back then that something like gay marriage would be ridiculous to consider. We are to overcome our weaknesses. Part of our test in life is not to celebrate them but overcome them. God will not take them away without effort on our part. I am not sure how gay marriage helps those with same sex attraction overcome anything. The person is basically surrendering to it. Straight men have to live the law of chastity the same as gays. The only difference is straight men can marry and gays can not (in the standards of God). Secular marriage by gays God does not count as valid. It is still a breakage of the laws of chastity. Intimate relations between two gay married men is the same as two unmarried gay men. God is not going to fall for this mockery.You do realize that you still have not answered a single one of my questions. Pretending that marrying another person is the same as marrying a tree is no answer unless you can point to a scripture where God thinks that trees are the same as one of his children. No one is arguing that we should not overcome our weaknesses on this earth. That also wasn't the question. The question was, why is it good for a gay person to be celibate to overcome his weaknesses, but not a straight man. If that was the plan of God for us to be celibate to overcome weaknesses, then it would be expected of all His children. Here are the questions again. If you can't answer each one, then just admit it. Pretend you are in school. Leaving a question blank means you have no idea. Changing the question is not an answer. 1. If God wants gays to be with a companion in the next life, why doesn't he want gays to have a companion in this life. 2. If God plans to change the orientation of a gay person in the next life, why won't He change the orientation in this life? 3. If God wants gays to overcome the flesh in this life by not marrying, why doesn't he want straight men to overcome the flesh in this life. Does God not love straight men enough to require them to be celibate? 4. The law of Chastity has always been no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. Has God ever prohibited gay couples to marry anywhere in the scriptures? Does this all really make sense to you? Or is it just blindly following what is presently taught to you. Why is it so hard for you to imagine a gay couple can also be a family just like any other couple. And like some straight couples, can also raise children that need a loving home. Gay couples do a great service in taking children out of the foster care program and raising them in a loving home. Many straight couples do the same thing. Where is the problem. Your views on how God looks at things don't even make sense. Is God not consistent in His instruction to us? Try again. See if you can answer any of these questions. Otherwise, like the church leaders who have acted without revelation in preventing gays from the blessings of temple marriage, you are just guessing it is the will of God and not based on anything He has actually revealed.
Bob Crockett Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) 1. If God wants gays to be with a companion in the next life, why doesn't he want gays to have a companion in this life. 2. If God plans to change the orientation of a gay person in the next life, why won't He change the orientation in this life? 3. If God wants gays to overcome the flesh in this life by not marrying, why doesn't he want straight men to overcome the flesh in this life. Does God not love straight men enough to require them to be celibate? 4. The law of Chastity has always been no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. Has God ever prohibited gay couples to marry anywhere in the scriptures? Does this all really make sense to you? Or is it just blindly following what is presently taught to you. Why is it so hard for you to imagine a gay couple can also be a family just like any other couple. And like some straight couples, can also raise children that need a loving home. Gay couples do a great service in taking children out of the foster care program and raising them in a loving home. Many straight couples do the same thing. Where is the problem. Your views on how God looks at things don't even make sense. Is God not consistent in His instruction to us? I have found on this board that if people are afraid of you they won't answer questions like this. It is quite amazing, but I come from a profession that is question-driven. 1. If God wants gays to be with a companion in the next life, why doesn't he want gays to have a companion in this life. I've never heard it say that God wants gays to be with a companion in the next life. I've read that he intends that worthy men will be with worthy wives. A fornicator, adultery or homosexual isn't going to qualify. 2. If God plans to change the orientation of a gay person in the next life, why won't He change the orientation in this life? I've never heard it said that God plans to change the orientation of gays. I think that gays (and everybody else) will have to conquer their sins. After many years of priesthood service in leadership positions, I have come to the conclusion that roughly half of men and a much higher percentage of women who have significant same sex attraction issues who want to be active in the Church are, and have relatively stable heterosexual relationships. The other half (for men) who want to be active (typically, returned missionaries or their equivalent) can't or won't. I believe roughly the same phenomenon exists in other churches. I know of a bishop, a friend of mine, in that circumstance. I imagine that life is hell, but he has a great wife and children. I have a friend who was an Elder 's Quorum President with a family who couldn't do it. One day, driving to some priesthood meeting, he simply turned off to a public restroom he knew about, met some random guy there, and his church life was over. He left his wife and children. 4. The law of Chastity has always been no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. Has God ever prohibited gay couples to marry anywhere in the scriptures? No, but he has several times prohibited homosexual relationships. The references are very clear. I know that the gay community contests those interpretations, but I take solace in nearly a thousand years of interpretative commentary starting with patristic literature. Homosexual relations were condemned and the orthodox and Catholics drew on Paul for their views. Does this all really make sense to you? Or is it just blindly following what is presently taught to you. Why is it so hard for you to imagine a gay couple can also be a family just like any other couple. And like some straight couples, can also raise children that need a loving home. Gay couples do a great service in taking children out of the foster care program and raising them in a loving home. Many straight couples do the same thing. Where is the problem. Your views on how God looks at things don't even make sense. Is God not consistent in His instruction to us? Yes, it make sense to me. No I am not blindly following anything. Some things are sinful; some are not. It is not hard for me to imagine a gay couple being a family. I think that gay couples can raise children with a loving home. God has been consistent on this view. I don't necessarily like it but I can see constant unremitting consistency on this doctrine from the scriptures to commentary to modern prophetic utterances. I think you are a nice guy but your posts on this subject over the years have been profoundly disingenuous. I think you are better off joining a church which overlooks God's word on this point. There are a few. Edited January 8, 2015 by Bob Crockett
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The implication I accept is that no manner, degree or amount of legislation or judicial fiat is going to make that which is sinful in the eyes of God acceptable. I agree.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. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) ... 1. If God wants gays to be with a companion in the next life, why doesn't he want gays to have a companion in this life. 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. 2. If God plans to change the orientation of a gay person in the next life, why won't He change the orientation in this life? 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. 3. If God wants gays to overcome the flesh in this life by not marrying, why doesn't he want straight men to overcome the flesh in this life. Does God not love straight men enough to require them to be celibate? 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. 4. The law of Chastity has always been no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. Has God ever prohibited gay couples to marry anywhere in the scriptures? 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. Edited January 8, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
rockpond Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Faithful ... and yet willing to 'walk' should God refuse to indulge their preferences? I think you and I may have slightly different definitions of faithfulness. Faithfulness should be to God. Not an institution.
rockpond Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Need more information to decide if they crossed a line. The article is written with some pro-gay sway so hard to tell. Wards can cross the line the moment they invite them back and welcome them and then do nothing to help them overcome their sin. 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?
Recommended Posts