A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[Zakuska]

We as a church have no reason to fear that an LGBT "marriage" will ever be performed in the Temple. Beings how we don't perform "marriages" in the temple.  Through the provenance of God "sealings" are strictly an exclusive Religious right..

 

The part where it gets sticky is that the way things are going with the laws on the subject. Will a Bishop ever be able to decline from performing a "civil" marriage at a local ward house? If an LGBT couple want to be married at a ward building and the Bishop or SP say no can they sue? Will the Bishop be compelled against their conscience to comply? This is the question that bothers me and Im trying to iron out just how I feel about it.

 

PS. Another question popped into my mind. In the resurrection, will all these people who have been surgically reassigned be resurrected as they were born or as they were reassigned?

 

I suppose too that all the surgical implants people are getting will fall out of their resurrected bodies upon rising from the grave as well.

[carbon dioxide]

If such a change were to happen today, I would expect such a division. And you should follow your beliefs.

But, as with the change regarding race, I think the general church population will be ready and anticipating such an announcement by that time. I don't think it will create a schism.

Well you have not been pay attention to what has been happening in other churches.  Some churches are getting torn apart on this issue and it would happen to this church as well.  To declare wickedness as righteousness would create a schism.  All would have to decide what side they would follow.  I just know where my side of the family would be.  Not just my family by my brothers and sisters family and it they are 100% on board that SSM will always be wickedness and Satan is the author of SSM.  So we would go to the side that continues with that view.

[bluebell]

I don't see God ever saying that it is a sin.

 

God never says that torturing puppies is a sin either, though we all agree it is.

 

I don't see that there is any way to support the idea that unless God specifically says something is a sin then it must not be.

 

Leaving that aside though, remember what i asked you.  I asked if you thought that your statement was true, even if SSM really is a sin.  You answered Yes.  

 

My question was a hypothetical and you answered it hypothetically.  My follow up question was for clarification-do you really believe that if SSM is a sin the church will die off if it doesn't accept it? You answered yes once already but like i said, i just wanted to make sure i am understanding what you are saying.

[Tacenda]

Carbon Dioxide, sorry for the comparison but the first thing I thought of from you stating what you did (I can't quote in this mode) in post #57, was the LDS fundamentalist out there.  They probably thought the same way, once polygamy was discontinued for good and they could be ex'ed for living it, they broke off.  And I'm sure that is why there are so many schisms in the church today with so many break offs.  So it makes me wonder how well you're going to hold to the rod that someone put forth, oh, it was yourself!  You mention something about that in post #47 above.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

We as a church have no reason to fear that an LGBT "marriage" will ever be performed in the Temple. Beings how we don't perform "marriages" in the temple.  Through the provenance of God "sealings" are strictly an exclusive Religious right..

 

The part where it gets sticky is that the way things are going with the laws on the subject. Will a Bishop ever be able to decline from performing a "civil" marriage at a local ward house? If an LGBT couple want to be married at a ward building and the Bishop or SP say no can they sue? Will the Bishop be compelled against their conscience to comply? This is the question that bothers me and Im trying to iron out just how I feel about it.

 

PS. Another question popped into my mind. In the resurrection, will all these people who have been surgically reassigned be resurrected as they were born or as they were reassigned?

 

I suppose too that all the surgical implants people are getting will fall out of their resurrected bodies upon rising from the grave as well.

Another good reason for the 2nd Amendment.  If the Church was forced to do something that it is against, it is the duty of the members to protect the Church.  I imagine if the government was to try to force a marriage in a temple or a ward building within a few hours hundreds of armed members would surround the temple and immediate area to protect it.   This would be one issue that I would willing to fight and die for.   We know for certain that the government will not impose this on the Muslims.  They are committed people and if the government tries to force this garbage on them, they will start blowing things up.

[Buckeye]

The teachings that are found in Lehi dream really determines what we as members need to do going forward.  We are taught that there are those in the Church who will let go of the iron rod and drift to unknown paths. Some partake of the fruit but they notice the people in the great and spacious building mocking them.  They become ashamed, walk away from the tree of life and then join those who are in the building at mocking and scorning those still at the tree of life.  We are instructed to ignore those in the great and spacious building.  Eventually that building will fall and all those who are a part of it get their eternal reward of damnation. Apply this to SSM, we just need to ignore what society says of the Church.  If the Church gets fewer converts because of its position than so be it.  If some people leave the Church than that is fulfillment of the dream and so be it.  The prize we should be seeking is eternal life and not the praise of the world (those in the building who cast scorn on the Church).    There will be plenty of time in the eternities to appear to those who mocked the Church to meet them personally and ask them who overcame and who was right in the end.  All of them will confess that SSM was authored by the devil.  We know this to be the case as Christ and Satan are polar opposites.  If Christ is for SSM than Satan is against it.  If Satan is for SSM than Christ is against it.  This is not a case where they both are in agreement.

 

Yes, letting go of the iron rod can result in one going astray. But letting go is also a necessary step to get to the tree. To move forward, one must let go of the rod where he is at and reach for the part of the rod closer to the tree. That can be scary, but the other option - holding firm and never moving - will lead to death just as much as wandering into the river or building.

 

There's a big difference between a member who supports SSM because they want to be popular in the eyes of the world, verses a member who supports SSM because they see the good fruit born by SS families and want to support and build up that good.

 

A lot of yesterday's conference dealt with treating people fairly. That applies equally to judging members who support SSM. Let's judge them by the reasons they give for their support rather than impose false judgments on them - such as that they are wanting the vain praise of the world or wanting to follow Satan - because I haven't heard anyone say that. As an example of how best to approach such members, can I recommend the words of Elder Christofferson:

 

There hasn't been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn't support that if you want to support it," Christofferson said, "if that's your belief and you think it's right."

[Calm]

. I fear that if our society does allow the balance, there will be many more businesses who rely on a religious-exemption deny services to Mormons than to LGBT.

While inconvenient, I don't see this as a bad thing. At the very least we will be better able to tell where we are failing in communications.

[stemelbow]

Another good reason for the 2nd Amendment.  If the Church was forced to do something that it is against, it is the duty of the members to protect the Church.  I imagine if the government was to try to force a marriage in a temple or a ward building within a few hours hundreds of armed members would surround the temple and immediate area to protect it.   This would be one issue that I would willing to fight and die for.   We know for certain that the government will not impose this on the Muslims.  They are committed people and if the government tries to force this garbage on them, they will start blowing things up.

If anything happened as you describe and the members did anything as you describe, I'd realize immediately, I'd be in the wrong church. See ya, I'd say. this is nuts.

[bluebell]

Then what's the point of a prophet if we're just going to make our decisions by looking at the evidence after the fact?

 

Prophets do more than just prophesy though.  The main point of a Prophet is to hold the keys of the priesthood so that God's authority can reside in His church and His children can be saved. That is why a prophet does not need to be infallible to accomplished his purpose.

[stemelbow]

God never says that torturing puppies is a sin either, though we all agree it is.

It seems extremely backwards to start labeling everything that is not mentioned by God as sin. "well God never says anything about it, so it's sin".

[Buzzard]

We as a church have no reason to fear that an LGBT "marriage" will ever be performed in the Temple. Beings how we don't perform "marriages" in the temple.  Through the provenance of God "sealings" are strictly an exclusive Religious right..

 

The part where it gets sticky is that the way things are going with the laws on the subject. Will a Bishop ever be able to decline from performing a "civil" marriage at a local ward house? If an LGBT couple want to be married at a ward building and the Bishop or SP say no can they sue? Will the Bishop be compelled against their conscience to comply? This is the question that bothers me and Im trying to iron out just how I feel about it.

 

PS. Another question popped into my mind. In the resurrection, will all these people who have been surgically reassigned be resurrected as they were born or as they were reassigned?

 

I suppose too that all the surgical implants people are getting will fall out of their resurrected bodies upon rising from the grave as well.

You do know that a member or convert who has had gender reassignment surgery can be baptized, but under current church policy cannot enter the temple at any point in their lives?  There is at least one poster here who has struggled mightily with this restriction since she had the surgery years ago to undo the "mistake" (her words) made by her parents shortly after her berth.  My guess is that the conundrum you postulate is part of the reason for that policy.

If your other sentence is true, we will find out on resurrection morning some things we didn't know about Sister Hansen.  As the scripture says, shouted from the rooftops. 

[Zakuska]

It seems extremely backwards to start labeling everything that is not mentioned by God as sin. "well God never says anything about it, so it's sin".

 

I agree on technical terms only... "Where there is no law there is no sin" says the scripture.

But even though its not a sin doesn't mean its right.

 

You do know that a member or convert who has had gender reassignment surgery can be baptized, but under current church policy cannot enter the temple at any point in their lives?  There is at least one poster here who has struggled mightily with this restriction since she had the surgery years ago to undo the "mistake" (her words) made by her parents shortly after her berth.  My guess is that the conundrum you postulate is part of the reason for that policy.

If your other sentence is true, we will find out on resurrection morning some things we didn't know about Sister Hansen.  As the scripture says, shouted from the rooftops.

It is an interesting question isn't it?  What of people who have certian birth defects Intersex/Ambiguous Genitalia at birth? (They truly can say "I was Born this way") Edited January 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[bluebell]

Yes, letting go of the iron rod can result in one going astray. But letting go is also a necessary step to get to the tree. To move forward, one must let go of the rod where he is at and reach for the part of the rod closer to the tree. That can be scary, but the other option - holding firm and never moving - will lead to death just as much as wandering into the river or building.

 

 

 

Not exactly.

 

As anyone who has ever climbed a rope knows, it's very possible to move forward without having to completely let go-the trick is to only let go with one hand at a time.  In fact, letting go of both hands at the same time will result in injury or death.

 

Also, as anyone who's ever climbed a staircase or ridden on an escalator knows, it's very possible to move forward without ever taking a hand off of the railing.  We can hold onto a railing and still move as long as we don't clench our hand down and stop our progress-the hand must slide, but it does not need to let go.  

 

We really can hold to the rod without ever letting go and still move toward the tree of life.  

[Ahab]

I agree with the church's stance on this. But where does that sit well when the church goes past that and wants to disable the rights of the LGBT from equal rights to marry? No side believes either side shouldn't have freedom of speech. It's fine when the church tells it's members that it should be between a man and woman, it's quite another for the church to tell non members this, isn't it? Of course this has been discussed ad nauseam. ETA: This in response to Ahab above.

The Lord says through his Church to the whole world, basically: People of the same sex should not have sexual relations with each other.

Those in the world who don't like or agree with what the Church has said then respond by saying this, badically: We don't like or agree with what you are saying and we demand the right to have sexual relations with people of the same sex if we want to.

The Church then responds by saying this, again, basically: We've already told you what the Lord has told us, and we'll tell you again and again if you didn't get it the first time, but let's talk a little about something else now. We'll concede that you have the right to commit the sin of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex as long as we get to keep the right to express our religious convictions to you.

Or at least that is how I see what is going on.

[bluebell]

It seems extremely backwards to start labeling everything that is not mentioned by God as sin. "well God never says anything about it, so it's sin".

 

Exactly.  It's the same amount of backwards as it would be to start labeling everything that is not mentioned by God as not a sin.  "Well, God never said anything about it, so it's not a sin".

 

See how that works?

 

Two sides to the exact. same. coin.

[carbon dioxide]

Carbon Dioxide, sorry for the comparison but the first thing I thought of from you stating what you did (I can't quote in this mode) in post #57, was the LDS fundamentalist out there.  They probably thought the same way, once polygamy was discontinued for good and they could be ex'ed for living it, they broke off.  And I'm sure that is why there are so many schisms in the church today with so many break offs.  So it makes me wonder how well you're going to hold to the rod that someone put forth, oh, it was yourself!  You mention something about that in post #47 above.

The is a difference between polygamy which the scriptures show is a regulated practice by God and SSM.  When God allows polygamy than its ok, and when he does not allow it then it is not ok.  That is established.  There is nothing to suggest that God is going to flip his mind on homosexuality and SSM.  Lets change the issue to another one.  If the Church was to come out and say prostitution was ok, would you be willing to accept it?  Or how about marriage between humans and animals?  Would you accept that?  Holding to the iron rod is the word of God.  Is SSM compatible with the Word of God in any circumstance?  I can't conceive on one instance where it would be.

[carbon dioxide]

If anything happened as you describe and the members did anything as you describe, I'd realize immediately, I'd be in the wrong church. See ya, I'd say. this is nuts.

Its one of the covenants we make in the temple.  We are willing to give our lives for the Church if necessary.   I don't conceive of Captain Moroni saying the Lamanites 'Go right ahead guys.  Impose your will upon us.  Defile everything we stand for and believe."  I see Capt. Moroni fighting for the rights of his liberties.   He did not seek out a fight but was willing to fight for the rights of his family and his God if someone brought the fight to him.

Edited January 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

By this same logic you could call into question any doctrine that the church teaches. "Since the church was wrong about A it may be wrong about B as well." Take this far enough and you've changed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a place you go to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ into just another church where you go to have a feel good hour and drink coffee afterwards.

Exactly. That's the problem I see with the Church coming out and pronouncing 125 years worth of teaching by prophets/apostles as wrong.

[rockpond]

Looking at evidence is not all we do. Evidence is the basis for knowledge. Getting to that point, though, requires faith and testing. Prophets serve very important roles in that process. Though not perfect, the inspiration they receive helps guide those who listen to learn for themselves and, eventually, to know. Just as with individuals, prophets are not failures if they get things wrong. They are only failures if they stop trying to get things right. I try not to judge our prophet any differently than I would the deacon's quorum president in my ward.

I agree. Mostly. I do think that the Prophet has a higher standard than a DQP based on claimed proximity to the source.

[rockpond]

Well you have not been pay attention to what has been happening in other churches. Some churches are getting torn apart on this issue and it would happen to this church as well. To declare wickedness as righteousness would create a schism. All would have to decide what side they would follow. I just know where my side of the family would be. Not just my family by my brothers and sisters family and it they are 100% on board that SSM will always be wickedness and Satan is the author of SSM. So we would go to the side that continues with that view.

Our church is already starting to get torn apart on this issue. But the vast majority is still following the current teachings on the matter. That will shift more and more over time.

You can't possibly speak to the opinions of your family 40 years from now. You'll have an entirely new generation of adults leading their families by then.

Church teachings on the subject will continue to develop and the hearts & minds of members will continue to develop.

[carbon dioxide]

The Lord says through his Church to the whole world, basically: People of the same sex should not have sexual relations with each other.

Those in the world who don't like or agree with what the Church has said then respond by saying this, badically: We don't like or agree with what you are saying and we demand the right to have sexual relations with people of the same sex if we want to.

The Church then responds by saying this, again, basically: We've already told you what the Lord has told us, and we'll tell you again and again if you didn't get it the first time, but let's talk a little about something else now. We'll concede that you have the right to commit the sin of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex as long as we get to keep the right to express our religious convictions to you.

Or at least that is how I see what is going on.

The duty fo the Church is to stand for the truth and be witnesses for it.  If the people decide to reject it that is more sin upon their head.  The Church at least is able to dust its feet on the issue and stand blameless before God for stand for the eternal truth that SSM has, is, and will always be against what Christ stands for and how he will judge the world.  Society might change their mind but Christ will not.  Everyone has their agency to choose for themselves what they believe and do but they do not have the agency to be free from the consequences of the decisions they make.  Right will said to be wrong and wrong will be said to be right.  Everything that is going on is just more evidence that the world is getting more and more wicked.  The question is whether members of the Church will jump in the pool of wickedness because something is accepted or popular by society.

Edited January 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

Prophets do more than just prophesy though. The main point of a Prophet is to hold the keys of the priesthood so that God's authority can reside in His church and His children can be saved. That is why a prophet does not need to be infallible to accomplished his purpose.

True. I believe in the prophet as possessor of all priesthood keys.

[carbon dioxide]

Our church is already starting to get torn apart on this issue. But the vast majority is still following the current teachings on the matter. That will shift more and more over time.

You can't possibly speak to the opinions of your family 40 years from now. You'll have an entirely new generation of adults leading their families by then.

Church teachings on the subject will continue to develop and the hearts & minds of members will continue to develop.

What I can do it teach them to truth and if they choose to depart from it that is their choice.  I can just say with confidence between my children and my nieces and nephews that they are 100% with the view that SSM is eternally wrong.  I doubt that many will change their view over the next 40 years.  Perhaps the Lord will be merciful and allow a nuclear war to occur before that would happen.  Better for the world to be destroyed than have generations of people raised is wickedness.  Hopefully this global warming stuff is real and disasters will occur to keep the people repenting and not accepting of the filth that continues to rain down on the people.

Edited January 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[stemelbow]

Exactly.  It's the same amount of backwards as it would be to start labeling everything that is not mentioned by God as not a sin.  "Well, God never said anything about it, so it's not a sin".

 

See how that works?

 

Two sides to the exact. same. coin.

I disagree. To say it is a sin is conclusive and unbending. To leave it open is to allow God to speak on the matter, rather than trying to speak for HIm.

[Tacenda]

The is a difference between polygamy which the scriptures show is a regulated practice by God and SSM.  When God allows polygamy than its ok, and when he does not allow it then it is not ok.  That is established.  There is nothing to suggest that God is going to flip his mind on homosexuality and SSM.  Lets change the issue to another one.  If the Church was to come out and say prostitution was ok, would you be willing to accept it?  Or how about marriage between humans and animals?  Would you accept that?  Holding to the iron rod is the word of God.  Is SSM compatible with the Word of God in any circumstance?  I can't conceive on one instance where it would be.

But you said that if the church allowed SSM you would leave it.  So what does that say about holding to the rod?  You're not going to trust that God is speaking through a current prophet?  You'd jump out of the boat over it?  Start your own church maybe.  See what I'm getting at?  You are the one that gave it plausibility that if the church did that you and your family would hightail it out.  My words.