No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Teancum]

There is still nothing to clarify. The doctrine is clear. At this point, all that could be done is simply change the doctrine.

 

Yesterday, same gender sex was a sin. Today, we declare it is no longer a sin.

 

It's pretty simple.

 

Could it happen? Perhaps.

 

I hope it doesn't. And I don't think it will.

Didn't BY state that it was a grave enough sin for a white person to have sex with a black person to merit instant death?

Sin one day....not a sin now.

Didn't JS say what the Lers commands and revokes is quite fine.God says do not kill and other times says kill. God says one wife ...but in the letter to Nancy Rigdon JS is saying it is ok to have more than one wife,,,,

[stemelbow]

So again, you want what was (and always has been) declared to be sinful behavior, to no longer be declared sinful behavior.

 

That is the only way you could not "want sinful behavior to be validated by temple ordinances" of that which is now sinful.

I wouldn't speak for Rockpond, but for me, it's more a question of what is sinful behavior. While you feel comfortable thinking gay marriage would support sinful behavior, I question whether the Church is right on that topic. Surely the Church defines sin to help us, but God sees things differently, I'd think, and I'm more than willing to consider that we simply don't know the mind of God fully on this topic and many others. He seems to suffer error to be held by His Church for a while until He decides to make corrections. I tend to think this may be one of those topics that He has plenty yet to reveal...and part of me wonders if we're just too closed up on the topic to be open to anything more He wants to offer us.

[Senator]

So the difference is the antipathy towards gay people is greater than it was towards black people?

No, the antipathy is towards sexual sin.

[Gray]

No, the antipathy is towards sexual sin.

 

I doubt if someone were to describe Mormon marriage as profane it would be possible to interpret it as anything other than antipathy towards Mormons, no matter what justifications were offered. 

Edited May 1, 2015 by Gray

[Senator]

Didn't BY state that it was a grave enough sin for a white person to have sex with a black person to merit instant death?

Yes Bro, Brigham often waxed hyperbolic.

Didn't JS say what the Lers commands and revokes is quite fine.God says do not kill and other times says kill. God says one wife ...but in the letter to Nancy Rigdon JS is saying it is ok to have more than one wife,,,,

I guess we'll have to wait for the command to engage in same sex marriage. As of yet I have no prior knowledge of such a command, nor even an indication as to why such a command could be deemed benificial to the puposes of God.

[thesometimesaint]

Didn't BY state that it was a grave enough sin for a white person to have sex with a black person to merit instant death?

Sin one day....not a sin now.

Didn't JS say what the Lers commands and revokes is quite fine.God says do not kill and other times says kill. God says one wife ...but in the letter to Nancy Rigdon JS is saying it is ok to have more than one wife,,,,

 

Yep. We even have established Scripture about it.

SEE Abraham 3:25

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

[Senator]

I wouldn't speak for Rockpond, but for me, it's more a question of what is sinful behavior. While you feel comfortable thinking gay marriage would support sinful behavior, I question whether the Church is right on that topic. Surely the Church defines sin to help us, but God sees things differently, I'd think, and I'm more than willing to consider that we simply don't know the mind of God fully on this topic and many others. He seems to suffer error to be held by His Church for a while until He decides to make corrections. I tend to think this may be one of those topics that He has plenty yet to reveal...and part of me wonders if we're just too closed up on the topic to be open to anything more He wants to offer us.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

[rockpond]

No, but precedence is integral to the validity of the comparison you are trying to invoke.

 

Nope... the precedent is something that was profane with respect to the temple was determined to no longer be profane through revelation.

[Senator]

I doubt if someone were to describe Mormon marriage as profane it would be possible to interpret it as anything other than antipathy towards Mormons, no matter what justifications were offered.

Yes, prejudice and bigotry makes people sloppy and inarticulate. And that goes for the givers as well as the receivers.

[rockpond]

So again, you want what was (and always has been) declared to be sinful behavior, to no longer be declared sinful behavior.

 

That is the only way you could not "want sinful behavior to be validated by temple ordinances" of that which is now sinful.

 

What I hope and pray for is that the Lord would see fit to allow their marriages to be accepted within the law of chastity.

[Senator]

What I hope and pray for is that the Lord would see fit to allow their marriages to be accepted within the law of chastity.

Ok

I personally can not see how same gender sex can ever be made chaste, regardless of a decreed marital status. Simple as that.

Not much more to discuss in my book.

[rockpond]

Your original claim was that prophets of the Lord deemed it profane. The CFR still stands. Provide a quote or retract your claim.

 

Otherwise, I'm not buying the word games you're playing by trying to use another definition of "profane" in your comparison. It was clearly evident that "profane" as used with SSM referred to the introduction of that which was unholy into the temple. Your tap dancing on using "profane" as those not initiated into religious rites with blacks and the priesthood is disingenuous at best.

 

I gather from his context that Russell was using something close to this definition of profane (from Merriam-Webster):  "not holy because unconsecrated, impure, or defiled"

 

If you are really questioning that we have taught that in our past, I'll provide you with some quotes to satisfy the CFR...

 

Apostle Bruce McConkie Mormon Doctrine (1958), p. 476

"...those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who there­by had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes."

 

George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1939

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.

 

The Contributor, Vol. 6, p. 297, as quoted in Youth and the Church, p. 167

"In the pre-existence the Negroes `through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day.' "

 

Apostle Mark Petersen Race Problems - As They Affect the Church

We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men.... It ap­pears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.... Who placed the Negroes orig­inally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God?.... The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of resi­dence.... He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of ex­tension of the curse (2 Nephi 5:21).... If there is one drop of negro blood in my children... they receive the curse. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it.... But let them enjoy these things among themselves.... what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith The Way to Perfection, p.101

" Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.

 

Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed

"The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom..."

 

JD, Vol.2, Pg.184, Brigham Young, February 18, 1855

The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a "servant of servants" to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it. These are my views upon slavery. I will here say a little more upon this point. The conduct of the whites towards the slaves will, in many cases, send both slave and master to hell. This statement comprises much in a few words. The blacks should be used like servants, and not like brutes, but they must serve. It is their privilege to live so as to enjoy many of the blessings which attend obedience to the first principles of the Gospel, though they are not entitled to the Priesthood.

 

Brigham Young  JD, Vol.7, Pg.290 - Pg.291

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

 

John Taylor Journal of Discourses, Vol.22, Pg.304

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to maintain correct principles under all circumstances, might be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds. It is the same eternal programme. God knew it and Adam knew it.

 

John Taylor Journal of Discourses Vol.23, Pg.336

He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding just to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence upon God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth.

 

John A. Widtsoe, Improvement Era 1944

The opinion is held by many members of the church that because the negro was a neutral in the great council, held in the heavens before the foundations of the earth were laid, he has been punished with a black skin. There is no evidence, as far as found, to justify this belief. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the church doctrine that all who have been permitted to come upon this earth and take upon themselves bodies, accepted the plan of salvation. Those who did not accept it were cast out and became the angels of the evil one. The cause of the black skin of the negro is not known. A mark was placed upon Cain because of his sin. The negroes are supposed to be his descendants. Since these people, themselves, did not commit Cain's sin, it is very probable that in some way, unknown to us, the distinction harks back to the pre-existent state.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 65

There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 102

Then we will say: Blessed be the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who has blessed us with the blessings of his glorious kingdom, where through our faithfulness we may dwell in eternal truth and light. In the spirit of sympathy, mercy and faith, we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our negro brethren, for they are our brethren-children of God-notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.

 

Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 63

I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others, that were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God. Do you believe, says one, that they are reserved until the last dispensation, for such a noble purpose? Yes; and among the Saints is the most likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage. They are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth; there to be trained up properly, according to their nobility and intelligence, and according to the laws which the Lord ordained before they were born. This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous. The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations that dwell upon the face of this earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being; His justice, goodness, and mercy will be magnified towards those who were chosen before they were born; and they long to come, and they will come among the Saints of the living God; this would be their highest pleasure and joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 61

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 43

That the negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born.

 

John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 6

Some of us are learning to swear almost as good as some of the Gentiles. Some of us are learning to get drunk almost as good as they can. I do not think that will benefit us very much. Some of us are learning to cheat and defraud our neighbors, and some are learning to steal. There is nothing smart about all this. A negro, a Hottentot, or an Indian can do that. There is nothing in these practices that bespeaks an intelligent mind, or that would recommend a person the estimation of a good man, angels, or God. There is nothing Godlike in them.

[rockpond]

Ok

I personally can not see how same gender sex can ever be made chaste, regardless of a decreed marital status. Simple as that.

Not much more to discuss in my book.

 

And I can respect that belief without calling you unfaithful.

[jwhitlock]

 

I gather from his context that Russell was using something close to this definition of profane (from Merriam-Webster):  "not holy because unconsecrated, impure, or defiled"

 

If you are really questioning that we have taught that in our past, I'll provide you with some quotes to satisfy the CFR...

 

 

You're still tap dancing. The context was that performing a same sex marriage in the temple would be profane, because validating that which is sinful through the temple ordinances would be unholy.  None of the quotes your provided spoke to that, but rather to the denial of blessings because of race. Two different things, and you haven't satisfied the CFR.

 

What I find more egregious is that you would take a set of quotes, some of which were third hand and and some which were not, which contain opinions about race that have been repudiated by the church, and attempt to compare those attitudes to the attitudes of today's church leaders towards gays. I find that to be repugnant.

[thesometimesaint]

Rockpond:

 

To be fair BRM also said: ""There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, what I am hearing every one say is that there is no way to know who is or has "faithful" beliefs to the LDS church. There is no way to discern if something faithful.

 

And when such is pointed out we just don't know what we are talking about.

 

I remain unconvinced of that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So, what I am hearing every one say is that there is no way to know who is or has "faithful" beliefs to the LDS church. There is no way to discern if something faithful.

 

And when such is pointed out we just don't know what we are talking about.

 

I remain unconvinced of that.

Hmm... If you were listening carefully to what people were saying, instead of projecting you might have heard something different.

[rockpond]

You're still tap dancing. The context was that performing a same sex marriage in the temple would be profane, because validating that which is sinful through the temple ordinances would be unholy.  None of the quotes your provided spoke to that, but rather to the denial of blessings because of race. Two different things, and you haven't satisfied the CFR.

 

What I find more egregious is that you would take a set of quotes, some of which were third hand and and some which were not, which contain opinions about race that have been repudiated by the church, and attempt to compare those attitudes to the attitudes of today's church leaders towards gays. I find that to be repugnant.

 

Yes, past teachings by prophets and apostles regarding race have been repudiated.  Thankfully.  For that reason, I would suggest that current teachings by prophets and apostles about homosexuals could also be repudiated.  But you are welcome to differ -- and I won't see a need to question your faith.

 

Let's take a step back and review:

 

Russell/Pahoran said that I was an unfaithful member because of my hope that someday gay couples will be allowed (through the revelatory process) to be sealed in the temple.

 

His assertion is (or was) that no faithful member could desire for something "profane" to be allowed in the temple.  It's Russell declaring homosexual couples to be profane.  I assume he's using the definition I quoted and saying that they are impure, defiled.

 

I don't want any form of profanity in the temple.  I'm simply saying that if the Lord reveals that unions of gay couples are acceptable, than we wouldn't be letting the profane into the temple.

 

When told that such a change is impossible, I explained that there was a time that those of African descent were told that they were impure, unconsecrated, unworthy of the temple.  And that changed... through revelation.

[rockpond]

Rockpond:

 

To be fair BRM also said: ""There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world".

 

Exactly.  I believe it's similarly possible that someday we may realize that we spoke with limited understanding, light, & knowledge with respect to God's desires for his gay & lesbian children.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So, what I am hearing every one say is that there is no way to know who is or has "faithful" beliefs to the LDS church. There is no way to discern if something faithful.

 

And when such is pointed out we just don't know what we are talking about.

 

I remain unconvinced of that.

Here's the issue:

 

We have individuals in the church that support same sex marriage. Some of these same individuals would welcome and even pray for further light and knowledge from God that would someday allow same-sex temple sealings. The individuals that feel this way hold callings, pay tithing, worship weekly, hold FHE, home teach, assist the poor, and needy. Additionally these people hold temple recommends. They have been declared by a judge in Isreal that they are worthy to enter the house of the Lord (if online reports are to be believed, many of these individuals even discuss their feelings about the subject in great detail with their bishops). These people have consecrated their time, talents, and money for the building up of the kingdom of God on earth. These are the people we are talking about here. These are the people you are declaring unfaithful on a whim, because they err on a single point of doctrine.

 

As was quoted earlier in the thread, Joseph Smith said:

I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.

 

 

 

Are you really going to call up Rockpond, your brother in the gospel and "try" him because he erred in doctrine? Do you "try" Brigham Young for teaching the "heresy" of Adam = God? Do you "try" Elder Peterson for teaching that even if Black people of African descent go to the celestial kingdom they will only go as servants? Do you declare these men faithless because they erred like this? Are you the judge? Really?

 

For erring in docrine this way, Pahoran has declared these brothers and sisters - these Latter-day Saints as not faithful and "entirely apostate."

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

Here's the issue:

 

We have individuals in the church that support same sex marriage. Some of these same individuals would welcome and even pray for further light and knowledge from God that would someday allow same-sex temple sealings. The individuals that feel this way hold callings, pay tithing, worship weekly, hold FHE, home teach, assist the poor, and needy. Additionally these people hold temple recommends. They have been declared by a judge in Isreal that they are worthy to enter the house of the Lord (if online reports are to be believed, many of these individuals even discuss their feelings about the subject in great detail with their bishops). These people have concentrated their time, talents, and money for the building up of the kingdom of God on earth. These are the people we are talking about here. These are the people you are declaring unfaithful on a whim, because they err on a single point of doctrine.

 

As was quoted earlier in the thread, Joseph Smith said:

 

 

Are you really going to call up Rockpond, your brother in the gospel and "try" him because he erred in doctrine? Do you "try" Brigham Young for teaching the "heresy" of Adam = God? Do you "try" Elder Peterson for teaching that even if Black people of African descent go to the celestial kingdom they will only go as servants? Do you declare these men faithless because they erred like this? Are you the judge? Really?

 

Thank you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So, what I am hearing every one say is that there is no way to know who is or has "faithful" beliefs to the LDS church. There is no way to discern if something faithful.

 

And when such is pointed out we just don't know what we are talking about.

 

I remain unconvinced of that.

One more comment. The issue is not discerning if something is faithful. The issue is whether someone is faithful. More specifically if you can judge someone's faithfulness based  solely on their hope that one day same sex sealings will be approved by God.

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I guess we'll have to wait for the command to engage in same sex marriage. As of yet I have no prior knowledge of such a command, nor even an indication as to why such a command could be deemed benificial to the puposes of God.

 

I personally don't think the church will change on this. At least not in my lifetime (I do wish for it though). That said, a prophet once said that men are that they might have joy. Another prophet once said that happiness was the design and purpose of our existence. John Dehlin (cursed be his name) did a self selected study of Latter-day Saints in opposite orientation marriages, compared to single gay men and women, compared to ex-LDS gays and lesbians in committed same gendered relationships. Unsurprisingly, those in same gendered relationships were much happier with their life. We have several members of this forum that have tried both types and they also report much higher levels of happiness in same gendered relationships as well. 

 

I for one have no idea how you would make that jibe with Mormon theology on the family (but then again, there are many family situations that are in that boat), but since you couldn't see "even an indication" of why such a thing could be deemed beneficial to the purposes of God, I thought I would through that out.

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jwhitlock]

Yes, past teachings by prophets and apostles regarding race have been repudiated.  Thankfully.  For that reason, I would suggest that current teachings by prophets and apostles about homosexuals could also be repudiated.  But you are welcome to differ -- and I won't see a need to question your faith.

 

Let's take a step back and review:

 

Russell/Pahoran said that I was an unfaithful member because of my hope that someday gay couples will be allowed (through the revelatory process) to be sealed in the temple.

 

His assertion is (or was) that no faithful member could desire for something "profane" to be allowed in the temple.  It's Russell declaring homosexual couples to be profane.  I assume he's using the definition I quoted and saying that they are impure, defiled.

 

I don't want any form of profanity in the temple.  I'm simply saying that if the Lord reveals that unions of gay couples are acceptable, than we wouldn't be letting the profane into the temple.

 

When told that such a change is impossible, I explained that there was a time that those of African descent were told that they were impure, unconsecrated, unworthy of the temple.  And that changed... through revelation.

 

What you refuse to understand is that comparing allowing SSMs in the temple to the lifting of the priesthood ban is utterly invalid.

 

The reasons for that have been pointed out clearly to you, yet you simple refuse to accept that. Your perspective is that the priesthood ban and disallowing same sex marriages are totally equivalent. That perspective is simply wrong.

 

It's been pointed out to you that homosexual activity has consistently been defined as a sin both by God and by His prophets, and that there has never been any clear indication that would change. That's very different than what was prophesied about the priesthood ban.

 

It's been pointed out to you that homosexual activity is a behavior, not a state of being. Having SSA is a state of being, and the church does not deny those who have SSA, but do not act on it, any blessings that any member of the church can have. Yet you continue to rationalize that being black (state of being) and engaging in homosexual activities (behavior) are the same thing and that homosexual behavior should not be classified as a sin.

 

Telling us that since the priesthood ban was lifted, that there "obviously" must be some possibility that we're all wrong about homosexual behavior being a sin is simply indefensible reasoning. There is absolutely no indication that such a thing is going to happen. Yet you still "hope" that such a thing will no longer be defined as a sin.

 

Such "hope" that the church will embrace the ways of the world indicates significant doubt that the prophets are really all that inspired or directed by the Lord. Don't agree with a church position? Then tell us that it will probably change, because after all they changed their minds about the priesthood ban - as if the Lord isn't really involved at all in the guidance of this church.

 

So the possibility of a redefinition of this particular sin happening is next to nil. If it does happen, I would also expect to see the repudiation of the Book of Mormon as scripture, repudiation of Joseph Smith as a real prophet, allowing anyone to go into the temple without regard to membership and worthiness, the acceptance of the use of alcohol and tobacco, the disavowal of polygamy as an aberration by Joseph and Brigham, and a the disavowal of the Proclamation on Family, to be replaced by the Proclamation on Relationships which will tell us that God smiles on all relationships as we wish to define them, and that everyone will be saved, so why worry.

 

Those things are probably more in line with SSM in the temple, then with the lifting of the priesthood ban.

[rockpond]

What you refuse to understand is that comparing allowing SSMs in the temple to the lifting of the priesthood ban is utterly invalid.

 

The reasons for that have been pointed out clearly to you, yet you simple refuse to accept that. Your perspective is that the priesthood ban and disallowing same sex marriages are totally equivalent. That perspective is simply wrong.

 

It's been pointed out to you that homosexual activity has consistently been defined as a sin both by God and by His prophets, and that there has never been any clear indication that would change. That's very different than what was prophesied about the priesthood ban.

 

It's been pointed out to you that homosexual activity is a behavior, not a state of being. Having SSA is a state of being, and the church does not deny those who have SSA, but do not act on it, any blessings that any member of the church can have. Yet you continue to rationalize that being black (state of being) and engaging in homosexual activities (behavior) are the same thing and that homosexual behavior should not be classified as a sin.

 

Telling us that since the priesthood ban was lifted, that there "obviously" must be some possibility that we're all wrong about homosexual behavior being a sin is simply indefensible reasoning. There is absolutely no indication that such a thing is going to happen. Yet you still "hope" that such a thing will no longer be defined as a sin.

 

Such "hope" that the church will embrace the ways of the world indicates significant doubt that the prophets are really all that inspired or directed by the Lord. Don't agree with a church position? Then tell us that it will probably change, because after all they changed their minds about the priesthood ban - as if the Lord isn't really involved at all in the guidance of this church.

 

So the possibility of a redefinition of this particular sin happening is next to nil. If it does happen, I would also expect to see the repudiation of the Book of Mormon as scripture, repudiation of Joseph Smith as a real prophet, allowing anyone to go into the temple without regard to membership and worthiness, the acceptance of the use of alcohol and tobacco, the disavowal of polygamy as an aberration by Joseph and Brigham, and a the disavowal of the Proclamation on Family, to be replaced by the Proclamation on Relationships which will tell us that God smiles on all relationships as we wish to define them, and that everyone will be saved, so why worry.

 

Those things are probably more in line with SSM in the temple, then with the lifting of the priesthood ban.

 

I respect your beliefs.

 

All I'm trying to clarify with my participation on this thread is that Russell does not have the authority to declare that I am unfaithful because of that hope that I hold.  And, I agree that by doing that he is engaging the No True Scotsman fallacy.