ALarson Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 What would you say to a homosexual man who believes in the Restoration, believes in the Atonement, believes that President Monson is a prophet today, only is attracted to men, is practicing homosexuality currently, wants to stop and live Church standards, is wracked with guilt at his sins, and believes that he can only be fully forgiven through priesthood channels? Would you say that excommunication is wrong in his case? Would you at least admit that formal Church discipline can sometimes be a good thing for homosexuals in the Church? I've had this happen.Wow, that's tough and I'm sure you handled this with love and compassion. And yes, if someone comes to you like this with a true desire to repent of something they've done (whatever the sin is), I'm sure as a Bishop you need to consider whether or not to proceed with church discipline.
ALarson Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 You assume that you know what Christ would do/say. Your assumption is that he would think like you. As do you.
busybee Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 I agree. I was just sitting here thinking as I read through these last few pages, I wonder how Christ would treat this man (or others who have entered into marriages with the person they love)? Would He excommunicate them? Would He kick them out of His church? I really doubt it. (I know I'll get that He'd love the sinner and hate the sin, but would he ask them to leave?)Perhaps when we stop viewing the church disciplinary procedure as a punishment we will better understand what the Saviour would do.Are we asking people to leave the church by applying church disciplinary actions when needed. Absolutely not. What we are doing is giving them the opportunity to realign their lives with the doctrines of the restored Gospel while they are temporarily or permanently (their choice) relieved from the covenants they have made to take the time needed to repent and return. No one wants them to leave. They, if unrepentant, don't want to stay. The Church disciplinary procedure is a procedure born out of love, not punishment. While the Savior didn't condemn the woman taken in adultery (punishment), He also didn't pat her on the head and say 'It's ok, you just carry on doing what you're doing' He told her to 'Go, and sin NO MORE' (discipline)
ALarson Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Perhaps when we stop viewing the church disciplinary procedure as a punishment we will better understand what the Saviour would do.Are we asking people to leave the church by applying church disciplinary actions when needed. Absolutely not. What we are doing is giving them the opportunity to realign their lives with the doctrines of the restored Gospel while they are temporarily or permanently (their choice) relieved from the covenants they have made to take the time needed to repent and return. No one wants them to leave. They, if unrepentant, don't want to stay. The Church disciplinary procedure is a procedure born out of love, not punishment. While the Savior didn't condemn the woman taken in adultery (punishment), He also didn't pat her on the head and say 'It's ok, you just carry on doing what you're doing' He told her to 'Go, and sin NO MORE' (discipline)Yes, I get that. And, that's great for instances such as rongo's above (where a person came to him with the desire to return and repent). However, I do not think it helps a person come back to church when they have been inactive and then they are suddenly searched out and contacted for a disciplinary counsel. That is the part here that I disagree with. Edited May 9, 2015 by ALarson
busybee Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Yes, I get that. And, that's great for instances such as rongo's above (where a person came to him with the desire to return and repent). However, I do not think it helps a person come back to church when they have been inactive and then they are suddenly searched out and contacted for a disciplinary counsel. That is the part here that I disagree with. I agree. And i really think that these type of actions are the exception rather than the norm. But there are some Bishops/Branch Presidents who feel it is their mandate to 'get rid of the dead wood'. Luckily I'm not privvy to their revelation or inspiration or motivation to do so,so I can get on with my life knowing 'it's not my circus, not my monkeys'
JulieM Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 I personally would have less problem with money changers in the temple than gay marriages in the temple.Ok. But we don't know if Christ would and that's how this comparison was used here. As far as I know, Jesus was silent on gay marriage or even gay relationships. If not, I'm interested to see those words. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Ok. But we don't know if Christ would and that's how this comparison was used here. As far as I know, Jesus was silent on gay marriage or even gay relationships. If not, I'm interested to see those words.He was also silent on bestiality and consensual adult incest.Israel, and we, already had the moral law given- was He really expected to rehash every single little thing? 1
JulieM Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 He was also silent on bestiality and consensualOk, but we're asking in this discussion what would Jesus do with respect to those entering gay marriage. If you want to discuss beastiality or adult incest (starting with Adam), that's another discussion entirely. Unless you're comparing them to gay marriage? 1
carbon dioxide Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Ok, but we're asking in this discussion what would Jesus do with respect to those entering gay marriage. If you want to discuss beastiality or adult incest (starting with Adam), that's another discussion entirely. Unless you're comparing them to gay marriage?They do compare on one level. All of them would be considered a violation of the law of chastity. Just different kinds of violations. What would Jesus do. I believe he would say "go and sin no more" He would tell them to end their relationship and refer to Genesis on what marriage is. God made man and woman and marriage is between man and woman. Jesus would be fine with a "divorce" in a SSM since they are not really married anyway in the eyes of God. Since God did not join man and man or woman and woman together, there is no prohibition of it being put asunder. 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Ok, but we're asking in this discussion what would Jesus do with respect to those entering gay marriage. If you want to discuss beastiality or adult incest (starting with Adam), that's another discussion entirely. Unless you're comparing them to gay marriage?It is not a different matter, it goes back to the moral law given by God. Homosexual sex is wrong (even if "married"), bestiality is wrong, sex with your immediate family members is wrong (even if "married").The only comparison I am making is that they all violate the moral law given by God. Edited May 9, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr
HappyJackWagon Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 It is not a different matter, it goes back to the moral law given by God. Homosexual sex is wrong (even if "married"), bestiality is wrong, sex with your immediate family members is wrong (even if "married"). The only comparison I am making is that they all violate the moral law given by God. I think it's an error to think we have God's view of sexuality figured out. There are always strange exceptions to what we think are the rules which leads me to believe there isn't an absolute requirement in all things, but perhaps there is at least some wiggle room for what God will and will not accept. As mentioned before- Adult incest clearly happened if you believe the literal story of Adam and Eve. How did Mary, the mother of Jesus become pregnant? Daughters in law sneaking into the prophets bed, polygamy/polyandry. It seems safe to say that our modern understanding of God's laws on sexuality may not be the only way to think of things. 2
carbon dioxide Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 It is not a different matter, it goes back to the moral law given by God. Homosexual sex is wrong (even if "married"), bestiality is wrong, sex with your immediate family members is wrong (even if "married").The only comparison I am making is that they all violate the moral law given by God.Generally it would be the work of Satan to nit pick every little issue. Jesus did not say this or Jesus did not say that to justify something. Jesus said nothing about people selling crack to kids but based on my knowledge of the gospel I can suspect that Jesus would not approve of me selling crack to children. I can make a reasonable leap in logic for that to be the case. I believe that is the reason God gave us brains and not hard drives to think with. There is nothing that I have ever seen in my reading of the scriptures, in my understanding of the gospel that would even remotely suggest that God would be ok with gay marriage in any circumstance. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Generally it would be the work of Satan to nit pick every little issue. Jesus did not say this or Jesus did not say that to justify something. Jesus said nothing about people selling crack to kids but based on my knowledge of the gospel I can suspect that Jesus would not approve of me selling crack to children. I can make a reasonable leap in logic for that to be the case. I believe that is the reason God gave us brains and not hard drives to think with. There is nothing that I have ever seen in my reading of the scriptures, in my understanding of the gospel that would even remotely suggest that God would be ok with gay marriage in any circumstance. Exactly!
busybee Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Generally it would be the work of Satan to nit pick every little issue. Jesus did not say this or Jesus did not say that to justify something. Jesus said nothing about people selling crack to kids but based on my knowledge of the gospel I can suspect that Jesus would not approve of me selling crack to children. I can make a reasonable leap in logic for that to be the case. I believe that is the reason God gave us brains and not hard drives to think with. There is nothing that I have ever seen in my reading of the scriptures, in my understanding of the gospel that would even remotely suggest that God would be ok with gay marriage in any circumstance.I'm out of rep points!!! So I'm putting one here (thumbs up!!!!!) Edited May 9, 2015 by busybee
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 I think it's an error to think we have God's view of sexuality figured out. There are always strange exceptions to what we think are the rules which leads me to believe there isn't an absolute requirement in all things, but perhaps there is at least some wiggle room for what God will and will not accept.As mentioned before- Adult incest clearly happened if you believe the literal story of Adam and Eve. How did Mary, the mother of Jesus become pregnant? Daughters in law sneaking into the prophets bed, polygamy/polyandry. It seems safe to say that our modern understanding of God's laws on sexuality may not be the only way to think of things.Adam likely had several wives with him, and their children would've been half-siblings- which is not prohibited under moral law as written.The Mary pregnancy is up for debate even among Mormons. If you believe God had physical sex with Mary, I might see your point. But that is disputable.Judah's daughter in law was a widow, (unmarried), he had violated his kinsmen oath, and he was unaware of who she was. It wasn't exactly a God ordained situation.
ALarson Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 I think it's an error to think we have God's view of sexuality figured out. There are always strange exceptions to what we think are the rules which leads me to believe there isn't an absolute requirement in all things, but perhaps there is at least some wiggle room for what God will and will not accept.As mentioned before- Adult incest clearly happened if you believe the literal story of Adam and Eve. How did Mary, the mother of Jesus become pregnant? Daughters in law sneaking into the prophets bed, polygamy/polyandry. It seems safe to say that our modern understanding of God's laws on sexuality may not be the only way to think of things.This is how I feel too. We simply do not know what Christ would do in relation to those entering into a same-sex marriage. We all can put our own thoughts, beliefs and feelings into what our opinion is on this, but we don't know. Again, this is an emotional topic and when we have friends and family members involved (which many of us do), it gets even more personal. I try to understand all view points even if I disagree. 1
ALarson Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Adam likely had several wives with him, and their children would've been half-siblings- which is not prohibited under moral law as written.Maybe this is a topic for another thread. But IIRC, children were born to Adam's daughters before he took other wives (and, where did those other wives come from?). Edited May 9, 2015 by ALarson 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 This is how I feel too. We simply do not know what Christ would do in relation to those entering into a same-sex marriage. We all can put our own thoughts, beliefs and feelings into what our opinion is on this, but we don't know. Again, this is an emotional topic and when we have friends and family members involved (which many of us do), it gets even more personal. I try to understand all view points even if I disagree. Yes, we do. He would tell them to repent and cease fornicating. It is fascinating to see this mindeset develop in the church I grew up in. Now, I can see how the justifications were started that got other churches on this road to moral equivalency. 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Maybe this is a topic for another thread. But IIRC, children were born to Adam's daughters before he took other wives (and, where did those other wives come from?). Where? From whatever Celestial Kingdom he hailed from. Accepting the Adam-God teaching helps clear up the eternal progression teachings somewhat. 1
ALarson Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Yes, we do. He would tell them to repent and cease fornicating. You can assume that, but you do not know that. You can also believe this is what Christ would do, but you do not know he would. There is no record of how Christ dealt with those who were gay or those who entered into a gay marriage or relationship. Edited May 9, 2015 by ALarson
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 You can assume that, but you do not know that. You can also believe this is what Chris would do, but you do not know he would. There is no record of how Christ dealt with those who were gay or those who entered into a gay marriage or relationship.We know how he dealt with fornicators, and the homosexual act is fornication.I truly find this fascinating.
ALarson Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) We know how he dealt with fornicators, and the homosexual act is fornication.Fornication: "sexual intercourse between people not married to each other." We're discussing those who have entered into a legal marriage. I know you say that they are not recognized marriages by God, but that again, is only an opinion. Edited May 9, 2015 by ALarson 2
busybee Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Maybe this is a topic for another thread. But IIRC, children were born to Adam's daughters before he took other wives (and, where did those other wives come from?).True another topic. Adam and Eve were the first ones created. Who said they were the only ones???
busybee Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) You can assume that, but you do not know that. You can also believe this is what Chris would do, but you do not know he would. There is no record of how Christ dealt with those who were gay or those who entered into a gay marriage or relationship.Who knows what Chris might do There is however record of how Christ treated those who sinned against the law of Moses (which was the religious law in His time) According to Leviticus, homosexual sex is a sin according to the Law of Moses. Christ called sinners to repentance and told them to 'Sin no more' Edited May 9, 2015 by busybee
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Fornication: "sexual intercourse between people not married to each other." We're discussing those who have entered into a legal marriage. I know you say that they are not recognized marriages by God, but that again, is only an opinion. Wow, OK.Believe what you want. I'll believe the scriptures.Apparently, some Mormons have taken "as far as it is translated correctly" to a whole notha' level.
Recommended Posts