KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom. I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man. There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship. I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage. Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice. For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation. By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it. Just as Brigham taught about the principle when Saints who were called to plural marriage disavowed it. Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 .. if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight. The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel). I welcome others thoughts on this thread. But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible. I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions. If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. 4
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom. I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man. There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship. I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage. Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice. For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation. By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it. Just as Brigham taught about the principle when Saints who were called to plural marriage disavowed it. Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 .. if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight. The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel). I welcome others thoughts on this thread. But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible. I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions. If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. I don't judge individuals. Not my place but we can judge overall behavior and what is required for celestial glory based on D&C 76 and other places. "I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man. There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship." That might be all fine and true but the best one can obtain by those attributes is the Terrestrial kingdom by being one of the "honorable" men of the world. One has to be spotless to enter the Celestial Kingdom which means repentance and all that other good stuff has to happen. The natural man is an enemy to God and one must put off all their personal desires and conform to the desires that God wants us to be to enter there. Edited July 10, 2015 by carbon dioxide
KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Perhaps our disagreements are a matter of degrees? We will all have to repent of something to enter into the presence of the Father. I feel it is foolish to advocate the Saints are on some kind of fast track to glory, while those who believe differently are automatically barred from the opportunity because their sins are somehow less socially acceptable than ours. Brigham put it well when he instructed we don't get blessings when we knowingly reject the conditions they are predicated on. In fact an honorable man who is living the best according to the law he has, has probably got more chance to repent than a Saint who doesn't live by the revelation he already received. I am still uncomfortable judging that a homosexual will be barred from the celestial kingdom when I hope to find my own weaknesses and sins excused to the degree I can enter into the Father's presence. 2
ksfisher Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight. The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel). The Lord has stated that he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (as taught in the scriptures). It would then seem to follow that anyone who has sinned, and not repented of the sin (regardless of what the sin is) cannot dwell in the Father's presence. If, as modern prophets have repeatedly taught, homosexual relations are a sin, then it would seem that we have a pretty clear standard whereby to judge the sin. You are correct that only a judge in Israel has the stewardship to judge an individual. We leave that up to bishops and, ultimately, the Lord. 3
Popular Post KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Yes sin bars us from the presence of the Father and Son, if we do not repent. What I find troublesome is that we judge others sins harshly (ex. absolutely No Celestial kingdom for gays) while expecting our sins will be forgiven by the atonement. There is no sin short of denial of the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood that cannot be forgiven by the Savior. Baptism and obedience to baptismal covenants is required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom. Temple Marriage is the key to Celestial Glory. Teaching that entry to the Celestial Kingdom itself cannot be had by a repentant sinner, simply because of the type of sin - is not doctrinal. I am very open with my gay friends that if they wanted to be an Elder in Israel they would have to change some behaviors and beliefs. But I am also honest that I too had to change behaviors and beliefs to become one too. I guess my discomfort comes from the readiness to condemn another to damnation because we don't like their sins as much as our own. Are our pronouncements of judgement out of love and concern for others, or out of distaste for what they believe? Edited July 10, 2015 by KevinG 5
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Yes sin bars us from the presence of the Father and Son, if we do not repent. What I find troublesome is that we judge others sins harshly (ex. absolutely No Celestial kingdom for gays) while expecting our sins will be forgiven by the atonement. There is no sin short of denial of the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood that cannot be forgiven by the Savior. Baptism and obedience to baptismal covenants is required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom. Temple Marriage is the key to Celestial Glory. Teaching that entry to the Celestial Kingdom itself cannot be had by a repentant sinner, simply because of the type of sin - is not doctrinal.Is there going to be practicing prostitutes in the CK? Think about it for a second. It is a serious question. How can 2 gays actively living the life style be said to be repentant? You must repent of all sins. Not just most of them. And actively being in a gay relationship is not repenting in any sense of the word. You are not even trying of you are doing that. If you can rationalize this then you can rationalize any sin. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I am still uncomfortable judging that a homosexual will be barred from the celestial kingdom when I hope to find my own weaknesses and sins excused to the degree I can enter into the Father's presence.The homosexual is no less able to obtain the celestial kingdom than a pedophile or any of us. We are all slobs before God. But to obtain that kingdom one must qualify for it. If the lot of the homosexual is to not have any intimate relationships in this life, that is what they have to do.
JAHS Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 "no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight." This is of course true and should especially be considered in light of suggestions by church leaders about the possibility of those with homosexual tendencies to lose that attribute in the resurrection. Is it possible that they might be able to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex during the Millennium? I don't know if this is a true principle or if it is it would be possible for actively practicing gay people, but it is still not our place to judge them in ways that negatively affect their quality of life. 2
stemelbow Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom. I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man. There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship. I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage. Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice. For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation. By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it. Just as Brigham taught about the principle when Saints who were called to plural marriage disavowed it. Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 .. if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight. The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel). I welcome others thoughts on this thread. But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible. I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions. If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways. I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come. 3
KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Yes sin bars us from the presence of the Father and Son, if we do not repent. What I find troublesome is that we judge others sins harshly (ex. absolutely No Celestial kingdom for gays) while expecting our sins will be forgiven by the atonement. There is no sin short of denial of the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood that cannot be forgiven by the Savior. Baptism and obedience to baptismal covenants is required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom. Temple Marriage is the key to Celestial Glory. Teaching that entry to the Celestial Kingdom itself cannot be had by a repentant sinner, simply because of the type of sin - is not doctrinal.Is there going to be practicing prostitutes in the CK? Think about it for a second. It is a serious question. How can 2 gays actively living the life style be said to be repentant? You must repent of all sins. Not just most of them. And actively being in a gay relationship is not repenting in any sense of the word. You are not even trying of you are doing that. If you can rationalize this then you can rationalize any sin. There will be repentant prostitutes in the Celestial Kingdom. But we seem to have far fewer discussion about how prostitutes are living an automatically hellbound lifestyle and will not find forgiveness in this life or the next, than we do about gays. I agree that all must repent to the extent of our ability to be ready for the atonement. What I am taking issue with is the seeming ease many have in condemning gays while hoping for forgiveness for our own (fill in the blank) sin.
stemelbow Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Yes sin bars us from the presence of the Father and Son, if we do not repent. What I find troublesome is that we judge others sins harshly (ex. absolutely No Celestial kingdom for gays) while expecting our sins will be forgiven by the atonement. There is no sin short of denial of the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood that cannot be forgiven by the Savior. Baptism and obedience to baptismal covenants is required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom. Temple Marriage is the key to Celestial Glory. Teaching that entry to the Celestial Kingdom itself cannot be had by a repentant sinner, simply because of the type of sin - is not doctrinal.Is there going to be practicing prostitutes in the CK? Think about it for a second. It is a serious question. How can 2 gays actively living the life style be said to be repentant? You must repent of all sins. Not just most of them. And actively being in a gay relationship is not repenting in any sense of the word. You are not even trying of you are doing that. If you can rationalize this then you can rationalize any sin. Show me someone who has repented of all his/her sins and I'll show you someone who isn't even aware of all his/her sins. We're all in this boat. 2
KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom. I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man. There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship. I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage. Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice. For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation. By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it. Just as Brigham taught about the principle when Saints who were called to plural marriage disavowed it.Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 .. if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight. The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel). I welcome others thoughts on this thread. But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible. I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions. If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways.I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come. Now you've done it! :-) I still hold that God's plan for families is monogamous heterosexual marriage (and sometimes polygamous heterosexual marriage when commanded). But I'm loathe to judge my neighbor more harshly than myself for weaknesses, and sins, that I hope the Lord's atonement will cover for me. I'm also loathe to use my beliefs to judge another who does not share them. And yet more loathe to enforce my beliefs using the law over those who don't share them. (Crimes with victims are not included in my nonjudgemental approach).
smac97 Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom. This seems on par with something like "Regarding actively practicing (and unrepentant) adulterers and the Celestial Kingdom." Or "Regarding actively practicing (and unrepentant) fornicators and the Celestial Kingdom." After all, all three forms of sexual activity are prohibited by the Law of Chastity. Repentance is, of course, available to such folks. Otherwise, however, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 comes to mind: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Note that these cautions apply to people of all sexual predilections, not just to those with same-sex attraction. I see deviations from God's plan for His children to be a condition of this mortal probation. There are many ways people can struggle with matters of sexuality. Some people, including people in the LDS Church, struggle with abstaining from sex outside of marriage (adultery or fornication). Some struggle with pornography, lasciviousness, and so on. Some people conflate sexuality with violence. Some are sexually attracted to children, or family members, or inanimate objects, or animals. These are all variations on a theme. Some of us have struggles in other ways. Some struggle with chemical dependencies and addictions. Some eat too much. Some lack a work ethic. Some have difficulty controlling their temper and/or improperly resort to violence. Some are greedy. Some seek unrighteous dominion. Some are dishonest. Some are profane. Some shirk important responsibilities. I could go on forever. We are all sinners in one way or another. King Benjamin pretty much nailed it when he said this: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." (Mosiah 4:29) And then there are all sorts of additional afflictions which affect God's children: diseases which afflict body and mind, familial and social disfunctions, political and socioeconomic injustices, wicked combinations, and so on. These "external" afflictions likewise lead the children of God astray. I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent. I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and separate it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets, and to instead go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod. Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction in Mosiah 4:30: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not." I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. It's also "shared" by the LDS Church (see, e.g., here and here). You are, of course, at liberty to believe as you wish. However, that liberty does not extend to re-defining the precepts and doctrines of the Restored Gospel so that they do not conflict with your worldview (I'm not sure that is what you are doing, but it appears so). By the way, what about actively practicing adulterers and fornicators? Do they get a free pass for violating the Law of Chastity too? Or is just people who want to violate it in one particular and currently socially popular way (through homosexual activity)? More in the next post. Edited July 10, 2015 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man. There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship. I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage. Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice. Those "natural consequences" having arisen out of the Restored Gospel, right? I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Those who unrepentedly violate the Law of Chastity will not inherit the Celestial Kingdom because they have failed to repent. "Foreignness and 'ick factor'" have exactly nothing to do with it. For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation. That is a "natural consequence," yes. But not an eschatological one. An unrepentant adulterer or a fornicator may also have a "lack of natural offspring with their partner." So what? They will still not inherit the Celestial Kingdom because they have failed to repent. By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. True. A person who is married in the temple and fails to repent of not honoring or dishonoring the covenants made therein will not inherit the Celestial Kingdom. That's what happens to people who fail to repent. More in the next post. Edited July 10, 2015 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it. This is a substantial mischaracterization. The Lord has not merely "recommended" monogamy between a man and a woman at present. He has mandated it. Hence the need for repentance for violating that mandate. Again, I don't get your point. Those who "voluntarily" give up the "blessings" of marriage mandated by God (salvation and exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom) will, axiomatically, not end up in the Celestial Kingdom. That rather goes against your thesis. So what is your point here? Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight. I quite agree. That is an entirely separate matter, however, from reading the scriptures, including those portions pertaining to the Law of Chastity, and applying the scriptures to our lives, teaching the scriptures to others, and encouraging others to live in accordance with the precepts therein. Moreover, some of the Saints are qualified to "judge" other Saints when it comes to the individual's adherence or non-adherence to the Law of Chastity. Bishops and others in authority have a mandate to do so. More in the next post. Edited July 10, 2015 by smac97
smac97 Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Last one: I welcome others thoughts on this thread. But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible. I certainly agree with being "respectful." But it makes no sense to ask us to "avoid personal bias." Your post is rife with "personal bias on the topic at hand. I don't fault you for that (after all, my posts are rife with my personal biases as well). You have a right to express your views, seen as they are through the lens of your "personal bias." But you do not have a right to proscribe others from doing the same. I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions. If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. A person's "personal bias" can certainly be compatible with "advocat(ing) from a position of wisdom and love for others." Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I am still uncomfortable judging that a homosexual will be barred from the celestial kingdom when I hope to find my own weaknesses and sins excused to the degree I can enter into the Father's presence. I don't think you are describing "judgment." You are describing "reading the scriptures." It is not for us to make any pronouncements on a given individual. I agree with that. But I reject the notion that abstaining from unrighteous judgment is somehow transmogrified into "never read the scriptures or share them insofar as they offend currently popular trends regarding sexuality." Thanks, -Smac 3
thesometimesaint Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I agree with the Church that homosexual acts are sinful. However it is not my job to judge the eternity of those that sin. Nor is it my job to add to the mortal burdens of those that sin. 3
KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Here is some doctrine regarding marriages not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (short of Temple marriage in LDS parlance). D&C 132, 15-17: 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. 18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God. To me this means that any marriage outside of an honored Temple sealing would fall short of exaltation. Yet exaltation is the highest station in Celestial glory. Others would still be able to dwell in the Celestial kingdom as Angels, just not gods. So I again ask, do we judge homosexuals more harshly than a couple who does not qualify for a temple recommend, but was married by the Bishop in the chapel? Are we excusing our own shortcomings while condemning others who don't share our favorite sins? (That is rhetorical, I don't expect an answer- but we should consider how we love/judge our neighbor who is different from us).
bluebell Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways.I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come.I've seen the same thing with committed heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage. I had an uncle and 'aunt' who lived in such a relationship for decades. I don't believe that means though that God doesn't really care whether or not people have sex outside of the bonds of marriage and we just haven't realized that yet. 4
KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Smac, You did a thorough job of finding the weakness in my use of the English language. I'm still struggling to explain this sensitive issue. I am not advocating for forgiveness of unrepented sins. I am trying to say we should not judge others harshly just because we find their particular sin more distasteful than our own. That's what I'm trying to say by "ick factor". I am trying to say we have no business using the law to enforce our own religious beliefs, if we also expect a libertarian treatment of our own beliefs (tax free donations, polygamous marriage in the 1800s, the right to establish schools that teach our doctrines...)
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways.I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come.I've seen the same thing with committed heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage. I had an uncle and 'aunt' who lived in such a relationship for decades. I don't believe that means though that God doesn't really care whether or not people have sex outside of the bonds of marriage and we just haven't realized that yet. My wife sister and her boyfriend have been living together for several years. They seem to be happy and committed. Love and commitment might be all that our society deems good or just but God expects more.
KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 I agree with the Church that homosexual acts are sinful. However it is not my job to judge the eternity of those that sin. Nor is it my job to add to the mortal burdens of those that sin. You said that better than I did, and in once sentence. I stand all amazed! Thanks.
KevinG Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways.I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come.I've seen the same thing with committed heterosexual couples who don't believe in marriage. I had an uncle and 'aunt' who lived in such a relationship for decades. I don't believe that means though that God doesn't really care whether or not people have sex outside of the bonds of marriage and we just haven't realized that yet. My wife sister and her boyfriend have been living together for several years. They seem to be happy and committed. Love and commitment might be all that our society deems good or just but God expects more. ...and I suspect when God reveals to them that they should be sealed or lose the eternities they will have a choice to make. Until then it is probably not constructive to tell them their relationship is condemning them to hell, and not just to bar them from receiving insurance benefits. 1
Mormonmaniac Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom. I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man. There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship. I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage. Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice. For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation. By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it. Just as Brigham taught about the principle when Saints who were called to plural marriage disavowed it.Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 .. if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight. The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel). I welcome others thoughts on this thread. But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible. I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions. If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. I have similar views, although I admit I take it a few steps further. I've been very close to many homosexual couples myself and have found just as you describe--something as good if not better than my own temple marriage. In many ways. I think as more realize the non-devilishness of such things, it'll become less and less a problem until people realize such relationships aren't really against God's will at all. That day will come. This sounds like how the devil presents his case. No easy way around it other than to say practicing homosexuality is a gross sin and unless one repents, will find his soul in an eternal hell.
Recommended Posts