Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Mystery Meat]

No prophet has delivered a message from God claiming that same sex marriage is wrong. 

 

On the other hand, we have Jesus saying good fruit doesn't come from a bad tree. 

 

I guess you could rely on prooftexts about gay fornication/prostitution, but I don't know what that would have to do with gay marriage. 

 

Please provide scriptural support for SSM. Please also provide one scriptural example of a gay couple that was sanctioned by God. 

 

I can provide countless examples of marriage and a pattern of a woman and a man being married and such marriage being ordained of God.

[sunstoned]

I posted a similar response before reading your post above.  

 

But I will add that I am definitely not okay with it.  Like a number of church members, even though I didn't like the slow pace, I could at least see that the Church was moving in the right direction post-2008.  This policy is damaging in the message that it sends, in particular, to our gay youth.  For that reason, I'll be more outspoken moving forward.

 

The one positive in all of this is that I tend to believe that this policy will ultimately go the way of the Church's efforts on Prop 8.  Instead of preventing legal recognition of gay marriage, Prop 8 helped pave the way for national gay marriage.  Similarly, this policy may have unintended consequences.

 

I second Mitch Mayne's hypothesis that maybe we, as a church, didn't learn the lessons we were supposed to from Prop 8.  So now, we'll learn them from this policy.  And maybe, just maybe, we'll get to where we are supposed to be -- even faster.

I think you might be right.  Often times the lesson comes line by line, precept by precept.

[rockpond]

The fruit of homosexuality is still sin and no amount of good parenting or love can ever make those family units eternal. And that is the fruit that matters above all. When judged through the lens of the restored gospel, these families are temporary and can never be eternal.

 

Love the circular reasoning it takes to get to this point:

 

Family units led by gay couples are sin... why?  Because they can't be eternal.  And why can't they be eternal?  Because we won't seal them in our temples... why?  Because it is a sin.

[rockpond]

The question then, can there possibly be eternal blessings contingent on marriage between a man and a woman which yield a uniquely important, exalting fruit?  It seems possible, doesn't it?

 

That's nice... for those of us born pre-disposed to a man-woman relationship.

 

And for those who are born pre-disposed to a homosexual orientation... I guess they just get left out of such blessings.

[halconero]

Yeah - it's not very edifying for me either.  I should also find a better use of my time.

Which is sad. I joined the board around 3 years ago and the tone has shifted considerably in that time. I found there to be more assumptions of good character and intent, and the threads discussed had more to do with the doctrines, ordinances and history of the church than the intense focus it has now.

[Zakuska]

You are trying to take the focus off of homosexuality and gay marriage and you did not address my point.

Change focus? Not at all, You are the one that brought up Murder. I simply addressed your point directly.

You said murder was a sin before during and after the Law of Moses was given and I refuted your point by showing several verses after the law was given showing God bringing down the house with acalades of joy and showering Phinehas with eternal gifts and Priesthoods for cold blooded "Righteous" murder.

I can similarly show you verses where lieing and stealing were aloud and even divinely commanded in some instances, both before, during and after the Law was given. This also refutes the point you were trying to make. (CFR me and I'll ablige)

To your second point...

 

" We have no such evidence that eating shrimp, as you say, was a violation of God's word before or after the Law of Moses. Therefore, your comparison is weak at best, downright misleading at worst."

Your assertion is patently false and actually proves my point even further. Because prohibition of not eating shrimp is only found once in Leviticus and no where else in scripture all kinds of red flags should go off in your head and they did for Peter and Paul.

When the question came up on whether the gentile converts should be following the Levitical Kosher laws no such restrictions on eating shrimp was given to the church. Nor where any of the Marriage restrictions in Leviticus 18 (which bring it into question).

We read...

Acts 15

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So we can safely say that the prohibition to not eat shell fish, and a whole crap load of other restriction mandated in Leviticus 11 & Deuteronomy was an "invention" of the Jewish Rabbis and Pharasees. And if that was an Invention... what other sins did they manufacture whole cloth in their "little black books of policies". (aka Dueteronomy and Leviticus).

And to prove I know what Im talking about, contra your bald faced assertion and veiled accusation of calling me a liar.

Heres a Judaism 101 course for you so you can learn about Jewish Kosher laws that are practriced since Moses came down from the mountian to this very day:

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

On that page you will find:

Animals that may not be eaten

Of the "beasts of the earth" (which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents), you may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud. Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6. Any land mammal that does not have both of these qualities is forbidden. The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications. Cattle, sheep, goats, deer and bison are kosher.

Of the things that are in the waters, you may eat anything that has fins and scales. Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9. Thus, shellfish such as lobsters, oysters, shrimp, clams and crabs are all forbidden. Fish like tuna, carp, salmon and herring are all permitted

So tell me Mystery Meat, have you ever eaten "Abominable" Shrimp, "Abominable" Lobster, "Abominable" Crab or "Abominable" Oysters? How about some "Abominable" Bacon?

If so... Your are an abomination and have got some repenting to do ASAP!

Hey... I know... we can call you the "Abominable Mystery Meat"

FYI... I was once taught by a Jewish friend of mine about how Jewish Kosher laws are handled in the USA. He showed me how you can tell just by looking at food product packaging in the grocery store if something is Kosher or not. Products will have little symbols on them that represent which Jewish Rabbi Association certified the Food Processing plant as Levitically Kosher.

Read more about that here:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/shopping-for-kosher-food/

 

Did we forget about Romans already?

This is a lot of twisting to prove Levitical Law on Homosexuality doesn't matter, when it is condemned outside of the old testament.

I prefer to take the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, etc. along with the counsel of living Prophets and Apostles, along with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. When I am of the spirit to discount one of those sources and find fault with it, I usually find I'm playing into the hands of the adversary and falling into a false dilemma.

No I did not forget.

If the Old testament has been deliberatly mis-translated/mis-interpreted as I beleive Gen 19 has been (for Millenia now) then everything that comes after it such as Leviticus the New Testament and Romans etc. which is quoting those mis-translations/mis-interpretaions to draw their conclusions from are in error too. Even the Book of Mormon would not be exempt from this since it does quote some of the OT they had at the time of Jeremiah. This would also include our current Leaders because they are using the same faulty interpretation of Gen 19 to start out from. If you start with garbage your not going to get a bar of gold out the other end.

People need to start reading their scriptures with Spiritual eyes! When they read Genesis 19 rather than jumping to the carnal conclusion that its all about gay sex. Maybe if they got their minds out of the gutters they would learn the actual spiritual truth about the story. People bring far too many pre-concieved notions and prejudices to the text (ie gay sex is bad... oogity boogity... so sodomites are scary dudes) when they read it.

I dont know a single verse in the BOM or the D&C that address SSM or Homosexuality. Do you?

Have you ever stopped to ask the question that maybe gays have been mis-treated and excluded from the human family/experience for far too long? Is it to much to ask for the Lords mercy and let them be rather than huck spiritual Javelins at them and rub salt in the open wounds every chance we get?

 

One could instead conclude that Abraham simply wasn't subject to laws that came centuries after his day....just as we aren't subject to many laws that came before our day.

This doesn't quite work for us Mormons, modern revelation tells us that Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, and all the Dispensation heads where all given the exact same Gospel Rules and Regulations as every other dispensation of the Gospel have been given.

This was Printed in Independence Missouri and I think it might be paraphrasing the Book of Moses in our Quads.

Thus we have the assurance, and so also may all the world of mankind, that Adam had the gospel preached unto him, and he believed, and was baptized, and became a son of God, and was ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to preach repentance unto his seed, and teach them the things of the kingdom.

From this time till Enoch, from Enoch till Noah, from Noah till Melchizedek, and Abraham, and from Abraham till Moses, the order of the high priesthood, on earth, continued, and the gospel was preached.

Adam, according to the commandment, taught his children the plan of salvation, and some of them believed, for Abel was righteous and the Lord had respect unto his offering. Enoch, after he had gathered the people of the Lord, continued his preaching in righteousness, and they builded a city, even Zion.

THE EVENING AND THE MORNING STAR

Vol. I. Independence, Mo, April, 1833, No. 11.

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ems/v1n11.htm

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[Saint Sinner]

I try not to be overly critical. I'll leave that to Valentinus. However, I'm not a fan of these demonstrations (I got myself up to date on the purpose and scope of such events) because they appear to be tabloid style circuses and a far cry from any type of grass roots protest or activism. I'm probably being a jerk about this but it doesn't make sense to me to publicize something that would seem to be deeply personal and not treated like a spectacle. People irritate me.

[Bernard Gui]

I should have thought that the Law of Chastity had pretty much been repealed or abandoned by Western civilization, which leaves the Mormons still hanging in there with that law as a major part of the convenantal obligation taken at the Temple. However, it is all voluntary, as it should be. I see no likelihood of the Mormons ever repealing it.

I agree. I made those points in the opening post. My questions are for those members who criticize the Church policies regarding same-sex marriage and the recent handbook changes....what do they want the Church to do with the law of chastity? So far, none have answered. I sincerely would like to know.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

That is not the point.  If this is truly Christ's church, then their should be great concern that people are leaving.  

So nice of you to show concern, but you really ought to know that people leave the LDS faith every day, while others join it.  It is called freedom of choice (which has not always existed) and that is a good thing.  It is the most natural thing in the world.  To be greatly concerned would be silly.  We must learn to take the ebb and flow of reality without panic and alarm.  Those who want to get off (like Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris did) should have that right, without question.  Of course many of them return to the fold later (as did Oliver and Martin).  Since this is truly the Church of Jesus Christ, we await your return as well.

[Bernard Gui]

I bet Charlie Sheen could've used the law of chastity. He has HIV thanks to porn stars and prostitutes. It's not winning to disobey the law of chastity. There are consequences.

Indeed, there are consequences, but there are a lot of resources being directed to eliminating them.

[Robert F. Smith]

Chastity laws should be repealed.

As I said, they have already been repealed by Western Civilization.  So what are you talking about?

[Bernard Gui]

As I said, they have already been repealed by Western Civilization.  So what are you talking about?

Probably referring to laws that used to be in place to enforce sexual morality.

[why me]

I should have thought that the Law of Chastity had pretty much been repealed or abandoned by Western civilization, which leaves the Mormons still hanging in there with that law as a major part of the convenantal obligation taken at the Temple.  However, it is all voluntary, as it should be.  I see no likelihood of the Mormons ever repealing it.

I think that the law of chasity may not be honored by many people and also by quite a few churches these days, but the recent news should cause some reflection:

 

http://nypost.com/2015/11/17/std-epidemic-at-record-levels-in-us/

 

Premarital sex is out of control. Good that the lds church is still keeping the law for people to follow or mormons would soon find themselves in the figures for STDs.

[LDSGuy]

It seems like we have forgotten what a covenant is. God sets the terms and we accept them. It's not up to a vote. There is doctrine, principle, and application. Application can vary to a degree, but it cannot violate the core doctrine or principle.

[Rivers]

I agree. I made those points in the opening post. My questions are for those members who criticize the Church policies regarding same-sex marriage and the recent handbook changes....what do they want the Church to do with the law of chastity? So far, none have answered. I sincerely would like to know.

I think a lot of people would like to see the gospel definition of marriage change. The church still defines marriage as the union of male and female.

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

I think the "anonymous" thing is a cop out.  Just a way that they can attack me rather than my positions.  It wouldn't matter if I posted my real name here.  What would that possibly change?

 

 

 

It shouldn't be a "cop out."   An anonymous post should be acknowledged for that weakness; a poster unwilling to put a name to his or her position.  But, even anonymous posters might have something to say.  It is my opinion, for the little that it is worth, that an anonymous post which demeans something, like a person or somebody's religious faith, is just a bunch of bunkum.  So as a result my views can look odd; I admire Dehlin to a small extent because he is not fearful about his views.  I don't admire a lot of posters here who are pro-Church who are anonymous.  

 

God says he will destroy those who defame "in secret," Psalm 101:5, yet He approves secret charitable acts.  You (the collective "you") may say, well, what I have to say in criticism of [the Church, the Brethren, John Dehlin, critics of the Church] isn't defamation, so I don't have much to worry about, but I'd start worrying.  So, for that reason, I tell you that I don't think much of an anonymous post.  But I am in a minority.

  Edited November 18, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

Ex.  The use of medical marijuana.

 

You haven't picked a doctrine that will explain to a 7 year old why she can't be baptized due to her parents being gay.  That was the question.

How did they go about asking the FP about the medical use of marijuana, and how is this on a par with asking the FP about the recently added policy? Is there another, perhaps better example that mirrors what we are seeing with the kinds of questions and concerns you have over the new policy?

 

I did pick a doctrine that parents can use, noting that any correct doctrine applies, and how. Parents do not determine nor minister to each child's unique need for an explanation by formula, but by inspiration. Such ministry is not a single injection of data, but an ongoing process involving preparation and follow up. what goes for the parents goes for the priesthood leader and other supports as welcomed into the conversation.

 

Please move the dialogue forward (like I did in my questions above) rather than badger me for an answer I gave--thank you.

[CV75]

We already had a policy in place to prevent a child from being baptized without a supportive family.

Can you copy and paste it for us? I don't think it addresses getting permission from parents whose lifestyle so thoroughly and intentionally rejects those most fundamental teachings of the Church (such as traditional and temple marriage) that culminate in the exaltation of families.

[Tacenda]

How did they go about asking the FP about the medical use of marijuana, and how is this on a par with asking the FP about the recently added policy? Is there another, perhaps better example that mirrors what we are seeing with the kinds of questions and concerns you have over the new policy?

I did pick a doctrine that parents can use, noting that any correct doctrine applies, and how. Parents do not determine nor minister to each child's unique need for an explanation by formula, but by inspiration. Such ministry is not a single injection of data, but an ongoing process involving preparation and follow up. what goes for the parents goes for the priesthood leader and other supports as welcomed into the conversation.

Please move the dialogue forward (like I did in my questions above) rather than badger me for an answer I gave--thank you.

Members should do as a lot of posters here have said about following the prophet or church. Pray about it and get their own revelation. If the child really wants to be baptized and they've exhausted every means through the church. Maybe try another way. Either privately or another church. But there again, it probably means more to be baptized in the same church as their peers, and not miss out on temple trips for baptizing for the dead. So it's probably a no win situation.

[rockpond]

Can you copy and paste it for us? I don't think it addresses getting permission from parents whose lifestyle so thoroughly and intentionally rejects those most fundamental teachings of the Church (such as traditional and temple marriage) that culminate in the exaltation of families.

 

I was referring to the parental consent section:

 

16.3.6 Minors

 

A minor child, as defined by local laws, may be baptized and confirmed only when both of the following conditions are met:

 

1. Consent has been given by the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview may ask for this consent to be in writing if he feels it will help prevent misunderstandings.

 

If you are going to add that the parents' lifestyle also cannot be "rejecting" fundamental teachings of the church than that ought to be applied to all situations, not just gay parents.

 

But your assertion here is part of why this policy is so hurtful -- this idea that gay parents in particular cannot be supportive of their child being a member of the church but we don't have any prohibitions against baptizing children with parents who are not members, parents who are not active, parents who are not keeping their own covenants, parents who are in adulterous relationships, etc.

[JLHPROF]

A lot of people want the gospel definition of marriage to change, but that isn't something man can do. God revealed marriage to the earth (which had existed from all eternity) and was pretty clear in Genesis that it was for male and female to be joined by him.

So we can pass any law we want, change any policy we want, protest, proclaim, and declare. It won't change what marriage actually is. There is no such thing as SSM and never will be. Just SS couples outside the bounds of marriage practicing an act that is sinful.

Nothing man can do to change that, and an eternal unchanging God isn't going to alter an ordinance that predates his own existence to meet our societal demands.

[Gray]

Please provide scriptural support for SSM. Please also provide one scriptural example of a gay couple that was sanctioned by God. 

 

I can provide countless examples of marriage and a pattern of a woman and a man being married and such marriage being ordained of God.

 

Other than broad principles taught in scripture, I can't provide specific support. I also can't provide specific support in scripture for space exploration, brain surgery or ordaining 12 year olds to the Aaronic priesthood. 

[Sevenbak]

And now once again growth has slowed especially in the industrialized world. Why is that?

Personally I think it's because the time of the Gentiles is rapidly coming to an end. I think the house of Israel is about to come into play big-time.

[Meadowchik]

That's nice... for those of us born pre-disposed to a man-woman relationship.

 

And for those who are born pre-disposed to a homosexual orientation... I guess they just get left out of such blessings.

 

(Sappy post warning! Not on purpose, I just realize that I am sappier-than normal today. Go figure.)

 

I think I can reasonably guarantee you that every single person in a marriage significantly feels indisposed to fulfilling all obligations during the course of their marriage.  It's not easy for anyone.  And attraction also comes and goes, as does intimacy, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual, even spiritual.

 

Have we been told to expect a large proportion of people to attain exaltation?  They are the only ones who enjoy a marital relationship extended into the eternities.  Something tells me that these couples, once they've reached that point, they've followed Christ's steps in consecrating all they have to God, their desires included.

 

Whatever way we think about romance and marriage, whatever apex of righteousness we may possibly attain in this life, whatever archetype of marital happiness and perfection that we can humanly conceptualize, the oneness that God has planned for His exalted far transcends that. I don't think we'll be that recognizable if we're able to look at ourselves from the same eyes we use to see today.

 

To me, the most important thing I can hold onto, the surest, is to strive to live my convictions about what God wants for my life.

 

So that, regardless of what other people say or feel and regardless of what I myself want, the most important is to discover and live what God wants for me.  That's how Christ lived.  We'll all have to let predispositions fall by the wayside at some point.

 

So, like I believe I said to you on another occasion, (on second thought, I think I said it to buckeye) in our Church fellowship and as brothers and sisters in the world, I believe we should give each other space, and room to grow into the people God wants us to be, edifying each other as much as we can along the way.  Right now, this may mean excommunication for same-sex married couples in the Church.  Even then, they're still our brothers and sisters, and we can learn from each other, and hopefully one side or the other or both will learn how to bridge the divide.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Meadowchik

[hagoth7]

...Instead of preventing legal recognition of gay marriage, Prop 8 helped pave the way for national gay marriage....

Interesting claim. Is there any substantiation to back up that assertion?