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

[Zakuska]

Wow.... Zakuska...  Thanks so much for sharing the scripture, above.  Despite having read the Bible many years ago, that never stood out to me until now.

 

The portion I bolded and underlined above REALLY gives scriptural weight to the concept that gays and lesbians (e.k.a. "eunuchs") could be given membership and a place in the Celestial Kingdom, just as I've been theorizing for the last several years.  It's worth noting that their place shall be "better than sons or daughters," and they will likewise be given "an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off"--but it DOESN'T say they will become fruitful or multiply (a.k.a. that they'll miraculously 'become heterosexual and procreative').  Again, that matches what I've been saying that gay and lesbian sons and daughters of god would fulfill a distinct, different purpose than the "fruitful" trees of those that beget offspring of their own.

We do know the Eunuch was baptized in Acts 8 just after reading chapter 53 in Isaiah, Philip more than likely continued reading Isaiah with him and covered whats said in Isaiah 56 too.

This goes completely against Dueteronomy 23 proscription for "cutting off" (keeping them out of the congregation) gays, people who were barren, damaged in the stones etc.

Duet 23

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

2 A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

5 Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee.

6 Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.1

7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.

Interesting that Moses Married a Moabite, Ruth and her sister were Moabitesses so why did they get let into the congregation, did the Lord offer an exception?

If he can forgive the misstreatment of the Moabites toward Israel can he forgive the sins of a Homosexual?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[Deborah]

The portion I bolded and underlined above REALLY gives scriptural weight to the concept that gays and lesbians (e.k.a. "eunuchs") could be given membership and a place in the Celestial Kingdom, just as I've been theorizing for the last several years. 

 

And in fact I've heard church leaders say as much, but the key is they have to be living a moral (according to God and not the world) life. A eunuch by definition has no sexual relations with anyone.

[Teancum]

What's unfair and dodgy about it? This not a courtroom, and you are not a prosecutor or a judge.

The Savior, on at least one occasion I can think of, responded to a question with a question. Was he being unfair and dodgy?

 

Obviously this is not a courtroom.  But it seems to me it is more courteous to answer questions that are asked in a discussion then pose your questions back.   Tough concept for many here apparently.

[KevinG]

If he can forgive the misstreatment of the Moabites toward Israel can he forgive the sins of a Homosexual?

 

Absolutely.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

[Zakuska]

A eunuch by definition has no sexual relations with anyone.

Not quite true... there are 3 different types of Eunuchs identified by the Lord.

Matt 19

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: [Gays/Transgender]

and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: [Eunuchs with no genitalia]

and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. [fully functioning Eunuchs, but choose celebacy]

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

All of these are fully capable of sexual relations of one kind or another. Only 1 can produce offspring.

Lets face it... God doesn't want unwanted pregnancies. Those usually end in something more Abominable... Abortion & unloved Abandoned children.

If it cant produce the bad effects... no harm no fowl.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

" I have yet to meet a gay church member who felt that a life of celibacy was a viable option for them"

I have met a number of heterosexual church members who did feel a lifetime of celibacy was a viable option for them (and some who lived that option to their dying day as far as I can tell). Do you see your experience as limited or that homosexual church members look on celibacy in a different way that removes celibacy as an option for them?

[Teancum]

I haven't said a lot about this topic because there is not a lot to say.  I am kinda surprised that this thread is still going after 54 pages.  Here are my thoughts on this issue.

 

1.  There are 15 men that make all of the doctrinal and policies of the church.  Faithful members believe they speak for God himself.  Members don't get to be involved in the process.  So complaining about what these 15 men do is pointless.  Both members and non-members should accept what they say as being official church policy.  If you don't like it, move on.  

 

2. Most gays could care less what baptismal policy the church has for gays.  It is not like the church is viewed as a "gay friendly" church.  If a gay couple wants to attend church, the LDS church is not likely to be their first choice.  So this policy affects hardly anyone.  If gay couples don't like this policy, they should move on.  

 

3.  If you are a member of the church and you are hoping for the church leaders to be more inclusive of gays, you are probably going to be consistently disappointed.  Those 15 men have set the church parameters for gay membership in the church.  It is probably not going to change.  No acceptance of gay couples, no gay temple marriage, no eternal plan for gays.  Everyone has to become straight or the plan of salvation doesn't work.

 

4.  What difference does it really make if a child or anyone else for that matter is baptized at age 8.  Church membership is so incredibly small among the general population that virtually 99% of God's children will be waiting longer than 18 years to be baptized.  This is how the plan of salvation is structured.  God doesn't expect many people to be members of the church in this life anyway.  It can't be all that important to anyone's salvation anyway.  If it was important, God would have an easier way for people to find the gospel.

 

 

1:  Are these 15 men fallible or not?  Can't have it both ways.

 

2:  How many gay LDS people have you discussed this with?  How about young people who come to realize they are gay and part of a church that clearly has hostile policies towards them?  And how nice of you to invite some to just move on.  But I guess classifying those who act on their homosexual tendencies are essentially being asked to move on since they are automatically apostates (What an ugly word). 

 

3:  You are right. The unique LDS plan of salvation/exaltation does not work for homosexuals.  So let's kick em all out unless they comply.

 

4:  Really?  So why bother doing missionary work then?

[Calm]

He repented for commiting Adultuery against his wife not for having an Alternative lifestyle.

And you know this how?

[Zakuska]

And you know this how?

Because he was married when he had his Gay affair with a Sailor so by definition what he did was "Adultury".

Joseph Fielding Smith (Church Partiarch)

 

Joseph Fielding Smith (January 30, 1899 – August 29, 1964) was presiding patriarch and a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1942 until 1946.

Smith was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, the son of LDS Church apostle Hyrum M. Smith and Ida Elizabeth Bowman. He went to school at the University of Utah, where he majored in Theater. In 1929, he married Ruth Pingree.[1] Together they had seven children, Ruth, Ida, R.P. "Joe", Denis, Lynne, Hyrum, and Pauline.[2]

At the age of 43, Smith was ordained a high priest and Patriarch to the Church on October 8, 1942, by church president Heber J. Grant. He served only four years before it was reported by the church that he had requested to be released from his position. His request was granted by church president George Albert Smith on October 6, 1946, with the church announcing that Smith was released for reasons of "ill health."[3] After Smith's death it was discovered that the patriarch had been involved in a homosexual affair with a 21-year-old U.S. Navy sailor, who was also a Latter-day Saint.[4]

After being released, Smith took his family to Honolulu, Hawaii, where he continued to raise his family. For a time, Smith was not allowed to hold any position in the church, but reportedly was "treated with compassion."[5] In 1957, Smith was again allowed to serve in the church after he had forsaken his homosexual behavior.[6] Shortly thereafter, Smith's wife Ruth wrote a letter to church president David O. McKay expressing her gratitude for the church's help, stating, "I know, better than anyone else, the trial our family has been to you and to the authorities."[6] In 1957 and after, Smith served as a member of his stake's high council.

Smith died and was buried in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Smith's grandson Jefferson Smith served in the Oregon House of Representatives from 2008 to 2012.

Smith shares a name with his grandfather, Joseph F. Smith, and his uncle, Joseph Fielding Smith, both of whom served as apostles and later as church presidents.

 

The church tried to save face by concealing the real reason he was dismissed from his position by printing in the new Era he was released because of "Ill health".  This gave him time to repent of his Gay/Adultury.  He later became a Stake President in Hawaii.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

 but it DOESN'T say they will become fruitful or multiply (a.k.a. that they'll miraculously 'become heterosexual and procreative').  Again, that matches what I've been saying that gay and lesbian sons and daughters of god would fulfill a distinct, different purpose than the "fruitful" trees of those that beget offspring of their own.

But are they not mourning that they are a "dry tree"? It seems implied to me in the comfort given that this will no longer be true, which seems to imply as well they become procreative.

[Deborah]

Obviously this is not a courtroom.  But it seems to me it is more courteous to answer questions that are asked in a discussion then pose your questions back.   Tough concept for many here apparently.

 

Good grief. The question was asked of Storm Rider, but by implication HJ was implying there was harm. I was asking him what harm he saw.You want my answer, no I don't feel there is harm if it is handled correctly.

[Calm]

.If it cant produce the bad effects... no harm no fowl.

Are you suggesting that any sex that can't produce children is not considered a sin even if it would be is children could be a result?

[Calm]

Because he was married when he had his Gay affair with a Sailor so by definition what he did was "Adultury".

Joseph Fielding Smith (Church Partiarch)

 

 

The church tried to save face by concealing the real reason he was dismissed from his position by printing in the new Era he was released because of Ill health.

So you are saying he wasn't living an "alternative lifestyle", so did not have to repent of it?

Perhaps you should consider the Church was primarily protecting him and his family given the attitudes towards both adultery and homosexual behaviour.

[Teancum]

I suspect it was because those inside and outside the church were starting to believe it might be an acceptable alternative lifestyle, even within the church. 

 

 

Bingo!!  This policy is simply a strong message... .it is NOT acceptable to be gay or enter into gay marriage. Because acceptably of such has risen from 24% to 36% among Latter day Saints the LDS leaders decided to send a strong message.

[Zakuska]

So you are saying he wasn't living an "alternative lifestyle", so did not have to repent of it?

Perhaps you should consider the Church was primarily protecting him and his family given the attitudes towards both adultery and homosexual behaviour.

Possibly.

 

Oh I agree completely there... "Protect the Innocent".

[Zakuska]

Are you suggesting that any sex that can't produce children is not considered a sin even if it would be is children could be a result?

 

Sexual sin is just like anything else.  It all depends on the context and intent.

 

Is a man going into a fertility clinic to get checked commiting sin? 

Is a woman who goes to the OBGYN?

 

Is my doctor commiting homosexual acts when he gives me my yearly physical?

 

How about the nurse/doctor helping my wife deliver a baby?

 

At what point does touching ones own private parts or that of others sinful?

 

Sexual sin is all about intent. That's why Rape and Pedophilia are sinful, But parents who have an accident and have a child and then treat that child differently/poorly the rest of their life (happend to my niece) is just as sinful. Everyone deserves love. Even Homosexuals. As lady cluck once said... "Love Conquers all".

 

That's why Elizabeth Smart was able to go on a Mission.

 

Onan spilled on the floor, but that wasn't his sin for sleeping with his dead brothers wife.  It was his "intent" not to provide his brother an heir against Gods commandments that was sinful. God's law required him to sleep with someone who he was not married to.

 

I wonder if that has ever been tried by anyone in the church as an excuse for sleeping with your widowed sister in-law?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously this is not a courtroom.  But it seems to me it is more courteous to answer questions that are asked in a discussion then pose your questions back.   Tough concept for many here apparently.

So the Savior was being discourteous here, then?

 

 

 23 ¶And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

 

[Zakuska]

So the Savior was being discourteous here, then?

 

And... You're not the savior.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

Huh...  Funny how anatomy can make a world of difference in the metaphors we use...

 

 I would say the people who are convinced about same-sex marriage acceptance in the Church is inevitable have more open hearts.

 

Being "convinced" of something doesn't sound especially "open" to me.

 

Given that what they are "convinced" of is plainly contrary to the unambiguous position of the Church, as well as being contrary to doctrine, the word "defiant" comes to mind.

 

There are other suitable terms, of course. But since telling the truth is the surest way to incur moderator wrath around here -- especially on this issue -- I shall keep my own counsel as to what they might be.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

And... You're not the savior.

 

3 Nephi 27:27

 

Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.

 

Do you think that telling someone he's not the Saviour is a valid criticism when that person is following the Saviour's example?

 

We don't.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 Nephi 27:27

 

Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.

 

Do you think that telling someone he's not the Saviour is a valid criticism when that person is following the Saviour's example?

 

We don't.

Are you channeling Scott, or Golem?

[Calm]

Onan spilled on the floor, but that wasn't his sin for sleeping with his dead brothers wife.  It was his "intent" not to provide his brother an heir against Gods commandments that was sinful. God's law required him to sleep with someone who he was not married to.

 

I wonder if that has ever been tried by anyone in the church as an excuse for sleeping with your widowed sister in-law?

Levirate marriage was marriage, not just sleeping with the widow of one's brother. They married the widows, but the children...at least the first born son, not sure of the rest, were considered the dead brother's.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................

 

1.  There are 15 men that make all of the doctrinal and policies of the church.  Faithful members believe they speak for God himself.  Members don't get to be involved in the process.  So complaining about what these 15 men do is pointless.  Both members and non-members should accept what they say as being official church policy.  If you don't like it, move on.

Not true.  There are many members (and even non-members) who have a strong effect on LDS Church policy and doctrine.  Some because of the very fertile articles and books which they publish, others due to the quiet consultation they bring to the Brethren, and others due to the yeoman work they do as Church employees (Church Historian, and his staff, for example).  Complaints and problems often influence what the Brethren do.  A prime example is the Black Priesthood question, which bedeviled so many Church leaders and members beginning in the 1950s.  There was a veritable whirlwind of controversy, which came to a head with the need to decide the issue when a new Brazilian temple was about to open.  The lesson: The ordinary member should express his views (respectfully), and revelation only comes when needed and asked for.

........................................

3.  If you are a member of the church and you are hoping for the church leaders to be more inclusive of gays, you are probably going to be consistently disappointed.  Those 15 men have set the church parameters for gay membership in the church.  It is probably not going to change.  No acceptance of gay couples, no gay temple marriage, no eternal plan for gays.  Everyone has to become straight or the plan of salvation doesn't work.

Wrong.  The plan of salvation is for everyone.  No exceptions.  Homosexuals can come to LDS services unhindered, and regularly do so.  They do not have to become heterosexual in order for the plan of salvation to apply.  They can be baptized and hold offices and callings.  The are only prohibited homosexual sex.

 

4.  What difference does it really make if a child or anyone else for that matter is baptized at age 8.  Church membership is so incredibly small among the general population that virtually 99% of God's children will be waiting longer than 18 years to be baptized.  This is how the plan of salvation is structured.  God doesn't expect many people to be members of the church in this life anyway.  It can't be all that important to anyone's salvation anyway.  If it was important, God would have an easier way for people to find the gospel.

LDS membership in the world is indeed quite small, but God has never chosen his people because they were many.  Indeed, as with the Jews, his chosen people are typically small in number.  Always have been.

 

Why would we expect it to be otherwise?  The plan of salvation applies to everyone ever born, and one does not have to be a member of the LDS Church in order to be exalted by God.  Everyone has an equal chance.  God is no respecter of persons.

 

Where did you ever come up with such a false version of the plan of salvation?

[Jeanne]

I wish I could agree with you. It would make things much easier all around but I can't.

But the Savior would understand with acceptance of an open heart,

[The Nehor]

But the Savior would understand with acceptance of an open heart,

 

Yes, the same way he accepted the Pharisees unconditionally.