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

[rockpond]

Because it seems so many are refusing to get the message.

 

That would be my guess, anyway.

 

You think there were too many children of gay parents being baptized prior to this policy?

[CV75]

You think there were too many children of gay parents being baptized prior to this policy?

Who knows? But the questions asked of the Brethren have come up for a reason.

[rockpond]

Who knows? But the questions asked of the Brethren have come up for a reason.

 

Okay, so you agree that there must be cases of children of supportive gay parents who want them to get baptized?

[stemelbow]

It's true that revelation comes in response to inquiry, but only when God is disposed to bestow it. President McKay prayed for revelation on the priesthood policy but did not feel impressed to change it, according to the Gospel Topics essay, though it was clear to him and prophets before and after him that change would come one day. To All the clamoring in the world will not change the mind of God on the matter of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

Added to that we must also acknowledge that even prophets and apostles see through a glass darkly (Paul said, including himself, "For now we see through a glass, darkly" -1 Cor:13:12). And they err when it comes to doctrine at times. Bruce R. McConkie put it "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." For even he acknowledged that prophets and apostles speak presumptuously at times. It has happened, and if it has, it is likely it will happen again. We may very well be talking about an issue that they have spoken presumptuously on. And its ok. We are, as they are, after all, human. And we must deal with that weakness as it comes.

It seems obvious we don't know a whole lot about this issue. It used to be that gay people were spoken of as evil, inherently. It was often suggested that they could change. That their sexuality was a choice. They simply didn't have to choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. They were directed through therapy sessions that did little more than torture them, it seems. NOw the Church and it's leaders have backed off some. Admitting to change them is not likely or in most cases possible. Suggesting it is probably best if they stay single and celibate rather than get married, since such past advice has caused many problems. They've admitted, though they've spoken with authority on the matter, that sexuality is not a choice. We know not if sexuality is an eternal thing. We presume to know because it makes sense to our finite understandings.

There is still too much we simply don't understand. I'd rather wait for a time when more light and knowledge is had and everything can be put in it's proper perspective. We simply don't have that now.

[CV75]

Okay, so you agree that there must be cases of children of supportive gay parents who want them to get baptized?

Of course there must be (as well as cases of children wanting their parents baptized), but that doesn’t make such baptism something to accommodate or approve, per policy.

[rockpond]

Of course there must be (as well as cases of children wanting their parents baptized), but that doesn’t make such baptism something to accommodate or approve, per policy.

 

Agreed.  I was just trying to counter the earlier assertion that no such cases were likely to exist.  That conclusion made me wonder why they would have even written the policy.

[california boy]

I personally know 3 gay men who are active in the church, married to women, and who have fathered 13 children between them.

It isn't easy for them or for their wives, but they all say it is worth it.

 

Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the sake of the gospel, though I suspect when all is said and done they will find it was not much of a sacrifice when compared with the reward.

 

I have known a lot more than three gay men who were active in the church, married to a woman and had lots of children when I was active in Everegreen.  Everyone thought they were a great example on how to deal with being gay in the church.  They have all ended up in divoce except one.  I was married for over 20 years.  Time will see how this plays out.  There is a very good reason why the church does not think your plan is a good one.

[Deborah]

Well with that caveat, then I think it is safe to say that God never expected almost all of His children to be ready to accept the gospel while on earth.  

Interesting perspective.  Kinda gives a different slant on this whole plan that was instituted before the foundation of the earth.

 

Well, when you consider how many people lived before the gospel was restored and how many are still living today who will never have an opportunity to hear the message, yes I think we can say that with certainty.

 

I believe, based on ideas heard from GA's and the scriptures, that the gospel was restored for the primary purpose of bringing the Priesthood and ordinances back to the earth and to have a people to administer these ordinances to both living and dead. Once this administration is set up the power to bring salvation to all mankind is set in motion. The fact that there are few on this earth to carry out this responsibility doesn't matter. We have to keep in mind that in heaven the missionary work is also being done to prepare people for when their ordinances are done. It is such a bigger picture then we can often comprehend.

 

The growth in work for the dead, and especially of families gathering their own names has exploded in the last few years. My DIL who is a convert has so many names she has to have her husband take them to the temple to have others do the work. The work is truly expanding and given some of my DIL's experiences there are those on the other side helping this.

[Deborah]

I might also add that the explosion in technology has greatly aided in our ability to gather names. When I was working in the temple office we had so many baptisms being done by youth that it would have taken days to record all these were it not for the technology. All are working toward God's ends.

[california boy]

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.

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.

 

 

So in the long run, where do you think this is all headed.  Because shades of pushback against the church have already begun just like what happened on the black issue.  Saw this this morning in the news.

 

 

15 SCOTUS Gay Marriage Plaintiffs Call for PBS, Performer Boycott of Mormon Tabernacle Christmas Concert

[Tacenda]

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?

Hello Zakuska,

 

This morning I was reading a post by you that was so fantastic I wanted to stand up and cheer.  It was about the Bible and homosexuality.  You pointed out word meanings in the scriptures, that show it's more pedophilia, not homosexuality that is mentioned in the Bible's Sodom and Gomorrah story.

I wanted to ask if I could use it elsewhere, on the street or on another board, anywhere!  But now I can't find it.  I can't even remember what thread, I just know it was locked.  And I so wanted to put a clapping guy smiley face in response!

 

I wonder if you saved your work elsewhere?  And if I can have a copy?  Or put the jist of it in this thread perhaps.

Thanks for all your efforts on topics, you're a walking encyclopedia!   

 

Also, I tried PM'ing you first but it wouldn't let me, maybe your inbox is full? 

[Zakuska]

Hello Zakuska,

 

This morning I was reading a post by you that was so fantastic I wanted to stand up and cheer.  It was about the Bible and homosexuality.  You pointed out word meanings in the scriptures, that show it's more pedophilia, not homosexuality that is mentioned in the Bible's Sodom and Gomorrah story.

I wanted to ask if I could use it elsewhere, on the street or on another board, anywhere!  But now I can't find it.  I can't even remember what thread, I just know it was locked.  And I so wanted to put a clapping guy smiley face in response!

 

I wonder if you saved your work elsewhere?  And if I can have a copy?  Or put the jist of it in this thread perhaps.

Thanks for all your efforts on topics, you're a walking encyclopedia!   

 

Also, I tried PM'ing you first but it wouldn't let me, maybe your inbox is full? 

Sure... here it is...

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66517-handbook-update-gay-marriage-apostasy-resignations-merged-thread/?p=1209563773

[Tacenda]

Every body knows the 8th Article of Faith:

 

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;

 

So have our KJV interpreters really got things right for us?

 

I'd like to go over something Paul wrote, he gave a list of people who won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.

 

1 Corinthians 9

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.

And such were some of you:

but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

Here Paul gives us a list of sins and unabashedly tells us that there were members of the church who lived a gay lifestyle at least up to the point they got baptised.

 

However, Has this list of No-NOs been "translated" correctly?

 

I did some digging in the greek and I think you might be suprised what I have found.

 

There are four things in the list above that have to do with sexual relations and sin.

 

fornicators, (People who have sex outside of Marriage)

idolaters,   (Possible eluding to ritual sex in the temples of Idols [Temple Prostitutes])

adulterers,  (Married People who have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse)

effeminate,  (Gays)

abusers of themselves with mankind (Homosexuals)

 

I thought to my self... if this is a list of deadly sins... why would it be so redundant? When we do bullet lists on web pages at work we tend not to be redundant like that. Why the 2 references to gay relations? Something seems odd here.

 

So I went and looked up those words in the Greek and Strongs... Lexicon:

 

 

Why would Paul be condeming a soft docile "boy" as being a sinner?

 

And then something caught my eye... "pederast" in 2a1. What is that word?

 

So I looked it up on Google...

 

 

And sure enough... its talking about gay sex right?

 

You might think that but you would be wrong.  This is talking about a specific type of relationship between Male partners.  Its right in the definition.

 

"relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male"

 

I submit that with this information in mind the KJV rendering of "effeminate" is a very poor rendering indeed, considering the context and meaning. I further submit that God wouldn't codemn the "Abused" in such a relationship (ie the pubescent or adolescent boy).

 

This would actually be better rendered as: 

 

  PEDOPHILE

 

In fact Pedastre comes from the same root as the English word PEDOPHILE.

 

This makes what the Savior himself said about child sex abusers of either gender so much more meaningful.

 

Math 18:6

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

The next word is...

 

 

And its used in this part of what Paul said "abusers of themselves with mankind".

 

I thought to myself... This definately is about gay sex right? It's gotta be. Surely.

 

But then I looked the word up on Google and this was among the definitions.

 

Here again we have the Older/Dominant Male in a male-male relationship identified.

Could this be talking about Pedofilia again?

But then I thought to myself. "abuser" and "mankind"

"mankind" doesn't necessarily mean Male only... mankind can often include "women" in the definition.

Then I found out that "Arsenokoitēs" has been used through history to also identify a certian type of Male-Female sexual relationship.

So we have a dominant Male in a sexual relationship that could include males and/or females.

I submit that with this in mind the context suggests that "Arsenokoitēs" should be rendered in modern English as:

RAPIST

Thus we come to this conclusion... a better rendering of Pauls lists would be...

fornicators,

idolaters,

adulterers,

pedophiles,

rapists,

thieves,

coveters,

drunkards,

revilers,

extortioners,

That would fit so much better the context in which Paul makes his list of no-nos and nothing is redundant. So its not that homosexual relations are the sin its the ABUSE involved in the act.

This also makes the Sodom and Gamorrah story make SOOOO much more sense. We know the crowd wasn't just Men... who wanted to "Know" the Angels... women were involved too.

Gen 19

 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

 

So you can't say the story is about a Gay gang that wanted to rape Lot and the Angels.

 

We also know that Lot sent for his sons-in-law to bring their wives and leave the city with him (verse 12).

 

The Whole town of Sodom came and they didn't want to "know" the Angels sexually. They wanted to meet them abusively and rough them up.

 

Lot even says as much...

And Lot said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

 

Lot didn't offer his "virgin" daughters to entice the men sexually ... he offered his 2 remaining prepubescent children to the crowd to get beat up rather than his guests.

 

So Sodom and Gamorrah had nothing what so ever to do with homosexuals!

 

This would mean that a dedicated Gay couple could covenant to each other and no one else, who LOVE each other even though they might be a "Dry fig tree" who cannot reproduce. The master of the Vineyard can still touch their lives and bless them as the other Eunuchs in the Lords house. (Isaiah)

 

The thing I think that makes a "barren couple" whether Gay or Straight so much better than a heterosexual couple like myself, Is the ability they have to love a child who is not flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones.

 

Yes Heteros can adopt too and love a child just as much as a Gay couple.  But a gay couple is unique in that they will never have a child that is both of the parents' genetically. So personally I think they have a little edge over us straight people.

 

So with this information in mind I submit that homosexuality isn't a sin at all when engaged in concentually and with in the bonds of Marriage.

 

Not that I would want to, I'm covenanted to my wife.

It is my prayer that we as a church can rise above the prejudices of our protestant predecessors, who gave us our poor translations of the scriptures, and we can quit acting like a bunch of West Burrow Baptists toward our brothers and sisters of a homosexual nature. That we can eject this bad doctrine just like we did with the protestant imported curse of cain doctrine that caused the priesthood ban, And start loving our fellow men unconditionally of what ever sexual orientation.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

So your thought is that the Prophet's goal was to send a message by publishing something in a handbook that would then be leaked, misrepresented by people inside and outside of the church, and then have to be "clarified" a week later?

 

I guess we should be thanking John Dehlin and whoever leaked it originally on reddit.  Sounds like they helped out the Prophet with his plan.

In the same sense that Satan helps out God's plan by tempting us to evil and deserving of the same amount of gratitude.

[Jeanne]

Hello Zakuska,

 

This morning I was reading a post by you that was so fantastic I wanted to stand up and cheer.  It was about the Bible and homosexuality.  You pointed out word meanings in the scriptures, that show it's more pedophilia, not homosexuality that is mentioned in the Bible's Sodom and Gomorrah story.

I wanted to ask if I could use it elsewhere, on the street or on another board, anywhere!  But now I can't find it.  I can't even remember what thread, I just know it was locked.  And I so wanted to put a clapping guy smiley face in response!i have

 

I wonder if you saved your work elsewhere?  And if I can have a copy?  Or put the jist of it in this thread perhaps.

Thanks for all your efforts on topics, you're a walking encyclopedia!   

 

Also, I tried PM'ing you first but it wouldn't let me, maybe your inbox is full? 

I have also tried to PM Zabuska and it was no go....empty your box?  Hugs, Jeanne

[CV75]

Agreed.  I was just trying to counter the earlier assertion that no such cases were likely to exist.  That conclusion made me wonder why they would have even written the policy.

Oh... I only pop in every 75 pages or so LOL

[Jeanne]

I do understand that some who struggle with SSA can make it work with marriage to the opposite sex..some can make it..But I can't imagine any kind of true happiness that has a spouse thinking,.oh..I am second best..or I am his/her ticket to the Celestial Kingdom..what does that do to a marriage really?

[Calm]

Okay, so you agree that there must be cases of children of supportive gay parents who want them to get baptized?

It is possible there were bishops, leaders and parents who were concerned about baptizing children who had a gay parent in general so the pokicy was issued for questions about the eligible children, so they made it clear who wouldn't be eligible (unless exceptions were made) as that would be easier (being limited to one case) than listing allthose who were.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting perspective.  Thanks.

 

 

So after this very faithful celibate homosexual who wanders his entire life alone without an eternal companion dies,then what?  Is he still gay or does he magically become heterosexual and wants to spend eternity with a woman?  Sounds like the plan of salvation is only for heterosexuals to me.  You are either born heterosexual or you become one to fit into the plan of salvation after you die.

Of course, and this applies to nearly all humans, except that very few who have heard the Gospel and are part of the Church.  This applies to all heterosexuals and homosexuals, as well as to all other persons who fit into this or that niche of physiognomy, belief, orientation, etc.  All are judged based on their own particular place and time on this planet.  This life is a necessary experiential hurdle.  All must go through it, and many will complain of the unfairness of this or that problem they face.  In your case, the pain is real, but is not significant in the long view.

 

Your claim that "the plan of salvation is only for heterosexuals" seems rather odd in that context, almost as though you have no knowledge of LDS theology -- which can't be the case.  Right?  What am I missing here?

 

As I posted earlier, I never expect the church to be large either.  Why would I??

 

This is exactly what I said about the plan of salvation. 

 

As you can see, I am not addressing what happens after we die, but rather what happens on this earth.  There is no implication that what happens on earth is is the only opportunity to participate in the plan of salvation.  How odd that you would think I implied that.  I didn't.  What you can't dispute, and what I have stated is that being a member of the church in this life is not important to the VAST MAJORITY of God's children.

You appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth here, based on what you have said and are still saying.  Here is what you said and I responded to:

 

Quote

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

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.  They are only prohibited homosexual sex.

 

Quote

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?

[Scott Lloyd]

You think there were too many children of gay parents being baptized prior to this policy?

I don't know how you could infer that from what I posted.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do understand that some who struggle with SSA can make it work with marriage to the opposite sex..some can make it..But I can't imagine any kind of true happiness that has a spouse thinking,.oh..I am second best..or I am his/her ticket to the Celestial Kingdom..what does that do to a marriage really?

To conceive of that requires the realization that we will not always be subject to the limitations of mortality. I firmly believe (and I have statements of Church leaders to back me up) that same-sex attraction is a disorder that will not last beyond mortality. Thereafter, if the husband and wife are true and faithful to the gospel principles, they will be so attractive and appealing to each other that what you have expressed above will cease to be a concern.

 

I very much like a quotation from Brigham Young that I have used frequently in teaching and discussion:

 

I think it has been taught by some that as we lay our bodies down, they will so rise again in the resurrection with all the impediments and imperfections that they had here; and that if a wife does not love her husband in this state she cannot love him in the next. This is not so. Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God. If you can, by faithfulness in this life, obtain the right to come up in the morning of the resurrection, you need entertain no fears that the wife will be dissatisfied with her husband, or the husband with the wife; for those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin. This body “is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” “And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

When Jesus comes here to a discussion board we can consider your ridiculous comparison.  

 

 

So you're  refusing to answer the question, then?

 

Here it is again: Consistent with your assertion, was Jesus being unfair and dodgy -- or discourteous -- in the following incident when he answered a question with a question?

 

Yes or no? It's a simple question. You may elaborate on your answer if you like, or give a qualified "yes" or "no". I'm not trying to entrap you.

 

Or you may simply stick with your refusal to answer the question that was put to you. I can't force you to answer it, and I wouldn't if I could. I'm just trying to be clear on your intent.

 

 

But you initially told Deborah it is -- how did you put it? -- being "unfair" and "dodging the question" to respond to a question with another question. Do you stand by that?

 

I want to know whether you apply that to Jesus, who did that very thing.

 

 

No Jesus was not being dodgy.

Your response is incomplete.

 

If it is OK for Jesus to have posed a counter-question in His dialogue with others, why is it necessarily unfair or dodgy for others -- particularly those who are committed to following the example He set -- to use that technique?

 

 

And yes your using this as an argument on my post to Deborah is not only ridiculous, it is stupid.

 

It is not self-evident that my argument is "ridiculous" and "stupid." Your assertion does not make it so.

 

So now we have two unsubstantiated assertions from you. And as I've said in the past, an assertion or accusation without substantiation collapses from its own vacuity.

 

I'm left to conclude that you don't like my comparison with the behavior of Jesus because it soundly rebuts your unsubstantiated assertion that posing a counter-question in dialogue is necessarily unfair and dodgy.

 

Thanks for playing.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

To conceive of that requires the realization that we will not always be subject to the limitations of mortality. I firmly believe (and I have statements of Church leaders to back me up) that same-sex attraction is a disorder that will not last beyond mortality. Thereafter, if the husband and wife are true and faithful to the gospel principles, they will be so attractive and appealing to each other that what you have expressed above will cease to be a concern.

 

I very much like a quotation from Brigham Young that I have used frequently in teaching and discussion:

Than you for your reply.  I respect your thoughts on this.  But....if sexuality changes after death, why would mortals have these feelings?

[JLHPROF]

Than you for your reply.  I respect your thoughts on this.  But....if sexuality changes after death, why would mortals have these feelings?

 

The same reason we have numerous "feelings" here that are to be overcome.  Anger, jealousy, lust (for either gender), etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

Than you for your reply.  I respect your thoughts on this.  But....if sexuality changes after death, why would mortals have these feelings?

Why would God allow some of His children to be born with any sort of deformity, disability or congenital abnormality?

 

I am prompted to say, with Nephi, "I know that God loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things."