Elder Bednar - "There are no homosexual members of the church."

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

Okay.  But again: Do you think that Latter-day Saints are at liberty to disobey commandments which are in force and effect now by claiming that God may change His mind about such commandments in the future?

I try to live the commandments and the teachings of Christ, very definitely.  But, I also know that our leaders make mistakes and are not infallible (as the past history of the church has shown us).  

I rely much on my own inspiration and what the spirit tells me and answers I receive from personal prayer.  I believe our leaders are very good men, but I also believe that much of what they say is their own opinion (which I respect, but do not need to blindly obey without my own pondering and prayer even though I sustain them as the leaders of the church).

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about D&C 132:7?

For me, I have a hard time imagining that sinful conduct will be a thing in the kingdoms of glory.  I'm not sure how things will work, but I don't think there will be things like murder, rape, drug abuse, fornication, adultery, and so on.

To be honest, it seems a bit . . . odd that you would suggest otherwise.  So what are you talking about?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think my post was pretty clear.  Obviously we don't know what the conditions in the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms will be, but if they all have resurrected bodies, and there is any kind of social interaction, then I can't see what will be stopping people from being friends with other people.  And if we get to choose who we spend time with, then I can't see what would be stopping people from spending the rest of eternity hanging out with a specific person for the rest of eternity.  And if the scriptures are right, their bodies would be fully functional, so I can't see what would stop them from "enjoying" each other for the rest of eternity if they want to.

I guess if you want to theorize that there won't be any type of physical enjoyment between anyone in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms, then you can do that.  I just don't see any scriptural justification for it.  You can make a special caveat that resurrected bodies in the lower kindgoms do not have functional hormones and plumbing, but I don't think that's found anywhere in the scriptures, and then you're asking people with homosexual tendencies to base their entire earthly belief in the afterlife on your non-scriptural (and, some might say, oddly sex-centric) theories about the hereafter.

In other words, the sales pitch is getting a little fuzzy:  "You should be a Mormon, because if you do everything right, God will change your desires so you'll want to be with a person of the opposite gender for all eternity, and then such a person (or persons) will be provided to you and you will be able to have endless increase and become like God.  If you don't, you'll still be resurrected, but I'm pretty sure God will alter your resurrected body so you can't enjoy the physical company of another person, but you'll still presumably get to hang out with your friends for all eternity.  So it's either endless heterosexual enjoyment, or nothing.  Can we come back next week to share our second discussion with you?"

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by cinepro

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I try to live the commandments and the teachings of Christ, very definitely.  But, I also know that our leaders make mistakes and are not infallible (as the past history of the church has shown us).  

I rely much on my own inspiration and what the spirit tells me and answers I receive from personal prayer.  I believe our leaders are very good men, but I also believe that much of what they say is their own opinion (which I respect, but do not need to blindly obey without my own pondering and prayer even though I sustain them as the leaders of the church).

The question was: "Do you think that Latter-day Saints are at liberty to disobey commandments which are in force and effect now by claiming that God may change His mind about such commandments in the future?"

I don't really see an answer to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But seriously, what on earth does Elder Bednar mean when he says, "There are no homosexuals in the Church"?

He said, “There are no “homosexual” members of the Church.” And then he explains exactly why he says that, and how that is, and what he means: “We are not defined by sexual attraction.  We are not defined by sexual behavior.  We are sons and daughters of God.” See here for the rest of the detailed explanation: Posted Monday at 5:37 PM

And see here! It is better to grasp the actual issue than to detract from it by accusing Elder Bednar of engaging, wishing, desiring, pretending, thinking, etc. in things other than what he said which is why your questions are irrelevant.

Ask: how does God want His children to view and define themselves? How does God define their membership in the Church?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The question was: "Do you think that Latter-day Saints are at liberty to disobey commandments which are in force and effect now by claiming that God may change His mind about such commandments in the future?"

I don't really see an answer to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, you seem to have a specific commandment in mind.  Which one are you referring to?  Maybe that will help.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So what is the worst that will happen to me in the next life if I continue to live a joyful life with someone I love and care for here on earth? Does anyone really know the answer to that question?  

The worst that can happen to anyone is Perdition, of course. No one but God can judge your personal situation. Elder Bednar was speaking to all members (that is point of his response to the terminology) who choose whether to trust God, make Him their joy, and put Him before any other interest.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What's interesting is how many of the abandoned LDS doctrines have to do with the sealing ordinance:

Law of Adoption

Plural Marriage

Sealing of people as something other than spouse:  Servant, for example

Prohibiting Temple Ordinances for those of African Descent

These are sealing practices, not doctrines. The root doctrine of sealing is eternal. Marriage between man and a woman is a doctrine, and has not changed in any of its forms of practice.

The sealing power can be exercised in many legitimate ways for their respective legitimate purposes to ultimately tie us into the relationships enjoyed in the Church of the Firstborn. Taboo relationships (e.g. the erotic emotional and sexual union of the same sex) are obviously not part of the Lord's Plan and are not legitimate.

Edited March 2, 2016 by CV75
copy a relevant paragraph from another thread.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting how many Christians out there firmly believe that their families will be together after death.  For them, it's just a natural understanding that God will respect and honor the commitments and love that they have built in this life.

It's Mormonism that puts all the hurdles in the way... that says only *these* couples get the full measure of the Atonement, of God's plan, and of the Lord's love.

CFR - How many Christian churches teach there will be marriage in heaven or that familiies will be together?  Just curious you seem to have spoken for all of Christianity and I obviously have missed something.  

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

These are sealing practices, not doctrines. 

Brigham Young stated that the sealing of men to men (the Law of Adoption) was "a great and glorious doctrine".

I don't know how much more clearly he could have stated it.

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Mormon 2:19

Quote

And wo is me because of their wickedness; for my heart has been filled with sorrow because of their wickedness, all my days; nevertheless, I know that I shall be lifted up at the last day.

 

Yeah perhaps that is the problem.  I am just not feeling wicked.  I know I should feel wicked, but that feeling just isn't there.  Perhaps it is because I am in such denial and Satan has such a hold on my soul that I am living in a fog.  I know all gay couples are apostates and suppose to be enemies of God.  

Or perhaps I am working too much on such basic things a charity and love of others.  It is all a bit confusing for me.  I am sure it is much more clear from your vantage point.

 

[omni]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

CFR - How many Christian churches teach there will be marriage in heaven or that familiies will be together?  Just curious you seem to have spoken for all of Christianity and I obviously have missed something.  

I would like to know which Christian churches believe that you can't be with your spouse or family in heaven.  

I served my mission in a predominantly Catholic country.  Our doorstep pitches would often involve us asking if we could share a message about how our families can be together forever.  The recipients would typically reply that they too believed they'll be with their families in heaven.  I'm not sure what the actual doctrine of the Catholic Church is on the subject, but if doesn't allow for families in heaven then they may want to get that message out to their members.

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The worst that can happen to anyone is Perdition, of course. No one but God can judge your personal situation. Elder Bednar was speaking to all members (that is point of his response to the terminology) who choose whether to trust God, make Him their joy, and put Him before any other interest.

Well there you go.  I guess I am off to outer darkness when I die.  Darn,  That is going to be a bummer.  But I guess the up side is, I can commit murder, cheat my fellow men, take up drugs.  Heck, take up dealing drugs to little children, do any sins I can think of.  After all, if I am going to outer darkness, I am already the most horrible of God's children.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/29/2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeanne said:

Well..nice.  That being said..the church has been defined by its polygamy past for a long time.  Of course there isn't any polygamy in the church is there.  I think the statement is sad.  Does this mean that gay members are not sons and daughters of God? 

Does it mean that there are no polygamous members of the Church?

Does it mean that there are no heterosexual members of the Church?

Does it mean that there are no illegal alien members of the Church?

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Brigham Young stated that the sealing of men to men (the Law of Adoption) was "a great and glorious doctrine".

I don't know how much more clearly he could have stated it.

The law of adoption is a doctrine. The sealing practices involving this law can change, and did inasmuch as all applications (practices) were not understood. "By this [sealing] power men will be sealed to men back to Adam, completing and making perfect the chain of the Priesthood from this day to the winding up scene. …It is a great and glorious doctrine, but the reason I have not preached it in the midst of this people, is, I could not do it without turning so many of them to the Devil…" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, page 269)

As time went on and more light and knowledge was revealed on the subject, the sealing (entailing in some cases adoption) practice was distilled into the marriage-based family structure we practice today. No big deal.

[Storm Rider]

36 minutes ago, omni said:

I would like to know which Christian churches believe that you can't be with your spouse or family in heaven.  

I served my mission in a predominantly Catholic country.  Our doorstep pitches would often involve us asking if we could share a message about how our families can be together forever.  The recipients would typically reply that they too believed they'll be with their families in heaven.  I'm not sure what the actual doctrine of the Catholic Church is on the subject, but if doesn't allow for families in heaven then they may want to get that message out to their members.

I am not aware of another Christian Church that teaches that their members will be married in heaven or that families will be together.  

There is a vast difference between what an individual believes and what their respective church's doctrines and teachings.  Those who accept the simple truths of the gospel - those that are as evident as being married for eternity - are numbered far greater than those who even teach these truths.  It does not pertain just to celestial marriage, but is also found in topics on the Godhead, priesthood, faith, salvation, etc.  Granted, you will also find a far broader range of heresy among all churches members. 

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well there you go.  I guess I am off to outer darkness when I die.  Darn,  That is going to be a bummer.  But I guess the up side is, I can commit murder, cheat my fellow men, take up drugs.  Heck, take up dealing drugs to little children, do any sins I can think of.  After all, if I am going to outer darkness, I am already the most horrible of God's children.

You asked what is the worst that can happen to you. It's the same for me too, and anyone; really it is your, my, our choice. There is no victimization in it at all.

Edited March 2, 2016 by CV75

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You asked what is the worst that can happen to you. It's the same for me too, and anyone; really it is your, my, our choice. There is no victimization in it at all.

No seriously.  I did ask the question what is the worse that can happen to me for being gay.  I guess it is outer darkness for me.  Nothing else really matters does it.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Brigham Young stated that the sealing of men to men (the Law of Adoption) was "a great and glorious doctrine".

I don't know how much more clearly he could have stated it.

This is a Parent/Child sealing. 
NOT a spousal sealing.
This is such a silly argument for SSM.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is a Parent/Child sealing. 
NOT a spousal sealing.
This is such a silly argument for SSM.

You need to read over the thread again.  I made it clear that it was a FATHER / SON sealing and have never used it for a SSM argument.  Please don't accuse me of doing something I have not done here.  We were discussing how doctrine can change and evolve (The Law of Adoption is no longer practiced, for example....).

I started the other thread, just for this reason.

(My post you quoted above was in response to someone posting that the Law of Adoption was not "doctrine"....I made no comparison to it and SSM there or anywhere here).

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You need to read over the thread again.  I made it clear that it was a FATHER / SON sealing and have never used it for a SSM argument.  Please don't accuse me of doing something I have not done here.  We were discussing how doctrine can change and evolve (The Law of Adoption is no longer practiced, for example....).

I started the other thread, just for this reason.

(My post you quoted above was in response to someone posting that the Law of Adoption was not "doctrine"....I made no comparison to it and SSM there or anywhere here).

.

I see that now.  My apologies for making that assumption.  It is just something I've heard before and it is just so wrong it bugs me.

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 hours ago, Thinking said:

Recent because possibly the closet doors had not been opened yet?

That's certainly one way this particular discourse attempts to mask its genealogy (which is something all discourses do).

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

No seriously.  I did ask the question what is the worse that can happen to me for being gay.  I guess it is outer darkness for me.  Nothing else really matters does it.

I listened to a podcast on Mormon Miscellaneous today, and they were discussing a topic on sex in LDS marriages, and somehow the subject changed to gay marriage, and Van Hale asked the question, why are gays worse for having acting on their sexuality than the unmarried heterosexuals that do and bring an illegitimate (need a better word than illegitimate, help!) child by it and not as condemned or ex'ed?  

Edited March 2, 2016 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

No seriously.  I did ask the question what is the worse that can happen to me for being gay.  I guess it is outer darkness for me.  Nothing else really matters does it.

i don't know you on a real personal level, but in your posts here you are so kind and fair as you can be.  Your love for life and others shines through..I see you as an example of someone who takes nothing but the good in life's struggles.  Your light is way too bright for any outer darkness. 

[Sky]

Well, if the Church ever does change its doctrines about marriage (that it can only be one man, one woman), it will be A LOT harder for them to back themselves out of it like they did with previous practices such as blacks and the priesthood and polygamy.  They've really put themselves into a corner that will be hard to try and back out of, if they ever do.  But that's just the way I see it.  I'm not banking on a change like this happening any time soon, if ever.        

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

why are gays worse for having acting on their sexuality than the unmarried heterosexuals that do

Number of laws violated?