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

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What about a gay married person?  

I don't understand your question.  Homosexual conduct violates The Law of Chastity.  That such conduct takes place under the auspices of secular law is irrelevant.

Much of the secular world has no problem with fornication or adultery, and yet both acts violate The Law of Chastity.

So what is your point here?  I'm not seeking it.

Quote

I again read these posts wrong though.  I'll take a break from the board today.  

Okay.  Have a nice day.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What about a gay married person?  I again read these posts wrong though. 

No, you were correct.  Even though both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be excommunicated for sexual transgressions, a gay person is also labeled an Apostate.  Is that what you meant?

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

No, you were correct.  Even thought both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be excommunicated for sexual transgressions, a gay person is also labeled an Apostate.  Is that what you meant?

This is not correct.  Anyone who enters into a same-sex marriage is susceptible to a charge of apostasy.  The recent change to the CHI does not differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

This is not correct.  Anyone who enters into a same-sex marriage is susceptible to a charge of apostasy.  The recent change to the CHI does not differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Thanks,

-Smac

Um...ok.  I was just trying to understand what Tacenda was referring to.

How many LDS heterosexuals do you believe have entered into a SSM?  That's a bit of a stretch, but maybe you know of some.

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is not correct.  Anyone who enters into a same-sex marriage is susceptible to a charge of apostasy.  The recent change to the CHI does not differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Thanks,

-Smac

A distinction without a difference because the chance there will ever be a LDS heterosexual brought up on SSM apostasy charges is nil.

[rodheadlee]

18 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I agree.

The counsel from the Lord's anointed is not a pretty sight.

Get thee behind me Satan.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

Matthew 25 is one of my favorite scriptures.  I also think it is one, if not the most important scriptures in the Bible.  It is Christ's last public sermon.  I think that says something about how important that message is to Christ.  I believe that when we conform our lives to that message of Christ we will find happiness both in this life and the life to come.  

I know the dogma of the church teaches that my love for my partner is ugly, sinful, apostate, evil, of satan and all the other words that have been thrown against it.  Sorry, but I feel none of those things.  I only feel goodness and joy.  While many members think I can not progress towards Christ unless I throw my partner out of my life, I have not found that to be true.

I know nothing of your personal life, but it seems you acknowledge what behavior the Church considers sin.

There are many kinds of love, and the commandments and covenants are about choosing their godly expression through the behavior (and thoughts, words, deeds, etc.) that He taught and the example He set: we choose to act in concert with Him.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, canard78 said:

Would you recognise though that while your quote from Elder Wickman does support your belief that homosexual attraction will be removed in the eternities, that this quote, in its context, does not constitute doctrine.

I believe that the quote, in its context, reflects doctrine.

Quote

I don't have the church statement to hand, but this could also potentially fall into the category of a single statement based on a well-meaning opinion and not necessarily revelation. 

It is not just Elder Wickman's opinion. Elder Oaks gives his implied assent to it, when he adds a thought. His thought in no way moderates, minimizes or compromises what Elder Wickman just said. On the contrary, it augments it.

And what these two leaders say here is consistent with everything I have ever heard any Church leader say on the topic. With unity, uniformity and unanimity, they all, to a man, say that homosexual behavior is not something that is approved of God or that belongs to the eternities or that it ever will be.

This statement is in a Q and A article on LDS Newsroom, which is the Church's official venue for publishing its official views to news media or the outside pubic in general.

Furthermore, we have the statement I quoted from the "Mormons and Gays" website, consistent with what Elders Oaks and Wickman said. "Mormons and Gays" is the go-to resource for ascertaining the Church's position on the gay issue.

Finally, the idea that same-sex attraction would exist beyond mortality is utterly alien to any teaching I have ever heard in the Church about the plan of salvation, the eternity of the family unit, the sealing together of families across the generations, etc. It simply doesn't belong in the doctrinal structure. It is a square peg destined never to fit into a round hole.

 

Smac said it well in a post earlier in this thread after he had cited some scriptures.

Quote

There is no foundation for speculation about same-sex relationships in the eternities.  None.  At all.  The foregoing scriptures appear to foreclose such a thing as even a possibility.

 

Quote

Out of interest, how would your belief and this quote reconcile with the "carnal to carnal" principle in the Book of Mormon? 

You've caught me flat-footed on that. I don't know what you mean.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Um...ok.  I was just trying to understand what Tacenda was referring to.

How many LDS heterosexuals do you believe have entered into a SSM?  That's a bit of a stretch, but maybe you know of some.

 

The law of chastity is that a person should not have sex outside of marriage.  If a gay person is married then doesn't that count?  Or I'm grasping for straws here.

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

Um...ok.  I was just trying to understand what Tacenda was referring to.

How many LDS heterosexuals do you believe have entered into a SSM?  That's a bit of a stretch, but maybe you know of some.

That's not the point, though, is it?  The prohibition applies to all of us.

The prohibition against fornication applies to all of us.

The prohibition against adultery applies to all of us.

The prohibition against homosexual conduct applies to all of us.

I think you are thinking not of The Law of Chastity, but of the disparate impact that Law has on different groups of people.  I will grant that.  The Law of Chastity privileges married heterosexual couples exclusively.  Everyone else is obligated to remain celibate.

As regarding the recent change to the CHI, the change applies to all Latter-day Saints equally.  If a heterosexual person decided to enter into a same-sex marriage, he or she would be as susceptible to a charge of apostasy as a homosexual person who makes such a decision.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

 

The law of chastity is that a person should not have sex outside of marriage.  If a gay person is married then doesn't that count?  Or I'm grasping for straws here.

You were correct and not the one who is "grasping for straws here"  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

The law of chastity is that a person should not have sex outside of marriage.  If a gay person is married then doesn't that count?  Or I'm grasping for straws here.

The law of chastity did not change just because the political landscape did. Marriage in the eyes of God is still between a man and a woman. See the quote from Russell M. Nelson in my sig line,

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's not the point, though, is it?  The prohibition applies to all of us.

Well, you were the one making that "point", not I.  

And yes, married gay couples should not have sex with anyone other than their legal spouse (husband or wife).  Just as heterosexual couples should not.  In both cases, that is committing adultery.    We agree on that.

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The law of chastity did not change just because the political landscape did. 

The Law of Chastity changed when the church stopped practicing polygamy (or at least the wording changed).

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

A distinction without a difference because the chance there will ever be a LDS heterosexual brought up on SSM apostasy charges is nil.

I disagree to the extent that some here are claiming that homosexuals are being treated differently under The Law of Chastity or the changes to the CHI.  

A person who engages in homosexual conduct has violated The Law of Chastity.  It does not matter whether this person identifies as a "homosexual" or "heterosexual" or "bisexual" or "I just wanted to try it out a bit."

A person who enters into a same-sex marriage is susceptible to a charge of apostasy.  There is nothing in the CHI that privileges heterosexual people and allows them to enter into same-sex marriages where homosexual people cannot.

I acknowledge that The Law of Chastity impacts different people in different ways.  A person in a legal heterosexual marriage is entitled to have sexual relations with his/her spouse.  Everyone else is prohibited from such relations.  That can be quite difficult, particularly in our increasingly secularized and sexualized society.  But this is the counsel we have been given from the Lord's anointed.  And the counsel abides even when it has a disparate impact on different people.

The prohibition in The Law of Chastity against homosexual behavior applies to all of us.  There is no caveat saying "Unless, of course, you really really want to engage in such behavior, in which case the Law does not apply to you."

The prohibition in The Law of Chastity against fornication applies to all of us.  It does not matter whether a particular person is more or less inclined toward such a preference.  So if Single Guy Jimmy has a really strong sex drive, it will be more difficult for him to obey this Law as compared to his buddy, Single Guy Bobby, who has considerably less interest in sex.  Nevertheless, both are equally prohibited from engaging in such conduct.

The prohibition against entering into polygamous marriage applies to all of us.  It does not matter what the person's personal preferences are.  It does not matter if such a person identifies a "heterosexual" or "homosexual" or "bisexual" or "bicurious" or whatever.  It does not matter that Jimmy really really wants to have two wives at the same time, whereas his friend Bobby only wants one wife.  Both are equally prohibited from engaging in such conduct.

The prohibition against entering into a same-sex marriage applies to all of us.   It does not matter what the person's personal preferences are.  It does not matter if such a person identifies a "heterosexual" or "homosexual" or "bisexual" or "bicurious" or whatever.  It does not matter that Jimmy really really wants to be married to another man, whereas his friend Bobby wants to be married to a woman.  Both are equally prohibited from engaging in such conduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Law of Chastity changed when the church stopped practicing polygamy (or at least the wording changed).

.

The commandment to practice plural marriage, always temporary and conditional from the beginning, was rescinded by God.

When did God rescind the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman?

 

[USU78]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, you were correct.  Even though both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be excommunicated for sexual transgressions, a gay person is also labeled an Apostate.  Is that what you meant?

No person who suffers from same sex attraction, without more, is labeled an Apostate or apostate.  To suggest such is the case from statements of Church leaders is to grossly mischaracterize what has been said/written.

The cases that would lead to a disciplinary council regarding apostasy involve those who, either by covenant or practice, are committed to continue in sin.  You cannot be a practicing Mormon and be in a homosexual marriage or anything that looks like it.

This isn't that difficult.

[Rivers]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Law of Chastity changed when the church stopped practicing polygamy.

The Law of Chastity did not change. Only the number of wives permitted was changed.  

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Rivers

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The commandment to practice plural marriage, always temporary and conditional from the beginning, was rescinded by God.

When did God rescind the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman?

 

I only stated that the Law Of Chastity (stated in the temple) was changed after the church stopped practicing polygamy.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Rivers said:

The Law of Chastity did not change. Only the number of wives permitted was changed.  

 

It changed (the wording).  There was only one wife that the man was "legally" wed to and he had sexual relations with those he was not "legally" wed to.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

No person who suffers from same sex attraction, without more, is labeled an Apostate or apostate.  To suggest such is the case from statements of Church leaders is to grossly mischaracterize what has been said/written.

The cases that would lead to a disciplinary council regarding apostasy involve those who, either by covenant or practice, are committed to continue in sin.  You cannot be a practicing Mormon and be in a homosexual marriage or anything that looks like it.

This isn't that difficult.

I was just trying to clarify and understand what Tacenda was referring to.  She was correct.

 

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree to the extent that some here are claiming that homosexuals are being treated differently under The Law of Chastity or the changes to the CHI.  

A person who engages in homosexual conduct has violated The Law of Chastity.  It does not matter whether this person identifies as a "homosexual" or "heterosexual" or "bisexual" or "I just wanted to try it out a bit."

A person who enters into a same-sex marriage is susceptible to a charge of apostasy.  There is nothing in the CHI that privileges heterosexual people and allows them to enter into same-sex marriages where homosexual people cannot.

I acknowledge that The Law of Chastity impacts different people in different ways.  A person in a legal heterosexual marriage is entitled to have sexual relations with his/her spouse.  Everyone else is prohibited from such relations.  That can be quite difficult, particularly in our increasingly secularized and sexualized society.  But this is the counsel we have been given from the Lord's anointed.  And the counsel abides even when it has a disparate impact on different people.

The prohibition in The Law of Chastity against homosexual behavior applies to all of us.  There is no caveat saying "Unless, of course, you really really want to engage in such behavior, in which case the Law does not apply to you."

The prohibition in The Law of Chastity against fornication applies to all of us.  It does not matter whether a particular person is more or less inclined toward such a preference.  So if Single Guy Jimmy has a really strong sex drive, it will be more difficult for him to obey this Law as compared to his buddy, Single Guy Bobby, who has considerably less interest in sex.  Nevertheless, both are equally prohibited from engaging in such conduct.

The prohibition against entering into polygamous marriage applies to all of us.  It does not matter what the person's personal preferences are.  It does not matter if such a person identifies a "heterosexual" or "homosexual" or "bisexual" or "bicurious" or whatever.  It does not matter that Jimmy really really wants to have two wives at the same time, whereas his friend Bobby only wants one wife.  Both are equally prohibited from engaging in such conduct.

The prohibition against entering into a same-sex marriage applies to all of us.   It does not matter what the person's personal preferences are.  It does not matter if such a person identifies a "heterosexual" or "homosexual" or "bisexual" or "bicurious" or whatever.  It does not matter that Jimmy really really wants to be married to another man, whereas his friend Bobby wants to be married to a woman.  Both are equally prohibited from engaging in such conduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

In other countries, where polygamy is legal, are the participants in those marriages engaging in immoral behavior?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was just trying to clarify and understand what Tacenda was referring to.  She was correct.

 

It is not correct to state or imply that the law of chastity changed in intent just because of a Supreme Court ruling.

Again, from Elder (now President) Nelson: "Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God."

Edited March 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, you were the one making that "point", not I.  

And yes, married gay couples should not have sex with anyone other than their legal spouse (husband or wife).  Just as heterosexual couples should not.  In both cases, that is committing adultery.    We agree on that.

But that's not the whole story, is it?  Secular law does not govern here.  The Church prohibits Church members from entering into a same-sex marriage, and from engaging in homosexual conduct.  So disciplinary charges in such a circumstance would relate to both The Law of Chastity as apostasy.

Let's take a step back here.  Imagine a member of the Church, Jerry, is living in a country where polygamy is legal (about 25% of the world's countries, apparently).  Jerry decides to marry Jane, and then a year later marries Joan.  Jerry's local church leader hears about this arrangement and convenes a disciplinary council.  Jerry attends and claims . . . what?  That he has done nothing wrong because polygamy is legal under secular law?  Do you really think secular law is determinative in ecclesiastical disciplinary matters?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It is not correct to state or imply that the law of chastity changed in intent just because of a Supreme Court ruling.

Where did I state or imply that?  I've simply stated that the law of chastity changed (wording) after polygamy was no longer practiced by the church.  That is true.