ALarson Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: 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. Exactly. And that was the point that Tacenda was making earlier (if I understood her correctly). This charge of apostasy does not apply to heterosexuals who engage in sexual misconduct (except the ones you seem to believe have or will enter into a SSM...which has to be close to none if any). Again, we agree here.
consiglieri Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 54 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Get thee behind me Satan. Please avoid such references in future discussions of homosexual activity.
smac97 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, CA Steve said: In other countries, where polygamy is legal, are the participants in those marriages engaging in immoral behavior? I have two answers to that question: 1. If a participant in polygamy is LDS, then yes, that person is engaging in immoral behavior. 2. If none of the participants are LDS, then . . . then the picture becomes a bit more cloudy for me. I think adultery is "immoral" in or out of the Church. I think fornication is "immoral" in or out of the Church. I think viewing pornography is "immoral" in or out of the Church. I think homosexual conduct is "immoral" in or out of the Church. But is polygamy per se "immoral?" I'm not sure. On balance, I'd say yes. But I haven't given the matter much thought. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: Exactly. And that was the point that Tacenda was making earlier (if I understood her correctly). This charge of apostasy does not apply to heterosexuals who engage in sexual misconduct (except the ones you seem to believe have or will enter into a SSM...which has to be close to none if any). Again, we agree here. The charge of apostasy pertains principally to the entering into a same-sex marriage. A heterosexual person who enters into a same-sex marriage would also be charged with apostasy, as would a heterosexual person who enters into a polygamous marriage. Thanks, -Smac
cinepro Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 13 hours ago, smac97 said: So fornication, which is sinful in this life, will exist in the kingdoms of glory prepared by God? That appears to be what you are saying, so I just want to be clear about it. Well, if Church teachings are correct and we're living in a Telestial state on this planet right now, then apparently the "Telestial" can include all manner of such things. So I can't categorically rule out certain behaviors being tolerated in the Telestial Kingdom. D&C 38:17–20. “The Lord of Your Inheritance” To better understand the Lord’s promise in these verses, one needs to understand that the Lord created the earth for His children and that it reflects the level of life that they live. Elder Bruce R. McConkie described four of the stages the earth has gone through and will yet go through: “Edenic earth. Following its physical creation, the earth was pronounced good. It was a terrestrial or paradisiacal state. There was no death either for man or for any form of life, and ‘all the vast creation of animated beings breathed naught but health, and peace, and joy.’ (2 Ne. 2:22; Voice of Warning, pp. 89–91.) “Telestial earth. When Adam fell, the earth fell also and became a mortal sphere, one upon which worldly and carnal people can live. This condition was destined to continue for a period of 6,000 years, and it was while in this state that the earth was baptized in water. (D. & C. 77:6–7, 12; Man: His Origin and Destiny, pp. 415–436, 460–466.) https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-30-40/section-38-if-ye-are-prepared-ye-shall-not-fear?lang=eng
CV75 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 11 minutes ago, cinepro said: Well, if Church teachings are correct and we're living in a Telestial state on this planet right now, then apparently the "Telestial" can include all manner of such things. So I can't categorically rule out certain behaviors being tolerated in the Telestial Kingdom. I've thought this on occasion too, and It seems inevitable that after aeons and aeons those who exist in the lesser kingdoms will tire of those activities (and doing them with each other). That is the nature of the carnal nature. 1
ALarson Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, smac97 said: The charge of apostasy pertains principally to the entering into a same-sex marriage. A heterosexual person who enters into a same-sex marriage would also be charged with apostasy, as would a heterosexual person who enters into a polygamous marriage. How many different times do I need to state that we agree on this? We do. I do wonder how many heterosexual people in the church have entered into a SSM (or if you know of any), but of course if they did do this, they would also be considered an apostate. . Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson
cinepro Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: I've thought this on occasion too, and It seems inevitable that after aeons and aeons those who exist in the lesser kingdoms will tire of those activities (and doing them with each other). That is the nature of the carnal nature. Honestly, I suspect a lot of the reason people might not want such things to be happening in the Telestial Kingdom is that it bothers them to think that there would be a place for people to do those things that make them happy give them pleasure for all eternity when we had to resist such temptations in order to get our Celestial glory. Me being the libertarian sort, it doesn't bother me a bit. Whatever works for them is find by me. Edited March 2, 2016 by cinepro 3
cinepro Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: I pretty much agree. I have no reason to believe that lower kingdoms and/or Outer Darkness lose the sex drive, only that they cannot procreate which is unclear because we do not know how such procreation even works. Some people thought they knew.... “What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them through their preparation, there will come spirit children. I don’t think that is very difficult to comprehend. The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. When blood flows in the veins of the being the offspring will be what blood produces, which is tangible flesh and bone; but when that which flows in the veins is spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood, the offspring of such beings will be spirit children. By that I mean they will be in the image of the parents. They will have a spirit body and have a spark of the eternal or divine that always did exist in them” (Melvin J. Ballard—Crusader for Righteousness, 211). LDS Eternal Marriage Student Manual
Storm Rider Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Duncan said: but wouldn't that mean more though to a gay person than a non gay person? I have the option of getting physical with someone after I get married and can do so in the next life but to a gay person that wants to be a Mormon that option isn't an option I think what you are doing is the great fallacy of the argument made by gay people. I am gay therefore I should be able to have sex with whomever I desire. That is not God's plan is not the authorized or acceptable choice of any disciple of Christ. The way of the disciple is I will accept God's will for my life regardless of how difficult it will be. I will endure all the pain of this life and remain faithful to serving God first. What is the cost of forfeiting our own will for our lives? Do some disciples get a pass on forfeiting our own individual will? Why? What if it is about love; because I love someone or something don't I get to keep it even if it conflicts with God's will? The answer is always no. Those who lose themselves will find themselves. John Calvin may have been wrong on some things, but he was still a man of wisdom. One of his sayings is, "“But in the service of God the chief thing is this— that men deny themselves." Why must we deny ourselves? What is the mortal nature of man? Should this nature be constrained or given free reign? This is not rocket science and it is the same for each of God's children that seek to be a disciple of God. 1
Duncan Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Just now, Storm Rider said: I think what you are doing is the great fallacy of the argument made by gay people. I am gay therefore I should be able to have sex with whomever I desire. That is not God's plan is not the authorized or acceptable choice of any disciple of Christ. The way of the disciple is I will accept God's will for my life regardless of how difficult it will be. I will endure all the pain of this life and remain faithful to serving God first. What is the cost of forfeiting our own will for our lives? Do some disciples get a pass on forfeiting our own individual will? Why? What if it is about love; because I love someone or something don't I get to keep it even if it conflicts with God's will? The answer is always no. Those who lose themselves will find themselves. John Calvin may have been wrong on some things, but he was still a man of wisdom. One of his sayings is, "“But in the service of God the chief thing is this— that men deny themselves." Why must we deny ourselves? What is the mortal nature of man? Should this nature be constrained or given free reign? This is not rocket science and it is the same for each of God's children that seek to be a disciple of God. again though what is God's purpose for and plan for his gay children, how can they be exalted? if a heterosexual person can reign in their sexuality within the bounds the Lord has set why can't a gay person do the same, but it seems they are out of the Lord's bounds by recent policies of the Church. It just seems they are being further and further pushed away and out and doesn't make any sense to me and then we act all surprised their are gay suicides in and out of the Church or push back from the gay community. I don't know what to think of it all and my heart goes out to them 2
Popular Post Gray Posted March 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2016 14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I think what you are doing is the great fallacy of the argument made by gay people. I am gay therefore I should be able to have sex with whomever I desire. I think that's a straw man. 6
The Nehor Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, Duncan said: again though what is God's purpose for and plan for his gay children, how can they be exalted? if a heterosexual person can reign in their sexuality within the bounds the Lord has set why can't a gay person do the same, but it seems they are out of the Lord's bounds by recent policies of the Church. It just seems they are being further and further pushed away and out and doesn't make any sense to me and then we act all surprised their are gay suicides in and out of the Church or push back from the gay community. I don't know what to think of it all and my heart goes out to them Recent policies? Are you suggesting that in the past the gospel more tolerant of homosexuality? Really? 1
Storm Rider Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 29 minutes ago, Duncan said: again though what is God's purpose for and plan for his gay children, how can they be exalted? if a heterosexual person can reign in their sexuality within the bounds the Lord has set why can't a gay person do the same, but it seems they are out of the Lord's bounds by recent policies of the Church. It just seems they are being further and further pushed away and out and doesn't make any sense to me and then we act all surprised their are gay suicides in and out of the Church or push back from the gay community. I don't know what to think of it all and my heart goes out to them The same way every other child of God will be exalted. A gay person who commits any sexual sin in this life endangers his exaltation in the same manner that every other child of God can. The Lord has prescribed specific ways that his children can exercise, righteously, our sexuality in this life. If we choose not to follow those guidelines do you think it is acceptable? Why is it acceptable for gay people, which is what you are proposing, and not everyone else. If Mary prefers having multiple sexual partners and loves them why shouldn't she be exalted? How about John who really does like having sex with anyone and only finds pleasure and enjoyment in other ways? Surely, these two will be exalted if gays are exalted according to your logic. Where is the exception for gays? Why shouldn't God make exceptions for certain people - particularly if they love one another. After all, if they love one another shouldn't they enjoy each other sexually? If we accept this, it would be useful to differentiate between love and lust. In fact, we would need to understand that love better than the fat of rams and is the only thing needed to approve any action or choice we might make - do we love him, her, or it. If we do, then it is acceptable. Conversely, the gospel of Jesus Christ directly conflicts with this teaching. God will deny none who come unto him - all are welcome. However, if we are going to come unto Christ we must be willing to follow him - to deny ourselves - and accept his will for our lives. Obedience is one of the foundational teachings of God; are we willing to obey him in all things. If we lose ourselves in serving him we will find ourselves - does that apply to gay people? Of course and in all ways and in the same manner that it is for all children of God. All are alike unto God and all will approach God in the same manner - through Jesus Christ and living his commandments and teachings. Is the situation of the gay individual difficult? ABSOLUTELY! None of us will know the pain they will have endured to serve God, but they are not alone in knowing pain or in sacrifice. The degree of their pain, or anyone's pain, is not a get-out-of-pain free card. The path they walk is the same path we all walk as disciples of Christ. Christ knows their pain and will heal their pain in the same way he heals each of us. 1
Gray Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Recent policies? Are you suggesting that in the past the gospel more tolerant of homosexuality? Really? Until very recently it wasn't defined as apostasy. So at least in terms of policy it was more tolerant in the recent past. 1
smac97 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Until very recently it wasn't defined as apostasy. So at least in terms of policy it was more tolerant in the recent past. "Homosexuality" is not "defined as apostasy." The recent change in the CHI was to address the issue of same-sex marriage in the LDS Church, which is of very recent derivation. Thanks -Smac 2
The Nehor Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: Until very recently it wasn't defined as apostasy. So at least in terms of policy it was more tolerant in the recent past. I am pretty sure you were still subject to church discipline before this supposed relabeling.
Duncan Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 26 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Recent policies? Are you suggesting that in the past the gospel more tolerant of homosexuality? Really? well, with this Nov. 2015 is what I was reffering to. I think we are becoming less tolerant as per policy but maybe as a people more tolerant? I don't know the history of homosexual policies in the Church!
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Homosexuality" is not "defined as apostasy." The recent change in the CHI was to address the issue of same-sex marriage in the LDS Church, which is of very recent derivation. Thanks -Smac Right. Being gay isn't apostasy. Being gay in a monogamous, legal marriage is apostasy. Apparently leaders would prefer a more promiscuous, dangerous lifestyle. 4
The Nehor Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Right. Being gay isn't apostasy. Being gay in a monogamous, legal marriage is apostasy. Apparently leaders would prefer a more promiscuous, dangerous lifestyle. No, we would prefer neither lifestyle existed at all.
smac97 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Right. Being gay isn't apostasy. Being gay in a monogamous, legal marriage is apostasy. Apparently leaders would prefer a more promiscuous, dangerous lifestyle. Oh, get real. This isn't even close to a good faith argument. Thanks, -Smac 2
HappyJackWagon Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, we would prefer neither lifestyle existed at all. But they do exist, unless you take Elder Bednar literally and claim there are no gay members. We cannot simply wish them away. So if we acknowledge that they exist which lifestyle seems preferable? Monogamous committed marriage or promiscuity. Only one of them is considered apostasy, so what is the church saying? It would seem to be suggesting that SSM is worse than a promiscuous lifestyle. And the fact remains, the church has not addressed the role of gays in the eternities beyond saying what they can't be. What is their role? ETA- If the church preferred that no homosexual lifestyle existed, is that the same thing as saying they wish that homosexuals did not exist? Edited March 2, 2016 by HappyJackWagon 1
Popular Post Sky Posted March 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2016 Life long celibacy (devoid of any sexual or deep emotional connection with any other person) or mixed-orientation marriages (if you can manage it) are the only options for a gay person in order to remain on good terms with the Church. That is a fact. Let's not sugarcoat it. It's also different and more difficult than what a heterosexual person is asked and expected to do. Yes, we all have different challenges, but the challenges of being a gay member of the Church are unique and different. Can we at least all acknowledge that? To not be able to acknowledge this feels deeply invalidating to a gay person. And yes, the Church always considered acting on homosexual inclinations a sin, but before November 5, 2015, there was at least some hope that a gay person could come to church and not have church discipline. There was the possibility that we could safely identify as gay and be embraced by our wards, depending on who our bishop was and where we lived. There was a hope that we could share our stories and be valued as equals with the rest of our ward members. There was hope that we wouldn't be forced into reparative therapy or counseling. Now that hope is gone for so many of us. And all the straight, conservative leaning members of the Church are ignorant or indifferent about all of this. 6
Gray Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 48 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Homosexuality" is not "defined as apostasy." The recent change in the CHI was to address the issue of same-sex marriage in the LDS Church, which is of very recent derivation. Thanks -Smac Right, when gay people do the right thing, the Christian thing, and get married and raise families, they're apostates. If they have a million one night stands, they're not apostates. Makes perfect sense. But I digress. Probably you understood what I was getting at, right? That the policies for gay members are much harsher than they were before? 1
smac97 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But they do exist, unless you take Elder Bednar literally and claim there are no gay members. We cannot simply wish them away. How about we construe Elder Bednar's remarks as they were framed and intended, rather than read into them, interpret them in the worst possible light, and so on. Yes, let's do that. Quote So if we acknowledge that they exist which lifestyle seems preferable? Monogamous committed marriage or promiscuity. Again, I'm not seeing much good faith in your remarks. There is no mystery as to what "lifestyle" the Church finds "preferable." That would be a lifestyle congruent with The Law of Chastity. That would be a lifestyle imposes the same standards of conduct on all of God's children. Quote Only one of them is considered apostasy, so what is the church saying? It would seem to be suggesting that SSM is worse than a promiscuous lifestyle. More bad faith. And simply bad logic. It's called the "False Dilemma Fallacy." There is, of course, a third option: acceptance of and obedience to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, including adherence to The Law of Chastity. That is what is expected of all Latter-day Saints. I assume you do not think that homosexual people are so utterly depraved and animalistic that they cannot be expected to govern their appetites and passions the same way all Latter-day Saints. I surely hope this is not the case. I hope none of us would fall prey to the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Quote And the fact remains, the church has not addressed the role of gays in the eternities beyond saying what they can't be. What is their role? The same role that is available to all of us. The Church has addressed this. Quote ETA- If the church preferred that no homosexual lifestyle existed, is that the same thing as saying they wish that homosexuals did not exist? And even more bad faith. I'll withdraw from further discussion with you. Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts