The Gap is too Wide to Bridge

[JLHPROF]

Just now, BCSpace said:

Don't the scriptures do just that?

Yes.  But we don't have to rub the scriptures in people's faces.  They know what they say.
According to our beliefs those involved in SSM and other such relations have a very unhappy, unpleasant awakening coming.  And they know what we believe.  Do we really need to remind them of it every 5 minutes?

The fact that they don't share our beliefs won't change their final situation one iota.  And that should sadden us, not prompt us to constantly remind them of it.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

True.
Doesn't change that as far as I am concerned the afterlife has been revealed and we get to either accept or reject it.  But our acceptance or rejection won't change it one bit.

You do love to say dogma like it's a bad thing.
Again, if I believe one dogma and someone else believes another it's irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

When people are dogmatic it is appropriate to call what they believe dogma.  Personally I think dogma and dogmatism is mostly a bad thing.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

When people are dogmatic it is appropriate to call what they believe dogma.  Personally I think dogma and dogmatism is mostly a bad thing.

According to google:

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə 
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

If that authority is God (or you believe that authority is God) then I fail to see how dogma is a bad thing.

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

According to google:

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə 
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

If that authority is God (or you believe that authority is God) then I fail to see how dogma is a bad thing.

All those who are dogmatic think their Dogma is from God.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Teancum said:

All those who are dogmatic think their Dogma is from God.

Agreed.
But doubting that ANY dogma is from God doesn't strike me as a good choice either.  Ignoring the almighty and labeling his revelations as "dogma" like it's a dirty word probably won't end well.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All those who are dogmatic think their Dogma is from God.

Not quite fair. I have met dogmatic people whose dogma is not even claimed to come from such a lofty place.

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, there are far worse sins.  Like that of taking the Lord's name in vain, for instance, stating something comes from God, when it doesn't.  Or spending an inordinate amount of money on things that could be better spent on taking care of our brothers and sisters here on earth.  Who's plan are we following, Satan's or Gods, when Satan said we must be Gods, what is the truth?  Yes, we are to be like God, but are we to be creators like him?  Isn't He the only creator and we the only created?  Each day we sin, but each day we have the gift of grace, do we use it, take it in our lives, or are we on a ladder to Godhead, thinking it's up to us and not realizing His grace enough.

 

Every nrepented of sin will count against us. The Church spent very little money of  Prop 8. God confirms that we are Gods in many places in the Bible..Why not? If I am so blessed to help God in his work and glory to further the immortality and eternal life of man. Why would that be following Satan? We have the gift of repentance. Faith without works is dead, The Devils believe but tremble.

Edited June 17, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Mystery Meat]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  But we don't have to rub the scriptures in people's faces.  They know what they say.
According to our beliefs those involved in SSM and other such relations have a very unhappy, unpleasant awakening coming.  And they know what we believe.  Do we really need to remind them of it every 5 minutes?

The fact that they don't share our beliefs won't change their final situation one iota.  And that should sadden us, not prompt us to constantly remind them of it.

I honestly do not seek to constantly remind them of it. But when I see gross mischaraterizations of the Church's position, I do feel compelled to respond. Alas, it is probably for naught and I should probably let it lie. 

I do agree though, their situation does sadden me. A lot.

[Thinking]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church spent very little money on Prop 8.

The Church officially spent very little money on Prop 8.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

All those who are dogmatic think their Dogma is from God.

Sounds very dogmatic to me

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The Church officially spent very little money on Prop 8.

So all of a sudden members of the Church give up their rights?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

I'd like to see possibly gay members say like live the LoC until they are married just like non gay members. That way you can be gay but not until you're married and we keep people in and open to God. Now as it is people come out of the closet and they quit the church. I have too many questions about how homosexuality, transgenderism etc. fits into everything and what God expects them to do and how he makes it known to them of what he expects.

Not sure what you are actually saying here, Duncan, but our society is clearly oversexualized.  Almost to the exclusion of everything else.  As though the only important thing about Leonardo daVinci was his homosexuality, which has never mattered one iota to me:  I have always considered his great art, anatomical research, and engineering to be what he should be known for.  What a genius, and mankind is better for his having been among us.  I feel very sorry for people who get up in the morning and self-identify according to their gender preference, race, religion, or ideology, instead of being whole human beings.

Tolerance works both ways.  We call it mutual respect and understanding.  Article of Faith #11, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

We also claim in AofF 13 "We believe in ..................... in doing good to all men."  Mutual respect and tolerance would be a good place to start.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

So all of a sudden members of the Church give up their rights?

Well, the Supreme Court did decide that members of the Church (and others) don't have the right to vote away the rights of a minority group of people.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I guess I was hoping for some middleground where those who disagreed with the Church wouldn't demand the Church sacrifice its core values in order to be seen as loving. That seems unfair and a little bit prejudiced. In their minds, no such middle ground exists. To them showing love means denying eternal truth.

We don't demand that the church change anything.  We just walk away.  Like MM, we long ago realized that the church has a belief that the only way to get into the Celestial Kingdom is if a person becomes straight after being celibate, without a companion in this earth life.  We are willing to put our faith in God that finding a person to share this life with and enjoying all the love and joy that comes with that experience won't be condemned by a God who loves all of his children.

While many  members and leadership think they have scriptural backing on this issue, I see none.  While the scriptures are clear that any sex outside of marriage is against the law of chastity, none talk about sex inside of marriage.  Certainly one can also look at the words of Christ, Book of Mormon and D&C and take comfort that none of those writings mention any condemnation against gays finding happiness in this life.  

In my opinion church leaders are all just guessing from a point of view that everyone has to become straight just like them.  Personal prejudices of the time have been blatantly wrong before.  They are wrong now.  But that does NOT mean that I or anyone else is demanding that the church change it's  position.  We just walk away and enjoy a rich and fulfilling life outside of the church.  There is so much love and understanding for gay people outside the church who are more than willing to leave the judgement to God and can find it in their hearts to love us just like everyone else.  Members don't really have to constantly judge and condemn gay relationships.  They could choose to leave that up to God as some on this board have chosen to do. 

[Gray]

If Mormon Dialogue had existed in 1880:

 

Quote

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the plural marriage and the brethren and those members (and their gentile allies) who only see monogamy as viable (in God's eyes). In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that single men unable to find an unmarried wife feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance of plural marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Gray

[Kevin Christensen]

And of course, there is this sort of thing, which no one seems to want to acknowledge.

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

But it's easy enough to acknowledge if you know how to recognize it when present and then see what to do about it when you do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[jkwilliams]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure what you are actually saying here, Duncan, but our society is clearly oversexualized.  Almost to the exclusion of everything else.  As though the only important thing about Leonardo daVinci was his homosexuality, which has never mattered one iota to me:  I have always considered his great art, anatomical research, and engineering to be what he should be known for.  What a genius, and mankind is better for his having been among us.  I feel very sorry for people who get up in the morning and self-identify according to their gender preference, race, religion, or ideology, instead of being whole human beings.

Tolerance works both ways.  We call it mutual respect and understanding.  Article of Faith #11, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

We also claim in AofF 13 "We believe in ..................... in doing good to all men."  Mutual respect and tolerance would be a good place to start.

I find it interesting that people seem to reduce same-sex relationships to the physical act of sex when there is so much more to a relationship than that. I think the church recognizes that, as over the years I've seen counsel for homosexual members to avoid having close friendships with those of the same sex, holding hands, embracing, or kissing. As I recall, you could get in trouble with the Standards Office at BYU if you held hands with, embraced, or kissed someone of the same sex, even though none of that violates the law of chastity.

Even if you think that homosexual intercourse is a perversion, you have to recognize that you're not just asking people to not have sex, but you are asking them to abstain from the kinds of intimate bonds of friendship and love that most of us take for granted. In a way, you are compensating for oversexualization by asking LGBTQ members to be undersexualized or perhaps even nonsexualized. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And of course, there is this sort of thing, which no one seems to want to acknowledge.

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

But it's easy enough to acknowledge if you know how to recognize it when present and then see what to do about it when you do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Outstanding article and perspective.  Thank you for sharing it; it is worth reading by everyone. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I can't agree with that relativistic approach.

The afterlife is NOT unknown.  It has been revealed, but people either by choice or by doubt are not accepting of it.
And loving and inclusive do NOT go hand in hand.  God loves all his children.  He still followed law and its prescribed penalties.

You're satisfied with your POV and I'm satisfied with mine, so I guess we're both good.

 

The afterlife is unknown to me. I haven't seen or experienced it. But I can believe in it if I trust the claims/teachings of other individuals who haven't experienced it.

 

[Mystery Meat]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

We don't demand that the church change anything.  We just walk away.  Like MM, we long ago realized that the church has a belief that the only way to get into the Celestial Kingdom is if a person becomes straight after being celibate, without a companion in this earth life.  We are willing to put our faith in God that finding a person to share this life with and enjoying all the love and joy that comes with that experience won't be condemned by a God who loves all of his children.

While many  members and leadership think they have scriptural backing on this issue, I see none.  While the scriptures are clear that any sex outside of marriage is against the law of chastity, none talk about sex inside of marriage.  Certainly one can also look at the words of Christ, Book of Mormon and D&C and take comfort that none of those writings mention any condemnation against gays finding happiness in this life.  

In my opinion church leaders are all just guessing from a point of view that everyone has to become straight just like them.  Personal prejudices of the time have been blatantly wrong before.  They are wrong now.  But that does NOT mean that I or anyone else is demanding that the church change it's  position.  We just walk away and enjoy a rich and fulfilling life outside of the church.  There is so much love and understanding for gay people outside the church who are more than willing to leave the judgement to God and can find it in their hearts to love us just like everyone else.  Members don't really have to constantly judge and condemn gay relationships.  They could choose to leave that up to God as some on this board have chosen to do. 

This is a mormon themed message board. Believe me i am more than willing to let bygones be bygones and agree to disagree. But when ssm advocates come on here, bash the Church, tell us we should minimize important doctrine, waive their beliefs in our face that the Church will succomb to social pressure, then what are we supposed to do? It goes both ways CB. If you want me to leave your lifestyle choices alone, don't come on here and attack the church. If you cant or wont do that or feel the need to condemn the church, then my guess is this cycle will continue.

[Atheist Mormon]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

Truth is not even close to being eternal. Truth is a "work in progress" as church history shows; Priesthood for blacks approved, polygamy rescinded....(many other important doctrines altered)......

It is not an eternal principle, it is "attitude adjustment".

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Truth is not even close to being eternal. Truth is a "work in progress" as church history shows; Priesthood for blacks approved, polygamy rescinded....(many other important doctrines altered)......

It is not an eternal principle, it is "attitude adjustment".

Nonsense.

Truth is eternal.  Our understanding of truth is a work in progress to be sure.
But that applies to things where no absolute truth was revealed.  When absolute truths have been revealed, their eternal nature exists and there is no more progress to be made.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

Well, the Supreme Court did decide that members of the Church (and others) don't have the right to vote away the rights of a minority group of people.

Actually it didn't. It said states have no such authority. Individuals can still exercise their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure why you always feel like you need to poke the LGBT/SSM bear.
You are correct - there is an impasse.
In the end they will unavoidably be faced with the eternal truth.  And it will break their hearts.  That is the true sadness here.
If in the end we turned out to be wrong, as impossible as that may be, I at least would be happy for them.  But anticipating their inevitable heartbreak and accountability for choices made is sad enough without poking the bear.

Continually pointing out the future weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth helps nobody, and should break our hearts too.
 

It is simple why he posts such things here. This is the only website where the issue can be discussed without (religious site) offensive terms are not used and gay people are not told they are going to burn in hell. It is also a topic that is posted on a consistent basis. So let's not this him under the bus for it. It matters here as our faith is trying to extend love and compassion to all, he is just doing it the way he feels out of that same compassion. 

 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

When I first read this post yesterday, I thought it was perhaps a bit too pessimistic.  But then I came across this article this morning (emphasis added)'

Quote

When they hear the words “Mormon,” “Republican,” and “Utah,” LGBT people have good reason to run the hell away. But in a vigil speech made by Utah’s Mormon Republican Lt. Governor Spencer Cox this week, following the mass shooting in Orlando, he apologized about the way he treated gay people in his past:

Quote

I grew up in a small town and went to a small rural high school. There were some kids in my class that were different. Sometimes I wasn’t kind to them. I didn’t know it at the time, but I know now that they were gay. I will forever regret not treating them with the kindness, dignity and respect — the love — that they deserved. For that, I sincerely and humbly apologize.
…
I believe that we can all agree we have come a long way as a society when it comes to our acceptance and understanding of the LGBTQ community (did I get that right?). However, there has been something about this tragedy that has very much troubled me. I believe that there is a question, two questions actually, that each of us needs to ask ourselves in our heart of hearts. And I am speaking now to the straight community. How did you feel when you heard that 49 people had been gunned down by a self-proclaimed terrorist? That’s the easy question. Here is the hard one: Did that feeling change when you found out the shooting was at a gay bar at 2 a.m. in the morning? If that feeling changed, then we are doing something wrong.

It’s a good speech. It’s honest and vulnerable and doesn’t appear to be a political ploy or an opportunity to place blame on the “other side.”
Here’s what I’d like to know: What will Cox be doing to help the LGBT community from here on out? Utah has been better than other Republican-led states when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, but it’s not perfect. Will Cox advocate for more pro-equality legislation?

More importantly, will he continue to support the Mormon Church, which has done so much to punish people for their sexual orientation?

A speech is nice. But real actions would be so much more useful.

Hmm.  Putting aside, for the moment, the rank bigotry in the opening statement (imagine the hue and cry that would arise if a Latter-day Saint wrote something similarly prejudicial, like "When they hear the words 'gay,' 'scout leader' and 'alone with your children,' Latter-day Saints have good reason to run the heck away"), It sounds like some folks on "the other side" of this argument want to foist a conundrum onto the Latter-day Saints: We are expected to either be on "their side" or remain faithfully LDS, but not both.  Why else would the author ask "will he {the LDS lieutenant governor of Utah} continue to support the Mormon Church, which has done so much to punish people for their sexual orientation," and then allude to "real actions" that "would be so much more useful?"  What "real actions" does he have in mind?  To me, based on the context I'd say he's hoping for Latter-day Saints to turn against (or no longer "continue to support") their church.

Well, if that's the deal, then no thanks.  If LGBT folks are going to condition fellowship/friendship with them on Latter-day Saints abandoning their covenants, then I will not do it.

Fortunately, I don't think everyone in the LGBT community is as determined to foment discord and apostasy within the LDS Church.  I truly hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2016 by smac97