The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Where are the scripture references that speak directly about homosexual behavior?

What words on specifically written on this subject?

huh?  I'm not sure I care about either as it pertains to this discussion.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

"For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires."

For most of the people that i know, they would prefer to accept SSM and openly gay people at church (myself included). In fact now that i think about it, I actually don't know anyone who's desire it is to exclude actively gay or SSMarried people.

 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

"For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires."

A perfect description of how society has convinced people to go against sound doctrine and accept SSM as a good thing.
Talk about suiting their own desires.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Where are the scripture references that speak directly about homosexual behavior?

What words on specifically written on this subject?

Different topic for a different thread.
But you are undoubtedly already familiar with Leviticus and Romans, AND the reasons people think they don't apply to SSM.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For most of the people that i know, they would prefer to accept SSM and openly gay people at church (myself included). In fact now that i think about it, I actually don't know anyone who's desire it is to exclude actively gay or SSMarried people.

 

Sadly, in my experience many gay people feel like they are rejected.  labelling them as apostates tends to make them feel that way. 

The problem in this, to me, is that the Church has a way of making others feel rejected while trying to claim it accepts all.  In the sum, it'd be nice if we didn't have this problem, for sure.  But we do.  I think our best approach is to drop our teachings on homosexuality all together.

[Danzo]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

"For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires."

Exactly!!!

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I just saw the October 2016 Ensign article Stand as True Millennials by Russell M. Nelson that reaffirmed the November policy change regarding same sex married couples as officially apostates and denying baptism to their children.  Under section 3 it says

 

Surveys have show that support for same sex marriage is strongest among millennials and this includes Mormon millennials. Was this a way to draw a line in the sand saying you can't be a "True Mormon Millennial" and support gay marriage because it's literally "the mind and will of the Lord"?

 

Phaedrus 

 

This is just a re-print of Elder Nelson's January address in which he made the claim that the policy was revelation.  I wouldn't call it a reaffirmation and it certainly isn't a second witness.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sadly, in my experience many gay people feel like they are rejected.  labelling them as apostates tends to make them feel that way. 

The problem in this, to me, is that the Church has a way of making others feel rejected while trying to claim it accepts all.  In the sum, it'd be nice if we didn't have this problem, for sure.  But we do.  I think our best approach is to drop our teachings on homosexuality all together.

You can say the same thing about Breaking the law of chastity.

Many who are breaking the law of chastity feel they are rejected.

You can say the same thing about Breaking the word of wisdom..

Many who are breaking the word of wisdom feel like they are rejected.

You can say the same thing about any commandment.

 

Perhaps our best approach is to drop our teachings on on homosexual behavior, law of chastity, word of wisdom, Sabbath day observance, service, honesty, etc. all together.

 

Then no one will ever feel like they are rejected or labeled as apostates.

Then no one will feel that the church has a way of making others feel rejected while trying to claim it accepts all.

[Curious_About_Everything]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Different topic for a different thread.
But you are undoubtedly already familiar with Leviticus and Romans, AND the reasons people think they don't apply to SSM.

There is a tenuous connection.  However, you make an astute observation.

I am working to understand the basis for scriptural disapproval of SSM and the resultant revelation on the matter.

If a Prophet studies the word of God and yearns to abide.  If a Prophet arrives at a conclusion based on living the Gospel of Jesus Christ complete with successes and failures, repentance and divine inspiration.  If a Prophet determines the best practice for a given situation then seeks the Lord's confirmation through fasting and prayer.

What specific scriptures were found to contain the knowledge specific to the subject of homosexual behavior that were initially studied and prayed about to come to the conclusion that SSM is unacceptable which thereby led to a need to confirm these thoughts resulting in the revelation in question?

I would like to examine the underlying scriptures that drive this current thought process.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sadly, in my experience many gay people feel like they are rejected.  labelling them as apostates tends to make them feel that way. 

The problem in this, to me, is that the Church has a way of making others feel rejected while trying to claim it accepts all.  In the sum, it'd be nice if we didn't have this problem, for sure.  But we do.  I think our best approach is to drop our teachings on homosexuality all together.

I was responding to Gray's implication that we have the teachings we do about homosexuality because the members of the church want those teachings and have gathered around us men who are willing to give us what we want.  The truth is that for a lot of church members (maybe even the majority) those teachings are not what we want.

I don't doubt that many gay people feel rejected and i hate that and i wish they didn't.  It's really hard to feel accepted when something that you really want to do (or are doing), that is a huge part of your life, isn't accepted though.  That's just the way that life is. 

But i think the idea that the way to handle it is to stop teaching it altogether is unreasonable.

Last week my 11 year old told me, in all seriousness, that i was ruining his life and didn't love him because he wanted to do something that i wouldn't let him do.  It would have been easier to just let him do it, for sure.  He would have felt loved and supported if i had said yes, that's another surety.  But the ease of the way and a guarantee of him feeling loved no matter what is not my goal.  Sometimes doing what is right means that people won't feel loved and it makes life harder and not easier.  

If our teachings on homosexuality are of God, then dropping them would be way more harmful than keeping them.  Our goal should be to always do God's will, regardless of anything else, including how other people respond to it.  And people are not always going to respond positively to God's will.  

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is just a re-print of Elder Nelson's January address in which he made the claim that the policy was revelation.  I wouldn't call it a reaffirmation and it certainly isn't a second witness.

The definition of 'reaffirm' is just to assert something that had already been stated or to restate a fact previously offered.  Th publishing of the address in a church magazine (when it was not available to the church membership before) seems to fit the basic definition of a reaffirmation.  The church is reaffirming the stance that pres. Nelson had previously stated.

I agree though that it's not really a second witness if it's the same person saying it.

[Jeanne]

Someday, a missionary will come into contact with a young person that has gay parents...and he/she will say...I came...this....close to getting baptized and the policy/revelation said i could not. 

[Curious_About_Everything]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If our teachings on homosexuality are of God, then dropping them would be way more harmful than keeping them.  Our goal should be to always do God's will, regardless of anything else, including how other people respond to it.  And people are not always going to respond positively to God's will.  

Do you believe SSM is approved by God? 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is just a re-print of Elder Nelson's January address in which he made the claim that the policy was revelation.  I wouldn't call it a reaffirmation and it certainly isn't a second witness.

I'm not altogether convinced that every article and word in the Ensign is read and personally-approved by the Brethren. Nominally, yes, the Brethren authorize the editorial staff, but this carries with it a lot of delegated trust lee-way. I don't think that the editorial direction, focus, etc. of the Ensign and Church magazines is micro-managed or even dictated by the Brethren (i.e., the drastic difference between them now and in the 1980s or earlier), but they allow the editorial staff professional leeway to run them how they want to.

While they may well have asked Elder Nelson if they could print his talk, they may also have just chosen to, and the Brethren are okay with it in hindsight. 

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Someday, a missionary will come into contact with a young person that has gay parents...and he/she will say...I came...this....close to getting baptized and the policy/revelation said i could not. 

In the mean time, I have actually met many people who came...This...Close to getting baptized and policy/revelation said they could not.  

 

Then they waited or otherwise conformed to the policy and they are active members of the church today.

it happens quite often

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Do you believe SSM is approved by God? 

I don't.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The definition of 'reaffirm' is just to assert something that had already been stated or to restate a fact previously offered.  Th publishing of the address in a church magazine (when it was not available to the church membership before) seems to fit the basic definition of a reaffirmation.  The church is reaffirming the stance that pres. Nelson had previously stated.

I agree though that it's not really a second witness if it's the same person saying it.

It was available to church membership before.  It was published on LDS.org shortly after the address was given.

But, I am glad we agree it is not a second witness.  Thanks.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Do you believe SSM is approved by God?

No.

But then I don't think SSM even exists in the eyes of God.  I don't think God recognizes any marriage not ordained by himself.  (Matt 19:4-6)
It is nothing but a mortal construct.  Something man created by changing God's creation into a new form.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Or non-existent.
 

Why not both?

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Someday, a missionary will come into contact with a young person that has gay parents...and he/she will say...I came...this....close to getting baptized and the policy/revelation said i could not. 

Hopefully they'll say "well, now's your chance!!"  

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Without God's word on a subject there is no such thing as a "good spiritual principle".
Unless God declared something good or evil a principle is not good or evil, just personally acceptable.
And I know you don't want a list of all the evils that people decided were personally acceptable through history.

If God doesn't declare there can be no absolutes, just societal norms and personal preference.

There are good psychological principles, even without a divine administrator handing them down from on high. They are there, waiting to be discovered. The same is true of good spiritual principles. Jesus is reported to have taught many good spiritual principles. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully they'll say "well, now's your chance!!"  

And they will likely say...you had your chance...I didn't matter then..what is different now?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are good psychological principles, even without a divine administrator handing them down from on high. They are there, waiting to be discovered. The same is true of good spiritual principles. Jesus is reported to have taught many good spiritual principles.

 

• Luke 18: 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
   
• 3 Nephi 27:13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
   
• John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Pretty sure Christ's good spiritual principles came from the divine administrator on high and nowhere else.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And they will likely say...you had your chance...I didn't matter then..what is different now?

If they said that, then they probably never had a testimony to begin with.  

If you truly believed that a church was God's church--if you sincerely believed that's where He wanted you to be--is there any reason you would purposefully choose not to join?

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You can say the same thing about Breaking the law of chastity.

Many who are breaking the law of chastity feel they are rejected.

You can say the same thing about Breaking the word of wisdom..

Many who are breaking the word of wisdom feel like they are rejected.

You can say the same thing about any commandment.

 

Perhaps our best approach is to drop our teachings on on homosexual behavior, law of chastity, word of wisdom, Sabbath day observance, service, honesty, etc. all together.

 

Then no one will ever feel like they are rejected or labeled as apostates.

Then no one will feel that the church has a way of making others feel rejected while trying to claim it accepts all.

I get this.  But for me the preponderance of my personal experience suggests the rejection is far more than just because they sinned.