Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[Daniel2]

33 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No but a Church general authority, Elder Bruce Haven saying it might be considered official. No other General authority has refuted what he said.

I'm not sure the concept that "well, a church general authority said it" and "no other general authority has refused what he said" is typically held as a solid standard of what counts as "official" church doctrine.  Certainly, that's not what the church advertises as being accurately considered to be official or binding doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I didn't call it a marriage... I called it an eternal same-sex union.

According to LDS belief, 2/3 of those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom will not be exalted as procreative couples.  The purpose of such eternal same-gender unions would be to allow joy (the purpose of life) through shared companionship, united in a non-procreative, yet still productive and potentially creative partnerships, in creating worlds of functional purpose and beauty.

In all honesty, many gay former-Latter-day Saints I know would MUCH rather spend an eternity united with their same-sex spouse in non-procreative unions, rather than having a life of spiritual paternity begetting spirit children to populate other worlds.  That just isn't an attractive incentive for many of us who are gay and happily united with our spouses.

I still fail to seen any difference between these "unions" you describe and traditional "brotherhood in the gospel".

[Jeanne]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

I'm not sure the concept that "well, a church general authority said it" and "no other general authority has refused what he said" is typically held as a solid standard of what counts as "official" church doctrine.  Certainly, that's not what the church advertises as being accurately considered to be official or binding doctrine.

I agree.  I wanted to say...so??????

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, djf1981 said:

I just meant that by their own policy, they view all sex outside of a hetero marriage as sinful. So by logic of their reasoning, allowing homosexual activity would negate their restriction on hetero sex outside of marriage.  

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that acceptance of sex outside of marriage (hetero- or homosexual marriage) would ever be a part of LDS doctrine.  I think the thought is that gay marriage will someday be accepted.

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I still fail to seen any difference between these "unions" you describe and traditional "brotherhood in the gospel".

"Brothers in the gospel" don't live together, hugging, kissing, cuddling, snuggling, and sleeping together... 

Let alone have sex together (I intentionally left this one separate because I don't think LDS doctrine is very clear about who will be able to have sex in the afterlife.  I know that most active members assume that only the top 1/3 who are sealed will be able to, and some members have historically even subscribed to the concept that individuals in other kingdoms won't have sexual organs post-resurrection, but all of that seems like doctrinal speculation to me, as it isn't really addressed anywhere in scripture).

Edited November 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[Guest]

1 hour ago, djf1981 said:

The only thing that hurts is that the Church says "you can't do that", but they don't offer any sort of an alternative. I suppose a lot of people, including on this forum would say, "Well, they say you shouldn't drink, smoke, or look at porn either." But what a lot of people fail to understand though is that homosexuality isn't a vice like those other things that we can just overcome and ignore.

But many "do not" see, smoking, drinking or porn, as vices. There are been and continue to be those in different Religions who live "Chaste" lives, despite how they may feel. I am a heterosexual male, thoughout my life I have been attracted to almost every woman I have found beautiful for my almost 60 years of life. I have acted against my nature throughout my 41 years of marriage, and never acted on that feeling. I have been true to my wife, "by choice", and because of the bad example of my bio-father. This weekend, I will be giving my daughter away to another woman, despite my feelings on the issue. But my feelings about Gay marriage take second place to my love for my daughter and her happiness. 

Like it or not, life is all about choices, and most of them difficult, and then living with those choices. 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I didn't call it a marriage... I called it an eternal same-sex union.

According to LDS belief, 2/3 of those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom will not be exalted as procreative couples.  The purpose of such eternal same-gender unions would be to allow joy (the purpose of life) through shared companionship, united in a non-procreative, yet still productive and potentially creative partnerships, in creating worlds of functional purpose and beauty.

In all honesty, many gay former-Latter-day Saints I know would MUCH rather spend an eternity united with their same-sex spouse in non-procreative unions, rather than having a life of spiritual paternity begetting spirit children to populate other worlds.  That just isn't an attractive incentive for many of us who are gay and happily united with our spouses.

I'm not sure that's an attractive incentive to those of us who are straight, either!

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

"Brothers in the gospel" don't live together, hugging, kissing, cuddling, snuggling, and sleeping together...  Let alone have sex together (I intentionally left this one separate because I don't think LDS doctrine is very clear about who will be able to have sex in the afterlife.  I know that most active members assume that only the top 1/3 who are sealed will be able to, and some members have historically even subscribed to the concept that individuals in other kingdoms won't have sexual organs post-resurrection, but all of that seems like doctrinal speculation to me, as it isn't really addressed anywhere in scripture).

D&C 132 and the temple are clear.  Exaltation is a continuation of seeds and creation of the means to make those descendants immortal.  And those without eternal heterosexual marriages will remain separately and singly, by their own choice, with no creative power.

That's scripture.  Any idea of any other "eternal couples" is pure speculation and not scriptural.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

"Brothers in the gospel" don't live together, hugging, kissing, cuddling, snuggling, and sleeping together...  Let alone have sex together (I intentionally left this one separate because I don't think LDS doctrine is very clear about who will be able to have sex in the afterlife.  

Well, I for one am glad you and the Church have left that out.  The older I get, the less I care to know what others might say, or maybe more afraid of what others might say on the issue.  

[Daniel2]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 and the temple are clear.  Exaltation is a continuation of seeds and creation of the means to make those descendants immortal.  And those without eternal heterosexual marriages will remain separately and singly, by their own choice, with no creative power.

That's scripture.  Any idea of any other "eternal couples" is pure speculation and not scriptural.

Again, I wasn't saying these couples would be "exalted."  And as you say, D&C and the temple (and I'll even throw in the Proclamation on the Family!) are all entirely silent about the 2/3 in the other kingdoms, yet NONE of them explicitly preclude or even address the possibility of eternal same-sex couples.  So, yep... until there is ANY specific revelation about the standing of gays and lesbians in the eternities, ALL of this is pure speculation--even whatever a couple of random GA's say at a (now defunct) Evergreen International conference or as postulated about in a media interview a decade ago by the Mormon Newsroom!  

EDIT:  I disagree that LDS scriptures indicate that "those without eternal heterosexual marriages" will have "no creative power."  I think you meant "with no procreative power."  After all, many individuals CAN be creative (by creating things other than personal offspring) in non-PRO-creative ways (which, specifically, refers to the creation of one's own offspring).

Edited November 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm not sure the concept that "well, a church general authority said it" and "no other general authority has refused what he said" is typically held as a solid standard of what counts as "official" church doctrine.  Certainly, that's not what the church advertises as being accurately considered to be official or binding doctrine.

I understand that, but for now what they have said on this is official enough for me; at least until we learn otherwise in a more "official" way (if there is such a thing). So far we have not learned otherwise.

[djf1981]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are entitled to your choice. But my main concern is for those who don't want the gay identity and hope for the blessings that are promised to others of God's children, especially youth who may be in the process of coming to terms with their sexual nature. I can't allow the assumption that homosexuality defines them and they are stuck with it forever remain unchallenged. 

That's totally fine. Like I said, the more power to them. Everyone is entitled to their own path and journey in life. I can only speak for myself and my own experiencse. The thought of even being with a woman (much less being married to one) is physically and emotionally repulsive to me. I'm simply not physically and emotionally capable of it and I can't imagine that situation changing in the next life, and frankly I wouldn't want it to change. I'd rather be punished than feel pressured (in return for exaltation) into doing something that is so foreign and repellent to me.  

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I understand that, but for now what they have said on this is official enough for me; at least until we learn otherwise in a more "official" way (if there is such a thing). So far we have not learned otherwise.

I can understand that for most who may not have a dog in this fight, and for many that do, such unofficial sources are good enough for you.

For some like me, that type of speculation isn't satisfying or fulfilling, especially when our personal experience contradicts it, points us in a different direction, and leads us to different conclusions. 

Beyond acknowledging your satisfaction of those sources, and my response above, I'm not sure there's much more to say on that particular aspect.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Again, I wasn't saying these couples would be "exalted."  And as you say, D&C and the temple (and I'll even throw in the Proclamation on the Family!) are all entirely silent about the 2/3 in the other kingdoms, yet NONE of them explicitly preclude or even address the possibility of eternal same-sex couples.

D&C 132 is very clear that there are no couples in the eternities that aren't exalted.
Homosexual or heterosexual.
Not speculation.

D&C 132:16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

So yes, any who do not abide the law of eternal marriage will NOT be part of any couple in the eternities.

Edited November 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's an identity for straight people. Why not for gay people? 

It's not an identity for straight people, either. Our true identities are: children of God.  We may have various unchosen characteristics; we may choose to develop some attributes; we may choose behave in different ways; and, we may choose alternate identities based characteristics, attributes and behaviors. Some constraints are imposed upon us.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I find it a strange thing to say that one's sexual orientation "is not an identity." 

While it's certainly not ALL of a person's identity, it certainly directly informs and affects the most important identity one can have with another non-blood-related human being; namely, the relationship one has with one's spouse.

According to the dictionary:

Quote

i·den·ti·ty

noun: identity; plural noun: identities

1. the fact of being who or what a person or thing is; the characteristics determining this.

synonyms:

individuality, self, selfhood; More personality, character, originality, distinctiveness, differentness, singularity, uniqueness "she was afraid of losing her identity"

2. a close similarity or affinity.

When asking me about the most important aspects of my own identity, I would respond by saying husband, father, son, and brother.  The fact that my husband is also gay obviously directly impacts one of the most key familial relationships that are most important to who I am.

An orientation is a characteristic or attribute you possess, not what you are. It does not define you unless you choose it to... which really limits the full expression of all you are.

You say that you are, by identity, a husband, father, son, and brother. I so identify as well. As you pointed out, and as I have, you are these things regardless of your (or your husband's, father's, son's and brother's) orientation.

Our identity does not depend on orientation or on other people to define who and what we are (if they do, that would be enmeshment and suppress the full expression of all we really are). We are individuals in relationships with others, and other than being children (including siblings), we choose our relationships.

Our identity has many characteristics and attributes, but they only describe what we hold onto, whether by choice or by imposition, and not who or what we are.

Some people certainly prefer to identify by their characteristics, and some do not. In either case, being a child of God is not a characteristic, but per your dictionary definiotn, "a fact of being." Orientation is a "fact of attribute," characteristic or possession of self or selfhood -- not of character or personality.

[Mystery Meat]

45 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In all honesty, many gay former-Latter-day Saints I know would MUCH rather spend an eternity united with their same-sex spouse in non-procreative unions, rather than having a life of spiritual paternity begetting spirit children to populate other worlds.  That just isn't an attractive incentive for many of us who are gay and happily united with our spouses.

To the extent this is true, it is probably the most damning admission about the very nature of SSM. 

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 is very clear that there are no couples in the eternities that aren't exalted.
Homosexual or heterosexual.
Not speculation.

D&C 132:16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

So yes, any who do not abide the law of eternal marriage will NOT be part of any couple in the eternities.

Again, JLH... what you consider to be definitive, I disagree.  As I mentioned, that scripture seems nonsensical to me if you're saying that such angels won't have any type of interaction or association. 

And certainly, I wouldn't discount the ability to re-interpret D&C in alternative ways, since it was originally referring to celestial polygamist marriages, and not even monogamous ones.  Post manifesto, modern sensibilities have re-evaluated/interpreted it to also apply to monogamy.  I don't see why a new revelation couldn't similarly prompt a new re-evaluate/interpret it according to new scripture, which has had a way of contradicting and replacing formerly conflicting scripture.

What you see set in stone I see as words on a page that are just as easily rewritten by NEWER words on a page.

But don't worry... I'm not sitting in church teaching as much.  This is just my opinion as a former Latter-day Saint and present non-believer, while maintaining ties through family and friends with a religious body that continues to have a large amount of influence over the communities that I live in.  I'm happy to engage in discussion on points like this... but I know that the church doesn't really 'belong' to me, anyway.  So my opinion really holds very little sway over what the church does in the future.  I believe, if history teaches me anything, that society will have a FAR more profound impact on the church and it's teachings than I will.

[Daniel2]

Just now, Mystery Meat said:

To the extent this is true, it is probably the most damning admission about the very nature of SSM. 

Howso?

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

What you see set in stone I see as words on a page that are just as easily rewritten by NEWER words on a page.

 

Rewrites aren't valid.

Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." Joseph Smith - TPJS, 308

Isaiah 24: 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

“You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them will be damned."
 Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, October 12, 1856

 

Any rewrite to allow SSM or "eternal Same Sex couples" would be meaningless and false.

[Mystery Meat]

13 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Howso?

God has said His work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Part of that process is to help intelligences progress into spirits, as we call them. I suspect that this is part of what makes the divine...divine. It is assisting other further down on the progression ladder move up. Something they could not do on their own. It seems based on what you said that former-LDS gay men aren't particularly attracted to participating in that process. In my mind you might as well have said they have no interest in the Celestial Kingdom or exaltation.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Rewrites aren't valid.

Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." Joseph Smith - TPJS, 308

Isaiah 24: 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

“You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them will be damned."
 Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, October 12, 1856

 

Any rewrite to allow SSM or "eternal Same Sex couples" would be meaningless and false.

"Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold."  -- Elder Ballard, Oct 2016

[JLHPROF]

Just now, rockpond said:

"Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold."  -- Elder Ballard, Oct 2016

"We never inquire at the hand of God for Special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case..."  Joseph Smith TPJS 22

"How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation." Joseph Smith HC 4:581; 1 April 1842)

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

[Daniel2]

20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

God has said His work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Part of that process is to help intelligences progress into spirits, as we call them. I suspect that this is part of what makes the divine...divine. It is assisting other further down on the progression ladder move up. Something they could not do on their own. It seems based on what you said that former-LDS gay men aren't particularly attracted to participating in that process. In my mind you might as well have said they have no interest in the Celestial Kingdom or exaltation.

But there are other aspects essential to creation, divine work, and even in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man besides procreating spirit bodies in the eternities.

Many past leaders speculated that many of Elohim's children played a part in the creation, for example. It's my personal belief that a case could easily be made in LDS theology that gays and lesbians play integral parts in creative processes that aren't specific to the procreation of offspring, but nonetheless essential to the creation, maintenance, education, and/or care of either or both an earthly and heavenly home.

Alternatively, as I've said elsewhere, I also believe that the procreation of spirit children could conceiveably be less tied to mortal sexual reproduction as many mortal minds presume it to be. I can imagine other means of celestial procreation that don't involve insemination, preganancy, gestation, and childbirth.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nor do I.  

Well if you didn't think that a gay couple would go to their grandmothers and talk about their sexual conquests or start making out in her presents, why the heck did you use that example in your answer to me.  

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't.

It does not, because I don't think that.

No, I don't think you do.

If you are curious about the reasons I would not attend a same-sex wedding, you can simply ask me.  No need for inference or coy interpretation.

Well I did ask you why you would not attend a same sex wedding.  You gave me your answer.  I accepted what you said as your feelings on that issue.  I certainly want a more clear understanding of how you view gay couples and gay marriage.  That is why I asked you the questions in the first place.  I thought your answers were how you felt.   Do you want to change your answer?  Please feel free to.  

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  You have not represented my position accurately.  At all.

Let me further clarify: You are not presenting my position accurately.  At all. 

I think they should be treated with love and respect and decorum.

Clear enough?

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok well obviously I thought you were pretty clear.  Evidently your answers you gave me were not as clear as I  thought.  Maybe my questions were not the right questions.  So if you are willing, I would like to try and ask more clear questions  

Do you think gay relations with their spouse are similar to straight relationships with their spouses?  If not, how are they different?

Do you think a gay couple deserves the right to have a legal relationship with the person that they want to marry?

From a civil point of view, do you think a gay marriage is equal to a straight marriage?  Or are all gay marriages illegitimate because it involves a marriage of the same sex?

Is there any place in society for married gay relationships?  Or should they all gay marriages be illegal and against the law?

Do you think members of the church would think less of you and your principles if you attended a gay wedding?  Would that matter to you?

What is your biggest objection to gay couples being married other than the church which speaks for God is against it?  Or is it all exclusively about your religious beliefs.

I hope you will take these questions in the spirit I am asking you, which is to better understand how you feel about legal gay marriages.  Certainly turn about is fair play.  If you want to ask me any questions  about how I feel on this issue, please feel free to ask.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

"We never inquire at the hand of God for Special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case..."  Joseph Smith TPJS 22

"How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation." Joseph Smith HC 4:581; 1 April 1842)

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

Not applicable: We don't have a revelation yet regarding homosexuality.