Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[california boy]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak for Carbon Dioxide, but perhaps something in mind more along the lines of this (emphasis added):

And/or this (emphasis added):

And/or this (emphasis added):

Thanks,

-Smac

It kind of sounds like both God and Satan build a little at a time to establish their work since one can also quote this process of line upon line as the way God works as well.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, djf1981 said:

Well, if some gays believe that, then more power to them and I wish them all the happiness in the world. I can only speak for myself and my experience. If given the choice of either being alone for eternity or "having the chance" to marry a woman in the next life, then I'd gladly choose to be alone. This "condition" as you put it, is all I've ever known in this life, and I have no desire to change that in the next. Like I said, I've made peace and moved on. If that means that I have to face consequences in the next life, then so be it. 

Welcome to the board.  I wish you well.   I have come to the same conclusions you have.  Live your life the way the spirit tells you is right for you.  Look towards God for the answers you seek.  This is a subject that the church can not authoritatively give you any answers to.  But I guess you figured that out for yourself.  I hope you find a wonderful companion to share this journey with.  I certainly am one of those lucky guys that have found a wonderful companion.  How the church treats gays is something neither one of us have any control of.  How we live our lives is something we do have control of.  I hope you find all the happiness that God has in store for you in this life and the next.  

[Gray]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

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.

It's very easy to miss how much sexual orientation is a part of your identity if you're straight, because no one in your life expresses disapproval. It's much the same way that white people don't think of themselves in racial terms - they have the luxury of ignoring it. You mentioned identifying as a husband and father - both inexorably linked to heterosexual identity. Everything from your wedding ring to the picture of your family at your office speaks to your sexual orientation as an identity.

[mfbukowski]

An interesting post from "Mormon Hub"

"John Dehlin makes his living antagonizing the church".  Sounds about right.  An interesting summary of the new policy 

http://mormonhub.com/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/

[VideoGameJunkie]

Millennial mormons are more likely to support same sex marriage than older people so imagine the future when the millennials will make up the Q15.

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Millennial mormons are more likely to support same sex marriage than older people so imagine the future when the millennials will make up the Q15.

This statement only pretends to importance if you sincerely believe that service in the Church is about advancing one's personal agenda instead of obtaining and then fulfilling the Lord's agenda. My experience is that it is very much the latter.

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Millennial mormons are more likely to support same sex marriage than older people so imagine the future when the millennials will make up the Q15.

Any millennial likely to support same sex marriage is not likely to become one of the Q15. Those going before will see to it that they do not progress to that point. The church will never give in to this even if it means losing members who want it. And if they did give in to it they would lose even more members by the thousands. 

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Millennial mormons are more likely to support same sex marriage than older people so imagine the future when the millennials will make up the Q15.

It's not going to be just any old Millennials who become apostles. They are going to be Millennials who were bishops, stake president, mission presidents, area seventies, and general authority seventies. And these are not going to be socially liberal, no matter how far in the future you look. 

For those who like to point out that social change drives LDS policy/doctrinal change, when the Church eventually gets around to getting on the "right side of history," there has to be an ultimate limit, a line that can't/won't be crossed. For the very conservative types who by-and-large make up the active, tithing-paying membership and the local and general leadership, gay marriage and traditional LoC morality is such a line. And these are the types that will continue to be called into leadership positions, no matter how far we project into the future.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This statement only pretends to importance if you sincerely believe that service in the Church is about advancing one's personal agenda instead of obtaining and then fulfilling the Lord's agenda. My experience is that it is very much the latter.

 

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Any millennial likely to support same sex marriage is not likely to become one of the Q15. Those going before will see to it that they do not progress to that point. The church will never give in to this even if it means losing members who want it. And if they did give in to it they would lose even more members by the thousands. 

 

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's not going to be just any old Millennials who become apostles. They are going to be Millennials who were bishops, stake president, mission presidents, area seventies, and general authority seventies. And these are not going to be socially liberal, no matter how far in the future you look. 

For those who like to point out that social change drives LDS policy/doctrinal change, when the Church eventually gets around to getting on the "right side of history," there has to be an ultimate limit, a line that can't/won't be crossed. For the very conservative types who by-and-large make up the active, tithing-paying membership and the local and general leadership, gay marriage and traditional LoC morality is such a line. And these are the types that will continue to be called into leadership positions, no matter how far we project into the future.

Look at it from this perspective:

From LDS.org: "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah."

Racism influenced doctrine that was taught by church leaders and now disavowed by our current church leaders.  It's not a stretch to believe that misunderstanding of homosexuality and/or personal prejudices could be influencing current doctrine and will be disavowed when those subject to such misunderstanding/prejudices are no longer leading the church. 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Any millennial likely to support same sex marriage is not likely to become one of the Q15. Those going before will see to it that they do not progress to that point. The church will never give in to this even if it means losing members who want it. And if they did give in to it they would lose even more members by the thousands. 

Aside from a belief that such calls are actually inspired, the above has to also be part of the calculus ("study it out in your mind"). The catastrophic loss of vitality, enthusiasm, and commitment if there is ever wide liberalization of Church doctrine on the LoC is a factor. There may be many more who technically stay in the Church, but whose vitality and enthusiasm would be sapped. I would be one of them. I wouldn't leave the Church, but I would regard it as a mistake of men done for non-inspired reasons.

The irony is that this is exactly the position on the priesthood ban of people pressing/hoping for widescale change in this area. Yet, they would herald this change as inspired. Even though they think other policies/teachings were completely of men. Why wouldn't this one be? Because it aligns with fashionable liberal/progressive thought.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Look at it from this perspective:

From LDS.org: "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah."

Racism influenced doctrine that was taught by church leaders and now disavowed by our current church leaders.  It's not a stretch to believe that misunderstanding of homosexuality and/or personal prejudices could be influencing current doctrine and will be disavowed when those subject to such misunderstanding/prejudices are no longer leading the church. 

There's no end to this hypothetical cycle, though. Still later, future generations could disavow the groundbreaking liberalization of doctrine as quaint misunderstanding/prejudice.

That's why I think the disavowal slope is a bad one to start slipping down. Then it's just whatever the current generation wants.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Look at it from this perspective: 

From LDS.org: "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah."

You persist in reading into this statement a whole raft of assumptions that are not inherent, and I understand that doing so provides you with your main (sole?) hope of being vindicated in your desire to see the revealed Plan of Salvation thoroughly gutted and up-ended someday, but I do hope that you in return can see things from the perspective of those who don't share your conclusions. I've personally heard a lot of 'justifications' for the Law of Chastity that I disagree with -- and many that I find ill-informed and/or repugnant -- but that fact doesn't alter what God has inspired His prophets to teach since the dawn of time. All best!

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

There's no end to this hypothetical cycle, though. Still later, future generations could disavow the groundbreaking liberalization of doctrine as quaint misunderstanding/prejudice.

That's why I think the disavowal slope is a bad one to start slipping down. Then it's just whatever the current generation wants.

So was the Brethren's disavowal of past racism just what "the current generation wants" and not what is right/true?

 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You persist in reading into this statement a whole raft of assumptions that are not inherent, and I understand that doing so provides you with your main (sole?) hope of being vindicated in your desire to see the revealed Plan of Salvation thoroughly gutted and up-ended someday, but I do hope that you in return can see things from the perspective of those who don't share your conclusions. I've personally heard a lot of 'justifications' for the Law of Chastity that I disagree with -- and many that I find ill-informed and/or repugnant -- but that fact doesn't alter what God has inspired His prophets to teach since the dawn of time. All best!

I do see things from the perspective of those who don't share my conclusions.  Absolutely.  It would be pretty tough for me to continue as an active member and serve in my calling if I didn't. 

Perhaps you could afford me the same courtesy: I don't want to see the plan of salvation "thoroughly up-ended and gutted".  Please don't misstate my position. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

It would be pretty tough for me to continue as an active member and serve in my calling if I didn't.

I do not envy any such 'toughness'.

I think the single most common -- and therefore defining -- characteristic I've observed each time I've served in a bishopric has been the experience of bringing to a discussion my personal agenda, only to have the Lord clearly reveal that I/we/some of us are wrong and that He has a different plan. If the Saviour so guides an obscure bishopric in a small congregation on the fringes of Zion, I find it absurd to argue that He doesn't do the same for those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators -- or, worse, to hope, for personal reasons, that He doesn't.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[VideoGameJunkie]

My comments aregarding to make us think about how,different the church might be in 40 to 50 years.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

We have plenty of revelation concerning marriage, the purposes of marriage, the design of marriage, how God views marriage, and which kinds of marriages God recognizes.

SSM has no place with God nor eternal counterpart.  From the very first marriage which God performed personally to the temple to D&C 132 to the words of the Savior on marriage, according to revelation marriage is the joining of male and female.

Any new "revelation" would contradict that and automatically be recognized as false.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So was the Brethren's disavowal of past racism just what "the current generation wants" and not what is right/true?

Both.

Sometimes member culture and revealed truth coincide.  Sometimes they are at odds.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I do not envy any such 'toughness'.

I think the single most common -- and therefore defining -- characteristic I've observed each time I've served in a bishopric has been the experience of bringing to a discussion my personal agenda, only to have the Lord clearly reveal that I/we/some of us are wrong and that He has a different plan. If the Saviour so guides an obscure bishopric in a small congregation on the fringes of Zion, I find it absurd to argue that He doesn't do the same for those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators -- or, worse, to hope for personal reasons that He doesn't.

As I said, it isn't tough because I understand the perspective of which you speak.  As I read your responses to me, I wonder if you are actually understanding why I have written.  It appears that you aren't. 

I thoroughly agree with your paragraph above and share on the same experience and testimony.  I also don't see how that contradicts what I've stated previously in this discussion. 

I believe that the great Brethren who lead this church are guided by the Lord and I imagine that they are sometimes told that they are wrong.  The Lord also operates  within the bounds of His timeline, honoring agency, and having only imperfect souls with which to work.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We have plenty of revelation concerning marriage, the purposes of marriage, the design of marriage, how God views marriage, and which kinds of marriages God recognizes.

SSM has no place with God nor eternal counterpart.  From the very first marriage which God performed personally to the temple to D&C 132 to the words of the Savior on marriage, according to revelation marriage is the joining of male and female.

Any new "revelation" would contradict that and automatically be recognized as false.

An acknowledgement of the importance and sacredness of heterosexual marriage is not a revelation on homosexuality.  

No potential revelatory contradiction exists.  But I realize you see if differently. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, rockpond said:

An acknowledgement of the importance and sacredness of heterosexual marriage is not a revelation on homosexuality.  

No potential revelatory contradiction exists.  But I realize you see if differently. 

The revelations define marriage.  This is not just a description of one type of marriage and an absence of reference for another.  God himself defined marriage as the joining of male and female.  He stated that clearly in Genesis and the temple and other places.  And since marriage came from God anything that contradicts his definition is NOT a marriage.  There is no unnamed type of marriage that God forgot to mention. 

From the very beginning marriage was revealed for one purpose.  To multiply and replenish the earth, that a woman should join with a man.  No other definition can be called a marriage.  Call it whatever you want but it's not marriage.

SSM is nothing but a man made fantasy and there is nothing eternal in it.  At least according to scriptural definition of marriage.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

It kind of sounds like both God and Satan build a little at a time to establish their work since one can also quote this process of line upon line as the way God works as well.

Surely it makes sense to everyone here that if a process is effective for teaching, it would be used by anyone wanting to teach something, whether or not their ultimate motivation was for good or evil?

An analogy would be that both construction workers and terrorists often used the same chemicals to make the same sort of explosives, but for very different reasons.  The learning process is neutral, only what it ends being used for can be judged moral or immoral.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours 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.  

dfj1982 is right. It's a matter of consistency. 

Edited to add: I meant dfj1981. Sorry I misspelled your name. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting post from "Mormon Hub"

"John Dehlin makes his living antagonizing the church".  Sounds about right.  An interesting summary of the new policy 

http://mormonhub.com/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/

Looking at the comments of these so called myths shows that not many people bought into her point of view.  It seems pretty difficult to try and dismiss the objections to the policy as myths.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, djf1981 said:

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.  

To believe in theosis/deification/exaltation is to accept the likelihood that when one takes on a divine and glorified state, certain things that one formerly found intensely interesting will no longer hold any appeal. The reverse applies as well.

(Except for my being a Beach Boys fan. Even after I have attained godhood (or should I say if?), I will still be enthralled with the harmonies, chord progressions and rhythms devised by Brian Wilson. What a gift he has! And to have developed it at such a young age!)

Edited November 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd