Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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!)

Definitely good vibrations!

[strappinglad]

6 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.

I have been taught, and do believe, that every plan and commandment that God has, has its counterfeit from Satan. Satan knows a smart approach when he sees it. Mind you I think of Satan using a ' thin edge of the wedge ' process and an 'MJ before crack ' methodology, but that is from personal experience only.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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!)

Your Zion will be Surf City?

Love the Beach Boys.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Those few statements in scripture aren't definitive.  They simply aren't.  And take what Christ said about marriage: "angels in Heaven" not given in marriage.  There is clearly more that he didn't share in mortality. 

The Lord speaks to the understanding of His people in each dispensation.  To say that He can't reveal more on homosexuality and gay marriage is to muzzle Him in this dispensation. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

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

This is the same logic by which other Christians have refused the additional scripture of the Book of Mormon. 

We have a Bible...

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

“Sure…”

Plenty of people in their respective communities disapprove of the socially and ecclesiastically unacceptable expression of heterosexuality.

And approval and disapproval do not affect anyone’s identity; it’s his no matter what. Identity develops in a person’s life over time, and may or may not involve resolving an identity crisis, but the aim of our religion in this regard is to build upon the core or fundamental principle that we are children of God. That offers a nurturing sense of being loved and guided that helps many along the way, and helps us transcend artificial (spiritually-speaking) social constructs such as race and orientation. Those without this idea will hold to a substitute identity; many acknowledge this identity but accentuate one or more attributes as their identity; and many -- from my eye-opening experience, those who come into the Church -- find it the most liberating realization they’ve ever known.

Extreme abuse can affect identity but that is what the Gospel message counters.

I don’t think you were paying attention: identifying as husband and father has nothing to do with sexuality or orientation: both Daniel2 and I identify as such. As far as the social trappings of identity, both gay and straight marriage partners wear rings and display pictures of their families!

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those few statements in scripture aren't definitive.  They simply aren't.  And take what Christ said about marriage: "angels in Heaven" not given in marriage.  There is clearly more that he didn't share in mortality. 

The Lord speaks to the understanding of His people in each dispensation.  To say that He can't reveal more on homosexuality and gay marriage is to muzzle Him in this dispensation. 

What has God already revealed on homosexuality and gay marriage, and what might constitute "more" (let's not muzzle what He already said).

Edited November 2, 2016 by CV75

[rongo]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

What I'm saying is that once the disavowals are flying around and current prophets supersede past ones, where does it end? And what keeps future ones from upending current positions? And is the current position always the right/true one? Etc. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Your Zion will be Surf City?

Love the Beach Boys.

"Surf City" is actually a Jan and Dean tune -- although Brian did compose it and give it to Jan and Dean. So I guess that makes it sort of a Beach Boys song.

[Mystery Meat]

10 hours 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. 

I think this is a bad comparison. The more appropriate comparison would be a disavowal of prior teachings and views on homosexuality (such as shock therapy, being born gay or choosing to be gay, etc.). You will notice that the Church has never (and never will) disavowed the priesthood ban. The Church can likewise disavow certain teachings and practices without disavowing the doctrine of the Law of Chastity or the doctrine that SSM is not ordained or approved of God.

If you are going to make the comparison with the disavowal of racist teachings, that is the one to make. 

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Surf City" is actually a Jan and Dean tune -- although Brian did compose it and give it to Jan and Dean. So I guess that makes it sort of a Beach Boys song.

Thanks, I didn't know!

Just found this from the Beach Boys. Appropriate for this board:

 

 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I think this is a bad comparison. The more appropriate comparison would be a disavowal of prior teachings and views on homosexuality (such as shock therapy, being born gay or choosing to be gay, etc.). You will notice that the Church has never (and never will) disavowed the priesthood ban. The Church can likewise disavow certain teachings and practices without disavowing the doctrine of the Law of Chastity or the doctrine that SSM is not ordained or approved of God.

If you are going to make the comparison with the disavowal of racist teachings, that is the one to make. 

I think the race and priesthood essay represents a soft disavowal of the priesthood ban. And I don't think you will find any current church source that claims that the ban was inspired. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Gray

[CV75]

11 hours 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. 

You would have to show that the covenant of marriage, which informs the law of chastity, was instituted under homophobic influences and that sexual orientation was specified with the other commandments the couple received.

You would have to show the doctrinal theory that justifies that same-sex orientation is a sign of divine disfavor or a curse; that it reflects one's actions in a premortal life; it is a sin; or that it makes someone inferior in any way to others, etc., but there are none to point to.

[Mystery Meat]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the race and priesthood essay represents a soft disavowal of the priesthood ban. And I don't think you will find any current church source that claims that the ban was inspired. 

Nowhere in the essay is the priesthood ban disavowed. Certain teaching surrounding the ban are, but that is hardly a disavowal, even a soft one, of the ban itself. 

Quite frankly the lack of a contemporary source claiming inspiration for the ban is probably because we don't know. That's night and day different from a disavowal.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What I'm saying is that once the disavowals are flying around and current prophets supersede past ones, where does it end? And what keeps future ones from upending current positions? And is the current position always the right/true one? Etc. 

Yeah... I know that the Race and Priesthood essay was a trigger for a number of faith crises.  And the questions you've noted here are what many of those people struggle with.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Nowhere in the essay is the priesthood ban disavowed. Certain teaching surrounding the ban are, but that is hardly a disavowal, even a soft one, of the ban itself. 

Quite frankly the lack of a contemporary source claiming inspiration for the ban is probably because we don't know. That's night and day different from a disavowal.

The essay says that church disavows all racism, past and present. You have to connect the dots, but it's not difficult. The ban was racist. The disavowal was likely softened to mollify the conservatives, but it's there. 

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, Gray said:

The essay says that church disavows all racism, past and present. You have to connect the dots, but it's not difficult. The ban was racist. The disavowal was likely softened to mollify the conservatives, but it's there. 

I see it very differently (for the record I think the ban was likely not from God). If the ban was indeed from God it probably still meets the "racist" label, in that it treats one race different from another. However, it would not be done out of hate. I think when the word racist is used in our society now (and in the disavowal) it implied the hateful racism, not just the meeting of the definition.

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I think this is a bad comparison. The more appropriate comparison would be a disavowal of prior teachings and views on homosexuality (such as shock therapy, being born gay or choosing to be gay, etc.). You will notice that the Church has never (and never will) disavowed the priesthood ban. The Church can likewise disavow certain teachings and practices without disavowing the doctrine of the Law of Chastity or the doctrine that SSM is not ordained or approved of God.

If you are going to make the comparison with the disavowal of racist teachings, that is the one to make. 

Except I am not suggesting that the law of chastity will EVER be disavowed or diminished.  And there has been no revealed doctrine that "SSM is not ordained or approved of God".

The comparison is that just as past teachings were influenced by racism, current teachings on homosexuality could likely be influenced by prejudice as well.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours 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.

Yes. You nailed it.

But we're already on the slope. How does the church get off the slope of disavowing the crazy words of past prophets, seers and revelators? Does the church become a prisoner of every cockamamie thought that escapes a P,S & R's mouth? That's no solution. The truth is, fallible people will make errors. When those errors are realized, they should be corrected. The end.

Prophetic fallibility is only a problem because the church teaches so adamantly about following the prophet. But requiring obedience to the prophets, even when they are wrong, is a religion built on sand.

Quote

Rongo- What I'm saying is that once the disavowals are flying around and current prophets supersede past ones, where does it end? And what keeps future ones from upending current positions? And is the current position always the right/true one? Etc.

Again, you are exactly right. But that is reality. Current prophets will not always agree with past prophets and the 14 Fundamentals claim loudly that the most important prophet is the living prophet. So yes, the current prophet supersedes the past, for good or ill. This is why it is dangerous to place trust in the arm of the flesh (ie- fallible prophets)

Edited November 2, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You would have to show that the covenant of marriage, which informs the law of chastity, was instituted under homophobic influences and that sexual orientation was specified with the other commandments the couple received.

 

You would have to show the doctrinal theory that justifies that same-sex orientation is a sign of divine disfavor or a curse; that it reflects one's actions in a premortal life; it is a sin; or that it makes someone inferior in any way to others, etc., but there are none to point to.

 

Why would I have to show those things?

The scriptures we have that discuss marriage come from a time and culture when same-sex marriage didn't exist and homosexuality wasn't understood as it is today.  The point of prophets is to give us revelation for OUR day.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I see it very differently (for the record I think the ban was likely not from God). If the ban was indeed from God it probably still meets the "racist" label, in that it treats one race different from another. However, it would not be done out of hate. I think when the word racist is used in our society now (and in the disavowal) it implied the hateful racism, not just the meeting of the definition.

Well, the essay clearly disavows previous racist explanations for the ban as well, and I do not believe that racism was motivated by hate. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I see it very differently (for the record I think the ban was likely not from God). If the ban was indeed from God it probably still meets the "racist" label, in that it treats one race different from another. However, it would not be done out of hate. I think when the word racist is used in our society now (and in the disavowal) it implied the hateful racism, not just the meeting of the definition.

I too believe that the ban was not from God.  Once I arrived at that belief, I also realized that it meant that, due to personal prejudices, our prophets and apostles prevented a class of people from entering the temple for over a century.  And once I accepted that to be the case, I realized that the same could be happening today.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why would I have to show those things?

The scriptures we have that discuss marriage come from a time and culture when same-sex marriage didn't exist and homosexuality wasn't understood as it is today.  The point of prophets is to give us revelation for OUR day.

You would have to show those things to show your parallel with the priesthood ban.

Regarding revelation that has been given about it, how do you answer the question I asked here: Posted 3 hours ago  : What has God already revealed on homosexuality and gay marriage, and what might constitute "more" revelation? You had said that God can reveal more on homosexuality and gay marriage.

Edited November 2, 2016 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, the church is a voluntary organization. When you say that ALL are encouraged to be parents in ZION it is demonstrably false; in "zion" means "in the church. And within the church, the "voluntary organization" ALL are not encouraged to be parents. In fact, if they are gay and married they are removed out of the church so they are no longer in Zion as parents. They are "out of Zion" by command of the church.

My only point is that it is silly to claim that parents are invited to be parents in Zion when parents are removed from zion, therefore, by definition not making them welcome to be parents in Zion. You can argue that the church is justified but you can't argue that ALL are welcome.

NO ONE is judged as a couple. ALL are welcome to attend, be a member, and serve in whatever capacity is appropriate. Exactly the same as heterosexual couples who can not/will not obey the law of chastity.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Those few statements in scripture aren't definitive.  They simply aren't.  And take what Christ said about marriage: "angels in Heaven" not given in marriage.  There is clearly more that he didn't share in mortality.

The Lord speaks to the understanding of His people in each dispensation.  To say that He can't reveal more on homosexuality and gay marriage is to muzzle Him in this dispensation.

I'm sorry.  You may claim a new revelation, but any "revelation" that allowed for gay marriage would be a direct contradiction to previous revelation.  And neither God nor eternal law change.

If President Monson were to stand up in April Conference and announce he had received a revelation allowing for SSM couples to have full membership and be sealed in the temple I would refuse to sustain it, accept it, and with very good reason.  It would be 100% false.
It would probably cause me to become inactive until the Lord fixed the course of his Church consistent with his own scripture.

Previous detours of ordinance and doctrine have been bad enough.  To embrace SSM would trigger a setting in order of Biblical proportion (pun intended).
There ARE limits on the content of any new revelation.  God can't just change any principle on a whim.

Edited November 2, 2016 by JLHPROF