Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[california boy]

26 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 remember when the ban was in place and the church position was that we still love the blacks and our position comes from a place of love.  It is God that we are following and not prejudice.  Blacks can still be baptized.  They just can't hold the priesthood and marry in the temple. It is just not their time yet.  

Sound familiar with any current church positions?  It's not the gays time either.  They have to wait until they are dead and then they will become pure like us and the gayness will drop from their eyes and will be transformed into being straight for eternity.  Then they can marry a woman for eternity, something the found abhorring for their entire earthly life.  Yippie.  Such a wonderful promise for a gay member to hope for.  Living a life without companionship and a loving relationship that everyone else prizes above all else while on earth will all be worth it.  

[Daniel2]

17 hours 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.

Interesting.

Many of the examples in your post above are exactly what I would share as examples of things that HAVE changed within Mormonism...

Changes to Temple Ordinances (including the endowment)?: check.

Changes to "The New and Everlasting Covenant" of Eternal (Polygamous, as first 'revealed') marriage?: check.

Abandonment of the practice of Plural Marriage (at least here on earth)?: check.

Funny how things that aren't supposed to change have changed and adapted according to current circumstances.  But then again, that's not really unny or unusual after all, is it...?  I mean, that's entirely the point of having ongoing, continuing revelation, just as Joseph Smith himself taught:

Quote

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."

Edited November 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I remember when the ban was in place and the church position was that we still love the blacks and our position comes from a place of love.  It is God that we are following and not prejudice.  Blacks can still be baptized.  They just can't hold the priesthood and marry in the temple. It is just not their time yet.  

Sound familiar with any current church positions?  It's not the gays time either.  They have to wait until they are dead and then they will become pure like us and the gayness will drop from their eyes and will be transformed into being straight for eternity.  Then they can marry a woman for eternity, something the found abhorring for their entire earthly life.  Yippie.  Such a wonderful promise for a gay member to hope for.  Living a life without companionship and a loving relationship that everyone else prizes above all else while on earth will all be worth it.  

I remember when my oldest sister first told me that black people would turn white in the resurrection. I found that shocking, even as a little kid (back in the early or mid 80s). I'm sure she learned it in Sunday School or Young Womens. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Interesting.

Many of the examples in your post above are exactly what I would share as examples of things that HAVE changed within Mormonism...

Changes to Temple Ordinances (including the endowment)?: check.

Changes to "The New and Everlasting Covenant" of Eternal (Polygamous, as first 'revealed') marriage?: check.

Abandonment of the practice of Plural Marriage (at least here on earth)?: check.

Funny how things that aren't supposed to change have changed and adapted according to current circumstances.  But then again, that's not really unny or unusual after all, is it...?  I mean, that's entirely the point of having ongoing, continuing revelation, just as Joseph Smith himself taught:

No, that's NOT the point of ongoing, continuing revelation.
So tired of that tired argument. 

And those changes were all wrong in my opinion.  (By wrong I mean a result of our actions, not the result of God's actions).
There are limits to which principles God is able to change.

Edited November 2, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks, I didn't know!

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

 

 

Yeah, we were pretty thrilled when that song came out in 1965. Lagoon amusement park (mentioned in the song lyrics) used the recording in its TV ad campaign for several years after that. The Beach Boys were frequent visitors to Salt Lake in their heyday, and generally their performance venue was Lagoon's Patio Gardens.

A local radio dee-jay, Daddy-O Bill Hesterman (a Mormon bishop), was a friend of the family and always introduced them at their Salt Lake concerts, even years after he was no longer on the air. He finally died. I encountered Daddy-O's son, Bill Jr., several years ago when I was doing a story on the renovation of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. He was involved in the restoration of the Tabernacle Organ. I asked him if he still stayed in contact with the Beach Boys. He said he still has their phone numbers on speed dial.

In his autobiography that came out this year, Mike Love said he and Brian wrote the song "Fun, Fun, Fun" in a taxi while they were on their way to the airport in Salt Lake City. The story I've heard was that it was actually in the backseat of Daddy-O's car as he was driving them there. And I heard the song was inspired by the daughter of the manager of a radio station in Salt Lake whom they would flirt with while they were hanging around the station and that she had told them she had borrowed the family car the night before and had lied about going to the library when she was actually going out with friends.

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, that's NOT the point of ongoing, continuing revelation.
So tired of that tired argument. 

And those changes were all wrong in my opinion.  (By wrong I mean a result of our actions, not the result of God's actions).
There are limits to which principles God is able to change.

 

Serious question. If God allowed the church to make errors by changing ordinances, ending polygamy, and so forth, why do you think he would not allow the error of changing church doctrine to include SSM? Where is the line for what God will tolerate before He steps in and fixes things?

[Johnnie Cake]

The church has already lost this war and they don’t even seem to know it despite their claim of being able to fore tell the future.

While not claiming to be a prophet I hereby make a few predictions. 

01.   Within 10 years the Mormon God will change his mind and will quietly remove the requirement of referring to legally married same sex couples as apostates and will also allow their children full rights of baptism at age 8.

02.   Within 25 years, the Mormon God will change his mind and reveal a New Plan of Happiness that treats both God’s Gay and Hetro children equally.  This new and improved Plan of Equal Happiness will allow all of God’s children to legally marry, even by their Mormon Bishop, have full temple rights and equal and full membership rights and that the Mormon Morality code of abstinence before marriage will apply equally for both gay and hetro members and that all sexual relationships both gay and straight within the bounds of marriage will be looked upon with God’s approval.

03.   Within 50 years, but probably sooner…under tremendous societal pressure from society, who had dealt with the inequality in society decades earlier,  and facing disenfranchisement of church property due to blatant violation of antidiscrimination laws  , the Mormon God will finally cave and allow Eternal Marriages to be performed for all of his children irrespective of their sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

We're just talking in circles now.  I've explained why I believe your conclusion here is wrong.  And you've explained why you think I'm wrong.

[smac97]

16 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've always thought of it as Satan taking the good and virtuous things created by God and distorting and perverting and corrupting them.

Hence God created poppies, which are beautiful to look at, but which wicked men use to make an addictive poison, heroin, that destroys lives and families and communities and nations.

Hence God gave man strength to till the earth and raise roofs and to otherwise care for each other, which strength can also be corrupted and perverted into unjust infliction of violence and control.

Hence human sexuality is beautiful and sacred when kept within the bounds set by God (marriage between a husband and wife), and yet it is ugly and depraved and profane and vulgar when distorted and misused and corrupted (pornography, adultery, prostitution, and so on).

Hence God works to nurture and nourish His children to bring forth good fruit (as described in Jacob 5), while Satan sneaks in and introduces corruption and evil, such that evil fruit is brought forth (also described in Jacob 5).

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Serious question. If God allowed the church to make errors by changing ordinances, ending polygamy, and so forth, why do you think he would not allow the error of changing church doctrine to include SSM? Where is the line for what God will tolerate before He steps in and fixes things?

That is a good and serious question.
I have no idea.  Only God knows which corruption is too much to allow cleansing.  That's like asking which sins will God forgive.  That's entirely up to him.

I will say this - One of the main reasons we say that Church can never fail completely is:

• D&C 112:30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,

I think God will stop us short of any action that would cause us to lose the priesthood keys entirely.  That would cause the earth to be wasted as Malachi stated.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The church has already lost this war and they don’t even seem to know it despite their claim of being able to fore tell the future.

While not claiming to be a prophet I hereby make a few predictions. 

01.   Within 10 years the Mormon God will change his mind and will quietly remove the requirement of referring to legally married same sex couples as apostates and will also allow their children full rights of baptism at age 8.

02.   Within 25 years, the Mormon God will change his mind and reveal a New Plan of Happiness that treats both God’s Gay and Hetro children equally.  This new and improved Plan of Equal Happiness will allow all of God’s children to legally marry, even by their Mormon Bishop, have full temple rights and equal and full membership rights and that the Mormon Morality code of abstinence before marriage will apply equally for both gay and hetro members and that all sexual relationships both gay and straight within the bounds of marriage will be looked upon with God’s approval.

03.   Within 50 years, but probably sooner…under tremendous societal pressure from society, who had dealt with the inequality in society decades earlier,  and facing disenfranchisement of church property due to blatant violation of antidiscrimination laws  , the Mormon God will finally cave and allow Eternal Marriages to be performed for all of his children irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Agreed...but only if God allows us to get ourselves that far astray from his will.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We're just talking in circles now.  I've explained why I believe your conclusion here is wrong.  And you've explained why you think I'm wrong.

Agreed.  I still don't think your explanation has any actual doctrine or scripture that backs it up.  So we'll just agree to disagree.

[rockpond]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.  I still don't think your explanation has any actual doctrine or scripture that backs it up.  So we'll just agree to disagree.

Likewise.

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

I remember when my oldest sister first told me that black people would turn white in the resurrection. I found that shocking, even as a little kid (back in the early or mid 80s). I'm sure she learned it in Sunday School or Young Womens. 

This is what I was taught Gray...perhaps we had the same instruction.  Funny that...I didn't think anything of it at the time.  Sometimes I look back with some deep shame.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is what I was taught Gray...perhaps we had the same instruction.  Funny that...I didn't think anything of it at the time.  Sometimes I look back with some deep shame.

We're all blinded by our various circumstances. I held some homophobic views until I was in my late 20s. 

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

I remember when the ban was in place and the church position was that we still love the blacks and our position comes from a place of love.  It is God that we are following and not prejudice.  Blacks can still be baptized.  They just can't hold the priesthood and marry in the temple. It is just not their time yet.  

Sound familiar with any current church positions?  It's not the gays time either.  

I think this a less-than-apt comparison.  Black people, by virtue of their skin color and places of origin, were prohibited from entering the temple.  There was no cure for them (in the earthly sense - I am confident those of our brothers and sisters who were deprived of access to the temple in this life will have every opportunity to have their temple work done).  Access was granted for non-of-black-African-ancestry members of the Church, but was withheld from of-black-African-ancestry members of the Church.  

In contrast, a person with same-sex attraction has access to the temple, and always has.  He or she has access to it on the same terms as everyone else.  That he or she may not feel inclined to enter into a heterosexual marriage is, of course, understandable.  Likewise, heterosexual members of the Church may also be unwilling or unable to enter into a heterosexual marriage.  The Lord will sort things out for all such persons who desire to obey God and to keep his commandments.

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

They have to wait until they are dead

Not so.  Members of the Church who have same-sex attraction can attend the temple provided they adhere to the standards of worthiness required of all persons who wish to attend.

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Then they can marry a woman for eternity, something the found abhorring for their entire earthly life.  Yippie.  Such a wonderful promise for a gay member to hope for.  Living a life without companionship and a loving relationship that everyone else prizes above all else while on earth will all be worth it.  

Your words are full of bitterness and anger and spite and venom and contempt.  I am sorry about that, and I hope a day comes when you can get over such things.  

I know many, many people who struggle in this life with varies challenges and struggles and sins and weaknesses.  I do not discount these struggles.  I instead find solace in what we have been taught about them:

• "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
• "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
• "{B}lessed is he that keepeth my commandments, whether in life or in death; and he that is faithful in tribulation, the reward of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven."
• "Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The church has already lost this war and they don’t even seem to know it despite their claim of being able to fore tell the future.

While not claiming to be a prophet I hereby make a few predictions. 

01.   Within 10 years the Mormon God will change his mind and will quietly remove the requirement of referring to legally married same sex couples as apostates and will also allow their children full rights of baptism at age 8.

02.   Within 25 years, the Mormon God will change his mind and reveal a New Plan of Happiness that treats both God’s Gay and Hetro children equally.  This new and improved Plan of Equal Happiness will allow all of God’s children to legally marry, even by their Mormon Bishop, have full temple rights and equal and full membership rights and that the Mormon Morality code of abstinence before marriage will apply equally for both gay and hetro members and that all sexual relationships both gay and straight within the bounds of marriage will be looked upon with God’s approval.

03.   Within 50 years, but probably sooner…under tremendous societal pressure from society, who had dealt with the inequality in society decades earlier,  and facing disenfranchisement of church property due to blatant violation of antidiscrimination laws  , the Mormon God will finally cave and allow Eternal Marriages to be performed for all of his children irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Fifty or so years ago, near the commencement of the Sexual Revolution, I wonder if there were persons out there who were patently hostile to the LDS Church, and who predicted that the LDS Church's stance on things like fornication and adultery and pornography and alcohol and recreational drug use would, within a few years, fall by the wayside.

And if so, how have such hypothetical predictions panned out?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fifty or so years ago, near the commencement of the Sexual Revolution, I wonder if there were persons out there who were patently hostile to the LDS Church, and who predicted that the LDS Church's stance on things like fornication and adultery and pornography and alcohol and recreational drug use would, within a few years, fall by the wayside.

And if so, how have such hypothetical predictions panned out?

Thanks,

-Smac

I've seen no evidence of people having made such claims.

I'm also glad that here on these boards we don't have the type of people you describe who are "patently hostile to the LDS Church".  I'm not sure where those people are but I'm glad that I don't have to interact with them.  I'm sorry if you do.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've seen no evidence of people having made such claims.

Nor have I.  The Internet was not around back then, and hence such idle speculation would likely have been mostly informal and verbal and, hence, fugacious.

But that it neither here nor there.  The Sexual Revolution caused a massive shift in social/cultural mores pertaining to the bounds of acceptable sexual behavior.  And yet the things which were prohibited then (fornication, adultery, same-sex marriage, etc.) remain prohibited today.  Despite fifty years of declining sexual morality, the LDS Church's stance on such things remains substantively unchanged.  This, I think, constitutes some quantum of evidence against the likelihood of your conjectural remarks above.

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm also glad that here on these boards we don't have the type of people you describe who are "patently hostile to the LDS Church".  I'm not sure where those people are but I'm glad that I don't have to interact with them.  I'm sorry if you do.

I don't understand these remarks.  Of course we have such people on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fifty or so years ago, near the commencement of the Sexual Revolution, I wonder if there were persons out there who were patently hostile to the LDS Church, and who predicted that the LDS Church's stance on things like fornication and adultery and pornography and alcohol and recreational drug use would, within a few years, fall by the wayside.

And if so, how have such hypothetical predictions panned out?

Thanks,

-Smac

To make your point against current predictions about SSM you're asking how nonexistent predictions have turned out? That's funny.

Sounds like a straw man.

Edited November 2, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor have I.  The Internet was not around back then, and hence such idle speculation would likely have been mostly informal and verbal and, hence, fugacious.

But that it neither here nor there.  The Sexual Revolution caused a massive shift in social/cultural mores pertaining to the bounds of acceptable sexual behavior.  And yet the things which were prohibited then (fornication, adultery, same-sex marriage, etc.) remain prohibited today.  Despite fifty years of declining sexual morality, the LDS Church's stance on such things remains substantively unchanged.  This, I think, constitutes some quantum of evidence against the likelihood of your conjectural remarks above.

I don't understand these remarks.  Of course we have such people on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

You must have a unique definition of hostile.

Throwing same-sex marriage into a sentence with fornication and adultery doesn't make them equivalent.  And the past 50 years has seen significant changes with regards to the church's teachings on homosexuality.  We'll see what the next 50 brings.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To make your point against current predictions about SSM you're asking how nonexistent predictions have turned out? That's funny.

Sounds like a straw man.

Well, not really.  If we are speculating about how current events will yield substantive changes to the Church's doctrinal stance on matters of sexuality, I think it makes sense to look at a previous seismic event pertaining to sexuality: the Sexual Revolution.  Heck, it even has its own Wikipedia entry:

Quote

The Sexual Revolution, also known as a time of Sexual Liberation, was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the 1960s to the 1980s. Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage). The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.

Now, I won't say that the Revolution left the LDS Church completely unchanged.  I think the Church has moderated its position on contraception (though not necessarily because of the Revolution).  But overall, has the last fifty years of changing sexual mores results in doctrinal changes by the LDS Church pertaining to "sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships" (that is, marriage)?  Nope.

"Public nudity?"  Nope.

"Pornography?"  Nope.

"Premarital sex?"  Nope.

"Homosexuality?"  Well, not really (the conduct is a sin, but not the orientation / desire / inclination, and we have become more kind and welcoming to people with same-sex attraction than we were fifty years ago).

"Alternative forms of sexuality?"  Nope.

"Abortion?"  Nope.

The LDS Church's rather long (50 year) track record of bucking societal trends and sticking to their doctrinal guns seems to constitute some solid evidence against the likelihood of Rockpond's speculations about where the Church will go in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  If we are speculating about how current events will yield substantive changes to the Church's doctrinal stance on matters of sexuality, I think it makes sense to look at a previous seismic event pertaining to sexuality: the Sexual Revolution.  Heck, it even has its own Wikipedia entry:

Now, I won't say that the Revolution left the LDS Church completely unchanged.  I think the Church has moderated its position on contraception (though not necessarily because of the Revolution).  But overall, has the last fifty years of changing sexual mores results in doctrinal changes by the LDS Church pertaining to "sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships" (that is, marriage)?  Nope.

"Public nudity?"  Nope.

"Pornography?"  Nope.

"Premarital sex?"  Nope.

"Homosexuality?"  Well, not really (the conduct is a sin, but not the orientation / desire / inclination, and we have become more kind and welcoming to people with same-sex attraction than we were fifty years ago).

"Alternative forms of sexuality?"  Nope.

"Abortion?"  Nope.

The LDS Church's rather long (50 year) track record of bucking societal trends and sticking to their doctrinal guns seems to constitute some solid evidence against the likelihood of Rockpond's speculations about where the Church will go in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

And yet, if you could go back 20-30 years, who would have predicted that we'd be at a point where an openly gay (though celibate) young man or woman could serve a mission?  Hold a calling?

[Daniel2]

17 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.

Hi, CV,

I guess I should have been more clear in my previous response.  I assumed it went without saying in my previous post that it's not the titles themselves of "husband," "father," "son," etc. that I find important or significant...

The aspects of my identity that are the most important to me and which I hold most dear are the actual, reality-based interpersonal relationships I have with the specific, actual people with whom I have a loving relationship in my life.

Meaning, I don't just identify myself as "husband," with that word being interchangeable with any random person that I could be assigned to.  Rather, the fact that I am MY husband's husband, and he is MY husband, is what defines me. Upon marrying one another, we took upon ourselves the others' last name (we hyphenated our last name, so we each have each others' former last name).  When I introduce myself, I offer my full given first name coupled with my married hyphenated name, which symbolizes the joining of his and my lines into one unified family.  In marrying one another, the two of us former individuals formed a family unit unique, personal, and specific to taking upon us one another's' names.  When I identify as a "husband," I personally do so in describing myself in relation to him, my husband.

The fact that I am gay and the fact that the two of us are both men is not inconsequential to our shared titles and last names designating us as a family unit, and as one another's husband--the fact that we are one another's husband rests on the foundation that we are, in fact, homosexuals.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have chosen to enter into a romantic, emotional, familial, spiritual, legal, civil, and sexually intimate relationship with one another. 

Your suggestion that I can still lay claim to the title of husband even if it weren't with a man may sound matter-of-fact, but it misses the entire point of marriage.  Our spouses are not insignificant to our choice to marry; they are central and foundational.  We don't just marry any Tom, ****, or Harry (or their female equivalents)... we choose our spouse, and taken upon ourselves a shared family name.  Our identities are inseparably and interconnectly associated with being Mr. and Mr. Daniel2.

Let me try and put it another way.... you say that our true identities are children of God.  Assuming that is true for a moment, wouldn't you agree a given significant portion of that identity ("children of God") is WHO is the father, in that sentence....?  Meaning, by identifying that you are a child of God, it would be nonsensical to suggest that the important part of that "identity would be to dismiss who is the father by saying, "Well, being A child is the most important aspect of that... it doesn't really matter that your the child of anyone specific...."  The key aspect of that phrase, children of God, is that you exist as children to a specific FATHER.... It would be another thing altogether to suggest that it doesn't really matter who one's father is, as long as your a child of Someone... (consider how different it would be to say we're "children of Satan.")

Just as my identity as my husband's husband is unique and specific and directly tied to him, I would say the same applies to my status as father.... I am my CHILDREN's father... not just a father of a generic somebody.  The most important aspect of my identity as a father is not that I get to claim the title of father------the most important aspect is that I exist as my unique and specific children's Dad.  And the same is true of my status as a son (as specifically related to my own Father and Mother); they are not interchangeable with any other man or woman who also have children.

I'm not sure if my point is getting through... but I just found it really odd that you would dismiss the fact that being gay directly and foundationally impacts one of the most important roles of my life; that of being a husband to my husband, and his being a husband to me. That is not peripheral; it is core to who I am, how I love, and the value that I place on the most important intimate relationship I have been blessed with in my life.

Being my husband's husband, and his being my husband, ARE both "facts of being," not merely just an inconsequential characteristic.

Daniel2

 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And yet, if you could go back 20-30 years, who would have predicted that we'd be at a point where an openly gay (though celibate) young man or woman could serve a mission?  Hold a calling?

The difference between "20-30 years" ago and today is this:

• Then: "necessarily-non-openly gay (and celibate)"
• Now: "potentially-but-not-necessarily openly gay (and celibate)"

That is a change in culture.  A change in attitudes.  A change in understanding.  I am glad of these changes.

But what it is not is a change in doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I would quit worrying so much about PR and people having doubts about what has been said. I absolutely love Journal of Discourses, and wouldn't seek to hide anything that was said. What was said, was said, and I'm glad that they said what they felt and thought --- even if Public Affairs isn't glad. I wish our leaders felt free today to share their views --- and speculations --- today, because we should be healthy enough spiritually to know for ourselves what we believe and know to where it wouldn't matter if/when leaders say something that isn't right or doesn't jibe. 

In short, I wouldn't disavow past statements at all. They're part of the record. 

Journal of Discourses is actually chock full of examples and quotes teaching that we should be confident and competent enough for ourselves to know when we don't believe or disregard errant Church leaders. I discussed many of these in my paper:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous

(falsehoods will die on the vine in the Church; Church members have what they need to discern and process)

How do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? . . . How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? . . . Live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God . . . But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin?. . . But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? . . . If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. (Brigham Young, August 13, 1871. Journal of Discourses 14:204).

Another good one (cited in the paper) was Brigham Young's insistence that the Salt Lake Temple would be an adobe. He had seen it in vision with its six towers, and was adamant that it would be a massive adobe structure that would outlast anything else. Wilford Woodruff knew by revelation that it would be made of granite, and said to himself "whenever President Young . . . talked of building the temple of adobe or brick . . . 'No, you will never do it.' "

When in the western country, many years ago, before we came to the Rocky Mountains, I had a dream. I dreamed of being in these mountains, and of seeing a large fine looking temple erected in one of these valleys which was built of cut granite stone, I saw that temple dedicated, and I attended the dedicatory services, and I saw a good many men that are living to-day in the midst of this people . . . When the foundation of that temple was laid I thought of my dream and a great many times since. And whenever President Young held a council of the brethren of the Twelve and talked of building the temple of adobe or brick, which was done I would say to myself, “No, you will never do it;” because I had seen it in my dream built of some other material. I mention these things to show you that things are manifested to the Latter-day Saints sometimes which we do not know anything about, only as they are given by the Spirit of God. (Wilford Woodruff, August 1, 1880. Journal of Discourses 21:299-300.)