Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

If the "doctrine" on homosexuality does change over the decades, I suspect it will happen very gradually, with many members of the Church insisting that "nothing has changed" with each small step.

We'll know the process is finished when someone quotes Elders Oaks, Bednar or other leaders from this decade and the response from defenders of the Church is "They were speaking as fallible men, and it was never official Church policy or doctrine."

Don't hold your breath.

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

If you wish to use the example of alcohol, a good Mormon can sit politely in the company of others who drink at meals, and not partake themselves, and remain polite about it. 

Although to be fair, Jesus never performed the miracle of changing the heterosexual to homosexual.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

Although to be fair, Jesus never performed the miracle of changing the heterosexual to homosexual.

Or vice versa

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We consider active homosexuality to be a grave sin. As with any violation of our commitment to be chaste.

Believing it's a sin, is not the same as believing it's comparable to being an alcoholic or a drug addict (or that it's an illness or "malady" as some have stated here in the past).

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

.

And, who wrote that? (No signatures at all).

Are you going on record as stating this is official church doctrine?

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

"Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

In addition to the policy of exclusion, words like this from top leaders tell me what I need to know about where the church is and how they feel about the LGBT community. It's ugly and hurtful. I don't care how many times they say "I love you" to the LGBTQ community, I just don't believe it. They are not being honest with us, and maybe not even themselves.

It would be impossible for me to tell my daughter I love her and then also say what Elder Oaks said. 

Can you allow for the possibility that something along the lines of what Elder Oaks describes is within permissible bounds of decency and family interaction?

Let me illustrate: Years ago I stopped by to visit my grandmother, who I found to be somewhat distressed.  She explained that another of her grandchildren had stopped by earlier in the day, and that he had been intoxicated/stoned and reeked of marijuana and cigarettes.  She had asked him to leave her apartment and come back when he was sober and showered.  This grandson then became very upset and yelled at her, telling her that she should love him for who he was and not ask or expect him to change.  She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions, or to allow him in her home when he was under the influence of narcotics.  The grandson, still angry, had stormed out.

What are your thoughts about this?  Are individuals allowed to express such views, in your mind?  Was my grandmother being an intolerant, hateful bigot in asking her grandson to not come to her house while intoxicated/stoned?  

Are you willing to let Latter-day Saints make principled distinctions when faced with painful and difficult circumstances like those described by Elder Oaks?  Or is it your way or the highway?  For example, let's say that I am invited to attend a same-sex wedding of a longtime friend.  I send a private message to my friend expressing love and affection for him, but declining to attend the wedding because I would not feel comfortable participating in a celebration of something I find morally problematic, or otherwise is a venue where my attendance could/would be construed as approval/endorsement.  However, I would thereafter invite my friend and his partner/husband to some social events.

Are you capable of tolerating such a stance as this?  Or would you likewise accuse me of being "ugly and hurtful," of being profoundly and intentionally dishonest ("I don't care how many times they say "I love you" to the LGBTQ community, I just don't believe it. They are not being honest with us, and maybe not even themselves."), of presenting "misdirection . . . nothing more," and so on?

In other words, are you capable of the tolerating viewpoints with which you disagree?  That is what you seem to want to see in others, right?

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

.

Are you suggesting that anything published in the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church website is "official doctrine"?

[Marmonboy]

Apparently my choice of analogy was a poor one.  The point I was trying to make is that it is in fact possible to love one's children without a public endorsement of those behaviors and/or lifestyle choices that they may make. Especially when those behaviors are thought to be wrong in the worldview of the parents. I can be happy that my child is happy without having to hoist a rainbow flag on my front porch.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Are you suggesting that anything published in the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church website is "official doctrine"?

Not meaning to speak for sometimesaint here, but I would expect anything published in "Gospel Topics" to not be inconsistent with Church doctrine.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Apparently my choice of analogy was a poor one.  The point I was trying to make is that it is in fact possible to love one's children without a public endorsement of those behaviors and/or lifestyle choices that they may make. Especially when those behaviors are thought to be wrong in the worldview of the parents. I can be happy that my child is happy without having to hoist a rainbow flag on my front porch.

Poor choice of analogy or not, your point was solid.

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

not meaning to speak for sometimesaint here, but I would expect anything published in "Gospel Topics" to not be inconsistent with Church doctrine.

So, you are stating that it definitely is "official church doctrine" or just dodging and saying it's only consistent with the official church doctrine?

If the later, where can we read what the official church doctrine is on this topic?  Any statements by our current Prophet?

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Are you suggesting that anything published in the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church website is "official doctrine"?

Nope; What I am suggesting is that violations of our Law of Chastity subject a member to Church Discipline.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

not meaning to speak for sometimesaint here, but I would expect anything published in "Gospel Topics" to not be inconsistent with Church doctrine.

You are going to edit your post so that your sentence begins with a capital letter, aren't you?

 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Apparently my choice of analogy was a poor one.  The point I was trying to make is that it is in fact possible to love one's children without a public endorsement of those behaviors and/or lifestyle choices that they may make. Especially when those behaviors are thought to be wrong in the worldview of the parents. I can be happy that my child is happy without having to hoist a rainbow flag on my front porch.

 

Fair enough... no need to hoist a rainbow flag on your front porch.  How about the situations Elder Oaks describes, and the situation in the article:

Can your child be happy, and what will your relationship with him/her be like if you don't allow their spouse to stay at your home?  If you don't go out with them in public and introduce them to your friends?  If you take a family picture of your children and their spouses but keep your gay child's spouse watching from the opposite side of the camera?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Nope; What I am suggesting is that violations of our Law of Chastity subject a member to Church Discipline.

And those entering into a SSM can obey the Law of Chastity.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Someone shared this article with me.  It's on a Deseret Book owned site: Time Out For Women.  It tells the story of an LDS family welcoming and embracing (after initial reluctance) their daughter's wife.  They recount a bit of the history before telling how they ended up bringing the daughter's wife into their family picture.

Reading that story, on the website of a church-owned business, and contrasting it with what Elder Oaks stated in his 2006 interview (pasted below and still linked from MormonandGay.LDS.org) is one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades.

I think this thread is more about your hoping that you don't change (or asserting that you won't change) on the subject over the next few decades!

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And those entering into a SSM can obey the Law of Chastity.

No, they can't (unless you are suggesting a completely celibate SSM, and even then I'm not sure it would work).

Let me ask you a simple question: Can a member of the Church who uses marijuana (in a jurisdiction where MJ is legal) claim to be adhering to the Word of Wisdom?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And those entering into a SSM can obey the Law of Chastity.

Not according to the Church.

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

No, they can't (unless you are suggesting a completely celibate SSM, and even then I'm not sure it would work).

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course those entering a legal SSM can obey the Law of Chastity.

Here's the online version:

Quote

 

What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng

[ALarson]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Not according to the Church.

Read the Law of Chastity posted above.

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Read the Law of Chastity posted above.

I did.

SEE https://www.mormon.org/faq/stand-on-homosexuality

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course those entering a legal SSM can obey the Law of Chastity.

Here's the online version:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng

I think a modicum of good faith would be nice.  There is no good faith claim to be made that same-sex behavior is compatible with the Law of Chastity in the LDS paradigm.  None.  At all.

You are quoting a manual which contemplated a definition of marriage which, until very, very recently, involved heterosexual monogamy.  You can't use it to create a loophole for justifying same-sex behavior in the LDS paradigm, any more than if you were to claim that an LDS man living in a country where polygamy is legal is at liberty to marry and have sexual relations with multiple wives.  It is simply bad faith to suggest such things.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Chapter 39 we get this:

Quote

Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

"Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin."

There is no wiggle room here.  None.  There is no reasoned or principled argument to suggest that, as a factual matter, same-sex marriage is compatible with the Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Again, a modicum of good faith would be nice.  Please.  I am fine with discussing, even debating, the merits of LDS doctrines, practices, policies, etc.  But I have far less patience with flagrant misrepresentation/distortion of such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2016 by smac97

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I did.

SEE https://www.mormon.org/faq/stand-on-homosexuality

And?

As the Law of Chastity is written, any person entering a SSM can live this law.  That our current church leaders have decided that someone in a SSM is guilty of apostasy is something else.  They'd need to reword or add to the current Law of Chastity (for a gay person who is legally married and has a spouse to be in direct violation of it as stated) and maybe they will.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

These comparisons of gay marriage to drug abuse and other social ills really miss the mark. Getting gay married doesn't make someone likely to steal your stereo and sell it for something. It's not an addiction or a social vice. 

What is gay marriage most like? The answer is straight marriage. Gay marriage is like straight marriage. So imagine someone says they can't support your marriage to your opposite sex spouse because it represents gross immorality. Is there any way they could put that idea that wouldn't sound awful, that wouldn't be insulting to the relationship you have with your wife or husband? No, there isn't. You can't soften the language to make it palatable because it is ultimately a position that is demeaning to those it is directed at.  

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think a modicum of good faith would be nice.  

See my answer above just posted.