Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

See my answer above just posted.

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

The law of chastity has always been a bit nebulous, the stuff of gospel doctrine manual writers that sort of gets passed around in LDS circles but never really codified in our spiritual texts. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is a contradiction if you're going on the actual "Law of Chastity", IMO.  Unless you believe that the church leaders do not consider a SSM a legal marriage or that a person entering into one does not have a spouse?  

Quote

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.

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[JAHS]

53 minutes 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" and that it would have happened sooner but "the church members just weren't ready for it."

Don't see how that could happen. This issue has far reaching eternal consequence regarding the fundamental relationship between men and women as spoken of in the scriptures and prophets who were not speaking as men; at least with regards to exaltation and eternal life. It will never change; it can't change not in anyone's lifetime. The only thing that could change is the inclination towards homosexuality that may cease at the resurrection. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

The law of chastity has always been a bit nebulous, the stuff of gospel doctrine manual writers that sort of gets passed around in LDS circles but never really codified in our spiritual texts. 

Exactly.  The leaders need to reword it or be more specific for someone to claim that anyone entering into a SSM is in violation of the Law of Chastity as it is currently written.

But it's been changed in the past (the Law of Chastity) and very well could be changed in the future.  However, I believe the leaders are not in a hurry to actually change it and put this in writing or make it official doctrine. That's also why I believe it will shift and change in the future.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 hour 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.

Dingdingding...we have a winner.

The question is, will God allow us to get to that point of apostasy?
There will be no new restoration or dispensation.  The Church has been guaranteed not to fall but also prophesied to become out of order.

So how far astray can we as a Church membership go without sufficient apostasy to cause the failure of the final dispensation?  I think we are going to test our limit and then God will be forced to intervene.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  The leaders need to reword it or be more specific for someone to claim that anyone entering into a SSM is in violation of the Law of Chastity as it is currently written.

But it's been changed in the past (the Law of Chastity) and very well could be changed in the future.  However, I believe the leaders are not in a hurry to actually change it and put this in writing or make it official doctrine. That's also why I believe it will shift and change in the future.

Which leads to the question "why" the Church felt it right to change the law of Chastity in the past, and is our current situation comparable to the one that brought about the prior change?
 

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

The law of chastity has always been a bit nebulous, the stuff of gospel doctrine manual writers that sort of gets passed around in LDS circles but never really codified in our spiritual texts. 

Pretty codified in the Temple, the most spiritual text of all.  But unfortunately it has changed in the past so that allows for possible future changes.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

A "grave" sin. Is there another kind?

[ALarson]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Which leads to the question "why" the Church felt it right to change the law of Chastity in the past, and is our current situation comparable to the one that brought about the prior change?
 

Yes.  Great question.  We know why the change in the Law of Chastity was made before, but I guess it remains to be seen if our leaders believe it's necessary to make more changes now or in the future.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A "grave" sin. Is there another kind?

Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men".

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A "grave" sin. Is there another kind?

 

While any unrepented of sin will keep us out of Heaven. Grave sins are much harder to repent of. IE; If I steal $5 I can start making amends by repaying $15. What could I possibly do to repay for the loss of chastity?

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Pretty codified in the Temple, the most spiritual text of all.  But unfortunately it has changed in the past so that allows for possible future changes.

Yup.  My point exactly and one that many try to ignore (or choose to ignore )   

.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A "grave" sin. Is there another kind?

Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men".

Perhaps the problem for some people with this issue is that they just "Can't handle the truth!"

 

[california boy]

1 hour 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.

I really don't get this attitude or where it comes from.  Do you love your children more than public opinion?  If so, what does it matter what others think?  Did Christ only hang out with sinners in the shadows where no one would see him with a sinner?

I am not trying to pick on your answer.  I would really just like to understand why you would take this approach if you had a child that was gay.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

While any unrepented of sin will keep us out of Heaven. Grave sins are much harder to repent of. IE; If I steal $5 I can start making amends by repaying $15. What could I possibly do to repay for the loss of chastity?

Repent through the atonement of Christ and your chastity is restored. Obviously.

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is a contradiction if you're going on the actual "Law of Chastity", IMO.  Unless you believe that the church leaders do not consider a SSM a legal marriage or that a person entering into one does not have a spouse?  

 

Here is the contradiction: the expectation that the Church isn’t using her own definition of marriage.

https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really don't get this attitude or where it comes from.  Do you love your children more than public opinion?  If so, what does it matter what others think?  Did Christ only hang out with sinners in the shadows where no one would see him with a sinner?

I am not trying to pick on your answer.  I would really just like to understand why you would take this approach if you had a child that was gay.

I was wondering about this too.  It is kind of like wearing a t-shirt that says "I love my son...but not who he is"

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Here is the contradiction: the expectation that the Church isn’t using her own definition of marriage.

https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng

• What is marriage?
  In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles proclaim that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. This is a common goal of Latter-day Saints.

Then they shouldn't have changed the law of Chastity to make the "legal spouse" aspect so significant.

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Pretty codified in the Temple, the most spiritual text of all.  But unfortunately it has changed in the past so that allows for possible future changes.

Actually that's a good point, thanks for the reminder. Pretty similar to the definition ALarson gave. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Here is the contradiction: the expectation that the Church isn’t using her own definition of marriage.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng

You missed the point, unless it states in there that the leaders do not believe a SSM is a legal marriage.

.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

While any unrepented of sin will keep us out of Heaven. Grave sins are much harder to repent of. IE; If I steal $5 I can start making amends by repaying $15. What could I possibly do to repay for the loss of chastity?

Supposedly that's what Jesus died for, but I guess we could ask people to flog themselves with flails instead? 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 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?  

In my view, both acted immaturely.

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.

Have I ever suggested that everyone must agree with my position? Have I implied that it's my way or the highway? I don't recall saying anything remotely like that. What I have said, is that I find Oak's comments deplorable and that I don't see love there. Each person makes their own decision about what he said and the position the church takes.

I recently had a conversation with a mother who has a gay son. She told me about how her son is getting married but that she has decided she can't attend because she feels like it is condoning his sin. I encouraged her to consider attending as an expression of love. The son already knows she doesn't approve morally. Why rub salt in the wound and cause greater distress to the relationship. One can actually love (not merely saying it) by expressing and supporting the person without condoning what they consider to be sin. It's a silly and harmful bifurcation of a relationship.

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?

I would normally avoid judging an individual, but in this case you've solicited a response, so I'll answer in hopes that you are genuinely interested. I think that at best the love you state is very shallow if you cannot share in a joyous event with a loved one because you feel it is more important to cast your unsolicited judgment upon your friend. You may love the person in theory but if that love can't be put into action, then I see little value. Yes, it's ugly for a loved one to refuse attending a wedding because you don't approve. I recently had a friend get married and her husband's family refused to attend the wedding because they didn't approve of my friend. They swore up and down that they loved their son yet refused to attend his wedding. It's ugly and hurtful. It accomplished nothing positive. It divided loved ones. For what? An opportunity to offer unsolicited judgment? It's petty and juvenile.

If I had a brother who was a virulent anti-lgbt activist (with which I obviously disagree), or a sister who was on her 10th marriage, or a father getting remarried to a woman younger than I, or...think of any other situation you will... If any of these loved ones were getting married, I would go to the wedding. Why? Because I love them as a person and because I want to show my love and support of them as a person. It doesn't matter if I approve or not. Expression of my love doesn't require my approval of their choice. To think it does is very narrow, simplistic, sad, and childish.

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?

Of course I tolerate other viewpoints. I'd even attend weddings of people I disagree with, because my love doesn't require agreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• What is marriage?
  In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles proclaim that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. This is a common goal of Latter-day Saints.

Then they shouldn't have changed the law of Chastity to make the "legal spouse" aspect so significant.

Bingo

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You missed the point, unless it states in there that the leaders do not believe a SSM is a legal marriage.

Quote

Bingo

See, the difference is, you believe this means the Law of Chastity can include SSM.
I believe it should never have been extended to include the Civil laws to begin with.
Marriage is an order created and defined by God.  The state definition is a completely man made definition of marriage and should have no connection to the Law of Chastity.

Edited October 31, 2016 by JLHPROF