Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

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

 

Done.

Although I could make the case that in this colloquial form of expression I dropped the subject and auxiliary verb (I am) and only implied them, so my dropping of the upper-case at the first of the sentence might be understood to signal my doing that. (That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.)

Edited October 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

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.

Yes, I know you believe this.  But where does that leave all marriages performed outside the temple?  Do you believe that those are not an actual marriage either?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 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?

Please elaborate.

Is there a hierarchy of sin that I'm unaware of? Is there a repentance scale that illustrates the difficulty in repenting of some sins verses others?

Your $5 scenario is simplistic. Sure, you can replace the $5. You can even repay more. Great. Good for you. How do you possibly repay the breach of trust? How do you repent of the betrayal? How do you repay that? The $5 is only a small piece of what it means to repent. In my view the betrayal and breach of trust are the more significant issues. There are many sins for which restitution is difficult, or impossible. Sin is less about the behavior and more about the violence done to the relationship.

I'd love to see your list of grave sins.

[california boy]

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.

I have heard you use this story before on this board.  Is it ok if I ask you a few questions about your story?  If your grandmothers grandson was gay, (which is what we are talking about on this thread) what would be her reaction?  Would she say come back when you are not gay?  How does that work?  How do you think your grandmother should handle a gay grandson?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

As far as the other half of your post, I would ask you the same question I asked Marmon boy.  Where do you get this attitude about not being seen with someone you consider to be a sinner?  Why would you have a problem with that?  Especially if the person you consider is a sinner to be a friend? Is it how others will view you if they see you at a gay wedding?  Is it that you think your friend will think you are ok with him being gay and doing something that is quite normal for a gay person to do?  

I hope you don't find these questions offensive.  I am just trying to figure out where Mormons in general are getting this attitude.  Because you certainly are not the only Mormon who feels this way.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I know you believe this.  But where does that leave all marriages performed outside the temple?  Do you believe that those are not an actual marriage either?

I believe God had nothing to do with those contracts, just as the early saints came to believe.

D&C 132:
14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed. 
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

Anything not eternal is not of God.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please elaborate.

Is there a hierarchy of sin that I'm unaware of?

Really?
This is pretty basic Mormon doctrine and is in the scriptures.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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?

 

I think I already said that it was consistent with Church doctrine.

Quote

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

"The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

I'm pretty sure I read that someplace.

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

3 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.

Thanks for sharing the Elder Oaks quote, I hadn't read that one before.  I think this shows an evolution of perspective on the issue.  Some people are offended at the idea of changing doctrine, even though the church espouses this idea in its articles of faith, still many members don't understand it largely because they are ignorant of historical doctrinal changes.  

Thankfully there has been some progress on this subject, but its still way behind the broader enlightenment of the culture at large.  

[Boanerges]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?
This is pretty basic Mormon doctrine and is in the scriptures.

Great, then you won't have a problem elaborating and perhaps ranking the top ten sins for us?

My understanding of doctrine (and the associated scripture in this case) is that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Hence, stealing a piece of gum is no more or less serious than fornication. I think it is humans who attempt to "rank" sins, not God.

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

Yes; he paid the price if we repent. He still demands we make full repentance.

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

Self flagellation is discouraged by the Church.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I already said that it was consistent with Church doctrine.

That's what I thought.  Can you give a link to where I can read the official church doctrine on SSM or homosexuality?  Or can you quote President Monson regarding it?  

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

I'm pretty sure I read that someplace

This is pretty funny coming from you 

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure if this has been addressed or not, but...

If one of my grandkids showed up at my house stoned/intoxicated/high, I ABSOLUTELY would not ask them to leave....

In fact, I can't think of anything more irresponsible for me to do than to kick an incapacitated relative, friend, or acquaintance of mine out on the street (regardless of age, religion, OR sexual orientation).

Instead, I'd do everything I could to try to get him/her to lay down and sleep in a spare bedroom (or a couch), feed him/her to get some food in his/her system, sober up, and use my shower to clean up, rather than requesting he/she go out into a dangerous world in a physically incapacitated/compromised state...

Quote

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Quote

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

But that's just me. 

Regardless of my approach, I do acknowledge that this grandmother was certainly within her legal right to act as she did.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

37 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.

Not at all. In the context of her definition of marriage, the term “spouse” refers to both the husband (man) and the wife (woman). The term could not be applied in any other way—you always have two spouses in a marriage, one a man and one a woman.

35 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.

See above. I think you miss the point of what a definition is (and what a proclamation is)! Marriage is the operative word here; legal only modifies the word, and does not change the meaning of the word!

Edited October 31, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please, for your quotation of "counterfeit families" as "spoken by multiple {LDS} leaders."  I find zero results for this phrase on LDS.org.

Similarly, CFR, please, for statements "by multiple {LDS} leaders" which refer to people with same-sex attraction as "deviants."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The reference to "counterfeit families" is found here.

Quote

Elder Perry- April 2015 conference-

As a church, we want to assist in all that we can to create and support strong marriages and families.

That is why the Church actively participates in and provides leadership to various coalitions and ecumenical efforts to strengthen the family. It is why we share our family-focused values in the media and on social media. It is why we share our genealogical and extended family records with all nations.

We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring.

He is clearly speaking about traditional families and marriages. He is speaking out against the counterfeit families and marriages.

Regarding "deviant": Here are a few talks that refer to hom0sxual behavior as deviant.

Quote

Elder Ballard- October 2003

When evil wants to strike out and disrupt the essence of God’s work, it attacks the family. It does so by attempting to disregard the law of chastity, to confuse gender, to desensitize violence, to make crude and blasphemous language the norm, and to make immoral and deviant behavior seem like the rule rather than the exception.

Would you argue that he is NOT speaking about gay behavior? If so, what behavior is he speaking against?

I would suggest that whenever you see the word "deviant" in a church setting, they are speaking primarily of h0mosxuality. If you do a search of "deviant" on lds.org you'll find many, many references.

 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I'm curious: if an individual's doctor has prescribed cannabis for legitimate medical reasons, can they remain an active member in good standing in the LDS church?  Or is marijuana an automatic WOW infraction?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm curious: if an individual's doctor has prescribed cannabis for legitimate medical reasons, can they remain an active member in good standing in the LDS church?  Or is marijuana an automatic WOW infraction?

 

This is off topic, so it should probably be moved to another thread but I'll give you a quick answer:  In my stake we had a member who had been prescribed MMJ and was using it for a medical condition.  After the Bishop and SP denied his temple recommend renewal, he appealed up to the First Presidency and they granted his request to keep his recommend while using MMJ under a doctor's prescription.

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's what I thought.  Can you give a link to where I can read the official church doctrine on SSM or homosexuality?  Or can you quote President Monson regarding it?

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. 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 invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

 

PS the large font for doctrine was assigned by the spirit of the law.

Edited October 31, 2016 by CV75

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Great, then you won't have a problem elaborating and perhaps ranking the top ten sins for us?

My understanding of doctrine (and the associated scripture in this case) is that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Hence, stealing a piece of gum is no more or less serious than fornication. I think it is humans who attempt to "rank" sins, not God.

I don't think we can rank sins in seriousness unless we can view the damage they cause and obstacles they create for each individual.  And since we can't, it becomes a worthless endeavor so instead we should talk about how our attitudes towards our sins and repentance may interfere with becoming one with God.

Repentance includes not only rejection of the sin, but restitution to the best of our ability.  In that aspect, restitution for the loss of gum will likely be much easier than restitution for involving someone else in an act of sexual immorality.

In a frozen snapshot moment, all sins equally keep us out of God's presence, but long term it is the sins we resist repenting of for whatever reason that are the greatest burden to our souls and will delay our coming into the Presence of our Lord and our God.

If our pride rejects a God that won't let stealing a piece of God skate without repentance ('a loving God wouldn't make me feel bad and repent about such a little thing, he should give me a pass because I was having a really bad day that time...this God isn't one I want to be one with after all'), then that sin assumes all the importance of a sexual sin that we treasure for the comfort and pleasure it brings us.  And a murder that was committed in anger and arrogance that shocks a person into humble seeking of forgiveness and a desire to serve others may be less of an obstacle in the next life to spiritual progression than that coveted piece of gum....even though in the mortal moment the spiritual turmoil of stealing a piece of gum is nothing to the damage to others and the self that committing a murder creates.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not at all. In the context of her definition of marriage, the term “spouse” refers to both the husband (man) and the wife (woman). The term could not be applied in any other way—you always have two spouses in a marriage, one a man and one a woman.

Funny, but I only have ONE spouse (a woman).  

You're really not making much sense at this point.  There are spouses within a SSM, just like in a heterosexual marriage.  Some have a man for their spouse and some have a woman for their spouse.  Have you looked up the definition for "spouse"?

Here it is:

"a husband or wife, considered in relation to their partner"

Now read the Law of Chastity one more time and maybe you'll get it.

[Daniel2]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is off topic, so it should probably be moved to another thread but I'll give you a quick answer:  In my stake we had a member who had been prescribed MMJ and was using it for a medical condition.  After the Bishop and SP denied his temple recommend renewal, he appealed up to the First Presidency and they granted his request to keep his recommend while using MMJ under a doctor's prescription.

Sorry for the off topic question--thanks for the quick hit response! That satisfied my question.  If anyone else has other comments, please feel free to open a separate thread.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is off topic, so it should probably be moved to another thread but I'll give you a quick answer:  In my stake we had a member who had been prescribed MMJ and was using it for a medical condition.  After the Bishop and SP denied his temple recommend renewal, he appealed up to the First Presidency and they granted his request to keep his recommend while using MMJ under a doctor's prescription.

We had an investigator in my previous ward who had to use tobacco for pain control; if he tried to go off it, not only would he had to increase his use of dangerous prescribed drugs, but the doctors predicted it would kill him, his body was so precariously balanced and damaged already that even a change meant to be good would be too stressful.

Our bishop consulted with the mission pres and they both approved his baptism...tobacco use was determined to be a medical treatment just like his prescribed narcotics and thus allowed.  He died shortly there after, I hope they would have done the same when it came time for a temple recommend.  I am pretty sure the bishop would have.

(posted before seeing request, can delete if you want)

Edited October 31, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

2 hours 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? 

 

Wow.  I just now read this.  What a horrible comparison and I would recommend you stop using this in relation to having a son (or grandson) who is gay.  How on earth do you believe that is the same as someone showing up to your house drunk and stoned?  Good grief.  

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes; he paid the price if we repent. He still demands we make full repentance.

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

Self flagellation is discouraged by the Church.

So what actions are required before they can be forgiven? You mentioned repaying money if you've stolen money. What currency must people repay if they violate the law of chastity, in order to earn some grace?

Edited October 31, 2016 by Gray

[smac97]

1 hour 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?  

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.

The definition of marriage previously pertains to heterosexual monogamy.  Now it does not.

The Church has unequivocally explained that the recent innovation of "same-sex marriage" is not a marriage recognized by the Church, any more than polygamous marriages are recognized (even in countries where they are legal).  Secular law does not govern such matters.

You are, with deliberation and calculation, ignoring published statements by the Church that plainly and unequivocally speak on this point.

This is not a good faith discussion, so I will withdraw from it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

I hope you are not teaching this at church. It would strike me as extremely problematical if you were.