Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[Marmonboy]

1 hour 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.

What you seem to be applying is that I must accept my child's choices, regardless of what they may be. OK, I can see that. Accept is one thing--they have the right to make their own choices as adults. But what the gay community seem to want is for us to glory in it, rejoice and celebrate that our children are gay, and that I cannot do. I love them both dearly, but I cannot unquestionably rejoice at everything they do. BTW, my kids have issues, but that isn't one of them.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok.  Interesting you seem to do this if a discussion is not going as you want it to go.  But, I understand if that's how you feel.  No hard feelings.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.  

The similarity is that within an LDS paradigm, homosexual behavior is unacceptable, just as getting drunk or illicitly using drugs is unacceptable behavior.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

What you seem to be applying is that I must accept my child's choices, regardless of what they may be. 

You do know that being gay is not a choice, don't you?  I agree that entering into a SSM or relationship is a choice, but being gay is not a choice.  Would you accept your son or daughter if they told you they were gay?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The similarity is that within an LDS paradigm, homosexual behavior is unacceptable, just as getting drunk or illicitly using drugs is unacceptable behavior.

It's a horrible comparison.  However, I do know you seem to believe this and I find that revealing regarding your thinking on this topic.

(And, I see you still have not supplied the references I asked for.  Not an official CFR, but I've asked a couple of times.  I'll assume there are none.)

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

What you seem to be applying is that I must accept my child's choices, regardless of what they may be. OK, I can see that. Accept is one thing--they have the right to make their own choices as adults. But what the gay community seem to want is for us to glory in it, rejoice and celebrate that our children are gay, and that I cannot do. I love them both dearly, but I cannot unquestionably rejoice at everything they do. BTW, my kids have issues, but that isn't one of them.

I don't really see anyone trying to "glory in it". What I see is the desire to have all people treated equally. That's all. It's quite simple.

Similarly, I don't "glory" in heterosxuality. It's just how I am. I shouldn't have to hide it and neither should anyone else.

Edited October 31, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

50 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.

Nobody said there was a list or ranking.
But scripture and the prophets are clear that not all sins are created equal.
 

Alma 39:5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

Matthew 12:31 “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.”

Our Savior says, that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men wherewith they shall blaspheme; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, evidently showing that there are sins which may be forgiven in the world to come, although the sin of blasphemy [against the Holy Ghost] cannot be forgiven. - Joseph Smith HC 4:595-599
 

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

You are not making sense by saying you have only one spouse and that she is the only spouse in your marriage...

As I pointed out earlier, for the purposes of doctrine, the Church defines marriage as between a man and woman. "Legally married" for doctrinal purposes refers to the civil union under that definition, and the spouses are therefore a man and woman.

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.”

The Law of Chastity also refers to the doctrinal definition of marriage.

ETA:

I guess the next step is to draw a picture…

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

Made you look!

“Physical intimacy between husband [the male spouse in the marriage] and wife [the female spouse in the marriage] is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage.”

“Sometimes people try to convince themselves that sexual relations outside of marriage [between a man and a woman] are acceptable if the participants love one another. This is not true.”

“Those who keep themselves sexually pure will avoid the spiritual and emotional damage that always comes from sharing physical intimacies with someone outside of marriage.”

“All sexual relations outside of marriage violate the law of chastity and are physically and spiritually dangerous for those who engage in them.”

“We can determine now that we will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. We can determine now that we will be completely true to our spouse [which by our definition of marriage is of the opposite gender].”

Edited October 31, 2016 by CV75

[Marmonboy]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You do know that being gay is not a choice, don't you?  I agree that entering into a SSM or relationship is a choice, but being gay is not a choice.  Would you accept your son or daughter if they told you they were gay?

I am aware that the jury is still out on how much choice is involved. While one can't necessarily help who one finds attractive, the lifestyle one chooses to live is a choice, as is the behavior one engages in as a result of that choice.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Those I've discussed it with, agree with my beliefs on this topic and they also disagree with the new policy.  I'm finding that very few members are very proud or supportive of this policy and actually find it quite embarrassing.  

[Marmonboy]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't really see anyone trying to "glory in it". What I see is the desire to have all people treated equally. That's all. It's quite simple.

Ever been to a gay rights parade in a big city? Some are marching for equality, and many are marching to show off how gay they are.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's a horrible comparison.  However, I do know you seem to believe this and I find that revealing regarding your thinking on this topic.

 

And I find pretty unpalatable your efforts to distort the doctrines of the Church by legalistic interpretation of phrasing when you ought to know better. I agree with Smac that you are not engaging in good-faith discussion on that.

I'm inclined to conclude we don't have anything productive to say to each other on this matter.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You are not making sense by saying you have only one spouse and that she is the only spouse in your marriage...

Well, she's the only spouse I have.  This is becoming ridiculous.

If you don't believe that partners entering into a SSM are each other's spouse after they marry, that's odd.  But ok.  No reason to further discuss it 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

I am aware that the jury is still out on how much choice is involved. While one can't necessarily help who one finds attractive, the lifestyle one chooses to live is a choice, as is the behavior one engages in as a result of that choice.

Just out of curiosity, if the church required it, as a straight man could you choose to live a h0mosxual lifestyle?

In other words, were the roles reversed and hetersxuality was considered sinful, would you be able to live a life devoid of physical, heterosxual touch; handholding, kissing etc.?

Would you be able to live a happy life if you never even had the hope that you could ever have an emotionally and physically intimate relationship in this life or the next?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

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.

But that is possible thanks to the revisions made to the law.

Thanks to the 1920s revision to the law "lawful" was changed to emphasize "legal and lawful" and the qualifier  "who are given you by the holy priesthood" was dropped all together to validate civil marriages.

Thanks to the 1990 revision to the Law which does not have women and men covenant separately to keep the law of chastity. Instead, women and men simultaneously covenant to have no sexual relations except with their "husband or wife" to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded. This of course allows men to apply their covenant to their now legal husbands or women to their now legal wives.

The more we muddy the waters to be more inclusive, the more claim people have to excuse their sins.
Should have just left well enough alone.  Worked just fine for the first 85 years of the endowment.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

I am aware that the jury is still out on how much choice is involved. While one can't necessarily help who one finds attractive, the lifestyle one chooses to live is a choice, as is the behavior one engages in as a result of that choice.

True.

There is a greater degree of choice, however, when there is some degree of heterosexual attraction as opposed to exclusively same-gender attraction. 

This fact is all-too-often neglected.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I find pretty unpalatable your efforts to distort the doctrines of the Church by legalistic interpretation of phrasing when you ought to know better.

Once again, I ask for a link to the official church doctrine regarding homosexuality or SSM.  I'll also take any statements made by our current Prophet on the topic if you'll provide a link for those.

If you don't have these, just say so and I'll quit asking.  But you then should not continue referring to "the doctrines" on this topic if there is no official doctrine.  That's my point here.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Those I've discussed it with, agree with my beliefs on this topic and they also disagree with the new policy.  I'm finding that very few members are very proud or supportive of this policy and actually find it quite embarrassing.  

So you are teaching at church, then, that people who enter into gay marriages are living the law of chastity?  Do you teach it in an official capacity or calling? If so, does your bishop know?

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, I ask for a link to the official church doctrine regarding homosexuality or SSM.  I'll also take any statements made by our current Prophet on the topic if you'll provide a link for those.

If you don't have these, just say so and I'll quit asking.  But you then should not continue referring to "the doctrines" on this topic if there is no official doctrine.  That's my point here.

Doctrine just means teaching, and the church has plenty of teachings that condemn gay relationships. Unfortunately those teachings are built up like sand castles on top of sand castles, with no sure foundation. It's just assumptions all the way down, much like the ban on black people from full participation in the church.  

Edited October 31, 2016 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Ever been to a gay rights parade in a big city? Some are marching for equality, and many are marching to show off how gay they are.

That's not really what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about relationships. We're talking about a parent who refuses to introduce a gay child and partner to his friends. We're talking about marriage and family. Ironically, by ardently preaching against and trying to influence legislation against SSM, the church is showing preference to the kind of activity you describe in the parade. By having a policy that punishes SSM more harshly than other "gay sin", the church is showing preference to a more dangerous and promiscuous lifestyle.

What we're talking about here are people who simply want to have love and families like everyone else.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

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.

That is not what I asked.  But as you like.

Quote

Have I ever suggested that everyone must agree with my position? Have I implied that it's my way or the highway?

When you publicly accuse the leaders of your own Church of horrible things, that comes across as a "must agree with my position" / "my way or the highway" kind of thing.

I don't see a lot of tolerance for diversity of viewpoints.  I think people can act in good faith and upon their own principles and ethics and end up in very different places on a given issue.  But when it comes to the leaders of the LDS Church (and any other member of the Church who does not agree with you on this subject), you are publicly accusing such persons of being "ugly and hurtful," of "not being honest," and so on.

So I guess you're "tolerant" of opposing viewpoints, but that tolerance does not include the possibility of those opposing viewpoints being held in good faith.  That just does not seem very "tolerant" to me.

Quote

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.

Right.  Deplorable.  Dishonest.  Hurtful.  Ugly.  

I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down.

Quote

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.

That's fine.  But as soon as she dares to come to a conclusion about such a thing that differs from yours, we'll necessarily expect to see you publicly maligning her character (as you have done with Elder Oaks, with me, etc.), right?  Will you publicly accuse her of being "deplorable?"  Dishonest?  Ugly?  Hurtful?  All because she made a decision that differs from your personal opinion?

This is "tolerance?"

Quote

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.

Right.  Your way or the highway.  There is no principled basis for any opinion divergent from yours.  To differ from your say-so is to "rub salt in the wound."  To be "deplorable" and dishonest and "ugly" and "hurtful."

This is "tolerance?"

Quote

Quote

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.

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.

Um, you just finished publicly "judging" Elder Oaks as being deplorable and dishonest and ugly and hurtful.  Because his opinion on this issue is different from yours.

Quote

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.

Wow.  Even more judgmentalism.  So it really is your way or the highway?

Again, are you willing to let Latter-day Saints make principled distinctions when faced with painful and difficult circumstances like those described by Elder Oaks?  You don't really answer this question, you just presume to judge the scope and breadth of my affections.  It's almost as if to disagree with you is to be a bad person.

Quote

You may love the person in theory but if that love can't be put into action, then I see little value.

So you are the arbiter of how and when love is to be expressed?  And to differ from you on such matters is to not love?

IOW, it's your way or the highway.

Quote

Yes, it's ugly for a loved one to refuse attending a wedding because you don't approve.

Got it.  There is no room for principled disagreement on this issue.  It's your way or the highway.  Either I agree with you or I am "ugly" (and, presumably, "deplorable" and dishonest and "hurtful" and shallow and unloving . . . man, I'm losing track of the number of epithets you are throwing out here).

Quote

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.

I can't speak to this situation.  But that's a rather separate scenario from someone who has powerful and principled and deeply-felt and sincere feelings about participating in an wedding where such participation is, in many respects, going to be construed as a celebration and endorsement of the wedding.

But none of that matters.  There is no room for principled disagreement on this issue.  It's your way or the highway.  Either we agree with your or we are "ugly" and "deplorable" and dishonest and "hurtful" and shallow and unloving and "petty" and "juvenile."

This is "tolerance?"

Quote

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.

I know that.  My questions pertain to your capacity to allow other people, acting in good faith and on principle and with sincerity, to come to a different conclusion about whether to attend.  As you have made abundantly clear, you cannot tolerate any decision which deviates from your own.  Or, at least, you can "tolerate" it in a very, very abstract sense, but you will not hesitate to publicly denounce anyone who reaches such a different decision of being "ugly" and "deplorable" and dishonest and "hurtful" and shallow and unloving and "petty" and "juvenile."

This, in your view, is "tolerance?"

Quote

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.

Got it.  So anyone who disagrees with you, who comes to a different decision about such things, is 1) "ugly" and 2) "deplorable" and 3) dishonest and 4) "hurtful" and 5) shallow and 6) unloving and 7) "petty" and 8 ) "juvenile" and 9) "narrow" and 10) "simplistic" and 11) "sad" and 12) "childish."

This, in your view, is "tolerance?"

Quote

Of course I tolerate other viewpoints.

Your brand of "tolerance" is different from mine, I guess.

I was sort of thinking of the "I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things, such that people who on principle and with sincerity disagree with me can nevertheless retain my generalized respect" kind of "tolerance" instead of the kind of "tolerance" where Party A disagrees with Party B, such that Party A proceeds to publicly slur Party B as being 1) "ugly" and 2) "deplorable" and 3) dishonest and 4) "hurtful" and 5) shallow and 6) unloving and 7) "petty" and 8 ) "juvenile" and 9) "narrow" and 10) "simplistic" and 11) "sad" and 12) "childish."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2016 by smac97

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you are teaching at church, then? in an official capacity or calling? If so, does your bishop know.

 

Where did I state that I was "teaching" this "at church" (in an "official capacity" or not)?  And, my Bishop agrees with me on this subject.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, I ask for a link to the official church doctrine regarding homosexuality or SSM.  I'll also take any statements made by our current Prophet on the topic if you'll provide a link for those.

If you don't have these, just say so and I'll quit asking.  But you then should not continue referring to "the doctrines" on this topic if there is no official doctrine.  That's my point here.

Ask all you want. I've already made clear what I think of your legalistic distortion. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Doctrine just means teaching, and the church has plenty of teachings that condemn gay relationships. Unfortunately those teachings are built up like sand castles on top of sand castles, with no sure foundation. It's just assumptions all the way down, much like the ban on black people from full participation in the church.  

Yup.  Try to pin anyone down on what is "official doctrine" (read this thread  ) and yet they continue to use that word to defend their beliefs.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, she's the only spouse I have.  This is becoming ridiculous.

If you don't believe that partners entering into a SSM are each other's spouse after they marry, that's odd.  But ok.  No reason to further discuss it 

Civilly, where the jurisdictions permit, they are spouses in a civil sense, and in those faith communities that accept that kind of civil marriage.

But that is not what the Church teaches, and the doctrine must be understood according to her definitions. Since you ignored the rest of the post, I'll copy and paste it here:

As I pointed out earlier, for the purposes of doctrine, the Church defines marriage as between a man and woman. "Legally married" for doctrinal purposes refers to the civil union under that definition, and the spouses are therefore a man and woman.

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.”

The Law of Chastity also refers to the doctrinal definition of marriage.

ETA:

I guess the next step is to draw a picture…

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

Made you look!

“Physical intimacy between husband [the male spouse in the marriage] and wife [the female spouse in the marriage] is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage.”

“Sometimes people try to convince themselves that sexual relations outside of marriage [between a man and a woman] are acceptable if the participants love one another. This is not true.”

“Those who keep themselves sexually pure will avoid the spiritual and emotional damage that always comes from sharing physical intimacies with someone outside of marriage.”

“All sexual relations outside of marriage violate the law of chastity and are physically and spiritually dangerous for those who engage in them.”

“We can determine now that we will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. We can determine now that we will be completely true to our spouse [which by our definition of marriage is of the opposite gender].”

I think you need to familiarize yourself with all these things before insisting they say something they don't!