Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

LOL (speak for yourself!) All are invited to become a parent in Zion, and any that do not accept are not under the same injunction to teach their children to be baptized at 8 years of age.

I am speaking for myself. Who else would I be speaking for? "ALL" are not invited to be parents in Zion. Certain parents are not allowed to raise their children in the church. They are not considered real parents at all. They are not allowed agency to act as parents for their child. The church takes that agency away and says it is for the best interest of the family whose agency they just robbed.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not persuaded that we are headed toward a change in doctrine.  ... [snip]

 

I gave a rep point to this post. I think it superb, among Smac's best (and that's saying a great deal).

I have to express a caveat, though, pertaining to his statement about the 1978 revelation being a "correction of an error." I don't believe that has been definitively established that there was error to be corrected.

(I don't express this caveat to derail the thread, so I will not respond to any responses to this post.)

Edited November 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

HJW,

On balance, I have not behaved properly towards you.  I apologize.  Without reservation or qualification.  I will work on improving my communications in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 1, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I gave a rep point to this post. I think it superb, among Smac's best (and that's saying a great deal).

I have to express a caverat, though, pertaining to his statement about the 1978 revelation being a "correction of an error." I don't believe that has been definitively established that there was error to be corrected.

(I don't express this caveat to derail the thread, so I will not respond to any responses to this post.)

I don't think it has been definitively established, either.  I was speaking more from my personal perspective.  I should have been more clear about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think she would be fine with that generally.  But if he came over and started talking about his sexual exploits, or if he brought over his boyfriend and started making out with him on the couch, or if he came over with a bottle of booze in his hand, or a joint hanging from his mouth, I would assume she would have taken exception to such things.

I personally don't know anyone straight or gay who would go over to their grandmothers house and talk about their sexual exploits or start making out in front of their grandmother especially when they know she would be offended by such actions.  The fact that you think gay couples would do that kind of thing tells me a lot about what you think about gay couples.  It certainly helps me understand your adamant opposition to anything that is gay.  I guess if I felt any minority group would do such a thing I would be fighting to keep them out of the church as well.

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are not talking about states of being, but about behaviors.

In all honesty, I don't know.  She died many years ago, and she was a bit old-fashioned in some ways.  I would hope that she would be as welcoming as possible.  The Church's teachings on this sort of thing would call for that.

I do not have such an attitude.  I reject the charge outright.

I wouldn't.

That's part of it, yes.  But more to the point, I do not agree with same-sex marriage.  The whole point of inviting people to a wedding is to ask them to join you in celebrating the union.  There are times when a person, acting sincerely and on principle and in good faith, may not feel inclined to participate in such an event.  I think such people should be at liberty to attend or not attend without having strangers publicly smear and belittle their character (as, for example, HappyJackWagon as done in this thread).

I totally understand why you would not want to attend a gay wedding or be seen by any members at one given your views on how gay couples act.  While I feel your views are a bit distorted, my views are not your views.  So of course we have different feelings about attending a gay marriage.  

 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Tolerance and diversity of viewpoints and respect.  These, I am told, are good things.  But they seem to be lacking in some quarters when it comes to disagreeing with same-sex marriage. 

Nope.  Let me illustrate a bit . . . 

When I was in the Army I had a friend who repeatedly invited me to go to Sunday morning beach parties with her and a group of friends.  She and I were close friends (we were at a language school in Monterey, California learning Russian together, and we sat right next to each other in class).  She knew I was LDS and that I attended church on Sundays.  She nevertheless asked me to go with her several times, reasoning that I could "worship God on the beach just as well as in a church building."  She eventually became a bit irritated at me.  I understood.  She thought I was a bit too introverted and needed to loosen up.  She was my friend and wanted to help me make more friends.  She was acting in good faith.  With sincerity.  With good intentions.

And I, also acting with sincerity and with good intentions, quietly and kindly thanked her and declined her requests.

My friend was asking me to go party on a Sunday morning with her and her friends rather than attend church meetings, partake of the Sacrament, attend Sunday School and Priesthood meetings, and in general do what I had been taught about keeping the Sabbath day holy.  I recognized that she and her friends were not terrible people because they wanted to go to the beach and wanted me to go with them.  Quite the contrary, I was grateful for their overtures of friendship.  But I still had to say no because I could not square the proposed activity with my faith and my principles.

Fortunately, my friend did not hold a grudge.  She did not publicly accuse me of being deplorable and dishonest and ugly and hurtful and simplistic and childish and so on.  Nope.  She allowed me to choose for myself which activities I find compatible with my faith and which are not.  She allowed for reasonable minds to disagree.

Tolerance and diversity of viewpoints and respect.  These, I am told, are good things.  My friend was able to accommodate my viewpoint without publicly attaching my character and ethics.  That was a nice experience.  It sure would be nice to have such an experience when it comes to disagreeing with same-sex marriage.  Alas . . . 

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Got it.  You feel that any attendance at a gay marriage would pulling you away from the church.  

Thanks for your clarifications.  We have different views on what a gay couple is.  Given those differences, I doubt we will ever agree on how they should be treated.  

 

 

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

That is how Satan works.  He usually can't get someone to to accept something big all at once but works gradually until he gets bound to his chains.

Really? Line upon line, precept upon precept is how Satan works?  Milk before meat is how Satan works?  Do you want to reconsider your comment?

I can't speak for Carbon Dioxide, but perhaps something in mind more along the lines of this (emphasis added):

Quote

And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

And/or this (emphasis added):

Quote

 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

 9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

And/or this (emphasis added):

Quote

“Nevertheless, fear God, he will justify in committing a little sin, yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this. And do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the Kingdom of God.” [2 Nephi 28:8.]

Isn’t that just exactly what the devil says to the children of men today as plainly as it is written here? Oh, commit a little sin, that won’t do any harm, lie a little, that won’t do any particular damage, the Lord will forgive that and you will only be beaten with a few stripes and at last you shall be saved in the kingdom of God. That is what he says to the man or the woman who has been taught the Word of Wisdom when he says, oh, drink a little tea, that won’t hurt you; use a little tobacco, that won’t make any difference; a little liquor won’t do any harm. These are little things; he always does it a little at a time, not all at once. That is what I would like us to remember. … It is these insignificant insidious whisperings that betray mankind and that place us in the power of the devil. …

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally don't know anyone straight or gay who would go over to their grandmothers house and talk about their sexual exploits or start making out in front of their grandmother especially when they know she would be offended by such actions.  

Nor do I.  

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

The fact that you think gay couples would do that

I don't.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

kind of thing tells me a lot about what you think about gay couples.  

It does not, because I don't think that.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I totally understand why you would not want to attend a gay wedding or be seen by any members at one given your views on how gay couples act.  

No, I don't think you do.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

While I feel your views are a bit distorted, my views are not your views.  So of course we have different feelings about attending a gay marriage.  

If you are curious about the reasons I would not attend a same-sex wedding, you can simply ask me.  No need for inference or coy interpretation.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Got it.  You feel that any attendance at a gay marriage would pulling you away from the church.  

No.  You have not represented my position accurately.  At all.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your clarifications.  

Let me further clarify: You are not presenting my position accurately.  At all. 

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

We have different views on what a gay couple is.  Given those differences, I doubt we will ever agree on how they should be treated.  

I think they should be treated with love and respect and decorum.

Clear enough?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak for Carbon Dioxide, but perhaps something in mind more along the lines of this (emphasis added):

And/or this (emphasis added):

And/or this (emphasis added):

Thanks,

-Smac

You could add this story to your list of how Satan works to turn our hearts away from God gradually.  Long story to post on a message board, but the context of verse 18 is lost without the preceding verses. 

Alma 47

1 Now we will return in our record to Amalickiah and those who had fled with him into the wilderness; for, behold, he had taken those who went with him, and went up in the land of Nephi among the Lamanites, and did stir up the Lamanites to anger against the people of Nephi, insomuch that the king of the Lamanites sent a proclamation throughout all his land, among all his people, that they should gather themselves together again to go to battle against the Nephites.

 2 And it came to pass that when the proclamation had gone forth among them they were exceedingly afraid; yea, they feared to displease the king, and they also feared to go to battle against the Nephites lest they should lose their lives. And it came to pass that they would not, or the more part of them would not, obey the commandments of the king.

 3 And now it came to pass that the king was wroth because of their disobedience; therefore he gave Amalickiah the command of that part of his army which was obedient unto his commands, and commanded him that he should go forth and compel them to arms.

 4 Now behold, this was the desire of Amalickiah; for he being a very subtle man to do evil therefore he laid the plan in his heart to dethrone the king of the Lamanites.

 5 And now he had got the command of those parts of the Lamanites who were in favor of the king; and he sought to gain favor of those who were not obedient; therefore he went forward to the place which was called Onidah, for thither had all the Lamanites fled; for they discovered the army coming, and, supposing that they were coming to destroy them, therefore they fled to Onidah, to the place of arms.

 6 And they had appointed a man to be a king and a leader over them, being fixed in their minds with a determined resolution that they would not be subjected to go against the Nephites.

 7 And it came to pass that they had gathered themselves together upon the top of the mount which was called Antipas, in preparation to battle.

 8 Now it was not Amalickiah’s intention to give them battle according to the commandments of the king; but behold, it was his intention to gain favor with the armies of the Lamanites, that he might place himself at their head and dethrone the king and take possession of the kingdom.

 9 And behold, it came to pass that he caused his army to pitch their tents in the valley which was near the mount Antipas.

 10 And it came to pass that when it was night he sent a secret embassy into the mount Antipas, desiring that the leader of those who were upon the mount, whose name was Lehonti, that he should come down to the foot of the mount, for he desired to speak with him.

 11 And it came to pass that when Lehonti received the message he durst not go down to the foot of the mount. And it came to pass that Amalickiah sent again the second time, desiring him to come down. And it came to pass that Lehonti would not; and he sent again the third time.

 12 And it came to pass that when Amalickiah found that he could not get Lehonti to come down off from the mount, he went up into the mount, nearly to Lehonti’s camp; and he sent again the fourth time his message unto Lehonti, desiring that he would come down, and that he would bring his guards with him.

 13 And it came to pass that when Lehonti had come down with his guards to Amalickiah, that Amalickiah desired him to come down with his army in the night-time, and surround those men in their camps over whom the king had given him command, and that he would deliver them up into Lehonti’s hands, if he would make him (Amalickiah) a second leader over the whole army.

 14 And it came to pass that Lehonti came down with his men and surrounded the men of Amalickiah, so that before they awoke at the dawn of day they were surrounded by the armies of Lehonti.

 15 And it came to pass that when they saw that they were surrounded, they pled with Amalickiah that he would suffer them to fall in with their brethren, that they might not be destroyed. Now this was the very thing which Amalickiah desired.

 16 And it came to pass that he delivered his men, contrary to the commands of the king. Now this was the thing that Amalickiah desired, that he might accomplish his designs in dethroning the king.

 17 Now it was the custom among the Lamanites, if their chief leader was killed, to appoint the second leader to be their chief leader.

 18 And it came to pass that Amalickiah caused that one of his servants should administer poison by degrees to Lehonti, that he died.

.

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not persuaded that we are headed toward a change in doctrine.  The Sexual Revolution which began in the 60s has caused a significant shift in attitudes toward sexual behavior.  We are now about fifty years into that shift, which has affected not only society in general, but also the Latter-day Saints.  In the main, I think the effects have been harmful.  Divorce rates have skyrocketed (also largely attributable, I think, to no-fault divorce laws), as have abortions, STDs, and generalized promiscuity.  Aside from the plain sociological aspects of these issues, I believe we will be judged by God for such things.

Nevertheless, there have been some silver linings here and there.  The Latter-day Saints have, by hook or by crook, been compelled to reassess generalized attitudes toward those among us to violate the Law of Chastity.  We have, in fits and spurts, become more compassionate, more accepting and kind.  We don't really have a choice, as there are too many of us bending or breaking the Law of Chastity.

My point is that despite fifty years of a generalized social trend of normalizing/mainstreaming violations of the Law of Chastity, the LDS Church has not altered the substantive interpretation and application of that Law.  Fornication is still a deeply serious sin the LDS Church.  So is adultery.  And using pornography.  And sexual abuse.  These things are not winked at or ignored.  We don't elide around them.  Bishops and stake presidents around the world spend a substantial portion of their ministerial efforts addressing issues pertaining to the Law of Chastity (other biggies being financial problems, the Word of Wisdom, mental / emotional / physical health, marital/family difficulties, maintaining daily Gospel observances like prayer, scripture study, fulfilling callings, etc.).  These men are, I think, generally being counseled to reach out with more compassion and understanding, but I have seen no indication that they are being told that the parameters of the Law of Chastity have changed, that the prohibitions against fornication and adultery and so on are have become outdated, or anything like that.

So it is, I think, with the "doctrine" of the Law of Chastity as it pertains to same-sex behavior.  That is still a violation of the Law of Chastity.  I see no indication that this is changing.  We may be becoming more accepting and loving and compassionate toward those who engage in such conduct, and this is generally a very good thing.  We are all of us sinners in one way or another.  

The challenge, I think, is that some folks want the Church to follow the World and take same-sex behavior out of the "Thou Shalt Not" column.  That is, I think the proposed "change in the doctrine of homosexuality" that is under discussion here.  But is that happening?  Nope.  Will it happen in the future?  I really don't think so.  Will the Saints be maligned and defamed and slurred for maintaining adherence to prophetic counsel regarding the Law of Chastity as it pertains to same-sex behavior?  Yes.  Undoubtedly.  In fact, I think things will get worse for us.  We will even have elements within the Church work and speak against the Brethren on this issue (we've seen as much in this very thread).  That, in my mind, is the peculiar thing.  There is no widespread, orchestrated, public, pressure-tactics-using effort to lobby against and otherwise pressure and shame and coerce the Church into capitulating on its doctrines pertaining to, say, fornication or adultery.  But there is very much such an effort to pressure and shame and coerce the Church into capitulating on its doctrines pertaining to same-sex behavior (we see such things on this board all the time).  Sadly, these efforts will be advanced in part (championed, even) by some who have membership in the Church.  Hence the prescient counsel of President Harold B. Lee (emphasis added):

Yep.

I think this is more a matter of convenience and, increasingly, decorum and respect.  There simply is not a lexical term other than "wife" or "marriage" to describe same-sex unions which are now legal in much of the world.

But I don't think that represents a doctrinal shift.  People who talk about polygamists will generally make a lexical concession and refer to the female participants as "first wife" and "second wife" and so on.  That concession is more a matter of convenience than anything else.  It does not mean that the speaker is conceding that the polygamous relationships are legally valid.  And in an LDS context, such references certainly do not mean that unsanctioned polygamous unions are acceptable to God or seen as valid by His Church.  To the contrary, anyone who participates in such a union is excommunicated.

So the shift in terminology does not reflect a pending change in doctrine, IMO.

Not really.  I know plenty of families who utilize an expansive and flexible definition of "family."  Hawaiians have long had a word for it: Ohana:

I love this concept, particularly because I was born in Hawaii and have many ties of love and affection to Polynesia (I have a Hawaiian sister, a Tahitian brother, a Samoan sister-in-law, and many Polynesian friends and acquaintances).  And I have never detected a tendency amongst Polynesian Latter-day Saints to treat Ohana as being synonymous with the sealing ordinance and the doctrines of the Church.

Yes (well, "null" in the eternal sense - we recognize the legal validity of SSMs).  I don't see that changing any time soon.  

Actually, I think Elder Oaks allowed for a spectrum of responses.  And given the developments of the last ten years, I suspect that spectrum has broadened a bit (as evidenced by the Church allowing members to publicly advocate for same-sex marriage and remain in good standing).

Well, legally it is valid.  But I don't think she is making any claims that it is valid in the eyes of God, or that her daugher-in-law is sealed to her daughter by virtue of the legalization of same-sex marriage.  To the contrary, the LDS Church has specifically and categorically declared as follows (from a March 2014 letter) (emphases added):

I can't speak for the author of the article in the OP, but I suspect she can reconcile, and has, her love and acceptance of her daughter's same-sex relationship with the principles and practices set forth above.  This is kinda sorta new, but kinda sorta not.  LDS families have spent the last fifty years adjusting to declining sexual mores which have led to relationships and circumstances which, although in violation of the laws of God, nevertheless merit love and compassion and patience.

Last night I attended a family event for Halloween, during which I found out that a person in my extended family has moved in with his girlfriend.  I have very large extended family, virtually all of whom are LDS.  And yet there was no condemnation of this person.  No shock.  No outrage.  No shunning.  We all recognize that this living arrangement is not in accordance with the commandments, but we still love and accept this person - and his girlfriend.  Both have attended several family gatherings, and this will continue in the future.

So LDS families accommodating same-sex relationships is just a variation on a theme that has been playing out for many years already.

I really doubt it.  Doctrine does not generally mold itself to culture.  And when it does, there are very, very special circumstances in play.  As to the Priesthood Ban, there apparently was no revelatory basis for it, so the doctrinal "change" in 1978 was more of a correction of an error.  As to polygamy in the LDS Church, it commenced by going against the cultural grain (it's not like 19th century protestant converts were clamoring for polygamy), and also ended by going against the cultural grain (witness the turmoil and challenges between the first and second manifestos).

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think that many here feel the church will accept homosexual relations outside of marriage.  That would be in keeping with what the law of chastity always has been.  I think what you are hearing is that members of the church will have less of a reason to object to gay couples who choose to marry and only have sexual relationships within those marriages.  That view would be more in keeping with the traditional understanding of the law of chastity.

I am not arguing against how you view gay marriage.  I think your views on what gay couples are like make this idea abhorrent to you.  But not all members view gay couples the same as you do.  And I think over time and with more interaction with gay couples, views on gay marriage within the church may very well soften   What the church does with those softening views is totally up to the leadership of the church.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I am speaking for myself. Who else would I be speaking for? "ALL" are not invited to be parents in Zion. Certain parents are not allowed to raise their children in the church. They are not considered real parents at all. They are not allowed agency to act as parents for their child. The church takes that agency away and says it is for the best interest of the family whose agency they just robbed.

We know that all are invited to be parents in Zion.

Even apostates are welcome to stay active in the Church, and as members if they repent. There are to be some limitations based on worthiness, but all are welcome to participate as fully as they are able. I would consider this participation in the Church to the fullest extent for which they qualify, a function of their agency and the Church respecting ti.

Dependent children living with apostates have claim upon their parents for their maintenance, so their level of activity is dependent on that of the apostate parents. I would consider this as raising children in the Church to the fullest extent for which the parents' choices  allow.

Some forms of parental apostasy require the child to become of age and disavow the parents’ practices, a policy acknowledging the varied nature of apostasy and the very personal impact on a child’s development. Apostasy over the doctrine of marriage is unique in that it is the highest ordinance one can receive, and “one” is actually multiple souls because this covenant is received in partnership with one of the opposite gender and in behalf of all who are born in that covenant.

Non (never)-member gay couples and their children are likewise welcome to activity in the Church, to the extent non-members can be. They are not apostate in the sense they left the faith, but should they be baptized and continue as members, they would be.

The Church follows the D&C which says, "All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age," which puts parental rights above any claim to Church membership. She also follows the D&C in that only parents in Zion are to teach their children “to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old.” Apostates are exempt. Everyone's agency is honored, and everyone is encouraged to use their agency so as to enjoy the full blessings the Church extends. But if agency is used to enjoy only some of the blessings, that is entirely an individual choice that the Church honors.

Unless it can be explained how agency is denied, charges of such is just ranting without thinking any of this through. Simply saying (or whining, blurting, or blabbing with that white stuff flecked on the corners of the mouth) that it is so just isn't enough.

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 "ALL" are not invited to be parents in Zion. Certain parents are not allowed to raise their children in the church. They are not considered real parents at all. They are not allowed agency to act as parents for their child. The church takes that agency away and says it is for the best interest of the family whose agency they just robbed.

No, ALL are invited to be parents in Zion if the corresponding laws for that blessing are followed.
All blessings are available to all people IF they follow the rules.  You don't get to make your own rules and expect the same results.

D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Don't want to follow a law?  Don't expect a blessing no matter how much you feel like you should get it.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I don't think that many here feel the church will accept homosexual relations outside of marriage.  

Agreed.  

1 minute ago, california boy said:

That would be in keeping with what the law of chastity always has been.  I think what you are hearing is that members of the church will have less of a reason to object to gay couples who choose to marry and only have sexual relationships within those marriages.  

What the members of the Church personally do or do not object to is rather a separate question from whether there is a pending "change in the doctrine of homosexuality."

I agree that members of the Church are becoming more "accepting" of same-sex relationships, the same way we have become more "accepting" of loved ones who violate the Law of Chastity in other ways.

But to the extend there is a pending change in doctrine such as will remove same-sex behavior (within in or out of a marital relationship) from the "Thou Shalt Not" column . . . I just don't see that happening.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I am not arguing against how you view gay marriage.  I think your views on what gay couples are like make this idea abhorrent to you.  

First, I think you do not have an accurate understanding of my "views on what gay couples are like."  At all.  You certainly have not represented my views accurately.

Second, my opposition to same-sex marriage has virtually nothing to do with "what gay couples are like."

1 minute ago, california boy said:

But not all members view gay couples the same as you do.  

You do not know how I view gay couples.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

And I think over time and with more interaction with gay couples, views on gay marriage within the church may very well soften  

I agree.  

1 minute ago, california boy said:

What the church does with those softening views is totally up to the leadership of the church.

That is what is under discussion here.  I think some are surmising that this "softening" will lead to a change in the Law of Chastity that will take same-sex behavior (including within a same-sex marriage) out of the "Thou Shalt Not" column.  I just don't see that happening.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think that many here feel the church will accept homosexual relations outside of marriage.  That would be in keeping with what the law of chastity always has been.  I think what you are hearing is that members of the church will have less of a reason to object to gay couples who choose to marry and only have sexual relationships within those marriages.  That view would be more in keeping with the traditional understanding of the law of chastity.

I am not arguing against how you view gay marriage.  I think your views on what gay couples are like make this idea abhorrent to you.  But not all members view gay couples the same as you do.  And I think over time and with more interaction with gay couples, views on gay marriage within the church may very well soften   What the church does with those softening views is totally up to the leadership of the church.

Conceivably, there are today polygamous "marriages" in which the spouses behave lovingly toward one another and their children and in which they practice fidelity within the "marital" relationships, such as they are. This has not caused the Church to soften its views regarding the unauthorized practice of plurality of wives. It is still condemned and, when detected among members of the Church, automatically results in excommunication.

In short, same-sex marriage, like unauthorized plural marriage, is unacceptable to the Church and its members because it is unacceptable to God.

 

[Buckeye]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Conceivably, there are today polygamous "marriages" in which the spouses behave lovingly toward one another and their children and in which they practice fidelity within the "marital" relationships, such as they are. This has not caused the Church to soften its views regarding the unauthorized practice of plurality of wives. It is still condemned and, when detected among members of the Church, automatically results in excommunication.

In short, same-sex marriage, like unauthorized plural marriage, is unacceptable to the Church and its members because it is unacceptable to God.

 

The key difference between polygamy and SSM is that, within mainstream mormon society, there is next to zero inclination to embrace polygamous unions, but there is a growing inclination to embrace SS unions within our families and wards. The DB article linked in the OP is a prime example. This trend will continue IMO. While tolerance of polygamous couples may expand, the desire to embrace such unions will not. But for SSM not only is tolerance growing, but so too an embrace of SS couples. In short, strong LDS families don't tend to breed children who want to have multiple spouses, but they do frequently breed children who want to have SSM. The ice is beginning to thaw.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The key difference between polygamy and SSM is that, within mainstream mormon society, there is next to zero inclination to embrace polygamous unions, but there is a growing inclination to embrace SS unions within our families and wards. The DB article linked in the OP is a prime example. This trend will continue IMO. While tolerance of polygamous couples may expand, the desire to embrace such unions will not. But for SSM not only is tolerance growing, but so too an embrace of SS couples. In short, strong LDS families don't tend to breed children who want to have multiple spouses, but they do frequently breed children who want to have SSM. The ice is beginning to thaw.

Assuming this is true, how is it a "key difference" relative to whether there is a "change in the doctrine of homosexuality?"

LDS families have, for many years now, been becoming more tolerant and accepting of loved ones who violate the Law of Chastity in other ways (fornication, for example), but that does not seem to have yielded a "change" in "doctrine."  Fornication is still a sin (in contrast, I note, to polygamous marriage, which is not sinful when authorized by God).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The key difference between polygamy and SSM is that, within mainstream mormon society, there is next to zero inclination to embrace polygamous unions, but there is a growing inclination to embrace SS unions within our families and wards. The DB article linked in the OP is a prime example. This trend will continue IMO. While tolerance of polygamous couples may expand, the desire to embrace such unions will not. But for SSM not only is tolerance growing, but so too an embrace of SS couples. In short, strong LDS families don't tend to breed children who want to have multiple spouses, but they do frequently breed children who want to have SSM. The ice is beginning to thaw.

Alas, children who desire to practice formication or adultery do occasionally come from strong LDS homes. That doesn't make those violations of the law of chastity any the more acceptable. 

We can't altogether escape the worldly influences, but we do what we can to cope with and hopefully counteract them. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I am speaking for myself. Who else would I be speaking for? "ALL" are not invited to be parents in Zion. Certain parents are not allowed to raise their children in the church. They are not considered real parents at all. They are not allowed agency to act as parents for their child. The church takes that agency away and says it is for the best interest of the family whose agency they just robbed.

WHAT? No one is saying that.

The Church is a voluntary organization. It has certain rules all members must abide by. If you/they can't won't abide by the rules there are plenty of other organizations which would welcome you/them.

It has nothing to do with Agency. IE; Someone offers you a choice of a vanilla or chocolate ice cream cone. You can only have one. If you choose one you can't have the other.

Edited November 1, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

HJW,

On balance, I have not behaved properly towards you.  I apologize.  Without reservation or qualification.  I will work on improving my communications in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you. It takes a big man to apologize. Respect!

 

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The key difference between polygamy and SSM is that, within mainstream mormon society, there is next to zero inclination to embrace polygamous unions, but there is a growing inclination to embrace SS unions within our families and wards. The DB article linked in the OP is a prime example. This trend will continue IMO. While tolerance of polygamous couples may expand, the desire to embrace such unions will not. But for SSM not only is tolerance growing, but so too an embrace of SS couples. In short, strong LDS families don't tend to breed children who want to have multiple spouses, but they do frequently breed children who want to have SSM. The ice is beginning to thaw.

A quibble with your word choice of "embrace." I think it is more accurate to say that "within mainstream Mormon society . . . there is a growing inclination to tolerate SS unions in the abstract." This is not the equivalent of "embracing." While there may be some wards that frequently have gay couples attending, in my experience Church members' contact and experience with gay members is overwhelmingly as individuals only --- non-married individuals, or even as couples. Contact with SS marriage remains very much an outlier for most LDS. Most LDS are quite welcoming and accepting of gay individuals they know, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they "embrace SS unions."

When I think of the polygamist families we encountered in the Salt Lake area, and also in south-central Arizona where I live (we see polygamists at the store sometimes, even today --- based on their dress and hair. You can tell), I think there is exactly the same level of "embracing" on the part of LDS for their unions as there are for SS unions. That is, much more a matter of tolerance and acceptance, not embracing.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Assuming this is true, how is it a "key difference" relative to whether there is a "change in the doctrine of homosexuality?"

LDS families have, for many years now, been becoming more tolerant and accepting of loved ones who violate the Law of Chastity in other ways (fornication, for example), but that does not seem to have yielded a "change" in "doctrine."  Fornication is still a sin (in contrast, I note, to polygamous marriage, which is not sinful when authorized by God).

Thanks,

-Smac

I was speaking to a difference in culture, not doctrine.

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Alas, children who desire to practice formication or adultery do occasionally come from strong LDS homes. That doesn't make those violations of the law of chastity any the more acceptable. 

We can't altogether escape the worldly influences, but we do what we can to cope with and hopefully counteract them. 

 

Societal norms have changed regarding many aspects of the law chastity. For some changes, church culture has followed suit and now accepts the change (e.g., use of contraception, oral sex within married couples). For others, the church culture has remained firm, though probably more understanding (e.g., premarital sex, adultery, etc.). And for other changes the church culture is in flux (e.g., plastic surgery, whether masturbation is a sin).

None of that speaks directly to whether SSM will become acceptable. IMO, the decision will be made based on the fruit of the SS marriages seen by church members. If the marriages are clearly inferior to heterosexual unions the church cultural opposition will remain or even strengthen. But if the marriages are seen to be good, if the couples are generally happier than LGBT members who remain single and celibate, if the children raised in these families are comparable to those of traditional families, then the church culture will grow to not only tolerate but to embrace SSM. As the 13th AOF states, "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

[Buckeye]

49 minutes ago, rongo said:

A quibble with your word choice of "embrace." I think it is more accurate to say that "within mainstream Mormon society . . . there is a growing inclination to tolerate SS unions in the abstract." This is not the equivalent of "embracing." While there may be some wards that frequently have gay couples attending, in my experience Church members' contact and experience with gay members is overwhelmingly as individuals only --- non-married individuals, or even as couples. Contact with SS marriage remains very much an outlier for most LDS. Most LDS are quite welcoming and accepting of gay individuals they know, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they "embrace SS unions."

When I think of the polygamist families we encountered in the Salt Lake area, and also in south-central Arizona where I live (we see polygamists at the store sometimes, even today --- based on their dress and hair. You can tell), I think there is exactly the same level of "embracing" on the part of LDS for their unions as there are for SS unions. That is, much more a matter of tolerance and acceptance, not embracing.

Tolerance will always outpace embracing, sure. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Tolerance is on the rise. So too is embracing. Just look at the Pew survey from last year where something like 20-25% of LDS supported SSM. That's not just tolerance, its embracing. And while our % is lower than most all other faiths, the trajectory is the same - up. Considering that SSM has been legal in Utah for less than a year, and considering how important family and marriage remains to the culture there, I would expect that most members will personally know someone in a SS marriage within a few years, a decade at tops.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

WHAT? No one is saying that.

The Church is a voluntary organization. It has certain rules all members must abide by. If you/they can't won't abide by the rules there are plenty of other organizations which would welcome you/them.

It has nothing to do with Agency. IE; Someone offers you a choice of a vanilla or chocolate ice cream cone. You can only have one. If you choose one you can't have the other.

Yes, the church is a voluntary organization. When you say that ALL are encouraged to be parents in ZION it is demonstrably false; in "zion" means "in the church. And within the church, the "voluntary organization" ALL are not encouraged to be parents. In fact, if they are gay and married they are removed out of the church so they are no longer in Zion as parents. They are "out of Zion" by command of the church.

My only point is that it is silly to claim that parents are invited to be parents in Zion when parents are removed from zion, therefore, by definition not making them welcome to be parents in Zion. You can argue that the church is justified but you can't argue that ALL are welcome.

[Daniel2]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also thought it odd to fault (not merely fault, but publicly accuse and excoriate) an elderly woman because she was concerned at the prospect of having an inebriated/stoned person in her home, particularly one who expresses anger and yells at her.  

So what was it about her that made it okay for HJW and Daniel to put her in their crosshairs?  Ah yes . . . she was a Mormon.

Funny how neither Daniel nor HJW bothered to make any inquiries about such pertinent considerations before denouncing her.

Ah, well.  It's my fault for bringing her up.  I should've known she'd be treated this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac,

You have spoken numerous times advocating on behalf of posting "in good faith," and have called others on the carpet when you feel they have not done so.

Respectfully, and with the full intention of continuing to post in what I believe is an ongoing sincere, good faith effort on my part, I believe your post above unfairly mischaracterizes me entirely.

I do not believe I have ever acted in a way that would "make it ok" to "put someone in the crosshairs" simply because said individual "was a Mormon."  I have never advocated on such an 'open season' approach on Mormons merely because of their religious beliefs, and don't see how your statement about me as such could be justified.  To explain:

In so far as your grandmother is concerned, I don't believe I "put her in [my] crosshairs." 

First, you brought her up in your post in an attempt to compare two contrasting but similar situations, and invited responses to whether or not she was justified in her actions.  If you did not want responses, or if you did not want criticisms to be raised (what you now claim is me "putting her in the crosshairs"), why did you raise her as an example and then solicit responses as to whether or not she was justified??

As described in your post, I understood your use the example of your grandmother's request for her intoxicated/high grandson to leave her home as an analogy to whether or not parents should ask their gay children not to "act" gay (or discuss their same-sex behaviors) in their homes.  Now... for that analogy to even be applicable to the other item being compared, I-------in all good faith------would presume the two examples implied  "all other things being equal."  What I mean by that is that there weren't other extenuating circumstances regarding the example of your grandmother and the intoxicated son that would have necessitated additional considerations of safeguarding your grandmother's physical or mental safety.  I mean, if THAT's the case--that your grandmother genuinely felt that her life, health, or wellbeing were in immediate and measureable danger, how is that analogous to her gay son just talking about his boyfriend to her, or holding his boyfriend's hand in front of her...?  If your grandmother's inebriated grandson was physically threatening her, or if she feared for her own physical safety, then OF COURSE she would be justified in demanding he leave; or calling the police; or getting immediate help!  That goes without saying.  But if that's the case, that example really isn't applicable, unless you're saying that gay couples visiting their families pose an immediate, physical clear and present danger to their family members that they are visiting.... right??  But that WASN'T the way the issue was framed.... And again, in good faith, I presumed that for the purposes of your example and your request to compare the two, all other things were equal.

Finally, at no point in time did I condemn your grandmother.  I even called out the fact that she was perfectly free to behave as she did.

And I  certainly did NOT even mention ANYTHING about her LDS religious affiliation. 

In short, I don't believe your answer above illustrates much of an example of acting in good faith.  On the contrary, it just seemed that after someone else suggested there could be other extenuating circumstances as to why your grandmother may have ejected her intoxicated grandson, you unfairly decided to take a cheap shot at me by saying I decided to "put her in my crosshairs" based on religion.

At the end of the day, this is my takeaway for anyone, regardless of religious affiliation:

If someone shows up at your house drunk/inebriated/incapacitated/high, especially if it's someone you care about: do whatever you can to get them the help they need, instead of sending them back out on the street, while taking whatever measures necessary to maintain your physical safety.  If they aren't violent and don't pose a physical threat to you: don't let them drive or walk away... take them in and try to help them sober up and encourage them to get whatever help they need.  I recognize they may refuse your help--but as long as it doesn't hurt to try, then it's worth making the effort to help.  If they DO pose a threat to your physical safety or a harm to your family: of course you need to protect yourself, and I hope you'd still call for help in the form of neighbors and/or police or any other appropriate authorities, rather than allow them to drive or walk away in an incapacitated state. 

I hope religious differences never dissuade us from doing what we can to help someone who shouldn't be out on the street, even if they brought it upon themselves.

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Smac,

You have spoken numerous times advocating on behalf of posting "in good faith," and have called others on the carpet when you feel they have not done so.

Respectfully, and with the full intention of continuing to post in what I believe is an ongoing sincere, good faith effort on my part, I believe your post above unfairly mischaracterizes me entirely.

I do not believe I have ever acted in a way that would "make it ok" to "put someone in the crosshairs" simply because said individual "was a Mormon."  I have never advocated on such an 'open season' approach on Mormons merely because of their religious beliefs, and don't see how your statement about me as such could be justified.  To explain:

In so far as your grandmother is concerned, I don't believe I "put her in [my] crosshairs." 

First, you brought her up in your post in an attempt to compare two contrasting but similar situations, and invited responses to whether or not she was justified in her actions.  If you did not want responses, or if you did not want criticisms to be raised (what you now claim is me "putting her in the crosshairs"), why did you raise her as an example and then solicit responses as to whether or not she was justified??

As described in your post, I understood your use the example of your grandmother's request for her intoxicated/high grandson to leave her home as an analogy to whether or not parents should ask their gay children not to "act" gay (or discuss their same-sex behaviors) in their homes.  Now... for that analogy to even be applicable to the other item being compared, I-------in all good faith------would presume the two examples implied  "all other things being equal."  What I mean by that is that there weren't other extenuating circumstances regarding the example of your grandmother and the intoxicated son that would have necessitated additional considerations of safeguarding your grandmother's physical or mental safety.  I mean, if THAT's the case--that your grandmother genuinely felt that her life, health, or wellbeing were in immediate and measureable danger, how is that analogous to her gay son just talking about his boyfriend to her, or holding his boyfriend's hand in front of her...?  If your grandmother's inebriated grandson was physically threatening her, or if she feared for her own physical safety, then OF COURSE she would be justified in demanding he leave; or calling the police; or getting immediate help!  That goes without saying.  But if that's the case, that example really isn't applicable, unless you're saying that gay couples visiting their families pose an immediate, physical clear and present danger to their family members that they are visiting.... right??  But that WASN'T the way the issue was framed.... And again, in good faith, I presumed that for the purposes of your example and your request to compare the two, all other things were equal.

Finally, at no point in time did I condemn your grandmother.  I even called out the fact that she was perfectly free to behave as she did.

And I  certainly did NOT even mention ANYTHING about her LDS religious affiliation. 

In short, I don't believe your answer above illustrates much of an example of acting in good faith.  On the contrary, it just seemed that after someone else suggested there could be other extenuating circumstances as to why your grandmother may have ejected her intoxicated grandson, you unfairly decided to take a cheap shot at me by saying I decided to "put her in my crosshairs" based on religion.

At the end of the day, this is my takeaway for anyone, regardless of religious affiliation:

If someone shows up at your house drunk/inebriated/incapacitated/high, especially if it's someone you care about: do whatever you can to get them the help they need, instead of sending them back out on the street, while taking whatever measures necessary to maintain your physical safety.  If they aren't violent and don't pose a physical threat to you: don't let them drive or walk away... take them in and try to help them sober up and encourage them to get whatever help they need.  I recognize they may refuse your help--but as long as it doesn't hurt to try, then it's worth making the effort to help.  If they DO pose a threat to your physical safety or a harm to your family: of course you need to protect yourself, and I hope you'd still call for help in the form of neighbors and/or police or any other appropriate authorities, rather than allow them to drive or walk away in an incapacitated state. 

I hope religious differences never dissuade us from doing what we can to help someone who shouldn't be out on the street, even if they brought it upon themselves.

 

Daniel,

To the extent I have treated you improperly or unfairly, I apologize.  Without qualification.  I will work on improving my communications in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

That is how Satan works.  He usually can't get someone to to accept something big all at once but works gradually until he gets bound to his chains.

God too.