Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[Gray]

On 10/31/2016 at 0:33 PM, cinepro said:

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

Actually, come to think of it, Paul believed that God turns people gay as punishment for idolatry or apostasy.   

From Romans 1:

Quote

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Actually, come to think of it, Paul believed that God turns people gay as punishment for idolatry or apostasy.   

From Romans 1:

 

I don't read it as you do.

I see it as saying that without the refining influence of belief and faith in God, acceptance of His truths and the strength that comes from the gift of the Holy Ghost, they were left without the strength to overcome the natural man, as it were, and were thus given over to latent, ungodly passions, to being "carnal, sensual and devilish" as a Book of Mormon passage expresses it.

And this, by the way, lends credence to the idea that there is some fluidity in sexual preference, at least in some individuals, and acceptance of the doctrines of the gospel can strengthen the intent in some to develop the heterosexual side of their nature to the point that they can pursue a fulfilling marital relationship leading to a strong family unit as it is championed and taught in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

You keep conflating inviting, welcoming, and agency.

You’ve had 3 people explain to you how all are invited to become a part of Zion, are welcome to accept the invitation, and their acceptance is a reflection of their use of agency.

Where marriage and family, per the Church’s definitions, form the basic unit of organization in Zion, yes, all are encouraged to enter that covenant where possible in mortality.

Those who accepted these invitations and encouragements and then who use their agency to reject them to the extent they apostatize, are typically excommunicated. These folks are invited to return and welcome to accept that invitation, and their agency is honored whatever they choose.

And now you want to backpedal your silly claim that apostates are not invited or welcome, and that it is reasonable that a choice to remain as members in apostasy be honored…

[Guest]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

Line upon line is God gives us wisdom, milk before meat is how our parents keep us alive long enough to learn, line upon line. I know you were provoked by another poster...just wanted you to think that entire comment through. 

[djf1981]

As someone who is gay and grew up in the church, I can honestly say that I don't ever foresee the church changing their doctrine about this issue. If they change their doctrine about homosexuality, then from their point of view, they'd have to change it about hetero sex outside of marriage. I just don't see it happening. Personally speaking, I've made my peace with it and have moved on. The only thing that hurts is that the Church says "you can't do that", but they don't offer any sort of an alternative. I suppose a lot of people, including on this forum would say, "Well, they say you shouldn't drink, smoke, or look at porn either." But what a lot of people fail to understand though is that homosexuality isn't a vice like those other things that we can just overcome and ignore. It's as just as much a part of our identity as being straight is to yours. I know it's hard for a lot of people (especially in the church) to understand that concept, but take my word for it. It's more than just about sex. It's about the need for love and companionship, two things that are crucial for happiness (and even physical health) in this life. And what the church is telling us is that we can't experience those things without severe consequences; and on the flip side, that it also wouldn't be a good idea to get married to the opposite sex as a form of rehabilitation. So then, what are we supposed to do?? The church is basically asking us to condemn ourselves to a life filled with loneliness and despair. My mom always says, "Sheri Dew isn't married...". Well, at least Sheri Dew (assuming that she's straight) still has the hope that she can one day get married and not be condemned for it.  She still has that hope. A gay person who is trying to stay in the church doesn't have that. They are expected to make a choice to be lonely and miserable their entire life or face damnation. I just can't wrap my head around that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, djf1981 said:

As someone who is gay and grew up in the church, I can honestly say that I don't ever foresee the church changing their doctrine about this issue. If they change their doctrine about homosexuality, then from their point of view, they'd have to change it about hetero sex outside of marriage. I just don't see it happening. Personally speaking, I've made my peace with it and have moved on. The only thing that hurts is that the Church says "you can't do that", but they don't offer any sort of an alternative. I suppose a lot of people, including on this forum would say, "Well, they say you shouldn't drink, smoke, or look at porn either." But what a lot of people fail to understand though is that homosexuality isn't a vice like those other things that we can just overcome and ignore. It's as just as much a part of our identity as being straight is to yours. I know it's hard for a lot of people (especially in the church) to understand that concept, but take my word for it. It's more than just about sex. It's about the need for love and companionship, two things that are crucial for happiness (and even physical health) in this life. And what the church is telling us is that we can't experience those things without severe consequences; and on the flip side, that it also wouldn't be a good idea to get married to the opposite sex as a form of rehabilitation. So then, what are we supposed to do?? The church is basically asking us to condemn ourselves to a life filled with loneliness and despair. My mom always says, "Sheri Dew isn't married...". Well, at least Sheri Dew (assuming that she's straight) still has the hope that she can one day get married and not be condemned for it.  She still has that hope. A gay person who is trying to stay in the church doesn't have that. They are expected to make a choice to be lonely and miserable their entire life or face damnation. I just can't wrap my head around that. 

Though some here resist the teaching, even a gay person in the Church has the hope that in the afterlife he can receive all the blessings available to the faithful sons and daughters of God, so long as he does remain faithful. That is, same-sex attraction is not a condition that will persist beyond mortality.

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't read it as you do.

I see it as saying that without the refining influence of belief and faith in God, acceptance of His truths and the strength that comes from the gift of the Holy Ghost, they were left without the strength to overcome the natural man, as it were, and were thus given over to latent, ungodly passions, to being "carnal, sensual and devilish" as a Book of Mormon passage expresses it.

And this, by the way, lends credence to the idea that there is some fluidity in sexual preference, at least in some individuals, and acceptance of the doctrines of the gospel can strengthen the intent in some to develop the heterosexual side of their nature to the point that they can pursue a fulfilling marital relationship leading to a strong family unit as it is championed and taught in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

There is some fluidity among women, less so among men. But do we require constant Godly intervention in order to not go gay? That seems just as off as what I believe Paul was actually saying, which was that God turns apostates gay. I believe Paul was trying to explain his own homosexuality there, in light of his past persecution of the church. But who knows. 

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, djf1981 said:

It's as just as much a part of our identity as being straight is to yours.

But orientation is not an identity. It is not a behavior, either. It is an attribute, and people make choices as to what to with it and how to differentiate their attributes from their identity. It is best to make informed choices, and the Gospel offers the best information with which to make choices.

[djf1981]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Though some here resist the teaching, even a gay person in the Church has the hope that in the afterlife he can receive all the blessings available to the faithful sons and daughters of God, so long as he does remain faithful. That is, same-sex attraction is not a condition that will persist beyond mortality.

Well, if some gays believe that, then more power to them and I wish them all the happiness in the world. I can only speak for myself and my experience. If given the choice of either being alone for eternity or "having the chance" to marry a woman in the next life, then I'd gladly choose to be alone. This "condition" as you put it, is all I've ever known in this life, and I have no desire to change that in the next. Like I said, I've made peace and moved on. If that means that I have to face consequences in the next life, then so be it. 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But orientation is not an identity. It is not a behavior, either. It is an attribute, and people make choices as to what to with it and how to differentiate their attributes from their identity. It is best to make informed choices, and the Gospel offers the best information with which to make choices.

It's an identity for straight people. Why not for gay people? 

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Though some here resist the teaching, even a gay person in the Church has the hope that in the afterlife he can receive all the blessings available to the faithful sons and daughters of God, so long as he does remain faithful. That is, same-sex attraction is not a condition that will persist beyond mortality.

I wonder what people here think of what Elder Bruce C. Hafen, promised about same -sex attraction:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.  Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”"  Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction

Can we call this "official" doctrine or just inspired assumption? 

[Daniel2]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder what people here think of what Elder Bruce C. Hafen, promised about same -sex attraction:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.  Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”"  Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction

Can we call this "official" doctrine or just inspired assumption? 

Are either Evergreen International Conferences or Mormon Newsroom the sources by which new doctrine of the church is introduced upon it's body and accepted as official and canonical...?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Can we call this "official" doctrine or just inspired assumption?

Doesn't matter what we call it.
It only matters if it's true.  Stamps of approval are overrated.

Based on everything scriptural and revealed through the prophets the teaching makes sense.
There can be no progression without an eternal family unit of both mother and father.  God is perfect so as we move closer to perfection that change must be possible.

 

[Daniel2]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But orientation is not an identity. It is not a behavior, either. It is an attribute, and people make choices as to what to with it and how to differentiate their attributes from their identity. It is best to make informed choices, and the Gospel offers the best information with which to make choices.

I find it a strange thing to say that one's sexual orientation "is not an identity." 

While it's certainly not ALL of a person's identity, it certainly directly informs and affects the most important identity one can have with another non-blood-related human being; namely, the relationship one has with one's spouse.

According to the dictionary:

Quote

i·den·ti·ty

noun: identity; plural noun: identities

1. the fact of being who or what a person or thing is; the characteristics determining this.

synonyms:

individuality, self, selfhood; More personality, character, originality, distinctiveness, differentness, singularity, uniqueness "she was afraid of losing her identity"

2. a close similarity or affinity.

When asking me about the most important aspects of my own identity, I would respond by saying husband, father, son, and brother.  The fact that my husband is also gay obviously directly impacts one of the most key familial relationships that are most important to who I am.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There can be no progression without an eternal family unit of both mother and father.  God is perfect so as we move closer to perfection that change must be possible.

Even if we were to presume that your assertion that "there can be no progression without an eternal family unit of both a mother and a father" is true (which, I don't think is necessarily so), what does that have to do with same-sex relationships?

Why can't there be same-sex couples united together in the 'lower' two thirds of the celestial kingdom who simply don't "progress eternally" through spirit children?

Who says they can't be sealed together, in a creative, non-pro-creative union?  After all, if we believe Mormonism to be true, the vast majority of people won't be progressing, anyway...

Edited November 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder what people here think of what Elder Bruce C. Hafen, promised about same -sex attraction:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.  Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”"  Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction

Can we call this "official" doctrine or just inspired assumption? 

Whatever you call it, I agree with Elders Oaks and Hafen that it must be true. The contrary simply doesn't square with what I know and understand and fervently believe about the doctrine of exaltation and the plan of happiness. I don't need it written out with an impramatur attached to it. I know within my bones as surely as I know that God lives and that I live. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder what people here think of what Elder Bruce C. Hafen, promised about same -sex attraction:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.  Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”"  Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction

Can we call this "official" doctrine or just inspired assumption? 

I'd call it a reasonable extrapolation based on revealed truths.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

Why can't there be same-sex couples united together in the 'lower' two thirds of the celestial kingdom who simply don't "progress eternally" through spirit children?

Who says they can't be sealed together, in a creative, non-pro-creative union?

To what end?
Speaking purely based on what God has said about marriage (and I don't mean Church authorities but just what is in Holy Writ) what is the purpose for marriage?

If you are speculating about a non-sexual, non-procreative, non-progressive, eternal relationship between two men, what would be the difference then between this relationship and me and my brother?
What would make these "couples' couples?  What would they do in this speculative scenario that two friends, two siblings, or any other two single people of the same gender don't do?
And why call it a marriage?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, djf1981 said:

Well, if some gays believe that, then more power to them and I wish them all the happiness in the world. I can only speak for myself and my experience. If given the choice of either being alone for eternity or "having the chance" to marry a woman in the next life, then I'd gladly choose to be alone. This "condition" as you put it, is all I've ever known in this life, and I have no desire to change that in the next. Like I said, I've made peace and moved on. If that means that I have to face consequences in the next life, then so be it. 

You are entitled to your choice. But my main concern is for those who don't want the gay identity and hope for the blessings that are promised to others of God's children, especially youth who may be in the process of coming to terms with their sexual nature. I can't allow the assumption that homosexuality defines them and they are stuck with it forever to remain unchallenged. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Are either Evergreen International Conferences or Mormon Newsroom the sources by which new doctrine of the church is introduced upon it's body and accepted as official and canonical...?

No but a Church general authority, Elder Bruce Haven saying it might be considered official. No other General authority has refuted what he said.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, djf1981 said:

If they change their doctrine about homosexuality, then from their point of view, they'd have to change it about hetero sex outside of marriage.

 

Why?  I don't follow that logic.

[djf1981]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why?  I don't follow that logic.

I just meant that by their own policy, they view all sex outside of a hetero marriage as sinful. So by logic of their reasoning, allowing homosexual activity would negate their restriction on hetero sex outside of marriage.  

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No but a Church general authority, Elder Bruce Haven saying it might be considered official. No other General authority has refuted what he said.

That's a pretty low bar!

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No but a Church general authority, Elder Bruce Haven saying it might be considered official. No other General authority has refuted what he said.

Elders Oaks and Wickman have also said. In fact, the only General Authorities I know of who have addressed the question at all have affirmed emphatically that homosexuality does not exist post-mortality. 

[Daniel2]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To what end?
Speaking purely based on what God has said about marriage (and I don't mean Church authorities but just what is in Holy Writ) what is the purpose for marriage?

If you are speculating about a non-sexual, non-procreative, non-progressive, eternal relationship between two men, what would be the difference then between this relationship and me and my brother?
What would make these "couples' couples?  What would they do in this speculative scenario that two friends, two siblings, or any other two single people of the same gender don't do?
And why call it a marriage?

I didn't call it a marriage... I called it an eternal same-sex union.

According to LDS belief, 2/3 of those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom will not be exalted as procreative couples.  The purpose of such eternal same-gender unions would be to allow joy (the purpose of life) through shared companionship, united in a non-procreative, yet still productive and potentially creative partnerships, in creating worlds of functional purpose and beauty.

In all honesty, many gay former-Latter-day Saints I know would MUCH rather spend an eternity united with their same-sex spouse in non-procreative unions, rather than having a life of spiritual paternity begetting spirit children to populate other worlds.  That just isn't an attractive incentive for many of us who are gay and happily united with our spouses.