Gay Clergy- UMC Church Division

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think anyone is going to say that sexual orientation cannot ever change with 100% certainty.

The push for outlawing reparative therapies in various jurisdictions disagrees with you.  Unless those pushing for and those effectively pushed are being disingenuous.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The push for outlawing reparative therapies in various jurisdictions disagrees with you.  Unless those pushing for and those effectively pushed are being disingenuous.

Because they are making statements with 100% certainty?  (The rest of my post, that you deleted, speaks to my thoughts on that.)

But I am comfortable being disagreed with and I'm not familiar enough with the arguments of both sides to conclude that anyone is being disingenuous nor am I certain that I trust your interpretation.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

The key words here, I think, are "fuzzy to the point where for us..."

The Restored Gospel is for everyone who has ever lived.  There is no reasonable dispute about that.  "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33)

"The children of men."

"{H}e inviteth them all..."

"{H}e denieth none..."

"{B}lack and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen..."

"{A}ll are alike unto God..."

So the way the Restored Gospel's application to all of God's children "doesn't seem to exist at all" is to disregard what the Restored Gospel is, and instead listen to an inaccurate, distorted caricature of it.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."  (Matt. 11:15). 

And yet we have people on this very thread declare that it is not for gays.  That the Restored Gospel and the church that houses it, as one fellow put it, "has ZERO to offer gay people."

That is an execrable, and demonstrable, falsehood.  You seem to recognize that.

I can understand part of why that is.  When you have people constantly presenting a manifestly misleading, unfair, and distorted caricature of "that plan," when you have people who are determined to alienate whole swaths of God's children from "that plan" by falsely claiming it does not apply to them, when the authorized voice of those sent to explain "that plan" is lost in a cacophony of other voices who are attempting to step in and speak for the authorized voice, then I can see how confusion can and does arise.

To be sure, the Church and its members and leaders have had much room for improvement.  And this improvement has taken a while.  But today, the clarity of the message is pretty good.  The LDS Church has made extensive efforts to clarify its teachings, and to file down the rough edges it has had in the past.  I invite you to review the remarks of the General Authorities for the last, say, twenty years, regarding people with same-sex atraction.  I invite you to read Mormonandgay.org.  The message of the Restored Gospel is there.  The application of it to those of God's children who are sexually attracted to the same gender is there.

That is up to them, of course.  There is no separate tripartate system of glory for people who are sexually attracted to the same gender.  The Atonement applies to everyone, including those who are sexually attracted to the same gender.  "For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him." (D&C 18:11)

There is no caveat there.  "{T}hat all men might repent and come unto him..."

"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33)

Again, no caveat.  No exception for people who are sexually attracted to the same gender.

"Gays fit into that plan" the same way everyone else does.

I am confident that there will be many people who, in the here and now, are sexually attracted to their own gender, who will find glory in the Celestial Kingdom.  They'll do it the same way everyone else there will have done it.  Faith.  Repentance.  Obedience.  Application of the Atonement. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I assume you already know you didn't really answer my questions.  Too bad, I was interested in what you might have to say.  Quoting scripture that says that everyone is a part of the plan of salvation does not tell a gay person HOW they fit into that plan.  Telling a gay person they fit in the same as everyone else does not tell a gay person how they fit into the plan of salvation which is defined clearly for heterosexual couples, but says nothing about how gay couples or even a single gay person fits in.  Why is it so hard for some straight people to understand that someone who is gay is not attracted to the opposite sex.  

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/2/2017 at 3:24 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

 

There is virtually nothing in scripture about h0mosxuality at all. Why? Probably because it wasn't an issue of prominence like it is today. The culture didn't even allow for the possibility of rethinking the issue. 

One can think of many alternative sexual practices that are not mentioned in the scriptures.  Perhaps the issue is not about how common it was that there is no need to address conduct that pretty much everyone in the target audience understood was out of bounds.   There are things that don't need to be rethought.  If a WR catches a ball 5 yards out of bounds, nobody needs to ask for the play to be reviewed.  Homosexual behavior is like a WR catching a ball at least 5 yards out of bounds. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

One can think of many alternative sexual practices that are not mentioned in the scriptures.  Perhaps the issue is not about how common it was that there is no need to address conduct that pretty much everyone in the target audience understood was out of bounds.   There are things that don't need to be rethought.  If a WR catches a ball 5 yards out of bounds, nobody needs to ask for the play to be reviewed.  Homosexual behavior is like a WR catching a ball at least 5 yards out of bounds. 

So you think adultery needed to be talked about in scripture, but not homosexual relationships because people were more unclear if adultery was wrong?  Because there is a lot of reference about adultery. 

Not sure what a WR is.  Why do people use abbreviations and expect everyone to know what it stands for.  Are you are talking about baseball.  Isn't catching a foul ball pretty much outlined in the rule book?  If it wasn't clear what happens in the rule book, would it be considered an out or just a foul ball?  How would that be decided? Maybe you are referring to a wide receiver?  Even in football, the rules are clearly outlined how those catches are ruled.  You look in the rule book and it clearly states that the pass is considered incomplete.   

Can you see how unclear rules can be if not everyone understands what the rules are?  I think it is pretty clear that homosexual relationships are very similar to your example.  Some people seem to know exactly what the rules are even when they are  not actually defined.   Others are less clear.   Are committed homosexual relationships allowed?  We just have to guess don't we.  Do you think it is fair for God to have certain expectations when those expectations are not clearly defined?  No mention about homosexual relationships by Christ, in the entire Book of Mormon, the D&C, and Pearl of Great Price.  A very few in the Bible, but then there is a lot in the Bible that we don't consider to be in the rulebook and we don't practice it.  

Perhaps the church does have it right and God does not allow any kind of homosexual relationships.  But that is not really clear for everyone when they look at the rule books.  And since there has been no claim of modern revelation, we are just going on the guess work of fallible men.  It has happened before. They  are not always right are they.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps the issue is not about how common it was that there is no need to address conduct that pretty much everyone in the target audience understood was out of bounds.

Homosexual acts are indeed mentioned in the Bible. Many times. They seem to have been nearly ubiquitous.

Homosexuality as a state of being simply never shows up, not because it was common but because, as historians (including queer ones) have repeatedly pointed out, fixed, gendered sexual identities (of any kind) simply didn't exist in Biblical times, in Book of Mormon times, or when our other scriptures were mostly written down. It's that simple.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Homosexual acts are indeed mentioned in the Bible. Many times. They seem to have been nearly ubiquitous.

Homosexuality as a state of being simply never shows up, not because it was common but because, as historians (including queer ones) have repeatedly pointed out, fixed, gendered sexual identities (of any kind) simply didn't exist in Biblical times, in Book of Mormon times, or when our other scriptures were mostly written down. It's that simple.

Whether or not the above is true, members of the church repeatedly suggest that The Book of Mormon was prophetically written for those of us alive in the latter days... the implication often being promoted that it prophetically spoke to the major issues of our times.  Of course, the text of The Book of Mormon makes no reference to relationships between individuals of the same gender, which has shaped up to be one of the major issues facing most churches (including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) today.

[USU78]

31 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Whether or not the above is true, members of the church repeatedly suggest that The Book of Mormon was prophetically written for those of us alive in the latter days... the implication often being promoted that it prophetically spoke to the major issues of our times.  Of course, the text of The Book of Mormon makes no reference to relationships between individuals of the same gender, which has shaped up to be one of the major issues facing most churches (including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) today.

It is well established that "homosexuality" as a toxonomic concept was devised in the late nineteenth century, after the BOM was published. Nobody had yet imagined that a set of behaviors should be employed to carve out  a new race of genus homo, complete with its special privileges.

Edited May 5, 2017 by USU78

[Daniel2]

51 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It is well established that "homosexuality" as a toxonomic concept was devised in the late nineteenth century, after the BOM was published. Nobody had yet imagined that a set of behaviors should be employed to carve out  a new race of genus homo, complete with its special privileges.

Again, whether you believe the above is true or not, that's completely beside the point I was making in my previous post about the allegedly prophetic nature of The Book of Mormon being written for our day.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Whether or not the above is true, members of the church repeatedly suggest that The Book of Mormon was prophetically written for those of us alive in the latter days... the implication often being promoted that it prophetically spoke to the major issues of our times.

I think you may be misrepresenting how most Latter-day Saints understand the point that the Book of Mormon was written for our times:

Pres. Benson (emphasis added):

Quote

The Book of Mormon … was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us.

Each of the major writers of the Book of Mormon testified that he wrote for future generations. … If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, “Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?”

And there is example after example of how that question will be answered. For example, in the Book of Mormon we find a pattern for preparing for the Second Coming. A major portion of the book centers on the few decades just prior to Christ’s coming to America. By careful study of that time period, we can determine why some were destroyed in the terrible judgments that preceded His coming and what brought others to stand at the temple in the land of Bountiful and thrust their hands into the wounds of His hands and feet.

From the Book of Mormon we learn how disciples of Christ live in times of war. From the Book of Mormon we see the evils of secret combinations portrayed in graphic and chilling reality. In the Book of Mormon we find lessons for dealing with persecution and apostasy. We learn much about how to do missionary work. And more than anywhere else, we see in the Book of Mormon the dangers of materialism and setting our hearts on the things of the world. Can anyone doubt that this book was meant for us and that in it we find great power, great comfort, and great protection?

From the October 2011 New Era (emphasis added):

Quote

“I’ve heard that the Book of Mormon is written for our day. What does that mean?”

The Book of Mormon tells of the Nephites and Lamanites, but it wasn’t written for them. In fact, many of the Book of Mormon prophets knew that future generations would have the book (see, for example, 2 Nephi 25:21; Mormon 8:35). Near the end of the Nephite civilization, the Lord inspired Mormon to choose from the many records of his people the teachings and accounts that would be helpful to us today.

The main purpose of the book is to teach and testify of Jesus Christ. His gospel, which is taught clearly and powerfully in the Book of Mormon, applies to our day, as it does in any age. But even the events and story lines of the Book of Mormon can teach us. For example, if you look at the enemies and wars in the Book of Mormon as symbols for the spiritual battles we face today, you can learn how to strengthen yourself against temptation.

As you prayerfully study the Book of Mormon, your faith and testimony will be strengthened—and that is something we all need today.

From Elder Andersen (emphasis added):

Quote

Why would another testament of Jesus Christ be so important for our day? Why would the Lord bring forth another witness to strengthen the powerful declarations of the Bible?

We live in a time unlike any other. Scientific achievement allows medical care, transportation, comfort, and convenience never imagined by generations who preceded us. The earth is flooded with information and technology, enhancing family history work and the sharing of the gospel but also the proliferation of pornography, virtual violence, and other “evils and designs [that] exist in the hearts of conspiring men” (D&C 89:4). In much of the world, we live in a time of strong attachment to material possessions.

These conditions can, if we are not careful, distract or entice us to move away from principles that are eternal and true for every generation.

 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Again, whether you believe the above is true or not, that's completely beside the point I was making in my previous post about the allegedly prophetic nature of The Book of Mormon being written for our day.

Have you evidence of "homosexual" being used other than as descriptor of behaviors prior to 1830? Does anyone?

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, USU78 said:

Have you evidence of "homosexual" being used other than as descriptor of behaviors prior to 1830? Does anyone?

I don't think that anyone is suggesting the specific word "homosexual" should be found in the Book of Mormon.  I believe that Daniel's point is that the Book of Mormon, which is believed to have been written for our day, doesn't add any clarity to the subject of same sex relationships.  It is absent any reference to homosexuality.

I do find it interesting that today's church has placed such a great emphasis on the importance of the man-woman headed family and yet we don't really see that in the restoration scriptures (Book of Mormon and D&C).

[USU78]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that anyone is suggesting the specific word "homosexual" should be found in the Book of Mormon.  I believe that Daniel's point is that the Book of Mormon, which is believed to have been written for our day, doesn't add any clarity to the subject of same sex relationships.  It is absent any reference to homosexuality.

I do find it interesting that today's church has placed such a great emphasis on the importance of the man-woman headed family and yet we don't really see that in the restoration scriptures (Book of Mormon and D&C).

Why should it? Does the self-styled homosexual's narcissism demand his mention in every book ever written? Every play ever staged? Every song ever sung?

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Why should it? Does the self-styled homosexual's narcissism demand his mention in every book ever written? Every play ever staged? Every song ever sung?

Oh my.  I don't think that reaction was warranted.

My point (and I think it's the point Daniel was making as well) is that it's odd that a principle and issue that would become so critical and divisive in the latter days wouldn't be covered at all in the two books of restoration-era scripture -- the books that we proclaim to be written for us in this dispensation.

[Daniel2]

18 hours ago, USU78 said:

Have you evidence of "homosexual" being used other than as descriptor of behaviors prior to 1830? Does anyone?

No, but I haven't said nor inferred that that term was used prior to 1830.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that anyone is suggesting the specific word "homosexual" should be found in the Book of Mormon.  I believe that Daniel's point is that the Book of Mormon, which is believed to have been written for our day, doesn't add any clarity to the subject of same sex relationships.  It is absent any reference to homosexuality.

I do find it interesting that today's church has placed such a great emphasis on the importance of the man-woman headed family and yet we don't really see that in the restoration scriptures (Book of Mormon and D&C).

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

My point (and I think it's the point Daniel was making as well) is that it's odd that a principle and issue that would become so critical and divisive in the latter days wouldn't be covered at all in the two books of restoration-era scripture -- the books that we proclaim to be written for us in this dispensation.

Yes, Rockpond, your thoughts here are reflective of and align with my intent, as well.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

No, but I haven't said nor inferred that that term was used prior to 1830.

So why does it need to be? The brass plates contained the law. Thus the Nephites didn't need it in the gold plates, large, small or Mormon's. We've got the OT. Thus we don't need it in the BOM

[USU78]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Oh my.  I don't think that reaction was warranted.

My point (and I think it's the point Daniel was making as well) is that it's odd that a principle and issue that would become so critical and divisive in the latter days wouldn't be covered at all in the two books of restoration-era scripture -- the books that we proclaim to be written for us in this dispensation.

I did. Not everything's about homosexuality.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I did. Not everything's about homosexuality.

Odd response.  Nobody said it was.

 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Odd response.  Nobody said it was.

 

Yet one insists it ought to be where it ain't, at least not clearly. I cannot imagine, in a world view containing continuing revelation, why one would require one's present concerns to be presented in Revelations received 150-200 years ago. Present concerns are ever the province of present-day prophets, n'est-ce pas?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yet one insists it ought to be where it ain't, at least not clearly. I cannot imagine, in a world view containing continuing revelation, why one would require one's present concerns to be presented in Revelations received 150-200 years ago. Present concerns are ever the province of present-day prophets, n'est-ce pas?

"Insists", "require"... neither of these are words I used nor implied.

It's fine that the subject isn't dealt with in scripture.  I said it's interesting that it isn't there considering how important the topic has become in the lives of so many.  I love continuing revelation and I wish we had the Lord's words on the matter.

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"Insists", "require"... neither of these are words I used nor implied.

It's fine that the subject isn't dealt with in scripture.  I said it's interesting that it isn't there considering how important the topic has become in the lives of so many.  I love continuing revelation and I wish we had the Lord's words on the matter.

Let's not be coy. Your "interesting" is a criticism. I'm addressing the aptness of that criticism. It only makes the slightest sense if continuing revelation is taken out of the conversation. You can't honestly do that.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

So why does it need to be? The brass plates contained the law. Thus the Nephites didn't need it in the gold plates, large, small or Mormon's. We've got the OT. Thus we don't need it in the BOM

I didn't say the word itself needs to be.

While you feel the OT may be clear about God's final plan for individuals in same-sex relationships, many other religious people view things differently.  

Reasonable minds can disagree that the both Biblical and LDS scriptures aren't as definitive on this topic as you interpret them to be without being narcissistic.  

Similarly, reasonable minds may hold out hope for further light and knowledge on such things without being narcissistic

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I did. Not everything's about homosexuality.

Nope, not everything is, and that's clearly evident based on many other threads on this board that aren't about homosexuality.  But that is the topic and scope of this thread.   

Edited May 6, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Present concerns are ever the province of present-day prophets, n'est-ce pas?

Yes, it sure would be nice for the present-day prophet to receive and present a revelation on the topic, as such, to the body of the church for its membership to sustain and enter into the official cannon.