Bryce Cook's article reviewing church's stance on gay marriage

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess if I believed that the whole purpose of marriage is to reproduce then I could buy into your point of view.  But marriage is also to give one a helpmate.  Part of the Plan of Happiness includes having that helpmate.  If you take that away from most marriages, what is left is quite empty.

I know several folks who cannot participate in that most intimate of marital relationships, yet they have full and beautiful marriages.

[Storm Rider]

On 8/25/2017 at 0:33 PM, stemelbow said:

I'd say all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue.  It'll be interesting when in time all of what is definite doctrine straight from God will be policies created based on men's opinions and understanding at the time.  I don't know when the Church will get there. But to put a cap on it and say the Church will not change, it certainly cannot, is just plain silly, generally speaking if not on the this topic.  We always work with limited understanding.  We can't see what we don't understand, very well. 

Stemelbow, if we actually work with limited understanding then what gives you the confidence that you are right.....or at least so positive as to state that anyone with a contrary opinion to your has a silly opinion?  It appears you are only looking in a mirror and critiquing your own position as much as anyone else's.  

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, I'd be very surprised if the Church would "kick out" the youth of the church.  They are the future (members, leaders, parents, etc.).  It's much more likely that the leaders will become more accepting of SSM and do away with the policy regarding baptizing the children involved in those homes.  I'd love it if they were allowed to participate in a ward, hold callings and so on (active gay members and couples in a SSM, and their children).  I know you'll say that their children can already "participate", but not in everything other youth who are members can participate in.

I think the next 5-10 years will be interesting as far as any changes that are made regarding this issue.

I only see marginal changes on the issue.  Changing how it deals or addresses gay members is quite different than actually accepting SSM or accepting gay behavior.  It would be the same for other issues.  People who are addicted to prescription drugs are breaking the Word of Wisdom.  The Church can do many things to help those who are addicted and instituting those things would be "changes" but that would be a far cry from just accepting or endorsing substance addiction.   I am not a big fan of the policy change on kids of gay parents.  I believe that people are accountable for their own sins and not the sins of their parents.  The Church should treat the children of married gays as they should treat the kids of gays or heterosexuals who are not married.  I don't believe the current policy helps or warranted to keep the standards the church has had on this from the beginning.

If the Church was to become accepting of SSM, then it needs to be consistent and be accepting of other sins that other members do.  Accept gambling, people using alcohol and other drugs, ect.  At bare minimum go back to 1840 when the Word of Wisdom was not required for temple attendance.   Move away from sabbath observance since that is more Old Testament stuff anyway.  (Argument used for homosexual behavior in the Old Testament passages)    If the Church is going to start accepting one sinful behavior, it needs to accept all of it. It is called equality.  It is discrimination that one group gets to keep their sins while the rest is expected to repent.

Edited August 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, I'd be very surprised if the Church would "kick out" the youth of the church.  They are the future (members, leaders, parents, etc.).  It's much more likely that the leaders will become more accepting of SSM and do away with the policy regarding baptizing the children involved in those homes.  I'd love it if they were allowed to participate in a ward, hold callings and so on (active gay members and couples in a SSM, and their children).  I know you'll say that their children can already "participate", but not in everything other youth who are members can participate in.

I think the next 5-10 years will be interesting as far as any changes that are made regarding this issue.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s has been in full swing for going on two generations now. If the Church of Jesus Christ were prone to caving in to social pressure, pre-marital and extra-marital sex would have been declared acceptable by now. But it is still condemned today as vehemently as it was when I was in my youth at the dawn of the sexual revolution. 

 

[rongo]

I see the Church making acceptable compromises vis a vis gay members (those living gay lifestyles), but I think these will fall far short of "normalizing" or accepting the behavior ("de-criminalizing" it as far as worthiness). e.g., supporting a concert, etc. The policy on children of married gay couples shows where the Church is outside of concerts and media ops.

That the rising generation is much more accepting of this is beyond argument, but I find this growing acceptance to be shallow and superficial. Example: in my son's AP Lit class, he was a minority of one when gay marriage was discussed once. He was shocked, because many kids from the stake were in the class, and he was surprised because of who some of them are. In talking to them more deeply about it (those in my ward, and kids in the stake in other situations, like youth conference and firesides), they actually align with the Church at the core, and when asked about their position. Many haven't thought about it more deeply than the superficial media saturation of the last several years, and are at the "sure-why-not-have-equal-rights-for-all-people?" level. When asked about their stated views in light of the commandments and what the prophets have taught (including the PotF), they readily agree that they weren't thinking about that, and that their views need to be be more thoroughly thought-out. 

Not true in all cases. Of course, there are youth who thoughtfully and strongly disagree with the Church, but I don't see this group being large or influential enough to drive concrete change and force the Church's hand.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

The changing of the church's position on gay marriage is often compared to the Priesthood Ban.  

In General Conference and official statements our prophets made it very clear that the church doctrine on marriage is never going to change, repeatedly. When did the prophets say in official statements or general conference that the priesthood ban is never going to change? Big difference.   

Edited August 26, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The sexual revolution of the 1960s has been in full swing for going on two generations now. If the Church of Jesus Christ were prone to caving in to social pressure, pre-marital and extra-marital sex would have been declared acceptable by now. But it is still condemned today as vehemently as it was when I was in my youth at the dawn of the sexual revolution. 

Yes, in the Bible gay marriage was never approved.  Since 1830 the doctrine of marriage has been the same.  

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The sexual revolution of the 1960s has been in full swing for going on two generations now. If the Church of Jesus Christ were prone to caving in to social pressure, pre-marital and extra-marital sex would have been declared acceptable by now. But it is still condemned today as vehemently as it was when I was in my youth at the dawn of the sexual revolution. 

Except we are talking about two people who are committing to marriage, not pre-marital or extra-marital sex.  I'm only reporting what I've heard and seen with the youth in my ward (just over hearing them talking while being at youth activities, etc.).  There is support for SSM and some are quite vocal about it.  The words "gay pride" are spoken often and proudly by many of them.  I doubt that will change and I am also seeing more adults becoming more liberal regarding SSM as well.  

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes, in the Bible gay marriage was never approved.

The Bible is silent on gay marriage.  

49 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Since 1830 the doctrine of marriage has been the same.

What about the introduction of polygamy?

[carbon dioxide]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Bible is silent on gay marriage. 

The Bible is silent on injecting heroin into the body.

Edited August 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Except we are talking about two people who are committing to marriage, not pre-marital or extra-marital sex.  I'm only reporting what I've heard and seen with the youth in my ward (just over hearing them talking while being at youth activities, etc.).  There is support for SSM and some are quite vocal about it.  The words "gay pride" are spoken often and proudly by many of them.  I doubt that will change and I am also seeing more adults becoming more liberal regarding SSM as well.  

Sin is not determined on whether those involved are committed to the activity or not.   The only thing the Supreme Court has authority over are issues regarding the Constitution and what happens in America.  It does not decide for God what is sinful.   God does not care what they determine and will not reference Supreme Court decisions at the judgement bar.  

  If there is support for SSM in wards and people do not see it sinful, then that is a problem and it needs to be corrected.

Edited August 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In General Conference and official statements our prophets made it very clear that the church doctrine on marriage is never going to change, repeatedly. When did the prophets say in official statements or general conference that the priesthood ban is never going to change? Big difference.   

If you are going to comment on one of my posts, then don't take one sentence out of context.  Comment on the whole post.  Here is the rest of it that you failed to address.

Quote

 

The covenant of circumcision was given to the Jews by God as a sign of their acceptance and commitment to being followers of Him.  It was a covenant every bit as important to the Jews as any temple covenant or even the sacrament covenant.  Yet circumstances in the church changed.  It was necessary to open up the church to a broader audience.  Peter received a revelation from God on what the church was to do to allow the church to be open to more people.  He in one swift move eliminated a practice that did have sound scriptural doctrine and had  been around for over 3000 years.  Can you imagine the reaction that those Jews had to recending that ancient covenant?  I don't think that anyone could possibly make the argument that prohibiting gay marriage has more scriptural support than eliminating circumcision from church doctrine.

The article points out a statement by Joseph Smith about what is doctrine 

  Quote

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

I would add one more thing that seems fundamental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the last 2000 years.  That it is for all of mankind.  All are welcome to participate in the Plan of Happiness.  Some say that gays are more than welcome to participate and be part of that Plan of Happiness.  But how can you possibly participate in that plan and not be allowed to marry.  It makes reason stare.   Perhaps the strongest reason why the church policy will have to change is for the same reasons why circumcision changed in the early church and why the Priesthood Ban changed in our lifetimes.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone.  All are called and invited to be a part of the Plan of Happiness. 

 

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I know several folks who cannot participate in that most intimate of marital relationships, yet they have full and beautiful marriages.

I think that is the point I was making.  Gay marriage is more than just intimate of marital relationships.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The Bible is silent on gay marriage.  

What about the introduction of polygamy?

Yes, because gay marriage doesn't exists for God, no such thing. Gay marriage is a human invention.  

The Bible is also silent on masturbation, I doubt the church is ever going to approve it.  

We are a church of faith and revelation, not a philosophy club.  The church doesn't force you to live a celestial lifestyle, the church only invites.  

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What about the introduction of polygamy?

Church leaders at the time didn't say in General Conference that polygamy was never going to end.  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Bible is silent on injecting heroin into the body.

Correct.  (My comment was in direct response to Samuel's: "Yes, in the Bible gay marriage was never approved.")

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you are going to comment on one of my posts, then don't take one sentence out of context.  Comment on the whole post.  Here is the rest of it that you failed to address.

Do you believe the church is a church of prophets, faith, and revelation? Prophets have made it in very clear  in general conference, letters, and official statements that the doctrine of marriage is never going to change. You don't have to live a celestial lifestyle if you don't want, the church only invites. No one forces you not to marry someone of the same sex, you won't go to outer darkness for gay marriage. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Sin is not determined on whether those involved are committed to the activity or not.  

You consider your marriage an "activity"?  Interesting....

 

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If there is support for SSM in wards and people do not see it sinful, then that is a problem and it needs to be corrected.

Well carbon, many of the adult leaders agree with the youth (my Bishop included).  So I don't foresee any correcting taking place.  I'm actually proud of these youth.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Correct.  (My comment was in direct response to Samuel's: "Yes, in the Bible gay marriage was never approved.")

and it is still true because for our loving God gay marriage doesn't exists. If gay marriage was acceptable to him he would have revealed it long ago, but never has in the Bible and since 1830.   

Edited August 26, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the church is a church of prophets, faith, and revelation? Prophets have made it in very clear  in general conference, letters, and official statements that the doctrine of marriage is never going to change. You don't have to live a celestial lifestyle if you don't want, the church only invites. No one forces you not to marry someone of the same sex, you won't go to outer darkness for gay marriage. 

Since you didn't get it the SECOND time, here it is again.

If you are going to comment on one of my posts, then don't take one sentence out of context.  Comment on the whole post.  Here is the rest of it that you failed to address.

  Quote

 

The covenant of circumcision was given to the Jews by God as a sign of their acceptance and commitment to being followers of Him.  It was a covenant every bit as important to the Jews as any temple covenant or even the sacrament covenant.  Yet circumstances in the church changed.  It was necessary to open up the church to a broader audience.  Peter received a revelation from God on what the church was to do to allow the church to be open to more people.  He in one swift move eliminated a practice that did have sound scriptural doctrine and had  been around for over 3000 years.  Can you imagine the reaction that those Jews had to recending that ancient covenant?  I don't think that anyone could possibly make the argument that prohibiting gay marriage has more scriptural support than eliminating circumcision from church doctrine.

The article points out a statement by Joseph Smith about what is doctrine 

  Quote 

  Quote

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

I would add one more thing that seems fundamental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the last 2000 years.  That it is for all of mankind.  All are welcome to participate in the Plan of Happiness.  Some say that gays are more than welcome to participate and be part of that Plan of Happiness.  But how can you possibly participate in that plan and not be allowed to marry.  It makes reason stare.   Perhaps the strongest reason why the church policy will have to change is for the same reasons why circumcision changed in the early church and why the Priesthood Ban changed in our lifetimes.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone.  All are called and invited to be a part of the Plan of Happiness. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Except we are talking about two people who are committing to marriage, not pre-marital or extra-marital sex.  I'm only reporting what I've heard and seen with the youth in my ward (just over hearing them talking while being at youth activities, etc.).  There is support for SSM and some are quite vocal about it.  The words "gay pride" are spoken often and proudly by many of them.  I doubt that will change and I am also seeing more adults becoming more liberal regarding SSM as well.  

As I said, the Church of Jesus Christ does not/will not cave in to social pressure.

Hopefully people will be able to adjust their attitudes accordingly. But there may come a sifting process -- even a self-selected one.

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Guest]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess if I believed that the whole purpose of marriage is to reproduce then I could buy into your point of view.  But marriage is also to give one a helpmate.  Part of the Plan of Happiness includes having that helpmate.  If you take that away from most marriages, what is left is quite empty.

The primary purpose of the family is the continuation of all mankind. Without marriage between a man and woman, there will be no happiness, no history, no debate, no purpose, no nothing. You cannot dismiss the argument, by pointing to one purpose that of being a ""helpmate" and ignoring all others reasons. Not taking anything away, just including all, that "God" has provided. This are not my policies not the Church's policies, these are God's commands. I know how difficult it must be for who cannot or will not conform to the entire purpose of creation. But the fallout is not with Christianity, Mormonism, or whatever one might wish to cite, it is with God's words, and commandments. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Since you didn't get it the SECOND time, here it is again.

If you are going to comment on one of my posts, then don't take one sentence out of context.  Comment on the whole post.  Here is the rest of it that you failed to address

Okay, are you aware that the law of Moses ended with the resurrection of Jesus?    

"Peter received a revelation from God on what the church was to do to allow the church to be open to more people."

Okay, so far there has been no revelation from God that allows gay marriage in the church. 

The Bible in many passages makes it clear that marriage is between a man and a women. There is no evidence that the ancient Jews practiced same sex marriage.  

So, here is my post a second time 

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe the church is a church of prophets, faith, and revelation? Prophets have made it in very clear  in general conference, letters, and official statements that the doctrine of marriage is never going to change. You don't have to live a celestial lifestyle if you don't want, the church only invites. No one forces you not to marry someone of the same sex, you won't go to outer darkness for gay marriage. 

 

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In General Conference and official statements our prophets made it very clear that the church doctrine on marriage is never going to change, repeatedly. When did the prophets say in official statements or general conference that the priesthood ban is never going to change? Big difference.   

 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

You consider your marriage an "activity"?  Interesting....

 

Well carbon, many of the adult leaders agree with the youth (my Bishop included).  So I don't foresee any correcting taking place.  I'm actually proud of these youth.

Activity, contract, whatever you want to call it.   God does not look on an issue and decide whether something is right or wrong based on whether those involved are committed to whatever they are doing. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, the Church of Jesus Christ does not/will not cave in to social pressure.

Hopefully people will be able to adjust their attitudes accordingly. But there may come a sifting process -- even a self-selected one.

 

if the Church give into what society dictates, no need for prophets anymore.  Just hold a vote and let the majority rule. 

[Gray]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In General Conference and official statements our prophets made it very clear that the church doctrine on marriage is never going to change, repeatedly. When did the prophets say in official statements or general conference that the priesthood ban is never going to change? Big difference.   

The priesthood ban was supposed to last until literally every other decedent of Adam got the priesthood. Obviously it didn't work out like that.