Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, that’s annoying. 

I'll remember that the next time you share accurate information about a faith-promoting rumour or entrenched 'Mormon myth'. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'll remember that the next time you share accurate information about a faith-promoting rumour or entrenched 'Mormon myth'. 

It sounded like a slam, and if it wasn’t, I’m sorry for reading it that way.

 

[kllindley]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess the difference is between saying "I received personal revelation x that applies only to me" and "I received revelation x for the entire church and world."

Right. That's what I've said all along. And we have several people in this discussion claiming that the Church is operating contrary to God's will. 

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I know a lot of church members who have been prompted to do something in a particular circumstance that goes against the letter of the law. Are they apostates?

Is this really a question? 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Right. That's what I've said all along. And we have several people in this discussion claiming that the Church is operating contrary to God's will. 

Yes, and we’re all apostates. What about gay members who believe in the church and feel spiritually prompted to marry? Are they necessarily apostates? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What about gay members who believe in the church and feel spiritually prompted to marry? Are they necessarily apostates? 

I think the obvious parallel here would be members who believe in the Church and feel spiritually prompted to marry additional wives. Are they necessarily apostates?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think the obvious parallel here would be members who believe in the Church and feel spiritually prompted to marry additional wives. Are they necessarily apostates?

We had a polygamist in our branch in Bolivia. He wasn’t an apostate. As I recall, he was in the branch presidency. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

We had a polygamist in our branch in Bolivia.

He had felt spiritually prompted to marry additional wives, and he was living openly with all of them? Or he just hadn't managed to formally divorce an earlier wife?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

He had felt spiritually prompted to marry additional wives, and he was living openly with all of them? Or he just hadn't managed to formally divorce an earlier wife?

I remember him well. He wore a brown polyester suit some missionary had given him, and he came to church with his two cholita wives. I thought it was, well, odd, but they didn’t have a lot of priesthood holders, so it wasn’t a big deal to the stake leaders. Was he breaking the law of chastity? Apparently, but nobody considered him an apostate. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nobody considered him an apostate. 

By which I'm assuming you mean 'nobody in the branch' or possibly 'nobody in the stake'?

But the important issue, which you've now not answered twice, is this: Had he felt spiritually prompted to marry additional wives, or was this really just an issue of unchasity? They're not the same thing, which is a point I think you've tried to make. A married man who has a girlfriend (common in Indonesia) is breaking the law of chastity. A married man who believes that God has called him to live the 'principle' and who then takes a second and a third wife in defiance of clear Church doctrine is probably entering the realm of apostasy.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

By which I'm assuming you mean 'nobody in the branch' or possibly 'nobody in the district'?

But the important issue, which you've now not answered twice, is this: Had he felt spiritually prompted to marry additional wives, or was this really just an issue of unchasity? They're not the same thing, which is a point I think you've tried to make. A married man who has a girlfriend (common in Indonesia) is breaking the law of chastity. A married man who believes that God has called him to live the 'principle' and who then takes a second and a third wife in defiance of clear Church doctrine is probably entering the realm of apostasy.

I have no idea what prompted him to do what he did. That’s my point. A person can break church rules without necessarily being an apostate. I know a guy who felt spiritually prompted to have sex with his girlfriend before marriage (a long story I don’t care to recount). I thought he was wrong, but an apostate? How is that different from a gay person who feels prompted to marry? It just seems an arbitrary thing to label such people apostates. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How is that different from a gay person who feels prompted to marry? It just seems an arbitrary thing to label such people apostates. 

I don't expect you to understand this, at all, but to devout Latter-day Saints -- and clearly to our prophets -- gay 'marriage' is not just a sin or a weakness or a breaking of a rule; it is a wholesale rejection of several core doctrines of the Restoration, including, most obviously, the plan of salvation and the central role of the family in exaltation, but also doctrines relating to the divine nature of spirits, the exercise of agency, etc. I know that won't satisfy you, but it makes perfect sense to me and all but one or two of the Church members whom I've discussed this with. And no, it doesn't feel arbitrary at all to us, either. It's logical and coherent. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't expect you to understand this, at all, but to devout Latter-day Saints -- and clearly to our prophets -- gay 'marriage' is not just a sin or a weakness or a breaking of a rule; it is a wholesale rejection of several core doctrines of the Restoration, including, most obviously, the plan of salvation and the central role of the family in exaltation, but also doctrines relating to the divine nature of spirits, the exercise of agency, etc. I know that won't satisfy you, but it makes perfect sense to me and all but one or two of the Church members whom I've discussed this with. And no, it doesn't feel arbitrary at all to us, either. It's logical and coherent. 

I get that. The church can do what it wants, and frankly, I see the policy as pre-empting anyone saying they are married and thus aren’t violating the law of chastity. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I get that.

Thanks.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, and we’re all apostates. What about gay members who believe in the church and feel spiritually prompted to marry? Are they necessarily apostates? 

Yep. Again, apostate doesn't equal evil or Satanic. It means to forsake or renunciate a faith. It comes from the Greek apostasis, which means defection. Apo - "Away from"; hístēmi -"I stand" 

Hamba said it well:

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

[gay marriage] is a wholesale rejection of several core doctrines of the Restoration, including, most obviously, the plan of salvation and the central role of the family in exaltation, but also doctrines relating to the divine nature of spirits, the exercise of agency, etc.

In fact the Finnish word for apostasy has a close connection to rejection. Not the Church rejecting the individual, but the individual rejecting a former faith. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I won't say that Tacenda is because no doubt she is just repeating what she's heard and been told. But as the Slate article makes clear:

 

I don't. I do care about truth, and when I see people repeating inaccurate information as part of a discussion, I'm inclined to gently correct it.

Why do you find the truth of this matter so personally irritating? If you don't like facts, no one is forcing you to read or respond to them.

I know several heterosexual marriages where a spouse was unfaithful and they were active LDS, a couple of them in a bishopric. This was always disconcerting to me. So the shoe fits in both scenarios. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So the shoe fits in both scenarios. 

Of course it does. But it's a defining characteristic in only one of them.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Of course it does. But it's a defining characteristic in only one of them.

Okay Hamba, just to put yourself in a gay person's shoes....what if you were told that you had to marry the same sex? And if you married the opposite sex you would be an apostate, how does that sound? Being gay for the most part has proven to be innate. Also, Jesus doesn't say a word about homosexuals in the Bible. Haha, I bet you've heard this over and over right? But it still is something. And you know darn well the Bible has some pretty strange commandments in there that no-one really believes.

What I really think should happen is that we shouldn't restrict these married gays from being members, nor their children. But I grant that the church should be able to restrict temple marriage to only men/women unions. Why can't the church do that? But hey, I'll bet you're so tired of my speaking out. Hope you have a good night, I do really respect that this convo hasn't become ugly. Thanks for that.  

Edited July 4, 2018 by Tacenda

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't expect you to understand this, at all, but to devout Latter-day Saints -- and clearly to our prophets -- gay 'marriage' is not just a sin or a weakness or a breaking of a rule; it is a wholesale rejection of several core doctrines of the Restoration, including, most obviously, the plan of salvation and the central role of the family in exaltation, but also doctrines relating to the divine nature of spirits, the exercise of agency, etc. I know that won't satisfy you, but it makes perfect sense to me and all but one or two of the Church members whom I've discussed this with. And no, it doesn't feel arbitrary at all to us, either. It's logical and coherent. 

It is not gay marriage that is a wholesale rejection of several core doctrines of the Restoration, including, most obviously, the plan of salvation and the central role of the family in exaltation, but also doctrines relating to the divine nature of spirits, the exercise of agency, etc.  It is being gay.  Period.  According to core Mormon doctrine, a gay person can not have a family.  There is no place for them in the Celestial Kingdom unless they are straight.  There is no eternal marriage or eternal offspring for someone who is gay whether in this life or the next.  The hope that is given to a gay person is that they will eventually become straight.  Yeah, we have heard that promise before haven't we.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

Yep. Again, apostate doesn't equal evil or Satanic. It means to forsake or renunciate a faith. It comes from the Greek apostasis, which means defection. Apo - "Away from"; hístēmi -"I stand" 

Hamba said it well:

In fact the Finnish word for apostasy has a close connection to rejection. Not the Church rejecting the individual, but the individual rejecting a former faith. 

I think the problem is, a gay person can enter into a gay marriage and still not reject the Church any more than a person who breaks any commandment is not necessarily rejecting the church.  

The real question is why is the name calling even necessary.  Do we need to officially label those that break the WoW as rejectors of divine revelation?  Do we officially label those that break the law of chastity as harlots?  Maybe we should come up with a whole list of labels to start calling members when they do something against church teachings.  How about calling anyone who tells a lie as a viper?  Do you have more suggestions for official labels you would like to use?

This is the part where gay members feel unwelcome and ostracized by the church.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

What I really think should happen is that we shouldn't restrict these married gays from being members, nor their children. But I grant that the church should be able to restrict temple marriage to only men/women unions. Why can't the church do that? 

Because that worked out so well for the Black community and Mormon community back in the day.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Calm

[cacheman]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Of course it does. But it's a defining characteristic in only one of them.

You've only presented evidence that half of male gay couples (married and non-married) are in non-monogomous relationships. How do you get from there to stating that unfaithfulness is a defining characteristic of gay marriage? I assume that I've either misinterpreted your response to Tacenda, or that you have more data that you haven't yet shared. Could you please clarify your "defining characteristic" comment?

Edited July 4, 2018 by cacheman

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Law of Chastity, you have stated that they are ignoring that?

The law of chastity as currently understood and taught by the church, yes. Marrying someone of the same gender signals that you have no intent on following the church in this matter. 

 

Quote

Marrying is how you keep the law of chastity, IMO.

What is it about marriage that transforms an otherwise unchaste act into a chaste one? Are there any limits to what 'marriage' can make holy? If so, who gets to set those bounds: God or man? 

 

Quote

I guess the church believes it's only between male and female [...]

That's our current understanding, yes. 

 

Quote

[...] but what if we look at the spirit of the law, this would be a good thing, would it not?

Good in what respect? 

For example, I can certainly see there being potential public health benefits from having members of society pair off into monogamous couples. And I can see it being helpful even if, as has been pointed out, many of them are really more 'monogam-ish.' 

Also, I can see there being benefits for individuals on a personal level by having somebody to love and share their life with. 

But if God is real and such behavior is truly proscribed, then no amount of short-term goods will make up for the long term consequences. 

 

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The law of chastity as currently understood and taught by the church, yes. Marrying someone of the same gender signals that you have no intent on following the church in this matter. 

 

What is it about marriage that transforms an otherwise unchaste act into a chaste one? Are there any limits to what 'marriage' can make holy? If so, who gets to set those bounds: God or man? 

 

That's our current understanding, yes. 

 

Good in what respect? 

For example, I can certainly see there being potential public health benefits from having members of society pair off into monogamous couples. And I can see it being helpful even if, as has been pointed out, many of them are really more 'monogam-ish.' 

Also, I can see there being benefits for individuals on a personal level by having somebody to love and share their life with. 

But if God is real and such behavior is truly proscribed, then no amount of short-term goods will make up for the long term consequences. 

 

What do you think the long term consequences are for a gay couple that chooses to marry rather than just be in a relationship?  Does anyone know?  Do you think church leaders know?

It is a sincere question.  Me and my partner have chosen not to marry.  Will that make any difference in the eternities?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What if you were told that you had to marry the same sex?

I would do it. It's that simple. (Though I suspect you won't believe me.)

Quote

Also, Jesus doesn't say a word about homosexuals in the Bible.

There's a valid historical reason for that -- accepted by every professional historian that I know personally and by the mainstream of historical studies, including, importantly, queer historians. I've brought it up on this forum at least a dozen times in the past, but I feel no need to repeat myself since I once again suspect that you won't believe me.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

You've only presented evidence that half of male gay couples (married and non-married) are in non-monogomous relationships. How do you get from there to stating that unfaithfulness is a defining characteristic of gay marriage?

Did you read both articles that I linked to? The data that you've referenced above was that 50 per cent of male homosexual couples engage in sex with other men 'with their partner's knowledge' (emphasis original) -- i.e., the relationships are consensually 'open'. This does not include any actual 'unfaithfulness'. If you read both articles in their entirety (plus the research they link to), you will find that non-monogamy is one of the defining characteristics of same-sex 'marriage'.