Were Those Members Who Opposed The 2015 Policy Right To Do So?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  It talks about marriage, polygamy, and exaltation. 

But as I said, it is silent on homosexuality.  

And so.....by its absence then it means homosexuality is okay?  Have you ever read the Proclamation - you know the one on the Family?  Homosexuality is sterile; as in cannot reproduce. Just curious - what did God first say to Adam and Eve?  And homosexuality fits in to that exactly how?

And somehow, it is okay because it is not spelled out in giant letters?  Hmm, whatever floats your boat, but danged if I know any human, much less God, that has to be that completely crystal clear after having condemned in scripture and had it condemned as perversion for thousands of years.  You remind of the little boy that entered the room full of horse crap. All the boy could do is hoop and holler because anywhere with that much horse crap had to have a horse somewhere. 

[rockpond]

Just now, Storm Rider said:

And so.....by its absence then it means homosexuality is okay?  Have you ever read the Proclamation - you know the one on the Family?  Homosexuality is sterile; as in cannot reproduce. Just curious - what did God first say to Adam and Eve?  And homosexuality fits in to that exactly how?

And somehow, it is okay because it is not spelled out in giant letters?  Hmm, whatever floats your boat, but danged if I know any human, much less God, that has to be that completely crystal clear after having condemned in scripture and had it condemned as perversion for thousands of years.  You remind of the little boy that entered the room full of horse crap. All the boy could do is hoop and holler because anywhere with that much horse crap had to have a horse somewhere. 

No.  Absence doesn't mean that something is okay.  Absence is absence.  As I noted... the books of scripture that are silent on the subject.

You are now asking me to comment on what is meant in those documents through their silence.  Can't do it.  Sorry.

Again, I didn't say that the scriptures claim homosexuality is okay.  I said that they are largely silent on the matter.

[Storm Rider]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  Absence doesn't mean that something is okay.  Absence is absence.  As I noted... the books of scripture that are silent on the subject.

You are now asking me to comment on what is meant in those documents through their silence.  Can't do it.  Sorry.

Again, I didn't say that the scriptures claim homosexuality is okay.  I said that they are largely silent on the matter.

The fact that you are making a point of it indicates you think there is some meaning to be deduced. Do you care to elaborate?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The fact that you are making a point of it indicates you think there is some meaning to be deduced. Do you care to elaborate?

Nope.  @USU78 stated: "Beyond that lands us in magical thinking land. I F, and I mean IFF, it were de-sinified via revelation, we would still have pretty much the entirety of LDS scripture, ancient and modern, plus the Proclamation, which enjoys near canonical status, to overcome and leave behind as apocryphal, before we could begin thinking about temple SSMs."

In response I pointed out that actually most of our scriptural texts and the Proclamation are silent on the issue of homosexuality.

I think all that can be deduced is that those authors didn't have much to say on the matter, I try not to make assumptions beyond that.  I think we pretty much have a few OT comments, some writings of Paul, and the teachings of the modern church in the latter half of this dispensation.

[why me]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

I like this post, why me!  Some great thoughts and I agree with them 👍

I’ll only add that I think when we will really start seeing much more change on this is when some of those who are even younger become our church leaders. 

I hope members will continue to support the leaders then just as they are now with this most recent change.  

we can see that perhaps the younger members are different in the US and elsewhere. Missionaries can now call home according to their desire. I think that this is mainly because they are having problems on their mission in missing their families. It is probably for emotional and mental health reasons. I think that they are affected by postmodern values and the secularization of belief. If the younger generation can remain members without resigning, they will make a difference in toleration.

[ttribe]

12 hours ago, USU78 said:

Your last two posts make clear there are some holes in your education. I'm stumped on what to do about that.

You could try not talking like a pompous......

Don't make us moderate during conference.

[why me]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think they ever will be chastised for their religious beliefs. We recently saw a few Hollywood types speak up about the Nation of Brunei's renewed commitment to observe Sharia law and stone gay people - they will also stone adulterers too, but that is an almost ignored position. Think about it - it was not an attack on Islam and Sharia law, but on a hotel chain owned by the Sultan of Brunei's investment group.  Who does that?  n?

I have followed that discussion rather intently and I had the same conclusion. Brunei is very Salafist in mentality. Hollywood missed a very important discussion. The question should have been: What can be done about the salafist belief system and how can more muslims embrace a more tolerant form of islam such as sufism and reformism. But the hollywood elite can't do it. But the mormon church is up for grabs because it is western and christian.

I think that the lds church needs to be careful about the amount of change it expects to go through in a short amount of time. People need a rock that can stay in place at times. Shifting rocks and boulders mean a fall and hitting the ground hard.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, bdouglas said:

No, I'm not Catholic. But my favorite British novelist is (or was). Graham Greene.

There is such a thing as "natural law". There are natural laws that govern morality just as much as there are natural laws that govern the natural world. Moral laws are as fixed as any natural law. God is bound by such laws, moral or physical, just as much as we are.

Natural law is a Catholic construct, originating from Greek philosophy. It has nothing to do with either science or Mormon theology.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you decided to go with a baseless insult.  Okay.  Actually, I'm going to put you on blocked status.  I've grown tired of wasting my time with people who cannot dialogue respectively.

Physician, ...

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

I like this post, why me!  Some great thoughts and I agree with them 👍

I’ll only add that I think when we will really start seeing much more change on this is when some of those who are even younger become our church leaders.  

I hope members will continue to support the leaders then just as they are now with this most recent change.  

You are correct.  It was a great talk and he was emotional about it.  But, it definitely did not trump this entire thread (that's pretty dramatic and not correct).

Some members seem to confuse sustaining with agreeing.  There is no way everyone is always going to agree on all issues, teachings and topics...not when it's a group of humans with different emotions, experiences and beliefs.  But, there are also respectful ways to disagree and disrespectful ways to disagree (including speaking evil). 

Members can most certainly disagree with the old policy and still fully sustain the church leaders.

I would imagine that the leaders heard some hurtful things aimed at them over this reversal (just read what's in some of the press).  That's different than just disagreeing, IMO.  

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

You could try not talking like a pompous......

It's amazing to me to watch those who most likely believe they are representing Christ and his teachings and His church act as if they are anything but these last few days.  The manner in which some have been posting and treating fellow members of the church is embarrassing, IMO.  I cannot believe the church leaders would support that kind of behavior.  But, this is a discussion board and all are welcome as long as they follow the rules here (although some did step over the line, IMO with getting personal and with the name calling). 

But, I can now say that I know how to use the ignore function 😛

[USU78]

Clarifying things. It'll be worth your while to read:

http://davidson-law.net/blog/2019/04/04/changes-in-policy/?fbclid=IwAR0sijVdxrLtS4Vw_Af9WlnJ7Anf-DqhZ-0L6YZ5Jz_r8DRjNMYmuGfrDm8

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Book of Mormon is silent on homosexuality.

D&C is silent on homosexuality.

Proclamation is silent on homosexuality.

Four gospels are silent on homosexuality.

Old Testament... do you really want to abide by all the "laws" in there?

You're left with a few passages in the New Testament and some random statements by modern day church leaders, many that we've tried to walk back from.

You are 100% correct here. IMO.  I'm amazed that anyone disagrees with this.  But I see nothing presented to dispute what you've posted even from those who say they disagree.   

Edited April 7, 2019 by ALarson

[let’s roll]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  It talks about marriage, polygamy, and exaltation. 

But as I said, it is silent on homosexuality.  

How would you explain Section 132 to someone who is gay?  Does it disqualify them from exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom?  If so, they might disagree with your characterization of it being silent on homosexuality.

If not, how does one who is gay meet the requirements set out therein?  Abstinence in mortality and entering into marriage with an opposite sex partner in the next life?  Civil SSM in mortality, but then entering into marriage with an opposite sex partner in the next life?

[bluebell]

I know I'm way late to this conversation, and I haven't read anything but the first page, but from my perspective, I think it depends on how they opposed it.  If they still sustained their leaders while quietly (not silently, but quietly) opposing the policy then I think that's right.  

If they stopped sustaining their leaders or were vocal about their opposition, then in my opinion, no they weren't right.  

My opinion is that if someone is truly called of God, then God expects us to sustain them and support them, even when they make mistakes (though I'm not convinced that the Nov. .policy actually was a mistake) because God knew they would make mistakes when they were called.

I know others will disagree but those are my thoughts on it.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

And so.....by its absence then it means homosexuality is okay?  Have you ever read the Proclamation - you know the one on the Family?  Homosexuality is sterile; as in cannot reproduce. Just curious - what did God first say to Adam and Eve?  And homosexuality fits in to that exactly how?

 

President Nelson got married to his current wife in 2006. Due to their ages they are sterile, as in cannot reproduce. Is there a specific criticism you wish to lay at their feet?

Edited April 7, 2019 by Gray

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

How would you explain Section 132 to someone who is gay?  Does it disqualify them from exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom?  If so, they might disagree with your characterization of it being silent on homosexuality.

If not, how does one who is gay meet the requirements set out therein?  Abstinence in mortality and entering into marriage with an opposite sex partner in the next life?  Civil SSM in mortality, but then entering into marriage with an opposite sex partner in the next life?

Rockpond is correct that Section 132 does not address homosexuality.  

This may be of interest to you:

https://gospeltangents.com/2018/03/how-132-affects-future-revelation-women-gays/

Quote

 

GT:  You mentioned a couple of things that were very interesting to me, especially in light of the Family Proclamation.  D&C 132 is kind of the foundation for forever families.  But you mentioned singles and you also mentioned gays.  How do those relate to section 132?

Bill:  Well I think that section 132 is by evidence, at least by internal evidence, it’s very much in the vein of thinking of sex as being in terms of heterosexual sex, of course not necessarily one-man and one-woman sex, but one-man, multiple-women.  So, I think that’s the point of the revelation.  It doesn’t really speak to the possibility of gay marriage.  It doesn’t open that possibility at all.  Whether that can be addressed in some other way, I don’t know, but the revelation, that’s not on anybody’s mind.

GT:  Right.  So, do you see that as being a possibility of a future revelation?

Bill:  Anything is possible.  I don’t know.  Whether people would feel that there is dissonance with section 132 and any further revelation that expanded some kind of approval of gay relationships, gay marriage, I don’t know.  That’s for another generation, I am guessing.  But yes, that might be something that would be addressed.  I don’t know.

Bill:  Well there’s something of equal probability I think is that we have an official declaration that says that women can be ordained.

 

 

That's what is wonderful, IMO, about how our church has new revelations that  may change or affect the past ones.  We have just witnessed that this week. 

One thing that has been a constant in the church over the years has been change and evolving teachings and revelations.

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know I'm way late to this conversation, and I haven't read anything but the first page, but from my perspective, I think it depends on how they opposed it.  If they still sustained their leaders while quietly (not silently, but quietly) opposing the policy then I think that's right.  

If they stopped sustaining their leaders or were vocal about their opposition, then in my opinion, no they weren't right.  

My opinion is that if someone is truly called of God, then God expects us to sustain them and support them, even when they make mistakes (though I'm not convinced that the Nov. .policy actually was a mistake) because God knew they would make mistakes when they were called.

I know others will disagree but those are my thoughts on it.

I agree that it depends on how they opposed it, they could have been right (charitably and seeking unity) or wrong (contentiously and divisively) in that way.

As to being right about its implementation being an error, we have many examples of the Lord from the D&C alone implementing and reversing directives, policies, etc. based on conditionality (e.g. finances, completion/publication of the Book of Mormon) and expediency (translation, the Manifesto, the redemption of Zion, etc.), and in the Bible we have an example from His own mission plan (He preached not to the Gentiles, but then reversed it through Peter).

As to being right about it arising out of the fallibility of the Brethren, yes, the Brethren are as fallible as Peter was in opening up the preaching to the Gentiles. In other words, their fallibility is irrelevant.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

President Nelson got married to his current wife in 2006. Due to their ages they are sterile, as in cannot reproduce. Is there a specific criticism you wish to lay at their feet?

But according to our beliefs about the afterlife, they are only sterile for a very small period of time.  Our beliefs about homosexual partnerships are that they will forever be sterile.  Maybe that's the difference that Storm was thinking of.

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are 100% correct here. IMO.  I'm amazed that anyone disagrees with this.  But I see nothing presented to dispute what you've posted even from those who say they disagree.   

Technically they didn’t disagree, just shifted the goal posts. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But according to our beliefs about the afterlife, they are only sterile for a very small period of time.  Our beliefs about homosexual partnerships are that they will forever be sterile.  

I agree that these are our earthly beliefs.  But, is there going to actually be sex in heaven (the act)?  Or will reproduction happen in other ways?

Those are questions we don't really know the answers to (as far as I know...).  There is a lot more about the afterlife that we do not know than what we do know.  We each have formed our beliefs....but we just don't know.

So it's very possible that we will be reproducing without actually having to have sex.  God's ways are not our ways.  That definitely leaves the possibility open that there will be families in the afterlife involving same sex relationships, IMO.

Edited April 7, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

How would you explain Section 132 to someone who is gay?  Does it disqualify them from exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom?  If so, they might disagree with your characterization of it being silent on homosexuality.

If not, how does one who is gay meet the requirements set out therein?  Abstinence in mortality and entering into marriage with an opposite sex partner in the next life?  Civil SSM in mortality, but then entering into marriage with an opposite sex partner in the next life?

Section 132 does not disqualify a gay person from exaltation. 

How does a gay person meet those requirements?  I don’t know because it doesn’t say. It is silent on the matter. 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But according to our beliefs about the afterlife, they are only sterile for a very small period of time.  Our beliefs about homosexual partnerships are that they will forever be sterile.  Maybe that's the difference that Storm was thinking of.

To begin with, there are two seemingly contradictory notions about the afterlife in LDS theology. The earlier intelligences model (ie we are all coeternal with God), and the later celestial reproduction model (not that we have any information on how celestial reproduction would work).

There is no doctrinal information on whether or not gay couples would be "sterile" or even in fact there is such a thing as "pregnancy" in the eternities. Are women in the eternities endlessly pregnant, as some antimormons suggest? Are spirits created at all? If so, does it look anything like the messy, slow earth process?

Edited April 7, 2019 by Gray

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But according to our beliefs about the afterlife, they are only sterile for a very small period of time.  Our beliefs about homosexual partnerships are that they will forever be sterile.  Maybe that's the difference that Storm was thinking of.

What is sterility in the next life?  What does it mean to produce in the next life?

We won’t be producing physical bodies, right?  That’s why we came here.  And the male/female sex act produces physical bodies.

So will we produce spirit children?  How does that happen?  Do we form them from intelligences?  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Clarifying things. It'll be worth your while to read:

http://davidson-law.net/blog/2019/04/04/changes-in-policy/?fbclid=IwAR0sijVdxrLtS4Vw_Af9WlnJ7Anf-DqhZ-0L6YZ5Jz_r8DRjNMYmuGfrDm8

When I read this, I found myself wondering why they didn't just release the stake president in Seattle early on, as he had clearly gone off the rails.