california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not even if we believe wholeheartedly it reflects the word of God? No. That would be an opinion that it reflects wholeheartedly the word of God. A revelation comes from God, not from drawing personal opinions about doctrine. Edited August 3, 2019 by california boy 1
Calm Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, california boy said: Being gay does not mean we ALL think and feel the exact same way. Then why assume this absolute, one size fits all conclusion?: Quote The church can not be welcoming and inclusive of gays as members of the church. Edited August 3, 2019 by Calm 2
california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Then why assume this absolute, one size fits all conclusion?: I meant to say gay couples. I will correct that. Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously there are single gay men that are active in the church. I wish them well and hope they find a happy and fulfilling life. Edited August 3, 2019 by california boy 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, california boy said: No. That would be an opinion that it reflects wholeheartedly the word of God. A revelation comes from God, not from drawing personal opinions about doctrine. Well, I say it’s disingenuous to state or imply that it has never been taught by the Church or its leaders, when clearly it has. One can dismiss any of the Church’s teachings as being merely opinion. That has been referred to as cafeteria Mormonism. Moreover, President Oaks did not express this with the weak resolve of an opinion, but rather, with how-could-it-be-otherwise certitude. And it has never been authoritatively contradicted by anyone in the Church. The contrary is true. Edited August 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 3
Storm Rider Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, Rivers said: I often hear talk about how the Church needs to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. And I am all for inclusiveness. Jesus was all about being inclusive to everybody. We, as the body of Christ, can always do better. But when it comes to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, things get complicated. According to our theology, sexual relations are forbidden outside marriage. We also believe that marriage, by definition, is the union of male and female. Thus homosexual relations are always wrong. That is a rule members of the Church must follow. It's part of the buy-in to be a Latter-day Saint. And you can argue that it is a stupid and unfair rule. Regardless its the rule and its not changing. So given that fact that the theology is what it is and it isn't changing, is there anything more we can do policy-wise to be more inclusive? I'm all ears. I know that we can start by simply not being jerks. But are there any policy changes that could help? I just started the thread by reading your post; haven't read any of the others yet The gospel of Jesus Christ fundamentally teachings that we must die to self; that we put away the old man and be born again unto Jesus Christ. As the person, we put away all sin. To be more inclusive is to invite and welcome all to come unto Christ. Those willing to take the name of Jesus upon themselves will commit to live their life in accordance with the Gospel. The Church should continue to identify what is sin without any need to identify the sins of each individual. We remove ourselves from the Body of Christ when we choose sin over the Savior. I do not think, within the Church, identify members by their sin. The world may find that viable and even worthwhile, but it does not fit within the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are created in his image and we each have a purpose. We each have known individuals who have never married. Obviously, not all will be married, but each should live their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ. God has only described marriage as one thing - the union of a man and a woman to procreate. Anything the State does and calls marriage does not make it marriage in the eyes of God or in keeping with this teachings. Nothing else needs to be said. Edited August 3, 2019 by Storm Rider 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 5 hours ago, california boy said: Yeah. The answer to the question is no. The church can not be welcoming and inclusive of gay couples as members of the church. But gay couples certainly can attend as guests, and I am sure the ward will be cordial towards them for the most part. As you know, I personally don't have a problem with the Church. I support my children in their activity in the church. When I am invited to attend, I go along with my partner. We recently attended the baptism of my grandson. I understand the limitations the Church has set. But honestly, most gay people I have talked to feel the Church has been pretty aggressive against the gay community and think of the church as being pretty anti gay. I doubt many know anything about the Utah legislation against discrimination in housing and employment. Prop 8 and the Oct policy pretty much overshadow that. Most don't follow the Church's actions as close as I do. I don't think there is a big movement for gay families seeking out Church membership. All of that seems understandable, and pretty much what I would expect. And I still think that LDS Church members can be good neighbors, even if that doesn't afford them immediate forgiveness for past sins or hypocrisies (I am thinking of LDS polygyny as a form of non-traditional marriage which other Americans found disgusting and not allowable on a par with same sex marriage today). The 19th century Twin Relics of Barbarism were considered to be slavery and polygyny, both of which had to be stamped out. All of us need an enhanced perspective. 1
california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: All of that seems understandable, and pretty much what I would expect. And I still think that LDS Church members can be good neighbors, even if that doesn't afford them immediate forgiveness for past sins or hypocrisies (I am thinking of LDS polygyny as a form of non-traditional marriage which other Americans found disgusting and not allowable on a par with same sex marriage today). The 19th century Twin Relics of Barbarism were considered to be slavery and polygyny, both of which had to be stamped out. All of us need an enhanced perspective. I totally agree. I can never understand why more members don't see this. I have to say that given the past history of marriage in the Church, one would think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints would have been the last church to be defending marriage as one man, one woman. The persecuted for their beliefs on marriage, become the persecutors of another beliefs. 2
california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I just started the thread by reading your post; haven't read any of the others yet The gospel of Jesus Christ fundamentally teachings that we must die to self; that we put away the old man and be born again unto Jesus Christ. As the person, we put away all sin. To be more inclusive is to invite and welcome all to come unto Christ. Those willing to take the name of Jesus upon themselves will commit to live their life in accordance with the Gospel. The Church should continue to identify what is sin without any need to identify the sins of each individual. We remove ourselves from the Body of Christ when we choose sin over the Savior. I do not think, within the Church, identify members by their sin. The world may find that viable and even worthwhile, but it does not fit within the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are created in his image and we each have a purpose. We each have known individuals who have never married. Obviously, not all will be married, but each should live their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ. God has only described marriage as one thing - the union of a man and a woman to procreate. Anything the State does and calls marriage does not make it marriage in the eyes of God or in keeping with this teachings. Nothing else needs to be said. You don't have to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to come to Christ. There is much that we don't know about God and what He considers sin. The Church, like any other religion picks and chooses what it considers sin. For example some churches believe Christ was extremely clear about divorce, yet the Church chooses to ignore those words. You are comfortable in your belies. Good for you. But one thing is clear, not everyone thinks the Church has everything right. There are a whole lot more followers of Christ that think gay marriage is acceptable to God then there is who think modern day polygamy was acceptable to God. So we each find our own path to Christ and try to emulate Him. In the end that is the most important goal. God himself will decide what price people will pay for wrong beliefs. Edited August 3, 2019 by california boy
Storm Rider Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 4 hours ago, california boy said: You don't have to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to come to Christ. There is much that we don't know about God and what He considers sin. The Church, like any other religion picks and chooses what it considers sin. For example some churches believe Christ was extremely clear about divorce, yet the Church chooses to ignore those words. You are comfortable in your belies. Good for you. But one thing is clear, not everyone thinks the Church has everything right. There are a whole lot more followers of Christ that think gay marriage is acceptable to God then there is who think modern day polygamy was acceptable to God. So we each find our own path to Christ and try to emulate Him. In the end that is the most important goal. God himself will decide what price people will pay for wrong beliefs. This is mental and emotional gymnastics to enable an individual to pick and choose - you that have ears will hear; conversely, those without will not hear. Whether the Church, or any individual ignore God's words and/or command will not redeem them; each will be condemned by sin. I have never said or inferred that an individual must be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to come to Christ. You don't and nor does anyone else. Scripture is pretty clear that you need to repent. Of course, after that repent part is is also clear what is needed to be born again. The scriptures are just as clear about the path and gate to Christ. "Matthew 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." These verses seem to escape a lot of people. The Narrow Path escapes members and nonmembers alike. In the same way that to be born again - both the body through baptism and through the Spirit - so does discipleship. It is not just a list of do's and don'ts, but it is having a heart that leads our choices and actions for the right motivation. Does not happen all at once, bit this is a lifelong process.
california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: This is mental and emotional gymnastics to enable an individual to pick and choose And what is it when the church ignores the words of Christ Himself concerning divorce. Or Paul’s words telling women not to wear jewelry or forbids them from praying in church? Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? I taught seminary for 6 years. I have plenty of scriptures you will have to play mental gymnastics with. there is only one person you need to worry about how God judges them. It isn’t me. 2
CV75 Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 14 hours ago, california boy said: Like I told Robert above: I know most members of the church would probably be fine with me and my partner visiting. I don't think anyone freaked out that we were at my grandson's baptism. And I don't intend to be joining, so baring me from becoming a member really isn't an issue with me personally. So you feel included at the level you desire to have, and recognize that the so-called "barring" (an unnecessarily harsh term for a mutually-negotiated arrangement) reflects (a) your not wanting to make and keep the covenants of membership and (b) the covenants of membership that are common to all persons irrespective of sexuality.
CV75 Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 14 hours ago, california boy said: Being gay does not mean we ALL think and feel the exact same way. What does less gay look like? There really isn't some kind of standard one has to reach in order to be "fully" gay. Though just this week, a gay person told me he got his gay card taken away because he didn't know who Donna Summer was. Thus you admit, despite the rhetoric and polemics, that not all gays or members of the gay community believe the Church cannot be welcoming and inclusive of gays as members, that she has been pretty aggressive against the gay community, and is anti-gay. 2
alter idem Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 18 hours ago, california boy said: On whose authority did Elder Hafen make this statement? A revelation from God? My assumption is that Elder Hafen was speaking to Gay LDS members who would like to not be gay. I think that he was right to promise them that if they are faithful, they will be able to enjoy blessings which are denied them in this life, because of their attraction to their own sex. I believe he felt inspired to make them this promise, because it's what they desire (we don't all desire the same things) and if they are faithful in this life, they will enjoy all the blessings God offers. 1
alter idem Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 16 hours ago, california boy said: I honestly have no idea what the next life will be like. But I put my trust in God's hands. I guess we will see. Death may very well be l life's greatest adventure. It's a dilemna, since we have no way of knowing what the next life will be like. I don't think God will 'make' you attracted to the opposite sex, if when you get to the other side, that's not what you want. God will not force any of us and he desires to give us all that he has, but we must be willing to accept it. I'm certain that if we live righteously and try to follow him, he will bless us with everything that he can. The church teaches the ideal, and what can be attained, but the truth is, we are all different and a God who loves us unconditionally and knows us intimately will take that into account. He is the ultimate and most just God, and since he loves us, we can trust him and not reject or turn away from him. I think that's the real test. Will we reject him or trust and turn to him in our trials and struggles in life. 3
Storm Rider Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 3 hours ago, california boy said: And what is it when the church ignores the words of Christ Himself concerning divorce. Or Paul’s words telling women not to wear jewelry or forbids them from praying in church? Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? I taught seminary for 6 years. I have plenty of scriptures you will have to play mental gymnastics with. there is only one person you need to worry about how God judges them. It isn’t me. Just for jazz, I don't argue the issue of divorce contrary to what the scriptures say. I have never been a fan of divorce. Anyone can get a divorce; it is the remarrying that is the problem for folks. I think the Hindus and Muslims have a better way - arranged marriages for the most part. Our society's method surely wins no accolades when based on lust, I mean love. A marriage is so much more than an emotion. Glad you taught seminary; I never have done that. I am a Gospel Doctrine teacher from way back. Recently was released so I am currently not teaching in church. You are going to compare gay marriage to what? Hmm, I will take that and raise you an eternity.
california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 2 hours ago, CV75 said: So you feel included at the level you desire to have, and recognize that the so-called "barring" (an unnecessarily harsh term for a mutually-negotiated arrangement) reflects (a) your not wanting to make and keep the covenants of membership and (b) the covenants of membership that are common to all persons irrespective of sexuality. No I don't feel included. I don't think there is any place for me and my partner in the Church. How could I? I don't even see how a member could think that gay couples would feel welcome given the fact that the only thing the church could do is excommunicate them. When I was excommunicated, I felt like it was probably the best thing for both the Church and me.. I don't think it was vindictive. I just think the church has determined that gay couples can't be a part of their organization. I don't think the Church speaks for God. They make the rules, not me. It doesn't really. bother me. That doesn't mean that I don't believe the men running the Church aren't sincere and doing their best to figure out what God wants. But they are not infallible and they are just trying to figure it out like the rest of those that seek Christ. I think the Church works well for a lot of people, just not for gays. For those that find happiness and spirituality within the Church, I wish them well and would never try to pull them away from the Church.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 On 8/2/2019 at 1:20 AM, Rivers said: I often hear talk about how the Church needs to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. And I am all for inclusiveness. Jesus was all about being inclusive to everybody. We, as the body of Christ, can always do better. But when it comes to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, things get complicated. According to our theology, sexual relations are forbidden outside marriage. We also believe that marriage, by definition, is the union of male and female. Thus homosexual relations are always wrong. That is a rule members of the Church must follow. It's part of the buy-in to be a Latter-day Saint. And you can argue that it is a stupid and unfair rule. Regardless its the rule and its not changing. So given that fact that the theology is what it is and it isn't changing, is there anything more we can do policy-wise to be more inclusive? I'm all ears. I know that we can start by simply not being jerks. But are there any policy changes that could help? It does and will continue to be a problem, but it is not based on policy by the Church, but based on scripture for all believers, of the “One God”. On more than one occasion, I have asked the question, if the idea of chastity before marriage would even be an possibility in the homosexual community, each time the answer was a resounding, NO! The strongest response came from a decades long friend, whom I served with in many callings in the Church, before he came out of the closet, if you will. This was after a 25 year marriage and five children, and he had left the Church, prior to excommunication. He told me that these are two worlds, that are worlds apart, he explained that sex is how homosexuals explore who they really are. He was not facing excommunication for being homosexual, but for extramarital affairs with men, just as others do who are unfaithful with others women, if they are men, as would women if unfaithful to their husbands. Sadly he has been gone for a while now, he died from complications due to aids, thankfully he never infected his wife, my friend also, who has gone on to find happiness, and marriage again. There may certainly be a time where a member who is in a Gay Marriage, will not be charged with sexual sins outside of marriage. But, as I said, I don’t see a time, “that no matter Church policy”, that remaining chase before marriage for those who are Gay, can be a possibility, as it is sexual activity where those who are LBGT or otherwise, find out who they are, as my friend, so bluntly put it, not angrily, but very direct, and as many others have explained.
california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Thus you admit, despite the rhetoric and polemics, that not all gays or members of the gay community believe the Church cannot be welcoming and inclusive of gays as members, that she has been pretty aggressive against the gay community, and is anti-gay. Of course. I think the feelings about the Church within the LGBT community run the whole gamut from feeling like they want to belong to outright hatred towards the church and everything in between. Most are not on either end of the extremes. Perhaps the majority honestly pay little attention to what the Church does or doesn't do.
california boy Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 12 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said: It does and will continue to be a problem, but it is not based on policy by the Church, but based on scripture for all believers, of the “One God”. On more than one occasion, I have asked the question, if the idea of chastity before marriage would even be an possibility in the homosexual community, each time the answer was a resounding, NO! The strongest response came from a decades long friend, whom I served with in many callings in the Church, before he came out of the closet, if you will. This was after a 25 year marriage and five children, and he had left the Church, prior to excommunication. He told me that these are two worlds, that are worlds apart, he explained that sex is how homosexuals explore who they really are. He was not facing excommunication for being homosexual, but for extramarital affairs with men, just as others do who are unfaithful with others women, if they are men, as would women if unfaithful to their husbands. Sadly he has been gone for a while now, he died from complications due to aids, thankfully he never infected his wife, my friend also, who has gone on to find happiness, and marriage again. There may certainly be a time where a member who is in a Gay Marriage, will not be charged with sexual sins outside of marriage. But, as I said, I don’t see a time, “that no matter Church policy”, that remaining chase before marriage for those who are Gay, can be a possibility, as it is sexual activity where those who are LBGT or otherwise, find out who they are, as my friend, so bluntly put it, not angrily, but very direct, and as many others have explained. For a gay man, what is the difference between having sex before marriage and having sex after marrying someone of the same sex? The church views it was the same exact sin. Me and my partner are not married. Do you think we should marry? If yes, can you give me a reason why? From my perspective, the Church has done a pretty good job of convincing me that marriage for a gay couple has no importance at all, and in fact might be worse than not marrying. So I don't. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 3 hours ago, california boy said: For a gay man, what is the difference between having sex before marriage and having sex after marrying someone of the same sex? The church views it was the same exact sin. Me and my partner are not married. Do you think we should marry? If yes, can you give me a reason why? From my perspective, the Church has done a pretty good job of convincing me that marriage for a gay couple has no importance at all, and in fact might be worse than not marrying. So I don't. I did say maybe one day in the future policy may change, or did you miss that in anger. Right now, the Church does, as scripture does, see all sex before marriage a sin. It (The Church) and scripture considers adultery, as a far greater sin, as one is born of weakness, and the other betrayal of the worst kind.
kllindley Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 On 8/2/2019 at 11:43 AM, JAHS said: Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International said the following: "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex." (Link to talk) Which I suppose means during the Millennium they will no longer be gay and will be able to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex and eventually obtain exaltation in the highest kingdom of heaven. Anyone have an opinion about this statement? It is true. 1
kllindley Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 22 hours ago, california boy said: No. That would be an opinion that it reflects wholeheartedly the word of God. A revelation comes from God, not from drawing personal opinions about doctrine. Can you identify ANY revelation that actually came from God? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 4, 2019 Posted August 4, 2019 3 hours ago, kllindley said: Can you identify ANY revelation that actually came from God? Pulling up a chair to pay attention here. I want to see the response to this question.
california boy Posted August 4, 2019 Posted August 4, 2019 9 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said: I did say maybe one day in the future policy may change, or did you miss that in anger. Right now, the Church does, as scripture does, see all sex before marriage a sin. It (The Church) and scripture considers adultery, as a far greater sin, as one is born of weakness, and the other betrayal of the worst kind. What makes you think I am angry? I am just asking the question. I don't really anticipate the church will change its policy. But I would still be interested in what your answer to my question is.
california boy Posted August 4, 2019 Posted August 4, 2019 8 hours ago, kllindley said: Can you identify ANY revelation that actually came from God? It is interesting to me that it seems in the day and age we currently are in, members and church leaders are claiming revelation from God when even the people who express an opinion are not claiming it came from God. The opinion of Elder Hafen is a good example of that. The claim by Elder Nelson of revelation received by by President Monson concerning the Oct policy is another. Neither of the men that supposed revelation ever made such a claim. I do believe that God does guide each and every one of us if we seek Him.
Recommended Posts