Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If God tells His prophets that my talent for abstract art is stopping my eternal progression, I'm going to need God Himself to confirm that. If God Himself tells me that my talent for abstract art is stopping my eternal progression, I'm finished with abstract art. End of story. 'Not my will but Thine be done'.

Not everyone is as evolved as you.  Some of us are very much human and attached to our sense of identity and who we are. While I can appreciate your devotion, this is not as easy as giving up a favorite vice.  This is a sense of who I am as a person- and if I believe that God gave me my talent, it’s going to be painful to be told it’s rotten. 

In addition, some have a completely different point of view, that faithful homosexuality is not a sin but has been decreed as so by man.  This group and the group that feels it is a sin decreed by God will never agree.  The Godly will continue to alienate those who see otherwise by making statements that hurt, such as “this is a defect” and “don’t worry, you will lose your desire for your life partner in the after world”.   

Sensitivity to such things rarely coexists with staunch believers- and those who are sensitive are often pegged as lukewarm. I understand that too. 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you have a statement from a living Prophet or antything confirming that is official church doctrine?

The 'good news' that is the very heart of the Christian message is that all of us will be changed through Christ so that we can dwell in the presence of a holy God. If this is not the case, we are all out of hope -- most of all I. Fear that surrendering oneself to Christ will somehow result in less of oneself instead of more of oneself appears universal, from what I can tell. Personal experience has taught me -- and is still teaching me -- that I can genuinely trust the Saviour on this (and other!) points.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I like the use of art styles, good analogy imo.

Art styles have nothing to do with the family unit and the Lord’s law of matrimony, which is central to the Plan of Salvation, exaltation, eternal increase, etc. 

I can understand the analogy as a tool to convey why a removal of homosexual tendencies in the next life does not seem appealing to some folks in the here and now. But I already get that. And I accept the probability that my interests and tastes as an exalted being will undoubtedly differ from what they are now. That thought doesn’t bother me, as I believe that the level of happiness in that exalted state is beyond anything I can imagine in mortality. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That gays will be cured or changed after this life?  

Do you have a statement from a living Prophet or antything confirming that is official church doctrine?

The quotes already cited by kllindley that come from authoritative Church sources. I already mentioned these. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Art styles have nothing to do with the family unit and the Lord’s law of matrimony, which is central to the Plan of Salvation, exaltation, eternal increase, etc. 

Is anyone claiming that they do?

Quote

can understand the analogy as a tool to convey why a removal of homosexual tendencies in the next life does not seem appealing to some folks in the here and now. But I already get that

However, some people keep using as analogies states or conditions that are usually viewed as defects or imperfections rather than something completely value neutral or positive...which defeats the purpose of an analogy trying to clarify why some don't see a change of state as either necessary or desirable.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Is anyone claiming that they do?

Just pointing out the deficiencies in this analogy. 

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Art styles have nothing to do with the family unit and the Lord’s law of matrimony, which is central to the Plan of Salvation, exaltation, eternal increase, etc. 

 

For goodness sake.  If you understand the use of analogy, even if you disagree, why minimize my effort to share my point of view by suggesting that in any way I am proposing that art has anything to do with family units?  Give me an ounce of credit here please, I’m not completely daft. 

I

[MustardSeed]

Looks like  Calm beat me to it. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just pointing out the deficiencies in this analogy. 

Since the analogy is not attempting to work that way, not seeing the deficiency myself.  No analogy will be identical...ceases to be an analogy then.

Sometimes a bit more distance can help remove emotional baggage that is preventing clarification.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

53 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 

I know it’s a stretch,  but for me , it’s a closer parallel.  It’s more about who I am that about a broken part of my body. 

And did you not read this part? Do you understand this was an alternative to the proposed comparison between birth defects and homosexuality? 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

For goodness sake.  If you understand the use of analogy, even if you disagree, why minimize my effort to share my point of view by suggesting that in any way I am proposing that art has anything to do with family units?  Give me an ounce of credit here please, I’m not completely daft. 

I

I do understand the use of analogy. I also understand that some work better than others. I’m explaining why, for me, this one is less than compelling. Calm obviously disagrees. You can take pleasure in her approval. I’m OK with that. 

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I do understand the use of analogy. I also understand that some work better than others. I’m explaining why, for me, this one is less than compelling. Calm obviously disagrees. You can take pleasure in her approval. I’m OK with that. 

I don’t need Calms approval to know when my ideas are valid. 

Edited to clarify, I mean no disrespect to Calm in that statement. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by MustardSeed

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn't say semantics so much as degree...  but maybe that's semantic. When someone is included on a personal level but his beliefs and practices are not, is that really so bad? Isn't that what he is also doing, seeking acceptance on a personal level among those with whom he disagrees in belief and behavior?

I don’t know that it’s so bad.  All im suggesting is there is exclusion to some degree or another.  And I think without change there isn’t much more the church can do to be more inclusive.  It would require change.  And I do think the church will change, perhaps in steps along the way.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Not everyone is as evolved as you.

Is it really a matter of evolution? Or does one just eventually tire of kicking against the pricks?

Quote

Some of us are very much human and attached to our sense of identity and who we are.

As I suggested above, I think that's the universal condition. Otherwise, we wouldn't need so many scriptures and prophetic reminders to get over ourselves, deny ourselves, lay down our lives, pick up our crosses, forsake things, and so forth. (All increasingly unpopular in a world that seems to celebrate the self above almost all else.)

Quote

If I believe that God gave me my talent, it’s going to be painful to be told it’s rotten.

You're not kidding! One of the first times that happened to me, my companion found me on the floor in a heap. It hurts so, so much.

Years later, I'm grateful for a God Who loves me enough to tell me painful truths. And yet I still wince when I think what might be next on His big (BIG!) list of my needed corrections. At which point, I really start to feel like the little boy I actually still am.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/1/2019 at 10:20 PM, 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?

Be up front and honest about the fact that the LDS church probably isn't the most spiritually and emotionally healthy place for LGBTQ people to be. This isn't some swipe at the church but we have to be realistic that the LDS church isn't made for all God's children and doesn't know how to begin, like all churches, to meet the spiritual needs of every living person.

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

You're not kidding! One of the first times that happened to me, my companion found me on the floor in a heap. It hurts so, so much.

Care to share? 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The quotes already cited by kllindley that come from authoritative Church sources. I already mentioned these. 

That doesn’t mean it’s official church doctrine.  Wouldn’t that come from a Prophet?  

Are you really claiming that it’s official doctrine that those who are gay will be “cured” after this life? (No longer gay.)

I honestly hadn’t heard this was doctrine if that’s what you’re stating here.

Edited August 5, 2019 by JulieM

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

As I suggested above, I think that's the universal condition. Otherwise, we wouldn't need so many scriptures and prophetic reminders to get over ourselves, deny ourselves, lay down our lives, pick up our crosses, forsake things, and so forth.

 

This makes perfect sense to me regarding issues of rebelliousness and weakness.  Since I don’t see all homosexuality as weakness or rebelliousness, then we will have to agree to sort of disagree here. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/2/2019 at 9:02 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

So no amount of change in LDS policy has any meaning for you?  The LDS can never obtain forgiveness?  So it is not true that "The LDS Church previously taught that same-sex attraction is a curable condition, but now states that 'individuals do not choose to have such attractions'."  And it is not true that "In April 2019, . . . the LDS Church reversed the controversial November 2015 policy."  Do you know about the reversal of the November Policy, or should I explain it to you?

So it is not true that "in 2015, top LDS leaders worked alongside LGBTQ advocates and Utah lawmakers to pass a statewide non-discrimination bill that protects LGBTQ people in housing and employment, while offering exemptions for churches and other religious-liberty protections" (https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saint ).  Nothing like that has even been discussed?

How can the church be forgiven for something which they have 1) not apologized for and 2) notasked forgiveness for? There seems this aversion to either of those because the institution cannot be seen as admitting fault or wrongdoing. Can the institutional church repent publicly before God and all creation for its wrongdoing? Yes. Will it? Absolutely not. Never. Not a chance. Such an act would cause insecurity and question sovereignty. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/2/2019 at 10:43 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?

Not worth it. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Valentinus

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Care to share? 

Sorry, but not at this time. Thanks in advance for understanding.

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Since I don’t see all homosexuality as weakness or rebelliousness, then we will have to agree to sort of disagree here. 

I don't see any sexual identity as inherently weak or rebellious. As a professionally trained historian, I do see the very concept of fixed, gendered sexual identity as a social construct that emerged, without any known or identifiable precedent, in late 19th-century Europe; wrestled with other competitive discourses; eventually found cultural footing in the equally new field of psychology; and has only very recently spread to a position of some ascendance through Western cultural dominance and the colonising of the imagination -- no part of which narrative is even remotely controversial amongst practising historians. In other words, I think it's less 'substantial' than either weakness or rebelliousness, even if our current historical moment cannot or will not acknowledge this fact.

But as the Bible clearly teaches, we possess the power to personally reify the insubstantial: 'For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he'.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That doesn’t mean it’s official church doctrine.  Wouldn’t that come from a Prophet?  

Are you really claiming that it’s official doctrine that those who are gay will be “cured” after this life? (No longer gay.)

I honestly hadn’t heard this was doctrine if that’s what you’re stating here.

No, Scott is mistaken if he's making that claim.  There has been no declared revelation regarding that....only opinions given by a few leaders.  Of course, we should pay attention and consider and pray about these opinions or statements....but no revelation from the Prophet has been given (that I'm aware of...).

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There has been no declared revelation regarding that...

Are there any other conditions or identities that you would personally place beyond the curative reach of the Atonement without a specific revelation to include them?

Edited August 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That doesn’t mean it’s official church doctrine.  Wouldn’t that come from a Prophet?  

Are you really claiming that it’s official doctrine that those who are gay will be “cured” after this life? (No longer gay.)

I honestly hadn’t heard this was doctrine if that’s what you’re stating here.

I regard any teaching  on an official Church source such as those cited here by  kllindley as being authoritative and doctrinal. 

[JulieM]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I regard any teaching  on an official Church source such as those cited here by  kllindley as being authoritative and doctrinal. 

Oh, ok.  That’s your belief and opinion.  I can respect that.