Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am sure his mortal mind would not like to think of a heaven where he could not drink.

Are you?  I know addicts of various drugs that see freedom from their addiction as heavenly. 
 

Are there addicts who know they are addicts who believe that is what they were meant to be, who see it as part of their identity?  Serious question. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

For me, this statement by Pope Francis is really what it all boils down to.

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that homosexuals have a right to be a part of a family?  Or is that condition only if you are straight?  Does the  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that homosexuals are children of God and have a right to a family?  Currently, the answer to those questions that Pope Francis asks is NO in the  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There is the laws of God and the laws of man. There is mortality and there is eternity.  The Church teaches what one needs to do or what is necessary to have an eternal family.  The Church also teaches agency.  So I think the answer is the church teaches homosexuals and polygamists have a right to be a part of a family.  We can organize a family in any manner we choose while in mortality.  So I think the answers to all those questions is probably yes.  Civil rights pertain to mortality.  Homosexuals and modern day polygamists have a right to be a part of a temporal family on earth. 

But if we desire an eternal family, then it has to be in according to the laws of God which are specific.  God makes the rules and he does not alter them according to our will.  We really do not have any rights regarding anything regarding eternity.  We don't have a right to the celestial kingdom.  We lost that right when we starting sinning and became unclean.  Though Gods mercy and the atonement, we are allowed to become clean and be worthy to enter.  Since we are utterly dependent on Christ, the Father and Son make the rules and we have only one option which is to follow them.  The purpose of the Church is bring that part out.  We don't need the Church for a temporal family.  For an eternal family, that is the only way it can happen. 

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I tend towards a more 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'charity never faileth' perspective than you espouse.   You and I need mercy just as much as a gay person does.  If I want it for myself then I must also seek it for others. 

I agree.  My spin on "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to be "let he who is without sin be our guide and leader on all issues."  Only Christ qualifies

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And there is not one cell in body that is physically attracted to women.   

Either I have a good imagination or I might have seen myself as sexually fluid if not brought up in a traditional family.  I don’t know if it is because I was influenced in my views about sexuality at a young age (teens) to view it as more naturally fluid than our culture allowed in the past because I was studying psychology and anthropology, reading books and taking classes even then or because of actual orientation....which I have never seen since teens as set in stone by biology, so if I were brought up in another culture my orientation would reflect that.  
 

I have no desire towards women, but I can see where if I had been brought up with different ideas it could have been possible and since to me the physical relationship pales in terms of importance to the emotional relationship, I can imagine a scenario where we were mistaken and we were meant to get past the whole male-female physical attraction in this life and move to strictly attraction to an individual  and that could be a woman for me as rather than a different man than my husband if it turned out I wasn’t going to end up with him (since at this point I don’t see either men or women understanding me better in this life, each person who does understand me understands part of me in their unique way).
 

At this point though, the male female exaltation path makes the most sense to me even though I believe there are massive gaps and likely mistakes in our very limited understanding at this point,  so any other version I view as fiction.

[let’s roll]

The Pope spoke in favor of civil union laws.  Does he refer to marriage?  Does he view it as a distinction with a difference, or without?  

What views are there within the gay community regarding the distinction?  Is civil union viewed as indistinguishable from marriage or is use of the term marriage a sin qua non?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

If we are perfected in Christ and become like him, does a lame person stay lame? Does a mentally ill person remain ill? Does a person filled with mortal passions retain their passions? Does an alcoholic remain an alcoholic? Where does perfection begin and end?  

I have heard a few of our brothers on this Board say they would just not like heaven if they could not remain gay. How can a mortal make such a statement when we have no understanding or comprehension of being an eternal being at present? 

My grandfather was an alcoholic and died one. I am sure his mortal mind would not like to think of a heaven where he could not drink. For him alcohol was enjoyed heavily the last thirty years of his life.

I believe that none of us has any understanding, nor will we ever gain in this life an understanding of what it means to be perfected in and through Christ. What I believe is that if we honestly strive with an eye single to his glory and remain sinful - which we will - we will be perfected through our Savior. Nothing is more important than that relationship with God - not our relationship with our spouse, our children, or anyone else. The question will remain throughout this mortal life, will you follow me?  

To the bold, I feel like our church emphasizes family more than a relationship with God, sorry if this comes off offensive. But honestly I wonder if you put in "relationship with God" vs. "family". Well, I'd bet family would be mentioned more in conference talks than relationship with God. Eternal families and creating your own worlds seem to not be about a relationship with God really. He's there but not as much IMO. Now in an Evangelical church I can definitely see that relationship with God/Jesus being placed far above spouse/family.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And I never made that claim.

We were talking about being not able to become parents in a valid relationship according to the Church. You then said  the Church would keep gays as a child all their mortal existence. If one can become a non child another way than by being a parent in your view, could you please clarify what you meant by your comment I previously quoted about the Church, what connection you were making between the lack of opportunity to become a parent and the Church wanting to keep a gay person a child their whole life. 

Quote

They want to keep a gay person as a child their whole life.

I was focusing on this because the way I read it, you were wrong as I see church leadership hoping for growth and contributions from every single adult as an adult even when excluding the choice of a same sex marriage as a moral foundation for an eternal family or a mortal temple sealed one—and previously even a legal one as well as defining sex outside a male-female legal marriage as immoral.  They in my view definitely don’t want them as dependent as children, they want all singles making adult choices to remain moral/chaste as defined by the Church.  I am now focusing on this part of your post because I don’t understand it nor do I remember you making this claim in the past.  I don’t see the rest of your post as wrong and it is a POV you have presented before.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Calm

[Islander]

13 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

"In a documentary that premiered Wednesday in Rome, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples, departing from the position of the Vatican’s doctrinal office and the pope’s predecessors on the issue.The remarks came amid a portion of the documentary that reflected on pastoral care for those who identify as LGBT. “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care.After those remarks, and in comments likely to spark controversy among Catholics, Pope Francis weighed in directly on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples.“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”The remarks come in “Francesco,” a documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis which premiered Oct. 21 as part of the Rome Film Festival, and is set to make its North American premiere on Sunday.

I am not surprised. More and  more, this current pope goes out of his way to distance himself from the Gospel of Christ every day. The tragedy is that he is taking millions into hell with his delusions. The last straw for me was when I saw him bow down to a muslim cleric and kiss the quo' ran. That did turn my stomach. So, there he goes sliding fast and with no breaks into perdition. Sad tale.  

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

The Pope spoke in favor of civil union laws.  Does he refer to marriage?  Does he view it as a distinction with a difference, or without?  

What views are there within the gay community regarding the distinction?  Is civil union viewed as indistinguishable from marriage or is use of the term marriage a sin qua non?

I read it as a civil marriage, so by a judge or a non Catholic minister.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Islander said:

I am not surprised. More and  more, this current pope goes out of his way to distance himself from the Gospel of Christ every day. The tragedy is that he is taking millions into hell with his delusions. The last straw for me was when I saw him bow down to a muslim cleric and kiss the quo' ran. That did turn my stomach. So, there he goes sliding fast and with no breaks into perdition. Sad tale.  

I read some gossip (?) about him today, that he and others, many years ago let priests who abused deaf students go without any punishment. It was horrific. So I'm sure he has done what others have done and swept these sins under the rug. He may have some skeletons. But what he did today with mentioning that these gay unions should be accepted and welcomed in to have a family just as the heterosexuals, is okay in my book. I don't agree that these unions between a gay couple is a sure ticket to hell at all. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[Islander]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read some gossip (?) about him today, that he and others, many years ago let priests who abused deaf students go without any punishment. It was horrific. So I'm sure he has done what others have done and swept these sins under the rug. He may have some skeletons. But what he did today with mentioning that these gay unions should be accepted and welcomed in to have a family just as the heterosexuals, is okay in my book. I don't agree that these unions between a gay couple is a sure ticket to hell at all. 

Denial of the truth of God to seek friendship with the world places you on the "wrong side of the tracks". One becomes an enemy to God by seeking friendship with the world (agreeing with the world system/laws/practices that are contrary to the will/word/commandments of the Lord). There are many scriptures in the OT and the NT that clearly denounce homosexuality as a sin. Just like murder, adultery, fornication, anger. They are all sins detestable in the sight of God. And none who practice such, and remains unrepentant, will enter the kingdom of God. That much is clear in scripture. 

Based on catholic doctrine, that church is sunk in a cesspool of false doctrine and idolatry that is condemned by God, in no uncertain terms, in scripture. So, nothing surprises me any more which comes out of Rome. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not sure what you mean...

Are you suggesting we have more revelation about celestial marriage and exaltation than in the 60s?

No.  You may be too young to recall, but back in James Brown's heyday, women were more likely to be housewives than career women.  Now that a family cannot survive on a man's sole income, and now that women outnumber men in college, women are less likely to be doing housewifely chores, and even less likely to be mothers or married.  Which leaves your comment on "the celestial equivalent of being pregnant, changing diapers, feeding hungry mouths, and taking care of skinned knees" less likely to be valid.  Indeed, we may find that a celestial environment is completely different than we expect.

Reminds me of Carol Lynn Pearson's concern that even a hint of celestial polygyny is to be condemned -- when we don't know enough about that mysterious universe to make any judgments.

What gives me pause is the notion that the celestial world is merely a projection of the very flaws and disappointments we hope to escape when we leave this world.  Is the celestial world only an existentialist nightmare -- with a "No Exit" sign?

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Islander said:

Denial of the truth of God to seek friendship with the world places you on the "wrong side of the tracks". One becomes an enemy to God by seeking friendship with the world (agreeing with the world system/laws/practices that are contrary to the will/word/commandments of the Lord). There are many scriptures in the OT and the NT that clearly denounce homosexuality as a sin. Just like murder, adultery, fornication, anger. They are all sins detestable in the sight of God. And none who practice such, and remains unrepentant, will enter the kingdom of God. That much is clear in scripture. 

Based on catholic doctrine, that church is sunk in a cesspool of false doctrine and idolatry that is condemned by God, in no uncertain terms, in scripture. So, nothing surprises me any more which comes out of Rome. 

This is a good article on how the word homosexual was added to the bible and how it was a mistake. https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/#.X5EXrt9MFTs

Edited October 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Pope Francis has befuddled, angered, and frustrated the traditional Catholic community.  Some call him an anti-pope and condemn his elevation as being invalid. Those who appreciate Tradition feel abandoned by the pope and cast into a world unknown where doctrines appear to be cast off and Tradition ignored.  

This current statement will just put more wood on the fire of those Catholics who hunger for the days of Benedict XVI and Jean Paul II.  

The problem is that Francis has spent his time elevating cardinals that think and feel like him while dismantling the works for both Benedict and John Paul. Our Catholic brothers and sisters are praying for God's intervention. They have  rough road ahead of them.

Perhaps it is God who is guiding Pope Francis.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  You may be too young to recall, but back in James Brown's heyday, women were more likely to be housewives than career women.  Now that a family cannot survive on a man's sole income, and now that women outnumber men in college, women are less likely to be doing housewifely chores, and even less likely to be mothers or married.  Which leaves your comment on "the celestial equivalent of being pregnant, changing diapers, feeding hungry mouths, and taking care of skinned knees" less likely to be valid.  Indeed, we may find that a celestial environment is completely different than we expect.

Reminds me of Carol Lynn Pearson's concern that even a hint of celestial polygyny is to be condemned -- when we don't know enough about that mysterious universe to make any judgments.

What gives me pause is the notion that the celestial world is merely a projection of the very flaws and disappointments we hope to escape when we leave this world.  Is the celestial world only an existentialist nightmare -- with a "No Exit" sign?

To me, it doesn't sound like anything I'd like to do, one set of kids is enough for me. I'd rather be an angel and help those on earth. 🙂

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To me, it doesn't sound like anything I'd like to do, one set of kids is enough for me. I'd rather be an angel and help those on earth. 🙂

metoo?

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To me, it doesn't sound like anything I'd like to do, one set of kids is enough for me. I'd rather be an angel and help those on earth. 🙂

I think we had better wait til we get there to decide rather than thinking we see the full picture now.

I personally would rather be home with the kids thinking about the universe while chasing them around.  I was cracking up at those who were stocking up on disposable diapers and worrying about running out when we used the good old cloth ones.  No, not much fun but quite reliable supply wise 

Eight hours a day sitting in an office and dealing with office politics and figuring out who is going after whomever else for the next promotion and how to get them out of the picture is not my idea of a good time. 

 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

To the bold, I feel like our church emphasizes family more than a relationship with God, sorry if this comes off offensive. But honestly I wonder if you put in "relationship with God" vs. "family". Well, I'd bet family would be mentioned more in conference talks than relationship with God. Eternal families and creating your own worlds seem to not be about a relationship with God really. He's there but not as much IMO. Now in an Evangelical church I can definitely see that relationship with God/Jesus being placed far above spouse/family.

I see family and relationship with God as one in the same, because our relationship with God is a family relationship.   What I say below I have posted before (here), but it's relevant again...

When we were studying the Old Testament a couple of years ago, I came across a Jewish tradition regarding the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai.  The tradition is that the Ten Commandments were written on two tablets of stone, with five commandments written on each tablet.  The first tablet was said to contain the five laws related to man’s relationship to God, and the second to contain the five laws related to man’s relationship to his fellow man.   When I read about this tradition, I had to take a look at the first five commandments to see if this idea held true.   The first five commandments are:

1.  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.  (Exo 20:3)
2.  Thou shalt not make any graven image and bow down to it or serve other gods (Exo 20:4)
3.  Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain (Exo 20:7)
4.  Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy (Exo 20:8)

And finally:

     5.  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

The first four commandments are obviously connected with man’s relationship to God, but I was puzzled as to how they considered the fifth commandment, to honor your mother and father, to fit into that idea.  One commentary said the following:

“This Commandment (to honour thy father and thy mother) follows the Sabbath command, because the Sabbath is the source and the guarantor of the family life; and it is among the Commandments engraved on the First Tablet, the laws of piety toward God, because parents stand in the place of God, so far as their children are concerned. Elsewhere in Scripture, the duty to one's parents stands likewise next to the duties towards God (Lev. 19:3)”.

Now regardless of whether the tradition about the dividing of the commandments into these two groups of five is accurate or not, there is a true principle touched upon in this idea that honoring our father and mother has an association to our relationship with God:  The family unit is the model from which we can understand God’s love for us and our relationship to Him. Understanding our relationship to God helps us understand how the commandments are expressions of his love for us.

So this isn't just a Latter-day Saint thing, other faiths seem to get the importance of family too.

[Islander]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is a good article on how the word homosexual was added to the bible and how it was a mistake. https://baptistnews.com/article/my-quest-to-find-the-word-homosexual-in-the-bible/#.X5EXrt9MFTs

These are homosexual apologists. I can read Greek. There are 240 copies (in Greek) of the NT that date from 2nd and 3rd century AD. The word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, for example, has no other meaning than "homosexual". The Apostle Paul knew clearly what he was talking about and he used the same word The KJV in typical early puritan fashion skirts around the term with "abusers of themselves with humanity" but the source text says "homosexual". 

We are not going to agree on this so I suggest we move on to other subjects. This a pretty heated and protracted argument that has been raging for years. The attempts by some to dismiss the terms use in the bible as later additions or mistranslated are trying to ignore the biblical record for political reasons. 

Best,

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To me, it doesn't sound like anything I'd like to do, one set of kids is enough for me. I'd rather be an angel and help those on earth. 🙂

I would love to have several more sets of kids without the health issues I had.  I feel like I missed out on a lot and hardly remember what I did go through. Sleep deprivation really screws with memory. 
 

I do remember how much I really enjoyed discovering who they were and helping them discover the same. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Perhaps it is God who is guiding Pope Francis.

Good to see you being religious.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I would love to have several more sets of kids without the health issues I had.  I feel like I missed out on a lot and hardly remember what I did go through. Sleep deprivation really screws with memory. 
 

I do remember how much I really enjoyed discovering who they were and helping them discover the same. 

Wow, that's cool Calm. I like that idea. There's a lot I could do to improve and maybe it would be nice to have another go at it.  

[Boanerges]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you think that revelation will entail?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not a prophet and have no idea. It is my understanding that the prophets receive revelation the same way the rest of us do, that it's not a sit down face-to-face with God/Jesus in the Holy of Holies. 

I was baptized into the church as a young adult shortly after the priesthood revelation. In those days, and for a long time thereafter, the notion that Blacks had were not as valiant in the pre-earth existence or that they were cursed with the mark of Cain was widely taught. More recently, in the essay on priesthood and from our prophet in the most recent general conference, it has been made very clear that those teachings were false and that they are not doctrine. I'm actually quite glad that Pres. Nelson made this very clear in his Conference address. Nevertheless, I am also reasonably sure I have not heard the end of those teachings and that some old school members still believe and espouse those ideas. 

What I would hope for is a very clear statement from the prophets regarding the acceptance of those who are LGBTQ and their families and the reinforcement of the idea that regardless of their sexual orientation or sin they are still beloved children of loving Heavenly Parents and like all the rest of us sinners, who are also beloved children of loving Heavenly Parents, that they will have the same benefits of grace and mercy through the atonement of Jesus Christ that the rest of us have. In short, I would hope for at least pretty much what Pope Francis said. And it needs to be more than just words on a website, these brothers and sisters, like all brothers and sisters, need to be welcome and feel part of our community. I would not expect a sanction of same sex sealings in temples or even that bishops be required to perform same sex unions. But, as the church recognizes "legal and lawful" marriage, I would hope for a recognition of legal and lawful unions.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Boanerges
Fixed typo

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Perhaps it is God who is guiding Pope Francis.

That is possible, but then this direction would conflict with thousands of years of his direction/teaching/guidance up to this point. To do a 180 degree turn is not completely unheard of, but arguably never done before in this context.

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

To the bold, I feel like our church emphasizes family more than a relationship with God, sorry if this comes off offensive. But honestly I wonder if you put in "relationship with God" vs. "family". Well, I'd bet family would be mentioned more in conference talks than relationship with God. Eternal families and creating your own worlds seem to not be about a relationship with God really. He's there but not as much IMO. Now in an Evangelical church I can definitely see that relationship with God/Jesus being placed far above spouse/family.

Tacenda, you are very seldom, if ever, offensive. I agree that the Church puts a great emphasis on the family; however, church leaders have been pretty clear that our first priority is a relationship with God. I have heard this consistently for as long as I have been a member.  The link I provided is just a quick summary of a number of talks that give evidence of this relationship.