Jump to content

Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws


Recommended Posts

I envision scenes at the time of the Final Judgement — when all truth pertaining to mortality is laid bare and nothing is hid from view — when those who were same sex attracted on earth sorrowfully approach the Church member friends who Ignored the teachings of the prophets and encouraged them to continue acting out on their homosexual impulses against the most solemn counsel of the Lord’s anointed. I imagine these souls lamenting that they wish their member friends who thought they were being kind and charitable when they said they were doing nothing wrong had heeded the warnings of the prophets. They will say that by thinking they were more wise and compassionate than the leaders of the Church their friends inflicted much more harm than good, by leading them away from the safe path that would have led them to greater happiness and fulfillment in eternity. They will say, “why didn’t you realize the prophets were right and why didn’t you understand how short our time on earth really is, especially when compared to eternity, and that no righteous sacrifice is too great to obtain the fulness of glory and joy that might have been ours if we had only been more lovingly and passionately warned that violating the will of God never brings happiness?’ Why is it that in every generation of the Lord’s people there are so many who reject the prophets, thereby laying the groundwork for their own destruction? The answer likely is that the path of least resistance all too often seems the better way to the carnal mind

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, bluebell said:

To be clear, I'm not speaking about gays and lesbians being sealed in temples or anything like that.  I know that some would find peace with nothing less but I don't see it from that perspective.

I think there is already a place at the table for same sex couples in the Church, just as there is a place for members who do not give a tithe of their financial income.  I may be wrong about that, but I think they are still considered to be members in good standing even though they do not qualify for all of the blessings God can bestow.  The vow to be chaste is a temple covenant and not expected from members who do not qualify for temple blessings, as far as I know.  But yes some more clarification on this from our Lord might be helpful.  And everyone is already a part of a family even if they don't have an eternal companion/spouse.  

Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

I agree with all of this.  Now, show me a revelation outlining the will of God concerning homosexuals and what happens to them after they die, and whether they can stay with their companions they had on earth and you may have a point.  But you certainly do not expect anyone to conform their lives to the extent that they make the sacrifices currently asked by church leaders where they are speculating on the will of God.  How many times have Church leaders been wrong in the past about their speculations on God's will concerning this issue in the past in MAJOR ways.  Remember when Church leaders were promising that if gays got married they would no longer be gay is just one major goof up. 

D&C 132 affirms that our relationships will continue after this life only when they are sealed by the power of the priesthood. 

And a man and woman who get married (sexually united) to each other are neither gay or lesbian because that isn't what that kind of union is called.

Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess I am only trying to present the perspective of what it is like to live as a gay person in organized religion.  I hope that my comments have shown everyone that a lot of mainstream religions  pushes gay families away from their religions rather than helps them in their struggles.  It is like being gay and wanting a family becomes this monolithic wall that prevents that person from working within those religions on all the rest of their issues where they fall short of what Christ wants of them.  So they are cut loose from that body of Christ.  I am not arguing what the Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should or shouldn't do.  I am only trying to point out what those policies are doing and the affect that has on a person simply because they are gay.

The good news is, one doesn't need organized religion to come closer to God.  You don't need to belong to any church to seek the path that God wants you to be on.  Unfortunately that understanding is lost on a lot of gay people because they grow up thinking the only path back to God comes through the organized religion they grew up in.  A bigger perspective needs to be taught. The question is. who will teach that message.  It probably won't come from churches that have a narrow view of who should be members and who should be kept out of full fellowship.  

 

Full fellowship isn't the same thing as being qualified for all of the blessings God can bestow.  Everyone who is a member of the Church can have full fellowship with every other member of the Church, and every other person, even if not qualified for temple blessings.

Link to post

Are you following the latest news on the Pope's statement?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/plot-thickens-over-origins-popes-130429572.html

"Questions swirled Thursday about the origins of Pope Francis’ bombshell comments endorsing same-sex civil unions, with all evidence suggesting he made them in a 2019 interview that was never broadcast in its entirety."

and about the filmmaker Evgeny Afineevsky:

"Further muddying the waters is the fact that Afineevsky, when pressed by reporters late Wednesday, said the pope made the comments to him directly, through a translator, but declined to say when."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think one good way to express empathy is to say something like "Yeah, that would be so hard." or "I can see why that would be a difficult struggle."  Etc.  

Yeah it would be hard to know that I would not be able to have the woman who is now my wife continue to be my wife/companion eternally.  That our relationship as husband and wife would end at death if we are not sealed by the power of the priesthood of God.  Which is why it is very important to me that we both be sealed eternally as husband and wife and that I do whatever is needed to be sealed and remain sealed to her.  And I feel so sad knowing that some people will not have that blessing simply because they will not do what they need to do to be sealed to their spouse, even after being told what they need to do.  It is sad, and yet it is a preventable situation as long as each person chooses to be sealed and remain sealed to a spouse by the power of the priesthood of God.  But hey, at least everyone can be a member of God's church and kingdom, even if some do not qualify for temple blessings.  At least we can still have full fellowship with each other.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think one good way to express empathy is to say something like "Yeah, that would be so hard." or "I can see why that would be a difficult struggle."  Etc.  

I think it is incredibly difficult, but how difficult is it to be chaste or virtuous?  Does a single man or woman have it any easier or harder? Do we commiserate with them any more or less than with those that have same sex attraction?

I think we are bending too far backward to think those with SSA have a uniquely difficult life when following Christ. They have a life just like everyone else. They will know joy and sorrow. They will have challenges and they can surmount them. They will fall and need others to help them. They do not need or want our rejection or ostracization. We are under the same commandment to love them as with all of God's children.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's not correct.  Any baptized member of the church is expected to live the law of chastity.  By not doing so a member may be subject to formal or informal church discipline (are those the correct terms now?)

CFR.  As far as I know the vow to be chaste is not a requirement for baptism, which is all that is required to become a full-fledged member of the Church. It is taught that we should be chaste because we are taught that we should strive to attain temple blessings, but if a member of the Church is unchaste they will not be excommunicated as a member, only taught that he or she should strive to be chaste.

edited to add: I do agree that a member who has made that temple covenant to be chaste may be excommunicated for breaking that vow, but not a member who has not made that vow, which as far as I know and remember is not made at baptism.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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.

I have read those commandments many many times before of course., but for some reason I saw #1- that first commandment differently this time.  

" Thou shalt have no other gods before me.  (Exo 20:3)"

I am not sure about the translation- but if the Hebrew actually says what the English implies- and I looked it up in several translations and they all say the same thing - the Lord is not saying that He is the "only" God or even the "One True" God but that we should have no other Gods- indicating that there ARE other Gods- before him.  One translation speaks of "strange Gods" which, I think makes my case even stronger.

To me that implies what we already believe - that there ARE other Gods- but HE is OUR God- the only one to whom we pray, worship, and seek succor in times of difficulty.

Just as there are other "parents" in the world, there may be other Gods but they are not OUR GOD, similar to the way that our individual parents are OUR parents.

So right there, in that first commandment, the family relationship is assumed.

I love our church!  Where else could you find a Christian church where that could even be thought much less taught?

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

D&C 132 affirms that our relationships will continue after this life only when they are sealed by the power of the priesthood. 

And a man and woman who get married (sexually united) to each other are neither gay or lesbian because that isn't what that kind of union is called.

But he does not believe that, so it is a useless assertion.

Link to post
12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But he does not believe that, so it is a useless assertion.

I like to tell the truth even if other people do not believe me.  For some reason I still feel good when I do that.

Link to post
18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Not apostasy, but heresy.

Traditional "Catholics" who declare that this is apostasy, that the chair of St. Peter is vacant (sedavacantists), that there is no pope, are no longer Catholic in my eyes. The papacy is absolutely fundamental to Roman Catholicism. There can be heretical popes. There can be popes who do terrible things. But there always was and always will be a pope. Deny the papacy and you are a protestant (or an Eastern Orthodox). They can try to twist themselves into whatever logical knots they want, but Francis is a duly and validly elected pope. Right or wrong, he is pope.

There has been some discussion within some Catholic (I think it was a bishop or archbishop) that think that Pope Francis was invalidly voted in as pope. It was rather involved and I did not dwell on the article long enough to try and grasp all that was stated. Have you heard of this?  

I read Crises almost every day. I find the vast majority of the articles to be excellent. The one I read today was entitled, "Where Francis Leads, We Can't Follow".   The comment section gives me a window into how some of the Traditional Catholics feel, but I recognize that this is a small subset of the Body.  

Pope Francis does seem to create a lot of confusion for the Church. He appears to speak off the cuff so often and conflicts with Catholic doctrine just as often that he keeps many Catholics feel less stable.  

What I found most strange is why he chose now to talk about this subject?  Even as I write this I have to remember this was the result of a documentary rather than a planned event where Francis was talking to the world. 

God's continued blessing upon you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But the only way "further revelation on the issue" could lead to the wished-for "outcome" ("LGBTQ people" remaining in full fellowship in the Church while simultaneously living "authentically" ("engaging in homosexual activity" and "entering into a same-sex marriage")) would be for that revelation completely reverse and upend the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity (re: same-sex behavior), same-sex marriage, the Proclamation, and so on.  

I see that as having virtually no chance of happening.  Instead, if there were further revelation on the issue, I would expect it to ratify and affirm the Law of Chastity and the Church's teachings about marriage.

We'll see, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

what about if gay people weren't allowed to engage in homosexuality until they are legally married, just like non homosexuals aren't allowed to engage in any sexual activity of any kind until they are married? If gay people are going to fixed in the next life, why the policies against them here? the church is just creating its own problems now and hereafter. Imagine being if you were a 15 year old gay youth or a 35 year old gay investigator and were told that sorry, you can't join the Church until you disavow homosexuality of any kind for this life, why would you want anything to do with the church in the next? I can only imagine standing before God someday and saying, sorry I would like to have joined your Church but your handbook wouldn't let me. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think it is incredibly difficult, but how difficult is it to be chaste or virtuous?  Does a single man or woman have it any easier or harder? Do we commiserate with them any more or less than with those that have same sex attraction?

I think we are bending too far backward to think those with SSA have a uniquely difficult life when following Christ. They have a life just like everyone else. They will know joy and sorrow. They will have challenges and they can surmount them. They will fall and need others to help them. They do not need or want our rejection or ostracization. We are under the same commandment to love them as with all of God's children.  

for them though in the church "falling" is different. You can't do anything, even non sexual with another gay person, i.e. hold hands, hug, kiss, straight people can do that without thinking they need to run to their bishops. It's all or nothing for gay people in the church, you are ither non sexual and active or you aren't and you are out. Straight people don't have that, it's the middle road, sexual wise

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have read those commandments many many times before of course., but for some reason I saw #1- that first commandment differently this time.  

" Thou shalt have no other gods before me.  (Exo 20:3)"

I am not sure about the translation- but if the Hebrew actually says what the English implies- and I looked it up in several translations and they all say the same thing - the Lord is not saying that He is the "only" God or even the "One True" God but that we should have no other Gods- indicating that there ARE other Gods- before him.  One translation speaks of "strange Gods" which, I think makes my case even stronger.

To me that implies what we already believe - that there ARE other Gods- but HE is OUR God- the only one to whom we pray, worship, and seek succor in times of difficulty.

Just as there are other "parents" in the world, there may be other Gods but they are not OUR GOD, similar to the way that our individual parents are OUR parents.

So right there, in that first commandment, the family relationship is assumed.

I love our church!  Where else could you find a Christian church where that could even be thought much less taught?

God is an interesting word.  Probably one of the the most interesting words I know.  It has so many meanings/definitions and yet each one refers to the same kind of thing... the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

We know and are taught to refer to our Father in heaven as God while knowing there are many other persons who are the same kind of being he is... and that even we, ourselves, as his children, are the same kind of being he is.

We also know and are taught that while we refer to our Father in heaven as God that we have many other Fathers besides him, since a grand and great grand Father is also considered a Father no matter how great or grand he may be.

So we have many our Fathers who are God, and many Mothers who are God, and many brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and cousins who are also God, too. 

And yet when we say God we most often are referring to only 1 particular person, only 1 particular Father, even though deep down we know there are many other persons... even an endless number of persons... who are the same kind of being he is.

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Ahab said:
Quote

That's not correct.  Any baptized member of the church is expected to live the law of chastity.  By not doing so a member may be subject to formal or informal church discipline (are those the correct terms now?)

CFR.  As far as I know the vow to be chaste is not a requirement for baptism, which is all that is required to become a full-fledged member of the Church. It is taught that we should be chaste because we are taught that we should strive to attain temple blessings, but if a member of the Church is unchaste they will not be excommunicated as a member, only taught that he or she should strive to be chaste.

edited to add: I do agree that a member who has made that temple covenant to be chaste may be excommunicated for breaking that vow, but not a member who has not made that vow, which as far as I know and remember is not made at baptism.

1. From the "Baptismal Interview Questions" (emphasis added) :

Quote

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

2. Do you believe that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?

4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? Have you ever committed a homosexual transgression?

5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?

  • The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between one man and one woman.
  • The law of tithing.
  • The Word of Wisdom.
  • The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to others.

6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

2. The Law of Chastity is addressed in "For the Strength of Youth":

Quote

The Lord’s standard regarding sexual purity is clear and unchanging. Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage.

3. From chapter 39 of the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

There is no separate standard of sexual purity for people who have not been to the temple.  The Law of Chastity applies to all members of the Church.

And there are plenty of commandments that will not, if violated, result in excommunication.  That doesn't mean that we are not obligated to follow them.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Certainly.  Plainly.  Unequivocally.

I think the issue needs to be boiled down further still, to the definition of "family" and "marriage."  How does God define and apply these things?

The issue also needs to be addressed via the Law of Chastity.  As Elder Ballard put it: "We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside of marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity."

Everyone has the same access to the blessings of the Gospel.

Yes.

Wildly, flagrantly false.

You are bearing false witness against us.  Big time.  I hope in time you will stop doing this.

"It" being a flagrant and deliberate false statement.

In the end, we all must do what we think is right.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then rebelling against it is not, cannot be, "better."

I think the Gospel of Jesus Christ encourages obedience to God.  That is, we must submit ourselves to His righteousness, rather than go about trying to fabricate our own version of it.  From Romans 10:

This, I think, typifies the conflict between A) the Restored Gospel, and B) well-intentioned, but nevertheless fundamentally misguided, notions about same-sex marriage.

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

He also said:

I am once again reminded of the response the Savior received to his "Bread of Life" sermon, as recorded in John 6.  He said things that were not not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I think we need to reconcile ourselves to that.  To the idea that following Christ is not going to be popular.  That listening to His servants is not going to be popular.  

I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.  Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.  Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  And He asks us - commands us, actually - to follow Him in His unpopular ways.

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  

Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World (and even some members of the Church) to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are, I think, not surprising.  To the contrary, they are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.

Not sure what this means.  Families are welcome to attend.

They're not.  You are bearing false witness against us.  Again.

Well, "families" don't hold callings in the Church.  Individuals do.  And holding a calling is a privilege, and requires some measure of worthiness and obedience to the laws and commandments of the Gospel.  A person who is regularly violating the Law of Chastity, for example, is choosing to not live in such a way as to facilitate having a calling, holding a Temple Recommend, and so on.

You are bearing false witness against us.

You are bearing false witness against us.

Well, I'm willing to listen.  What do you think the Church should do that it is not now doing?  And why?

Thanks,

-Smac

So you are trying to tell me that a same sex marriage is perfectly ok in the Church and a person can be an active, participating member  of the ward in such a family.  They can hold callings and are treated just like everyone else.  Good to know.

 

But we both know that is not true and you know that is exactly what I was talking about.  The Pope on the other hand seems to be saying that civil unions for gays would be something he supports.  Not hearing that from any Church leader.  maybe I missed the memo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

In the proclamation on the family we learn that certain parts of us are eternal (like our sex--which the PoF mistakenly refers to as gender) and are not meant to be messed with or changed.  But you seem to be saying that while our sex is eternal and an innate part of ourselves that cannot be changed and should not be wished to be changed, our sexual orientation is something that we need to be ready to jettison in heaven so that we can become like our Savior.  

According to our doctrine, it is not possible to hold too strongly to our sex but we can hold to strongly to our sexual orientation?  Am I understanding your correctly? 

I am saying that we can hold too strongly to any single aspect of our identity, eternal and otherwise. We can hold too strongly to our identity as a man or woman just as we can our orientation, to the point of making it a barrier to our relationship with God. In this case, identity is self-assigned, and we need to be ready to jettison any false notions about biological sex and sexual orientation.

The proclamation serves as general, doctrinally based starting point. The mistake would be to ignore the clarification that biological sex at birth is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. In this case, identity is assigned by God. Of course, we can find instances of flawed translation of identity between estates, which God will thankfully restore properly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. From the "Baptismal Interview Questions" (emphasis added) :

2. The Law of Chastity is addressed in "For the Strength of Youth":

3. From chapter 39 of the Gospel Principles manual:

There is no separate standard of sexual purity for people who have not been to the temple.  The Law of Chastity applies to all members of the Church.

And there are plenty of commandments that will not, if violated, result in excommunication.  That doesn't mean that we are not obligated to follow them.

Thanks,

-Smac

That was my main point.  Every member of the Church has a seat at the table as far as the Church, itself, is concerned regardless of which blessings or how many blessings individual members are entitled to, as members of the Church.

If someone gets excommunicated from the Church, though, or decides to withdraw his or her membership status, then of course that person no longer has or simply does not have a seat at the table which is set for all of the members.

Some members do have more blessings than other members, at particular points in time, but at some point it is possible for all members to receive every blessing that is available to members of the Church.  For everyone with a seat at that table.

edited to add: the "obligation" (as you call it) to obey God is applicable only in regards to qualifying for particular blessings from God, since every blessing is predicated upon some "law" and obeying that law, but we do not vow or covenant to obey particular laws until we actually vow or covenant to obey them.  To say we are "willing" to obey laws of God, in general, doesn't necessary mean we are making a vow or covenant to obey a particular law.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
14 minutes ago, Duncan said:
Quote

Okay.  But the only way "further revelation on the issue" could lead to the wished-for "outcome" ("LGBTQ people" remaining in full fellowship in the Church while simultaneously living "authentically" ("engaging in homosexual activity" and "entering into a same-sex marriage")) would be for that revelation completely reverse and upend the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity (re: same-sex behavior), same-sex marriage, the Proclamation, and so on.  

I see that as having virtually no chance of happening.  Instead, if there were further revelation on the issue, I would expect it to ratify and affirm the Law of Chastity and the Church's teachings about marriage.

what about if gay people weren't allowed to engage in homosexuality until they are legally married, just like non homosexuals aren't allowed to engage in any sexual activity of any kind until they are married? 

Homosexual behavior is, in and of itself, a violation of the Law of Chastity.  Whether it legal under secular law does not matter.  Whether it occurs within a same-sex marriage does not matter.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If gay people are going to fixed in the next life, why the policies against them here?

I don't understand your question.  

And there are no "policies against gay people."  Everyone is prohibited from engaging in same-sex behavior.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the church is just creating its own problems now and hereafter.

As Jesus did in John 6?

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Imagine being if you were a 15 year old gay youth or a 35 year old gay investigator and were told that sorry, you can't join the Church until you disavow homosexuality of any kind for this life, why would you want anything to do with the church in the next?

A few thoughts:

First, I hope I would categorize myself, above all else, by my sexual preference.  I am, first and foremost, a child of God.  A son of God.

Second, I would hope I would join the Church because I have studied and prayed about, received a confirmation from the Holy Spirit that it is "true," and decided to change myself and my behaviors so as to be more obedient to the commandments of God.

Third, I would know about the Law of Chastity ahead of time, including the Church's teachings about homosexual attraction, homosexual behavior, and same-sex marriage.  It's rather hard to miss such things in this day and age.  I would hope I would seek to understand and contextualize the Law of Chastity, understand its purpose and parameters, and make a considered and informed decision to live in accordance with it.

Fourth, I would look to others in the Church who are situated in ways similar to me, and find ways to have a meaningful, beautiful, fulfilling and contributing life.

Fifth, I would look to the promises given in scriptures, which speak of us being "joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17), of "good and faithful servants" being made "ruler{s} over many things" (Matt. 25:21), and that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (1 Cor. 2:9).  "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."  (Psalm 82:6)

I would also look to the counsel given by modern prophets and apostles:

 

  • "{A}ll people who have lived on the earth can have an equal opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel and the ordinances of salvation so they can inherit a place in the highest degree of celestial glory."  (Gospel Principles, Ch. 46)
  • "As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we care about all of God’s children who now live or who have ever lived upon the earth. 'Our message,' as stated by the First Presidency in 1978, 'is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father.'"  (James E. Faust, The Restoration of All Things, April 2006 General Conference)
  • "Jesus Christ lived and exemplified the heavenly life, that the Father desires all of his children to live. ... All of God’s children are branches on the vine; all have the opportunity to partake of the life, example, and commandments of Jesus Christ and to become like him."  (Bernard P. Brockbank, God’s Way to Eternal Life, October 1973 General Conference)
  • "Heavenly Father has made each of us unique. No two of us have exactly the same experiences. No two families are alike. So it is not surprising that advice about how to choose happiness in family life is hard to give. Yet a loving Heavenly Father has set the same path to happiness for all of His children. Whatever our personal characteristics or whatever will be our experiences, there is but one plan of happiness. That plan is to follow all the commandments of God."  (Henry B. Eyring, To My Grandchildren, October 2013 General Conference)
  • “The Church provides the organization and means for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all of God’s children. It provides the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation to all who are worthy and willing to accept them.”  (Handbook 2, 1.1.5)
  • "{T}he very purpose of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints— {is} to invite, encourage, and assist all of God’s children, both living and dead, to come to Christ and “lay hold upon every good gift” (Moro. 10:30), that 'ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel' (3 Ne. 30:2)."  (Alexander B. Morrison, The Dawning of a New Day in Africa, October 1987 General Conference)
  • "To all of God’s children, either able to hear or deaf to mortal sound, He offers this reward: 'Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live.' (Isa. 55:3.)"  (Russell M. Nelson, Listen to Learn, April 1991 General Conference)
  • "My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children."  (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Pride and the Priesthood, October 2010 General Conference)
  • "Eternal justice requires that all of God’s children have adequate opportunity to hear and receive the gospel message. Christ taught, 'And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.' (Matt. 24:14.)"  (David B. Haight, A Call to Serve, October 1988 General Conference)
  • "Oh, yes, brothers and sisters; we can feel the Savior’s touch, and we can help others feel that divine touch. We can bless each other by reaching out to the wayward youth, the inactive adult, the widowed, the aged, the sick, and to all of God’s children everywhere, member and nonmember of the Church alike."  (M. Russell Ballard, The Savior's Touch, October 1980 General Conference)
  • "The Church is engaged in the greatest work in all the world—saving the souls of our Father’s children. It is important that each member know his or her duties and be dedicated and committed in carrying them out in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord. It is important that all concerned have vision of the total job to be done and his or her role with respect thereto. It is important that we marshall all the resources and get them working together in a correlated way so the Church can reach its full potential in helping the Lord bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Our goal is perfection for all of God’s children who will listen, accept, and live the gospel."  (William H. Bennett, Our Goal is Perfection, October 1976 General Conference)

Sixth, I would remind myself that in the Restored Gospel we believe in the endurance of existence.  That is, we lived before we came here, and will continue to exist after we "die" after having lived in this world.  This life is only a miniscule blip in the eternal scheme of things.  This, in my view, substantially mitigates blinkered assumptions about God being "cruel" or whatnot.  If this life were all there is, then letting lives be prematurely snuffed out by a tsunami might allow you to have a point.  But if this life is not all there is, then the fleeting nature of suffering is startling when contrasted with the enduring joys and beauties which will be given us in the kingdoms of glory that await us.

Seventh, we believe that God is "perfect."  I don't think we can fully comprehend what this means, but we can approximate it to some extent.  We can conceive of things like kindness and mercy and benevolence and parental love.  We can then extrapolate that God has these attributes.  This, in my view, undermines blinkered, ignorant suppositions about God being some sort of malicious, capricious, arbitrary, Zeus-like jerk.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

Eighth, we believe that we have a special relationship with God.  All other things are His creation, but we are emphatically His children.  Again, we can extrapolate a bit.  Most of us can conceptualize of the difference between how a parent feels about a possession or a pet or whatnot, and how a parent feels about a child.  This, in my view, goes a long way in helping us understand why God treats humanity differently than He treats everything else.  We have sentience in ways that His other creations do not.  We have agency in ways His other creations do not.  We will be held accountable for our actions in ways His other creations will not.  We have the potential to progress in ways His other creations do not.  We therefore have responsibilities in ways His other creations do not.  "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

Ninth, we believe that God has a a plan for us, one that involves "improvement and progression."  Such a plan apparently requires "opposition in all things."  And as a consequence of that opposition comes, to some extent, suffering.  Some of that suffering comes in the form of "chastening" from God.  "And my people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer."  But such suffering is not for eternity, and not beyond our ability to endure.  And to the extent what we suffer because of wickedness or injustice or even seemingly random happenstance, God will make all things right.  "My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes."  "For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning."  "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

Tenth, I would hope I would endure to the end, and not succumb to the mockery and derision of the World.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I can only imagine standing before God someday and saying, sorry I would like to have joined your Church but your handbook wouldn't let me. 

That won't happen.  Everyone can join the Church, and is invited to.  The invitation, though, isn't a "Come as you are, and feel free to stay that way" sort of thing.  Rather, we are commanded to put of the "natural man."  To change.  To repent.  To obey the commandments.  To make ourselves better.  As Moroni so aptly put it:

Quote

30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.
31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled.
32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

Nothing in there about being hindered by a handbook.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, california boy said:

So you are trying to tell me that a same sex marriage is perfectly ok in the Churchand a person can be an active, participating member  of the ward in such a family.  They can hold callings and are treated just like everyone else.  Good to know.

You continue to misrepresent and distort what we are saying.  Again, I hope you will in time stop doing this.

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

But we both know that is not true and you know that is exactly what I was talking about.  

No.

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Pope on the other hand seems to be saying that civil unions for gays would be something he supports.  Not hearing that from any Church leader.  maybe I missed the memo.

Maybe you missed the memo on the Utah Compromise as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
21 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.

Or.... perhaps Pope Francis’s words and actions ARE the divine intervention for which others have already prayed....

  • Like 2
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Or.... perhaps Pope Francis’s words and actions ARE the divine intervention for which others have already prayed....

Sure, if civil unions are all people want.  God has something better than that though through the power of his priesthood.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...