Jump to content

Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

He most certainly did not say the part I bolded. He was speaking of secular law, not religious doctrine. Nothing at all has changed in Catholic doctrine because of his statement.

Maybe I should ask what you think the Pope's message was about?  Do you think that he is saying that those in civil union relationships would be welcomed in the Catholic Church?  Certainly the structure of the Catholic Church is much different than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I am not suggesting that those civil unions would be acceptable in Catholic clergy positions.  

None of these questions within either church is about doctrine.  It is about how those families are welcomed into the church.

Link to post
1 hour 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.  

I think it's the difference between facing that trial of celibacy and a lack of romantic companionship with the hope that the trial could end during mortality and facing that trial knowing that there is no hope of it ending during mortality (and depending on the person's perspective, believing it won't end after they die either).

I think that trials with hope of an end are easier to endure than trials with no hope of an end.  Hope is an amazing thing.

And yes, i realize that there are lots of trials that endure for the length of mortality.  I'm specifically and solely comparing heterosexual members of the church and homosexual members as it pertains to desires for romantic companionship and marriage/family.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

It seems pretty obvious though that sexual orientation is assigned by God as well.  Or at least that people have no control over it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

No.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

It is comments like this that just push me further away from ever considering the Church in my life ever again.  You know exactly what I am talking about yet you accuse me of misrepresenting and distorting very real distinctions that I see in the Church. 

The Utah Compromise has NOTHING to do with how gay couples are treated or looked upon within the Church  itself.  

Maybe instead of constantly calling me a liar, you could explain exactly what involvement a gay couple and their children can have in a ward. Are they allowed to do more than to sit in the pew and keep their mouths shut?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

People seem to be holding on pretty strongly to their identity as a man or a woman.  Can you imagine the hue and cry if the Church said that  only females will be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom.  But if you are male, don't worry, you will magically be turned into a female if you are worthy.

 

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

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.

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

I don't understand your question.  

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

As Jesus did in John 6?

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.

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:

Nothing in there about being hindered by a handbook.

Thanks,

-Smac

"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."

yet

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

how can there be no policies yet homosexuality is against a policy/law that supposedly doesn't exist?

I would be interested to hear what Jesus would say to a gay person,  I'd be down for that zoom meeting.

can you imagine if people treated us the same way President Oaks said we should treat gay people

"feel free to visit my home, but be aware that I can't tolerate any open mormon behavior. You can visit but don't expect stay for an extended period of time.I may not feel comfortable introducing you to my friends"

"I can tolerate what you in the privacy of your own home, but do not try to ever talk to me about it"

"I am doing all I can to make Mormon sealings illegal. You have no right to marry someone you love just because you are Mormon. This is for the good of society. I love everyone"

How is a 15 year old supposed to know all that? how would a gay person from 300 years know that? Do they preach against homosexuality, "I know God made that way for some unknown reason, that has never been revealed, but try to change, nobody has ever been totally non sexual in mortality, but try anyways"

Where does homosexuality fit into the plan? why did God put in there, unless it comes from somewhere else? 

1) does the Church look upon gay people beyond their sexual preference. because it seems to me that it doesn't. The Church works for people, unless you're gay

2) I think we'd agree on that

3) again, if you're gay? I am reading on reddit someone asked they are gay can they join the church and the answer is, well, no, pick another church it would be better for you in the long run. if you don't find out it's true then God will deal with you in the next life, if you do find out it's true, then expect to be non sexual in this life and maybe in the next one as well but nothing has been revealed

4) do people talk about their sexuality at church?! I would hope not!

5) and how does being gay fit into that? 

6) if this isn't all there is, again why alienate people who wouldn't want anything to do with us in the next life? Jesus didn't say to people depart from me, in John 6, they decided to walk no more with him, why are we giving reasons to people to walk no more with Jesus?

7)I think we would all agree with that, he sees sexuality differently than we do

I would agree with 8-10

never say never in a Church led by revelation

  • Like 2
Link to post
14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems pretty obvious though that sexual orientation is assigned by God as well.  Or at least that people have no control over it.

I see those as two different things, with a lot of play in what either means, depending on which estate we are discussing. In any case, i believe love and caring are fundamental in dealing with our circumstances and choices, and with those of all God's children no matter what they believe.

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

People seem to be holding on pretty strongly to their identity as a man or a woman.  Can you imagine the hue and cry if the Church said that  only females will be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom.  But if you are male, don't worry, you will magically be turned into a female if you are worthy.

"Pretty" strong is not "excessively" or 'harmfully" strong which is chauvinism of both types.

And how about if you're a aphenophile and will be magically turned into a plutophobe?

Link to post
58 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is comments like this that just push me further away from ever considering the Church in my life ever again.  You know exactly what I am talking about yet you accuse me of misrepresenting and distorting very real distinctions that I see in the Church. 

The Utah Compromise has NOTHING to do with how gay couples are treated or looked upon within the Church  itself.  

Maybe instead of constantly calling me a liar, you could explain exactly what involvement a gay couple and their children can have in a ward. Are they allowed to do more than to sit in the pew and keep their mouths shut?

I'll do that for you.  As a man who continues to have sexual relations with another man you will be allowed to attend at all Church meetings and hold any calling unless the meeting or calling requires that you hold a temple recommend or priesthood ordination.

Note that there is a distinction between identifying yourself as "gay" and actively having sexual relations with another man.  And it makes no difference if you are legally married to him or not.

The children under your stewardship (i refuse to call them "your" children unless they are biologically yours) will also be allowed to attend all Church meetings unless they require a temple recommend and they don't have one, and whether or not any male children under your stewardship will hold a calling that requires priesthood ordination will depend on how well they follow our Lord's guidelines and commandments.  They may even though you may not.

We expect no more from you than from anyone else.  The same rules and laws apply to everyone.  God doesn't respect anyone for who they are as a person but will give us some respect if we behave ourselves as he wants us to behave.

Link to post
32 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is comments like this that just push me further away from ever considering the Church in my life ever again.  

You must do what you think is right.  

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

You know exactly what I am talking about yet you accuse me of misrepresenting and distorting very real distinctions that I see in the Church. 

You are misrepresenting us.  Over and over and over again.

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Utah Compromise has NOTHING to do with how gay couples are treated or looked upon within the Church  itself.  

The Utah Compromise represented a a good faith effort at compromise and concession between various parties of differing political / social / cultural / religious ideologies as pertaining to legal protections for homosexuals.

And the Church of Jesus Christ publicly endorsed and supported it.

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe instead of constantly calling me a liar,

You are misrepresenting us.  Over and over and over again.

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

you could explain exactly what involvement a gay couple and their children can have in a ward.

Their children can be 100% involved.  The gay couple will be able to attend Church meetings, but will necessarily be circumscribed in some aspects of their participation.  No temple recommend, for example.

You know all this, so your request for an explanation seems odd.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe I should ask what you think the Pope's message was about?  Do you think that he is saying that those in civil union relationships would be welcomed in the Catholic Church?  Certainly the structure of the Catholic Church is much different than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I am not suggesting that those civil unions would be acceptable in Catholic clergy positions.  

None of these questions within either church is about doctrine.  It is about how those families are welcomed into the church.

Obviously I'm just going off of a couple of sentences from Pope Francis, and I don't know what his in-depth thoughts are, so I'm just looking at what he said and what Catholic doctrine is.

It appears to me that he is saying that gay couples should have some sort of secular legal protections similar to marriage. From a secular perspective, civil union vs. marriage is probably a difference without a distinction. In Catholic doctrine, marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, like all the other sacraments (ordinances in LDS speak), and it is for a man and woman. It is not required for salvation -- in fact, those who choose celibacy are honored and celebrated for their choice (priests, bishops, monks, nuns, etc).

Your question about how those in civil unions would be "welcomed" needs to be more specific. What do you mean by "welcomed"? Is it how parishioners would treat the couple? Or is it how the couple would be able to formally participate?

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Obviously I'm just going off of a couple of sentences from Pope Francis, and I don't know what his in-depth thoughts are, so I'm just looking at what he said and what Catholic doctrine is.

It appears to me that he is saying that gay couples should have some sort of secular legal protections similar to marriage. From a secular perspective, civil union vs. marriage is probably a distinction. In Catholic doctrine, marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, like all the other sacraments (ordinances in LDS speak), and it is for a man and woman. It is not required for salvation -- in fact, those who choose celibacy are honored and celebrated for their choice (priests, bishops, monks, nuns, etc).

Your question about how those in civil unions would be "welcomed" needs to be more specific. What do you mean by "welcomed"? Is it how parishioners would treat the couple? Or is it how the couple would be able to formally participate?

Thanks for your answer.  My question was about both things.  Could they take the sacrament?  Would they be singled out separately from how they would be able to participate in the service?  Would the parishioners treat a gay couple differently?

Partly why I ask this is I know quite a few former Catholics that are gay.  They felt like the church didn't want anything to do with them once they found out they were gay.  Has that changed?

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

"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."

yet

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

Yes.

I don't understand the "yet."  Everyone is prohibited from engaging in same-sex behavior.  

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

how can there be no policies yet homosexuality is against a policy/law that supposedly doesn't exist?

There are no policies against gay people.  A gay person is held to the same behavioral and religious standards as everyone else.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I would be interested to hear what Jesus would say to a gay person,  I'd be down for that zoom meeting.

I think He would express love to them, and tell them to have faith, keep the commandments, and so on.  

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

can you imagine if people treated us the same way President Oaks said we should treat gay people

"feel free to visit my home, but be aware that I can't tolerate any open mormon behavior. You can visit but don't expect stay for an extended period of time.I may not feel comfortable introducing you to my friends"

You are imputing these words to President Oaks.  You put these words in quotation marks.  You are characterizing them as something President Oaks has "said" about how "we should treat gay people."

Where did he say this?  CFR, please.

I suspect you are making a false claim here.  I hope I am wrong.

It looks like you are paraphrasing/plagiarizing this Facebook post.  Are you?

From that post:

Quote

How would it feel if everyone treated Mormons the way Elder Oaks suggests treating LGBT people? 
...
Feel free to visit my home, but be aware that I can't tolerate any openly Mormon behavior. You can visit but don't expect to stay for an extended period. I may not feel comfortable introducing you to my friends. Just pretend you are not Mormon while in my home or when you are with me. 

Well?

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

"I can tolerate what you in the privacy of your own home, but do not try to ever talk to me about it"

Again, you are plagiarizing this from the above FB post.  

Not only are you not attributing this content to its (anonymous author), the anonymous author is falsely attributing these statements to President Oaks.

It's Fake Quote Inception!

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

"I am doing all I can to make Mormon sealings illegal. You have no right to marry someone you love just because you are Mormon. This is for the good of society. I love everyone"

Again, CFR.  Where are you getting this crapola?

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

How is a 15 year old supposed to know all that?

Know all what?  The fabricated quotes you are cribbing from an anonymous Facebook post?  Which quotes are in turn speciously attributed to Pres. Oaks?

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

1) does the Church look upon gay people beyond their sexual preference. because it seems to me that it doesn't.

It seems to me that it does.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

The Church works for people, unless you're gay

Not so.  There are plenty of gay people for whom the Church "works."

1 hour ago, Duncan said:
Quote

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.

3) again, if you're gay? I am reading on reddit someone asked they are gay can they join the church and the answer is, well, no, pick another church it would be better for you in the long run.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of people who are only too happy to presume to speak for us, to tell us what we think and believe, to tell others what we think and believe.  And in doing so they end up characterizing the Church in horrible, hateful ways.  

If I was thinking of joining Judaism or Catholicism or Islam, I would not go to Reddit and ask a bunch of zealous opponents and critics of those religions for advice.  That would be foolish.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:
Quote

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.

4) do people talk about their sexuality at church?! I would hope not!

"Situated in ways similar to me" can mean all sorts of things.  Yes, that may be sexual orientation.  Or it could be someone who is divorced, or never married, or asexual, or for other reasons may be precluded from getting married and having sex.  There are all sorts of ways unmarried, celibate persons can lead meaningful, beautiful, fulfilling lives.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:
Quote

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)

5) and how does being gay fit into that? 

I reject the premise ("being gay").  Sexual orientation is not a state of being.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:
Quote

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.

6) if this isn't all there is, again why alienate people who wouldn't want anything to do with us in the next life?

I don't understand the question.

Jesus "alienated" people in John 6.  Why do you think he did that?

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Jesus didn't say to people depart from me, in John 6,

And the Church doesn't say "depart," either.  We invite all to come unto Christ.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

they decided to walk no more with him,

Yep.  They decided.  That's rather my point.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

why are we giving reasons to people to walk no more with Jesus?

Did Jesus give "reasons to people to walk no more with {him}" in John 6?

1 hour ago, Duncan said:
Quote

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."

7)I think we would all agree with that, he sees sexuality differently than we do

And He has told us some portion of how He "sees sexuality."  Hence we have the Law of Chastity.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I would agree with 8-10

I'm glad to hear it.  

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

never say never in a Church led by revelation

William G. Nelson reported the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as saying the following: "I will give you a key that will never rust — if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

I'll stick with the Brethren, but I think we can make some fairly reasoned and reasonable assessments about the likelihood of the Lord issuing a revelation that legitimizes same-sex behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you hold this same standard to heterosexual couples who choose to adopt? That their adopted children are not their children and you would refuse to call the adopted child their child?

Yes, although I will admit I will also call them their children if they have been sealed to those children.  So in my perspective children belong to parents who biologically reproduced themselves to make them or were later sealed to them.

I tend to think with an eternal perspective rather than only in terms of this world as things have been done and allowed by men who have not done things as God has done or would do them.  The laws of mortal men are valid only in mortal life.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

Yep.

I think that it is established that the church discriminates against gay people, if you want to see it that way.   Pick anything the church regards as "sinful" and yes they will discriminate against it.  Even pride is considered enmity toward God

This is not exactly news.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

"Pretty" strong is not "excessively" or 'harmfully" strong which is chauvinism of both types.

I guess you didn't want to answer the question on how you would feel if you had to be changed to female to enter the Celestial Kingdom.  I would like your thoughts on that question if you feel like sharing.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And how about if you're a aphenophile and will be magically turned into a plutophobe?

I hope you don't really expect me to answer this question.  I didn't even know there was such a thing as a fear of small planets.  And certainly have no idea what that has to do with what we are talking about.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your answer.  My question was about both things.  Could they take the sacrament?  Would they be singled out separately from how they would be able to participate in the service?  Would the parishioners treat a gay couple differently?

Partly why I ask this is I know quite a few former Catholics that are gay.  They felt like the church didn't want anything to do with them once they found out they were gay.  Has that changed?

One difficulty in nailing down what would happen in the Catholic Church is the enormous size, which means there can and is a lot of variation between parishes. This can be compounded by the fact that you get to choose where you go, so those with similar preferences end up at the same parishes. For example, I vastly prefer the traditional Latin liturgy, so I go to a parish that exclusively celebrates that. Catholics with a more liberal view would go to a parish with a more liberal priest which would then have more liberal sermons, views on the liturgy, etc. Same with conservatives, same with any other type of view.

So, as far as how a gay couple would be treated by the parishioners and priest is going to depend on what type of parish the couple chooses to attend. The Catholic position is that homosexual behavior is a sin, so most parishes would be uncomfortable with a gay couple acting like a couple (showing affection, etc). I would, however, not be surprised at all to find parishes that didn't care about open affection.

Engaging in homosexual acts is considered a mortal sin, and those in a state of mortal sin are unable to receive communion and other sacraments/ordinances.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, although I will admit I will also call them their children if they have been sealed to those children.  So in my perspective children belong to parents who biologically reproduced themselves to make them or were later sealed to them.

I tend to think with an eternal perspective rather than only in terms of this world as things have been done and allowed by men who have not done things as God has done or would do them.  The laws of mortal men are valid only in mortal life.

So, a faithful Catholic couple wants to do their best to help lessen abortions. They work with an organizations that helps young unwed mothers carry the child to term and then place the child for adoption. This couple has adopted 4 children from 4 different mothers.

When you meet this family and they tell you their story, you would say to them, "those aren't your children because they are not biologically yours and you are not sealed to them."

What a terrible hateful thing to say to people who are doing a wonderfully good thing. I suggest you reevaluate your thinking on this one, Ahab.

  • Like 4
Link to post
8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

One difficulty in nailing down what would happen in the Catholic Church is the enormous size, which means there can and is a lot of variation between parishes. This can be compounded by the fact that you get to choose where you go, so those with similar preferences end up at the same parishes. For example, I vastly prefer the traditional Latin liturgy, so I go to a parish that exclusively celebrates that. Catholics with a more liberal view would go to a parish with a more liberal priest which would then have more liberal sermons, views on the liturgy, etc. Same with conservatives, same with any other type of view.

So, as far as how a gay couple would be treated by the parishioners and priest is going to depend on what type of parish the couple chooses to attend. The Catholic position is that homosexual behavior is a sin, so most parishes would be uncomfortable with a gay couple acting like a couple (showing affection, etc). I would, however, not be surprised at all to find parishes that didn't care about open affection.

Engaging in homosexual acts is considered a mortal sin, and those in a state of mortal sin are unable to receive communion and other sacraments/ordinances.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Just now, smac97 said:

Yes.

I don't understand the "yet."  Everyone is prohibited from engaging in same-sex behavior.  

There are no policies against gay people.  A gay person is held to the same behavioral and religious standards as everyone else.

I think He would express love to them, and tell them to have faith, keep the commandments, and so on.  

You are imputing these words to President Oaks.  You put these words in quotation marks.  You are characterizing them as something President Oaks has "said" about how "we should treat gay people."

Where did he say this?  CFR, please.

I suspect you are making a false claim here.  I hope I am wrong.

It looks like you are paraphrasing/plagiarizing this Facebook post.  Are you?

From that post:

Well?

Again, you are plagiarizing this from the above FB post.  

Not only are you not attributing this content to its (anonymous author), the anonymous author is falsely attributing these statements to President Oaks.

It's Fake Quote Inception!

Again, CFR.  Where are you getting this crapola?

Know all what?  The fabricated quotes you are cribbing from an anonymous Facebook post?  Which quotes are in turn speciously attributed to Pres. Oaks?

It seems to me that it does.

Not so.  There are plenty of gay people for whom the Church "works."

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of people who are only too happy to presume to speak for us, to tell us what we think and believe, to tell others what we think and believe.  And in doing so they end up characterizing the Church in horrible, hateful ways.  

If I was thinking of joining Judaism or Catholicism or Islam, I would not go to Reddit and ask a bunch of zealous opponents and critics of those religions for advice.  That would be foolish.

"Situated in ways similar to me" can mean all sorts of things.  Yes, that may be sexual orientation.  Or it could be someone who is divorced, or never married, or asexual, or for other reasons may be precluded from getting married and having sex.  There are all sorts of ways unmarried, celibate persons can lead meaningful, beautiful, fulfilling lives.

I reject the premise ("being gay").  Sexual orientation is not a state of being.

I don't understand the question.

Jesus "alienated" people in John 6.  Why do you think he did that?

And the Church doesn't say "depart," either.  We invite all to come unto Christ.

Yep.  They decided.  That's rather my point.

Did Jesus give "reasons to people to walk no more with {him}" in John 6?

And He has told us some portion of how He "sees sexuality."  Hence we have the Law of Chastity.

I'm glad to hear it.  

William G. Nelson reported the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as saying the following: "I will give you a key that will never rust — if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

I'll stick with the Brethren, but I think we can make some fairly reasoned and reasonable assessments about the likelihood of the Lord issuing a revelation that legitimizes same-sex behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

we clearly attend different churches and have a different mindset and that's fine.

only gay people would engage in gay behaviour, which is what makes them gay in the first place

we do have polices against gay people, can a gay person kiss another gay person without visiting the Bishop? You can't say we don't have policies against gay people and also say we have the law of chastity, either we do or we don't

I did get that from facebook, is that wrong? I think it's conglomeration of statements he's made, but I don't know

Jesus didn't deliberately alienate people in John 6. Do we actually believe Isaiah 55:1? Everyone is invited to come unto Christ, including gay people I think. All means all. I don' think we should put caveats on the gospel, like we don't have policies against gay people but then they join the church and find out there is, it's bait and switch. Jesus was finding out who among the group was only following him for free bread, he wanted to see who was really into following him, but people had to decide that for themselves, not Jesus. I don't think he gave them reason not to follow but he was offering them free bread plus something more. I don't think we should be barring people, when Jesus didn't as per the scripture you provided

Your interpretation of John 6 is tospy turvy

i'll wait to make judgements on others when I or the Church has the whole picture and I wonder why we don't? Why doesn't God reveal it? Are we open to it? or are we closed minded? That's a decision we need to make. I personally am not gay but I wouldn't presume to tell someone who is how to live their life, just like I wouldn't presume to tell a straight person how to live their life. They live with the consequences, not me. I am personally not worried about gay people in the next life, I think God will treat them fairly, which for some or most will be a novel thing. My Mom's cousin was gay, died in 1979. Never married, the whole idea of coming out of the closet would have been unheard of. I like to think in the next life he's happier then he's ever been

I'll follow Jesus

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think it is best I go back to ignoring your comments.  

As you like.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can't really respond to someone in good faith that trys to find loopholes in my questions and then accuses me of being a liar.  

You are materially misrepresenting me and mine.  I will not let such false characterizations go unopposed.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can't even ask the most basic questions without you figuring out a way to not answer the question directly and then insulting me.  

"Insulting" you by asking you to stop misrepresenting my religion?

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

When I do ask a very basic question that is really hard to twist, you wonder why I ask the question.  

You know the answer to it.  So do I.  So why ask it?

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I do find comfort in knowing that I am not the only one you do this to.  Your answers to Duncan are classic SMAC answers, not any attempt to understand the questions, only to dissect them to the point where the intent of the question is completely lost.

You aren't the only one misrepresenting us.  Duncan was doing it too by cribbing from an anonymous FB post that falsely attributes statements to Pres. Oaks.

And you are upset because I am pushing back against such calumnies.  Oh, well.

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think it is best I go back to ignoring your comments.  I can't really respond to someone in good faith that trys to find loopholes in my questions and then accuses me of being a liar.  I can't even ask the most basic questions without you figuring out a way to not answer the question directly and then insulting me.  When I do ask a very basic question that is really hard to twist, you wonder why I ask the question.  

I do find comfort in knowing that I am not the only one you do this to.  Your answers to Duncan are classic SMAC answers, not any attempt to understand the questions, only to dissect them to the point where the intent of the question is completely lost.

Agree completely.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

One difficulty in nailing down what would happen in the Catholic Church is the enormous size, which means there can and is a lot of variation between parishes. This can be compounded by the fact that you get to choose where you go, so those with similar preferences end up at the same parishes. For example, I vastly prefer the traditional Latin liturgy, so I go to a parish that exclusively celebrates that. Catholics with a more liberal view would go to a parish with a more liberal priest which would then have more liberal sermons, views on the liturgy, etc. Same with conservatives, same with any other type of view.

So, as far as how a gay couple would be treated by the parishioners and priest is going to depend on what type of parish the couple chooses to attend. The Catholic position is that homosexual behavior is a sin, so most parishes would be uncomfortable with a gay couple acting like a couple (showing affection, etc). I would, however, not be surprised at all to find parishes that didn't care about open affection.

Engaging in homosexual acts is considered a mortal sin, and those in a state of mortal sin are unable to receive communion and other sacraments/ordinances.

 

I heard someone say on TV news yesterday that the pope specifically said that practicing homosexuals would be permitted to receive the Eucharist, which I found shocking, because I have always been trained that the Catholic position on the subject is exactly what you say above.

I thought that would be far more shocking than what he clearly said- which was of course about civil unions.

But I could not find a specific quote anywhere saying that communion would be permitted to practicing gay people.

I think someone heard something about "permitting civil UNIONs for gay people" and confused it with "permitting comm-UNION  for gay people".

But as I said, I agree with you, and have still not found anything saying anything about "communion" being permitted, as yet another change.

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...