"Y" on Mountain Above BYU Lit Up with Rainbow Colors

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This really isn't so.  There are no "special rules directed only at the LGBT community."

I'm not sure the conflict arises there.

And I'm also not sure why you seem to be feigning ignorance about what the Proclamation says and why it is disliked in some quarters.  Nevertheless, I'll pay along.

For example, it states that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  This seems to contravene some of the ideas being bandied about these days about gender being merely a social construct, being malleable, being a matter of choice, and so on.

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."  Again, this seems to contravene sociopolitical trends that trivialize or demean sex, that disregard or even categorically reject the parameters noted here.

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."  It's no secret that the Church does not accept same-sex marriage as being compatible with God's "eternal plan," and that it instead teaches that marriage is "between man and woman."

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."  Same-sex marriage by design deprives a child of either a mother or a father.  Sex outside of marriage can and does result in children being born out of wedlock, elective abortions, children growing up without a mother or a father, and so on.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.  Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.  We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."  The Proclamation puts the members of the Church on notice.  It's a pretty clear thing.  It's even specifically styled as a "warn{ing}."  

I have had, for some years now, the following scriptural passage in my sig line: ""{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  (Isaiah 30:9-10.)  I can't help but feel that the visceral dislike of the Proclamation that some members of the Church express is a pretty clear fulfillment of this scripture.  We see members of the Church "say{ing} to the seers, See not."  We see members of the Church saying to the prophets "Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits."

Put another way, "Tell us what we want to hear."

To borrow and slightly re-phrase a quote from the 1960 film Inherit the Wind: "Mr. Brady, it is the duty of a prophet and seer to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

There is no double standard.  There is one standard that has disparate impacts.  Nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.  This provision has little impact on people who are not attracted to members of the same sex, but it has a markedly different and more significant impact on those who do have such an attraction.  But it's the same standard.

Similarly, the Law of Chastity prohibits adultery.  This provision has little impact on people who are not married, but a big impact on people who are.

Similarly, the Law of Chastity prohibits fornication.  This provision has little impact on people who are married, but a big impact on people who are not.

He does.

That is no so.

Are you sure?

I assume here your reference to "revelation" really means canonized revelation, is that correct?

If so, I agree with you.  I would like to see a canonized revelation about it.  But I hardly see the lack of a canonized revelation as a basis for rejecting the Proclamation.

I understand.

Thanks,

-Smac

No revelation on gay marriage has ever been claimed by Church leaders.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

No revelation on gay marriage has ever been claimed by Church leaders.  

Are you sure?

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you quote a revelation from God on gay marriage?  Can you show me where any Church leader has claimed such a revelation has been received on gay marriage?  Is the Church in the habit of hiding revelations from God?

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

For the sake of argument, let's just say that you are right.  Tell me, if the honor code dropped its special rules directed only at the LGBT community, how would that be in conflict with the Proclamation on the Family?  Is it immoral and against the Law of Chastity to hold the hand of someone you don't intend to marry?  How about a kiss? Or going to the movies with them?  Is it against the Proclamation to fear letting others know you are gay?  Yet this is the first thing that happened when people thought the Honor Code had changed.  ...

I think for a lot of people in the Church that support the LGBT community, they see an unfairness at the double standard set up just because a person is gay and no basis in revelation.  Perhaps this is why there seems to be a growing schism in the Church over this issue.  People want to believe that God is fair and treats all people equally.  Yet on this issue, the Church has set up a God that does not treat people fairly and equally.  It is the Church that has declared gay marriage as being against God's wishes, yet there is no revelation to support that position.  If you had to live a life of celibacy with no possibility of any romantic connection ever in this life, wouldn't you at lest like a revelation from God confirming that doctrine?

In my opinion, this post is exactly what the "we show love and support for the LGBT community" "this is not a protest" protest was all about. The people who organized it disagree with the honor code and with the church's stance on same-sex relationships. They say that the church has never had a revelation on the topic and want the church to change their opinion. So they are organizing a day to show love and support and if you don't join in you are hateful.

[Anonymous Mormon]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you quote a revelation from God on gay marriage?  Can you show me where any Church leader has claimed such a revelation has been received on gay marriage?  Is the Church in the habit of hiding revelations from God?

There are lots of things the church has never received a specific revelation about. Here are four that I can come up with off the top of my head:

• Physical Abuse of children
• Spousal abuse (emotional & physical)
• Beastiality
• Pedophilia

Does that mean that the above is or is not a sin? I think all of these have lots of conference talks and other church teachings about them.

The church has not changed its teachings on same-sex relationships. It has always taught that it is a sin. The issue at hand is that the world changed its norms and now wants the church to change theirs. And the common refrain from many is that because there is no 'revelation' then it isn't a sin, even though the church has had that doctrine since the beginning.

Ironically, the majority of the people on this board who demand a revelation on this topic are the same ones who claim that President Nelson is not able/worthy of getting revelation from God. I would bet that the majority of this people, like yourself, who are asking for a revelation would not accept it as from God if President Nelson came out with one.

So the burden is back on you. Would you accept a revelation saying "Same-sex relationships are not from God and will never be accepted by God for ever eternally" if it came from President Nelson? What if it came from all 15 brethren? Describe a situation in which you would accept a revelation from the church against same-sex relationships?

(My guess is that you like others advocating for this couldn't accept one because you have made up your mind on the issue and don't believe the church can express God's will)

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

In my opinion, this post is exactly what the "we show love and support for the LGBT community" "this is not a protest" protest was all about. The people who organized it disagree with the honor code and with the church's stance on same-sex relationships. They say that the church has never had a revelation on the topic and want the church to change their opinion. So they are organizing a day to show love and support and if you don't join in you are hateful.

I am pretty sure there are a myriad of opinions on what this day was about.  On one extreme, we have people whose opinion is that it was a direct assault on the Proclamation on the Family.  At the other end of the spectrum are people who hope this is another support for change on the Church's position on gay marriage.  Most people probably fall somewhere in-between.

[Anonymous Mormon]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am pretty sure there are a myriad of opinions on what this day was about.  On one extreme, we have people whose opinion is that it was a direct assault on the Proclamation on the Family.  At the other end of the spectrum are people who hope this is another support for change on the Church's position on gay marriage.  Most people probably fall somewhere in-between.

I agree with this completely. As can be seen from this board, there are a spectrum of opinions on this event..

I hope that we can all respect the opinions of each other and assume good intent. Regardless of where everyone is on this spectrum, I don't think they are coming from a place of hate and don't wish any harm on any LGBT individuals.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

There are lots of things the church has never received a specific revelation about. Here are four that I can come up with off the top of my head:

• Physical Abuse of children
• Spousal abuse (emotional & physical)
• Beastiality
• Pedophilia

Does that mean that the above is or is not a sin? I think all of these have lots of conference talks and other church teachings about them.

The church has not changed its teachings on same-sex relationships. It has always taught that it is a sin. The issue at hand is that the world changed its norms and now wants the church to change theirs. And the common refrain from many is that because there is no 'revelation' then it isn't a sin, even though the church has had that doctrine since the beginning.

Ironically, the majority of the people on this board who demand a revelation on this topic are the same ones who claim that President Nelson is not able/worthy of getting revelation from God. I would bet that the majority of this people, like yourself, who are asking for a revelation would not accept it as from God if President Nelson came out with one.

So the burden is back on you. Would you accept a revelation saying "Same-sex relationships are not from God and will never be accepted by God for ever eternally" if it came from President Nelson? What if it came from all 15 brethren? Describe a situation in which you would accept a revelation from the church against same-sex relationships?

(My guess is that you like others advocating for this couldn't accept one because you have made up your mind on the issue and don't believe the church can express God's will)

None of the things you have listed has divided the Church like gay marriage.  Some people are looking for guidance from God through Church leaders receiving a revelation on gay marriage.  No revelation has been reported.  Isn't the whole point of having a prophet is to receive revelation from God on questions the Church faces rather than establish their own beliefs as doctrine?  There is actually more support that Brigham Young was speaking for God on the priesthood ban, yet now the Church denies such a revelation took place.   Is personal opinion of Church leaders a solid foundation to build doctrine?   If revelation is no longer needed on important issues that face the Church, then I guess having men who have had a lot of experience in life leading the Church is the next best thing.  

I don't think people are looking for any guidance from God on whether it is ok to abuse your wife or have sex with animals or little children.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you quote a revelation from God on gay marriage?  Can you show me where any Church leader has claimed such a revelation has been received on gay marriage?  Is the Church in the habit of hiding revelations from God?

Well, if I say "As of March 2021, Joseph Biden is the President of the United States," do I really need to follow that up with a separate statement that "As of March 2021, Donald J. Trump is not the President of the United States?"  Doesn't the former make that clear?  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things..."  (D&C 58:26.)

Another example: The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of parental rights, a topic which is - or should be - very near and dear to the hearts of every parent in the country.  And yet the U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents have a constitutional right to the care, custody and control of their children.  How can that be if the Constitution is "silent" on the topic?  Well, the answer is, so SCOTUS tells us, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

Quote

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Lots of verbiage here.  Let's focus on Section 1:

Quote

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now let's focus in a bit on one portion of Section 1:

Quote

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Now let's focus in on one word from this one portion:

Quote

liberty

"Liberty."

There it is.  That's where we find the idea that parent rights are protected under the U.S. Constitution.  "The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720, including parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp.63-66.

A "liberty interest" is defined here as "{a}n interest recognized as protected by the due process clauses of state and federal constitutions," and here as "{i}ndividual freedoms not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution."  This fellow, an attorney in West Virginia, has authored a pretty good article that outlines the constitutional context of parental rights:

Quote

“The liberty interest at issue in this case — the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children — is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000)

Every father has a constitutional right to be an active and integral part of his children’s lives. This right is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is a “Fundamental Right” that may be interfered with only in limited circumstances. This Special Report answers the questions most fathers do not know to ask, the answers to which are essential to understanding how to enforce a father’s right to parent. This report answers the following questions:

1) What is a “Fundamental Right?”

2) Is the right of a father to parent his children a “Fundamental Right?”
...

1) What is a “Fundamental Right?”

The Constitution of the United States does not create rights. Rather, the U.S. Constitution recognizes that human beings have “certain inalienable rights” to which they are entitled which arise as a matter of natural right. The most important of these rights are called “Fundamental Rights.” Fundamental Rights are rights that are so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 326, 58 S. Ct. 149, 152, 82 L. Ed. 288 (1937); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1556 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc). The Supreme Court has recognized that fundamental rights include those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as well as certain liberty, associational and privacy interests implicit in the due process clause and the penumbra of constitutional rights. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S. Ct. at 2267; Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712-13, 96 S. Ct. 1155, 1166, 47 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1976). These special “liberty” interests include “the rights to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, to marital privacy, and to bodily integrity.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S. Ct. at 2267.

2) The right of a father to parent is a “Fundamental Right.”

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the right of parents to be and active and integral part of their children’s lives as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the Supreme] Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000)

The familial right of association is based on the “concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment.” see Kraft v. Jacka, 872 F.2d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 1989) (basing protection of intimate associational rights on the fourteenth amendment); IDK, Inc. v. Clark County, 836 F.2d 1185, 1192 (9th Cir. 1988) (same); cf. Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247, 1252 (7th Cir.) (stating intimate associational rights not protected by the first amendment), cert. denied, 112 L. Ed. 2d 113, 111 S. Ct. 147 (1990).

I find it interesting that one word from one section from one amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be the basis for "perhaps the oldest of the fundamental" rights recoginized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, all this is by way of analogy.  The question is whether the Church's teachings about same-sex marriage (and, more broadly, homosexual behavior) arise from "revelation."  But then, what does "revelation" encompass?  Is it, as you seem to think, restricted to only those printed words found in canonized scripture?  With respect, I think the answer is rather clearly "no."  See, e.g., the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on "Revelation":

Quote

TYPES OF REVELATION. A dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a series of personal revelations from God. These revelations may be direct manifestations from God, as in the following typical cases:

1. theophanies (seeing God face-to-face), as in the first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which came at the beginning of the present dispensation (JS-H 1:15-20)
2. revealed knowledge from the Father that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:13-17; see also Spirit of Prophecy)
3. visitations of angelic persons, such as the appearance of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (JS-H 1:30-32)
4. revelations through the Urim and Thummim, by which means Joseph Smith translated the book of mormon
5. open visions, as when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were shown the kingdoms of the hereafter (see Doctrine and Covenants: Section 76)
6. physically hearing the voice of God, as is recorded in 3 Nephi 11
7. receiving the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, as in the experience of Elijah (1 Kgs. 19);
8. receiving the gifts of the spirit (D&C 46)
9. having a burning in the bosom as an indication of the will of God, as in the explanation given to Oliver Cowdery (D&C 9:8)
10. dreams (1 Ne. 8:2-32)
11. manifestations of the Light of Christ, by which all men know good from evil (Alma 12:31-32; D&C 84:46-48).

That said, I should emphasize here the vast importance of scripture.  They are, after all, as Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith put it, the "measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine."  And even then, scriptures must be interpreted, both individually and collectively.  In the end, however, we still can and ought to look to the scriptures and see what they have to say about a given matter, which directly or through reasoning and interpreting and extrapolating, not entirely unlike how SCOTUS finds constitutionally-protected parental rights in the word "liberty."

So what do the scriptures say?  And how are these scriptures construed?  Let's look here:

Quote

God's teachings about human sexuality are clear, unambiguous, and consistent from Adam to the present. "God created man in his own image; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:27). "And the Gods said: Let us make an help meet for the man, for it is not good that the man should be alone, therefore we will form an help meet for him. Therefore shall a man cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh" (Abr. 5:14-18). "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11).

When two people of the same sex join in using their bodies for erotic purposes, this conduct is considered homosexual and sinful by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comparable to sexual relations between any unmarried persons.

And here:

Quote

God commanded each living thing to reproduce after its own kind (see Genesis 1:22). Reproduction was part of His plan so that all forms of life could continue to exist upon the earth.

Then He placed Adam and Eve on the earth. They were different from His other creations because they were His spirit children. In the Garden of Eden, He brought Adam and Eve together in marriage and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (see Genesis 1:28).
...
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.
...
Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

More scriptures are quoted here:

• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng
• https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/homosexual-behavior?lang=eng

To be sure, I can very much appreciate the perspective of "Boy, it sure would be nice to have a straightforward 'Thus sayeth the Lord' - style statement stating something like 'I the Lord love all my children, but your appetites and passions must be constrained to the parameters I have established.  Those parameters are that sexual behavior is limited only to between a man and a woman who are legally married to each other.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, and not between members of the same sex.'"

As an alternative, though, I submit that we already have substantial prophetic/revelatory guidance on this topic.  The problem is not a lack of divine guidance, but rather a lack of hearing and following guidance that has been provided through prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

"{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

which doesn't speak to why people are confused to as their gender or why people are asexual-There is a gender and people are figuring out which one they got

It speaks to the rule, not to the very small number of circumstances under which how the rule operates is not perfectly clear.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

"sociopolitical trends"-that have been happening for thousands of years, and not just from the gay community

Sure.  Tension between "sociopolitical trends" and God's will has been around a very long time.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

"marriage between man and woman"

one man and one woman?

Yes.  

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

that leaves open the door for polygamy does it not?

Yes.  For reasons I don't claim to fully understand, the Lord sometimes allows some men to be married to more than woman at the same time.  The women are married to the man, not to each other.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I mean how else to justify Presidents Nelson and Oaks' other sealings?

No need to justify, IMO.  We have D&C 132.  

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

and every other man or woman ever sealed to two people

As I understand it, a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but not vice versa.

I don't know why.  I'm not sure we have been told.  I think we need more light and knowledge on this.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

what should we do with the primary I wonder?

Not sure what Primary has to do with the Proclamation.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

isn't the whole church even designed to support the family, especially when people can't or won't honor marital vows 

Yes.  I'm not sure how this is problematic in relation to the Proclamation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Anonymous Mormon]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

None of the things you have listed has divided the Church like gay marriage.  Some people are looking for guidance from God through Church leaders receiving a revelation on gay marriage.  No revelation has been reported.  Isn't the whole point of having a prophet is to receive revelation from God on questions the Church faces rather than establish their own beliefs as doctrine?  There is actually more support that Brigham Young was speaking for God on the priesthood ban, yet now the Church denies such a revelation took place.   Is personal opinion of Church leaders a solid foundation to build doctrine?   If revelation is no longer needed on important issues that face the Church, then I guess having men who have had a lot of experience in life leading the Church is the next best thing.  

As I stated a few posts ago, I don't think that most people who are demanding a revelation at this point would actually accept one:

51 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Ironically, the majority of the people on this board who demand a revelation on this topic are the same ones who claim that President Nelson is not able/worthy of getting revelation from God. I would bet that the majority of this people, like yourself, who are asking for a revelation would not accept it as from God if President Nelson came out with one.

So the burden is back on you. Would you accept a revelation saying "Same-sex relationships are not from God and will never be accepted by God for ever eternally" if it came from President Nelson? What if it came from all 15 brethren? Describe a situation in which you would accept a revelation from the church against same-sex relationships?

(My guess is that you like others advocating for this couldn't accept one because you have made up your mind on the issue and don't believe the church can express God's will)

 

For me personally, I accept the Proclamation on the Family as guidance from God's prophet and thus revelation. Here is what President Hinckly said when he proclaimed it to the world:

Quote

With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation...

 

I think it's pretty clear from President Hinckley's quote that the prophets, seers and revelators of this church have all agreed with the standards outlined in the proclamation. Most people who are asking for a revelation would only accept anything as revelation if it agrees with their opinion and if it didn't they would reject it.

The majority of the people I know in the church are actually not looking for a revelation to confirm what has been warned and forewarned. Instead, they follow the admonition of Alma:

Quote

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of ^aall these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee

We have the testimonly of the current Brethren, the past prophets and the scriptures. They all say homosexual practices are sinful. Why is additional revelation even needed? (especially if most people demanding it won't accept it any way unless it jives with their pre-conceived notion)

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I agree with this completely. As can be seen from this board, there are a spectrum of opinions on this event..

I hope that we can all respect the opinions of each other and assume good intent. Regardless of where everyone is on this spectrum, I don't think they are coming from a place of hate and don't wish any harm on any LGBT individuals.

I hope people can go further beyond their own intent and be more mindful of impact. If I really care, I will be much more concerned about my impact than my intent.

And to start by assuming good will of the Rainbow Day, them pointing out BYU's discrimination against homosexuals and the negligence of a poor communication identifies a need for the event. This need is for an increase in love and support. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but not vice versa.

While not a written policy, a number of exceptions have been allowed.  Bishops can submit requests to allow a second sealing for a woman...which means a Bishop needs to be aware of the possibility and the case needs to be seen as appropriate by the FP.  From what I have heard, most cases where this has been done in recent years are young widows.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What does “showing love and support” for them entail in your view? Is that another way of saying “love and respect” (which I don’t see anybody here objecting to) or do you mean something different by your use of the word “support” in place of “respect”? 
 

What Smac said to CB a few posts above could apply here:

“... a question like ‘Do you think members should support the LGBT community or not?’ kinda makes me suspicious.  What does that mean?  Does ‘support the LGBT community’ mean capitulating on my religious beliefs?  Does it mean endorsing and celebrating behaviors I find incompatible with my religious beliefs?  Does it mean turning on and acting and speaking against men I believe are prophets and apostles?  Does it mean ‘bend to the prevailing sociopolitical winds, 'cuz if you don't we'll brand you a bigot and a hater’?”

 

 

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well in the case of Rainbow Day at BYU, it entails wearing rainbow colors on that day:

 

It seems it entails a good deal more than that, including the implication of substantial rancorous sentiment toward the university administration and the university’s honor code. See the subsequent post from Anonymous Mormon. 
 

I see enough there to justify a counter protest without concluding that the counter protest is showing hatred or disrespect. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

While not a written policy, a number of exceptions have been allowed.  Bishops can submit requests to allow a second sealing for a woman...which means a Bishop needs to be aware of the possibility and the case needs to be seen as appropriate by the FP.  From what I have heard, most cases where this has been done in recent years are young widows.

In such exceptions, is it taken for granted that the woman’s earlier sealing remains in force? 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It speaks to the rule, not to the very small number of circumstances under which how the rule operates is not perfectly clear.

Sure.  Tension between "sociopolitical trends" and God's will has been around a very long time.

Yes.  

Yes.  For reasons I don't claim to fully understand, the Lord sometimes allows some men to be married to more than woman at the same time.  The women are married to the man, not to each other.

No need to justify, IMO.  We have D&C 132.  

As I understand it, a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but not vice versa.

I don't know why.  I'm not sure we have been told.  I think we need more light and knowledge on this.

Not sure what Primary has to do with the Proclamation.

Yes.  I'm not sure how this is problematic in relation to the Proclamation.

Thanks,

-Smac

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

primary and the church help families, especially ones without parents or parents who don't/can't honor marital vows-that happens to more then just gay parents as you said the "Same-sex marriage by design deprives a child of either a mother or a father.  Sex outside of marriage can and does result in children being born out of wedlock, elective abortions, children growing up without a mother or a father, and so on." A child being deprived of a mother or mother happens outside of SSM, so I don't see that as being exclusive to gay parents. All families need help, even ones with two straight  parents, else why the primary, youth programs

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As I stated a few posts ago, I don't think that most people who are demanding a revelation at this point would actually accept one:

 

For me personally, I accept the Proclamation on the Family as guidance from God's prophet and thus revelation. Here is what President Hinckly said when he proclaimed it to the world:

 

I think it's pretty clear from President Hinckley's quote that the prophets, seers and revelators of this church have all agreed with the standards outlined in the proclamation. Most people who are asking for a revelation would only accept anything as revelation if it agrees with their opinion and if it didn't they would reject it.

The majority of the people I know in the church are actually not looking for a revelation to confirm what has been warned and forewarned. Instead, they follow the admonition of Alma:

We have the testimonly of the current Brethren, the past prophets and the scriptures. They all say homosexual practices are sinful. Why is additional revelation even needed? (especially if most people demanding it won't accept it any way unless it jives with their pre-conceived notion)

Like I said earlier, if the Church wants to build doctrine based on opinions of Church leaders then sure, revelation is not necessary.  But as I pointed out, that hasn't always worked out all that well.

Some members see a difference between all homosexual activity and homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage, just like the difference in relations with straight couples.  The scriptures are silent on homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage.  And yes, for obvious reasons.  Never the less, there is no scripture addressing homosexual marriage.  In fact, there is no mention at all in any modern day scripture on homosexuality.  This is why revelation used to be important.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In such exceptions, is it taken for granted that the woman’s earlier sealing remains in force? 

Why have an exception at all if the first sealing doesn’t stay in effect?  If the idea is the second sealing automatically nullifies the first, it is the same as a cancellation...so why not just cancel?  The only ideas that make sense is first, both sealings are assumed to be in force or second, they are just doing it to make the woman feel better, but it is really nonsense....the latter seems unlikely.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Calm

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, if I say "As of March 2021, Joseph Biden is the President of the United States," do I really need to follow that up with a separate statement that "As of March 2021, Donald J. Trump is not the President of the United States?"  Doesn't the former make that clear?  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things..."  (D&C 58:26.)

Another example: The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of parental rights, a topic which is - or should be - very near and dear to the hearts of every parent in the country.  And yet the U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents have a constitutional right to the care, custody and control of their children.  How can that be if the Constitution is "silent" on the topic?  Well, the answer is, so SCOTUS tells us, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

Lots of verbiage here.  Let's focus on Section 1:

Now let's focus in a bit on one portion of Section 1:

Now let's focus in on one word from this one portion:

"Liberty."

There it is.  That's where we find the idea that parent rights are protected under the U.S. Constitution.  "The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720, including parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp.63-66.

A "liberty interest" is defined here as "{a}n interest recognized as protected by the due process clauses of state and federal constitutions," and here as "{i}ndividual freedoms not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution."  This fellow, an attorney in West Virginia, has authored a pretty good article that outlines the constitutional context of parental rights:

I find it interesting that one word from one section from one amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be the basis for "perhaps the oldest of the fundamental" rights recoginized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, all this is by way of analogy.  The question is whether the Church's teachings about same-sex marriage (and, more broadly, homosexual behavior) arise from "revelation."  But then, what does "revelation" encompass?  Is it, as you seem to think, restricted to only those printed words found in canonized scripture?  With respect, I think the answer is rather clearly "no."  See, e.g., the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on "Revelation":

That said, I should emphasize here the vast importance of scripture.  They are, after all, as Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith put it, the "measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine."  And even then, scriptures must be interpreted, both individually and collectively.  In the end, however, we still can and ought to look to the scriptures and see what they have to say about a given matter, which directly or through reasoning and interpreting and extrapolating, not entirely unlike how SCOTUS finds constitutionally-protected parental rights in the word "liberty."

So what do the scriptures say?  And how are these scriptures construed?  Let's look here:

And here:

More scriptures are quoted here:

• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng
• https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/homosexual-behavior?lang=eng

To be sure, I can very much appreciate the perspective of "Boy, it sure would be nice to have a straightforward 'Thus sayeth the Lord' - style statement stating something like 'I the Lord love all my children, but your appetites and passions must be constrained to the parameters I have established.  Those parameters are that sexual behavior is limited only to between a man and a woman who are legally married to each other.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, and not between members of the same sex.'"

As an alternative, though, I submit that we already have substantial prophetic/revelatory guidance on this topic.  The problem is not a lack of divine guidance, but rather a lack of hearing and following guidance that has been provided through prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

people would hear and follow guidance if there was a revelation saying as such, but we are left with nothing apparently. I have said this before but when SSM came to Canada the Church said nothing but when it came to the US, you would think the world was falling apart, well it didn't collapse here any. It's how God's will sometimes, mostimes? align with sociopoltical trends, the trends happen first then God gets on board or I don't know how that happens but God's will is now aligned with society or God didn't say anything about SSM in Canada, maybe he didn't care?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

As I stated a few posts ago, I don't think that most people who are demanding a revelation at this point would actually accept one:

 

For me personally, I accept the Proclamation on the Family as guidance from God's prophet and thus revelation. Here is what President Hinckly said when he proclaimed it to the world:

 

I think it's pretty clear from President Hinckley's quote that the prophets, seers and revelators of this church have all agreed with the standards outlined in the proclamation. Most people who are asking for a revelation would only accept anything as revelation if it agrees with their opinion and if it didn't they would reject it.

The majority of the people I know in the church are actually not looking for a revelation to confirm what has been warned and forewarned. Instead, they follow the admonition of Alma:

We have the testimonly of the current Brethren, the past prophets and the scriptures. They all say homosexual practices are sinful. Why is additional revelation even needed? (especially if most people demanding it won't accept it any way unless it jives with their pre-conceived notion)

Like I said to SMAC, if the Church is willing to build doctrine on the opinion of Church leaders, then you are correct.  Knowing the will of God is not that important.  And as I pointed out, that has not always worked out well for the Church.   An entire race of people were denied access to the priesthood and temple marriage.  Oops.  

Or how about when it was the opinion of Church leaders promising in the name of God that if you are gay and just get married, your orientation will magically disappear.  Yeah, I fell for that one myself. That is when I personally realized that relying on the opinion of Church leaders may not be the best place to put your trust.

If doctrine is to be built upon the foundation of revelation, then none has yet occurred.

Edited March 7, 2021 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In such exceptions, is it taken for granted that the woman’s earlier sealing remains in force? 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why have an exception at all if the first sealing doesn’t stay in effect?  If the idea is the second sealing automatically nullifies the first, it is the same as a cancellation...so why not just cancel?  The only ideas that make sense is first, both sealings are assumed to be in force or second, they are just doing it to make the woman feel better, but it is really nonsense....the latter seems unlikely.

So the answer is yes, then?

The idea that both sealings are in force has a problem of its own: Why is this privilege only granted to young widows — and an extremely limited number of them at that — and not to any faithful woman who might desire it?

There’s a third possibility: that the sealing is performed with the understanding that only one will ultimately be in force but which one is a matter to be worked out after the resurrection. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[InCognitus]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Some members see a difference between all homosexual activity and homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage, just like the difference in relations with straight couples.  The scriptures are silent on homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage.  And yes, for obvious reasons.  Never the less, there is no scripture addressing homosexual marriage.  In fact, there is no mention at all in any modern day scripture on homosexuality.  This is why revelation used to be important.

I'm trying to understand your logic here.

The scriptures already give us clear laws against:

1. Sexual relations between a man and a woman outside of marriage (fornication)
2. Sexual relations of a married man or woman with a woman or a man outside of their marriage (adultery)
3. Sexual relations of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman (active homosexual behavior)
4. Sexual relations of a man with a beast or a woman with a beast (bestiality) 

Marriage (or lack of a marriage) is the basis for the laws listed in #1 and #2, whereas #3 and #4 have no association with marriage.  Why would a revelation be needed to clear this up?  Would you also say that a revelation would be needed in the event that laws are passed where a man or woman could marry animals?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/5/2021 at 1:54 PM, Meadowchik said:

I would assume they mean safe from church or school discipline.

 

No...safe from being doxed and cancelled. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So the answer is yes, then?

The idea that both sealings are in force has a problem of its own: Why is this privilege only granted to young widows — and an extremely limited number of them at that — and not to any faithful woman who might desire it?

There’s a third possibility: that the sealing is performed with the understanding that only one will ultimately be in force but which one is a matter to be worked out after the resurrection. 

The answer, IMO, is no, the two sealings are in force.  Sealings have meaning in the here and now as well as eternally.

I never said the privilege was only young widows.

I suspect the reason why it is not open to all is tradition, given changes have already been made to seal all after death instead of limiting it to one husband for a woman as they did in the past.

Your third is a possibility, but that justification was removed from the handbook for proxy sealings, so we should IMO be cautious about assuming that.

[Anonymous Mormon]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I hope people can go further beyond their own intent and be more mindful of impact. If I really care, I will be much more concerned about my impact than my intent.

And to start by assuming good will of the Rainbow Day, them pointing out BYU's discrimination against homosexuals and the negligence of a poor communication identifies a need for the event. This need is for an increase in love and support. 

I don't understan what you mean by this. I said "I hope that we can all respect the opinions of each other and assume good intent. Regardless of where everyone is on this spectrum, I don't think they are coming from a place of hate and don't wish any harm on any LGBT individuals." And you respond with the above about 'impact,' 'discrimination against homosexuals,' 'neglicence,' and a a need for more love.

Do you consider BYU having an honor code that students have to abide by to be discrimination?

What about alcoholics, fornicators, the lazy who don't get good grades, atheists, men with beards, nudists, Satanists, cheaters, and those who live with opposite-sex roommates? Does BYU discriminate against anyone in the above categories?

Unless there is some dark secret of things happening today at BYU to homosexuals that I am not aware of, I really feel like rhetoric with claims of "discrimination" is exactly the lact of respect and assuming good intent that I would like to see less of in conversations like this.