Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think the hardest part of this discussion is in the understanding of what "sin" really means.   The basic meaning of "sin" (in both Hebrew and Greek) is to "miss the mark".  If we understand the "mark" (or goal) to be the inheritance of eternal life, exaltation and eternal increase, the very life that God has, then anything that takes us away from that goal is "sin".  

With that in mind, it should be a lot easier to understand why some behaviors would not lead us to that "mark", and why they are considered to be "sin".  And what is "plainly good" would be all that leads us to the very life that God has.

that is so relative though of what the mark is, as 99% of the world doesn't know or didn't know there even was a mark. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think the hardest part of this discussion is in the understanding of what "sin" really means.   The basic meaning of "sin" (in both Hebrew and Greek) is to "miss the mark".  If we understand the "mark" (or goal) to be the inheritance of eternal life, exaltation and eternal increase, the very life that God has, then anything that takes us away from that goal is "sin".  

With that in mind, it should be a lot easier to understand why some behaviors would not lead us to that "mark", and why they are considered to be "sin".  And what is "plainly good" would be all that leads us to the very life that God has.

This, this, this. 
 

Something may not be morally wrong in a general sense, but still wouldn’t draw us to God.  It would be wrong therefore if we were choosing to seek God’s Will if it blocked us from understanding and accepting his Will. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why no one wants to discuss how the word homosexual was added to the Bible in the 1980's and that the wording changed from a man lying with a young boy to a man lying with a man. Did you see the post I made? Well, I'll post it again if you feel inclined to read through. https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-“homosexual”-always-been-in-the-bible/

 I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.

I had two different responses written to your first post but I declined to post them for the simple reason that I felt it would detract from the original purpose of the opening post in this thread, and there were so many good responses being made to the questions raised in the opening post.

But since you insist :), I'll be brief:

 It's completely misleading to state that homosexuality was "added" to the Bible, especially based on that article.  The word "homosexual" didn't even come into the English language until the late 19th century (see Wikipedia article:  Terminology of homosexuality), and the word didn't come into popular use until the early 20th century, so it's clearly no wonder that the word "homosexual" didn't show up in an English translation of the Bible until Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published in 1946.  But the concept has been in the Bible since the day it was written.

The Wikipedia article on Homosexuality in the New Testament discusses the various arguments on this topic (both pro and con), and I think it does a decent job of presenting them.  Read the section under the heading "Words with disputed or ambiguous meanings" for the word Arsenokoitēs (which is the primary word discussed in your link).   I think there's strong evidence that the word is derived from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13 (arsenos koiten), because Paul quotes extensively from the Septuagint in his epistles in the New Testament.  The arguments against that meaning all seem to hinge on really odd later German translations (as your most recent post shows).  There are historical sources predating the German translations that indicate a particular sexual practice that I won't explain on this board.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Seriously? That does not seem to be the case, generally.

I'm curious to know how you see things then when people do not agree.  Do you not see any degree of separation between people who don't agree on the rules or laws we should live by?

I see an effort to teach or explain things but if after a while of that those people still do not agree on how people should live then I see one person or group distancing itself from the other.  Still visiting maybe sometimes but not living together.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think that homosexual behavior and walking the Gospel path are compatible?  I don't see a way for that.

So if you met someone who is choosing a homosexual lifestyle and believes in God, would you like encourage them to become atheist?

Link to comment
12 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the church dwindles because it's doing God's will then so be it.  That's a better outcome than going against God to keep members.  :) 

If the church—meaning the prophets, seers, and revelators—were to make such a change, it would be because they were doing God’s will. The prophet cannot lead the church astray, after all. 

A while back, I had a conversation here about the idea that “that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.” It’s well known that what matters is when and if God commands something. It’s wrong, for example, to kill, unless you’re Nephi being commanded to kill Laban. It’s wrong to have sexual relations with a woman without your wife’s knowledge or consent, unless again it’s commanded. I asked if there were any absolute prohibitions that would never be “right,” and I was answered that homosexual behavior is never right and would never be commanded. 

As I said earlier, it’s an interesting hill to die on. Why is this one kind of behavior different from any other behavior, sin or not? 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How is it plainly good to say homosexual love and sex is sinful?

They are sinful because they run counter to God's work, commands, and end goals.  That can never be good 

But believing this requires one to believe the gospel.  If you don't believe the gospel or the scriptures then there would be no way to define sin in the first place.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

If the church—meaning the prophets, seers, and revelators—were to make such a change, it would be because they were doing God’s will. The prophet cannot lead the church astray, after all. 

A while back, I had a conversation here about the idea that “that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.” It’s well known that what matters is when and if God commands something. It’s wrong, for example, to kill, unless you’re Nephi being commanded to kill Laban. It’s wrong to have sexual relations with a woman without your wife’s knowledge or consent, unless again it’s commanded. I asked if there were any absolute prohibitions that would never be “right,” and I was answered that homosexual behavior is never right and would never be commanded. 

As I said earlier, it’s an interesting hill to die on. Why is this one kind of behavior different from any other behavior, sin or not? 

If this is the hill the Church will die on, why didn't you hang on to whatever else it is you gave up on?

There are so many things that are absolutely prohibited -- they are all human inventions on the order of omnipotent paradoxes. Question: Is God so powerful that He could backtrack and play out Genesis with two men in the Garden of Eden? Answer: As powerful as He is to create a rock so big He cannot pick it up. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

If this is the hill the Church will die on, why didn't you hang on to whatever else it is you gave up on?

There are so many things that are absolutely prohibited -- they are all human inventions on the order of omnipotent paradoxes. Question: Is God so powerful that He could backtrack and play out Genesis with two men in the Garden of Eden? Answer: As powerful as He is to create a rock so big He cannot pick it up. 

I’m not sure what you are asking with your question.  And you seem to be suggesting that everything is relative. 

Maybe I’m not that bright, but I’m not following you. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You keep asking this over and over. You are a former LDS, right? You know why LDS believe what they believe. It seems odd to me that you don't "get" the answers people are giving you. I'm not LDS and I get them.

Here's my attempt to answer you. LDS believe that homosexual sex is a sin because they believe that God says it's a sin. They believe this because their prophets have said that God says it's a sin. They believe their prophets because they have had spiritual and intellectual experiences that have led to and sustain that belief.

You dismiss all of that by saying they just believe it is a sin because "some people said it is." That is very condescending, which is probably one reason why Calm has called you arrogant. It's not just "some people," it's God, and by definition God knows better than we do and knows what is sin and is not. Now, obviously, you don't believe in that God, but LDS do, and that's what it comes down to -- their faith, buoyed by their experiences, that their prophets speak God's truth.

Again, it feels very strange for me to have to explain this to you, since you were LDS, but hey, maybe a non-LDS needed to chime in.

And of course, LDS friends, if I got this wrong, please fix it.

Nope.  Spot on.  No fixing needed.  (I would add, for those with ears to hear and hearts to know and feel, that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as revealed by God to His Prophet, on homosexual acts is bound up in the centrality of family in God (the Father's) Plan for His Children, as expressed in the inspired and revelatory document The Family: A Proclamation to the World.)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fether said:

So if you met someone who is choosing a homosexual lifestyle and believes in God, would you like encourage them to become atheist?

No.  I would encourage the to choose to believe and keep the commandments.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nope.  Spot on.  No fixing needed.  (I would add, for those with ears to hear and hearts to know and feel, that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as revealed by God to His Prophet, on homosexual acts is bound up in the centrality of family in God (the Father's) Plan for His Children, as expressed in the inspired and revelatory document The Family: A Proclamation to the World.)

Where do you see the word homosexual in that document? I can't find it

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Where do you see the word homosexual in that document? I can't find it

I never said the word "homosexual" is in the document.  The word "fornication" is not in the document, either, so would you, therefore, say that God must approve of it or must not have anything to say about it?  If so, that would be a fascinating, interesting (though perhaps not in a good way) approach to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Should we take the same approach to the Word of Wisdom ("Well, cocaine isn't mentioned specifically, so ..."?) If you don't in a world with any nuance, in which nothing is ever implied nor can anything ever be inferred, then I cannot help you.  I'm sorry.  I do wish you well, however.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Jamie said:

What did people who lived before the terms hetero and home think in regards to sexual orientation?

Excellent question, and the simple answer is that they didn't think 'in regards to sexual orientation' because that concept hadn't yet been called into existence. If you don't explicitly or implicitly (including through narrative) teach someone that s/he is supposed to have a particular sexual orientation, it just doesn't happen. This is why Western colonisation and ongoing Western cultural dominance have had to introduce the terms 'homo-' and 'hetero-' into languages across the planet. People don't need new words to describe already-existing categories of being, but new terms can certainly be the linguistic tools that reify new categories of being.

Almost no one in this thread seems to care about what we actually know on this topic through research because that just gets in the way of deeply held ideologies and political agendas, so I won't intentionally add to the clutter in this post, but if you're interested, have a look at one of my posts from 2019, read the link there, and then read the links in another one of my posts from last year.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I never said the word "homosexual" is in the document.  The word "fornication" is not in the document, either, so would you, therefore, say that God must approve of it or must not have anything to say about it?  If you don't in a world with any nuance, in which nothing is ever implied nor can anything ever be inferred, then I cannot help you.  I'm sorry.  I do wish you well, however.

You said that, "on homosexual acts is bound up in the centrality of family in God (the Father's) Plan for His Children, as expressed in the inspired and revelatory document The Family: A Proclamation to the World.)"

 

how can something be "bound up in" but is not "in the document"? That confuses me. Fornication isn't an orientation either. What is the point of prophets then if not to clarify and specify but also make things nuanced and ambiguous and we are no better off then before? if, as you say, we can read things into this then why do you have a problem with what I said? if it's all up for grabs then why bother. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Calm said:
 

It doesn’t change in the least how I view you expecting us to favour your assertions over our personal experiences and perceptions of what is plain and what is God’s Will. 

Added:  I teach my family love and the Law of Chastity and other covenants we can choose to take on or not and what the choice of submitting one’s own will to God’s means as he knows us in ways we cannot at this point, including our potential as his children that we can’t even imagine. As far as the future, I teach this mortal  life is about learning what is most important to us and even that we won’t really understand until God helps us to do so.  So the future is about trusting God is absolutely good. 

I am not asking you to favor my assertions. I am asking people who are promoting the notion that homosexual relationships are sinful to use hold that claim to the standard of reason.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but the ones sourced in human conscience are no more "good" or "correct" than the other ones sourced in human conscience that contradict them.  There is no wrong, because there is no authority on what is right.  Consensus on what is wrong or right does not matter.    

Are you saying that the only way to establish what is right is by a supernatural claim to authority on what is right?

Link to comment
14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think the hardest part of this discussion is in the understanding of what "sin" really means.   The basic meaning of "sin" (in both Hebrew and Greek) is to "miss the mark".  If we understand the "mark" (or goal) to be the inheritance of eternal life, exaltation and eternal increase, the very life that God has, then anything that takes us away from that goal is "sin".  

With that in mind, it should be a lot easier to understand why some behaviors would not lead us to that "mark", and why they are considered to be "sin".  And what is "plainly good" would be all that leads us to the very life that God has.

I can agree that sin is ultimately anything we choose that separates us from good. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I don't think we owe our loved ones anything but our unconditional love.  My reason is not their reason either - they need to find their own reason and use their own judgment, and come to whatever conclusion they wish with their agency, just as I do - then I am to love them and leave judgement to God in His way and His time.  If they chose to do that outside of the church, I understand why and still love and accept them. I don't love them because they are gay or not gay, I love them because they have great worth to me for who they are.

And I did not elevate scripture the way you said - I feel you are leading things in an untenable way by creating false dichotomies.  I believe the "things some people say" when it is a prophet of the restored church to BE scripture that is MORE applicable to me and my day than ancient scripture.  Again - you obviously don't, which is fine.  But what you are not admitting/allowing is that that paradigm has any validity, you are simply implying your set of measurements and discerning 'good' is better than mine - fair enough, but arbitrary. I never asserted you owed anything to anyone, or that your view is errant, just that we differ in our views.  

To restate - for ME.  My reason - spirituality/testimony/scripture as support = agnosticism bordering on atheism as my only real choice that would remain true to my experiences thus far.  In that case - why on earth would I care if anyone had any kind of consenting sex with anyone else? I wouldn't really care about much unless I decided it was somehow important to me and mine - that doesn't;t mean I wouldn't do some things out of kindness for others, but it does mean I would only do it if I felt like it or if it made sense to me.  

Is polygamous sex sinful? Swinging? Orgies? Open marriages? One night stands?  Is there even such thing as sin?  Not really if you follow letting the changing mores of society dictate morality.  It shifts and changes with the times and will of the majority. 

 

EDITED TO ADD:  I submit as support for my statements that pedantry between men and boys was very accepted as OK in Ancient Greece, to the point where is was almost abnormal to NOT do it.  Was that wrong?  Not at all if the standard is societal acceptance through the reasoning of the day.

The context of the OP is how we can be mindful of the possibility of our children being LGBT, even before we might know they are. They said, in part:

Quote

I want to be able to raise my kids in the gospel, but do it in such a way that if they are gay, they don’t feel like they have to leave the church. I feel this is how my siblings and many others were taught. You can believe in God or you can be gay. I want to avoid that.

I gave my own response to this, sharing my experience as a believing member who had (unbeknownst to me at the time) LGBT children and the impact on them. 

I think that the dilemma here is real, as many of us here including yourself have acknowledged. I find it difficult to see a healthy path allowing someone to stay in the church as an LGBT person. You and others have speculated about the possibility of someday being presented with new revelation and/or changes allowing the acceptance of same-sex relationships in the church. You yourself confided about how such a change would be challenging to you but that you would strive to go forward with faith under such a change.

Holding ourselves to a standard of reason is vital to managing ourselves, whatever happens in the future, and however our loved ones proceed right now. 

If your child asks you what is the actual reason, and you give one, even if they do not accept it, they can at least proceed with that information, that possible kernel of truth, which can help them. If the reason has merit, it can help them advance in understanding of the thing. And even if the reason has little merit, it can help them advance in understanding of you. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Ha-ha, you know this avoids answering the specifics of my question.

I'm sorry, no, I don't know that. It was a direct answer. If you want something more specific, please tell me what you want.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, CV75 said:

You don't seem to accept the concept of spiritual reason, only that explanations on this subject must be either faith-based (which you summarily reject) or reason-based (which, given this is a religion we're talking about, are secondary, for which reason you try to engage in the infinite regress). These tenets are both spiritual and reasoned, you simply aren't willing or able to integrate the two.

I understand the concept of spiritual reason, for sure. That is partially why I ask for a reason-based answer. 

If you have reason to justify your position, what is it? If your answer is justified by spiritual reasoning alone, just say so. It will be easier for everyone, I think, to navigate the present and the future if we are clear on what justifications we're using.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...