Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Meadowchik]

On 5/16/2021 at 1:09 AM, CV75 said:

All we need to do is trace the case for same-sex marriage to its basis in the Atonement of Christ and the parenthetical appendages I listed above. I haven’t seen anyone accomplish that yet. Tracing the case for coping with same-sex orientation and finding exaltation, yes, but for same-sex marriage, no.

Eden seems to be the go-to reference (whether one takes the account figuratively or literally) for establishing that a couple of the same sex cannot do what Adam and Eve did. Things could not have played out as they did; conceptually, the man would remain alone (not good for many reasons), no matter how many men lived together.

Yet human beings are not just a mother, father, and children. They are whole communities. Just like LDS wards function with young, old, single, married, etc... members, they can function with same-sex couples. 

Singles can have access to the blessings of the temple with promises of a fullness in the next life, so same-sex couples could at the very least be treated similarly. 

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet human beings are not just a mother, father, and children. They are whole communities. Just like LDS wards function with young, old, single, married, etc... members, they can function with same-sex couples. 

Singles can have access to the blessings of the temple with promises of a fullness in the next life, so same-sex couples could at the very least be treated similarly. 

I'm not seeing your case for same-sex marriage being tied to a basis in the Atonement of Christ.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yet they face the same no-sex-outside-of-marriage constraints.

I didn't know we were talking about sex outside of marriage, which gay members can't do even, in our Church without being exed. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Plenty of people have limited "choice" in these matters.  A person who wants to never get married but never finds the right person.  A person whose spouse initiates a divorce (or whose spouse refuses to have relations while married).  A person whose spouse dies.  These are not simply matters of choice.  They are matters of circumstance and opportunity.

That said, what they can "choose" is to obey the commandments, including the Law of Chastity, knowing that "adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment," and that if they "thou endure it well, God shall exalt {them} on high."  (D&C 121:7-8.)

all of those situations, have or can at some point have sex, without being exed a gay person can't do that. Can you imagine if the situation was reversed, if heterosexual males endured to the end, i.e kept the law of chastity and all the ups and downs of life, only be turned into a gay male for eternity? would you want to be gay in the next life? 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think this is a shortsighted, blinkered and fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation.

Every person who has ever lived on the earth will have a full and fair opportunity to attain salvation, including the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.  We don't know all the particulars of the journey, but we know what the destination is.  The choice to go there is up to the individual.

I know all of that but if we don't know the particulars of the journey, how do we know that we want the end? do we even know what life is like in the Celestial Kingdom? if we haven't had a "Celestial life" before how do we know we want to be in the CK?

It's weird you said on a previous thread about spirit birth, "We just don't know very much about this topic.  In such circumstances, ambivalence and undecidedness are just fine.  Let's wait until we receive more light and knowledge."

so, now i'm "short sighted, blinkered and have a fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation" but it's okay for you to say we don't anything about spirit birth (and what precedes it, sex) How can be "God's in embryo" without someone getting pregnant by someone else? Do you think we are literally the spirit children of God the Father and presumable God the Mother or not? How can homosexual members achieve all that? you yourself said "we don't know the particulars" and the destination is the CK, would a gay man want it? after being somehow changed to a non gay male? I don't want to undergo that change, why would a gay male?

Edited May 18, 2021 by Duncan

[ttribe]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, our lot is to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, partake of saving ordinances, serve our fellow man, live virtuous lives, and endure to the end.

So says the married heterosexual.

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not seeing your case for same-sex marriage being tied to a basis in the Atonement of Christ.

To clarify your meaning, could you make the case for marriage being tied to it? Could you make the case for singlehood being tied to it? Polygamous marriage being tied to it?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

My problem is presenting life in the Church as a one size fits all. I think it as bad to insist that all LGBT or singles feel like second citizens as it is to insist that all must feel totally at home and welcomed. 

Which is why I never said ALL.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To clarify your meaning, could you make the case for marriage being tied to it? Could you make the case for singlehood being tied to it? Polygamous marriage being tied to it?

Yes to marriage (including plural), but no, there is no case for singlehood. The design is for marriage between a man and a woman, as I described here Posted Saturday at 08:09 PM

Of course people can choose alternative lifestyles (the term "glories" in a sense), but these would not be consistent with the covenants, which are aimed for exaltation.

[Meadowchik]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes to marriage (including plural), but no, there is no case for singlehood. The design is for marriage between a man and a woman, as I described here Posted Saturday at 08:09 PM

Of course people can choose alternative lifestyles (the term "glories" in a sense), but these would not be consistent with the covenants, which are aimed for exaltation.

There's no case for singlehood? Then how do singles participate actively in the church?

There is so much the LDS gospel does not teach about the afterlife. According to it, many of us who advance to the Celestial glory will not be entering into the same relationships we have now. Some sealed couples won't be sealed to each other. Some will have additional spouses added into the sealing. Some singles will be eligible for exaltation after being sealed to each other (or to another married man) by then. And yet, married couples and singles still participate in the church even though, for some, their current state will not be reflected in the Celestial kingdom. 

In short, the gospel allows for provisional states in mortality because they are necessary, and or help people learn and advance forward, even if they still fall short. If the case can be made for them, I see no reason that the case cannot be made for same-sex couples. They can help each other advance. They can help move the kingdom forward. They can still have faith, learn line upon line. Perhaps they will even one day be sealed in the church if it changes. But--even if the church never accepts the idea that their marriage will be sealed eternally-they can now be treated just like single, divorced, widowed, or married but not-to-advance to eternal marriage heterosexual couples. Those individuals who otherwise meet the requirements can have the chance to meet them after death, in all these cases. The Atonement is meant to make whole what is not whole, for whatever reason.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Meadowchik

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there's quite a significant difference.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh really?  Can you show me where the revelation is that says sex within a same sex marriage is against the Law of Chastity?  Cause where I am sitting, the lack of revelatory provenance is EXACTLY the same as assumptions about revelation on the Priesthood Ban.  

[MrShorty]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The design is for marriage between a man and a woman, as I described here Posted Saturday at 08:09 PM

If I understood your post, there are basically two things that somehow tie cis-hetero marriage to the atonement:

1) The pattern established during the creation of male and female. This does not feel like a clear tie to the atonement to me. It seems to me that the choice of male and female at the creation could very easily (if not almost certainly) be a simple pragmatic choice. If I were to "create" a new population of obligate sexual reproducers from a single breeding pair, I would certainly start with a male-female pair out of sheer necessity. It does not seem to me to explain why cis-hetero marriage is an eternal necessity nor how it is tied into the atonement.

2) You allege some kind of "complementarianism" in the pre-mortal eternities that is somehow an eternal principle that God implemented or follows. My problem here is that I am unconvinced that complementarianism (especially the kind that requires male and female) is some kind of eternal principle. I can appreciate that when two individuals partner together, one's weaknesses can often be covered by the other's strengths, but I do not find anything compelling in the necessity of gender in implementing complenentarianism. I also note that, in the same way that Heavenly Mother (and spirit birth/creation etc.) are absent from the scripture canon, any sense that our Father is complemented by any being in the eternities also seems absent from scripture.

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's no case for singlehood? Then how do singles participate actively in the church?

There is so much the LDS gospel does not teach about the afterlife. According to it, many of us who advance to the Celestial glory will not be entering into the same relationships we have now. Some sealed couples won't be sealed to each other. Some will have additional spouses added into the sealing. Some singles will be eligible for exaltation after being sealed to each other (or to another married man) by then. And yet, married couples and singles still participate in the church even though, for some, their current state will not be reflected in the Celestial kingdom. 

In short, the gospel allows for provisional states in mortality because they are necessary, and or help people learn and advance forward, even if they still fall short. If the case can be made for them, I see no reason that the case cannot be made for same-sex couples. They can help each other advance. They can help move the kingdom forward. They can still have faith, learn line upon line. Perhaps they will even one day be sealed in the church if it changes. But--even if the church never accepts the idea that their marriage will be sealed eternally-they can now be treated just like single, divorced, widowed, or married but not-to-advance to eternal marriage heterosexual couples. Those individuals who otherwise meet the requirements can have the chance to meet them after death, in all these cases. The Atonement is meant to make whole what is not whole, for whatever reason.

There is no case for singlehood in the sense of it being the highest attainment the Atonement of Christ is designed to deliver. The same with same-sex relationships and marriage. Personal attributes are another thing. You'd have to keep my previous examples in mind.

The Atonement of Christ brings any temporal “-hood” (state, condition, character, nature, class, etc.) and any temporal “-ness” (personal attribute, trait, quality, etc.) into alignment with God’s design. Its purpose goes well beyond our resurrection and seeing each other after death.

All are welcome to belong to and attend Church, but as with any society, contrary behavior can affect these privileges and even membership. Recognizing all the good a single person or same-sex couple might bring to the table, and recognizing that they are welcome to belong and attend, behavior which runs contrary will affect their privileges and membership. The same goes for married couples.

In addition, same-sex relationships are not “provisional” – they are not temporary arrangements on the path to advancement. There is no such thing as "provisional" in the doctrine of Christ (see 3 Nephi 11: 31 through 12:2); every ordinance remains in full effect while additional ordinances are received. For example, one’s baptism and confirmation are not “provisional” to be replaced when they receive their temple endowment.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Thanks for the response. You had me until the last paragraph. I still have not read any where in church doctrine that tough challenges are provided to make up for ‘lost ground’. 

If this was the case than Adam and Eve and their children must have needed to make up a LOT of lost ground since they had to endure this mortal exists for almost a 1,000 years.

The good news is in the end Heavenly Father will take into account everything, from our environment, upbringing, teaching, state of mind, how we did with the degree of the challenge or test and what we ultimately become after this life.

 

Upvote

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

I think there's quite a significant difference.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity.

Oh really?  

Yes, really.

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you show me where the revelation is that says sex within a same sex marriage is against the Law of Chastity?  

Yes.

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Cause where I am sitting, the lack of revelatory provenance is EXACTLY the same as assumptions about revelation on the Priesthood Ban.  

"Where I am sitting" being the operative phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Meanwhile, our lot is to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, partake of saving ordinances, serve our fellow man, live virtuous lives, and endure to the end.

So says the married heterosexual.

Ah.  So unmarried gays cannot affirm what I did above?  Is that your point?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If I understood your post, there are basically two things that somehow tie cis-hetero marriage to the atonement:

1) The pattern established during the creation of male and female. This does not feel like a clear tie to the atonement to me. It seems to me that the choice of male and female at the creation could very easily (if not almost certainly) be a simple pragmatic choice. If I were to "create" a new population of obligate sexual reproducers from a single breeding pair, I would certainly start with a male-female pair out of sheer necessity. It does not seem to me to explain why cis-hetero marriage is an eternal necessity nor how it is tied into the atonement.

2) You allege some kind of "complementarianism" in the pre-mortal eternities that is somehow an eternal principle that God implemented or follows. My problem here is that I am unconvinced that complementarianism (especially the kind that requires male and female) is some kind of eternal principle. I can appreciate that when two individuals partner together, one's weaknesses can often be covered by the other's strengths, but I do not find anything compelling in the necessity of gender in implementing complenentarianism. I also note that, in the same way that Heavenly Mother (and spirit birth/creation etc.) are absent from the scripture canon, any sense that our Father is complemented by any being in the eternities also seems absent from scripture.

I do not find the term “cis-hetero” very useful, but I’ll go with it because I think I know what you mean.

RE: point 1, I do not think things began with the Creation. They began with the Atonement of Christ, which informed all that followed to prepare us for God’s life. It was established before the foundation, meaning it was fundamental and even foundational to the plan that was presented before the War in Heaven.

RE: point 2, I see gender arising from “an opposition in all things”, a subset of which is complementarianism, not the other way around. The image and likeness of Adam and Eve came from “Someone [plural].” Their respective primary roles are to bring spirits to earth (Adam arrived first, but could not procreate without Eve) and back to heaven again (Eve saw the light first, but could not spiritually rebirth those procreations without Adam).

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, really.

Yes.

"Where I am sitting" being the operative phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

So where is this revelation from God that prohibits Same Sex Marriage?  Certainly a revelation from God on this sensitive issue would be well published and testified to.

I noticed as usual, dissecting my post but no answer.  What a surprise.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed members of the Church.  More than half of the adult members of the Church are unmarried, and hence are unable to engage in sexual behavior.  And yet all of us are held to the same standard, despite the disparate impact that standard has on each individual.

"never-married, divorced and widowed" isn't an orientation.

Yet they face the same no-sex-outside-of-marriage constraints.

I didn't know we were talking about sex outside of marriage,

We're talking abou the Law of Chastity, the constraints of which apply to everyone, yet which constraints have disparate impacts (including on "never-married, divorced and widowed" people).

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

which gay members can't do even, in our Church without being exed. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Well, no.  Plenty of people have limited "choice" in these matters.  A person who wants to never get married but never finds the right person.  A person whose spouse initiates a divorce (or whose spouse refuses to have relations while married).  A person whose spouse dies.  These are not simply matters of choice.  They are matters of circumstance and opportunity.

That said, what they can "choose" is to obey the commandments, including the Law of Chastity, knowing that "adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment," and that if they "thou endure it well, God shall exalt {them} on high."  (D&C 121:7-8.)

all of those situations, have or can at some point have sex,

You are only proving my point about disparate impact.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

without being exed a gay person can't do that.

Again, I don't understand what you are saying here.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Can you imagine if the situation was reversed, if heterosexual males endured to the end, i.e kept the law of chastity and all the ups and downs of life, only be turned into a gay male for eternity? would you want to be gay in the next life? 

Again, I think this reflects a shortsighted, blinkered and fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Quote

 

I think this is a shortsighted, blinkered and fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation.

Every person who has ever lived on the earth will have a full and fair opportunity to attain salvation, including the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.  We don't know all the particulars of the journey, but we know what the destination is.  The choice to go there is up to the individual.

 

I know all of that

Are you sure?  

I'm reminded of Ezekiel 12:2: "Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house."

Is it possible to "know all of that" and yet not accept or apply it?  To "have eyes to see, and see not?"  To "have ears to hear, and hear not?"

We are living in tumultuous times.  Lots and lots of disparate voices telling us all sorts of things, often contradictory things.  The world is presently "a rebellious house."  Hence the need for scriptures, living prophets and apostles, personal study and effort, personal revelation, and so on.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

but if we don't know the particulars of the journey, how do we know that we want the end? do we even know what life is like in the Celestial Kingdom?

It comes down to faith, I think.  As Paul put it: "But as it is written, 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.)  And and as the Savior put it: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."  (John 14:15.)  And here: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matt. 7:21.)

I have long appreciated this analogy by C.S. Lewis:

Quote

Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.

Yep.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

if we haven't had a "Celestial life" before how do we know we want to be in the CK?

Again, I think it comes down to faith.  Trust in God.  As King Benjamin put it:

Quote

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.
10 And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.

(Mosiah 4:9-10.) (Emphasis added.)

And as the Savior put it:

Quote

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 

(Matt. 25:23.)

I have to believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God has a far greater perspective than I do.  

Every element of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ directs our attention to faith in God, reliance on the Atonement, repentance, baptism, keeping the commandments, and so on.  That's the deal.  That's the Plan of Salvation.  As Joseph Smith put it:

Quote

Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.

Yep.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

It's weird you said on a previous thread about spirit birth, "We just don't know very much about this topic.  In such circumstances, ambivalence and undecidedness are just fine.  Let's wait until we receive more light and knowledge."

Okay.  What is weird about what I said on that topic?

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

so, now i'm "short sighted, blinkered and have a fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation"

I was speaking of a "view of the Plan of Salvation," not you.  I don't know you.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

but it's okay for you to say we don't anything about spirit birth (and what precedes it, sex)

I think it's okay for me to acknowledge the parameters of what we do and do not know.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

How can be "God's in embryo" without someone getting pregnant by someone else?

I think "Gods in embryo" is intended to be more metaphorical/figurative, not an expression of divine biological processes.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Do you think we are literally the spirit children of God the Father and presumable God the Mother or not?

I do believe that, yes.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

How can homosexual members achieve all that?

The same way everyone else achieves it: faith, repentance, baptism (and other saving ordinances), obedience, service, enduring to the end.  

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

you yourself said "we don't know the particulars" and the destination is the CK, would a gay man want it?

That depends, I suppose, on the perspective of the individual.  And on the light and knowledge he has received and accepted.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

after being somehow changed to a non gay male? I don't want to undergo that change, why would a gay male?

See the Mosiah 4 quote above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

So where is this revelation from God that prohibits Same Sex Marriage?  

I invite you to study this out for yourself.  You and I don't get along, so I don't think you would accept what I have to say.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Certainly a revelation from God on this sensitive issue would be well published and testified to.

Certainly.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I noticed as usual, dissecting my post but no answer.  What a surprise.

Your post sort of reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" types I have occasionally encountered in court.  I think these people are generally decent people, but they have opted to appoint themselves the arbiter of the law.  Each individual gets to decide which laws apply and which do not, what laws mean and what they do not mean, and so on.  Without a common frame of reference, a sovereign citizen cannot meaningfully communicate with the state trooper that just pulled him over. 

So it is, or will be, between you and me.  This isn't our first rodeo, after all.  As you said just a few hours ago:

Quote

I no longer believe that Church leaders have some special revelation connection with God.  ...   I think Church leaders are men, like the rest of us, trying their best to guide an organization that they head.  But there is no evidence that what they say comes from God. ... Why would I ever be angry about the Proclamation on the Family?  I don't think it comes from God.  And I no longer care what the Church teaches.  It doesn't affect my life one bit. 

See?  We lack a common frame of reference.  I acknowledge things pertaining to the Church that you do not.  So you asking me to explain something that you have just a few hours ago categorically rejected is an exercise in futility.  Not because the information is unavailable, but because you are not situated to accept it.  That's your privilege and right, and I respect it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Duncan]

Just now, smac97 said:

We're talking abou the Law of Chastity, the constraints of which apply to everyone, yet which constraints have disparate impacts (including on "never-married, divorced and widowed" people).

It's nice you acknowledge the double standard when it comes to the LoC

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.

you mentioned marriage earlier and I said that gay members can't even get married to each other without getting exed, and the church even acknowledge's that gay members

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I think this reflects a shortsighted, blinkered and fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation.

 it isn't whatsoever. To me, the Gospel is seeing life from someone else's perspective and how to help, "we should see others as Christ sees them, not as we see them" 

 

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.

and that includes our own views on human sexuality, or it should

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's okay for me to acknowledge the parameters of what we do and do not know.

Who is "we"? Do you allow that for others, to acknowledge what "we" can or cannot" know? Do you include God being allowed to have different views or parameters? "Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or ready to receive" Joseph Smith

 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The same way everyone else achieves it: faith, repentance, baptism (and other saving ordinances), obedience, service, enduring to the end.  

and yet having to change their sexuality, but you and I don't though. Can you imagine the missionaries telling that to people? I honestly wonder how many homosexual people they baptize every year and then stay active when they find out that God actually meant that it is good for man to be alone. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

We're talking abou the Law of Chastity, the constraints of which apply to everyone, yet which constraints have disparate impacts (including on "never-married, divorced and widowed" people).

It's nice you acknowledge the double standard when it comes to the LoC

Only if you are using a dictionary that defines "acknowledge" as meaning "categorically reject the notion of."

To clarify the obvious: The Law of Chastity applies to all of us.  One standard.  One.  With disparate impacts.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 

Quote

Again, I think this reflects a shortsighted, blinkered and fundamentally incorrect view of the Plan of Salvation.

 it isn't whatsoever.

I think it is.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

To me, the Gospel is seeing life from someone else's perspective and how to help, "we should see others as Christ sees them, not as we see them" 

I invite you to give this matter some further study and thought.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

No doctrine in the gospel is more important than the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If the gospel were compared to a wheel, the Atonement would be the hub and all other doctrines would be the spokes emanating from the hub. As the Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

And this:

Quote

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

(AoF 1:4.)

Empathy for our fellow man is surely important, but still derivative of faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and that includes our own views on human sexuality, or it should

Not sure what this means.  The whole point of the Gospel is that we are seeking to discern and follow God's will rather than "our own views."

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

I think it's okay for me to acknowledge the parameters of what we do and do not know.

Who is "we"?

The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I had understood that you were one.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Do you allow that for others, to acknowledge what "we" can or cannot" know?

I am sorry, I do not understand the question.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Do you include God being allowed to have different views or parameters?

Same here.  I don't understand the question.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or ready to receive" Joseph Smith

Which speaks to "the parameters of what we do and do not know."  There is a lot that falls into the latter category.  A lot.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

The same way everyone else achieves it: faith, repentance, baptism (and other saving ordinances), obedience, service, enduring to the end.  

and yet having to change their sexuality, but you and I don't though.

Yes, you and I do.  We are all required to constrain our appetites and desires to the parameters set by the Lord.

The Law of Chastity applies to all of us. 

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Can you imagine the missionaries telling that to people?

Telling what to people?

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I honestly wonder how many homosexual people they baptize every year and then stay active when they find out that God actually meant that it is good for man to be alone. 

I encourage you to give the matter further thought and study.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ragerunner]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same standard, disparate impact.

How so?  

The Gospel does, though.

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed members of the Church.  More than half of the adult members of the Church are unmarried, and hence are unable to engage in sexual behavior.  And yet all of us are held to the same standard, despite the disparate impact that standard has on each individual.

Very well said.  

For my part, I think the Law of Chastity will never change to accommodate same-sex behavior.  I just don't see it as part of the Plan.  I think those that hold out some sort of hope for this are setting themselves up for disappointment.  Neverthess, because "{w}e believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (AoF 1:9), I maintain a de minimis opening in my worldview for a change to the Law of Chastity.  

If I am wrong in my expectation, then I will happily alter my perspective and embrace further light and knowledge from God.  Meanwhile, however, we obey the commandments and listen to the Brethren.  Consider Alma 25 (speaking of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis) :

Those who are determined to hold out some sort of hope that the Law of Chastity will change would do well to emulate what is described here.  You keep the commandments you have received "until the time that {new commandments} should be revealed unto them."

I think there's quite a significant difference.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t know what the Lord will reveal in the future (nor does anyone else on this forum) but I do hope He gives us and others greater understanding and insight on this ‘issue’. This would allow us to more perfectly fulfill the 2 greatest commandments by giving us greater knowledge. It might also provide comfort and a clearer path forward for those that have homosexual feelings.

My main point was building empathy (through better understanding) and love for other has greater value than attempting to determine how things might be in the future on a subject that is not well understood at this time. The church has been very clear that they don’t know why homosexual feeling exist or how the Lord will ultimately ‘make everything fair’ when judgement day comes.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Only if you are using a dictionary that defines "acknowledge" as meaning "categorically reject the notion of."

To clarify the obvious: The Law of Chastity applies to all of us.  One standard.  One.  With disparate impacts.

I think it is.

I invite you to give this matter some further study and thought.  See, e.g., here:

And this:

Empathy for our fellow man is surely important, but still derivative of faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ.

Not sure what this means.  The whole point of the Gospel is that we are seeking to discern and follow God's will rather than "our own views."

The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I had understood that you were one.

I am sorry, I do not understand the question.

Same here.  I don't understand the question.

Which speaks to "the parameters of what we do and do not know."  There is a lot that falls into the latter category.  A lot.

Yes, you and I do.  We are all required to constrain our appetites and desires to the parameters set by the Lord.

The Law of Chastity applies to all of us. 

Telling what to people?

I encourage you to give the matter further thought and study.

Thanks,

-Smac

i'm sorry but we believe profoundly different things about the Church and the Gospel, I can't help you or you me. If you excuse me I am off to a Bishopric meeting on zoom

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I invite you to study this out for yourself.  You and I don't get along, so I don't think you would accept what I have to say.

Certainly.

Your post sort of reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" types I have occasionally encountered in court.  I think these people are generally decent people, but they have opted to appoint themselves the arbiter of the law.  Each individual gets to decide which laws apply and which do not, what laws mean and what they do not mean, and so on.  Without a common frame of reference, a sovereign citizen cannot meaningfully communicate with the state trooper that just pulled him over. 

So it is, or will be, between you and me.  This isn't our first rodeo, after all.  As you said just a few hours ago:

See?  We lack a common frame of reference.  I acknowledge things pertaining to the Church that you do not.  So you asking me to explain something that you have just a few hours ago categorically rejected is an exercise in futility.  Not because the information is unavailable, but because you are not situated to accept it.  That's your privilege and right, and I respect it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You made this claim

Quote

 

I think there's quite a significant difference.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yet there is no revelatory provenance concerning gay marriage.  When asked to show us all the revelation that you claim has occurred, you are unable to document that revelation.  Because it does not exist.  

This has NOTHING to do with my beliefs.  Is all you have to do is show us the revelation that you claim has occurred.  Since you seem to want to sidestep this simple request, I will now ask for a CFR.  

Show us all the revelation from God that prohibits same sex marriages or acknowledge the claim that this policy against same sex marriage is just like the Priesthood Ban, lacking any known revelatory provenance.

 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

RE: point 1, I do not think things began with the Creation. They began with the Atonement of Christ, which informed all that followed to prepare us for God’s life. It was established before the foundation, meaning it was fundamental and even foundational to the plan that was presented before the War in Heaven.

I agree with all of that, but I don't see how one necessarily gets from there to "same sex marriage is forbidden by God."

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I see gender arising from “an opposition in all things”, a subset of which is complementarianism, not the other way around.

If you say so, but I'm still not understanding why "opposition in all things" means "complementarianism is eternal" means "same sex marriage is forbidden by God."

[poptart]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

It's nice you acknowledge the double standard when it comes to the LoC

 

you mentioned marriage earlier and I said that gay members can't even get married to each other without getting exed, and the church even acknowledge's that gay members

 

 it isn't whatsoever. To me, the Gospel is seeing life from someone else's perspective and how to help, "we should see others as Christ sees them, not as we see them" 

 

and that includes our own views on human sexuality, or it should

Who is "we"? Do you allow that for others, to acknowledge what "we" can or cannot" know? Do you include God being allowed to have different views or parameters? "Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or ready to receive" Joseph Smith

 

and yet having to change their sexuality, but you and I don't though. Can you imagine the missionaries telling that to people? I honestly wonder how many homosexual people they baptize every year and then stay active when they find out that God actually meant that it is good for man to be alone. 

Here in the states things like this is a big reason why millenials have just walked away from religion and now combat others at the polls.  I'd expect this to intensify, personally I'm looking forward to quite the show.