What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Is phobia often used as dislike or prejudice though?

If it is the only case where phobia means dislike or prejudice instead of anxiety disorder, etc., can you see why its use may be confusing and come across as an overstatement?

Is under often used to convey among? Is standing among ever used to convey understanding? I don’t think that society at large has a problem understanding the word homophobia and homophobic. It’s analogous to racism and racist. And to be honest the only people that seem to be confused by it seem to be the ones that say things like “struggle with same sex attraction” instead of words like gay. So I’m not sure it’s the etymology of the word that’s the problem. Do you have a different word that you use to describe discrimination / dislike against gay people?
 

I myself mostly avoid using both words (racist and homophobic) as they add very little to any conversation (and I have not personally been impacted directly by either). Though if asked, yes, the church’s stance on gays is textbook homophobia just like the priesthood ban was textbook racism. 
 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do you have a different word that you use to describe discrimination / dislike against gay peop

I say discrimination against or dislike of gay people. 
 

While I prefer short labels, if it is confusing I prefer to write it out. 
 

In my youth in a suburb of San Francisco, homophobia was used for actual fear and anxiety, the kind that would lead one to spit on and even beat up men for holding hands if they could get away with it or believe weird things like homosexuality was contagious, etc. I can’t remember how long it was before I started encountering it as a dislike or prejudice, but for most of my vocabulary, how I first understand a word stays with me as my gut reaction to it and so it just sounds off to use it for the nondisorder version. 

[MustardSeed]

OK for the sake of this argument I will restate using new words. My friend explained that excluding LGBTQ parties from participating in activities that non-LGBTQ people are free to participate in is the definition of prejudice. If he believed in God anymore. It is likely that he would determined that God is prejudiced based on this definition. But like California says, I have never known anyone to refer to God as prejudiced. I personally cannot see God that way and so my own personal Explanation is that we really are completely clueless and just gotta Wait until there are enough human beings who are not prejudiced To find out what the heck is going on.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I say discrimination against or dislike of gay people. 
 

While I prefer short labels, if it is confusing I prefer to write it out. 
 

In my youth in a suburb of San Francisco, homophobia was used for actual fear and anxiety, the kind that would lead one to spit on and even beat up men for holding hands if they could get away with it or believe weird things like homosexuality was contagious, etc. I can’t remember how long it was before I started encountering it as a dislike or prejudice, but for most of my vocabulary, how I first understand a word stays with me as my gut reaction to it and so it just sounds off to use it for the nondisorder version. 

I think that is fair and I certainly think that’s how the word was originally coined. Language continually evolves though and people will naturally take shortcuts. It’s why people still use “Mormon” as a shortcut for Latter-day Saint. I still have not found a replacement for “Mormonism” and notice that around here the word “anti-Mormon” is still used even by those that object to the use of the word “Mormon”. 

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

OK for the sake of this argument I will restate using new words. My friend explained that excluding LGBTQ parties from participating in activities that non-LGBTQ people are free to participate in is the definition of prejudice. If he believed in God anymore. It is likely that he would determined that God is prejudiced based on this definition. But like California says, I have never known anyone to refer to God as prejudiced. I personally cannot see God that way and so my own personal Explanation is that we really are completely clueless and just gotta Wait until there are enough human beings who are not prejudiced To find out what the heck is going on.

If you used discrimination instead of prejudice, I would agree with him. But prejudice includes “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”.  I don’t believe all discrimination against/is a negative for LGBTQ+ is not based on reason or actual experience. I believe a lot lacks reasons, etc, including some practices I have heard of in church in the past, but I have also encountered some I believe are reason based, though some the evidence was debated (for example, I believe the research strongly shows kids do better generally if both parents are biological, so I think there could be some cases for at times privileging limited funding support first going to biological parents if it was demonstrated to help keep both biological parents in the home). 
 

But there would also be reasonable discrimination “for” LGBTQ+ as well in circumstances where the need being addresses was most prominent among that group.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Elder Holland said as much in his talk at BYU.  

And yes, I know that for some infallible leaders don't inspire much confidence.  

Is there anything we would see as evidence of this? I know he said so in that horrible talk before he went on to dismiss the same group he said they care so much about. There must be something more than talking about it in meetings right? Are there any initiatives designed to be welcoming to LGBTQ individuals and families? 

I admit that Holland saying they care and spend so much time on this topic doesn't really convince me much. There must be some kind of fruit of such labor, right? What would that fruit be? Do they spend time on the topic proactively or are they reactive? Are they worn out from their efforts they initiate or are LGBTQ people and allies wearing them out with questions and concerns?

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there anything we would see as evidence of this? I know he said so in that horrible talk before he went on to dismiss the same group he said they care so much about. There must be something more than talking about it in meetings right? Are there any initiatives designed to be welcoming to LGBTQ individuals and families? 

I admit that Holland saying they care and spend so much time on this topic doesn't really convince me much. There must be some kind of fruit of such labor, right? What would that fruit be? Do they spend time on the topic proactively or are they reactive? Are they worn out from their efforts they initiate or are LGBTQ people and allies wearing them out with questions and concerns?

I believe the church all these years was wrong to mention it at all if their words can kill, I'll get push back or even a left hook for saying that, but think the membership is better off without the talks from Holland or Oaks or Nelson or Kimball or you name it.

They should have left well enough alone. I'm thinking the judge/lawyer in Oaks and him speaking in General Conference about it, is because of the thought that the church would be forced to allow gay marriage in the temple. Even me, an under educated person knows, or thinks, that would never happen or that the law would ever force the church, since we have freedom of religion. Or Oaks' talks or worries about religious freedom, aren't needed IMO.

So the leaders speaking about it all these years hurt far more than helped. I wish they would have had better insight on this. I also think the church shoots themselves in the foot when they bring up members leaving the church or when they put on the essays with the church's warts. Even bringing them up hurts the church, IMO, like bringing up their feelings on gays and those feelings hurting the LGBTQ. Better that they didn't say a thing, most know what the church thinks on this, just leave it alone. Less damage. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there anything we would see as evidence of this? I know he said so in that horrible talk before he went on to dismiss the same group he said they care so much about. There must be something more than talking about it in meetings right? Are there any initiatives designed to be welcoming to LGBTQ individuals and families? 

I admit that Holland saying they care and spend so much time on this topic doesn't really convince me much. There must be some kind of fruit of such labor, right? What would that fruit be? Do they spend time on the topic proactively or are they reactive? Are they worn out from their efforts they initiate or are LGBTQ people and allies wearing them out with questions and concerns?

Fruit is often in the eye of the beholder.   What you would view as fruit, I might not, and vise versa.  If they don't believe our doctrine is compatible with lgtbq lifestyles, then it is likely difficult to come up with initiatives that would be seen as welcoming by most.  

If someone will only be convinced our leaders are trying if our leaders are willing to do things contrary to what they believe is right, then I can see how that person would not see any evidence of them trying. 

Sometimes we expect people to behave contrary to what they believe Christ wants and then accuse them of being unChristlike when they won't do it.  It's not very fair but it's human.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Creating the universe in LDS theology is not an action based on simple desires and fantasies such as we think of a god simply speaking and something is created out of nothing.  Instead, God is a God of Laws and all forms of creations must follow those laws even if it is the hand and will of God that sets creation in motion somehow.  He does not create elements out of nothings, but works with what is present in the universe, he organizes.  Creation is an organization process (not only like organizing a library, but also like organizing water by putting into a certain relationship 2 diatomic hydrogen molecules and one diatomic oxygen molecule). Elements as we are aware of them will only combine in certain ways and with certain other elements and the results are limited by the attributes of those elements.  God won’t break laws, he won’t create the uncreatable even if he could, he won’t create beings with attributes that do not match their structure.

Speculation follows….which means lots of rambling….feel free to skip.  I need to figure out how to explain the below using much less effort.  Sorry, hope it makes sense.  I know sometimes adding details for clarification ends up just confusing more because the word picture started out cluttered.

When I speak of “like” here, I am speaking in the limited biochemical sense or perhaps better phrased as bioanimachemical (“anima” is Latin for “spirit, assuming there is a spiritual aspect in the elements and structure of organisms), not about similarities of personality or social categories such as nations or tribes or clubs.  They are alike in relevant structure first, which leads to identical behaviour/reactions between structures, not a variety of organisms who may function in similar ways.

 Thus one possibility is there may be elements needed to form a soul that can only come from a male exalted body and some that can only come from a female exalted body, which when combined with other necessary elements produce a full, natural new and independent soul that is capable of first imitating their parents and then becoming one with their parents…’sex-related’ elements that cannot be substituted and still produce a god in embryo.

Another possibility is only a male is able to place elements in one configuration of the spirit organizing process and only a female is able to place them in another configuration and then the two configurations combine to form the whole, similar but not identical to sperm and egg…configurations that exist at a level where they can’t be manipulated by the ‘wrong’ one without fundamentally changing them (unlike how it appears eggs and sperm can be manipulated, an analogy might be how large, bulky 18th century locks may be opened by keys that are mostly matching and made of a strong material, but a much more complicated biometric lock may require a very precise key, perhaps fingerprints and a security code or an iris scanner or eventually DNA scan combined with a process that accepts only living tissue as a dna source….maybe dna plus brain wave patterns if they are unique to an indivual for some brain functions…anyway you get the idea…a refined, precise, complicated process intending to produce a specific product generally requires specific ingredients combined in specific ways and variation from the requirement means incompletion.

And maybe exaltation being available to only a male-female couple comes down to like can only bind with like and still stay the same unit at the highest level…to become one with God the Father—who is the Father because he first became a new organization/unit with the Mother and then joined or formed the Council of Gods or whatever is the organization of Gods with others who choose the same path, we two must first be a divine pair and only then is our divine pair able to be one in fullness with other divine pairs.  Perhaps like needs like to bind at that level because the required understanding and acceptance leads to a form of interaction that shares elements as well as ideas, elements that to connect must be structures that only a divine pair is capable of constructing or emitting.  Or think of how our mouths and ears are constructed so we can easily, if imprecisely communicate; our ears hear a variety of sounds so that we can use other things besides our mouths to produce communication successfully.  What, however, if communication at the exalted level is so precise and information laden only one biomechanism can produce those sounds accurately, a biomechanism only present in the organism/organization of a divine pair?

But to become a divine pair, to become a different organization capable of new functions, unlike must bind with unlike first…because adding like to like in this process does not create a new form, but at most a variation of the old form:  combine hydrogen to hydrogen and one has the potential to get different forms of hydrogen, bind hydrogen to oxygen and one has the potential of water .  

Maybe eternal divine pairs must only consist of male and female humans because male humans have at least one unique element in their original  intelligence state that stays as they evolve to spirit, mortal body and spirit or soul, resurrected soul (body and spirit)….and then who knows….and females have other unique elements and eternal marriage is not just having a relationship, but achieved somehow not only through a social interaction, but also through the combining of their souls that include these different elements into something new.  It is that combination that allows exaltation to occur…exaltation not just being a ‘position’, but a transformation…a transformation that can only occur when all elements from both participants are present.  Water can only exist if there is both hydrogen and oxygen; take away one, it is no longer water.  Water can also only exist when those elements react in a certain way.  Even just a difference of a spin between the hydrogen atoms results in a variation., if they are spinning together in one direction they are a different form of water whose hydrogen atoms are spinning in opposite directions.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/two-types-of-water-30052018/
 

For the kinds of chemical reactions mortals are currently ‘organizing’ and creating consciously using water, this difference of spin in water makes no difference at this time.  But it should be easy to imagine that as our skill grows and our control becomes more precise and delicate and our creations become things that take proper form by manipulating a few atoms or electrons or quarks, a minute difference in speed or strength of a reaction may be crucial to the desired outcome.  As our creations become more refined, small differences in contributions of material or the process (think of how differences in temperature will produce different things in a chemical reaction) become very important, substitutions or minor adjustments end in misfires only.

Pure speculation that there is at least one crucial material (spiritual-physical elements) difference between male and female and both are needed to produce whatever biochemical-whatever reaction that is the organization of a new spirit or soul.

Pure speculation obviously, but it does provide a paradigm that explains the need for a male-female bond for the purpose of organizing new human beings and why a male-male bond would not be able to function this way…there exists as part of the salvation and exaltation a process produced by a male-female divine pair whose end result is a spirit or maybe a soul…maybe resurrection is achieved by another form of birth through our heavenly parents…baptism that we say produces the mortal “new man” is a foreshadowing of the birth process that is resurrection that produces the glorified, truly new man and woman…a process that requires a specific set of chemicals, no substitutions allowed to be successful, perfect forms.

Have I mentioned I am speculating enough by now so no one will feel driven to ask me to find a scripture or chemistry reference or expect me to explain how or why?

Because I have one more pure speculation…that we probably shouldn’t be using the term male and female for the two categories of original eternal intelligence,  Rather I see it likely that the intelligence being ‘fits into’, meshes with, expands into spiritual matter in some fashion.  Maybe our intelligence is something similar to DNA in terms of how the DNA structure copies itself into RNA strands, which then eventually ends up a body.  Since the divine pair, God the Father and God the mother are causing the transcription, no errors are made and thus the spirit is a perfect expansion of the intelligence and thus what makes an intelligence “male” and “female” is manifested in a perfected expanded form in the spirit as well and thus a spirit is either “male” or “female”.

But when it comes to a mortal body, the expansion is done by imperfect mortal parents with organizing bodies and processes which means variations may occur for the same spirit “dna” expansion (expansion meaning physical elements are added to the spiritual elements, possibly resulting in the ‘same’ body with identical except for being physical elements or an expansion of form and function like what I speculated occurred with intelligence and spirit (more like giving a brain a body than putting a glove on a hand).  This means maleness and femaleness for a physical body is ‘fuzzier’.  Not only may there be mismatches between spirit and body elements, but elements may be left out or ‘alien’ elements added.  Instead of a perfectly formed sculpture of perfect marble made from perfect blueprints made by a perfect artist, the sculpture that is the mortal body made with mortal elements by mortal parents is closer to a mix of marble, quartz, clay, playdoh, and mud and due to the weaker materials, its form is more lumpy blob than Michelangelo’s David.  Now some of the quartz, clay, playdoh, and mud were attracted by the male or femaleness of the spirit body, not just the marble, so the sexual physical aspect is not a perfect translation of the spiritual attribute we label “male” or “female”, but rather a combination of correction translations or elements which express male or femaleness as the spirit would; missing elements meaning absent expected behaviour; additional, unnecessary elements and thus unnecessary behaviours ; and mismatches that result in wrong behaviour.  This means many aspects and behaviours we think of as “male” right now are not actually a manifestation of the eternal male structure, but additions or ‘mistranslations’….mortal attributes that will be corrected or dropped or if missing restored in the resurrected male form, same with the female form.  Think of those messy, fuzzy sexual attributes as similar to cultural ones that are passed on through traditions…but sometimes get lost, get added to, or get misunderstood.  
 

Not an issue in mortality because life is meant to be messy to provide a sandbox for a baby god to play in, but mature gods will have changed their baby fat to toned muscles and dropped the snot, spit up (my family calls it “urp”), dirt, and occasional poop while having grown back into the height of their matured prebirth spirits .

So I expect what we think of as male and female in mortal perspective only overlaps some with our eternal nature.  What is now a hodgepodge of important, trivial, unnecessary, and wrong attributes will be a well defined, precisely structured collection of essential, perfect attributes.  What makes a divine pair therefore may be minimally connected to what makes a married couple in mortality.

I love all of this!

I am looking at the STRUCTURE OF THE THEORY of WHY embodiment is necessary in Mormon theology- and I understand and have chosen those words carefully because there IS no REAL "Mormon theology" except speculation.

This thread appears  to me to be trying to answer and concoct a reason FOR exaltation in same sex sex marriage when my question is about  WHY such a practice is incompatible with the Church of Jesus Christ LDS

All this effort at trying to justify it requires mental gymnastics beyond comprehension, as you have clearly shown. It seems that what we are seeing here is "heterophobia".

The entire idea of exaltation is pretty weird to most people, and requires obedience and yet people want to disobey and still be exalted???  There is a big contradiction there. 

Make up your own exaltation theology! Why not? Sounds like a great business plan!  Declare the church apostate and start over !

God can do anything. 

All these theories are possible.

But the truth is, as you have shown, that the Embodied God DECIDED to embody his children!!!  For reasons we cannot know

Of all these possible methods of reproduction. they are not what God chose!

He decided to take upon himself immanence and use what we call "natural law", voluntarily limiting himself by doing so, and told us to emulate Him!!

I have nothing against same sex marriage.  Gay folks ( I have some in my close family) have a right to make themselves happy!

It's just that ssm is incompatible with LDS for the same reason that creation ex nihilo is- it's not the natural order of things.

And yes, when we have a disorder, that can be overridden, and be creative and use man's way since God has not given us any other answers 

But you cannot take a pill or get an operation to be exalted.

That is the problem.  

That's all the time I have for today 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Fruit is often in the eye of the beholder.   What you would view as fruit, I might not, and vise versa.  If they don't believe our doctrine is compatible with lgtbq lifestyles, then it is likely difficult to come up with initiatives that would be seen as welcoming by most.  

If someone will only be convinced our leaders are trying if our leaders are willing to do things contrary to what they believe is right, then I can see how that person would not see any evidence of them trying. 

Sometimes we expect people to behave contrary to what they believe Christ wants and then accuse them of being unChristlike when they won't do it.  It's not very fair but it's human.

 

Fair enough. What fruits do you see?

You seem to be saying that the church leaders are doing everything they can and wearing themselves out trying to be welcoming yet we are expecting too much if we expect them to actually be welcoming.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I see no evidence of this. If they are doing something to wear themselves out trying to figure this out maybe they could share a little.

I agree that some day there will be answers and IMO the church will be embarrassed and have to disavow current/past teachings on this topic. It will be said they were looking through a glass darkly. It will be said that they were only speaking as men. Doesn't inspire much confidence.

I think the first disavowal was a slippery slope, and if it becomes standard practice and routine, it will lead to an avalanche of mistrust and lack of confidence in the Brethren. Which is why it appeared in a ghost-written, outsourced, unsigned essay, not something with their names attached (deniability and flexibility). I can't even imagine if this started to become routine. 

The bigger problem with disavowals is when it is simply done to lance the boil and get a problem behind us, but doesn't come with any explanation or context for a new framework going forward. I think at minimum any disavowals should be accompanied with explanations that acknowledge the difficulty the disavowal creates (what do we make of past doctrine? Utter rubbish? Fallible men seeing through a glass darkly? How to address skepticism over motives, convenience, social pressure, etc.? How do we cobble together past explanations with the current ones in a way that preserves confidence in prophesy that stands the test of time? Etc.). 

It's especially bad, using the priesthood ban as an example, when all past explanations are disavowed without offering authoritative replacement ones. Or without explaining how only race cannot be explained based on the preexistence, but all other important factors can and still are (family placement, time era, geographical limitations and opportunities, government systems, family heritage, patriarchal blessing lineage, etc.). It was clearly meant to lance a boil, rip the band aid off, and get it over with, but wasn't a revelation from God on the subject.

If future disavowals, including about eternal principles and doctrines relating to the law of chastity, are like this --- they will do more harm than good. 

[bOObOO]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the first disavowal was a slippery slope, and if it becomes standard practice and routine, it will lead to an avalanche of mistrust and lack of confidence in the Brethren. Which is why it appeared in a ghost-written, outsourced, unsigned essay, not something with their names attached (deniability and flexibility). I can't even imagine if this started to become routine. 

The bigger problem with disavowals is when it is simply done to lance the boil and get a problem behind us, but doesn't come with any explanation or context for a new framework going forward. I think at minimum any disavowals should be accompanied with explanations that acknowledge the difficulty the disavowal creates (what do we make of past doctrine? Utter rubbish? Fallible men seeing through a glass darkly? How to address skepticism over motives, convenience, social pressure, etc.? How do we cobble together past explanations with the current ones in a way that preserves confidence in prophesy that stands the test of time? Etc.). 

It's especially bad, using the priesthood ban as an example, when all past explanations are disavowed without offering authoritative replacement ones. Or without explaining how only race cannot be explained based on the preexistence, but all other important factors can and still are (family placement, time era, geographical limitations and opportunities, government systems, family heritage, patriarchal blessing lineage, etc.). It was clearly meant to lance a boil, rip the band aid off, and get it over with, but wasn't a revelation from God on the subject.

If future disavowals, including about eternal principles and doctrines relating to the law of chastity, are like this --- they will do more harm than good. 

Issues of credibility are all pretty much moot though since we're all supposed to be basing our beliefs and ideas on revelations we have each personally received from God.  Each issue is our own personal issue which each of us must deal with personally.

Why do I personally feel that what I think and feel about  __(whatever issue)__ is the way I sahould think and feel about this particular issue?  Because I believe I have received personal revelation from God on this issue and I think and feel this way about it.

If I had some other revelation from God then perhaps that would affect how I think and feel about this __(whatever issue)__, but I have received only what I have received, and based on what I have received I now think and feel this way.

Some Church declaring it thinks and feels a particular way about something doesn't necessarily affect how I think and feel on an issue.  I may agree or I may not.  I am the one who determines what I will think and feel on an issue.  With God's help or without it.

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Issues of credibility are all pretty much moot though since we're all supposed to be basing our beliefs and ideas on revelations we have each personally received from God.  Each issue is our own personal issue which each of us must deal with personally.

Why do I personally feel that what I think and feel about  __(whatever issue)__ is the way I sahould think and feel about this particular issue?  Because I believe I have received personal revelation from God on this issue and I think and feel this way about it.

If I had some other revelation from God then perhaps that would affect how I think and feel about this __(whatever issue)__, but I have received only what I have received, and based on what I have received I now think and feel this way.

Some Church declaring it thinks and feels a particular way about something doesn't necessarily affect how I think and feel on an issue.  I may agree or I may not.  I am the one who determines what I will think and feel on an issue.  With God's help or without it.

Sure, but how churches communicate and set policy really affects the bigger picture of church growth and progress --- and morale within the church. Independent of how we personally think and feel about it. 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you remember those protests about in-vitro fertilizationbeing against God's will?

You are missing the point.

You are arguing that they are IN God's plan

How is your option any better than theirs was?

All I am arguing is that ssm is incongruent with exaltation in the LDS faith. Please tell me you can see the difference

Where are there LDS scriptures supporting you?

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bOObOO]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure, but how churches communicate and set policy really affects the bigger picture of church growth and progress --- and morale within the church. Independent of how we personally think and feel about it. 

Please elaborate, maybe with an example.  In my perspective a Church communicates by each personal representative who is communicating, so even then it is a personal issue between each individual who communicates to others who hear from that person who communicated.  And each person who hears from that person who is communicating is deciding for him or herself whether or not to believe what that person communicated.  And there are always 2 options, to either agree or not agree.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Fair enough. What fruits do you see?

Some of the fruits that I see are:

• Reversal of the 2015 policy on baptizing children of gay parents
• Statement of support of that concert a few years ago that focused on supporting lgtbq+
• The church's support of laws that helped protect lgtbq+ from harassment or are supportive in other ways, (including supporting the ban on conversion therapy)
• The church no longer actively fighting against SSM
• The creation of the Mormon and Gay webpage
• Changes to the Handbook so that same sex relations does not require a mandatory church discipline council (or whatever they are called now)

Quote

You seem to be saying that the church leaders are doing everything they can and wearing themselves out trying to be welcoming yet we are expecting too much if we expect them to actually be welcoming.

I believe they are wearing themselves out trying to understand what God would have them do in regards to lgtbq+ members and nonmembers.  From what Elder Holland has said it seems like those exact answers are slow in coming but that they are trying to do what they can in the meantime to be welcoming while working with the knowledge they currently have.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Fair enough. What fruits do you see?

You seem to be saying that the church leaders are doing everything they can and wearing themselves out trying to be welcoming yet we are expecting too much if we expect them to actually be welcoming.

Taking into account their beliefs that they can't do anything to change our current understanding of doctrine without revelation from God commanding such a change, what fruit would you like to see from them?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Fruit is often in the eye of the beholder.   What you would view as fruit, I might not, and vise versa.  If they don't believe our doctrine is compatible with lgtbq lifestyles, then it is likely difficult to come up with initiatives that would be seen as welcoming by most.  

If someone will only be convinced our leaders are trying if our leaders are willing to do things contrary to what they believe is right, then I can see how that person would not see any evidence of them trying. 

Sometimes we expect people to behave contrary to what they believe Christ wants and then accuse them of being unChristlike when they won't do it.  It's not very fair but it's human.

 

How about a simple conference mention about welcoming gay couples to attend church.  Too much?

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Creating the universe in LDS theology is not an action based on simple desires and fantasies such as we think of a god simply speaking and something is created out of nothing.  Instead, God is a God of Laws and all forms of creations must follow those laws even if it is the hand and will of God that sets creation in motion somehow.  He does not create elements out of nothings, but works with what is present in the universe, he organizes.  Creation is an organization process (not only like organizing a library, but also like organizing water by putting into a certain relationship 2 diatomic hydrogen molecules and one diatomic oxygen molecule). Elements as we are aware of them will only combine in certain ways and with certain other elements and the results are limited by the attributes of those elements.  God won’t break laws, he won’t create the uncreatable even if he could, he won’t create beings with attributes that do not match their structure.

Speculation follows….which means lots of rambling….feel free to skip.  I need to figure out how to explain the below using much less effort.  Sorry, hope it makes sense.  I know sometimes adding details for clarification ends up just confusing more because the word picture started out cluttered.

When I speak of “like” here, I am speaking in the limited biochemical sense or perhaps better phrased as bioanimachemical (“anima” is Latin for “spirit, assuming there is a spiritual aspect in the elements and structure of organisms), not about similarities of personality or social categories such as nations or tribes or clubs.  They are alike in relevant structure first, which leads to identical behaviour/reactions between structures, not a variety of organisms who may function in similar ways.

 Thus one possibility is there may be elements needed to form a soul that can only come from a male exalted body and some that can only come from a female exalted body, which when combined with other necessary elements produce a full, natural new and independent soul that is capable of first imitating their parents and then becoming one with their parents…’sex-related’ elements that cannot be substituted and still produce a god in embryo.

Another possibility is only a male is able to place elements in one configuration of the spirit organizing process and only a female is able to place them in another configuration and then the two configurations combine to form the whole, similar but not identical to sperm and egg…configurations that exist at a level where they can’t be manipulated by the ‘wrong’ one without fundamentally changing them (unlike how it appears eggs and sperm can be manipulated, an analogy might be how large, bulky 18th century locks may be opened by keys that are mostly matching and made of a strong material, but a much more complicated biometric lock may require a very precise key, perhaps fingerprints and a security code or an iris scanner or eventually DNA scan combined with a process that accepts only living tissue as a dna source….maybe dna plus brain wave patterns if they are unique to an indivual for some brain functions…anyway you get the idea…a refined, precise, complicated process intending to produce a specific product generally requires specific ingredients combined in specific ways and variation from the requirement means incompletion.

And maybe exaltation being available to only a male-female couple comes down to like can only bind with like and still stay the same unit at the highest level…to become one with God the Father—who is the Father because he first became a new organization/unit with the Mother and then joined or formed the Council of Gods or whatever is the organization of Gods with others who choose the same path, we two must first be a divine pair and only then is our divine pair able to be one in fullness with other divine pairs.  Perhaps like needs like to bind at that level because the required understanding and acceptance leads to a form of interaction that shares elements as well as ideas, elements that to connect must be structures that only a divine pair is capable of constructing or emitting.  Or think of how our mouths and ears are constructed so we can easily, if imprecisely communicate; our ears hear a variety of sounds so that we can use other things besides our mouths to produce communication successfully.  What, however, if communication at the exalted level is so precise and information laden only one biomechanism can produce those sounds accurately, a biomechanism only present in the organism/organization of a divine pair?

But to become a divine pair, to become a different organization capable of new functions, unlike must bind with unlike first…because adding like to like in this process does not create a new form, but at most a variation of the old form:  combine hydrogen to hydrogen and one has the potential to get different forms of hydrogen, bind hydrogen to oxygen and one has the potential of water .  

Maybe eternal divine pairs must only consist of male and female humans because male humans have at least one unique element in their original  intelligence state that stays as they evolve to spirit, mortal body and spirit or soul, resurrected soul (body and spirit)….and then who knows….and females have other unique elements and eternal marriage is not just having a relationship, but achieved somehow not only through a social interaction, but also through the combining of their souls that include these different elements into something new.  It is that combination that allows exaltation to occur…exaltation not just being a ‘position’, but a transformation…a transformation that can only occur when all elements from both participants are present.  Water can only exist if there is both hydrogen and oxygen; take away one, it is no longer water.  Water can also only exist when those elements react in a certain way.  Even just a difference of a spin between the hydrogen atoms results in a variation., if they are spinning together in one direction they are a different form of water whose hydrogen atoms are spinning in opposite directions.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/two-types-of-water-30052018/
 

For the kinds of chemical reactions mortals are currently ‘organizing’ and creating consciously using water, this difference of spin in water makes no difference at this time.  But it should be easy to imagine that as our skill grows and our control becomes more precise and delicate and our creations become things that take proper form by manipulating a few atoms or electrons or quarks, a minute difference in speed or strength of a reaction may be crucial to the desired outcome.  As our creations become more refined, small differences in contributions of material or the process (think of how differences in temperature will produce different things in a chemical reaction) become very important, substitutions or minor adjustments end in misfires only.

Pure speculation that there is at least one crucial material (spiritual-physical elements) difference between male and female and both are needed to produce whatever biochemical-whatever reaction that is the organization of a new spirit or soul.

Pure speculation obviously, but it does provide a paradigm that explains the need for a male-female bond for the purpose of organizing new human beings and why a male-male bond would not be able to function this way…there exists as part of the salvation and exaltation a process produced by a male-female divine pair whose end result is a spirit or maybe a soul…maybe resurrection is achieved by another form of birth through our heavenly parents…baptism that we say produces the mortal “new man” is a foreshadowing of the birth process that is resurrection that produces the glorified, truly new man and woman…a process that requires a specific set of chemicals, no substitutions allowed to be successful, perfect forms.

Have I mentioned I am speculating enough by now so no one will feel driven to ask me to find a scripture or chemistry reference or expect me to explain how or why?

Because I have one more pure speculation…that we probably shouldn’t be using the term male and female for the two categories of original eternal intelligence,  Rather I see it likely that the intelligence being ‘fits into’, meshes with, expands into spiritual matter in some fashion.  Maybe our intelligence is something similar to DNA in terms of how the DNA structure copies itself into RNA strands, which then eventually ends up a body.  Since the divine pair, God the Father and God the mother are causing the transcription, no errors are made and thus the spirit is a perfect expansion of the intelligence and thus what makes an intelligence “male” and “female” is manifested in a perfected expanded form in the spirit as well and thus a spirit is either “male” or “female”.

But when it comes to a mortal body, the expansion is done by imperfect mortal parents with organizing bodies and processes which means variations may occur for the same spirit “dna” expansion (expansion meaning physical elements are added to the spiritual elements, possibly resulting in the ‘same’ body with identical except for being physical elements or an expansion of form and function like what I speculated occurred with intelligence and spirit (more like giving a brain a body than putting a glove on a hand).  This means maleness and femaleness for a physical body is ‘fuzzier’.  Not only may there be mismatches between spirit and body elements, but elements may be left out or ‘alien’ elements added.  Instead of a perfectly formed sculpture of perfect marble made from perfect blueprints made by a perfect artist, the sculpture that is the mortal body made with mortal elements by mortal parents is closer to a mix of marble, quartz, clay, playdoh, and mud and due to the weaker materials, its form is more lumpy blob than Michelangelo’s David.  Now some of the quartz, clay, playdoh, and mud were attracted by the male or femaleness of the spirit body, not just the marble, so the sexual physical aspect is not a perfect translation of the spiritual attribute we label “male” or “female”, but rather a combination of correction translations or elements which express male or femaleness as the spirit would; missing elements meaning absent expected behaviour; additional, unnecessary elements and thus unnecessary behaviours ; and mismatches that result in wrong behaviour.  This means many aspects and behaviours we think of as “male” right now are not actually a manifestation of the eternal male structure, but additions or ‘mistranslations’….mortal attributes that will be corrected or dropped or if missing restored in the resurrected male form, same with the female form.  Think of those messy, fuzzy sexual attributes as similar to cultural ones that are passed on through traditions…but sometimes get lost, get added to, or get misunderstood.  
 

Not an issue in mortality because life is meant to be messy to provide a sandbox for a baby god to play in, but mature gods will have changed their baby fat to toned muscles and dropped the snot, spit up (my family calls it “urp”), dirt, and occasional poop while having grown back into the height of their matured prebirth spirits .

So I expect what we think of as male and female in mortal perspective only overlaps some with our eternal nature.  What is now a hodgepodge of important, trivial, unnecessary, and wrong attributes will be a well defined, precisely structured collection of essential, perfect attributes.  What makes a divine pair therefore may be minimally connected to what makes a married couple in mortality.

Yeah, all of those scenarios are just as possible as the one I presented. It is a different perspective.  Providing a different perspective is a large part of why I post on this board.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

You have changed your argument.  You just claimed that Christ had to be created differently than the rest of mortals if God didn’t have sex with Mary, but sex isn’t the only option to create babies even now for just mortals.

I haven't changed my argument.  I have expanded my argument to show that there is not just one way humans are created.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the first disavowal was a slippery slope, and if it becomes standard practice and routine, it will lead to an avalanche of mistrust and lack of confidence in the Brethren. Which is why it appeared in a ghost-written, outsourced, unsigned essay, not something with their names attached (deniability and flexibility). I can't even imagine if this started to become routine. 

The bigger problem with disavowals is when it is simply done to lance the boil and get a problem behind us, but doesn't come with any explanation or context for a new framework going forward. I think at minimum any disavowals should be accompanied with explanations that acknowledge the difficulty the disavowal creates (what do we make of past doctrine? Utter rubbish? Fallible men seeing through a glass darkly? How to address skepticism over motives, convenience, social pressure, etc.? How do we cobble together past explanations with the current ones in a way that preserves confidence in prophesy that stands the test of time? Etc.). 

An excellent statement of the problems that come from prophetic fallibility. IMO, it emphasizes to me that we really haven't adequately addressed the issue, and I fear that the Church will stagnate at some level if we don't come to terms with it.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

If future disavowals, including about eternal principles and doctrines relating to the law of chastity, are like this --- they will do more harm than good. 

I have mixed and jumbled feelings about this so I don't know if I can make this coherent. I think, in essence, what I see you saying here is that, whether or not our current beliefs and policies about LGBT people and issues are true, God cannot (as you said that @HappyJackWagon and @Analytics are claiming that sometimes God cannot reveal truth to the Church) reveal anything different to the Church even if He wanted to do.

In the marriage help circles that I follow, sometimes the conversation will turn to divorce. In some of these discussions, it will be claimed that some cases fail to find resolution because the couple is unwilling to consider divorce. Something about "divorce is not an option" prevents the spouses from truly choosing to stay in the marriage. In these cases, when the couple decides that divorce is an option, something clicks in that the spouses can then legitimately choose whether or not they will stay together or separate. Is the same kind of thing at play here? We can't resolve the LGBT problem because God really has only one choice in revelations He can give the Church and keep the Church intact?

On another hand, though, there ought to be a truth out there to be found. If God is constrained to one strongly contested revelation (the current one), how will we know that this is the true one? As @bOObOO says, we are supposed to be able to individually get truth from God, but, it seems that so many people are getting contradicting revelations from God. What is the final arbiter of truth?

Coming back to the goals and purposes, part of it could be the Church's self-preservation.

I don't know. It's all just so muddled and jumbled and unsatisfactory...

[california boy]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are missing the point.

You are arguing that they are IN God's plan

Yes, I am arguing that it is very possible that all of God's children are IN God's plan.  It is a different perspective to your only male/female are in God's plan.  I am offering a different perspective.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How is your option any better than theirs was?

It is not better.  It is an alternative.  Since all of this is speculation, one theory doesn't really hold any more weight than the other.  What does matter is what is true from God's perspective.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All I am arguing is that ssm is incongruent with exaltation in the LDS faith. Please tell me you can see the difference

And all I am arguing is that your belief is not a foregone conclusion.  I am offering a different perspective.  I don't see the difference.  Your perspective mandates male/female relationships to create spirit children.  Since how spirit children has not been revealed to us, it is just as likely that two same sex gods could create spirit children.  

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where are there LDS scriptures supporting you?

The book of Abraham which narrates the creation as Gods not God created the universe.  I think it is about Chapter 4 - 5

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

I haven't changed my argument.  I have expanded my argument to show that there is not just one way humans are created.

But whether through conventional means or IVF, a part of a male and a part of a female are required to make a baby in all of your examples.

I think that is what Cal is saying. There are multiple ways to bring a sperm and egg together, but the sperm and egg are always required in the examples we have.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How about a simple conference mention about welcoming gay couples to attend church.  Too much?

Not too much at all. And something that would be very doable. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But whether through conventional means or IVF, a part of a male and a part of a female are required to make a baby in all of your examples.

I think that is what Cal is saying. There are multiple ways to bring a sperm and egg together, but the sperm and egg are always required in the examples we have.

Actually I was more focused on “God had to have sex with Mary” part as I have too often encountered people arguing that is a fundamental doctrine of the Church when it is not.