What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

A trans acquaintance of mine (who I find to be highly intelligent if not quite yet emotionally intelligent But well on his way) recently explained to me that excluding LGBTQ from any activity that is allowed for non LGBTQ folk is by definition phobic. He does not believe in God anymore, however I suppose if he did, he would describe God as homophobic. The very thought is provocative I know.

It’s quite interesting as I get to know this young man and care about his well-being how I tend to examine these issues, and people, quite differently than I did before. There is still a lot that I don’t understand and cannot comprehend, however, I am much more compassionate towards those who feel very left out and alienated than I did when  I only knew one transgendered person personally whom I really disliked (for reasons other than her gender ID.) 

I have never met someone who thinks that God is homophobic.  But I have met a lot of people who believe that God holds beliefs that are just like the own.  They don't think they are homophobic because they believe God thinks the same.  Since God can't be homophobic, then either are they.  

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Speaking from experience, it feels like ego, pride, caring what other people think, shame, etc.  It really doesn't matter what the subject is, that's almost always what it feels like.  

Do you think it is Satan that causes ego, pride, caring what other people think, shame.  Or is it just in our nature to help us feel better about ourselves.  

[bluebell]

Just now, california boy said:

Do you think it is Satan that causes ego, pride, caring what other people think, shame.  Or is it just in our nature to help us feel better about ourselves.  

No, I don't necessarily believe that those things are always satan, but when satan does manipulate me, that's typically how he does it.  I do think that it is in our nature to try to make ourselves feel better and I think that satan often uses that nature against us.  There are positive ways to try to feel better and negative ways to try to feel better.  The positive ones actually help and the negative ones end up making things worse.  

When we convince ourselves that the negative ways are the best choice, I believe that's satan manipulating us.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I am waiting to see if some  genius can show how an alternative view of gender does NOT blow up the paradigm of an embodied God, which then makes us like every other church on every corner 

Funny.  I have never heard an explanation of why male/female relationships have to be the only kind of relationships in the next life.  No one has given me a solid reason why male/male or female/female relationships would not be able to function fully in the next life.  What is limiting about those relationships.  We know that all three relationships can and do work well on this earth except for having biological babies.  But if that is the only difference, and we don't know exactly how spirit children are created, then that seems to be a nonreactor in the next life.

 

Joseph Smith taught that the gods (plural) created the earth.  That means multiple male Gods were involved in the creation.  (He doesn't talk about female gods involved). This is clearly laid out in the Book of Abraham.  If multiple gods worked together to create the world, then why would they have to be a male/female combination?  In fact, if I am not correct, Joseph Smith only taught that multiple male gods were involved in the creation process.  

Sounds like a perfect job for gay couples.  Maybe we create more beautiful flowers.  Clearly some straight male god created the aardvark.  We will take credit for the swans and leopards.

 

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I don't necessarily believe that those things are always satan, but when satan does manipulate me, that's typically how he does it.  I do think that it is in our nature to try to make ourselves feel better and I think that satan often uses that nature against us.  There are positive ways to try to feel better and negative ways to try to feel better.  The positive ones actually help and the negative ones end up making things worse.  

When we convince ourselves that the negative ways are the best choice, I believe that's satan manipulating us.

Thanks for your thoughts.  I actually am enjoying this thread for a change.  It seems like people are talking about things that are less emotional and exploring what we do and do not know. about this issue.  It seems like there is actually hardly anything that we know for a fact about LGBT and how they fit into things.

[MustardSeed]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think it is Satan that causes ego, pride, caring what other people think, shame.  Or is it just in our nature to help us feel better about ourselves.  

I personally don't see satan working against me directly but I believe he represents all the stuff that Bluebell describes.  Just as I don't see God as intervening directly  (or not, as it were) I don't consider my thoughts and feelings to be planted by satan, but rather since he exists, so does all the nonsense.

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your thoughts.  I actually am enjoying this thread for a change.  It seems like people are talking about things that are less emotional and exploring what we do and do not know. about this issue.  It seems like there is actually hardly anything that we know for a fact about LGBT and how they fit into things.

I think everything in the Plan of Salvation applies to all of God's children equally, efforts to understand their nature by categorizing (alas, often separating them) by ideological, socio-sexual terms notwithstanding. There is far more that we know about the children of God than we don't, simply because we have infinitely so much in common.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

We know that all three relationships can and do work well on this earth except for having biological babies.  But if that is the only difference, and we don't know exactly how spirit children are created, then that seems to be a nonreactor in the next life.

I believe  that having "biological" babies is the whole point for Gods having physical bodies.

Why is it important that Jesus is the "only Begotten" child created physically with Father AS the biological father?  Why didn't he just make Jesus miraculously instead of making him the "only Begotten "?

Why is that even important?

This whole concept is apparently essential to the creation of human Gods, with physical bodies and is apparently why sealing between a man and woman is essential to become Gods with physical bodies.

And you are saying that we puny god embryos have to know how it all works NOW for it to be a "reactor" in a process we do not yet know?

That's poor logic. 

So because we don't know how resurrection works, it is a "nonreactor" in exaltation? ?

Why then explore ANY question we don't understand now?

Why must one then be resurrected at all to be exalted?  Obviously a physical body is important for things we do not yet understand

Denying that Gods don't really need physical bodies denies the importance of resurrection 

If Christ could have done "all he saw his Father doing" without having a body, why must we do actual proxy baptisms and other ordinances here while WE are embodied for those who are not? As someone once suggested why don't we simply baptize a roll of microfilm ?

There is obviously a central reason for us seeing God as embodied  that is essential to exaltation, and as you say the ONLY difference is having biological babies.

That is apparently THE key to needing to postulate that God has a physical body, because all other relationships work fine without that postulate.

So yes, you are right the only difference is making biological babies.  It is, I believe the only reason God HAS TO have a physical body to create spirit babies.

Why don't we just go with a disembodied God as a paradigm then?

We'd all be Catholic!

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It seems like there is actually hardly anything that we know for a fact about LGBT and how they fit into things.

Well "factual" information that is justified empirically of course is impossible in theology, and I agree that their place in the plan of salvation is really difficult to comprehend.  For the record I do feel that many LGBT+ folks,  or possibly all, were "born" that way, so it is a real puzzlement.

I also think MANY of God's children have various trials they are "born" with; I don't think we will ever know why.

Again I see every philosophical problem the same way- it's not about what is "true" since that word is undefinable, it's about constructing a consistent story or "paradigm" to make a theory that works to give us something that makes sense until a better paradigm  comes along

 But as it is, I am not seeing any paradigm that could show how LDS theology could be made compatible with gay marriage 

[MustardSeed]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But as it is, I am not seeing any paradigm that could show how LDS theology could be made compatible with gay marriage 

So very sadly I agree.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Joseph Smith taught that the gods (plural) created the earth.  That means multiple male Gods were involved in the creation.  (He doesn't talk about female gods involved). This is clearly laid out in the Book of Abraham.  If multiple gods worked together to create the world, then why would they have to be a male/female combination?

To populate the world with spirits. Empty worlds without end are not going to amount to much if God’s work is to bring joy and eternal life to humankind. 
 

I get the challenge there could be a division of labor, the above can easily be challenged with that…much depends I am guessing on how oneness occurs at the level of exaltation and whether there are necessary attributes that come only through creating human life and that is not something we have detailed revelation about, imo.

I believe it will end up being dependent on what makes one able to create in the sense of being able to organize elements into something new. This may or may not be tied into what attributes are developed through being able to birth children together (I need to use birth because parenting includes more than reproduction).  

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe  that having "biological" babies is the whole point for Gods having physical bodies.

So it is important that we have bodies so that we can make sure other people have bodies. Seems kind of circular. If that is the whole point than it seems a bit pointless.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 But as it is, I am not seeing any paradigm that could show how LDS theology could be made compatible with gay marriage 

Are we on the verge of surpassing the power of the gods?

https://medium.com/neodotlife/same-sex-reproduction-artificial-gametes-2739206aa4c0

Or, to make it more lick clickbait:

”Local planet develops method of bypassing traditional Godhood. Members of the Eloiheim hate it!”

[Canadiandude]

I mean I kinda miss the days where gods & angels were apparently wrestled with.

[teddyaware]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So it is important that we have bodies so that we can make sure other people have bodies. Seems kind of circular. If that is the whole point than it seems a bit pointless.

Am I. correct in assuming you perceive the human procreation that’s been continuing on planet earth for thousands of years to also be  “a bit pointless,” even though the Lord says his primary work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of embodied man? I’m perplexed as to why a believing member of the Church would question the purpose and worth of obtaining his own body when it’s such a bedrock teaching of the Church? It seems as though no matter how sacred a teaching of the Church might be that there’s almost always going to be what appears to be a dismissive, sarcastic comment about it. I don’t get it…

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Am I. correct in assuming you perceive the human procreation that’s been continuing on planet earth for thousands of years to also be  “a bit pointless,” even though the Lord says his primary work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of embodied man? I’m perplexed as to why a believing member of the Church would question the purpose and worth of obtaining his own body when it’s such a bedrock teaching of the Church? It seems as though no matter how sacred a teaching of the Church might be that there’s almost always going to be what appears to be a dismissive, sarcastic comment about it. I don’t get it…

You are incorrect.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I mean I kinda miss the days where gods & angels were apparently wrestled with.

Me too. I did sumo back when I was an angel.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This may or may not be tied into what attributes are developed through being able to birth children together (I need to use birth because parenting includes more than reproduction).  

Great point! So very true! I am convinced that each parent, both women and men, contribute their own unique perspective to the processes neccessary for the child's "Becoming".

I will never forget Sr. Eubanks talk on the "Divine Pair"

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

... however I suppose if he did, he would describe God as homophobic.

Homophobia and transphobia are among the most overused and misplaced words I know.  A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  Simply not liking or agreeing with something does not constitute a phobia.  In the vast, vast majority of cases where these words are used against someone, no irrational fear is present in the person being accused.  They simply don't like or agree with LGBT stuff.    Some people might call me homophobic or transphobic but that is nonsense. I could sit in a room with a gay or trans person and not feel any increase in stress or anxiety.   Put a wasp in a room and my blood pressure goes up.  I have a phobia of wasps.

Edited September 27, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Me too. I did sumo back when I was an angel.

Unfortunately Aquinas showed that angels do not occupy space, so they would definitely be lightweights.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:53 AM, rongo said:

There will be PR attempts to avoid criticism and unrest, but the bottom line (active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation) will remain.

I would probably phrase this differently, but I think you're not entirely off-base. The apostles have made it clear (to me!) that they understand fully that they are dealing with a temporally bound phenomenon. By this I don't mean something that is linked to and therefore will end with mortality; rather, I mean something that is tied to a specific cultural context that has both temporal and spatial elements. Fixed, gendered sexual identity as currently conceived has no historical precedent and, despite the West's very successful attempts at colonising the global imagination, remains on the fringes of many societies (and still unknown in some).

Novel social movements such as this one follow a familiar trajectory, growing in influence for a long time, eventually exploding into public consciousness and even trendy ascendance before dissipating, often disappearing entirely.

In my opinion, Church leaders are just playing the long game, limiting the harm done to the Church (both individually and institutionally) until 'this too shall pass'.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Homophobia and transphobia are among the most overused and misplaced words I know.  A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  Simply not liking or agreeing with something does not constitute a phobia.  In the vast, vast majority of cases where these words are used against someone, no irrational fear is present in the person being accused.  They simply don't like or agree with LGBT stuff.    Some people might call me homophobic or transphobic but that is nonsense. I could sit in a room with a gay or trans person and not feel any increase in stress or anxiety.   Put a wasp in a room and my blood pressure goes up.  I have a phobia of wasps.

Ok

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So it is important that we have bodies so that we can make sure other people have bodies. Seems kind of circular. If that is the whole point than it seems a bit pointless.

Yeah, right. Everything on earth recycles but it is pointless

Water recycles. It evaporates and then rains.

Air recycles. Poop becomes oxygen when the fertilizer cycles through photosynthesis, and on and on.

Boring.

Pointless.

Uh huh.

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, right. Everything on earth recycles but it is pointless

Water recycles. It evaporates and then rains.

Air recycles. Poop becomes oxygen when the fertilizer cycles through photosynthesis, and on and on.

Boring.

Pointless.

Uh huh.

If it only exists to perpetuate itself then yes. If it is there for use and enjoyment than the situation changes. My disagreement was that the reason we have bodies is to make more bodies. Who cares? Why would we need bodies if there was not some greater reason to have them? And there is.

[mfbukowski]

Error, misunderstanding

Edited September 27, 2021 by mfbukowski