What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

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.

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.  

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

Abraham Chapter 4:

27 So the ^aGods went down to organize man in their own ^bimage, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

I looks to me like the use of the plural forms (Gods, their, they, them) convey that the Gods included males and females. You have to gather that from what Adam and Eve were organized to become, from other scriptures. The literal, liturgical and figurative interpretations and applications is that the pattern of the Gods is a marriage between male and female.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

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.

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.  

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

Abraham Chapter 4:

27 So the ^aGods went down to organize man in their own ^bimage, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

I looks to me like the use of the plural forms (Gods, their, they, them) convey that the Gods included males and females. You have to gather that from what Adam and Eve were organized to become, from other scriptures. The literal, liturgical and figurative interpretations and applications show that the pattern of the Gods is a marriage between male and female. Man is spirit (D&C 93: 33), and spirit children are born into this world, but not through same-sex mechanisms. This, and what you claim hasn't been revealed, has indeed been revealed (See Moses 6: 58 - 63; note the phrase in eh concluding teaching, "all things have their likeness" and bear record of the Only Begotten Son of God, and we know how He came to earth).

Edited September 28, 2021 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

Certainly agreed.

Again my point is about embodiment as a principle in LDS belief not the details of how it happened, and how Mary remained a "virgin". To me we are on the edge of taking an extremely sacred point, which is none of our business, far too lightly.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

Sorry for the confusion, I only meant that your point was the first part of the sentence:  I think that is what Cal is saying. There are multiple ways to bring a sperm and egg together,...

The second half was my injection into the topic, based on his reply to you.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Abraham Chapter 4:

27 So the ^aGods went down to organize man in their own ^bimage, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

I looks to me like the use of the plural forms (Gods, their, they, them) convey that the Gods included males and females. You have to gather that from what Adam and Eve were organized to become, from other scriptures. The literal, liturgical and figurative interpretations and applications show that the pattern of the Gods is a marriage between male and female. Man is spirit (D&C 93: 33), and spirit children are born into this world, but not through same-sex mechanisms. This, and what you claim hasn't been revealed, has indeed been revealed (See Moses 6: 58 - 63; note the phrase in eh concluding teaching, "all things have their likeness" and bear record of the Only Begotten Son of God, and we know how He came to earth).

You automatically leap to that conclusion with actually no evidence, just a guess.  There may have been male and female Gods.  But there is nothing to indicate they were married.  And no one is disputing that the Gods created male and female.  

All of these extrapolations comes from just one point of view. . Your own paradigm.  Understandable.  But that doesn't make it true.  There is no indication that any of these Gods were married

I am showing a different paradigm from my point of view. And what I am speculating just like you.  It also doesn't make it true.  

The point is, people have made their own guesses about this issue from their perspective and not from actual knowledge.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Abraham Chapter 4:

27 So the ^aGods went down to organize man in their own ^bimage, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

I looks to me like the use of the plural forms (Gods, their, they, them) convey that the Gods included males and females. You have to gather that from what Adam and Eve were organized to become, from other scriptures. The literal, liturgical and figurative interpretations and applications show that the pattern of the Gods is a marriage between male and female. Man is spirit (D&C 93: 33), and spirit children are born into this world, but not through same-sex mechanisms. This, and what you claim hasn't been revealed, has indeed been revealed (See Moses 6: 58 - 63; note the phrase in eh concluding teaching, "all things have their likeness" and bear record of the Only Begotten Son of God, and we know how He came to earth).

How does this support your point of view?  It says "all things have their likeness".  Wouldn't ALL THINGS include having a likeness of same sex couples?  It seems to me that some of those Gods could very well be same sex couples and well as straight couples as well as singles.  That would actually cover all things.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

You automatically leap to that conclusion with actually no evidence, just a guess.  There may have been male and female Gods.  But there is nothing to indicate they were married.  And no one is disputing that the Gods created male and female.  

All of these extrapolations comes from just one point of view. . Your own paradigm.  Understandable.  But that doesn't make it true.  There is no indication that any of these Gods were married

I am showing a different paradigm from my point of view. And what I am speculating just like you.  It also doesn't make it true.  

The point is, people have made their own guesses about this issue from their perspective and not from actual knowledge.

A paradigm is different than a belief (which in many ways constitutes "actual knowledge") or a refusal to believe (or to know). It is different from an overriding intensity of emotion, proclivity, etc. There are plenty of people that share your paradigm and believe and know as I do, that the pattern of Adam and Eve reflects the divine pattern. It says so right there in the book! You do not know that I am leaping, guessing, speculating, or that I do not know; you only know that you are leaping, guessing, speculating and do not know, as you've stated over and over, and I can appreciate that.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

How does this support your point of view?  It says "all things have their likeness".  Wouldn't ALL THINGS include having a likeness of same sex couples?  It seems to me that some of those Gods could very well be same sex couples and well as straight couples as well as singles.  That would actually cover all things.

Why do you even ask this after the previous statement?

You are not reading my full line of thought (there are four connected concepts), and you have already explained why you do not do that -- you do not want to, and appeal to your paradigm when it is a matter of belief and knowledge.

[1] Man is spirit (D&C 93: 33), and spirit children are born into this world, but not through same-sex mechanisms. This, and what you claim hasn't been revealed, has indeed been revealed (See Moses 6: 58 - 63 [read it slowly for appreciation of my points]; note the phrase in the concluding teaching, [2] "all things have their likeness" and [3] bear record of the Only Begotten Son of God, [4] and we know how He came to earth).

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by CV75

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

A paradigm is different than a belief (which in many ways constitutes "actual knowledge") or a refusal to believe (or to know). It is different from an overriding intensity of emotion, proclivity, etc. There are plenty of people that share your paradigm and believe and know as I do, that the pattern of Adam and Eve reflects the divine pattern. It says so right there in the book! You do not know that I am leaping, guessing, speculating, or that I do not know; you only know that you are leaping, guessing, speculating and do not know, as you've stated over and over, and I can appreciate that.

I guess some people cannot even see that there might be alternatives to their beliefs.  

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess some people cannot even see that there might be alternatives to their beliefs.  

Yes, and I am glad I am not one of them.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

[1] Man is spirit (D&C 93: 33), and spirit children are born into this world, but not through same-sex mechanisms.

I will draw attention again to the mention of artificial gametes previously mentioned that seems to suggest that, with the right knowledge and technology, children can be born into this world through same-sex mechanisms.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

See Moses 6: 58 - 63 [read it slowly for appreciation of my points]; note the phrase in the concluding teaching,

Maybe I didn't read it slowly enough, but I didn't see anything in there that suggests that our concept of God cannot be or encompass same sex couples. Verse 63 mostly just says that everything in the universe testifies of God in some fashion. It made me wonder, though -- however poorly we understand them, what do the genetic and epigenetic processes that are implicated in homosexuality and same sex attraction tell us about God?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I will draw attention again to the mention of artificial gametes previously mentioned that seems to suggest that, with the right knowledge and technology, children can be born into this world through same-sex mechanisms.

Maybe I didn't read it slowly enough, but I didn't see anything in there that suggests that our concept of God cannot be or encompass same sex couples. Verse 63 mostly just says that everything in the universe testifies of God in some fashion. It made me wonder, though -- however poorly we understand them, what do the genetic and epigenetic processes that are implicated in homosexuality and same sex attraction tell us about God?

Our faith allows for all sorts of things can be done outside the ordained pattern. D&C 76 is good example of that, kingdoms that continue outside of exaltation.

The Only Begotten came as prophesied in the meridian of time, having a divine Father and a mortal mother. The likeness of marriage between male and female bears record of Him, and fits the pattern, beginning with Adam and Eve. This plan is the plan of salvation unto all. Where all things are created and made to bear record of this, the creation was first spiritual and perfect (for its estate, making it eligible to progress to the second estate) and then, post-fall, temporal and imperfect in the second estate, to be redeemed in a subsequent, more advanced estate.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and I am glad I am not one of them.

Since we are talking specifically about how things are created, what do you think the scriptures are talking about when they refer to the GODS creating the earth. in Abraham 4

Edited September 28, 2021 by california boy

[rongo]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

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

The struggle I think is: most Mormons, including me, truly want everyone to come to church and learn and grow in the gospel. But, if a gay couple really take to the Church and want to join and progress in it, it comes to a screeching halt, because they literally can't receive ordinances or make progress, other than simply attending. 

I don't think we treat fornicating or adulterous straight couples differently, it's just that most people know many more of them than they do gay couples. They also would have to make big changes --- including in their sex lives and living arrangements --- before they can receive ordinances and make progress.

In inviting gay couples, we know that if they take to it and want to join and do more, then the next step for them is to commit to stop violating the law of chastity via homosexuality. So, while we really do want gay people and gay couples to come to church, the reason why we want that is so that they repent and conform to the restored gospel. I think that's what holds the Church back from a big push --- what does the dog do if he catches the car?  

I think that's what holds the institutional church back from a conference invitation or something big like that. 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

The struggle I think is: most Mormons, including me, truly want everyone to come to church and learn and grow in the gospel. But, if a gay couple really take to the Church and want to join and progress in it, it comes to a screeching halt, because they literally can't receive ordinances or make progress, other than simply attending. 

I don't think we treat fornicating or adulterous straight couples differently, it's just that most people know many more of them than they do gay couples. They also would have to make big changes --- including in their sex lives and living arrangements --- before they can receive ordinances and make progress.

In inviting gay couples, we know that if they take to it and want to join and do more, then the next step for them is to commit to stop violating the law of chastity via homosexuality. So, while we really do want gay people and gay couples to come to church, the reason why we want that is so that they repent and conform to the restored gospel. I think that's what holds the Church back from a big push --- what does the dog do if he catches the car?  

I think that's what holds the institutional church back from a conference invitation or something big like that. 

So it is better to not invite gay couples to attend church for their own good?

Edited September 28, 2021 by california boy

[jerryp48]

On 9/24/2021 at 7:30 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you describe to me what the church has done to be welcoming to LGBTQ community? How are they welcoming? I seriously want to know how you see that because I can't see it at all. Specifically, how are they welcoming? What have they done? What are they doing?

Short of endorsing behavior that is against God's law of chastity why don't you tell me how the church could be more welcoming.

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since we are talking specifically about how things are created, what do you think the scriptures are talking about when they refer to the GODS creating the earth. in Abraham 4

The Gods organized everything spiritually in preparation for organizing them naturally upon the earth, “that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual (D&C 77:2).” This is describing their organization activities before the Fall, after which things didn’t necessarily match up so nicely. But all these things were also organized looking ahead to reflect the likeness, or to bear record of, the Only Begotten Son and His advancement from grace to grace on the path from spirit to the fallen world to exaltation, giving rise to Gods that organize everything spiritually  in preparation for organizing them naturally upon the earth, and so on; it's a cycle with likenesses and witnesses of things past, present and yet to come, all along the way.

[Canadiandude]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

In inviting gay couples, we know that if they take to it and want to join and do more, then the next step for them is to commit to stop violating the law of chastity via homosexuality. So, while we really do want gay people and gay couples to come to church, the reason why we want that is so that they repent and conform to the restored gospel. I think that's what holds the Church back from a big push --- what does the dog do if he catches the car?  

😐 well. That was a lovely image.

Keep in mind the church & its members are also the drivers of said car. They could just drive at a precautionary speed, choose to drive defensively- And *not* hit us.

The church community needs better metaphors in their apologetics re: their response to same sex relationships.  
 

There’s just too much ‘quiet part’ to em…

Edited September 28, 2021 by Canadiandude
Clarity

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

So it is better to not invite gay couples to attend church for their own good?

No, not at all, but it cannot be denied that it holds us back from big recruitment initiatives in that community. 

I know some (including missionaries) who would hem and haw, and try to avoid the obvious in teaching interested gay people. I've always been upfront when asked or when the obvious needs to be explained (no, I don't lead with that, but it's the elephant in the room). I think that elephant would prevent an ad campaign push. The media coverage of such a thing would be epic, though.  

Are there gay people who don't know about the Church's stance? Would that come as an unpleasant shock to many people still? 

 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

😐 well. That was a lovely image.

Keep in mind the church & its members are also the drivers of said car. They could just drive at a precautionary speed, choose to drive defensively- And *not* hit us.

The church community needs better metaphors in their apologetics re: their response to same sex relationships.  
 

There’s just too much ‘quiet part’ to em…

I was just trying to be a little wry (hence the smiley), but it's not just a problem with this question. We weren't allowed to teach Iraqis, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, or Israelis on my mission. A man with red hair, blue eyes, and freckles asked me at a streetcar stop what the book in my hand was. When I explained about the Book of Mormon, he told me he was an Iraqi Christian, granted asylum in Germany. We talked for a while (he told me that their tradition was that Thomas the apostle had brought Christianity to that area, which I found interesting because of the claims about India and Armenia), and he asked if he could have the book, and said he would bring a hundred other Christian refugees living in the Ausländerheim. I couldn't, and had to explain about the Church policy on teaching (even when approached) those on the forbidden list. But, a hundred Iraqi refugees also would have completely overwhelmed the little branch, and it would have created other problems (a high-ranking Kurdish official had been baptized in error --- the sisters didn't understand where he was from --- and there were known terrorists who, he told us, would kill us, him, and his family back in Iraq if they knew he had been baptized).

It wouldn't be the church attendance that would be the problem, but there is hesitancy about the known next step (forsake homosexuality) that holds back a big push to evangelize the gay community. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

😐 well. That was a lovely image.

Keep in mind the church & its members are also the drivers of said car. They could just drive at a precautionary speed, choose to drive defensively- And *not* hit us.

The church community needs better metaphors in their apologetics re: their response to same sex relationships.  
 

There’s just too much ‘quiet part’ to em…

While we may be driving the car, we believe that it's God's car and He gets to say how and at what speed we are too drive it.

One of the reasons that this conversation is always so hard is because the church is caught between a rock and a hard spot.  The church cannot do something that it believes God is against (the rock) and the church also wants to be welcoming to gays and not break up families (the hard spot).  Everytime someone proposes a course of action that action always seems to be asking the church to either offend God or hurt people.

What is the answer that does not require either of those two things?  Does it exist?

[bOObOO]

20 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

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...

God is the final arbiter of truth, of course.  Not what other people say God says, but what God himself says is the truth.  I don't know why anyone would be confused or perplexed about any of this, unless they just don't know what God has said.

Example.  Person X says God said such and such.  Is that God himself saying that or is that Person X saying what God has said?  Person X, right?  You might wonder if God agrees with Person X, but Person X is not God (because I said Person X is not God)

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So it is better to not invite gay couples to attend church for their own good?

We invite sinners to Church meetings, at least sometimes, with hope that eventually they will repent of their sins.  Basically everyone is invited, sinners and saints alike.

[Canadiandude]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

While we may be driving the car, we believe that it's God's car and He gets to say how and at what speed we are too drive it.

One of the reasons that this conversation is always so hard is because the church is caught between a rock and a hard spot.  The church cannot do something that it believes God is against (the rock) and the church also wants to be welcoming to gays and not break up families (the hard spot).  Everytime someone proposes a course of action that action always seems to be asking the church to either offend God or hurt people.

What is the answer that does not require either of those two things?  Does it exist?

Thing is, I’m not entirely sure the Brethren have sufficiently actually prayed over, and deeply considered the possibility that former prophets got it wrong re: same sex marriage, Transgender identity, etc. 
 

I understand what you are saying in that there *are constraints upon the very powerful, in that they believe and are believed to ultimately almost always do what God inspires them to do, but I wasn’t very much impressed with the ‘fruits’ of these wrestling’s that you *had previously mentioned *earlier.

A lot of the softening of the church’s position towards myself and others like me gave little-no acknowledgement that the prior positions were wrong and not of God.

Some of them were more or less returning things to the status quo prior to greater doubling down as seen in Nov. 2015 policy.

I’m sorry but that’s just not enough, and I’m hardly alone in thinking that.

I’m just tired of these muskets, and many members/postmembers are beginning to find more ‘revelation’ if you will in the returning tide of progressive Latter-Day Saint scholars and influencers who’s messaging rings closer to the Saviour’s as they understand the latter to be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/09/27/rise-liberal-latter-day-saints/
 

Warning: paywall

 

And the thing is, this wouldn’t be the first time that the efforts & messaging of progressive members might be said to arrive prior to any greater acceptance among church members as a whole. It’s cyclical.
 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Canadiandude
* = added for clarity, sorry

[bOObOO]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

We weren't allowed to teach Iraqis, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, or Israelis on my mission. A man with red hair, blue eyes, and freckles asked me at a streetcar stop what the book in my hand was. When I explained about the Book of Mormon, he told me he was an Iraqi Christian, granted asylum in Germany. We talked for a while (he told me that their tradition was that Thomas the apostle had brought Christianity to that area, which I found interesting because of the claims about India and Armenia), and he asked if he could have the book, and said he would bring a hundred other Christian refugees living in the Ausländerheim. I couldn't, and had to explain about the Church policy on teaching (even when approached) those on the forbidden list. But, a hundred Iraqi refugees also would have completely overwhelmed the little branch, and it would have created other problems (a high-ranking Kurdish official had been baptized in error --- the sisters didn't understand where he was from --- and there were known terrorists who, he told us, would kill us, him, and his family back in Iraq if they knew he had been baptized).

It wouldn't be the church attendance that would be the problem, but there is hesitancy about the known next step (forsake homosexuality) that holds back a big push to evangelize the gay community. 

Well, I don't think we have the same concern when preaching the gospel to gay people.  Nobody is going to kill a gay person who chooses to repent of his sins and be baptized.  Other gay people may get upset but we shouldn't let that get in our way.