Transgender pronouns and baptism

[BRMC]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not the one complaining about it. If you don’t want to hear people call a position  bigoted, don’t hang out on a forum that encourages discussion. Go hang out in an echo chamber. You do you. 

You just did.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even as a member I was astonished at this sentiment. I mean God is out there. He allows for all types of horrible things on this earth. Child rape? Sure. Natural disasters that kill hundreds of thousands of people? Yep. Children born with all manner of deformities? Yes. “True hermaphrodites”? Absolutely. Misaligning a female spirit into a male physical body? Hell no! Of course not. God would never allow that to happen!

I appreciated that the handbook did not attempt to suggest that transgender people don't 'exist' and that it's all in their heads.  I also think the difference between all your other statements and the bolded statement is that the first ones are conditions of a fallen world.  A mistake in sending a spirit into the wrong body isn't so easily explained, as the premortal realm (where we are assuming such decisions are made) is not fallen.

I think that's why this topic, from a religious perspective, is complicated.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I appreciated that the handbook did not attempt to suggest that transgender people don't 'exist' and that it's all in their heads.  I also think the difference between all your other statements and the bolded statement is that the first ones are conditions of a fallen world.  A mistake in sending a spirit into the wrong body isn't so easily explained, as the premortal realm (where we are assuming such decisions are made) is not fallen.

I think that's why this topic, from a religious perspective, is complicated.

I guess I just don’t understand. A particular spirit might pick up an extra 21st chromosome, might get both of their dads sex chromosomes, might get their Dad’s Y chromosome but present at birth as female (with all the female sex organs) but can’t accidentally get their Dad’s Y chromosome when they were meant to get an X? Like in all serious non-snarkyness, why?

 

Edited to add: It’s not that the spirit went to the wrong body. It’s that the body’s chromosomes got messed up. They are in the right body with a mixed up chromosomal error. Why isn’t getting the wrong sex chromosome part of a fallen world when all other chromosomal mixups are?

Edited January 3, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a rule book. There are some guidelines that are flexible but it is usually clear where there is wiggle room and where there is not. It should be followed at the local level. Compliance varies.

It is written and changed by leadership in Salt Lake. Apostles are involved and they generally dictate what needs to change and give approval.

The changes are not usually announced. Sometimes the leadership gets a notification if the changes are extensive or there is a major revision. It used to be a semi-confidential book that only leaders got and was split into two books for different levels of leadership. In recent years they consolidated it all into one book and gave all members access to it online. It is still mostly used by leaders who turn to it if they have a specific question or are dealing with an unusual situation. Some of it is ‘intuitively’ known by long time members who have been around but things are spelled out for areas where the church is young and leaders less experienced.

Thanks for the information. I have often heard of the "handbook" and even read it "cover to cover" online. My context is trying to decipher the information and what I have been told specifically about what non-members may or may not do or be called to in a ward or stake situation.

It (the handbook) doesn't seem to relate at all to departments like the church history department or ancillary organizations like MHA. On several occasions I have given the invocation prior to MHA's Presidential Banquet. Once a very nice lady came up to me afterwards and said she thought I gave a very good prayer, but she wished they would not allow non-members to pray before the banquet. Another time someone remarked that he was surprised I could pray "in Mormon" like it was/is a foreign language!  That caused me to go to the handbook - nothing there about such occasions. Another time someone complained about the bishop or teacher or president requesting my wife or I to give the opening or closing prayer at a sacrament or Sunday School or EQ meeting. Nothing in the handbook about that. Everyone seemed to think it was ok for me to sing in a sacrament. In fact the handbook says a non-member may be called as "music coordinator" for a ward - I believe that is the correct term it used.

Just yesterday my wife testified in sacrament service. Nowadays the folks are so used to that no one seems to object at all. Visitors just assume we are members when we do that. We have both given sacrament talks on numerous occasions and I have done firesides. We have both substituted for the absent teacher in the adult Sunday School class.  Nothing in the handbook about that! A lot seems left up to the bishop's discretion. We have a new bishop now. Last week, at the annual Christmas dinner/program,  he asked me to read the Biblical Christmas story while the children acted it out and pray the closing prayer. Again, we are in our fifth year in the ward, so no one seems to object any more. However, nothing in the handbook about that kind of participation in a ward event. Oh, and we help clean the chapel. Several years ago I was told it was fine to help clean, but I couldn't be placed in charge of the cleaning! I was actually kind of relieved about that! Ha! I assume that if nothing is in the handbook forbidding something, then it is up to local discretion.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

It's easy to avoid.  Just log off the religious forum and do you.  

SeekingUnderstanding adds a lot of food for thought to this forum whereas you seem to want an echo chamber. Please stop telling people to leave. 

[BRMC]

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

SeekingUnderstanding adds a lot of food for thought to this forum whereas you seem to want an echo chamber. Please stop telling people to leave. 

I'm not telling anyone to leave, nor do I want an echo chamber.  I want a forum where "because Christ said so" is an acceptable answer.  I want ExMos and ProgMos to stop pushing their agendas in Church and demonizing Christ.

 I also want people to be healthy and happy.  If they are sick of hearing that their lifestyle choice is sinful, I'd submit they either find a forum where their lifestyle choice isn't considered sinful, or stick to topics that don't upset them.   Attending a knitting group and complaining about how much you hate knitting seems counterproductive.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

Edited January 3, 2022 by BRMC

[Peacefully]

10 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I'm not telling anyone to leave, nor do I want an echo chamber.  I want a forum where "because Christ said so" is an acceptable answer.  I want ExMos and ProgMos to stop pushing their agendas in Church and demonizing Christ.

 I also want people to be healthy and happy.  If they are sick of hearing that their lifestyle choice is sinful, I'd submit they either find a forum where their lifestyle choice isn't considered sinful, or stick to topics that don't upset them.   Attending a knitting group and complaining about how much you hate knitting seems counterproductive.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

So what lifestyle choices “they” discuss are sinful in your opinion? And who are “they”? And telling people to find another forum if they don’t discuss things the way you want them to is same as telling them to leave, imho. 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Peacefully

[BRMC]

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

So what lifestyle choices “they” discuss are sinful in your opinion? And who are “they”? And telling people to find another forum if they don’t discuss things the way you want them to is same as telling them to leave, imho. 

My opinion doesn't matter.  This is a forum discussing Latter-day Saints.  According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, there are many life-style choices that are sinful.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I'm not telling anyone to leave, nor do I want an echo chamber.  I want a forum where "because Christ said so" is an acceptable answer.  I want ExMos and ProgMos to stop pushing their agendas in Church and demonizing Christ.

 I also want people to be healthy and happy.  If they are sick of hearing that their lifestyle choice is sinful, I'd submit they either find a forum where their lifestyle choice isn't considered sinful, or stick to topics that don't upset them.   Attending a knitting group and complaining about how much you hate knitting seems counterproductive.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

There are many forums that cater to what you want. Why are you here?

[BRMC]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are many forums that cater to what you want. Why are you here?

This forum caters to what I want.  Why are you here?

Edited January 3, 2022 by BRMC

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I'm not telling anyone to leave, nor do I want an echo chamber.  I want a forum where "because Christ said so" is an acceptable answer.  I want ExMos and ProgMos to stop pushing their agendas in Church and demonizing Christ.

 I also want people to be healthy and happy.  If they are sick of hearing that their lifestyle choice is sinful, I'd submit they either find a forum where their lifestyle choice isn't considered sinful, or stick to topics that don't upset them.   Attending a knitting group and complaining about how much you hate knitting seems counterproductive.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

What is often discussed on this forum are different views and beliefs on what Christ said or meant.  You need to give room to everyone's opinion on what Christ wants us to do and how He wants us to love and treat others.  Listen to other points of view.  Contemplate their thoughts.  After careful consideration you can choose to accept what the poster says or reject the post.  You are welcome to comment on why you accept or reject the ideas presented.  But you don't have a right to decide who speaks and who should remain silent or leave.  This is not your board.  And you don't make the rules.  

You might want to review those rules before you tell others to leave.  No where in the rules of this board does it state that everyone has to accept your view of Christ's teachings.  If you want such a rule imposted, take it up with the moderators whose board this is.  When they change the rules to state that everyone who doesn't accept BRMC's view of Christ's teachings, then all those who have a different point of view will gladly leave. Until that happens, then ALL are welcome to come and participate in this exchange of ideas as long as they abide by the actual rules that have been set up.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess I just don’t understand. A particular spirit might pick up an extra 21st chromosome, might get both of their dads sex chromosomes, might get their Dad’s Y chromosome but present at birth as female (with all the female sex organs) but can’t accidentally get their Dad’s Y chromosome when they were meant to get an X? Like in all serious non-snarkyness, why?

 

Edited to add: It’s not that the spirit went to the wrong body. It’s that the body’s chromosomes got messed up. They are in the right body with a mixed up chromosomal error. Why isn’t getting the wrong sex chromosome part of a fallen world when all other chromosomal mixups are?

I think that Rongo acknowledged that chromosomes can get mixed up (I think that's what he meant by "true hermaphrodite" but hopefully he'll clarify).  What I was responding to was the bolded statement--"misaligning a female spirit into a male physical body" which I read as "someone screwed up and put the wrong spirit in the wrong body".

Where there is no extra chromosomes or lacking chromosomes--when all the chromosomes are where science says they should be for biological sex--but the person still identifies as transgender.  I think that's the situation that is complicated for some religious people to understand, and that's probably the kind of situation that Rongo wouldn't consider "true hermaphrodite" because there is no science backing it up.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

 I want a forum where "because Christ said so" is an acceptable answer.

This is that forum.

What it isn't is a forum where: "because BRMC says Christ said so" is an acceptable answer.

You consistently conflate the two.

[BRMC]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is often discussed on this forum are different views and beliefs on what Christ said or meant.  You need to give room to everyone's opinion on what Christ wants us to do and how He wants us to love and treat others.  Listen to other points of view.  Contemplate their thoughts.  After careful consideration you can choose to accept what the poster says or reject the post.  You are welcome to comment on why you accept or reject the ideas presented.  But you don't have a right to decide who speaks and who should remain silent or leave.  This is not your board.  And you don't make the rules.  

You might want to review those rules before you tell others to leave.  No where in the rules of this board does it state that everyone has to accept your view of Christ's teachings.  If you want such a rule imposted, take it up with the moderators whose board this is.  When they change the rules to state that everyone who doesn't accept BRMC's view of Christ's teachings, then all those who have a different point of view will gladly leave. Until that happens, then ALL are welcome to come and participate in this exchange of ideas as long as they abide by the actual rules that have been set up.

Some of you have difficulty reading.

[BRMC]

Just now, CA Steve said:

This is that forum.

What it isn't is a forum where: "because BRMC says Christ said so" is an acceptable answer.

You consistently conflate the two.

Bingo.   That's why I call it out when people say it isn't.  Strangely, Known Associates always seem to have a problem when that happens.  It's always the same people, too.

Hmmmmm.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that Rongo acknowledged that chromosomes can get mixed up (I think that's what he meant by "true hermaphrodite" but hopefully he'll clarify).  What I was responding to was the bolded statement--"misaligning a female spirit into a male physical body" which I read as "someone screwed up and put the wrong spirit in the wrong body".

Where there is no extra chromosomes or lacking chromosomes--when all the chromosomes are where science says they should be for biological sex--but the person still identifies as transgender.  I think that's the situation that is complicated for some religious people to understand, and that's probably the kind of situation that Rongo wouldn't consider "true hermaphrodite" because there is no science backing it up.

There are also chimera, where both male and female DNA are found in the same person, caused by two or more zygotes fusing together at a very early embryonic stage. See its occurrence in human beings, which is quite comon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

Interestingly (to me) as a graduate student consultant for the Church in the very early 80s. I helped research this topic, though my portion was focused on papers and patent applications concerning human-animal experimentation (none by BYU!  ).

[california boy]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

As a libertarian leaning and pro agency person I has space for anything that does not infringe on another persons agency or rights. So I can support legal gay marriage, polygamy, all drug use, prostitution, etc.  if a transgender wants to change their name and all that fine.  However those that are not transgender have rights as well.  We have a right to choose the pronouns we want to say and determine for ourselves what is boy and girl. 
 

In terms of polygamy, we can find a religious and scriptural argument for it.  Gay marriage?  I see as much as scriptural argument for that as a man marrying a ham and turkey sandwich.  It is far easier to make an argument that the church should accept polygamists over those in same sex marriages.

I think this all depends on how one looks at the church Christ created.  Was it a big tent church where all are welcome no matter how sinful or flawed they are?  Or was it a church that was meant to be accepting of all and within that church, people would grow closer to God.  The idea of a baptismal interview to see if one is unworthy to join the Church of Jesus Christ is a new idea, and certainly not one you can find any support for in scripture.  If you smoke, or drink or have a same sex partner, you can't be a part of Christ's Church doesn't have much scriptural support.  Mosiah 18 clearly lays out what is required for baptism.

 

Quote

 

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are ^adesirous to come into the ^bfold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

9 Yea, and are ^awilling to mourn with those that ^bmourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as ^cwitnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the ^dfirst resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being ^abaptized in the ^bname of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a ^ccovenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

 

Do you see any sorry you have sins, come back when you want to be perfect criteria?  I would argue that in fact the Church was created for sinners.  Do you really think that God forces a person to choose between being a member of his church and the person he loves? Are not those loving spousal relationships fundamental to our lives here on earth?  For so many other issues that we are unclear about marriage, the standard answer is, God will sort things out in the next life.  For some reason, gay marriage gets a hard no because sex outside of marriage is sinful unless you are gay.  Then sex even in marriage is sinful and that makes you an apostate because you love the wrong person.  All other desires you may have to fulfill what Mosiah lays out is negated.  You can't join our church.

There is no one in the scriptures that Christ condemned more than the leaders of His Church, the Jewish leaders of his day.

Quote

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

What exactly was Christ condemning the leaders of the church for?  What were they doing that caused them to receive some of the strongest condemnations from Christ.  From what I read, Christ was condemning the for having an outward appearance of piety and righteousness, but inside they completely lacked the most important attributes of a follower of Christ, one who has charity and bears one another's burdens, morns and comforts those in need.  Is a person who is in a same sex relationship incapable of bearing one another's burdens, offering comfort and morning with those that suffer?  Does a gay marriage completely negate all that Christ wanted his followers to embrace?  Just how many people did Christ prohibit from joining his Church?  Heck, he even seemed willing to include those that crucified Him on the cross.  Is gay marriage worse than that?

You say there is no scriptural support for gay marriage.  How about Geneis 2

Quote

¹⁸ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

If you are gay, that help meet is another man just as much as that help meet is a woman if you are straight.  The Church has learned that lesson over and over again.  

How about forbidding of marriage. 1 Timothy 4

 

Quote

 

1Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, 2influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.

3They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, 5because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

I get that you will probably disagree with these thoughts.  It is expected because you have your own sets of beliefs, just like I do.  But to say  "Gay marriage?  I see as much as scriptural argument for that as a man marrying a ham and turkey sandwich."  I don't think you have as much support for that idea as you think. You are just willing to accept polygamy easier than gay marriage.  I think if you were gay, you would probably have a totally different perspective on scripture and one what kind of church Christ was creating.  

 

 

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What is often discussed on this forum are different views and beliefs on what Christ said or meant.  You need to give room to everyone's opinion on what Christ wants us to do and how He wants us to love and treat others.  Listen to other points of view.  Contemplate their thoughts.  After careful consideration you can choose to accept what the poster says or reject the post.  You are welcome to comment on why you accept or reject the ideas presented.  But you don't have a right to decide who speaks and who should remain silent or leave.  This is not your board.  And you don't make the rules.  

You might want to review those rules before you tell others to leave.  No where in the rules of this board does it state that everyone has to accept your view of Christ's teachings.  If you want such a rule imposted, take it up with the moderators whose board this is.  When they change the rules to state that everyone who doesn't accept BRMC's view of Christ's teachings, then all those who have a different point of view will gladly leave. Until that happens, then ALL are welcome to come and participate in this exchange of ideas as long as they abide by the actual rules that have been set up.

You said it much more eloquently than me! Thx:)

[california boy]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

Some of you have difficulty reading.

I have been reading your posts since you joined this board for only a matter of weeks.  Yet you have given out more negative votes than anyone else on this board ever.  So yeah, I read just fine.  You really are not here to listen to other points of view.  I read THAT loud and clear.

Edited January 3, 2022 by california boy

[BRMC]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have been reading your posts since you joined this board for only a matter of weeks.  Yet you have given out more negative votes than anyone else on this board ever.  So yeah, I read just fine.  You really are not here to listen to other points of view.  I read THAT loud and clear.

You don't read that well.  I joined the board years ago.

[rongo]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even as a member I was astonished at this sentiment. I mean God is out there. He allows for all types of horrible things on this earth. Child rape? Sure. Natural disasters that kill hundreds of thousands of people? Yep. Children born with all manner of deformities? Yes. “True hermaphrodites”? Absolutely. Misaligning a female spirit into a male physical body? Hell no! Of course not. God would never allow that to happen!

I don't think any of the placement of spirits with bodies on earth is random chance or misalignment. I believe that where rare hermaphroditism occurs,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism

this was a factor of mortality chosen by God and the individual for pre-existence reasons, to best utilize mortality for that individual and others. I don't think our speculative, hypothetical reasons for this are much more than speculation, but I do believe that there is a reason for it, and I believe that the premortal gender (and post-resurrection gender) is unambiguous.

My reason for distinguishing between "true hermaphroditism" and modern transgenderism is my own experience with the explosion in students who identify as trans over the last ten years. I assume that 100% of these students are not hermaphroditic; it is a social phenomenon all out of whack with traditional statistics --- and very prone to "anomalies" that aren't anomalies when one considers biological sex vs. gender self-identity (pregnancy rate, "reverting" back to the original gender identity, etc.). 

True hermaphroditism is a knotty theological problem, but I personally think it's a completely separate issue from the matter of people "identifying" with a gender that differs from their biological sex. 

17 hours ago, juliann said:

I really really wish the church would stop using “gender” when they are referring to a person’s biological sex. 

This has only become "confusing" and "unclear" because of people in the last decade who want the waters to be muddied. Most people (including Church leaders) know what is meant when people use sex and gender interchangeably, and don't buy into the "gender is a social construct, and is maleable and fluid --- separate from biology at birth" distinction that is a recent invention. I really wish the Church wouldn't change on this, and would continue as it has. 

[quote] bluebell: 

I think that Rongo acknowledged that chromosomes can get mixed up (I think that's what he meant by "true hermaphrodite" but hopefully he'll clarify).  What I was responding to was the bolded statement--"misaligning a female spirit into a male physical body" which I read as "someone screwed up and put the wrong spirit in the wrong body".

Where there is no extra chromosomes or lacking chromosomes--when all the chromosomes are where science says they should be for biological sex--but the person still identifies as transgender.  I think that's the situation that is complicated for some religious people to understand, and that's probably the kind of situation that Rongo wouldn't consider "true hermaphrodite" because there is no science backing it up.[/quote]

Yes, that's a good restate of what I believe. 

Edited January 3, 2022 by rongo

[Cordelia]

This is such a difficult topic. I have no doubt that there are many who have legitimate struggles in these areas. But I'm also seeing, especially in young teens (and others in education and other youth-centered occupations have confirmed) that there is something of a "trend" to having either gender identity issues or questions about sexuality. In our ward alone, half the middle YW group banded together with each one identifying as either transgender, bisexual, asexual, or gay. It's just hard to believe statistically that all of them sincerely struggle with those things. So how do you tell who does and who doesn't? Or do you just go on as if they all do? There are deeply complicated questions here, for parents and for leaders. 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess I just don’t understand. A particular spirit might pick up an extra 21st chromosome, might get both of their dads sex chromosomes, might get their Dad’s Y chromosome but present at birth as female (with all the female sex organs) but can’t accidentally get their Dad’s Y chromosome when they were meant to get an X? Like in all serious non-snarkyness, why?

 

Edited to add: It’s not that the spirit went to the wrong body. It’s that the body’s chromosomes got messed up. They are in the right body with a mixed up chromosomal error. Why isn’t getting the wrong sex chromosome part of a fallen world when all other chromosomal mixups are?

At the core level it comes down to religion vs. science.  

[Cordelia]

Just now, sunstoned said:

At the core level it comes down to religion vs. science.  

And I will never believe that they're mutually exclusive.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think this all depends on how one looks at the church Christ created.  Was it a big tent church where all are welcome no matter how sinful or flawed they are?  Or was it a church that was meant to be accepting of all and within that church, people would grow closer to God.  The idea of a baptismal interview to see if one is unworthy to join the Church of Jesus Christ is a new idea, and certainly not one you can find any support for in scripture.  If you smoke, or drink or have a same sex partner, you can't be a part of Christ's Church doesn't have much scriptural support.  Mosiah 18 clearly lays out what is required for baptism.

 

Do you see any sorry you have sins, come back when you want to be perfect criteria?  I would argue that in fact the Church was created for sinners.  Do you really think that God forces a person to choose between being a member of his church and the person he loves? Are not those loving spousal relationships fundamental to our lives here on earth?  For so many other issues that we are unclear about marriage, the standard answer is, God will sort things out in the next life.  For some reason, gay marriage gets a hard no because sex outside of marriage is sinful unless you are gay.  Then sex even in marriage is sinful and that makes you an apostate because you love the wrong person.  All other desires you may have to fulfill what Mosiah lays out is negated.  You can't join our church.

There is no one in the scriptures that Christ condemned more than the leaders of His Church, the Jewish leaders of his day.

What exactly was Christ condemning the leaders of the church for?  What were they doing that caused them to receive some of the strongest condemnations from Christ.  From what I read, Christ was condemning the for having an outward appearance of piety and righteousness, but inside they completely lacked the most important attributes of a follower of Christ, one who has charity and bears one another's burdens, morns and comforts those in need.  Is a person who is in a same sex relationship incapable of bearing one another's burdens, offering comfort and morning with those that suffer?  Does a gay marriage completely negate all that Christ wanted his followers to embrace?  Just how many people did Christ prohibit from joining his Church?  Heck, he even seemed willing to include those that crucified Him on the cross.  Is gay marriage worse than that?

You say there is no scriptural support for gay marriage.  How about Geneis 2

If you are gay, that help meet is another man just as much as that help meet is a woman if you are straight.  The Church has learned that lesson over and over again.  

How about forbidding of marriage. 1 Timothy 4

 

I get that you will probably disagree with these thoughts.  It is expected because you have your own sets of beliefs, just like I do.  But to say  "Gay marriage?  I see as much as scriptural argument for that as a man marrying a ham and turkey sandwich."  I don't think you have as much support for that idea as you think. You are just willing to accept polygamy easier than gay marriage.  I think if you were gay, you would probably have a totally different perspective on scripture and one what kind of church Christ was creating.  

 

 

So, some churches sanction same-sex marriage and some do not, all use scriptural justification, and their members sustain their respective articles and covenants. That is one principle of religious freedom in action.

The Mosiah 18 passage you shared shows that the baptisms were performed under the auspices of the church, by the power and authority of God (verse 17). The verses you shared constitute the “baptismal interview” and calls for keeping God’s commandments, which we know in that time and place excluded sex outside of marriage and same-sex marriage, as is also the case for your Genesis 2 and Timothy 4 references.

A person who is in a same sex relationship or marriage is certainly capable of bearing one another's burdens, offering comfort, mourning with those that suffer and keeping the commandments.

But the wording in the Mosiah 18 passage you shared is “willing” and “will”, and if they are not willing to keep the commandments in this area, they should not be baptized according to the interview and covenant. Holding to gay marriage as a specific exception to the commandments, just as any other exception to the commandments, would not meet the requirements for the covenant of baptism. It does not negate all the other Christlike qualities a person may choose to emulate.

Being forgiven of things done in ignorance is not the same as the remission of sins by baptism into the church, which requires sufficient knowledge of the commandments. I don’t think gay marriage is entered into ignorantly by a member of the Church, and is not continued ignorantly by someone who wishes to be baptized into the Church. It would be a willful, informed decision to ignore that particular commandment.

The question may be why same-sex marriage is sufficient to prevent someone from joining or staying in the Church; why that commandment or practice is so fundamental to membership. Maybe that is a topic for another thread; but if anyone wants to pick up that theme, I’m fine with participating.