LDS Position on Homosexuality & "Eternal Gender"

[Guest Believer_1829]

Your salvation theology is unique and most Christianities do not have the same theological barriers with gay marriages.

I am not buying it. Most Christian denominations are still conservative in this area, it's just that the ones having all the problems internally about it (example: Episcopalians) get all the attention.

[cofchristcousin]

I am not buying it. Most Christian denominations are still conservative in this area, it's just that the ones having all the problems internally about it (example: Episcopalians) get all the attention.

Oh, I'm not saying most Christianities are wanting to change, but they do not have the salvation theology that is focused on gender and families. Most christian salvation theologies are centered on the individual, rather than the family.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Oh, I'm not saying most Christianities are wanting to change, but they do not have the salvation theology that is focused on gender and families. Most christian salvation theologies are centered on the individual, rather than the family.

And most are centered on a strict literal interpretation of a Bible they believe is without error. I think your optimism that they will change because they do not have the same focus on "eternal families" as the LDS church does is a bit premature.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Believer_1829

[Hemidakota]

Cof - by opening the doors, are you going to accept every gross sin known to man through your portals? They finally did in Sodom and then what? I think you know the rest of the story.

I am not talking about the church dear sister, I am referring too eternal life by which eternal laws are governing the state. There is no acceptance of this life style among any divine being [Godhead] in allowing this to continue into the eternities. Let you know, even before we enter into the millennium realm, they will simply be swept away, along with members of he LDS [see the D&C on where the Lord will cleanse the church first before the world] who failed even to live the basic terrestrial laws.

Again, who really cares what the world may think, or what our culture may choose, going through back doors in circumventing the voters, what matters is what our FATHERS is stating to us, how to return home where we can live with HIM forever if abide by HIS laws. HIS laws are unchangeable and will never change since they are eternal. Also, let you know, even Enoch seen our day and noted the cries of the earth of the gross wickedness that filled its surface. Yes! To me, this a sad state when I can see the 'sweeping is coming' by those assigned as GOD's henchmen. I highly doubt they will surrender to popular belief or what the world may make a law.

I still honor those who are my brothers and sisters but not the life style. As I have hope they will leave the darkness and come to the light of Christ.

[cofchristcousin]

And most are centered on a strict literal interpretation of an Bible they believe is without error. I think your optimism that they will change because they do not have the same focus on "eternal families" as the LDS church does is a bit premature.

I've not been saying that, so I guess I agree?

[Guest Believer_1829]

I've not been saying that, so I guess I agree?

I guess I was confused by this line:

There are building movements even within Evangelical churches.

[ttribe]

It appears a potential split in the Lutheran Church may be on the horizon due to this very issue: Link 1, Link 2

[cofchristcousin]

Cof - by opening the doors, are you going to accept every gross sin known to man through your portals? They finally did in Sodom and then what? I think you know the rest of the story.

I am not talking about the church dear sister, I am referring too eternal life by which eternal laws are governing the state. There is no acceptance of this life style among any divine being [Godhead] in allowing this to continue into the eternities. Let you know, even before we enter into the millennium realm, they will simply be swept away, along with members of he LDS [see the D&C on where the Lord will cleanse the church first before the world] who failed even to live the basic terrestrial laws.

Again, who really cares what the world may think, or what our culture may choose, going through back doors in circumventing the voters, what matters is what our FATHERS is stating to us, how to return home where we can live with HIM forever if abide by HIS laws. HIS laws are unchangeable and will never change since they are eternal. Also, let you know, even Enoch seen our day and noted the cries of the earth of the gross wickedness that filled its surface. Yes! To me, this a sad state when I can see the 'sweeping is coming' by those assigned as GOD's henchmen. I highly doubt they will surrender to popular belief or what the world may make a law.

I still honor those who are my brothers and sisters but not the life style. As I have hope they will leave the darkness and come to the light of Christ.

I do see that you have gltb's best interest at heart. I see God and his purposes a bit differently than you describe. Because of this, I focus on aligning my life towards God's reconciling efforts in our conflicts and lack of authentic love rather than awaiting God to destroy my enemies.. or me if I get it wrong. YMMV

[cofchristcousin]

I guess I was confused by this line:

I was thinking of several evangelical organizations and ministers that are calling the churches to get out of the anti-gay marriage movements. Barna.org is one, Greg Boyd, Tony Campolo, etc. I can see where it was a bit vague. :)

Edited August 20, 2009 by cofchristcousin

[Guest Believer_1829]

I was thinking of several evangelical organizations and ministers that are calling the churches to get out of the anti-gay marriage movements. Barna.org is one, Greg Boyd, Tony Campolo, etc. I can see where it was a bit vague. :)

There is also a backlash amoung evangelicals to folks like Campolo and other emergent church leaders.

[Guest Believer_1829]

It appears a potential split in the Lutheran Church may be on the horizon due to this very issue: Link 1, Link 2

I am just going to go ahead and throw this out there and see what happens...

Have you noticed the churches now in turmoil over the gay agenda are the same ones that began giving their women priesthood or prominent leadership roles ?

[ttribe]

I am just going to go ahead and throw this out there and see what happens...

Have you noticed the churches now in turmoil over the gay agenda are the same ones that began giving their women priesthood or prominent leadership roles ?

Dangerous territory...I'll answer thusly - I believe the two developments have a common cause...not one flowing from the other.

[Traveler]

There are concepts of wholeness, holy and complete that are at odds with the movement to define holy marriage with an unholy couple or a couple that do not include gender wholeness or completeness. I personally do not have any problem with any individual making an individual choice. I do have a problem with individuals making individual choices that expect society to endorse their choice when they are not willing to provide anything of benefit back to society directly related to that choice. Society must prefer that which is of benefit to society over that which has no benefit to society – otherwise society cannot expect to continue to exist.

If anyone can explain any benefit that homosexual marriage has to society – I would consider changing my opposition. Until then, please understand that I oppose the notion on very moral and intelligent grounds.

The Traveler

[desirexnoel]

There are concepts of wholeness, holy and complete that are at odds with the movement to define holy marriage with an unholy couple or a couple that do not include gender wholeness or completeness. I personally do not have any problem with any individual making an individual choice. I do have a problem with individuals making individual choices that expect society to endorse their choice when they are not willing to provide anything of benefit back to society directly related to that choice. Society must prefer that which is of benefit to society over that which has no benefit to society – otherwise society cannot expect to continue to exist.

If anyone can explain any benefit that homosexual marriage has to society – I would consider changing my opposition. Until then, please understand that I oppose the notion on very moral and intelligent grounds.

The Traveler

Canada has approved same sex marriage. Not only is society still here but it is no longer an issue. We have accepted it and anyone who isn't homosexual knows the difference.

[Traveler]

Canada has approved same sex marriage. Not only is society still here but it is no longer an issue. We have accepted it and anyone who isn't homosexual knows the difference.

It took 2 million years for the societies of dinosaurs to cease to exist. Modern human society has only existed for a few thousand years. I am quite sure that a society of only homosexual relationships will end in one generation. This is because there is no benefit to society coming from homosexual relationships.

Murder is also something that does not benefit society even though we can observe in history societies that at various times and for various reasons endorse or accepted murder for isolated segments of society.

Before I endorse something I would expect a benefit. Also I would see a benefit before I would argue for something. I see that you do not understand this stance and rather than argue any possible benefit; you intend to redirect the argument. Your tactic will have two results. I will continue to understand that no one that supports homosexual marriage is concerned with benefiting society. And two – I see to intelligent “reason” to consider anything associated with your position.

The Traveler

[desirexnoel]

It took 2 million years for the societies of dinosaurs to cease to exist.

There are plenty of ways to raise a family without sex and I don't understand why this is even considered an issue. Why would everyone suddenly be gay? I really don't get it.

Before I endorse something I would expect a benefit.

Because there is no actual benefit to many things we do. There are many infertile couples who are allowed to marry, and I guess don't benefit society either. I just don't think it is valid.

[cofchristcousin]

COF....I enjoyed reading your blog! The church perhaps is taking a different approach because they recognize the breadth of the issue and the number of people who live in confusion as a result. I don't think there is any ambiguity regarding the Eternal consequence of not keeping the law of chastity. I believe that ultimately the laws will be changed and g/l people will be allowed to legally wed.....but the LDS church will never acknowledge it to be anything other than a grievous sin.

Yikes! You read my rants!?! :) Like I said, many in my church are wrestling with this in recent months and likely for quite a while into the future.

You may be right and the LDS will always consider gay unions sinful. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the little points of grace in the midst of such strong feelings that I've witnessed in my visits here.

[Traveler]

There are plenty of ways to raise a family without sex and I don't understand why this is even considered an issue. Why would everyone suddenly be gay? I really don't get it.

Because there is no actual benefit to many things we do. There are many infertile couples who are allowed to marry, and I guess don't benefit society either. I just don't think it is valid.

Your post is rather interesting. What other means are children brought into society other than by a father and a mother? But that is not the issue so I do not want to stray much on this point.

I do understand that there are many things that are done with no benefit. Individuals have that right but I do not believe individuals have rights to force such desires on others. My point is that if the force of law is used we should be able to discuss "why" openly and without a reason for why opposition to change must not be demonized - Which is the reason I personally oppose such measurements and arguments demanding change. If there is no logic (benefit) then the use of the force of law is the act of tyranny.

The Traveler

[cofchristcousin]

Traveler, I'm not sure what the thread was originally focused on, but I would never support civil laws that would force any church to accept gltb marriage. I believe that constitutional protection should and will stand. I support the laws in place in Maine that allow people to not be held to equal accomodation requirements when a gltb marriage would compromise their religious beliefs.

I do work to change our civil laws to allow equality in marriage and I do work in my own denomination to promote a change in our policies. But, In my work in these areas I have not found any gltb equality advocate that wants to force any church to perform our marriages. We strongly believe that each religion's choices are the stewardship of the those members, and government has no place meddling in that.

[desirexnoel]

Your post is rather interesting. What other means are children brought into society other than by a father and a mother? I said without sex.

And adoption, in the lab. If you want to have sex for your baby though I guess you can...

I do understand that there are many things that are done with no benefit. Individuals have that right but I do not believe individuals have rights to force such desires on others. My point is that if the force of law is used we should be able to discuss "why" openly and without a reason for why opposition to change must not be demonized - Which is the reason I personally oppose such measurements and arguments demanding change. If there is no logic (benefit) then the use of the force of law is the act of tyranny.

In this case it is to just allow people to be with who they want to be. They will have no need to protest if they are just allowed to recognize their relationship like a straight couple.

Frankly there is absolutely no reason to not give it to them really. It would make for happier citizens.

[desirexnoel]

Traveler, I'm not sure what the thread was originally focused on, but I would never support civil laws that would force any church to accept gltb marriage. I believe that constitutional protection should and will stand. I support the laws in place in Maine that allow people to not be held to equal accomodation requirements when a gltb marriage would compromise their religious beliefs.

I do work to change our civil laws to allow equality in marriage and I do work in my own denomination to promote a change in our policies. But, In my work in these areas I have not found any gltb equality advocate that wants to force any church to perform our marriages. We strongly believe that each religion's choices are the stewardship of the those members, and government has no place meddling in that.

I read your post after I posted. Otherwise I would just say, "What she said!"

[ttribe]

Frankly there is absolutely no reason to not give it to them really. It would make for happier citizens.

Actually, there are some pretty good legal arguments regarding the matter. Until those are worked out, there is a very good reason to put the brakes on this process.

[desirexnoel]

Actually, there are some pretty good legal arguments regarding the matter. Until those are worked out, there is a very good reason to put the brakes on this process.

Can I have an example please? O.o

[Seeker7]

GATORMAN:

Seeker: Saying that Heavenly Father created us to sin is like saying Ford, Dodge, and Chevy build cars specifically to fail.

Sorry, but I disagree with that comparison. I know that car companies build vehicles with the understanding that someday they will break down. Humans are imperfect; therefore, we cannot construct flawless machines. Everything we make will require maintenance at some point. But how is this comparable to a perfect, omnipotent god creating people whom he knows will sin -- and not just expecting it to happen, but in fact planning on it? Because it is "part of the plan", right? Humans must endure suffering so they can learn to appreciate relief, and they must commit evil deeds so that they can learn the importance of doing good.

"And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin" (2 Nephi 2:22-23.)

My current understanding of LDS doctrine and the "Plan of Salvation" concept might be flawed. If so, perhaps you could help me understand it a little better. Here's how I currently see things:

1.) God knowingly created imperfect beings.

2.) He didn't just expect humans to sin during their mortal lives; he planned on it.

3.) He planned for humans to sin, so that they'd learn eventually to do good. He also planned for humans to sin, so that they'd come to him requesting "maintenance".

4.) God planned all this out so perfectly that he even had a redeemer in place, Jesus, whose grace was available to save those who fell short during their lifetimes. (In other words, everyone.)

5.) Thus, when we repent and turn to God for guidance and salvation, he is not surprised, nor is he dismayed, because he planned for this to happen. He planned for us to suffer so that we'd come to appreciate joy, and he planned for us to sin so that we'd know the importance of doing good.

Using your car company comparison, the equivalent would be this:

1.) The Ford company built a bunch of cars that they knew were imperfect. They knew the cars would experience a lot of problems, and quickly break down.

2.) But they didn't just expect the cars to break down and fail; in fact, they planned on it.

3.) Ford planned for the cars to fail so that consumers would keep on coming back to them for maintenance, which helped generate a lot of money for the company. Furthermore, Ford knew that eventually the cars they sold people would stop working altogether, no matter how many repairs were made. And they planned on this happening, too, because they knew that when the consumers' cars broke down, they'd come back to Ford again to make new purchases. They wanted all this to happen.

4.) Ford planned everything out so perfectly that they had entire lineups of replacement cars waiting for those who came in to get rid of their broken vehicles.

5.) Thus, when people return to Ford for car maintenance or to buy a new vehicle altogether, Ford is not worried or surprised, because that is exactly what they planned on. They wanted people's cars to break down, so that the company could generate more money. In other words, they had a purpose in making flawed vehicles.

If that were indeed the case with Ford, then yes, I would say that Ford created cars specifically to fail.

And, Heavenly Father does not punish us for 'sinning', per se. We are punished for not repenting.

I understand your point. But all I'm saying is, we wouldn't have to repent if we didn't sin. And can any of us avoid sin? Everyone seems to say no. I wouldn't punish a person for falling off a tightrope into the Pacific Ocean and then not repenting. I would at least give the poor individual another try, because such a feat would require a lot of practice. But we don't get any second chances at life, even though it's apparently just as hard to live a flawless (and therefore repentance-free) life as it is to avoid falling off the tightrope in the previous example.

I appreciate your reply, but I still don't see how that's fair, and it still appears to me that God did indeed create people to sin. But as I said before, perhaps I'm just hitting a mental stumbling-block. Any further insights are welcomed.

DESIREXNOEL:

I know that God resides near Kolob.

What is Kolob?

[desirexnoel]

DESIREXNOEL:

What is Kolob?

I planet they believe is near where God is. Apparently not near here.

Not a belief I or any other religion holds.