The Nashville Statement


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since JoCa is unwilling to actually provide quotes with references, does anyone else have any idea what JoCa is talking about?  I still don't get what statements the Church made 20 years ago that are different than what is being said now.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Since JoCa is unwilling to actually provide quotes with references, does anyone else have any idea what JoCa is talking about?  I still don't get what statements the Church made 20 years ago that are different than what is being said now.

@JoCa is simply noticing a shift in focus with the Church teachings and calling that a "loosening of moral requirement" or something.  The Church did not make different teachings from 20 years ago versus today.  Homosexuality continues to be a sin and Love our sinning neighbors is still required from the time of Adam to today.  But, the focus 20 years ago is to ring the warning bells to prevent homosexuality from being normalized in society.  We failed in that regard.  Homosexuality IS normalized and saints far and wide are falling into its trap.  So, the Church today is shifting the focus to succoring these homosexuals to bring them back to God.  @JoCa seems to think we should bash these people over the head with our scriptures or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

@JoCa is simply noticing a shift in focus with the Church teachings and calling that a "loosening of moral requirement" or something. 

I'd just like to see a side-by-side comparison of a quote 20 years ago vs a quote today to see what the differences are to verify it if is or is not a "loosening of moral requirement".  Do you know of anything?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd just like to see a side-by-side comparison of a quote 20 years ago vs a quote today to see what the differences are to verify it if is or is not a "loosening of moral requirement".  Do you know of anything?

It's not really a quote as the teachings are the same.  It's not something you can pull a quote for.  It is more of a tone.  You know how like a few years ago, sometime during Pres. Hinckley's presidency, there were a lot of talks about Temple Ordinances and tithing and the Church seems more focused on building temples whereas these days the talks are more focused on "back to basics" and the Church seems more focused on mission work and helping others.  This is what I've observed in terms of homosexuality - a few years ago there were a lot of talks about the sinful nature of homosexuality and not so much doing specific works for homosexuals on the "love thy neighbor" works of the Church.  These days, the works of the Church include "love thy neighbor" works specifically geared for homosexuals - like the Church becoming vocal and visible in supporting equal rights for housing and such.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:08 AM, anatess2 said:

seems to think we should bash these people over the head with our scriptures or something.

Am I allowed to bash someone over the head with my scriptures.  I have several different pairs.  Though the Quad seems rather hefty, I think the oversized Triple combination and Holy Bible in their case takes the cake.  Does bashing someone with them do anything to actually change their mind...other than brain damage?  If they already have brain damage, does it do anything more?

I'm not so certain this is a good idea though, my kids probably have some good ideas of how to bash me over the head with their scriptures.  They probably would get the even larger ones for those who have a really hard time of reading, make sure they are hardcovers as well, and then bash me over the head in hopes of changing my mind on something (and of course, I won't...haven't when they were little, won't now...but that wouldn't stop them from trying!!!).

Perhaps if I just pretend to nap in Sunday School they'll figure that old dad is already conked out and doesn't need any scripture bashing to take place!

Of course, then I might have the problem of them bashing me over the head to try to wake me up...or tell me someone needs to talk to me, or something.  I can't win with this entire Scripture bashing thing...

 

The above is just for fun, not trying to be serious, so hopefully no one took affront to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure if I wanted to go here, but this thought came to me last weekend, and I have decided to throw this out there. A handful of scattered quotes from this thread to set this up

On 9/5/2017 at 8:08 AM, anatess2 said:

the focus 20 years ago is to ring the warning bells to prevent homosexuality from being normalized in society.  We failed in that regard.  Homosexuality IS normalized and saints far and wide are falling into its trap.  So, the Church today is shifting the focus to succoring these homosexuals to bring them back to God.

On 9/2/2017 at 8:30 PM, JoCa said:

how do you square current Church teachings against teachings of 20 years ago.  The only thing one can say is that we are "more enlightened" today-well that's a false argument, especially with no officially revealed doctrinal changes (as I've been told), except the point is the doctrine has changed.

On 8/31/2017 at 8:54 PM, JoCa said:

it's sad that an evangelical organization has more guts to speak truth that we currently have. The shifting in the Church can be summed up in the above line-10 years ago the Church would sign right on with this line.  Today, not a chance.

 

On 9/1/2017 at 6:36 AM, JoCa said:

10-15 years ago, the Church as an organization would have easily agreed with this [that adopting a homosexual self-conception is sin].  Today well it's complicated.

If I can summarize what I see here, there seems to be some concern that the Church is changing allegedly unchangeable doctrine to suit modern sensibilities. For whatever reason, I was reminded of this thread I started a couple of years ago: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/58386-fallibility-of-prophets-and-scripture-and-revelation-slavery/ discussing the "heretical" (to our modern 21st century sensibilities) teaching from the Savior and St. Paul (and others) that seems to permit and endorse slavery. The explanation that seems to go around is that God adapts His message to some degree to the culture that the message is directed towards. Is it possible that the alleged "softening" of the Church's stance towards homosexuality and homosexual identity is a similar adaptation? Some would say that, as much as the surrounding culture has adopted LGBT friendly attitudes, it is inevitable for these attitudes to "infiltrate" the Church. Is it possible that God wants the message moderated so that people with such attitudes can still feel welcome enough in His Church so they will stick around?

I guess I keep coming back to this idea of schism -- how do we as fallen humans identify those bright lines in the sand along which God wants to split the Church and Christianity along, and how do we discern which doctrines He wants to soften to keep Christianity together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Is it possible that the alleged "softening" of the Church's stance towards homosexuality and homosexual identity is a similar adaptation? Some would say that, as much as the surrounding culture has adopted LGBT friendly attitudes, it is inevitable for these attitudes to "infiltrate" the Church. Is it possible that God wants the message moderated so that people with such attitudes can still feel welcome enough in His Church so they will stick around?

If you can provide the side-by-side comparison of the quotes that I've been asking of others, then we would ALL be a better position to discern what actually has or has not changed.  For now, all we have is a bunch of characterizations of absolutely nothing.  How can we come to and analysis of truth with nothing more than that?

I'll repost a blog from one of JAG's posts on that thread you linked to:

http://www.jrganymede.com/2015/12/01/the-voices-of-the-prophets/

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 7:08 AM, anatess2 said:

But, the focus 20 years ago is to ring the warning bells to prevent homosexuality from being normalized in society. 

My sense is that The Nashville Statement is a warning bell to prevent homosexuality from being normalized within our churches. That's the sad, sorry state of affairs today vs. 20 years ago, when we still hoped to be "salt and light" to our surrounding communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you can provide the side-by-side comparison of the quotes that I've been asking of others, then we would ALL be a better position to discern what actually has or has not changed.  For now, all we have is a bunch of characterizations of absolutely nothing.  How can we come to and analysis of truth with nothing more than that?

I'll repost a blog from one of JAG's posts on that thread you linked to:

http://www.jrganymede.com/2015/12/01/the-voices-of-the-prophets/

I will provide just been busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JoCa said:

I will provide just been busy.

13 hours ago, JoCa said:

I will provide just been busy.

http://www.connellodonovan.com/transgressors4.html

vs. mormon and gays.

vs. homosexuals being recommended as temple workers.

From the booklet, "First he should abandon all places, things, situations, and people with whom this evil practice is associated" "He will throw away his pornographic materials and will have ceased reading articles about homosexuality..." "Homosexuality CAN be cured".  "God did not make people "that way" ".

This was given to Bishops . . .come on people the Church has changed it's doctrine on this issue. 

The change in doctrine is that now it's okay to be homosexual as long as you are "celibate".  Of course that just means as long as one doesn't have sex or break the law of chastity.  In today's Church I can advocate for homosexuality, I can read magazines about it, I can proclaim to the whole ward that I AM A HOMOSEXUAL and that is totally cool as long as you don't have sex.  As long as I don't do anything physical with someone of the same sex, I'm good.  That was not the message 20 years ago.  The message was don't touch it at all. Remove yourself from any influence, don't think about it, don't read about it,  don't do anything to act it out.

It's the frog in the pot.  I did not come to this conclusion that the Church has changed its doctrine until very, very recently.  Honestly, the endorsement of the LoveLoud woke me up and I started researching and yes the Church as an organization has changed it's doctrine on homosexuality. It didn't come by any revelation . . .it came by small steps.

If you look at the message the Church put out 30 years ago vs. today it is very obvious it has changed.

It's not my place to correct (i.e. to force it to change) the Church; but I do recognize it has changed.  To not recognize it has changed is IMO sticking ones head in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JoCa you seem to be misunderstanding same sex attraction temptation with practicing homosexuals.  If I am tempted to commit adultery but do not give in am I an adulterer?  If I am tempted to steal but do not am I a thief?  

President Hinckley taught this about people who have a same sex attraction:  "They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.  If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.  If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."  -- Gospel Principles, Chapter 39 -- The Law of Chastity.

Those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who practice homosexual acts or who violate the law of chastity are subject to church discipline which can include excommunication if they do not repent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2017 at 8:57 PM, JoCa said:

This was given to Bishops . . .come on people the Church has changed it's doctrine on this issue. 

I think I can agree with you that the Church has changed its approach towards homosexuals and homosexuality. For clarification (perhaps it is just semantics): Do we believe that the teachings in this non-canonical pamphlet are "doctrine"? De we believe these are "true and eternal doctrines"? More progressive LDS will say that the shift in attitude represents a shift in learning and understanding -- that we have received "new revelation" (often referencing AoF 9) that corrects these outdated, incorrect attitudes. Because these old attitudes are not doctrinal, these changes do not represent a change in doctrine. It is mostly semantics about what "doctrine" is and what ways do we expect the Church to change as the Lord continues to reveal things to the Church. Perhaps I am too influenced by "the world" and porogressives, but I don't see a change in eternal doctrines, but a correction of outdated, incorrect teachings and attitudes in the churches modern approach towards homosexuality.

To put this into the context of JrGanymede's blog -- President Kimball and Elder Petersen may have huts built in the wilderness where "homosexuality is a disease to be cured and reparative therapies are in vogue", but I don't think I want (or should) set my hut up in that wilderness, and the Church seems to be inclined to leave this particularly wilderness (and Pres. Kimball and Elder Petersen's huts) behind. It is perhaps a key piece at the heart of my previous thread (and a lot of discussion around what it means for prophets to be fallible) -- how to discern which teachings of prophets and apostles represent eternal, unchanging doctrines, and which are not. I don't know that I yet have a solid understanding of this.

On 9/8/2017 at 11:49 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:

If I am tempted to commit adultery but do not give in am I an adulterer?  If I am tempted to steal but do not am I a thief?  

I tend to agree with this. However, I would note that -- especially with the adulterer/adultery issue -- I might ask how you think this assertion interacts with Matt 5:28. It seems to me that we often do talk about those who lust as adulterers even if they did not actually do anything. Perhaps one would need to explore the distinction between "lust" and "tempted to commit adultery". It sometimes seems to me that we have not carefully defined or distinguished between these two so that they often get conflated in our discourse.

Edited by MrShorty
minor typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

To put this into the context of JrGanymede's blog -- President Kimball and Elder Petersen may have huts built in the wilderness where "homosexuality is a disease to be cured and reparative therapies are in vogue, but I don't think I want (or should) set my hut up in that wilderness, and the Church seems to be inclined to leave this particularly wilderness (and Pres. Kimball and Elder Petersen's huts) behind. It is perhaps a key piece at the heart of my previous thread (and a lot of discussion around what it means for prophets to be fallible) -- how to discern which teachings of prophets and apostles represent eternal, unchanging doctrines, and which are not. I don't know that I yet have a solid understanding of this.

Then again--it may well be that someday that wilderness will be tamed; and Brother Spencer's and Brother Mark's huts will turn out to be not only inhabitable, but will need to be expanded.  (What other form of medicine has been completely pooh-poohed and banned just because the AMA/APA/legislative bodies decided that the underlying condition was no longer an "illness"?)

The eternal principle/doctrine here is the bare terms of the LoC. The rest is primarily counsel about how best to apply the LoC in the prevailing social/cultural/therapeutic environment; and that counsel will change as social/cultural/therapeutic circumstances continue to evolve.  

We wouldn't need living prophets/revelation if Church teaching and practice weren't supposed to change (within certain parameters, of course).

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The eternal principle/doctrine here is the bare terms of the LoC.

That! ^^

I agree with some others who have said that sometimes it can be hard to distill things down to the doctrine.  We talk so much about application, policy, and principles (which aren't doctrine).  I think Elder Bednar has a book devoted to helping one figure this out.  If I'm right, it's on my list of 12 billion books I still need to read.  If I'm wrong, I'll have to go figure out what book it was and add it to my list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is my impression that G-d does not reveal stuff to us (by commandment or advice or information or whatever) just to get his way.  I am convinced that his warnings are for our benefits and not so much that we can avoid his punishments.  I believe he loves us and therefore his intent is for our benefit.   Thus, I believe his warning concerning same sex marriage (sex) is not so much so we can avoid his punishment as it is to avoid the damage such things do to our eternal soul

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2017 at 6:31 PM, MrShorty said:

I think I can agree with you that the Church has changed its approach towards homosexuals and homosexuality. For clarification (perhaps it is just semantics): Do we believe that the teachings in this non-canonical pamphlet are "doctrine"? De we believe these are "true and eternal doctrines"? More progressive LDS will say that the shift in attitude represents a shift in learning and understanding -- that we have received "new revelation" (often referencing AoF 9) that corrects these outdated, incorrect attitudes. Because these old attitudes are not doctrinal, these changes do not represent a change in doctrine. It is mostly semantics about what "doctrine" is and what ways do we expect the Church to change as the Lord continues to reveal things to the Church. Perhaps I am too influenced by "the world" and porogressives, but I don't see a change in eternal doctrines, but a correction of outdated, incorrect teachings and attitudes in the churches modern approach towards homosexuality.

To put this into the context of JrGanymede's blog -- President Kimball and Elder Petersen may have huts built in the wilderness where "homosexuality is a disease to be cured and reparative therapies are in vogue", but I don't think I want (or should) set my hut up in that wilderness, and the Church seems to be inclined to leave this particularly wilderness (and Pres. Kimball and Elder Petersen's huts) behind. It is perhaps a key piece at the heart of my previous thread (and a lot of discussion around what it means for prophets to be fallible) -- how to discern which teachings of prophets and apostles represent eternal, unchanging doctrines, and which are not. I don't know that I yet have a solid understanding of this.

I tend to agree with this. However, I would note that -- especially with the adulterer/adultery issue -- I might ask how you think this assertion interacts with Matt 5:28. It seems to me that we often do talk about those who lust as adulterers even if they did not actually do anything. Perhaps one would need to explore the distinction between "lust" and "tempted to commit adultery". It sometimes seems to me that we have not carefully defined or distinguished between these two so that they often get conflated in our discourse.

I agree with much of what you have said.  In answering your question of clarification:  Doctrine is stipulated as:"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group." It's too easy to dismiss old attitudes as "not doctrinal" simply because we don't like them.  But we are not being intellectually honest when we do that. The Church has changed it's doctrine on race.  It has changed it's doctrine on this and it has changed it's doctrine on many things (some are bigger shifts than other shifts).   

At one point not too long ago the Church believed and taught that homosexuality could be cured; today it does not.  That is a change in beliefs that is taught and therefore a change in doctrine. So yes it is a change in doctrine not policy.

I completely agree with AoF 9.  However, the vast majority of revelation received in the Church since it's inception has been against current culture and in many ways contra-culture.  It has almost always gone against what is popular.  The only other time where I can think that it went with the popular culture was during Prohibition-but considering the Church already had the WoW . . .

It has only been recently (since 2008ish) that new revelation (using your term) has very conveniently mirrored popular culture.  When I say mirror, I mean that as the world has shifted left, the Church has also shifted left, not to the same degree but it has still shifted left. Put another way, the LDS Church as an organization is becoming more liberal as society has become more liberal.  Personally, I think this is more a reflection of the membership of the Church soaking up the ways of the world more than anything else.

I agree with your last paragraph.  We do talk much about Matt 5:28 ..  .but in this context it seems to only apply to heterosexuals.  Put it this way, even though at points in my life I have chosen to become ensnared in unseemly things, I do not go into Church introduce myself to my Sunday School class and say in the box "things to know about me:" "I'm an adulterer in my heart!".  I do not go to my Bishop and say, "Bishop, I'm an adulterer in my heart, I currently don't act upon any lustful desires, but I just want you to know in my heart I'm an adulterer".  and he doesn't say to me "I love members who are adulterers in their hearts, sure you can be a temple worker!!".  I don't identify as an adulterer in my heart. The thought of it is just ludicrous. 

But yet those who identify as homosexuals get a free pass.  A homosexual can walk into Church, proclaim to the whole world they are homosexual and the entire ward is expected to fawn over them.  The Church now "applauds" an organization that sets up a rock concert that teaches things directly contrary to God's law (if the news reports are to be believed, the 13 year-old Savannah gave her cut-off "testimony" in front of the entire concert).

I've watched the Mackintosh's story on the mormonandgays website.  Not once, not one time in the entire video was the word sin mentioned. Yes it was mentioned that their son was living a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Church.  It was a weasel way out of not calling it sin but still trying to say "we don't agree with it".  Saying contrary to teachings basically says well we have are teachings you have yours we disagree with your teachings and that's okay.

I agree with just about everything Elder Oaks says in this article from '95 (some of the data is outdated I think, but otherwise I'm in agreement):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

"We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior."

But again that message is not the same message as it is today.  In today's Church culture, coming out as homosexual is well something to be applauded (I am using hyperbole here and yes I recognize it). More accurately, if someone proclaims they are homosexual, I'm supposed to just "love them" attend their wedding or do whatever else to make sure they feel "loved".

As a point of clarification, I personally do not consider someone who at times has or who has had attraction feelings to a member of the same sex homosexual.  I feel pretty secure with myself to say, yeah I can recognize and appreciate when there is a good-looking girl or guy (and by the same token when there is an ugly girl/guy). But the key is not to indulge in any lustful, i.e. sexual thoughts.  The moment that I start thinking about sexual thoughts is the moment I start to commit adultery in my heart.

I think there are different levels:

1) attraction to individuals of the same-sex.  But if we use the following definition of attraction: the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something. Then pretty much all of us have at some point or another had attraction to the same-sex.  We have best friends.  We have a brotherhood in the Priesthood, yeah there are some who I have a "man-crush" on.  I enjoy going on campouts and enjoying a bond of brotherhood.  That hardly qualifies as homosexual.

2) sexual attraction to members of the same-sex :Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.[1][2] Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal is an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice.

Now this gets a little more problematic.  I'm in the office, I'm a married man-should I have sexual attraction for the good looking 25 year-old receptionist?  Well let's break this down a little more.  What is "sexual desire": Sexual desire is a motivational state and an interest in “sexual objects or activities, or as a wish, need or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in sexual activities”.[1]

Okay.  So sexual attraction is based on sexual desire which is based on a "motivational state" to engage in sexual activities.

Again, the question is as a married man, should I have sexual attraction for the good-looking attractive 25 year-old receptionist?  NO!  Because any sexual attraction would be based on a motivational state to engage in sexual activities with this lady, which would be lusting which would be committing adultery in my heart.

God expects me as a married man to control myself to not have sexual desire for the receptionist.  Anytime, that I engage in that motivational state of sexual desire is sin.  Does God expect me to have no recognition for beauty-absolutely not. I don't have a problem saying the attractive young lady-but when I say that I'm not in a motivational state seeking to engage in sexual activities.  And, in general I do a pretty good job of controlling this.

So if having sexual attraction for the 25 year old receptionist is a sin, would it not be that having sexual attraction for the same sex is a sin?

3) engaging in sexual behaviors with the same-sex.

So when a member says I'm homosexual.  Which level are they openly admitting to?  #1, well if that's the case-they ain't homosexual.  #2, openly admitting that they think adulterous thoughts about the same sex, or #3 they want to engage in same-sex behavior but so they don't get kicked out of the church they don't.

And then the question becomes (if it's #2 or #3) why do I as a fellow worshiper in Christ need to know that you indulge in sexual thoughts about the same sex?  How would the women of the Church feel if I got up and told the ward.  Hey sisters, even thought I'm married just so you know I indulge in sexual thoughts about you. Why do you feel that I need to know that if I'm in Priesthood, there might be a chance that you are indulging in sexual desires about me?

Why is there a double standard?  I'd be considered a creep if I told the ward "hey I'm an adulterer in my heart", but the homosexual-come on in brother!!

In sum, the shift that has occurred is that it is now considered totally fine for someone who has sexual desires for the same sex to openly profess they have that sin and it isn't considered sin. 

I'm totally cool with allowing those who do indulge in sexual desires for the same sex to attend the temple; I think it would be ridiculous to hold married individuals to that standard.  I'm not cool with it being acceptable to be openly homosexual about it. 

Because it is saying in essence, either a) indulging in sexual desires for the same sex is not sin (which would be it ain't sin for me to indulge in sexual desire for other women not my spouse) or b) it's totally cool that I sin in this way and I don't need to work on it (which again would me that it would be fine for me to sin in sexual desire for other women too!).

Saying I'm homosexual, embraces the sin rather than call it for what it is . . .sin and something that should be overcome through God's help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2017 at 6:31 PM, MrShorty said:

Perhaps I am too influenced by "the world" and porogressives, but I don't see a change in eternal doctrines, but a correction of outdated, incorrect teachings and attitudes in the churches modern approach towards homosexuality.

I would agree that this is precisely the issue. I will tell you where true doctrine comes from and quite frankly we need a lot more of it.  True doctrine comes from the Scriptures, not in the "philosophies of men".

You say a "correction of outdated, incorrect teachings".  Why are they outdated?  Why are they incorrect?  How do you know they are incorrect, how do you know they are outdated? Because "science" tells you so, b/c the homosexual agenda says so.  Yet the best research out there says the idea the homosexuals are "born that way" is tenuous at best.  The research mostly shows that it's a combination of factors, abuse heavily influences it and the choices one makes in ones life heavily influences it (i.e. someone may not have said "today I'm homosexual", but through at series of choices over years they have been lead to or convinced they are homosexual).

There is a reason why very, very few things get Canonized. True doctrine, pure doctrine comes from the Scriptures.  I would also amend that anything signed onto by the entire Quorum of the 12 would also hold that weight.  Anything else, well it may be doctrine it may not be doctrine; more likely it is interpretation (which if coming from the Apostles holds a lot of weight).  But the Apostles 100 years ago made plenty of statements on race that turned out to be "incorrect".  If their statements turned out to be incorrect then it logically follows that the statements of today's Apostles could easily turn out to be incorrect too.

That's why going back to the scriptures, homosexuality is a sin.  To lust (i.e. have sexual desires with someone you are not married to) is sin. To have sexual desires with someone of the same sex is sin.  Period. We live in such an over-sexed culture which has completely distorted normal views on sexuality that held sway for hundreds of years.

Anything else about why, where, how, etc. is just fluff.  When you understand what is sin and what isn't sin, then you can actually take steps necessary to overcome it.

When you don't understand what is or what isn't sin . . .then it gets all muddled and confusing.

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:01 PM, JoCa said:

 

That's why going back to the scriptures, homosexuality is a sin.  To have sexual desires with someone of the same sex is sin.  Period. We live in such an over-sexed culture which has completely distorted normal views on sexuality that held sway for hundreds of years.

Anything else about why, where, how, etc. is just fluff.  When you understand what is sin and what isn't sin, then you can actually take steps necessary to overcome it.

When you don't understand what is or what isn't sin . . .then it gets all muddled and confusing.

Maybe you can clarify for me.  I'm trying to find these references in the scriptures/Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP.  I know that acts that are considered homosexual ACTS are sins, but I'm not sure where it states anything about being homosexual, or having that orientation is actually a sin.  Perhaps you can point these scriptures out.  Now the ACT and ACTIONS upon those feelings or thoughts are absolutely defined in the scriptures as sin, but simply being homosexual...I don't know where those scriptures are.  If you do, please point them out to me.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

To respond without quoting anybody...  If someone tells me they are gay it means they are attracted to their own gender exclusively.  It used to be taboo to tell people this.  Our awareness and enlightenment on the matter allows more people the luxury of saying it without reprisals.  The statement to me does not sound odd anymore than if someone said they are an addict.  Not that these are the same.  

Saying you're Gay is just a disclosure.  Being LDS I am inclined to believe that if the person is 'Out' about it they are at peace with this aspect of their lives.

 They are no longer suffering under the turmoil of what should I do about this 'Problem'.  

I need to seperate that out this disclosure in my mind as they are attracted to the same sex but that does not mean they are a sinner.  Anymore than I am for disclosing my heterosexuality. 

 If they are living an actively gay lifestyle I am a third party observer to this.  Their sin is between them and God.  

I can choose to be myself and treat them the way I want to be treated. (Like royalty)  or I can focus on their sin and bury myself in the burdens of judgment that are too heavy to carry around with me.

 I would rather let God sort things out and focus on my own troubles, you see.  Work out my own salvation with fear and trembling.

 If they ask my beliefs I express them lovingly and unapologetically.   Which is what all people truely want.   Never tell people what, you think, they want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LoudLizard said:

To respond without quoting anybody...  If someone tells me they are gay it means they are attracted to their own gender exclusively.  It used to be taboo to tell people this.  Our awareness and enlightenment on the matter allows more people the luxury of saying it without reprisals.  The statement to me does not sound odd anymore than if someone said they are an addict.  Not that these are the same.  

Saying you're Gay is just a disclosure.  Being LDS I am inclined to believe that if the person is 'Out' about it they are at peace with this aspect of their lives.

 They are no longer suffering under the turmoil of what should I do about this 'Problem'.  

I need to seperate that out this disclosure in my mind as they are attracted to the same sex but that does not mean they are a sinner.  Anymore than I am for disclosing my heterosexuality. 

 If they are living an actively gay lifestyle I am a third party observer to this.  Their sin is between them and God.  

I can choose to be myself and treat them the way I want to be treated. (Like royalty)  or I can focus on their sin and bury myself in the burdens of judgment that are too heavy to carry around with me.

 I would rather let God sort things out and focus on my own troubles, you see.  Work out my own salvation with fear and trembling.

 If they ask my beliefs I express them lovingly and unapologetically.   Which is what all people truely want.   Never tell people what, you think, they want to hear.

I understand what you're saying here. 

But this is the problem:  "They are no longer suffering under the turmoil of what should I do about this 'Problem'.  "

If they are still attracted to the same gender and it is hindering their path to eternal families then it remains a problem that still have to be solved.

And so, just like we don't go about announcing to the world - "I'm attracted to the opposite gender!", or "I'm a porn addict!", or something, there's really no reason to have to announce to the world you're homosexual.  The only reason why you would want to do that is if you want to homo-date and you want people to accept it.  Or if you're in an AA meeting and you want to go through the 12-step program or be a counselor in said program.

But that's just me.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2017 at 7:53 PM, JoCa said:

From the article:

"We need to know why the twenty somethings see the LGBT movement as a civil rights issue".

 

Okay I am LDS and active.  I follow what the prophet says to the letter.  I am a sinner and do not pretend to have all of the answers; the LGBTQS movement is complex and is a civil rights issue.  -Seperation of church and state here -  civil and civics are public sector not religeous.

 So if you are gay and you disclose this information in an application or it is obvious because you wear your lifestyle on your sleeve; and you are denied employment, admission to a position, school, or residence based upon your sexual orientation then your civil rights by law are being violated.

 Certain cases this does not apply. Like when it is not equal opportunity employment, private institutions, etc.

Everyone deserves protection from discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, LoudLizard said:

Okay I am LDS and active.  I follow what the prophet says to the letter.  I am a sinner and do not pretend to have all of the answers; the LGBTQS movement is complex and is a civil rights issue.  -Seperation of church and state here -  civil and civics are public sector not religeous.

 So if you are gay and you disclose this information in an application or it is obvious because you wear your lifestyle on your sleeve; and you are denied employment, admission to a position, school, or residence based upon your sexual orientation then your civil rights by law are being violated.

 Certain cases this does not apply. Like when it is not equal opportunity employment, private institutions, etc.

Everyone deserves protection from discrimination.

Yes, I understand it as a civil rights issue in the secular world.

I don't understand it as an issue for a faithful LDS.  If you're LDS, there's no reason to announce you're gay.  Civil Rights then doesn't apply because... well, you should not be living a homosexual lifestyle.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share