Recommended Posts

LDS and Evangelical doctrinal statements often sound similar, but never quite line up. On the other hand, our morals, ethics, and social issue stances frequently align perfectly. A group of Evangelicals released a statement on sexuality, that more or less re-affirms biblical moral standards. The press has ignored such pronouncements in the past, but pounced this time.

Here's the link:  https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

Compare this with my fellowship's 2014 statement:  https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Homosexuality-Marriage-and-Sexual-Identity

I'm sure the Southern Baptists have put out something similar, and feel safe in opining that LDS have too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@prisonchaplain Yep our Proclamation on the Family is very similiar to the Nashville statement. I read the Nashville Statement myself yesterday, and I agreed with it fully, although I was somewhat surprised it was picked out for censure. After all it's not new information, as you said it's biblical. Not surprised they don't like it, the natural man is an enemy to God, but it picked up a lot more attention than I expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those too lazy to look it up, here's the linky for The Family Proclamation. Some highlights related to the Nashville Statement:

Quote

WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

... Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. ...

...

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. ...

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Of course, our statement also frames these teachings with the LDS perspective of pre-mortal life (and gender identity) and post-mortal marriage and family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is the newly-formed offense taken at naming declarations after the city in which they were formulated. Note that within the article the historic precedent for doing so is described. The mayor simply takes advantage of today's politicized environment, in which it is A-Okay to condemn the religious beliefs of any non-gay-affirming Christian spirituality. They will, of course, carefully avoid doing likewise towards Islamic beliefs, which are the same.

http://tennesseestar.com/2017/08/30/mayor-megan-barry-slams-nashville-statement-backed-by-many-evangelicals-who-support-traditional-marriage/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

For those too lazy to look it up, here's the linky for The Family Proclamation. Some highlights related to the Nashville Statement:

Of course, our statement also frames these teachings with the LDS perspective of pre-mortal life (and gender identity) and post-mortal marriage and family.

For what it's worth, this proclamation was presented back in 1995.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an interesting statement. Recognizing that the statement is just a list of affirmations and denials, and not a thorough analysis of these issues, some aspects that stood out to me:

Knowing that there are more progressive Christian denominations out there, I wonder how all Protestant/Evangelical Christians will respond to this statement, and how will that affect the "unity of faith" among Christians? I saw a statement in a Huffpost article by Denny Burk (allegedly one of the architects of the Nashville statement) that sounds like he is saying that anyone who disagrees with this statement is not truly a Christian (there's an issue that we LDS can empathize with)

Anyone who persistently rejects God’s revelation about sexual holiness and virtue is rejecting Christianity altogether, even if they claim otherwise (

https://cbmw.org/the-nashville-statement/why-the-nashville-statement-now-and-what-about-article-10/?utm_content=bufferb6dc7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313 )

Some within Mormonism have described this issue as a "separate the wheat from the tares" issue. Are LGBT issues seen the same way across Christianity? Is this the next big schism in Christianity? Is that a good thing?

Article 4 (and some in Article 3): What are "divinely ordained differences between male and female"? As one who has questioned many gender stereotypes, how do we discern between "divinely ordained differences" and "culturally perpetuated stereotypes"?

Article 5: Gender is decided anatomically, not chromosomally or other. They acknowledge that ambiguous situations exist, but that does not seem to influence the final statement. Again, it is not intended to explain everything thoroughly, but it would be interesting to see beyond these assertions how they view the cases of ambiguous gender.

Article 9: With my history, I cannot help but read article 9 and wonder how it applies to those with no sexual desires or attractions (asexuals, low desire spouses, etc.)

Articles 12 and 14: I like the assertion that Christ's atonement and grace can extend to all -- including those who find themselves on the "wrong" side of these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Knowing that there are more progressive Christian denominations out there, I wonder how all Protestant/Evangelical Christians will respond to this statement, and how will that affect the "unity of faith" among Christians? I saw a statement in a Huffpost article by Denny Burk (allegedly one of the architects of the Nashville statement) that sounds like he is saying that anyone who disagrees with this statement is not truly a Christian (there's an issue that we LDS can empathize with)

@prisonchaplain: Most of the signers are individuals and ministries, not denominational leaders. This issue is causing tension in some denominations, but more in the mainstream Christian denominations than in Evangelical ones.

Some within Mormonism have described this issue as a "separate the wheat from the tares" issue. Are LGBT issues seen the same way across Christianity? Is this the next big schism in Christianity? Is that a good thing?

@prisonchaplainThere is a century-plus long division between mainstream historic churches (i.e. Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) and Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentecostal-Charismatic ones (Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, most non-denominational churches, Vineyard Christian Fellowship, etc.). The issue is causing division mostly within those mainstream historic churches. A few non-denominational churches are flipping--becoming "inclusive."

Article 4 (and some in Article 3): What are "divinely ordained differences between male and female"? As one who has questioned many gender stereotypes, how do we discern between "divinely ordained differences" and "culturally perpetuated stereotypes"?

@prisonchaplain: The signers may vary in the answers to that questions. Clearly, they all oppose gender-reassignment, as well as efforts of the government to force gender-fluidity upon religious bodies.

Article 9: With my history, I cannot help but read article 9 and wonder how it applies to those with no sexual desires or attractions (asexuals, low desire spouses, etc.)

@prisonchaplain: Honestly, I do not believe that most of the signers had such cases in mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well, I'll say that I'm glad they wrote it.  I'm glad they published it.

I just had a tiny reaction to one line.  They had to put that bit about polygamy in there.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I just had a tiny reaction to one line.  They had to put that bit about polygamy in there.

At least they are not as harsh in their statement as some churches. I heard there's this one where if you engage in polygamy they kick you out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I'll say that I'm glad they wrote it.  I'm glad they published it.

I just had a tiny reaction to one line.  They had to put that bit about polygamy in there.

I'm surprised you don't have more of a reaction to this line:

WE DENY that adopting a homosexual of transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I'm surprised you don't have more of a reaction to this line:

WE DENY that adopting a homosexual of transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption.

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.

Bologna. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
45 minutes ago, 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.

I continue to wonder what on earth you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Bologna. 

 

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I continue to wonder what on earth you're talking about.

Oh really now. I would absolutely love to be wrong on this.  So tell me what is adopting a transgender or homosexual self-conception

Let's look it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-concept

"One's self-concept (also called self-construction, self-identity, self-perspective or self-structure) is a collection of beliefs about oneself[1][2] that includes elements such as academic performance,[3][4][5][6][7] gender identity, sexual identity,[8][9][10][11] and racial identity.[12] Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to "Who am I?".[13]

In other words, someone who says "I am a homosexual" has a homosexual self-conception.  Now I completely agree, the 12, especially with Elder Bednar's recent talk have affirmed in words,either in GC or in other Church settings something to the effect of the above, i.e. that we deny a homosexual self-conception is consistent with God's plan.

However, the Church as a whole it is quite a bit more confusing. We just had a discussion on this in another thread and plenty of members came out against what I was saying quoting from mormonandgays.org. And I agree they are correct, as an organization, the Church isn't quite sure which way it wants to go and it wants to tow this middle line of well acting on it is a sin but saying I'm a homosexual isn't (except Apostles have tried to explain through gentle persuasion-as Carb put it- that we shouldn't do that). Members are completely free to say "I'm homosexual, but I don't act on it" and that is totally cool, no one will tell them, hey self-conception as a homosexual is against God's plan.

We have individuals who's self-conception is homosexual yet they serve in callings and in fact the Church is proud of this fact.  So how as an organization can homosexual self-conception be against God's plan, yet it is rarely if ever mentioned.  Temple recommend members attend homosexual weddings-yet nothing is said against it.

If you pay attention, you will definitely find it (being affirmation of the statement) in the Church, even today you will find it  .. . but it's not a very clear nor strong message and it's getting harder and harder to hear that message.

So unless I'm wrong (and trust me I'd love to be wrong, please prove me wrong), I stand by what I said, 10-15 years ago, the Church as an organization would have easily agreed with this.  Today well it's complicated.

Edited by JoCa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, JoCa said:

Oh really now. I would absolutely love to be wrong on this.  So tell me what is adopting a transgender or homosexual self-conception

Let's look it up:

I don't need a vocabulary lesson.  You just made a bunch of isolated statements, accusations, and characterizations with no background.  You did a scattershot hoping something would hit the target.  The problem is that I don't even know what target you're shooting at because you don't explain or back up anything.  I didn't even say I agreed or disagreed.  I truly had no idea what you were talking about.

If you want to make a point, make it.  But please do so clearly enough so that we ignorant Mormons can figure out what you high-minded free-thinking types come upon so easily.  And try to use consistency, logic, and proper references in doing so.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Ironically, in Italy it's called "mortadella".

Doesn't that mean "noble death"?  I find nothing noble about bologna.  SMH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Doesn't that mean "noble death"?  I find nothing noble about bologna.  SMH.

Sounds more like "morta d'ella", which would be a somewhat archaic Italian for "her death". I suspect the name actually is related to the Bolognese dialect version of "mordere", which means "to bite". Probably a diminutive (that would be the "-ella" part), so I'm guessing it means something like "little bite".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Juli Slattery responds to the Nashville statement here. Her belief and theology is definitely on the conservative side of this issue, and yet her response is more concerned with the "unity of faith" issue that I mentioned.

https://www.authenticintimacy.com/resources/5989/nashville-statement-when-christians-disagree-about-sex

Many of her observations resonated with me. As I noted, we as Mormons know what it is to be called "non-Christian" or "not real Christians" or "so-called Christians". I also see within our community a tendency to say "you can't be a good Mormon if you don't believe X about homosexuality (or creation or what have you)."

I don't understand all of the theology around LGBT issues. This idea that we might be "artificially" (in quotes because I don't know what lines in the sand are lines God is drawing in the sand and which lines are being drawn by fallen humans) splitting our communities rather than letting the wheat and tares grow together until the final judgement. I guess as I see responses to this statement, I find myself more concerned with division and schism than whether or not the theology is technically correct.

But then, maybe I am just an apostate "Mormon in name only" and "so-called Christian" who should walk out the door, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read part of an article from the leftest yellow rag, Salon, in which the poor little snowflake author was screaming homophobic, bigoted, etc., etc., etc., because of this statement.  The communist left are perpetual, eternal victims and everything offends them except when you agree completely with their perverted agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Dr. Juli Slattery responds to the Nashville statement here. Her belief and theology is definitely on the conservative side of this issue, and yet her response is more concerned with the "unity of faith" issue that I mentioned.

https://www.authenticintimacy.com/resources/5989/nashville-statement-when-christians-disagree-about-sex

....

 This idea that we might be "artificially" (in quotes because I don't know what lines in the sand are lines God is drawing in the sand and which lines are being drawn by fallen humans) splitting our communities rather than letting the wheat and tares grow together until the final judgement. I guess as I see responses to this statement, I find myself more concerned with division and schism than whether or not the theology is technically correct.

From the article:

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

That's a pretty easy one to answer.  Because the youth have been indoctrinated through modern media.  When you have tv shows pushing the lifestyle, government pushing the lifestyle, schools pushing the lifestyle is it any wonder why the youth see it as a civil rights issue?  Pretty easy answer.

For the second paragraph, Church is supposed to be about a community with a common belief set, and homosexuality is a big issue.  There is more division b/c the allowable opinion on such weighty matters is allowed to have more leeway in church.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 0:17 PM, Carborendum said:

I don't need a vocabulary lesson.  You just made a bunch of isolated statements, accusations, and characterizations with no background.  You did a scattershot hoping something would hit the target.  The problem is that I don't even know what target you're shooting at because you don't explain or back up anything.  I didn't even say I agreed or disagreed.  I truly had no idea what you were talking about.

If you want to make a point, make it.  But please do so clearly enough so that we ignorant Mormons can figure out what you high-minded free-thinking types come upon so easily.  And try to use consistency, logic, and proper references in doing so.

I will ignore your condescending very rude remarks and personal attack.  I have done nothing of what you accuse me.  I have used logic, consistency, reason and references.  You are just being obtuse.  Be that as it may, I will attempt again.

Do you or do you not agree with this statement?

"WE DENY that adopting a homosexual of transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption."

If you agree with this statement then how do you square that statement with the current attitude within the Church that it is okay to claim "I am a celibate homosexual and am therefore worthy to have full membership in the Church?"

I have seen (but I don't have the link to it, sorry not gonna go chase after it), earlier Church instructions to Bishops on how to approach the homosexual issue from about 20 years ago-those instructions were very much in line with the things Kimball said in Miracle of Forgiveness. For many years, even in my youth it was known that any type of homosexual activities-be it in thought or deed were against God's will. It was also known that it wasn't something one was cursed to be for a lifetime. If one had homosexual thoughts, the objective was to retrain the mind to not have those thoughts.

That is the shift in the Church, earlier to say "I'm a celibate homosexual" was idiotic, if you hadn't retrained your mind then you were still living in sin (i.e. sinning in your mind through fantasies), if you had retrained your mind, then there would be no need to say "I'm a celibate homosexual" b/c you by definition weren't homosexual anymore. If you aren't thinking homosexual thoughts and have retrained the mind-then to say you were homosexual was just to continue to cling to sin.

-----

If you do not agree with that statement, then 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. It has changed from where homosexuality was something you did (either in word or thought) to something you are (see mormonandgays.org website). But as I have said continually, that yes the reason there is confusion in the Church within the membership is b/c the Church is not clear on this issue.  Through websites like mormonandgays, the PR youtube videos the Church puts out, it is obvious to see that the doctrine has changed.  But then when the Apostles speak like Elder Bednar did, it appears the doctrine has not changed.   Point being 20 years ago the Church was very, very clear on this issue-today it's like the Church wants the doctrine to change, but it doesn't want it to change and thus the confusion.

And please don't even mention the "ark steadier".  A point about that, an ark steadier requires actions not words, in other words an individual who attempts to by action correct things.  I'm not advocating for anything, I don't claim any special privilege or power. God will right the ship in His own time. I think we need to pray mightily for our leaders that they will have the strength, the foresight, the will, the knowledge from God to do as He sees fit.

I do think it's a little stupid though to not recognize "yeap there is a chance the ark is leaning" . . .I'm sure God will fix it in His own due time . . .but all ain't well.

20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoCa said:

I will ignore your condescending very rude remarks and personal attack.  I have done nothing of what you accuse me.  I have used logic, consistency, reason and references.  You are just being obtuse.  Be that as it may, I will attempt again.

Do you or do you not agree with this statement?

"WE DENY that adopting a homosexual of transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption."

If you agree with this statement then how do you square that statement with the current attitude within the Church that it is okay to claim "I am a celibate homosexual and am therefore worthy to have full membership in the Church?"

I have seen (but I don't have the link to it, sorry not gonna go chase after it), earlier Church instructions to Bishops on how to approach the homosexual issue from about 20 years ago-those instructions were very much in line with the things Kimball said in Miracle of Forgiveness. For many years, even in my youth it was known that any type of homosexual activities-be it in thought or deed were against God's will. It was also known that it wasn't something one was cursed to be for a lifetime. If one had homosexual thoughts, the objective was to retrain the mind to not have those thoughts.

That is the shift in the Church, earlier to say "I'm a celibate homosexual" was idiotic, if you hadn't retrained your mind then you were still living in sin (i.e. sinning in your mind through fantasies), if you had retrained your mind, then there would be no need to say "I'm a celibate homosexual" b/c you by definition weren't homosexual anymore. If you aren't thinking homosexual thoughts and have retrained the mind-then to say you were homosexual was just to continue to cling to sin.

-----

If you do not agree with that statement, then 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. It has changed from where homosexuality was something you did (either in word or thought) to something you are (see mormonandgays.org website). But as I have said continually, that yes the reason there is confusion in the Church within the membership is b/c the Church is not clear on this issue.  Through websites like mormonandgays, the PR youtube videos the Church puts out, it is obvious to see that the doctrine has changed.  But then when the Apostles speak like Elder Bednar did, it appears the doctrine has not changed.   Point being 20 years ago the Church was very, very clear on this issue-today it's like the Church wants the doctrine to change, but it doesn't want it to change and thus the confusion.

And please don't even mention the "ark steadier".  A point about that, an ark steadier requires actions not words, in other words an individual who attempts to by action correct things.  I'm not advocating for anything, I don't claim any special privilege or power. God will right the ship in His own time. I think we need to pray mightily for our leaders that they will have the strength, the foresight, the will, the knowledge from God to do as He sees fit.

I do think it's a little stupid though to not recognize "yeap there is a chance the ark is leaning" . . .I'm sure God will fix it in His own due time . . .but all ain't well.

20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

 

 

@Carborendum is fully capable of defending himself so this is not a defense of him.  This is simply to tell you that from my armchair, you are reading insolence into Carb's post where none exists.

That said, your perspective of the homosexual condition is very narrow.  I'm just going to hit on one aspect and I'm gonna leave the rest alone.

Ok.  First off, let me ask you why you are heterosexual.  Did you work on it?  Thought about it?  Planned on it?  Or did you just see a girl one day and realized you were attracted to her?   I'm assuming you're a boy here.  Now, let's say - just a hypothetical for the sake of discussion - the Prophet teaches that being heterosexual is a sin.  What would be your steps to repentance?  What do you think will happen say, 10 years from now.  What if in 10 years of faithful existence you see that girl you wanted to marry but didn't because it's a sin and realize you're still attracted to her?  Would you call yourself homosexual?  Would you castigate yourself as an unrepentant heterosexual worthy of condemnation?

Think about it and let me know what you come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 8:46 AM, MrShorty said:

But then, maybe I am just an apostate "Mormon in name only" and "so-called Christian" who should walk out the door, too.

This is likely a sincerely humble, humorous bit of sarcasm. At the same time, the tact has been used in the past to insinuate that proponents of a perspective are harsh, judgmental, and divisive. The truth is that they uphold orthodox statements that have been standard Protestant teaching on sexuality for centuries. If someone is LDS and lobbies for same-sex marriage within the church, then what is that person? If they contend that the church should recognize all loving, affirming relationships, what is that person? Conservatives can be harsh, judgmental, even divisive. But, so can liberals. After all, they won the Methodist and Presbyterian doctrinal wars. The automatic response to a declarative "We believe ... " should not be, "Wait, so if I disagree you're damning me to the outer darkness???!!!" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now