Gays, blacks and the church


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

So late to respond, but there are a few things I feel I ought to respond to:

On 1/25/2022 at 11:57 AM, CV75 said:

overall human experience is that opposite-sex attraction is by far the biological norm,

As a biologist, I have long found it interesting that almost every living thing has a sexual mode of reproduction, and the biological/evolutionary attempts to explain why (after all, asexual reproduction is far less expensive). Of course most explanations talk about the strong advantage to genetic recombinations. But, even though it is intriguing, I find any attempts to draw parallels between what occurs naturally and advantageously in this fallen world to what is happening in the celestial realm ultimately unconvincing. I do not find much in the amoral natural world that helps me understand God's morality.

Re: Paul Reeves and his book, the conclusions and impressions are mine and not Paul's, so set the record straight there.

On 1/25/2022 at 1:17 PM, CV75 said:

This also speaks, in my opinion, to the Brethren doing the right thing at the right time by the right authority, and not by the will of enlightened voices in society

I would wonder exactly what "right time" means here, because a significant part of my own doubts and disbeliefs around this issue involve why God waited until 1978. Others of our offshoot branches ordained blacks to their priesthoods from their early days in the 19th century. There's a lot said about the history of the priesthood ban (including the Church's own essay) that includes the idea that God had to wait until 1978 because we as a Church were too stubborn, too set in our thinking, too unrepentant, to receive the revelation any earlier. Some mention Pres. McKay's experience in the '60s. One history mentions an internal "study" by the Q12 (can't remember if it was '50s or '60s) that concluded that the Church [membership?] is not ready to lift the ban. It seems to me that there should have been plenty of "right times" before '78 to desegregate the priesthood, but our own stubbornness handicaps God (an interesting idea??) in the revelations He can give us. Which, I wonder, might be another parallel to LGBT issues. In many circles (including this forum) I have seen many (a strong majority?) of Church members claim that they would leave the Church if it changed its stance on LGBT issues. Have we handicapped God's ability to give us new revelation by our own stubbornness? (At this point, I would almost want to invoke Spackman and his discussion of accommodationism as a model of revelation and prophets and scripture).

On 1/26/2022 at 4:25 PM, CV75 said:

I hope this doesn't scare off @MrShorty 

I've been around this forum too long to be "scared off", but I do find it unproductive (so not usually worth engaging) when someone decides to draw moral equivalences between two men holding hands while enjoying a romantic movie together and sex trafficking and statutory rape. I can kind of see the slippery slope connecting the ideas, but those comparisons otherwise don't really seem to add anything to the LGBT discussion.

On 1/28/2022 at 7:20 AM, CV75 said:

how do we discern between our understanding and God's? This would be the application of Alma 32

What do we do with those who decide that lifelong celibacy (romantic and sexual) does not produce a good tree or good fruit? What do we do with those who plant the seeds of accepting and acting on their homoromantic and homosexual predilictions and claim that it brings goodness into their life? As a cis-hetero man, I cannot plant and test the seeds of homosexuality, so I can only rely on others' experiences. It seems that, in a large number of cases, those who follow an Alma 32 type model find that homoromantic/homosexual behavior brings goodness into their lives.

On 1/25/2022 at 11:57 AM, CV75 said:

What to do when personal revelations conflict? All you can do is go by your personal revelation, and as you do so in good faith, God will lead you, or correct you, accordingly.

Of anything said in this thread, I think this is the thing I can most agree with. I often feel like, as a high demand religion, the Church doesn't always handle those who question or doubt or reject individual tenets while trying to stay true to the "core principles" of the restoration very well. In many of the more progressive circles I visit, so many "leave" the Church, not because they want to reject all of the core principles, but because they get tired of needing to censor themselves among their correligionists, or they get tired of being suspected of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, or having concerns/questions/doubts casually dismissed, or similar. One of the things I noticed in David Archuletta's recent video was how much of the pain he felt comes from people who doubt his faith in and relationship with God just because he decides to start dating, even though he feels his relationship with God is as strong as ever and that God approves of his decision. If we truly believe that God leads each individual, would we do better as a Church to be more open to people's individual experiences with the divine, rather than insisting that God gives everyone all of the same answers?

(That was long -- forum ettiquette question -- Is it better to break something big and long like this up into separate posts?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

So late to respond, but there are a few things I feel I ought to respond to:

As a biologist, I have long found it interesting that almost every living thing has a sexual mode of reproduction, and the biological/evolutionary attempts to explain why (after all, asexual reproduction is far less expensive). Of course most explanations talk about the strong advantage to genetic recombinations. But, even though it is intriguing, I find any attempts to draw parallels between what occurs naturally and advantageously in this fallen world to what is happening in the celestial realm ultimately unconvincing. I do not find much in the amoral natural world that helps me understand God's morality.

Re: Paul Reeves and his book, the conclusions and impressions are mine and not Paul's, so set the record straight there.

I would wonder exactly what "right time" means here, because a significant part of my own doubts and disbeliefs around this issue involve why God waited until 1978. Others of our offshoot branches ordained blacks to their priesthoods from their early days in the 19th century. There's a lot said about the history of the priesthood ban (including the Church's own essay) that includes the idea that God had to wait until 1978 because we as a Church were too stubborn, too set in our thinking, too unrepentant, to receive the revelation any earlier. Some mention Pres. McKay's experience in the '60s. One history mentions an internal "study" by the Q12 (can't remember if it was '50s or '60s) that concluded that the Church [membership?] is not ready to lift the ban. It seems to me that there should have been plenty of "right times" before '78 to desegregate the priesthood, but our own stubbornness handicaps God (an interesting idea??) in the revelations He can give us. Which, I wonder, might be another parallel to LGBT issues. In many circles (including this forum) I have seen many (a strong majority?) of Church members claim that they would leave the Church if it changed its stance on LGBT issues. Have we handicapped God's ability to give us new revelation by our own stubbornness? (At this point, I would almost want to invoke Spackman and his discussion of accommodationism as a model of revelation and prophets and scripture).

I've been around this forum too long to be "scared off", but I do find it unproductive (so not usually worth engaging) when someone decides to draw moral equivalences between two men holding hands while enjoying a romantic movie together and sex trafficking and statutory rape. I can kind of see the slippery slope connecting the ideas, but those comparisons otherwise don't really seem to add anything to the LGBT discussion.

What do we do with those who decide that lifelong celibacy (romantic and sexual) does not produce a good tree or good fruit? What do we do with those who plant the seeds of accepting and acting on their homoromantic and homosexual predilictions and claim that it brings goodness into their life? As a cis-hetero man, I cannot plant and test the seeds of homosexuality, so I can only rely on others' experiences. It seems that, in a large number of cases, those who follow an Alma 32 type model find that homoromantic/homosexual behavior brings goodness into their lives.

Of anything said in this thread, I think this is the thing I can most agree with. I often feel like, as a high demand religion, the Church doesn't always handle those who question or doubt or reject individual tenets while trying to stay true to the "core principles" of the restoration very well. In many of the more progressive circles I visit, so many "leave" the Church, not because they want to reject all of the core principles, but because they get tired of needing to censor themselves among their correligionists, or they get tired of being suspected of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, or having concerns/questions/doubts casually dismissed, or similar. One of the things I noticed in David Archuletta's recent video was how much of the pain he felt comes from people who doubt his faith in and relationship with God just because he decides to start dating, even though he feels his relationship with God is as strong as ever and that God approves of his decision. If we truly believe that God leads each individual, would we do better as a Church to be more open to people's individual experiences with the divine, rather than insisting that God gives everyone all of the same answers?

(That was long -- forum ettiquette question -- Is it better to break something big and long like this up into separate posts?)

Would you agree that biology on the whole hasn’t a position, as President Oaks put it, “…on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction,” and that it is not the norm for human experience overall? Amoral biological norms do not explain human morality, but people's experience with the norm is used to rationalize or justify their morality. I see a line between morals and covenants, as much as ethics and law.*

When I say “right time,” I’m referring to it not being as soon as some might like, but in retrospect, resulting in achieving a consistent positive outcome (e.g., the ordination of Blacks), whereas societal efforts, on the whole, have proven not to. We can take it on faith that it was the “right time” for other churches to begin / resume ordaining blacks when they decided to. In any case, I see no need to leave the Church over it. We cannot yet draw a parallel to LGBTQ+ issues because we haven’t yet a retrospect, except that the Church changes policy and practices on priesthood, marriage, etc. at the “right time.”

* I agree that marriage is fundamentally a gender-based covenant and not a moral principle (if it were, unmarried people would be deemed immoral).

I have observed that those suffering deep psychic pain (those life-altering health, social, mental, emotional, and other shocks to the system) will correctly realize the Church doesn't always handle those teetering on the edge very well, because that is the essence of teetering (the “let this cup pass” part which doesn’t go away fast enough). I’m not sure the Church (ministering brothers and sisters, priesthood ministers) can be expected to, but the Church ordinances offer the way to develop a personal relationship with Christ to help people deal with even the worst of these things. I take that to be a miracle, and I’ve observed that, too. It is better than feeling led by the Holy Ghost; it is being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Personally, I think accepting that people believe they are doing what God is leading them to do, while holding to one’s own contradicting beliefs, is one measure of spiritual maturity. On the whole, the Handbook demonstrates an ecclesiastical approach that supports the members moving at their own pace, and has policies and procedures in place for those who become so divisive they require withdrawal of membership. The Church is for the spiritually immature (“the whole need no physician, but they that are sick”).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Amoral biological norms do not explain human morality, but people's experience with the norm is used to rationalize or justify their morality.

I can't imagine any biologist (especially if he/she has also had some education in statistics within biology) that does not understand that naturally occurring traits will frequently exhibit "bell curve" (or similar distributions) behavior. Naturally, "normal" experience is going to be in the middle regions of those bell curves and not the extremes. And, it seem quite natural to expect that such common experience with the middle of the bell curve will cause many to pathologize or demonize the extremes of the bell curve. However, we as Latter-day Saints frequently say that our goal in life is to know God's will and truth. Does normalizing the middle of bell curves and pathologizing/demonizing the edges of bell curves really represent a good way of getting to know the truths and will of God?

This often reminds me of the talk given by then Elder Oaks when he talked about general authorities teaching general principles, but that he didn't want to comment on exceptions because that is up to individuals to decide exceptions. If we really believe in a model that includes general principles/truths with exceptions, it seems like LGBT issues could easily fit into that kind of model. Assuming 90% of people fit nicely into the cis-hetero standards the Church outlines (which seems to be about what I usually find when I go seeking for how commonly people identify as LGBT+), with somewhere around 10% of people finding, by personal revelation, that they are exceptions to the normal cis-hetero rules. If we truly believe in general principles with exceptions, it seems like we ought to embrace people in their exceptions to make it easier for them to stay in the Church. Of course, maybe we don't really believe in general with exceptions or that this specific issue cannot tolerate any exception, but then we are back to understanding how we come to know what exceptions God allows and which exceptions God doesn't. I don't know how we decide, but I certainly don't think that biological norms can tell us about God's views about those at the ends of the bell curves.

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’m referring to it not being as soon as some might like, but in retrospect, resulting in achieving a consistent positive outcome

In some ways I like this "utilitarian" view of revelation -- that God chooses to withhold real truth or provide partial truths or even allow His people to believe falsehoods because tolerating or accommodating less than the full truth serves some purpose. The main problems I see with these kinds of models of revelation are things like these: If history is any indications, God can tolerate some pretty immoral stuff in His people -- slavery, forced racial segregation, genocide. Is there really anything God cannot tolerate or endorse among His people? If God stands behind these practices, is God a reliable source of moral truth? If God tolerates immoral "false" traditions among His people, are the practices of God's people reliable indicators of truth and morality? As it relates to the LGBT question, if God could tolerate slavery among His people, could He not also tolerate a few same-sex couples getting married?

 

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Personally, I think accepting that people believe they are doing what God is leading them to do, while holding to one’s own contradicting beliefs, is one measure of spiritual maturity. On the whole, the Handbook demonstrates an ecclesiastical approach that supports the members moving at their own pace, and has policies and procedures in place for those who become so divisive they require withdrawal of membership. The Church is for the spiritually immature (“the whole need no physician, but they that are sick”).

I agree with much of what you say here. These kinds of ideas are part of why I'm not sure I believe the Church is true in the sense of being the only true Church and representing the only path through mortality that leads back to salvation and exaltation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As it relates to the LGBT question, if God could tolerate slavery among His people, could He not also tolerate a few same-sex couples getting married?

During our time on earth...yes. He tolerates all number of sins so that we may have time to repent. 

Personally in His presence...no. No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.

This thread, and another one currently active, have amazed me more than once. The seeking for loopholes to justify immoral behavior must stop. The apologetics for sin in the church must stop. As is the case with other sins, there will be no homosexual relations in the Celestial Kingdom of God, period.

Gays, just like everyone else, must learn to bridle their passions and overcome their temptations. We do not give sins an exception just because there may be emotional ties to them.

I am all for learning how to better understand and empathize with others, and know the issue is painfully difficult for those involved, but at the end of the day the practice is sin. It is not, and never will be acceptable in the eyes of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I can't imagine any biologist (especially if he/she has also had some education in statistics within biology) that does not understand that naturally occurring traits will frequently exhibit "bell curve" (or similar distributions) behavior. Naturally, "normal" experience is going to be in the middle regions of those bell curves and not the extremes. And, it seem quite natural to expect that such common experience with the middle of the bell curve will cause many to pathologize or demonize the extremes of the bell curve. However, we as Latter-day Saints frequently say that our goal in life is to know God's will and truth. Does normalizing the middle of bell curves and pathologizing/demonizing the edges of bell curves really represent a good way of getting to know the truths and will of God?

This often reminds me of the talk given by then Elder Oaks when he talked about general authorities teaching general principles, but that he didn't want to comment on exceptions because that is up to individuals to decide exceptions. If we really believe in a model that includes general principles/truths with exceptions, it seems like LGBT issues could easily fit into that kind of model. Assuming 90% of people fit nicely into the cis-hetero standards the Church outlines (which seems to be about what I usually find when I go seeking for how commonly people identify as LGBT+), with somewhere around 10% of people finding, by personal revelation, that they are exceptions to the normal cis-hetero rules. If we truly believe in general principles with exceptions, it seems like we ought to embrace people in their exceptions to make it easier for them to stay in the Church. Of course, maybe we don't really believe in general with exceptions or that this specific issue cannot tolerate any exception, but then we are back to understanding how we come to know what exceptions God allows and which exceptions God doesn't. I don't know how we decide, but I certainly don't think that biological norms can tell us about God's views about those at the ends of the bell curves.

In some ways I like this "utilitarian" view of revelation -- that God chooses to withhold real truth or provide partial truths or even allow His people to believe falsehoods because tolerating or accommodating less than the full truth serves some purpose. The main problems I see with these kinds of models of revelation are things like these: If history is any indications, God can tolerate some pretty immoral stuff in His people -- slavery, forced racial segregation, genocide. Is there really anything God cannot tolerate or endorse among His people? If God stands behind these practices, is God a reliable source of moral truth? If God tolerates immoral "false" traditions among His people, are the practices of God's people reliable indicators of truth and morality? As it relates to the LGBT question, if God could tolerate slavery among His people, could He not also tolerate a few same-sex couples getting married?

 

I agree with much of what you say here. These kinds of ideas are part of why I'm not sure I believe the Church is true in the sense of being the only true Church and representing the only path through mortality that leads back to salvation and exaltation.

This is what I meant a few posts back, that overall human experience is that opposite-sex attraction is by far the biological norm (along with two sexes), and while that norm certainly contributes to the tradition that proper sexual intercourse is between a man and a woman, the covenant of marriage is not reliant on sexual attraction, only the two genders, no exceptions!

We do not take a position on the causes (biological or otherwise) of any susceptibility or inclination related to sexual attraction, and everyone experiences sexual attraction differently. Neither do we take a position on the cause of the marriage covenant, only that it was instituted in Eden between a man and a woman.

I think we generally believe that God always stands behind agency, and only temporarily tolerates how it is unjustly exercised; the infinite and eternal atonement of His Son ends such tolerance at Judgement. The examples of slavery, forced racial segregation and genocide were not instituted in Eden, and neither was same-sex marriage. God’s tolerance in His earthly kingdom of slavery, forced racial segregation and genocide, but not same-sex marriage, seems to be a function of the extant mindset and practices among the people at the time He introduces a new dispensation.

But that is a matter of faith and testimony. I understand how tradition and religion meld together absent divine intervention, and I can understand how a doctrinal rub can motivate a person to leave the Church if they are not sure they believe it represents the only path through mortality that leads back to salvation and exaltation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, scottyg said:

As is the case with other sins, there will be no homosexual relations in the Celestial Kingdom of God, period.

19 hours ago, scottyg said:

at the end of the day the practice is sin. It is not, and never will be acceptable in the eyes of God.

How do we know this? When I look for sources on this "foundational" belief underlying so much of the discussion, I find fallible prophets and errant scripture. Those claiming personal revelation from God seem mixed -- sometimes for and sometimes against this teaching. In many ways, this also parallels the priesthood and temple ban, because fallible prophets and apostles used errant scripture to claim that they KNEW the reasons for the ban, but all of those reasons are now officially disavowed. While I find there are different meanings people ascribe to "disavow," to me it means that everyone who spoke with certainty on this issue before spoke with much more certainty than their knowledge could possibly have justified. We speak with an awful lot of certainty when we speak of LGBT issues. Are we certain that this level of certainty is justified?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

How do we know this? When I look for sources on this "foundational" belief underlying so much of the discussion, I find fallible prophets and errant scripture. Those claiming personal revelation from God seem mixed -- sometimes for and sometimes against this teaching. In many ways, this also parallels the priesthood and temple ban, because fallible prophets and apostles used errant scripture to claim that they KNEW the reasons for the ban, but all of those reasons are now officially disavowed. While I find there are different meanings people ascribe to "disavow," to me it means that everyone who spoke with certainty on this issue before spoke with much more certainty than their knowledge could possibly have justified. We speak with an awful lot of certainty when we speak of LGBT issues. Are we certain that this level of certainty is justified?

 

As it turns out we can speak with a great deal of certainty concerning the Law, the Ordinances and the Covenants that have been given through revelations from G-d.  We also know that all of G-d's children that come to earth come with the certainty of G-d's love - even those (who ever they are) that rebel in the full "light of day" against G-d to fulfill their intent to covenant with Satan (something I have great difficulty understanding why and I have never met anyone that has done so).  We do know that Agency is the single most divinely guarded principle and we each determine our destiny via our Agency.   In the Book of Mormon there is a grand revelation given by revelation called "The Tree of Life".

The most often term used by Jesus Christ that was a title of his followers was the term disciples.  The term disciple has the same root as the term discipline.  The scriptures warn repeatedly that to become a disciple of Christ one must put off "the Natural Man" and become a disciplined Saint of G-d.  Nothing in this life is ever accomplished without discipline.  Even in the secular world - no one becomes expert in any craft without training and discipline.  We have also been told that Satan is a slanderer and intends to beguile all humans unprotected by obedience to covenants - to wander into "forbidden" paths to become lost from the light of truth.

I made a career in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  Scientifically we define intelligence as the ABILITY to learn and alter behavior.  There are decades of scientific study that indicate that human attractions (including sexual behaviors) are learned.  I know of no study - not a single actual scientific study that indicates human sexual behavior is not learned.  However, I have also personally observed and I am aware that in scientific studies; that physical pleasure responses in human anatomy is the single strongest driver of human addictions.  I have my personal opinions about human behavior relating to the proclivity of the LGBTQ+ community but I see no reason at this point of this post to include opinion unbacked by scientific research that I can reference if questioned.

But I would reference also that very few human achievements in excellence comes without not only learning but also with the teachings from a "mentor".  In fact in scientific studies the most common denominator of genus is that geneses have mentors.  I believe it is part of our covenant with G-d to "Mentor" others in the light of G-d - mostly by example.  I have never heard a prophet of G-d speak that the Saints of G-d are to be divine examples of LGBTQ+ behavior.  If I have overlooked something I would be most appreciative of help in discovering something I have missed.  I do understand that we must exercise what ever divine love we have acquired towards all of G-d children.  I also understand that it is contrary to the pure love of Christ to "Condemn" anyone - regardless of whatever path they acquire through their G-d given agency.  I know for myself I have seen where the path of LBGTQ+ leads and have determined and chosen for myself to walk a different path or way.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

How do we know this? When I look for sources on this "foundational" belief underlying so much of the discussion, I find fallible prophets and errant scripture. Those claiming personal revelation from God seem mixed -- sometimes for and sometimes against this teaching. In many ways, this also parallels the priesthood and temple ban, because fallible prophets and apostles used errant scripture to claim that they KNEW the reasons for the ban, but all of those reasons are now officially disavowed. While I find there are different meanings people ascribe to "disavow," to me it means that everyone who spoke with certainty on this issue before spoke with much more certainty than their knowledge could possibly have justified. We speak with an awful lot of certainty when we speak of LGBT issues. Are we certain that this level of certainty is justified?

 

It is a matter of faith and testimony, which are forms of knowledge. In this sense we know that sexual relations outside of marriage is sin, that marriage is gender-specific, and that homosexual relations fall outside of marriage. I don't think the level of certainty is as important as progress in keeping the covenants and learning from the Holy Ghost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

22 aThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is babomination.

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

The verse above many try to say that it is talking about Gay Prostitutes in regards to Molech or the ritual prostitutes of other religions, but this means they ALSO are ignoring the context of the verse and it's relation to any of the rest of the verses in the chapter prior to it and after it.  They ALSO are ignoring the Judaic interpretation of the scripture during the Lord's mortal ministry which was a basis for those around the Lord forbidding Homosexual relationships.

Quote

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his aneighbour’s wife, the badulterer and the cadulteress shall surely be put to ddeath.

11 And the man that lieth with his afather’s wife hath uncovered his father’s bnakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have awrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man aalso lie with mankind, as he lieth with a bwoman, both of them have committed an cabomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is awickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15 And if a man lie with a abeast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her anakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a bwicked thing; and they shall be ccut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

These verses should be even MORE blatantly obvious that it is NOT talking about Prostitutes in the context it is given, but addressing point blank the variations of sexual sin.  Unless one is trying to say that they are all just talking about Prostitutes (which it is obviously NOT doing) in the context of the verses previous and after, it is obvious what it is condemning here.

I bring this up because the interpretation of the Jews at the time were in direct relation to the above verses.  In his mortal Ministry the Lord would have understood these verses much as the Jews did and when talking about immorality, would have used these in the same frame of understanding as they did.

Thus, when he stated

Quote

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to aput away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which amade them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall acleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath ajoined together, let not man bput asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a awriting of bdivorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the ahardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your bwives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for afornication, and shall marry another, committeth badultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If we want to get into the actual interpretation of the words, he was literally saying it in reference to the verses quoted above, which would say it was not "fornication" as we would say, but ANY sexual immorality as understood by the Jews as shown in their law (as stated above). 

Many ignore the context of what Jesus stated, but his words were in direct reflection to the Judaic law as it was understood at the time.

Some like to claim that the Old Testament no longer applies (afterall, we now eat Shellfish and Pork...right?), and the Lord did say that certain things were no longer done (blood sacrifice for example).  However, beyond what the Lord proclaims HIMSELF here, we also have Paul who states...

Quote

23 And changed the glory of the auncorruptible God into an bimage made like to ccorruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also agave them up to buncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God agave them up unto bvile caffections: for even their dwomen did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their alust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to aretain God in their knowledge, God bgave them over to a creprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, awickedness, covetousness, bmaliciousness; full of envy, murder, cdebate, ddeceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 aBackbiters, haters of God, bdespiteful, cproud, dboasters, inventors of evil things, edisobedient to parents,

31 Without aunderstanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of adeath, not only do the same, but bhave cpleasure in them that do them.

Now, as the epistle above is to the Romans, some have tried to claim that he was merely talking about Roman culture and the statis where homosexuality was practiced among them, especially with male prostitutes. 

This ignores several items, the first being that he is not just talking singularly about that issue and a brief read of what he is talking about in the verses prior and following show that he goes into all manner of sins which are NOT predicated upon worship of the Roman deities or Roman culture.  It is a listing of sins in general which were to be avoided, inclusive of fornication (and in regards to religion, it was NOT talking about female prostitution in that verse either, nor only in regards to prostitutes that were proud, or disobedient to parents.).

The CONTEXT is being ignored by those of our modern era in an effort to JUSTIFY their SIN to try to claim that they are righteous, when in fact they are doing exactly opposite of what the Bible instructs.

The second issue is that the Romans themselves did not misunderstand these things the Jews were teaching.  There are commentaries regarding these beliefs by the Romans themselves.  Furthermore, some of them ALSO comment on the problems that Romans had in this regard, especially at times with their nobility.  Ironically at the same time the the Lord was having his mortal ministry, Augustus was ALSO trying to do a moral reformation in the Empire where he was trying to emphasis marriage between a man and a woman to produce children.  He was trying to stress a core unit of FAMILY.  It was recognized the relations that men had with boys and men in homosexuality, but he was trying to impress that these need not take away from their interest in their own marriage responsibilities (the problem was that many were favoring homosexual relationship over that of their marriage responsibilities in some instances, in others simply ignoring marriage responsibility in regards to children and family to pursue other arenas).

To go with the idea that Paul was merely talking about Pederasty and Prostitution would be to ignore the commentary of what the Christians actually DID believe in the years of their persecution by others who commented on them.

Quote

9 Know ye not that the aunrighteous shall not binherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither cfornicators, nor idolaters, nor dadulterers, nor eeffeminate, nor fabusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor athieves, nor covetous, nor bdrunkards, nor crevilers, nor dextortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are awashed, but ye are bsanctified, but ye are justified in the cname of the Lord Jesus, and by the dSpirit of our God.

12 aAll things are lawful unto me, but all things are not bexpedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

The above verse is the more common utilited regarding Pauls condemnation of Homosexuality, and yet, it is actually one of the less clear.  From the context of the other verses it should be clear, but on it's own, and the actual words translated it COULD BE TALKING about prostitutes and pedestry.  Of course, that also ignores the commentary on Christian beliefs and why they should be persecuted made by others cultures around them, but admittedly it COULD be talking on a more limited manner.  It raises the question then why it talkis so broadly about fornicators, idolaters and adulterers if it was to be so focused on one specific immorality regarding men lying with men...

I do not feel it suddenly changes the context from broad to specific and then to broad again (thieves, covetous, etc), but some say that is exactly what happens in this verse.

Yes another verse which gets more specific

Quote

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the alaw is not made for a brighteous man, but for the clawless and ddisobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For awhoremongers, for bthem that cdefile themselves with mankind, for dmenstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound edoctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my atrust.

Some say this is only about or pertains to Bishops, others that because the wording is even MORE specific than in Corinthians it is only addressing certain types of homosexuality...though I would disagree with the ideas...

Quote

7 Even as aSodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to bfornication, and going after cstrange flesh, are set forth for an dexample, suffering the evengeance of eternal fire.

And here is where we get a direct relation in the scriptures for the Judaic tradition at the time that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part due to Homosexuality, and thus later it is used as reference by modern day Christians that it was one of the reasons why those cities were destroyed.

Above we have many verses in the Bible that are utilized (not all, obviously, but many) to condemn homosexuality.  While some may be able to be open to interpretation on their own, taking HISTORY into account, as well as the CONTEXT they are written in, I don't see how one could actually contest that it is condemning homosexual acts. 

Even the Romans themselves did NOT contest such things in regards to Judaic OR Christian beliefs.  It was openly acknowledged, even if they, themselves, did not believe or practice such things.

It has ONLY been in modern times (as far as I can truly tell) that there's been a massive movement by some who wish to remain christian but remove themselves from the main Christian theology to try to reinterpret them to say anything else.  They've tried to toss questions where there were none before, and try to argue that the Bible does NOT condemn their homosexual activities, but only condemns a more limited expression in regards to youth and male prostitutes of those times.  This is a MODERN movement (and relatively young) that is being put out today by those who want to feel as if they can sin, but not feel guilty for the sin. 

One can say it is only interpretation and opinion as that movement says it does, but it is one that I do not think the Church is going to accept that ideology or thought process for sometime...at least to my thinking. 

Now, I could be wrong, and if the prophet and first presidency said tomorrow that we, as a church, would now interpret the scriptures as so, I suppose I would have no recourse but to follow, but I do not feel that is going to be the course the church chooses to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

In this sense we know that sexual relations outside of marriage is sin, that marriage is gender-specific, and that homosexual relations fall outside of marriage.

I agree with 1, I doubt 2 (maybe even leaning towards disbelieving 2, if the distinction between doubt and disbelief is not too subtle), I also doubt 3 (again maybe even leaning towards disbelief). I agree that these are "known" by faith and testimony, and I understand what that usually means to us. What do we do when someone comes along and says that he/she/they know(s) by faith and testimony that sexual relations outside of marriage is sin, that marriage need not be gender-specific, and that homosexual relations are acceptable within marriage? It often seems that we can do no more than shrug and bear a different testimony. In some ways we end up back at a prior "conclusion" where individuals must follow their own faith and testimony whether or not it matches the Church's faith and testimony. Maybe God's truth is malleable enough to be different for different people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Above we have many verses in the Bible that are utilized (not all, obviously, but many) to condemn homosexuality.  While some may be able to be open to interpretation on their own, taking HISTORY into account, as well as the CONTEXT they are written in, I don't see how one could actually contest that it is condemning homosexual acts. 

I agree that this is likely what the ancients believed, and that the process of bringing ancient scripture to us caused these accounts to be transmitted to us under the guise of scripture. The question is, are these opinions true, or are they an ancient tradition of men handed down to us through millennia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

The scriptures warn repeatedly that to become a disciple of Christ one must put off "the Natural Man" and become a disciplined Saint of G-d.

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is what I meant a few posts back, that overall human experience is that opposite-sex attraction is by far the biological norm (along with two sexes)

I find the juxtaposition of these two somewhat contrasting viewpoints interesting. On one hand, we must "put off the natural man" (whatever  the natural man is). On the other, a naturally occurring phenomenon is held up as an echo of an eternal, celestial phenomenon. How do we know what parts of our nature are "natural" and need to be put off, and what parts of our nature need to be nurtured and embraced because they represent echos of eternity?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I doubt 2 (maybe even leaning towards disbelieving 2, if the distinction between doubt and disbelief is not too subtle), I also doubt 3 (again maybe even leaning towards disbelief).

Truth is truth. It is not divisible and no part of it can be set aside. It does not change from person to person...wrong is never right. God will never lead His children to sin...it is against His nature, work, and glory. Blacks not holding the priesthood for a few years was a church policy. Marriage is an eternal principle; one defined by God Himself as the legal and lawful union of a man and a woman. He does not change eternal principles to fit the narratives of the vain Caesars of the day. Gay marriage is in fact a misnomer...it isn't possible. Homosexuality is wrong - a sin meant to disrupt progression and mock our divine nature.

The practice is sin and will never, ever, be acceptable before the Lord. I'm sorry you doubt such things, and that your testimony is lacking. By the way you speak the chances seem high that you, or someone close to you, personally struggles with this. However, there are no loopholes to be found. Any hope for some new church guidance or what you think of as "revelation" that lessens or removes the sinful nature from this act is misplaced. The beliefs that you currently hold about these issues are wrong, and always will be. For many, that is the harsh reality that needs to be said more often. Sin is sin, and never leads one back to God.

I hope the tone of my response is not read as one of anger, because it is not meant that way. I wish you well in your search for actual truth moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with 1, I doubt 2 (maybe even leaning towards disbelieving 2, if the distinction between doubt and disbelief is not too subtle), I also doubt 3 (again maybe even leaning towards disbelief). I agree that these are "known" by faith and testimony, and I understand what that usually means to us. What do we do when someone comes along and says that he/she/they know(s) by faith and testimony that sexual relations outside of marriage is sin, that marriage need not be gender-specific, and that homosexual relations are acceptable within marriage? It often seems that we can do no more than shrug and bear a different testimony. In some ways we end up back at a prior "conclusion" where individuals must follow their own faith and testimony whether or not it matches the Church's faith and testimony. Maybe God's truth is malleable enough to be different for different people?

Speaking of life in the Church, those who have spiritual knowledge neither shrug nor contend, but they may accept or reject ideas on points of doctrine in the process of good faith counsel. I would not conclude that this is because God's truth is malleable enough to be different for different people, but that it is because people can easily place a testimony of the Lord and the Restoration second to other personal priorities. I have found that the council approach and unanimity of feeling are best in making decisions based on spiritual knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I find the juxtaposition of these two somewhat contrasting viewpoints interesting. On one hand, we must "put off the natural man" (whatever  the natural man is). On the other, a naturally occurring phenomenon is held up as an echo of an eternal, celestial phenomenon. How do we know what parts of our nature are "natural" and need to be put off, and what parts of our nature need to be nurtured and embraced because they represent echos of eternity?

 

I do not find them to be contrasting. The companionship of the Holy Ghost helps us know what to improve upon in both instances. This includes sexuality. If someone insists that marriage is based on sexuality and not gender, they will have a problem, just as when they cannot integrate their sexuality with other godly attributes. It can easily become a detractor from a testimony of the Lord and the Restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that this is likely what the ancients believed, and that the process of bringing ancient scripture to us caused these accounts to be transmitted to us under the guise of scripture. The question is, are these opinions true, or are they an ancient tradition of men handed down to us through millennia?

The Church's position on marriage is based on modern revelation confirming that the covenant of marriage was instituted of God, and that the keys of sealing have been restored. Believing this may be anopther story!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, scottyg said:

 By the way you speak the chances seem high that you, or someone close to you, personally struggles with this.

Yes, I have. 

Not the poster, but I have had some grandchildren come out recently as LGBTQ.  It is an interesting situation. 

The best I can say to any in a similar situation is to LOVE them and to treat them as you always have.  Remember that they are Children of God and he loves them just as much as he loves you.  Respect their choices, follow the gospel yourself, and love them. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes, I have. 

Not the poster, but I have had some grandchildren come out recently as LGBTQ.  It is an interesting situation. 

The best I can say to any in a similar situation is to LOVE them and to treat them as you always have.  Remember that they are Children of God and he loves them just as much as he loves you.  Respect their choices, follow the gospel yourself, and love them. 

I have a hard time understanding why this issue is special, or "interesting"?   Perhaps it's just the black and white way I view things?    We don't see posts lamenting a child caught drinking coffee or beer.   Porn usage seems to be received the same.  Is it just how people view sex sins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Respect their choices, follow the gospel yourself, and love them. 

Can you respect their choices while at the same time mourning their choices? If one of my children was to come out as gay, I would still love them but I would mourn there choice knowing that if they wanted to get married they would have to choose between a same-sex marriage not recognised by the church or a marriage to someoen of the opposite sex that they are less likely to enjoy and with which they are unlikely to be sexually satisfied. That seems to be to be a choice worth mourning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Can you respect their choices while at the same time mourning their choices? If one of my children was to come out as gay, I would still love them but I would mourn there choice knowing that if they wanted to get married they would have to choose between a same-sex marriage not recognised by the church or a marriage to someoen of the opposite sex that they are less likely to enjoy and with which they are unlikely to be sexually satisfied. That seems to be to be a choice worth mourning.

It is a strange process one goes through when they have a grandchild come out as LGBTQ.  You start asking yourself questions and trying to figure things out...at least I did.

1.  Did I do something wrong as a parent or grandparent?

You wonder if you did something wrong in your practices, in what you did.  Then, you start to think about how much of it might not be a cultural thing and may be a genetic thing and so you wonder the next item.

2.  Is there something wrong with me, with my genetics?

If people are born with that way, then perhaps it is something with genes.  The thing that I have multiple grandchildren (2 thus far) that have this, reinforces that perhaps it could be something with my genetics.  Then, you start realizing that maybe I am wondering about the wrong questions.

3.  Perhaps there is NOTHING wrong with me either way.  Perhaps these children or grandchildren were gifts because they Lord knew that they would need someone to care and love for them no matter who they were or are.  Perhaps I should focus more on being the best Saint that I could be instead and do my best to be a good example to others, including family members.  I should accept who I am, and in turn, who others are, while I also focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is still a doozy of one though.  There are times I am still plagued by issues #1 and #2.  This is just me as a grandparent, I am sure that my grandkids have had these same types of questions (except about themselves, rather than as a parent or grandparent) much more prevalent and strongly in their life. 

I'm not going to stop loving them because of this element of their lives.  Every child or grandchild has a different path, some which make me happier than others, but I still love all of them.  They are part of my family.  It doesn't matter what choices or things they do, I will still love them.  That doesn't mean I'll agree with every choice they make (for example, if one of them turned into some sort of crime lord I don't think I'd approve of their choices), but I will love them no matter what.  They need to know that no matter what they choose in life, there is always a place for them at home, and that they are loved and wanted as a part of our family.

That's the best I can do.  These grandchildren are now adults and they've made their choices as adults.  I can either choose to be a part of their life, or I can choose not to be.  I want them to be a part of my family still and I love them still.  Part of this is just accepting how things are and how they are.  In that, I have chosen to remain part of their life because as their grandfather, I love them.

It's NOT an easy process at times (And as I said, sometimes I STILL wonder about #1 and #2, but this is still relatively new to me and I am still growing and developing with it) but it is what it is.  When asked what would the Lord do I remember that he loves each of us as a Child of God.  I put that as my example and try to do as he would (plus, as I've loved them all their lives, I still love them so it's not as hard as one would think to continue loving them).   They are my grandkids and they still do things that I'm incredibly proud and happy about.  I've loved them ever since they were born, and I'll continue to love them no matter what their choices are.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2022 at 10:27 AM, MrShorty said:

[1] I would wonder exactly what "right time" means here, because a significant part of my own doubts and disbeliefs around this issue involve why God waited until 1978. Others of our offshoot branches ordained blacks to their priesthoods from their early days in the 19th century. There's a lot said about the history of the priesthood ban (including the Church's own essay) that includes the idea that God had to wait until 1978 because we as a Church were too stubborn, too set in our thinking, too unrepentant, to receive the revelation any earlier. Some mention Pres. McKay's experience in the '60s. One history mentions an internal "study" by the Q12 (can't remember if it was '50s or '60s) that concluded that the Church [membership?] is not ready to lift the ban. It seems to me that there should have been plenty of "right times" before '78 to desegregate the priesthood, but our own stubbornness handicaps God (an interesting idea??) in the revelations He can give us. Which, I wonder, might be another parallel to LGBT issues. In many circles (including this forum) I have seen many (a strong majority?) of Church members claim that they would leave the Church if it changed its stance on LGBT issues. Have we handicapped God's ability to give us new revelation by our own stubbornness? (At this point, I would almost want to invoke Spackman and his discussion of accommodationism as a model of revelation and prophets and scripture).

[2] What do we do with those who decide that lifelong celibacy (romantic and sexual) does not produce a good tree or good fruit? What do we do with those who plant the seeds of accepting and acting on their homoromantic and homosexual predilictions and claim that it brings goodness into their life? As a cis-hetero man, I cannot plant and test the seeds of homosexuality, so I can only rely on others' experiences. It seems that, in a large number of cases, those who follow an Alma 32 type model find that homoromantic/homosexual behavior brings goodness into their lives.

[3] Of anything said in this thread, I think this is the thing I can most agree with. I often feel like, as a high demand religion, the Church doesn't always handle those who question or doubt or reject individual tenets while trying to stay true to the "core principles" of the restoration very well. In many of the more progressive circles I visit, so many "leave" the Church, not because they want to reject all of the core principles, but because they get tired of needing to censor themselves among their correligionists, or they get tired of being suspected of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, or having concerns/questions/doubts casually dismissed, or similar. One of the things I noticed in David Archuletta's recent video was how much of the pain he felt comes from people who doubt his faith in and relationship with God just because he decides to start dating, even though he feels his relationship with God is as strong as ever and that God approves of his decision. If we truly believe that God leads each individual, would we do better as a Church to be more open to people's individual experiences with the divine, rather than insisting that God gives everyone all of the same answers?

[Some of this may be stale given subsequent replies; I started drafting this a couple days ago and then had to shut down my laptop and didn't get back to the thread until just now]

1.  I would acknowledge the possibility--even probability--that the priesthood ban came from God at least in part as a result of broader social conditions. 

But, the operative phrase here is, came from God

I have yet to find an LGBTQ apologist who is willing to concede that divine origin played any role at all in the Church's current teachings and policy.  

Additionally, there's a difference between "we're doing this now because God told us to, and someday it will change" (Church on priesthood ban) versus "what you're proposing is contrary to the eternal order of heaven and it will never change" (Church on LGBTQ issues).

2.  What are we to do with those who plant the seeds of accepting and acting on their predilection for pornography, or illicit drug use, or spousal abuse or sex with children, or tax evasion, or bank robbery, or serial murder, and claim that it has brought goodness into their life?  As a non-pedophile/non-drug addict/non-spouse-beater/full taxpayer/non-bank-robber/not-yet-serial-murderer, I cannot (or, will not) plant and test the seeds of these behaviors; so I can only rely on others' experiences.  Most of these behaviors have even more participants than does gay sex; and the fact that people keep doing these things indicate that they must find such behaviors very rewarding indeed.  It seems that, in a large number of cases, those who follow an Alma 32 type model find that the behaviors I mention above brings goodness into their lives.

The million-dollar question, of course, is "how do we define a 'good tree' or 'good fruit'?"  Do we define it narrowly according to what benefits the self, or do we look at the effects on third-parties as individuals and as society as a whole?  And, do we define it only by what we see in the here-and-now; or do we take an eternal view?  And, if we do take an eternal view, then how do we square up what prophets and scripture tell us the eternal view actually is, versus what we strongly desire and/or logically calculate what the eternal view ought to be?

It seems your post above defines "good" as "sexual release, and the particularized type of emotional intimacy that is often experienced between sexual partners".  I recognize your personal experience in this area, as you've alluded to above.  But frankly, I am suspicious of the moral relativism on this topic to which your experience seems to have led you.

3.  This is an interesting conundrum.  Because, yeah, you want to love others and be open and "safe".  But on the other hand:  In light of everything we know, sometimes people can be pretty darned stupid.  What do a bunch of geophysicists do when someone crashes into their internet forum and tries to argue that the world is flat based on his experience that "I've been to Australia, and I wasn't hanging upside down!"?  You try to be patient, you try to teach better; but when there's an obvious willful refusal to take counsel and even doubling-down on behaviors that one knows will be counterproductive . . . at what point do we say "Brother, I love you; but everyone here is a little dumber for your antics, some people are actually listening to you and starting to deny the existence of gravity, and it's time for you to knock it off or take your circus elsewhere?"  The Lord absolutely calls us to succor the weak; but what do we do when the weak keep narcissistically insisting that they are the strong and whole ones, and that it is only the folks who disagree with them (including pretty much every prophet and apostle in the history of ever) who are weak or broken in any way that requires repentance?

I'm sorry some folks were apparently unkind to Brother Archuleta.  But frankly, pretty much anyone who's ever experienced sexual attraction could have told him that if he started dating men, sooner or later he'd be powerfully inclined to have sex with them.  One can love and respect him deeply while also pointing out that the course of action he proposed was foolish, reckless, and from the get-go likely to be the cause of additional conflict and spiritual pain.  

We don't believe God does lead every individual.  We believe He can lead them, if they let Him.  But we also believe that there's such a thing as absolute truth, and that people are capable of disregarding it and acting like darned jack-donkeys once absolute truth seemingly comes into conflict with whatever our limbic systems are telling us we need.  And I say this as perhaps the king of the darned jack-donkeys myself.  :)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

I have a hard time understanding why this issue is special, or "interesting"?   Perhaps it's just the black and white way I view things?    We don't see posts lamenting a child caught drinking coffee or beer.   Porn usage seems to be received the same.  Is it just how people view sex sins?

I think part of it is the long and strong tradition in the LDS Church suggesting that sexual sin is second in grievousness only to murder itself.  There's also the added baggage that by rejecting a heterosexual temple marriage, theologically a person is pretty much rejecting the only-known path to exaltation; as well as (where aging parents/twentysomething kids goes) the "but, you were supposed to give me GRANDKIDS!!!" dynamic that's common to families both in and out of the Church--it challenges the visions of our futures that we had built up for ourselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2022 at 10:44 AM, MrShorty said:

[1] If we truly believe in general principles with exceptions, it seems like we ought to embrace people in their exceptions to make it easier for them to stay in the Church. Of course, maybe we don't really believe in general with exceptions or that this specific issue cannot tolerate any exception, but then we are back to understanding how we come to know what exceptions God allows and which exceptions God doesn't. I don't know how we decide, but I certainly don't think that biological norms can tell us about God's views about those at the ends of the bell curves.

[2] In some ways I like this "utilitarian" view of revelation -- that God chooses to withhold real truth or provide partial truths or even allow His people to believe falsehoods because tolerating or accommodating less than the full truth serves some purpose. The main problems I see with these kinds of models of revelation are things like these: If history is any indications, God can tolerate some pretty immoral stuff in His people -- slavery, forced racial segregation, genocide. Is there really anything God cannot tolerate or endorse among His people? If God stands behind these practices, is God a reliable source of moral truth? If God tolerates immoral "false" traditions among His people, are the practices of God's people reliable indicators of truth and morality? As it relates to the LGBT question, if God could tolerate slavery among His people, could He not also tolerate a few same-sex couples getting married?

[3]I agree with much of what you say here. These kinds of ideas are part of why I'm not sure I believe the Church is true in the sense of being the only true Church and representing the only path through mortality that leads back to salvation and exaltation.

1.  But here I have to come back to the pedophilia counterexample--as always, not because homosexuality is on par in terms of grievousness; but because the logic you use to defend the one case is so easily applied to the other.  If exceptions to the Law of Chastity are the birthright of anyone who can claim a biological basis thereto, then why don't we give the moral greenlight to any pedophile (or for that matter, necrophiles or zoophiles, whose crimes have no human victims) to act out on their desires so long as they claim a revelatory justification for their predilection? 

2.  If you'll pardon my saying so, you seem perilously close to adopting a sort of iconoclastic nihilism here.  Even if your arguments were sound (and I don't think they are--as I'll address in a moment)--I think we may quickly be approaching a moment where it may be appropriate to step back, take a breath and say "Okay, folks:  no revelation through scriptures, no revelation through ecclesiastical channels, no individualized process that we can objectively justify and defend to third parties as being 'revelation' in the first place--do we even know that there's a Lawgiver at all; and if we can justify x, then what can't we justify--and, why?"

But back to the argument at hand--a couple of issues I see in this reasoning are: 

a) You're taking a view of morality generally that is particular to your own culture and remains in a certain state of flux (for example, lots of BLM folks are now openly stating that integration has failed and that re-imposition of racial segregation is the way to go);

b) Your examples to some degree depend on fundamentalist/historical readings of scripture and/or don't necessarily allow for extreme circumstances faced by the peoples involved that we could never contemplate today. 

(I'm thinking particularly of your claims of "genocide" here, and to that end I would ask:

  • Can we be sure about how much of the Conquest narrative is historical versus how much is a bunch of enslaved 5th century  BC Jews needing to believe that at some past point they were just as powerful as their Assyrian/Babylonian captors and/or bitterly lamenting that "we should have killed them all when we have the chance"?  We know, from the books of Judges and Kings and Chronicles, that the Israelites didn't actually wipe out all of the Canaanites; whatever boasts the Book of Joshua may have included to the contrary.
  • And even if we do take those narratives at face value--what kind of extenuating circumstances, if any, might justify such a step?  What if the entire societies were groomed, from toddlerhood on up, to be child rapists/child killers (which Baal/Moloch worshippers frequently were)?  What if those peoples were rife with incurable physiological diseases, or some form of ingrained sociopathy induced by early childhood trauma?  You can't imprison them, you can't cure them, there are no therapists or social workers to process their trauma with them and help them put their lives back together . . . what now?  Have we, in the 21st century USA, ever truly been in a "it's them or us" situation?  If not, can we even begin to pass judgment on people three thousand years ago who *were* in such a situation, or the God who helped them navigate through it by adopting what may well have been the lesser of multiple evils?)

c)  There has always been an expectation that regardless of what tomfoolery goes on in the here-and-now, that these injustices will eventually be fixed and that Heaven will be unquestionably "moral" according to God's perfect morality.  Even if we argue that God's past toleration of temporal slavery means God can/would/should tolerate temporal gay sex/marriage in the present--that's not really an argument for eternal gay sex/marriage, unless we are also conceding the argument to those who would advocate for the propriety of eternal slavery.  It's just an argument for kicking the can of repentance down the road and into the Resurrection--which is something a plethora of scriptures warn against.

3.  I think the Church itself would agree with you that it does not represent the only path that leads back to salvation (except to the extent that salvation entails, at least posthumously, receiving priesthood ordinances that can be administered only via priesthood authority). 

But, as far as exaltation goes - the Church is the only path that acknowledges exaltation is even possible; and the theology it has built up around this topic a) has zero precedent for same-sex God-unit-pairs, and b) effectively monopolizes the doctrine since it states that exaltation can only be achieved through liturgical rites that are only valid if performed under the auspices of the Church's priesthood authority.  Unless or until the Church leadership actually switches course, any theology that contemplates gay "sealings" is by its very terms, outside the scope of Mormonism.  

On 1/31/2022 at 7:25 AM, MrShorty said:

How do we know this? When I look for sources on this "foundational" belief underlying so much of the discussion, I find fallible prophets and errant scripture. Those claiming personal revelation from God seem mixed -- sometimes for and sometimes against this teaching. In many ways, this also parallels the priesthood and temple ban, because fallible prophets and apostles used errant scripture to claim that they KNEW the reasons for the ban, but all of those reasons are now officially disavowed. While I find there are different meanings people ascribe to "disavow," to me it means that everyone who spoke with certainty on this issue before spoke with much more certainty than their knowledge could possibly have justified. We speak with an awful lot of certainty when we speak of LGBT issues. Are we certain that this level of certainty is justified?

In one respect, you're right that we should probably pay closer attention to what the official statements of the Church on the matter do say, versus what they don't say.  That's fair.

It's also fair to observe that the Church has a surfeit of people in "authority", and we have a penchant for writing down the statements of those individuals, and in so doing we've assembled a massive corpus of statements including material that could be used directly or indirectly to justify pretty much anything under the sun (up to and including Elder Amasa Lyman's suggestion that the Atonement of Christ was extraneous and maybe didn't happen at all).

It's also fair to note that as a Church, we often don't parse President Woodruff's assurance about not leading the Church astray, quite as closely as we should.  What we find, per the additional material accompanying OD-1, is that 

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

When Woodruff talks about "leading [the Church] astray", he talks specifically about leading astray from the oracles of God (ie, from their own ability to receive revelation), and from their duty (in other words, he will not incite them to actions or inactions that are contrary to what God wants them to be doing).  The focus of this statement is on priesthood infallibility as to the "whats", not the "whys" (and really, as Latter-day Saints we should be well aware that we don't always get the "whys"--Isaiah 55:8-9 was a scripture mastery when I was growing up). 

In this context, I fear that some of your posts go out of their way to create confusion where there really needn't be any.  While the Church has acknowledged errors in some of the explanations given for the ban by individuals, it has never said that the priesthood ban itself was the result of an inappropriate error or improper usurpation by the combined Church leadership.  The united statements of the First Presidency regarding the priesthood ban (1949, 1969) were very circumspect as to the "whys", and really don't make any doctrinal justifications for the policy that the modern Church has rejected.  So, comparing individualized statements of various highly-ranked Church leaders (even presidents of the Church) to the Proclamation on the Family bearing the collective imprimatur of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in order either to impugn the priesthood ban or suggest a precedent for this kind of unified collective error, is quite simply an apples-to-oranges comparison. 

In fact, upthread you yourself acknowledge the existence of sources claiming that God "owned" the ban under President McKay.  I presume you're aware of the backstory of these sources, as cited both in Ed Kimball's article and in Prince's biography of President McKay; so I won't go into those more except to suggest that at this point asserting that "the priesthood ban never had divine sanction, ergo, the LGBTQ policies are likely also uninspired" would have to be based on either an ignorance of those sources or else a not-too-subtle inference that President McKay lied (not misunderstood, but lied) on multiple occasions.

But fundamentally, I think the issue comes back to the nature of the testimony that one has (or doesn't have) of those prophets themselves and of their calling and authority (if not their inerrancy).  If one wishes, one can certainly reject their authority and go on encouraging others to disregard some or all of the Church's behavioral standards.  It's just that after a certain point as determined by one's own local priesthood leadership, one can't openly do it and continue to call oneself a Latter-day Saint.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think part of it is the long and strong tradition in the LDS Church suggesting that sexual sin is second in grievousness only to murder itself.  There's also the added baggage that by rejecting a heterosexual temple marriage, theologically a person is pretty much rejecting the only-known path to exaltation; as well as (where aging parents/twentysomething kids goes) the "but, you were supposed to give me GRANDKIDS!!!" dynamic that's common to families both in and out of the Church--it challenges the visions of our futures that we had built up for ourselves.  

This leads me to an off topic thought (that relates to my beliefs on the three degrees of the Celestial Kingdom, but I won't get into that anymore than it is actually necessary to discuss the point) regarding those who have exaltation vs. others in the Celestial Kingdom.

Current ideas that I have...

In the Celestial Kingdom we will attain Celestial Bodies with the appropriate abilities to go along with it.  In that sense, we will have the powers of our Father as we inherit from him.  We thus will have the power to create worlds, universes, etc.

This means that those who are not Married for eternity will have these types of powers as well.

There is a difference between them and those that are in Eternal Marriages.  That difference is that those who are in Eternal Marriages are able to have exaltation BECAUSE they are able to have children.  These offspring add to their glory and kingdom as they increase, both in numbers and stature.

Those who are not in Eternal Marriages will not have this increase.  In all other ways, they are equal.  This difference is a LARGE difference though, as with infinite increase comes infinite glory, which those in Exaltation can have whilst those who do not have an eternal marriage do not.

As it is the Celestial Glory, we live a higher law.  This means that we seek to serve and help each other.  We do not seek of ourselves in selfish desires.

The Eternal increase is a side effect as those in Eternal Marriages increase in glory NOT because they seek glory, but they seek to serve and help other intelligences grow and attain joy.

In that same light, the mission is the same for those who are not in an Eternal Marriage.  They seek to help others in their goals.  Thus, they serve others however they can to bring intelligences growth and joy.  They are servants, but by CHOICE for the furtherance of service to others which in turn also brings them joy.

I bring this up because when we say they reject exaltation, I'm not sure that's the best way to put it. 

In this life the ONLY way we (humans) currently know to have children is by biological reproduction.  If this ceased, there would be no more children.  This means there must be two members of the opposite sex who have their genes combined to create live, and a mother who hosts that life until it is ready to be born, at which point it becomes a child. 

Those who do not participate in this in some way or manner cannot have biological children of their own.

There are those that choose not to have children in this way because of their own choices or desires.  They still may want to help others, but they do not have children of their own.

I imagine this same type of sociality exists in the hereafter as well.  Being single in the Celestial Kingdom is not necessarily a punishment, but a joyous opportunity to help and serve others bringing joy to oneself.  They still can see the growth of the Kingdom, and great joy without the eternal increase.  I'd see it sort of more like that unmarried aunt or uncle that comes over and dotes over their nieces and nephews, or helps out with their care, type of thing.

I don't see it so much as a rejection of Exaltation, as one of the many options that one may obtain within the Celestial Glory, if that is what they so choose on this Earth.  I think it is still a glory full beyond anything we can imagine, but as I said, the biggest difference being those who can increase in glory by having eternal increase and serving those children, vs. those who also have joy by helping that goal.

Others can inject their thoughts on this.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2022 at 4:44 PM, scottyg said:

it isn't possible. Homosexuality is wrong

On 1/31/2022 at 4:44 PM, scottyg said:

The practice is sin and will never, ever, be acceptable

On 1/31/2022 at 4:44 PM, scottyg said:

are wrong, and always will be.

As a Jedi Master once said, "So certain are you." How does one come to know truth with such certainty? It's the kind of certainty that prompts one to say:

"You must have been a fence sitter in the pre-existence." (Belief now officially disavowed, suggesting, as I noted earlier, that any certainty was misplaced by previous generations).
"Your marriage is counterfeit."
"Your disbelief makes you foolish and deluded, and a bear of no brain at all." (because a thread this heavy needs a Winnie the Pooh reference to lighten the mood a little).

How does one get to a point of certainty where they can believe these things (even if/when they choose not to say them for diplomacy's sake)? As interesting as the race and the priesthood and LGBT issues are, the underlying issue is one of epistemology -- how did we come to "know" that priesthood and temple blessings ought to be denied to a race of people and how did we come to know with such certainty that same sex marriage and gender transitions "disrupt progression and mock our divine nature."? 

 

 

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