Gays, blacks and the church

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"appears" to be according to what...?

FWIW I fully and completely reject this idea. I do not believe it to be biological. I believe there are biological traits that might incline one towards things that relate, but...

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it were fully biological, unchangeable, etc. Then still...

...this is still not an apples to apples comparison. It's comparing a persons, due to their skin color, being unable to have the priesthood to a person, due to their tastes, being unable to indulge in their tastes while remaining faithful and in good standing in the church. The need to not indulge in tastes that are sinful is common to ALL people in the church. It is not exclusive to homosexuals. Some people have tastes that are further out of bounds than others. But we all have out of bounds tastes. I've been "punished" in the same way throughout my life by having to repress my nastier urges to stay in good standing in the church. Though I would think it should be obvious that calling that a "punishment" is kind of flawed.

FWIW, mere "skin color" was not the issue at hand in the priesthood restriction. Lineage was. But I digress. There was nothing they could refrain from to get the priesthood. Everyone has to refrain from certain things to qualify for blessings. Everyone. But even a perfect, sinless man, were that possible, could not have the priesthood prior to 1978 if he was of black African descent.

And, for consideration also, women still cannot by virtue of being a woman. That, at least, would indeed be a legitimate comparison of ideas.

 

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There is, as you well know, a difference between not knowing an argument exists versus knowing it exists but also understanding it to be a ridiculously flawed argument.

Folks making the argument you cite would have to completely dismiss the distinction between mind and body, between predilection and behavior; and embrace the notion that humans are essentially dumb animals with virtually no capacity to overcome their baser urges or otherwise regulate their behavior.

 

Doesn’t matter to me, not being African American or homosexual. That the church members are even having the discussion shows how times have changed. The future will be very interesting. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by LDSGator

[CV75]

15 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The question was more about the similarities and arguements that have been used for to defend or oppose certain positions rather than about what those positions are now, or have been in the past .Certainly there have been different arguements, so to that extent, they can be compared. 

A similarity I see is that the Brethren 1) exercise the keys in consideration of societal pressure (those who want change); and 2) do not bow to societal pressure (those who oppose change).

Another similarity is that 1) God loves everyone equally and desires equal access to the happiness provided by every ordinance irrespective of race or sexual preference (those who want change); 2) God defines the ordinances, and we do not (those who oppose change).

A major difference in my mind is that the lifting of the priesthood ban on Blacks was foreseen and spoken of by the President of Church, and to our knowledge no President has foreseen same-sex temple marriage.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

This ^^ might be a little optimistic

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful ^acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth ^bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

I don't think we've received enough information at this time to know how being gay in the next life might affect a person's situation in that life but the above scripture suggests that if you are faithful and gay in this life you are likely to be faithful and gay in the next.   

 

The Church does not have a position on the causes of individual attributes related to same-gender attraction, and takes the answer to be a scientific matter, and not a spiritual / eternal one. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Because the Church considers the causes a scientific matter, it is restricted to mortality only. On the other hand, gender is an eternal characteristic. The spirit that possesses our body in the resurrection has passed through some refinement in the spirit world, and the mortal bodies have become perfect in frame and form.

[Just_A_Guy]

55 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 

Doesn’t matter to me, not being African American or homosexual. That the church members are even having the discussion shows how times have changed. The future will be very interesting. 

Indeed, as will the day of judgment.  Lots of us who have managed to convince ourselves that we’re fine and just living according to the way we were created, will be having some illuminative conversations.  

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed, as will the day of judgment.  Lots of us who have managed to convince ourselves that we’re fine and just living according to the way we were created, will be having some illuminative conversations.  

Couldn't agree more-and the irony here is that we’ll all be lumped in together in that line. If you struggle with lust, gluttony, anger, pride, envy-doesn’t matter, because judgement will come. 

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Couldn't agree more-and the irony here is that we’ll all be lumped in together in that line. If you struggle with lust, gluttony, anger, pride, envy-doesn’t matter, because judgement will come. 

And none of these struggles will matter if we are humble, obedient, and repent when we make mistakes. All of these struggles will matter if we are prideful, disobedient, and fail to repent. Upon this common ground is the equity of God.

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"appears" to be according to what...?

FWIW I fully and completely reject this idea. I do not believe it to be biological. I believe there are biological traits that might incline one towards things that relate, but...

 

John 9 comes to mind.

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed, as will the day of judgment.  Lots of us who have managed to convince ourselves that we’re fine and just living according to the way we were created, will be having some illuminative conversations.  

So, so SO much this.

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And none of these struggles will matter if we are humble, obedient, and repent when we make mistakes. All of these struggles will matter if we are prideful, disobedient, and fail to repent. Upon this common ground is the equity of God.

And there is a difference between "struggling" and "rejecting".  You summed it up perfectly.  Some people struggle with alcoholism.  Some people just reject the Word of Wisdom.

[NeuroTypical]

The church used to urge later day saints with same sex attraction to engage in heterosexual marriage, and promised things would work out if they went about it with everything they had.

 We stopped doing that over 10 years ago, I think.  For a while, I remember several examples of the church urging against marrying someone of the opposite sex as a way of dealing with SSA.  Today, the church’s website has this to say:

"The intensity of same-sex attraction is not a measure of your faithfulness. Many people pray for years and do all they can to be obedient in an effort to reduce same-sex attraction, yet find they are still attracted to the same sex. Same-sex attraction is experienced along a spectrum of intensity and is not the same for everyone. Some are attracted to both genders, and others are attracted exclusively to the same gender. For some, feelings of same-sex attraction, or at least the intensity of those feelings, may diminish over time. In any case, a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.

The intensity of your attractions may not be in your control; however, you can choose how to respond. Asking the Lord what you can learn from this experience can focus your faith on an outcome you can control. Turning your life over to God is an important act of faith that brings great blessings now and even greater blessings in the world to come."

So yeah, it seems like the church is acknowledging that for some, even many SSA attracted people, getting sealed in the temple may not be in the cards during a mortal probation.

Edited January 23, 2022 by NeuroTypical

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

 

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

This ^^ might be a little optimistic

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful ^acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth ^bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

I don't think we've received enough information at this time to know how being gay in the next life might affect a person's situation in that life but the above scripture suggests that if you are faithful and gay in this life you are likely to be faithful and gay in the next.   

 

 

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Church does not have a position on the causes of individual attributes related to same-gender attraction, and takes the answer to be a scientific matter, and not a spiritual / eternal one. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Because the Church considers the causes a scientific matter, it is restricted to mortality only. On the other hand, gender is an eternal characteristic. The spirit that possesses our body in the resurrection has passed through some refinement in the spirit world, and the mortal bodies have become perfect in frame and form.

Thanks to newsroom article you linked to I now have a better understanding than I did yesterday. It's interesting and helpful to see Elder Wickman say the following from the article:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

The idea that same sex attraction is only a temporary, temporal condition is consistent with the speculation I raised in another thread that same sex attraction could be a deliberately selected trial for mortality aimed at achieving a post-mortal outcome. It makes much more sense to choose a trial knowing that it will only be of temporary duration than choosing something that will be of eternal duration. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by askandanswer

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed, as will the day of judgment.  Lots of us who have managed to convince ourselves that we’re fine and just living according to the way we were created, will be having some illuminative conversations.  

I'm not too worried about this - I've actually torn that day off my calendar  

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

 

 

Thanks to newsroom article you linked to I now have a better understanding than I did yesterday. It's interesting and helpful to see Elder Wickman say the following from the article:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

The idea that same sex attraction is only a temporary, temporal condition is consistent with the speculation I raised in another thread that same sex attraction could be a deliberately selected trial for mortality aimed at achieving a post-mortal outcome. It makes much more sense to choose a trial knowing that it will only be of temporary duration than choosing something that will be of eternal duration. 

Given that, I think we need to be open to opposite-sex attraction not existing either. I know that might sound shocking, given that the "same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." The difference, I believe, is that sexual unity, compatibility, function, and enjoyment between celestial man and wife are are driven by covenant and eternal glory, and not by the capricious mortal factors and dynamics affecting the children of God in a fallen world.

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I'm not too worried about this - I've actually torn that day off my calendar  

Lol! That’s awesome. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 1/22/2022 at 4:58 PM, NeuroTypical said:

One difference in my mind, would be the proclamation on the family.  With blacks and the priesthood, we had no official proclamation on the matter.  Just a hodge-podge of tradition and various teachings, with some black folk being ordained from the earliest years of the church mixed in.

One similarity would be the amount of "I sure feel for those folks and it's heartwrenching at their plight" I hear coming from various saints (including me).

I believe there WAS a letter of sorts from George Albert Smith.  It also declared it doctrine in regards to how the Church viewed the matter. 

Quote

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."
 

We have been blessed to see much of the fulfillment of the prophecies given by the early prophets in the Church.

There may be similarities we can see, but there are also differences.

One of the MOST racist things I believe I've seen is from the LGBT movement in general, especially the LGB portion of it.  Someone who is Gay or Lesbian or Bi can meld very easily in with everyone else if they so desire.  No one can tell what their orientation is if the individual chooses not to reveal it.  On the otherhand, minorities do not have that ability.  Their skin tone and features are not things they can simply turn on or off depending on how "safe" or "unsafe" they may feel.  It is on 100% of the time.  Saying that the struggle that LGB individuals suffer from is equal to that of the racism minorities suffer is EXTREMELY racist in my opinion and is trying to lessen how much racism actually affects and impacts minorities.  The closest comparison they could have is the discrimination that those who have transitioned and are Transgender suffer from.  That discrimination is strong enough that it contributes to the problem that there is a HIGH amount of suicide among the Transgender community (enough to warrant a great deal more concern than has been given).  Most of the LGB portion of the LGBT community cannot even IMAGINE this type of discrimination much less experience it.  Racism is FAR more severe (as well as that against Transgender) BECAUSE you cannot hide it, it is 100% on all the time.  By trying to say it is the same, LGBT are trying to lessen how bad Racism actually and to my mind is an EXTREMELY racist type of take.

This is not unusual from what I understand.  In discussions with peers I understand that there is actually a GREAT DEAL of racism in the deeper parts (the portions of the community that focuses more on making LGB a foundation of their identity as well as politics that go with it) of the LGBT community and terrible racial incidents occur on a regular basis against minorities in the LGBT community itself. 

With that in mind, before the revelation there was a great deal of conflict in some areas.  There were some members that were pushing very strongly for Blacks to be able to have the priesthood.  Others felt very strongly that they should not have the priesthood.  When the revelation happened, I did not see many leave the church over it (this is purely anecdotal evidence, I had no access to actual membership numbers at the time).  The members accepted the revelation and proceeded without complaint from MY Perspective.  I was much younger at the time and so perhaps I missed a thing or two, but from what I saw, everyone accepted the revelation.

It turned out to be well timed and a great blessing to the church.  The church grew at an unprecedented rate after that revelation and for several years afterwards.

I'm not sure what would happen today if the First Presidency came out with a similar revelation regarding LGBT folks.  I know I may have to pray sincerely about it.  A MAJOR difference in this is that the Blacks and the Preisthood is NOT something that is mentioned in the Bible.  It is briefly touched upon in the Pearl of Great Price, but no where else is it really discussed.

Homosexuality on the otherhand is discussed and condemned in the Bible and directly by apostles who saw and spoke with the Savior, with a greater emphasis on Paul who may not have been one of the original twelve, but is seen by some as the apostle specifically sent to the Gentiles.  Many try to make excuses of why his statements do not apply to homosexual activities (trying to say it only applies to prostitution or other areas), but in general they are ignoring a LOT of the context and how it is worded and phrased in order to try to make that excuse.  From all normal readings of the scripture, it is a strict condemnation of Homosexuality (in the same way that other verses would condemn incest and bestiality which if read in how those excusing homosexuality did, would read VERY differently as well).

Which is where I think it would get very problematic very quickly.  The scriptures are rather explicit on the condemnation of homosexuality.  I feel I may have great difficulty if a revelation came accepting Gay Marriage as a temple opportunity.  I feel I would have a great deal of praying in dealing with it, but that is me looking at it from the perspective of how I feel currently.

Some have suggested ONE form of temple ordinance that could stand in for it, but it still doesn't excuse the explicit homosexual actions.  It used to be that men could be sealed to men as fathers and sons or brothers to each other.  This could be a way to seal men to each other, but this still would not allow homosexual activities nor actions as they would still be banned as per scriptural and modern statements.

I think the major difference has already been pointed out multiple times in the thread already.  Those who are LGB (but not necessarily T, that stands on it's own and unlike the other portion of LGBT, someone who has transitioned MAY actually feel discrimination similarly to how racism is acted upon as it can occasionally be very obvious about if the individual transitioned or not) can perform all the functions of a church member if they are worthy.  They are not automatically banned due to how they feel. 

Someone tried to point out that they cannot be sealed to someone they love in this life.  This assumes that marriage is a sealing of people in love.  This is UNTRUE.  A sealing is not dependent on people loving each other (though it probably helps).  In Joseph Smiths time, and definitely during Brigham Young's time, there were marriage sealings that had no love in them (at least yet) between those being sealed together in marriage.  Sealing unites families together for eternity, normally with a Husband and wife being sealed and thus their children born after that are automatically part of that unity.

This is ONE ordinance, normally called a sealing ordinance.  It is done DIFFERENTLY than other ordinances.  I cannot get into the details, but the ordinance to seal children to parents is different than the one that seals a husband and wife together for eternity.  It is done by the same power, but the form and function behind it is different.

In that same light, IF (and that is a BIG IF) Gay Marriage ever became an ordinance allowed in sealing in some form, it is SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT than that of a Man and a Woman being sealed by it's very nature.  It is NOT the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman.

In that light, NO ONE has access to an ordinance that unites to men in a Gay Marriage for eternity. 

If a LGBT individual WISHES to participate in the Marriage Sealing as a Husband or Wife, that option is always open to them if the strongly desire it (but it may not be a wise choice for many of them).  ALL ordinances available to all members are available to those who are LGB (but not necessarily those who are T) if they are worthy of them.

This is a MAJOR difference between when Blacks could not hold the priesthood and the current situation where many of those who are LGBT want a NEW ORDINANCE CREATED that allows Gay Marriages to be sealed for eternity in temples.

Edited January 24, 2022 by JohnsonJones

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There is, as you well know, a difference between not knowing an argument exists versus knowing it exists but also understanding it to be a ridiculously flawed argument.

Folks making the argument you cite would have to completely dismiss the distinction between mind and body, between predilection and behavior; and embrace the notion that humans are essentially dumb animals with virtually no capacity to overcome their baser urges or otherwise regulate their behavior.

 

The reality is that the science (reason and intelligence) is only ignored in the single instance for which they "want" the outcome to favor their "opinion" in the matter.  I have a hard time accepting my use of term opinion but do not know how to better express what seems to me to be more along the lines of insanity or stupidity.  The reality seems very much to me that it is best described in religious terms as demonic possession.  I personally am at a loss of how to deal with someone that does not desire to be cured from what causes them to be miserable and suffer.  It seems to me that any encourage towards a possible cure is interpreted as forcing unnecessary misery and suffering and therefore it is best to "love" them as they are and hope that sometime - perhaps even in the next life - they will connect to intelligence (light and truth) and repent - which I understand to be a change in behavior.   And that the thinking of "I cannot" is sufficient cover for "I will not".

My only understanding in all this is that "Agency" is the first principle that divided G-d and those that followed him in the pre-existence from those that followed Lucifer.  In other words - depriving someone of their Agency is the first step away from divine love towards the hate of darkness.  So as much as I struggle with the concept - I must (in true love) allow others their right to ignore light and truth and choose to  become miserable and suffer but with the hope that they will learn from their suffering and misery and repent before it passes some point of no return.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Given that, I think we need to be open to opposite-sex attraction not existing either. I know that might sound shocking, given that the "same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." The difference, I believe, is that sexual unity, compatibility, function, and enjoyment between celestial man and wife are are driven by covenant and eternal glory, and not by the capricious mortal factors and dynamics affecting the children of God in a fallen world.

That said, same-sex attraction seems to be the exception than the rule in our mortal probation, and a factor that often discourages faithful LGBTQ+ members from entering marriage in good faith. Something would have to be done to allow them that opportunity to marry the opposite sex. Some can manage it in this life. Some will have to wait until everything is put into proper order and the resurrection sets them into their "proper and perfect frame" and "perfect form". The point I am trying to make is that, while opposite-sex attraction is the norm and facilitates entering the covenant of marriage, "attraction" in this life may not mean the same thing as "attraction" in the next life, and in fact, instead of requiring attraction to motivate us, the desire to give selflessly motivates us. And then of course, he who loses himself finds himself. The D&C replaces "attraction" with "cleaveth": (D&C 88:38-40):

38 And unto every kingdom is given a ^alaw; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

39 All beings who abide not in those ^aconditions are not ^bjustified.

40 For ^aintelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; ^bwisdom receiveth wisdom; ^ctruth embraceth truth; ^dvirtue loveth virtue; ^elight cleaveth unto light; ^fmercy hath ^gcompassion on mercy and claimeth her own; ^hjustice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

[Vort]

On 1/22/2022 at 9:13 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, I think a 1976 variant of this forum that had its historical data in order, would have hard-core orthodox members noting:

—David O. McKay had prayed to God for permission to revoke the ban, and had been told “no”; so God certainly “owned” the ban.  There is no room for sincere doubt of the divine origin of the ban itself.  The Church leadership’s continued teaching and enforcement of the ban as of 1976 is not some sort of failure on their part; it represents an example of their accurately relaying the word and will of the Lord to His Church.  

—The ban is not, by its terms, eternal in nature.  There was a time when the ban did not exist.

—Multiple prophetic proponents/defenders of the ban had said that at some point the ban would end, the only question is “when”; and wouldn’t it be cool that happened at a point when we here in 1976 were still alive?

—It noteworthy that the ban is based on race, not behavior; there is no course of conduct or behavioral standard that a black man can adopt in order to qualify himself for the priesthood as long as the ban remains in place.  Darned shame, really.  The Lord must have His reasons.

—Within its scope of applicability, the ban’s burden falls upon *all* people; not just the ones who have structured their aspirations and values around an inappropriate reliance on sexual fulfillment.

—People who try to engage in politicking/public shaming in order to guilt the Church into adopting their own pet theories of social justice, misapprehend the fundamental nature of what the Church is and how it works, and are likely to find themselves and their descendants out of the Church sooner rather than later.

Adding to JAG's excellent list (though still puzzling about #5 within the context of the question), here are a few more, at least some of which will doubtless be less well-received than those items given by JAG, but which I think would very much be present in the thought processes of any believing Latter-day Saint of the time period:

—The ban is specific to those of black sub-Saharan African descent. Men with black skin can and do currently (1976) hold the Priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the temple.

—The ban exists for a reason, even if we have not explicitly been given that reason.

—Many Church leaders, including General Authorities, have given both spoken and published reasoning on why people of black sub-Saharan African descent cannot hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple blessings. Are these men not specifically charged with defining Church doctrine? Why, then, ought we not simply accept their doctrinal explanations?

—Not everyone wants to accept the "curse-of-Cain-passed-down-through-the-generations" idea, but what's the difference? The Priesthood ban is effectively a curse to those whom it renders unable to receive the Priesthood or its blessings as expressed in the temple. So these people are, in effect, a cursed people. No one denies that they may be saved and even exalted with the rest of the Saints, but as to Priesthood and temple blessings today, they are cursed. Objecting to this wording while ignoring the simple facts of the matter constitutes straining out perhaps non-existent gnats while swallowing some very large camels.

—Those who mix their seed with this cursed subset of people bring upon their posterity forever after the same curse. Who in his right mind would do such a thing? So while we are obligated by him whose Church this is to welcome such people into our meetings and even into the very waters of baptism, we must certainly teach our children about the Priesthood/temple ban and why they must never date or otherwise plan to marry those of black sub-Saharan African descent, even fellow Saints.

I am aware from my own experience that exactly such attitudes existed at the time. I can hardly see how it could possibly be otherwise.

[askandanswer]

Thanks @Vort, this is an example of the kind of answer I have been hoping  for. So how similar or different do you think these arguements are to the arguements being used today to oppose same sex marriage? It seems to me that what you have listed could be re-written as follows:

—The ban (on temple marriage) is specific to those who act on of black sub-Saharan African descent same sex attraction. People who feel but don't act on same sex attraction Men with black skin can and do currently (1976) hold the Priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the temple.

The ban exists for a reason, even if we have not explicitly been given that reason

Many Church leaders, including General Authorities, have given both spoken and published reasoning on why people who act on same sex attraction people of black sub-Saharan African descent cannot hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple blessings. Are these men not specifically charged with defining Church doctrine? Why, then, ought we not simply accept their doctrinal explanations?

The Priesthood temple marriage ban is effectively a curse to those whom it renders unable to receive the Priesthood or its blessings as expressed in the temple. So these people are, in effect, a cursed people. No one denies that they may be saved and even exalted with the rest of the Saints, but as to Priesthood and temple blessings today, they are cursed. Objecting to this wording while ignoring the simple facts of the matter constitutes straining out perhaps non-existent gnats while swallowing some very large camels.

So while we are obligated by him whose Church this is to welcome such people into our meetings and even into the very waters of baptism, we must certainly teach our children about the temple ban and why they must never date or otherwise plan to marry those of black sub-Saharan African descent, who are LGBTQ, even fellow Saints.

How accurately do you think this re-writing of the 1976 arguements reflects some of the 2000 arguements about the extent to which LGBTQ people could participate in the church or the 2022 arguements about same sex temple marriage?

 

 

 

 

[Vort]

43 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Thanks @Vort, this is an example of the kind of answer I have been hoping  for. So how similar or different do you think these arguements are to the arguements being used today to oppose same sex marriage? It seems to me that what you have listed could be re-written as follows:

—The ban (on temple marriage) is specific to those who act on of black sub-Saharan African descent same sex attraction. People who feel but don't act on same sex attraction Men with black skin can and do currently (1976) hold the Priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the temple.

[II]—The ban exists for a reason, even if we have not explicitly been given that reason

[III]—Many Church leaders, including General Authorities, have given both spoken and published reasoning on why people who act on same sex attraction people of black sub-Saharan African descent cannot hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple blessings. Are these men not specifically charged with defining Church doctrine? Why, then, ought we not simply accept their doctrinal explanations?

[Iv]—The Priesthood temple marriage ban is effectively a curse to those whom it renders unable to receive the Priesthood or its blessings as expressed in the temple. So these people are, in effect, a cursed people. No one denies that they may be saved and even exalted with the rest of the Saints, but as to Priesthood and temple blessings today, they are cursed. Objecting to this wording while ignoring the simple facts of the matter constitutes straining out perhaps non-existent gnats while swallowing some very large camels.

[V]—So while we are obligated by him whose Church this is to welcome such people into our meetings and even into the very waters of baptism, we must certainly teach our children about the temple ban and why they must never date or otherwise plan to marry those of black sub-Saharan African descent, who are LGBTQ, even fellow Saints.

How accurately do you think this re-writing of the 1976 arguements reflects some of the 2000 arguements about the extent to which LGBTQ people could participate in the church or the 2022 arguements about same sex temple marriage?

On the balance, not very well. There are parallels, but IMO not many good ones. I have slightly modified some of these points you made to clarify their intent and my answers.

—The ban [on temple marriage] is specific to those who are of black sub-Saharan African descent act on same sex attraction. Men with black skin People who feel but don't act on same sex attraction can and do currently (1976) hold the Priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the temple.

This one is true on its face, but the reasoning is far different. In one case, it is acts and attitudes that fully determine that a person has disqualified himself from temple worthiness. In the other case, worthiness per se is not even at issue; it's purely a matter of ancestry.

[II]—The ban exists for a reason, even if we have not explicitly been given that reason

This one doesn't work at all. We have indeed explicitly been given the reason in the law of chastity. This law cannot be forced into an interpretation that allows homosexual unions.

[III]—Many Church leaders, including General Authorities, have given both spoken and published reasoning on why people who act on same sex attraction people of black sub-Saharan African descent cannot hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple blessings. Are these men not specifically charged with defining Church doctrine? Why, then, ought we not simply accept their doctrinal explanations?

I think this might be accepted for both issues. For some reason, the Church has bent over backward to establish that old ideas about racial "guilt" do not constitute the current interpretations or teachings of the Church on the matter of blacks and the Priesthood, and in fact never did. (I'm not sure what to make of that last claim, when it's obvious that it was indeed commonly taught in the Church that the curse of Cain blah blah blah, and it was taken as established fact that premortal actions played into the issue. But...whatever.) So it does appear that the Church is willing to back wholesale off of unpopular claims from the past, even while not specifically repudiating them. Again, not sure what to make of the whole thing. But sure, we can look for previous teaching to explain both the Priesthood ban and why homosexuals can't marry same-sex partners in the holy temples of God. The latter one seems far more obvious, though. No arcane theories or questionable histories needed.

[IV]—The Priesthood temple marriage ban is effectively a curse to those whom it renders unable to receive the Priesthood or its blessings as expressed in the temple. So these people are, in effect, a cursed people. No one denies that they may be saved and even exalted with the rest of the Saints, but as to Priesthood and temple blessings today, they are cursed. Objecting to this wording while ignoring the simple facts of the matter constitutes straining out perhaps non-existent gnats while swallowing some very large camels.

Nope, not the same at all. Black Saints were withheld from receiving the Priesthood and temple blessings through no fault in their own worthiness, but simply and completely because they were of black sub-Saharan African descent. This is an externally applied "curse" that applied to them, despite their best efforts and notwithstanding their personal holiness.

Homosexuals are "cursed" only in the sense that every other sinner in the kingdom of God (or anywhere else) is "cursed": As we sin, we lose privilege with God. We may go so far as to lose the privilege of serving in the temple, or even of losing our membership in the kingdom altogether. By its very nature, this is a far different thing from the Priesthood "curse".

[V]—So while we are obligated by him whose Church this is to welcome such people into our meetings and even into the very waters of baptism, we must certainly teach our children about the temple ban and why they must never date or otherwise plan to marry those of black sub-Saharan African descent, who are LGBTQ, even fellow Saints.

I do not even understand what the comparison here would be. If you're a boy, don't marry your boyfriend? That kind of thing is purely a matter of obedience to the law of chastity. I don't see how such a conversation would even enter into a discussion with my children on the topic. I'm not going to instruct my children, "Hey, now, don't go marrying some homosexual, because if s/he's the same sex as you, you can't be sealed in the temple, and if s/he's not the same sex, then, um, your covenants would be at stake if, you know, your spouse started doing homosexual activity." There is no comparison at all that I can find here.

Anyway, there's my feedback, FWIW.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Vort
De-italicizing everything

[MrShorty]

I don't think I have the wherewithal to argue this, but I will say that this could be one of my key "shelf" issues. If I boil it down to its essence:

On 1/22/2022 at 4:58 PM, NeuroTypical said:

One difference in my mind, would be the proclamation on the family.  With blacks and the priesthood, we had no official proclamation on the matter.  Just a hodge-podge of tradition and various teachings, with some black folk being ordained from the earliest years of the church mixed in. 

Sure there's a public, signed document, but is it still possible that much of our beliefs on LGBT is, as with blacks and the priesthood, a hodge-podge of tradition and teachings mingled with some truth and revelation? In the absence of a "testimony" type experience, it seems awful difficult to disentangle tradition and apostolic opinion from Truth. Appeals to scripture sometimes work, but, scripture is also full of traditions and opinions, and it is often difficult to detangle truth from tradition in scripture.

[Grunt]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

Sure there's a public, signed document, but is it still possible that much of our beliefs on LGBT is, as with blacks and the priesthood, a hodge-podge of tradition and teachings mingled with some truth and revelation? In the absence of a "testimony" type experience, it seems awful difficult to disentangle tradition and apostolic opinion from Truth. Appeals to scripture sometimes work, but, scripture is also full of traditions and opinions, and it is often difficult to detangle truth from tradition in scripture.

Personally, I believe this line of thinking really only exists when you're trying to bend Church doctrine or policy to what you wish it were.  I went through this with many issues and couldn't take them off my shelf until I accepted them for what they were.  Having just been sealed, I spent considerable time studying the ordinance and why it is necessary.  The very description of that ordinance on the Church site starts with The Family.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-happens-in-a-temple-sealing?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR3khR6mdmQEGB3FIzMRaCTk2QsUBcfVM4VSBC_PRhwac633FNPGDQ0I7hg

Edited January 25, 2022 by Grunt

[Just_A_Guy]

35 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't think I have the wherewithal to argue this, but I will say that this could be one of my key "shelf" issues. If I boil it down to its essence:

Sure there's a public, signed document, but is it still possible that much of our beliefs on LGBT is, as with blacks and the priesthood, a hodge-podge of tradition and teachings mingled with some truth and revelation? In the absence of a "testimony" type experience, it seems awful difficult to disentangle tradition and apostolic opinion from Truth. Appeals to scripture sometimes work, but, scripture is also full of traditions and opinions, and it is often difficult to detangle truth from tradition in scripture.

I assume you mean “in the absence of you, personally” receiving such an experience, right?  Because the Church leadership has “testified” of this repeatedly. 🙂

And, sure, in a church with living prophets dedicated to ongoing revelation, surprisingly little is ever fixed in stone.  Maybe someday we’ll start marrying girls off at 12 or 13; as our predecessors in ancient Israel did.  Maybe we’ll start approving slaveholding, as the original apostles did.  Maybe we’ll start slaughtering livestock in temple courtyards and sprinkling the blood all over the furniture of the celestial rooms; maybe temple sealing rooms will close to all but the presiding high priest (and then only once a year); maybe an edict will come down requiring all LDS women to quit their jobs, get married, and get pregnant within the next six months.  Heck, maybe it will be announced that Jesus Christ is better known by the name of Glurg from the planet Zerg, which He fled because it was destroyed by photon torpedoes launched from the Starship Enterprise.  If one wants to believe it strongly enough, one can find ways to create ambiguity in the traditional authoritative sources within the Church and justify getting out in front of the Church leadership on pretty much any topic one wishes.

But if while we’re waiting for authoritative third parties to receive additional revelation to confirm our predilections on this or any other topic, we should just bear in mind that:

1) Reliable revelation rarely comes as a result of a person telling God “I have already picked what is easy and gratifying over seems hard and unpleasant, and Your only role here is to ratify my decision”;

2) Reliable revelation never comes as a result of a person telling God “But, I want sex!!!!”

Edited January 25, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1) Reliable revelation rarely comes as a result of a person telling God “I have already picked what is easy and gratifying over seems hard and unpleasant, and Your only role here is to ratify my decision”;

Is "rarely" a key word here? Because we are limiting to 2 of how many dozens/hundreds of moral issues that prophets/scriptures have addressed. I have been reading Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and it is interesting how the implementation of the priesthood/temple ban sure seems to fit a "We [meaning the 19th century Church leaders and/or members] are being told by 19th century American society that blacks and other races are definitely less civilized (or something) than white America, so give us a revelation that will segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines." and then claim revelation to ratify that decision. It isn't that God can't or won't "sign off" on my bad idea (or a prophet's bad idea), but how do we know when we are twisting things to fit our own predispositions and when are we truly following God's will.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2) Reliable revelation never comes as a result of a person telling God “But, I want sex!!!!

I have to doubt "never". My own experience suggests that God is willing to grant reliable revelation even when the question is about getting more sex. The harder question behind it is truly understanding God's will for our sexuality so we can understand when and how God would answer the "I want sex" question. I fear we have too much of St. Augustine and other Christian beliefs buried deep in our understanding of sexuality to have a good handle on that question.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't think I have the wherewithal to argue this, but I will say that this could be one of my key "shelf" issues. If I boil it down to its essence:

Sure there's a public, signed document, but is it still possible that much of our beliefs on LGBT is, as with blacks and the priesthood, a hodge-podge of tradition and teachings mingled with some truth and revelation? In the absence of a "testimony" type experience, it seems awful difficult to disentangle tradition and apostolic opinion from Truth. Appeals to scripture sometimes work, but, scripture is also full of traditions and opinions, and it is often difficult to detangle truth from tradition in scripture.

I think that, in this case, overall human experience is that opposite-sex attraction is by far the biological norm, and this certainly builds the tradition that proper sexual intercourse is between a man and a woman. However, the covenant of marriage is not reliant on opposite-sex attraction, only the two genders involved. Doctrinally speaking, tradition does not drive the covenant, but the eternal covenant dives both the biological norm (the Creation of male and female in the beginning) and the Edenic or Zion tradition that they marry within the eternal covenant. Other religious and secular traditions subsequently coopted the original, eternal covenant or marriage institution with varying departures in tradition, structure and practice.

How does one know whether the institution is driven by the covenant established from before the foundation of the world or by human tradition? My answer would be: personal revelation. 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.