- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Rix wrote:Poppyseed wrote:
Rix. I feel you are telling me that in order to love my brother…..to really evolve in my love for my brother that I must accept his lifestyle…
I’m sorry if I gave you that impression. I’m going to keep this post short to emphasize the point I am trying to make. I would like to suggest you look at this a bit obliquely; change the angle you’re focused on. Try to look at it from the perspective of not making a moral judgment at all.Let God do that…you just love him.
Well, I hope you can see that I am not trying to make a judgment upon anyone. I am trying to understand the issue itself and make judgments for myself only. THat is honestly my only goal. I want to understand better why certain statements/behaviors hurt. But I must make some sort of judgement about where I plant my feet. I hope that is understandable.
Poppyseed wrote:Rix wrote:Poppyseed wrote:
Rix. I feel you are telling me that in order to love my brother…..to really evolve in my love for my brother that I must accept his lifestyle…
I’m sorry if I gave you that impression. I’m going to keep this post short to emphasize the point I am trying to make. I would like to suggest you look at this a bit obliquely; change the angle you’re focused on. Try to look at it from the perspective of not making a moral judgment at all.Let God do that…you just love him.
Well, I hope you can see that I am not trying to make a judgment upon anyone. I am trying to understand the issue itself and make judgments that are in line with the Lord. THat is honestly my only goal for myself only. I want to understand better why certain statements/behaviors hurt. But I must make some sort of judgement about where I plant my feet. I hope that is understandable.
Thank you, Poppyseed for having this dialogue…many LDSers just walk away. That’s the easy way out. Those that do are the ones that never come to understand the issue, IMO. It breaks my heart to see so many families torn apart needlessly, often resulting in deep despair from depression, addictions, and suicides.
I appreciate your efforts to learn about the issue…and doing what you believe is the Lord’s way. I personally see the Lord’s way as not morally judging him at all, and practicing continual forgiveness if we fail and DO judge out of habit and previous teachings based in fear and misunderstanding. I always come back to the greatest commandment of Love, and believe it is always the answer.
I thank you again for the discussion, and wish your family the best at reuniting. I know it is difficult and your brother needs to do his part too — and you ave no control over that, and loving him is the best you can do…so good luck!
You all have very excellent points. Thank you. The bottom line, for me ,is that until the Gospel of Jesus Christ fully incorporates homosexuals, homosexuals cannot fully incorporate the Gospel of Jesus Christ into their lives.
I agree, but the central question is if the Gospel ever can integrate homosexuality “fully” – and I mean the Gospel, not the Church. Gay marriage would have to be the law of the land first, but even then I’m just not sure. I believe both can integrate homosexualsMUCH more than they do now, but I’m not certain they can integrate homosexuality“fully” – parsing those words for their literal, dictionary definitions. As I have said, I have no problem if homosexual members leave the Church and don’t accept the Gospel as it is understood currently. I think, given our scriptural canon, modern revelation is the only shot – but I don’t know if that is realistic.
Dear Ray, Just so you know, I am NOT advocating that the church change one single letter of the Law of Chastity -NOT ONE JOT, NOT ONE TITTLE.
What I am asking is that the Church begins to treat all members as “brothers and sisters” in Christ. Recently, I spoke with a lady friend of mine whose son is gay. She explained that her son had been born to a mother who add used I.V. methamphetamine during her entire pregnancy. (Methamphetamine is one of the drugs known to cause severe gender dysphoria, i.e. homosexuality). This child was taken from his birth mother because of her drug addiction. Before he was age 11, he was in a total of four foster care homes. Finally he was adopted by my friend and her husband. For a few years, he enjoyed a stable and loving home. He was baptized a member and attended church. By at 13, his mother began to fear that he was gay. By at 15, it was obvious. This sacred, confused young man was kicked out of his home by his so called, loving LDS father because he was gay. I’m not saying that he was a practicing homosexual, out breaking the law of chastity. He was kicked out of the home for being “gay” and a perceived threat to the other children in the home. This followed after our own State Senator (so, this is soooo political), declared that “homosexuals were the greatest threat going down).
This young man wrapped himself in a few blankets and spent the night in Pioneer Park. It was winter, temperatures were freezing. Some of my friends tried to help these homeless, This became a bit political and let’s just say that they are no longer members of the church.
Like I say, the Church doesn’t need to change the law of chastity, what they need to change is their attitudes.
Aside from whether or not the church should shift their views, I personally wonder if the church canactually change their views on homosexuality. The church has a ton of laws which derive from history, revelation and scripture; and since history, revelation and scripture have not been kind to the same-sex lifestyle, how can the church justify any shift on such a long and adamant stance? spacious maze wrote:Aside from whether or not the church should shift their views, I personally wonder if the church
canactually change their views on homosexuality. The church has a ton of laws which derive from history, revelation and scripture; and since history, revelation and scripture have not been kind to the same-sex lifestyle, how can the church justify any shift on such a long and adamant stance? I really don’t see how their change in their stance on polygamy differs that much from a change in position on homosexuality. Once the Church taught that polygamy was absolutely required for entrance into the CK, using history, revelation, and scripture to support it. Now they ex people for doing it.
Our current view of the nuclear family structure of heaven is very different from the view of heaven BY had, and both today’s prophets and BY use/used history, revelation, and scripture to support their stances.
I think that in 100 years or so, if the political and social environment has changed to accept homosexual marriage, the church will do the same.
MWallace, my heart breaks for that young man, and I know there are way too many members who would do likewise, but they are the marked minority. That is NOT what “the Church” teaches” – and we simply must stop conflating the two. Again, I have serious issues with how homosexuals are treated in the Church overall – but we simply have to let go of the unrealistic expectations many have with this particular topic. spacious maze and I see many things very differently, but we both understand the enormous shift this would be. Frankly, it is HUGELY different than polygamy and the priesthood ban, and it would take revelation of the clearest, highest order to “integrate homosexuals fully” into the Church and our understanding of the Gospel. “Fully” is the operative word; “more fully” is possible – and “more fully” is all for which I can hope reasonably right now.
Expecting full integration any time soon simply is unrealistic, imo – unless specific revelation is received, and I don’t think the root of the tree is strong enough right now to handle that type of pruning, even if it were God’s will. I’m just not sure it even is His will (the “fully” aspect).
spacious maze wrote:Aside from whether or not the church should shift their views, I personally wonder if the church
canactually change their views on homosexuality. The church has a ton of laws which derive from history, revelation and scripture; and since history, revelation and scripture have not been kind to the same-sex lifestyle, how can the church justify any shift on such a long and adamant stance?
SM, does the church really have “a ton” of laws on homosexuality? I have studied and found a few in old testament times specifically calling that practice out, but most of the time I think it is lumped in with sexual sins in general and implied as unholy and impure practices. I don’t know, it does seem clearly part of the law of chastity, and I’m certainly not denying that, but to your question of whether it CAN change…I agree with MadamCurie, it can if the Lord speaks it to a prophet.MC mentioned polygamy. There is less history around that, I think, but it did change.
What about wine? There is a long history throughout the scriptures and the church teachings in Christ’s day and since that wine represents Christ’s blood, and is used in sacraments. But we have changed that now. Temple ceremonies, scriptures, priesthood, commandments…all these have changed when the authorized key holder receives revelation it is God’s will to change it.
For me, I must leave that door open to the fact it CAN change. Personally, however, I don’t ever think it will change as a sin. But what must change is how the church teaches it and how the church educates members to treat others and deal with it, because it is clearly a big issue for many families.
Old-Timer wrote:Again, I have serious issues with how homosexuals are treated in the Church overall – but we simply have to let go of the unrealistic expectations many have with this particular topic. spacious maze and I see many things very differently, but we both understand the enormous shift this would be. Frankly, it is HUGELY different than polygamy and the priesthood ban, and it would take revelation of the clearest, highest order to “integrate homosexuals fully” into the Church and our understanding of the Gospel. “Fully” is the operative word; “more fully” is possible – and “more fully” is all for which I can hope reasonably right now.
Expecting full integration any time soon simply is unrealistic, imo – unless specific revelation is received, and I don’t think the root of the tree is strong enough right now to handle that type of pruning, even if it were God’s will. I’m just not sure it even is His will (the “fully” aspect).
I have to agree with MadamCurie (although I admit that I’m biased,
😆 ).MadamCurie wrote:I really don’t see how their change in their stance on polygamy differs that much from a change in position on homosexuality. Once the Church taught that polygamy was absolutely required for entrance into the CK, using history, revelation, and scripture to support it. Now they ex people for doing it.
Doctrinally, it really isn’t that different from the beliefs taught as
DOCTRINEin the early LDS church on polygamy and blacks with the priesthood. I think polygamy and blacks obtaining the priesthood indicate exactly what circumstances need to take place before God will “reveal” to his Prophets that homosexuals should be fully accepted into the church, (1) the vast majority of other Christian churches must fully accept homosexuals, (2) the church needs to be getting bad publicity on the matter, (3) economic sanctions by the government will probably need to be threatened if they do not change their policies. These are precisely the things that happened before polygamy was abandoned and before blacks received the priesthood.
I think these same conditions will need to be met before women get the priesthood.
MisterCurie wrote:These are precisely the things that happened before polygamy was abandoned and before blacks received the priesthood.
I 99% agree, Mr.C. I would probably leave the priesthood out of that statement, as I’m not convinced that was ever doctrine but was certainly taught and accepted by many church leaders…regardless, that is another thread and not the whole point of you message, which in the most part I agree with you.Dear Ray, As far as “conflating” the 2 issues, I am referring to the specific use of Church copyrighted material by political groups that oppose certain rights for homosexuals. These groups DO NOT promote SS marriage. All they promote is equality in housing, employment and hospital visitation rights – nothing about marriage. If the Church were (at any time) to ban the use of official church copyrighted materials and the official name of the Church by these groups, then the Church would be totally, 100% blameless, legally and morally.
Now, as far as fully integrating homosexuals into the church, that would mean that all church members (homosexuals and heterosexuals) who lived the law of chastity completely would receive the same respect and the same blessings. That does not mean that homosexuals or heterosexuals who willingly violate the law of chastity would be allowed all of the blessings that those who keep the commandments are.
It is more than just an issue of the Law of chastity. It is about the family and how the traditional definition of family is the basic unit and core of power on earth and in the eternities. It is about the priesthood and how both rule and reign together as priests and priestesses. The man was not complete without the woman. The woman not complete without the man. Even a hundred men alone or a hundred women alone cannot equal the power of one man and one woman not only married, but sealed for eternity even if they had the priesthood and a earthly marriage license. The man is not without the woman in Christ. See the Bible for that. The law of chastity comes out of this as a means to protect marriage and the children that come from that union…. and then to teach the children of men how they might use the power of procreation within the parameters dictated by God. Every other circumstance that may happen to a person regarding family trails down from this basic unit and can be saved and sealed because of this basic unit. This isn’t like the blacks and the priesthood or guidelines on birth control. It isn’t like the polygamy thing…..which was a temporary practice in the first place (see Jacob). This is absolutely basic and foundational doctrine. Marriage between a man and a man, while it may satisfy temporarily here on earth, goes against the very basic parts of our doctrine, society and the very nature of God’s familial relationship to us. You change the definition of marriage and traditional family…..you remove it as the basic unit of society (which I am not even sure you can do)….and you might as well send in a doctrinal wrecking ball. Most of what the church teaches wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
This is my current understanding anyway.
Poppyseed wrote:Marriage between a man and a man, while it may satisfy temporarily here on earth, goes against the very basic parts of our doctrine, society and the very nature of God’s familial relationship to us.
Poppy…but what if…what if we really accept that biologically SSA is who the person is, and so they are allowed to have a civil gay marriage (not in the temple) for this life, and live the Law of Chastity within that marriage, and have happiness in this life…and things in the eternities you mentioned about celestial families get worked out in the eternities?Couldn’t the church take that stance? Because ordinances can be done by proxy, multiple marriages or sealings get worked out later (wives sealed to multiple husbands, single men and women die before sealed in the temple, part-member family situations, etc), individuals with genetic disorders not accountable in this life (I’m thinking like mental handicaps or something) will have that fixed later, and babies that die before 8 will have that taken care of through the atonement.
If the gospel can provide for so many different circumstances of life…why not those of same sex attraction?
It seems to me that it is less because of the natural order of the eternities and the doctrines of foundation of families (which come in all shapes, sizes and dysfunctions), and more because the church is establishing the idea that it is a CHOICE, and that makes it SIN. Remove that argument, and accept it is not choice but the way the person is, and it seems the eternities can provide ways for individual adaptations.
Would you agree that it hinges on that definition of sin more so than the doctrines of what the ideal family needs to be?
Poppyseed wrote:It is about the family and how the traditional definition of family is the basic unit and core of power on earth and in the eternities. It is about the priesthood and how both rule and reign together as priests and priestesses. The man was not complete without the woman. The woman not complete without the man.
Or, you can evolve your thinking to see all this as symbolic; as metaphor. I think if anybody views the scripture as literal and truly historical, you’re bound for disappointment as we learn that much of it did not happen. But when viewed as a story, as parables like Jesus did so masterfully, the truth appears…and the frustration and conflicts fade.
We need to get you some good Dan Brown books to read, Poppyseed! (Btw, just finished The Lost Symbol. I think it’s his best book yet!)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.