I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[green]

Can't that same argument be made against your church? Why hasn't God given direct revelation since Biblical times, in the view of you and your religious views? It's not like giving revelation is difficult to God! I don't really want to get into that discussion right now, just pointing out that using that argument solely against the LDS church is disingenuous on your part.

I'd say he isn't using that argument against the LDS church, just saying the LDS church is no different than any other christian denomination in that they do NOT receive revelation, but instead are trying to do the best they can interpreting scripture.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Can't that same argument be made against your church? Why hasn't God given direct revelation since Biblical times, in the view of you and your religious views? It's not like giving revelation is difficult to God! I don't really want to get into that discussion right now, just pointing out that using that argument solely against the LDS church is disingenuous on your part.

Sure, but we don't believe that there's a single prophet that's given direct revelation anymore. We believe that the Bible is God's Word, and it is useful for all things. God has already given us everything we need. That's one of the differences, and that's why the distinction is important.

I view doctrine as man-made, fallible. However, if I was in a church with a prophet who had direct communication with God, then it would not be logical for me to assume that doctrine is man-made and fallible. I certainly respect your view, just explaining how I see things. Hope it made some sense.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'd say he isn't using that argument against the LDS church, just saying the LDS church is no different than any other christian denomination in that they do NOT receive revelation, but instead are trying to do the best they can interpreting scripture.

Nailed it on the dot.

 

[GVC]

"As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."

FWIW, up until at least late 2001, most missionaries in Singapore were effectively there (in their capacity as missionaries) illegally. This "rule" is broken whenever it's convenient for the church.

 

[green]

Where are you getting this info about the LDS church?? I'm not even going to dignify this one with a reply.

The Law of Chastity in the temple ceremonies was changed from "no sexual intercourse" to "no sexual relations". Pretty big change if you ask me.

 

[sirkickyass]

Yes, the potential social ostracization is what's most concerning to me. Ward leaders will have to take very special care to deal with those situations and make sure there isn't any sort of stigma for non-baptized primary-aged kids.

But frankly, how common is this situation, anyway? How many gay couples have their young kids attending LDS church meetings? And why would the couple even do that when they clearly don't believe in LDS teachings? I can understand in teen-aged years it might be more common as the kids themselves become more independent, but I have a hard time picturing an 8 year old kid being raised by a gay couple but who also regularly comes to LDS church meetings.

Well, and that is the actual point of the policy. It's another way to put up a sign to homosexuals that says "not welcome." The point of these things should always be to build bridges rather than to create impasses. It makes a single thing about a person's identity entirely determinative of whether or not they "believe in LDS teachings." You can have a beer every once in awhile and it will be tolerated. If you're gay and choose not to be horrendously repressed, good luck.

Put another way, we all know the church isn't going to bar children who are born to parents out of wedlock from being baptized. This isn't about whether the parents believe in church teachings; it's about trying to insulate the institution from the influence of teh gheys.

Please enlighten me here.

I tried to search old posts as I once went VERY deep on this topic. Unfortunately, it looks like that was on the pre 2010 board.

Here's an example: most of the new testament passages about homosexuality were originally written in Greek by Paul. The word that is translated to mean "homosexuals" or "sodomites" (depending on translation) is "arsenokoitai." Anyone who tells you that the definitively know what this word means is lying to you or to themselves. There is literally no other usage of the word in recorded history that pre-dates Paul and none for hundreds of years after. It appears to be a compound word that Paul made up that means "man beds." We also have some suggestions that this combination of words may have been used to reference young hairless male prostitutes that were in use at the time the letter was written. Equivalent Hebrew words, like "quadesh" are literally translatable into "male temple prostitutes." Literal interpretations of the words surrounding "arsenokoitai" would read "whoremongers, arsenokoitai, and slave dealers" indicating that Paul was talking about a list of people who sleep with others for commercial gain or other non-loving sexual context.

The sum effect is that there are strong arguments that Paul was condemning the practice of paying money to sleep with children rather than all homosexual activity generally. There just isn't a real way to know definitively what he meant. But the printed bibles don't exactly deep dive on these translation problems. I've always thought that was particularly curious with the LDS just because they have translation problems of the Bible baked into the religion already.

 

[green]

Not all revelations get put into the D&C. And your description doesn't seem very accurate to me. For a more complete discussion, here's the best reference I've found on the topic when I've researched it in the past: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6038&context=etd

I only read the conclusion and the conclusion further strengthens what Howard is saying:

There is no revelation anymore for the LDS Church.

Basically, Smith received a revelation that was not a commandment, but counsel to the Church.

Over time (which happened to be at a time when prohibition was going on and a great way to increase converts) the leader of the Church decided on his own to make it a commandment. Not once did he claim revelation from god. Not once did he stand up and say, Thus saith the LORD, Section 89 is no longer counsel, but now a commandment. Strike verses 1-3 from the scripture as they are no longer applicable.

And why is the best discussion on this topic from a scholar and not from the prophet? Isn't that the whole point of the prophet? To stand up and give us God's will? Why would the prophet let a topic that the prophets are clearly wrong on (going against scripture) be handled by a scholar? Shouldn't the prophet get up and say:

I've spoken to God/Jesus/Angels/Peter and they have told me to change the word of wisdom from

o be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

3 Given for a principle with promise

to a commandment. And to show this revelation from God, we will be amending Section 89 or adding another section to the D&C?

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I started taking the discussions when I was 17. My parents (non-members) were not too thrilled. Once I decided to become baptized, rather than arguing with my parents about allowing me to be baptized (and signing a church form), I decided just to wait a couple months to turn 18.

Do minors still need parental permission to be baptized? If so, how many children do we assume will be affected by this? Are there really that many children of same-sex parents that are looking to get baptized? How many of those children's parents would allow them to?

The more important question is this......why would we want them to get baptized? Is that really a good situation to put the family/child in? Imagine the tension and animosity that would reside in the household.

LDS doctrine teaches that all people will have a fair opportunity to accept the gospel, in this life or the next. A child being raised by wonderful parents that don't share our views on same-sex marriage will obviously have a better opportunity at some point to choose to be baptized or not.

 

[green]

Well, and that is the actual point of the policy. It's another way to put up a sign to homosexuals that says "not welcome." The point of these things should always be to build bridges rather than to create impasses. It makes a single thing about a person's identity entirely determinative of whether or not they "believe in LDS teachings." You can have a beer every once in awhile and it will be tolerated. If you're gay and choose not to be horrendously repressed, good luck.

Put another way, we all know the church isn't going to bar children who are born to parents out of wedlock from being baptized. This isn't about whether the parents believe in church teachings; it's about trying to insulate the institution from the influence of teh gheys.



I tried to search old posts as I once went VERY deep on this topic. Unfortunately, it looks like that was on the pre 2010 board.

Here's an example: most of the new testament passages about homosexuality were originally written in Greek by Paul. The word that is translated to mean "homosexuals" or "sodomites" (depending on translation) is "arsenokoitai." Anyone who tells you that the definitively know what this word means is lying to you or to themselves. There is literally no other usage of the word in recorded history that pre-dates Paul and none for hundreds of years after. It appears to be a compound word that Paul made up that means "man beds." We also have some suggestions that this combination of words may have been used to reference young hairless male prostitutes that were in use at the time the letter was written. Equivalent Hebrew words, like "quadesh" are literally translatable into "male temple prostitutes." Literal interpretations of the words surrounding "arsenokoitai" would read "whoremongers, arsenokoitai, and slave dealers" indicating that Paul was talking about a list of people who sleep with others for commercial gain or other non-loving sexual context.

The sum effect is that there are strong arguments that Paul was condemning the practice of paying money to sleep with children rather than all homosexual activity generally. There just isn't a real way to know definitively what he meant. But the printed bibles don't exactly deep dive on these translation problems. I've always thought that was particularly curious with the LDS just because they have translation problems of the Bible baked into the religion already.

Again, this goes back to lack of revelation. Smith was going through the Bible "fixing" mistranslations, mistakes, etc. Why did that stop? Why was it important enough for Smith to clarify such important things, but not any other prophets? Especially a topic as important as this?

Why did revelation go away?

 

[fishonjazz]

I view doctrine as man-made, fallible.

Do you also think the bible is fallible?

 

[Stoked]

I've gotten to the point where I truly believe in a higher divine power. What shape that entails and what rules they want followed I don't know.

As a result I try to live the life of a good man and hopefully I will be viewed as doing a good job and a positive on this world. Maybe one day I will believe more but as for now that's where I am at.

 

[green]

I started taking the discussions when I was 17. My parents (non-members) were not too thrilled. Once I decided to become baptized, rather than arguing with my parents about allowing me to be baptized (and signing a church form), I decided just to wait a couple months to turn 18.

Do minors still need parental permission to be baptized? If so, how many children do we assume will be affected by this? Are there really that many children of same-sex parents that are looking to get baptized? How many of those children's parents would allow them to?

The more important question is this......why would we want them to get baptized? Is that really a good situation to put the family/child in? Imagine the tension and animosity that would reside in the household.

LDS doctrine teaches that all people will have a fair opportunity to accept the gospel, in this life or the next. A child being raised by wonderful parents that don't share our views on same-sex marriage will obviously have a better opportunity at some point to choose to be baptized or not.

I get this and have no qualms with this. My problem is the singling out homosexuals. God has made it clear that homosexuals (or paying for sex if what Sir says is true) is equal to fornication and adultery.

So, why do we let fornicators and adulterers get married and then their kids can have all the ordinances done but we don't allow homosexuals to do so?

Why are we singling out one group, when God did not single out one group. He mentioned all together.

Why is it ok to show bigotry to one group of people?

How is this any different than the priesthood issue?

I know the Church has thrown Young under the bus over the priesthood issue, but McConkie taught from the pulpit that black people were sinners and marked for their sin. When my father was on his mission, he was not allowed to teach black people. Why? Because they could not get the priesthood, so they could not get the full benefits of the gospel so why waste your time? They were sinners from before birth anyways.

The Church will do the same thing with this issue. The current leadership will die off, and when it does a less bigoted leadership will take over. It will probably take more protests, it will probably take more schools refusing to play BYU in sports, more demonstrations, etc. But it will happen. Then the new prophet will issue another statement throwing Monson under the bus and calling him a bigot and allowing the children of homosexuals to be named, baptized, etc.

My problem is that is not the actions of a church led by revelation from God.

 

[b_line]

Yes, the potential social ostracization is what's most concerning to me. Ward leaders will have to take very special care to deal with those situations and make sure there isn't any sort of stigma for non-baptized primary-aged kids.

But frankly, how common is this situation, anyway? How many gay couples have their young kids attending LDS church meetings? And why would the couple even do that when they clearly don't believe in LDS teachings? I can understand in teen-aged years it might be more common as the kids themselves become more independent, but I have a hard time picturing an 8 year old kid being raised by a gay couple but who also regularly comes to LDS church meetings.

The far more common occurrence will be parents who tried to pray away the gay, got divorced and remained gay, and retain partial custody.

Don't pretend thus doesn't happen. There are 15 million members of the church. Chances are there are about 750,000 of them who are gay. This is a very significant portion of Mormon society. Don't just sweep it under the rug with comments like "how many people is this actually going to affect?" It's thoughts like thus that lead to suicides and depression. It's completely insensitive.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I get this and have no qualms with this. My problem is the singling out homosexuals. God has made it clear that homosexuals (or paying for sex if what Sir says is true) is equal to fornication and adultery.

So, why do we let fornicators and adulterers get married and then their kids can have all the ordinances done but we don't allow homosexuals to do so?

Why are we singling out one group, when God did not single out one group. He mentioned all together.

Why is it ok to show bigotry to one group of people?

How is this any different than the priesthood issue?

I know the Church has thrown Young under the bus over the priesthood issue, but McConkie taught from the pulpit that black people were sinners and marked for their sin. When my father was on his mission, he was not allowed to teach black people. Why? Because they could not get the priesthood, so they could not get the full benefits of the gospel so why waste your time? They were sinners from before birth anyways.

The Church will do the same thing with this issue. The current leadership will die off, and when it does a less bigoted leadership will take over. It will probably take more protests, it will probably take more schools refusing to play BYU in sports, more demonstrations, etc. But it will happen. Then the new prophet will issue another statement throwing Monson under the bus and calling him a bigot and allowing the children of homosexuals to be named, baptized, etc.

My problem is that is not the actions of a church led by revelation from God.

Why do you assume that if a married homosexual couple decided to no longer cohabitate or be a couple that any children would not be allowed to be baptized?
It's the same principle, change the things that are not in line with the teachings in order to be a member of the church, or don't be a member. Either way it's your call.
It's pretty much the same thing in both cases.
In addition, the policy does state that individuals would have to get special permission to be baptized, not that they would not be allowed to be baptized at all.

 

[Gameface]

The far more common occurrence will be parents who tried to pray away the gay, got divorced and remained gay, and retain partial custody.

Don't pretend thus doesn't happen. There are 15 million members of the church. Chances are there are about 750,000 of them who are gay. This is a very significant portion of Mormon society. Don't just sweep it under the rug with comments like "how many people is this actually going to affect?" It's thoughts like thus that lead to suicides and depression. It's completely insensitive.

I've been tempted to bring something up in this thread but I've already been a bit, I don't know the right word, not quite hostile towards religious folks but maybe a bit mocking and smug. I guess glib is the right word. And while I think it's fine to challenge, I'm not trying to be downright offensive.

Anyway, this is something I'm honestly curious about. I have encountered a good number of married with children LDS guys who overload the old gaydar. I mean, just send every signal, have all the mannerisms, just seem like they are gay. But they are LDS born and raised and are following the path that is laid out in the LDS faith. Any LDS folks take note of this? Guys that seem gay-ish, but live a straight lifestyle?

If so, is this a good thing in your opinion? A person who is predisposed to being homosexual but who squashes those tendencies in order to live by their LDS values? To me it's a tragedy and sort of grotesque.

 

[bigb]

I feel awful for all my LDS friends and family right now, and those of of you on this board. This news has been shattering for many of you and I cant imagine the pain and confusion you must be feeling. I know this decision does not represent what many of you feel is right. I wish you luck and love while you and your families work through this.

This sucks.

I truly appreciate this sentiment.
For the last couple years, the firmness of my faith and activity in the church has wavered significantly. After listening repeatedly to the last General Conference, I had decided it was time to fish or cut bait. It had been several years since I'd read The Book of Mormon, so I started reading it. Before long, I realized I was doing more than just reading it, I was actively studying it. I even went to all three hours of church this past Sunday. I was legitimately starting to get back into the church thing. Now this new policy comes along and it is really troubling to me. I've been really struggling with it since I heard the news. I really have some soul searching and praying to do.

 

[b_line]

I've been tempted to bring something up in this thread but I've already been a bit, I don't know the right word, not quite hostile towards religious folks but maybe a bit mocking and smug. I guess glib is the right word. And while I think it's fine to challenge, I'm not trying to be downright offensive.

Anyway, this is something I'm honestly curious about. I have encountered a good number of married with children LDS guys who overload the old gaydar. I mean, just send every signal, have all the mannerisms, just seem like they are gay. But they are LDS born and raised and are following the path that is laid out in the LDS faith. Any LDS folks take note of this? Guys that seem gay-ish, but live a straight lifestyle?

If so, is this a good thing in your opinion? A person who is predisposed to being homosexual but who squashes those tendencies in order to live by their LDS values? To me it's a tragedy and sort of grotesque.

First, yes, there are plenty of gay dudes who want to be mormon and get married. Some of them tell their wife beforehand, some find out later, and I assume some never find out, or just remain quiet of their suspicions.

I think in a lot of cases, it is pretty ridiculous to think that you can pray away the gay. Some cases, though, I guess their sexuality is more fluid, and they can be totally fine in a heterosexual relationship.

I don't think your question was at all rude. It's a fact of life that 3-5% of humans are going to be gay. That would mean that potentially 1 in 20 people are gay. In the LDS church, that is probably around 750,000 or more people that are gay. It's just a fact of biology.

 

[b_line]

I truly appreciate this sentiment.
For the last couple years, the firmness of my faith and activity in the church has wavered significantly. After listening repeatedly to the last General Conference, I had decided it was time to fish or cut bait. It had been several years since I'd read The Book of Mormon, so I started reading it. Before long, I realized I was doing more than just reading it, I was actively studying it. I even went to all three hours of church this past Sunday. I was legitimately starting to get back into the church thing. Now this new policy comes along and it is really troubling to me. I've been really struggling with it since I heard the news. I really have some soul searching and praying to do.

Thanks for sharing this. So many of us feel similar. I don't want my kids to miss out on the great stuff that the church offers, but I also am scared to death of the bad things in the culture.

 

[green]

Why do you assume that if a married homosexual couple decided to no longer cohabitate or be a couple that any children would not be allowed to be baptized?
It's the same principle, change the things that are not in line with the teachings in order to be a member of the church, or don't be a member. Either way it's your call.
It's pretty much the same thing in both cases.
In addition, the policy does state that individuals would have to get special permission to be baptized, not that they would not be allowed to be baptized at all.

You are missing my point. In the scriptures, there is no differentiation between homosexual sex, fornication and adultery. They are all listed together. Who made the decision that where you stick your genitals is the problem? Where in the scriptures does it say that they only belong in certain places?

Religion, ours in particular, has had the rule that fornication and adultery is ok if you get married afterwards. If you get married, you can have all the blessings and so can your children.

Well, what happens when two homosexuals get married? They are still denied.

So, to recap: God views adultery, fornication, and whatever the word means that we've interpreted to mean prostitution or homosexuality the same.

We have said if you get married, you can overcome adultery and fornication and prostitution and your kids can be blessed, named, baptized, get the priesthood, etc.

BUT, if you are homosexual and get married...well, you can't have any of that.

NOW, if this isn't a marriage issue, but a "where does your genitals belong" issue, then lets talk about that. Where in the scriptures does it say where your genitals belong?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Do you also think the bible is fallible?

No, I do not.