How the LDS Church can change their doctrine/policy on LGBT

[NAOS]

Church is man. So, no, I wasn't expecting to see things done any differently than it has for centuries.

but God is not man's creation right? So this is another instance of impure-slash-polluted mankind perverting something that has a pure and celestial form (off-planet)?

 

[MVP]

Church is just a group of people. Like political party, sports club or any other organization with its bylaws, rules, rituals, etc... It's up to them to create them. If their rules are racist or anti-gay... well its up to them to change them. So simple. That group of people who are in charge of the rules at some point will die and will be replaced by different people with hopefully different set of rules. Time always wins.

 

[Dr. Jones]

but God is not man's creation right? So this is another instance of impure-slash-polluted mankind perverting something that has a pure and celestial form (off-planet)?

As I see it.

 

[NAOS]

As I see it.

are there any other animals that are, at root, at least partially impure-slash-polluted?

(I guess the proceeding question is: is man an animal?)

 

[franklin]

I am so disheartened about those quotes that are so racist. I know that all people learn and change, but it's so sad that they are supposed to be men of God and they are so horribly and terribly racist.


This, the gay issue and polygamy are my issues with the LDS Church. I know it's a great organization, but it's tough to take things too seriously when the professed doctrine is so far off from "love thy neighbor"

The LDS church turned me atheist.

At least I think I'm atheist.

I don't want to be atheist.

But I'm pretty sure I am atheist.

 

[green]

OK, so I give up on the rep beg offer. here goes......

I don't think there is any actual example of any Western religion. . . that is to say, one with a rational line of exposition of belief. . . . that has remained the same for two hundred years.

The LDS tradition of preaching, which is to say extemporaneous pontifications like I habitually do, with no forethought nor second thoughts, really. . . . just free flowing euphoric "feel goodisms", is particularly vulnerable to such "drift". I listen to regular ordained, educated ministers of Bible-based ministries all the time. They are particularly adept at picking and choosing their texts and molding their preachments to their congregations. With the Mormons, there is another also-relevant set of folks whom you have to please..... The "Correlation Committee" or as it's now termed I believe, "The Strengthening Membership Committee". This little cadre of professional advertising men, Ph. D. sociologists and other social science professionals get to edit even the talks of GAs nowadays.

I think the term for it in the scriptures is "Priestcraft".

If there is a God, materially speaking or objectively speaking, you should quite readily see that God is a racist, having somehow, allegedly, created "races". Or did we create them by choosing mates whose physical characteristics and skin tones seemed oh, nicer.

If anyone believes the Bible, there is this little story about a special "covenant" people of God, the Israelites. Israelites are particularly racist. Even today, I cannot immigrate into Israel because of the "race" of my mother. It's a wise child who knows his father, they say. So Jewish DNA, or Levite DNA, won't get me in.

Green, you have bought into some kind of lie about race, some kind of theory about how people ought to be, and how God ought to be. I call you a liar. Sure you can preach your particular theory about "racism", but you are your own kind of racist. You think people who think like you do are better somehow. How is that any different from people who think skin color is meaningful?

In the Bible, marriage of Israelites with various tribes listed as descending from Ham were forbidden. The Bible termed them "strange wives", but then listed the tribes. In Genesis the same list appears as the descendants of Ham. The Historian Josephus wrote about it as late as the first century AD. But the Christians did not carry that tradition forward from that time. The doctrine of Paul explicitly stated that whoever is baptized a Christian is adopted into the family of Abraham.

Joseph Smith and the Mormons lived in a seething kettle of racism in the 1830s in Missouri. Mormons were mostly not slaveholders. That was part of the reason some folks raised terror and bloodshed to drive the Mormons out of Missouri. Mormons got sensitive to what others were saying about them, and started "fitting in" where-ever they were. In the 1970s, the Brazilian government raised a stink about the Mormon doctrine when the Mormons petitioned to build a temple there. Brazilian officials wrote to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter wrote to Spencer Kimball. Said the LDS tax status was on the line, stuff like that. The New Republic mocked LDS "announcement" delineating this particular line of "revelation". But the LDS made a cost-benefit analysis, and did what they thought they had to do.

Green, if you want a religion that does not reflect the times, make one up yourself. See how long that lasts.

It is a mistake to hold God accountable for what people believe, think, say or preach. Whatever the source, it takes God to stand for it, or not.

I hold with the original covenant of Abraham, and I think even Paul disgraced himself straying from that. A religion that is, at its core, a racial covenant, is whatever God ever intended it to be. It's a patriarchal covenant, so even the State of Israel is apostate today, in my view. I am what I am, however God made me, for whatever God intended me to be. A hating swarm of racists chanting the meaninglessness of God's doing are just the unwashed heathen horde.

The story of Joseph Smith's ordaining a black man, Elijah Abel, was in his first edition of his Church History, in Joseph's Smith own hand. He said he ordained the man, but that an angel of God came to him in the night and said it wasn't right. The exact explanation was that the blacks were sons and daughters of God like the rest of us, and therefore have the same potential blessings for faithfulness, and can attain the fullness of the Gospel as well as any one, but that they were not to receive their endowments or ordinations to the Priesthood during their mortal lives. It was commanded, not advised, that faithful black members should have their ordinations and endowments done for them as soon as they passed into immortality. Joseph Smith called that black man back the next day, laid his hands on his head, and revoked the ordination. I don't think the LDS Church ever followed that particular practice, or doing the work for deceased black members, until 1978.

The idea of a "universal priesthood" has some historical problems. The early Christians did not have it. The Jews, the Israelites did not have it. The only priests under the law of Moses were the male descendants of Levi. It was expressly a male descendency thing from the beginning of having any "priests" at all. For all the time, 400 years in Egypt, there were no priests and no priesthood. Moses' father in law, a non-Israelite, was a "priest" of some kind, and other kinds of religions had them.

On the other hand, fathers have widely had authority over their wives and families. . . . well, in most cultures. . . . nomadic herdsment with moveable tents had to own cows and stuff to be able to keep people together in a band. Chiefs, patriarchs, are an ancient solution to the leadership question. I think a black father has more authority over his family than any Church official should have. Well, and white fathers just as well.

That is quite the thesis there. Impressive. But, you missed the point. The point is that the Church has historically been behind the times when it comes to discrimination and they continue to do so. I guess that is what happens when you have old men as your leaders.

BUT, even though they have been behind the times, they tend to eventually make the right decision.

BUT, even though they tend to end up making the right decision (usually when their pocketbooks are about to take a hit), wouldn't a guy who talks to God face to face be the FIRST person to make the right decision? Shouldn't the LDS Church been saying all this stuff in the 50's and not the 70's?

Finally, how could these men be profits...I mean prophets of God when they are the last one to make the right decision and when they do make the right decision, they toss the previous prophets under the bus and label them uninspired, uneducated, and making guesses off limited information (even though those guys claim to have spoken to God and received revelation, light an guidance from God, which should make them MORE inspired, MORE educated and MORE in tune with right and wrong)?

Again, while I appreciate the response, it's leading down a path that was not intended with the post and quite frankly, isn't relevant to the conversation.

 

[green]

I am certain the LDS church will change their stance about allowing married LGBT couples to have full participation. Just as they did with blacks and the priesthood, they will do so when they are threatened with removal of tax exempt status. Social change in the church eventually happens, just a decade or so after everyone else.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

This point is what I have found most disappointing. These men hold themselves out as the ONLY men on earth that have the authority to speak for God and His Church...yet, they are consistently wrong and behind the times.

 

[green]

Well, at the very least, The LDS faith has been better than the early days of Catholicism... Like say the Spanish Inquisition.

I don't like this...yeah, we are a bunch of dicks but we aren't the worst dicks.

 

[green]

I don't think the LDS Church will ever sanction gay marriage. Blacks and the priesthood was one thing. But gay couples marrying in the temple. I don't see the Church going in that direction but I guess you never know.

The good news is, many in the Church thought we'd never give blacks the priesthood. In fact, many prophets taught that blacks would never get the priesthood and it was taught that blacks would be slaves in the celestial kingdom.

Now the Church denies EVER teaching those things, even though I quoted the prophets teaching those things.

 

[green]

My take...

I don't condone "sin" but I have never understood why religion, throughout the eons, has seemed to "pick a sin" that is the flavor of the month/year/decade.

Church officials seem scared to support gay living because it's sin.. right?

Well then we should just close the church, lock the doors, and never return if the prerequisite for "belonging" and being accepted is to be sinless.

I don't condone my own behavior (just drinking, really) but I've never had a church tell me I'm not worthy to be amongst them. Bible teaches sin is sin (aside from blaspheming of the Holy Spirit), so why do church orgs deny that premise and seemingly take political stands against "certain" sin?

I think the answer is simple. Human flesh. (No, I don't mean they're eating it.)

Blacks being denied was much more about racism and whites being uncomfortable... so there's your doctrine. It's now that with gays. Whitees are much more uncomfortable, today, with LGB (whatever) than adulterers, alcoholics, and even murderers.

So there's the position, again. Religious doctrine to suit the soul.

Nailed it. Like I said, this has a lot to do with myself and my search for the truth. I believed whole heartedly in prophets. I bought into Mormonism full steam ahead. I've read the Bible and Book of Mormon over 20 times each. I still read the Book of Mormon everyday.

That being said, I don't think there is a leader that God converses with to lead us. I moving more and more towards the idea that God is there, he loves us, and he guides us each in our own way. Churches are there to aid us and move us forward, but at the end of the day, they are led by men who are doing their best to get themselves to God as well (or at least I hope that is their motivation).

I believe that as we grow closer to God, the need for Churches and organized religion becomes less. As we grow closer to God, we learn how to lean on Him for guidance and not a church leader.

There was a sermon/talk given on this by a LDS general authority that the LDS Church made him go back and re-write, but he original talk has a lot of truth in it. I'll post some quotes later.

 

[green]

One of the foundational roles of Church (like State) is to code behavior. In order to have the force to code behavior, Church has to be regarded as having a mandate over important questions. Since 'important questions' are under constant variation due to forces way beyond Church's control, Church is always reacting. This has been the way of it. I'm not sure if you've been holding out hope for something else, or misrecognizing Church, but... yeah.

Another good point. You are taught the opposite. Even in the quotes I posted, when the Church changed their stance they acted like they were somehow bringing the world some great news...when in reality, the world had accomplished all this almost 20 years earlier.

 

[green]

Church is just a group of people. Like political party, sports club or any other organization with its bylaws, rules, rituals, etc... It's up to them to create them. If their rules are racist or anti-gay... well its up to them to change them. So simple. That group of people who are in charge of the rules at some point will die and will be replaced by different people with hopefully different set of rules. Time always wins.

Spot on.

 

[NAOS]

The LDS church turned me atheist.

At least I think I'm atheist.

I don't want to be atheist.

But I'm pretty sure I am atheist.

one can be an atheist but not an anti-theist. In other words, one can hold that there is no proof of the existence of God (the core tenet of atheism) but still wish it were true.

 

[Siro]

Fair enough.

Once you ditch the necessity of a higher moral authority, there isn't anyone with an innate natural right to regulate society, or any community, or pass any kind of law, or teach any moral value system.

Sure we can argue about stuff, but forcing human compliance is just raw barbarism.

So FU for all your ideas of the superiority of your "progress". You're just another thug with a club, or another jackbooted army burning the global village.

You need an objective basis supported by demonstrable fact to disprove human ideas. Or support your own.

The problem not faced by the current fashion of science is by what authority can you begin to regulate or discriminate against people who have questions.

But forcing human compliance is not barbarism if it comes as a decree in a holy book? In your paradigm of God-given rights, how do we really know if it is God who truly gives the instructions? And if it's a matter of faith, how do we determine whether it is your faith or someone else's? If there is no way to determine, how is your paradigm meaningful at all? Should we just say "**** all" and let people discriminate/murder/rape/whathaveyou because it is all subjective?

 

[green]

Some quotes from Elder Poelman's talk, that the Church made him change, but have a lot of power in them:

Both the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are true and divine. However, there is a distinction between them which is significant and it is very important that this distinction be understood. Of equal importance is understanding: the essential relationship between the gospel and the Church. Failure to distinguish between the two and to comprehend their proper relationship may lead to confusion and misplaced priorities with unrealistic and therefore failed expectations.

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.

 

[NAOS]

....such an awful debt we still have to Plato.

 

[Dr. Jones]

The LDS church turned me atheist.

At least I think I'm atheist.

I don't want to be atheist.

But I'm pretty sure I am atheist.

You're not.

 

[green]

You're not.

*UR not

 

[franklin]

one can be an atheist but not an anti-theist. In other words, one can hold that there is no proof of the existence of God (the core tenet of atheism) but still wish it were true.

That was my general tone, but I'm pretty sure I'm atheist at this point. Mormon Doctrine tells me I can not ask for a sign from God, however, so luckily for me I'm not going to be struck down.

 

[Stoked]

That was my general tone, but I'm pretty sure I'm atheist at this point. Mormon Doctrine tells me I can not ask for a sign from God, however, so luckily for me I'm not going to be struck down.

I was never taught this. I was taught that it is me speaking to my Father. That I could be as intimate and honest as I wanted to be, or not be as it may happen.

Interesting.