What's new
By:

I know there are a lot of LDS people here

green said:
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.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but how could the church possibly suggest that the children of fornicators and adulterers cannot be baptized? Same sex couples with children are typically very open about their lifestyle and what goes on in their home. They are proud of their lifestyle. They promote equality and rights for all people. They are PROUD of who they are.

Adulterers are the opposite. They don't publicize what they are doing. I would imagine that they are typically ashamed of what they are doing. Adulterers don't promote what they are doing, nor are they proud of it.

Children living under homes with these circumstances are obviously experiencing different things, despite them being listed together in the Bible a few thousand years ago.
 
Last edited:
green said:
If homosexuals marry, why is it still a sin?

I'm sorry if I come off rude or crass, but I am really trying to find the correct answer to this.
Click to expand...

because marriage and religion is man woman, not man man! whether men fornicate or get married then have sex both are sins.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I get what you are saying, but how could the church possibly suggest that the children of fornicators and adulterers cannot be baptized? Same sex couples with children are typically very open about their lifestyle and what goes on in their home. They are proud of their lifestyle. They promote equality and rights for all people. They are PROUD of who they are.

Adulterers are the opposite. They don't publicize what they are doing. I would imagine that they are typically ashamed of what they are doing. Adulterers don't promote what they are doing, nor are they proud of it.

Children living under homes with these circumstances are obviously experiencing different things, despite them being listed together in the Bible a few thousand years ago.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying.

Here is my disappointment at the end of the day:

Obviously the scriptures aren't clear enough on this issue for it to be so controversial. It's sad. I've read the New Testament once. I've read bits and pieces of the old testamtent, but, to be frank, it's garbage. Noah sleeping with his children, Lot offering his virgin daughters to angry mobs, and on and on and on. Those people were savages. No wonder Jesus came around. They were barely above animals. The Old Testament doesn't interest me much.

I've read the Pearl of Great Price at least three times. I've read the Doctrine and Covenants once.

I've read the Book of Mormon twelve times in my life, and finished it two months ago for the twelfth time.

I am struggling with this big time.

I say all of that to show that I'm not some idiot, uninformed person here. I've read the scriptures more than most people will ever read them. I read them almost every day of the week.

What disappoints me is that we supposedly have a prophet with a special ability to communicate with heaven. This should NOT be an issue. Our prophet should stand up and say:

"I've spoken with God and this is what he says"

Plain and simple. So, where is the prophet in this case? Why is this an issue? Not once in the issue of homosexuality has the prophet stood up and said: "God told me ___________________." Our prophet is no different than the pope, or any other religious leader. He is a man trying to make sense of this. I don't believe the prophet or any of the apostles have any sort of unique access to revelation.

For whatever reason, the heavens have closed up again. It's sad. Maybe Brigham wasn't supposed to be the next prophet. Maybe it was Rigdon and he did see an angel and we screwed ourselves. Maybe it was supposed to be Joseph Smith III. Maybe Joseph Smith Jr closed the heavens when he decided to start sleeping with other people's wives. Whatever the reason is, the heavens are closed again. Or they were never opened in the first place.

That is a tough realization to come to. I was hoping there was some scripture I'd missed. Some passage added to D&C that clarified things.

Nope. Just men trying to find answers. Maybe we ought to let the ladies start leading us. I'm not sure they could do any worse.
 
green said:
I see what you are saying.

Here is my disappointment at the end of the day:

Obviously the scriptures aren't clear enough on this issue for it to be so controversial. It's sad. I've read the New Testament once. I've read bits and pieces of the old testamtent, but, to be frank, it's garbage. Noah sleeping with his children, Lot offering his virgin daughters to angry mobs, and on and on and on. Those people were savages. No wonder Jesus came around. They were barely above animals. The Old Testament doesn't interest me much.

I've read the Pearl of Great Price at least three times. I've read the Doctrine and Covenants once.

I've read the Book of Mormon twelve times in my life, and finished it two months ago for the twelfth time.

I am struggling with this big time.

I say all of that to show that I'm not some idiot, uninformed person here. I've read the scriptures more than most people will ever read them. I read them almost every day of the week.

What disappoints me is that we supposedly have a prophet with a special ability to communicate with heaven. This should NOT be an issue. Our prophet should stand up and say:

"I've spoken with God and this is what he says"Plain and simple. So, where is the prophet in this case? Why is this an issue? Not once in the issue of homosexuality has the prophet stood up and said: "God told me ___________________." Our prophet is no different than the pope, or any other religious leader. He is a man trying to make sense of this. I don't believe the prophet or any of the apostles have any sort of unique access to revelation.

For whatever reason, the heavens have closed up again. It's sad. Maybe Brigham wasn't supposed to be the next prophet. Maybe it was Rigdon and he did see an angel and we screwed ourselves. Maybe it was supposed to be Joseph Smith III. Maybe Joseph Smith Jr closed the heavens when he decided to start sleeping with other people's wives. Whatever the reason is, the heavens are closed again. Or they were never opened in the first place.

That is a tough realization to come to. I was hoping there was some scripture I'd missed. Some passage added to D&C that clarified things.

Nope. Just men trying to find answers. Maybe we ought to let the ladies start leading us. I'm not sure they could do any worse.
Click to expand...

Well the Mormons are in a bind on this one. If a present-day "prophet" stood up and said anything different from Moses, the Jews/Israelites who hold Moses to be a prophet would just call him out on the lie. And the Catholics and bible-based Protestants could note the teachings of Paul and others just as well to call him out on the lie. The struggle with religions who want to base on the Bible or the Law is the assertion that God is sovereign, the Judge, and unchanging.

I sometimes note that the LDS are pretty much in the same boat with the UN/progressive idealists/world management folks. They believe one way or another that they have the authority to change things for the better as may for one reason or another seem needful, but unlike the secularists they must refer to root beliefs in the written tradition and address those issues somehow.

I can understand your position. But you are in one of the few Churches that will respond somehow, eventually, to changing information/available science/ and address the needs of the times.

I have myself realized that I don't know everything, and hold my own beliefs subject to re-evaluation in the light of better information. Until then, I am me.
 
green said:
I see what you are saying.

Here is my disappointment at the end of the day:

Obviously the scriptures aren't clear enough on this issue for it to be so controversial. It's sad. I've read the New Testament once. I've read bits and pieces of the old testamtent, but, to be frank, it's garbage. Noah sleeping with his children, Lot offering his virgin daughters to angry mobs, and on and on and on. Those people were savages. No wonder Jesus came around. They were barely above animals. The Old Testament doesn't interest me much.

I've read the Pearl of Great Price at least three times. I've read the Doctrine and Covenants once.

I've read the Book of Mormon twelve times in my life, and finished it two months ago for the twelfth time.

I am struggling with this big time.

I say all of that to show that I'm not some idiot, uninformed person here. I've read the scriptures more than most people will ever read them. I read them almost every day of the week.

What disappoints me is that we supposedly have a prophet with a special ability to communicate with heaven. This should NOT be an issue. Our prophet should stand up and say:

"I've spoken with God and this is what he says"

Plain and simple. So, where is the prophet in this case? Why is this an issue? Not once in the issue of homosexuality has the prophet stood up and said: "God told me ___________________." Our prophet is no different than the pope, or any other religious leader. He is a man trying to make sense of this. I don't believe the prophet or any of the apostles have any sort of unique access to revelation.

For whatever reason, the heavens have closed up again. It's sad. Maybe Brigham wasn't supposed to be the next prophet. Maybe it was Rigdon and he did see an angel and we screwed ourselves. Maybe it was supposed to be Joseph Smith III. Maybe Joseph Smith Jr closed the heavens when he decided to start sleeping with other people's wives. Whatever the reason is, the heavens are closed again. Or they were never opened in the first place.

That is a tough realization to come to. I was hoping there was some scripture I'd missed. Some passage added to D&C that clarified things.

Nope. Just men trying to find answers. Maybe we ought to let the ladies start leading us. I'm not sure they could do any worse.
Click to expand...

Green, you've expressed at least three different viewpoints in this thread:

1) you are dissatisfied that the church is treating homosexuality different than other sins
2) you are not convinced homosexual behavior is a sin
3) you are dissatisfied that church leaders don't get revelation more often

The answers to these issues are there for you if you choose to give them consideration.

The answer to #1 is undoubtedly due to the current political climate and the perceived need to combat the growing societal acceptance of homosexuality. Also, homosexuality is not alone in this--as others have pointed out, the new policy is very similar to how the church currently deals with polygamous marriages. And there are reasons for it that involve not setting children and parents at odds with each other, which you presumably should think is a noble goal.

The answer to #2 is that the church clearly teaches, and as far as I can tell, has always taught that homosexual behavior is indeed a sin. The church has been consistent on this since day 1. (I don't trust Michael Quinn on this topic.) If you believe otherwise, or feel we need a new revelation on that topic, that's your problem, not the church's. If you want a scriptural reference, 1 Cor 6:9 is pretty clear, as is 1 Timothy 1:10. (But I'm with you in largely not trusting the Old Testament.)

The answer to #3 is that the heavens are not closed to church leaders, but direct revelation may or may not come as you think it ought to. But I, for example, do think the Proclamation on the Family (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng) was issued by revelation, and while it doesn't specifically deal with homosexuality, it *does* specifically deal with marriage, and specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Question for the LDS folks:

I've grown up in Utah and have never been LDS. When I was young, I was invited to the LDS Church by my friends and neighbors. I went a few times and participated in church recitals and other activities, with my friends. The church part was not for me, but I know that is a way some kids are exposed to the LDS faith.

Would you encourage your kids to invite a kid with gay parents to church. Why or why not?
 
Colton, I went back and read through President Hinckley's address to the Relief Society when the Proclamation was addressed. Never once did he claim revelation.

A Proclamation is not a revelation. A revelation is a revelation. I've never heard any of the quorum call the proclamation revelation.

It's a pretty big difference.

A Proclamation is a group of guys meeting together and coming to a consensus.

A Revelation is God telling a group of men the truth.

Also, if the Proclamation is revelation why is it not canonized? It seems like it's a pretty important piece of information.

BTW, thanks for your responses. I appreciate them.

As far as #2 goes, I've never said it isn't a sin. I've called it a sin every step of the way. My problem is the Lord puts homosexuality/prostitution, fornication, and adultry on the same level but the church does not.

And #3, yeah, I'm dissatisfied with the revelations coming from on high. We've had no new scripture since the priesthood announcement. It's time for another section.

Why are we changing doctrine/policies without changing the D&C? Alcohol, law of chastity...major changes but nothing in D&C. So are the changes revelation or just policy from men? It's looks like policy to me.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Question for the LDS folks:

I've grown up in Utah and have never been LDS. When I was young, I was invited to the LDS Church by my friends and neighbors. I went a few times and participated in church recitals and other activities, with my friends. The church part was not for me, but I know that is a way some kids are exposed to the LDS faith.

Would you encourage your kids to invite a kid with gay parents to church. Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Before this, If my child expressed an interest in it I would encourage it simply becasue my child wanted to share that with their friends. Their friends parents being gay is whatever.

Now, no I would not as why would i expose that kid to rejection like that?
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Question for the LDS folks:

I've grown up in Utah and have never been LDS. When I was young, I was invited to the LDS Church by my friends and neighbors. I went a few times and participated in church recitals and other activities, with my friends. The church part was not for me, but I know that is a way some kids are exposed to the LDS faith.

Would you encourage your kids to invite a kid with gay parents to church. Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Before yesterday: yes.

Now: I'm not sure I would. Nothing good would come from it.
 
green said:
Colton, I went back and read through President Hinckley's address to the Relief Society when the Proclamation was addressed. Never once did he claim revelation.

A Proclamation is not a revelation. A revelation is a revelation. I've never heard any of the quorum call the proclamation revelation.

It's a pretty big difference.

A Proclamation is a group of guys meeting together and coming to a consensus.

A Revelation is God telling a group of men the truth.

Also, if the Proclamation is revelation why is it not canonized? It seems like it's a pretty important piece of information.

BTW, thanks for your responses. I appreciate them.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Just one more thought on the Proclamation, which is to read the comments made about it from church leaders, posted here: https://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism..._Proclamation_on_the_Family/Official_doctrine

And then read this part:

Scripture?

The Proclamation is not canonized scripture—that status applies only to The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.

The Doctrine and Covenants states:

Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same (D&C 1:37-38).

President Henry B. Eyring applied this verse to the Proclamation:

The title of the proclamation on the family reads: “The Family: A Proclamation to the World—The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Three things about the title are worth our careful reflection. First, the subject: the family. Second, the audience, which is the whole world. And third, those proclaiming it are those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. All this means that the family must be of tremendous importance to us, that whatever the proclamation says could help anyone in the world, and that the proclamation fits the Lord’s promise when he said, “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).[9]

While not canonized scripture, then, the Proclamation may well meet the criteria for the broader use of the term scripture in LDS thought: (bold added)

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation (D&C 68:4).
Click to expand...

I agree with the bolded part. But your mileage may vary.
 
green said:
I see what you are saying.

Here is my disappointment at the end of the day:

Obviously the scriptures aren't clear enough on this issue for it to be so controversial. It's sad. I've read the New Testament once. I've read bits and pieces of the old testamtent, but, to be frank, it's garbage. Noah sleeping with his children, Lot offering his virgin daughters to angry mobs, and on and on and on. Those people were savages. No wonder Jesus came around. They were barely above animals. The Old Testament doesn't interest me much.

I've read the Pearl of Great Price at least three times. I've read the Doctrine and Covenants once.

I've read the Book of Mormon twelve times in my life, and finished it two months ago for the twelfth time.

I am struggling with this big time.

I say all of that to show that I'm not some idiot, uninformed person here. I've read the scriptures more than most people will ever read them. I read them almost every day of the week.

What disappoints me is that we supposedly have a prophet with a special ability to communicate with heaven. This should NOT be an issue. Our prophet should stand up and say:

"I've spoken with God and this is what he says"

Plain and simple. So, where is the prophet in this case? Why is this an issue? Not once in the issue of homosexuality has the prophet stood up and said: "God told me ___________________." Our prophet is no different than the pope, or any other religious leader. He is a man trying to make sense of this. I don't believe the prophet or any of the apostles have any sort of unique access to revelation.

For whatever reason, the heavens have closed up again. It's sad. Maybe Brigham wasn't supposed to be the next prophet. Maybe it was Rigdon and he did see an angel and we screwed ourselves. Maybe it was supposed to be Joseph Smith III. Maybe Joseph Smith Jr closed the heavens when he decided to start sleeping with other people's wives. Whatever the reason is, the heavens are closed again. Or they were never opened in the first place.

That is a tough realization to come to. I was hoping there was some scripture I'd missed. Some passage added to D&C that clarified things.

Nope. Just men trying to find answers. Maybe we ought to let the ladies start leading us. I'm not sure they could do any worse.
Click to expand...

This is because president Monson wrote all his talks four years ago when dementia was just beginning to take its hold on his mind. He hoped to make it through all of them before he died. It was in the Des news. He has not really been leading the church for a while.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Question for the LDS folks:

I've grown up in Utah and have never been LDS. When I was young, I was invited to the LDS Church by my friends and neighbors. I went a few times and participated in church recitals and other activities, with my friends. The church part was not for me, but I know that is a way some kids are exposed to the LDS faith.

Would you encourage your kids to invite a kid with gay parents to church. Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Personally, I would never discourage my kids from sharing what they believe/is an important part of their lives with anybody. Like I shared before, I've got to come to grips with this new policy myself. As a human, I don't like it. But I don't believe I have to like it to accept it. If I can, after much study and prayer come to a peaceful understanding/acceptance of it, I can move on. If I can't, I get to make a major and difficult life changing decision. IF I feel that God is okay with it (whether it's a "revelation" or not), and my kids are old enough to invite friends (two of mine are currently old enough), I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I saw dais friends taking significant interest in the church, at that point in time I would have a conversation with my kid and the friend.
Did that make sense?
 
colton said:
I don't buy it. My dad was a mission president in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Myamar from 2000-2003 and the church was very careful to follow the local laws about proselyting during that time. What's your source for this claim?
Click to expand...
**** you then. I served part of my mission there. Singapore gave the church only a handful of work visas, almost all of which were given to Pakistani elders to see how the church was supposed to be run/function before they were sent back to Pakistan. All other missionaries in Singapore (the vast majority) were there on visitor visas, and had to leave the country every one or three months (Americans got three months, people from other Western countries got one month), and return in casual attire to get their passports stamped again. If/when missionaries were not allowed entry, they continued/finished their missions in Malaysia. I actually think the situation in Malaysia was iffy as well. Foreign missionaries were also expelled from Indonesia sometime in the early 90s when they tried to return illegally (I was part of the first returning legal wave of LDS missionaries in Indonesia in 2001 after they were officially barred around 1980).

Edit: Colton, there's a BYU geography professor, Chad Emmett, who served his mission in Indonesia in the 1970s. He may or may not have published a book he's been working/worked on for quite a while about church history in Indonesia if you're curious (it may or may not touch on missionaries who were sent there post-1980, when Indonesia was still part of the Singapore mission). Dude was one of my teachers in the MTC...there weren't any more recent non-Indonesian RMs to fill the position.
 
Last edited:
GVC said:
**** you then. I served part of my mission there. Singapore gave the church only a handful of work visas, almost all of which were given to Pakistani elders to see how the church was supposed to be run/function before they were sent back to Pakistan. All other missionaries in Singapore (the vast majority) were there on visitor visas, and had to leave the country every one or three months (Americans got three months, people from other Western countries got one month), and return in casual attire to get their passports stamped again. If/when missionaries were not allowed entry, they continued/finished their missions in Malaysia. I actually think the situation in Malaysia was iffy as well. Foreign missionaries were also expelled from Indonesia sometime in the early 90s when they tried to return illegally (I was part of the first returning legal wave of LDS missionaries Indonesia in 2000 since they were officially barred from Indonesia around 1980).
Click to expand...

This clearly required swearing. Your relaying your experiences while on your mission there would have been plenty.
 
Stoked said:
This clearly required swearing. Your relaying your experiences while on your mission there would have been plenty.
Click to expand...
Colton could have just asked what my source was without the "don't buy it" comment. Respect is a two way street. You can go **** yourself too.
 
Siro said:
This is riveting stuff about what Jesus would and wouldn't think of random issues. I will keep a very close eye on this thread, I assure you.
Click to expand...

Aside from the hubris of one thinking they know what Jesus (God) would do in an particular situation, there is also the question of which Jesus are we talking about. The kindler, gentler Jesus of the New Testament, or the Jehova of the Old Testament (Mormon doctrine holds that Jesus was Jehova in the old testament)who was a megalomanaical murderer?

As for the OP, this stikes me as a counter productive measure. While it may serve to bolster the Mormon rank and file inclined toward homophobia (the majority), it will, at the margin, push yet more Members out of the church, particularly, I imagine, millenials.

It also strkes me as excessively putative and mean spiritied.

So much for "We believe that man will be punished for his own sins . . . "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top