I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[green]

And that's why the church discourages illegal immigration. See this statement, for example: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

"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."

But the church also discourages breaking the law by, for example, speeding? Should those with speeding tickets be prohibited from being baptized, or serving as bishops, etc.? Clearly the church thinks illegal immigration is much closer to that type of law-breaking than it is to a felony. Now you (or green) may disagree with that position, but I myself think it's reasonable.

So, it's ok to call people to bishops/stake presidents/mission presidencies who are actively breaking the law?

Even though the articles of faith says it is wrong to do so?

Was it ok for Joseph Smith to smash the printing press and limit freedom of speech? Should he not been arrested for that?

Why do we get to pick and choose? That is my whole issue here. Why do we punish homosexuals but not fornicators or adulterers. Why can we be obese but not drink wine? Why can Apostles and Seventies get paid but not bishops or primary workers? Why is there so much picking and choosing of which rules we follow? And why is it that the closer you get to the Prophet in your calling, the more okay it is to not follow the rules?

 

[colton]

Finally, what is your point in quotating "goodest" and using a childlike phrase?

Because I originally wrote "best", but then realize that didn't capture what I was trying to convey, which was "most good".

 

[colton]

One would think that if God cared enough to reveal the BoM so that His true and proper church could exist, that He would care enough with how His true and proper church is ran today. It's not like giving revelation is difficult to God, one could say He's certainly more than capable. It just doesn't make sense to me.

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.

 

[colton]

Here is another example of things changing throughout time in the Church with no revelation:

The Law of Chastity used to be "sexual intercourse" before marriage. Now, it is "any sexual relations with yourself or others". So, basically it was ok for my parents to neck, pet, fool around in a car as long as they didn't go all the way. Now, petting will get you in big trouble.

What changed? Do kids these days pet with evil thoughts while in the good old days petting was done while quoting scripture? If revelation is happening, shouldn't this have been figured out from the beginning, especially since fornication is just as bad as raping a person, murder, and all the other things the church lists in their handbook next to homosexuality. Why the sudden change? Did God forget about the sin that is second to only murder?

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

 

[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.