Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am certain there are rational Mormons who are just shaking their head at the pronunciation that the LDS church's ban against LGBT issues invokes divine revelation.
I am certain there are rational Mormons who are just shaking their head at the pronunciation that the LDS church's ban against LGBT issues invokes divine revelation.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Yes, there certainly are.
I was actually thinking of you as one of those examples, but didn't think was appropriate to put it in the title.
In all seriousness, how do you deal with the conundrum of of social issues that run contrary to the church's leadership pronouncements, especially when the Invoke and pull the Prophet card?
I was actually thinking of you as one of those examples, but didn't think was appropriate to put it in the title.
In all seriousness, how do you deal with the conundrum of of social issues that run contrary to the church's leadership pronouncements, especially when the Invoke and pull the Prophet card?
It's extremely difficult for me. I want to answer you, but it's going to take some time for me to know how to go about it.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
It's extremely difficult for me. I want to answer you, but it's going to take some time for me to know how to go about it.
Thanks, Katzpur. A cogent and thought out answer is better than of the cuff, especially when it deals with an issue that is a fundamental part of who one is.
I am certain there are rational Mormons who are just shaking their head at the pronunciation that the LDS church's ban against LGBT issues invokes divine revelation.
Before I answer that, I feel like there are a couple of things I need to say: First, I have always been committed to accurately represent LDS doctrine. My posts are not intended to convince anybody that Mormonism is "true" or to find potential converts. They are intended to provide those who are reading them with factual information about what we Mormons believe and why we believe as we do. That said, I describe myself as "not your average Mormon." On another forum I post on that allows "signatures," my sig is: "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." (It's a quote by Rudyard Kipling.) Anyone who reads that signature can see how difficult it is for me -- but how important -- not to be "your average Mormon." So, before I tell you what I think of my Church's stance on homosexuality is, I probably ought to clarify exactly what my Church's stance on homosexuality is. So please bear with me as I do that.
The leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has, for years and years, stressed the importance of chastity. Mormon teens are taught that they should refrain from becoming intimately involved with someone before marriage. Of course, when I was growing up (I was in my teens in the 1960s), this was understood strictly in the context of hetersexuality, because -- as we all know -- there was no such thing as homosexuals back then. Obviously, I say this in jest, but when you stop to think of how many LGBT people ever felt they could come out of the closet 25 years ago, you will probably agree that the whole issue of "gay sex" is something that simply wasn't spoken of back then. It hasn't been until the last 10 or 15 years that the Church has really even addressed the issue in much depth. We Mormons have always been taught that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Men and women were supposed to be intimate only with their husband or wife, the person to whom they were legally and lawfully married. Well, last year, with the Supreme Court ruling that people may legally and lawfully marry someone of their same gender, the LDS Church found itself faced with a dilemma. Suppose two Mormon men were legally and lawfully married? Would that give them the right to be sexually intimate with one another and still be members of the Church in good standing? While the Church has accepted that same-sex marriage is now legal, it still does not believe that it's moral. I don't see this changing any time soon, if ever.
As of right now, the Church's stance is that a gay or lesbian person may be a member of the Church "in good standing" and may, in fact, be considered worthy to attend the temple (which is a pretty big deal in Mormonism), he or she may do so only by remaining celibate. Celibacy is, of course, continues to be expected of unmarried heterosexual individuals. For quite a few years, I saw this an being an entirely reasonable position. I can remember discussing this subject several years ago with a member of another forum (i.e. not City-Data). . She is a lesbian, and she pointed something out to me that I'd never stopped to consider before. She reminded me that while the Church expected celibacy of all its unmarried members, at least heterosexual people have the hope of eventually finding someone to share their life with, within the bonds of marriage. For LGBT people, that was a virtual impossibility. This conversation took place, of course, years ago, long before the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Recently, the Church came out with a new policy, stating that same-sex couples would be excommunicated from the Church. (Obviously, the rationale behind this decision was that sexual intimacy would be involved.) I wasn't pleased with this decision, and I know of a great many other Mormons who feel as I do (although we're probably still in the minority). Since I have always been strongly in favor of the separation of church and state, though, I told myself that the decision to excommunicate same-sex couples was a right that my Church should have. I didn't necessarily agree with it, but I figured that there probably weren't all that many same-sex couple who wanted to be members of the Church in the first place. The decision to forbid their children to become members (at least until they reach the age of 18) has been much more difficult for me to accept. I cannot, in my heart of hearts, believe that God told the LDS Church leadership to discriminate against innocent children in this way. I am trying not to judge my Church's leadership for its decision, but it's something I'm struggling with.
With respect to the recent policy change being given "by revelation," what I personally believe to have taken place was that the "First Presidency" and the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" probably did pray about what they should do. And they probably felt that God was okay with their decision. That's something they'll have to live with. I believe that this can at least partially be attributed to the fact that most of them are in their upper-70s, 80s and 90s. They grew up in a different world than we did.
Do I personally feel that homosexual intimacy is "sinful." I'm not really sure. Maybe. Probably. But I could very well be wrong. I believe there is so much we don't know about human sexuality that it's just not my place to say. If it is (sinful), I believe it is a matter to be resolved by the individuals involved and God. I do not believe we human beings have the right to punish people (or discriminate against them) for decisions involving their moral choices. Why I should be in any way concerned with what anybody else does in the privacy of his or her own bedroom is beyond me. If God doesn't like what same-sex couples are doing, He is fully capable of handling it without our assistance.
Right now, I'd say I have more of a heartache than a headache.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
No not too long, needed to think about how to ask you the question.
I suspect you view that the President is a prophet. Assuming that is correct, do you view it in the literal sense as it used to be defined in the Bible, where there are direct revelations from God, or do you see it in a more metaphorical sense?
I can see huge issues of conflict if you see it in the literal sense. If you see it from metaphorical point of view, if that is even allowed in the LDS Church, then I can see the wiggle room where anyone could stay faithful within the church yet still differ from the utterances that were outlined in the article I posted.
I personally think that the church will need to adapt to a more metaphorical teaching as people become more and more aware of secular realities. One of the things that I see with the Mormons that I know, that they probably have the strongest family values and actually practice what they preach, of most other mainstream religions.
The only ones I know who are similar are the Hutterites, who I suspect you may not be familiar with, but whose colonies exist in large numbers in the area that I live in.
Do I personally feel that homosexual intimacy is "sinful." I'm not really sure. Maybe. Probably. But I could very well be wrong. I believe there is so much we don't know about human sexuality that it's just not my place to say. If it is (sinful), I believe it is a matter to be resolved by the individuals involved and God. I do not believe we human beings have the right to punish people (or discriminate against them) for decisions involving their moral choices. Why I should be in any way concerned with what anybody else does in the privacy of his or her own bedroom is beyond me. If God doesn't like what same-sex couples are doing, He is fully capable of handling it without our assistance.
I like your final paragraph. Jim and I will present ourselves to God(if there is one) and take it as it comes. We were together 38 years before we got married in 2014 and they are/were good years, ups and downs but we made it.
The last two years have been a spiritual reawakening as we are sort of becoming 1 person. Can't really explain it but I know it is good.
We would rather spend eternity together and not be in heaven, than to be heaven without each other. That would be our hell.
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-13-2016 at 09:27 AM..
Reason: Red is reserved for Moderator actions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously, I say this in jest, but when you stop to think of how many LGBT people ever felt they could come out of the closet 25 years ago, you will probably agree that the whole issue of "gay sex" is something that simply wasn't spoken of back then. It hasn't been until the last 10 or 15 years that the Church has really even addressed the issue in much depth. We Mormons have always been taught that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Men and women were supposed to be intimate only with their husband or wife, the person to whom they were legally and lawfully married. Well, last year, with the Supreme Court ruling that people may legally and lawfully marry someone of their same gender, the LDS Church found itself faced with a dilemma. Suppose two Mormon men were legally and lawfully married? Would that give them the right to be sexually intimate with one another and still be members of the Church in good standing? While the Church has accepted that same-sex marriage is now legal, it still does not believe that it's moral. I don't see this changing any time soon, if ever.
