How will gay, monogomous couples be judged?
Let’s say Bob and Luke are gay. Let’s say they have been married to each other for 50 years without any infidelity.
What do you think will happen, if anything, at Judgement Day?
Popularity: 5% [?]
Our Thoughts
Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. 18699 comments on 1650 posts.
Pages
Feeds
-
Sideblog
Mariners schedule LDS Night; Institute to throw out first pitch
#Mormon among those killed at Mexican consulate shooting
#A Mormon Response to Glenn Beck’s Attack on Social Justice
#Dismissing Book of Mormon geography inaccuracies
#Marie Osmonds son Michael Blosil commits suicide in L.A.
#Ogden Temple to Get Architectural Facelift
#10 New Missions to be Created, 14 to be Discontinued
#Being a 30-something Single in the Church: Part V, the Law of Chastity.
#Countering subversive attacks on Mormon scholarship.
#- #
-
Recent comments
- Sally: Paranormal Activity
- Maya: America the Beautiful
- Isobel Shaw: Paranormal Activity
- Defiant Teenager: My 37th Birthday
- Kim Siever: My 37th Birthday
- REIG: My 37th Birthday
- Melanie Long: Homeschooling Choice
- Joseph Gulbransen: Public Showers
- Richard: Why Are Mormon Church
- David Bottger: Breast Implants, Tanning and
- Anonymous: Why Are Mormon Church
- jim: Why Are Mormon Church
- Dawn: Why Are Mormon Church
- jksdfs@yahoo.com: Why Are Mormon Church
- Syphax: Why Are Mormon Church
- Elizabeth Taylor: Canadians win two silvers
- Hollie Powell: Canadians win two silvers
- RWG: How would you increase
- Anonymous: A Modest Proposal: Making
- Kim Siever: How would you increase
-
This month's top commenters
- Kim Siever (16)
- Dawn (5)
- Chris H. (5)
- Sally (4)
- Anonymous (3)
- TStevens (3)
- jjackson (3)
- ltbugaf (2)
- rick (2)
- Conifer (2)
-
Search archives
-
10 most popular posts
- Woman puts sex offender sign on wrong house
- Another free will post
- < insert snappy title here >
- Public Showers
- Apocrypha
- General Conference Open Thread - April 2007
- Kirby Heyborne Beer Commercial
- DNA, Lamanites and Book of Mormon
- Stanley Park is Not Largest Urban Park in North America
- What do you get for tithing?
-
Archives
Canadian LDS Bloggers
Favourite LDS Blogs
Reciprocal
-
Meta
I think nothing. However, if they choose to progress, they will need to couple with the opposite gender to creat a divine coupling per the proclamation on the family. This may be too hard to bear, and thye may be terrestrial bound.
14 May 2008 @ 21:10 | Permalink
I think every one who failed to love and respect Bob and Luke will receive condemnation at Judgement Day.
14 May 2008 @ 23:57 | Permalink
Of course they’ll be judged. Everyone gets judged. That’s why it’s called judgement day.
15 May 2008 @ 04:52 | Permalink
What about the question in the post, JM?
15 May 2008 @ 04:56 | Permalink
I think on judgement day, they will be judged. Other than that, there’s not enough information to speculate on anything else.
15 May 2008 @ 06:58 | Permalink
Actually, Bob and Luke, upon passing into the great beyond, will be surprised to find that they were generals in the War in Heaven. When they are in the spirit world, they will be enthralled by those they are associated with. They will ask someone in which time period they lived and they might hear, “I was with Moses when he parted the Red Sea,” or “I helped build the pyramids’” or “I fought with Captain Moroni.” And as Bob and Luke are standing there in amazement, someone will turn to them and ask them what time did you live in? And when they answer that they lived in a time when marriage equality was ushered in, a hush will fall over every hall and corridor in Heaven, and all in attendance will bow at their presence. They will learn that were held back six thousand years because they were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous.
;-)
15 May 2008 @ 07:19 | Permalink
Nick,
You should write up a talk regarding that, give it at EFY, then sell it on CD.
15 May 2008 @ 08:01 | Permalink
I’m delighted to say that Bob and Luke can now travel to California, where their civil right to marry the person of their choice is honored and fulfilled!
15 May 2008 @ 10:49 | Permalink
Pshaw. That’s so old news. Canada’s been doing that for years.
15 May 2008 @ 11:57 | Permalink
Agree with JM that there’s not enough information.
Obviously our judgments will be highly individualized. But it’s hard for me to buy into the “it’ll all be OK because God understands that gay people need companionship, too” mantra when plenty of single persons–both in and out of the Church–manage to go through a lifetime without ever having a sexual relationship with another person.
15 May 2008 @ 15:24 | Permalink
15 May 2008 @ 22:31 | Permalink
My comment was cut off, so the rest of the quote is:
For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics,nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.
15 May 2008 @ 22:38 | Permalink
That wasn’t said by a prophet. Why would anyone care about what those guys said?
The church has no official policy as far as I’ve heard over the pulpit at a general conference.
15 May 2008 @ 23:50 | Permalink
Um – Elder Oaks is a prophet. Whether or not he was speaking as a prophet in that case is between each of us and the Spirit to decide.
I’m just sayin’. . . .
16 May 2008 @ 04:12 | Permalink
16 May 2008 @ 07:51 | Permalink
What Dan said (and yes, Elder Oaks, like all of the apostles, is a prophet, though he might not always speak so every time he opens his mouth, it seems to me he is in this regard).
16 May 2008 @ 09:29 | Permalink
So if he were speaking as a prophet we can take this as the immutable Word Of God and changes will not be forthcoming, right?
Let’s see how this holds in 10 years.
I’m going to bet that the ‘doctrine’ on same-sex relationships changes considerably; something akin to the spin job done on the whole Lamanites thing.
18 May 2008 @ 17:36 | Permalink
That doctrine on same sex relationships has been quite consistent since it was recorded by Moses, in Leviticus, about 3000 years ago. Why, after all this time, will it suddenly change within the next 10 years? And when it doesn’t change by then, then what? How about in 20 years, 50 years, or the end of the Millennium? People have been clamoring for its change since Moses’ time, but the Lord has not changed it. Many have refused to obey that law, but that doesn’t invalidate it. Many have also said it doesn’t apply to themselves, for whatever reasons they have wanted to use to justify their behavior, but that was not done with the authorization and approval of God. Are they backing themselves into a corner when it comes time for God’s Judgment Day? If Elder Oaks was speaking as a prophet, and you’re fighting it and/or making fun of it, what does that mean in the Eternal scheme of things? If God is dead it really won’t make any difference to anyone.
18 May 2008 @ 19:53 | Permalink
So Dan, I assume that you put any homosexual people you find out about to death as per Leviticus 20:13?
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
I mean if you’re putting all your chips on Leviticus being the best way to lead one’s life.
I’m also going to assume that you don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19), or cursed your mother or father (Leviticus 20:9).
18 May 2008 @ 21:41 | Permalink
And? In your accusation you left out killing, bearing false witness, and committing adultery, along with the rest of the laws–when are all of them going to be watered down? (Oops, they already have been, but not by the One who gave them!) Had I said that it had been a sin since the time of Adam, what would you have quoted? Who were the first homosexuals and what happened to them? Has anyone ever wondered why God didn’t create Adam and Joe to begin with? That would’ve solved the problem before it got any further. Maybe God did that on his first world and then came up with a better plan that would work. (Had God done that would he have ceased to be God? When you reach that status, why don’t you try that and see what happens, and then come down to Purgatory and tell me all about it?)
19 May 2008 @ 08:37 | Permalink
“… plenty of single persons–both in and out of the Church–manage to go through a lifetime without ever having a sexual relationship with another person.”
Yes, and some of them are gay too.
19 May 2008 @ 08:40 | Permalink
“… you left out killing, bearing false witness, and committing adultery, along with the rest of the laws–when are all of them going to be watered down? (Oops, they already have been, but not by the One who gave them!)”
By the time of the founding of Islam, Muhammad claimed superiority over the Jews because the Jews were not willing to live their own laws and put adulterers to death as outlined in Leviticus. Perhaps we should convert to Islam. They at least still execute their homosexuals.
19 May 2008 @ 08:52 | Permalink
“Has anyone ever wondered why God didn’t create Adam and Joe to begin with?”
I’d posit that He didn’t make anyone, but your mileage may vary.
Here’s an even better question. Why would a caring omnipotent creator bother to put these thoughts into His children at all? Or for that matter, why allow the Adversary to mess with His chosen at all?
If God so allows, that’s pretty messed up.
Even more screwed up is the church that continue to give mixed messages about same sex relationships. Is is ok to feel you are a homosexual? Oh, it’s ok as long as you don’t act on your feelings. Oh, I mean there are no homosexuals, only sinners.
How about if Salt Lake makes a single pronouncement that ends the discussion once and for all? Something simple like: Homosexuals are sinners. Or homosexuals are ok, but just need our help. Or there is no such thing as a homosexual only people who are mistaken.
Preferably by the sitting prophet, over the pulpit during General Conference… with his ‘I’m-now-speaking-as-a-prophet’ hat on.
19 May 2008 @ 17:06 | Permalink
Speaking of Judgement Day, imagine living in Gambia</a. Gambian President Yahya Jammeh want’s to make Gambia one of the best countries to live in.
How? By cutting off the heads of all homosexuals.
Gambia is a country of believers, after all.
19 May 2008 @ 17:24 | Permalink
“I’d posit that He didn’t make anyone…” If that’s the case, then nothing we do makes any difference, because there is no Eternity to worry about–the promise of Eternity is the only worthwhile reason to worry about whether to do right or wrong; other than that, nothing really matters, except getting caught: Might makes right; get it while you can; he who has the most toys is the winner; and, that’s it, because nothing else counts for anything.
“If God so allows, that’s pretty messed up.” It all depends on what matters, and what’s real. If there is no God, it makes no difference what we do, for tomorrow we die and that’s the end of it. And, therefore, we can’t complain about what anyone else does or thinks, whether we like it, or not; whether we agree with them, or not; whether we are doing, or thinking, the same things as they are, or not; and who cares? If God has a plan for us, then what we do makes a difference, and it’s up to us to obey his laws, or suffer the consequences–whether we like it, or not, doesn’t matter, as we’re then beating our heads against the wall and making no worthwhile progress. It’s called grow up, face the music and quit whining.
“Here’s an even better question…why allow the Adversary to mess with His chosen at all?” How is showing (or pretending) total ignorance of the subject you’re commenting on, when there is so much available that answers it, “an even better question”? You claim to know what goes on in Conference, yet you’ve missed all that’s been given on this subject? If you don’t know the answer to this, then try reading the scriptures and paying attention to Conference addresses by everyone, as it’s been covered many times in the past and will be covered many times in the future.
“Even more screwed up is the church that continue (sic) to give mixed messages…” What are the mixed messages? Give quotes in the context in which they were given, showing the mixed messages–not just your distorted slant on it. I sat in the Tabernacle for more than 120 General Conference sessions, and even read along on the teleprompter when a lot of the talks were given, and never saw, or heard, any mixed messages given on this subject. So, show me what I missed.
Nothing that the “sitting prophet…with his ‘I’m-now-speaking-as-a-prophet’ hat on” could say now would make any difference, as it hasn’t done so when it’s been spelled out before. How many times do they (President Monson and his predecessors back through at least Moses) have to repeat the message before it’s clear? You were able to find the references in Leviticus, certainly this search couldn’t be any harder at lds.org.
19 May 2008 @ 20:14 | Permalink
If that’s the case, then nothing we do makes any difference, because there is no Eternity to worry about–the promise of Eternity is the only worthwhile reason to worry about whether to do right or wrong;
If you truly believe that, then I feel sorry for you. Your faith has evidently failed to make you a good person, but instead has simply scared you away from making bigger mistakes. I always thought the aim of real spirituality was to transform a person and make them like deity, not just scare them.
19 May 2008 @ 20:21 | Permalink
I have to agree with Nick. I think there is value in doing right over wrong even if there were no afterlife. I certainly don;t think our actions should be motivated by a promise of reward. We should do right because it’s the right thing to do.
19 May 2008 @ 20:23 | Permalink
“I always thought the aim of real spirituality was to transform a person
and make them like deity, not just scare them.” Isn’t that the point of living the commandments–to become like God? How is it possible to do that without living the commandments and making the correct choices between right and wrong? Does “worry” only mean to be scared? In WordPerfect 12′s dictionary, definition #6 “(worry out) discover or devise (a solution) by persistent thought.” I used it in the sense of caring enough to work at making the right choices–since I am not God I don’t always make the right choices and follow through on them, so that it is worrisome (causing anxiety or concern) to me. You hadn’t been in the “conversation” before, so I hadn’t considered how you’d understand my meaning–my words may have been different then. You said it better than I did, and it was something like what I meant to be understood. Without writing a book (and taking months to think through something), it’s extremely hard to make all points as clear as they are in one’s mind. Your point is agreed with up to the last phrase. Both of you missed part of what I’d meant, by focusing only on that one sentence–which obviously is mostly my fault for not thinking through all of the alternate meanings that are possible for others to understand. Naively I thought others would understand what I was thinking because I put it into those words. One of the neat things about the Hereafter is that we can communicate by thought, so that we can understand exactly what someone else means. So, because of my ignorance, and weakness in writing, and not knowing that you were lurking in the shadows, how about cutting me some slack? I’ve generally enjoyed reading your posts wherever I’ve found then, and when I see your name I make sure to read what you’ve said.
Kim, I’m not sure if I follow you. God promised that if we’d keep the commandments, etc., that we can become like God–isn’t that the stated reward we’re to work for as the last part of the Atonement, the rest of which we are not worthy of receiving? He always pointed to a goal (i.e., reward) which is to become like God is and to share in all that God has. How long can a person keep up the charade of doing good for the reward only, and not being transformed in the process, if the person is sincere? Otherwise, whatever effort is made is going to fizzle out sooner or later, which may explain what happens way too often. I don’t have a trumpet blown on the rare occasions when I do something good, and no trumpeter would be worn out if I did. So, when you compare the good you’ve done with the good I haven’t done, thank the Lord that you aren’t me.
19 May 2008 @ 22:55 | Permalink
I’m not saying the Lord didn’t promise a reward, just that our actions shouldn’t be motivated by reward. If we are motivated by reward, we are being selfish.
20 May 2008 @ 04:28 | Permalink
I’d never thought before that it was selfish to want to live the commandments so that I could dwell in the presence of God, and be with my family and loved ones eternally. If that’s so, then being selfish is not always negative, as it’s negative only when you are depriving others by what you’re doing. I’ve done temple work for many people, so I can be with them in the Hereafter, which I suppose can be termed as being selfish, since I don’t want to be by myself, even though there is always the possibility that I won’t be there with them. If I’m selfish, so be it, and the Lord will judge me and give me what I deserve, without needing anyone’s help to cast me out. Using this line of reasoning, the biggest form of selfishness then must be accepting the Atonement so my individual salvation can be obtained (how selfish is that since it benefits no one else?), after which keeping the commandments then can make a difference in what then happens to me. If I don’t do something for myself, consciously or unconsciously (whether that’s why I do it or not, and whatever else you may want to call it so as not to feel selfish about doing it), exaltation is impossible. I think the reason so many Christians do so little is that there is no worthwhile reward for doing so–who wants to sit on a cloud and play a harp forever? He promised a reward so we’d know it was worth to do what we’re supposed to do–however you look at it.
20 May 2008 @ 08:23 | Permalink
I’d never thought before that it was selfish to want to live the commandments so that I could dwell in the presence of God, and be with my family and loved ones eternally.
We don’t disagree on this, Dan. My comments were only aimed at the idea that “the promise of Eternity is the only worthwhile reason to worry about whether to do right or wrong (emphasis added).” You’ve explained that you didn’t mean this in the way it came across, and I appreciate your clarifcation.
20 May 2008 @ 08:29 | Permalink
“other than that, nothing really matters, except getting caught”
Wrong. It matters intensely to the gay and lesbian members in our societies because they are in the minority in many states (and provinces) who would rather not extend them the same rights as others simply because of a few pieces literature.
“Might makes right; get it while you can; he who has the most toys is the winner; and, that’s it, because nothing else counts for anything”
I’m not going to let you squirm out from your arguments quite as much as Kim and Nick. You are arguing that without religion, that there are no morals. If that is truly how you live your life, then it’s quite sad indeed. The avoidance of punishment and hope for reward in the hereafter is the lowest for of morality. If you don’t feel like you could do the right thing without those two laws being present, then you are not a moral person – you’re just being obedient to the basest of human foibles: greed and fear.
Toward your points in regard to the messages not being mixed; Could you provide me with a single unambiguous quote by a sitting prophet that was given during General conference in regard to same-sex attraction? If the number of occurrences are so plentiful, there should be no problem.
“I think the reason so many Christians do so little is that there is no worthwhile reward for doing so–who wants to sit on a cloud and play a harp forever?”
…and with that one sentence you can undo all of the fence mending that’s bee accomplished recently between mainstream Christianity and the LDS in one fell swoop.
20 May 2008 @ 08:50 | Permalink
I know I’m new to the discussion, but I’d like to add a bit.
I don’t know what would happen on judgment day–and I don’t think it’s anybody’s business! God hands down his law, God enforces his law. It’s not our job to hand down or enforce his law. It’s our job to love our neighbors with their faults and foibles and do our best to obey. It isn’t our job to judge them. God knows them much better than we do, so he can do a much better job than we ever can.
20 May 2008 @ 09:42 | Permalink
“It isn’t our job to judge them.”
“It’s not our job to hand down or enforce his law.”
So how does supporting laws that give them equal rights (or takes away those rights) fit into judging or not judging?
20 May 2008 @ 10:54 | Permalink
I guess my answer was eaten. I don’t know what your question has to do with the question originally asked, but here’s my answer:
I believe all human beings are equal and thus should be afforded equal protection under the law. Allowing same-sex marriage does nothing to harm the LDS view of marriage, which has always been between a man and a woman. It does, however, allow the enormous legal benefits available to straight married couples. So I believe the church can do whatever God directs it to do, but gay marriage should be legal in the US. I don’t think there should be job or pay discrimination against gays. Since when does being gay affect a person’s ability to complete his/her work successfully? I believe that gay people should be able to join the military without having to keep their identity a secret from their peers.
Political views are different from religious views. I take seriously God’s command to love my neighbor and to judge not lest I be judged. I think taking political action to infringe upon the rights of my neighbor certainly would show a person to be judging his/her neighbor.
20 May 2008 @ 22:41 | Permalink
Here are quotes from 5 of the last prophets, given in General Conference when each was prophet, and speaking as the current Prophet, which tell us that not only their words, but also the words of all of the Apostles and other General Authorities, are what the Lord wants us to receive. So your demand for only words by the then current Prophet, as being the only words that can be valid is false. If you won’t believe the words of the General Authorities, which then current Prophets, speaking as the Prophet, have said are valid for church doctrine, why am I to believe that you’d believe any other words by then current Prophets, speaking as the Prophet, on anything else? How many more references do you need that we are to listen to all of them? Tell me which of these statements are wrong and why:
20 May 2008 @ 23:00 | Permalink
So as a single person, can I totally disregard numerous Prophets words that I should not have sex before marriage? Should we just go ahead and do what we want and still be able to call ourselves LDS and be fully members of His Kingdom? The Brethren – including the Prophet – have been very, very clear about all sexual sin (premarital, gay, extramarital). Having the feelings of sexual need is not the sin (we all have those). Acting on those feelings is where the sin comes in. I would love nothing better than to be married, and (when I was younger) to have had children. I have just as many – ahem – feelings as the next person. However, that has not been my path and while it is difficult sometimes, this is the path I choose to follow because God – through the Prophets and Apostles – have told me (very clearly) that I should not have pre-marital sex. And if I have pre-marital sex, or live with someone outside of marriage, I know the consequences and I can’t whine about them if I choose to do what I want. Why should gay LDS people who choose to live with a partner or have sex be treated differently? The law regarding sex has been made clear for all members, both heterosexual and homosexual.
21 May 2008 @ 11:05 | Permalink
Dear Single Sister, Let’s not pretend to ignore the obvious. Gay people were written out of the Plan of Happiness. Exaltation, in LDS doctrine, requires heterosexuality, something gays were not blessed with. You are arguing that we are all held to the same standard of sexual purity. But if gays and lesbians are forbidden to marry, you know it is not the same standard.
21 May 2008 @ 11:25 | Permalink
Steven – I do not believe in any way that people with homosexual feelings are written out of the Plan Of Happiness. And I never will. I have several friends who recognize their gay feelings and some of them struggle to stay in the church (and one has left). They work on it one day at a time, just like the rest of us. So I don’t think that I am being hypocritical. We are all given crosses to bear. Not being married is a huge one for me. I cannot express how huge it is. And having homosexual feelings is obviously a huge one as well. However, I will state again that having the feelings and acting upon them are two different things.
21 May 2008 @ 11:32 | Permalink
Single Sister, As a single member of a church which places the Family practically above Jesus in importance and focus, I think you surely understand something about what gay and lesbian members experience. Certainly, you don’t experience the same degree of social stigma that centuries of demonization towards homosexuality has resulted in. But I think you do have some insight into the difficulty of being gay in a church that is only beginning to recognize the existence of “sexual orientation” as more-or-less immutable and inherent.
I admire your dedication and faith, and hope you will understand when those who don’t even have the option of marriage may question the theological underpinnings or, at minimum, the church policy that is based on heterosexuality, rather than on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
21 May 2008 @ 12:33 | Permalink
Steven – yes, I understand their feelings. I’ve had that same feeling a number of times, as I’ve sat through talk after talk on Sundays (but not from church leaders I hasten to add) about how I am of less worth to the church because I am not married or have children. I know that I will never marry within the church and so will probably never marry. And that breaks my heart. However, one day at a time I am putting my faith in the Lord, that if I live the commandments and try to follow the teachings of the Prophet and Brethren (no matter how hard those teachings are) that I will be rewarded for my diligence and faith. The only thing that everyone – gay or straight – can do is the best they can within the framework of what they know and believe. All of my gay friends know that I empathize with them, and when or if they leave the church, I will continue to pray for them just as I do for all the many single heterosexual friends who leave because they don’t fit in either.
21 May 2008 @ 13:24 | Permalink
Those are some very pretty quotes, Dan but none address the question I asked.
I asked: “Could you provide me with a single unambiguous quote by a sitting prophet that was given during General conference in regard to same-sex attraction?”
The ambiguity is not about obedience to the words of the prophets (that’s always been pretty clear). It is in specific regard to same-sex attraction and the LDS organizations official stance on it.
21 May 2008 @ 13:47 | Permalink
“We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord. People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are. “We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).
21 May 2008 @ 14:43 | Permalink
So, to paraphrase: Gays have a problem; but it’s okay to be gay as long as you don’t act gay.
Thanks for the quote. I’ll be sure to correct members who say that their church doesn’t discriminate against gays and lesbians that they are wrong and that the official stance is the above.
They should really try to get this out to the membership. Many to whom I’ve spoken, believe that there is not official party line on this.
It’s nice to see the church admitting that there are people who are gay. That’s a step forward.
22 May 2008 @ 08:28 | Permalink
Maybe they should watch general conference instead of taking a holiday during conference weekend. ;-)
I remember that talk. I’m surprised your friends weren’t aware of it. He spoke of it again in conference the following year.
22 May 2008 @ 09:30 | Permalink
Your paraphrase, and the rest of your comment are as faulty as many of your statements here have been, as you fail to read and get understanding, or deliberately put out that idea. What do you mean, “They should really try to get this out to the membership”? This statement was given publicly in General Conference, by the Prophet, speaking as the Prophet, with worldwide coverage–where were you? Those who listen to Conference and/or read the talks in the Ensign, trying to learn what is being taught, have little difficulty in understanding it–it’s only those who refuse to listen to the Prophet’s talks that have that problem; or, when they have an agenda that takes precedence over anything the Prophet has announced.
When you correct members about this issue, be sure and give them the whole statement and not just your incomplete and biased summary, as done above. When truth is used to deceive (i.e, not giving the whole truth, or the context and spirit in which it’s given, thereby twisting the overall intended meaning), it is a lie, and nothing else.
I have an anti-Mormon DVD that does just that, quoting Alma 7, “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem” and then condemning it as being a false statement, when the rest of that phrase explains it: “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”–whether anyone else spoke that way is beside the point because the Book Of Mormon people did and it’s their writing and culture.
WordPerfect 12′s dictionary’s first definition defines discrimination as to “recognize a distinction”–which is what the church has done; not the second which is to “make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.” You use the second definition since it fits your agenda; however, your interpretation is wrong, as is your agenda, regardless of how much you want to believe it to be the truth.
Now that I’ve given you your quote, how about going back through our dialogue and answering half of the questions I’ve asked, which you have ignored?
22 May 2008 @ 10:37 | Permalink
I thought I had paraphrased it quite well. How would you paraphrase the statements given?
“how about going back through our dialogue and answering half of the questions I’ve asked”
Sure thing.
“Would they be on the official church website without being approved as being official church statements?”
I’m going to say yes, they would. I’ve been told that if it’s not canonized, then it’s not official church policy.
“what difference does it make to us where, or when, church statements are made?”
I’ve been told by members that statements must be considered in context. Otherwise all of Young racist rants could be considered official and contemporary. You wouldn’t want that now would you?
“If we can only listen to the prophet as the only one who can say anything worthwhile, why are there other General Authorities who address us during General Conference, and elsewhere?”
God only knows. What they say isn’t official – if it’s not canon, it’s not official. My friends at the FAIR message boards thought that to me.
“Why, after all this time, will it suddenly change within the next 10 years?”
For the same reason polygamy was suddenly abolished, or the black miraculously got the priesthood – social pressures steering official church policy.
“Are they backing themselves into a corner when it comes time for God’s Judgment Day?”
There will be no corners on Judgment Day (if you believe in that sort of thing). You’ll get judged not only on your actions but on your intent. Intent being the operative word.
“If Elder Oaks was speaking as a prophet, and you’re fighting it and/or making fun of it, what does that mean in the Eternal scheme of things?”
Precisely zilch since I think the whole thing is made up. Your mileage may vary.
“And?”
So?
“Had I said that it had been a sin since the time of Adam, what would you have quoted?”
Probably the same passage.
“Who were the first homosexuals and what happened to them?”
This is tough to say since it has probably been occurring since we shared the same branch as the chimpanzees and bonobos – certainly well before anyone was keeping records of that sort of thing.
“Has anyone ever wondered why God didn’t create Adam and Joe to begin with?”
Several have and have come to differing conclusions. I’m on the ‘God didn’t have anything to do with it’ side of the fence.
“Had God done that would he have ceased to be God?”
I don’t see any reason why not.
“When you reach that status, why don’t you try that and see what happens, and then come down to Purgatory and tell me all about it?”
Let’s pretend I’m already of that status, and you just listen to me now. M’kay?
“How is showing (or pretending) total ignorance of the subject you’re commenting on, when there is so much available that answers it, “an even better question”?”
I think I’m pretty far from ignorant, but I’d also argue that there is so much contradictory, vague, or outright misleading information out there that very few people could actually claim to and be in possession of the correct answer without a huge amount of work and confirmation.
“You claim to know what goes on in Conference, yet you’ve missed all that’s been given on this subject?”
I’ve made no such far reaching claim.
“How many times do they (President Monson and his predecessors back through at least Moses) have to repeat the message before it’s clear?”
Until it makes sense. As of yet, I don’t believe it does.
“why am I to believe that you’d believe any other words by then current Prophets, speaking as the Prophet, on anything else?”
I wouldn’t so you can stop all your fretting.
“This statement was given publicly in General Conference, by the Prophet, speaking as the Prophet, with worldwide coverage–where were you?”
Probably either a) sleeping or b) watching a football / basketball game on TV.
22 May 2008 @ 18:00 | Permalink
I think it’s important to recognize that something can be policy without being in canon. It is policy, for example, to not have open flames in any of the meetinghouses, but that will not be found in the scriptures.
22 May 2008 @ 19:28 | Permalink
I do think it’s kind of humorous that you try to characterize the granting of the Priesthood to blacks as a “sudden” thing. Raised in the Church, I had been taught to look forward to that day from early childhood. Brigham Young himself predicted that it would happen one day.
23 May 2008 @ 20:54 | Permalink
I think everyone forgets that same-sex attraction is only an Earthly condition. In the after life, everyone will be straight according the Church doctrine. That is why the Church will never change their position on same-sex marriage. Because it’s not part of the eternal plan or the eternal condition.
How monogamous same sex couple will be judged in the hereafter, that’s a whole separate issue.
25 Sep 2008 @ 15:37 | Permalink
Matt, I don’t think it’s a matter of people “forgetting” any such thing, since that “doctrine” was never taught in the history of the LDS church until Dallin Oaks personally invented it approximately two years ago.
If homosexuality is a “sinful choice,” then this “doctrine” completely contradicts Alma’s teachings in The Book of Mormon, where he indicates that we will retain our same dispositions after death. Oaks’ new “doctrine” only makes sense if one buys into his implied theory that homosexuality is some sort of “birth defect,” to be compared with mental and physical disabilities Oaks and Wickman made this direct comparison, even shamelessly exploiting Wickman’s own daughter to make their point, in their “interview-format” statements on lds.org.
This new “doctrine” may be growing in LDS popularity, but it has certainly never been canonized or otherwise accepted by a sustaining vote of LDS members in general conference. Therefore, it can only be characterized as Oaks’ opinion, even if repeated by a few other general authorities. It is not the “doctrine” of the LDS church.
25 Sep 2008 @ 17:37 | Permalink
The point Alma made was that we carry over after death who and what we are, with the idea being that we should repent now and change our lives to conform more closely with what the Lord wishes us to become in the Hereafter, since repentance is more easily done here in mortality. And, yes, I think homosexuals probably have the hardest row to hoe of anyone; but, the rest of us still dispute that idea frequently as we whine about our own problems, challenges, and failures–while hoping that the homosexuals will all hurry up and go to hell so there will be one less thorn in our sides to bother us as we look down from our more superior position.
25 Sep 2008 @ 18:32 | Permalink
Nick, on what basis do you argue that a desire to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex is NOT a physical condition? Surely, physical desires stem, in large part, from temporary physical conditions, don’t they? Don’t such feelings wax and wane throughout life? If they are a completely immutable part of the human spirit, then how will they manifest themselves in the resurrection? Based on your interpretation of Alma’s statement that we will retain our dispositions after death, consider this: If I die at the age of 98 with an extremely low interest in sex, will I be resurrected that way, while someone who dies at age 19 with a nearly uncontrollable sex drive will be resurrected that way?
1 Oct 2008 @ 22:01 | Permalink
Where have I ever argued that homosexuality is “NOT a physical condition?” Of course it’s a physical condition, just like being left-handed is a physical condition. There was, of course, an unenlightened time, when educators and others believed that it was best to force left-handed individuals to “become right-handed.” I’m told, in fact, that the word “sinister” originally meant “left-handed.” I guess if that particular social bias had been just a little stronger, Oaks would have been teaching that the resurrection would make everyone magically turn right-handed, eh?
2 Oct 2008 @ 05:14 | Permalink
But it’s not an “earthly” condition? How do you know?
2 Oct 2008 @ 21:23 | Permalink
It appears, ltbugaf, that you are considering Oaks’ statement as a definitive declaration of LDS doctrine, and therefore, an absolute declaration of divinely-revealed truth. In other words, if I were to ask you “how do you know homosexuality is some sort of temporary physical abnormality,” you would consider your position “proven” by the fact that Oaks said so.
If you are an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, I expect you are aware that an individual apostle has no authority whatsoever to establish LDS doctrine or proclaim a revelation to the LDS church. Individual apostles make mistakes, such as Bruce R. McConkie declaring that individuals of African descent would never receive the LDS priesthood until at least the Millennium. It didn’t matter how many other LDS leaders repeated McConkie’s opinion–it was still wrong.
Your reliance on Oaks’ speculation, therefore, is problematic. Even Oaks, for that matter, has not seen fit to explain the basis of his speculation, whether it be his personal reasoning from the LDS scriptures, a spiritual manifestation, or (doubtfully) personal experience.
Your apparent demand that I prove that Oaks is wrong is, of course, pointless. Given that you are working from a personal assumption that Oaks is correct by virtue of his ecclesiastical position, you will be quick to discount any evidence that I provide to the contrary. After all, in your mind, I am (a) not an LDS apostle, (b) an “apostate” who left the LDS church, and (c) an openly gay man. You will understand, therefore, that I’m really not motivated to engage in the game you propose.
3 Oct 2008 @ 09:54 | Permalink
Wow, Nick, you’ve certainly read a lot into my statement that isn’t there. I’m just wondering what your basis is for your position.
I believe, and apparently you do, too (?) that some physical characteristics will rise in the resurrection and some will not. You seem very confident that sexual attraction of men to men and women to women is in the former category. I’m just wondering what you’re founding your belief on.
4 Oct 2008 @ 22:03 | Permalink
I can see it now: The Gays and Lesbians petition God for full status in the church, including temple sealings, which is granted. Then in the Hereafter, when They are all exalted and receive Their planets to populate, each Couple will be given a rock in the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter. Since They will have no Eternal Increase, there is no need for full-sized planets for Them to occupy. After They have their own planets settled, which will be fully populated when They settle there, what will then happen throughout the Eternities?
At least They won’t have any Satans to throw monkey wrenches into Their Systems, so They won’t have any sorrow from Their children falling away from Their Eternal Plans, whatever They may decide to put into action.
Come to think of it, that sounds like a really good program, in many respects–kind of like Adam and Eve would’ve been in the Garden of Eden, had they not succumbed to temptation.
5 Oct 2008 @ 14:07 | Permalink
And Nick, let me reassure you that I’m not making the assumptions you say I’m making. It’s true that I feel safe in believing you’re not an apostle, since I’m pretty familiar with the current list of those. But I have no idea whether you have left the Church or qualify as an apostate. I also don’t know (or care to know) whether you are “gay,” openly or otherwise. As far as I know, you’ve never stated any of those thingson this ‘blog; above, you say only that I’m assuming them, not whether they are true or false.
The only things I know about you are that a long time ago you were a member of the first student ward I moved into at BYU after getting married, that I once read an editorial letter you wrote to The Daily Universe about the John Birch Society, that until recently you ran a rather nice website about LDS temples, and that you have recently championed same-sex marriage and condemned the views of Elder Oaks on this weblog.
I’m also not making any demand that you prove Elder Oaks wrong. I just see that you have a very definite view on this and would like to know more about why you hold that view.
5 Oct 2008 @ 15:50 | Permalink
Ah, but Dan, you have overlooked the principle of eternal adoption, whereby same-sex couples could have eternal increase. See comments here and here.
Meanwhile they may continue to have endless “celestial sex,” as has been described by Dick Baer and Ed Decker in The Godmakers.
5 Oct 2008 @ 16:42 | Permalink
Why does it matter if they are being monogamous or not?
“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23
All sins are equal in God’s eyes. In this world, each sin has a different consequence and a different imediate effect on a person’s life, but at judgement day a person will be judged for sin.
Homosexuality is a sin.
Greed is a sin.
Lying is a sin.
Gluttony is a sin.
Theft is a sin.
Murder is a sin.
Hatred is a sin.
But the gift of God is aternal life through Jesus Christ, regardless of your sin.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever should believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24
I am a homosexual.
I am a Christian.
I am going to Heaven.
30 Oct 2008 @ 21:54 | Permalink
The Bible is clear: God’s plan is one man, one woman in a covenant of marriage (Genesis 2:24).
8 Feb 2009 @ 08:24 | Permalink
Kevin, The Bible is also clear that God does not seem to object to one man and MANY women in a variety of marriage states. So, perhaps stating a norm or ideal does not preclude approval of other types of marriages and relationships.
8 Feb 2009 @ 09:31 | Permalink
Kevin,
The Bible is also very clear about killing homosexuals – “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
I hope you’re a man of your word.
I also hope law enforcement is well informed of your intentions.
9 Feb 2009 @ 09:51 | Permalink