The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[Ma'ake]

No question it's a bigger jump from Women & the Priesthood to Homosexual Celestial Marriage, and there is no comparable change that big in LDS theological history, but if you look at how much has changed over time in Christian - or even Jewish - theological thought over the centuries, I think it's a gap that can be bridged, but it will certainly take time and evolution in thought, unattainable by the current generation.

The Creation Story, the Great Flood, most of the stuff in Leviticus, are seen quite differently today by many, many people than they have been historically. Nobody is stoned to death, we eat hot dogs without a second thought.

Then when you consider the new gospels being found that were (presumably) thrown out at Nicea, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (which is not at all incompatible with LDS theology, but is completely sacrilegious among other Christians), and the movement on a larger mosaic of evolutionary belief becomes feasible.

IMO, it would be an easier jump within Mormonism to work homosexuals into full equality than it would be for Christians everywhere - LDS included - to accept the main, highly provocative, highly disruptive concept in the Gospel of Judas, ie, that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was a set up, an agreement between the two of them.

A bigger jump in LDS thought would be to consider the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture containing truths and wisdom and not necessarily as literal history, but that gap has been bridged before in the minds of many, in the Great Flood story and the Creation story, in the Theory of Evolution. Does the story of the Stripling Warriors lose it's importance as a lesson if it didn't actually occur?

I think the BOM-as-not-being-actual-history view could become more widely accepted in LDS thought in the future (as it becomes clearer the text doesn't line up with archeological and other scientific evidences), but that would be a massive jump, larger than homosexual marriage, IMO.

If you took any given Mormon from the 1840s and plopped them down in today's Mormon church, they would have a massive, massive paradigm change to navigate. Jesus didn't return by the 1880s, blacks have the priesthood, white people are mixing with blacks in marriage and not getting the death penalty, etc. I see a similar thing among many current LDS who have real difficulty reconciling the early polygamy issues, even when it's coming from a faithful source, such as Bushman.

Who's to say that the paradigms of the future won't be similarly radical, to us?

[Ma'ake]

I don't think it would be as massive as all that. I mean, they would have to get used to cars and toilets and TVs and modern stuff, but as far as churchy stuff goes, it wouldn't be such a huge transition.

Uhh.... I beg to differ, just a bit. Joseph Smith prophesized that the 2nd Coming would definitely occur by some time in the 1880s. I believe the explanation on why that didn't happen was that prophesies can be conditional, and whatever the condition was that needed to happen, didn't, but I think most LDS from the 1800s would be surprised that the 2nd Coming hasn't happened yet.

This is a really minor point, but instructive. When I moved into my current neighborhood, in 2000, we got the usual reception from the neighbors, who quickly learned I was a fallen away Mormon and my wife was black Baptist, and they began a positive engagement with her, and also with me. In an informal discussion, my wife was asking about the different levels of the priesthood, and I recited from my youth the three Aaronic levels and the three Melchesidik(sp?) levels, (Elder, Seventy and High Priest), to which my neighbor corrected me that they no longer have Seventies, within wards, like they did when I was a kid. No biggie, I was out of circulation, and it was a minor difference.

But the neighbor was noticeably nervous making this correction, I suspect feeling vulnerable to counter arguments over the assertion that the gospel never changes.

Back in the 1800s the notion of using revelation for all kinds of things, both spiritual and temporal (depending on the level of authority you have) was more prevalent, and I think most LDS truly believed their leaders could not be wrong on issues, since they were being directed by the Almighty.

The history of the Dream Mine in Utah County makes for an interesting read on the topic of personal revelation, along with the School of the Prophets that the Lafferty Brothers were engaged in when they got the revelation to kill their sister in law. Even when I was a teenager, the people across the street prayed about whether to invest in a financial scheme one of the Bishopric members was offering, and they got a positive answer, announced their decision, and invested. Later, as the pyramid scheme crashed, the neighbors lost their house and the Bishopric member went to federal prison for fraud. Today there is lots of caution about exercising discretion when getting offers from fellow ward members, and to really study things out before asking for revelation.

We were under the distinct impression (from Sunday School, Seminary, etc) in the 70s and 80s that the President of the Church would go up in to the Holy of Holies and have literal conversations with Jesus about what day-to-day decisions needed to be made, etc. We definitely believed the Q12 and FP were infallible. Definitely not the view of today.

The press release from a couple of years ago that admitted previous leaders were wrong on issues of race would be a big shock to a Mormon from the 1800s. In 1949 the First Presidency issued a clarification on whether the priesthood ban was policy, stating it was not policy, but a direct commandment from God. Beyond the 1978 revelation, in 2012 the PR department more or less threw the First Presidency from 1949 under the bus, which I think would be a shock to LDS from the 1800s.

So, back to my original point, things change, interpretations change, we move forward. Brigham Young stated the consequence for a man mixing his seed with the seed of Cain would be death, so there's another reason I'm personally grateful that whole topic has changed. In the 1980s, had I still been a practicing Mormon, I might very well have not married my wife, there would have been good reason to hesitate, based on (then) near history.

To buttress that last point, a young woman I work with, who went to BYU in the early 2000s, said one of her best friends was a beautiful young black woman from France, and all the guys in the student ward were enamored by her, but they hesitated to date her. When my friend pressed them on why they were so enthralled by her but wouldn't ask her out, the response from multiple guys was "she's very beautiful, but I couldn't take her home to my mom". Things change, sometimes more slowly than we want, sometimes more rapidly than we want (eg, gay marriage).

[LA Ute]

Another interesting piece. Peggy Fletcher Stack linked to this on her Facebook page:

Gay, Christian and … celibate: The changing face of the homosexuality debate


Yes, Peggy and I are Facebook friends. I've known her for 30+ years. I haven't been summoned to any meetings as a result.

[mUUser]

Yes, I understand this isn't a story about homosexuals and the church, but, the closest fit is with this thread....

Fascinating story.....

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...signing?page=3

[Ma'ake]

Yes, I understand this isn't a story about homosexuals and the church, but, the closest fit is with this thread....

Fascinating story.....

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...signing?page=3

What a journey. It's safe to say the vast majority of us don't know what it's like to have those kinds of feelings.

There are three basic reactions Mormons (or any other group in the same situation) will have to this story:

1. Try to be supportive, try to understand, appreciate the common humanity, keep loving the people in our lives.

2. Judge, freak out, blame it on Hollywood, etc.

3. "I can't wait for the big game coming up!"

The plight of these souls who are coming out of the woodwork around us, depends a great deal upon how people react to them, if they're (more or less) accepted, or if they're marginalized as freaks. The study indicating that since gay marriage, the suicide rate among teenagers has declined, reveals a lot.

[UTEopia]

What a journey. It's safe to say the vast majority of us don't know what it's like to have those kinds of feelings.

There are three basic reactions Mormons (or any other group in the same situation) will have to this story:

1. Try to be supportive, try to understand, appreciate the common humanity, keep loving the people in our lives.

2. Judge, freak out, blame it on Hollywood, etc.

3. "I can't wait for the big game coming up!"

The plight of these souls who are coming out of the woodwork around us, depends a great deal upon how people react to them, if they're (more or less) accepted, or if they're marginalized as freaks. The study indicating that since gay marriage, the suicide rate among teenagers has declined, reveals a lot.

My son recently told me about a close friend he has known for a number of years who has gone through the same transformation from husband, married in LDS Temple, returned missionary to a female. Needless to say, it has been a difficult road for this friend.

[tooblue]

What a journey. It's safe to say the vast majority of us don't know what it's like to have those kinds of feelings.

There are three basic reactions Mormons (or any other group in the same situation) will have to this story:

1. Try to be supportive, try to understand, appreciate the common humanity, keep loving the people in our lives.

2. Judge, freak out, blame it on Hollywood, etc.

3. "I can't wait for the big game coming up!"

The plight of these souls who are coming out of the woodwork around us, depends a great deal upon how people react to them, if they're (more or less) accepted, or if they're marginalized as freaks. The study indicating that since gay marriage, the suicide rate among teenagers has declined, reveals a lot.

Just for clarity sake, it's hopefully true that the suicide rate among LGBT teens has declined, but overall the suicide rate among all groups is surging:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/h...year-high.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...olescent-girls

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...across-america

[Ma'ake]

Just for clarity sake, it's hopefully true that the suicide rate among LGBT teens has declined, but overall the suicide rate among all groups is surging:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/h...year-high.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...olescent-girls

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...across-america

The economic pressure on large segments of our population is gruesome. Hence, Trump. Hence, Bernie. Hence, "I don't care if Trump gives Putin all the nuclear codes lets him sleep with Melania, BRING BACK MY COAL MINING JOB!"

The opiod epidemic is scary as hell.

[Two Utes]

I don't think it would be as massive as all that. I mean, they would have to get used to cars and toilets and TVs and modern stuff, but as far as churchy stuff goes, it wouldn't be such a huge transition.

You clearly need to read more church history. If Brigham Young were reincarnated right now he would absolutely flip.

[LA Ute]

Gay support group issues challenge: Read Book of Mormon daily

Interesting. I like it.

[LA Ute]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

LA, you are just more kind and display more Christian charity than other people. Bravo!

In the insemination example the doctor who refuses to inseminate a lesbian woman is deciding for himself that they are not fit to be biological parents. This is entirely out of the scope of his authority. The sole reason why he is refusing that one service to his patient, especially if he provides her with other services, is due to her sexuality. If you replace the word 'lesbian' with any other modifier (Jewish, Asian, Black, left-handed) the argument is just as obtuse.

And for him to conflate insemination with abortion, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, is cheap tactic. He is attempting to generate contempt for a loving and exciting event (creating a baby) with a cold, difficult, and highly emotional event (abortion). And as I said earlier these things are only related because they include a doc, a woman, and a baby. Beyond that they are entirely separate issues.

I have to deal with a serious emergency right now. Perhaps later I will be able to discuss Elder Oaks grave misstatement of facts in the Houston HERO case he cited.

[Scorcho]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...f=Default&_r=0

biting opinion piece in the NY Times today about yesterday's press conference.

[Two Utes]

Gotta love the cynicism. Only a church could be so maligned for taking a stand in favor of anti-discrimination laws. The centerpiece of his argument doesn't even come from the news conference. It comes from some AP writer's opinion on what the LDS Church is seeking. He also includes the following quote:



Again, I haven't read the original news conference, but isn't that what the Church is seeking by supporting anti-discrimination legislation?

They are. But they also said it was contingent on people not being mean to the Mormon church for taking the positions they've taken about homosexuality and that is why they are getting hammered. But it certainly is easier to just believe it's more persecution.

[Mormon Red Death]

Gotta love the cynicism. Only a church could be so maligned for taking a stand in favor of anti-discrimination laws. The centerpiece of his argument doesn't even come from the news conference. It comes from some AP writer's opinion on what the LDS Church is seeking. He also includes the following quote:



Again, I haven't read the original news conference, but isn't that what the Church is seeking by supporting anti-discrimination legislation?

Fake LDS Newsroom said it best

See how we did that? We hold a press conference on gays, and now we're the victim. That's not as easy as we make it look. #Fairness4all

[Two Utes]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

The problem LA, is that if your religious conviction told you not to sell cakes to people of the color, the government would clearly have an issue with it. Times are changing. People are recognizing the rights of homosexual people, just like people of color. If the church is unwilling to bend, so be it, but people aren't going to be, and shouldn't have to, "play nice" as Dallin Oaks wants them to. And it is going to hurt members of the church financially.

Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.

[LA Ute]

Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.

I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation. The only way to avoid completely the marginalization you predict would be for the church to start marrying same-sex couples in the LDS temples. Isn't that so? I don't see that happening, ever. So the church is trying to preserve some space for itself in civil society, when so many people want to marginalize LDS believers as bigots.

Jonathan Chait, not exactly a right-wing writer, had this to say in a New York Magazine piece yesterday:

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size.Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media,where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

In a short period of time, the p.c.movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media,there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ng-to-say.html

So yes, Mormons will be swimming upstream on these issues for some time to come.

[Diehard Ute]

I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation. The only way to avoid completely the marginalization you predict would be for the church to start marrying same-sex couples in the LDS temples. Isn't that so? I don't see that happening, ever. So the church is trying to preserve some space for itself in civil society, when so many people want to marginalize LDS believers as bigots.

Jonathan Chait, not exactly a right-wing writer, had this to say in a New York Magazine piece yesterday:



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ng-to-say.html

So yes, Mormons will be swimming upstream on these issues for some time to come.

The fact that you think it's up for debate is part of the problem LA.

Honest question, have you spent any time talking to someone who is gay?

[UtahsMrSports]

The problem LA, is that if your religious conviction told you not to sell cakes to people of the color, the government would clearly have an issue with it. Times are changing. People are recognizing the rights of homosexual people, just like people of color. If the church is unwilling to bend, so be it, but people aren't going to be, and shouldn't have to, "play nice" as Dallin Oaks wants them to. And it is going to hurt members of the church financially.

Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.

Lol. a comparison between the LDS church and the KKK.

At least we all are keeping this debate within a reasonable realm.

[concerned]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.

[LA Ute]

the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.

You've pinpointed a key part of the issue -- the use of religion to justify invidious discrimination --"treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging." The federal civil rights laws outlaw such discrimination based on race, gender, religious beliefs, etc., but not sexual orientation (yet). The Unruh Act in CA adds sexual orientation to the list. So that's the law. In the fertility doctors' case, the physicians explained to the woman their discomfort with doing the procedure and referred her to another physician who had no reservations and who provided the services -- successfully. I don't think the doctors' actions were malicious, hostile or damaging. Yet the upshot of the Supreme Court's interpretation of Unruh (a 7-0 decision) is that the physicians had no choice but to provide the services. I see your side of the argument, and NW Ute's side. Can you guys see the other side -- how that outcome is disturbing to many people of good will?

[tooblue]

the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.

Therefore, a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion regardless, his or her convictions.

[concerned]

Therefore, a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion regardless, his or her convictions.

No. He or she cant perform abortions for some and not oihers based on status. He or she can stay out of the procedure altogether, obviously.

[Two Utes]

Meh. What does absolutely flip mean? I'm sure he'd be surprised at a few things. He'd be far more surprised at changes in society, technology, transportation, medicine, etc that he would at any changes in LDS doctrine or operations.

Wrong. Go read church history.

[Solon]

I believe that women will hold priesthood offices in the LDS church in my lifetime (within the next 50 years, say). There is really no doctrinal reason to prevent women from exercising priesthood offices. In fact, the only decent argument anyone has ever presented me with is, "Well, that's never been done before."

If one believes the LDS narrative, then one can identify the overall trend of inclusion throughout history. Old Testament Hebrews were all about exclusion. Jesus commanded Peter to take the gospel to the unclean Gentiles (although LDS believe that this idea of inclusiveness shows up in the Book of Mormon hundreds of years before Jesus). Similarly, the restored LDS gospel went to all peoples, and the highest orders of covenant-making in the LDS church went from an elite circle, to everyday membership, to everyone who has ever lived (i.e., vicarious ordinances). In the same vein, the injunctions of D&C 132 that allow only those in polygamous unions to attain the highest orders of exaltation initially were offered to only a select few, then to a wider group, then (with the abolition of polygamy) to every worthy member.

Yet another example is the extension of priesthood to all worthy males, regardless of race/ethnicity/skin color.

I see the inclusion of women in this same long-term trend. Regardless of how much any of us might accept the notion of "Restoration," it is a church with strong American roots and strong American sensibilities / culture. Just as the USA has extended civil rights and liberties to more and more of its own population, so the church has invited more and more of its membership into the folds of leadership, priesthood, and authority. It's just a matter of time.

Similarly, we will see the same thing with same-sex marriages. There really is no doctrinal massaging that needs to happen in order to have this come about. Very little of that talk about family, gender, etc. is grounded in actual scripture. All that has to happen is for the leadership to decide (or receive revelation, if that's your persuasion) that it's okay for homosexuals to get married. Nothing serious would change. The world wouldn't fall apart. It would just be two more people getting married. Not a big deal, despite the hysteria that this idea threatens the very fabric of society.

Did you even see Just Visiting? The original Les Visiteurs was better, but it's the same idea. They actually adjust pretty well, and they are from far further in the past than what we are talking about.

I liked this movie. On va festoyer!

[LA Ute]

Interesting point of view:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectiv...-just-cant-gay

[Ma'ake]

We're in a fairly early phase of evolution of thinking, within the LDS community, on the topic of homosexality. It wasn't long ago that SSA was viewed as a fundamental moral failing, like perhaps 10 years ago?

I think in general with our connected world things change more quickly, and institutions - in this case, religions - are under a lot of ideological pressure to moderate historical views on some topics. But changing doctrine involves more time, kind of like the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment.

I was having friends with a black LDS friend, and explaining why I left the church, back in the late 70s, primarily on the issue of race (even though I'm white). He asked what we were taught previously about the priesthood ban, and I conveyed the explanations I was taught... less valiant in pre-existence, some unspecified lineage deficiency issue, Ham, etc.

Then it occurred to me one fundamental belief - not just Mormon, but in Judaism & Christianity, in general - had changed since the 1970s, at least in my exposure to religious thinking: the notion that specific lineages were either blessed or cursed. "The Jews are God's chosen people." What does this really mean, anymore? "Descendants of Ham are cursed." This idea is definitely in the dumpster. Nephites & Lamanites exchanging the good guy / bad guy role, largely an exercise of assigning good/bad to entire groups.

Now the "sins of the father are not sins of his children" thinking is much more predominant, a more individualized world view, an opportunity for anyone to rise above their circumstances without prejudice of their lineage.

Back to homosexuality, even though thinking evolves more quickly in our connected world, I think it will be multiple decades before homosexuality is fully accepted by the LDS church.

Using the evolution of thought on the topic of slavery as an example, when the abolitionist movement first arose, the overwhelmingly dominant religious view was that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. There were four Quakers in 1688 who issued their opposition to slavery, which in hindsight was stunningly forward thinking, but it wasn't until much later in the debate that the religious thinking disavowed the view that the Bible made slavery OK.

Today, nobody thinks the Bible supports slavery, except perhaps a certain rancher in southern Nevada.

One significantly beneficial part of today's evolved thinking in the LDS world is it is letting some parents of gay kids know it wasn't their moral failing that led to the child becoming gay. The two large families on my street who've had multiple kids come out of the closet have had a nearly unbearable struggle reconciling their role as parents and the reality that their offspring have gone so wildly off track, but I think they've received some comfort that it wasn't because they weren't good enough parents.

In 10 years, I think we'll see more & more smaller, Protestant Christian churches de-emphasize Biblical edicts against homosexuality as being important for that time period, but like bans on eating pork, things have evolved. In 10 years I think we'll see significant movement in the thinking among LDS on the topic of women & the priesthood, and on homosexuality.

I'd be very, very surprised if we see doctrine changes in 10 years. *Maybe* 20.

[mUUser]

......In 10 years I think we'll see significant movement in the thinking among LDS on the topic of women & the priesthood, and on homosexuality......

I get the sense that perhaps not my kids' generation (teens/low 20's), but maybe the generation after that won't stand for it and will leave the church in droves forcing the hand of the church. Will it implode on its own doctrine? Adapt and build a bigger tent? Turn even further right to attract more fringe elements to grow? Now is a fascinating time to study the church.

[LA Ute]

This also seems to fit here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...e-sex-marriage

It's interesting. The church seems to be drawing a theological line in the sand.

[concerned]

and then there is this. Don Gale wrote and gave the editorials on KSL for years and years. I assume he is a devout member in good standing.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...tices.html.csp

Sort of suggests that the current generation of leaders is drawing a theological line in the sand.