The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[NorthwestUteFan]

I don't mention millenials because I think they will 'save humanity' (although they will eventually figure out how to do that, just like every other generation). I mention them because they are highly connected to peers with diverse backgrounds and they tend strongly to know and accept LGBT people.

They as an age group very strongly favor full acceptance in society of LGBT people, and they tend to prefer to abandon religion rather than allow a religion to convince them to discriminate against LGBT people. People this age would statictically prefer to leave the religion of their youth, or refuse to join a religion, if that religion is seen as discriminatory to homosexuals. The LDS church will hold less appeal to people in this age range and younger.

It should be readily obvious where this leads 10-25 years into the future.

From the Pew Religious Landscape Study of 2014 http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u...ess-religious/ :

But while there is much continuity in the relationship of religion and politics in the U.S., not everything is fixed in stone. The Landscape Study shows, for example, that nearly all major religious groups have become significantly more accepting of homosexuality in recent years – even groups, such as evangelicals and Mormons, that traditionally have expressed strong opposition to same-sex relationships. Changing attitudes about homosexuality are linked to the same generational forces helping to reshape religious identity and practice in the United States, with Millennials expressing far more acceptance of homosexuality than older adults do. Fully half of Millennials who identify as evangelical Protestants, for instance, now say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

[Damage U]

Millennials act and think exactly like computers. I am being dead serious. Set them to a task and they can do it, but they need instruction on everything. Once I understood that about them it was a lot easier to work with them.

I guess this is a sign that I'm in the get off my lawn crowd. I have no patients for that. If I have to explain everything step by step, I might as well do the job myself.

[LA Ute]

This is a long but interesting piece by Rod Dreher, a non-Mormon observer, well worth the time it takes to read it.

Mormons & Gay Marriage

[Applejack]

This is a long but interesting piece by Rod Dreher, a non-Mormon observer, well worth the time it takes to read it.

Mormons & Gay Marriage

Emphasis on long. I'm still unsure of his point after reading it.

[LA Ute]

Emphasis on long. I'm still unsure of his point after reading it.

Try this one, which Dreher relied on. It gets to the nub of the issue, I think, without branching off into metaphysics.

Are Mormons villains, or just people with a different story about their identity?


The author takes a pretty calm, even-handed approach.

[mUUser]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.

[LA Ute]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.

Just curious, did you read the Hess blog post linked in my post just prior to yours?

[concerned]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.

I am in a book group with two current bishops, and I know they each basically feel the same way. A third member of our group was scheduled to give a talk that Sunday after the announcement, and spoke from some earlier conference talk about how mistakes happen, and he said he thought this was one of them. So you are not alone.

[Scratch]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.

I would be very surprised to see a TR pulled for that stance, but obviously you never know what a bishop/SP is going to do.

[LA Ute]

Interesting report by Peggy Fletcher Stack:

Gay leader huddles with Mormon officials, finds ‘genuine empathy and concern’ in wake of policy

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...rmon-officials


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Kind of interesting. Not sure I see the legal analysis:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/0...-with.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

Kind of interesting. Not sure I see the legal analysis:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/0...-with.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So she cries for several weeks over the new policy, then wakes up one morning with the personal revelation that the church had no choice but to institute the policy, not for their reasons stated (to protect the children), but for legal CYA.....and now she's ok with everything. Yikes.

[Applejack]

Kind of interesting. Not sure I see the legal analysis:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/0...-with.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

This is directly relevant to the subject of this thread, so I will post it here:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865...llennials.html

“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively,” he said. “And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.”

This “prophetic process” — which also includes fasting, prayer, studying, pondering, counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue — was followed in 2012 with the change in age for missionary service, as well as the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries, President Nelson said.

“Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter,” he said. “Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

“And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”

Members of the church have to decide how they feel about this statement by the president of the Q12. I am still working through how I will apply it myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Russell Nelson had the ultimate troll last Sat night in a fireside for young single adults.

"I promise you that when you begin to catch even a glimpse of how your Heavenly Father sees you and what He is counting on you to do for Him, your life will never be the same!"
~RMN

Later in the broadcast he stayed emphatically that the new policy change is, in fact, a revelation from God.

So Heavenly Father loves you and sees you as better than you think you are, now go out and support this policy change because The Lord commands it.

[Sullyute]

I don't understand how the brethren/Church doesn't realize that they when they pick up a stick that they get the other end too. Every time they try and clarify, rationalize, explain, etc this gay policy, gay marriage, gay rights, gay anything, they get the bad publicity that comes with it.

The rest of society has moved on with full acceptance. So unless they are going to come out and also give full acceptance, then it is just another reminder of being behind the times, repeating history, hateful, bigoted, etc. I realize that they may not see it that way, but a growing minority of their members, and the vast majority of non-members definitely do.

Brethren, do whatever you feel is best, but as a concerned member of your flock, please stop talking about it in public!

[eldiente]

Brethren, do whatever you feel is best, but as a concerned member of your flock, please stop talking about it in public!

Watchmen on the tower.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Ma'ake started this thread to address exactly the issue stated in the title. Elder Nelson's talk is directly on point. Members of the church are going to read it and will have to decide how to respond. I think it is a significant development regarding this issue. Just to be clear, that is why I posted it. I am not trying to preach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Watchmen on the tower.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Just like the Japanese soldier who defended his post in the Philippines until 1974.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...apan.jpg<br />

[LA Ute]

I feel like I'm missing something. I read the little summary. What's the new development?

It is a talk by the president of the Quorum of the 12, describing exactly the deliberative process by which the new handbook policy came to be. I could be wrong, but I don't think that had been done yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eldiente]

Yes. Just like the Japanese soldier who defended his post in the Philippines until 1974.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...apan.jpg<br />

More like - https://www.lds.org/media-library/vi...tower?lang=eng


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Oh. I guess I just assume they deliberate on these kinds of things.

There was a narrative being pushed that he policy was the work of clerks or staff and hadn't been thought through carefully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

There was a narrative being pushed that he policy was the work of clerks or staff and hadn't been thought through carefully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The policy is now officially a Revelation. And anybody who disagrees with or fights against this position is officially one of Satan's servants (according to RMN).

It is getting hard to keep up.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You love to do this, but I think you know better.

It is hard work being one of Satan's servants.

[Solon]

It is hard work being one of Satan's servants.

What is the list of sins/behaviors that will get a person excommunicated from the LDS church?
(I am avoiding "denying the Holy Ghost" because I don't really know what that means or how it can be measured)

1. Felony Crimes.
2. Infidelity/Adultery.
3. Open & Public Apostasy.
4. Abortion.
5. Gay Marriage.

Are there others that I'm missing?
Numbers 2-5 are legal behaviors but considered serious sins.
Perhaps the better way to conceive of gay marriage in the LDS world-view is that it's in the realm of adultery, abortion, and apostasy?

(not looking to push an agenda; just trying to situate this in context)

[LA Ute]

What is the list of sins/behaviors that will get a person excommunicated from the LDS church?
(I am avoiding "denying the Holy Ghost" because I don't really know what that means or how it can be measured)

1. Felony Crimes.
2. Infidelity/Adultery.
3. Open & Public Apostasy.
4. Abortion.
5. Gay Marriage.

Are there others that I'm missing?
Numbers 2-5 are legal behaviors but considered serious sins.
Perhaps the better way to conceive of gay marriage in the LDS world-view is that it's in the realm of adultery, abortion, and apostasy?

(not looking to push an agenda; just trying to situate this in context)

I think it's in the realm of messing with the law of chastity. But if you are asking about "automatic" excommunication, I don't know that there is such a thing, except for outright resignation. There are certain acts that require a disciplinary council, but I'd need to check a church handbook to remind myself which ones they are.

[Solon]

There are certain acts that require a disciplinary council, but I'd need to check a church handbook to remind myself which ones they are.

or check your diary!

[NorthwestUteFan]

or check your diary!

Here is the quick summary. IIRC the new policy/Revelation said that entering a same-sex marriage is considered grounds for mandatory excommunication (from the Clarification Letter released a few months ago).

from Wiki (note this is when a Court of Love is mandatory, and not necessarily when Excommunication is mandatory)


When a disciplinary council is mandatoryEdit

The LDS Church has instructed leaders that a disciplinary council is mandatory when evidence suggests that a member of the church may have committed any of the following offences against the standards of the church:

Murder: the "deliberate and unjustified taking of human life". The church does not classify killings performed by*police*orsoldiers*in the line of duty as being murder. It also does not classify*abortion*as murder.[13]
Incest: defined as "sexual relations" between a parent (or grandparent) and a natural, adopted, or foster child or a stepchild. It also includes sexual relations between siblings.[13]

Apostasy: refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy.[13]*In November 2015, the church clarified that its members who are in a*same-sex marriage*are in apostasy.[14]

Serious transgression while holding a prominent church position*: "serious transgression" is defined as "a deliberate and major offense against morality" and includes "attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation),[15]*deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing."[13]*"Prominent church position" includes the positions ofarea seventy,*temple president,*mission president,*stake president,*patriarch, andbishop.[13]

Transgressor who is a*predator[13]

Pattern of serious transgressions[13]*(as defined above)

Serious transgression (as defined above) that is widely known[13]

Note that taking up arms against the nation in a standoff over ranch lands, while owing well over a million dollars in back grazing fees, and taking over a Federal building in an effort to start a Revolution, is not considered to be a problem.

But get married to your life partner, and you and your kids are no longer allowed at church.

[Scratch]

Note that taking up arms against the nation in a standoff over ranch lands, while owing well over a million dollars in back grazing fees, and taking over a Federal building in an effort to start a Revolution, is not considered to be a problem.

I, too, am shocked that the handbook didn't specifically include this possible eventuality. Besides, isn't that a felony, so it is covered?

[Scratch]

But get married to your life partner, and you and your kids are no longer allowed at church.

And obviously that's not true, but don't let the truth interfere with rhetoric.