-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS Stance on Homosexuality
- Thread starter nutshell
- Start date
Fluffy
A fool
Elder Oaks said:
I would need to see the LDS stance on scripture such as Proverbs 26:7, Ephesians 4:31, 1 John 3:15 etc.
Elder Oaks said:
Does this imply that the discussion was only about male homosexuality? Do LDS acknowledge female homosexuality?
I feel that discrimination without adequate justification is morally wrong. I would encourage anybody who believes that homosexual feelings or behaviour should be restricted in some way without feeling that those restrictions should also apply to heterosexuals (ie marriage, I know that the rest of the restrictions are applied equally) then they need to ask God why this is so.
Notice that I do not reject the idea that God discriminates as the elders go on to discuss, just that I require an explanation for such discrimination and, if such an explanation is not forthcoming, it would be morally wrong for me to discriminate until I had access to that explanation.
A very rational stance to take.
Somewhat contradictory. Whether marriage is therapeutic or not is within the realms of science. However, I would still agree that this is infinitely better than using marriage in such a way.
Overall, moving from an unclarified position to this position I can only view as a step backwards with regards to my own view on the matter.
Bishka
Veteran Member
I think it's odd how y'all who aren't LDS think it's a step backward.
Apparently you haven't read or talked to members that grew up in the 40's and 50's.
Like I've stated, my grandparent -- would mock you and would say all sorts of interesting things.
To you see it as a step backwards because we aren't going as fast as everyone else?
Apparently you haven't read or talked to members that grew up in the 40's and 50's.
Like I've stated, my grandparent -- would mock you and would say all sorts of interesting things.
To you see it as a step backwards because we aren't going as fast as everyone else?
Smoke
Done here.
If the LDS Church is making progress, that's good. Maybe by the time I've been dead for 75 or 100 years, it'll be possible to be a good Mormon and a self-respecting homosexual. But frankly, what bothers me isn't so much the restrictions Mormons place on their own members; it's very bad for queer folks who grow up in the LDS Church to be subjected to that attitude, but I don't see any way around that. What I really resent is the way the Church lobbies against gay rights and same-sex marriage, and seeks to deny equality under the law to all GLBT people, Mormon or not.beckysoup61 said:
DeepShadow
White Crow
I don't see how this position is more "clarified" than any of the others that have come before. This is the latest of many direct statements on the subject of homosexualitiy from apostles of the LDS church. That puts it on the same level of "clarity" (actually authority) as the Missionary Library (Jesus the Christ, Articles of Faith, Truth Restored, et. al.), which are a step below the Standard Works (Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP).
In 1969 another apostle made another such statement, in "The Miracle of Forgiveness." There, Spencer W. Kimball calls homosexuality disgusting, an abomination, a crime against nature, and, when discussing the degeneracy of society, says "In some countries the act itself isn't even illegal" (gasp!--emphasis mine)
Based on this and other comparable statement in the past, I'd call this a step forward.
lizskid
BANNED
I am still back on the "it is well documented that God does not approve of homosexuality." Um....the MAN who wrote Leviticus, albeit due to his religious or spiritual expereince, did not approve of the practice of soldiers grabbing up the nearest equipment boy and assaulting him, as was the practice at that time when they were out on the field. The MAN who edited the Bible thereafter chose the word abomination rather than the word that it actually was in the original translation due to his own reasons.
The last time I checked, lightning was not striking gays on a singular or regualr basis, neither were any other floods, etc. The last time I checked, Jesus(or the people writing the story of Jesus) said that the message was love to all, helping those who needed help, etc.
So, my answer is that the LDS is behind many other denominations, but not taking any more of a step backwards than, say, the Presbyterians.
The last time I checked, lightning was not striking gays on a singular or regualr basis, neither were any other floods, etc. The last time I checked, Jesus(or the people writing the story of Jesus) said that the message was love to all, helping those who needed help, etc.
So, my answer is that the LDS is behind many other denominations, but not taking any more of a step backwards than, say, the Presbyterians.
DeepShadow
White Crow
It also bears mentioning that the LDS view "sin" differently than other religions. Sin requires that one know that their actions are against the will of God. It's impossible to sin (or be saved) in ignorance; after the Spirit confirms that what we are doing is wrong, we can sin or avoid sin, but until that happens, the worst we can do is "transgress."
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Yeah, i didn't like writing "step backwards" when i posted, but couldn't think of anything more appropriate at the time.nutshell said:
It may be a more tolerant view than in the past, but it's still not good enough for me.
I'm not gay, even so i'd like to join a church where the sexual orientation of my fellow practitioners didn't matter. Frankly, if God is bent on causing my gay friends misery by not letting them be who they are, and making them feel wrong and immoral, i wouldn't worship him anyway.
However, i don't think he is like that - i think that it is a human problem and that we're using God to justify intolerance and malevolence - putting words in his mouth.
Even if i believed everything else the LDS church had to offer (and there is a great deal that is appealing to me) i simply couldn't join knowing that gay people aren't accepted for who they truly are.
Ãanisty
Well-Known Member
I can't agree that feelings can be controlled. I know behaviors can, but the feelings themselves are there whether we want them or not.
In my opinion, the LDS stance isn't good enough, but it's better than what it could be. If this is better than previous views (and I have no reason to think Becky is lying about this), then it is definitely a step forward. I don't mind for the adults who choose live in accordance with LDS beliefs (or any beliefs honestly), but I'm always bothered by what children and adolescents have to put up with due to their parents decisions to follow a particular faith. A twelve year old LDS boy who knows he's gay can do nothing about the situation that his parents have him in and I think that's unfair.
DeepShadow
White Crow
Having addressed the end of Fluffy's excellent post, I'll now move to the rest of it.
Excellent point! Our stance is that we distinguish between "being tempted" and "cultivating" a temptation. As one of my Bishops used to say, "It's not a sin to have an sinful thought go through your head. It's a sin to offer it a chair and ask it to stay around for a while."
Unfortunately, it does imply that, but we do acknowledge female homosexuality.
Well, in Elder Oaks' article on the subject in the Ensign several years back, he gave an explanation: marriage is intended by God for reproductive purposes. While it doesn't always work out that way--many couples who want to have children are infertile--an arrangement that by its very nature cannot possibly produce offspring is contrary to the church concept of "marriage."
Fluffy said:
Excellent point! Our stance is that we distinguish between "being tempted" and "cultivating" a temptation. As one of my Bishops used to say, "It's not a sin to have an sinful thought go through your head. It's a sin to offer it a chair and ask it to stay around for a while."
Unfortunately, it does imply that, but we do acknowledge female homosexuality.
Well, in Elder Oaks' article on the subject in the Ensign several years back, he gave an explanation: marriage is intended by God for reproductive purposes. While it doesn't always work out that way--many couples who want to have children are infertile--an arrangement that by its very nature cannot possibly produce offspring is contrary to the church concept of "marriage."
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
They can't reproduce.beckysoup61 said:NoI'm a little confused.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Oh, that would make all kinds of sense. We're just supposed to market ourselves differently, huh? To hell with the truth. It's all about gaining converts.Halcyon said:
Interesting to hear you say that, Paul. Considering the fact that the LDS Church has the most all-inclusive concept of Heaven of any Christian Church in the world today, I find you attitude really quite confusing. I am not, however, confused as to your message. I'll take it as quite possibly the strongest insult I've seen directed at my Church since joining RF. But if it will make you feel any better, God won't force you to hang around with Him. You can spend eternity as far away from Him as you please. I hope you enjoy yourself.