LDS Stance on Homosexuality

[lizskid]

So could the rest of us find out the answer, we are trying to learn about this, truly.

 

[nutshell]

You're not really asking me this question, are you, Nutshell? You know the answer as well as I do.

I am really asking you this question

Elder Oaks wrote that marriage is for reproductive purposes. If a person can't reproduce why can they still get married?

 

[DeepShadow]

I think it's a valid point, Katzpur. I've got my own suspicions, but I'd like to be able to speak with more authority than just "the gospel according to DeepShadow." I'll let others continue commenting while I do some homework.

Plus I have some frubals to give out to people in this thread. It's beena very thought-provoking discussion!

 

[Green Gaia]

You're not really asking me this question, are you, Nutshell? You know the answer as well as I do.

I'd like to know, if you don't mind answering.

Specifically why if, "marriage is intended by God for reproductive purposes," this definition is overlooked in regards to heterosexual couples that want to marry but are unable to conceive, such as post-menopausal women, but this definition is used against same gender couples who cannot conceive on their own without outside medical help?

 

[Katzpur]

I am really asking you this question

Elder Oaks wrote that marriage is for reproductive purposes. If a person can't reproduce why can they still get married?

Okay, well the Gospel according to Katzpur is that the perpetuation of the species is probably the main reason why God instituted marriage. However, He also said, "Neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man, in God." (I hope I got that right; I didn't bother to reference my scriptures.) So, I'm assuming that He is fine with childless families, as long as they are comprised of a man and a woman.

Would somebody please tell me why I don't learn to stay the hell out of threads on homosexuality?

 

[Green Gaia]

Okay, well the Gospel according to Katzpur is that the perpetuation of the species is probably the main reason why God instituted marriage.

Interesting. I don't understand how marriage relates to the perpetuation of the species, however. Marriage or not, I have to think we as a species would have figured out how to reproduce. Or am I not understanding this correctly?

Would somebody please tell me why I don't learn to stay the hell out of threads on homosexuality?

I don't know... but when you figure out how, will you let me know?

 

[DeepShadow]

PARDON THE ALL-CAPS, BUT I MUST MAKE AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION!!

I went back to the article in which I thought I saw the comment by Elder Oaks , and the comment was not there. I don't wish to misrepresent an Apostle, so I'm retracting my statement until I can find out where I saw it. I deeply apologize for getting this thread off-topic, but in consolation, I can offer the following points of doctrine which Elder Oaks does use to illuminate the church standpoint on same-gender attraction. The entire article can be found in the October 1995 Ensign.

Our attitudes toward these questions are dictated by gospel doctrines we know to be true.
1. God created us “male and female” (D&C 20:18; Moses 2:27; Gen. 1:27). What we call gender was an essential characteristic of our existence prior to our birth. 2


2. The purpose of mortal life and the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to prepare the sons and daughters of God for their destiny—to become like our heavenly parents.


3. Our eternal destiny—exaltation in the celestial kingdom—is made possible only through the atonement of Jesus Christ (through which we became and can remain “innocent before God” [D&C 93:38]) and is only available to a man and a woman who have entered into and been faithful to the covenants of an eternal marriage in a temple of God (see D&C 131:1–4; D&C 132).


4. Through the merciful plan of our Father in Heaven, persons who desire to do what is right but through no fault of their own are unable to have an eternal marriage in mortal life will have an opportunity to qualify for eternal life in a period following mortality, if they keep the commandments of God and are true to their baptismal and other covenants. 3


5. In addition to the cleansing effect of the Atonement, God has given us agency—the power to choose between good (the path of life) and evil (the path of spiritual death and destruction [see 2 Ne. 2:27; Moses 4:3]). Although the conditions of mortality can limit our freedom (such as by restricting our mobility or our power to act on certain options), when we have reached the age or condition of accountability (see Moro. 8:5–12; D&C 68:27; D&C 101:78) no mortal or spiritual power can deprive us of our agency.


6. To accomplish one of the purposes of mortal life, it is essential that we be tested against opposition to see if we will keep the commandments of God (see 2 Ne. 2:11; Abr. 3:25–26). To provide that opposition, Satan and his followers are permitted to tempt us to use our agency and our freedom to choose evil and to commit sin.


7. Because Satan desires that “all men might be miserable like unto himself” (2 Ne. 2:27), his most strenuous efforts are directed at encouraging those choices and actions that will thwart God’s plan for his children. He seeks to undermine the principle of individual accountability, to persuade us to misuse our sacred powers of procreation, to discourage marriage and childbearing by worthy men and women, and to confuse what it means to be male or female.


8. In all of this, the devil, who has no body, seeks to persuade mortals to corrupt their bodies by “choos[ing] eternal death, according to the will of the flesh … , which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring [them] down to hell, that he may reign over [them] in his own kingdom” (2 Ne. 2:29).


9. The First Presidency has declared that “there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” 4 Although immoral thoughts are less serious than immoral behavior, such thoughts also need to be resisted and repented of because we know that “our thoughts will also condemn us” (Alma 12:14). Immoral thoughts (and the less serious feelings that lead to them) can bring about behavior that is sinful.


10. Because of God’s great love for his children, even the worst sinners (or almost all of them) will ultimately be rewarded with assignment to a kingdom of glory. 5 Persons who have lived good lives and received most of the ordinances of salvation but have failed to qualify for exaltation through eternal marriage will be saved in a lesser place in the celestial kingdom where there is no eternal increase (see D&C 131:1–4).


11. In the midst of the challenges and choices of mortal life, we are all under the Savior’s commandment to “love one another” (John 15:12, 17). As the First Presidency said in a recent message:


“We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us.” 6


Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.

 

[lizskid]

The Bible also gave us the relationships of David and Jonathon, Ruth and Naomi and Daniel and Ashpenaz. What do we do with those, that are shown to be loving and without sin/judgement? Do we pick and choose what we see? I would think since so much detail is given to those that there was a lesson for us. Those relationships certainly would not produce children nor follow the rule of man/woman.

 

[Bishka]

The Bible also gave us the relationships of David and Jonathon, Ruth and Naomi and Daniel and Ashpenaz. .

They weren't having sexual relations with each other or did I miss something in Sunday School.:sarcastic

 

[Katzpur]

Interesting. I don't understand how marriage relates to the perpetuation of the species, however. Marriage or not, I have to think we as a species would have figured out how to reproduce. Or am I not understanding this correctly?

Sure we would, but I believe God wanted it to be within the bonds of matrimony.

I don't know... but when you figure out how, will you let me know?

Don't worry, I've given up trying to figure it out. But this is officially my last post on a homosexuality thread!!!! There are a lot of other topics where I can debate my little head off and not end up so frustrated I could scream. I'm going to stick to them.

 

[Green Gaia]

Don't worry, I've given up trying to figure it out. But this is officially my last post on a homosexuality thread!!!! There are a lot of other topics where I can debate my little head off and not end up so frustrated I could scream. I'm going to stick to them.

:hug:

I guess I'll keep on screaming my little head off both here and in real life on the subject. I feel I have to do so even though sometimes I wish I didn't.

Have a great night, Kat.

 

[lizskid]

They weren't having sexual relations with each other or did I miss something in Sunday School.:sarcastic

Well, I don't remember details about too many of the couples in the Bible having sexual relations, although we can surmise it happened.:yes:

 

[Bishka]

Well, I don't remember details about too many of the couples in the Bible having sexual relations, although we can surmise it happened.:yes:

Yes, but I doubt Jonathan and David were a couple nor Naomi and Ruth.

If you can prove that they were lesbians and gays then I'll leave my Church, but I doubt anyone can do that.

Jonathan and David were great friends - best of friends, ever had that kind of relationship.

And Naomi and Ruth were daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. :sarcastic

 

[lizskid]

Isn't that the wonder of the Bible? That is lives, that it can be interpretted by everyone? I am not so sure who is "right" here, or maybe it was to speak to everyone, too. Those relationships were very tender and devoted, however you wish to interpret them. I think we CAN agree on that.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, I don't remember details about too many of the couples in the Bible having sexual relations, although we can surmise it happened.:yes:

Sounds like a great topic for a thread, if you can find any evidence. While "details" may have been lacking, we can do a lot more than "surmise" what happened between other sexual couples in the Bible.

 

[Bishka]

Sounds like a great topic for a thread, if you can find any evidence. While "details" may have been lacking, we can do a lot more than "surmise" what happened between other sexual couples in the Bible.

If you read the KJV version it usually says the couples

"knew" each other - which I believe is used to signify sexual relations.

 

[Halcyon]

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.

The strongest insult, really? It's just my honest opinion.

There is a lot i like about the LDS Church, but despite that i couldn't be around a God that forces people to be something they are not. If i am insulting the Church, which wasn't really my intention, then all i am insulting is its intolerance toward homosexual love.

EDIT: To clarify, the question in the OP was "So, what do you think of the LDS Church's "official" stance regarding this issue?"

My answer is that i don't like it, and i won't pretend that i do.
With respect to what i said before, i think i could have worded it a lot better. However, it does convey my message.

If i were to die and discovered that the LDS relgion was true, or that Islam, Catholocism or any other religion that condemns or denounces homosexuality as a sin or problem to be overcome was the true religion. It would mean that the doctrine of condemning homosexuality that exists in the LDS Church and these other faiths stems from God Himself.
I'd rather by apart from God than be with Him and accept the condemnation of my homosexual friends, and i would be angry at God.

If God were to reveal to your Prophet that He doesn't view homosexuality as an evil sin, then i would happily accept the LDS religion if i died and found out it was the true one. But until that time, your Church's stance on homosexuality creates a line that i am unwilling to cross.

If this offends you Katz, then i am sorry for that becuase i like you a great deal, but i'm not going to change my mind about this.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

Halcyon, I'm curios - Do you feel the way about all sins? What if, for example, you died and found out that God doesn't like it when people steal. Would you want to be as far away from him as possible because he doesn't accept your crook friends? Or is it only certain sins?

 

[DeepShadow]

Halcyon, I'm curios - Do you feel the way about all sins? What if, for example, you died and found out that God doesn't like it when people steal. Would you want to be as far away from him as possible because he doesn't accept your crook friends? Or is it only certain sins?

Sins are only the tip of the iceberg! What about how God treats children with fibromyalgia, or cancer? Would you reject God because he made a person genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic, and thereby put said person on a collision course with heartbreak and unfulfilled dreams? If God is to be held responsible for all our genes, then he has a lot to answer for!

 

[Halcyon]

Halcyon, I'm curios - Do you feel the way about all sins? What if, for example, you died and found out that God doesn't like it when people steal. Would you want to be as far away from him as possible because he doesn't accept your crook friends? Or is it only certain sins?

I don't consider homosexuality a sin.

Sins are only the tip of the iceberg! What about how God treats children with fibromyalgia, or cancer? Would you reject God because he made a person genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic, and thereby put said person on a collision course with heartbreak and unfulfilled dreams? If God is to be held responsible for all our genes, then he has a lot to answer for!

If God gave someone cancer and then called them a sinner for having cancer, then yes, i would reject him.

It's not the idea that God made people homosexual that i have a problem with, it's that he condemns them for it afterwards.