Note:
This is a cross post. To visit where the post was originally published, click here.
By now, all of us have heard of the policy change by the LDS church. Reactions varied widely. I cannot explain exactly why I’m writing, but I can tell you what I hope for. I hope to look back on these days in 35 years or so and not shake my head. I hope that the members of the church can have more empathy toward each other and those outside of our church in the lgbtq community. I hope that the members critically examine what recently happened and its implications for the work of bringing the gospel to all of God’s children. And I hope the members see that God revealing ‘many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God’ will depend on us.
I wanted to convey a simple message: There isn’t really a good reason for policy change or the way the Church treats homosexuals for that matter. There are undoubtedly a lot of legal motivations for the change, but the policy change wouldn’t be necessary if the church had a place for homosexuals that allowed them the same blessings the rest of us enjoy in the first place.
I’m a member of the church and have been all my life. I served a mission, attend church regularly, and have a temple recommend. I’m also black and keenly aware of the less than perfect policies the church has had in its past – more on that later. Like most members of the church, I don’t believe being homosexual is sinful. However, I differ from most Mormons because I don’t believe homosexual acts are a sin. I will explain that later, too. I share this to make it clear that it’s possible to be a dissident in good standing and also that despite the policy change and how the church has marginalized homosexuals, I still have a testimony of the church and the gospel.
The Arguments
-The policy is for the protection of the children.
-Church leaders have taught that marriage is between a man and a woman.
-Church leaders have taught that acting on homosexuality is sin
-Church leaders have taught that homosexual marriage is apostasy.
-The Family Proclamation teaches that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
-The church leaders will not lead us astray.
-The bible doesn’t teach any other marriage but that between a man and a woman.
-In the few instances where homosexual acts are mentioned, it’s something negative.
Every reason I hear about why we (Mormons) treat homosexuals as we do stems from what the leaders have taught or what the scriptures supposedly say about homosexuality. Above is a list of common variants of these arguments. A closer look at these arguments will reveal that the way our church treats homosexuals needs to change.
The Policy
The common support for the policy change is its analog to the policy for children of polygamous unions. To protect children from conflicting teachings at home and church (and likely to legally protect the Church), the Church will prevent children from polyamorous unions from joining the Church until they’re 18, move out, and disavow the practice. Many members heard Elder Christofferson of the Twelve use this analogy when explaining the policy change.
The analogy is logically flawed. The policy isn’t the same as it is for children of polygamous unions, because in countries where polygamy is legal, children can still be baptized, though every other stipulation remains in effect (Church Handbook, 16.3.9, 2010). Therefore, protecting children cannot be the whole reason for the new policy.
The biggest issue with requiring a child to disavow the practice of homosexuality is that the Church has no solution for homosexuals to lead a fulfilling life while living the current teachings of the Gospel. Here are a homosexual’s options according to the Church: 1. Remain celibate their entire life 2. Marry someone of the opposite sex and hope things work out (most of the time they don’t) 3. Leave the church and live your life. In no scenario does a gay person get to enjoy all the blessings of the gospel. The church no longer advocates conversion therapy (because it’s less than effective and dangerous) and neither the science nor scripture have found a cure for gay. As the saying goes, “If you have a problem with no solution, you don’t have a problem”.
Leadership
I get it. We’re a church distinguished by a claim to modern day prophets, priesthood authority, and the same organization as Christ’s church. The men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators are great men admired for their selfless service and unwavering commitment to teaching and living the principles of the Gospel. Personally, I don’t flinch at a ton of stuff they say because a lot of it resonates as true to me. Every April and October I look forward to General Conference, the Super Bowl of Mormonism, where I get to see them speak and reiterate gospel principles as they relate to us in our day. I’ll say again, they’re great and inspired men.
Inspired men are not perfect men, however, nor do they claim to be. We don’t talk about this aspect of our leadership a ton in church and we tend to forget it. As great as they are, they were not born into their leadership roles neither were they unaffected socially or culturally by their surroundings. They have and are entitled to opinions on different matters that will affect how they see the world and which will influence how they operate in their callings. When I was set apart as a missionary (the closest thing to an apostolic calling I and most other Mormon men will probably ever hold in this life) I wasn’t magically devoid of any bias, nor did I stop making mistakes. Why should we assume it’s not the same for the brethren?
Doctrine does not support the new policy regarding homosexuality. The scriptures are specific about what constitutes doctrine (D&C 26:2). Essentially, for anything to be doctrine it has to be submitted to the scrutiny of the brethren then put to the vote of the people of the Church. This is the law of common consent. This has only happened six times in the Church’s history, most recently in the 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood. The doctrine canonized by the law of common consent are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official declarations one and two. Nothing else is binding on the church. This doesn’t mean that we don’t listen to the brethren, but it does mean we don’t treat their words as the end-all be-all. Hugh B. Brown explained,
“With respect to people feeling that whatever the brethren say is gospel, this tends to undermine the proposition of freedom of speech and thought. As members of the church we are bound to sustain and support the brethren in the positions they occupy so long as their conduct entitles them to that. But we also have only to defend those doctrines of the church contained in the four standard works…Anything beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinion and not scripture. Although there are certain statements that whatever the brethren say becomes the word of God, this is a dangerous practice to apply to all leaders and all cases…”
This includes the words of the brethren in the official capacity of the Church and the family proclamation. No matter how much the brethren declare the wrongness of homosexual relationships from the pulpit, it’s not binding on the church until the people have voted on it. Until that time, we are not obligated to accept new policy for our membership in the church. It’s why members are not subject to church discipline for their beliefs.
Some may quote D&C 1:38 or 21:5 to pretty much say that what the prophet says as the prophet is what the Lord would say if he were here. Joseph Fielding Smith quoted the latter verse and clarified with ‘And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture…’ (D&C 68:4 emphasis added).
We hear all the time, especially at times like this, that prophet and the church leaders will never lead the Church astray. Most people interpret this to mean that the Church leaders, when in the official capacity of the church, will never say anything contrary to the mind and will of God. History proves this sentiment false. For one thing, the prophets, modern or ancient, have never claimed infallibility. If they did, I wouldn’t be a member right now. Some prophets even address their imperfection. Also, remember when blacks were denied the priesthood? Remember the things said by George Q. Cannon, Mark E. Petersen, Bruce R. McConkie, and Brigham Young from the pulpit with regard to ’the negro’? The words they said about black folk were taught as doctrine, but have since been disavowed by the church and members are not to repeat them. Elder McConkie even goes as far to say,
‘Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world…. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more…. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.’
Brothers and Sisters, is it not plausible that we could come across a similar scenario today? Is it not plausible that the Lord will reveal more concerning the place of homosexuals within his church and the plan of salvation?
Fortunately, there is an alternative interpretation of ‘the prophets will never lead us astray’ that allows for human error. Brigham Young explained,
“…if God should suffer Joseph Smith to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. …it would be because they deserved it…”
To further explain how the saints could ‘deserve’ to be led astray (and also explain how we knew when the brethren were ‘moved upon’ by the holy ghost), he goes on,
“…if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.”
Personal revelation is the key and there’s nothing wrong with questioning or asking for confirmation of those things which come from the prophets. One of the earliest stories in the Book of Mormon seems to echo this sentiment when Nephi asks the Lord for the same vision that his father and the prophet Lehi received. Laman and Lemuel struggle with the vision because they don’t think to ‘inquire of the Lord’. It is essential that we seek personal revelation after we thoroughly examine significant teachings then, Hugh B. Brown explains, “one’s logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within.”
Scripture
If you are able to accept that leaders are fallible and what they say isn’t binding on the Church, you must rely on scripture. Scripture is binding according to the law of common consent, but I don’t believe it condemns homosexuality. If we were to go into greater depth of what is written in the scriptures concerning the matter, we’d focus a great deal on societal context. However, it may suffice to address one simple issue in explaining why the bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality. The Oxford Classical Dictionary explains,
“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term ‘homosexuality,’ and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. … The application of ‘homosexuality’ (and ‘heterosexuality’) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.”
In short, when the Bible was written, homosexuality wasn’t a thing; no one lived or identified as homosexual. Therefore the Bible does not and cannot address homosexuality, let alone do so within the context of loving, committed, same-gender relationships.
Conclusion
We got nothing, brothers and sisters. To ostracize and marginalize homosexuals is doctrinally and, dare I say, morally indefensible. What the brethren say isn’t necessarily doctrine, they are capable of making mistakes, and the Bible is incapable of addressing homosexuality within the context of loving committed relationships. While I still believe the restored gospel is here and I sustain my leaders, I can’t make sense of this new policy mentally or spiritually.
What are we going to do about it?
As yet, there’s no precedent that I’m aware of where people fight something of this magnitude. However, the general protocol for opposing the higher ups is talking to your stake president. There are also many ways to respectfully protest this change outlined here. I sincerely believe that if change is to come, it will come down to the members, for God won’t reveal to us that which we’re not ready for. Perhaps, if a significant number of members speak up and speak out in the spirit of the 2nd great commandment, the Lord may yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
James Jones
James Jones is a BYU graduate currently living in Boston, MA. He served a mission in South Africa, currently serves on his stake's public affairs committee, and works as a touring musician.
All posts by James Jones
Great post. Is love to see the reference regarding homosexuality and the bible, both the lack of a word and no one identified as being.
Amen James. Very well written.
Comment
Lysa Marie Filcek,
Hi, Lysa!
My reference is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. It reads:
“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term ‘homosexuality,’ and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. … The application of ‘homosexuality’ (and ‘heterosexuality’) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.”
Hope that helps!
Truth is truth, whether or not it is accepted as "doctrine". I think you have been deceived by Satan, because just about everything in here is a lie. Homosexuality is a sin, and will always be a sin, and is one of the worst sins anyone can commit. If you seriously believe homosexual acts are not a sin, then you have absolutely no foundation for your claimed faith. Seriously, if you don't believe that is a sin, then what is a sin? Obviously there is no such thing as sexual immorality, right? Being a homosexuality is a sin, and anyone who commits that disgusting act will be damned! And anyone that has your Satanic mindset of ignorance and lies, will be damned too! If you are going to denounce everything that every modern prophet said about homosexuality, then why do you call yourself a true follower of Christ? I'm not the most humble, smartest guy on the planet, but I know and testify that marriage is between a man and woman, and only a man and woman, and homosexuality is wrong. I will testify of that truth until my dying breath because I know, without a doubt, it is true.
Comment
Sheldon Barlow,
Of course there is such a thing as sexual immorality, but I am under the impression that the rules for homosexuals ought to the same as those for heterosexuals: Sex outside of marriage is bad no matter who you are.
You don’t have to agree with that, but you’re in no position to judge me or anyone who disagrees with you as damned. I’ve defended my position with scripture and the best books. I’ve sought personal revelation on the matter as well. You’re welcome to do the same.
Homosexuality is one of, if not, the worst form of sexual immorality. How have you defended your position with scripture, when you said that what the Bible says about homosexuality is wrong? If you’ve sought personal revelation, you are getting the revelation from someone other than God. I am not the one judging you. Everything I said is reiterating what the scriptures, former and modern prophets have said about it.
As I’ve already addressed in this post, what the scriptures say about homosexuality is, at best, inconclusive and what modern prophets have said about homosexuality is not binding on the church. Scripture supports the latter observation and academia supports the former.
I’ll say again, you are not in a position to judge where my revelation comes from. Latter-day Saints are not bound to accept everything the brethren say and the scriptures do not and cannot address homosexuality as a way of living or an identity.
I have every right to judge you as being an evil person or not. It says right in the Book of Mormon that it is given unto us to judge good from evil, and I know what you are saying is directly from Satan. You don’t have to accept everything the brethren say, but you are picking and choosing what you want to hear. If you don’t agree with the true gospel of Jesus Christ, you have no place here. Open up your ignorant mind and look at how disgusting and evil the sin of homosexuality is.
Comment
Sheldon Barlow,
I never said it wasn’t your right. I simply said you’re not in a position to do so. You came here, not seeking to understand, but to condemn and belittle, which, may I remind you, neither Jesus nor the prophets are okay with; you cannot make righteous judgements in that spirit. It seems I’m not the only one picking and choosing what prophetic counsel I want to hear. I won’t judge you for it, because fact is every saint does it.
I will again invite you to provide cogent counterarguments, because frankly if there’s a reason for me to sustain this policy change and the current teachings on homosexuality, I’m anxious to know it. Explain to me why I should believe that the scriptures adequately address homosexuality and perhaps we can have constructive conversation.
There is nothing I need to understand or learn in this article because almost all of it was a lie. Have you never read about Sodom and Gomorrah? Explain why God would destroy that city, except that it was filled with a bunch of homosexuals. In fact, it was so wicked, Lot couldn’t even find ten good people to keep it from being destroyed. You think I am hear to belittle and cause contention? You have no idea how saddened I am over the people like you who cannot see past their ignorance to learn the truth. if it’s okay to be a homosexual, then name one good, religious leader in the church or the country that did not fall away. I know that if this Church or this Country is to be destroyed it will be because the Traditional family unit was destroyed.
Sheldon – please DO go investigate Sodom and Gomorrah. Yes, one of the issues mentioned was homosexual acts, but there are many other things, including it may have been raping of male visitors to show them “who is boss.” I have heard a few other
If that is the best you have on James’ request to back it up, I would have to say for me it isn’t that clear – especially when I read the very numerous times Jesus said to love others.
I am fine if you have another opinion that differs from mine (or James’). I am fine that you express that difference. I am fine if you do ask James asks and bring proof to your argument (and you have brought “some”, but IMHO I find it weak and not compelling). But but the way you are going about expressing that difference is more pissing on other’s ideas than trying to engage in a conversation to win any hearts to your side. James is showing much more patience than you seem to be.
Yes, there were other things that caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but homosexuality is the main reason. Don’t use the Jesus said love everyone excuse. Loving someone does not, at all, mean to love their actions. Jesus whipped a bunch of people selling stuff in the temple. If you truly love someone, you will explain the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality.
Comment
Sheldon Barlow,
You’re illustrating another problem I have with the whole homosexuality being a sin thing. People like you are so quick to impose an absolute morality on sins that you’re not even tempted to commit, but clearly allow for relative morality while speaking ill of others who don’t think like you. I don’t respect that.
If you’re going to insist that homosexuality was the main reason for Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction, we must look at context. The homosexuality spoken of here was not within the context of loving, committed relationships. It was unrestrained, exploitive, and coercive. Homosexual or heterosexual, it was wrong, but we cannot argue that all homosexual acts in all contexts are bad because of this story.
You’re allowed to exhort people to abdicate sinful behavior, Sheldon, but if you can’t do it in the spirit of the 2nd great commandment, your exhortations will be in vain.
In today's world there are over 10,000 gods worshipped around the world. Even amoung the Christians there must be several 1000 gods because of the tremendous animosity between Christian sects. Sheldon, you share some bitter words of hatred. If that is what comes from your God…I don't like your God. My God loves all, embraces all as his creations. Do you realize there are 100's of Gods that have said homosexuailty is alright, that relationships between same gender is good? Perhaps your God needs to visit these Gods to find out true compassion, eh?
It doesn’t matter if they are married or not, homosexuality is a sin. I never once said I hate gay people. However, I do, with all my heart, hate the sin of homosexuality. You need to find out for yourself that it is wrong, because you clearly are not open to hearing the truth from me.
Sheldon – it seems that we are at odds. I would like to say the same to you.
I don’t feel in my heart that homosexuality is a son. You need to find out for yourself that it isn’t a sin. You are clearly not open to hearing it from me.
I will not respond on this thread again – not out of anger or hate. We are just not getting anywhere.
Thanks, James – for a brave, thoughtful and helpful post. I hope trolls like Sheldon don't discourage you from continuing to speak your truth.
I only try to discourage the lies that have been said. I really hope one day you will be able to understand that homosexuality is wrong and evil, because right now you seriously have it backwards.
Wow Sheldon how do you call yourself Christian with such hateful daming words? God Loves ALL of His children and if you don't believe that maybe you should read your Bible! In fact start with Luke 10 25-28 and Matthew 22: 37-40 dont forget "Beam in own eye" or "He that cast the 1st stone" …now that you have your Bible dusted off look up Ezekiel 16:49 and read about the sins of Sodom or better yet let me tell you: they are "Pride, Gluteny, Idleness, not helping the poor and needy" Nothing about Homosexuality! Oh and how do you feel about black people? Do you hate them too and think they are dammed to hell? cause there is plenty of scriptures in the Bible about slavery starting with Leviticus 25:44 …"I'm not the most humble, smartest guy on the planet" Understatement of the century. You are ignorant to the truths of your own Bible! How do you sleep at night? Obviously you dont know and Love someone who is Homosexual …Lucky for them!!! If you would soften your heart and get to know really know someone who is gay you would see that they are just normal loving people trying to survive like all of us.
Why don’t you read the Bible? Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Very simple. If you really loved gays, you would call them to repentance. Every single gay supporter who claims to be a Mormon, or follower of Christ uses the exact same “God loves everyone equally”, “Jesus loves everyone”. Our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ do without a doubt love everyone, but they do not love sin at all. They hate it whether you believe it or not. They will not look upon it “With the least degree of allowance”. I don’t hate gays and I never, ever said I do. I have a true desire in my heart to see everyone come to a knowledge of the truth, and people like you who are trying to corrupt the true Church of Christ, the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, make it really hard to do so. I preach very hard on homosexuality because I know how evil it is. I want you guys to understand that. I don’t know how else to bring you to a knowledge of the truth because this article has almost disregarded the Bible, and the author will not listen to anything unless it’s “official church doctrine”. Truth doesn’t have to be voted on. It is true no matter what. Please, please pray with an open heart and mind, and you will know that what I have said is true.
Why don’t you read the Bible? Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Very simple. If you really loved gays, you would call them to repentance. Every single gay supporter who claims to be a Mormon, or follower of Christ uses the exact same “God loves everyone equally”, “Jesus loves everyone”. Our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ do without a doubt love everyone, but they do not love sin at all. They hate it whether you believe it or not. They will not look upon it “With the least degree of allowance”. I don’t hate gays and I never, ever said I do. I have a true desire in my heart to see everyone come to a knowledge of the truth, and people like you who are trying to corrupt the true Church of Christ, the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, make it really hard to do so. I preach very hard on homosexuality because I know how evil it is. I want you guys to understand that. I don’t know how else to bring you to a knowledge of the truth because this article has almost disregarded the Bible, and the author will not listen to anything unless it’s “official church doctrine”. Truth doesn’t have to be voted on. It is true no matter what. Please, please pray with an open heart and mind, and you will know that what I have said is true.
Comment
Sheldon Barlow,
Leviticus 18:22
To be honest the LDS church has LONG professed that the Mosaic law was ended by Christs coming. So if you are going to argue that scripture then you have to allow all other parts of the law of Moses. I don’t think 90% of the non-Jewish people of the world are able even willing to follow that law. You can say you have no hate in your heart but your words are far from the truth when you drag up dead scriptures.
Then, I guess it’s okay to murder, commit adultery, and disrespect your parents because the law of Moses is gone and those are dead scriptures. In fact, Jesus loves everyone for who they are, and will accept them even if they don’t repent. There is no sin, and there is no devil. That’s all I hear when I read what you say.
Well Sheldon to be honest you really need to re read what I wrote how do you correctly write it I put it out that the church of Jesus Christ teaches that the mosaic law was ended by Jesus coming to Earth now whether or not you accept that they said that and whether or not you accept that the law is alive is also your choice but if you accept the law Moses is a living law then you need to address all the covenants that Moses created in that law and not pick and choose the ones that fill the void of your hatred. In case you’re not sure as to how to live the law of Moses to it’s full Commandments I would suggest that you speak to practitioners of the Jewish religion there you will be able to fill the areas of the law that you currently I’m breaking when you have done so then you will be able to pick up the first stone when you have done so maybe should Reid dress the love of Christ and how if there was a sin he cared the prison repented and he showed love in all of Christ ratings energy to find which one it directed to or from Christ by reading a Gideon Bible the highlight red Christ does not address same gender attraction he does not address homo sexuality so now Reid address what I have said after you have spoken to Jewish person of the Jewish faith and you have successfully lives out like completely including Leviticus though I doubt you’ll be able to do it because it seems most of your responses to everyone else on we’re filled with troll ish hate and lack a complete understanding I love what you are to be talking about
Ok, what? Like, sorry, to go complete 180, but I couldn’t understand anything in that last response becaus of a lack of punctuation. I’m not being sarcastic either, I just really couldn’t understand what you said.
I love to hate smart phones, lol. Mine does not like to put those in while I am voice to text. I will edit it. here give it another go.
Well Sheldon to be honest you really need to re read what I wrote. The church of Jesus Christ teaches that the mosaic law was ended by Jesus coming to Earth. Now whether or not you accept that they said that and whether or not you accept that the mosaic law is alive is also your choice. But if you accept the law of Moses is a living law then you need to address all the covenants that Moses created with god in that law and not pick and choose the ones that fill the void of hatred. In case you’re not sure as to how to live the law of Moses to it’s fullest Commandments I would suggest that you speak to practitioners of the Jewish religion. There you will be able to fill the areas of the law that you currently are breaking when you have done so then you will be able to pick up the first stone. When you have done so maybe should Readdress the love of Christ and how if there was a sin he cared for the sinner and asked for them to repent and he showed to love. In all of Christ teachings that are his words, if you are not sure as to which words are from Christ this can be found by looking at Gideon Bible they highlight red what they assume are his words. I struggle to find anything Christ said about his addressing address same gender attraction he does not address homo sexuality so now lets Readdress what I have said after you have spoken to Jewish person of the Jewish faith and you have successfully lived the mosaic completely including Leviticus though I doubt you’ll be able to do it because it seems most of your responses to everyone else on we’re filled with trollish hate and lack a complete understanding of all that is written. Somewhere you are going to have to draw the line and make a choice on to which laws you are going to to keep and which ones you are willing to break. I am not hear saying that you are a bad person. You are sounding that way by some of the things you have taken the time to write. I can also see that you feel this subject is close to your heart. But do you truly accept that Christ is your redeemer if so then all are his children and all of his words that “suffer not the children” are in fact written in heaven and are law. So the LDS leaders have broken a core law that spans all christian faith. As to me saying that there is no Devil. Oh I don’t think I implied that at all. To be honest you cannot have good without evil. I know through a Near Death experience that there is an overwhelming good and I know what I saw and he knows what I saw. Do I believe yes without doubt. Do I believe in the LDS faith the more I learn the more I am thinking there is something very wrong with it.
Ok, enough is enough I think I made my point. I have learned a valuable lesson today thank you Sheldon for pointing it out. Smart phones are horrible with it come to voice to text. By the way my NDE (Near Death Experience) was still shown to me even though I am a Transwoman. Your are more than welcome to read my blog. I do address a bit of my faith issues on there as well.
Comment
Sheldon Barlow,
Troll much? 🙂 Btw Sheldon, in my experience, people like you are usually closet homosexuals. And if it turns out that you are correct, good. I don’t want to be around souls like yours in the next life.
Ia agree with much of what James has written but not with his assessment of what the scriptures teach or what Jesus would say about homosexual marriage.
Grasping at straws, in an effort to find justification for homosexual relationships in the Bible, some have pointed to the relationships of David and Johnathan and Ruth and Namoi, asking us to surmise that there might have been some non-Platonic aspects to them; but there is no statement in the scripture that would justify such a suspicion. Even if one can imagine that there might have been, there is certainly no hint in the scriptures that would remotely suggest that it could have been within the context of a marriage. Naomi might be charged with conniving to promote a marriage for Ruth, but it certainly was not a homosexual one. There was no such thing as homosexual marriage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament; hence, there was no need to define or even mention homosexual marriage. Homosexual relationships, yes, they are mentioned in both Testaments, but always in unfavorable terms and never in connection with the idea of marriage.
Jesus in his own teachings in the New Testament said that his mission marked the end of many of the old Testament laws, performances, ceremonies, rituals, sacrifices and punishments that were associated with the tutorial religious requirements of the Old Testament people. Some suggest that Christians can now ignore the proscriptions against homosexual behavior that are clearly found in the Old Testament writings, that Jesus’s sermon on the Mount of brotherly love, mercy, and tolerance supplanted all the outdated practices and prohibitions of the BC era. So let us not mention any Old Testament practices and focus only on the New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles who represented him through revelation from the Holy Ghost after he was gone.
It is true that Christ himself, as far as is recorded, never said anything for or against homosexual relationships. He did teach about marriage, divorce, and adultery. He taught only about the marriage between a man and a woman. The same view of divorce was taught as existed from the beginning. Adultery was still a sin, although now not to be punished by a stoning at the hands of those who were also sinners in some way. In fact, none of the Ten Commandments were rescinded by his doctrine, but only encapsulated in the positive restatements’ thou shalt love the Lord Thy God and serve him only, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’.
Surely none would suggest that because Christ spoke only of heterosexual marriage relationships, we can conclude that he was in favor of or at least had nothing against homosexual behaviors. So how can we know what is view was? We may have to read between the lines.
In Matthew 19 we see his confrontation with the Pharisees who sought to ensnare him with a question about divorce, Christ responded with a clear definition of heterosexual marriage and a clear denunciation of divorce.
In an observation clearly directed to heterosexual males, Christ said:
“He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already with her in his heart.” When does a glance becomes a leer, or when does a momentary attraction become lust is not elucidated in his statement (ultimately, of course, it is only a matter of the time the temptation is allowed to stay in focus), but it is clear that he meant that not only should we control our actions in our sexual behavior, but also our thoughts which are the seeds of behavior .
In his defense of the woman caught ‘red handed’ in an adulterous relationship, he defended her against stoning, an uncompassionate punishment being demanded by the witnesses of the sin, who were not without some guilt themselves. He demonstrated his love for her and his capacity for forgiveness, but did not condone or minimize the seriousness of the offence, as evidenced by his closing words to her: “Go and sin no more.”
Adultery, fornication, and homosexual behavior are all antithetical to the Genesis concept of marriage as a solemn covenant relationship between a man and a woman with the directive to bear and rear children if they can in a sexual relationship that excludes all others.
Christ’s mortal ministry was confined to a relatively small region in Palestine, where apparently homosexual behavior was extremely uncommon. That the New Testament writers recorded no occasion when Jesus specifically commented on the issue is not surprising. Again, there was no mention of homosexual marriage because it did not exist. No doubt there was sub-rosa homosexual behavior, yes, but none that was publically recognized as occurring within the context of a marriage.
Later when the apostles were instructed to extend their teachings to the Gentiles taking the gospel to the Greek and Roman cultures, the requirement to abstain from eating certain meats was removed, and the ritual of circumcision became no longer a requirement, but the instructions concerning the relationship of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, in a marriage were never changed by Christ or the apostles.
The apostle Paul, no doubt the most widely traveled of the early disciples, whose writings comprise a large part of the Post Christ New Testament had occasion to write to the Romans and Corinthians concerning homosexual behavior in clearly condemning language. There are also verses in Timothy and Jude which mention this behavior also in a most unfavorable light.
There is a book entitled ‘Hard Sayings of the Bible’ written by three Biblical Scholars who are knowledgeable in the languages of original biblical texts who discuss the question, Does the Bible really condemn homosexuality?. In the last paragraph of their detailed discussion they summarize their answer.
“Yes, it does. In every place it mentions any homosexual practice it roundly condemns the practice. In no place does it speak positively of homosexual behavior. Does the Bible dwell on the issue, especially since parts of it were written in a world full of bisexuality? No, it does not. Instead the Bible focuses on its alternatives. It encourages sexual expression in the context of a faithful marriage, and it exalts celibacy for those who cannot or choose not to marry. Both are honorable lifestyles. There is no third way.”
Hard Sayings of the Bible, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. , Peter H. Davids, Manfred T. Baruch: InterVarsity Press, pg 543
Just to expand on my previous comment
I can concur with brother Jones when he points out that as Christians we must be ‘Good Samaritans’ when we see injustice, persecution, and injury done to our neighbors, brothers and sisters. There is no excuse which can justify passing by on the other side of the road when we can relieve their suffering or assist them even at some risk or expense to ourselves.
I also agree that I am not bound to accept every opinion or statement uttered or written by any authority who I have sustained in the church when he is acting on his own agency as a fully fallible human and is capable of having perspectives colored by personal impulses and reactions where knowledge is not complete, just as I am.
But where my opinion diverges from that of Brother Jones is when he concludes that the best and only way to help a brother or sister who may be suffering from the emotional or spiritual pain of Same-sex attraction is to defy a policy that has been ratified and endorsed by the entire LDS Presidency and Apostolic Quorum after their having pondered, fasted and prayed about it. I think in such a case there is a high probability that one would be on the wrong side of the road; and one would be well advised to give the situation some very serious study and then pray for either a confirmation or obfuscation of their conclusions by the Holy Ghost, personal revelation which we are counseled by our leaders to obtain on all questions.
I believe where James got to the wrong side of the road was when on the basis of an Oxford Dictionary statement that there was no single word in the Latin or Greek that corresponded to the word Homosexual and no social group in Biblical times that identified themselves as such, he concluded: “when the Bible was written, homosexuality wasn’t a thing; no one lived or identified as homosexual. Therefore the Bible does not and cannot address homosexuality, let alone do so within the context of loving, committed same-gender relationships.”
It is true that the word homosexual does not appear in the traditional translations of the Bible, and nowhere in the scripture is homosexual marriage mentioned or addressed either by Christ or the apostles because same-sex marriage did not exist. But there is, however, in the traditional English translations of both the Old and New Testaments clear multi-word descriptions of homosexual behavior in contexts which unquestionably signify that it is not sanctioned by God.
There is a book entitled ‘Hard Sayings of the Bible’ written by three Biblical Scholars who are knowledgeable in the languages of original biblical texts who discuss the question, Does the Bible really condemn homosexuality?. In the last paragraph of their detailed discussion they summarize their answer:
“Yes, it does. In every place it mentions any homosexual practice it roundly condemns the practice. In no place does it speak positively of homosexual behavior. Does the Bible dwell on the issue, especially since parts of it were written in a world full of bisexuality? No, it does not. Instead the Bible focuses on its alternatives. It encourages sexual expression in the context of a faithful marriage, and it exalts celibacy for those who cannot or choose not to marry. Both are honorable lifestyles. There is no third way.”
Hard Sayings of the Bible, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. , Peter H. Davids, Manfred T. Baruch: InterVarsity Press, pg 543
To understand why God does not approve of non-Platonic homosexual relationships we have only to go back to the book of Genesis where the Christian view of marriage is rooted in the Biblical creation story. This view is also reiterated in 1995 Proclamation on the Family.
When the Christian God said it was not good for man to be alone and created a helpmate for him it was clear he intended more than just a friendly cooperative companion; he did not say it didn’t matter what the gender of his companion should be, but he intentionally created a complementary woman, both sexually and temperamentally with a mandate that they welcome children into their relationship. This was the pattern for marriage even if circumstances of mortality or biology prevented a couple from having children.
When God performed the first marriage, he did not say that it was because Adam and Eve had a fundamental right to be bound in such a state, but it was formulated as a divine injunction that they be so, not so that they could feel comfortable in taking pleasure in their sexual relationship, but so that as help metes they could multiply and populate a society of humans in a responsible committed way by complementing each others’ male and female natures, not only sexually as progenitors, but functionally as providers, exemplars, and nurturers in a long term hopefully indissoluble relationship with their offspring.
Adultery, fornication, and non-Platonic homosexual relationships, no matter how irresistible the temptation may seem or how loving they may be portrayed to be, are antithetical or disruptive to that concept of pledge committed, exclusive, potentially procreative marriage, and therefore not approved by the God who instituted it. One may mistakenly perceive this kind of disapproval as hostile discrimination, but it is kindly differentiation based on recognition of eternal truths and consequences.
Those who do not accept the biblical story are confronted with simple anatomical, physiological, and behavioral observations that statistically in a most overwhelming way show that nature made the same choice for the propagation and nurturing of human offspring. And according to a postulate of the theory of natural evolution, nature always arrives at the best alternatives.
Many good members of the Church may have naturally felt some initial dismay, disbelief, and consternation when hearing of the recent additions to the Handbook related to children in the families of non-Platonic homosexual guardians. I experienced some amazement when the first rudimentary reports were leaked about it, but waited until I had further knowledge before going along with the hype and concluding that it was misguided and misinterpreting it as an ‘exclusion’ policy. A subsequent message from the First Presidency and a publicized interview with Elder Christopherson clarified the intent and reasoning behind it.
Non-Platonic homosexual relationships have never been approved by the Lord as marriages or even appropriate friendships and are therefore in violation of the law of chastity. Only recently in our society has a civil high court declared in effect that those relationships are no different than the non-Platonic heterosexual relationship of marriage which was instituted by God in conformance with the laws of Nature and adopted as a beneficial ideal in our political society. In light of this current legal mandate that a relationship which is inconsistent with observable natural law and not right in the eyes of God must be socially acceptable to all, It is not astonishing that the Lord should reaffirm his position of intolerance, “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, never-the-less it is required of thee to forgive all men.” Only if we are very short-sighted would we see this kind of divine intolerance as unloving in light of consequences of sin not repented of.
In his defense of the woman caught ‘red handed’ in an adulterous relationship, Christ defended her against stoning, an uncompassionate punishment being demanded by the witnesses of the sin, who were not without some guilt themselves. He demonstrated his love for her and his capacity for forgiveness, but did not condone or minimize the seriousness of the offense, as evidenced by his closing words to her: “Go and sin no more.” Was His Love diminished because he did not remove all her feelings of guilt by telling her, go your way, adultery is only a mild transgression; Or was his love magnified by inviting her to remove her guilt by repenting of a serious transgression and to rely on his intercession with the Father through his atonement in her behalf?
It is not surprising that those outside the Church might mistakenly see the new policy to be a rejection and a punishment inflicted upon children being raised in homosexual families. But it is surprising that after seeking clarification, pondering, and asking for a personal confirmation some veteran members of the Church continue to see it that way. The doctrine of the LDS Church is that all children under the age of accountability are alive in Christ, have no need for repentance, and are saved unconditionally by his atonement. Little Children have no need of baptism, let alone a need for an ordinance giving them a name and blessing before the Church and the family. Those who see the new policy as denying little children an ordinance of salvation are in the gall of bitterness as Mormon said, just as are those who claim that children need baptism in order to be saved. Children who have not had a formal name and the customary childhood blessing in the church are, with their parents’ sanction, still welcome and encouraged to attend Church and Primary classes along with their peers who are living in traditional bisexual biological or adoptive families whether the parents are members or non-members.
But what of the time when they are of the age of accountability and might have a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong? Should they be denied the ordinance of baptism because their parents are living in sin? No, they are asked to wait upon the Lords timing. At that age they have likely come to an awareness that they do not have two fathers or two mothers or a woman who is a father or a male who is a mother and can accept the fact that pretending it is the case is not acceptable in the Church. Even if the non-compliant parents agreed to the baptism, it would not be compassionate to put the child into such a potentially strained situation during their adolescent years.
Temporarily avoiding such potentially strained situations has been the policy of the Church from its beginnings when leaders declared they did not think it was right to proselyte slaves while they were indentured to an unbelieving master. Far better to wait until the time of independence,18 now for children in our society, when they can legally make all their choices independent of guardians. At this stage they can unabashedly denounce the kind of relationship their parents lived under while still acknowledging their love and gratitude to them for their contributions to their lives. Christ said that the time would come for some when they would be required to leave father and mother in order to follow him and take upon themselves his name. This has been the case even in situations where the parents were not in an unchaste relationship, but also when goodly unconverted parents were so ardently opposed to an adult child being baptized into the LDS Church that they were disposed to disclaim them if they chose to make that choice.
As with most Handbook instructions it is recognized that there may be exceptional situations and circumstances when a local leader may have to depend on revelation to justly administer to persons and situations in his stewardship, and there may be exceptions or special adaptations to the general rule. I can fully understand the newly announced Handbook homosexual relationships policy of the Church, and even accept that it came as instruction from God in these times. It is not inconsistent with His former revelations and teachings and in no way is intended to be uncompassionate or punitive toward any of His little children or to deny them the ordinances of salvation in their lives.
In the discussion some comparisons between Polygamy and Homosexual marriage made by Elder Christopherson are alluded to. The full context of his statement clearly shows that the parallel he was talking about was the parallel between the Church policies with respect to the treatment of children in modern day Polygamist and Homosexual families. There are actually very few, if any, parallels between polygamist marriage relationships and non-Platonic homosexual relationships. Polygamist relationships were multiple contemporary instances of a potentially procreative marriage between one Man and one Woman in the same patriarchal family. Non-Platonic homosexual relationships are marriage-like sexual and emotional relationships between persons of the same gender with zero probability of progeny. Polygamous relationships have at a few times in history been sanctioned by God. Friendly relationships involving sexual behavior between persons of the same gender have never been approved of by God. The only parallel I is see between the two kinds of relationships is that all the persons involved are all beloved children of God.
Brother Jones raises the question about Church members in polygamous marriages in countries where polygamy is not against the law. Two scenarios present themselves.
(1) They were in polygamous relationships before they joined the Church. This situation is similar to that of the Mormons who were in polygamous relationships before the manifesto. Our country decided to make their political marriage policy retroactive so that some faithful members of the church had to flee to Mexico or Canada in order to avoid having to disclaim some of their families and having to give up supportive close relationships with all of their children. This to me was clearly an unjust and unreasonable policy, and I don’t think the Church would follow that example, and there would be some policy accommodations.
(2) They propose to enter into a polygamous relationship after conversion to the Church simply because it is legal in their country. That would be counter to the commandment of the Lord in our day as it was in the day of Jacob in the Book of Mormon when he declared that a man should but one wife unless the Lord for His purposes commands otherwise. Simply because something is legal under man’s law does not make it right in God’s plan, Homosexual marriage for example, allegedly socially legal as a result of a Supreme Court decision in July of 2015, but never ratified by a revelation from God to the Church.
Most orthodox Christians on the basis of their scriptural based theological beliefs consider homosexual behavior as sinful, but by obedience to their own precepts they should be kind, respectful, courteous, and loving in their social interactions with homosexual brothers, sisters, and children, who are equal in their status as children of God and have equal entitlement to accepting or rejecting the benefits of Christ’s Atonement. From my reading and listening that is unanimously the view and practice of the leaders of the LDS Church.
There are some professed Christians who do not follow the golden rules and they verbally (passively by snubbing them or actively by deriding them) mistreat homosexuals contrary to Christ’s teachings and social etiquette, but not one of our LDS leaders has sanctioned this kind of unkind behavior, and yet not one of them, from my observation, has vacillated in his view on retaining the heterosexual definition of marriage espoused in the ‘Proclamation’ as God’s view. The proclamation enunciates some truths in God’s plan of salvation as he has revealed it to us. It does not promote hateful, disparaging, or stigmatizing attitudes toward any persons. It is hostile to the LGBT agenda on religious and philosophical grounds only because it warns of the sociological harm that will result if the God given standard of marriage and its meaning is downgraded; and we are counseled to politically and civilly oppose such a change in a non-belligerent democratic way.
Outside of spiritual counseling by leaders of the Church, the Church does not specifically endorse any particular sexual orientation conversion therapies, and acknowledges that in the past some so called therapies have been misguided and potentially harmful, but also recognizes that some public counseling has been effective in reducing the influence of, if not eradicating, same-sex attractions in the lives of some, not all, people who really don’t want to live with them. No therapy programs for various kinds of addiction have been 100% effective in defeating them or suppressing them, but that does not suggest that we reject them as hopeless for any individual who sincerely wants help.
Recently a bill sponsored by LGBT lobbies was introduced in the Massachusetts’s legislature. This Bill would make any claims for or therapeutic attempts at same-sex attraction remediation illegal and punishable by fines. It was tabled after they received a letter from a man in New Jersey who had benefited from counseling and who gave them multiple reasons for rejecting the bill. I quote just a few sentences from his very long letter:
“The real goal of H97 has little to do with protecting health. That’s just a cover story. What they really want to do, I opine, is to coerce everybody into believing the “born gay” myth (disproven by studies of identical twins) and the “once gay, always gay” myth.”
“Thousands, really, very many former “gay” people have indeed, verifiably, reduced their homosexual desires to where they can now live the kind of life that they themselves in their heart of hearts really WANT to live.”
As far as the Church is concerned the kind of treatment that should be extended by all members to homo-sexually oriented members and non-members is demonstrated in the story of a young man in Elder Holland’s address ‘Behold thy Mother’ given in the October 2015 General Conference. I think Elder Nelson and Elder Holland would both agree with Brother Jones’ statement: “To ostracize and marginalize homosexuals is doctrinally and, dare I say, morally indefensible.”. Ostracism and marginalization are personal mis-perceptions, not the intent of the New Handbook outlined policy.