Category: Let's talk
Hello everyone,
This topic came up briefly in another board. I realize by creating a new topic I am drawing more attention to it. I hope, for anyone who knows or cares about gay rights, and the church of Jesus Christ of latterday Saints, this will provide some context and clarification to the church's decision to temporarily withhold the baptism for the children of same sex couples until the age of majority. When this change was made known, it came about in a very dramatic fassion. And on the surface, it sounds extremely discriminatory and harsh. It is unfortunate THAT IT HAPPENED THAT WAY. I and my wife were stunned by this change. Though my church has never hid how it views same sex marriage, I always felt that its focus on freedom, equality, love and understanding in regards to same sex couples was something I could be proud of. I touted its harmony with my own views on these boards quite often. After the announcement, I was left a bit shaken, not in my faith in God and Jesus Christ, but of the leadership. It it prompted me to seriously scrutinize it. Thankfully, it didn't take me long to find some of the context and clarification I saught. I hope for anyone who is offended, confused, frustrated, uninformed or excited about this that the following article will be illuminating. For my own thoughts, I still don't know how I feel about this yet. Unsettled perhaps, but as a straight person, I do feel some of the weight that settled upon my shoulders after first hearing about this decision lifted.
I'll have more if the need and resources arise.
This is an interview with Elder D Todd Christofferson, one of the Quarrum of the 12 apostles. Essentially, while he reaffirms the church's stance on homosexuality, he also explains that the decision comes from a desire to protect the children until they reach an age where they can choose for themselves. I'm not sure if I fully agree, but I think I do see where they are coming from. But please read or watch it for yourselves.
Interview with Elder Christofferson
I won't flame, I won't argue point for pointt. I'll only say that I could never, ever sanction this.
The church has no trouble baptizing, blessing and otherwise indoctrinating children as young as it can get them. I say "the church" to mean essentially any Christian church, in particular, that I've ever heard of, so correct me if this is mistaken.
I'm not understanding why the children of a same-sex couple should be treated differently from the children of a heterosexual couple. Ostensibly, they're all children, all have an age of consent before which they aren't fit to decide what's right for them and after which they should be held accountable. It even occurs to me that this is prejudice against the children, who are even more blameless than their same-sex parents are. Not that I think homosexual parents are "to blame" in this scenario, but hopefully my point is clear.
I do have one question for you, BG. it's an honest one. There aren't any traps in it. I'm not trying to attack you. You might find it hard though. And this is maybe a good place to ask it.
Okay. So the position of the LDS church is that same-sex relationships and marriage are a pretty serious problem. You can't do it. People who go on missions and who are children of same-sex parents actually have to disavow same-sex relationships. They're quite serious about this.
And then we have you. You, who say you have no problem with homosexuality except it's really and truly not for you. You, who say that homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals have.
So clearly, if this is true, you're at odds with the official position held by your church. How big a deal is this for you, and for Christians in general? Because (again, correct me if I'm wrong) I thought that if you belong to a church, or a religion, it's kind of an all-or-nothing deal. If you can't swallow it all, don't believe in it all, then you're not really a sheep.
Personally, I applaud you if you're against the church in this, if you do in fact think that all rights should be equal and all that. The church does not actually believe this, so kudos to you for taking it on yourself to resist that bit. I'm just wondering how it all holds together. I strongly suspect that, since you're an intelligent person, this isn't the only thing you've come into conflict with. You don't strike me as a person who gulps without tasting, as it were.
This is an honest question, because as someone who rationally picks stuff apart - oftentimes more ruthlessly than necessary - I find the whole concept of "gulping" difficult. Even if I believed in a god, I'd have difficulty belonging to a church for precisely that reason. It's something I may never comprehend all the way down, but it's something I want to try and grasp, if I can.
Warning, this is long. It wasn't meant to be.
You raise some good questions, shepherd. First, let me reiderate that this whole mess has really left a bad taste in my mouth. Again, it hasn't lessoned my faith in Christ's existence or purpose in my life. Though we may have prophets and apostles who are granted revelation from God, we are still human beings doing the best we can. God and Jesus are, I believe very real, and, despite some contrary "evidence" loving and compassionate. It's a compassion and an understanding that we can but only barely fathom. Or at least that I can.
Let me tell you a story. This is an old story, and perhaps a tl/dr one. I'm sure you've heard much of it before. You may innitially wonder what it has to do with your question. It is my hope that by reading it, even if you think it nonsense, it may help in your understanding of me.
I'd be happy to elaborate on things, since this is the very abridged version.
This, is our story ...
In the beginning, before time and the universe as we understand it ever came into being, we were born of our heavenly father, Elohim, and our heavenly mother, of who we know very little. We existed as spirits, male and female in nature. Of us, Jahova - Jesus - was the first. We had personalities, and we dwelt with God, whom we believe has a body made of flesh and bone, all be it a celestial, in otherwords perfected one.
We believe - this is a we here, and I include myself - that Jesus Christ, created this world under the direction of God, his father and ours, to give us a world on which our spirits may be given the opportunity to experience mortality. Some have asked, how could such a benevolant father send his son through so much pain. As a father myself, I absolutely understand that. Sending my daughter to die, even so many could live, would be nigh impossible for me. In short, no unclean thing can dwell with God. We humans, in our natural state will innevitably fall short. No, it was not because Adam and Eve Sinned, though we were born because they did. That's another story, and a good one I feel. It was necessary for an atonement to be made to save humanity from its sins, because none of us, no matter how hard we tried, could ever be perfect and sinless. Jesus was the first of our father's children, and also the best. I don't know what made him so. In the beginning, before the world ever was, God the father asked for one who would take up this task. Two stepped forward: Jesus Christ, or Jahova as he is known, and Lucifer, who is now Satan. Satan told God that he would save all of mankind, that not one soul would be lost. His plan was to take away our freedom, to force us into unerring submission and be exhaulted above the throne of god, taking God's power for his own. Christ then stepped forward. With him, our free will would be intact. Thus followed a great debate or arguement, what is known to be a war in Heaven. It's not difficult to imagine the overwhelming support for Christ. Yet Lucifer was persuasive I suppose, because a third of us chose to follow him. These, along with Lucifer were cast out, denied the opportunity to recieve this gift of mortality. This third host became the demons we've all heard about; miserable, spiteful creatures who are probably pretty jealous as well.
And so the universe and the earth were created, formed by light and matter unorganized. Adam was the first, and eve, born from Adam's rib to be a "helpmeet - notice the spelling - the second, because it is not right for man to be alone. And on the earth they lived in pure innocense with only one law. "Of all the fruit of this garden thou shalt freely eat. But of the fruit of this tree thou may not. For the day thou eatest this fruit, thou shalt die. Nevertheless, thou may choose for thyself." That last bit is important. Even then, there was free will. But God, knowing his children intimately, as many parent can attest, knew what would happen, and was counting on it. This fruit, of course, is that of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.
We do not know how long Adam and Eve obeyed. The world's very, very old. Science has, as far as I know, proved this. But there came a day where Satan, who had been cast down to earth, to provide a calculated opposition, came to Eve. He baid her to partake of the fruit. She refused. But he persisted, saying that she would not die, but would be as God, knowing of good and of evil. And this, was a half truth. She was tempted, and partook. And she knew she had done wrong. She knew she would be cast out. Adam chose to partake as well, for it is not good for man, or woman, to be alone. And the two were fallen. For this was the first sin. But from that sin, they were forced to work by the sweat of their brows for their food and clothing. And - and this is most important, they were able to bare children. And from that day it was written that a man shalt leave his mother and father and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two should be one flesh. This was God's plan. Without the fall, we could not have been born. Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.
Each of our spirits would be born into a mortal body, which was necessary for our eternal progression. Again, a whole other story I can elaborate on for any curious. We would be given a chance to prove ourselves, gain experience needed. We would be housed in bodies, but those bodies were not perfect. Genetics is real, limitations of the brain our real. All of that to house a spirit which would find itself subject to its body's limitations. Like blindness. For trials are a part of our experience. Opposition in all things, it is said. But by our trials we grow strong, and we gain empathy for others. There is none so sympathetic and understanding than one who has experienced what we have. That last is my own quote and belief, but I believe I'm not far off. I think that's one of the big reason we are permitted to suffer. Of course, there are others.
This brings us back to Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice. Christ was not forced. He came very willingly to atone for the sins of mankind. He did this, sacrificed himself, because he loved us. Stay with me here. He did this for a couple reasons. First, because he loves us. he remembers us, each of us. We all knew him at one point, before being born into mortality. Secondly, because he was the only one who could. None other could have saved humanity. Anyway, while here on earth he underwent temptations of every kind, some instituted by Lucifer. In the garden of Gethsemane, some time before the crusifiction, Jesus came with some of his apostles and bade them watch with him. They fell asleep. During this time he prayed to God, his father, a seperate being, but one with him in purpose. He asked that the cup - what he had to do - be taken from him were there any other way. But if not he would endure. With that, he felt the affects of every agony, every bad decision, every sorrow, guilt, misery and trial that any who lived would ever face. So intense was this that he literally bled from every pore. I think of the billions of people who have lived throughout our history, and the countless others yet to be born. He did this for all humanity. But he would also willingly go through it again for even the least of us. That is his love, and his atonement, culmonating on his death on the cross, which bridged the gap between us, and God the father. This is Jesus Christ as I and my church see him. The one who suffered everything that we might be free. ANd all he asks of us is that we believe in him, and strive to do our best to keep his commandments. Commandments which are not meant to imprison, but to bring peace.
This story is true, or, it is fiction. Only we can decide which.
For those who are still with me here, I say all of this, because to me, Jesus is not the church. There have been many churches throughout history. I believe mine to be the most correct, because it resonates with some deep part of me far more than has any other church. I have had personal experiences, some of which I have shared and been in some cases scorned for, and others I have not, which further steady my faith. This is not to say that I, or my church believes other churches are wrong. Far from it. We simply believe we are the "most correct". But even a true and living church gifted by revelation and prophecy is still a church run by people. I believe what I believe about homosexuality in part because it is my personality to do so, and because of what the scriptures and modern day revelation say. I can hold my belief in the rights of homosexuals because they are not evil. They are not disgusting. They are people born to a difficult path who want what we all do, to find companionship and acceptance. Who am I to judge? Who am I to deny them of that? I can't even fathom it, let alone judge it. I have a very difficult time equating the darker deeds of religion to that Jesus whom I spoke. He suffered all that so he would be able to sympathize with each of us. That he would know exactly what we're going through. So he could perfectly mediate with the father on our behalf, and have his sacrifice for our sins accepted on our behalf. How could such a being not have our best interests in mind? How could he not want what's best for us? How could he not love someone who is gay as much as we would love our own son or daughter, even while they are disobeying us? Yes, the practice of homosexuality is a sin according to nearly all Christian thought. But Christ has overcome sin.
When a revelation such as this one about homosexuality arises in our church, I have three choices. The first is to have faith, to go along with it without question, faithful that there's a good reason for it. The second is to question the leadership, a leadership who, in my experience, really does a great job caring for and leading our church. Look at any of our general conferences, and you'd see what I mean. You'd be hard pressed to find fault with much that our modern-day apostles say. The second choice is to remember the eternal perspective, the big picture, and try to understand the reasoning of things. This is me now. Nearly everything the leaders have warned us about, or councelled us to do, during my 10 years in this church have been for our good. Some things I have struggled with, such as pornography, sex before marriage, selflessness, controlling anger, swearing, and others. I am not even close to perfect. But I see the value in their teachings, nay, in God's teachings. Either Thomas S. Monson and those with him and who have come before are inspired men, gifted with guidance from God, or they are mere sharlatins either deluded or deceitful. Or, just maybe, sometimes they don't obey god for a time. I don't really know. And that's where faith comes in for me. And I have faith that answers to this matter, and others of which I have difficulties, such as the blacks in the priesthood, will come. For me, it becomes an excersize in trust. And, even after this, I still trust them, because I don't yet know all the facts, and because I try to keep the eternal perspective, the where that lies beyond mortality for "all" god's children, in mind.
Phew, that all fit on one post! I want to apologize. I know lots of us are text dumpy here, but that went much, much longer than I meant it to. I hope it was at least entertaining, if not enlightening, since it took me quite a while to write.
Hi there, BG,
Thanks for the answer. I don't mind if it's long-winded...and hell, I'd be the last person to fault you for that. I'm well-known for being long-winded myself.
But I feel like I must be misunderstanding something from your post. At the risk of seeming tiresome, I'll try to explain as directly as I can.
You tell a long story of your idea (and the church's idea) of the world as it used to be, a long long time ago. This includes the idea of woman coming from man, and being his companion, and all that. You then finish by saying, in essence, that you don't always find what your church leaders do easy to swallow, but since they've done a good job in other areas, you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I've vvastly simplified, but I think I've hit on the key points.
With those in mind, I'm afraid I have more specific questions and concerns. Please bear in mind, this is an effort to understand, not to attack you. I value your responses, even if it turns out that I won't be able to wrap my head around them. Mostly, I'm asking because I feel like you're perched very tentatively on a fence.
First question: God's side won the war, and so God gets to make the world in his image. Lucifer isn't without influence, but he's relegated to a minority. Are you implying that anyone who breaks the status quo has deliberately or unintentionally fallen under Lucifer?
It's sort of a dangerous-looking question, but I'm not going to start attacking you if I get an answer I don't like. I'm concerned, though, because it sounds like you're saying "God had a plan, an ideal, and if you break that (perhaps without even feeling as if you're able to help it), then you need saving, you need help getting back to God's plan". And since you gave this answer in response to the homosexual issue, it further sounds like you're saying that all homosexuals, even if they can't help it or don't know it, need freeing from this inborn, unwitting sin. Do I understand you correctly?
Second question: In one breath, you admit that the church isn't always right, that they're doing their best but they're fallible just like the rest of us, since they're mortal, no matter their connection to God. In the next breath, however, you seem willing to forgive them what looks like a dangerous mistake simply because they've done well by you in the past. I suppose this is another aspect of faith, but it's something I don't understand. Does generalized religious faith require one to stop seeing issues on a case-by-case basis? For instance, my parents are generally good people, and normally do well; sometimes, however, they do something I don't like, and I may step back and say "Okay...mom, I love you, and I pretty much always will, but what the hell did you just do?". I can separate the overall good in a person from the occasional acts of ill they do. I think most people can. It feels, however, as if you're not doing this with your church...or, at the least, it feels as if you're basically letting the church get away with something that's quite questionable simply because it has a decent track record. Am I misunderstanding again, or is this, in fact, the way you approach it?
Pending the answers to your questions, BG, it dooes look, to me at least, as if you're not really as tolerant as you want to appear. It looks as if you're saying that in the world at large, gays should face no lawful or public discrimination, should not be spat on or reviled, should receive every oppoortunity they wish...unless they wish to be in your church and marry a same-sex partner at the same time. Of course, you might argue that doing so would sorta violate part of the point of the church to begin with, but I suppose there are the odd LDS-leaning homosexual couple out there, a couple who perhaps accepts everything else except this tenet. yet, despite all of this appearance of equality, you don't approve of the practice. You don't want homosexual couples married under your church (or at the very least, you accept that it's what your leaders want, and aren't having too much trouble with it). Further, you seem to be willing to provisionally accept that the children of homosexual couples suddenly have an age of consent even though all other children can have that very same right waived in the spirit of "saving" them.
Put another way, you're disapproving, but you don't want to come right out and say so at the risk of being jumped. Your talk of equality isn't truly equality, since you, as a hetero male of your church, would technically enjoy more rights in your church than a gay male would. That's what I'm taking away from this, and that's why I'm asking more specific questions.
As I've said multiple times, feel free to set me straight if I've misunderstood something. I may not like where I think this is going, but I'm not about to start a firestorm about it and I'm still listening. Even if it turns out that my analysis of your stance is spot-on, I will simply walk away from it with the understanding that we're agreeing to disagree. Hopefully anyone else who wanders in here will observe the same attitude.
Let me make one thing absolutely perfectly and unquestionably clear.
Discrimination is wrong. It doesn't matter if its contextualized, its wrong,
period, end of story, full stop. Apparently BG disagrees. BG, according to these
posts, feels that discrimination is ok, as long as you're doing it with a reason. As
long as you put it in context, then discriminate against who you want to. Want
to discriminate against the children of same-sex couples? Go ahead, so long as
you have a reason for it. Want to discriminate against the blind? Go ahead, just
have a reason for it. I mean, those dogs shed fur everywhere, of course you
should sicriminate against the blind, right? Want to discriminate against blacks?
Those fuckers rape our women, right? I mean, that's context enough. we've
gotta defend our white women.
Now, I'm not saying that BG actually believes all of these things. I'm sure he's
not a racist or a sexist or any of that. But apparently that doesn't extend to
protecting people who are children of same sex couples. Apparently there's a
context under which BG is perfectly fine with discriminating against those
people. because why do they deserve equal rights? Why should we treat them
equally? Right?
Let me alos make this clear. The context in question here, is that the church is
too much of a bigot in and of itself to handle giving equal rights to child of same
sex couples. That's the context BG is accepting. The church is so much of a
bigoted, hateful, prejudiced business, that it can't treat children of same sex
couples equally, and that is the context BG is ok with.
Now, I don't know about ya'll, but I find that fucking disgusting.
I could actually see some wisdom in the church's decision, if not for one really big issue.
When I see them saying "we don't want to create in-home conflict for children who may be too young to know what they want", that's noble enough. They don't want to rock the family boat, so to speak.That, all by itself, I can sorta kinda get behind.
But it wouldn't stop them, as far as I'm aware, from interfering with other children, and for me, that's where the logic falls doown. If they were saying "we won't do this for -any children before they're of the appropriate age", then that would make sense. But their refusal to doo this, as I understand at least, sets up the double standard.
I do want to clarify a point, Cody.
Discrimination, by definition, happens all the time. If you're straight and a guy hits on you, you, as a straight male, may tell him "Sorry, I'm flattered, but I'm not interested". That's discrimination. You're denying him something he wants based on his sexual orientation and yours. Your behaviour is discriminatory. On a much simpler note, if you hate your pizza with onions, or you have a real thing for heavy metal, that's discriminatory too. But that's the joy of it. There's nothing wrong with those things. In none of those cases are you putting someone else down or enabling your own ascendency. And that's where the schism is being made here between you and me, I think.
It might seem a hair-splitting difference but it needs too be made.
Personal choice, and personal choice alone, is a sort of discrimination which rarely causes trouble. If your friend hates heavy metal while you love it, it shouldn't cause problems unless one or both of you starts trying to lord over the other one. Same with pizza with onions on it...if your friend loves it, and you hate it, then you ought to agree either to not get pizza, or to get one half with onions and the other without, or some such. You're both discriminating, in a way, but you're handling it well.
When you say "I don't agree with your tastes, and I have the right to dictate what you do and don't do based on those tastes without your input"...then that's where discrimination gets dicey. This is particularly true if there is no demonstrable harm being done by the behaviour which is being acted out against. Thus, the church is discriminating against homosexuals because God said so...that's what it looks like. It's not condoning their slaughter, trying to evict them from homes or trying to make sure they're all going to die miserable lonely deaths; it's simply shutting its doors to them if they refuse to change, and by extension, it's acting against their children even when those children may not be homosexual (and statistically are unlikely to be homosexual, for that matter).
And that, right there, is why I asked my first couple of questions, and why I continue to pursue these issues. I feel like there's sort of a point beyond which you have to go with what you've been told, and potentially fly in the face of other well-meaning and harmless individuals, even if it's only because you're a basically insignificant part of a greater system which is passively doing harm. That's why I sought clarification via those two large questions in my last post. I think if you're willing or able to answer them, BG, it will lend a lot oof illumination as to where you, a fairly liberal-looking Christian as Christians go, actually stand on these things. The evangelical, fundamentalist types are really easy to peg; the people closer to the other end of the spectrum, by contrast, are much harder to understand. And understanding is always a solid first step.
Yes, shepherd, I am willing to give my leaders the benifit of the doubt due to their past track record. That said, if they came out with something that just
doesn't sound right, and if I were unable to find what I consider a good explanation for it, then yes, I'd have a hard time with it. Would I abandon Christ,
no. Would the foundations of my beliefs collapse? no. But I would have some hard thinking to do. Such was the case with this issue at hand, which is why I
looked deeper into it, and will continue to do so. Because in my experience, with a little digging and thought, many of the issues do start making sense in
the longer view. Admitedly, some do leave me scratching my head, but they mostly pertain to past issues which are no longer ones on which to contend.
Lucifer's influence only is permitted by God (for now). He allows Lucifer and his followers to tempt mankind. There does need to be opposition. Without the
knowledge of sorrow, we can not fully appreciate joy, etc. Opposition is also helpful because without it, when people are comfortable, they forget God. And when they forget God, they grow complacent in their sins. We need to be reminded that we need God, that everything we have comes from him. The scriptures are full of examples of this cycle: People are blessed by God. They prosper in the land. They are given plenty. They grow rich. They have peace. They slowly start to forget about God. small contentions arise. They are lifted up in the pride of their hearts. They begin to transgress more and more, until it gets really bad. Thus was the case, for instance, with Sodam and Gamora. Then, something happens to "wake them up" to a rememberance of God. And then the cycle repeats. The thing is, God wants us to return home to him, but when a society dwells in sin, they get to the point where they have no place for God, or the sacrifice of his son, in their lives. All of this is a terrible situation for their children as well. That's why God sometimes steps in, or allows something to happen that mmight otherwise not. He never, ever does anything or lets anything happen to a people before he gives them a lot of warning, usually through prophets. By their words people are called to repentence, and they begin to remember God again. Thus this cycle repeats throughout the scriptures, and history. Now, back to the devil. Lucifer can not make us do anything, any more than God Can. He can only attack our weaknesses,
tempt us into sin, make it entising. His ways are subtle. We all have the power to resist his influence. That's where excersize of free will comes in.
Sometimes that also involves calling on God for protection. God can't make us do anything either. We have to be open to the promptings of the spirit, just as
we have to be open to the seductive whispers of Lucifer. But in answer to the rest of your question, we all sin. Every one of us will do it at some point.
When we lie, give in to anger, when we harm another person, when we commit adultery, from the least to the greatest, it is all sin. And god can not excuse
sin. he can not look upon it with the least degree of allowance. And we can not pay the price of sin on our own. That is why we need a savior, to pay the
debt of sin for us. Does that mean we're all inherewntly evil creatures? No. Good people will innevitably do bad things. There are sins which are more severe
than others. Murder and sexual sins are among the greatest. I believe it is so because these sins involve the creation and destruction of life. For my church, sexuality is meant to be an expression of love between a man and woman who are within the bonds of marriage. it is meant to be taken seriously, and to be respected. Within the bounds of those laws, sex is a wonderful thing, something to be enjoyed and a way to help strengthen the bonds between two people. But for a lot of people, sex is just a recreation. It's everywhere; in ads, brothels, magazines, the internet. It's abused.
Now, back to sin. It's Important to understand that there is only one sin which is truly unpardonable. The rest can be forgiven if we sincerely repent. That's why it isn't as simple as "I've accepted jesus,. and now I'm good to go." To accept him, we must strive to take upon ourselves his name. That means strive to keep the commandments he has set forth for us, commandments like the main ten, and the many others that will keep us safe. And it means to strive to cary ourselves and live as he would live. And none of this is easy. And because it is not easy, it requires constantly and sincerely repenting when we do fall short. That means seaking forgiveness from others we have wronged and providing recompence in whatever way we can. It means meeting with the proper church authorities and confessing when it is a very serious sin. Sometimes, especially if it is an ongoing problem, may result in disiplinary action, such as disfellowship, or even ex-communication. It's important to understand that though that is very serious, it does not mean forever. An ex-communication is not perminent unless the ex-communicated want it to be. And it is only done in extreme cases. The repentence process is meant to help us foresake our sins.
Homosexuals don't need saving because they are evil. In many ways they are no more sinners than any of us. They deserve love, respect, friendship,
understanding and compassion. The real reason we LDS believe homosexuality is so serious would constitute a seperate post, as it deals with things beyond
this life. I'll happily go into that if you'd like me to. It might help explain things.
It's no secret by now that while homosexuality is sometimes a choice one makes, often it is not. People are born to be gay, just like they are born with
other trials. I don't want to comment too much on this, because I don't understand the how and why. To me it seems a bit cruel, to give someone this
predisposition, but not the freedom to act on it. All I know for sure is that in the end, God will judge us as much by how we live our lives as by our
individual circumstances, our hearts and our minds and our limitations. I am not God, and so I can not judge. All I can do is stand up for them, their rights
and freedoms, the way I would anyone else. If I ever got the chance to stand before God and interceed on behalf of a homosexual couple, I'd like to think I'd
do it. But in the end, I don't know if it will even be necessary, because Jesus is our mediator, and he has a deep understanding of us.
I don't accept everything the church says at face value. While it is true they have a good track record, there are several instances where things have
happened that I've sincerely questioned. The first is the institution of Polygamy in the early years. The second is the temporary withholding for people of
black affrican descent to hold the priesthood and enter the temple. And this? This is the third. There's a lot of speculation and misinformation surrounding
all of these issues, and that's one reason I don't take contravercial issues at face value unless the church comes out with a very blatent official statement. Otherwise, individuals within the church will come up with with their own theories. And some of those may be terribly innacurate, like the old and misguided belief that those of affrican descent were less than valliant in the pre-mortal world. Because I still have not been fully satisfied with the answer I've found about this homosexuality baptism issue, I am still caught between trying
to find it, and having the faith that there is a good reason for it that I, and everyone else, just doesn't understand. The problem with that is with the
outcry, the church really does need to make an official clarification, but on the what, and the why. They've done that to a point with the interview I posted
above, but I think there needs to be a bit more. To a point I do sort of understand their reasoning. Which I guess brings me to your other question.
I want to reiderate that actually being gay is not a sin. Acting on those feelings is. That doesn't seem at all fair to me for reasons I've stated above. I
do believe they should not face descrimination, be spat upon, have the same rights, and basically be treated like everyone else. That's not going to change
no matter what my church says. I would face disfellowship or ex-communication myself before denying those rights, but so far it hasn't come to that, and I
don't think it ever will. A person is not their sin. I don't denounce homosexuals, or even the practice. But from an eternal perspective, I do understand why the practice of homosexuality, and of gay marriage goes against the laws of God. Again, the reason harkens to matters pertaining to beyond mortality, and I will explain ifv necessary later. It's true that I don't support my church not marrying same-sex couples. it goes against God's laws of marriage, and we should not be put in a position to have to do that. But my church also has a belief in marriage that differs from the until death till us part doctrine of much of Christianity. We have civil marriage, but also eternal marriage which can only be performed in the temple. I believe that if homosexual couples wish to enjoy the social and emotional benifits of civil marriage, they should have every right to do so. I also don't believe that, if a gay couple wish to attend our church that they should be subject to any discrimination. Our church encourages people of all backgrounds, persuasions, ethnicities and beliefs. unfortunately people, independant of any church doctrine will come with their own preconceived prejudices and beliefs, and those aren't always in line with what the gospel would have us do. I will never tell a same-sex person that I disapprove of them or their lifestyle. Nore will I, hopefully, lead them to feel like I do. They may know my views, but should that matter? They are my views, and they shouldn't interfere with a friendship. Which brings me to my final answer.
We all have a right to be baptised and "saved". Yes, even homosexuals will, if not in this life, one day be able to choose to accept that salvation. That
once again gets into post-mortal issues. We do not believe in infant baptism. Little children are pure before God. They can not sin. Kids will know a bit
about right and wrong before this of course, but our official age of accountability is eight years old. That doesn't mean all children will be baptised at 8
years old. Some may choose to wait much longer. It all depends on individual understanding, and personal and family circumstance. I believe what our general
athorities are saying here is simply that, because of God's views on same-sex relations, we don't want children put into a potentially difficult position where they might feel pressured to choose. No child should have to feel that way. No adult either for that matter. Childhood can be hard enough as it is. But God would never, ever condemn a child who was unable to be baptized because of their parents. It's not the child's
fault. if, heaven forbid, the child were to die after the age of accountability and before being baptised, they are still able to recieve all those
blessings. That's why baptism for the dead is so wonderful; for all those who would have recieved the savior had they a chance to do so, there will be a
chance. That's why we do so much work in baptising our dead. And, just because we perform the rite of baptism for them, doesn't mean they are forced to
recieve it. It's still a personal choice. As for needing to denounce homosexuality before being baptized, it's pretty much already like that. One should not be baptized if they don't believe in our teachings, or if they aren't willing to strive to take up their end of the covenant they make upon being baptized. As I understand it, The church isn't saying one needs to denounce their parents to be baptized. Nor should they need to treat their parents any differently because their parents are "gay". It's simply disavowing the practice. Still hard, but I highly doubt most people who really believe in our church are going to want to be baptized if this is a point of issue. You can support and love someone, and even support their way of life while still disagreeing with that way of life. It isn't serving two masters; it's showing christ-like love in a difficult situation. I have been very open with my general authorities when, during my temple interview I was asked a question to things I supported that were not in line with the teaches of the church. It's a question we all get asked, and I chose to tell them what I am telling you now. And it did not cause me any problems.
Did I miss answering anything?
By the way Shepherd, I was a bit confused by your main point of contention to this issue. Is it the fact that the age has been increased to 18 for only homosexual children that concerns you?
This is an essay which was just published regarding this issue. I think it's worth a read, and I hope it helps illustrate my rambly points above. It has other links too for those interested.
Understanding the Handbook
Greg, your contention, I'm afraid, is little more than a pedantic argument over
terminology. What you're describing, liking metal over some other genre and
the like, is being selective, not being discriminatory. Discriminatory has a
negative portion of its definition. It causes harm. Liking chocolate ice cream
more than strawberry has no negative impact o anyone. Turning down a gay
man who hits on you has no negative impact on you or the gay man. Its called
selctivity, not discrimination. So I'm afraid your objection is simply specious.
Yes, it's an issue for me, because the church seems to be upholding a double standard. On one hand it doesn't want to rock the boat for a family. Okay, that'd be fine...but tell me, what would the church do if a child was eight years old, clearly going along to church because mom and dad do? Do they just bring them in, or do they make all efforts to ensure that the child has had a fair shot of weighing all their options? I doubt very much that this occurs. Christianity, Islam and even some sects of Buddhism and Judaism seek converts (though in the case of Buddhism, they're trying to get you to embrace a philosophy that is more idealistic than theistic). "Get 'em while they're young" is a crude but fairly accurate way of putting it, and most people I know would say that eight years old is far too young to make accountable decisions for yourself. The church itself mentions accountability, and thus undermines the strength of its stance by so doing. What's done for one should be done for all.
Truthfully, I wish all religions, bar none, would keep their hands off the young. Let them ask, let them grow, let them explore, and try not to pressure them too much until they're old enough to make a decision that doesn't have mom or dad or some other group of authority figures looming over it. The lengths to which people sometimes go in order to indoctrinate an impressionable mind frankly gall me. I'm not saying you're one of these people, by the way...but yes, that's why I have the issue, because the double standard exists, and it's clearly being twisted to seem like a family-sympathetic act when it's not.
The more you say on the subject of your beliefs, though, the more I come to understand that we can never fundamentally agree, much less understand one another all the way down.
If God has control, why has he created a world where sin must be atoned for? Why does it exist in the first place? I must conclude that if he really is all-powerful, then either God created sin, permits sin or cannot stop sin no matter how hard he tries (which contradicts the all-powerful bit). I can't accept "he has his reasons" as a logical answer. I can't conceive of a loving, all-powerful God who sets up a universe where sin is possible and unavoidable, then sets up people who are absolutely guaranteed to do it, then judges and punishes some of them for doing it. Doubly bad when he creates people who are born homosexual, then has the nerve to say that it's wrong and that they have to forsake something God himself gave them. This is not rational, does not make sense, and rather than accept it, I must have an answer that makes more sense than this.
Put another way, it's enough for you, but it's not enough for me. And because you base all of your answers to my questions on one version or another of this platform, I can't go back and forth with you. All due respect meant here, but there comes a point when rational discourse becomes impossible because you will either stop seeing the fallacies, or will see them but choose to ignore them in favour of faith. There's really no arguing with that, not even in a civvilized manner. I can't get answers from you that mean anything, because you see the problems but continue supporting them. Instead of stopping and saying "You know, it doesn't make sense that God creates homosexuals and then punishes them for being that way", then getting upset or curious or whatnot, you see it, then shrug and say "Oh well, who am I to judge?". To me and my often too-ruthless logic, it seems intellectually dishonest to do this. It passes the buck without solving anything. Others who are more vocal than you in support of discrimination against homosexuals still mount the ramparts, and silence (on the part of people like you, who do seem to have trouble with things) equals consent. Your voices aren't heard for one reason or another, so people think you're going along to get along. And the same standards which hurt, ostracize and often ruin people are allowed to remain unchallenged.
You can do it. I can't. There's your difference.
None of this was said in condemnation or personal attack, but I'm honestly sort of sorry I asked what I did. I'm left more disillusioned than I was when I posed my questions. The gulf feels wider than ever.
And Cody,
Pedantic, to a point, but it needs to be said. Here's a definition for you:
Discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality.
This can and often is negative, but doesn't have to be.
A synonym: differentiate
So by that definition and that synonym, harmless differentiation is considered discriminating.
I agree that the sort of discrimination we're talking about is harmful. I'm oonly disagreeing on one small point, and that is simply this: not absolutely all discrimination is bad, and in some cases it's perfectly natural. When it happens against women, against blacks, against gays...against anyone, particularly of a minority and particularly to their detriment, it's bad and ought to be set straight.
well, I think we both agree that this is against gays or the children of gays,
can't we?
If the church had said no children would be baptised until they are old enough to make that decision, I'm totally down with that. But why single out the children of same sex couples? No matter how you look at it, it's discrimination.
And I'm just not sure anything can convince me otherwise. How is it not, if these children are being treated differently to the children of heterosexual couples?
The church is missing a really big chunk here.
Same sex couples don’t produce children like opposite sex couples.
Even a man/woman couple may not have produced their children together.
Children, as of now, must have a male/female unit to be produced.
There is no difference between them at all.
Saying all that, your church has found a nice cop out.
We don’t really like same sex couples, but we’ll not say that. We’ll come up with a seemingly logical rule as to why children so same sex couples may have problems.
Cannot opposite sex couple’s children have this same problem?
Splitting hairs, I call this sort of thing.
Even though I COULD be, PERHAPS, only SLIGHTLY off-topic, but since "MORMANISM" is in the topic TITLE, here are examples of what MORMANISM IS and ISN'T.
Below is an interactive discussion, demonstrating how the so-called "JESUS" that the MORMANS follow isn't the ONE, ONLY TRUE JESUS of the ONE, ONLY TRUE BIBLE.
From www.deckerreport.com: "Email Challenge from a Mormon and Ed’s Response
July 21, 2014 by Ed Decker8 Comments
An Email Challenge from a Mormon and Ed’s Response
To Ed: To whom this may concern,
Just read an article from http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7689 where you basically judged and mistreed a fellow man. I am LDS and most of what you said is sadly mistaken. Sure we and I believe that I am in the true “living” Church of God. I believe in Jesus Christ and His divine mission. However if there is something that you should’ve taken from your time in the LDS Church is that you shouldn’t judge another. That is my opinion. Each person has to work out there own salvation. It didn’t just end on the Cross with Christ.
Yes he suffered and died on the cross for my sins and all others who lived and will yet live on this earth. When Christ said “it is finished.” It was about His divine mission while upon this earth. So I must ask why are we still trying to get people to come to Christ if it is “finished” as He stated?
One last thing. It sounds as if you are directly preaching against the LDS teachings as false. Sure that can be your opinion which is perfectly fine. However if you can fully answer these questions I will consider your theology!
What Church on the earth right now teaches that families can be united forever?
What Church proclaims to have the divine priesthood on the earth.
What Church proclaims to have a prophet of God?
What Church has an order like the order stated in the Scriptures (New Testament?)
What Church has actually proclaimed to have been visited by God to start a Church?
Brian Cooper
Ed Responds:
Dear Brian: Thanks for writing.. Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been overly busy with emails from other LDS members looking for other answers than the ones you pose.. Almost textbook… aren’t there actually 16 in that list you got yours from?
http://www.saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormonism/the-seventeen-straw-menmormonism and their seventeen straw-men
Let me quickly answer the ones you did send.
You asked:
What Church on the earth right now teaches that families can be united forever?
No orthodox church, certainly.. No biblically based church, certainly. While the bible does promise heaven to all believers, it does not teach in any form that certain, more faithful believers will go to a celestial kingdom and that their worthy wife (wives) will go with them and that their worthy sons and daughters will also be part of this forever family.
First, if earth and the LDS god living with his wives on the planet near Kolob is an example.. The worthy sons and daughters of such a god, as you think you might be, would be sent to other planets and worlds throughout the galaxies.. Not quite the close-knit families are forever we see in the LDS videos.
So.. Bible says you are in heresy on that point. I must choose the bible over man’s doctrine.
You asked:
What Church proclaims to have the divine priesthood on the earth.
Many do. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islam, Catholicism, Unification Church, Hinduism, Buddhism and over 100 spinoffs from the LDS church.
The bible, however, makes it pretty simple. The Priesthood is no longer behind veils in the temple. It resides within the believers. Just a quick two references.
Jesus talks about the authority of the believer in John 14. He said: 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Peter said it this way: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ…But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; 1 Peter: 5,9
More importantly, if that can be, is what we read about the priesthood in the 7th Chapter of the Book of Hebrews, where we learn that this priesthood you claim belongs to Jesus Christ and it is clearly an unchangeable priesthood of one.. we believers have our authority through Him alone and not any latter day prophet, for if such a one proclaimed it was his, he is a lair and deceiver.
Read about this at: usurping the priesthood of Christ
You asked:
What Church proclaims to have a prophet of God?
Many do. Roman Catholicism claims that gift in the Pope and since there are hundreds of millions of Catholics, they seem to have a bigger grip on that claim than the LDS do.
The function of prophet in the New Testament church spoke of it as a minor office. Paul mentions it briefly in his first letter to the Corinthians. However, he also warned against the dangers of false prophets over a dozen times in much stronger terms. He said that they and their minions would bring the doctrines of demons..
If you think Smith was a true prophet, check out this list of his actual prophecies:
http://www.saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormonism/testing-the-prophecies-of-joseph-smith-testing-the-prophecies-of-joseph-smith-
You asked:
What Church has an order like the order stated in the Scriptures (New Testament?)
So many do that i cannot list them. However, Mormonism is not one of them. Show me in the Bible or any work contemporary with it where the new testament church had a Prophet [name him and his two counselors], 12 apostles, high priests, council of seventies..
When did they break bread in communion with water and leavened bread? In what temple did they perform their endowments.. in fact, where is the word or the function of endowment anywhere in the new testament? Where in the New Testament is the Melchizedek priesthood named or functioning. As part of the church? Where in the New Testament are boys ordained to be Deacons?
I am amazed that you think your church is a mirror of the early church. Even the aprons and undergarments worn by today’s temple Mormons are missing, even though they are critical to your scared rituals and beliefs. They are mentioned in contemporary writings as part of the Essenes’ garb. A contemporary cult group who, like the Mormons, thought they were the ‘only true’ guys out there.
One big heresy here after another.. Usurping the very priesthood of one, of Christ.. I would not want to be anywhere near you on judgment day..
You asked:
What Church has actually proclaimed to have been visited by God to start a Church?
No true church would claim that. In fact, Joseph Smith’s claim of such was such a garbled up set of conflicting stories that it took years for the official ‘ one to finally end up as some form of scripture. He first claimed that two angels came, then he couldn’t remember if it was one of two.. Well, he changed his mind 9 times..
You can read them all and the LDS documentation/proof at: nine reasons- to reject- the first vision
While I do not want to beat this to death, you really need to read your bible more. It is quite clear about this.
If he did not reveal himself in the bush and on the mountain to Moses, I doubt he would be doing it along with his son Jesus in the woods to Joseph.. He said they were hovering above the ground and glowing. Really? My bible says that Jesus was the fullness of the father bodily. And John was very specific when he wrote in 1 John 4:12: No man hath seen God at any time.
Yes, I have been aggressive in my challenge to Mormonism for the gross heresies proclaimed as truths given by a false prophet, who history shows had pronounced clearly false prophecies over 5 dozen times in his short career. Check him out at:
Was Joseph Smith a true-prophet?4-biblical-tests-of-a-true-prophet
Get back to me now that I have given you some solid answers..
and Yes, Brain, it really did “just end on the cross.”
Ed
And since you believe that the Book of Mormon is the truest Scripture given to man, show me, in that sacred book where these peculiar doctrines of Mormonism can be found. And yes, I did take them from a list. If you claim that are not scriptural, at least, if your claim that you are the true and full restoration of the first century church, show me evidence of these doctrines I call heresies. Show me in the Bible.
God has a body of flesh and bones.
God is an exalted man.
God is a product of eternal progression.
The plurality of Gods.
God “organized” the world rather than “creating” it.
There is no eternal hell and punishment.
Men can become gods.
“Intelligences” are eternal.
Pre-existing spirits of Man.
Marriage for eternity.
Polygamy is notan abomination in the sight of God.
Three degrees of glory.
A “mother” in heaven.
A Melchizedek priesthood consisting of the offices of Elder, seventy and High Priest.
An Aaronic priesthood consisting of the offices of Deacon, Teacher and Priest.
Blacks were cursed with their skin color and denied the Priesthood.
The functions and offices of Evangelist, Bishoprics, Stake Presidency,
Assistants to the Twelve, a First Presidency and a President of the Church.
The Book of Mormon is the “Stick of Joseph.”
LikeLike
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Filed Under: Christian Living, Home Featured Posts, Home Main Featured Post, Mormonism
Comments
Sue Jsays
July 21, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Thank you, Ed. Your answers are founded biblically; Mormonism is founded on man with no connection to the Bible.
Reply to Sue J
Tom Scogginssays
July 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM
Thank you for your witness to the Mormons and giving the biblical truths about our Saviour.
Reply to Tom Scoggins
Keith Psays
July 21, 2014 at 8:38 PM
It is sad Mormons believe these things! Lets just love them and show them the love of Christ. Thank you Ed.
Reply to Keith P
Kevin Meadsays
July 22, 2014 at 11:58 PM
That was fantastic Ed! Thank you. With much clarity you answered his questions from The Holy Bible.
Reply to Kevin Mead
Mick McTighesays
July 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM
God Bless you Ed. I was baptised into the LDS church as a young boy. I thank God for men like you who stand firm for the truth. I met with the living Lord because I heard the Truth proclaimed in love, and the Truth really does set you free. I pray that God will continue to empower and equip your ministry and open the eyes of the blind.
Reply to Mick McTighe
Steve Msays
July 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Ed,
I have spent much of my life with Mormon’s either in my community or at work and I have to say I’ve liked each one of them. As a whole they are really nice people. That is what makes it so difficult when we have to point out the error in their beliefs. It seems “real” to them because of a “feeling” they got when introduced to the teaching. They have mistaken a “feeling” for the true Word of God. Feelings come and go, but this is a nasty parlor trick, that blinds people and they get sucked in.
I pray they can open their eyes and heart to hear the real Word of God and turn away from the teaching and practices of men that are really only seeking power and wealth on earth. These are wonderful people that have been tricked into believing a fairy tale from men that are deceivers.
God Bless you and Carol
Steve
Reply to Steve M
Ed Deckersays
July 24, 2014 at 11:06 AM
I agree.. when I was a Mormon, you didn’t challenge or debate doctrine.. you ‘prayed. about it.
T openly question some arcane issue in a priesthood class would get you a personal meeting with the bishop and the offended priesthood leader..
They would be so concerned that you were ‘courting’ apostasy.. losing your ‘testimony’ you would slink back into line..
keep your thoughts and questions to yourself.. not even discuss them with your wife for fear of messing with her ‘testimony’
Sweet people yes deceived yes,,
Reply to Ed Decker
Carol Rsays
August 19, 2014 at 8:54 PM
I thank God every day for bringing me out the dark and into His true gospel. I never felt right growing up in the LDS church, no matter how hard I tried to fit in with everyone else who had a ‘testimony of the one true church’. But I realized everyone pretty much said the same thing, talked with the same inflections, followed the same formula. Now that I have the truth I finally feel that I am on solid ground in Christ. What a confusing time that was, trying to make something into truth that I instinctively knew was not. God doesnt change His mind on a constant basis. The disobedience of Adam and Eve wasn’t a ‘necessary part of the plan of salvation’. It was the worst decision ever made, impacting the majority of humanity for eternity. Thank you Jesus for Your sacrifice, for Your obedience to the Father, without which we would all be lost. Ephesians 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins. God bless you all….I love my Mormon family and friends. Thank you Ed for your diligence in bringing many to the truth. Its vitally important to believe the right thing and call on the right God, the only one who can save. And please dont be fooled by a spiritual feeling of burning in the ‘bosom’. It is not caused by God or anything from Him, although it definitely IS spiritual. Test all spirits….satan himself can appear as an angel of light."
As a FOLLOW-UP:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL09987423CE8AA83E
SORRY! I meant that the words "MORMAN CHURCH," and NOT "MORMANISM" are in the topic title.