LDS Freedom Forum

In light of the churches announcement today and the thread discussing it, I have a question that I would like to pose. I think this question requires its own thread so as not to get mixed up in the discussion of the announcement itself.

I have seen several threads on this forum over the years where folks speculate that eventually the church will change its stance on marriage. My question is, if the church changes its stance on gay marriage, then doesn't the church also have to accept adulterous relationships or cohabitation relationships? What is the difference? You could argue that adulterous relationships are not "committed" relationships, but how can we really say for sure? What if an adulterous couple commits to each other but for convenience decide to not break off their current marriage? What about an open relationship or a swinging relationship? Where does it stop? If the church changes its stance on one, don't they have to change their stance on all relationships?

I just thought I would throw the question out there as I am generally curious as to how those that think the church will eventually change square this in their own minds.

I agree, but I am trying to understand the reasoning of those that do think the church's stance will change.

kgrigio wrote:I agree, but I am trying to understand the reasoning of those that do think the church's stance will change.

Because its stance has changed on so many other things, maybe?

So will they then change their stance on adultery? If not, why not?

All these "but it's in the scriptures" arguments strongly infer that ancient prophets are more reliable than modern ones.

Muerte Rosa wrote:No i don't don't think they will. Gods opinion on marriage is very clear in the bible in many places...as well as homosexual behavior. Unless the part about Adam and eve suddenly changes....i don't really see,how it could even be interpreted differently. And i doubt HF would go all this time (since the beginning) with it being one way (man and woman) then ask of a sudden say "Ok that's enough just do whatever"

=)) :ymapplause:

Patterns show a lot, and the last few decades pattern is??????

Muerte Rosa wrote:No i don't don't think they will. Gods opinion on marriage is very clear in the bible in many places...as well as homosexual behavior. Unless the part about Adam and eve suddenly changes....i don't really see,how it could even be interpreted differently. And i doubt HF would go all this time (since the beginning) with it being one way (man and woman) then ask of a sudden say "Ok that's enough just do whatever"

so pink death, I take it from the comment above you're more a fundamentalist ( read pro-polygamy) mormon now? after all, it's clearly a biblical practice. I applaud you for returning to your roots.

jbalm wrote:All these "but it's in the scriptures" arguments strongly infer that ancient prophets are more reliable than modern ones.

all the tbms love the 14 fundamentals until a modern prophet skewers THEIR sacred cow.

kgrigio wrote:In light of the churches announcement today and the thread discussing it, I have a question that I would like to pose. I think this question requires its own thread so as not to get mixed up in the discussion of the announcement itself.

I have seen several threads on this forum over the years where folks speculate that eventually the church will change its stance on marriage. My question is, if the church changes its stance on gay marriage, then doesn't the church also have to accept adulterous relationships or cohabitation relationships? No What is the difference? the difference is that a gay marriage will be viewed as making a marriage commitment. it will be sold exactly as polygamy was in section 132 - how can you commit adultery if you're married?You could argue that adulterous relationships are not "committed" relationships, but how can we really say for sure? What if an adulterous couple commits to each other but for convenience decide to not break off their current marriage? they would be seen as violating their original marriage vows. What about an open relationship or a swinging relationship? Where does it stop? If the church changes its stance on one, don't they have to change their stance on all relationships? No, they don't have to change on all relationships. they would just have to enforce the same morality on gay couples they currently enforce on married couples. besides, the Church has claimed non-scriptural policies were essential to salvation before, so why not do it again? .

I just thought I would throw the question out there as I am generally curious as to how those that think the church will eventually change square this in their own minds.

sorry for the color inconsistency above - that's very difficult to do on a phone.

I don't believe they will or can ever allow gay marriage if this is to remain the true church of Jesus Christ, it just can't happen. To allow it would defile the true church of Jesus Christ and would no longer, in my opinion, have the authority of God any longer.

What irks me a bit though is the sugar coating of the message. Sis Marriott was it? I am so sick of the PC brigade. If you have a message just say it as it is don't beat around the bush and necessarily embellish. I enjoyed what Elder Oaks and Elder Holland did say what the standards of the church but it was almost like an atmosphere of death.

But once again, the church will never allow gay marriage.

mhewett wrote:I don't believe they will or can ever allow gay marriage if this is to remain the true church of Jesus Christ, it just can't happen. To allow it would defile the true church of Jesus Christ and would no longer, in my opinion, have the authority of God any longer.

I'm quoting your line in the sand for future reference.

cayenne wrote:Patterns show a lot, and the last few decades pattern is??????

That church antagonists (apostates) have more venues to get their word out??

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that sexual relations other than between a man and a woman who are married are contrary to the laws of God.

This commandment and doctrine comes from sacred scripture and we are not at liberty to change it.

--Quotation from yesterday's LDS Church press conference, 27 January 2015

I was taught in church, from my youth up, that one day the blacks WOULD receive the priesthood, just as the gospel was only taught to the house of Israel by Jesus, but later (via a dream to the Apostle Peter), this was changed and the gospel went to the gentiles also. The day came, and the gospel was preached to the gentiles; the day came, and the blacks received the priesthood.

However -- Marriage between a man and a woman ONLY is an unchanging principle of the gospel.

BroJones wrote:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that sexual relations other than between a man and a woman who are married are contrary to the laws of God.

This commandment and doctrine comes from sacred scripture and we are not at liberty to change it.

--Quotation from yesterday's LDS Church press conference, 27 January 2015

Personally, I don't think the church on any policy, or doctrinal level will change it's stance on this as far as allowing gay marriage, adultery, or fornication as acceptable before God. Now I say this on a doctrinal and policy level. We remember that the pharisee's of the time of Christ continued to preach the law. Jesus said to the people however:
Matt 23:
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Also describing the Pharisee's:
Luke 11:39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

The church will always preform to the best of it's ability to at least appear to follow the doctrines or the gospel, whether or not it truly does.

How about this alternative? The Church does not change its stands but attempts to convey a message to members and the world that it is really, really gay-positive?

In the short-term it can score points and such but when the next generation comes along, and actually finds out what the doctrine is, they get a disconnect just like what has happened recently with polygamy?

Cognitive dissonance can only endure in many people, not all.

Phoenixstar117 wrote:Personally, I don't think the church on any policy, or doctrinal level will change it's stance on this as far as allowing gay marriage, adultery, or fornication as acceptable before God. Now I say this on a doctrinal and policy level. We remember that the pharisee's of the time of Christ continued to preach the law. Jesus said to the people however:
Matt 23:
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Also describing the Pharisee's:
Luke 11:39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

The church will always preform to the best of it's ability to at least appear to follow the doctrines or the gospel, whether or not it truly does.

I agree with your assessment and general idea of the church's (leaders') approach.
The church's actions are sometimes in complete contrast to their words.

As many have acknowledged, using Jesus Christ's name to make money is never a good idea, and now it's coming back to bite them.

It's difficult to serve 2 masters...

One of the open goals of the homosexual agenda is to attack religious institutions in various ways, one being preventing their tax exemption status.

You either laugh or cry about all of this... Mostly cry because the family is the basis of society - each of us know in our heart and soul how important it is. It's sad to see turn around (even if subtle) in those who previously stood so strong for it.

If the Church changes it's stance on Gay marriage then it will be called just a church not Jesus Christ's Church.
I won't have to leave the church if it happens, the church will have left me.

jimmy wrote:If the Church changes it's stance on Gay marriage then it will be called just a church not Jesus Christ's Church.
I won't have to leave the church if it happens, the church will have left me.

It will never happen... I think the brethren are wise enough to never allow public or political pressure to persuade them to accept gay marriage when it is 100% in opposition to God's law and his plan of salvation. I'm confident that they are more fearful of the Lord's wrath than anything man can do to persecute. But I don't think it's even crossed their minds to even consider condoning gay marriage. And here's a question I've had for a long time... how is it possible for two people of the same sex to have 'sexual relations'? The term 'sex' (as in 'intercourse') is not possible other than between a man and woman.

ColFlag,
I wish their actions and words matched.

You're right - homosexual practices are never really intercourse but must resort to sexual substitutes (fetishes like anal sex and dildos). It is such sexual substitutes which are "supposedly" deserving of extra special treatment.

All,

Some interesting thoughts, but I don't understand how this implies any change in the church position. Perhaps it will be a bit of clarification to those who haven't followed the church. I believe that previously the church came out in support of Salt Lake ordinances against discriminating housing based upon sexual preference. Nothing new here.

I think that the fundamental principle here is that the Church believes in the gentle persuasion of the spirit. Not, aggressive tactics. like picket lines and loud aggression protests. Years ago, I'm sure that the church would have supported legal bans against homosexuality, just as they indirectly supported proposition 8 in California a few years ago. As this world more embraces evil, the Church has to "pick it's battles". What you are seeing here is a tactic, not any change in belief.

Regards,

George Clay

clayjr said: ....just as they (the church) indirectly supported proposition 8 in California a few years ago.

There was nothing "indirect" about the church's support of Prop 8.

This is an interesting discussion, but only time will tell what the Church will do.

One thing seems fairly clear to me: you can't have it both ways. You can't support anti-discrimination legislation for both religions and anti-religious groups. Why? Because they are mutually exclusive. The LGBT is a perfect case in point. The LDS Church discriminates against LGBT's in both doctrine and practice: practicing LGBT's (if known) are not permitted to participate in of any of the ordinances, including sacrament, baptism, entering and anything in the temple, marriage (temple or by a bishop), etc. For the Church to argue for certain "civil rights" for LGBT's, such as equal rights and anti-discrimination for housing and employment, on one hand, but argue at the same time on the other hand for protection of religious freedom in its own discriminating practices against LGBT's, i.e. prohibiting their participation or eligibility in the religion (particularly for those with LDS heritage as religion has become largely cultural), as well as for protection of individual religious freedoms such as religious doctors not having to perform abortions or artificial inseminations for gay couples, etc. - do you not see where this is going? The government won't draw squiggly lines like this. You can't have it both ways: anti-discrimination and religious freedom. It's either freedom or dictation.

Its history demonstrates that the government has always won against the Church.

First, polygamy, plural marriage, celestial marriage, whatever you want to call it, should have been protected by the First Amendment (a conscientious and voluntary religious practice that did not infringe on anyone else's rights). Brigham Young and many of his brethren even went to great lengths to preach and establish it as central and essential to our doctrine of exaltation, i.e. they taught many times, in official capacity and authority, in public, in the name of the Lord, in general conference settings that it was essential to exaltation and even prophesied in the name of the Lord that it would never be done away, that the Lord would destroy the United States government before he or the Church would bend or withdraw the eternal principle. They apparently spoke, however authoritatively, in error (on the Lord's behalf - i.e. the Lord God does not speak in error) because the truth is history. The U.S. government, however unconstitutionally, relentlessly and successfully pursued the cessation of the practice until it was finally done away. Bottom line, the Church changes both its doctrine and its practice. This can't be denied without dishonesty. Is anyone going to continue to argue this? I'm sorry.

Second, blacks and the priesthood: the Church discriminated against blacks in both doctrine and practice, tentatively in the JS era and positively from the BY era and on. The Church prohibited their receiving Melchizedek Priesthood and temple ordinances, but permitted baptism and sacrament. Call it what you will, partial discrimination or whatever, but it is very similar to the current LGBT issue. What happened? When the civil rights movement gained momentum and traction, the Church foresaw what would happen if it did not change - it would again face overwhelming legal pressure and/or censure. End result? Both our doctrine and practice changed to conform.

So the real test for the Church with the LGBT issue, and the law of chastity and current definition of marriage (even with thousands of years of history backing them), will be when the government recognizes LGBT as a protected class and sexual orientation and marriage as human rights. If this occurs, the legal pressure to eliminate any form of discrimination against LGBT's, whether on religious grounds or not, will become heavy. What will the Church do then? Hopefully not change its doctrine or practice.

And, unfortunately, these examples of how our government has and is willing to trample religious freedom in favor of both public opinion (right or wrong) and other agendas, despite the Constitution, does not bode well for the future. The Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The Church's track record is not perfect at sticking to its guns, right or wrong as you may see it. When the political and financial pressure has been turned on; when the barrels of the U.S. government have pointed (or were about to point) at it, it has chosen self-preservation over whatever doctrine or practice was threatening its existence.

I don't like it, but that's history. The other interpretations I've seen, however faithful, deny too many plain facts.

The real question now is what is the Lord's will and will we, as a church (this depends on the leaders since it is a theocracy), and as individuals, do His will whatever the consequences? Is the law of chastity, no sexual relations except between husband and wife married, and marriage only between man and woman (I would say one man and one woman, because polygamy already lost) - are these eternal and unchanging principles and practices? If they are, and the Church has clearly taught that they are, it would constitute another historically huge change if they bent or broke on these. For me, it would be a deal-breaker with the Church, i.e. we would part ways. I'm sticking with the Lord no matter what.

I could be wrong about many things.