Elder Holland - "The issue is chastity. The issue is not gender."

[Wolfwoman]

Are we taking about gods law or gods law according to smith young and Nelson?

So far as all of us know, Nelson’s version of God’s law is heterosexual marriage. If that ever changes then I think you can make an argument. But as of now, the church, Nelson, and God all agree that marriage is between people of the opposite sex.

Gods law according to god is marriage between a man and a woman. Gods law according to smith young and Nelson. Is marriage between a man a lot of women.

Polygamy tends to water down any moral authority we have on this lgbtq issue. Just another perversion of gods law.

Well we were talking about homosexuals and LGBTQ. So if you want to change the goal post to polygamy, then that’s an entirely different discussion and one that has already been discussed a lot on this forum.

[ransomme]

The law of God makes no room for same-sex "marriages."

The law of God according to the LDS church is whatever the current leader says it is. The LDS church could allow polygamy or gay marriage. There is a legitimate scriptural case for both.

A lot of people say they would leave the LDS church if either of them happened however I seriously doubt it. People have too much invested to abandon the church. Especially if a strong case was made as to God allowing it.

Yeah, I dare the Church to challenge people on that. You will see mass abandonment. The exact same as happened to the RLDS Church when they began to introduce in-your-face doctrines.

And what exactly is your legit scriptural case for same sex marriage?
*Edit* ok I read your response, and no there is no scriptural basis for homosexual marriage.

IMO that analysis was woefully bad. Wow silly actually.

[ransomme]

The Law of Chastity, as defined in the Endowment, is that the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve shall have no sexual relations except with those who are legitimately and legally wedded, according to the law of God.

The law of God makes no room for same-sex "marriages."

If a person openly declares himself as having same sex attraction, yet still follows the covenants by marrying the opposite sex, there is no issue as long as he doesn't fall into that temptation.

Who are "those" referred to there? It is a subtle change.

But why was it so overwhelming necessary to change the wording from "which is that the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam shall have no sexual intercourse except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded"

Because the new change does allow for a Bill Clinton style I did not have sexual relations with that (now one can fill in the blank). Was it so same sex marriage or polygamy could "legitimately" exist alongside traditional marriage of the opposite sexes as defined by the previous temple endowment wording?

The structure of the prior wording only allowed sexual intercourse with what seemed like clearly defined opposite sex partners.

The new wording with the usage of the words "those" "legitimately" and "according to the law of God" with the last part being even more nebulous than the first two are ambigious. With the pace of the things the Law of God can change. Christ like was never used to denote wearing a mask ever. Tithing was never denoted for usage to build a shopping mall ever. And the moniker of mormons was never used to denote a victory for Satan prior.

The quote that subcomandante put up is not exactly how it is said in the endowment. I don’t know that it matters that much though. But the old quote said something about who you are legally and lawfully married to and after same sex marriage was legalized in the US, maybe they felt like it needed to be changed. The new quote actually makes more sense because it includes the laws of God.

Per the Church...
Legally = Man's law
Lawfully = God's law

[ransomme]

I find this part of what Holland said disturbing, "...for you every blessing of this church is available..."

Was I the only one?

[Wolfwoman]

Who are "those" referred to there? It is a subtle change.

But why was it so overwhelming necessary to change the wording from "which is that the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam shall have no sexual intercourse except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded"

Because the new change does allow for a Bill Clinton style I did not have sexual relations with that (now one can fill in the blank). Was it so same sex marriage or polygamy could "legitimately" exist alongside traditional marriage of the opposite sexes as defined by the previous temple endowment wording?

The structure of the prior wording only allowed sexual intercourse with what seemed like clearly defined opposite sex partners.

The new wording with the usage of the words "those" "legitimately" and "according to the law of God" with the last part being even more nebulous than the first two are ambigious. With the pace of the things the Law of God can change. Christ like was never used to denote wearing a mask ever. Tithing was never denoted for usage to build a shopping mall ever. And the moniker of mormons was never used to denote a victory for Satan prior.

The quote that subcomandante put up is not exactly how it is said in the endowment. I don’t know that it matters that much though. But the old quote said something about who you are legally and lawfully married to and after same sex marriage was legalized in the US, maybe they felt like it needed to be changed. The new quote actually makes more sense because it includes the laws of God.

Per the Church...
Legally = Man's law
Lawfully = God's law

Edit: never mind. This can be deleted.

[Wolfwoman]

I find this part of what Holland said disturbing, "...for you every blessing of this church is available..."

Was I the only one?

I have no idea what he even means by that.
Maybe he means that just like single sisters, those with same sex attraction can have eternal marriage (to someone of the opposite sex) after this life, in the millennium or in the celestial kingdom or whatever. If they keep themselves chaste here in this mortal life.

[ransomme]

The quote that subcomandante put up is not exactly how it is said in the endowment. I don’t know that it matters that much though. But the old quote said something about who you are legally and lawfully married to and after same sex marriage was legalized in the US, maybe they felt like it needed to be changed. The new quote actually makes more sense because it includes the laws of God.

Per the Church...
Legally = Man's law
Lawfully = God's law

Then why did they change the wording in the endowment from legally and lawfully married to married according to God’s law?

Edit: never mind, I think I understand what you’re saying? Maybe?

They were just dumbing everything down.

[ransomme]

I find this part of what Holland said disturbing, "...for you every blessing of this church is available..."

Was I the only one?

I have no idea what he even means by that.
Maybe he means that just like single sisters, those with same sex attraction can have eternal marriage (to someone of the opposite sex) after this life, in the millennium or in the celestial kingdom or whatever. If they keep themselves chaste here in this mortal life.

He said the blessings are the church's, come from the Church.

To me this is evil.

Besides we seek blessings from God not from a church

[Juliet]

The problem with trying to get the language right, is without the Spirit of the law, it won't resonate in people's hearts. The Holy Spirit is the testator, it witnesses to us if doctrine is true. But if people don't have the Holy Spirit with them, then you just won't get anywhere no matter how perfect you word it. No matter what Elder Holland says, the majority of people are going to be offended by it because it doesn't please the will. The will wants what it wants regardless of what is good and what is upright. That is why Jesus taught we have to say God's will be done, not ours. People have to overcome the flesh. That's not an easy journey and the best of us will recoil at the thought. It's a journey to work out our salvation, and a lot of people are going to go the wrong way, and for a long while, before they realize that's the wrong way. At this point... you can't tell people to live the law of chastity if they believe they are deriving more utility by disobeying it.

How to change someone's heart so they want to obey the law? That's something only Jesus knows how to do. People are not going to be saved by hearing the truth unless Jesus is there to touch their hearts so when they hear it, it is a message of salvation.

As it is; for many; it's a message of damnation. They won't hear it unto repentance. I think it does no good to try to preach to people who will only be damned by it. You have to meet people where they are at.

Jesus did say that even the harlots would make it to the Kingdom of Heaven before the Pharisees did. My hope with everything being upside down and backwards, that by going the wrong way, people will have the opportunity to figure it out for once and for all, how the male/female relationship is supposed to work. Even gay relationships tend to have a male female dynamic where one person is masculine and the other feminine.

If I were to play Freud and psychoanalyze where humanity is at... well maybe that is for another time and place. But my simple logic tells me anyone who engages in gay or lesbian relationships, they must have never had a good origami.

Everyone criticizes Lilith for leaving Adam... but maybe he didn't have skills.... after 7000 years there is no excuse for not understanding the mechanics behind good origami. Humanity has got to figure out how to get it right. Because when you can't the result is shame. And we need less shame, more joy. It should be a joy to be alive, it should be a joy to follow the order of male/female relationships the way God designed it. It shouldn't be something you have to preach or convince people into doing because it's good by nature. Unless you are doing it wrong.

Ok you know what I mean.

[Ymarsakar]

"Jesus did say that even the harlots would make it to the Kingdom of Heaven before the Pharisees did."

Jeshua was quite right about that. Btw. Mary Magdalene was never a whore.That was just what the ancients thought, much like how modern humans treat the messengers.

"Ok you know what I mean."

Surely I do. viewtopic.php?t=71741

[Wolfwoman]

I find this part of what Holland said disturbing, "...for you every blessing of this church is available..."

Was I the only one?

I have no idea what he even means by that.
Maybe he means that just like single sisters, those with same sex attraction can have eternal marriage (to someone of the opposite sex) after this life, in the millennium or in the celestial kingdom or whatever. If they keep themselves chaste here in this mortal life.

He said the blessings are the church's, come from the Church.

To me this is evil.

Besides we seek blessings from God not from a church

Typically most leaders and members of the church equate the kingdom of God with the Church. So maybe he was just doing that. I don’t know. It was a weird talk, sounds like.

[Ymarsakar]

If you don't have a personal relationship with your personal god, of coursei t is easy to relate a church corporation as the same as god's blessings.

[Wolfwoman]

Ok I just watched the YouTube video linked in the first post. Hearing it in context, and realizing this is from 2016, I don’t have a problem with what he said.

He’s saying that even if someone is attracted to their same sex, they can still keep themselves chaste, and ultimately, they could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex in the temple and thus every ordinance available to heterosexual people in the church is also available to someone with SSA in the church.

For some reason in the face to face event they refer to it as “same gender attraction” instead of “same sex attraction”. Maybe “sex” was a dirty word to them so they had to say it that way.

[Ymarsakar]

Ok I just watched the YouTube video linked in the first post. Hearing it in context, and realizing this is from 2016, I don’t have a problem with what he said.

He’s saying that even if someone is attracted to their same sex, they can still keep themselves chaste, and ultimately, they could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex in the temple and thus every ordinance available to heterosexual people in the church is also available to someone with SSA in the church.

The LDS message at the time was that gay people married straight people and had a happy marriage and sex life. That was basically it. A unicorn approach perhaps.

I saw one testimony that it existed, but most people can't make it that far. Too little communication and too much bloodline corruption/damage.

[JLHPROF]

The Law of Chastity, as defined in the Endowment, is that the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve shall have no sexual relations except with those who are legitimately and legally wedded, according to the law of God.

UPDATE per Wolfwoman, direct quote down here for 2023:

We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity, which is that God’s sons and God’s daughters shall have sexual relations only with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His law.

The law of God makes no room for same-sex "marriages.".

The Church has changed the wording of the law of chastity covenant repeatedly over the years.
They are likely to do so again.
Not that they'll embrace SSM, but that an appeal to the wording of this law as evidence may be short lived.

[InfoWarrior82]

The Law of Chastity, as defined in the Endowment, is that the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve shall have no sexual relations except with those who are legitimately and legally wedded, according to the law of God.

UPDATE per Wolfwoman, direct quote down here for 2023:

We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity, which is that God’s sons and God’s daughters shall have sexual relations only with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His law.

The law of God makes no room for same-sex "marriages.".

The Church has changed the wording of the law of chastity covenant repeatedly over the years.
They are likely to do so again.
Not that they'll embrace SSM, but that an appeal to the wording of this law as evidence may be short lived.

You would think that Jesus could formulate a sentence or two that would stand for eternities, right?

Apparently, it is beyond their ability to hear His voice and write down exactly what He says.

What good are these men?

But, a "revelation" is coming. Sooner or later.

[JLHPROF]

The Law of Chastity, as defined in the Endowment, is that the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve shall have no sexual relations except with those who are legitimately and legally wedded, according to the law of God.

UPDATE per Wolfwoman, direct quote down here for 2023:



The law of God makes no room for same-sex "marriages.".

The Church has changed the wording of the law of chastity covenant repeatedly over the years.
They are likely to do so again.
Not that they'll embrace SSM, but that an appeal to the wording of this law as evidence may be short lived.

You would think that Jesus could formulate a sentence or two that would stand for eternities, right?

Apparently, it is beyond their ability to hear His voice and write down exactly what He says.

What good are these men?

But, a "revelation" is coming. Sooner or later.

I don't see things quite this cynically but I agree that God will preach his own sermons soon and correct our mortal errors.

[Telavian]

After all the Covid experts we have endured do you think it’s now wise to listen to linguistic experts on the topic of biology? The expert class has become a farce in so many ways.

That is fair. What justification scriptural or otherwise would you use to say that homosexuality is wrong?
Most would use Sodom and Gomorrah, however we know that they were cursed for inhospitality and not caring for the poor. Today we ignore that and associate it with homosexuality instead.

[Telavian]

Yeah, I dare the Church to challenge people on that. You will see mass abandonment. The exact same as happened to the RLDS Church when they began to introduce in-your-face doctrines.

And what exactly is your legit scriptural case for same sex marriage?
*Edit* ok I read your response, and no there is no scriptural basis for homosexual marriage.

IMO that analysis was woefully bad. Wow silly actually.

I understand the apprehension. As I said, I personally am not really sure. Of course, we have some scriptures that we interpret a certain way to say a certain thing about homosexuality. However, as we all know scriptures can be misinterpreted.

It makes sense to me that men and women should pair together. However, I also think that if someone is born to have natural desires towards the same sex then acting upon those is in a different category than other "sins".

Anyways, I am certainly open to other interpretations and haven't drawn any lines in the sand. Especially considering this subject is almost non-existence in the scriptures compared to other things.

[JohnnyL]

The Law of Chastity, as defined in the Endowment, is that the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve shall have no sexual relations except with those who are legitimately and legally wedded, according to the law of God.

The law of God makes no room for same-sex "marriages."

If a person openly declares himself as having same sex attraction, yet still follows the covenants by marrying the opposite sex, there is no issue as long as he doesn't fall into that temptation.

Who are "those" referred to there? It is a subtle change.

But why was it so overwhelming necessary to change the wording from "which is that the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam shall have no sexual intercourse except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded"

Because the new change does allow for a Bill Clinton style I did not have sexual relations with that (now one can fill in the blank). Was it so same sex marriage or polygamy could "legitimately" exist alongside traditional marriage of the opposite sexes as defined by the previous temple endowment wording?

The structure of the prior wording only allowed sexual intercourse with what seemed like clearly defined opposite sex partners.

The new wording with the usage of the words "those" "legitimately" and "according to the law of God" with the last part being even more nebulous than the first two are ambigious. With the pace of the things the Law of God can change. Christ like was never used to denote wearing a mask ever. Tithing was never denoted for usage to build a shopping mall ever. And the moniker of mormons was never used to denote a victory for Satan prior.

The old wording allowed for every polygamous Muslim convert to be sealed to all his wiVeS. Every time I heard it, I would figuratively (and once in a while) slap my forehead.

[JohnnyL]

I find this part of what Holland said disturbing, "...for you every blessing of this church is available..."

Was I the only one?

They likely are, just not in this life.

[JohnnyL]

Ok I just watched the YouTube video linked in the first post. Hearing it in context, and realizing this is from 2016, I don’t have a problem with what he said.

He’s saying that even if someone is attracted to their same sex, they can still keep themselves chaste, and ultimately, they could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex in the temple and thus every ordinance available to heterosexual people in the church is also available to someone with SSA in the church.

For some reason in the face to face event they refer to it as “same gender attraction” instead of “same sex attraction”. Maybe “sex” was a dirty word to them so they had to say it that way.

If male A is attracted to male A who identifies as female, then... Gender just complicates it, should have stuck with sex.

[JohnnyL]

After all the Covid experts we have endured do you think it’s now wise to listen to linguistic experts on the topic of biology? The expert class has become a farce in so many ways.

That is fair. What justification scriptural or otherwise would you use to say that homosexuality is wrong?
Most would use Sodom and Gomorrah, however we know that they were cursed for inhospitality and not caring for the poor. Today we ignore that and associate it with homosexuality instead.

I don't know that, because I can't know something that is wrong--that's an apologetic apologetic's view of SaG.

In addition to SaG, there are a few Deuteronomy verses, Romans (from our Sunday School reading this week), and another place or two. Search, and ye shall find.

[blitzinstripes]

I find this part of what Holland said disturbing, "...for you every blessing of this church is available..."

Was I the only one?

I have no idea what he even means by that.
Maybe he means that just like single sisters, those with same sex attraction can have eternal marriage (to someone of the opposite sex) after this life, in the millennium or in the celestial kingdom or whatever. If they keep themselves chaste here in this mortal life.

He said the blessings are the church's, come from the Church.

To me this is evil.

Besides we seek blessings from God not from a church

A Freudian slip.

[JohnnyL]

Yeah, I dare the Church to challenge people on that. You will see mass abandonment. The exact same as happened to the RLDS Church when they began to introduce in-your-face doctrines.

And what exactly is your legit scriptural case for same sex marriage?
*Edit* ok I read your response, and no there is no scriptural basis for homosexual marriage.

IMO that analysis was woefully bad. Wow silly actually.

I understand the apprehension. As I said, I personally am not really sure. Of course, we have some scriptures that we interpret a certain way to say a certain thing about homosexuality. However, as we all know scriptures can be misinterpreted.

It makes sense to me that men and women should pair together. However, I also think that if someone is born to have natural desires towards the same sex then acting upon those is in a different category than other "sins".

Anyways, I am certainly open to other interpretations and haven't drawn any lines in the sand. Especially considering this subject is almost non-existence in the scriptures compared to other things.

Is that the same for child molesters, rapists, murderers, thieves, etc.?

Nevertheless: Yes, there are strong traumas that push towards homosexuality, in addition to culture/society, what is eaten, chemicals, etc. And I believe people will be judged according to some of those things with allowance and the Atonement. Still, the way of faith in Jesus Christ, obedience, repentance is clear.