Ask a Mormon, Part 4

[downtown]

It's a pretty big change from 2008, where the church said it took no position as to whether sexual attraction was a sin or not. In the 1980s, they blamed homosexuality on poor parenting, pornography, or whacking off.

I view this as another tacit admission that prop-8 was a mistake, and we have to start reaching out to some of these people that we've offended. Considering where we were 20, 30 years ago, I consider this a HUGE step.

 

[classical_hero]

Well, we know THAT God commanded us to live it for a time, but not necessarily WHY; my view is that polygyny specifically will have to exist in heaven due to demographics if nothing else (if more women than men are exalted) and so it was put into place so we could get used to the idea.

The benefits of plural marriage was just that it was commanded. But not all Mormon men had multiple wives (there is some controversy over the exact numbers, but I don't think anyone claims it was more than about a quarter of men, and the average number of wives was around 2) and most were willing to give up the practice when commanded.

Based on what the Bible says, but it seems to me that marriage is for this place and will have no effect in heaven. Why because once one person is dead, then the other person is free again.
Romans 7:1-3 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

 

[Siderealex]

It's a pretty big change from 2008, where the church said it took no position as to whether sexual attraction was a sin or not. In the 1980s, they blamed homosexuality on poor parenting, pornography, or whacking off.

I view this as another tacit admission that prop-8 was a mistake, and we have to start reaching out to some of these people that we've offended. Considering where we were 20, 30 years ago, I consider this a HUGE step.

I'm not trusting the Mormon church on this new "stance" on homosexuals. I lived in California during 2008 and well...people remember.

 

[dragonprobably]

I have 2 questions, one about Mormonism and one about yourself.

The question about Mormonism:

Are Mormons allowed to listen to Rock music?

The question about you:

Did you name yourself after this?

 

[_random_]

Downtown is a huge Springsteen fan and used to drum for Aces High, so I'm assuming they're pretty cool with rock.

 

[Zack]

Considering there are prominent rock bands featuring Mormons (and not the "Christian rock" kind), that's kind of a silly question to ask.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, Mormons certainly can love Rock music. Random is right, I may actually name my first son after the E St Band.

 

[dragonprobably]

Well, I didn't know that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's a pretty big change from 2008, where the church said it took no position as to whether sexual attraction was a sin or not. In the 1980s, they blamed homosexuality on poor parenting, pornography, or whacking off.

I view this as another tacit admission that prop-8 was a mistake, and we have to start reaching out to some of these people that we've offended. Considering where we were 20, 30 years ago, I consider this a HUGE step.

I'd just like to say that while I feel this is certainly a positive step, I don't feel it will have much postive value in that acting on homosexual urges is still considered a sin. I don't think too many of the LGBT community will appreciate being told they have to be celebate to avoid sin.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd just like to say that while I feel this is certainly a positive step, I don't feel it will have much postive value in that acting on homosexual urges is still considered a sin. I don't think too many of the LGBT community will appreciate being told they have to be celebate to avoid sin.

This is something they just have to get over. I would understand and agree with them if homosexuality were to be illegal under secular law, but when it comes to the sinfulness of homosexuality, that's a part of conservative Christian belief, and its in the Bible so we have to follow it. To get offended over our moral code is, I'm sorry, ridiculous.

If we allowed other "Sexual license" such as prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or fornication (I'm just listing other sexual sins here, not in any particular order) but specifically singled out homosexuality for criticism, I could understand, but considering most conservative Christians take a stand against ALL sex outsdie of marriage, getting offended over the moral stance is simply ridiculous.

 

[downtown]

I'd just like to say that while I feel this is certainly a positive step, I don't feel it will have much postive value in that acting on homosexual urges is still considered a sin. I don't think too many of the LGBT community will appreciate being told they have to be celebate to avoid sin.

I think it's entirely possible (although perhaps not likely) that this attitude could change in another 60 years. I don't think the LDS church and the LGTQ community are ever going to be buddies. A truce would be a noble goal though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Isn't the LDS stance that homosexuality is sin? If that doctrine was given by God, how the heck could it change?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think it's entirely possible (although perhaps not likely) that this attitude could change in another 60 years. I don't think the LDS church and the LGTQ community are ever going to be buddies. A truce would be a noble goal though.

I actually do think this attitude will change, just as most modern churches now accept interracial marriage and the ones who explicitly don't are ridiculed.

When this stance does change, I think you will find that the LGBT community can buddy up to the LDS church or any other church that fully accepts them. It's not like they want to be irreligious or avoid church because they're gay. They're discriminated against and when that changes there is no reason they can't buddy up with any church.

I am glad the LDS church has proven themselves able to be flexible in this regard, it's further than most other Christian demoninations will go.

This is something they just have to get over. I would understand and agree with them if homosexuality were to be illegal under secular law, but when it comes to the sinfulness of homosexuality, that's a part of conservative Christian belief, and its in the Bible so we have to follow it. To get offended over our moral code is, I'm sorry, ridiculous.

If we allowed other "Sexual license" such as prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or fornication (I'm just listing other sexual sins here, not in any particular order) but specifically singled out homosexuality for criticism, I could understand, but considering most conservative Christians take a stand against ALL sex outsdie of marriage, getting offended over the moral stance is simply ridiculous.

You are conflating my opinions with the ones I think the LBGT community would have over this issue. I for one don't care what the Mormon church decides to preach.

However, you have to realize my point is true if you can put aside the immediate rage reflex:

LGBT members are not going to suddenly be ok with any church that tells them, "well, your sexuality isn't a sin, but you must be celibate because although your sexuality isn't a sin, being a sexually active gay human being is a sin".

Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it really doesn't change anything. It's an empty gesture, though empty gestures like this can (and hopefully will) lead to bigger steps.

While we're at, as long as any Church refuses to recognize SSM, two consenting gay adults can never meet the biblical standard of 'sex only in marriage' even if they wanted to. You see, gay sex is singled out by the Church/every Church (even though you say it's not) because in some places gay people can get married and even when they have sex only in that marriage, they are still singled out as sinful, even though 'their urge isn't a sin'. Tell me how the LGBT community should be OK with such a policy?

One last thing, 'what's in the bible' changes with time. Remember how interracial marriage used to be a horrible sin 'because it's in the bible'? Or what about all the books that used to be in the bible before the Catholics took them out? <Or cite any random belief that 'was in the bible' that no one believes anymore, of which there are volumes> So there's that.

I don't care how 'ridiculous' you think the above paragraphs are, it's true.

 

[Zack]

Dommy, tattoos are explicitly banned as sinful in the OT as well. How come there's not a movement to ban tattoos in the US?

Although, I must concede props to Mormons for also obeying the no-tattoos rule and not picking and choosing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You are conflating my opinions with the ones I think the LBGT community would have over this issue. I for one don't care what the Mormon church decides to preach.

However, you have to realize my point is true if you can put aside the immediate rage reflex:

LGBT members are not going to suddenly be ok with any church that tells them, "well, your sexuality isn't a sin, but you must be celibate because although your sexuality isn't a sin, being a sexually active gay human being is a sin".

Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it really doesn't change anything. It's an empty gesture, though empty gestures like this can (and hopefully will) lead to bigger steps.

While we're at, as long as any Church refuses to recognize SSM, two consenting gay adults can never meet the biblical standard of 'sex only in marriage' even if they wanted to. You see, gay sex is singled out by the Church/every Church (even though you say it's not) because in some places gay people can get married and even when they have sex only in that marriage, they are still singled out as sinful, even though 'their urge isn't a sin'. Tell me how the LGBT community should be OK with such a policy?

One last thing, 'what's in the bible' changes with time. Remember how interracial marriage used to be a horrible sin 'because it's in the bible'? Or what about all the books that used to be in the bible before the Catholics took them out? <Or cite any random belief that 'was in the bible' that no one believes anymore, of which there are volumes> So there's that.

I don't care how 'ridiculous' you think the above paragraphs are, it's true.

I can't say for sure what the Mormon church teaches, but I know to us a gay marriage wouldn't be a real marriage anyway and so if two gay people got a secular marriage and then slept together they'd still be sinning.

And frankly, I know Evangelicalism isn't changing their views on this for them. Nor should they.

Do I think they should be allowed to do what they want in the United States? Absolutely. Should the state recognize their marriages? I support letting each state decide and keeping the Federal government out of it, and I don't really care all that much if a state legalizes it even though I technically disagree with it. Do I still believe its a sin? Yes, that's what my faith teaches.

Dommy, tattoos are explicitly banned as sinful in the OT as well. How come there's not a movement to ban tattoos in the US?

Although, I must concede props to Mormons for also obeying the no-tattoos rule and not picking and choosing.

Because it was a cultural prohibition. Homosexuality was not.

 

[Zack]

Because it was a cultural prohibition. Homosexuality was not.

Why isn't it a cultural prohibition anymore? Tattoos are way more widespread now.

And to keep this at least somewhat on-topic, what distinguishes homosexuality as not being an outdated cultural prohibition?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I can't say for sure what the Mormon church teaches, but I know to us a gay marriage wouldn't be a real marriage anyway and so if two gay people got a secular marriage and then slept together they'd still be sinning.

That was exactly my point. This is a problem that prevents the LGBT 'buddying up' with any religion.

Do I still believe its a sin? Yes, that's what my faith teaches.

And what do you do when your faith changes? Again, I bring up the example of interracial marriage.

Because it was a cultural prohibition. Homosexuality was not.

Every prohibition in the bible started at cultural prohibitions before they were codified in the holy book. They stayed 'biblical prohibitions' up until society decided collectively that they weren't and that other things that were biblically justified should be disallowed. Take slavery and polygamy for instance as examples of the latter and interracial marriage for the former.

This has happened and is happening in the LDS church and it has happened and is happening in the evangelical churches as well even if you don't think it is.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And what do you do when your faith changes? Again, I bring up the example of interracial marriage.

The Bible didn't ban interracial marriage. Racists read things into it.

Every prohibition in the bible started at cultural prohibitions before they were codified in the holy book. They stayed 'biblical prohibitions' up until society decided collectively that they weren't and that other things that were biblically justified should be disallowed. Take slavery and polygamy for instance as examples of the latter and interracial marriage for the former.

The thing specifically with tatoos is that they were pagan symbols and were involved in rituals that also involved worshipping other gods.

The prohibition against homosexuality, on the other hand, is reiterated in the New Testament, although the death penalty in the Old Testament was mostly symbolic since you pretty much never have two witnesses to sexual contact unless you do it in public just to make a point.

This has happened and is happening in the LDS church and it has happened and is happening in the evangelical churches as well even if you don't think it is.

It probably is, but it won't happen in all of them. Not until the end of time.

There are still people in my church that support blue laws and there were (I don't know if they're still there) people that strongly opposed the introduction of praise and worship music into our services because hymns were the only "Proper" music, or something

Even if the homosexuality prohibition really does make no Biblical sense (Which it does) it still won't go away for the next century.

Regarding slavery and polygamy, this thread is really to ask Mormons so you should come to Ask an Evangelical if you want to ask anything else, but slavery was not allowed in the way that Americans commonly think of it. Israelites could only be "Enslaved" in a way that was similar to indentured servitude, ie it ended after seven years. Foreigners could be enslaved permanently, but to my knowledge still only if they sold themselves into slavery. This also may have been similar to divorce in that it was allowed "Because of hard hearts" (In order to regulate treatment of slaves and to prevent Israelites from being sold into permanent slavery) rather than ever actually being morally acceptable.

As for polygamy, that's never actually allowed in the Bible, in spite of the fact that the kings practiced it.

 

[downtown]

Why isn't it a cultural prohibition anymore? Tattoos are way more widespread now.

And to keep this at least somewhat on-topic, what distinguishes homosexuality as not being an outdated cultural prohibition?

The fact that it's specifically mentioned in scriptures and the unique place of the heterosexual family unit in LDS theology would my two theories.

It would take a major revelation/theological shift for Mormons to move away from castigating homosexual behavior as a sin. This does happen (there have been a ton of smaller changes in church positions, especially since the more conservative 50s and 60s), but only one major theological declaration in the past 100 years.

It would be unlikely, but possible. It would certainly not happen until there is a lot more turnover within the Apostles.

Also, let's get back on topic please.

 

[Zack]

Why are Mormons so economically conservative nowadays? Weren't they basically communists in their early days?