Thank you for sharing your history with us. The question is what constitutes doctrine and not policies that seem to be taught as doctrine. We have canonized scriptures. If it’s in there, it’s doctrine. If it isn’t, it could be true but policy rather than doctrine. Thus, polygamy is doctrine as taught in the D&C and OT. However, as policy, we do not participate in it and have been instructed by the Lord not to do so at this time lest we will lose our membership.
Homosexual acts are also sins as spoken in both OT and NT. Not only that, it is also laid out by our Prophets that it is still doctrine and the policy to not allow it is still and in my opinion will always be sin and disallowed. Something as spoken in the NT as vile and listed with murder and adultery will never be accepted. The Temples would close down. However, I think if forced by all governments the Lord would return and put an end to the nonsense. I believe we are very close. And, if Hillary is elected we will be within a few years of total anarchy and world war. The evil countries of the world will descend upon America and Israel as prophecies say so. Our houses have to be in order and we have to say who is on the Lord’s side who?
Uh the way it looks now you better prepare for anarchy. I agree the same sins have remained sins but the policy with regards to how the church deals with those sins have definitely changed. They are far more lenient in administering corrective action then -say 40 years ago. Would you consider polygamy a sin of adultery, even though it violates a policy? Were the concubines of Abraham, Issac, Solomon (who had over 300) sins of adultery or were they actually wives, though they weren’t in Solomons case as he had many wives also. Sin can be a sticky subject. For instant a person who is mentally incompetent probably wouldn’t be condemned for a sin like you and me-even, perhaps homicide. Would a person born with an overwhelming attraction for the same sex be judged as you and I would be by a God of of infinite intelligence. The problem is we are all born and reared under different and many times difficult and unfair circumstances. Perhaps that’s why Christ said judge not that you be not judged. He knew it was a difficult process-one only he and the Father were capable of rendering. I’m not stating a position-only asking questions-ones I am far too inadequate to answer. I don’t think the church needs to change anything-just follow the counseling of the prophet and the general authorities, but I do know for a certainty they do change policy for dealing with all of us-for we all sin
Sounds like you are in group 2… 
Did you read the proclamation on the family, from 20 years ago, by Gordon B. Hinckley? I think an official proclamation is considered to be doctrine. Are you assumimg that this was just the prophets opinion? Come on Ron… seriously.
grasshopper,
One of our retired Presidents, President Jimmy Carter, recently said that (I paraphrase as I don’t remember the exact words) it is very sad time for our country, speaking of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, that we have lost our democratic way of life, or have traded it for a Oligarchy type of government.
We then are in agreement that sins remain sins but the way we handle those who have sinned changes. Any organization in its beginnings will be run strictly and later the rules may be relaxed or how they are punished if the rules are broken.
And you are correct that the Lord will be the mediator and final judge. I do have questions about this statement: Would a person born with an overwhelming attraction for the same sex be judged as you and I would be by a God of of infinite intelligence.
My opinion is if we have the same knowledge and same priesthood or standing in the church, yes.
Even if the gay person doesn’t, he has the light of Christ to know good versus evil. But, I agree the judgment would not seem as fair to judge them the same. That’s why there is forgiveness and the atonement. And there are 3 degrees of glory.
Puzzling at times, but I’m not even sure we completely understand the Light of Christ. What is socially normal is so variant throughout the world that what seems unacceptable to us is viewed as normal in other parts of the world. One thing for certain is probably you and I will be held to a higher standard than most as will this country and great will be the fall if we don’t live up to the gifts we have been endowed with. Not pleasant thoughts.
As stated in LDS.org: War in Heaven. This term arises out of Rev. 12:7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14:12–20; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:4–13; D&C 29:36–38; Moses 4:1–4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29:37; see also Rev. 12:9; Abr. 3:24–28).
The warfare is continued in mortality in the conflict between right and wrong, between the gospel and false principles, etc. The same contestants and the same issues are doing battle, and the same salvation is at stake.
Although one-third of the spirits became devils, the remaining two-thirds were not all equally valiant, there being every degree of devotion to Christ and the Father among them. The most diligent were chosen to be rulers in the kingdom (Abr. 3:22–23). The nature of the conflict, however, is such that there could be no neutrals, then or now (Matt. 12:30; 1 Ne. 14:10; Alma 5:38–40). Does LDS.org profess doctrine, policy or opinion?
Reading the Proclamation on the Family, the only germane sentences I see are:
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
Are you referring to anything else?
My take is policy-there are too many unknown factors to consider and it borders on predestination and discounts tragedy in life that changes the course of many people’s lives. I would focus on the two great commandments -love the Lord-then love your fellow man-both doctrine-probably the key to what you become and what reward you eventually receive. That there was a war in heaven is doctrine-that choices were made-doctrine-specifics heresay. I know-clear as mud-just an opinion
Yes, those are two of the essential parts but there are likely more. What is it that we are looking for when we read the proclamation on the family? By stating “only germane”, I hope we aren’t trying to find ways to skirt around and justify actions that may not be in line with the doctrine. There are other parts of it that may be “germane” as well… no need to cherry-pick.
“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God”
“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children.”
------------ This next one is critical in my opinion.
“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.”
“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”
“In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”
I put this last one in here to provoke thought on how we think the government is doing in this respect. I would say they get a D, bordering on an F for their efforts to promote those measures designed to strengthen the family…
“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
Its fun and thought provoking to read all of your posts. It would be fun to have you all in a quorum meeting to do a little more of this. I agree with whoever mentioned that if we focus on the two great commandments, love God and love our fellowman, we would be in good standing with God. If you love God, you will keep his commandments, receive saving ordinances, build his kingdom, serve his children. If you love your fellowman, you will minister and serve, share gospel, etc. It pretty much covers it all. What more do I need to know?
That pretty much covers it.
I hope that we don’t get so caught up in “loving our fellowman” that we neglect our responsibility to speak out against evil and promote that which is good.
Those who speak out against good and promote evil certainly are given their voice in the arena.
That is the world we live in currently and it is all done in the name of “tolerance”, “equality” and frequently “love”.
I’d love to see your explanations how your additional quotes are germane to the question of LGBT, the honor code, and BYU admittance to the B12.
It all goes together…
Tell me which additional quote from the proclamation you would like to have explained and I will gladly do it. You seem intelligent enough to not need an explanation, but the additional quotes are as relevant as the original ones. They are as relevant to those 3 things as the original ones you mentioned.
The last one, like I said, was to provoke thought as to how the government is doing in their efforts to promote measures designed to strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. I happen to think they do very little in that regard.
Agree with you Jim.
Thanks…I doubt that I read the document the same as you…which is why I was wondering how you read it…ie your explanation of how they connect…but if you don’t have an explanation no problem…
I hope that we don’t get so caught up in “loving our fellowman” that we neglect our responsibility to speak out against evil and promote that which is good.
I suppose you feel a need to speak out on this topic to set the record straight so I get your position, You probably don’t agree with the tone of my posts but I think far too many LDS members reason that if same-sex marriage is wrong and if there is no role laid out in the Plan of Salvation for those of same-sex attraction, then gays must be evil. There could be nothing further from the truth. As long as LDS gays are living the Law of Chastity as well as the other commandments, they are temple worthy. They are deserving of our love and respect as God’s children. I think members sometimes forget that the Proclamation on the Family is not just about defining marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. It addresses other ills that affect the family like fornication, spousal abuse, child abuse, neglect, ect. Yes, we have a duty to speak out against all these ills and to support traditional marriage. But, I don’t see any responsibility to speak out against those who have same-sex attraction. It is an important distinction.
How do we, as a church and as individuals speak out against gay marriage and yet support people with same-sex attraction? I understand how to do this on an individual basis by shutting my mouth in opposing same-sex marriage with individuals I know or become acquainted with. But then I am not speaking out against the ills of gay marriage. On the other hand I can speak out against gay marriage but it will then be very difficult to effectively support individuals with same-sex attraction.
Will the Church, in 25, 50 or 100 years sanction celestial marriage, temple attendance and inclusion in ALL Church activities for all the alphabet (LGBTQ???)? I am not being a smart aleck with this question. I ask it seriously. When I was a missionary in Vancouver, British Columbia, I, myself, read a Time Magazine article, in 1970 that predicted that when Spencer Kimball became president of the Church, he would find a way for black men to hold the priesthood.
Interesting! We seemed to be inclined as a civilization to have a need to speak out against things. Gays, coaches, players, politicians, religious groups etc. In the course of our church history we have been railed against often and continually -verbally, physically, emotionally. We in turn seem to now like to respond in sometimes virtually the same way. So my question is-What would Christ tell us to do? Would it be to shut our mouths and just live our faith, be an example of love, kindness and forbearance , set the example and let the ones that are called on to judge do their responibilities or would it be something different?
We often hear that the doctrine never changes but policy certainly does. Maybe the first big policy change was to end polygamy. The second big one was later during President Kimball’s leadership that extended the priesthood to all worthy males. This second policy change happened at a time the Church was taking off in Brazil where there was so much mixing of race and culture that the issue was even more daunting to sort out than in the U.S. Regarding LGBTQ???, can you imagine if we were to add P (Polygamy) back again. Polygamy was once allowed but is now considered sinful (adultery or extramarital) and cause for excommunication. Truthfully, I think members would accept a policy change for gay marriage easier than they could accept the reinstatement of polygamy.
How do we, as a church and as individuals speak out against gay marriage and yet support people with same-sex attraction?
Probably the same way we speak out against polygamy and yet support people with heterosexual attraction.