The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[♪alt13]

And now for the CORRECT answer...



I'm not quite sure what OB means by "fluid" - is it that the definition of "gender" is changing or that a person's self-identity is fluid? Or both - or something else!

If you believe that humans have souls then you can believe that the soul can have a gender if that is how you feel comfortable thinking about it. Perhaps the gender of the soul is the opposite of the gender of the living person. Who really knows?

And is gender really so binary as One Brow seems to think? Why automatically reject the possibility that there could be more than two? There are people whose physical traits are somewhat ambiguous, even at the genetic level.

Preettttyyy sure OB was arguing that gender is not necessarily binary.

 

[colton]

Here is an honest question, and I hope is a reality someday:

What will happen if Elder Christofferson is the prophet someday, and he finds himself wrestling with a subject very much like the prophet did with the priesthood, except this time, it is about his brother, a very active LDS member...who is gay?

What happens if now President Christofferson gathers the 12 around (who by this time will be much more liberal and accepting of the LGBT community due to the way things are when they grow up) and they all agree with the new prophet, that the anti-LGBT marriage/temple rules are too discriminatory. So, they all decide to pray, receive the same revelation the 1st presidency and quorum received with African Americans, and decide to allow LGBT marry, receive temple blessings, etc.

What makes all this possible? The Church throwing Brigham Young under the bus recently with his anti-AA priesthood policies. They can now write a manefesto throwing all the current/previous leaders under the bus, calling them bigots, etc and say that our Heavenly Father loves all his children and we have now seen the light.

Me, I'll celebrate that day. How will a lot of members feel about that? Especially after all the fights that have been put up with the marriage issues currently going on?

Would you guys be okay if/hopefully when that happens?

I sustain the president of the church as the prophet and the only one who is authorized to receive that type of revelation. If the Pres. Christofferson were to announce that revelation in your scenario, I would accept it. But I don't see it as likely, and the church's teachings about homosexuality (consistently teaching that homosexual behavior is against the commandments) seem very different to me than the teachings about blacks prior to 1978 (consistently teaching that blacks would one day have the priesthood, albeit most felt it would be in the next life).

 

[One Brow]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you both. I can pretend I am not a caucasian male, I can claim that I relate much better as a black female, ...

1) That really trivializes what for many people is a highly painful, difficult revelation. Did you take your notions straight from South Park?

2) When I spoke about four ways of deciding gender, three of them are completely physical, and in no way depend upon a persons subjective understanding of their place in this world. You can look at genetic make-up, external genitals, or internal organs, and they may differ. A person can be XY with testes and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and male genitals, or ... . So much depends on which proteins get expressed at which times developmentally. Discussing such people in a male/female dichotomy, much less claiming this dichotomy applies to a soul, just seems silly.

However, I won't discuss that topic further in this thread. I may make a new one if I feel the discussion needs to continue.

 

[LogGrad98]

1) That really trivializes what for many people is a highly painful, difficult revelation. Did you take your notions straight from South Park?

2) When I spoke about four ways of deciding gender, three of them are completely physical, and in no way depend upon a persons subjective understanding of their place in this world. You can look at genetic make-up, external genitals, or internal organs, and they may differ. A person can be XY with testes and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and female genitals, or XY with ovaries and male genitals, or ... . So much depends on which proteins get expressed at which times developmentally. Discussing such people in a male/female dichotomy, much less claiming this dichotomy applies to a soul, just seems silly.

However, I won't discuss that topic further in this thread. I may make a new one if I feel the discussion needs to continue.

We can agree to disagree, or you can start another thread. Either way I think it is a HUGE stretch to start saying that gender should be multi-faceted in any meaningful way. What percentage of viable embryos with mixed gender DNA actually get born anyway? In any realistic way this would be viewed as an anomaly and a mutation that will realistically never be passed into the gene pool as a viable DNA construct.

 

[green]

Don't know why I went on that ramble, but it feels good getting it out in the open. I cannot talk to my wife about this, or my parents, or my children. I have few friends that get it, and I have broached the subject with a few and all I get is either "yeah get out of that brain-washing thing" or "you just need to pray about it harder" as the standard responses in one form or another.

Thanks for all of that. The temple is something I do wonder about. Struggle isn't the right word, but wonder. For example, why has the ceremony changed? Why has it softened? Also, with today's available information, are certain rituals really going to get me into heaven, when any person, member or not, worthy or not, can look up the symbols and have them at their side? Also, why the familiarity with the Mason ceremonies?

I get the lessons to be learned. I get the importance of symbolism. I get the importance of making covenants. But, certain parts seem very man made, very 1800's, and very unnecessary.

 

[green]

Thanks for sharing this. I have profound respect for how different people experience these things differently and for those who find happiness, solace, fulfillment etc. from religion. (Provided, that is, they don't expect others to feel the same way. Once they cross this line, I lose my respect.)

Even when I was a devout believer, I always felt uncomfortable in the temple. If there is anything cult like in the LDS Church, this is certainly it, and when I was in the midst of a ceremony, I felt like a cultist (I really did this is not hindsight). I recall one day I went to the temple hoping to find inspiration to settle my growing doubts about the Church and . . . nothing. There was no inspiration, because, I realized, there was no inspiration to get, it was just a dumb cultish ceremony, nothing more. (That's how I felt, I realize others feel differently, and I'm not suggesting everyone should feel the same.) I never went back.

I do have a problem with the bolded part. Cult is the word everyone loves to throw around when they leave the church. To be fair to the church, temple ceremonies are very, very similar to a lot of other Christian worship services. I have been through the temple with many former Catholics and other Protestant members and they all have told me something to the effect of, "We were wondering when we would go through these types of ceremonies."

They do a lot of those ceremonies during their weekly service. We don't. We do them in the temple. That isn't cultist in the least. Unless, of course, you think all those religions are cultists as well.

 

[colton]

Thanks for all of that. The temple is something I do wonder about. Struggle isn't the right word, but wonder. For example, why has the ceremony changed? Why has it softened? Also, with today's available information, are certain rituals really going to get me into heaven, when any person, member or not, worthy or not, can look up the symbols and have them at their side?

Also, why the familiarity with the Mason ceremonies?

I get the lessons to be learned. I get the importance of symbolism. I get the importance of making covenants. But, certain parts seem very man made, very 1800's, and very unnecessary.

As you said, I think it's about the importance of making covenants. That's what is "going to get me into heaven", not the rituals. The rituals serve as a vehicle for the covenants. To me it seems clear that Joseph Smith used the Masonic rituals as a basis for the ceremony in which the covenants are presented/made. It doesn't both me that the the ceremony is similar to the Masonic rituals, though, because the covenants themselves are the foundation... and that is the aspect that isn't at all similar to Free Masonry. I'm not too worried about similarities in the vehicle. Similarly, it doesn't bother me that the ceremony has changed a bit, because that's just the vehicle.

 

[green]

I sustain the president of the church as the prophet and the only one who is authorized to receive that type of revelation. If the Pres. Christofferson were to announce that revelation in your scenario, I would accept it. But I don't see it as likely, and the church's teachings about homosexuality (consistently teaching that homosexual behavior is against the commandments) seem very different to me than the teachings about blacks prior to 1978 (consistently teaching that blacks would one day have the priesthood, albeit most felt it would be in the next life).

Here is where you an I differ greatly. I have always been taught that the feelings of homosexuality are NOT a sin. The sin is in breaking the Law of Chastity. If LGBT can marry, they are no longer breaking the Law of Chastity, and no longer sinning.

Correct?

Where, with the priesthood issue, AA had never sinned in this life (but they had sinned somewhere previously, but not in this life. We don't turn "black" when we sin), yet were still denied the opportunity.

In my mind, the AA issue is much worse, much more egregious act by the Church. It was nothing more than bigotry. That's why it would be much easier for the Church to accept LGBT into the "fold". Once they are married, the sin is now gone.

The issue here is marriage, and that is why the Church has suddenly gotten so active in the fight against gay marriage. If LGBT people can get married, then they aren't sinning anymore. They can have families, obey the law of chastity, and do everything else that straight members can do.

That is why I think once the gay marriage becomes accepted by law, and another 10 years pass and then accepted by the common man, the Church can quite easily say, "look, they are keeping ALL the commandments, they should be allowed to make the covenants and receive the blessings that come from keeping the commandments."

Boom, write a manifesto calling whoever a bigot, say all their general conference talks about how homosexuality is a sin were not inspired by God, but instead inspired by hatred, and move on.

The Church has done that before.

That is just my point of view, and I really, really appreciate your response. If you know of any, are there any scriptures that differentiate homosexuality from adultery or fornication? Anything that says that adultery and fornication are wrong because they are done outside the covenant of marriage, while homosexuality is wrong because it's fundamentally wrong? Thanks.

 

[green]

As you said, I think it's about the importance of making covenants. That's what is "going to get me into heaven", not the rituals. The rituals serve as a vehicle for the covenants. To me it seems clear that Joseph Smith used the Masonic rituals as a basis for the ceremony in which the covenants are presented/made. It doesn't both me that the the ceremony is similar to the Masonic rituals, though, because the covenants themselves are the foundation... and that is the aspect that isn't at all similar to Free Masonry. I'm not too worried about similarities in the vehicle. Similarly, it doesn't bother me that the ceremony has changed a bit, because that's just the vehicle.

Great insight. Thank you very much.

 

[Nightmare]

Since this is a religious discussion, I'll try to say as little as possible.

Gender is far too fluid of a concept to say that an immaterial soul can have a binary gender. There are at least four different ways to define the gender of a person, no two of which have to agree.

I think only two genders. Determined entirely if they have a y Chromosome. All other 'genders' are branches off of those.

 

[colton]

Here is where you an I differ greatly. I have always been taught that the feelings of homosexuality are NOT a sin. The sin is in breaking the Law of Chastity. If LGBT can marry, they are no longer breaking the Law of Chastity, and no longer sinning.

Correct?

No, the church clearly teaches that homosexual actions are sinful, regardless of whether the individuals are civilly married or not.

For example, the Church Handbook of Instructions includes a "Policies on Moral Issues" section at the end. It includes these statements:

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbo...-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#214

Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

Homosexual Behavior and Same-Gender Attraction

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

So, which you are correct that the church teaches that feelings of homosexuality are NOT a sin, you are incorrect when saying the only sin is having sexual relations outside of a civil marriage.

... If LGBT people can get married, then they aren't sinning anymore. They can have families, obey the law of chastity, and do everything else that straight members can do.

That is why I think once the gay marriage becomes accepted by law, and another 10 years pass and then accepted by the common man, the Church can quite easily say, "look, they are keeping ALL the commandments, they should be allowed to make the covenants and receive the blessings that come from keeping the commandments."

It would take a lot more than that, in my opinion, because as showed above the church view is NOT that they are keeping all of the commandments. In fact, they are breaking a serious one (as currently taught by the church).

... That is just my point of view, and I really, really appreciate your response. If you know of any, are there any scriptures that differentiate homosexuality from adultery or fornication? Anything that says that adultery and fornication are wrong because they are done outside the covenant of marriage, while homosexuality is wrong because it's fundamentally wrong? Thanks.

Well, here's the Topical Guide entry on homosexuality.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/homosexual-behavior?lang=eng&letter=h

I don't see anything there EXCEPT for references which indicate homosexual behavior is always wrong. There are no qualifiers as to whether the individuals are civilly married.

 

[Batman]

I have areas of disagreement with the church, and my belief in God has been wavering for a decade or more now, despite my mission and all that. I would say at this point I am more or less agnostic or at least agnostic-leaning. I am still more or less active in the church, but I simply do not feel anything from it like I did when I was younger or like others claim to do.

I feel good when I get emails from my daughter talking about her mission, and for father's day this year she wrote me a poem that really brought tears to my eyes, but I don't view that as the workings of the "spirit".

After quite a long hiatus (a few years really) my wife and I went back to the temple to be able to escort our daughter through, and then attended several times with her, and I have made a real effort this year in particular to reconnect and see what might be there for me in this religion. But in the temple I really just felt kind of ridiculous. I get that it is all symbolism and I studied it enough earlier in my life that I know what that symbolism for the most part is supposed to be, but in the temple with the clothes on, etc. I just kind of felt silly, and none of it resonated.

I felt like I was there with an open heart, as I had been preparing to help my daughter have a good experience there, which included reading the BoM for the first time in maybe a decade. But all I felt was silly. And frankly I was disappointed that I didn't have the same spiritual experience my wife and daughter obviously did.

Maybe I am just not on the same spiritual plane, or, as the thought that occurred to me in the celestial room in the Salt Lake temple, maybe this is all window-dressing and really is just silly. I honestly don't know, which is why I feel I relate more as an agnostic than anything else right now.

I have had experiences in my life that I cannot explain, and fit religious explanations better than anything else I can imagine. Experiences connected to my cancer, things to do with my kids, and other things that are just too perfect to have been coincidence, including a near-death experience I have spoken of here before. And it is these experiences that I feel I cannot deny, that when I try to deny them I feel just, well, wrong inside, that keep me from leaving it entirely at this point.

Don't know why I went on that ramble, but it feels good getting it out in the open. I cannot talk to my wife about this, or my parents, or my children. I have few friends that get it, and I have broached the subject with a few and all I get is either "yeah get out of that brain-washing thing" or "you just need to pray about it harder" as the standard responses in one form or another.

Sincere post. A lot of depth there. Thanks for sharing.