Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Saint Frankenstein]

The point is that many of the views of the church change over time. Remember witches? Witch hunts? Inquisition? Crusades? All popular back in the day. But now not so much.

Those episodes have nothing to do with doctrine.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Those episodes have nothing to do with doctrine.

At the time they did. Doctrine was used to support each and every one of them. In a similar way homosexuality may be thought of as something passive. Just as cutting your hair and wearing mutli-fabric clothing is today.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

At the time they did. Doctrine was used to support each and every one of them. In a similar way homosexuality may be thought of as something passive. Just as cutting your hair and wearing mutli-fabric clothing is today.

None of them have anything to do with this subject and, as far as I know, the teachings in regard to homosexual acts haven't changed. I'd like to know if they have changed, which is the reason I made this thread.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

None of them have anything to do with this subject and, as far as I know, the teachings in regard to homosexual acts haven't changed. I'd like to know if they have changed, which is the reason I made this thread.

For Catholics they do change from location to location. Or at least the acceptance of homosexuals have changed. For example it was once believed and commonly so, that homosexuals should be killed or that they were going to go to hell unless they repented for being gay. Now there are some liberal RCCs that allow homosexual members and even though they don't grace their weddings they are welcome parts of the congregation. Most Jewish temples (with the exception of some orthodox ones) are usually very openly accepting of homosexuality. This is the root of the RCC or at least loosely so.

 

[suncowiam]

I appreciate your response. It's hard to get on the same page with very diverse world views. It takes great patience and insight to really understand a person's heart and motives. That's true on both sides of the issue.

I agree with this, but if your organization, your culture, or your religion wants to assert soceital rules like marriage is only between a man and woman, then I have to say that it speaks a universal language.

It's your burden of proof to prove the matter in a universal tone. Simply basing everything back to the bible has no merit for many like me. I hope you understand this and feel that it is a fair approach.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For Catholics they do change from location to location. Or at least the acceptance of homosexuals have changed. For example it was once believed and commonly so, that homosexuals should be killed or that they were going to go to hell unless they repented for being gay. Now there are some liberal RCCs that allow homosexual members and even though they don't grace their weddings they are welcome parts of the congregation. Most Jewish temples (with the exception of some orthodox ones) are usually very openly accepting of homosexuality. This is the root of the RCC or at least loosely so.

Yes, there's "hellfire and brimstone" traditionalist Catholics and "do what you want, God still loves you" liberal Catholics (who are often at odds with the Church's teachings). I don't see what this has to do with what the early Church believed.

 

[Scott C.]

I would bet that in 1959 there were a lot of Mormons who would find the revelation of 1979 shocking. And things are changing faster now than they were then.

Gay people getting married and avoiding the problems with irresponsible sex, commonly referred to as adultery, is where things are headed. And I believe that the LDS Church will catch onto this sooner than some organizations due to the ability of 12 people to shift the official teachings so easily.
Tom

Yes, there are many who would have found the 1979 revelation to be shocking. Some members of my church were shocked by the implementation of polygamy. Others were shocked over it's cessation years later,.I get that. But, I personally see the issue of sex between a married man and woman to be very fundamental in my church. It's bigger than mere interpretation or mere policy. I see it as solid and permanent doctrine. But if time proves me wrong, I'll admit it and we can have a beer together or maybe even smoke a joint. Because the rules on alcohol and drugs will change long before the rules on sex. Haha.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, there's "hellfire and brimstone" traditionalist Catholics and "do what you want, God still loves you" liberal Catholics (who are often at odds with the Church's teachings). I don't see what this has to do with what the early Church believed.

What the Early church believed is actually rather up in the air. Much of what the RCC believes today has developed over the course of 1000 years from about 4-5th century to the 1500's. The biggest reason why there was a huge split between the RCC and the EOC was the fact that both declared their own evolution of the church to be the "original" and the other to be a false church that changed and evolved differently than what was originally meant to be. And neither the RCC nor the EOC has any more legitimacy than the other even from a purely theological standpoint.

 

[columbus]

Those episodes have nothing to do with doctrine.

These episodes have everything to do with Catholic doctrine. The Pope's power enabled all of them, just as the current Pope enables the anti-queer stance of today.
The Pope doesn't have the kind of power he used to have. Western Catholics (the ones with the money) aren't as inclined to accept just anything that comes out of his mouth. That's why they blow him off concerning condoms and ignored him when he declared the invasion of Iraq a crime against humanity. That's why the pool of clergy is shrinking so dramatically. Conservative Catholics have always seen themselves as bulwarks against change, from science to morality.

But that isn't working so well in the Information Age.

Tom

 

[Norman]

Pharisees don't ask non-Rabbis to solve their disagreements.

Norman: Jesus was considered a Rabbi and a Prophet
John 20:16Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
John 1:38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

There are already methods in place for solving disputes.

Norman: I am sure there was, however, evidently not enough because of all the questions the Pharisees asked Jesus. However, most of the questions were to try entrap Jesus. It is helpful to understand that by Jesus’ time Jewish rabbis had added to the law of Moses a complicated set of rules called the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:5-9). These laws did not come from the Lord, and many appeared ridiculous—such as the rule that healing on the Sabbath was “work” and therefore forbidden. The Pharisees, the most powerful religious group in Jesus’ day, were very strict in their obedience to these traditions and considered them more important than the words of the prophets. If the most important figures in the society of Christ’s day were the Pharisees, it was because they were the Rabbis or teachers of the Law. The Targum of Jonathan substitutes Rabbis, or Scribes, for the word ‘prophets where it occurs. Josephus speaks of the prophets of Saul’s day as Rabbis. In the Jerusalem Targum all the patriarchs are learned Rabbis.

The Pharisees prided themselves on strictly observing the law of Moses and avoiding anything associated with the Gentiles. They believed that the oral law and tradition were equally as important as the written laws. Their teachings reduced religion to the observance of rules and encouraged spiritual pride. They caused many Jewish people to doubt Christ and his gospel. The Lord denounced the Pharisees and their works in Matthew 23:Mark 7:1-23 and Luke 11:37-44. The Mishna declares that it is a greater crime to speak anything to their discredit, than to speak against the words of the Law

John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias‍ cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell‍ us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I‍ that speak unto thee am he.

And the argument about divorce still existed after Jesus. That was pure uneducated speculation.

I don’t see any difference if divorce was still talked about beyond what I posted; I feel satisfied that I made my point. I was a Jew before I joined The Church of Jesus Chrst of Latter Day Saints. You do not know me enough to know what I am educated in. Just as there were different schools of Judaism in the New Testament, it is the same today. What school of Judaism do you affiliate with? For example, Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic Jews, Haredi Jews, Jews for Jesus, Orthodox Judaism, Modern Orthodox Jews, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Conservative Judaism, Reformed Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, Flexidox Judaism, Chasidism, or Reconstructionist Judaism? Are you a Ashkenazi Khazar Jew? Or Sephardim .or Sephardic Jew, Spanish Jew?

Source:

Jesus the Christ Chapter 6: The Meridian of Time

New Testament: Student Study guide Matthew 12: Pharisees Oppose Jesus

Pharisees

 

[columbus]

Yes, there are many who would have found the 1979 revelation to be shocking. Some members of my church were shocked by the implementation of polygamy. Others were shocked over it's cessation years later,.I get that.

You wanna know why I think that the LDS will come to grips with reality before most Christian denominations do? Because they have a clear method and not millions
of illiterate believers to reach.
Its my second favorite thing about LDS. 12 guys can get together and redecide what God really meant. And the saints will get behind it.
My first favorite is the family/ community part. Once the 12 Bishops announce that it is family that matters, even if it's two guys and an adopted child, the LDS will circle the wagons and defend gay marriage like nobodies business.
The RCC can't do that. They must ignore the issue for at least a century before admitting that they were miserably wrong about something. All the people who were taught wrong must die off before the Pope admits errors on the part of the Church.
Tom

 

[Kuzcotopia]

This is all irreverent. It doesn't matter what Latino Catholics think about homosexuality. The Church isn't a democracy. I'll remind you that this thread is about what ancient Jews and Christians thought about the matter. I don't care what the majority of this or that group currently believes.

But you stated that conservative true believers stick it out and will refine the faith demographically.

Bitter about what? They're going to inherit the society so they don't have anything to be bitter about. Actually, they should be smug and self-confident as their secular, atheistic enemies commit demographic suicide. What the churches are going through is a sort of refining process as the liberal, secular members fall away and demographically die out but the true believers stick with it, rejuvenate it and grow the future generations.

It suggests that you do care about the cultural makeup of the church and have hopes for the future of the church's demographics.

This isn't a misunderstanding on my part. You can backpedal if you want to. But if you want to stick solely to the topic in the OP, then stick to that.

Otherwise, it's part of the discussion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But you stated that conservative true believers stick it out and will refine the faith demographically.



It suggests that you do care about the cultural makeup of the church and have hopes for the future of the church's demographics.

This isn't a misunderstanding on my part. You can backpedal if you want to. But if you want to stick solely to the topic in the OP, then stick to that.

Otherwise, it's part of the discussion.

I have no idea what you're talking about and it appears that you're twisting my words.

 

[columbus]

But, I personally see the issue of sex between a married man and woman to be very fundamental in my church. It's bigger than mere interpretation or mere policy. I see it as solid and permanent doctrine.

Why?
Explain to me why it is more important than polygamy was, back in the day.

Why do you personally see marriage equality as a big deal? I'm not asking what the LDS teaches, I'm asking why you see it as important. Nobody expects you to hop in bed with a guy.

Why is it at all important to you that the state of Indiana and the USA federal government refuse to recognize the relationship Doug and I have had for over 20 years, and plan to continue "until death do us part"?

Tom

 

[Norman]

I wish that there was a feasible way to make this bet with you.
I'd bet a dollar that within your lifetime the LDS church will hold its finger up to the prevailing winds of morality and homophobia will go the way of polygamy and racism.
Tom

Norman: Hi Tom, since you have such an interest in my Church I will continue to answer the OP. President Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes, sir. We are. We have fundamental, basic doctrines which have held fast through more than a 150 years of time. We don’t bend with every wind of that comes along. Our doctrine is stable, it’s secure. Programs change, we make adaptation according to the circumstances. But the basic doctrine remains the same and that becomes a solid unshifting foundation to which people can cling in this world of instability and drifting values
GBH: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.
Compass - ABC Television | COMPASS Interview President Gordon B. Hinckley

 

[Norman]

To be fair, the OP asked whether pro-gay Christianity is tenable; I am not sure that SF doubts the ability of Mormonism to discover a new revelation when the timing is right.

Norman: Hey gsa, why don't you stick with the original OP. You see so interested in my Church, you can go to the LDS DIR and ask away. To stay with the OP, President Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes, sir. We are. We have fundamental, basic doctrines which have held fast through more than a 150 years of time. We don’t bend with every wind of that comes along. Our doctrine is stable, it’s secure. Programs change, we make adaptation according to the circumstances. But the basic doctrine remains the same and that becomes a solid unshifting foundation to which people can cling in this world of instability and drifting values
GBH: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.
Compass - ABC Television | COMPASS Interview President Gordon B. Hinckley

 

[gsa]

Norman: Hey gsa, why don't you stick with the original OP. You see so interested in my Church, you can go to the LDS DIR and ask away. To stay with the OP, President Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes, sir. We are. We have fundamental, basic doctrines which have held fast through more than a 150 years of time. We don’t bend with every wind of that comes along. Our doctrine is stable, it’s secure. Programs change, we make adaptation according to the circumstances. But the basic doctrine remains the same and that becomes a solid unshifting foundation to which people can cling in this world of instability and drifting values
GBH: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.
Compass - ABC Television | COMPASS Interview President Gordon B. Hinckley

Hello Norman,

I was in fact trying to keep it back on topic, in the quote you cited. As I said, we shouldn't be talking about Mormonism since the topic is Christianity. Unfortunately, others keep bringing it up.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I have no idea what you're talking about and it appears that you're twisting my words.

Good luck.

 

[suncowiam]

Good luck.

I didn't think of it that way until I read your argument. Are you Latino in the US?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I didn't think of it that way until I read your argument. Are you Latino in the US?

No, but I teach high school math in an urban school in Texas. I know what young latino Catholics actually believe, and they could care less about traditional church doctrines or negative religious views of homosexuality.

The original question of this thread is about as relevant at phrenology is to cognitive psychology.