Comparing the homosexual view with the former negro view - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

ute4ever · 08-13-2007, 05:06 AM

I have a 50-year-old booklet titled The Church and The Negro that was designed to let African-American church members know what their rights were in the church and why, along with that God still loves them and all that warm fuzzy stuff.

The concept seems quite similar to today's teaching on homosexuality. And that got me wondering, could homosexuals receive equal rights in the church over the next decade or two?

I've heard people use the scriptures on the offensive against homosexuality, where it is called an abomination and such. But wasn't that under the pre-Christian Mosaic law? And likewise, aren't there scriptures about the black skin being a curse, and the saints were admonished not to mix their seed so their children would not be cursed and damned? Pre-1978 anyway.

Moreover, doesn't the temple endowment (paraphrasing) refer to chastity as having no sexual relations outside of marriage - - but does not specify gender - - the emphasis focusing on being lawfully married?

Similarly, polygamy is a sin... except for when the Lord allows it.
Murder is a sin... except for when the Lord allows it.
Black skin is a curse... until the Lord decides otherwise.
Might homosexuality be permitted amongst the saints someday?

Indy Coug · 08-13-2007, 11:50 AM

The entirety of the Gospel boils down to this: to be able to have endless creations as God has. Homosexuality is fundamentally against this commandment. You can't have endless creations when you don't even respect this most basic principle in mortality. Same goes with adultery and other sexual sins that fail to respect the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and the sacred covenants made in the temple.

It's my opinion that you can't analogize the church's stance against homosexuality with blacks and the priesthood. They are fundamentally different issues which go well beyond blind human prejudices.

Tex · 08-13-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's my opinion that you can't analogize the church's stance against homosexuality with blacks and the priesthood. They are fundamentally different issues which go well beyond blind human prejudices.

I agree, the similarities are superficial and unconvincing.

Archaea · 08-13-2007, 03:23 PM

I don't see a compelling comparison.

For example, I remember no revelation that blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, but I have see scripture and the Proclamation on the Family which state that marriage is ordained between a man and a woman.

The only way to allow homosexuality is to disregard or to discard the law of chastity. I don't see that happening, but many might rejoice if it did.

MikeWaters · 08-13-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

The only way to allow homosexuality is to disregard or to discard the law of chastity. I don't see that happening, but many might rejoice if it did.

If one has sex in marriage, it is chaste.

it would required changing the proclamation on the family. actually i think polygamy might require changing the proclamation on the family.

YOhio · 08-13-2007, 03:31 PM

It sure would make for some better EQ social activities. Instead of the sparsly attended monthly softball games we could go to a members' loft apartment, watch a foreign art film and have exotic hors d oeuvres.

MikeWaters · 08-13-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOhio

It sure would make for some better EQ social activities. Instead of the sparsly attended monthly softball games we could go to a members' loft apartment, watch a foreign art film and have exotic hors d oeuvres.

I say we put gay couples in charge of the activities committees. I guarantee they would come up with something better than potluck in the gym.

Goatnapper'96 · 08-13-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I have a 50-year-old booklet titled The Church and The Negro that was designed to let African-American church members know what their rights were in the church and why, along with that God still loves them and all that warm fuzzy stuff.

The concept seems quite similar to today's teaching on homosexuality. And that got me wondering, could homosexuals receive equal rights in the church over the next decade or two?

I've heard people use the scriptures on the offensive against homosexuality, where it is called an abomination and such. But wasn't that under the pre-Christian Mosaic law? And likewise, aren't there scriptures about the black skin being a curse, and the saints were admonished not to mix their seed so their children would not be cursed and damned? Pre-1978 anyway.

Moreover, doesn't the temple endowment (paraphrasing) refer to chastity as having no sexual relations outside of marriage - - but does not specify gender - - the emphasis focusing on being lawfully married?

Similarly, polygamy is a sin... except for when the Lord allows it.
Murder is a sin... except for when the Lord allows it.
Black skin is a curse... until the Lord decides otherwise.
Might homosexuality be permitted amongst the saints someday?

If I recall correctly it was always understood that eventually the priesthood would be extended to all worthy men. I have never read any intimation that homosexuals will receive all the blessings of the Covenant.

But I also think that we are all victims to cultural and societal constructs. Not that I am a bleeding heart liberal, but that I believe that there is an organization in place and established methodology for such "revelations." If the current policy is changed with respect to homosexuals then so be it.

Archaea · 08-13-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If one has sex in marriage, it is chaste.

it would required changing the proclamation on the family. actually i think polygamy might require changing the proclamation on the family.

It would require changing the temple, the Proclamation and many things which I have probably not considered.

It would eliminate one of the two reasons for sex, basically stating, "sex is for fun," not that I disagree with that, but it would turn it on its head by implying the primary purpose is for self-gratification rather than a combo of procreation and mutual gratification.

MikeWaters · 08-13-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I have never read any intimation that homosexuals will receive all the blessings of the Covenant.

There has been intimation that all children born into the covenant, will eventually find their way back to faith and the church.

This is one of the great mysteries of the church, because it doesn't seem to fit with our notions of personal responsibility and works.

I've never heard of a carve out for gays born into the covenant, that they would be excluded.

08-13-2007, 05:06 AM	#1
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	Comparing the homosexual view with the former negro view I have a 50-year-old booklet titled The Church and The Negro that was designed to let African-American church members know what their rights were in the church and why, along with that God still loves them and all that warm fuzzy stuff. The concept seems quite similar to today's teaching on homosexuality. And that got me wondering, could homosexuals receive equal rights in the church over the next decade or two? I've heard people use the scriptures on the offensive against homosexuality, where it is called an abomination and such. But wasn't that under the pre-Christian Mosaic law? And likewise, aren't there scriptures about the black skin being a curse, and the saints were admonished not to mix their seed so their children would not be cursed and damned? Pre-1978 anyway. Moreover, doesn't the temple endowment (paraphrasing) refer to chastity as having no sexual relations outside of marriage - - but does not specify gender - - the emphasis focusing on being lawfully married? Similarly, polygamy is a sin... except for when the Lord allows it. Murder is a sin... except for when the Lord allows it. Black skin is a curse... until the Lord decides otherwise. Might homosexuality be permitted amongst the saints someday?

08-13-2007, 03:23 PM	#4
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I don't see a compelling comparison. For example, I remember no revelation that blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, but I have see scripture and the Proclamation on the Family which state that marriage is ordained between a man and a woman. The only way to allow homosexuality is to disregard or to discard the law of chastity. I don't see that happening, but many might rejoice if it did. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

08-13-2007, 11:50 AM	#2
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	The entirety of the Gospel boils down to this: to be able to have endless creations as God has. Homosexuality is fundamentally against this commandment. You can't have endless creations when you don't even respect this most basic principle in mortality. Same goes with adultery and other sexual sins that fail to respect the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and the sacred covenants made in the temple. It's my opinion that you can't analogize the church's stance against homosexuality with blacks and the priesthood. They are fundamentally different issues which go well beyond blind human prejudices.

08-13-2007, 03:31 PM	#6
YOhio AKA SeattleNewt Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,055	It sure would make for some better EQ social activities. Instead of the sparsly attended monthly softball games we could go to a members' loft apartment, watch a foreign art film and have exotic hors d oeuvres.