LGBT mixed messages and the church's position on marriage w/ Greg Matsen
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2024
- #cwicmedia #josephsmith #lds #bookofmormon #lgbtq #gaymarriage #thoughtfulfaith #familyproclamation #churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints
In this episode I interview Greg Matsen of Cwic Media. We discuss recent confusion and mixed messaging from the church on it's position on LGBT issues- between official doctrine and practice.
We discuss reasons provided by some that this doctrine could change.
Check out Greg's channel and Jacob's video
/ @cwicshow
• LGBTQ Confusion and Cl...
• Can we go on like this?
Timecodes
00:00 Intro
01:42 Greg's background and CZcams channel
09:26 Recent confusion over the church and LGBT changes
13:42 Is the church shifting its position
21:17 Charlie Bird and Husband taking the sacrament
25:11 The church's official doctrinal position on marriage
29:52 Differences between gay marriage with polygamy and the priesthood bann
35:14 Could there be further light and knowledge on this matter
44:48 Does gay marriage undermine marriage and family?
48:00 How far will things go on LGBT acceptance and advocacy?
50:14 What if the Lord gave a revelation to the Prophet authorising gay marriage?
55:02 Closing thoughts
Don’t forget to like, comment, share and subscribe to my channel!
You can leave a donation via Paypal, Patreon or superchats on CZcams!
My website
mormonism-with-the-murph.co.uk
TikTok
/ mormonismwiththemurph1
Check out my facebook page
profile.php?...
Facebook profile
/ mormonismwiththemurph
Check out my podcast on spotify
open.spotify.com/show/0wZVNBA...
Please donate to support me via Paypal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/smy19...
donate to my Patreon and get monthly perks
/ mormonismwiththemurph
It is easy to fix this issue: place the PROCLAMATION ON THE FAMILY within the Doctrine and Covenants. It would be the THIRD addition to it and would make it VERY CLEAR to all that this will NOT change.
Great discussion!
The commandment to be ‘fruitful and multiply…’ on its face, clearly shows that gay ‘marriage’ will never be approved of The Lord or His Restored Church.
Thank you for having Greg on ! Love him , always the voice of reason .
No problem!
It’s great to see a civil discussion on this issue. I appreciate Greg for standing firm in that Marriage is between one man and one woman and that changing that doctrine would undermine God’s plan for the eternal destiny of his children. While that is firm, we can still have love, acceptance and compassion for all.
I appreciate Greg and all the others who have stepped up to the plate recently to do these podcast. It seemed around 2015 that the opposition was taking podcasts by storm, and the culture of most church members was to post warm fuzzy statements on Facebook without confronting the cultural change head-on.
I think his podcast and business model selling scripture study subscriptions is more of a net negative for members.
The root of his politics is in the debunked "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" which claims Jewish academics from the Frankfurt School created insidious ideology to destroy western society and religion. He also pushes the conspiracy that LGBQT "ideology" is similar to a virus. Also debunked.
One can criticize modern academia and all aspects of society without using the framework of alt-right politics and conspiracy Greg pushes. And it seems like he's really just riding the coat tails of organizations like Prager U and Dailywire but targets an American LDS audience already predisposed to those ideas.
I don't like Jacob Hansen's ideas but I at least appreciate how he is not using it as a platform to sell scripture study courses, supplements that have no scientific evidence that they actually work, and Book of Mormon themed cruises.
Got news for you. The falling of the LDS Church is only accelerating since 2015.
The negative comments thus far about Greg can't be about the Greg I know. He's a principle driven guy and knows of what he speaks. I'm not sure why anyone would want to smear his good reputation.
No need to white knight for him.
Well you have to disregard sdfotodude. He has an issue with anyone in the church. He comments ad nauseum on here.
@@wendyfoster5579he speaks truth, and studies scriptures, and the laws of Jesus Christ. And sticks to our standards.
@@MrRickb75645 He sells you scripture studies, having no authority of his own, and snake oil to suckers.
Greg is actively championing the debunked and ultimately antisemitic "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" (google it if you don't understand its history related to far-right politics) and uses it as the foundation of his messages and channel. He deserves criticism for actively spreading these ideas among LDS membership.
Happy to be here, glad to be a new subscriber too! Loved your episode off come back podcast, and I love Greg’s show.
Thanks for joining :)
If the church doesn't firmly clarify doctrine/policies regarding same-sex married couples, you'll have stakes like in Alpine who keep pushing the envelope further & further until the church is forced to do/say something. Like at some point a liberal stake in the Bay Area will start issuing temple recommends to people in same-sex unions, and that will be a big test for the brethren and will be interesting to see how they respond.
@@EKowallis yeah they tried that with the November Policy of Exclusion. Til they changed their mind due to blowback.
@@EKowallis In general yes, they have. What I mean is that they seem to not be doing or saying anything (as far as we know) about specific situations when local leaders break or push boundaries relating to lgbt issues.
I really think the family proclamation and the temple is enough, and then further clarified in MULTIPLE conference talks
Great show guys !
Thanks
Just wana say that i mispoke when i said the children of LGBT parents would be excommunicated.
I had 2 thoughts going through my head. The children of gay married couples couldnt be baptised, confirmed or blessed. But thay gay couples would be excommunicated in 2015, I didnt say it right
The mistake was understandable. Had you been communicating in Irish instead of English you would not have erred. 😅
@paulblack1799 happens all the time, it's a curse
Although you didn't intend to say excommunication, you weren't actually wrong.
Forbidding membership, baptism, priesthood, access to the temple is of course de facto excommunication.
If they wanted to be baptised, they were not allowed to.
That is excommunication by any definition.
The First Presidency and 12 apostles excommunicated all the children with a parents in a same-sex relationship. They later relented a bit to allow those who had already been baptised to continue their journey through LDS ordination and ordinances but the first, apparently revealed from God, version of the policy they published forbade that. The net result after the compromises was to excommunicate all the babies and children under age 8 who were too young to be baptised yet... and the same for older children and teenagers unless their priesthood leaders were in the secret club appealing to the first presidency for permission for an exception. Nice one.
Why anyone claiming to be Christian, let alone mature and wise and inspired by God as His Prophets, Seers and Revelators would ever think that is okay even for a few minutes raises a lot of questions!
When you study the scriptures, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is very simple. It's when men think they can stand between God and man and introduce their own doctrines and teach them as commandments of God, or when they seek control over the lives of men, and then the people are taught to put their trust in the arm of flesh, that people get confused. The church has no business micro-managing people's lives. They should have stayed out of this in the first place.
Well too be fair the Bible isn’t clear at all. There are too many major contradictions and too many abominations that are not condemned in the Bible and sometimes even justified by the scriptures, such as slavery. The Bible is too flawed, which is why so many different branches of Christianity, some more corrupt than others, have branched out from it.
As far as the Book of Mormon goes it actually doesn’t have too many contradictions but it teaches racism, which is why the church taught for over 100 years that God didn’t want black people to have complete access to all of his blessings and that they were cursed.
And it’s funny because the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy very clearly and yet the commandment to practice polygamy is one of the first foundational revelations of Mormonism
48:47 Rogue bishops and stake presidents? What about rogue temple and mission presidents? If church units act under their own policies and doctrines what makes them different from any other offshoot?
Bishops and Stake Presidents have always had wide latitude when it comes to membership councils.
I think part of the confusion is that many people do not understand the degree of discretion local leadership have during membership councils and extending callings.
Even going back to Spencer W Kimball it has been a chastity issue rather an identity issue. Back in the late 80s I had an openly gay but celibate priesthood leader. When I then went on my mission I had several companions who would not believe that no matter what. He had left the Church but returned after his AIDS diagnosis. After his rebaptism, he served as both an Elders Quorum President and a Bishopric councilor, the calling he had at the time of his death.
I also want to push back against the claim that any member of the First Presidency, when speaking in an official capacity, called the Priesthood restriction a doctrine.
The 1947 "First Presidency Letter" that has made the rounds on so many websites comes from private correspondence with the secretary of the First Presidency, not any official press release, letter to be read by local Bishops and leaders, proclamation or declaration as it is most often portrayed.
If a married gay person can give talks and hold callings, then those who are actively fornicating and committing adultery should be able to do the same.
Nothing personal against Greg but I found him quite closed-minded on this issue. He said a number of times if there was a change it would ‘tear everything down’ - if gay marriage were allowed it would no doubt be a seismic change in the church to say ‘everything’ would fall apart is exaggerating the issue.
It's really not exaggeration. The reason you think it wouldn't is because you haven't thought the issue through.
I'm trying to think through the issue of how if the church was to accept married gay couples in full fellowship, how would negatively affect straight members of the church. Can you help me understand? @@markstenquist2315
@@markstenquist2315LDS people said this same thing when it came to abandoning Earthly polygamy and giving Black people full spiritual equality. I am not convinced this is not a similar situation. The Church isn't going anywhere as an institution but even its core ideas can be up for reinterpretation from leaders themselves to keep it going.
If a member doesn't understand and support the doctrine of the family, I'm not interested in anything else they have to say when it comes to the gospel.
So you’re saying your god is the family
@BrendonKing I'm saying Godhood only comes through the union of the male and female, with eternal posterity. Our Heavenly Father and Mother live in the family unit. This is the entire point of the Plan of Salvation. And yet it goes right over the head of some members, even though its as basic as can be.
There is no official “family doctrine” from the church. The leaders haven’t signed the family: a proclamation to the world as official scripture or revelation from God. And you can use mental gymnastics to fit any form of marriage into the Book of Mormon just like the members have used mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach racism. My theory on why they haven’t signed it as revelation is because they’ve gotten so much wrong that they need a way out for when they need to give the temple marriage for gay people revelation in the next 50 years. The church probably doesn’t want to have more difficult history to contend with (just like all of the history regarding black people) for when their views change in the future.
@@ToothBrush531 I am aware nothing is canonized and agree with you. As much as members cling to the proclamation, it is not doctrine as defined by the LDS faith.
@ToothBrush531 There are so many things wrong with what you said it's hard to know where to begin.
First, the Family Proclamation doesn't stand in isolation. It simply encapsulates core doctrines that are taught in the scriptures, by modern prophets, and in the temple. So, the desperate attempt to explain it away as non-canonical isn't going to work. I would also add that while none of the six Proclamations have been signed, as the Church said itself in Approaching LDS Doctrine, "This doctrine resides in the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."
Second, no "mental gymnastics" are needed to understand the doctrine of the family, including in relation to plural marriage. That is, if one actually understands the model of marriage taught through the account of Adam and Eve in both scripture and the temple, how the sealing power works, and the actual history and doctrine how plural marriage fits in.
Third, anyone (including you) who thinks the Book of Mormon "teaches racism" has never actually read the book. At best, they've read a handful of verses, usually given to them by others with a preconceived notion, none of which they really understand.
My guess is, you're either a member who apostitized, or is on their way out, who has done very little in the way of actual gospel study, buy yet have plenty of time to troll CZcams videos and put your ignorance on display.
41:21 the further light and knowledge is what we now need to live the second great commandment in regards to our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.
Further light and knowledge on the subject?? See the proclamation on the family.. what more are you waiting for?
@@philliphall6591 the proclamation is the standard we need to live, the further light and knowledge we need is about how we interact with our brothers and sisters who don't live up to the standard. "Love them" is so broad as to not be prescriptive.
Hey, the Murph, I've subscribed to your channel and this is the second podcast of yours that I've watched. As a participant in what you all, mixed orientation marriage, I felt your remarks about it being a possibility for some was patronizing. I've been married almost 47 years and have been part of a community of people who are very happily married and one of the spouses is same-sex attracted. It isn't "some". It is many. You are not likely to know who they are, because putting up with the societal pressure, the negative opinions, and even they eye of suspicion are more than most people in my situation want to endure. You are far more likely to see ruined mixed-orientation marriages in the public view than successful ones, but that doesn't mean that there are more ruined than successful.
I want to acknowledge it works for many. I'm not sure of the statistics so I just said some. I believe some articles nd studies have had the marriage success rates around 50% the same as same orientation marriages
@@mormonismwiththemurphThanks for that clarification. Some things can't be proven with statistical studies. I know dozens of same-sex attracted men who are married to women in highly successful and faithful marriages. Very few of them will ever disclose that to the world for the reasons I've given. I'm an anomaly. I probably don't have the good sense to keep quiet. When you represent it as "it may work for some", you given the impression that you believe it's not the greatest idea. I'm here to say that it's a great idea and it works really well when coupled with putting Christ first in one's life and spouse as close second. In that formula, "orientation" is irrelevant.
@@TheGoodeKing My view is that Murph is simply being consistent with the church's official guidance to leaders regarding this topic: “We don’t counsel people that heterosexual marriage is a panacea. You’ll see in some of these experiences that are related on this site that it has been a successful experience in a few cases, or some have expressed the success they have found in marriage and in raising a family, and in the joy and all that has filled out and blessed their lives as a consequence. But that we know is not always true. And it’s not always successful. Sometimes it’s been even disastrous. We think it’s something that a person can evaluate, and they can discuss, and both with priesthood leaders and family and others, and make decisions. But we simply don’t take a uniform position on saying, ‘Yes, always,’ or ‘No, always.’” -Elder D. Todd Christofferson
@@davidtorbenson4686 Thanks for your reply. I have no quarrel with you or with Elder Christofferson. I remember the days when bishops, without instructions to do so, thought that marrying a woman would solve male homosexuality. I think it is OK to point out to people that they ought to take it under serious advisement before taking such a step. The problem is that even someone like me, who has had a 46+ year success story only can report that they've made it work. I can't report that it cured me. As I've said before in these comments, I know a lot of men like me, having participated in many online and in-person resources. I don't know any who were cured by marrying a woman. All the disasters I saw were more related to the expectation that marriage was a cure than the marriage choice itself. I've seen the same disasters with conversion therapies. I think it's right for the Church to warn people about the poor prospect of the expectation of a cure, whether through marriage, or through therapy. The only thing I consistently see is the value of acceptance of it as the safest route. Having said that, I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying anything they want. My point of view is decidely grounded in letting people choose their own course coupled with remind people who don't experience it that they aren't experts and ought to be prudent in handing out advice.
I like Trent Horn's approach of trying to not identify people as "gay people" but rather as "people who experience same-sex attraction". It removes their sexual preference from being their primary identifier.
You forget that same sex attraction is a sin
@@holyroller4391 Not it's not.
@@holyroller4391 My point is to not identify people by their sin or temptation. I don't want to call someone "gay" because that implies that their sin/temptation is their identity. I want to call them a "person", and if I need to refer to them in the context of their temptation/sin, I will refer to them as a "person who experiences same-sex attraction" rather than as a "gay person" because the former subtly removes their sin/temptation from being their main identifier.
@@markstenquist2315 yes it is. It always has been. Just because they changed it in 2010 handbook doesn't change anything. You really should maybe ask that unchangeable God that you people claim you worship. Have a good day. 👍
@@ldr540 I don't disagree with you. But same sex attraction is a spiritual whoredom. Sorry
Seems like Murph asks the same question over and over again and Greg gives the same, reasonable, truthful answers based on gospel doctrine. His explanation on polygamy was right on the point. The Priesthood and blacks was a sad happenstance but I thought Greg answered that question skillfully. I don't think gay marriage will ever be performed in the temple. Single men and women have had to deal with their sexual desires for years as they attempt to maintain their chastity; gay people in the church may have to deal with the same thing, as difficult as that may be. My heart breaks for single men and women and gay men and women. Dealing with same sex attraction must be a terrific trial. My heart felt prayers are with you that deal with that.
Greg you’re a thoughtful, articulate man. I appreciate your conviction even though I have a different view on some things than you.
One comment you made about there would be a “Mass exit of members if the church allowed LGPTQ marriage in the temple” I’m not sure I agree with that. IMO if the leaders are prompted to make the change it will because they are inspired to make that change. IMO they will explain their reasoning and at that time thoughtful members will find a way to maneuver their thinking to accept their decision and continue to claim the gospels truthfulness.
This post is NOT to stir up controversy but rather to remind you that you sustain these leaders and if they do make a change it would only be in the heels of much prayer and inspiration.
Change may be coming and IMO it’s OK if it does.
Stockholm Syndrome level 10
@@sdfotodude 😂😂 bro I’m not even a member. My point was if you look at the history of the church there are always changes. From doctrine to finding out truths about its history that were once considered true but now shown to be false. Throughout time the leaders (who I believe are doing their best to make changes for the best) explain themselves and almost every member I know twists their thoughts and does some degree of mental gymnastics to accept it and then they claim the truthfulness of the church and it’s wash, Rinse, repeat when another change happens. This change is showing love to all of gods children so it would be crazy if members choose this hill to be the one to die on. It’s a change that would show MORE inclusivity and acceptance. Why would this be the change that makes loyal members leave?
You call it Stockholm syndrome…. That’s a harsh definition. I call it blind faith. Right or wrong it’s doesn’t change the fact that members so desperately need it to be true that they can maneuver their minds to accept whatever happens so it doesn’t disrupt their schedule and belief system.
I’m NOT judging bro. If it works for them then great. Live and let live.
Greg is a thoughtful well spoken man who has strong opinions and articulates them well.
@@user-sj5ux7ut1j Greg fails to realize that his definitions of Marriage and Family aren't even close to being universal. If I BELIEVE that gays should be able to marry and have a family through adoption or IVF, his views/definitions end where mine begin. Greg is a woke identitarian blowhard and doesn't even realize it. His tribe isn't special.
I think there will be those who stay, but I also believe you would have a very large part of the population leave the church. The way I would look at this isn’t a change like blacks in the priesthood because people of African descent have always existed and there is no possible social contagion for it. You are either black or you are not.
I believe there has always been gay and lesbian individuals throughout history, and to a lesser extent people with gender disforia, but it has become a serious social contagion in the west.
There is serious social problem, especially with gen z. More of them identify as trans or non binary than any generation before. There is a mental health problem in the west and I think most of the members view it as such.
@@sdfotodudethat may be Greg’s views now BUT… the moment the church leaders agree with you that GAY couples can be married and have children though the methods you mentioned then Greg like MOST members I know will flip their talk track and shuffle some mental gymnastics and then continue to profess the truthfulness of the church. It’s Greg’s podcast and the listeners for the most part that I can tell enjoy his thoughts and opinions. Live and let live bro….. if the church allows LGBTQ marriages in the temple then I think it’s a good thing. I also think is probably overdue, just like the ban on polygamy and reversing the priesthood ban. Those changes didn’t make the masses leave and neither should this one. There is NO need for name calling. If he has some things he professes as truth currently doesn’t mean he can’t change his mind once the church changes theirs. Don’t forget there were a lot of people sitting in the pews professing its truthfulness and some who even participated in polygamy because they thought it was the only way to get to the highest heaven.. well now it’s been reversed and disavowed. Are all those members who were polygamists NOT gonna get into heaven now?? Come on man…. I think you’re just arguing to argue.
Regarding the PH ‘ban’:
In a personal letter to me, Sterling McMurrin told me about a private meeting that he had with
President David O. McKay. When he inquired about the PH ‘ban’,
President McKay declared that it was NOT doctrine, but rather a policy enacted by President B.Y. for legitimate social reasons at the time; and that it would in time be reversed.
Brigham Young always taught it would be reversed - but only in the next life, after everyone else had the opportunity to accept the gospel. The 1949 letter from the First Presidency (which stated this to be essentially not a policy but a direct commandment founded on doctrine) was the official First Presidency letter that they used to answer all inquires on the topic - used for multiple years.
This was President Young’s opinion, no more doctrinal than the original PH ‘ban’.
I wonder who is Steven Pynakker going to marry in the temple. Kwaku, Jacob Hansen, or Greg Mattsen?
Fascinating regarding skin, race and priesthood discussions now. People in the church trying to spin what the past prophets taught as doctrine. Trying to disavow a past prophet. This is a conundrum and has led to a new approach to a line item veto scenario. I am not sure that is good in the long run because it undermines the need for a prophet. It's a conundrum that could undo the church. The church is not going away, not in our lifetime anyway, it's got enough money to simply outlast any opposition. It could slowly morph into something that doesn't resemble the original church. Interesting.
Between a man and a woman according to HIS law. If gay marriage ever becomes okay with God, I'll have a severe faith crisis (not necessarily game-changing). I go to the temple weekly though. I'm not a half-engaged member.
True or False ... Polygamists in South Africa had to divorce to join the Church. If polygamists had to divorce why not same sex marriages ???
That was the norm up until recently. The church has excommunicated many members who get married to someone of the same sex or members who transition gender. It’s only up until recently that this is being slowly accepted. The reason as to why polygamists can’t join is because polygamy is not socially acceptable and it’s even looked down upon, whereas same sex marriage is now socially acceptable in most first world countries.
In short: contending with LGBTQ makes the church look bad. Contending with polygamists has no effect in the church’s reputation and public standing
To: @@ToothBrush531
Actually, polygamy was not allowed in South Africa, but in Swaziland and in the homelands.
YOU SAID
that (polygamists were required to divorce before joining the Church) was the norm until recently
...
to my understanding,
your statement is incorrect,
requiring a polygamist to divorce is still the norm.
...
however,
you are correct when you say,
same sex marriage has become more acceptable in more than a few nations.
...
the Church has not yet changed its position; we've have to wait to see what happens.
.
Nevertheless,
it would be consistent for the Church to say that if married polygamists must divorce before becoming members of the Church then SSA married couples must divorce before joining the Church too.
.
peace.
1 Corinthians 6:9 BE NOT FOOLED!
Divine Celestial Polygyny (the order of marriage in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom), involves the multi-lateral marriages of many exalted wives, sealed to one exalted husband.
These eternal
Plural marriages are not separate ‘parallel’ marriages, but rather wives intermarried with their wives as well as their shared husband. In this scared ceremony, as new wives are welcomed into the eternal family, the wives collectively place their hands upon the joined hands of their husband and new wife; whereas in monogamous marriages only the husband and wife join hands across the altar.
Born vs choice: I think it’s too simplistic to say “it’s due to choice!” I’ve got friends who were completely straight for 35 years and in their late thirties or early fourties switched sides to explore their sexuality. I think it’s a spectrum, likely some are born, and likely some are socialized that way.
I don’t think that’s accurate. If that were the case then there would be many cases of conversion therapy working for some gay men but it’s difficult to even find one case that is convincing. I think there is a spectrum but wherever you are on the spectrum is what you were born with, it’s not something that can be changed. There definitely are people who are bisexual but don’t pay attention to that side of them until later in life because they always had the more socially acceptable option of dating people of the opposite sex.
@@ToothBrush531 respectfully, define "convincing" when it comes to conversion from a heterosexual to homosexual preference or vice versa. Is there a requirement or metric you are using to determine the conversion of a person from one preference to the other?
Being gay is not a sin. Acting on it is. It is about chastity. Listen to Jeffrey R Holland's talk. Not that tough.
25:30. The Handbook does NOT say "gay marriage is sinful" and that's where a lot of confusion lies. It DOES say "same sex sexual relations" are sinful (and undermines the divine institution of the family - OUCH!)
Nitpicking? Indeed. The wording of the manual is extremely precise. It allows a same sex couple to be "worthy" of a lot of things, assuming they're celibate, or at least telling their bishop they're celibate.
I know it's a ridiculous position, but I don't see any other justifiable explanation.
To me Marriage (for time) and an Eternal Sealing are not even in the same league. I'm not so concerned about Marriage, but Sealing will remain as it is. Two extremely different things.
For now. Same sex temple marriage will be coming to a temple near you sooner than many might think. I’m thinking 50 years tops. Historically speaking the church has bent and been molded by the current culture. This is true in big ways such as polygamy and the view on black people, it has happened so much when it comes to smaller ways as well. The church will realize that it has gotten this wrong when the majority of the world’s population is open to same sex marriage and a revelation from God will promptly follow.
I think it could end up with civil unions for time only for LGBT members who want these same sex unions but it will not get into the doors of the temple and there will be restrictions in their membership if they want to have those unions... And in consequence this means they will not be able to enter into the Celestial Kingdom if they don't live the laws to either marry in this life to the opposite sex or wait until the millennium and live the law of chastity in order to qualify for a current temple recommend. So the penalties could be, that yes they can have their civil unions if they want to still demand them but will not be able to hold a current temple recommend because to have a current temple recommend, one must be living the law of chastity if not married and if they are in a same sex marriage and having sexual relations then they are not living the law of Chasity according to current church policy. So it could be that the Lord could ask these married gay couples to remain celibate in order to hold a current temple recommend. Then that means allowing chaste relationships without the sex being involved.Is such a thing even possible? I don't know. I don't think that would even last.
But if it does get into the doors of the temple then we have realize that when people demmand things that are not right from the Lord for so many times so persistently like Martin Harris had done with demanding Joseph give him the 116 pages and then eventually the Lord let him have his way and let him take the pages and of course he lost them. What a silly guy for listening to his wife who I think was the one who was nagging Harris to make demands of the Lord to get the 116 pages from Joseph.
So even if it does change which I don't think it will, after much persistence in wearing the Lord and if he does allows it, that doesn't mean its going to be a blessing. or mean they get the same privileges of the temple as everybody else if they are not living the law of chastity. I don't think the Lord will do away with the law of chastity for LGBT members if they want to hold a current temple recommend. I think there will be the same restrictions when it comes to entering into the temple.
Because the Lord can also do that, suspend the law of chastity and then bring in a curse instead of a blessing in giving the people
what they demand. This has been done in the past when Israel had rejected the Lord as their king and had demanded the Lord and wearied him to give them another king to rule over them instead as they didn't want the Lord ruling them. And the Lord heard the people complaining and hearkened and and said to Samuel, they have rejected me as their King, so I will give them a king, Go ye and select a king out from among the people and they shall have their king. And tell them the curses that will come upon them.
So Samuel warned the people of all the consequences that would come in having their own way to have a king.
And what happened? Saul was selected, he then sinned against the Lord in just the next few days and then lost the kingdom he was like the guy who got filpped over the top rope after being just only 10 seconds getting into the ring and out of the game he goes..... So what a useless king he was. He was not faithful to the Lord and so the Lord knew be would not last long and that's why he selected the most useless guy in the land to be their king to teach Israel a lesson .
This same sex relationship thing is the same war that went on before coming to earth.
I think you're right in that it will start out with same-sex civil unions. It won't stop until they get temple marriages.
Even Emma didn't follow the Brighamites into Polygamy.
Two thoughts… when my dad married for the second time after my mother passed away, they were married in the temple for time only since both had been sealed to their first spouse. Would “for time only” marriages ever be possible for gays in the temple?
Next, is it possible that Charlie Bird actually has been essentially excommunicated ( that word isn’t used anymore in the church) but they still want to participate in meetings because they want to take involvement in the Church as far as they possibly can, given their personal choices? We had a friend many years ago who was very active in the church minus taking the sacrament and having a calling. His excommunication was over heterosexual infidelity. Not many people knew this fact. Isn’t whether Charlie Bird is excommunicated or not his personal business and we should just be glad he comes to church. Perhaps it’s a challenge from the Lord for the rest of us to let Christ and Charlie’s stake leaders be the judges in this case. Our job is only to welcome and love them.
Charlie has talked about how he has a calling and is fully accepted by his ward, he has not been excommunicated.
Doesn't Leviticus 18:22 mean anything to anyone?
I instantly came to the conclusion that the reason why Aaron Sherinian was chosen to be the Managing Director for Church Communications is because the church leaders want someone who has a proven record of being openly sympathetic to the gay community to be the one who lets the world know, once and for all, that gay temple marriages are never going to happen.
An interesting thought, actually. use an ally to let them down softer.
How is he going to communicate the message that they have to live the law of chastity in order to qualify for a current temple recommend including avoiding all forms of masterbation and avoiding same sex relations outside of marriage?
But Persistent Arousal Sexual Disorder that some in the world do suffer from seems to be spreading is a
real threat, its the new weapon Satan has come up with to frustrate the law of chastity to stop people from
qualifying for entering the temple. And I believe half the gay world suffers from this kind of trouble because they can't stop having out of control sex with themselves or with others because of having persistent arousal that won't stop. And the person doesn't have to do anything, they just continually aroused. It either flares up on or on lasting for minutes, or hours, or days or weeks, or the arousal is on continually all the time and never lets up for some people. This is worse than having same sex attraction struggles in the Church and makes same sex attraction trouble look just like a walk in the park.
So all these LGBT members who complain about not having same sex relationships in the Church. Look at the the people in the world who can't stop sexual arousal with themselves and they want to stop and they can't stop and it just keeps going and it torments them causes them continual discomforts and arousal and makes their lives a living hell and they can't keep their hands off
themselves because of it..
Take a walk in their shoes before complaining to the Church about not being allowed same sex marriages.
@@EKowallis I thought that was the prophets job
@@EKowallis you’re the one who said they hired this guy to spread the word of the church
@@BrendonKing He will have to teach the law of chasity.
One could also argue that by teaching parents not to accept their LGBTQ kids for who they are or their desire to have a loving partner, the church is dividing families.
Jesus said:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
27:50 would it really be unfortunate if there was a mass exodus or falling away from the church if the church started teaching doctrine antithetical to what it has held to as an "eternal truth" since it's inception? Wouldn't the church be in a state of apostasy at that point? Wouldn't it be a good thing that people were leaving if the church found itself to be contrarian to its own stances?
I will stop attending at that point
@@sabrinahunt8147 I would think that's the smart thing to do. I don't understand why he says it's 'unfortunate' that people would leave.
@@BrendonKing
I would say that it's unfortunate that people would leave because it's unfortunate that people should feel the need to leave. The LDS church has a lot of power and brings a lot of value to peoples lives. If people find themselves needing to leave because the church has fallen, that's a bad thing. I mean, good for them for holding to their beliefs, but it's not a good thing to find the church in apostacy.
@@blainehowes5242 that’s fair.
You guys have stayed twice before, you'll stay again.
Of course we will see gay marruage in the temple. Why do you think prophets of old warned us about the cleansing will start with the church.
There is no church in the Bible church is a Greek word😂
@@lilyounggamerCome back when you can make some sense.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 so gays can somehow be sealed forever lol uh no buddy that would make your religion fake as most people already know anyway 🤣😂
@@lilyounggamerYou sure are quick.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 quick to see bs with moronism is lol
It boils down to religious liberty. You can no more justifiably force a Church to abandon its values than to expect a snow cone stand to serve alcohol.
In some ways you can’t but you can definitely pressure church’s on changing their stances on major values. Just like how the church was pressured into putting an end to polygamy and to giving black people full access to Gods blessings.
@@ToothBrush531 Sorry but a temple sealing/marriage isn't a civil marriage. The Church still allows men to be sealed to more than one woman in the Temple. And the priesthood was always in cue to be extended to blacks, just as the gospel is being preached to those who are ready for it. Things take time.
@@jeffwilson4693so called blacks aren't supposed to have the priesthood til the millennium somehow God messed up😂
@@lilyounggamer I'm not aware of that.
@@jeffwilson4693 I'm pretty sure you are mormon apologist lds taught it for years🤣
Murph, you should interview Ty Mansfield. I first saw Ty around 5-6 years ago in this FAIR Mormon video: "“Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay”?" czcams.com/video/cD4rn1mCQ5A/video.html
This is also when I first heard about Lisa Diamond and the data she aggregated. Lisa is a PhD lesbian at the U of Utah. She's not Mormon. This data is huge in understanding this topic, in my opinion.
Most people don't know this, but most people with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA) are not exclusive. Instead, most gays or those with SSA are bisexual.
How would you like it if somebody said "You can be Mormon, you just can't do Mormon."? "You can be a duck, but don't walk like a duck or quack like a duck."
Being Gay is far more that just same-sex attracted. It's a whole orientation, a whole different way of thinking about most things in life. You are woefully ignorant of gay people. You should find somebody who is gay, who you can really trust and have them explain it to you. Ty Mansfield on You tube is no substitute for a real life gay man standing in front of you, who has a life story and life experiences and is not running an organization that claims to "cure" gay people, but has never actually "cured" anybody.
For those who want gay marriage in the church, can you promise it will only be gay marriage? Or do we have to accept every sexual preference and gender expression within the LGBT community? Seems to me it’s like Jafar from Aladdin, you want it all but can you accept everything that comes with it?
No, once it's been proven something can change it means that it can always be changed further.
It won’t always change in one direction. The church was never made to never change. The type of change being advocated for is in a poor direction
@@jonathanschroeder9 I would agree, but there is precedent for change, and with that precedent, advocates are going to fight tooth and nail to get what they want. It doesn't really matter if you believe the change comes from God or from societal pressure. There is capacity to change, and advocates understand that.
@@EKowallisand what will do you if they change their stance and allow it?
Clearly, you do not know about the transexual who was baptized and given a Temple recommendation. His, oops.... her money can buy malls and real estate as well as yours.
On the topic of the church clarifying their position, wouldn’t we only want that to happen if the church leaders had a revelation? It was easy for Elder McConkie to come out with all these justifications for the priesthood and temple restrictions for black people, but all that did was reinforce a false doctrine. It’s easy for some 70s or apostles to come out and say, “Our doctrine on gender and sexuality will never change,” but, with all due respect, has The Lord told them this will never change, or do they just believe that?
Along those lines, we have a prophet hero worship problem in the church, especially with President Nelson. Sometimes things said in conference strike me as attempts to gain favor with President Nelson-statements that really toe the line or double down on something he has said.
All this to say, saying something won’t change doesn’t mean it won’t change, unless The Lord said it wouldn’t change. The idea that Greg wouldn’t accept a revelation changing marriage in the church is baffling to me, because he isn’t actually interested in ongoing restoration-he’s interested in social conservatism.
Really?
@@larrybates8291 really 👍
Same sex marriage goes against EVERYTHING the family proclamation stands for . Those that put their faith in “the church will change “ over the actual doctrines of Christ will be disappointed . The priesthood issue and blacks has zero to do with actual doctrine . The Church was very similar to other religions in accepting black “leaders “ in congregations that weren’t majority black . That was a cultural issue easily resolved .
39:59 "but now that it's just been accepted in society..."
Not yelling at you Murph, you're just setting up a question.....
But this kind of logic by members and non-members is INFURIATING. I don't give a rat's ass what is "accepted by society", that is the tool of the devil. The whims of society is always in entropy, following the Lord requires effort. Look at all of history, all of scripture. When did ANY group of righteous people become more godly by accepting or adopting the standards of "society"?
Who's on the Lord's Side, Who?
we cannot give in to Satan. He is never satisfied and will always want more.
Murph, I wonder if you would be receptive to fielding the argument for change from someone who actually holds such views and can articulate them with greater strength . Just as with your chat with Jacob, I appreciate your intent to steelman the counterargument, but unfortunately this was another miss. No offense intended.
For starters, I would ask: in the Kirtland apostasy that followed the demise of the “bank,” who erred? Was it Joseph Smith for launching the enterprise and prophesying of its success, or was it the members for holding a false paradigm of prophetic infallibility?
We’re making the same mistakes in the Church today. Gay marriage and sealings actually can be integrated into scriptural teachings, the plan of salvation and temple worship with minimal tweaks in our understanding, and supported by our foundational beliefs.
Gay marriage is not procreative and cannot be substituted for real marriage. One of the most important aspects of celestial marriage is the capacity for procreation, which means that the nature of gay marriage is contrary to the nature of celestial marriage.
Gay marriage isn't a thing. It doesn't exist and can't.
You're trying to fit a square ped in a round hole.
@@markstenquist2315 you’re not wrong, and it’s exactly why proper accounting for infallibility is so important. The definition of the peg and hole as square and round stems from the same source and cultural influences that produced other doctrinal specifics that have since been disavowed.
Past Church leaders used extremely derogatory language regarding gays and made outlandish assertions, such as masturbation causing homosexuality (Kimball) or homosexuality sweeping through a people so thoroughly as to cause depopulation (Oaks). While the brethren have softened their rhetoric over time, it would be naive to think that the Church’s underlying doctrines were not influenced by the homophobic attitudes and biases prevalent at the time.
The same pattern played out on race. Ending the ban was viewed as a square peg in a round hole until enough leaders came along who didn’t hold racist views and project that onto the scriptures. And make no mistake, leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith had what felt like compelling scriptural basis for the ban. Those earlier prophets literally went to their graves upholding that paradigm.
@@aBrewster29 Sure, I don't disagree. I've no problem with prophetic fallibility. I do have issue with the doctrinal overhaul that lgbt temple marriage would require. Advocates take a reductionist view of it, and basically say it's a matter of "it's allowed now, aren't we all happy". It's not a simple thing to change, and it goes way deeper than waving the hand and saying it's allowed
@@markstenquist2315 are you aware that the Church will presently seal one woman to multiple men (posthumously) under the premise that God will sort it all out when the time comes? Gay sealings could fall under that same logic of linking up humanity despite our knowledge gaps, and God will sort it out in the end.
Change has to happen.
Riiiiight...go change things with your Canadian Anglicans and leave God alone.❤
It's already happening
@@EKowallis your leaders are freaking inept corporate grifters who abandoned your religion a long time ago in search of greedy lucre.
Either Stephen needs to get out in the sun more. Or Greg needs to stop using Trump-branded bronzer.
You make me giggle, let me shake your hand 🤝
Haha probably both are true lol
Here’s the thing, the entire argument that there can’t be gay temple sealings lies on the doctrinal premise that a male and female god are required to create new spirits. That’s a problematic premise because it’s not substantiated in the scriptures, in fact it contradicts it. The book of Abraham and Joseph Smith taught that we are coeternal with God. That He did not literally create us by some form of celestial intercourse with Heavenly Mother. Joseph Smith taught:
“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.
…As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.” (Joseph Simth, King Follet Sermon)
God did not create our spirits. We have always coexisted with Him. He spiritually adopted us and provided means to become like Him. That is a process that does not require a male and female God.
Jesus taught: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
God joined Adam and Eve together, when He did so they were inmortal being (before the fall). That means that their union was eternal.
The Apostle Paul taught: "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
Doctrinally, we know God has purposes that need both man and woman to be together in marriage. We also have as doctrine that we can't achieve the highest level in Celestial Kingdom without being sealed in marriage.
" in the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."
I don't think it is necessary to believe that a male and female God is needed to procreate spirit children and these verses do not specify this to be the case. But it seems in our doctrine it is clear that to be exhalted it is necessary to have a man and a woman united as one.
So who inherits the second and third degree of the celestial glory?
@@MichaelWalmsleyJr Why does it matter for this conversation?
@@ignaciodelgado889 in proposing how the church may make room for gay marriage, some have suggested that the married gays have space in the second and third degrees of celestial glory.
@MichaelWalmsleyJr Doctrinally we believe the keeping the covenants made in the Endowment are necessary to get to Celestial Kingdom. One of the covenants we make in the Endowment is to obey the law of chastity. I don't see how Gays can keep the Law of chastity within gay marriage. Thus I don't think the Church can make that statement as you described.
Core unchangeable doctrine. That is me. I side with God and not society. Is Murph gay and seeking for affirmation from a youtuber?
The era of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is just finally hitting Mormonism.
Gay marriage is like, telestial marriage. It's not the best option, but it's better than the outer darkness of either gay promiscuity or lesbian domestic violence.
Greg doesn't think a lot of things he holds dear will change. While they are changing around him every day This is the whole premise of his channel and angst.
That’s really the message I get from Greg and Jacob. They simply can’t deal with ambiguity or change.
Both interpret positive support for traditional marriage as a condemnation of anything else, an error in logic and display of their lack of differentiated thinking.
@@aBrewster29 They are black and white TradWives to HF. The problem I see with their arguments are their Judeo-Christian definitions of marriage, family, and the Biological ability to conceive. Gays can fall in love and marry as much as polygamists can. Gays can have a Family as much as polygamists can. And gays can have as many children (IVF) as Joseph had with his polygamous wives(none). And none of that is any of Greg's business if God is in charge.
@@EKowallis if he is real, I'm guessing he doesn't care otherwise he would FREAKING return and straighten us out.
@@EKowallis hi there. Christ never said anything about the doctrine/policy, let alone that it would not change. You’re free to believe in the inerrancy of church leaders on this matter, but you can’t prove it anymore than you can prove that God exists. It’s your belief that the prophetic messaging on this represents the will of God. There are very good reasons to believe otherwise.
@@EKowallis I sure have, and no, He has not. If He ever does I would certainly be receptive. But to the extent that His messages are conveyed through imperfect messengers, the possibility for human error must be balanced against conscience.
This is rich coming from a church that refused to marry a black couple in their temple until 1978. Yes gay couples absolutely should be allowed to marry in the temple. I hope it happens sooner than later.
The groundwork is being laid, little by little. Those who say otherwise aren't paying attention.
Doesn’t matter what you think should happen. You don’t decide what should happen.
@@jordan-xe2yb Well it matters to me what I think.
@@jordan-xe2yb likewise neither do you. The church will do what the church will do regardless of your or my input
Greg likes to act like an "Authority in General", he should just call up Salt Lake City and get the real motivation behind the recent changes in policy.
I reckon the church could allow gay temple marriage and the revelation could be that god allows a temple marriage for gay expressions of passive active or both types of love and intimacy and in the eternities they will experience love and continue to serve others and each other as married ministering angels co constructing worlds without end having surrogate eternal offspring and/or omnipotently allowing samesex gods/esses to produce spiritual beings using intelligences that were not created but have always existed through the power of the word speaking into existence.
In Greg we trust
12:20 Pronouns have existed for a long time. Trans people have existed for a long time. People messing around with pronouns has existed for a long time. These aren't new things. They're just different from what you're used to. And when you believe that you have special access to the ultimate source of knowledge, different from what you're used to becomes a threat to just how special your access actually is. I can empathize, because I've been there. Much better being on the side that can love and accept the collage of humanity.
12:49 Dang, if only there was a book by someone with some foreknowledge about our day that spoke to these issues. And it's hard for the church to give direct answers when their answers have been consistently, horribly wrong.
13:48 Don't worry, we saw through the BS. Media ate it up, but Oaks' bigotry is a constant we can rely on.
16:32 A core, unchangeable doctrine... yep... unchangeable. How's that polygamy thing going? How about that anti-miscegenation?
Greg is the type of apologist to tell you that something will never happen, but then if it does happen it's how it should have always been.
Example? I’ll wait
@@ja-kaz I'm sure you will.
@@ja-kaz 51:00. Greg will continue on as if everything was peachy should Mormonism embrace a revelation for gay marriage.
@@BrendonKing You clearly don't know Greg.
@@jerry_phillips I've seen enough to know the kind of person he is.
38:02 Greg - LDS doctrine has done you wrong my friend . Malachi 4:5-6 IS NOT talking about the earth being cursed because it won’t do Mormon temple sealings . There is no possible world in which this interpretation can be supported by the text , except in the mind of the false prophet Joseph Smith . Please study the Bible and you will find answers . Jesus himself provides the interpretation of the passage in Matt 17:10 , when the disciples asked him about it . The angel of the Lord told Zacharias that his future son John would be the one who goes forth “in the spirit and power of Elias” and turn the hearts of many to theLord, fathers and children . Luke 1:16-17. God himself took on flesh and in Jesus redeemed us from the curse . gal3:13 I am telling you, your church does not teach the all sufficiently of CHRISTS atonement in that it teaches the temple must “ fix “ what Christ couldn’t or didn’t do on the cross . Mormons have put themselves back into the Old Testament AS IF Jesus never happened. SMH
You lack an understanding of our doctrine.
The problem with Mormonism is that you don't even know whether you need to be polygamists or not. If the church is extending callings and Temple recommends to Trans members and Gay couples, I can see your confusion. Seems like a slow rollout of a new product.
"Mormonism???" Oh...You mean the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. 😊
@@paulblack1799if that is how your woke identitarianism wants to self identify as this week so be it
😂😂😂😂@@sdfotodude
Stay the heck out of the weeds. Nothing is gained by dancing with false doctrine of men.
So, basically, a boring, uninspired, tiny theology keeps Greg from seeing how to accept LGBTQ people as their full and authentic selves into the plan of salvation. Not surprised, just sad for him.
We know what side of the argument he would be on in 1977 regarding Black spiritual equality in the church based off his same arguments and interpretation of Mormonism.
Murph, I'm going to strongly word this because I think you need to hear it. You are painfully pedantic interviewer. You interrupt constantly, finish people's sentences -- which I think you do because you're trying to show off what you know -- and when you ask questions you ask these long winded compound questions that are hard for your guests to even answer. Overall, you end up talking more than your guests! I've had to unsubscribe from your channel and now barely listen to it. You get some interesting guests on but you're exhausting to listen to.
I appreciate the critical feedback, I'll try to take it on board and do better.
I do try to listen to my guests and ask thoughtful questions. But I will take on board this as it'll make me more aware going forward. Sorry its put you off the channel.
@@mormonismwiththemurph Thank you for hearing me out and considering my criticism. That's very big of you.
nonsensical comment