What's your opinion.  Do you think churches should take an official stace with
regards to a persons sexuality?

This is the place to air your opinion.  

Please no religion bashing.

106 responses total.

PS.  Can anyone see about linking this to the GLB conf?

Ask void - the fw of the cf that is being linked to makes the call.

The other question?  Well, yes, i think that religions (whether church-, 
temple-, village-, tribe-, or whatever-centric) should have official
views on sexuality.  I also believe that such official views need to
be better founded in modern reality and real concern for the welfare of
the common people than has most of the stuff They've come up with so 
far......

I think churches should take he official stance that they have no official
stance. =}

<lol>

        You've got to define what you're talking about - the original practices
and spirit of a religion, which often bears no resemblance to - the current
codified form of the religion's texts, which often bears no resenblance to
- the actions of the majority of the followers as a group.

"Official stance" would be "the current codified form of the religion's
texts," IMHO.

Seriously, my own religion's official stance (we should all just make our own
religions, it would make the world that much crazier ;} ) reflects the Wiccan
Rede, which is, if it doesn't hurt anyone, go for it. Of course, "not hurting
anyone" is a huge freakin' can o' worms, but hey, life can't always be easy.
;}

oh yes, let's all have our own religion so all the sheep will start the
new burning times.

<laugh>

<high-fives the Gregmeister>

<bow>
thank you, my cynicisim kung fu is strong indeed

If religion met current mores there would be no religion.  Their stance 
is either acceptable to you..or not.  Freedom of choices among 
religions, or no religion at all is a empowering fact...and has not 
always been so here in the US..Puritans would cut the ear off a 
disclaiming citizen and send him/her back to England

There's no inherent reason why religions can't reflect current mores.
All religions began some time, after all, and usually reflected the mores of
the time that they were created.

        I had the impression that most religions resist change because that's
the way that they spread;  by having a cohesiveness and required rituals which
reinforce the religion's status quo (like the Jewish ritual of copying the
Torah by hand, or reading it every day), and thereby maintaining cohesion as
a set of ideas.  Though there are exceptions, such as Buddhism, which tends
to insinuate itself as a set of rituals and beliefs into other religions,
there are still required and repeated rituals and certain core moral beliefs.

        You can radically change the moral stance of a religion, but then it
ceases to be the same thing.  You can call it by the same name, but it isn't
the same thing.  Christianity that taught that Christ isn't a saviour would
be an exampe - it's such a fundamental violation of the current mode of one
of the core beliefs of the religion that to teach such a thing would create
an entirely different religion.

Yes, but you're speaking of core tenets. Philosophies and religions are
complicated things; hence the number of sects of Christianity. To qualify as
"Christianity," for instance, a religious system only has to recognize certain
basic tenets -- that Jesus of Nazereth is the Saviour, and a Divinity through
which Heaven can be entered, that the New Testament is His word, etc. The
details are certainly up for grabs, especially where there are contradictions
or vagaries.

        That there are many areas of debate between sects of Christianity, does
not imply that everything but the core tenets can be changed, and remain the
same religion.  Christianity and Islam, for example, are supersets of Judaism,
yet have markedly different characteristics.

   sex 381 <---> glb 50

   sorry it took so long for the link...did anyone e-mail me about it?

<attempting to re-inflate the original topic...>

There's no reason that religions should not reflect current mores, but there's
a wide variety of attitudes that fall into the category of 'current mores'.
If any religion didn't match up with _anyone's_ attitudes, it would die out;
the way religions survive is by keeping pace with a certain segment of the
population.  

So even within Christianity, some groups activily minister to homosexuals and
some are actively opposed to them - both of which reflect the current opinions
of some of the people.  

(Oy.  I'm probably using 'mores' wrong back in the first paragraph.  Brighn,
Jazz, I would like you both to notice I've admitted that ahead of time :) :)

Re:  Xianity references in #14, 15, 16
Actually, many of what are now considered "core" beliefs of Christianity
are stuff that was invented and/or mandated in the early centuries C.E.
as the Late Roman Empire worked to build a centralized, authoritarian
State Church out of the many diverse fractions & fragments which did
agree that Jesus was the most important religious teacher ever born.
Paul had a similar influence - through zeal and imagination instead of
State power - much earlier, especially after the core of followers of
Jesus around Jerusalem got crushed after the rebellions of the late 1st
century.  You can see much of this if you read the New Testament - the
teaching and actions of Jesus Himself are quite different from the tone
of the later NT, and far indeed from the later Romanized stuff.  (But
note that the books (and version of books) in the NT were chosen by 
the same human political processes that were proclaiming the doctrines
and dictating that the Earth was flat.)  If you get into fringe areas
or groups that *don't* trace their Xianity back to the Roman Church,
you'll see some *very* different versions of Xianity. 

The upshot: 

 - Almost any characterization you're likely to see of "Christian" is 
loaded with the unstated (and typically unimagined) presumption of a 
popular sub-type.
 - Xian sects have been using the formula "you can't be called a Xian 
unless you believe _____________" to vilify each other since the beginning.

Before anyone uses the word "Christian", i'd suggest that they check 
whether they're fitting into either of those two categories.  And refrain
if so.  

(:End Rant:)  

        Gnostic Christianity is sufficiently different from Roman Christianity
as to almost be a completely different religion - since we're getting into
sects of Christianity that were all but eliminated by the Council of
Constantine - wouldn't you say?

Um, Christianity and Islam differ from Judaism in their core tenets.
Christians, for instance, recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, and
Jews don't (except for "Jews for Jesus," which I'm not at all familiar with).
So I fail to see how that example strengthens your argument.

The issue relevant here is whether sexual values qualify as "central tenets"
of Christianity, or whether they're "up for grabs" (actually, which portions
of sexual values are which). For instance, bans on adultery (i.e., sex
*outside* of marriage/committed relationships) seem universally
JudeoChristian, while bans on polygamy (i.e., sex with multiple partners
*within* marriage/committed relationships) aren't... polygamy (polygyny,
almost always) is allowed in Islam and Mormonism. And yet most "mainstream"
Christians place a higher stigma on polygamy/polyamory than they do on
extramarital affairs. Why?

        Well, Christianity's core tenets and Islam's core tenets, at least in
theory, are a superset of Judaism's.  

        Would adding a core tenet change the nature of the religion?

        If so then Mormonism would have to be a completely different religion
than Christianity, since Mormonism's core tenets are a superset of
Christianity's, adding amongst other things belief in a relatively modern
prophet and several recent additions to the Bible among other things.

        It comes down to, what makes a certain religion itself, and not another
faith?

For the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints outlawed 
polygamy in the mid 1800's.  Therefore, although it was a permitted 
practice for a time, it is currently *against* the religion.  In fact, 
if you want official doctrine on the matter, consult Jacob 2 in the Book 
of Mormon.  It states that polygamy is instituted only when the church 
needs to build a generation of people (I'm paraphrasing) and it is a 
divine commandment to do so; otherwise the rule is one spouse, and no 
more.

What do you mean, belief in a relatively modern prophet, John?  If you 
are referring to Joseph Smith, then yes, he should be noted, since he 
instituted the faith, but Mormons consider whoever is the current 
president to be a prophet.  The difference between the Mormon faith and 
all other religions (I don't think the Pope claims this) is that it is 
continually built upon by continuing revelation.  Usually the modern day 
prophets expound established scripture; what they say will have basis in 
that scripture and is often applications for present-day life.

Continuing revelation-- more so than the Book of Mormon itself-- is what 
distinguishes the Mormon church from others.

Jacob 2 states no such thing. It's much clearer than that:
Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hea me, and hearken to the word of the
Lord: For there shall not any man amongyou have save it be one wife; and
concubines he shall have none. 
  
I don't see any conditionals in the rest of the chapter that would rider that.

that said, and having done research which confirms my previous knowledge, I
can state: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka LDS, aka The
Church of Mormon, aka the Mormon Church, does not permit polygamy.

I can also state that there are people who identify as Mormons, who practice
and follow the original teachins of the Mormon Church (pre-1890, when LDS
banned polygamy), who are polygamists.

Stating that Mormons as a rule don't practice polygamy because LDS doesn't
permit polygamy is as arrogant as saying that Christians can't get abortions
because the Pope says they can't. RCC is a subset of Christianity, and LDS
is a subset of Mormonism.

22> Christianity is a religion. Islam is a religion. Judaism is a religion.
Mormonism is a religion. these are all members of the religious tradition
known as JudeoChristianity, because they all include what the christians call
the Old Testament as a religious text. They all have sects which differ on
both important and peripheral issues -- polygamy, divorce, homosexuality,
polyamory, age of majority, fetishism, abortion, all being relevant to this
discussion. They differ both in whether they regard certain acts to be sins
(remarriage after divorce, for instance, or remarriage after widowship); they
also differ in tolerance of certain acts which are sins (acceptability of
non-practicing gay clergy, for instance).

So how finely are we going to narrow the discussion? Are we going to speak
of the "core tenets" of JudeoChristianity (monotheism, YHWH as Creator, and
so forth)? Are we going to speak of the "core tenets" of christianity (Jesus
as saviour, and so forth)? The "core tenets" of Methodism? Or United
Methodism? Or United Methodism as practiced in the Eastern Conference? How
about the United Methodism of Eastern Michigan, as defined by a line drawn
(roughly from SS Marie south)... because there ARE ways that this differs from
the United Methodism practiced on the western side of the state (minutae,
granted...)? 

I'm not trying to be confrontational, BTW. I've run just as aground on these
issues as everyone else, if not moreso. So let me try to get the discussion
back to the original intent.

Christianity can't have an official stance on sexuality because there's no
such thing as "The Christian Church." Likewise, there can't be an official
stance in JudeoChristianity or Mormonism or Islam or Judaism.

Taking the original question -- should a religion have an official stance on
sexuality, and if so, what? (paraphrased) -- and restricting our discussion
to entities which are capable of having official stances (The United Methodist
church, or The Church of Mormon, or RCC), to what degree (if any) should
popular opinion affect church stances, and what defenses can on find to having
a particular stance on sexuality within the church's doctrines?

        That's a slippery argument, though - if you want to look at it that
way, then there is no point in asking what any religion believes, since any
individual can form their own beliefs seperate of, but based upon, an
established religion.  

        Which doesn't change the fact that what most people think of when they
think of Catholicism, what I consider the Catholic religion, isn't all that
keen on abortion, and wasn't on birth control, either.

        Now if we can accept that one can realistically say that Catholicism
has a conflict with abortion, then where can we draw the lines?  When does
a variation on Catholicism become so different that it ceases to become the
same religion for purposes of discussion of what Catholicism has to say about
abortion?  If a subsect is founded by a women's group that is in every other
way identical but allows birth control and abortion, does that mean that all
of a sudden Catholicism doesn't see a problem with abortion because of the
exception?

As I said, the RCC can and does have a stance on abortion (and anything else).
If we're clear that, when using the term "Catholicism," we mean "the tenets
of the Roman Catholic Church," then we can speak of the official stance of
Catholicism on abortion. My point is that it's meaningless to speak of the
official stance of Christianity, because there's no group that is recognized
by the majoriy of people professing to be Christians which actively dictates
what Christians as a whole believe.

#0 speaks about "official stances," and we got derailed speaking of
generalized beliefs. Let's take it away from religion. The United States has
many official stances. It is not the case that, to be classified as an
American, one needs to agree with all of these stances. I disagree, for
instance, with the United States' official stance on same-sex marriages. But
I am still an American.

the following statements are all truthful ones:
The United States has an official stance on same-sex marriages.
This stance is that the Federal Government does not and will not recognize
them as legally binding.
Many Americans would like same-sex marriage to be legal.
Many Americans do not have an opinion on the issue of same-sex marriages.
It is possible to be an American and disagree with the United States'official
stance on same-sex marriages.

The following statement is not a truthful one:
All Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage, and do not and will not
recognize them as legally binding.

I hold "core tenets" to refer to "beliefs that must be held for a person to
legitimately claim membership in a group," in the same way that there are
characteristics that a person must hold to legitimately claim citizenship in
a country. I could *claim* to be a French citizen very easily ("I am a French
citizen." There, I just did.) But in order for this claim to have any
legitimacy, I must satisfy the characteristics that are either assigned by
the governing body that determines them (in the case of citizenship), or that
are determined by the vast majority of the people who identify as members of
the group (as with some religions), or that are otherwise clerly and
unmitigatedly identified as being charateristics of that group.

This item was started in reference to "official stance." Official stances,
clearly, can include statements which are not about defining characteristics
or core tenets. The Federal Government's official stance on same-sex marriage
is not a defining characteristic (or core tenet) of Americanism.

You're right about each person having their own religion, if they choose. We
can belong to groups as large or as small as we wish, so long as we satisfy
their defining characteristics. I belong to quite a few groups by virtue of
my characteristics; some have a membership of one, others have a membership
in the millions, and larger (I am a H. sapiens sapiens, for instance, and I
am a mammal). Some of these memberships can easily be revoked (I could be
excommunicated from the United Methodist church, for instance, although I
don't think I ever have been, and I'm not sure what their procedure for it
is -- ironically, I think I'm a United Methodist but I'm not a Christian,
because I think I still satisfy the defining characteristics of the former,
having been confirmed and never formally excommunicated, but not of the
latter, not holding the view that belief in Jesus as the Son of God is the
way into Heaven [although I DO believe hat Jesus of Nazareth is a demigod,
the son of YHWH]); others can't be (I will be a H. sapiens sapiens until my
current life processes cease to function).

All of these are very wonderful philosophical explorations, but they get us
farther from the original question, which wasn't about generalizations, or
what one must believe in order to be called a Christian, but was very simply
about -- to reiterate -- whether religions should have official stances on
sexual issues.

The answer is yes.  Next question?

        Well, then we can dissect the word "should" too, and examine the
various sorts of "should"s, considering that some theories hold that mankind
simply makes logical justifications for basic primate behaviours, and others
that mankind's distinction is that it can act for different reasons than
primate behaviours.  Dissect anything far enough ...

... and you're left with green goo that nobody knows what to do with.

Kinda like me...

<robert just shakes his head>

        I'm really not sure that "should"s really apply to a religion, in any
context.

        Memetically speaking, a "should" is one of the basic memes with which
a larger religious meme is constructed, in Brodie's terminology it's one of
three basic meme types.  You'd have to apply the values ("should" memes) of
another religion or some secular system of thought to the larger religious
meme in order to make a decision - and in order to tell if the values you're
applying are valid, you'd have to examine them in the light of another set
of values ...

        Where it gets really tricky is when you start applying the values of,
say, the religious texts (the Bible) to the "shoulds" of a existing sect as
they are taught (say Bob Tilton's show).  

That analysis applies to sexual mores, but it doesn't apply to any statement
that could be made about religion. For instance:
Should religion have a theory about the nature of Deity?
  
That answer would be clear: "Yes." That's not because the values of one system
are being applied to another, but because the word "religion" has a
definition. A system of belief that has no theory whatsoever about the nature
of Deity isn't, properly speaking, a "religion," although it can certainly
behave like one, if it has most of the other defining characteristics of a
religion.

But this is getting tangential again. =}

        Not to nitpick, but there are many schools of Buddhism that really
don't say anything one way or another about the existence or non-existence
of a diety.

        But I think that's more along the lines of what qualities you use to
dichotomize a religion from a secular system of thought, wouldn't you agree?
Outside of a theology, there really doesn't have to be much difference.

re:24  My understanding was that the Mormon church was founded under the name
The Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter Day Saints.  Thus, it is confusing to say
that the church under this name is a subset of Mormonism.  It's not. It's not
arrogant, either, to say most Mormons don't practice polygamy.  There are
splinter groups that do, but the church does not condone their activity, nor
does it claim they still have ties.  (They've been severed.)

No offense, btw, but I find the nickname 'Church of Mormon' highly insulting. 
It suggests we worship the prophet- historian who compiled the Book of Mormon,
who was named Mormon.   Also, read again, Paul.  Jacob 2 further states that
the Lord may command his people to practice polygamy to raise up seed unto him,
otherwise they will give heed unto these things (that they have but one wife). 
I can't remember the reference in the Doctrine and Covenants (which is
essentially the handbook of the church), but Joseph Smith did receive
instruction upon the doctrine of polygamy.  I am fairly confident that you can
ask a General Authority about this and you will be told that polygamy is never
intended to be a permanent institution.  The Lord may use it to build his
people anew, and so it was with King David, and the early days of the LDS
church, but the need is no longer there, and so the foremost requirement of one
spouse remains in effect.

I would appreciate some better and more careful research before someone says
something that just isn't true. This was the nightmare I was dreadfully afraid
of when I first entered this conference.  Yes, I recently was warned by my
bishop that being too out was dangerous-- evidently, people are uncomfortable
because I have mentioned things too personally.  But the last thing I need is
some jerk who tells me I'm oppressed or that my faith is all screwed up.. or
doesn't get the facts straight.. ~:C

Early Lutherans were considered "a splinter group" by the Catholics, and
Shiites were considered "a splinter group" by the Sunnis. 

You're not oppressed. Your faith isn't all screwed up. We have different
perspectives. I happen to feel that the "splinter groups" to which you refer
are justified in calling themselves Mormons, and that therefore their beliefs
should be included in the purview of "Mormonism." You disagree, as do the
majority of LDS authorities. *shrug* I don't really think it's worth debating
further, and I won't take that "some jerk" comment personally.

For the benefit of those without a copy of The Book of Mormon:
Jacob 2:30. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me,
I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

There's a footnote to Malachi 2:15. Malachi 2:11 prvides context:
Mal 2:11 Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed
in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the Lord's holy institution
which He loves: he has married the daughter of a foreign god.
Mal 2:14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" because the Lord has been witness
between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt
treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
Mal 2:15 But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And
why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed of your spirit, and
let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
(New KJV, "The Gideons Bible")

Anyway, enough of that. People can make with that what they will. =} I
apologize for any offense taken by "The Church of Mormon." For the record,
I'm not some yahoo who heard some offend media slur on Mormons and take that
as the extent of my knowledge. I'm not an expert, either, but my Grandfather
is a Mormon (LDS). It has led to a severing of ties between him and my father
(a Protestant minister), because they insist on having theological wars when
they're together.

John> A good number of people, including Buddhists, don't consider Buddhism
a religion, specifically for the reason you cite.

Well, the dictionaries i've got are sorta neutral on the "does it need a
God to be a religion?" question.  Webster's Unabridged specifically gives
a secondary definition that makes the God(s) optional.  I favor the "no
God required" side, because i don't see any good alternative word for the 
no-Gods-at-home-in-their-world-view cases.  Since a non-theistic religion
fills all the same social roles, etc. as a theistic one and most people
"in the pews" are usually not real interested in the details of the
theology, i see far more problems than benefits if religion gets defined
so that half the world doesn't have one. 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss