Gay Student Panel At Byu

[Pahoran]

Having read the summary provided by BlueDreams, the panel discussion seems to have been a positive and worthwhile thing. The participants appear to accept and abide by the Church's moral teaching on this subject.

I say this, realising that the second sentence above makes my thread banning only a matter of time. You see, I unapologetically support and uphold the Church's unchanging moral standard upon this question. The Cobalts, Jaybears, Valentini and their ilk can brazenly argue for their immoral views while the mods smile benignly, but based upon the development of this thread, it is apparent that sustaining the brethren is clearly not allowed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

Then agree to disagree. Though just because one thinks another is better doesn't mean you have to sign up for the next witch hunt. Especially if you are lazy, not a fan of burnings at the stake, and should really be paying attention to studying physical science for your exam.

With luv,

BD

I do agree to disagree. I wish to be better than our Acts 29er brothers and sisters who vehemently attack those who oppose their style and method of theology.

[Damien the Leper]

Having read the summary provided by BlueDreams, the panel discussion seems to have been a positive and worthwhile thing. The participants appear to accept and abide by the Church's moral teaching on this subject.

I say this, realising that the second sentence above makes my thread banning only a matter of time. You see, I unapologetically support and uphold the Church's unchanging moral standard upon this question. The Cobalts, Jaybears, Valentini and their ilk can brazenly argue for their immoral views while the mods smile benignly, but based upon the development of this thread, it is apparent that sustaining the brethren is clearly not allowed.

Regards,

Pahoran

I didn't advocate for not sustaining the brethren. I will NOT allow supposed benevolence to cloud my judgment on such matters. The matter is not simple nor is it settled. Because they are prophets and apostles does not put an end to the subject or close it.

[Cobalt-70]

I say this, realising that the second sentence above makes my thread banning only a matter of time. You see, I unapologetically support and uphold the Church's unchanging moral standard upon this question. The Cobalts, Jaybears, Valentini and their ilk can brazenly argue for their immoral views while the mods smile benignly, but based upon the development of this thread, it is apparent that sustaining the brethren is clearly not allowed.

I take issue with both your claim that the church's position has been unchanging (homosexuality was once viewed as a sinful perversion resulting from selfishness, now it is viewed as essentially a "disease," but not a sin, and some day soon it will be viewed, like it is viewed in the scientific community, as an inborn trait like left-handedness), and on your patently false claim that I am teaching immorality. You keep failing to recognize the difference between homosexuality and gay sex. They aren't the same thing. Straight people can have gay sex, but it would seem unnatural to them. Gay people can also have straight sex, which would seem equally unnatural.

[Senator]

.... based upon the development of this thread, it is apparent that sustaining the brethren is clearly not allowed.

CFR, please.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Senator

[Kenngo1969]

... Scripture should never be relegated to a low tier position.

Brigham Young disagrees with you. He once said, ""I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."

[Buzzard]

I take issue with both your claim that the church's position has been unchanging (homosexuality was once viewed as a sinful perversion resulting from selfishness, now it is viewed as essentially a "disease," but not a sin, and some day soon it will be viewed, like it is viewed in the scientific community, as an inborn trait like left-handedness), and on your patently false claim that I am teaching immorality. You keep failing to recognize the difference between homosexuality and gay sex. They aren't the same thing. Straight people can have gay sex, but it would seem unnatural to them. Gay people can also have straight sex, which would seem equally unnatural.

They are not the same thing, but at least outside of the LDS community, they are essentially the same thing. Us and the RCC are about the only ones to offer beleivers so tempted a way through. The world just assumes that if you are (or think/decide/discover that you are), you will be having physical relationships with others of like preference.

The fact of the matter is that those attacking the church want the church to give moral equality not to homosexuality, but to homosexual acts. I hope they are a patient group, because they will be waiting a long time.

[california boy]

They are not the same thing, but at least outside of the LDS community, they are essentially the same thing. Us and the RCC are about the only ones to offer beleivers so tempted a way through. The world just assumes that if you are (or think/decide/discover that you are), you will be having physical relationships with others of like preference.

The fact of the matter is that those attacking the church want the church to give moral equality not to homosexuality, but to homosexual acts. I hope they are a patient group, because they will be waiting a long time.

Do you ever wonder since there has been no modern revelation from God on this issue that the bretheren at this point are just trying to figure out what the Lord wants them to do? They are looking at the scriptures and trying to do what they feel is right?

I am just wondering this because as we know in the past prophets have made statements and pronounced doctrine that seems to be more their own feelings on certain subjects rather than the will of God. It is only when God has revealed his stance on something that we pronounce something as doctrinal verses policy. I certainly know of no acknowledgement that such a revelation has been received. The fact that the churches position on homosexuality has already evolved a small bit indicates to me that the bretheren are still struggling with knowing exactly what God wants them to do on this issue. Certainly the law of chasity is clear. But that law seems fully rooted in sex only within the bounds of marriage. We don't really know how God actually feels about gay marriage. We are awaiting further instruction on this matter as far as I can tell.

[Jaybear]

The fact of the matter is that those attacking the church want the church to give moral equality not to homosexuality, but to homosexual acts. I hope they are a patient group, because they will be waiting a long time.

Huh? I have never seen anyone ask for or suggest that.

What I expect to happen, years down the road, is that the Brethen will treat intimacy between married gay couples, the very same way it treats intimacy between married hetero couples .... as a private matter between the couple.

Don't forget, it wasn't that long ago that the First Presidency sent out letter reminding members that there were impure acts that would keep married couples out of the temple. There has been no statement giving "moral equality" to previously impure heterosexual activity, and there never will be. They have simply chosen to stay out of the marital bedroom.

But I don't think it wil happen until everyone over 60 is dead or inconsequential.

[Buzzard]

Do you ever wonder since there has been no modern revelation from God on this issue that the bretheren at this point are just trying to figure out what the Lord wants them to do? They are looking at the scriptures and trying to do what they feel is right?

I am just wondering this because as we know in the past prophets have made statements and pronounced doctrine that seems to be more their own feelings on certain subjects rather than the will of God. It is only when God has revealed his stance on something that we pronounce something as doctrinal verses policy. I certainly know of no acknowledgement that such a revelation has been received. The fact that the churches position on homosexuality has already evolved a small bit indicates to me that the bretheren are still struggling with knowing exactly what God wants them to do on this issue. Certainly the law of chasity is clear. But that law seems fully rooted in sex only within the bounds of marriage. We don't really know how God actually feels about gay marriage. We are awaiting further instruction on this matter as far as I can tell.

You might want to read this "Official Declaration". You can spin that it's not revelation, but when an apostle addresses a subject with this degree of clarity and the church stamps it "Official", it seems pretty authoritative to me.

http://www.mormonnew...nder-attraction

Jaybears opinions, above are also addressed in this article. Some things are not doctrine with a small d, they are core principles of the Plan of Salvation. No amount of wishful thinking will make it different.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Buzzard

[Jaybear]

You might want to read this "Official Declaration". You can spin that it's not revelation, but when an apostle addresses a subject with this degree of clarity and the church stamps it "Official", it seems pretty authoritative to me.

http://www.mormonnew...nder-attraction

Jaybears opinions, above are also addressed in this article. Some things are not doctrine with a small d, they are core principles of the Plan of Salvation. No amount of wishful thinking will make it different.

Great link. Thanks. Shoud be mandatory reading for anyone commenting on the topic here.

BTW, its not wishful thinking on my part, its a prediction based on the obvious social trends.

[Calm]

Do you ever wonder since there has been no modern revelation from God on this issue

I don't think this is an assumption that we should be making. It is quite possible in my opinion that modern revelation has been given to the prophet and apostles on how they should address the issue and they are doing exactly that. Simply because something has not be announced to the general membership does not mean there has not been revelation on it.

[Pahoran]

I take issue with both your claim that the church's position has been unchanging

Of course you take issue with it; primarily because it is true.

(homosexuality was once viewed as a sinful perversion resulting from selfishness, now it is viewed as essentially a "disease," but not a sin,

That's false, of course. Homosexual tendencies have always been viewed as temptations to be resisted, and homosexual acts as sinful acts resulting from selfishness. That's how they were viewed, and that's how they are viewed now.

and some day soon it will be viewed, like it is viewed in the scientific community, as an inborn trait like left-handedness),

Your opinion of something that has not happened is not evidence of anything but your own wishful thinking.

and on your patently false claim that I am teaching immorality.

On the contrary; my claim is clearly true.

You keep failing to recognize the difference between homosexuality and gay sex. They aren't the same thing.

Of course I recognise the difference. Your mindreading efforts fail yet again.

Straight people can have gay sex, but it would seem unnatural to them. Gay people can also have straight sex, which would seem equally unnatural.

And "gay" people can have "gay" sex, which is immoral.

And those who demand that the Church surrender to it are advocating for immorality.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

They are not the same thing, but at least outside of the LDS community, they are essentially the same thing. Us and the RCC are about the only ones to offer beleivers so tempted a way through. The world just assumes that if you are (or think/decide/discover that you are), you will be having physical relationships with others of like preference.

The fact of the matter is that those attacking the church want the church to give moral equality not to homosexuality, but to homosexual acts. I hope they are a patient group, because they will be waiting a long time.

You've got to be careful to distinguish the two issues. When you call homosexuality a "temptation," or fail to distinguish between gay sex and gay identity, then you are condemning people for something basic about their identity. When gay and lesbian Mormons start to listen to people who tell them that their very identity is an abomination, that's the sort of thing that leads to gay Mormon suicides.

[Jaybear]

That's false, of course. Homosexual tendencies have always been viewed as temptations to be resisted, and homosexual acts as sinful acts resulting from selfishness. That's how they were viewed, and that's how they are viewed now.

Non seqitor.

He said the LDS perception of homosexuality has not changed.

You said false, the LDS perception of homosexual acts (sodomy) has not changed.

Homosexuality does not equal sodomy. One refers to orientation the other refers to a phyiscal act.

Of course I recognise the difference. Your mindreading efforts fail yet again.

You demontrated your inabity to distinquish the two in the very same post you claim to understand the difference.

And "gay" people can have "gay" sex, which is immoral.

I presume you consider sodomy to be immoral, regardless of the orientation or even the sex of the participants.

And those who demand that the Church surrender to it are advocating for immorality.

Some, like CB. hope, some like me, merely predict. I am not aware of anyone who demanded a surrender on the issue.

BTW, how old are you? I am curious if you be around in 30 years to welcome openly gay couples into your church?

[Cobalt-70]

And those who demand that the Church surrender to it are advocating for immorality.

Just so you know.

Just so you know, Pahoran, please see if you can find a single post of mine in which I have advocated for people to have gay sex, or for the church to be happy with its members having gay sex.

[Pahoran]

Non seqitor.

How so?

He said the LDS perception of homosexuality has not changed.

You said false, the LDS perception of homosexual acts (sodomy) has not changed.

Homosexuality does not equal sodomy. One refers to orientation the other refers to a phyiscal act.

And sometimes I use "homosexuality" as shorthand for "homosexual acts." I rarely, if ever, talk about "orientation," unless in the context of the alignment of a building.

I suggest you stop trying to tell me what my posts mean.

You demontrated your inabity to distinquish the two in the very same post you claim to understand the difference.

And thus we've been jaybeared again..

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

Brigham Young disagrees with you. He once said, ""I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."

Then this is a matter of opinion. He can have his and I will have mine.

[Jaybear]

And sometimes I use "homosexuality" as shorthand for "homosexual acts." I rarely, if ever, talk about "orientation," unless in the context of the alignment of a building.

I suggest you stop trying to tell me what my posts mean.

I will try one more time.

He said, correctly, that the perecption towards homosexuality had changed. He was refering to ORIENTATION.

Your response wherein you stated he was wrong, correctly noted that the perception towards sodomy had not changed.

As you are both correct, your response was a non sequitor.

And thus we've been jaybeared again..

And thus, Pahoran resorts to petty name calling, again.

This leads me to believe that you are young enough to witness the change that will come, first hand.

[Bernard Gui]

Lots of people who had done that in 1978 with respect to blacks ended up leaving the church.

CFR

Bernard

[Pahoran]

I will try one more time.

You don't have to. Really.

He said, correctly, that the perecption towards homosexuality had changed. He was refering to ORIENTATION.

The Church did not previously say anything about ORIENTATION, so it had no "perception" of it. In order to make that argument, he had to grossly misrepresent the former "perception" of homosexual tendencies. There has never, ever, at any time, ever, been any view to the effect that it is a sin to be tempted in any way. At all.

Your response wherein you stated he was wrong, correctly noted that the perception towards sodomy had not changed.

As you are both correct, your response was a non sequitor.

Oh. So when you say "non sequitor" you are not misspelling "non sequitur," which means "the conclusion does not follow from the premises of the argument," you are really saying something like "you are talking past each other."

Got it.

And thus, Pahoran resorts to petty name calling, again.

This leads me to believe that you are young enough to witness the change that will come, first hand.

What change? The change that "will come" when the brethren tell the members that it's acceptable to buy and watch Jaybear's Videos?

I don't anticipate such a change. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

I don't think this is an assumption that we should be making. It is quite possible in my opinion that modern revelation has been given to the prophet and apostles on how they should address the issue and they are doing exactly that. Simply because something has not be announced to the general membership does not mean there has not been revelation on it.

Interesting answer. I certainly have no knowledge of any revelation either. I guess if there was a revelation from God, I would expect it to be treated with as much prominence as the 1978 revelation. It seems to me a revelation from God would be a big deal.

I know some feel that the Proclamation on the Family is revelation, but the church has never said it was a revelation, just that it was a proclamation. In my opinion, when we have to guess whether something is a revelation or not, then it is probably not a revelation. Members have incorrectly assumed something to be doctrine when in fact it was just an opinion or statement of the bretheren. But hey, it is just how I view things.

[california boy]

You don't have to. Really. The Church did not previously say anything about ORIENTATION, so it had no "perception" of it. In order to make that argument, he had to grossly misrepresent the former "perception" of homosexual tendencies. There has never, ever, at any time, ever, been any view to the effect that it is a sin to be tempted in any way. At all. Oh. So when you say "non sequitor" you are not misspelling "non sequitur," which means "the conclusion does not follow from the premises of the argument," you are really saying something like "you are talking past each other." Got it. What change? The change that "will come" when the brethren tell the members that it's acceptable to buy and watch Jaybear's Videos? I don't anticipate such a change. Sorry. Regards, Pahoran

Why do you have such a hard time expressing your opinions without insulting the person you are responding to. What part of Christ's message do you find as an excuse to act this way?

[Calm]

Interesting answer. I certainly have no knowledge of any revelation either. I guess if there was a revelation from God, I would expect it to be treated with as much prominence as the 1978 revelation. It seems to me a revelation from God would be a big deal.

I see no reason not to suppose that prophets and apostles receive revelation on beliefs and practices of the Church that they view as personal just like the rest of the membership who might inquire of the Lord for further clarification or instruction on how he wants us to act.

[Pahoran]

Why do you have such a hard time expressing your opinions without insulting the person you are responding to. What part of Christ's message do you find as an excuse to act this way?

Where did I insult anybody?

And exactly who died and made you the board nanny?

Regards,

Pahoran

Your posts almost always have a highly derogatory tone and bring in complaints from all sides. We are trying very hard to make the board a place where people who have different opinions can meet and have civil discussions. We hope you will be part of that.