249 replies to this topic

[Scott Lloyd]

Jaybear, on 11 April 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

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

Are you breaking that down into, say, 10-year increments? Or do you expect it will happen suddenly between year 29 and year 30?

Like Pahoran, I say you are fantasizing to predict the Church will embrace gross immorality, ever. But if it's going to happen within 30 years, perhaps there will already be indicators that we could measure a decade from now. I expect to be here then, and would like to revisit your prediction at that time.

[Jaybear]

Scott Lloyd, on 11 April 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Are you breaking that down into, say, 10-year increments? Or do you expect it will happen suddenly between year 29 and year 30?

Like Pahoran, I say you are fantasizing to predict the Church will embrace gross immorality, ever. But if it's going to happen within 30 years, perhaps there will already be indicators that we could measure a decade from now. I expect to be here then, and would like to revisit your prediction at that time.

The problem with having a civil rational discussion with you and Pahoron is that you both have an annoying tendancy to read unwarranted subtext into my written remarks which not coincidentaly serve to justify your pretense of moral superiority.

I have never suggested or predicted that the LDS Church would embrace gross immorality, or to use less inflamatory words embrace sodomy.  I don't expect the bretheren to rewrite the bible, or have a revelation.  I don't forsee, and have not predicted gay temple marriages.

What I forsee and predict is that the LDS Church, at an institutional level,  will stop inquiring into the marital bedroom of gay couples, much like it doesn't presently inquire into the marital bedroom of heterosexual couples to determine if they are abstaining from impure sexual activies, or inquiring into the dietary habits of obese mormons to deterime if they are eating meat sparingly.

[Buzzard]

Jaybear, on 12 April 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

The problem with having a civil rational discussion with you and Pahoron is that you both have an annoying tendancy to read unwarranted subtext into my written remarks which not coincidentaly serve to justify your pretense of moral superiority.

I have never suggested or predicted that the LDS Church would embrace gross immorality, or to use less inflamatory words embrace sodomy.  I don't expect the bretheren to rewrite the bible, or have a revelation.  I don't forsee, and have not predicted gay temple marriages.

What I forsee and predict is that the LDS Church, at an institutional level,  will stop inquiring into the marital bedroom of gay couples, much like it doesn't presently inquire into the marital bedroom of heterosexual couples to determine if they are abstaining from impure sexual activies, or inquiring into the dietary habits of obese mormons to deterime if they are eating meat sparingly.

I think it has been made clear by LDS authorities that they consider any homosexual activites, even given civil approbation by governmental recognition, to be gross immorality.  (Your emphasis). And no, I don't see that changing going forward.

[Scott Lloyd]

Buzzard, on 12 April 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I think it has been made clear by LDS authorities that they consider any homosexual activites, even given civil approbation by governmental recognition, to be gross immorality.  (Your emphasis). And no, I don't see that changing going forward.

Well stated.

And the question that Jaybear left unanswered is whether he expects his predicted acquiescence by the Church of sexual immorality on the part of anyone, gay or straight, to occur suddenly, just before the three-decade mark, or whether there will have been some movement toward it after 10 years. I ask, because I'm not as certain I will be around after 30 years as I am that I will be after 10. At 10 years, perhaps there will be some indicators to measure whether or not his prediction is on a trajectory toward fulfillment.

I already have an appointment with Analytics, Daniel and (though he is currently banned from this board) lostindc to revisit this topic then. I'm happy to put Jaybear on the guest list.

[cinepro]

Assuming that the Church will never accept immoral acts between two people of the same or opposite gender (which I do assume), I then wonder what the end game is for LDS with SSA?

Because that position leaves gay LDS with two choices:

1. Try to find fulfilling sexual intimacy with a person of the opposite gender.
2. Try to find happiness in a life without fulfilling sexual intimacy.

A third option would be for gay LDS to create bonds with other gay LDS (even monogamous partnerships), but never consummate the relationship.  They could enjoy the same physical boundaries currently accepted for unmarried heterosexual LDS (holding hands, kissing, back rubs etc.), but never go beyond that.

Would this ever be an accepted option?  There is obviously the problem of being in constant temptation, but if that problem is acknowledged and dealt with (and the reward of having such a companion is worth the risk), could this be an acceptable arrangement?

[Grundelwalken]

Jaybear, on 12 April 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

What I forsee and predict is that the LDS Church, at an institutional level,  will stop inquiring into the marital bedroom of gay couples, much like it doesn't presently inquire into the marital bedroom of heterosexual couples to determine if they are abstaining from impure sexual activies, or inquiring into the dietary habits of obese mormons to deterime if they are eating meat sparingly.

Even today there is an inquiry into the "bedroom" of each member.  It comes in the form of a question concerning the law of chastity (not really sure what impure sexual activities are).  If that answer is in the negative, then the person will not be a member in good standing, regardless of their sexual orientation.  Yes, some LDS gay couples may live together in the future (as I know they do today), but if they pursue their attractions to the level of immoral behavior -- meaning breaking any part of the law of chastity, they will be held accountable.

It would seem to me that this would negate your prediction for the future.  MW

[Gillebre]

I've given some thought to those two choices you mentioned, cinepro.

I'm a strong believer in the idea that our actions change us, for good or bad.

Everything that I believe in my heart tells me that the Gospel of Jesus Christ truly is all that it claims to be. Yet, I am sorely afflicted with a desire and affection for those of my own gender. It feels at times to be a war that goes on within myself, pulling me in both directions. That is, between Jesus Christ and Satan. I have often thought to myself how I can come out of this on the Lord's side. I even, at one point, contemplated ending my own life, simply because I felt that the pressure on me was too great. I have faith in Jesus Christ, and His Atonement, yet what I feel and desire is completely at odds with it.

What I have learned, so far, is that there are different degrees of trial within same-gender attraction. There are those children of God who have no ability to feel affection or physical desire for the opposite sex. Through no fault of their own, they simply cannot feel the same emotions a husband feels for his wife. Then there are those of His children who have the capacity to feel those things for the opposite sex, yet are overwhelmed by physical desire for their own gender. Whether that is strictly homosexuality or perhaps something of a bisexual nature, I'm not going to comment on that idea.

Note that this can't possibly be the sum of degrees of trial with same-gender attraction. Everyone is different, and I claim no special insight/revelation into this condition other than what I have gained in my own experience, dealing with it personally.

The first option seems like the only one, for some, and I feel for them that have no capacity for affection to the opposite gender, rather only their own. The second option is what the Church advises as the proper course, and while I cannot claim to have experience to back it up, I believe happiness in life can be found without sexual intimacy. To walk the path of never acting on your feelings, for the sake of Jesus Christ, and His Gospel, is a truly selfless path, in my opinion.

I do not believe that the Church will ever accept immoral acts between two people of the same or opposite gender. I often sorrow in my heart for my brothers who face this trial, and have no hope of an eternal marriage with a daughter of God, simple because they cannot feel that affection and love.

I have come to the conclusion that this is one of Satan's great tools to use against the Plan of Happiness. The fruit of homosexuality (that is, activity in that lifestyle) is completely opposite of the Gospel in every way. It is a mockery of eternal life, and runs contrary to how God's Kingdom works.

I don't think that the third option mentioned (an unconsummated relationship) would be viable for a member of the Church who wishes to remain in good standing.

[Jaybear]

Buzzard, on 12 April 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I think it has been made clear by LDS authorities that they consider any homosexual activites, even given civil approbation by governmental recognition, to be gross immorality.  (Your emphasis). And no, I don't see that changing going forward.

Scott Lloyd, on 12 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Well stated.

And the question that Jaybear left unanswered is whether he expects his predicted acquiescence by the Church of sexual immorality on the part of anyone, gay or straight, to occur suddenly, just before the three-decade mark, or whether there will have been some movement toward it after 10 years. I ask, because I'm not as certain I will be around after 30 years as I am that I will be after 10. At 10 years, perhaps there will be some indicators to measure whether or not his prediction is on a trajectory toward fulfillment.

I already have an appointment with Analytics, Daniel and (though he is currently banned from this board) lostindc to revisit this topic then. I'm happy to put Jaybear on the guest list.

Actually it was poorly stated and poorly reasoned.

My objection was not to your the use of term "gross immorality", though that is not a term that I would use.   I chose to use substitute language, as it was my prediction.

My objection was to the term embrace.   As I stated clearly,  the term "embace" has no relevance to my prediction, anymore than I would say that the LDS Church has embraced gluttony, simply because it chooses to turn its blind eye to those who have a voracious appetite for burgers.

[Jaybear]

Grundelwalken, on 12 April 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Even today there is an inquiry into the "bedroom" of each member.  It comes in the form of a question concerning the law of chastity (not really sure what impure sexual activities are).  If that answer is in the negative, then the person will not be a member in good standing, regardless of their sexual orientation.  Yes, some LDS gay couples may live together in the future (as I know they do today), but if they pursue their attractions to the level of immoral behavior -- meaning breaking any part of the law of chastity, they will be held accountable.

It would seem to me that this would negate your prediction for the future.  MW

Today, married couples are allowed to decide for themselves whether the activities in their bedroom are consistent with the law of chastity.
By contrast, in 1982, your leaders said:

Quote

The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.

Your leaders have not come out and embraced oral sex, nor do I predict that they will they come out and embrace sodomy.
What they have embraced is agency.  They are allowing married couples the agency to decide for themselve whether their actions should keep them from the temple.
I am simply predicting that they will extend the same agency to married gay couples.

Edited by Jaybear, 12 April 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[Skylla]

Don't make this thread about sex.

Skylla

[Cobalt-70]

cinepro, on 12 April 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Assuming that the Church will never accept immoral acts between two people of the same or opposite gender (which I do assume), I then wonder what the end game is for LDS with SSA?

Because that position leaves gay LDS with two choices:
A third option would be for gay LDS to create bonds with other gay LDS (even monogamous partnerships), but never consummate the relationship.  They could enjoy the same physical boundaries currently accepted for unmarried heterosexual LDS (holding hands, kissing, back rubs etc.), but never go beyond that.

Would this ever be an accepted option?  There is obviously the problem of being in constant temptation, but if that problem is acknowledged and dealt with (and the reward of having such a companion is worth the risk), could this be an acceptable arrangement?

Such homosocial and homoaffectionate relationships have been allowed in the past. Louisa ("Louie," a man's name) B. Felt and May (born Mary, but changed her name to May because "Louie" liked that name better) Anderson, members of the Primary general presidency around the turn of the 20th century, "fell in love" with each other and even publicly referred to themselves as the "David and Jonathan" of the Primary. During their intense 40-year relationship as "ardent lovers," they moved in together, and even slept in the same bedroom, probably even the same bed. I assume, without evidence to the contrary, that they did not consummate their relationship. But they were open about the very intimate nature of their relationship, noting for example that once they crawled into bed together in their bathrobes while doing Primary business into the "wee hours of the night." Nobody questioned their right to love each other and live together, sharing at least some amount of possibly limited intimacy, while still holding high positions in the church.

[Log]

Men used to be able to kiss and hug one another and lie on each other's bosoms without any imputation of impropriety - there were no homosexual connotations to such.  Such things now are, of course, literally unthinkable in our perverse and wicked age.

Thanks for reminding me of an earlier, more innocent age, Cobalt-70.  I suppose the loss of acceptable ways to show affection is a suitable price to pay for... well, I'm not exactly sure what we bought, but people keep telling me it's the latest and greatest thing.

[Gillebre]

Well said, Log. It's that homosexual connotation that has tainted a wellspring of affection in our day.

[Pahoran]

Cobalt-70, on 12 April 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Such homosocial and homoaffectionate relationships have been allowed in the past. Louisa ("Louie," a man's name) B. Felt and May (born Mary, but changed her name to May because "Louie" liked that name better) Anderson, members of the Primary general presidency around the turn of the 20th century, "fell in love" with each other and even publicly referred to themselves as the "David and Jonathan" of the Primary. During their intense 40-year relationship as "ardent lovers," they moved in together, and even slept in the same bedroom, probably even the same bed. I assume, without evidence to the contrary, that they did not consummate their relationship. But they were open about the very intimate nature of their relationship, noting for example that once they crawled into bed together in their bathrobes while doing Primary business into the "wee hours of the night." Nobody questioned their right to love each other and live together, sharing at least some amount of possibly limited intimacy, while still holding high positions in the church.

Skylla has just said not to turn this into a thread about sex.  Oh well.

I see you're a devotee of Mike Quinn's sex book.  If I didn't know that was where you were sourcing that outrageous bit of defamation against two faithful LDS sisters, I might get rather annoyed.

I suggest you read the review here:  http://maxwellinstit...10&num=1&id=280 to get to the truth behind the myth of this so-called "lesbian affair."

Incidentally, you cited the "David and Jonathan" expression as if it supported the claim that Felt and Anderson were lesbians; as if it were universally accepted that David and Jonathan had some kind of sexual relationship.  I realise that this notion is common in certain quarters where it serves a particular agenda, but it's a fringe view at best.  Most people have not heard of it, and of those who have, most reject it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Jaybear, on 12 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Actually it was poorly stated and poorly reasoned.

My objection was not to your the use of term "gross immorality", though that is not a term that I would use.   I chose to use substitute language, as it was my prediction.

My objection was to the term embrace.   As I stated clearly,  the term "embace" has no relevance to my prediction, anymore than I would say that the LDS Church has embraced gluttony, simply because it chooses to turn its blind eye to those who have a voracious appetite for burgers.

In a follow-up post, I used the term acquiescence, which seems closer to what you are predicting. I am just as certain that the Church will never acquiesce to sexual immorality as I am that it will never embrace it.

And there is a good deal of difference in egregiousness between violation of the law of chastity and unwise eating habits.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 12 April 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pahoran, on 12 April 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Skylla has just said not to turn this into a thread about sex.  Oh well.

I see you're a devotee of Mike Quinn's sex book.  If I didn't know that was where you were sourcing that outrageous bit of defamation against two faithful LDS sisters, I might get rather annoyed.

I suggest you read the review here:  http://maxwellinstit...10&num=1&id=280 to get to the truth behind the myth of this so-called "lesbian affair."

Incidentally, you cited the "David and Jonathan" expression as if it supported the claim that Felt and Anderson were lesbians; as if it were universally accepted that David and Jonathan had some kind of sexual relationship.  I realise that this notion is common in certain quarters where it serves a particular agenda, but it's a fringe view at best.  Most people have not heard of it, and of those who have, most reject it.

Regards,
Pahoran

I too recognized immediately that Cobalt was regurgitating Quinn's nonsense. I'm glad you linked to the FARMS Review article which I myself have had occasion to read very recently. It is shameful the way Quinn's book has damaged the reputation of good and decent men and women from the Church's past.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 12 April 2012 - 02:10 PM.

[Grundelwalken]

Cobalt-70, on 12 April 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Such homosocial and homoaffectionate relationships have been allowed in the past. Louisa ("Louie," a man's name) B. Felt and May (born Mary, but changed her name to May because "Louie" liked that name better) Anderson, members of the Primary general presidency around the turn of the 20th century, "fell in love" with each other and even publicly referred to themselves as the "David and Jonathan" of the Primary. During their intense 40-year relationship as "ardent lovers," they moved in together, and even slept in the same bedroom, probably even the same bed. I assume, without evidence to the contrary, that they did not consummate their relationship. But they were open about the very intimate nature of their relationship, noting for example that once they crawled into bed together in their bathrobes while doing Primary business into the "wee hours of the night." Nobody questioned their right to love each other and live together, sharing at least some amount of possibly limited intimacy, while still holding high positions in the church.

Again, as long as there is no inappropriate contact or actions, there is nothing above that indicates a violation of the law of chastity. Practices of a former day, while odd to us, do not always indicate problems as you have suggested.  It was not uncommon for people to sleep together AND not be inappropriate in their observance of the law of chastity.

If a same-sex couple practices any activities that violate the law of chastity then they have taken a step toward losing the right to membership in God's Kingdom.  It is one thing to sleep in the same bed with another person.  It is a completely different thing to share intimate actions with someone who is not your Husband or Wife (whichever you aren't). To quote Elder Scott:

To intentionally excite emotions that are reserved for sacred purposes within the covenant of marriage is seriously wrong. I solemnly witness that it is transgression to touch the private, sacred parts of another person's body except within the bonds of marriage between a man and woman. Satan has spread abroad the idea that much intimacy is permissible short of the final act among consenting individuals. That is a devastating lie. Such activity is a violation of the law of chastity, and it requires repentance. (BYU Fireside, 3 March 199

To rationalize anything else is rationalizing away the protection of the commandments.  MW

Edited by Grundelwalken, 12 April 2012 - 02:11 PM.

[David T]

I don't understand the argument that "homosexual relationships do not further the Plan of Salvation, therefore, they are sinful and grossly immoral."

Seeing as that Gay men and women generally will not be marrying those of the opposite gender in this life anyway, in what way would a couple of gay adults who have fallen in love, and chosen to live life together, and chosen to commit their lives to sharing and living the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, knowing and willing to continue with the idea that their mortal relationship will potentially be for time only, in any way frustrate the Plan of Salvation for anyone, including themselves?

The main argument I see is that "it attacks and denegrates the divine principal of marriage". But doesn't a community/family working together to further the Gospel, and even help raise and teach others the principles of the Gospel further rather than destroy the cause?

Please explain to me how homosexuals who would otherwise live life without hetero-sexual marriage disrupt the plan if they are allowed to enter into a civil covenant relationships with each other, and work together to teach and spread the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It will not be turning heterosexuals gay. It will not be removing the option of successful heterosexual marriage away from those who would otherwise do it.

I see no logical reason, in God's Plan, why acceptance of married committed homosexual relationships would do anything to harm the furthering of God's Kingdom and plan - even if one accepts that only heterosexual marriages can be Eternally Sealed. It would be the same as if sterile heterosexuals were married, and still had sexual relationships for the proper sense of building stronger emotional bonds with each other, and for each others' pleasure and enjoyment.

Individuals' personal feelings of revulsion aside, rejection of this makes no sense to me. It appears that acceptance of Homosexual Civil Marriages as a way for gay couples (who generally could never honestly be heterosexually married anyway in this life!) to live the Law of Chastity, and still be effective servants of God, preaching the Gospel as disciples of Christ. Even if their marriages are considered Second Class, and unable to be eternally ratified in heaven.

Something that is perfectly fine and well and to be rejoiced in when done by individuals of different genders in the exact same position, having made the exact same commitments to each other for the exact same reasons suddenly becomes "gross immorality" because of the sameness of the gender of the consenting adults?

I understand why unrestrained, uncommitted random sexual encounters are harmful, and do serve to be in opposition to God's plan. I do get that, and will certainly not argue against it - equally heterosexual or homosexual. I just don't understand seeing the same 'gross immorality' applied to those in lifetime committed loving monogomous covenant relationships.

Why are the desires the individuals in the panel and the video have considered directed towards "Gross Immorality", but if those same exact feelings were directed toward someone no different except for their gender would make them, well, what is constantly being encouraged to harness into a committed relationship?

It just honestly and sincerely doesn't make any sense to me at all.

This isn't asked as a desire to "justify wickedness", or to "seek the praises of men over God", or any other of those pithy accusations I've received. I simply don't have a testimony that a commited homosexual marriage relationship is inherently wicked or repulsive to God. Insulting me or questioning my faith or loyalty or intentions isn't going to help.

Edited by David T, 12 April 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[Cobalt-70]

Pahoran, on 12 April 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Skylla has just said not to turn this into a thread about sex.  Oh well.

I said in my post that I'm assuming no sex was involved, absent any clear evidence to the contrary. I'm the one that's saying homosexuality has nothing to do with sex.

Quote

I see you're a devotee of Mike Quinn's sex book.  If I didn't know that was where you were sourcing that outrageous bit of defamation against two faithful LDS sisters, I might get rather annoyed.


I suggest you read the review here:  http://maxwellinstit...10&num=1&id=280 to get to the truth behind the myth of this so-called "lesbian affair."

This did not come originally from Quinn. The examination of the homoaffectionate relationship between Louie and May was previously discussed here in this publication: http://signaturebook...ary.org/?p=6685. Thus, Mitton's and James' ad "homonem" arguments solely against Quinn is not a complete argument. Putting the secondary sources aside, if you read the actual primary sources, such as the 1919 article about their love affair in the Children's Friend, the conclusion that their relationship was romantic, rather than merely platonic, is inescapable. Mitton and James don't really even bother to refute that fact. All they focus on is the sex, or purported lack thereof, which was not even Quinn's point. Nobody knows if they had sex. But it is indisputable that they had a romantic 40 year love affair, because they said so themselves.

Quote

Incidentally, you cited the "David and Jonathan" expression as if it supported the claim that Felt and Anderson were lesbians; as if it were universally accepted that David and Jonathan had some kind of sexual relationship.  I realise that this notion is common in certain quarters where it serves a particular agenda, but it's a fringe view at best.  Most people have not heard of it, and of those who have, most reject it.

Contemporary to Louie's and May's relationship, Oscar Wilde was the world's rock star. He even went to Salt Lake City in the 1880s and was treated with great celebrity. Wilde's 1895 trial for sodomy was covered very closely in the Deseret News. During that trial, he famously noted that "the love that dare not speak its name" was the love between David and Jonathan. So Louie and May would have been aware of such implications of "David and Jonathan." Moreover, David and Jonathan were men. It seems a little strange that the Louie and May would compare their relationship to a seemingly-pederastic relationship between men, when if they were just good non-romantic friends, it would have been more obvious to have called themselves the "Ruth and Naomi of the Primary."

[CV75]

Cobalt-70, on 13 April 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

I'm the one that's saying homosexuality has nothing to do with sex.

Biologically-speaking, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, which homosexual behavior cannot accomplish, so in that sense homosexuality is not about sex.

But this process often results in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety (each known as a sex), in which case intentional human homosexual behavior is about same-sex intercourse if not sexual ("sex process") intercourse.

It seems to me that "homosexuality" is about sex not when applied to a sexual process, but that it is about sex when applied to a pattern or preference of thought or behavior with male or female organisms.

Edited by CV75, 13 April 2012 - 06:33 AM.