Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God

[CV75]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Me:  Seriously?  I want to bear one another's burdens, mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that need comfort, I want to give to those that thirst and serve those that are in prison.  I want to be more charitable.  I want to visit the sick and help lift those that need God in their lives.

Church:  Sorry,  Being with a guy trumps all those.  You are out.  Those are our rules and we know God would never want you to be a part of His Church if you want to love another man.  And you are not getting into heaven unless things change as well.  So don't think you can just hold out until after you die.  You are NEVER being a part of God's Church.  Good luck.  Let us know if anything changes.

Psst.. look at verse 10 again ("ye will serve him and keep his commandments")...

Sometimes we perceive and define things through the filter of that which is most precious to us.

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you accept that the Atonement is infinite and eternal in its reach (which is clearly taught by Latter-day prophets), but you reject that sexual behaviour outside of male/female marriage is contrary to God's plan of happiness (which is also clearly taught by Latter-day prophets). This sounds to me not so much that Church doctrine is unclear without further revelation but rather that you disagree with one important aspect of Church doctrine. Does it make sense to you that those of us who don't reject the second teaching don't see any lack of clarity (or need for further revelation) on this point?

Are you wanting to discuss what constitutes sin?  That's a different topic than what I thought we were originally discussing.  So maybe I misunderstood?

I thought you were stating that a person who is gay in this life will be cured of that through the atonement ("the curative reach of the Atonement").  I don't believe that a person who is gay suffers from an ailment or imperfection that needs to be fixed or cured.  That used to be taught by our leaders, but is no longer taught (thank goodness!). 

If you want to talk about sin now....ok.  But that's different than someone suffering from a defect or malady.  We are all sinners, of course. 

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are you wanting to discuss what constitutes sin?  That's a different topic than what I thought we were originally discussing.  So maybe I misunderstood?

I thought you were stating that a person who is gay in this life will be cured of that through the atonement ("the curative reach of the Atonement").  I don't believe that a person who is gay suffers from an ailment or imperfection that needs to be fixed or cured.  That used to be taught by our leaders, but is no longer taught (thank goodness!). 

If you want to talk about sin now....ok.  But that's different than someone suffering from a defect or malady.  We are all sinners, of course. 

Curing is spiritual as well as physical. 3 Nephi 26:15 mentions that Jesus "had done all manner of cures among them" after listing a few physical ailments, and Mosiah 28:2 mentions curing people of iniquity and hatred. It is used in a couple of Old Testament prophecies figuratively to describe correcting the national psyche and wickedness. In Matthew 17 and Luke 21, it is used to describe the removal of evil spirits and behavioral/phychological concerns. Curing is what Alma 11:43 is about (the perfect frame). It often follows spiritual conversion or at least the desire to believe and faith ("return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you," 3 Nephi 9:13).

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Curing is spiritual as well as physical. 3 Nephi 26:15 mentions that Jesus "had done all manner of cures among them" after listing a few physical ailments, and Mosiah 28:2 mentions curing people of iniquity and hatred. It is used in a couple of Old Testament prophecies figuratively to describe correcting the national psyche and wickedness. In Matthew 17 and Luke 21, it is used to describe the removal of evil spirits and behavioral/phychological concerns. Curing is what Alma 11:43 is about (the perfect frame). It often follows spiritual conversion or at least the desire to believe and faith ("return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you," 3 Nephi 9:13).

Yes, I agree that there can be a need for spiritual healing just as there is for physical healing.

But are you now claiming that a person who is gay is suffering from a spiritual illness....or needs to have evil spirits removed....or has psychological concerns that need to be cured? 

Edited August 6, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I agree that there can be a need for spiritual healing just as there is for physical healing.

But are you now claiming that a person who is gay is suffering from a spiritual illness....or needs to have evil spirits removed....or has psychological concerns that need to be cured? 

I'm not sure how you get that from what i said. Just as we are all sinners, we are all also without a "proper and perfect frame," "perfect form" or "proper frame."

If you identified as gay, all things being the same in your divine personality, would you acquire a testimony and keep the covenants?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure how you get that from what i said. Just as we are all sinners, we are all also without a "proper and perfect frame," "perfect form" or "proper frame."

Because we were discussing the "curing" of gays.  

I agree that we are all sinners and are definitely not perfect!

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If you identified as gay, all things being the same in your divine personality, would you acquire a testimony and keep the covenants?

If I had been born gay, I don't know for sure where I'd be right now.  I hope I would be a follower of Christ and living His gospel....gay or not....church member or not.  Some of the very best people I've ever known are gay, so I'm not sure why you try to separate them out here?

If you're referring to them being able to join the church right now or fully participate (if they are in a same sex marriage), then I agree that's not possible right now.  That's something I hope will change and I do not believe comes from Christ or God, but from man.  There has been progress made regarding this and changes already made and, IMO, there's no reason to believe there won't be more changes in the future.

Edited August 6, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

CV75: didn't you know that if you suggest in public that there is a mental health component to homosexuality you get anathemized? 

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Because we were discussing the "curing" of gays.  

I agree that we are all sinners and are definitely not perfect!

If I had been born gay, I don't know for sure where I'd be right now.  I hope I would be a follower of Christ and living His gospel....gay or not....church member or not.  Some of the very best people I've ever known are gay, so I'm not sure why you try to separate them out here?

If you're referring to them being able to join the church right now or fully participate (if they are in a same sex marriage), then I agree that's not possible right now.  That's something I hope will change and I do not believe comes from Christ or God, but from man.  There has been progress made regarding this and changes already made and, IMO, there's no reason to believe there won't be more changes in the future.

I'm not feeling the straw-man, but I would that everyone were a follower of Christ and live His gospel.

From Mark 8:

34 ¶ And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him ^adeny himself, and take up his cross, and ^bfollow me.

35 ^aFor whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall ^blose his ^clife for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall ^again the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his ^asoul?

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ^aashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the ^bSon of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy ^cangels.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not feeling the straw-man, but I would that everyone were a follower of Christ and live His gospel.

From Mark 8:

34 ¶ And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him ^adeny himself, and take up his cross, and ^bfollow me.

35 ^aFor whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall ^blose his ^clife for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall ^again the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his ^asoul?

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ^aashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the ^bSon of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy ^cangels.

Well, we agree that applies to all mankind (and women too 😉).

[Damien the Leper]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I see zero evidence in the sum total of scripture that Jesus the Christ was ever a 'straight man' as that term is generally understood. When He instructed us what manner of men to be, He set Himself as the model, not Hugh Hefner.

Regarding the first part of your assertion, however, the Plan of Salvation is designed to deliver to people their deepest desires, including -- and I absolutely love this part! -- allowing us to change our minds. 

Probably because Jesus cares zero about heterosexuality or homosexuality. 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Probably because Jesus cares zero about heterosexuality or homosexuality. 

You know this how exactly? Or are you creating god in your own image?

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

CV75: didn't you know that if you suggest in public that there is a mental health component to homosexuality you get anathemized? 

More then anything it shows we still are plagued with stigmas about mental health. Critics of homosexuality point out correctly that homosexuality is often comorbid (I hate that word but it is what we have) with other mental and emotional issues. The counter argument is that these occurred due to the social and legal prejudices against homosexuals.

Of course where the rubber meets the road we have to realize that we have to treatment for those attracted to the same gender except in rare cases so what do you do if it is a mental health issue?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, we agree that applies to all mankind (and women too 😉).

Good, now back to the straw-man: who is trying to separate out who here, and to what end? And what exactly is not possible?

[Damien the Leper]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think of God as a cheerleader on the sideline cheering us on so that we can be as good as we want to be. It makes me think of the Savior when he said, "Come, follow me." There is an invitation to go to him; there is a specific direction to go. Yes, he rejoices in our obeience, but the idea of, "You just be you" is foreign to scripture and to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The scripture seems to direct us to die to ourselves that we might arise a new creature, a new man in the Lord. How does that play into your thinking?

I'm not sure where this foreign concept of be something you're not came from. Does die to ourselves mean that all we know, believe and love should die as well? There is this false idea of "put off the natural man" or "be in the world but not of the world". Who created the world? The world is literally of God. God is the author of agency and sin. Perhaps we should reject God for putting us in this position in the first place.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You know this how exactly? Or are you creating god in your own image?

Ouch.  Hadda hurt.

Quote

More then anything it shows we still are plagued with stigmas about mental health. Critics of homosexuality point out correctly that homosexuality is often comorbid (I hate that word but it is what we have) with other mental and emotional issues. The counter argument is that these occurred due to the social and legal prejudices against homosexuals.

That's awfully convenient and absolutely unprovable, isn't it?

Quote

Of course where the rubber meets the road we have to realize that we have to treatment for those attracted to the same gender except in rare cases so what do you do if it is a mental health issue?

If research isn't permitted because of political correctness, just how does one go about getting funding?  What would treatment look like?  Dunno.  That's outside my wheelhouse, but I doubt anybody is interested in things like electroshock or chemical castration that are the bugaboos one has to overcome.  One thing's sure, just because something's difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, and employing captive legislatures to define treatment  as a hate crime is not useful.  Indeed, it's a cruel imposition.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Good, now back to the straw-man: who is trying to separate out who here, and to what end? And what exactly is not possible?

Well, that's been a big part of this entire discussion.  I'm not going to repeat what I've already stated....maybe you can start at the OP and read through the thread (if you've missed some of the posts).  I'm not really interested in rehashing all that's been posted and discussed.  

If you see a post you specifically would like to address, I'll try to respond (if it's not already been covered here on this thread).  

Much of what I see disagreement over is not whether all of us sin, but whether just being gay is a sin or a disease that needs to be cured after this life.  If you have more thoughts on that later part, I'd be interested in hearing what you believe,  Otherwise, maybe just read through what has already been posted here  

 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Ouch.  Hadda hurt.

That's awfully convenient and absolutely unprovable, isn't it?

If research isn't permitted because of political correctness, just how does one go about getting funding?  What would treatment look like?  Dunno.  That's outside my wheelhouse, but I doubt anybody is interested in things like electroshock or chemical castration that are the bugaboos one has to overcome.  One thing's sure, just because something's difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, and employing captive legislatures to define treatment  as a hate crime is not useful.  Indeed, it's a cruel imposition.

Unprovable? We’ll see. As the stigma of being homosexual fades in some parts of the world the comorbid mental illnesses will either fade to the normal incidence across the population or it will not.

Research is not prohibited but the people running the gay conversion institutions in the last few decades have only themselves to blame for the backlash against them. Electroshock therapy does have uses in extreme disabling cases of mental illness but the stigma against it comes from the same source, the irresponsible overuse of it in the past.

No research is being done because it never worked and no one knows where to start. Even as far back as Freud he was telling patients that the odds of success in creating heterosexual attraction were slim except in rare cases of trauma and he was convinced it was a disorder. We have not gotten any better. Science has provided no solution. Therapy has not been effective. I have not heard of miraculous Priesthood blessing stories changing it. If it is a sin, and it is, it is a temptation that must be fought like any other. It is just a particularly cruel one because even those who resist are often drained of hope. I hope more revelation comes on this. Too many suffer.

[Ahab]

On 8/1/2019 at 10:20 PM, Rivers said:

I often hear talk about how the Church needs to be more inclusive rather than exclusive.  And I am all for inclusiveness.  Jesus was all about being inclusive to everybody.   We, as the body of Christ, can always do better.  

But when it comes to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, things get complicated.  According to our theology, sexual relations are forbidden outside marriage. We also believe that marriage, by definition, is the union of male and female.  Thus homosexual relations are always wrong.  That is a rule members of the Church must follow.  It's part of the buy-in to be a Latter-day Saint.  And you can argue that it is a stupid and unfair rule.  Regardless its the rule and its not changing.  

So given that fact that the theology is what it is and it isn't changing, is there anything more we can do policy-wise to be more inclusive?  I'm all ears.  I know that we can start by simply not being jerks.  But are there any policy changes that could help?

Things get complicated, in cases like this, yes. So in cases like this we can do all we can do, at least sometimes, to try to clarify the issues and reach some kind of consensus so that at least we can share our understanding on issues like this.

For example, your statement that homosexual relations are always wrong is a false or at least a misleading statement.  In an issue like this we can do more to clarify homosexuality and what we in the Church consider to be unacceptable forms of homosexual relations.  And what we consider to be acceptable forms of homosexual relations, as well.  To clarify what homosexuality is, for example, we can define and describe it as a person's love and/or attraction to someone else of the same sex. You might like to further clarify homosexuality as a person's sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, and we can clarify what sexuality is and carry on this process of clarification as far as the discussion warrants,, but at the end of the discussion I would hope we would both accept the understanding that homosexual relations between people of the same sex is not always wrong and in some cases entirely appropriate and good for the soul of each person who loves his fellow man, or woman as the case may be, as himself.

Being all ears is a pretty good step, but we should also open our mouths more to clarify what we are talking about and why we believe as we do to try to share our understanding with others, especially in a world where short quips and snippets are becoming more prevalent amongst those who don't have their ears exercised to hear very well with.

And by the way, I am very well pleased with many of the comments already made by people who have been trying to share our understanding with others who apparently don't understand very well what we believe and why we believe as we do.

Example, said one to another: We don't exclude you from receiving all of our Father's blessings which he offers to everyone who obeys the law on which a blessing is predicated.

response: you do because I don't obey that law or even accept it as a law and therefore you exclude me from that blessing

clarification: no you're still invited to receive the blessing and you can choose to receive it by choosing to obey the law upon which that blessing is predicated.

More clarification may still be needed if the objector still can't understand why he or she hasn't or isn't going to receive that blessing yet.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Things get complicated, in cases like this, yes. So in cases like this we can do all we can do, at least sometimes, to try to clarify the issues and reach some kind of consensus so that at least we can share our understanding on issues like this.

For example, your statement that homosexual relations are always wrong is a false or at least a misleading statement.  In an issue like this we can do more to clarify homosexuality and what we in the Church consider to be unacceptable forms of homosexual relations.  And what we consider to be acceptable forms of homosexual relations, as well.  To clarify what homosexuality is, for example, we can define and describe it as a person's love and/or attraction to someone else of the same sex. You might like to further clarify homosexuality as a person's sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, and we can clarify what sexuality is and carry on this process of clarification as far as the discussion warrants,, but at the end of the discussion I would hope we would both accept the understanding that homosexual relations between people of the same sex is not always wrong and in some cases entirely appropriate and good for the soul of each person who loves his fellow man, or woman as the case may be, as himself.

Being all ears is a pretty good step, but we should also open our mouths more to clarify what we are talking about and why we believe as we do to try to share our understanding with others, especially in a world where short quips and snippets are becoming more prevalent amongst those who don't have their ears exercised to hear very well with.

And by the way, I am very well pleased with many of the comments already made by people who have been trying to share our understanding with others who apparently don't understand very well what we believe and why we believe as we do.

Example, said one to another: We don't exclude you from receiving all of our Father's blessings which he offers to everyone who obeys the law on which a blessing is predicated.

response: you do because I don't obey that law or even accept it as a law and therefore you exclude me from that blessing

clarification: no you're still invited to receive the blessing and you can choose to receive it by choosing to obey the law upon which that blessing is predicated.

More clarification may still be needed if the objector still can't understand why he or she hasn't or isn't going to receive that blessing yet.

This is an incredibly pedantic take and is also wrong. No one here means hugging or being emotionally close to your same gender friend or sibling when they talk about homosexuality. It is in the etymology of the word and clearly spelled out in definitions of the word. Homosexuality is about sexual attraction. Full stop.

Edited August 6, 2019 by The Nehor

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I'm not sure where this foreign concept of be something you're not came from. Does die to ourselves mean that all we know, believe and love should die as well? There is this false idea of "put off the natural man" or "be in the world but not of the world". Who created the world? The world is literally of God. God is the author of agency and sin. Perhaps we should reject God for putting us in this position in the first place.

No, you fell off the cliff there. Who is the god of this world?  2 Cor 4:4 tells us explicitly:  4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the flight of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. Satan is the god of this world; he it is that blinds God's children to the Light of the gospel and twists their understanding of scripture. He it is that demands that we focus on our passions almost exclusively because in doing so we shut ourselves to the Spirit living in us. 

To die to oneself means to understand that God created each of us for a reason; that every individual is a part of God’s plan. To be used of God one must understand the essence of who we really are and how it is that God can use each of us. Every genuine child of God wants to be used by God to accomplish His purposes in the world — Jesus said, “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples” (Jn 15:8). That is the essence of God’s plan – For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10). We bear fruit when Christ lives His life in and through us (Jn 15:5; Gal 2:20). The apostle Paul said, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). The Lord wants us to live a godly and spiritually productive happy lives.

God is not about eat, drink and be merry - to sate our passions or to follow the life of the hedonist. We are meant for higher things. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

This is an incredibly pedantic take and is also wrong. No one here means hugging or being emotionally close to your same gender friend or sibling when they talk about homosexuality. It is in the etymology of the word and clearly spelled out in definitions of the word. Homosexuality is about sexual attraction. Full stop.

Clarification round 54, 683: No even though that seems to be your preferred limited understanding of all that homosexuality is and entails. Try to understand that many people, other than you, see it as a lot more than just that.

Definition of homo

 (Entry 1 of 4)

: any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species

Definition of sexuality

: the quality or state of being sexual:

a : the condition of having sex

b : sexual activity

c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive

Definition of sex

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures. In the past, couples could hold fast to their dreams about their baby's sex until the moment of truth in the delivery room.— Jacquelyn Mitchard

b: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females. Doctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sex does not determine gender.— Dinitia Smith

c: the state of being male or female… Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.— Tamar Lewin

d: males or females considered as a group. He gave the minister a sly look, daring him to disparage the female sex.— Evelyn Anthony

2a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior

b: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

3: GENITALIA

 

 

And we could go on and on and on talking even more about what sex is and how we are all of one sex or another.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Clarification round 54, 683: No even though that seems to be your preferred limited understanding of all that homosexuality is and entails. Try to understand that many people, other than you, see it as a lot more than just that.

Definition of homo

 (Entry 1 of 4)

: any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species

Definition of sexuality

: the quality or state of being sexual:

a : the condition of having sex

b : sexual activity

c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive

Definition of sex

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures. In the past, couples could hold fast to their dreams about their baby's sex until the moment of truth in the delivery room.— Jacquelyn Mitchard

b: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females. Doctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sex does not determine gender.— Dinitia Smith

c: the state of being male or female… Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.— Tamar Lewin

d: males or females considered as a group. He gave the minister a sly look, daring him to disparage the female sex.— Evelyn Anthony

2a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior

b: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

3: GENITALIA

 

 

And we could go on and on and on talking even more about what sex is and how we are all of one sex or another.

Yeah, congratulations on posting parts of the word which taken in isolation can be used to broaden the word but when dealing with words built on other words the definition is often more narrow. Now we can look at the definition of what we are actually discussing:

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty

/ˌhōməˌsekSHəˈwalədē/

noun

1. the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex.

 

Oh, and please do not resort to your tired schtick where you now claim that you have a private definition of the word that does not match common usage. We have been down that road a few times and it is tedious and boring.

Edited August 6, 2019 by The Nehor

[USU78]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have not heard of miraculous Priesthood blessing stories changing it. If it is a sin, and it is, it is a temptation that must be fought like any other. It is just a particularly cruel one because even those who resist are often drained of hope. I hope more revelation comes on this. Too many suffer.

How are you defining "it?"  If one defines "it" as merely the inclination/drive/temptation, whatever its origins, we have plenty of from-the-pulpit-in-Conference declarations, as well as online variations on the theme, that "it" is not sin in and of itself.  Thus, your 2nd sentence above appears to be out of line with what the Church's actual position is, regardless how you see G-d's involvement in that position.

If "it" is acting upon the inclination, then the Church's position is clear:  it's a sin that must be repented of like any other.

Is it cruel?  I myself don't think so.  I can think of far worse things to be gifted with in life, at birth or otherwise.  Here we get into the nature of evil and the problem of pain.  Is it cruel that I was born with serious scoliosis and a lifetime of pain?  Is it cruel that I was born with a malformation of the pyloric sphincter muscle that led to post natal stenosis, requiring life-threatening surgery to prevent loss of life at a couple of weeks old?  Is it cruel that my parents moved me from my natal state to Brigham City, where the local folk never accepted us outlanders, leaving me lonely and unhappy?  Or are these merely incidents of earth life, neither good nor bad, that I must accommodate myself to?  Arguably G-d caused each of those three things.  Arguably He merely permitted them, knowing that my spirit put into my body at my birth at a particular place and time would assist me to become the best version of me that I am capable of fashioning.

I'm not particularly impressed with the whole "poor me" schtick.  Everybody's got a lot of dreck to deal with.  I don't want yours.  You definitely don't want mine.

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

This is in reference to the idea Elder Haden has that when gay people die they will become straight.  You have to be married to a woman if you are a gay guy in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Elder Haden didn't say gay people will become straight.  Use his own words.  He was conveying or at least trying to convey the idea that people's attraction for each other will be "normal" after they die, and I take normal to mean that both sexes will see each other the way they saw each other while they/we lived in the Celestial kingdom with our Father in heaven before we were born here on this planet.  Men who see only their own sex as attractive, for example, will also see the opposite sex as attractive, and vice versa.  Each of us is, but some people simply can't see that for some reason or another.  But then we will see as we are seen and know others as we know and learn better how to know our own selves.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

........................... I though of the requirements of becoming a member of the Church given in Mosiah 18

These seem like the real values one should have when desiring to join the followers of Christ.  If I was to request baptism, the interview would go something like this...............................

Church:  Sorry,  Being with a guy trumps all those.  You are out.  Those are our rules and we know God would never want you to be a part of His Church if you want to love another man.  And you are not getting into heaven unless things change as well.  So don't think you can just hold out until after you die.  You are NEVER being a part of God's Church.  Good luck.  Let us know if anything changes.

Putting pretend LDS theology in the mouth of an idiot is probably not the wisest approach to this issue, and emphasizing the word "never" is likewise not in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- which should be the sole measure of the road to salvation.  Might there not be a more accurate portrayal of that Gospel?  WWJSay?

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's been a big part of this entire discussion.  I'm not going to repeat what I've already stated....maybe you can start at the OP and read through the thread (if you've missed some of the posts).  I'm not really interested in rehashing all that's been posted and discussed.  

If you see a post you specifically would like to address, I'll try to respond (if it's not already been covered here on this thread).  

Much of what I see disagreement over is not whether all of us sin, but whether just being gay is a sin or a disease that needs to be cured after this life.  If you have more thoughts on that later part, I'd be interested in hearing what you believe,  Otherwise, maybe just read through what has already been posted here

The straw-men are in your responses to me here  Posted 3 hours ago  and here Posted 3 hours ago (edited), which touched on whether being gay is a sin or disease. They detract from the point I was making (here  Posted 2 hours ago ), which you seemed to counter by saying that being gay might affect your testimony and following Christ compared to whatever orientation you might be. I'm not sure why being gay would separate you out from knowing what is good, right and true but that is something you were suggesting, not me. Perhaps you can explain why being gay would have that kind of impact on your faith, and describe how you might be healed from that through the Atonement of Christ.