california boy

I think Calm answered your post in a very pointed way that is far more based in reality than your insistence that sex in marriage is for having more children as its principle reason. I think you should study what she says and ponder your position. I highly doubt you only had sex when you wanted more children. At some point you and your wife made a conscious decision to not have more children. It does not mean your marriage no longer had any importance to both of you. Even if biologically you could not have children, (the same situation gay couples face), it doesn't mean you should never marry or they should never marry. There is an avalanche of reasons to marry. Having biological children isn't even the most important since other ways of having children brought into your life are available to all. (that would be adoption) While every other reason for a gay couple to marry is the same as a heterosexual couple, disqualifying and demeaning their marriages and their reasons for marrying as being without purpose and meaningless simply because they can not biologically have children is putting blinders on the most important reasons for finding someone you love and sharing that loving relationship with them throughout their lives together.

Principally about having children???? How many times do married couples have sex where children wasn't the outcome? Are all of those other times against the basic principle of marriage?? Should couples that are past the age of being able to bear children quit having sex? Sorry, this makes no sense. It is more a rationalization for your unproven and untested belief that sex is principally about having children. Do you not believe it is possible for a gay couple to have their relationship strengthened by getting married? If that is the plan, just what percentage of people in the world are married for time and eternity? I will ask you the same questions I asked Teddy So are you saying that a couple should not get married if they could have children but don't wish to? Is using contraceptives to prevent children in a marriage against the main purpose of celestial marriage and against the plan of God? You do realize that a gay couple can adopt children right? So are you saying that couples, gay or straight can not be parents if they can only adopt? Why not? You have chosen to put those boundaries there. It doesn't make that choice the only valid choice. It just makes it your personal choice. It is a bit interesting to me that you can compartmentalize so much in your head even though real life doesn't really work that way. The only thing you can grab on to is two men can not biologically have children at this point in time. But when you try to shoe horn that belief as a requirement for marriage, it falls completely apart because there are literally millions, perhaps billions of successful marriages throughout history that do not fit that paradigm of marrying just to reproduce. And there have been millions, perhaps billions of children born into this world that did not come from a marriage between a man and a woman.

So are you saying that a couple should not get married if they could have children but don't wish to? Is using contraceptives to prevent children in a marriage against the main purpose of celestial marriage and against the plan of God? Do you actually know how children are born in the eternities? Please share.

Just why do you always add "their having children." Is that a mandatory part of every marriage? Do people promise to anyone including God that if they get married they will absolutely have children?? Or is it simply that your rationalization for not allowing gay marriage kinda falls apart if it isn't a requirement to have children.

I mostly agree with you. Of course there are some differences. For example, you probably didn't get kicked out of your family for being black. After I came out to my strong Mormon family, I wasn't invited to any family activity, reunions, Christmas or Thanksgiving dinners, even baptisms and missionary farewells for 13 years. They thought that if they invited me or included me into any family functions, then somehow that would signal some kind of acceptance for me being gay. That wasn't an uncommon experience for a lot of gay members. I have heard a lot of similar stories, some of which are still sadly not part of their families. Prejudice can cause all kinds of inhumane treatment. Sometimes physical. Sometimes mental. Often both.

You nailed it. It is nonsense to me as well.

My partner and I just celebrated our 17 anniversary of being together 5 days ago. We are not married. A large part of that decision is me no longer carrying about the institution of marriage pounded into me by past church relationship. If such a revelation was presented, I would consider it. Honestly at this point, not really sure it would matter. Our happiness together has had nothing to do with our marital status. The only thing that I believe really matters is my conversation with God about the life choices I have made. I have been ready for that conversation for decades. I know I have made the right decisions in my life. I know my life is better with my partner in it. I know it has brought me so much happiness and joy that I don't believe for a second God would take that happiness and joy from me just because I am gay. "By the fruits ye shall know." Yeah I have a clear confirmation of that good fruit.

Well not if they are married to the person they love. You have to argue that marriage is not important if you happen to be gay. Is any of this thinking sounding familiar? Let me connect the dots. Temple marriage and the priesthood are not important for you to have in your life if you happen to be born black.

Your whole argument is based on one overriding concept. The Law of Chastity as defined, not by revelation from God, but by group thinking of men who are products of their own time. Isn't that kinda the point of the problem?? The priesthood ban had MORE claims of revelation than the current definition of the Law of Chastity. Growing up, the Law of Chastity was "no sexual relations outside of marriage". God didn't change that definition, man did. Since the churches war against gay marriage has fortunately failed, the one thing that has become clear to most people; gay marriage is a net positive to the lives of many couples and to society as a whole. Marriage stabilizes gay relationships in the exact same way as marriage for straight couples. Preaching that marriage is not a good thing for gay couples makes people wonder why it isn't also unnecessary for straight couples, and may very well be a significant factor in younger generations current trend not seeing the need to marry either. So maybe the change in the definition of what the Law of Chastity instituted by these men is based on their own prejudices just like the priesthood ban. Maybe God is not in line with the thinking that marriage is only important for some of His children and not others. Kinda like the priesthood may be good for all who strive to be worthy regardless of what color skin they are born with.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. And doesn't mean it was very hurtful. You really can't see the difference between someone who is married and a teenager who is single? Are you saying that it is a sin for a single person of either gender to hold hands or dance with someone? Is that what you consider to be "overt romantic behavior" ? That kinda explains a lot about your comments. I am well aware that the church does not give the priesthood to women. But that is not what I was talking about was I. I was questioning why the Law of Chastity is not the same for straight couples as they are for gay couples and where that policy came from. Yeah I remember all of those arguments used to support the priesthood ban. How did that work out? Were church leaders still right to ban support the ban because they could justify doing so in the same way you are doing here?

I appreciate your comment more than you will know. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I post. That is not even the goal. I just want to provide a viewpoint that maybe others haven't considered before or have a hard time recognizing. I learn a lot from all of you, even those that I disagree with. It is what I love about this forum. I try to always do that in a respectful way.

Probably wasting my time writing this. I am glad things have improved for you and your family. I remember being taught all those attitudes and doctrine towards blacks as well. I also remember all those derogatory comments made towards those that are LGBT . The name calling has subsided but attitudes have not. What happens if a member brings a gay friend to a church dance? What happens if they dance with that gay person if they are the same sex even if the member isn’t gay? What happens if the member is gay? What if they hold hands? Has anyone actually done anything immoral? Would that stop all the gossip like you experienced? Can a married gay couple hold the priesthood? Can they attend the temple? Has there ever been a revelation on this doctrine or is it just “men of their time” The same type of men continue to run the church as we’re running it during its racist past. Being gay is the new black. We just need our Spencer W Kimball to receive a revelation. Probably not gonna happen for another generation

I can't claim that I understand this survey and how it was conducted, but I am trying to. Here is for me, is the key to how Mormons define volunteer work outside of church service. This is in line with my experience as well. I would say that the wards and stakes I was involved in, did a community service project about once a quarter. They did all kinds of activities from improving trails at state parks, painting fences at a community park, helping an immigrant family that were not members do yard work and other jobs. So yeah, church members do volunteer work in the community when asked by church leaders. And that is part of the point I am making. My experience is that church members are very good at showing up to do community projects where they can truthfully answer questions about community service. But my experience also shows that those numbers fall of dramatically if the question is, how much community service do you initiate all on your own without being asked to participate by church leaders. This is the point I was addressing. I rarely saw community service that was initiated by individual members without some kind of church support. Has your experience been different than that? Do you find church members involved in community activities all on their own? Do the majority of the numbers in the survey concerning community service reflect church sponsored community projects or self initiated community projects. Maybe how community service doesn't really matter all that much. But it does address how some members feel the need for church direction when none is really needed. It is why I started my comment expressing sadness that a person associated with the church felt the need to have a calling or assignment to find ways to serve others. Thats all.

I am more addressing the mindset that I certainly saw in the church when I was involved. Church members seemed to be so used to being assigned to do some kind of service that it became the only way so many ended up serving others. I see a much different pattern in the countries that I have been visiting. It is more in their nature to not have to be asked or assigned by someone before they realize the opportunities for service lay all around them. The church seems to create this climate where Mormons only serve Mormons unless it is a specific ward or stake activity. If the church didn't organize the project, it rarely would happen. I think the lesson of Matthew 25 is a message about a different kind of administering to others. It doesn't talk about I was assigned to go to a prison to visit someone, or I was assigned to help those that thirst. I know that some of you will get all defensive about what I am trying to say because there is a lot of good that the church does. But maybe a hard look at how much service a person does outside the church should be considered every so often. THAT can be done regardless of whether you have a calling or an assignment, making either one of those things irrelevant ways to contribute to the community. I'm trying not to be offensive here. I am only trying to discourage feelings of needing a calling or assignment. There is nothing a calling will provide that you can't already do without that calling. Can anyone tell me something that can only be done if you are assigned or called to do something?

To be honest, it is kinda sad to me that you feel you need some kind of calling to live the gospel that Christ taught. Do you really have to have someone tell you how to serve others? I have been traveling for the past couple of months throughout Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. One of the things I have been impressed with is how we all tend to live in some kind of self imposed bubble. Mormons seem to only see the world in the Mormon bubble. On a broader scale, Christians only see the world in a Christian bubble. People in the middle east only see the world in the Muslim bubble. In SouthEast Aisa, they only see the world from a Buddist or Hindu bubble. There is very little visible of the Christian bubble in this part of the world. I think the whole time I have been here, I have only seen one Christian church. I don't for one second think that God sees his children only as Mormon, or Christian or even followers of Christ or Buddha, yet each group only thinks they are the only group that matter to God. You don't have to be Mormon to live a Christ like life. You don't have to have a church leader tell you what to do to serve others. I think you are missing the entire picture of how God views the world and His children.

Probably a good idea

Oh really? You don't think the church has always had more missionary success amongst the more impoverished? How many on this board saw a similar success/failure rate regardless of skin color between the more well off and the impoverished that I did? you want to make it about racism, it is not. There are other factors that can’t be easily dismissed

The difference between Africa and America/Europe is not just skin color, it is also about wealth. The Church has always done better in the more poor parts of the world. In my own mission, there were zones that were in wealth areas of the country and zones that were in the more poor areas of the same country. The poor areas ALWAYS outperformed the richer areas. It had nothing to do with race. It was not even close. Richer areas would get one or two baptisms in a month and the more impoverished area would get 50 or 60. This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The Church has kind burned its way through the more impoverished areas of much of the world, converts are a fraction of what they once were and retention is in the toilet. Africa is the new South America if you will, along with any other more impoverished areas of every mission. Hitting new impoverished areas for the first time is much liike South America was a generation ago. It would be no surprise to find a similar result in Africa a generation from now. People who are impoverished have always been grasping for hope when someone paints a picture of a more stable life. Often the Church HAS provided more stability. But that stability comes with a price like tithing demands and excessive amount of time doing Church service. It seems it works for a while until it doesn't for a lot of converts no matter where in the world they are at. What is ironic about your racism card, is the reason Africa has not had missionary success a generation ago WAS racist policies of the Church.

Calm has answered most of your questions, and I agree with her answers if you are truly looking for answers in your search for truth. I would like to put a face on those that you are attacking. Take a look at THIS PAGE which shows how trans people actually look. Does that change your mind at all about who should compete in sports or even which bathroom they should use? I have seen one trans person in the locker room at the gym that I attend. My gym requires those that are transitioning to go to the locker room that matches their genetilia. That seems to be working just fine. Again look at the photos of those that transition that I linked to. Maybe look at each one individually and decide in your mind which locker room would be most appropriate for them. So you found a case all the way over in the UK to support your argument. As Calm has pointed out, this goes against your often argued point to not use outliner situations. I should also point out that removing breasts or gentile is not disabling. So you are comparing apples to oranges. Teenagers can get a tattoo with parents permission. No jail time for a parent who thinks it is ok for a teen to have a sip of wine. Some studies have actually supported this practice of parents teaching their children how to drink responsibly rather than some kid who reaches the legal age when they are out on their own, away from parental guidance and have never had any experience in drinkiing.This only supports what I have been saying about who is in the best position to have a say on how to raise their own children. It is not a decision of some congressmen. When you use examples like this, I really question if you have actually. thought through your own arguments. Answered Answered Answered I have not served in the military and I don't think I can set policy for the requirements of military personal. There are people in the service that I think are more qualified, Once again you are proving my point. In some areas of this subject, there have been progress. In other areas, there have been some regression. For some politicians, they have latched on to this issue as a way of causing unnecessary outrage where none should exist. Do you know anyone like that?

I am not sure any answer I give you is going to be something you would consider. It is pretty clear that you have made up your mind completely on this subject. But, I am willing to take a stab at this. Yes I do believe there is a way to evaluate a person's eligibility on an individual basis. Sports could take into account the level of testosterone/estrogen a person has for example. That is the most defining edge that males have over females. It is why a male transitioning to female is given increase amounts of estrogen I think it is also important to realize that sports are never a level playing field for anyone. Physical attributes such as height, body mass, quickness, stride, etc are never equal and to some extent can't learned or changed. So yes, I do believe things can be looked at on an individual basis. Who better to evaluate a child's needs better than their own parent and trained professionals. I think they are infinitely more qualified to evaluate the child's needs more that some congressmen who has no qualifications to pass laws determining a child's needs that he has never even ment or knows nothing about. They shouldn't be given that power over medical decisions. These are certainly "who cares" concerns. I certainly don't care if someone thinks they are a six year old girl or a dragon. It is their life to live, not mine to impose my beliefs on. As long as they obey the laws of the land that believes in individual determination, I am ok with that. If I don't want people like that in my life, then it is pretty easy to ignore them. Ratified and celebrated by who? What are you talking about? Why are you even concerned with the choices these people choose. Does it really affect your life? Do you have training in dealing with any of these situations? Have you evaluated their medical and mental conditions yourself? Of course not. You are just reading click bate headlines and feel you have a need to be outraged by THE HEADLINE with no personal knowledge of the situation. Move on. It certainly isn't something I need to worry about. No one in my life or your life have any relationship to your outliner examples.

My position is not really different. People make all kinds of decisions that I disagree with. But it is their lives, not mine. They are the parents, not me. If they make wrong choices in how they raise their children then they will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. I do think that the state has a responsibility to protect their children if there is real harm being done. But I also recognize that what I consider harmful and what they consider harmful may not be the same. I have to trust the law when it comes to defining whether real physical harm is being done. Extreme caution by the state must look at each and every case on an individual basis and careful evaluation must be used. I also might add that what is being discussed seems to be more baseless attacks on an entire group of people using extreme outliner stories that if true, may not really be telling the entire story in order to justify their position. I think it is pretty easy to tell one side is trying to say that if one parent is putting their child in danger, then they all are putting their child at risk. Of course I strongly object to any parent who is forcing their child to transition if that is truly is what is happening. In those cases, if they are actually happening, they should be handled on an individual case by case basis through child protective services. I don't think general laws should be passed that supersede all parental rights to raise their children as they seem fit just because of cherry picked stories that might not even be telling the entire story of what went into the parents decision. I have no idea what it must be like to be transgender, but I do know that it is a real human condition for a very small percentage of the population. It is pretty apparent that the life a transgender person has to live is not an easy road to take. It would be an extremely difficult task as a parent to know exactly how to handle that and what is in the best interest of my child. I would have to look to professionals to help guide me in making the best decisions for my child. Someone who has actual experience in dealing with these issues, certainly not make decisions based on some internet warrior on either side of the debate. Honestly I am not sure what this means. Maybe you could explain your thinking.

I am not going to get into the middle of this discussion because I think it is pretty pointless. But I will say this. WHO CARES HOW OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. It is their life, not yours. While transgender pushback of how they should live their lives is about 5 minutes old, the concept of self determination was part of this country from the beginning. I started on this site when the church started to wage its war against gay marriage. Members of the Church were claiming that if gay marriage was made legal, people would want to marry farm animals, the idea of marriage would be relegated to the scrap heap, people wouldn't know what being married means, yada, yada, yada. I have a sincere question to ask all of you. Exactly what harm has happened to anyone on this board because of gay marriage being legal that is worth banning all who is gay from this legal right? What harm has happend to anyone on this board because someone came out transgender that deserves all transgender people of their individual rights? What harm has anyone on this board personally had because someone's skin is black or brown that makes it ok to discriminate against all who is not white. What harm has anyone on this board had from a religion that deserves the entire religion to be denied rights. Seriously, prejudicial beliefs about ANYONE just because they are different from you is the most stupid idea anyone has ever had. It should all be regulated to the dustbin of history. Let people live their lives the way they see fit. Learn to treat others that are different from yourself with respect and dignity. Forget all this nonsense. It should be embarrassing that people feel like they should even have to fight at all for individual rights just because they don't look like those in power.

From your link: A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God. Yet there is a HUGE lack of even claimed revelations since the very early prophets who seem to claim them regularly and even then some of those claims were diaavowed in modern times, Yet that is the very first line of the definition of a prophet. One has to assume either God has lost interest in guiding mankind, or these men are prophets in name only. The church just uses that title for the leader of the church. When I was a missionary, the Church printed a brochure that had a photograph of David O McKay on its cover. I would knock on doors and ask people if they knew who this man was. Then I would tell them a wonderful story about how he was a prophet of God and received revelations from God just like prophets in the Bible. I truly believed that. I actually thought the prophet leading the Church had regular revelations from God himself. But that is not really true is it. In fact, in all those years since then, there has only been one revelation even claimed by the Church that I know of, the revelation on the priesthood, which frankly didn't really need a revelation from anyone to know that was blatantly wrong and against the teachings of the Savior. There is not justification for the head of the Church in being called a prophet. There are just the last standing man standing to make it through the bureaucracy of Church leadership. Yet, we live at a time where so many issues in the Church and world today desperately need a revelation from God. So many issues that are put into Church teachings that like the priesthood ban are put there because of past prejudices. Issues like women's second class status, how to treat those that are LGBT, Word of Wisdom practices, clarification of how a man can be sealed to multiple women, but women can not. So many of these issues are completely man made with no input from God at all. The very basic claims of the Church which I once believed made the Church unique in the world are actually not really there. Just men trying to do their best to run a church like any other church on earth. What would it take to convince me that they are trustworthy? Something more than just a claim of Christ running the Church through its leaders. How about even claims of revelations from God more than help in finding lost keys? Would I even believe in any claims of new revelations from God? I will admit, that there have been way too many lies that I once believed in that now have strong proof that they were just made up stories used to control people's ives and enrich the wealth of the Church. Isn't that the result of just about every church ever established? Mormonism has nothing special. It follows the same pattern religion has always followed from the dawn of time. I am not saying that everything the Church does is bad or evil. I am only saying that there is nothing special about Mormonism. If the church works for you, I wish nothing but happiness for you, just like I would anyone else who finds happiness in religious worship. and just like I wish for those that have found happiness outside of religion. I had a life in religion. I personally have found a much more happy life outside of religion. I find myself not carrying any longer about claims of the divine. What I was put through and what others are put through simply because they are not straight like the majority of people in the name of religion does not come from a God.

I think you are saying that modern prophets are something more special than just being the head of the Church. Would you say that a prophet receives direct revelation from God for the Church? And can you point to anything a prophet in your life time that would point to them actually having claimed some direct revelation with God? Or would you say that a prophet is just someone who gives personal advice on what he thinks is good advice. Do you feel that modern prophets have always been trustworthy in what they said was a claimed revelation from God?

Given the choice of having every hair on my head restored and loosing reproductive parts, I will choose the latter