Jump to content

Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality


semlogo

Recommended Posts

... Church maintains it's position that same sex attraction is a temptation of the deceiver and no one is made to be a homosexual, they choose to be homosexual.

That is not the position of the LDS Church. President Hinckley stated "we do not know" concerning whether a person is "born" gay or not. And the LDS Church has made a statement concerning the "origin" of homosexual desire since then.

Link to comment

I highly doubt that the Church will change any policy based upon the finding of one professor at BYU, if I was a betting man I would bet everything that the Church maintains it's position that same sex attraction is a temptation of the deceiver and no one is made to be a homosexual, they choose to be homosexual.

In 1880, it was unthinkable that the church would ever abandon polygamy, one of its essential doctrines.

Link to comment

semlogo:

Correlation is not causation. From the Gospels perspective the sin is not in being tempted, but in giving in to that temptation.

Are gay people tempted to have atypical finger lengths?

Can you really call someone's natural sexual attraction a "temptation"? It's biological. It's not from Satan. Gay men essentially have women's brains. Someone with a woman's brain will be attracted to men. That's why I say they're a third gender. Straight male gender roles don't apply to them.

Link to comment

In 1880, it was unthinkable that the church would ever abandon polygamy, one of its essential doctrines.

Please tell me what BYU professor's findings were the cause of the Church ending the practice of polygamy in 1890? I guess I missed that part of the D&C where President Woodruff talked about the brave BYU professor that caused this revelation to happen?

Your comparison is baseless and completely useless, no BYU professor has ever changed Church policy, only the Will of the Lord does that. As I have said this is not going to effect the Church's policy at all, it is a scholarly opinion not revelation from the Lord.

Link to comment

semlogo:

Not even in 1880 was polygamy an essential doctrine. Only a small percentage of Mormons actually practiced it. Further we have established Scripture that monogamy is to be practiced until/unless God commands otherwise.

That's simply not true. Many general authorities expressed that it was essential and that it would never change. Few men practiced it, but that's because of the mathematical realities of the system. A large number of women practiced it. It was a significant part of early Mormon life.

Link to comment

Please tell me what BYU professor's findings were the cause of the Church ending the practice of polygamy in 1890? I guess I missed that part of the D&C where President Woodruff talked about the brave BYU professor that caused this revelation to happen?

Your comparison is baseless and completely useless, no BYU professor has ever changed Church policy, only the Will of the Lord does that. As I have said this is not going to effect the Church's policy at all, it is a scholarly opinion not revelation from the Lord.

I never claimed that the professor would change policy. The facts that he outlined may contribute, and I suspect the continued societal acceptance of homosexuality (and rejection of old fashioned ideas about homosexuality) may also play a strong role in getting church leaders to seek revelation on this issue.

I'm not even saying that the church definitely will change. I think they will, just as they changed the policy on black members.

What I'm really trying to say that, in light of the facts, there is doctrinal wiggle room for the church to change. That's all.

Link to comment
Gay men essentially have women's brains. Someone with a woman's brain will be attracted to men. That's why I say they're a third gender. Straight male gender roles don't apply to them.

God allows many people go through various afflictions but he never allows any biological, physical, or emotional deformity to ever give them no option besides sinning, to do so is for him to no longer be God. Men can be attracted to men, just like women can be attracted to women, but whether between two men, two women, or a man and a women fornication is still one of the most serious sins man can commit.

It's not attraction that is sinful, heterosexual men and women feel attraction and that is not a sin, just like it is not a "homosexual" man or women to feel attraction, the sin is when one gives into there carnal desires and fornicates. Fornication is the sin not the attraction, this has been the teaching of the Church always.

Homosexuality is not allowed in the Church because one must be a fornicator to be in an active homosexual relationship, it is the fornication not the attraction, that is destructive.

Link to comment

I never claimed that the professor would change policy.

So I guess I your OP does not say "Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality", I guess that is a simple hallucination of mine.

Also I must be hallucinating that you used a BYU professors study as the thing that will change the church teachings on homosexuality?

At least be honest about what you post, there is not need to act like I am saying something you haven't said. If you make mistakes then I understand but as long as you stand behind what you have posted so far, you are saying that a BYU professor is sufficient reason to change the teachings of the Church, when the Church teaches that only the Lord can make changes through his chosen prophet.

Your use of the polygamy changes are baseless since no scholar had any impact on that decision, polygamy began through revelation and ended with further revelation.

Link to comment

Semlogo:

Correlation is still not causation.

If I were to claim that in all traffic accidents at least one of the drivers had in the previous 6 months eaten a carrot. That would be a correlation. However I doubt that many would assign causation.

The best studies on homosexuality I've seen have been done on genetic twins. There is no greater incidence of homosexuality in the one of the twins than there is in the general population.

So again we don't know the causes of homosexuality. However it is Church doctrine not to engage in homosexual behaviors.

Link to comment

God allows many people go through various afflictions but he never allows any biological, physical, or emotional deformity to ever give them no option besides sinning, to do so is for him to no longer be God. Men can be attracted to men, just like women can be attracted to women, but whether between two men, two women, or a man and a women fornication is still one of the most serious sins man can commit.

It's not attraction that is sinful, heterosexual men and women feel attraction and that is not a sin, just like it is not a "homosexual" man or women to feel attraction, the sin is when one gives into there carnal desires and fornicates. Fornication is the sin not the attraction, this has been the teaching of the Church always.

Homosexuality is not allowed in the Church because one must be a fornicator to be in an active homosexual relationship, it is the fornication not the attraction, that is destructive.

Homosexuality isn't an affliction, any more than left-handedness. It's a normal variation. Read the link from my first post. Women's bodies often "remember" that there has been a son born, and often in subsequent sons alter the hormone level in the womb. It's like women's bodies are designed to turn out a certain number of gay children under certain circumstances. Understanding the science helps us improve our theology.

Homosexual relationships aren't fornication in the context of gay marriage.

Link to comment

Semlogo:

Correlation is still not causation.

If I were to claim that in all traffic accidents at least one of the drivers had in the previous 6 months eaten a carrot. That would be a correlation. However I doubt that many would assign causation.

The best studies on homosexuality I've seen have been done on genetic twins. There is no greater incidence of homosexuality in the one of the twins than there is in the general population.

So again we don't know the causes of homosexuality. However it is Church doctrine not to engage in homosexual behaviors.

Again, that's simply not true. I invite you to listen to the podcast. It's illuminating.

Church doctrine is malleable, especially when we learn new facts. Scientific facts are not. We can't pretend facts don't exist just because we don't want them to exist.

Also, note that homosexuality is NOT simply a matter of your DNA. It's also your exposure to androgens in the womb. But either way, it's biological.

Link to comment

That's simply not true. Many general authorities expressed that it was essential and that it would never change. Few men practiced it, but that's because of the mathematical realities of the system. A large number of women practiced it. It was a significant part of early Mormon life.

Well seeing that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet, it looks like someone needs to stop clinging to the teachings of the old prophets and study ponder and pray about the teachings of the living prophet!

There teachings were for there time, and we have new teachings based on more current revelations and will of the Lord, maybe it would help for you to base for faith in the modern revelations like we are told instead of he discontinued revelations of the past.

Pride of one's own knowledge and understanding is the biggest obstacles to following the will of the lord, remember we must be meek and humble like children. Children follow there parents teachings, not the teachings of there great great great great grandparents!

Link to comment

Homosexuality isn't an affliction, any more than left-handedness. It's a normal variation. Read the link from my first post. Women's bodies often "remember" that there has been a son born, and often in subsequent sons alter the hormone level in the womb. It's like women's bodies are designed to turn out a certain number of gay children under certain circumstances. Understanding the science helps us improve our theology.

Homosexual relationships aren't fornication in the context of gay marriage.

Not when one chooses to fornicate, fornication is not a normal variance it is an abomination. There is no such thing a a gay marriage in the eyes of the lord, an unless he reveals otherwise to his prophet, all people in active homosexual relationships are fornicators.

Link to comment

Semlogo:

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/p/POLYGAMY.html

A majority of the Latter-day Saints never lived the principle. The number of families involved varied by community; for example, 30 percent in St. George in 1870 and 40 percent in 1880 practiced polygamy, while only 5 percent in South Weber practiced the principle in 1880. Rather than the harems often suggested in non-Mormon sources, most Mormon husbands married only two wives. The wives usually lived in separate homes and had direct responsibility for their children. Where the wives lived near each other, the husbands usually visited each wife on a daily or weekly basis. While there were the expected troubles between wives and families, polygamy was usually not the only cause, although it certainly could cause greater tension. Since polygamy was openly practiced for only a short time by Mormons, there were no established rules about how family members should relate to each other. Instead, each family adapted to their particular circumstances.

Link to comment

So I guess I your OP does not say "Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality", I guess that is a simple hallucination of mine.

Also I must be hallucinating that you used a BYU professors study as the thing that will change the church teachings on homosexuality?

At least be honest about what you post, there is not need to act like I am saying something you haven't said. If you make mistakes then I understand but as long as you stand behind what you have posted so far, you are saying that a BYU professor is sufficient reason to change the teachings of the Church, when the Church teaches that only the Lord can make changes through his chosen prophet.

Your use of the polygamy changes are baseless since no scholar had any impact on that decision, polygamy began through revelation and ended with further revelation.

I said the facts in the presentation provide wiggle room for changing policy. Please try to read what I write more carefully.

Link to comment

That is not the position of the LDS Church. President Hinckley stated "we do not know" concerning whether a person is "born" gay or not. And the LDS Church has made a statement concerning the "origin" of homosexual desire since then.

Where did I say anything about being born gay?

I said that same sex attraction is a temptation, and fornication (which homosexual acts are a type of fornication according to the LDS Church) is a choice.

Link to comment

Semlogo:

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/p/POLYGAMY.html

A majority of the Latter-day Saints never lived the principle. The number of families involved varied by community; for example, 30 percent in St. George in 1870 and 40 percent in 1880 practiced polygamy, while only 5 percent in South Weber practiced the principle in 1880. Rather than the harems often suggested in non-Mormon sources, most Mormon husbands married only two wives. The wives usually lived in separate homes and had direct responsibility for their children. Where the wives lived near each other, the husbands usually visited each wife on a daily or weekly basis. While there were the expected troubles between wives and families, polygamy was usually not the only cause, although it certainly could cause greater tension. Since polygamy was openly practiced for only a short time by Mormons, there were no established rules about how family members should relate to each other. Instead, each family adapted to their particular circumstances.

That's a rather large number of people, don't you think? Especially when you consider that most of the polygamous men (IIRC) were the most influential members of the church. The point is that radical change IS possible in the church. It's happened several times.

Link to comment

You have it backwards my friend, the "facts" of men are malleable, the eternal truths of the Lord are not.

We've changed our stance on many things as we've learned new facts. Don't confuse church policy with eternal truths. Sometimes they're the same, and sometimes policy is just policy, based on tradition.

Link to comment
Essentially, as I was listening to the marked physical differences between gay and straight people, it occurred to me that in effect, gay men and gay women make up a 3rd and 4th gender

The Church does not recognize more than two genders; so there is no wiggle room here. On top of that, the scriptures allow the Church to easily continue with it's current doctrine even if an inborn cause for homosexuality were ever found (Ether 12:27).

Link to comment

I said the facts in the presentation provide wiggle room for changing policy. Please try to read what I write more carefully.

Which is incorrect, a scholars opinions provide no wiggle room for changing any policy, no man has the power or authority to provide wiggle from for change. Only the Lord Jesus Christ has the power and authority to give any wiggle room or any change in this Church, because it is HIS Church. Men do not make the doctrine of this Church, that is the great an abominable church of Lucifer you are talking about. In this Church the Lord makes the doctrine, and until he says anything more on the subject of homosexuality no man will have any impact on the discussion at all.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...