Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[CV75]

But the androgen release appears related to birth order and other factors, and the evidence is that the body does it by itself in this case. It's interesting to spit ball about possibilities, but let's stick with what we know.

Yes, I took a detour to answer your question. Androgen in the womb is still androgen in the womb; it could get there as a consequence of stress of any kind (physiological, mental, etc.).

You assert that "appears" is the same as "sticking with what we know." OK. The "body does it by itself in this case", magically, just as thought might, even though the number of births contributes to birth order and other factors such as the mother's mental/emotional stress level, absorption of nutrients, etc. (which effects are compounded by prior births and life as a mother in general).

But let's not let that detract from the points I was making in the process and which follow in the subsequent posts. Whatever appears to be going on the womb that correlates with the gestation of a proposed new gender for prophets to consider has to be compared with the other things that appear to be going on and even better, with what is actually going on, before something as serious as a sex-gender policy is changed. Sticking with what we (think we) know is not nearly enough; far too wiggly, especially in light of alternative (in the event "appears" must be considered as an either/or proposition) observations and evidence.

[Vance]

I know of several teachings/opinions to the effect that you're referring to, but no doctrine.

So, you haven't read the proclamation on the family? Perhaps you should.

Well, what first springs to mind is prop 8.

Prop 8 doesn't prevent anyone marrying. It simply prevents the redefinition of marriage.

But many gay people do get married to opposite sex people.

So, "gay" people CAN get married! NOTHING is preventing them.

Their marriages are usually disastrous, (imagine a straight man trying to fake a relationship with a gay man) which is why the church has counseled them not to get married.

Still, NOTHING is preventing them from doing so.

I suspect that said disaster is the result of placing obedience to God below personal desireslusts, as usual for marriage disasters of non "gay" people.

But still, reproduction is only one aspect.

[semlogo]

No, my brain just filters things in a weird way sometimes. I apologize if you thought I did it deliberately or maliciously. I don't even know what "semlogo" means. But what does that have to do with what I was trying to say?

The rest of your post seemed speculative about Italian pedophilia, and not really relevant. Sem Logo is a book:

http://img2.mlstatic.com/jm/img?s=MLB&f=166751378_9445.jpg&v=O

[semlogo]

Yes, I took a detour to answer your question. Androgen in the womb is still androgen in the womb; it could get there as a consequence of stress of any kind (physiological, mental, etc.).

You assert that "appears" is the same as "sticking with what we know." OK. The "body does it by itself in this case", magically, just as thought might, even though the number of births contributes to birth order and other factors such as the mother's mental/emotional stress level, absorption of nutrients, etc. (which effects are compounded by prior births and life as a mother in general).

But let's not let that detract from the points I was making in the process and which follow in the subsequent posts. Whatever appears to be going on the womb that correlates with the gestation of a proposed new gender for prophets to consider has to be compared with the other things that appear to be going on and even better, with what is actually going on, before something as serious as a sex-gender policy is changed. Sticking with what we (think we) know is not nearly enough; far too wiggly, especially in light of alternative (in the event "appears" must be considered as an either/or proposition) observations and evidence.

I spoke poorly. Let's not assume a highly speculative thing like mental state of the mother is what's driving this when so far the evidence isn't pointing that direction. Of course it would be an interesting avenue to pursue, but so far, it doesn't appear to be the case here.

[semlogo]

So, you haven't read the proclamation on the family? Perhaps you should.

Not canonized, not doctrine.

Prop 8 doesn't prevent anyone marrying. It simply prevents the redefinition of marriage.

It doesn't prevent two men from marrying? Oh, good.

So, "gay" people CAN get married! NOTHING is preventing them.

Still, NOTHING is preventing them from doing so.

I suspect that said disaster is the result of placing obedience to God below personal desires, as usual for marriage disasters of non "gay" people.

But still, reproduction is only one aspect.

No, it's a result of marrying someone without any sexual attraction. That's a recipe for a dysfunctional relationship, even if there is full fidelity.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

This is a typical diatribe of poor rationalization. Please provide a more substantial argument. The end of polygamy was a political move. It is ignorant and naive to believe otherwise.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Or maybe political coercion and political motivation.

[Vance]

Not canonized, not doctrine.

So, you didn't notice the three signatures at the bottom?

It doesn't prevent two men from marrying? Oh, good.

Nope! If they can find two women that will have them, they are certainly free to marry.

No, it's a result of marrying someone without any sexual attraction.

So it is about sex then, not about love or obedience. Got it.

That's a recipe for a dysfunctional relationship, even if there is full fidelity.

And a homosexual relationship isn't dysfunctional? Riiiiight!

Edited to add,

Note that I changed my previous post.

[Vance]

Not canonized, not doctrine.

How about, (1 Cor. 11:11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Is that canonized?

OR how about, (D&C 132:19) And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Is that canonized?

[Damien the Leper]

What does seem to be neglected is Human Experience. Science, nor church stance, nor scripture can provide an accurate portrayal of human experience. It is ignorance on the behalf of an accusor to tell me that I chose to be gay. I wouldn't even be offended by such a statement. More than likely, I would laugh, pat the person on the head and send them along. Such a claim is laughable! Silly people...

[Damien the Leper]

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!

What's with the regurgitation? Perhaps you should take time to think on your own and not let 15 men in SLC do the thinking for you.

[Damien the Leper]

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).

What the church does and doesn't recognize holds very little relevance to reality.

[Damien the Leper]

No since either way this has no impact on Church policy or doctrine at all, the Church doesn't function on the research on men but the revelations of God.

Or the supposed revelations from God.

[Macabus]

Assuming that the men and women referenced in the Family Proclamation have the eternal characteristics of gender, I see an implied underlying spiritual element to the definition of gender. That being the case, gender before moral existence is implied to be male and female-just two. Assuming spiritual beings don't undergo fundamental changes in gender while inhabiting mortal tabernacles, after death and during resurrection, the characteristics of a spirit's gender will be identical to the state before mortal existence.

The issue of homosexuality having an underlying genetic and physical cause due to developmental environmental factors is entirely plausible and acceptable. The effect on the nature of the spirit due to interaction with a body subject to these conditions however does not in my mind constitute an essential change in the definition of gender or in a change of the spiritual element of gender. The practices and doctrines of the church are rooted in the concept that gender comes in one of two forms. Differing physical behaviors with genetic predisposition does not in the terms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or in relation to spiritual identity necessitate institutions of additional genders. Perhaps, externally, additional genders could be justified. However, for the purposes of the usage of gender in a church context, I do not find a redefinition of gender to include third and fourth genders exhibiting homosexual tendencies or attraction behaviors.

I recognize that homosexuality is reasonably recognizable as a genetically influenced state of being rather than a conscious choice. That, however, does not change the nature of the direction given by God through His prophets regarding the appropriateness of homosexual behavior. I do not see any change in church position in the foreseeable future. I recognize that the position of homosexuals within the church is a difficult one if they desire to remain in good standing. I empathize and care for the well being of all of humanity-regardless of sexual orientation. Viewing life on Earth as a short period between eons of spiritual existence however, I cannot see a justifiable change in the practices of the church regarding homosexuality.

The only reason I could see for a change in current church practice with regard to the reclassification of gender would be evidence supporting the hypothesis that before this mortal existence, there were more than two genders. By that reasoning, homosexual gender, along with other classifiable genders, could be defined as eternal characteristics of spirits. Without this, I see no wiggle room.

I appreciate your link to this insightful lecture. I believe it can be a great tool for helping educate those with incorrect ideas regarding the nature of homosexual behavior.

[thesometimesaint]

Valentinus:

Emotions are involuntary, actions are voluntary.

[SkepticTheist]

Seriously, gays getting married to women is not the answer. It is not fair to women to have to marry someone that is unattracted to them, as much as they may be willing. The marriages will never last over the long term. Its unfair to the children who result from a union where the husband may indeed love the wife , but who is simply unattracted to her, because the children will end up in a broken home.

It is unfair to a gay man to have relations with a woman and have erotic fantasies of having relations with a man at the time, and it is unfair to the woman at the same time when the man is not thinking of her when having the relations, but of a man. This just makes it more difficult for the man to control his emotions and fantasies, when he is better off celibate and having to control them altogether. His fantasies will remain unfulfilled anyway, and he will not be focused on his wife. There will never be any true love in that situation, as much as he may have general affection towards his wife, and as much as he may try to treat her well.

Really, the only answer at present really is celibacy, as much as that is a terrible thing to ask from anyone, to remain their whole life in a lonely state until the day they die. The same is asked of any heterosexual person who is unmarried who remains unmarried for whatever reason. So it is nothing new.

So unless the church changes its position to allow some kind of temporary gay union that the Church allows, these people are really in a very difficult position, as terrible as celibacy is. That really is the only answer. Now, I can't see how the church would ever allow a temporary gay union for mortality when that is not in the Lord's program for people's exaltation, as we currently understand it. So celibacy really is it.

I'm sure a gay person may say, well how could you possibly say someone should be celibate. It is against human nature to not yield to one's nature. It is also against human nature to ask a heterosexual man to not view porn or to have relations with other women than his wife. That is certainly is nothing compared to being asked to remain celibate. But still, I mean to say that there are many things that are difficult that many people are asked to do, and we all have to sacrifice something that the natural man would desire. Everyone has something in life that becomes their great Abrahamic trial.

In the days of Jesus, if a man on a whim divorced his wife, the wife could not remarry without committing adultery. Those women were also asked to remain celibate the rest of their lives, even though they were most often the victims. That was terribly unfair, but it was the law, and remains the higher law that we are not asked to follow today. So celibacy is not necessarily a new thing in the Lord's gospel when people are in situations where they cannot marry.

So, you haven't read the proclamation on the family? Perhaps you should.

Prop 8 doesn't prevent anyone marrying. It simply prevents the redefinition of marriage.

So, "gay" people CAN get married! NOTHING is preventing them.

Still, NOTHING is preventing them from doing so.

I suspect that said disaster is the result of placing obedience to God below personal desireslusts, as usual for marriage disasters of non "gay" people.

But still, reproduction is only one aspect.

[CV75]

Let's not assume a highly speculative thing

In accepting no other evidence and strictly limiting the evidence to the material that you provided, and using this to impose the non-speculative conclusion that the “dramatic biological differences between gay and straight men and women” constitute alternative genders that in turn warrant the acceptance and institutionalization of homosexual behavior as morally legitimate, we must also hold that the “dramatic biological differences” attendant to any other purportedly taboo behavior also necessitates the conclusion that these are also morally legitimate alternatives.

So when we compare the dramatic biological differences between people with addictive/aberrant/criminal orientation or behavior of various kinds (especially those who are genetically-determined or predisposed to such) and their more behaviorally acceptable counterparts, we must accept that they are acting in a way that simply expresses God’s desire for His children’s happiness. Doctrinally, our fallen deviation from paradisaical perfection is the culminating expression of God’s highest ambition for us, and serves as our standard of hope.

[TAO]

Seriously, gays getting married to women is not the answer. It is not fair to women to have to marry someone that is unattracted to them, as much as they may be willing. The marriages will never last over the long term. Its unfair to the children who result from a union where the husband may indeed love the wife , but who is simply unattracted to her, because the children will end up in a broken home.

If I may suggest SkepticTheist... a physical attraction to the person is not needed for a good relationship. You can have a good relationship, in my opinion, if you have an attitude of service to another person, and a small amount of an emotional attraction. At least that's what I've been doing. I struggle with lustful thoughts sometimes, so I specifically avoid women who 'look too good'. I try to completely ignore the physical aspect of it, and instead focus on who I would seriously want to serve for eternity. With this sorta thought, it isn't so difficult for marriages to last... if you treat yourself as a servant, I think (and hope to discover myself) that mairrage can be even sweeter than it would have been otherwise. Currently I am trying to date someone, who isn't so much pretty, as she is someone who fits into my personality. I really do not care how she looks. I just know though that I could serve her for eternity, and that is all that matters to me =).

It is unfair to a gay man to have relations with a woman and have erotic fantasies of having relations with a man at the time, and it is unfair to the woman at the same time when the man is not thinking of her when having the relations, but of a man. This just makes it more difficult for the man to control his emotions and fantasies, when he is better off celibate and having to control them altogether. His fantasies will remain unfulfilled anyway, and he will not be focused on his wife. There will never be any true love in that situation, as much as he may have general affection towards his wife, and as much as he may try to treat her well.

It is important for us to avoid erotic fantasies altogether... and for me... even if I do get married I will have to avoid them... even while having physical relations... I must never lose control, never think bad thoughts, never fail. That is part of my duty and responsibility in life. Yes, they should remain celibate until they can control them to a good degree (it is hard to be perfect, but there is a point of near-perfection which is pretty good), and then, if they find someone who they feel they can care about more than anything in the world, then, they can get married. But it takes alot of work. Love isn't so much about physical relationships... love is about service =).

I'm sure a gay person may say, well how could you possibly say someone should be celibate. It is against human nature to not yield to one's nature. It is also against human nature to ask a heterosexual man to not view porn or to have relations with other women than his wife. That is certainly is nothing compared to being asked to remain celibate. But still, I mean to say that there are many things that are difficult that many people are asked to do, and we all have to sacrifice something that the natural man would desire. Everyone has something in life that becomes their great Abrahamic trial.

Yah, you are right. Those who become like God 'putteth of the natural man, and becometh a saint'. It's to become 'more than human'. It's to reject your fallible nature and give it all up... for something more and better. A great sacrifice. But also with great rewards. It is what we were sent here to do.

In the days of Jesus, if a man on a whim divorced his wife, the wife could not remarry without committing adultery. Those women were also asked to remain celibate the rest of their lives, even though they were most often the victims. That was terribly unfair, but it was the law, and remains the higher law that we are not asked to follow today. So celibacy is not necessarily a new thing in the Lord's gospel when people are in situations where they cannot marry.

I am very happy, that those who live celibate all of their lives, will die, and upon the other side of the veil, after the judgment, will find a glorious wife waiting for them, waiting to take them home to where they can rest in peace and happiness, giving service to those who will ever linger on from their eternal and great relationship of mairrage. It is a very great blessing indeed.

[california boy]

We are already seeing the hatred expressed toward the church for their stance on this. It's frightening that such a minority has such sway in the media and in intimidating lawmakers and justices to kowtow to their desire to be accepted as mainstream. It's not enough to live their lives privately and in freedom, as they would not be able to do in many places. They want to throw it in our faces with offensive displays and vociferous protests and threats.

What do you mean by such a minority. You don't have to be gay to understand this is a civil rights issue. It is hardly a minority that believe this. In fact, the MAJORITY of Americans now support gay marriage. Each poll has more and more people supporting gay marriage.

I know you have been fed this rubbish that the only reason gay people want to marry is to be accepted. but, sorry that is just a lie. Gay couples want to be married for the EXACT reasons straight people want to be married. And yes, those that believe in equality for all Americans are willing to protest. Is that so unusual? This is America, a country that values equality. Yeah I know that a lot of Mormons don't believe this is a civil rights issue. But that is what is driving this whole movement. And your way of thinking has become the minority way of thinking in this country.

[SkepticTheist]

This is why Mormons are in such a difficult position, because from a secular point of view, we have no basis for our argument rationally, if we were confined to purely secular arguments. That doesn't mean we are wrong, but it is an entirely religiously based argument that we make. And we are trying to make arguments against people who base their arguments entirely on a secular point of view. In a secular forum, how can you argue religion and expect those that disagree to be convinced? Atheists are not convinced of religiously based arguments, and neither are those who don't share the values of most of Christianity and Mormonism. So really, they perceive us as infringing on their rights. To some degree, how can you blame them for coming to that conclusion, when there is no justifiability of our position secularly? On the other hand, we cannot stop just because we cannot argue convincingly of our religiously based knowledge of the commandments of God. They will shout the "you can't legislate morality" type thing, but we will use our influence to create laws that harmonize with our values, notwithstanding their secular points of view. We aren't going to roll over dead and allow our country to be destroyed by this just because the secularists are unconvinced of a religious reality.

What do you mean by such a minority. You don't have to be gay to understand this is a civil rights issue. It is hardly a minority that believe this. In fact, the MAJORITY of Americans now support gay marriage. Each poll has more and more people supporting gay marriage.

I know you have been fed this rubbish that the only reason gay people want to marry is to be accepted. but, sorry that is just a lie. Gay couples want to be married for the EXACT reasons straight people want to be married. And yes, those that believe in equality for all Americans are willing to protest. Is that so unusual? This is America, a country that values equality. Yeah I know that a lot of Mormons don't believe this is a civil rights issue. But that is what is driving this whole movement. And your way of thinking has become the minority way of thinking in this country.

[TAO]

What do you mean by such a minority. You don't have to be gay to understand this is a civil rights issue. It is hardly a minority that believe this. In fact, the MAJORITY of Americans now support gay marriage. Each poll has more and more people supporting gay marriage.

I know you have been fed this rubbish that the only reason gay people want to marry is to be accepted. but, sorry that is just a lie. Gay couples want to be married for the EXACT reasons straight people want to be married. And yes, those that believe in equality for all Americans are willing to protest. Is that so unusual? This is America, a country that values equality. Yeah I know that a lot of Mormons don't believe this is a civil rights issue. But that is what is driving this whole movement. And your way of thinking has become the minority way of thinking in this country.

California Boy, I remember a study that said that only approximately 5% of homosexual couples got married. I don't remember where it is, but perhaps someone could pull it up?

If they want to get married, how come they aren't using it in states where it's legal, like Massechusetts? Those stats sure make it seem more like an acceptance issue, as Deborah says. That doesn't mean that it isn't a civil rights issue, but it does make Deborah's point valid.

To be quite honest for me this is a civil rights versus civil rights issue. Two contradicting non-established rights, butting heads. The rights of couples, versus the rights of children. Those are the 'secular' rights being debated. But as SkepticTheist says, we aren't really all that interested in secular reasoning... secular reasoning isn't the whole story.

[SkepticTheist]

You are right that it is possible for homosexuals to make it work who have the willpower to do so, but I think that you will find that those who are able to do as you say are actually bisexual to a degree. And I think that you will find that many of them would struggle terribly to perform in sex, and have to fantasize of men to even perform at all, and for the most part, would be fundamentally unhappy, even if they can somehow find a way to live that way.

There are some homosexuals that are so revolted by the idea that it would never work. Just as much as a VERY heterosexual man would be very revolted if he was asked to suppress his heterosexual urges and marry a man and live with him the rest of his life, having nothing but homosexual intercourse. I can assure you that there are homosexuals out there that are so homosexual that they could never do such a thing. Not that I want to necessarily give Mormon Stories a plug, but for a good examples go listen to some of the interviews on homosexuality there.

Seriously, it would never work with a strictly homosexual man who could never be anything than what he is. Unfortunately, for that type, celibacy is all there is. What a terrible thing to have to ask anyone to do.

If I may suggest SkepticTheist... a physical attraction to the person is not needed for a good relationship. You can have a good relationship, in my opinion, if you have an attitude of service to another person, and a small amount of an emotional attraction. At least that's what I've been doing. I struggle with lustful thoughts sometimes, so I specifically avoid women who 'look too good'. I try to completely ignore the physical aspect of it, and instead focus on who I would seriously want to serve for eternity. With this sorta thought, it isn't so difficult for marriages to last... if you treat yourself as a servant, I think (and hope to discover myself) that mairrage can be even sweeter than it would have been otherwise. Currently I am trying to date someone, who isn't so much pretty, as she is someone who fits into my personality. I really do not care how she looks. I just know though that I could serve her for eternity, and that is all that matters to me =).

It is important for us to avoid erotic fantasies altogether... and for me... even if I do get married I will have to avoid them... even while having physical relations... I must never lose control, never think bad thoughts, never fail. That is part of my duty and responsibility in life. Yes, they should remain celibate until they can control them to a good degree (it is hard to be perfect, but there is a point of near-perfection which is pretty good), and then, if they find someone who they feel they can care about more than anything in the world, then, they can get married. But it takes alot of work. Love isn't so much about physical relationships... love is about service =).

Yah, you are right. Those who become like God 'putteth of the natural man, and becometh a saint'. It's to become 'more than human'. It's to reject your fallible nature and give it all up... for something more and better. A great sacrifice. But also with great rewards. It is what we were sent here to do.

I am very happy, that those who live celibate all of their lives, will die, and upon the other side of the veil, after the judgment, will find a glorious wife waiting for them, waiting to take them home to where they can rest in peace and happiness, giving service to those who will ever linger on from their eternal and great relationship of mairrage. It is a very great blessing indeed.

[TAO]

You are right that it is possible for homosexuals to make it work who have the willpower to do so, but I think that you will find that those who are able to do as you say are actually bisexual to a degree. And I think that you will find that many of them would struggle terribly to perform in sex, and have to fantasize of men to even perform at all, and for the most part, would be fundamentally unhappy, even if they can somehow find a way to live that way.

Very true, very true... I don't know if all would be able to do it. We would have to see.

Hmm... if I would suggest, i would say that fantasizing should have nothing to do with sex. Crazy suggestion, I know. Probably because very few would be willing or able to do or try such. But I think those that could... perhaps they would be able to overcome it. After all... at least in my view... it's not for pleasure... it's for children, no?

There are some homosexuals that are so revolted by the idea that it would never work. Just as much as a VERY heterosexual man would be very revolted if he was asked to suppress his heterosexual urges and marry a man and live with him the rest of his life, having nothing but homosexual intercourse. I can assure you that there are homosexuals out there that are so homosexual that they could never do such a thing. Not that I want to necessarily give Mormon Stories a plug, but for a good examples go listen to some of the interviews on homosexuality there.

Agreed. There will be some... and that is a choice they must make. Over time you can convince yourself to do nearly anything, you know? I think with enough effort on their part... they could eventually do such. Not that doing such would be healthy at that point. For them, it might be better to stay celibate.

Seriously, it would never work with a strictly homosexual man who could never be anything than what he is. Unfortunately, for that type, celibacy is all there is. What a terrible thing to have to ask anyone to do.

To be quite honest, I think that is the key... 'who could never be anything than what he is'.... there is nobody who has that condition. We can all be something different under choice. What matters is... do we want it (to overcome). Do we want it... and how much do we want it. If so, how much would you be willing to give up to be able to overcome. Sacrifice is the most powerful engine out there... the hardes to get started, but when it does start, it will drive you up nearly every mountain and every hill you come across in your way to your goal.

I don't pretend to know everything, nor do I know everyone's trials, but I do know this; personal desire is the thing that will make or break your success oftentimes 0.o.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[SkepticTheist]

Well, this is kind of getting off track and I feel kind of weird talking about this here. But, as far as I know, not that I want to quote anything from the temple, but having children and the process of doing so is supposed to be for our joy and happiness. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with fantasies about making love to my wife, and I think I would be pretty strange if I didn't fantasize about my wife when I'm not with her. I'm sorry, but I think that people that think sex is not for pleasure are not living in the real world, and I know of nothing coming from general authorities or the scriptures that would suggest otherwise (with the exception of older notions from decades ago). I specifically asked a bishop once if there was something wrong with anything in the bedroom with ones spouse, and he said the Church's position now is that the Church now keeps itself entirely out of the bedroom of married people. If I remember right, in some accounts, Joseph Smith specifically used the word "enjoy" with reference to one's wife. I cannot see how you can have a healthy marriage without taking full advantage of the enjoyment of your privileges within the marriage covenant. I cannot see how your spouse would be entirely happy if you do not.

However, I think we can rationally conclude though that watching porn for arousal with one's spouse is still absolutely as wrong as watching it by one's self, as porn is problematic period.

Sex is absolutely supposed to bring you closer to your wife by being playful, and loving and bringing her pleasure, and she giving you pleasure. On the other hand, fantasizing about making love to other women is certainly out of order, and I think that qualifies as being unfaithful in one's mind. That is particularly one thing that I'm talking about here. If we ask a purely homosexual man to marry a woman and perform, most likely he would only be able to do so being fundamentally unfaithful to his wife in his mind.

Very true, very true... I don't know if all would be able to do it. We would have to see.

Hmm... if I would suggest, i would say that fantasizing should have nothing to do with sex. Crazy suggestion, I know. Probably because very few would be willing or able to do or try such. But I think those that could... perhaps they would be able to overcome it. After all... at least in my view... it's not for pleasure... it's for children, no?

Agreed. There will be some... and that is a choice they must make. Over time you can convince yourself to do nearly anything, you know? I think with enough effort on their part... they could eventually do such. Not that doing such would be healthy at that point. For them, it might be better to stay celibate.

To be quite honest, I think that is the key... 'who could never be anything than what he is'.... there is nobody who has that condition. We can all be something different under choice. What matters is... do we want it (to overcome). Do we want it... and how much do we want it. If so, how much would you be willing to give up to be able to overcome. Sacrifice is the most powerful engine out there... the hardes to get started, but when it does start, it will drive you up nearly every mountain and every hill you come across in your way to your goal.

I don't pretend to know everything, nor do I know everyone's trials, but I do know this; personal desire is the thing that will make or break your success oftentimes 0.o.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

Skeptic Theist, that's why I said it won't work for everyone. It is a rule for me. Perhaps me alone, I do not know. =)

Others may adopt that rule if God tells them too. But for me, they are not connected. Pleasure may be something that builds for others, but it is a destructive thing for me. That's why I use service instead.