Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[semlogo]

I was hesitant to start this thread, because I know a lot of Latter-day Saints just aren't ready yet for this kind of information and the potential implications of it (or at least, my opinion of the implications). But I hope we can talk about this subject in a friendly matter. I'd like for this to be a discussion, not a fight. On that note, I reiterate that it's essential to familiarize yourself with the information I linked in the OP before attempting to refute it (or even agree with it).

I'd also like to acknowledge that my opinion isn't the last word, and I'm well aware of that. We all process information differently.

For many years I was (small c) conservative on this issue. Over the years, as I've sought to understand the subject better, my opinion changed. Yours may not. That's okay.

[semlogo]

You have not facts though <snip>

Again, please review the materials in the OP before jumping to that conclusion.

[LDS Guy 1986]

We are all Adam and Eve. And in my mind at least there is a distinction between having "no options" and being "forced" (I understand life as full of the former, and I said nothing nor do I think it, about the latter). I won't reply individually to other things you say here, so that it won't turn into an Adam and Eve thread. I do appreciate what you have to say, it's obvious you love the gospel.

They always had an option, because God cannot remove the agency of man, if he does so he is evil and ceases to be God.

Also we are not Adam and Eve, they were the most valiant of Heavenly Father's children, Adam was known as the Archangel Michale in the premortal existence he lead us against Lucifer when he rebelled. It is insulting to think that we are more valiant or equal to such a mighty and valiant leader among the children of God.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Again, please review the materials in the OP before jumping to that conclusion.

I did and if you lack the understanding of elementary science to know that one study by one professor IS NOT fact, you are very very very under educated.

Now if you want to tale about facts bring my 3 dozen studies that reproduce the same results and you can start to talk about fact, my friend until then you are as blind as your avatar if you think that this is fact.

[semlogo]

Another thing to consider: our brains are the one part of our physical body that contains the essence of who we are. If there's a connection between spirit and body, it's at the brain, where all our emotions and thoughts are controlled/originate. If a man has essentially a woman's brain, and a woman has a man's brain, what does that say about their gender? Do straightforward gender designations really apply to such individuals? Does the Proclamation address this fact?

[semlogo]

I did and if you lack the understanding of elementary science to know that one study by one professor IS NOT fact, you are very very very under educated.

Now if you want to tale about facts bring my 3 dozen studies that reproduce the same results and you can start to talk about fact, my friend until then you are as blind as your avatar if you think that this is fact.

If you had listened to or even read the summary of the podcast, you'd know that the professor isn't citing his own research, or a single piece of research, but is summarizing aggregate research and consensus of his field of study.

So again, I invite you to listen to his presentation. It's better to be informed and then comment based on that than to simply react based on your preconceived notions.

[semlogo]

I'm going to duck out for an hour or two to allow people time to listen to the podcast. It's over an hour and 40 minutes in length. You don't have to agree with me - I respect your opinion! But for an opinion to be worthwhile it must at least be an informed opinion. You can't review a movie unless you've seen it. The same principle applies here.

Thanks!

[LDS Guy 1986]

I was hesitant to start this thread, because I know a lot of Latter-day Saints just aren't ready yet for this kind of information and the potential implications of it (or at least, my opinion of the implications). But I hope we can talk about this subject in a friendly matter. I'd like for this to be a discussion, not a fight. On that note, I reiterate that it's essential to familiarize yourself with the information I linked in the OP before attempting to refute it (or even agree with it).

I'd also like to acknowledge that my opinion isn't the last word, and I'm well aware of that. We all process information differently.

For many years I was (small c) conservative on this issue. Over the years, as I've sought to understand the subject better, my opinion changed. Yours may not. That's okay.

I do not think I have seen a single person yet that has a problem with this study, it appears to of been done properly and within the bonds of proper scientific research. The problem is you take one study and label is as fact and expect it to be some "water shed" moment for the Church, that this will lead to the Church changing there policy. This is not how things work in the Church or science, one study is just that a study, until it is repeatedly vetted by other independent studies coming to the same conclusion over many years this is completely useless besides being a big stack of paper full of numbers and opinions.

Also the Church does not bas it's doctrine off of the facts of men, but the revelations of the Lord, so even if this study is vetted over many years by dozens of other studies reproducing the same result, it will not change any police or doctrine in the Church.

The problem isn't the study, the problem is your lack of proper and ethical analysis of the study and false presentation of scientific and Church protocols.

[semlogo]

I do not think I have seen a single person yet that has a problem with this study, it appears to of been done properly and within the bonds of proper scientific research. The problem is you take one study and label is as fact and expect it to be some "water shed" moment for the Church, that this will lead to the Church changing there policy. This is not how things work in the Church or science, one study is just that a study, until it is repeatedly vetted by other independent studies coming to the same conclusion over many years this is completely useless besides being a big stack of paper full of numbers and opinions.

Also the Church does not bas it's doctrine off of the facts of men, but the revelations of the Lord, so even if this study is vetted over many years by dozens of other studies reproducing the same result, it will not change any police or doctrine in the Church.

Again, it's not one study, but a summary of many, many studies. In fact, it's a summary of the entire field of research.

I'm ducking out now to give you time to listen. Obviously you haven't yet.

[LDS Guy 1986]

If you had listened to or even read the summary of the podcast, you'd know that the professor isn't citing his own research, or a single piece of research, but is summarizing aggregate research and consensus of his field of study.

So again, I invite you to listen to his presentation. It's better to be informed and then comment based on that than to simply react based on your preconceived notions.

Like I previously said you really need to take a refresher high school science class, if he is vetting others theories then you presented this all wrong.

If he is building off of other research and making a new hypothesis using there previous data to support his new hypothesis, then this is not fact until it is properly vetted as I have said.

Either way non of this changes or has any impact at all on Church policy in any way shape or form.

So as I said before they study is fine, but the problem lies in your poor presentation and poor analysis of the data. If I had an hour to listen to the podcast I would but I will stick to the articles you presented instead.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Again, it's not one study, but a summary of many, many studies. In fact, it's a summary of the entire field of research.

I'm ducking out now to give you time to listen. Obviously you haven't yet.

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.

[WalkerW]

If you had listened to or even read the summary of the podcast, you'd know that the professor isn't citing his own research, or a single piece of research, but is summarizing aggregate research and consensus of his field of study.

So again, I invite you to listen to his presentation. It's better to be informed and then comment based on that than to simply react based on your preconceived notions.

Don't mind LDS Guy 1986. See kolipoki09's quotations for an understanding of LDS Guy's grasp of science.

[semlogo]

Like I previously said you really need to take a refresher high school science class, if he is vetting others theories then you presented this all wrong.

If he is building off of other research and making a new hypothesis using there previous data to support his new hypothesis, then this is not fact until it is properly vetted as I have said.

Either way non of this changes or has any impact at all on Church policy in any way shape or form.

So as I said before they study is fine, but the problem lies in your poor presentation and poor analysis of the data. If I had an hour to listen to the podcast I would but I will stick to the articles you presented instead.

He isn't making a new hypothesis. He's simply stating the consensus of the scientific research in this field. Ugh! I knew I shouldn't have checked back. If you don't have time to actually find out what Dr. Bradshaw was saying, I don't see why you think you have the time to debate what he said. You don't know what he said! How frustrating. It's like trying to discuss the latest Harry Potter film with someone who's neither seen the movie nor read the book, but still has an opinion about it.

[semlogo]

Don't mind LDS Guy 1986. See kolipoki09's quotations for an understanding of LDS Guy's grasp of science.

Thanks. I'm trying not to be frustrated, but it's difficult.

[krose]

I did but apparently you didn't it says fornication is unlawful sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other, you said that sexual intercourse is fornication and you are wrong.

There is a big difference between what you said the definition was and what the definition actually is.

Good grief, Guy. You don't get to reverse what I wrote and then call me wrong for writing it. The only differences between what I wrote and the lds.org quote are "unlawful" (what does that even mean?) and "not married to each other," both minor details. Nothing you have cited expands the definition to include oral and manual stimulation.

Call it sinful, an abomination, etc. all you want. You just don't get to make up your own set of facts and definitions.

[LDS Guy 1986]

He isn't make a new hypothesis. He's simply stating the consensus of the scientific research in this field. Ugh! I knew I shouldn't have checked back. If you don't have time to actually find out what Dr. Bradshaw was saying, I don't see why you think you have the time to debate what he said. You don't know what he said! How frustrating. It's like trying to discuss the latest Harry Potter film with someone who's neither seen the movie nor read the book, but still has an opinion about it.

Well like I said before (helps to read everything semilogo) if it is a supporting study then you must not present it as a new study like you did, give us his references to the previous studies.

This is your presentation of his work, you need to provide the proper references, not expect people to do your work for you.

As I have said at length though nothing about his effects Church policy, since men don't make the policy of the Church the Lord reveals his will to his prophet.

Also this has no impact on the policy because the policy accepts that people can be genetically influenced to be attracted to men, but you make it seem that attraction makes one fornicate which is not Church policy and will not change.

Nothing makes someone sin. they choose to fornicate because they give into there carnal desires.

[thesometimesaint]

Semlogo:

I still consider you a friend, if that is OK with you.

I think the premise of the article is false. First there is no such thing as man v women brains apart from the sex we are genetically. Every cell in our bodies with DNA in it, including our brains, shouts who we are sexually. We'll not discuss hermaphrodites as this condition is usually not associated with homosexuality.

Again I think the good professor is conflating correlation with causation.

However. In the gospel we are free to choose our actions. Re the man who was born blind was not a sinner, neither were his parents.

[Mike Richards]

I finally listened to Dr. William Bradshaw's (of BYU

[LDS Guy 1986]

Good grief, Guy. You don't get to reverse what I wrote and then call me wrong for writing it. The only differences between what I wrote and the lds.org quote are "unlawful" (what does that even mean?) and "not married to each other," both minor details.

Wow, marriage is a minor detail to the definition of fornication, please stop I will die of laughter if say something that silly ever again. Marriage is not a minor detail it is the core of the definition my friend, all sexual intercourse outside of a couple married to each other is fornication, sexual intercourse between a couple married to each other is not fornication. There is a big difference between your fake definition and the real definition, I am sacred that you cannot understand something that simple.

Nothing you have cited expands the definition to include oral and manual stimulation.

sexual intercourse

noun

Definition of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

1: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus2: intercourse (as **** or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

I hope the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a good enough definition for you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexual+intercourse

Call it sinful, an abomination, etc. all you want. You just don't get to make up your own set of facts and definitions.

You give me too much credit, the credit goes the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for recieveing the will of the Lord for our time and to Merriam-Webster to correct you deep deficiency in basic comprehension of the English language.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Thanks. I'm trying not to be frustrated, but it's difficult.

I apologize for any frustration I may be part of but, the frustration is only caused by your failure to civilly examine the critic of the article you presented. I will not learn any more about the article by listening to a pod cast, the article is sufficient source of information to base my critique on.

Once you comprehend that I have no problem with his findings, but with your assumption that attraction makes one fornicate, you will see how you are ultimately incorrect.

My other disagreement is that you presume that a scientific study has any impact on the revelatory process at all, this is a flawed and incorrect thought process. No matter how many studies one does, the Lord will only reveal his will in his time not man's time.

[krose]

Wow, marriage is a minor detail to the definition of fornication, please stop I will die of laughter if say something that silly ever again. Marriage is not a minor detail it is the core of the definition my friend, all sexual intercourse outside of a couple married to each other is fornication, sexual intercourse between a couple married to each other is not fornication. There is a big difference between your fake definition and the real definition, I am sacred that you cannot understand something that simple.

How exasperating you are. Climb down from your high horse and listen. The "not married to each other" part was understood, like the fact that the parties are humans. Pointing it out is an unnecessary detail. No one would claim that sex within a marriage is fornication. (Although you might for gay couples who are legally married.)

But since you are the definition authority, please explain how my lesbian friends are "fornicating" when they get together. That is what I have been trying to get you to tell me from the beginning.

[krose]

You give me too much credit, the credit goes the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for recieveing the will of the Lord for our time and to Merriam-Webster to correct you deep deficiency in basic comprehension of the English language.

That you would comment on my grasp of English is an incredible display of chutzpah, considering the fact that you regularly exhibit a remarkable inability to put together a single error-free sentence. I count at least five errors in the single sentence above (spelling, usage and grammar).

[LDS Guy 1986]

How exasperating you are. Climb down from your high horse and listen. The "not married to each other" part was understood, like the fact that the parties are humans. Pointing it out is an unnecessary detail. No one would claim that sex within a marriage is fornication. (Although you might for gay couples who are legally married.)

But since you are the definition authority, please explain how my lesbian friends are "fornicating" when they get together. That is what I have been trying to get you to tell me from the beginning.

According to Merriam Webster, any sexual contact (such as oral or rectal intercourse (or also manual stimulation with foreign objects)) that does not involve a penis entering a vagina is also sexual intercourse.

I presented the definition for you and the link to see it yourself, are you sure that you read it, seemed very clear and straight forward to me?

[William Schryver]

CFR repeated for semlogo's sake:

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.

CFR

(Where do people come up with stuff like this?!!!!)

[LDS Guy 1986]

That you would comment on my grasp of English is an incredible display of chutzpah, considering the fact that you regularly exhibit a remarkable inability to put together a single error-free sentence. I count at least five errors in the single sentence above (spelling, usage and grammar).

I said English language (as in reading words) not English grammar, I never stated that I have the best grammar. If I did my college writing professor would probably hunt me down and scourge me to death. She always said that I had a brilliant mind and excellent ability to present an compelling argument but my grammar was the most atrocious thing she had ever seen.

Her direct quote was "You are the reason why editors are so well paid, you have a wonderful ability to speak and think, but no ability to get your grammar right no matter how hard you try."

I guess like Nephi I am not a great writer, there is no sin in this though. I do the best I can an apologize and clarify when I have to due my unconquerable inability to implement proper grammar.

My surprise is that one so learned in such things as you seem to proclaim cannot tell the difference between reading ability and writing ability.

Also the amateur psychologist (since you are an amateur editor now) in me must point out that this is a classic deflection.

Your redirected anger at my grammar so gives away that you are furious that I am right and you are wrong.

Also I find it a bit humorous that you think that a friendly discussion on a forum is a place to expect perfect grammar and spelling. I forgot that this is also my doctoral dissertation also! Darn looks like I am not getting that PhD in online forum discussion!