Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[Mike Richards]

Okay, I've listened to the podcast. My opinion hasn't changed after listening to him. Like I said in my earlier post, I don't see the church changing on this subject, but I won't lose my testimony if it does.

What I consider to be an interesting question related to this issue is: if the church did change its position, redefined chastity to include the approval of homosexual behavior in marriage, and allow such couples to be sealed, what would that mean in eternity? Do you, semlogo, suppose that those with "female brains" will actually be changed to be female and that the couple will participate in spiritual procreation?

[Magyar]

Sigh. This really bothers me. I must either surrender my testimony or accept that this is God's will and of course He knows more than I do about this issue. A huge part of me cannot comprehend telling two adult people who are deeply in love that they cannot marry, ergo they cannot lawfully be intimate, because they are of the same gender. I am fervently, deeply, passionately hetero, and it is the joy of my life to be in love with my Lady. I can't imagine being told, in some alternate universe, to stuff all those feelings into a box, padlock them and find a nice man to marry or live celibate my whole life.

The younger generation sees this issue just as a previous generation saw the race issue. It will become more of an issue for membership with each passing year.

[frankenstein]

So I welcome you to petition the moderators to introduce such rules to the forum, until then no body cares about your griping about grammar.

As I wrote to a professor once,

"Grammar rules are maintained by a person who wasted their life in obtaining a degree in English. Having wasted their life the only thing they can do is justify the waste by perpetuating the notion of grammar rules."

[WalkerW]

So it's your contention that a single difference is supposed to be the "cause"? I don't think that's been claimed. The thing is that gay men are physically feminized in many ways, from brain structure to finger size to even the function of how the ears operate. None of those things are necessarily the cause, they just show that there is a definite biological basis for homosexuality. Gay men are biologically feminized in many parts of the body, including brain, and the opposite for lesbians.

That's why I say that they are a third/fourth gender. They're not like males, and not like females. They're they're own thing. That's my contention, by the way, not the professor's.

The root cause is partially genetic, and partially due to what happens in the womb - and wombs seem to actually be programmed to produce gay children under certain circumstances. It's probably an evolved trait.

And if God is the author of evolution, it doesn't take much to put two and two together.

Were these men followed all of their life? Or are the studies comparing grown straight men and grown gay men? Were their brains highly feminized since birth or did they develop that way throughout life?

This is what I mean regarding our genes' reactions to experience as well as the

.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Sigh. This really bothers me. I must either surrender my testimony or accept that this is God's will and of course He knows more than I do about this issue. A huge part of me cannot comprehend telling two adult people who are deeply in love that they cannot marry, ergo they cannot lawfully be intimate, because they are of the same gender. I am fervently, deeply, passionately hetero, and it is the joy of my life to be in love with my Lady. I can't imagine being told, in some alternate universe, to stuff all those feelings into a box, padlock them and find a nice man to marry or live celibate my whole life.

The younger generation sees this issue just as a previous generation saw the race issue. It will become more of an issue for membership with each passing year.

I think this is where one has to look at the fact that mortality isn't all we have, some will patiently and faithfully spend this mortality without a helpmate because of reasons like same sex attraction. They Gospel though to remind them that in due course God repays all faithful sacrifices to his children many times over and they will find the partner that was made just for them in the Spirit World an be sealed by proxy and have an eternal family like all of us.

We cannot know how this will happen, all we can know is that the Lord provides a way for all if we are faithful to him. No faithful Saint will be denied exaltation because they couldn't find a helpmate in this period of mortality, IMO.

So with an eternal perspective and a understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it seems very selfish to me that someone would insist they must love in this live even if that means they have to fornicate, instead of putting there faith in the Lord that he will provide for them in this life or the next should they endure in faith.

[LDS Guy 1986]

As I wrote to a professor once,

"Grammar rules are maintained by a person who wasted their life in obtaining a degree in English. Having wasted their life the only thing they can do is justify the waste by perpetuating the notion of grammar rules."

What did he or she say to that?

[bookofmormontruth]

People once felt the same about civil rights, feminism, and polygamy. Just last weekend in conference we had a general authority telling people to not judge women who choose to work outside the home - a major change. The church has slowly embraced feminism over the years, and quickly embraced civil rights for blacks in 1978. There is ample precedence.

{sigh}

I know this is what you "hope" for, but it is a false hope to justify a sinful lifestyle. Heterosexuals have to follow God's laws too, homosexuals aren't an exception.

Comparing homosexuality to the civil rights and feminism is ludicrous. You have every right as a citizen today then they could ever wish for back in the day. Absolutely no comparison and it only distances yourself more for it discounts true inequality, not imagined.

If it is accepted your way, polygamists, pedophiles, beastialitist will be in line claiming the same "inequality". Not going to happen for the Lord will define what a marriage is, not courts or politicians.

Feminism isn't the same as it was years ago for just like the so called gay agenda, it has been highjacked by other organizations to use and abuse its members without them even knowing about it. And to make the claim that the Lord's Church has somehow "suppressed" women since the beginning is unfounded with evidence to the contrary.

In addition, civil rights had nothing to do with the priesthood, unless you have the official doctrine on why God did not allow blacks to receive it? The history of the LDS Church has proven it has sided on the correct side in regards to civil rights, unless of course you saturate yourself with anti-Mormon rhetoric.

[semlogo]

Okay, I've listened to the podcast. My opinion hasn't changed after listening to him. Like I said in my earlier post, I don't see the church changing on this subject, but I won't lose my testimony if it does.

What I consider to be an interesting question related to this issue is: if the church did change its position, redefined chastity to include the approval of homosexual behavior in marriage, and allow such couples to be sealed, what would that mean in eternity? Do you, semlogo, suppose that those with "female brains" will actually be changed to be female and that the couple will participate in spiritual procreation?

I can totally respect that.

I'm not sure what would happen in the eternities. It's just as complicated under the present paradigm, though. What do we understand that happens to these men with female brains now, in the eternities? Do their brains become male brains? Do their index fingers shorten? Do their inner ears function differently? I don't think we have the answers now, and I don't have the answer in the case of a change in doctrine.

[semlogo]

Sigh. This really bothers me. I must either surrender my testimony or accept that this is God's will and of course He knows more than I do about this issue. A huge part of me cannot comprehend telling two adult people who are deeply in love that they cannot marry, ergo they cannot lawfully be intimate, because they are of the same gender. I am fervently, deeply, passionately hetero, and it is the joy of my life to be in love with my Lady. I can't imagine being told, in some alternate universe, to stuff all those feelings into a box, padlock them and find a nice man to marry or live celibate my whole life.

The younger generation sees this issue just as a previous generation saw the race issue. It will become more of an issue for membership with each passing year.

I agree, though so far this hasn't effected my overall testimony. I have a hard time seeing any GAs in the distant future, who were born in 1995, continuing with the anti-gay marriage thing. The younger generation views it totally differently than the baby boomers. I think the comparison with the civil rights movement is apt. For people of a certain generation, it was just understood that blacks were inferior and to be kept separate from whites. My generation didn't have that attitude, and it was totally foreign to us. It's hard to escape what you learn growing up.

[Magyar]

I can see what is intrinsically wrong with fornication -- it leads to unplanned pregnancies, disease, etc. It indulges lack of commitment. I can see what is wrong with adultery. It breaks up marriages and breaks hearts. I can see what is wrong with following through on desires for children, animals, masochism, etc. One party is unable to consent. Great pyschological or physical damage can be done.

But there is nothing, nothing, nothing, intrinsically, proveably wrong with a man and a man or a woman and a woman, pledging faithful and lifelong love to each other ... so why are they forbidden to consumate that love with marriage? We can fall back only upon one defense of our position: God said no and we don't know why.

And that is the sum of it.

[semlogo]

Were these men followed all of their life? Or are the studies comparing grown straight men and grown gay men? Were their brains highly feminized since birth or did they develop that way throughout life?

This is what I mean regarding our genes' reactions to experience as well as the

.

I remember that the study of the finger differences seems to have been observed from childhood. Anecdotally, gay adults remember feeling different from other children, even before they have attractions to anyone. I don't know about brain studies in children. The podcast goes over a lot of material in a general fashion. It's a good primer, but does not go in depth.

[bookofmormontruth]

I can see what is intrinsically wrong with fornication -- it leads to unplanned pregnancies, disease, etc. It indulges lack of commitment. I can see what is wrong with adultery. It breaks up marriages and breaks hearts. I can see what is wrong with following through on desires for children, animals, masochism, etc. One party is unable to consent. Great pyschological or physical damage can be done.

But there is nothing, nothing, nothing, intrinsically, proveably wrong with a man and a man or a woman and a woman, pledging faithful and lifelong love to each other ... so why are they forbidden to consumate that love with marriage? We can fall back only upon one defense of our position: God said no and we don't know why.

And that is the sum of it.

If we truly believe God said "no" then who are we to question why?

[WalkerW]

I remember that the study of the finger differences seems to have been observed from childhood. Anecdotally, gay adults remember feeling different from other children, even before they have attractions to anyone. I don't know about brain studies in children. The podcast goes over a lot of material in a general fashion. It's a good primer, but does not go in depth.

I knew the physical traits were from childhood. I'll be sure to check it out when I have the chance to listen to it.

[LeSellers]

there is nothing, nothing, nothing, intrinsically, proveably wrong with a man and a man or a woman and a woman, pledging faithful and lifelong love to each other ... so why are they forbidden to consumate that love with marriage?

Terrestrially, there is no reason they cannot do whatever it is they do. But there is no reason for them to call it "marriage".

We can fall back only upon one defense of our position: God said no and we don't know why.

And that is the sum of it.

That is neither the sum of it nor an accurate account of why we who object do so.

Lehi

[semlogo]

{sigh}

I know this is what you "hope" for, but it is a false hope to justify a sinful lifestyle. Heterosexuals have to follow God's laws too, homosexuals aren't an exception.

I have a lot of empathy for gay people. It's easy to judge, but put yourself in their shoes. Even outside of religion, gay people are under tremendous stress and disapproval from society at large.

And besides, we really have no revelation saying that monogamous gay relationships are sinful. We assume it, but we don't know it.

Comparing homosexuality to the civil rights and feminism is ludicrous. You have every right as a citizen today then they could ever wish for back in the day. Absolutely no comparison and it only distances yourself more for it discounts true inequality, not imagined.

Yes, I have every right that others do, but only because I'm straight. Or did you assume that I was gay because I'm capable of empathizing with an ostracized, hated minority? Can't you empathize with groups you don't belong to?

If it is accepted your way, polygamists, pedophiles, beastialitist will be in line claiming the same "inequality". Not going to happen for the Lord will define what a marriage is, not courts or politicians.

I don't speak for the Lord, but neither do you. And please, it's very insulting to mention gay people in the same breath as pedophiles etc. Let's have some courtesy.

Feminism isn't the same as it was years ago for just like the so called gay agenda, it has been highjacked by other organizations to use and abuse its members without them even knowing about it. And to make the claim that the Lord's Church has somehow "suppressed" women since the beginning is unfounded with evidence to the contrary.

In addition, civil rights had nothing to do with the priesthood, unless you have the official doctrine on why God did not allow blacks to receive it? The history of the LDS Church has proven it has sided on the correct side in regards to civil rights, unless of course you saturate yourself with anti-Mormon rhetoric.

Feminism hasn't changed. The church leadership has, and thank goodness! I'm not saying all feminist ideas are good, but at one point the church was quite backwards in regards to women. It has steadily become more liberal towards equality for women.

Blacks were once barred from temples and the priesthood. You don't think that there is a civil rights issue there? Some general authorities even advocated segregation. That was their opinion. General authorities are good men, but they've never been infallible. Don't you agree?

[semlogo]

I can see what is intrinsically wrong with fornication -- it leads to unplanned pregnancies, disease, etc. It indulges lack of commitment. I can see what is wrong with adultery. It breaks up marriages and breaks hearts. I can see what is wrong with following through on desires for children, animals, masochism, etc. One party is unable to consent. Great pyschological or physical damage can be done.

But there is nothing, nothing, nothing, intrinsically, proveably wrong with a man and a man or a woman and a woman, pledging faithful and lifelong love to each other ... so why are they forbidden to consumate that love with marriage? We can fall back only upon one defense of our position: God said no and we don't know why.

And that is the sum of it.

But here's the thing - as far as we know - god DIDN'T say no. All we have is tradition, folk doctrine, etc. Oh, and the law of Moses.

[William Schryver]

Sigh. This really bothers me. I must either surrender my testimony or accept that this is God's will and of course He knows more than I do about this issue. A huge part of me cannot comprehend telling two adult people who are deeply in love that they cannot marry, ergo they cannot lawfully be intimate, because they are of the same gender. I am fervently, deeply, passionately hetero, and it is the joy of my life to be in love with my Lady. I can't imagine being told, in some alternate universe, to stuff all those feelings into a box, padlock them and find a nice man to marry or live celibate my whole life.

The younger generation sees this issue just as a previous generation saw the race issue. It will become more of an issue for membership with each passing year.

Perhaps you are right.

2 Nephi 30

10 For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire.

[semlogo]

I knew the physical traits were from childhood. I'll be sure to check it out when I have the chance to listen to it.

Great!

I should point out that once anyone here listens to the podcast, and reads the articles, they'll know just as much as I do about the subject. I'm no expert.

[semlogo]

Perhaps you are right.

Don't forget though - the youngest generation is always the most righteous.

[semlogo]

Thanks all for your comments. I'll be back again tomorrow, but I've got to head off for now. Thanks to all those who listened to the podcast and contributed their informed opinions, even when you disagreed with my own opinion. It's appreciated.

[Mike Richards]

I'm not sure what would happen in the eternities. It's just as complicated under the present paradigm, though. What do we understand that happens to these men with female brains now, in the eternities? Do their brains become male brains? Do their index fingers shorten? Do their inner ears function differently? I don't think we have the answers now, and I don't have the answer in the case of a change in doctrine.

A thought that is funny to me, but might not be so funny to other people...I've wondered if "ugly" will be fixed in the eternities. People always reply, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but they're wrong. While we might have different preferences, there are clear traits that make people (their faces, in particular) more or less attractive (symmetry, proportion, ratios, etc). I have my own, totally without basis, theory that with a few small tweaks we can all be made to be the "ideal" form of ourselves. We already do it with braces (since most of us agree on what perfect teeth should look like and they're relatively easy to get that way). I also imagine that all the "imperfections" in my appearance are a result of degenerate dna which will be repaired when I'm resurrected (again, the dna that fouled up my teach, made one eye slightly higher than the other, gave me bad skin, etc, etc).

Now, back to the serious stuff, I believe that God will "fix" all who are faithful in this life so that all forms of temptation they experience will be removed. This means, to me, that if those abnormalities cause the homosexual tendencies (which I recognize no one is claiming they do cause, just that there is a biological source to the tendency, but let's just say for this discussion that they do cause it), then God will change them so they no longer do have those tendencies. This is what I understand Amulek to mean when he says things will return to their perfect form/proper frame.

[Deborah]

This issue illustrates why Russell M. Nelson's may have warned us in conference of hard times:

[awesome0]

I think it is entirely possible and in fact likely we will see some change on this issue. In fact we already have.

Now those who are gay can have a TR, as long as they aren't practicing. Before they had to refute or

claim to be cured of their temptations.

I see to big examples of big change.

1. Polygamy - It was revealed to end polygamy. Prior to that, it was doctrinal and practice by many active members of the church. The previous statistics don't distinguish between baptized and active. Active men who held high offices normally had more than 1 wife, sometimes many. Usually the higher up, the more wives. But after enough economic and political pressure, it was revealed to end it.

2. Blacks and the priesthood. It was considered doctrinal for a long time. In Mormon Doctrine, BRM stated his opinion that they would always be denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the previous life. This of course change recently.

Some people didn't like these changes and split off and started their own groups. Likely the same thing would happen over SSM. But I think it could definitely change in the long run.

The splintering can be minimized by delaying change for a while. So, given the lag between the civil rights movement and blacks in the priesthood, I could see similar changes coming in 20-30 years on SSM. And the youth will be more accepting of this down the road.

And yes, there is huge wiggle room.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I can see what is intrinsically wrong with fornication -- it leads to unplanned pregnancies, disease, etc. It indulges lack of commitment. I can see what is wrong with adultery. It breaks up marriages and breaks hearts. I can see what is wrong with following through on desires for children, animals, masochism, etc. One party is unable to consent. Great pyschological or physical damage can be done.

But there is nothing, nothing, nothing, intrinsically, proveably wrong with a man and a man or a woman and a woman, pledging faithful and lifelong love to each other ... so why are they forbidden to consumate that love with marriage? We can fall back only upon one defense of our position: God said no and we don't know why.

And that is the sum of it.

God doesn't say they can't pledge there love to each other, he does say they cannot have sexual relations with each other though.

God designed sexual relations so a man and woman joined in sacred union of marriage could create children to house the spirits of his precious spirit children.

A homosexual union cannot fulfill the design of marriage so it cannot be sanctioned of God because the union doesn't fulfill his plan for mankind.

Now God does allow us to do what we choose to do, a same sex couple can have unlawful sexual relations to satify there carnal desires, but to do so is sinful. Just like it is sinful for a man and woman to have sexual relations out of wedlock to satisfy there carnal desires.

[CV75]

This discusses differences in finger length ratios between gay and straight men and women. Just one of the issues also discussed by the BYU professor.

We understand that all biological impediments to our eternal progress will be removed in the resurrection, so it is in our best interest to abide by what is given to us spiritually, despite our challenges. There is also much to consider in how thoughts also affect human chemistry, anatomy and physiology.