Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[LDS Guy 1986]

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.

CFR please, this is total lie any statistical studies I have ever seen show that polygamist only made up at the most 5 to 15 percent of the LDS population at it's high and was restricted to the highest leadership of the Church seeing that they were the only members with the financial means to provide for more than 1 spouse at that time.

Your statement is total baloney, polygamy has and was practices by a small minority of the membership of the Church, logically only 1/3 of the membership could have 3 wives each since for ever man with 3 wives that means 2 do not have a partner at all.

[awesome0]

How much of the male membership was active or had attended the temple? You didn't address that issue. If you went to a church on an average sunday in 1850, how much of the congregation in attendance practice? That's my question, which you didn't notice.

And widely practiced depends on if you restrict to men or women. If 10 percent of men had more than 1 wife, and on average had 3, then roughly 30 percent of women practiced. Heck, Brigham Young had over 50 wives. That's almost a ward.

And it was doctrinal, and many GA's said it would never be taken away. But it was.

[LDS Guy 1986]

How much of the male membership was active or had attended the temple? You didn't address that issue. If you went to a church on an average sunday in 1850, how much of the congregation in attendance practice? That's my question, which you didn't notice.

And widely practiced depends on if you restrict to men or women. If 10 percent of men had more than 1 wife, and on average had 3, then roughly 30 percent of women practiced. Heck, Brigham Young had over 50 wives. That's almost a ward.

And it was doctrinal, and many GA's said it would never be taken away. But it was.

This has nothing at all to do with what I asked, I said provide a valid reference about your statement that refutes the findings of the many statistical studies that have been done that say you are incorrect and polygamy was practiced by a small portion of the membership. Either produce a reference or retract the statement, unreferenced statements are not allowed.

Also learn simple math my friend, 50 people is barely enough to get a branch started the average ward has around 400 members.

[awesome0]

I don't have statistics on active members, but it is less than total membership.

So if 10 percent of total members practiced, and activity rates were 50 percent (much higher than now)

then essentially double the number of practicing mormon which were polygamists.

How many kids on average did 50 women have back then?

Check your own math.

It is funny that your discussion of polygamy rests on the fact that it affects a small portion of the membership.

What percentage the membership is gay? Certainly far less than the fraction which practiced polygamy. By

your own logic, it wouldn't be a big deal to change position since it only affects a small fraction of population.

Snap!

[awesome0]

You didn't provide a reference for estimate either so retract your statement or retract your statement about retracting statements.

[LDS Guy 1986]

You didn't provide a reference for estimate either so retract your statement or retract your statement about retracting statements.

Such references are riddled throughout other threads it is not my job to make you educate yourself with the items previously discussed on the forum.

If you wish to get into discussion without reading up on the appropriate content of related threads you do so at you own risk.

You however have presented previously unknown claims present your support or you will be reported for violating the forum rules.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I don't have statistics on active members, but it is less than total membership.

So if 10 percent of total members practiced, and activity rates were 50 percent (much higher than now)

then essentially double the number of practicing mormon which were polygamists.

How many kids on average did 50 women have back then?

Check your own math.

It is funny that your discussion of polygamy rests on the fact that it affects a small portion of the membership.

What percentage the membership is gay? Certainly far less than the fraction which practiced polygamy. By

your own logic, it wouldn't be a big deal to change position since it only affects a small fraction of population.

Snap!

Polygamy is not a sexual sin, homosexual acts are a sexual sin. So you are not correct to compare polygamy to homosexuality, a man having sexual relations with more his two wives is not fornication since they are lawfull wed.

homosexuals cannot lawfully wed in the eyes of the lord so any relations are automatically sexual sins and will always be sexual sins.

[bookofmormontruth]

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 I suppose that I don't have empathy for my loving gay sister or my gay friends?

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

Who is "we"? You speak like we attend the same Church for homosexual relations has and always be a sin in the Lord's Church.

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?

Let me guess. Because I have strong beliefs - I am a homophobe. That card is overused.

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.

Sin is sin no matter how much it offends. And again, it is obvious that we are not attending the same Church for those who are active, faithful in the Lord's Church can definitely speak for the Lord. It happens every week during sacrament and through countless other examples.

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.

Again, we aren't in the same Church for His members speak highly of His Church and His anointed unless they have been brainwashed with anti-Mormon regurgitation. The Church that you describe, I definitely wouldn't want to be part of it. If I were you, I would remove yourself asap!

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?

Again, we are speaking of different Churches. My Church has championed civil rights and has a rich history of being on the right side of civil rights for God withholding the priesthood doesn't make the Lord's Church "racist". Unless of course you are under the miserable spell of anti-Mormon regurgitation.

So what is the name of your Church? I will be sure to avoid it for you definitely have made them out as awful people with racist, bigoted leaders.

[awesome0]

Then why bring up it was practiced by a small fraction. Irrelevant.

In addition, one does not statistics to show the number of active members is less than the number of total numbers.

Inactive+active=total.

If only active members practiced polygamy (or disproportionately practiced), than the number of active members practicing polygamy is of course higher

than the fraction of total members which practiced polygamy.

I am not violating rules to state mathematical facts.

Also why no comment regarding 50 women being enough for a ward. 50 women, with 4-8 kids each is almost 300 kids. More than show up at most wards nowadays.

[bookofmormontruth]

Snap!

Crackle! Pop! Rice Krispies!

[semlogo]

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.

Am I to understand that you think our thoughts can change our finger length, or the how our ears work? And furthermore, that infants and toddlers are having gay thoughts?

[semlogo]

Polygamy is not a sexual sin, homosexual acts are a sexual sin. So you are not correct to compare polygamy to homosexuality, a man having sexual relations with more his two wives is not fornication since they are lawfull wed.

homosexuals cannot lawfully wed in the eyes of the lord so any relations are automatically sexual sins and will always be sexual sins.

Are your sure about that? What would happen to your church membership if you were to practice polygamy?

And since you stress the importance of being lawfully wedded (not that there was such a thing as legal marriages in, say, the Old Testament), isn't that an argument for gay marriage?

[semlogo]

And I suppose that I don't have empathy for my loving gay sister or my gay friends?

If you were to express any empathy for them, I wouldn't assume it was because you were gay. I would just assume that you cared about other people, even if they were different from you.

The rest of your post is so full of bitterness and uncharitable arguments, I'll just leave you to those feelings and not participate. I hope you don't make a habit of inviting Latter-day Saints to leave the church just because you disagree with their opinions.

[TAO]

I finally listened to Dr. William Bradshaw's (of BYU�s Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology) presentation on the biological basis for homosexuality. It's a great listen and even I was surprised by the dramatic biological differences between gay and straight men and women.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158

As I was listening, it occurred to me that there is still a lot of wiggle room in this issue for the church to change its stance on homosexuality, without contradicting its teachings on gender. 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. So while gender characteristics and the application of them from the The Family: A Proclamation to the World still apply to straight men and women, they don't apply to gay men and women, because, essentially, they can be thought of as a 3rd & 4th gender, which we did not previously understand to be the case based on our limited light and knowledge.

Perhaps I should say 4th & 5th gender, since 3rd gender has often been used to describe hermaphrodites & transsexuals.

For a short intro to one of the biological differences talked about by Dr. Bradshaw, see:

http://www.unl.edu/r...omo_finger.html

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.

Semlogo. One problem. Technichally, pedophiles and Rapists would make up two other genders as well.

The Lord mentioned, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:11). I don't think God intends to change it.

I am not going to excuse myself from my temptations because they were born into me. The Lord knew which temptations I was going to face when I was sent down here. And he knew I could overcome them if I tried hard enough. I'm not going to excuse myself from them because he expects me to overcome them. No matter, what, why, or how they seem to have come to pass. All that matters is that we overcome them, in the end. That is all that matters. We may say this or that, but the fact will always remain; we were assigned our trials to overcome them, and it will be for our own good that we were assigned them. So let's not worry about how it happened, when overcoming them is sooooo much more important.

From someone who may have a slight bout of gender identity himself, to a very small degree,

Best Wishes,

TAO

[LDS Guy 1986]

Are your sure about that? What would happen to your church membership if you were to practice polygamy?

And since you stress the importance of being lawfully wedded (not that there was such a thing as legal marriages in, say, the Old Testament), isn't that an argument for gay marriage?

The practice is currently banned but you are not talking about polygamy now, you are talking about the polygamy in the Church pre 1890 when the practice was allowed. At that time polygamy was allowed and was not a sin, one could argue that it still isn't a sin since widowers can marry again in the temple and still have more than one eternal spouse. Look at L. Tom Perry he has two eternal marriages, having more than 1 wife is not a sin.

(Avatar removed by Mod, per prior warning: Remove the logo before you post again.)

[semlogo]

Semlogo. One problem. Technichally, pedophiles and Rapists would make up two other genders as well.

The Lord mentioned, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:11). I don't think God intends to change it.

I am not going to excuse myself from my temptations because they were born into me. The Lord knew which temptations I was going to face when I was sent down here. And he knew I could overcome them if I tried hard enough. I'm not going to excuse myself from them because he expects me to overcome them. No matter, what, why, or how they seem to have come to pass. All that matters is that we overcome them, in the end. That is all that matters. We may say this or that, but the fact will always remain; we were assigned our trials to overcome them, and it will be for our own good that we were assigned them. So let's not worry about how it happened, when overcoming them is sooooo much more important.

From someone who may have a slight bout of gender identity himself, to a very small degree,

Best Wishes,

TAO

No, technically they don't. What is this compulsion for people to compare gay people with the worst kinds of predators? They're not comparable. Do you have a rigorous study that shows physical differences in pedos and rapists? No, you just assumed. That's very hurtful and insulting to our gay brothers and sisters.

[TAO]

No, technically they don't. What is this compulsion for people to compare gay people with the worst kinds of predators? They're not comparable. Do you have a rigorous study that shows physical differences in pedos and rapists? No, you just assumed. That's very hurtful and insulting to our gay brothers and sisters.

Well if peds and rapusts don't qualify as another gender, I cannot see how you can make extra genders for those with homosexual tendencies. Is gender based on attraction or physical appearance?

Semolgo, also considering that people have genetic tendencies to become rapists/pedos, yes I do have physical difference evidences, in the genes.

Technichally under that definition I as someone who has Autism should have his own gender. I was using the two previous examples to show differences in attractions, not to compare them to my brothers and sisters.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[krose]

Semolgo, also considering that people have genetic tendencies to become rapists/pedos, yes I do have physical difference evidences, in the genes.

Where is this shown?

[Daniel2]

...people have genetic tendencies to become rapists/pedos, yes I do have physical difference evidences, in the genes.

...

Best Wishes,

TAO

Hey, TAO,

Although you and I disagree above the morality of consensual same-sex romantic relationships and behavior, I think we're likely to both agree with and support the general rule that biological predispositions should not excuse the predatory, non-consensual sexual behaviors of rape or pedophilia. Unlike adults who mutually agree to enter into and engage in heterosexual or homosexual relationships and/or behaviors, both rape and pedophilia fail to meet the standard of consent, meaning one of the individuals becomes the "perpetrator"--the individual or adult who sexually forces him- or -herself on the other unwilling participant; while the other individual becomes the "victim"--the individual being raped, or the under-age child).

Having acknowledged the above, I'm curious as to what links or sources you claim indicate that a genetic tendency (what you refer to as "evidence of physical difference, in the genes") exits in rapists (which is new to me) or pedophiles (which I've heard alluded to, before, but would be interested in reading more about).

Could you please provide your sources showing that rape and pedophilia have geneitic predispositions/physical differences/are "in the genes"?

Thanks,

Darin

[krose]

Could you please provide your sources showing that rape and pedophilia have geneitic predispositions/physical differences?

The only thing I have seen regarding tendencies toward pedophilia is research that shows brain anomalies caused by an early trauma, such as being abused as a child. Definitely nothing genetic.

I hope he enlightens us soon.

[CV75]

Jumping in late: studies have been done to show that one's thoughts can also change their DNA (collaborative investigation by Benson-Henry Institute for Mind/Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Genomics Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, for example).

[Mike Richards]

The only thing I have seen regarding tendencies toward pedophilia is research that shows brain anomalies caused by an early trauma, such as being abused as a child. Definitely nothing genetic.

I hope he enlightens us soon.

I haven't read anything on the topic, but, towards the end of the discussion Semlogo linked to in the OP, someone asked a question about pedophiles and the professor answered that, (at 1:15 - 1:16), yes, there was some indication the pedophilia is also genetically based, but he doesn't know much about it.

[semlogo]

Well if peds and rapusts don't qualify as another gender, I cannot see how you can make extra genders for those with homosexual tendencies. Is gender based on attraction or physical appearance?

Semolgo, also considering that people have genetic tendencies to become rapists/pedos, yes I do have physical difference evidences, in the genes.

Technichally under that definition I as someone who has Autism should have his own gender. I was using the two previous examples to show differences in attractions, not to compare them to my brothers and sisters.

Best Wishes,

TAO

You don't seem to have understood my proposition. They're not another gender because of what they do. They're another gender because they have a mixture of female and male physical characteristics, such as brain make-up, finger length ratio, inner ear differences, etc.

The differences are factual. The idea of them being a third/fourth gender is only my opinion and interpretation of the data.

Your autism does not give you a mix of male and female physical characteristics.

[semlogo]

I haven't read anything on the topic, but, towards the end of the discussion Semlogo linked to in the OP, someone asked a question about pedophiles and the professor answered that, (at 1:15 - 1:16), yes, there was some indication the pedophilia is also genetically based, but he doesn't know much about it.

I don't think there is enough known about it to make a conclusion. The professor says it's challenging to find enough people to study these gay issues. It's even harder to try to study pedophiles. You need large numbers of subjects for your results to have statistical weight.

If it does turn out that pedophiles have some sort of genetic or other biological predisposition that is beyond their control, we would still consider that maladaptive, as opposed to homosexuality, which is neutral. As it stands now, I don't think there is enough information to come to a conclusion about pedophiles.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

Good morning.

All those factors are well within the normal range of physical differences of individuals, and do not entail a proclivity to homosexual behavior. The Pygmy is no more homosexually orientated than the Watusi.