Does God Primarily Give Revelation Only In Response To Requests For It?

[William James]

You've chosen to focus on the political question while your diatribe was on the religious side.

As a libertarian (small "L"), it is my position that the state ought to take no action against anyone whose own acts do not harm unwilling others. If twenty adults want to sit naked in a circular room and shoot curare-tipped darts at each other, it's their (stupid) choice, and the state ought to let them do so. However, if a non-participant wanders into the room, the game must stop immediately: he is not a willing player.

The religious argument is based on entirely different premises: God's will and knowledge on the matter are the only points that matter. While it may (which I do not concede) be right that it is our lack of willingness to embrace (figuratively speaking, of course) our homosexual brethren and sistern is all that keeps Father from reversing the course of the Church in this regard, there is no evidence to support the implication that the wickedness of homosexuality is man's work and not one of the facts of the universe.

One of those facts is that we are God's children. We bring Him glory when we become like Him, among other things. He has (at least) one wife (see "O, My Father", The Family, A Proclamation to the World), and His creative activities are based on Their being heavenly Parents. Those who do not achieve Celestial glory do not bring Him/Them glory, and Celestial glory is to become exactly as They are. Homosexuality does not permit this because Male and Female are eternal, complementary concepts.

It is therefor impossible for God to "allow" homosexual behaviors to exist in His kingdom.

We do not know why people become homosexuals. I have a well formed opinion based on personal experience as a young man working with evangelical homosexuals and seeing/reading plays/movies/books like A Chorus Line. There are homosexual recruiters out there. One frequent statement I heard was "Today's conquest is tomorrow's competition." As a myopic pre-schooler, the homosexual dancer in A Chorus Line was fondled repeatedly on the front row in a movie theatre by two old men while his mother sat further back with the rest of her children. But "how" doesn't answer the question "why?", and neither addresses your question.

I believe that homosexuality is an affront to the universe because it is in opposition to Father's plan for the human race: to become like Father or Mother. It is wholly incompatible with What They are.

Again, you ask us to use political logic in addressing a religious question. Your battlefield is oriented in the wrong direction, and is tilted strongly in favor of your chosen team.

Lehi

Lehi,

Thank you for your response. Although I disagree with you, I trust that you are sincere. I am NOT analyzing this from a political perspective. I am analyzing it from a generally secular humanist moral perspective (though I personally believe in God and Jesus Christ, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God (on that note, I can't recall any of Joseph's or Jesus' teachings on homosexuality- help me out if you know of any references)). My philosophy on morality (not just "sexual morality" as the term "morality" typically connotes in LDS circles) can be summarized as follows:

All is permitted, unless there is an objectively reasonable justification for prohibition. In addition, we have a proactive duty to study, ponder, and search for the truth and enlightenment, whatever it may happen to be, and to make reasonable self-sacrifice in order to make the world a better place and improve the lives of others. Notwithstanding our generalized duty to do good in the world, we have the moral right to seek our own happiness, within reason, so long as we do not unduly harm others in the process. God commands us to behave righteously, but generally does not give commandments for capricious reasons (such as merely to glorify God, to make us miserable or subservient, to "test" whether we will violate objective moral codes just to see if we will obey, etc.). God treasures individual liberty and only commands restriction of that liberty in order to better ourselves, and to make ourselves and others happier and more enlightened. In helping to ascertain whether purported revelations from God our authentic, we should start from the premise that God has, at a minimum, all five of the following attributes: (1) he is loving; (2) he is just; (3) he is merciful; (4) he is wise; and (5) he is powerful. (I reject the notions of absolute omniscience and omnipotence, because they lead to results which appear to undermine other necessary attributes of God.) Although we mortals will never possess all of the knowledge and understanding that God has, the justice of God could not reasonably condemn anyone who lacks the ability to grasp and accept any purported commandment which is not intuitive or objectively justifiable by inherent human conscience and evidence. Therefore, God might very well command something which does not have any apparent objective reasoning behind it (e.g., that people should clip their toenails twice a week, dissolve them in acid, and then drink the solution in a cup of herbal tea), but God could not justly condemn those who violate the commandment while they remain in ignorance about the reasons God gave it. Where a commandment appears to restrict human liberty without an apparent objective justification, or if the commandment reasonably appears to contradict the essential five characteristics of God listed above, there is a strong likelihood that the purported commandment is inauthentic and man-made.

You and Jeff K have listed some examples of behaviors which you appear to believe are on par with homosexual behavior: prostitution, gambling, naked people throwing darts at each other, and injecting heroin. I will now explain why those are different in my view (prostitution is the most difficult to tackle, so I will start with the others).

1. Naked people throwing darts at each other. Darts are harmful. You are likely to create objective physical harm to the body. Someone could lose an eye, damage an organ, damage the skin or a blood vessel, and possibly die or have to go to the hospital (realistically probable if you are throwing darts at a naked human being). The mere fact that the activity is consensual does not make it moral, because, as I stated before, I believe that humans have a proactive duty to do good in the world. If our bodies are physically harmed or damaged, we are likely to have less of an ability to do good in the world, and to live a longer and healthier life in order to fulfill our other mission mentioned above, which is to seek enlightenment.

2. Gambling. Gambling in the classic sense (in a casino) is harmful because the odds are stacked against you to lose money. If you lose money (and through a venue which is not charitable, like a casino), then you are reducing your ability to proactively do good in the world. In many cases, gambling can create objective severe adverse effects on one particular sector of the world- your own family, whom you have a duty to support. Taking financial risks where by definition the odds are stacked against you, when the money risked should be supporting a family, is immoral. In fairness, we must acknowledge that gambling for some people does provide some entertainment value, and there could theoretically exist situations in which gambling is only nominally immoral, without having significant adverse impacts. But on the whole, for the overwhelming majority of typical gambling situations, it is objectively wrong.

3. Injecting Heroin. Heroin is, by all scientific evidence, harful to the body, and in large doses or with prolonged exposure, can cause serious, objectively observable, permanent, physical damage. The damage caused our our bodies, and the resulting hinderance of our ability to fulfil our general moral duty to do good in the world, far outweighs any entertainment value which one might gain by using heroin. To be fair, heroin also can be used for medicinal purposes, such as to dull or eliminate extreme pain, and in those circumstances, temporary use could be morally justified, because there is no virtue in experiencing pain for pain's sake! (Note: whenever we are considering the burden/benefit analysis, we should take into account reasonable alternatives for both getting benefits and avoiding negative consequences).

4. Now, Prostitution. Prostitution is hard to generalize, because there are many varieties, the biggest distinction being between coerced versus consensual adult prostitution. In addition, it can be practiced in many ways, some of which are significantly riskier than others, particularly with respect to its propensity for spreading disease and creating unwanted pregnancies. I have no personal experience with prostitution, but have read many articles and viewed documentaries on the subject. As to coerced prostitution, that is ALWAYS wrong because it by definition invades personal conscience and liberty. Truly consensual prostitution, on the other hand, could theoretically be morally permissible in my book in certain very limited theoretical situations. I could give some elaborate hypotheticals, but I am not going to take the time to do it right now. I should comment, however, that fairly speaking, there is not always a fine line between prostitution and traditional marriage (take a situation, for example, where a woman marries a man for his money and not for love. I cannot see why in the eyes of God such a woman should be considered all righteous when all that separates her from a prostitute is that she has a formalized marriage). Suffice it to say that there is probably something else at work here- I think that couple intimacy is more likely to exist when both partners are exclusive with each other. I suppose (though I do not know) that in general, this increased likelihood of couple intimacy and happiness, along with the reduced risk of disease and children born outside of stable relationships, is a sufficient moral justification for curtailing our sexual liberty and prohibiting even consensual prostitution. Then again, if we accept that God is a polygamist (as many LDS do and have), then perhaps this argument about inherent marital intimacy based upon exclusivity falls apart. Further note: my perception is that the primary motivations behind many conservative zealots, when condemning prostitution, is the subconscious suspicion about sex generally. They/we have been taught in our puritannical religious tradition that we should feel guilty about our own pleasure. I felt that way once, but have come to completely reject this notion now.

Lehi has proposed that homosexuality is antithetical to God's plan based upon the Proclamation on the Family, and the hymn, "O My Father." (I love that hymn, by the way, and it happened to be written by one of Joseph's plural wives.) I also have faith in a Heavenly Mother. But why must we assume that procreation during mortality is something we must strive for to become like our heavenly parents? What about the sterile, the impotent, the deformed, the diseased, and the hermaphrodites among us? They will not procreate here on earth. We do not tell an impotent man or a sterile woman that they cannot be married. Have you considered that perhaps homosexuality is a temporary condition which will be remedied in the hereafter, and that for now, it may very well be acceptable to God for two gay men to have an intimate relationship during mortality? After all, we do not condemn heterosexual couples merely because they do not have a temple marriage or because they are incapable of pro-creating. I do not see how engaging in homosexual activity on Earth hinders one from becoming like God. Are we afraid that somehow if they act in a homosexual way on Earth, God will be incapable in the next life to make changes to their sexual orientation? I don't see how that must be, even if gender is an eternal characteristic of the soul. Is an eternal characteristic of the soul to feel sexual attraction towards the opposite sex? Clearly not- what about the signficant asexual population among us? What about the pre-existence? Were we sexually attracted to the opposite sex then when we did not even have bodies yet? I have never heard any doctrinal pronouncements on that. In summary, I cannot see at all how it must follow that homosexual behavior must be prohibited by God, based uopn the mere fact that we are to strive to become like God. It seems to me we know awfully little about God's sexuality, and it is almost never discussed in church or official church channels. Inasmuch as a forced celibate life would certainly make me miserable, I cannot fathom how a loving God would create anyone with un-riddable homosexual attraction and then punish or condemn them for not confining themselves to a miserable life of unnecessary celibacy.

You made a reference to my "chosen team." I am not sure exactly what you meant, but I would say that I play for the side of love and human happiness. If God condemns me for that position, then he sure has not done a good job of showing me why I am wrong and "should know better." On the other hand, I can't help but to imagine God one day hearing the pleas of all those who, even in our modern times with all of our scientific knowledge, still managed to zealously claim that God condemns homosexuality. I imagine God would say something like this:

"What were you thinking? Didn't you realize I am a loving God? Didn't you realize that of you I expected tolerance and love towards people whose only significant difference from you was their sexual orientation? Didn't all those suicides make you think and question? Why didn't you listen? Why didn't you pray with an open mind on the matter? Was it not obvious that ancient writings on the subject were the philosophies of men who operated with limited understanding, fears, prejudices, and ignorance? Why did you not embrace your gay brothers and sisters as they were? Why were you so blinded to their devotion, love, and faith? Yet, after all this, I am a merciful God, and love you unconditionally. Be enlightened, and study to understand these things, so that your minds will be prepared to accept greater light and knowledge."

Lehi, I can tell you with sincerity that I once thought much like you do, on this topic and many others. It has been a long journey to get to where I am now in my faith. And on the topic of homosexuality, part of my journey has been to study the subject objectively and to talk to gay people. I am not claiming that you are totally ignorant, but I would implore you to seek out some gay people and talk with them in depth about the subject. One thing I am sure of- virtually no one chooses to be gay, and those who are capable of ridding themselves of homosexual tendancies are few and far between.

[Jeff K.]

When one has no real standard and makes all things relative, anything can be justified. Prostitution, homosexulaity, gambling, drug addiction. Anything can be made a "right" for the individual who has a proclivity for that vice.

[Jeff K.]

2. Gambling. Gambling in the classic sense (in a casino) is harmful because the odds are stacked against you to lose money. If you lose money (and through a venue which is not charitable, like a casino), then you are reducing your ability to proactively do good in the world. In many cases, gambling can create objective severe adverse effects on one particular sector of the world- your own family, whom you have a duty to support. Taking financial risks where by definition the odds are stacked against you, when the money risked should be supporting a family, is immoral. In fairness, we must acknowledge that gambling for some people does provide some entertainment value, and there could theoretically exist situations in which gambling is only nominally immoral, without having significant adverse impacts. But on the whole, for the overwhelming majority of typical gambling situations, it is objectively wrong.

Chuckle, so its only wrong if you are at a disadvantage, ie the odds are against you. Since when does being at a disadvantage make something wrong? Gambling takes place outside of casinos without the house rules, thereby evening the odds on a number of games. And then there is poker, where everyone has an equal chance. Odds do not make something a virtue or a vice. Your analogy fails.

Sigh, much of the same reasoning can go towards smoking, drinking, prostitution.

You have no objective standard, you deny the light of Christ and you can justify anything based on any philosophy you choose.

God does not find it acceptable for two gay men to have sex. He condemns it. Simple.

"What were you thinking? Didn't you realize I am a loving God? Didn't you realize that of you I expected tolerance and love towards people whose only significant difference from you was their sexual orientation? Didn't all those suicides make you think and question? Why didn't you listen? Why didn't you pray with an open mind on the matter? Was it not obvious that ancient writings on the subject were the philosophies of men who operated with limited understanding, fears, prejudices, and ignorance? Why did you not embrace your gay brothers and sisters as they were? Why were you so blinded to their devotion, love, and faith? Yet, after all this, I am a merciful God, and love you unconditionally. Be enlightened, and study to understand these things, so that your minds will be prepared to accept greater light and knowledge."

I would suggest that before you attempt to think like God, you might want to consider understanding Him. Judas committed suicide when he realized what he had done. Will you now condemn Christ for being the cause of the despondency Judas felt? He knew what he had done was wrong, and that he had rejected God. Are you telling us it is Christ's fault that Judas committed suicide? I reject such a position.

We have prophets and apostles who pray quite often for guidance. We as members pray quite often for guidance. The ancient writings were correct in their condemnation of homosexuality, the prophets have reaffirmed it, indeed, the churches membership following the same method of prayer have confirmed it. It seems you want us to ignore it. We can't.

You also confuse love with acceptance. One can love a brother with a proclivity to steal, or lie, or cheat, or have extramarital affairs because they are driven to it. That does not mean one accepts the behavior. Try to realize that. I would say that Latter-Day Saints have spent more time deling with the issue, being ostracized for their choice, and praying about it than you can ever imagine, which reflects a certain ignorance you have as to what Latter-Day Saints are about and what they believe in, than you can ever imagine.

In effect you have embraced the philosophies of men, and you are attempting to sell it to us as Gods. We know cheap tin when we see it.

[LeSellers]

Naked people throwing darts at each other. Darts are harmful. You are likely to create objective physical harm to the body. Someone could lose an eye, damage an organ, damage the skin or a blood vessel, and possibly die or have to go to the hospital (realistically probable if you are throwing darts at a naked human being). The mere fact that the activity is consensual does not make it moral, because, as I stated before, I believe that humans have a proactive duty to do good in the world. If our bodies are physically harmed or damaged, we are likely to have less of an ability to do good in the world, and to live a longer and healthier life in order to fulfill our other mission mentioned above, which is to seek enlightenment.

Please note that I chose this example precisely because it is so outlandish. But please note also that this example is purely political. First, I don't believe that anyone would engage in this activity, much less twenty people. Second, the point I was making is that the state has absolutely no business forbidding people's involvement in such obviously stupid activities. (Just as I believe the state has no business forbidding people's using "recreational" drugs, like alcohol or cocaine: as long as he does not hurt anyone else—and specifically me or my family—I don't care what he does: he will reap the fruits of his labors.) This had nothing at all to do with the Church, nor with God's point of view.

Lehi has proposed that homosexuality is antithetical to God's plan based upon the Proclamation on the Family, and the hymn, "O My Father."

No, I did not. I used the hymn and the Proclamation only to establish the fact of Father and Mother's relationship.

My position, that men and women are designed to, and are destined to (absent their personal disinclination to participate) follow in Their footsteps and have eternal increase, is based on the goal Father has set for us: to follow in His footsteps to that very end. That's what Doc&Cov 132 is all about.

why must we assume that procreation during mortality is something we must strive for to become like our heavenly parents?

Do we not read in the scriptures that the same spirit that possesses us at death will be the one we have when we are sent to Paradise or the Spirit Prison, and even in the Resurrection (with the caveat that we can repent in the Spirit World, and the repentance will change us fundamentally).

Those who act on homosexual proclivities will become homosexual. And homosexuality is not Godlike. I cannot imagine that Father is homosexual, and, ipso facto, he who is Godlike cannot be other than what God is.

What about the sterile, the impotent, the deformed, the diseased, and the hermaphrodites among us? They will not procreate here on earth. We do not tell an impotent man or a sterile woman that they cannot be married.

"Procreation" is not a "salvific ordinance". The sterile, etc., among whom our daughter-in-law, are not acting completely in opposition to all the laws of God. Homosexuals are.

Have you considered that perhaps homosexuality is a temporary condition which will be remedied in the hereafter, and that for now, it may very well be acceptable to God for two gay men to have an intimate relationship during mortality?

Yes, I have. And I hope so, I even believe it can be, but I also believe it will be the case only for those who repent of the grievous evil of homosexuality.

You made a reference to my "chosen team." I am not sure exactly what you meant, but I would say that I play for the side of love and human happiness.

Your chosen team is the one that believes that God will change on the matter of homosexuality and its destructive effects on its practitioners.

Lehi, I can tell you with sincerity that I once thought much like you do, on this topic and many others. It has been a long journey to get to where I am now in my faith.

Thanks for the compliment, but I am 63 years old. I have thought about this at length and deeply. I cannot see you point at all. There is nothing in the Bible, or any of the other scriptures, that points to your desired conclusion. Yes, God loves all of His children. I believe the burden of homosexuality was given to people based on their personal, spiritual needs as only Father could understand them. I have no idea what would require such a load, nor what the possible/desired outcomes would be (except overcoming it).

Lehi

[Storm Rider]

No.

Gay couples are not married, they merely coupulating. There is no recognition from God that they are married, anymore than stealling is forced charity. You may want to change the definition of stealing or theft to "forced charity" but that will not change what it is.

Gay couples do not copulate; it is completely, biologically beyond their ability i.e. they cannot have sexual intercourse. All they are capable of mutual masturbation and it never moves beyond that. I would still submit that their sex life is an abmination before God. Biologically, the body was not designed for this experience.

The agenda of so many is to dress this up as just two people deeply in love. The problem is that lipstick will only go so far before you must face the reality that their "expression" of love goes against the laws of nature and the laws of God.

[california boy]

LeSellers, on 20 August 2011 - 05:29 PM, said:

You've chosen to focus on the political question while your diatribe was on the religious side.

As a libertarian (small "L"), it is my position that the state ought to take no action against anyone whose own acts do not harm unwilling others. If twenty adults want to sit naked in a circular room and shoot curare-tipped darts at each other, it's their (stupid) choice, and the state ought to let them do so. However, if a non-participant wanders into the room, the game must stop immediately: he is not a willing player.

The religious argument is based on entirely different premises: God's will and knowledge on the matter are the only points that matter. While it may (which I do not concede) be right that it is our lack of willingness to embrace (figuratively speaking, of course) our homosexual brethren and sistern is all that keeps Father from reversing the course of the Church in this regard, there is no evidence to support the implication that the wickedness of homosexuality is man's work and not one of the facts of the universe.

One of those facts is that we are God's children. We bring Him glory when we become like Him, among other things. He has (at least) one wife (see "O, My Father", The Family, A Proclamation to the World), and His creative activities are based on Their being heavenly Parents. Those who do not achieve Celestial glory do not bring Him/Them glory, and Celestial glory is to become exactly as They are. Homosexuality does not permit this because Male and Female are eternal, complementary concepts.

It is therefor impossible for God to "allow" homosexual behaviors to exist in His kingdom.

We do not know why people become homosexuals. I have a well formed opinion based on personal experience as a young man working with evangelical homosexuals and seeing/reading plays/movies/books like A Chorus Line. There are homosexual recruiters out there. One frequent statement I heard was "Today's conquest is tomorrow's competition." As a myopic pre-schooler, the homosexual dancer in A Chorus Line was fondled repeatedly on the front row in a movie theatre by two old men while his mother sat further back with the rest of her children. But "how" doesn't answer the question "why?", and neither addresses your question.

I believe that homosexuality is an affront to the universe because it is in opposition to Father's plan for the human race: to become like Father or Mother. It is wholly incompatible with What They are.

Again, you ask us to use political logic in addressing a religious question. Your battlefield is oriented in the wrong direction, and is tilted strongly in favor of your chosen team.

Lehi

Lehi,

Thank you for your response. Although I disagree with you, I trust that you are sincere. I am NOT analyzing this from a political perspective. I am analyzing it from a generally secular humanist moral perspective (though I personally believe in God and Jesus Christ, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God (on that note, I can't recall any of Joseph's or Jesus' teachings on homosexuality- help me out if you know of any references)). My philosophy on morality (not just "sexual morality" as the term "morality" typically connotes in LDS circles) can be summarized as follows:

All is permitted, unless there is an objectively reasonable justification for prohibition. In addition, we have a proactive duty to study, ponder, and search for the truth and enlightenment, whatever it may happen to be, and to make reasonable self-sacrifice in order to make the world a better place and improve the lives of others. Notwithstanding our generalized duty to do good in the world, we have the moral right to seek our own happiness, within reason, so long as we do not unduly harm others in the process. God commands us to behave righteously, but generally does not give commandments for capricious reasons (such as merely to glorify God, to make us miserable or subservient, to "test" whether we will violate objective moral codes just to see if we will obey, etc.). God treasures individual liberty and only commands restriction of that liberty in order to better ourselves, and to make ourselves and others happier and more enlightened. In helping to ascertain whether purported revelations from God our authentic, we should start from the premise that God has, at a minimum, all five of the following attributes: (1) he is loving; (2) he is just; (3) he is merciful; (4) he is wise; and (5) he is powerful. (I reject the notions of absolute omniscience and omnipotence, because they lead to results which appear to undermine other necessary attributes of God.) Although we mortals will never possess all of the knowledge and understanding that God has, the justice of God could not reasonably condemn anyone who lacks the ability to grasp and accept any purported commandment which is not intuitive or objectively justifiable by inherent human conscience and evidence. Therefore, God might very well command something which does not have any apparent objective reasoning behind it (e.g., that people should clip their toenails twice a week, dissolve them in acid, and then drink the solution in a cup of herbal tea), but God could not justly condemn those who violate the commandment while they remain in ignorance about the reasons God gave it. Where a commandment appears to restrict human liberty without an apparent objective justification, or if the commandment reasonably appears to contradict the essential five characteristics of God listed above, there is a strong likelihood that the purported commandment is inauthentic and man-made.

You and Jeff K have listed some examples of behaviors which you appear to believe are on par with homosexual behavior: prostitution, gambling, naked people throwing darts at each other, and injecting heroin. I will now explain why those are different in my view (prostitution is the most difficult to tackle, so I will start with the others).

1. Naked people throwing darts at each other. Darts are harmful. You are likely to create objective physical harm to the body. Someone could lose an eye, damage an organ, damage the skin or a blood vessel, and possibly die or have to go to the hospital (realistically probable if you are throwing darts at a naked human being). The mere fact that the activity is consensual does not make it moral, because, as I stated before, I believe that humans have a proactive duty to do good in the world. If our bodies are physically harmed or damaged, we are likely to have less of an ability to do good in the world, and to live a longer and healthier life in order to fulfill our other mission mentioned above, which is to seek enlightenment.

2. Gambling. Gambling in the classic sense (in a casino) is harmful because the odds are stacked against you to lose money. If you lose money (and through a venue which is not charitable, like a casino), then you are reducing your ability to proactively do good in the world. In many cases, gambling can create objective severe adverse effects on one particular sector of the world- your own family, whom you have a duty to support. Taking financial risks where by definition the odds are stacked against you, when the money risked should be supporting a family, is immoral. In fairness, we must acknowledge that gambling for some people does provide some entertainment value, and there could theoretically exist situations in which gambling is only nominally immoral, without having significant adverse impacts. But on the whole, for the overwhelming majority of typical gambling situations, it is objectively wrong.

3. Injecting Heroin. Heroin is, by all scientific evidence, harful to the body, and in large doses or with prolonged exposure, can cause serious, objectively observable, permanent, physical damage. The damage caused our our bodies, and the resulting hinderance of our ability to fulfil our general moral duty to do good in the world, far outweighs any entertainment value which one might gain by using heroin. To be fair, heroin also can be used for medicinal purposes, such as to dull or eliminate extreme pain, and in those circumstances, temporary use could be morally justified, because there is no virtue in experiencing pain for pain's sake! (Note: whenever we are considering the burden/benefit analysis, we should take into account reasonable alternatives for both getting benefits and avoiding negative consequences).

4. Now, Prostitution. Prostitution is hard to generalize, because there are many varieties, the biggest distinction being between coerced versus consensual adult prostitution. In addition, it can be practiced in many ways, some of which are significantly riskier than others, particularly with respect to its propensity for spreading disease and creating unwanted pregnancies. I have no personal experience with prostitution, but have read many articles and viewed documentaries on the subject. As to coerced prostitution, that is ALWAYS wrong because it by definition invades personal conscience and liberty. Truly consensual prostitution, on the other hand, could theoretically be morally permissible in my book in certain very limited theoretical situations. I could give some elaborate hypotheticals, but I am not going to take the time to do it right now. I should comment, however, that fairly speaking, there is not always a fine line between prostitution and traditional marriage (take a situation, for example, where a woman marries a man for his money and not for love. I cannot see why in the eyes of God such a woman should be considered all righteous when all that separates her from a prostitute is that she has a formalized marriage). Suffice it to say that there is probably something else at work here- I think that couple intimacy is more likely to exist when both partners are exclusive with each other. I suppose (though I do not know) that in general, this increased likelihood of couple intimacy and happiness, along with the reduced risk of disease and children born outside of stable relationships, is a sufficient moral justification for curtailing our sexual liberty and prohibiting even consensual prostitution. Then again, if we accept that God is a polygamist (as many LDS do and have), then perhaps this argument about inherent marital intimacy based upon exclusivity falls apart. Further note: my perception is that the primary motivations behind many conservative zealots, when condemning prostitution, is the subconscious suspicion about sex generally. They/we have been taught in our puritannical religious tradition that we should feel guilty about our own pleasure. I felt that way once, but have come to completely reject this notion now.

Lehi has proposed that homosexuality is antithetical to God's plan based upon the Proclamation on the Family, and the hymn, "O My Father." (I love that hymn, by the way, and it happened to be written by one of Joseph's plural wives.) I also have faith in a Heavenly Mother. But why must we assume that procreation during mortality is something we must strive for to become like our heavenly parents? What about the sterile, the impotent, the deformed, the diseased, and the hermaphrodites among us? They will not procreate here on earth. We do not tell an impotent man or a sterile woman that they cannot be married. Have you considered that perhaps homosexuality is a temporary condition which will be remedied in the hereafter, and that for now, it may very well be acceptable to God for two gay men to have an intimate relationship during mortality? After all, we do not condemn heterosexual couples merely because they do not have a temple marriage or because they are incapable of pro-creating. I do not see how engaging in homosexual activity on Earth hinders one from becoming like God. Are we afraid that somehow if they act in a homosexual way on Earth, God will be incapable in the next life to make changes to their sexual orientation? I don't see how that must be, even if gender is an eternal characteristic of the soul. Is an eternal characteristic of the soul to feel sexual attraction towards the opposite sex? Clearly not- what about the signficant asexual population among us? What about the pre-existence? Were we sexually attracted to the opposite sex then when we did not even have bodies yet? I have never heard any doctrinal pronouncements on that. In summary, I cannot see at all how it must follow that homosexual behavior must be prohibited by God, based uopn the mere fact that we are to strive to become like God. It seems to me we know awfully little about God's sexuality, and it is almost never discussed in church or official church channels. Inasmuch as a forced celibate life would certainly make me miserable, I cannot fathom how a loving God would create anyone with un-riddable homosexual attraction and then punish or condemn them for not confining themselves to a miserable life of unnecessary celibacy.

You made a reference to my "chosen team." I am not sure exactly what you meant, but I would say that I play for the side of love and human happiness. If God condemns me for that position, then he sure has not done a good job of showing me why I am wrong and "should know better." On the other hand, I can't help but to imagine God one day hearing the pleas of all those who, even in our modern times with all of our scientific knowledge, still managed to zealously claim that God condemns homosexuality. I imagine God would say something like this:

"What were you thinking? Didn't you realize I am a loving God? Didn't you realize that of you I expected tolerance and love towards people whose only significant difference from you was their sexual orientation? Didn't all those suicides make you think and question? Why didn't you listen? Why didn't you pray with an open mind on the matter? Was it not obvious that ancient writings on the subject were the philosophies of men who operated with limited understanding, fears, prejudices, and ignorance? Why did you not embrace your gay brothers and sisters as they were? Why were you so blinded to their devotion, love, and faith? Yet, after all this, I am a merciful God, and love you unconditionally. Be enlightened, and study to understand these things, so that your minds will be prepared to accept greater light and knowledge."

Lehi, I can tell you with sincerity that I once thought much like you do, on this topic and many others. It has been a long journey to get to where I am now in my faith. And on the topic of homosexuality, part of my journey has been to study the subject objectively and to talk to gay people. I am not claiming that you are totally ignorant, but I would implore you to seek out some gay people and talk with them in depth about the subject. One thing I am sure of- virtually no one chooses to be gay, and those who are capable of ridding themselves of homosexual tendancies are few and far between.

Sometimes when I see two points of view like this, I ask myself which one sounds more like what Jesus taught and which one sounds more like what the Pharisees taught.

[Storm Rider]

Sometimes when I see two points of view like this, I ask myself which one sounds more like what Jesus taught and which one sounds more like what the Pharisees taught.

When you say that all I hear is, "Go and sin no more". Is that what you were thinking also?

[california boy]

There are homosexual recruiters out there. One frequent statement I heard was "Today's conquest is tomorrow's competition."

Lehi

That is pretty funny. You really think there are gay "recruiters" out there and that is how you become gay??? I thought that idea went out with the 1950;s So who recruits the straight people?? Is is one of those things that if you have your first sexual experience with someone of the same sex, you become gay? And if your first sexual experience is with someone who is of the opposite sex, you become straight? When you think about it, even you must find this idea a little bizzair. There is a blog I would encourage you to read if you really want to understand this issue a little better. I would love to have you take a look at it and let me know what you think.

Born This Way/

[california boy]

Gay couples do not copulate; it is completely, biologically beyond their ability i.e. they cannot have sexual intercourse. All they are capable of mutual masturbation and it never moves beyond that. I would still submit that their sex life is an abmination before God. Biologically, the body was not designed for this experience.

The agenda of so many is to dress this up as just two people deeply in love. The problem is that lipstick will only go so far before you must face the reality that their "expression" of love goes against the laws of nature and the laws of God.

I know you seem to have a fixation on how gays have sex, but I think you need to know something. It isn't just gays that have sex this way and you are going to loose a lot of straight people with this argument. You see, it is easy to condemn gays because, well, most straight people are never tempted to be gay.

People like to be most vigilant yelling about sins that will never affect them. I think there is a story in the BofM about people standing on a tower in all their finery proclaiming how they are so glad they are not like those other sinners. That is what you get with straight people that have a fixation on condemning gays.

But when you start, say, trying to pass a proposition on the ballot outlawing oral sex because it is a "moral issue" then all he** will break loose. You think the church got push back from passing prop 8, you have no idea what kind of push back the church would get if they tried to pass a no oral sex proposition.

I think you better stick to the usual arguments to discriminate against gay. You know, if we allow gay marriage then people will want to marry their dogs etc.

[california boy]

When you say that all I hear is, "Go and sin no more". Is that what you were thinking also?

That certainly was what Christ had to say on adultery. He certainly didn't try to pass a proposition to outlaw it. Read the rest of the arguments and see if you can find other similar differences between how Christ looked at others and how the Pharisees looked at others.

[Storm Rider]

I know you seem to have a fixation on how gays have sex, but I think you need to know something. It isn't just gays that have sex this way and you are going to loose a lot of straight people with this argument. You see, it is easy to condemn gays because, well, most straight people are never tempted to be gay.

People like to be most vigilant yelling about sins that will never affect them. I think there is a story in the BofM about people standing on a tower in all their finery proclaiming how they are so glad they are not like those other sinners. That is what you get with straight people that have a fixation on condemning gays.

But when you start, say, trying to pass a proposition on the ballot outlawing oral sex because it is a "moral issue" then all he** will break loose. You think the church got push back from passing prop 8, you have no idea what kind of push back the church would get if they tried to pass a no oral sex proposition.

I think you better stick to the usual arguments to discriminate against gay. You know, if we allow gay marriage then people will want to marry their dogs etc.

So I take it that you were also think of Jeus when he said, "Go and sin no more". Too often people who like to condone sin by focusing on "Jesus loves me" repeated ad nauseum so as not to be caught up in the command, if ye love me, keep my commandments.

I see where you like to belittle those who oppose your position; it is not that I have a fixation on anything except be able to identify sin. Sexual perversion is THE issue when it comes to homosexuality. If it was all homosexuals did was oral sex, then it would not be so perverted. Why don't you list all the ways gays have sex? It would be enlightening for those of us without as much knoweldge as you. Putting it in the open is what is needed rather than keep it hidden.

You make me think of the old saying, "You don't know jack from shine'ola". You are good with your propaganda, staying on message. I simply reject your efforts because I know where you are weakiest. I refuse to limit this topic to two people in love, this is ONLY about perversion and nothing else.

[california boy]

So I take it that you were also think of Jeus when he said, "Go and sin no more". Too often people who like to condone sin by focusing on "Jesus loves me" repeated ad nauseum so as not to be caught up in the command, if ye love me, keep my commandments.

I see where you like to belittle those who oppose your position; it is not that I have a fixation on anything except be able to identify sin. Sexual perversion is THE issue when it comes to homosexuality. If it was all homosexuals did was oral sex, then it would not be so perverted. Why don't you list all the ways gays have sex? It would be enlightening for those of us without as much knoweldge as you. Putting it in the open is what is needed rather than keep it hidden.

You make me think of the old saying, "You don't know jack from shine'ola". You are good with your propaganda, staying on message. I simply reject your efforts because I know where you are weakiest. I refuse to limit this topic to two people in love, this is ONLY about perversion and nothing else.

Sorry you find Jesus message of love to be so irritating. I personally find it central to His teahings. I just don't find the condemnation thing that you seem to enjoy so much a very big deal with Jesus. He seemed to be warmer to the idea of you should worry about your own sins and leave others to Him. But hey that is just my read on the gospel of Jesus. You are entitled to your own fixations.

[Deborah]

Sorry you find Jesus message of love to be so irritating.

You are mistaking his love of the person for his hate of the sin. We continue to love people even when they do something wrong. But God commanded through the Old and New Testaments to repent, put aside all ungodliness as no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of Heaven. He also called certain behaviors abominations. Because someone doesn't meet the requirements has nothing to do with love for that person, and everything to do with the sorrow of the heart when they pervert the ways of the Lord. I have a daughter who has chosen the gay lifestyle. I have never stopped loving her but I have seen how far down the path to destruction this lifestyle is taking her. My sweet precious little girl is someone totally different than she could have been.

But you are right that judgement is for God, except that Priesthood officers are the judges on earth acting in the name of God.

[Jeff K.]

That is pretty funny. You really think there are gay "recruiters" out there and that is how you become gay??? I thought that idea went out with the 1950;s So who recruits the straight people?? Is is one of those things that if you have your first sexual experience with someone of the same sex, you become gay? And if your first sexual experience is with someone who is of the opposite sex, you become straight? When you think about it, even you must find this idea a little bizzair. There is a blog I would encourage you to read if you really want to understand this issue a little better. I would love to have you take a look at it and let me know what you think.

Born This Way/

Sigh, how many examples can be produced of people who "decide" one way or another. My wife's controller was gay, then married, seperated from his wife and then was "gay" again. Bisexuality proves it is much more a choice that blog's want to admit it to being. What is incredibly bizzare is how people ask not to believe what we see, only what they tell us.

[Jeff K.]

Sorry you find Jesus message of love to be so irritating. I personally find it central to His teahings. I just don't find the condemnation thing that you seem to enjoy so much a very big deal with Jesus. He seemed to be warmer to the idea of you should worry about your own sins and leave others to Him. But hey that is just my read on the gospel of Jesus. You are entitled to your own fixations.

Sorry you find God's commandments so annoying that you willingly flaunt them thus proving the true depth of your devotion to Christ's love. I tire of people who use "Christ's love" as a propaganda shield, chaning the definition of His love in order to justify their own self gratification. The rational is akin to a pedophile in an interview saying "Christ loved children more and asked to have them brought to him" Such tactics reject the true nature of Christ and His love, and such tactics reflect how empty the person is in understanding Christ, His love, or the depth of their own separation from what is righteous.

[CV75]

Setting aside any religiously based arguments, what if any reasons do you believe justify a blanket condemnation on all consensual, adult homosexual behavior?

1. The impact of any behavior is never strictly limited to the consenting adults engaged therein, no matter how private they perceive their behavior may be. Everything thing we do affects all other people, directly or indirectly.

2. Homosexual behavior serves no life-promoting purpose and is not a strategy for the survival and perpetuation of sexually-reproducing life forms. In this way, it could be said that the behavior has a blanket condemnation under natural laws (it simply doesn't work). Of course, the same could be said of a myriad of other behaviors that serve no life-promoting purpose, which supports the point.

3. Condemnation is only one human reaction or response to recognizing the life-nullifying nature of a behavior. There are ancillary human responses that could help mollify the problem at hand, but they do not deny that condemnation is appropriate.

[LeSellers]

We do not know why people become homosexuals. I have a well formed opinion based on personal experience as a young man working with evangelical homosexuals and seeing/reading plays/movies/books like A Chorus Line. There are homosexual recruiters out there. One frequent statement I heard was "Today's conquest is tomorrow's competition." As a myopic pre-schooler, the homosexual dancer in A Chorus Line was fondled repeatedly on the front row in a movie theatre by two old men while his mother sat further back with the rest of her children.

That is pretty funny. You really think there are gay "recruiters" out there and that is how you become gay??? I thought that idea went out with the 1950;s So who recruits the straight people?? Is is one of those things that if you have your first sexual experience with someone of the same sex, you become gay? And if your first sexual experience is with someone who is of the opposite sex, you become straight? When you think about it, even you must find this idea a little bizzair. There is a blog I would encourage you to read if you really want to understand this issue a little better. I would love to have you take a look at it and let me know what you think.

I think it is highly polemical, slanted, and very defensive. In short, I reject the premise. The fact that it "went out with the 1950;s [sic]" does not mean it is wrong. A lot of things "went out" in the '60s, things that ought not have gone out. I was there. It was sickening. We are paying the prices of those goings throwings out.

As I said earlier, we do not know why people become homosexuals. And, frankly, I do not much care. But I stick by my assertion that there are recruiters out there. I know there are based on personal experience. Please do not insult me by claiming they do not exist.

One point that seemed to jump out was that many adult homosexuals lived in disturbed families as children. That may be a link; I don't know (did I mention that I do not care much?). It would tie into the premise from A Chorus Line, where the two old men "physically recruited" the four-or-five year-old by fondling him in the movie theatre, literally in front of his mother. A Chorus Line is hardly hard-right, Christian conservatism. The same way advertising and salesmanship changes some people from being non-Chevy owners into Chevy owners, evangelical homosexuals change some people, at least, from being heterosexuals to being homosexuals. We've seen it happen in women on the public stage (e.g., Sonya Johnson and Meredith Baxter). Why it would not happen with men, too, is something you'll have to explain, but I am sure it does, just not in public. Elton Jon seems to have gone that road, but I don't know his whole story.

I do not know your story, either. I don't even know all of my story, having forgotten almost everything prior to my eighth birthday. I believe it would be rare for anyone to recollect things from before he was four or five, once he reaches age ten or so, so what happened to make you what you are may easily have occurred well before you realized that you were "different".

Perhaps (a concession I am not making) there are people who are truly "born that way". That does not change the fact that homosex is evil.

Everyone fights his own demons, as it were. Some are more successful at it that others. But no one has the right to claim that his demons are "special" and that he does not have to fight. And no one has the right to claim that we, whose demons are not his, must accept him because he was "born that way".

Lehi

[William James]

Chuckle, so its only wrong if you are at a disadvantage, ie the odds are against you. Since when does being at a disadvantage make something wrong? Gambling takes place outside of casinos without the house rules, thereby evening the odds on a number of games. And then there is poker, where everyone has an equal chance. Odds do not make something a virtue or a vice. Your analogy fails.

I did not say it is ONLY wrong if you are at a disadvantage. But I included that in my explanation because there is not always a fine line between gambling, on the one hand, and mere wise investment strategy, on the other hand. Is it gambling to invest in stocks? If so, then many of our church leaders are likely guilty of gambling. How about buying a house which might burn down? Is that gambling? How about trading in credit default swaps? What about land speculation (like Joseph Smith engaged in)? What about buying treasury bonds? What about buying "asset-backed securities" in a housing bubble? What about going into debt to obtain a college education, without any guarantee that you will have a job to repay the debt? I point these things out to illustrate that there is a good reason for including "the odds" as one factor in determining whether a particular financial behavior can reasonably be considered "gambling" in the sinful sense. If I am poor, can barely even support my family, and decide to take $5,000 over to a blackjack table (money which is supposed to support my family for the next three months), where the odds are obviously stacked against me, it is much easier to make the case that that behavior is immoral. By contrast, if I am well off, and I invest surplus funds in a stock which, by all objective standards, has an extremely high likelihood of appreciating, it is hard to categorize that as gambling, in my opinion.

Sigh, much of the same reasoning can go towards smoking, drinking, prostitution.

Alright, show me how my reasoning justifies alcohol consumption or smoking. Weren't you listening to what I said? Because smoking and drinking are objectively physically unhealthy, they naturally impede our ability to do good in the world, and without adequate justification. Therefore, they are immoral. I already addressed the prostitution issue, but if you have more to say, feel free.

You have no objective standard, you deny the light of Christ and you can justify anything based on any philosophy you choose.

You are apparently ignoring what I have written. I laid out the standard. It is you who has no objective standard. Your standard is apparently that morality is whatever Thomas S. Monson says it is. That sounds about as subjective as I can imagine.

How am I denying the light of Christ? It sounds as if you are accusing me of being insincere. If that is the case, then you are simply wrong. By the way, I do not doubt YOUR sincerity. I think you genuinely believe the truth of your position, even though I believe you have used a faulty methodology in arriving at it. But I would ask, where do you make the leap that I am denying the light of Christ? Nowhere is it recorded that Christ, at any time during his 33 year mortal life, preached against homosexuality. If it were such an obvious abomination, I would have expected at least some recorded passing references. If you are assuming that I have "denied the light of Christ" merely because I have reached a different conclusion on the gay issue than you have, then it seems that you need some lessons on both humility and the variety of spiritual experiences. Did you know, for example, that equally sincere and worthy honest seekers have gotten contradictory answers about the truth of the Book of Mormon? Why is that? Your explanation would have to be that anyone who gets an answer that it is not true must be asking wrong, or is faithless, or is secretly sinning, etc. What an arrogant, ignorant position! You must not have spoken in depth with such people. If you would come to realize that spiritual witnesses are not nearly as consistent and universal as you apparently imagine, you might realize at least the possibility that I could easily reach my conclusions about the gay issue without "denying the light of Christ".

God does not find it acceptable for two gay men to have sex. He condemns it. Simple.

Now you are back to square one. I understand you think God condemns homosexual behavior, but I have yet to hear a rational argument for why God does condemn it. If there is no rational argument, then it sounds to me like you believe in a capricious god.

I would suggest that before you attempt to think like God, you might want to consider understanding Him. Judas committed suicide when he realized what he had done. Will you now condemn Christ for being the cause of the despondency Judas felt? He knew what he had done was wrong, and that he had rejected God. Are you telling us it is Christ's fault that Judas committed suicide? I reject such a position.

First of all, I try to understand God with sincerity of heart. Where you and I disagree is that you believe all we have to do to understand God is listen to what cannonized sciptures say (except to the extent modified by church leaders). But I believe we can and should consider other sources, including historical documents, scholarly writings, prayer, reason, study, and experience. I realize that you view requires less thinking and is less complicated. Blind obedience is simple in concept. As I attempt to understand God, I feel compelled to ask questions and reconcile my belief with what I observe and experience in life. Did you know that for generations, southern slaveholders used the Bible as a justification for slavery? To question slavery was to deny the holiness of the Bible! If history has taught us nothing else, it should teach us humility about our own understanding, for it is a virtual certainty that future generations will look at us, just as we have looked at earlier generations, and see all of the mistaken conclusions we drew.

Now let's talk briefly about Judas. Nothing in the Bible explains what precisely motivated Judas to turn Jesus over to his executioners (I do not think it plausible in the least that Judas' sole motivation was pieces of silver). Recently discovered evidence suggests that Jesus may very well have commanded Judas to betray Jesus. But let's just suppose, for purposes of your questions, that Judas was precisely what the church makes him out to be: a completely selfish person who knowingly turned away from the Son of God and knowingly participated in bringing about Jesus' death, out some evil motivation, be it greed, spite, etc. Judas then realizes (apparently independently and on his own) that he had sinned by betraying Jesus, and Judas then commits suicide. Now YOU are implying that I would blame Jesus for the suicide! Where are you getting that???? Judas in this hypothetical would legitimately feel guilty for his obvious sin. That such guilt would rise to the despair necessary to induce him to commit suicide is clearly not Jesus' fault. I don't see how this in any way is anologous to the gay issue. It is not the inherent sinfulness of homosexual behavior which makes gays feel guilty. It is the doctrine that homosexual behavior is sinful which makes them feel guilty. Someone who helps murder another ought to naturally feel guilty of his own accord- that springs from the light of Christ which God gave us. But I do not see how a gay person would naturally feel guilty about homosexual behavior without something beyond the ordinary conscience- such as doctrine that it is sinful. So, in summary, we obviously should not blame the victim of a crime (Jesus) for the guilt felt by the pertrator (Judas). But consensual homosexuality has no victim, and why should a gay person feel guilty about it? There is certainly no reason to be angry at God for condemning homosexuality if in fact God does NOT condemn homosexuality in the first place. So, NO, I do not blame God for gay suicides. I blame, in part, all of the people who in their laziness and fear, persist in condemning homosexuality, while refusing to give the matter open-minded consideration. But I also believe that God is merciful and takes your ignorance and fear into account. I do not believe in a fire-and-brimstone punishment for those who persecute gays; I imagine that the persecuters' primary "punishment" (if you can call it that) will be their own remorse when they become enlightened on the subject and realize their past errors.

We have prophets and apostles who pray quite often for guidance. We as members pray quite often for guidance. The ancient writings were correct in their condemnation of homosexuality, the prophets have reaffirmed it, indeed, the churches membership following the same method of prayer have confirmed it. It seems you want us to ignore it. We can't.

As I said before, I believe you are sincere. But you must realize that sincerity alone, even when one asks prayerfully and in faith, does not guaranty correct conclusions. I am sure that church leaders and members pray for guidance. But are they praying with an open mind, or are they merely asking God to confirm a pre-existing belief? There is a significant difference, and in case you have not noticed, people are much more likely to perceive spiritual witnesses confirming pre-existing beliefs, fears, or desires, than they are to receive spiritual witnesses telling them that their previously held faith positions were wrong. Take a sample of 1000 active evangelicals, and tell all of them to pray sincerely about whether Thomas S. Monson is God's prophet on the earth today. What do you think are the chances that all of them, after sincere prayer, will conclude that Monson is a prophet? I suspect that it would be very few of them (if any). Why is this? You would probably say it is because they are sinning, or insincere, or lacking in faith. But the more obvious explanation is this: probably most of them don't even know who Monson is! Probably most have never studied LDS teachings in any depth. Probably most do not have close LDS friends. Probably most have not given sincere consideration to whether the LDS faith even COULD be true. Probably the overwhelming majority of them have been taught by their trusted ministers that the LDS religion is simply false, condemned by the Bible, and an abomination in the eyes of God. Probably most imagine false characteristics of the LDS church today- such as that we continue to practice polygyny, or that we are all racist, or that we worship Joseph Smith, or that we do not believe in Jesus Christ as our savior, etc. How, then, could we reasonably expect them these dear evangelicals, regardless of their sincerity, to even approach God with an open mind about whether Monson MIGHT be a true prophet? I say we cannot reasonably expect them to, until they have had greater opportunity for study and contemplation. Brother, so it is with you. You may be presently incapable of asking God about the gay issue with an open mind. That does not make you a bad person. But if you want to have any credibility in claiming that you have given the matter fair consideration, I think you are going to need to devote much more time and thought and study on the issue. For a start, I would recommend you watch this video:

You also confuse love with acceptance. One can love a brother with a proclivity to steal, or lie, or cheat, or have extramarital affairs because they are driven to it. That does not mean one accepts the behavior. Try to realize that. I would say that Latter-Day Saints have spent more time deling with the issue, being ostracized for their choice, and praying about it than you can ever imagine, which reflects a certain ignorance you have as to what Latter-Day Saints are about and what they believe in, than you can ever imagine.

In effect you have embraced the philosophies of men, and you are attempting to sell it to us as Gods. We know cheap tin when we see it.

Brother, I am a Latter-Day Saint (or try to be). I am straight. I grew up in a very conservative household in which I was taught, and I accepted, that homosexuality is an abomination. I am not ignorant of the sciptures or the pronouncements of modern church leaders on the topic of homosexuality. I served a full-time mission. I know what LDS people believe. That LDS people knowingly elect to be ostracized for persisting in condemnation of homosexuality proves nothing other than their sincerity. Gay people often leave the church knowing that they will be ostracized from their own family and friends- does that by itself prove that they are in the right? Of course not.

You may very well conclude that I espouse the philosophies of men. I am not trying to SELL anything, nor do I purport to speak for God. But if you are truly sincere, you will need to do more than dismiss my arguments as "cheap tin."

One final note: unfortunately, as a working man, I have significantly less time on my hands than you apparently do to devote to this board, so there is nothing I can do to guarantee that I will be able to follow up adequately with anything you have to say in rebuttal to this post. But know this: I hope that God will bless you with further understanding, and I wish you all the best.

[california boy]

Sorry you find God's commandments so annoying that you willingly flaunt them thus proving the true depth of your devotion to Christ's love. I tire of people who use "Christ's love" as a propaganda shield, chaning the definition of His love in order to justify their own self gratification. The rational is akin to a pedophile in an interview saying "Christ loved children more and asked to have them brought to him" Such tactics reject the true nature of Christ and His love, and such tactics reflect how empty the person is in understanding Christ, His love, or the depth of their own separation from what is righteous.

Well Jeff the one thing I lave learned about you is your stringent concern for everyone else's sins. Combine that with bringing in pedophiles when talking about being gay and you have a pretty predictable Jeff response. Thanks for not letting us down. I didn'tknow Christ's message of love was propaganda.

[Jeff K.]

california boy, on 21 August 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

Sorry you find Jesus message of love to be so irritating. I personally find it central to His teahings. I just don't find the condemnation thing that you seem to enjoy so much a very big deal with Jesus. He seemed to be warmer to the idea of you should worry about your own sins and leave others to Him. But hey that is just my read on the gospel of Jesus. You are entitled to your own fixations.

Jeff K., on 21 August 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

Sorry you find God's commandments so annoying that you willingly flaunt them thus proving the true depth of your devotion to Christ's love. I tire of people who use "Christ's love" as a propaganda shield, chaning the definition of His love in order to justify their own self gratification. The rational is akin to a pedophile in an interview saying "Christ loved children more and asked to have them brought to him" Such tactics reject the true nature of Christ and His love, and such tactics reflect how empty the person is in understanding Christ, His love, or the depth of their own separation from what is righteous.

Well Jeff the one thing I lave learned about you is your stringent concern for everyone else's sins. Combine that with bringing in pedophiles when talking about being gay and you have a pretty predictable Jeff response. Thanks for not letting us down. I didn'tknow Christ's message of love was propaganda.

I am always amazed at the level of self deception some posters go through and how they cannot tolerate the tools they use upon others to be used against them. I note how quickly you try to change the subject whenever your weak logic is exposed.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 20 August 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

Chuckle, so its only wrong if you are at a disadvantage, ie the odds are against you. Since when does being at a disadvantage make something wrong? Gambling takes place outside of casinos without the house rules, thereby evening the odds on a number of games. And then there is poker, where everyone has an equal chance. Odds do not make something a virtue or a vice. Your analogy fails.

I did not say it is ONLY wrong if you are at a disadvantage. But I included that in my explanation because there is not always a fine line between gambling, on the one hand, and mere wise investment strategy, on the other hand. Is it gambling to invest in stocks? If so, then many of our church leaders are likely guilty of gambling. How about buying a house which might burn down? Is that gambling? How about trading in credit default swaps? What about land speculation (like Joseph Smith engaged in)? What about buying treasury bonds? What about buying "asset-backed securities" in a housing bubble? What about going into debt to obtain a college education, without any guarantee that you will have a job to repay the debt? I point these things out to illustrate that there is a good reason for including "the odds" as one factor in determining whether a particular financial behavior can reasonably be considered "gambling" in the sinful sense. If I am poor, can barely even support my family, and decide to take $5,000 over to a blackjack table (money which is supposed to support my family for the next three months), where the odds are obviously stacked against me, it is much easier to make the case that that behavior is immoral. By contrast, if I am well off, and I invest surplus funds in a stock which, by all objective standards, has an extremely high likelihood of appreciating, it is hard to categorize that as gambling, in my opinion.

There is a difference between gambling and investing. You don't seem to know the difference. But I will give you a crucial difference, gambling takes from a fixed amount, investments tend to expand the economic horizon.

Your phrase was specific...

2. Gambling. Gambling in the classic sense (in a casino) is harmful because the odds are stacked against you to lose money.

My response was correct in regard to your reasoning.

Quote

You have no objective standard, you deny the light of Christ and you can justify anything based on any philosophy you choose.

To which you replied:

You are apparently ignoring what I have written. I laid out the standard. It is you who has no objective standard. Your standard is apparently that morality is whatever Thomas S. Monson says it is. That sounds about as subjective as I can imagine.

It seems you are at odds with a prophet of God, and perhaps also suffer from a serious lack of understanding as to how members of the church abide to their morality. You make the assumption, which may be interpreted as arrogant, that the promptings of prophets are always the promptings of men and not of God. That when Thomas S. Monson states that homosexual acts are wrong, well, he is just giving his own opinion. In our church we believe that each person also has an obligation to pray, and to receive personal revelation as to what is good or bad. That is often reinforced by scripture. So we have the scriptures, we have the prophet and we have prayer. All three seem to aligned against what you have said.

Allow me to quote Gordon B. Hinckley:

"In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordeained fo God." remember in the first place, it is not the only reason. "We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord."

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Chruch. If they violate the law of chastity and moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."

So we have several prophets, scriptures and personal prayer. I do not tie my morality to Thomas S. Monson, I also look to the Lord, and thankfully, and not suprisingly, I find President Monson to be well aligned with the Lord, but you apparently tie yours to the world. In my view that is the key difference between us.

[Ares]

We already have a few open threads about the politics and policies surrounding homosexuality. Since this thread has become one it is being closed.

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: political/social issues thread

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff