The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[Calm]

Mining specific quotes and then attempting to state that is LDS doctrine is just as deceiptful as mining the thoughts of any other individual and stating that is the sum total of beliefs for any other group.

I wouldn't call it deceitful, especially since some people think this is a valid approach. I would use the term "inaccurate" unless it was obvious the person knew what they were doing, such as in the case they used contradictory quotes elsewhere.

Edited September 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[Loran Blood]

First of all, I want to make it clear, because I don't think anyone has done so yet, that LDS theology has nothing against gays and lesbians on any theoretical level. Being gay or lesbian is not itself any longer considered to be a sin in Mormon theology, and that's a considerable recent change in Mormon doctrine.

Let's be a bit more precise in our use of language here. Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is not considered as sin any more than being addicted to various substances (such as alcohol) is, itself, a sin. Being "Gay" or a Lesbian - self identifying in this manner, or identifying and labeling others similarly - is precisely what Elder Oaks warned us about long ago.

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Second, if you are not a sealed husband and (one or more) wives in the celestial kingdom, current Mormon doctrine (since Brigham Young, at least) says that you will be eternally making spirit babies in the afterlife. Obviously, heterosexuality will exist in the Celestial Kingdom. But what about everyone else in the Celestial Kingdom who isn't making babies with their opposite-sex spouses? Even though they are not eternally married, are they still heterosexual? What would be the purpose of heterosexuality if you are forever barred from any intimate heterosexual relationship? That doesn't seem like heaven at all. Moreover, if there are frustrated heterosexuals in the Celestial Kingdom, why can't there be frustrated gays and lesbians there, too? Why couldn't there be celibate drag queens in the Celestial Kingdom?

Interesting how, for you, it appears that the entire concept of the Celestial Kingdom seems to revolve around sexual fulfillment or the lack thereof. Do you think that, just perhaps, gods will have other things on their minds after a mortal lifetime worrying and fretting about it?

Edited September 25, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Christians have a long history of excluding groups that are not like they are as the article points out. It has been going on since the Crusades. We must kill the infidels was the rallying cry. It has been the Irish Catholics, the Protestants. It seems everyone has been excluded or sent to He** at one time or another. Those that wanted Slavery to continue used the Bible as the word of God to support that practice. And they used the Bible again to condemn inter racial marriage. But over time, Christianity has learned to be more Christlike in accepting those that are different than us and leaving the judgement to God. The pendulum has never swung back in support of those excluding others.

The gospel is, at its very core, exclusionary. The separation of the wicked from the righteous is at the fundamental crux of the gospel message to humanity; the "warning voice" or repentance before " the night cometh, when no man can work." (John 9:4, 3 Nephi 27: 33)

As Paul said:

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Corinthians 6:17).

Inclusion, in and of itself, is of little value in the negotiation of human relationships or the discernment of the moral and its negation.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Loran Blood

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I really dislike it when these types of articles (of any ideological leaning) take this kind of quasi-triumphalist tone (especially towards the end - Liberalism equated with "the enduring nature of human goodness"? Sheesh. I don't believe that any more than I believe Conservatism is.). Nothing is inevitable, and it's clear the article-writer has only a vague grasp of historical forces and how they intersect with sociology and theology.

However.

It seems to me that “postmodern relativism,” “revisionist secular theology,” and “a naturalistic doctrine of God,” are all aspects of Joseph Smith's Restoration. He made a modern translation of an ancient text through subjective means, revised what he viewed as an errant, fallible Bible (written by just-as-fallible people, even corrupt and designing priests who recorded things which went against the spirit of his revelations) with favorable views towards secular science of his time, and Restored the view of a naturalistic, living God who did not have the power to create himself and was a part of the real world rather than a "supernatural" realm outside of time and space.

This is why I'm confused when Mormons support the ancillary views of traditional Christians who already disagree with our doctrines so deeply. If young-earth Creationism is labeled "Christian" by post-Apostasy Christians, and secular science is labeled "atheistic" by those same Christians who believe we're heretics, then why should it follow that the former should be supported wherever it can, while the later must be denigrated? It's almost as if - because Fundamentalists call themselves "Christian" - we think their views cannot be classed with "the philosophies of men." Yet I think we're actually closer to secular humanism than we are to most transcendental religions, which is part of why I feel so comfortable with Mormon thought. Have we forgotten the Great Apostasy? As I've written in other threads: many secular humanists denied the post-Apostasy understanding of God, exactly as Joseph Smith did.

Regarding marriages, then - for me, I don't see why we can't have both. I grew up with divorced parents and I really hate to see the pain that comes with promiscuity; I want to honor and support good, faithful, heterosexual marriages, because I find them to be the most beautiful arrangement I can imagine. I think males and females are both equally necessary as role models for that pattern.

But I also see homosexual friends who are good people who want to commit to each other (the conspiracy theories presented here are just bizarre), and I think our theology isn't inherently opposed to their kind of union. A verse from Leviticus (speaking of desert law in a rather unusual set of circumstances) and a few (disputed) words of Paul seem to be where most of the theological opposition in our culture stems from - frankly, most of the proof-texts used here ("they shall call black, white and evil, good.") are taken so out of context that they can be used for just about any position one disagrees with, and are about as applicable to modern culture as Paul's admonition against short hair on women. (You don't like my tie? Well, I always knew "they shall call black white and evil good." This must be the prophecy being fulfilled!)

Caution: utter sci-fi speculation ahead. You were warned.

This is just me, but I've personally never seen the conflict some posit between adoption and spiritual procreation; it seems like something of a semantic quibble over what we mean by "created" and "birth". In my view (kinda tripartite-model-esque, which I realize is slightly late), if we're uncreated eternal Intelligence given spiritual bodies through spirit birth, then poured into mortal bodies, then exalted, that takes care of it all. Eternal uncreated intelligence, spiritual adoption at procreation, mortal procreation, exaltation and adoption again. Voila. We're simultaneously "adopted" and "birthed". Since we've never believed in ex nihilo, this can perfectly be considered "creation".

Free will, covenant-adoption, and gendered procreation are all preserved if we choose to be born into spiritual bodies (whose organization from preexisting matter was initiated by others), then choose again to experience a mortal probation (in mortal bodies which were also organized from preexisting matter in a biological "creation" initiated by the bodies of others), then choose yet again to be adopted into the covenant, then repeat the lifecycle over again for those other Intelligences floating around out there.

(I have no idea how the physics of all this works, of course. What the heck's an "Intelligence," and where are they hangin' out right now? How exactly do we call them from the Deep and pour them into the spirit bodies we beget for them? Why are the Three Estates necessary to complete the entire chain? It's all fantastically weird. *laugh*)

I think section 132 is one of the most powerful scriptures we have, and I joined the church in part because I really believe that Joseph Smith restored the Temple Marriage, the hieros gamos. That we have literal heavenly parents of both genders is, to me, one of the most beautiful things about the Restoration. I have an infinite disagreement with statements like "for you, it appears that the entire concept of the Celestial Kingdom seems to revolve around sexual fulfillment or the lack thereof. Do you think that, just perhaps, gods will have other things on their minds after a mortal lifetime worrying and fretting about it?" since it denigrates sexuality into something less important than I think it is. No, I do not think gods will have other things on their minds, since sexuality is a necessary part of creating families, which are the root of community and joy. I think the sexual relationship between man and woman is, when done right, the most sacred thing there is.

Indeed, it seems to me that part of what was lost after the Apostasy into disembodied philosophy was the idea that eternal things relating to gender are more literal and less symbolic than is often supposed. If the continuation of the seeds is what makes one godlike, that restores the entire nature of God from an utterly unique, ontologically-isolated type of being back to ... well, a member of our family, a family skipping from world to world without number as each passes away, planting Zions for each other in order to avoid falling into the outer darkness. I think when we go in the opposite direction and make God too different from us, we're taking the symbolism of adoption too far.

But I don't see why they're incompatible in the first place! (The Isis and Nephthys "rebirth" section in Nibley's Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri is absolutely fascinating to me, for instance, with the common insistence in the Mysteries that while we are journeying on this world, we have had two mothers, and have yet to be reborn into the next life.)

So. Take all that as a given. (*grin*)

If this view is at all true, I'm not sure why we can't find a place for same-gender couples who choose not to take part in reproduction - even spiritual reproduction. Even if you believe, as I do, in a more literal interpretation of spirit -birth, that doesn't mean the doctrine on the Celestial Kingdom and Temple work would be fatally "shot in the head" if we allowed same-gender marriages.

Now, it may be that for some as-yet-unknown reason, it's simply physically impossible for two of the same gender to take part directly in the physical "begetting" aspect of spiritual creation (remember that there is no dichotomy between "physical" and "spiritual," as all matter is spirit and vice versa, all of which is governed by preexisting external laws which God is bound to just as much as we are), just as it's physically impossible for them to create biological children in this life.

But the Plan itself is not exclusionary at its core - it is fundamentally attempting to be as inclusive as is physically possible, while still maintaining a house of order. If it is the couple's choice not to take part in the cycle of spiritual procreation, why is that a problem? We already know that ministering angels do not continue the seeds - who's to say all of them are heterosexual? It is certainly a worthy calling - indeed, it's a necessary one, and one which definitely takes part in the great Plan of Salvation.

[Calm]

Why are the Three Estates necessary to complete the entire chain?

Who says we have to stop at three estates? Why not continue to add on eternally?

Edited September 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[Loran Blood]

It seems to me that “postmodern relativism,” “revisionist secular theology,” and “a naturalistic doctrine of God,” are all aspects of Joseph Smith's Restoration.

Odd, as even the most rudimentary understanding of the doctrines of the restored gospel completely obviate postmodernism as a viable theory of social, moral, and psychological reality. Postmodernism is nihilism, and indeed, the "postmodern condition," as expressed by Lyotard, is one of utter incredulity in the fact of all metanarratives, which the gospel claims to be in an ultimate sense.

He made a modern translation of an ancient text through subjective means,

As I understand the translation process and the principle of revelation involved, there was nothing "subjective" about it, in the normative sense of that term.

and Restored the view of a naturalistic, living God who did not have the power to create himself and was a part of the real world rather than a "supernatural" realm outside of time and space.

This appears to be a bit of playfulness with the term "naturalistic," as this term is usually understood, and would be understood by a believer in philosophical naturalism, which is the same thing as philosophical or metaphysical materialism, and which has no room whatsoever for notions such as "God."

This is why I'm confused when Mormons support the ancillary views of traditional Christians who already disagree with our doctrines so deeply. If young-earth Creationism is labeled "Christian" by post-Apostasy Christians, and secular science is labeled "atheistic" by those same Christians who believe we're heretics, then why should it follow that the former should be supported wherever it can, while the later must be denigrated? It's almost as if - because Fundamentalists call themselves "Christian" - we think their views cannot be classed with "the philosophies of men." Yet I think we're actually closer to secular humanism than we are to most transcendental religions, which is part of why I feel so comfortable with Mormon thought. Have we forgotten the Great Apostasy? As I've written in other threads: many secular humanists denied the post-Apostasy understanding of God, exactly as Joseph Smith did.

So the gospel of Jesus Christ is not "transcendental;" it does not transcend the mortal, natural (Telestial) world and point toward vast realms of higher consciousness, being, and, indeed, perfection? Secular humanists, by the way, at least those worth their salt, deny, and would deny, virtually all the core truth claims of the gospel as fast as they would disown the young earth creationism of Jerry Falwell. They also overwhelmingly tend to dislike classical liberalism, modern conservatism (a form of classical liberalism steeped in both traditional liberalism and its original Judeo-Christian social/moral superstructure), free market economics, private property rights, and traditional Judeo-Christian moral ethics, and most especially in the sexual realm.

But I also see homosexual friends who are good people who want to commit to each other (the conspiracy theories presented here are just bizarre), and I think our theology isn't inherently opposed to their kind of union.

Then it appears you don't understand it, which is a bit odd, as the doctrine here has been so very clear and lucidly articulated over time.

Secondly, as I've pointed out infinite times, the rage for homosexual marriage that has developed just since the 1990s is and always has been primarily for public consumption, and is aimed fundamentally at permanently altering perceptions of homosexuality qua homosexuality on a mass societal scale. Throughout the seventies and up until the AIDS epidemic hit the homosexual world, marriage was, for most male homosexuals, not only irrelevant but attitudinally anathema within the context of the "gay liberation" ideology of the late sixties up to the AIDS era. The "liberation" involved here was very much of the same species as that infusing the heterosexual "sexual revolution" that developed side by side with the gay lib movement, even if the gay version was even more aggressively vehement in its rejection of traditional heterosexual sexual norms, values and boundaries.

I have an infinite disagreement with statements like "for you, it appears that the entire concept of the Celestial Kingdom seems to revolve around sexual fulfillment or the lack thereof. Do you think that, just perhaps, gods will have other things on their minds after a mortal lifetime worrying and fretting about it?" since it denigrates sexuality into something less important than I think it is. No, I do not think gods will have other things on their minds, since sexuality is a necessary part of creating families, which are the root of community and joy. I think the sexual relationship between man and woman is, when done right, the most sacred thing there is.

All well and good, but Cobalt said:

Second, if you are not a sealed husband and (one or more) wives in the celestial kingdom, current Mormon doctrine (since Brigham Young, at least) says that you will be eternally making spirit babies in the afterlife. Obviously, heterosexuality will exist in the Celestial Kingdom. But what about everyone else in the Celestial Kingdom who isn't making babies with their opposite-sex spouses? Even though they are not eternally married, are they still heterosexual? What would be the purpose of heterosexuality if you are forever barred from any intimate heterosexual relationship? That doesn't seem like heaven at all. Moreover, if there are frustrated heterosexuals in the Celestial Kingdom, why can't there be frustrated gays and lesbians there, too? Why couldn't there be celibate drag queens in the Celestial Kingdom?

Sexually frustrated gods, Seraphim and Cherubim? Celestial drag queens? Really, and all in an attempt to rehabilitate homosexuality and give it a place of pride and joy in the Celestial Kingdom. I'm not sure what it is exactly that you think you are either defending or criticizing here.

If this view is at all true, I'm not sure why we can't find a place for same-gender couples who choose not to take part in reproduction - even spiritual reproduction. Even if you believe, as I do, in a more literal interpretation of spirit -birth, that doesn't mean the doctrine on the Celestial Kingdom and Temple work would be fatally "shot in the head" if we allowed same-gender marriages.

I see a massive non-sequiter here, so massive, in fact, that I think a greater elucidation of the logical connection you believe you see between the concepts you have elucidated and your spiritual rehabilitation and celestialization of what the gospel considers to be among the most egregious, spiritually destructive "abominations" and perversions of the proper nature and purpose of human sexuality possible in mortality is required, because you haven't provided it thus far. There are others, of similar kind, but this is among the most severe in its import for the soul and its ultimate place in eternity. The very idea of homosexual marriage is, indeed, so utterly self negating and spiritually disorienting in both a moral and ontological sense, that mere words fail as a means of articulating the free floating existential nausea involved in its contemplation.

Now, it may be that for some as-yet-unknown reason, it's simply physically impossible for two of the same gender to take part directly in the physical "begetting" aspect of spiritual creation

Yes, for some reason, this would appear to be the case.

But the Plan itself is not exclusionary at its core - it is fundamentally attempting to be as inclusive as is physically possible, while still maintaining a house of order. If it is the couple's choice not to take part in the cycle of spiritual procreation, why is that a problem? We already know that ministering angels do not continue the seeds - who's to say all of them are heterosexual? It is certainly a worthy calling - indeed, it's a necessary one, and one which definitely takes part in the great Plan of Salvation.

Beyond what else could be said here, virtually all of the above is an object lesson in just why postmodernism is a dagger aimed straight at the beating, living heart of both the gospel and the intellectual frame of mind necessary to both accept and internalize it such that "enduring to the end" becomes possible.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Loran Blood

[jskains]

I'm somewhat disappointed we're not leading it.

Leading what?

In Germany, a couple is leading the way for incest. A brother and sister (full blood) are birthing children and demanding that incest being illegal and preventing them from marriage is a form of discrimination. That we were conditioned to believe such relationships are wrong.

B4U-ACT is a group of mental health professionals leading the way to stop the demonization of "minor attracted" people (read pedophilia) and to teach that "minor attracted" people are people too and can't control who they fall in love with. That shielding children from sex is unhealthy and the assumption that children can not consent to sex is a social conditioning, not a reality.

(Isn't "minor attracted" as politically correct as "same sex" marriage?)

What are you wanting us to lead into? Dancing for the liberal party and submission to the homosexual agenda? They lie. When they asked for civil unions, they claimed they wouldn't touch marriage. Then when they went after marriage, we screamed that they would go after education, to which they said we are overreacting and being unfair. Then the FAIR education act was introduced, pushing speculative education (read - Abraham Lincoln is now gay) to push homosexuality on kids as young as kindergarten.

People are being labeled as bigots, suspended from schools, losing their jobs, and now even PayPal us being used to hurt businesses and non-profit organizations that disagree with the pro-gay movement. If anything, we should continue to fight to support our rights to practice our religion. You know, that "Congress shall pass no laws prohibiting the FREE exorcise of religion" junk thats in the constitution?

The pro-liberal/pro-gay movement has declared war, and has used emotional rhetoric to silence anyone that opposes them. They don't want interesting dialog, they want special rights and totalitarian ability to forcefully silence those who dare speak up.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/219230/20110924/homosexuality-german-class-dakota-ary-lawyer-holly-pope-teenager-suspension.htm

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1433084

http://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/jp/teacher-suspended-reassigned-for-anti-gay-facebook-comments/

These are just a few. I can keep rattling off evidence if you need. I don't think we need to bow to this war and be conqured. I think it is time we fought it. We just need to make sure we fight it with logic and intelligence, not emotional stupidity like the Westbro Baptist Church.

JMS

[Loran Blood]

Leading what?

In Germany, a couple is leading the way for incest. A brother and sister (full blood) are birthing children and demanding that incest being illegal and preventing them from marriage is a form of discrimination. That we were conditioned to believe such relationships are wrong.

B4U-ACT is a group of mental health professionals leading the way to stop the demonization of "minor attracted" people (read pedophilia) and to teach that "minor attracted" people are people too and can't control who they fall in love with. That shielding children from sex is unhealthy and the assumption that children can not consent to sex is a social conditioning, not a reality.

(Isn't "minor attracted" as politically correct as "same sex" marriage?)

What are you wanting us to lead into? Dancing for the liberal party and submission to the homosexual agenda? They lie. When they asked for civil unions, they claimed they wouldn't touch marriage. Then when they went after marriage, we screamed that they would go after education, to which they said we are overreacting and being unfair. Then the FAIR education act was introduced, pushing speculative education (read - Abraham Lincoln is now gay) to push homosexuality on kids as young as kindergarten.

People are being labeled as bigots, suspended from schools, losing their jobs, and now even PayPal us being used to hurt businesses and non-profit organizations that disagree with the pro-gay movement. If anything, we should continue to fight to support our rights to practice our religion. You know, that "Congress shall pass no laws prohibiting the FREE exorcise of religion" junk thats in the constitution?

The pro-liberal/pro-gay movement has declared war, and has used emotional rhetoric to silence anyone that opposes them. They don't want interesting dialog, they want special rights and totalitarian ability to forcefully silence those who dare speak up.

http://www.ibtimes.c...-suspension.htm

http://www.onenewsno...aspx?id=1433084

http://stateimpact.n...ebook-comments/

These are just a few. I can keep rattling off evidence if you need. I don't think we need to bow to this war and be conqured. I think it is time we fought it. We just need to make sure we fight it with logic and intelligence, not emotional stupidity like the Westbro Baptist Church.

JMS

Its long been understood, and the evidence has been accumulating for some time, that the legitimization of homosexuality through the "deprivileging" of heterosexual marriage and the heterosexual family is only the proverbial camel's nose. Pedophilia and the sexualization of childhood, already well underway for sometime in the pop culture, will be the next great frontier of sexual civil rights, to be followed by other sexual fetishes as they find a political voice and a culture suitably softened up to receive them.

We will be well beyond postmodern at that point, and well into the next phase, the postmoral.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Loran Blood

[David T]

Gay Marriage = legal consenting adults entering into a mutual and contractual relationship

Pedophilia = sexual molestation of a child

Sorry. Not going to buy any correlation.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Cobalt-70]

California Boy - Being Jewish is both a religion and a race. Being homosexual is a behavior. The article fails to detach these two facts, which makes it a bit biased in its conclusions.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and is no longer considered a sin in Mormon doctrine. What is considered sinful is gay sex.

[jskains]

Gay Marriage = legal consenting adults entering into a mutual and contractual relationship

Pedophilia = sexual molestation of a child

Sorry. Not going to buy any correlation.

You can hide from it all you like, but the correlation is getting clearer and clearer. Pedophiles can not control who they fall in love with. If they can get a child to agree to have sex, then it is only the social dogma of our society that believes a minor can not consent. Why is 18 a magical number that suddenly makes someone an adult? Your just a bigot against pedophilia and want to enforce your believes on others and discriminate against a group.

(NOTE: No, I do not support Pedophilia. I am making a point)

[David T]

You can hide from it all you like, but the correlation is getting clearer and clearer. Pedophiles can not control who they fall in love with. If they can get a child to agree to have sex, then it is only the social dogma of our society that believes a minor can not consent.

Nice try. Not buying it.

In Pedophilia, there is always a predator, and always a de facto and victim.

Homosexual relationships are harmful only in the same way heterosexual relationships could be viewed as potentially harmful.

Edited September 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[jskains]

Nice try. Not buying it.

Really could care less if you're "buying" it or not. It's what is happening. The incest case, the pedophilia group, the polygamy cases in Canada. They are all using the same excuses homosexuality is using to push their agenda, and the more homosexuality wins, the more they do too.

I even heard a liberal defend the incest case with the idea "society taught us to believe incest is wrong".

It's all a matter of time. Not too long ago, most people would never have believed homosexual marriage would be even considered by society. I guarantee there will be less resistance to more serious sins down the road. It's the slow boiling frog syndrome. Each step makes the next step more palatable.

JMS

[Cobalt-70]

While the core elements of the Endowment were introduced by JS, following the martyrdom it was codified and revised, added to, and arranged in its general standard narrative form by Brigham Young. There are some very specific things in the (current) Endowment ritual which are documented innovations of BY, and are known not to have been presented by JS. The Temple - the 5th Standard Work? - was highly influenced by BY.

Also, much of his his thought - and thought and interpretations of the Pratt brothers - while not 'canonized' have become, through repetition by leaders in manuals and General Conference settings, de facto 'doctrine'.

In addition to the D&C section and the endowment ceremony, I think there are a few official First Presidency statements that can be attributed to Brigham Young.

But all of standard Mormon doctrine is not necessarily "official." If essentially everyone in the church believes it, or it is mentioned in church literature and over the pulpit with seeming approval, it is standard Mormon doctrine. Brigham Young was apparently the originator of the now-standard Mormon doctrine that exalted parents give physical birth to spirit bodies. Joseph Smith never went that far. In fact, Joseph Smith taught that spirits were not born at all, but were coeternal with God. However, I think that Joseph Smith would have agreed that heterosexuality, and intimate relations between people who are sealed to one another, continues in the Celestial kingdom.

[David T]

Personally, I believe there's a bigger agenda behind the push for homosexual behavior & demanding legal credibility through gay marriage.

#1 on:

http://en.wikipedia....gia_Guidestones

How would that conspiracy agenda about population control ever correlate with the associated drive to allow homosexual couples full rights to adopt, or have children with genetic donors?

[Cobalt-70]

Only if you are a fan of the implications that Exaltation in the CK means making spirit babies from spiritual sexual intercourse.

I see the CK and Exaltation being a family bound by a covenant of love who adopt less advanced eternal intelligences and take them by the figurative hand, and guide them into their own likeness and image.

I don't believe my spirit is a physically sexually begotten organism, but at its essence an eternal intelligence that was adopted by and taken under the wind of our Heavenly Father. Biological gender is a powerful symbol of partnership necessary to successfully bring forth life, but I think times we take that symbol farther than we really need to when applied to Eternal things.

That position would be consistent with what Joseph Smith taught. Brigham Young would have disagreed, but then again, he believed in the Adam-God doctrine. I think it's safe to say that standard Mormon doctrine from the 20th century on has followed Young's formulation (with the Heavenly Father being identified with "Elohim" rather than Adam/Michael). So if you ask 100 multi-generation Mormons whether they think exalted women have intercourse, get pregnant, and give birth to spirit babies, I suspect that at least 95 of them would agree.

[Cobalt-70]

Let's be a bit more precise in our use of language here. Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is not considered as sin any more than being addicted to various substances (such as alcohol) is, itself, a sin. Being "Gay" or a Lesbian - self identifying in this manner, or identifying and labeling others similarly - is precisely what Elder Oaks warned us about long ago.

A lot of Mormons still deny that gays and lesbians exist. The theory is that someone who calls himself "gay" is actually just a straight man with the disease of "Same Sex Attraction," which has even been anacronized as if it were recognized psychological disorder. Dallin Oaks thinks that way, but his writings on the subject are a bit dated now. I don't think that anyone under about 45, or any mainstream psychologist, still denies the existence of gays and lesbians.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Interesting how, for you, it appears that the entire concept of the Celestial Kingdom seems to revolve around sexual fulfillment or the lack thereof. Do you think that, just perhaps, gods will have other things on their minds after a mortal lifetime worrying and fretting about it?

No, I don't think that the purpose of the Celestial kingdom is sexual fulfillment. I'm just saying that an eternity of frustrated heterosexuality doesn't seem much like heaven to me, if that's what Mormon theology implies. Also, I'm saying that if there is going to be frustrated heterosexuality in the Kingdom, why couldn't there be frustrated homosexuality as well? If an exalted gay or lesbian Mormon is going to be frustrated anyway, why not spend eternity being frustrated in the sexual orientation they had during their mortal lifetime?

Edited September 26, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[california boy]

The gospel is, at its very core, exclusionary. The separation of the wicked from the righteous is at the fundamental crux of the gospel message to humanity; the "warning voice" or repentance before " the night cometh, when no man can work." (John 9:4, 3 Nephi 27: 33) As Paul said: Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Corinthians 6:17). Inclusion, in and of itself, is of little value in the negotiation of human relationships or the discernment of the moral and its negation.

Interesting take on what you think the gospel is. Between Paul's version of the gospel and Christ's teachings of inclusion, I think I prefer to follow Christ's example who welcomed both saints and sinners. I will leave it to Christ himself to make judgement on who is a saint and who is a sinner. There were many a Pharisee who thought they were saints. Christ testified against such self proclaimed righteousness.

[frankenstein]

Let's be a bit more precise in our use of language here. Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is not considered as sin any more than being addicted to various substances (such as alcohol) is, itself, a sin. Being "Gay" or a Lesbian - self identifying in this manner, or identifying and labeling others similarly - is precisely what Elder Oaks warned us about long ago.

Self acknowlledgment of being homosexual, that is by definition being attracted to members of the same gender is not sin. Elder oaks qulified his statement just as elder packer did.

To say ssa is just silly. It is no different than me offering you 100 pennies or a crisp one crisp one dollar bill

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Odd, as even the most rudimentary understanding of the doctrines of the restored gospel completely obviate postmodernism as a viable theory of social, moral, and psychological reality. Postmodernism is nihilism, and indeed, the "postmodern condition," as expressed by Lyotard, is one of utter incredulity in the fact of all metanarratives, which the gospel claims to be in an ultimate sense.

Sorry, I was incomplete and thus unclear about my position there - the "postmodern" aspect I see in Joseph Smith's Restoration lies in the way that the Book of Mormon is understood not to be a 100% infallible, inerrant text inscribed with the literal word of God, but is instead a narrative composed of the testimonies and accounts of numerous fallible authors compiled into what is essentially a religio-political history of a cultural conflict. (The "most correct", not the "flawless" book.)

Without even meaning to, the writers include (and take for granted) aspects of their culture, and thus certain parts of the work are not really "from" the authors - they're embedded as a part of the linguistic communities they take part in, which has been quadruple-filtered through a Mesoamerican version of a middle-eastern lineage history transmitted through a 19th-century man's idiom into our modern world. Haven't read Lyotard (I was a Derrida guy, amused at his utterly overwrought jargon) but I'm not a huge fan of the extremes the Postmodernist and Deconstructionist movements eventually went to.

I do think the Gospel is a form of "relativism" in the sense that we have no objective, external means of determining inspiration. One person can pray with sincere intent about some aspect of it, and yet have their personal answer be contradicted by another person who has searched with equal diligence. Maybe they're both wrong, maybe one or the other is, but it's often difficult to tell since both sides have merit. I personally am not an extreme relativist, as I believe there really is truth to be found if we dig down deep enough, no matter how distorted it is by our own biases - but relativism in the sense of textual context especially is, I think, part of the Restoration, which does away with the view of univocal, inerrant texts and posits different authorial stances and biases. Not hardline relativism, but far from interpretation-free, either.

(I'm frustrated by the entire terminology we're using here [part of the reason I quit the philosophy minor *grin*], as I don't think extreme "objectivism" is even theoretically possible, since all understanding is filtered through human perception, yet neither do I think extreme "relativism" is at all possible, since if we don't posit some ground of truth we're all communally reacting to, we'll just devolve into abject Matrix-style solipsism.) I agree that Postmodernism as a philosophy breaks down in its own metanarrative which denies metanarratives. That doesn't mean there aren't some useful truths to be gleaned from it.

(Part of the problem, of course, is how many definitions there are as to what the h*** Postmodern even means, with the effect that we often attack strawmans of each other's position, since we're coming at it from different backgrounds, which is of course a postmodern kind of view itself. *goes insane with the self-referentialness of it all*)

Thanks for the condescension, though. Always a pleasure.

As I understand the translation process and the principle of revelation involved, there was nothing "subjective" about it, in the normative sense of that term.

? Of course it was subjective. I have no means of empirically reproducing and testing Joseph's personal brain state when he was receiving the flow of pure intelligence from God and studying it out in his mind to find words to fit the concepts he was trying to convey. (I find the "Seerstone as LCD-screen" theory laughable at best) It took place entirely in his head.

This appears to be a bit of playfulness with the term "naturalistic," as this term is usually understood, and would be understood by a believer in philosophical naturalism, which is the same thing as philosophical or metaphysical materialism, and which has no room whatsoever for notions such as "God."

Mormons are philosophical materialists, even if post-apostasy Christians have made such a creature into a dirty word. All spirit is matter, all matter is spirit. It's all matter. That without parts or passions is nothing. There's plenty of room for God - so long as you posit a physical body for Him, which - conveniently enough - we do. "Odd, as even the most rudimentary understanding of the doctrines of the restored gospel" make this utterly clear.

So the gospel of Jesus Christ is not "transcendental;" it does not transcend the mortal, natural (Telestial) world and point toward vast realms of higher consciousness, being, and, indeed, perfection?

Sheesh. I was using "transcendental" as a description of those dematerializing religions which make "transcendence" into a get out of jail free card in which anything can be made philosophically unimpeachable if we just posit a being definitionally inaccessible to human reason and comprehensible logical constraints. As I wrote in a different thread: I think the metaphorical use of the word is fine, but since it's directly related to the panentheism of the 19th-century Transcendentalist school of literature (Thoreau, Emerson, etc), which was itself influenced by Kantian metaphysics and Plotinus' Neoplatonism, there is a danger in taking it so seriously we lose track of the physical nature of deity. That's kinda where the Apostasy happened, in my opinion.

Secular humanists, by the way, at least those worth their salt, deny, and would deny, virtually all the core truth claims of the gospel as fast as they would disown the young earth creationism of Jerry Falwell.

Nonsense. Secular humanists would deny the post-apostasy understanding of the gospel which focused on giving obeisance to a bodiless paradox of a God. Not the doctrines of the Restoration, if they were really worth their salt.

The rage for homosexual marriage that has developed just since the 1990s is and always has been primarily for public consumption, and is aimed fundamentally at permanently altering perceptions of homosexuality qua homosexuality on a mass societal scale. Throughout the seventies and up until the AIDS epidemic hit the homosexual world, marriage was, for most male homosexuals, not only irrelevant but attitudinally anethema within the context of the "gay liberation" ideology of the late sixties up to the AIDS era. The "liberation" involved here was very much of the same species as that infusing the heterosexual "sexual revolution" that developed side by side with the gay lib movement, even if the gay version was even more aggressively vehement in its rejection of traditional heterosexual sexual norms, values and boundaries.

Look, I agree that many of the excesses of the so-called sexual revolution were bad (didn't I just write an enormous post extolling the virtues of monogamous marriage? I'm hardly a free-love advocate.), but I think you are blowing it out of proportion here. Movements and their constituencies change over time, and from personal experience I know you are simply wrong that marriage is irrelevant to my male (and female - dunno why they're left out here) homosexual friends, who are certainly not in it "primarily for public consumption". And if homosexuals want to get monogamously married, that certainly takes care of the promiscuity.

The very idea of homosexual marriage is, indeed, so utterly self negating and spiritually disorienting in both a moral and ontological sense, that mere words fail as a means of articulating the free floating existential nausea involved in its contemplation. ... Beyond what else could be said here, virtually all of the above is an object lession in just why postmodernism is a dagger aimed straight at the beating, living heart of both the gospel and at the intellectual frame of mind necessary to both accept and internalize it such that "enduring to the end" becomes possible.

This is unnecessary grandstanding hyperbole. If there are infinite numbers of uncreated intelligences, it's not like we're gonna run out of people to physically help others into each stage of existence (assuming my literal-spirit-birth view is correct, which is certainly not guaranteed). Your hyperbole aside, most of the scriptures simply have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. There are what, seven or eight verses that even mention it? I certainly don't think Christ said much about it. Dude was more about saving us all from death.

Edited September 26, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[jskains]

The core problem is that most folks like myself believe:

1. The APA was wrong in removing homosexuality from the DSM and did so for political reasons.

2. That the condition of homosexuality is identical to depression or achoholism. We do not understand the causes of these conditions, but recognize the fact they exist as conditions but individuals still have control over them.

3. That the concept of "God Made me Gay" is a cop out. That some think Adolf Hitler had a few uncontrollable genetic conditions that caused him to become what he did, and using the flawed argument, we have to accept Adolf Hitler, because "God Made Him Screwed Up". Note: I am not comparing homosexuality to Hitler. I am giving an example of how the flawed argument can be used in an extreme cause to justify a situation I think we ALL can agree about.

4. That even if the condition is genetic or not, that the genetic argument has been abused to a point it is no longer valid. An article even tried to blame Adultery on genetics.

5. That it does not matter if the condition is genetic, mental, or chosen, that there is a breakdown at some point that causes a human to be attracted to the wrong gender. That there is likely a way to prevent or reverse the condition, and that normalizing the behavior will hinder the development of any cure and or preventative measure. This is comparable to the drive to fix ADHD. If there was a way that a mother can take something or do something to prevent a child from developing ADHD, I bet any other would take it.

6. That disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle does not equal agreeing with what happened to Matthew Shepard.

The article in the end makes the vast assumption that all change is good. That Homosexuality must be found normal, and that society will eventually completely accept it because it is the "right" thing to do. It tries too hard to compare this to being African-American and I think the homosexual movement calling this a civil rights issue should be ashamed for making the comparison IMHO.

So I do not think the dynamics will force this all to be inevitable. I think once the Liberals are done using homosexuals as their latest puppy dog issue, and the tide changes, you will see better heads prevail and a much more mature approach taken.,

[TAO]

While the core elements of the Endowment were introduced by JS, following the martyrdom it was codified and revised, added to, and arranged in its general standard narrative form by Brigham Young. There are some very specific things in the (current) Endowment ritual which are documented innovations of BY, and are known not to have been presented by JS. The Temple - the 5th Standard Work? - was highly influenced by BY.

Also, much of his his thought - and thought and interpretations of the Pratt brothers - while not 'canonized' have become, through repetition by leaders in manuals and General Conference settings, de facto 'doctrine'.

Nackhaldow, Brigham Young also pushed for progression on certain issues concerning race as well.

For example, he supported allowing them to have the right to vote in the territory of Utah (very probably).

Here's the bit... I got this from Jeff K... so I'll quote what he wrote to me:

http://www.blacklds.org/history shows that Deseret

"1867: Deseret Constitution Amended to Extend Rights To All

Brigham Young wrote Thomas Kane in 1869 the Constitution of the State of Deseret had been amended February 4, 1867, to eliminate the words “free, white, male” from voting requirements by a vote of “14,000 for and 30 against.” (October 26, 1869, in Brigham Young papers, LDS Church Archives.)"

The church would not have been so uniform if Brigham Young had not been in favor of the issue.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 in the US.

Also while Wyoming was the first state to enfranchise women, Utah was only a month behind. (side note).

[TAO]

Nice try. Not buying it.

In Pedophilia, there is always a predator, and always a de facto and victim.

Homosexual relationships are harmful only in the same way heterosexual relationships could be viewed as potentially harmful.

Nackhaldow, this is because under the law, one is considered a child and thus has 'less capability of making decisions'.

It is just as unsupported of a law as that of only allowing heterosexuals to marry, in fact.

Destroying it would not be altogether difficult, consider minors (especially teenagers) show some form of capability of making decisions.

In other words, though the law currently looks at it as 'one predator', 'one prey', this isn't guaranteed to always be the case in all pedophile cases. Some may truly... well let's not go there.

Nah, my friend... there is no difference between the issues. Both challenge what we would call 'traditional morality'. One challenges on the basis of 'homosexuality'. The other challenges on the basis of 'pedophilia' and 'age consent'. Both are relatively weak unless the people stand up and affirm their position, or change laws so judges may not rule them legal in court.

In other words... activism by the populus will be the only way to stop this from happening. Slippery slope ceases to be fallacious when based on evidence, and this will be an issue that will need to be dealth with, because society as a whole lacks a sense of 'control'. This is the main problem we have been having. =/

[Jaybear]

Nah, my friend... there is no difference between the issues.

All I can say is, wow.

Based on your analysis, perhaps you can tell us when the Mass court, which legalized gay marriage in 2003 will overturn a conviction for statutory rape applying the same due process analysis. For that matter, any court that has started down this slippery slope of yours.

The core problem is that most folks like myself believe:

1. The APA was wrong in removing homosexuality from the DSM and did so for political reasons.

Sure, but there are also a lot of people who believe that the government faked the moon landing, conspired to bring down the towers, and that climate change is a hoax. But, its not a good idea to make policy decision based on conspiracy theories that have been thoroughly debunked.

6. That disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle does not equal agreeing with what happened to Matthew Shepard.

If you are promulgating the idea that homosexuality is deviant behavior, and as many of you do, equate it to pedophilia, in a society where half the people have an IQ of 100 or below, then what do expect would happen?

My expectation is bullying, gay bashing, and teen suicides.