Mormonsandgays

[Senator]

You must acknowledge the similarity is remarkable.

NOT IN THE LEAST!

"No analogy is perfect" and "agree to disagree" are commonly used expresssions; especially on this forum.

Besides, I never used the "agree to disagree" in this thread. My "we are in agreement" was made in jest due to your comment that you and I were thinking the same thing about each other, when obviously we were no where near agreement otherwise. Understand?

Edited December 7, 2012 by Senator

[Darren10]

Sheesh that pic took up a lot of space. Sorry.

[RobertAC]

Alas, that's the part that some here seem to be zeroing in on. Hence the fanciful notion that the Church is changing its stance and is on a trajectory toward one day disavowing the law of chastity as it pertains to the gratification of homosexual inclinations.

To my thinking, one of the purposes of the website is to clarify that while the world -- and indeed the churches within the world -- are changing in their attitutes towards GLBT people, that there will not be a fundamental change in the historic teachings of chastity. The website seems to reassure members that Temple marriages will always be one man and one woman, but at the same time also reaffirms that the church should be inclusive. The website is really well done in how it presents these seemingly contradictory statements.

[Scott Lloyd]

NOT IN THE LEAST!

"No analogy is perfect" and "agree to disagree" are commonly used expresssions; especially on this forum.

"No analogy is perfect, but this one is especially bad" seems to be less common. Nevertheless, I will entertain the possibility that both you and I were influenced by someone else using it, though I think I came up with it on my own.

Besides, I never used the "agree to disagree" in this thread. My "we are in agreement" was made in jest due to your comment that you and I were thinking the same thing about each other, when obviously we were no where near agreement otherwise. Understand?

I recognize that. I was merely refreshing your memory after you expressed puzzlement over my remark about the quirkiness of your understanding of the concept "agree to disagree."

Edited December 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

To my thinking, one of the purposes of the website is to clarify that while the world -- and indeed the churches within the world -- are changing in their attitutes towards GLBT people, that there will not be a fundamental change in the historic teachings of chastity. The website seems to reassure members that Temple marriages will always be one man and one woman, but at the same time also reaffirms that the church should be inclusive. The website is really well done in how it presents these seemingly contradictory statements.

I agree with this assessment if, by "should be inclusive," you don't mean to imply that the Church will ever accept the validity of same-gender marriage, temple or not.

[california boy]

It is not self-evident to me that the new website contradicts the statements of President Faust quoted here. It is possible to entertain the possibility that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions" yet decline to accept the conclusion that such inclinations are inborn. There may be complex psychological or other factors at work over which the individual has no control.

In any event, I see no indication that the Church is backing away from the doctrine that "our designation as men or women began before this world was," new website or not.

Apostle James E. Faust, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil," Church Gerneral Conference, Spring 1995.

"There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair."

As a gay person, I have never thought that I wasn't created as a male spirit in the pre-existence. So I agree with you and with Faust on this point. And I would like to point out perhaps the obvious, I only consider myself as male in this life.

I can tell you that I have always been gay. Always, even prior to puberty. Was I born that way? Did something happen in the womb? I have no idea. I don't think that Faust does either, and I don't think the church today does either. The significant change from the church is a clear message that people don't choose to be gay. And that is a welcoming development. So many members in the past seem to think that being gay is about sex or about some kind of "lifestyle choice". That is not why people are gay. And the church is making that perfectly clear.

The church is also making it perfectly clear that a gay person in the church can choose to be celibate all their life, never having that wonderful experience other members have of cultivating friendships in hopes of finding that one special person to share their life with. For some that is an appealing and righteous choice. For most it probably won't be.

But I think the church is also saying that if someone chooses to not be celebate, family members and friends should still show love and concern for them. They are still a part of God's love and they should still be a part of the members of the church's love. For me, that sounds like a very Christ-like direction for all to follow. And no, I am not saying that member should or need to accept someone elses sins as being ok. I am just saying that like all of us who sin, it should not be a reason to not show love.

[Calm]

"Popping out kids"? If you are married, I hope you do not discuss childbirth in that way with your wife.

Prying them out sounds more like it.

[Senator]

Nevertheless, I will entertain the possibility that both you and I were influenced by someone else using it, though I think I came up with it on my own.

Like I said, whatever floats your buoyant water craft.

I came up with that on my own too...

[Calm]

To my thinking, one of the purposes of the website is to clarify that while the world -- and indeed the churches within the world -- are changing in their attitutes towards GLBT people, that there will not be a fundamental change in the historic teachings of chastity. The website seems to reassure members that Temple marriages will always be one man and one woman, but at the same time also reaffirms that the church should be inclusive. The website is really well done in how it presents these seemingly contradictory statements.

Out of points so

[Darren10]

I am open to the possibility of the church eventually offering practicing homosexuals the blessings of full membership, including participating in the saving ordinances, except for one: Eternal marriage and sealing to the same sex. Will not happen and cannot happen unless God has been lying to us all along about his plan, and the role of children in his plan.

Of course I cannot speak on behalf of God, nor His prphets, nor of revelation to come but what you're open to is frankly near impossible. The sacrament is not to just renew our baptismal covenants but also our temple covenants, including marital and familial sealings. For those who have not yet attended the temple and received their endowments, the sacrament serves as a promise to the Lord that those who take it are willing to enter into further covenants to the Lord as found in His holy house, the temple.

Accepting practicing homosexuals also goes directly against the nature of our creation and existence as per taught to man by the "creation" whch accounts are found in the Bible, and specifically to the LDS, also in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, and also, most pertenant ot this post, the temple. Each account gives man a unique perspective on the creation yet brings all believers to a unified conclusion regarding man's divine role on earth: to serve the Lord their God. Then ature of our existence, as taught to us by the creation would be *radically diferent* had father adam been a homosexual. And all would be eternally diferent if Jesus of His chosen servants the prophets had been homosexual. But the example has been set and accepting practicing homosexuals into full membership would obligate the answers to very set doctrines directly conflicting with said acceptence.

[Darren10]

God's authority is only valid insofar as He -- an exalted man who did not have the power to create Himself -- follows the law of justice.

Hmmmm, emphasizing "man" in Almighty God's nature and limiting His power / authority. Usually I like what you post, Jeremy, but now you're resorting to trying to diminish God Himself to make your point. Frankly, sir, you're loosing it big time.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Darren10

[Scott Lloyd]

As a gay person, I have never thought that I wasn't created as a male spirit in the pre-existence. So I agree with you and with Faust on this point. And I would like to point out perhaps the obvious, I only consider myself as male in this life.

I can tell you that I have always been gay. Always, even prior to puberty. Was I born that way? Did something happen in the womb? I have no idea. I don't think that Faust does either, and I don't think the church today does either. The significant change from the church is a clear message that people don't choose to be gay. And that is a welcoming development. So many members in the past seem to think that being gay is about sex or about some kind of "lifestyle choice". That is not why people are gay. And the church is making that perfectly clear.

The church is also making it perfectly clear that a gay person in the church can choose to be celibate all their life, never having that wonderful experience other members have of cultivating friendships in hopes of finding that one special person to share their life with. For some that is an appealing and righteous choice. For most it probably won't be.

But I think the church is also saying that if someone chooses to not be celebate, family members and friends should still show love and concern for them. They are still a part of God's love and they should still be a part of the members of the church's love. For me, that sounds like a very Christ-like direction for all to follow. And no, I am not saying that member should or need to accept someone elses sins as being ok. I am just saying that like all of us who sin, it should not be a reason to not show love.

Fair enough.

[Darren10]

That's where we differ. I do not claim to know that homosexuals could produce spirit children, but I also do not believe there is any scripture on the subject. In fact, the scriptures seem open to the possibility of creating bodies without male-female intercourse (Adam; Christ). God simply has not spoken on the issue of how spirit children are made. It's an error therefore to assume we know.

You have got to be kidding me.

[Buckeye]

You have got to be kidding me.

What would give that impression? I'm quite serious. If you'd like to help, instead of insulting my sincerity, you could point me to any scriptural reference - canonized or not - that speaks to the process by which spirit children are conceived and birthed. I still haven't found one. And while we're at it, go ahead and point to any scriptural reference that teaches that male-female intercourse was involved in the creation of Adam or Christ's mortal body. Again, I'd love to see something.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Buckeye

[Darren10]

I think it is an important distinction to make that having same-sex attraction does not make you a homosexual. Acting on those impulses makes you a homosexual.

No, having same sex attraction *does* make you a homosexual. Acting on them, however, is where the sin truly lies in terms of one's standing in the LDS Church.

[Darren10]

What would give that impression? I'm quite serious. If you'd like to help, instead of insulting my sincerity, you could point me to any scriptural reference - canonized or not - that speaks to the process by which spirit children are born. I still haven't found one. And while we're at it, go ahead and point to any scriptural reference that teaches that male-female intercourse was involved in the creation of Adam or Christ's body. Again, I'd love to see something.

Your post offers the possibility that a man and a man may procreate in the eternities. What are you talking about?

[Darren10]

As for the exact mechanics of how Adam's body was created, we do not know. Same goes for Jesus' body but the mere notion that it was *possibly* done in a homosexual manner? Get real.

[Buckeye]

Your post offers the possibility that a man and a man may procreate in the eternities. What are you talking about?

That's precisely what I'm talking about. I'm not claiming to *know* that it's possible, but I'm pointing out the absence of any scripture saying it is not possible. I find this necessary because so many people on this board assume to *know* that it is impossible, even though they have no basis.

[Buckeye]

As for the exact mechanics of how Adam's body was created, we do not know. Same goes for Jesus' body but the mere notion that it was *possibly* done in a homosexual manner? Get real.

Again, I'm not suggesting these bodies were created by homosexuals, only that there is a lot about procreation we do not know. FWIW, my best guess as to Adam is that he had heterosexual mortal parents like the rest of us, going back along the evolutionary chain. As for Christ, I have no earthy idea.

[rongo]

I can tell you that I have always been gay. Always, even prior to puberty. Was I born that way? Did something happen in the womb? I have no idea. I don't think that Faust does either, and I don't think the church today does either. The significant change from the church is a clear message that people don't choose to be gay. And that is a welcoming development. So many members in the past seem to think that being gay is about sex or about some kind of "lifestyle choice". That is not why people are gay. And the church is making that perfectly clear.

I have an honest question, california boy, and I hope it isn't offensive. It certainly isn't my intent.

In my experience (teaching sincere homosexuals on my mission, working with several sincere pro-Church homosexuals over ten years, including most recently as a bishop), it seems to me in all cases I have been involved with, homosexuals are more sexual than heterosexuals, period. That is, not only is sexuality more of a "big deal" as far as identity, but it seems to be more all-consuming to homosexuals than it is to heterosexuals. At least in my experience.

I was good friends with a man in my ward who was excommunicated for homosexuality (he has since moved). This man wanted with all his heart not to be, and had explored every avenue as far as therapy, counseling, etc. Dean Byrd had even agreed to meet with him. For this man, organizations like North Star, Evergreen and Exodus were helpful to an extent, but had outlived their ability to help him. The best information we were told by competent sources was that some gay men are able to develop at least some degree of heterosexual attraction, but not all (or even many), and every person is literally different (what may have worked for one won't necessarily be helpful to another). We were also told that homosexual sexual contact after the young twenties dramatically increases the likelihood that overcoming or lessening homosexual attraction will not be successful (as opposed to struggling with it in one's teens, but not following through with it after young manhood).

At any rate, I found one thing striking: he told me that attending his meetings at church was sheer torture for him because he had to constantly fight lust and desire for men at church the whole three hours. He didn't like having to "white knuckle" it all the time, and he didn't like having to fight these thoughts and urges in a church setting.

Another brother, who is married with four children but has also been excommunicated for homosexuality (still married to his wife, and his children have all turned out very well) and has up until about three years ago continued to struggle with homosexuality, told me the same thing. He doesn't particularly enjoy homosexuality, but attributed it (multiple homosexual partners over nearly 30 years) to "ease of access" because of his struggles with his thoughts and urges. He is attracted to women as well.

Controlling one's thoughts is a struggle for all people in mortality (probably more so for men than for women), but what these men have described for me, this constant, overpowering, "white knuckle" struggle to fight bad thoughts and urges, seems to be several degrees of magnitude worse for homosexuals than it is for other males. I wonder if the major component is hyper-sexuality, period, irrespective of whether that is homo- or heterosexual? I wonder if studies of libido in gay vs. straight women bear this out as well? This of course, as you pointed out in what I quoted from you, does not address where it comes from or what causes it ---- it's just an observation I have from my experience.

Do you think there might be something to this? This is borne out in other anecdotal experience I have with friends, family, and acquaintances. This insistence on sexual orientation as a core component of identity seems to be much more present with homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

Thanks!

Edited December 7, 2012 by rongo

[Darren10]

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

D&C 132

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Corinthians 11

Pogi made a comment that having children is key to exaltation and godhood. You yourself highlighted in bold his clause saying, "Homosexuality cannot and does not promote eternal progression into Godhood". You then replied correctly that you do not know the mechanics behind the creation of Adam's and Jesus' bodies.

First off, Pogi did not claim to know the eternal nature of creation, only earthly. Second, his point was that as far as what we do know, that homosexuality is by its nature outside the realm of progressing man towards "godhood". He was exactly correct in saying as much. He was also correct in linking (howbeit in a round about) eternal procreation to eternal sealings which is exclusively heterosexual. According to what we know from man's science and from divine revelation, Your reply left wide open the possibility of homosexual relations being involved in creation. I cannot phathom how that is remotely possible.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that it is the emphasis of the website and they've made it clear that the doctrine has not changed and is not changing. Unfortunately this thread has been a perfect demonstration that this exhortation is needed. The website also highlights a change in teaching approach, that is that 'gay people do not choose their orientation'. I would consider this a change in emphasis and approach from past teachings (such as aversion therapies).

Having said that. It says 'has not changed and is not changing.' But it didn't say 'will never change.' As such, it's not possible to say 'will never be.'

Regarding the part I have bolded above, it appears Canard is neglecting part of what is on the website.

I just went to the website and listened to/read the remarks by Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve. This is what he said:

Is the Church softening its position regarding same sex attraction?

There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that. The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter. So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression. It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us. That being said, it’s important to remember a few things that people don’t always understand or remember. And that is that homosexual behavior is not the unforgiveable sin. The atonement and repentance can bring full forgiveness there, and peace. And secondly, I’d say though we don’t know everything we know enough to be able to say that same-sex attraction in and of itself is not a sin. The feeling, the desire is not classified the same as homosexual behavior itself. And the third point I would mention is that when people have those desires and same-sex attractions, our attitude is “stay with us.” I think that’s what God is saying “Stay with me.” And that’s what we want to say in the Church: “Stay with us.” Let’s work together on this and find friendship and commonality and brotherhood and sisterhood, here more than anywhere. It’s important that there be love, and that there be hope. Love is not to say acceptance or endorsement, but it is to say inclusion and not ostracism. We want to be with you and work together.

Please note the part I have emphasized in bold, which precludes the possibility that the Church will ever change its doctrine with regard to homosexual behavior being sinful.

[RobertAC]

I have an honest question, california boy, and I hope it isn't offensive. It certainly isn't my intent.

In my experience (teaching sincere homosexuals on my mission, working with several sincere pro-Church homosexuals over ten years, including most recently as a bishop), it seems to me in all cases I have been involved with, homosexuals are more sexual than heterosexuals, period. That is, not only is sexuality more of a "big deal" as far as identity, but it seems to be more all-consuming to homosexuals than it is to heterosexuals. At least in my experience.

Do you think there might be something to this? This is borne out in other anecdotal experience I have with friends, family, and acquaintances. This insistence on sexual orientation as a core component of identity seems to be much more present with homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

Thanks!

I know this was for California Boy, but I thought I would chime in. I think men in general are more sexual than women on the whole.

As for being all-consuming, it might be if someone was religious and their orientation did not match their religion, but for most gays and lesbians I don't think its a big deal at all.

[Kemara]

Except I have never said that homosexuality was accepted by Christ or that gay marriage is acceptible to God. I have ONLY pointed out two things.

Who said anything about what you did or did not say? The world revolve around you much?

I have never advocated that the church change it's position on gay marriage. If the church wants to have such a policy, then I defend their right to have such a policy.

Who said you did? Why the red herring?

The way to influence gays is not telling them they are the same as pedophiles, and telling them their marriage is the same as marrying a dog, but rather to love and support them.

Extreme justifications require extreme rebuttals.

The church can devote an entire web site to this issue, yet I did not find one statement by the church telling gays that they are just like pedophiles.

The website also made it very clear what the laws of God are and where the church stands in relation to those laws. I am happy to let that stand, to be the entirety of my argument, however, you and other homosexual propagandists will not let the issue stand there. You have to wrest the holy scriptures, you have to invoke the name and character of the Redeemer in a totally illogical manner in an attempt to justify your lifestyle choices, you have to attempt acceptance. Sorry California Boy, but I will not let that stand.

Ok now you are really stretching things. No one is silencing anyones views on homosexuality.

You are right, no one is silencing me, but using tried and true methods of homosexual propagandists you sure are trying.

Is all I am asking for is a bit more civility.

You are free to start that at any time and I am happy to oblige. A good place for you to start is to:

1. Stop misrepresenting what I and other supporters of Gods laws say.
   
2. Stop taking what supporters of Gods law say out of context.
   
3. Stop using extreme analogies that require extreme refutations.
   
4. Stop trying to silence me and other supporters of Gods laws.
   
5. Stop trying to restrict my use of the same logical and reasoning methods that you are happy to use.
   
6. Stop being intolerant of my beliefs and views.
   

If you can not make your arguments against homosexuality without comparing them to pedophiles, perhaps you should get better arguments.

And this is a perfect example of the conduct and the lengths that proponents of homosexuality will go to in an attempt to silence supporters of the laws of God. You know full well that I can and have made arguments against homosexuality without comparing them to paedophiles etc. You know this don’t you California Boy? You know that this is an absolute fact don’t you? So why are you trying to make it seem that the only arguments there are against homosexuality are one’s that involve comparison to paedophilia? Is it because you want people to believe that there are no other legitimate arguments against the homosexual lifestyle? Is it because you don’t like the same logic and reasoning that you use reflected back on you?

Members that resort to this type of behavior are not changing anyones minds concerning homosexuality. It just makes them feel better to think of gays the same way as they think of pedophiles.

Absolute hogwash, total, utter and complete nonsense. When proponents of homosexuality start making ridiculous claims just like the claims you have made in this post then ridiculous means are used to counter them, for example:

… yet at not time in His recorded three year ministry did He condemn homosexuality.

This is a typical justification used by you and other homosexual propagandists. Basically the logic is that if Christ did not explicitly condemn homosexuality then it is or could be or should be acceptable to Him and to those that defend the laws of God. So using the same logical process you used, adopting the same line of reasoning you did, comparisons are made to other acts not explicitly condemned by Christ. You don’t like it, but it is valid. If the logic and reasoning used to debunk your nonsense is not valid then the logic and reasoning you use in an attempt to justify your nonsense is not valid.

[Kemara]

Oh I don't know. Why not follow the example of Christ. He was able to go through his entire ministry without telling anyone they reminded Him of pedophiles or that their relationships were about like marrying a cat.

This little rant did not answer my question, the question was how should YOU be treating others in relation to this matter? How should YOU treat me in relation to this matter? All I hear from you on the issue of “treating” is how I should treat you. This is just typical of the proponents of homosexuality, refuse to answer the question in any meaningful way and start sprouting totally unrelated extreme nonsense.

You just don't get it do you. If your goal is to love and influence gays both within and outside the church to come unto Christ, you should be rethinking your approach.

In this specific instance my goal is to defend the laws of God and defend my right to defend the laws of God. As such, I think my approach is not entirely worthless.

You can simply say the church does not accept homosexual behavior nor does it support gay marriage without telling them they are like pedophiles. That is what the Spirit is telling me.

And you can simply say that although there is no scriptural justification and that the words of Christ lend no support to my decision I choose to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. At this point we are done, the argument and debate is over, the two sides understand each other and we can both move on. But that isn’t really what you want is it, that isn’t really what any of the proponents of homosexuality want is it?

I think it is clear from the message of the church that it is time for members of the church to stop comparing gays to pedophiles and telling them their marriage is like marrying a cat.

If you want this to happen then stop trying to justify your lifestyle choices in such an extreme manner that necessitates extreme refutation.

I think the church is telling the world that they will treat gays with respect and dignity and hope that members do as well.

This is true and I agree. But again you seem to draw from the website that respect and dignity should only be a one way street, I don’t see the website that way, references are made to how we (we would include you and me wouldn’t it?) should treat each other, what it means to be disciples of Christ (you consider yourself a disciple or follower of Christ, like many other homosexuals, don’t you?). It needs to be a two way street, you need to start treating proponents of the laws of God with respect and dignity and not try to silence them or shame them or show intolerance toward them.

I think you can have a discussion about belief without resorting to dialogue that is degrading and unjustified. I think that we can all respect that we have different beliefs on this subject without resorting to crude language. If you have an argument against gay marriage, then state it. Comparing their relationship to marrying a cat is not an argument, it is just insulting.

This is true and I agree. But again you seem to think that degrading and unjustified dialogue is a one way street. Using examples and analogies that stretches logic past all reasonable use is not an argument either and it is just as insulting. The insult is exacerbated when the use of the same logic and reasoning is not tolerated.

Do you think any gay person sees such analogy as being the least bit compelling?

About as compelling as the logic you use in an attempt to justify your choice of lifestyle.

I think gays should treat the church and its beliefs with respect and dignity. I think that gays should not resort to name calling or crude language when discussing the beliefs of the Mormon church. That is what the Spirit is telling me and that is what I have always tried to do on this board.

Feel free to start doing this at any time, I look forward to it.