Mormonsandgays

[Scott Lloyd]

I would listen to everyone and make up my own mind based on the (possibly-paradigm-shifting) evidence each source provides rather than an appeal to authority?

In this instance,not just any authority.

[Buzzard]

The focus on love and kindness is not new, but the particulars of how we approach gay people, especially our children, has changed. No longer do we teach that homosexuality is a choice. No longer do we try to cure homosexuals through therapy or heterosexual marriage. Instead, we accept them as they are and ask them to remain celebate for life. That is quite a change. And it sets the table for eventual inclusion of homosexuals in the plan of salvation.

It's the same process as with the racial priesthood ban. Once we removed the idea that black people were responsible for the ban due to choices in the pre-existence, once we removed the idea that black people will eventually be turned white, once we simply accepted blacks as they are - well, that inevitably lead, over time, to questioning why they couldn't receive all priesthood blessings in this life even though our doctrine had said they would not receive the priesthood until all whites had a chance. Questioning lead to desires for something better. Desires lead to prayer and revelation. And the doctrine changed. No longer would blacks need to wait until all whites had a chance.

Again, I am confident that as members of the church interact with and get to know gay people - in particular gay families - we will see the Lord's hand guiding the church on this issue. We will find answers previously unknown.

Sigh. It's not the same thing, it's not the same process. Even Brigham Young said that eventually blacks would get the priesthood. But modern prophets have consistiently said that the only appropriate place for sexual expression is within the confines of heterosexual marriage. That message has not changed, nor does this web site break any new ground there. And as for "setting the table", the table is already set and the food is out for any of God's children who wish to participate, including homosexuals. But there is not wiggle room in the Plan of Salvation for homosexual practices. None. Stop trying to find it. Celestial glory means eternal increase, and that means a man and a woman-or women, as the case may be.

I know this is not the first thread on this, and it won't be the last. But the answer is not going to change.

[Erin15]

Erin,

There are many other possibilties that those two. For instance, the church can be true and led by God, but only led within the contraints of what his weak people are willing to accept. In that paradigm, the current teachings are not the final word, but one step along the way. We know ancient Isreal was given a lesser law because they would not accept more. Christ was repeatedly quoted saying "You have heard that it was said .... but I say unto you .....", but even his teachings were not the final word. As Jeremy points out, the 9th AOF removes any doubt that the notion "we have received all revelation and there can be no further revelation" is false.

Again, I don't know you, but from your posts it seems like you have a strong political agenda on this issue, which makes it difficult for me to respond to you since I approach this as a moral issue.

[CV75]

But if our belief in modern revelation leads us to assume that a modern policy is based on revelation when it isn't, that is worse than a Church that believes all modern policies are man-made and is more open to examining them in the light of scripture.

If this were the case, no matter what, the results of examination would still yield man-made policy. So to me, it is not better at all.

And I suppose there are a sufficient number of saints that can discern which modern policies are based on (or tie back to) revelation and which are not to counter the ill effects of those that cannot.

I think the Church’s stance on homosexual behavior is at the very least reasonably supported by scripture, and qualifies as a commandment rather than a “policy.” As a commandment, I also place the law of chastity as being supported by revelation.

Edited December 6, 2012 by CV75

[Buckeye]

Again, I don't know you, but from your posts it seems like you have a strong political agenda on this issue, which makes it difficult for me to respond to you since I approach this as a moral issue.

Please. It's just as much a moral issue for me as you. Please address the arguments on their merits rather than hiding under the cloak of "politics".

[Erin15]

I would listen to everyone and make up my own mind based on the (possibly-paradigm-shifting) evidence each source provides rather than an appeal to authority?

There is only one person whose opinion I want, and that is The Lord's.

I have asked The Lord and he has told me his will. I invite you to set aside what you want The Lord to say and instead simply ask him yourself, with an open heart to follow His will and not your own regardless of the answer you recieve.

[canard78]

Sure we do. It's just that we have often been misunderstood in the past by what that phrase means.

No. No we don't. We do not teach 'being homosexual is a choice.'

Having a desire to steal does not make you a theif, the choice to steal does. Having a desire to haxe sex with children does not make you a pedophile, the choice to act on those desires does. Having the desire to lie does not make you a liar, choosing to lie does. And, in this case, being attracted to the same sex does not make you homosexual, the choice to act on that attraction does.

The fact you would group theives, paedophiles, liars and homosexuals into the same example is really quite unpleasant. I would suggest that a desire to commit the first three is a sin of the heart because it's a desire to do harm to another and create a victim. Being gay (in either desire or act) is miles apart from these. The fact you group them says more about your prejudice against gays than I think you realise. This new website is clearly designed to soften the negativity some mormons are ingrained with.

That sounds like a political agenda.

That sounds like a homophobic agenda.

[pogi]

You are absolutely right. I mispoke. I should have said "And it sets the table for eventual inclusion of homosexuality in the plan of salvation."

The problem with homosexuality and the plan of salvation is that the key and central feature of the plan is the family. Children are key to eternal progression and Godhood. Homosexuality cannot and does not promote eternal progression into Godhood, it never will, unless scientist can figure out how to impregnate men, or if men can be impregnated in the after-life.

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.

Edited December 6, 2012 by pogi

[Erin15]

Please. It's just as much a moral issue for me as you.

The way you posts give the impression that you are excidedly anticipating an inevitable shift in attitudes and doctrine, that you have already decided what you want and you are desiring the church and it's members to change to suit you.

Am I wrong in that assessment?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

In this instance,not just any authority.

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. If He breaks it, then He ceases to be a God worth worshipping as such. And if His Priesthood may only operate on the principles of truth and persuasion, then any "argument" relying merely on submitting to someone else's "authority", including God's, is worthless. God is a fellow Intelligence, even if He is wiser than us; as such, He says in Isaiah that we're supposed to come reason with Him, not just accept the interpretation of what fallible mortals have said He says.

[Scott Lloyd]

The fact you would group theives, paedophiles, liars and homosexuals into the same example is really quite unpleasant. I would suggest that a desire to commit the first three is a sin of the heart because it's a desire to do harm to another and create a victim. Being gay (in either desire or act) is miles apart from these. The fact you group them says more about your prejudice against gays than I think you realise.

What I see in common with all four is the self-gratification of unwholesome tendencies.

[CA Steve]

The problem with homosexuality and the plan of salvation is that the key and central feature of the plan is the family. Children are key to eternal progression and Godhood. Homosexuality cannot and does not promote eternal progression into Godhood, it never will, unless scientist can figure out how to impregnate men, or if men can be impregnated in the after-life.

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.

How were Adam & Eve's earthy bodies created?

[canard78]

Again, I don't know you, but from your posts it seems like you have a strong political agenda on this issue, which makes it difficult for me to respond to you since I approach this as a moral issue.

There was nothing political in his/her (sorry?) post at all. Show me the politics in that statement.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

What I see in common with all four is the self-gratification of unwholesome tendencies.

It's the view that those "tendencies" are "unwholesome" in the first place that is being questioned. We could just as easily frame heterosexual sex as an "unwholesome" example of "self-gratification".

Edited December 6, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

He says in Isaiah that we're supposed to come reason with Him, not just accept the interpretation of what fallible mortals have said He says.

The idea of reasoning with him is with the intent of bringing our own mind and will into conformity with His perfect mind and will -- not to change His mind.

[Buckeye]

The way you posts give the impression that you are excidedly anticipating an inevitable shift in attitudes and doctrine, that you have already decided what you want and you are desiring the church and it's members to change to suit you.

Am I wrong in that assessment?

Your error is to focus on perceived motives and intentions rather than the arguments themselves. FWIW, though, my motives are for the gospel to work in everyone's lives, including homosexuals. I'm open to the possibilty that the plan of salvation can accomodate homosexuality, but I am not set on that. If the Lord choose to reveal a way for homosexuality to be "cured", I'd be fine with that too. But so far he hasn't; despite many many prayers from sincere members who would like it.

[pogi]

How were Adam & Eve's earthy bodies created?

I think the better question is how were their spirits created? Without a spirit, a body is of no use.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's the view that those "tendencies" are "unwholesome" in the first place that is being questioned. We could just as easily frame heterosexual sex as an "unwholesome" example of "self-gratification".

Or we could just as easily frame pedophilia as wholesome once we have done so with homosexual behavior.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Erin15]

The fact you would group theives, paedophiles, liars and homosexuals into the same example is really quite unpleasant. This new website is clearly designed to soften the negativity some mormons are ingrained with.

That sounds like a homophobic agenda.

You are trying to shame me into backing down, which is a common tactic, but not a valid one, because it is not a real argument. It is basically saying "be quiet."

The fact is that breaking the law of chastity is the third most serious sin in the Gospel, so your protests about my example are demonstrably false.

The fact that you do not like it is irrelivant. The Gospel is not yours or mine to change. It is there for us to accept or reject.

[canard78]

What I see in common with all four is the self-gratification of unwholesome tendencies.

Surely you can see the damage of telling someone with same sex attraction that they are no different from a paedophile is counter-productive and sets a negative tone to the dialogue?

[Buckeye]

The problem with homosexuality and the plan of salvation is that the key and central feature of the plan is the family. Children are key to eternal progression and Godhood. Homosexuality cannot and does not promote eternal progression into Godhood, it never will, unless scientist can figure out how to impregnate men, or if men can be impregnated in the after-life.

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.

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.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Or we could just as easily frame pedophilia as wholesome once we have done so with homosexual behavior.

Only if we ignore the fundamental difference between them, which has to do with consent between legal adults. (And, uh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith married a 14-year-old.)

[Buckeye]

There was nothing political in his/her (sorry?) post at all. Show me the politics in that statement.

Him, not that it matters.

[Scott Lloyd]

Surely you can see the damage of telling someone with same sex attraction that they are no different from a paedophile is counter-productive and sets a negative tone to the dialogue?

Not so long as I differentiate between the tendency and the acting on the tendency.

A person with pedophiliac tendencies has just as much claim on my acceptance so long as he holds those tendencies in check and refuses to act upon them.

[CV75]

The problem with homosexuality and the plan of salvation is that the key and central feature of the plan is the family. Children are key to eternal progression and Godhood. Homosexuality cannot and does not promote eternal progression into Godhood, it never will, unless scientist can figure out how to impregnate men, or if men can be impregnated in the after-life.

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.

And if sexual relations are not about procreation, they must be about by and with whom to experience orgasm, and why, and how important and meaningful that reason and experience are in relation to the over-arching purpose of life, which is to lay down one’s life for a friend.