Mormonsandgays

[Rob Osborn]

I ask that you provide a reference or retract that statement.

Only the wicked take the truth to be hard. Now you dont take that hard do you?

[rockpond]

Its a great thing that the real world isnt built upon what-ifs. Marriage between man and women is ordained of God and I am eternally protected in that right that no mere mortal man could take away. But, to appease- "if" the church were to try to make us celibate I would then know it wasn't Christ's church at all for it was He who said that the man without the women is not perfect.

Yes, it's extremely fortunate for those who are born heterosexual.

[Hamba Tuhan]

A question I've multiple times but no-one has bothered to answer is how you would feel if the church made us all celibate. Would you walk away from your relationship without a second thought?

My personal situation necessitates celibacy for me. I'm OK with that fact. From the very beginning, the Lord has asked hard things of those who love and seek to follow Him. Occasionally, I start to wander from my commitment to live the law the Lord has given, but in doing so I've repeatedly discovered that I prefer the closeness I enjoy with Him over anything else. I feel the loss of that closeness more acutely than I feel any other 'lack' in my life. I'm bound to Him by covenants in this world and throughout all eternity, and this is the only condition in which I've ever felt truly free.

[rockpond]

Only the wicked take the truth to be hard. Now you dont take that hard do you?

I take it to be offensive. And I was just trying to follow the rules of this discussion board wherein I have been instructed that when someone asks for a reference you need to provide it, retract your statement, or leave the thread.

[rockpond]

My personal situation necessitates celibacy for me. I'm OK with that fact. From the very beginning, the Lord has asked hard things of those who love and seek to follow Him. Occasionally, I start to wander from my commitment to live the law the Lord has given, but in doing so I've repeatedly discovered that I prefer the closeness I enjoy with Him over anything else. I feel the loss of that closeness more acutely than I feel any other 'lack' in my life. I'm bound to Him by covenants in this world and throughout all eternity, and this is the only condition in which I've ever felt truly free.

I honor your commitment, faithfulness, and the relationship you have with our Savior. God bless.

[Rob Osborn]

I take it to be offensive. And I was just trying to follow the rules of this discussion board wherein I have been instructed that when someone asks for a reference you need to provide it, retract your statement, or leave the thread.

If it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck....its a duck. The phrase- by your fruits you shall know them. I stand by the churches position of accepting that same sex attraction isn't the sin but acting upon it is a sin. We may all be tempted with a myriad of sins to partake of but it all comes down to our fruits- the end result of if we give in to temptation or not. I will be honest, I am attracted to other women besides my wife, pretty much the entire male married population is. But there is no sin in that acknowledgement. It only becomes a sin if I dwell on those thoughts or go ahead and act on those temptations.

Our church is clear in its position that marriage is only accepted and acknowledged between man and women and that same sex marriageis an abomination before God.

[Calm]

Yet each man was still married to multiple women at the same time.

But each marriage is independent of the others.

I am not saying it is a traditional marriage system, at least not in the European heritage countries, I am just saying that even in plural marriage, marriage is still defined as a relationship between one man and one woman even if the man can have multiple relationships at the same time.

[rockpond]

But each marriage is independent of the others.

I am not saying it is a traditional marriage system, at least not in the European heritage countries, I am just saying that even in plural marriage, marriage is still defined as a relationship between one man and one woman even if the man can have multiple relationships at the same time.

Well I guess it's too bad you weren't around to explain that to the US Congress back when the church was fighting for its right to continue the practice of polygamy.

I'm also surprised that the Fundamentalists haven't been successful in using that logic to defend their cause.

[Calm]

A question I've multiple times but no-one has bothered to answer is how you would feel if the church made us all celibate. Would you walk away from your relationship without a second thought?

No, because I've already made a commitment to him and my children, though if he agree on celibacy I suspect we would abide by that rule.

Converts who have a relationship in place that is contrary to gospel law have to make a choice. In some cases, the Church tells them not to leave the relationship rather than be baptized because of their responsibility to others as in the case of polygamous marriages in countries where this is legal. Other cases they encourage the couple to marry or to end the relationship such as when there are no children involved and no significant economic or social dependency of one partner on the other.

However, your scenario is one where the Church springs a new law on its members where none existed before, something different than what is being asked of gay members right now. It is closer to what members experienced with plural marriage, both in its inception and ending. Thus there may be other commitments and covenants already in place that have an effect on those being asked to change, covenants that they must take into account in deciding what is morally right.

[Nathair/|\]

But each marriage is independent of the others.

I am not saying it is a traditional marriage system, at least not in the European heritage countries, I am just saying that even in plural marriage, marriage is still defined as a relationship between one man and one woman even if the man can have multiple relationships at the same time.

Polygamy was common in Eire well into Christian times. Under Brehon law, any relationship that could produce a child was considered to be a marriage.

[Calm]

Or what if one of us received a letter from the prophet today instructing us that we had just been arbitrarily assigned to a group of church members now required to live a life a celibacy? As with homosexual members, your testimony of the gospel and the restoration is still intact but now you are asked to live this almost unfathomable life. Would you stay at the cost of losing your spouse & children? Or the hope of a spouse/children? Or would you, possibly, hope/pray/petition for something different?

Unless the homosexual is a convert, this is not the same scenario. A homosexual member who had been living the gospel all along would not have to lose a spouse and children because he would have been practicing celibacy all along. While extremely hard (and I admire greatly anyone who makes that choice and even more those who are faithful to that choice all of their lives just as I admire singel heterosexuals who have remained virtuous all of their lives), it is not the same thing as being told one has to give up a relationship or relationships one has been living.

Honestly, I don't see how it is so unfathomable. I had a great aunt who realized when she was quite young she would remain unmarried all of her life and she committed to a celibate life and I have no doubt she lived one. I know of other women and men who have been or are in the same situation. There is also a long history in the Catholic faith of those who have chosen celibacy and been faithful in it so that they may better serve God and his children.

[Calm]

I take it to be offensive. And I was just trying to follow the rules of this discussion board wherein I have been instructed that when someone asks for a reference you need to provide it, retract your statement, or leave the thread.

Use the report function to ensure the rules are followed if that is what you want.

[Calm]

Well I guess it's too bad you weren't around to explain that to the US Congress back when the church was fighting for its right to continue the practice of polygamy.

I'm also surprised that the Fundamentalists haven't been successful in using that logic to defend their cause.

I am not saying that means monogamous marriage is the identical marriage system to a polygamous marriage system nor is there anything in what I wrote that implies that. Just being precise in what the marriage relationship was, which was marriages of one man to one woman, where the man was involved in more than one....which again is not traditional Western marriage nor is it identical to monogamous marriage where it is one man to one woman, where boty have only one marriage relationship...at least at a time.

OTOH, gay marriage redefines the basic marriage relationship, whether it is one relationship or multiple ones.

Please do not make more of what I have stated than what is there.

[Calm]

Polygamy was common in Eire well into Christian times. Under Brehon law, any relationship that could produce a child was considered to be a marriage.

I don't think monogamy was all that popular even in Europe to begin with though it's been quite some time since I have studied early European history and cultures so I may be misremembering. Martin Luther* and a few others were giving permission to rulers and others to engage in it so it had to be seen as acceptable in some ways and only later looked on with such horror and shock.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,"^[31] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret, however, to avoid public scandal.^[32] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")^[33]

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."^{[34][35][36][37][38][39]}

Edited December 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Well I guess it's too bad you weren't around to explain that to the US Congress back when the church was fighting for its right to continue the practice of polygamy.

I'm also surprised that the Fundamentalists haven't been successful in using that logic to defend their cause.

Yes, the use of the word unfathomable was an over-exaggeration on my part.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Converts who have a relationship in place that is contrary to gospel law have to make a choice.

And this can be excruciatingly hard. When I was a fulltime missionary, I taught a woman who had been in a sexual relationship with the same man for seven years. She loved him and was bound to him emotionally. When she raised the issue with us, we explained to her that she had two options if she wanted to become a Latter-day Saint: get married or break off the relationship. We sincerely hoped that the former option would work out, but she was not optimistic. When she finally got up the courage, she explained to her partner that she planned to join the Church, and therefore they would need to marry. Instead, he left her. At the time, the despair of this loss nearly killed her.

She spent the next ten years alone. I spoke to her on the phone after she'd received her patriarchal blessing. She was happy that she'd been promised an eternal companion therein and couldn't understand why some of her female friends in the ward had cynically said things like, 'Sure...though probably in the next life'. 'Why does it matter when blessings come,' she asked me, 'as long as the promise has been given'? In her case, she ended up single for only a decade before meeting and marrying a nice man in her stake, but she'd already made her choice, so the timing of the actual wait is neither neare nor there. The last time I spoke to her on the phone, she said that everything good in her life had begun with her very painful decision to let her earlier partner walk away.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then again, your use of the green vomiting smiley as a response to a previous post gives me a clue as to your level of discourse.

That emoticon was up for maybe two minutes, if that. I deleted my post when I realized I had misread Senator's post and that he used the word "post," not "thread." I deleted it because I don't disagree with anything you said in the particular post to which Senator referred. In fact, that post all by itself sums up my own sentiment quite well.

Now, if Senator had indeed used the word "thread," well, I might have left the green emoticon up. The fact is I find much of what you have written on the thread to be particularly unpalatable, hence the green emoticon is an appropriate expression. I'm sorry you find it a low "level of discourse," but it's a candid reflection of my sentiment.

And with that, I think I really am out of here.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

And this can be excruciatingly hard...... When she finally got up the courage, she explained to her partner that she planned to join the Church, and therefore they would need to marry. Instead, he left her. At the time, the despair of this loss nearly killed her.

I counsel young people who are close to me who are going on mission to sincerely try to imagine what they are asking of those they teach to sacrifice for the gospel and to never trivialize such sacrifice. It is not an easy choice even when they get an overpowering spiritual witness of the gospel's truth. There are many who do have to choose between all that they've known and take a leap of faith leaving all that behind. I've known many who have been cut off from their families and treated as if they had never been born because they chose a different life than the ones their parents wanted for them.

[california boy]

There will never be an end to the myriads of sin that man will try to justify before God and also his fellow man. This push for gay rights in our courts is fueled by the works of Satan, no more and no less.

So is the only reason you wanted to( or want to) be married is so that you could have sex without sinning?

[Rob Osborn]

So is the only reason you wanted to( or want to) be married is so that you could have sex without sinning?

I am married for a number of reasons. Of course sex within marriage between man and woman is acceptable before God and his angels and thus not a sin. Sexual relations outside of that is of course sin.

[california boy]

And this can be excruciatingly hard. When I was a fulltime missionary, I taught a woman who had been in a sexual relationship with the same man for seven years. She loved him and was bound to him emotionally. When she raised the issue with us, we explained to her that she had two options if she wanted to become a Latter-day Saint: get married or break off the relationship. We sincerely hoped that the former option would work out, but she was not optimistic. When she finally got up the courage, she explained to her partner that she planned to join the Church, and therefore they would need to marry. Instead, he left her. At the time, the despair of this loss nearly killed her.

She spent the next ten years alone. I spoke to her on the phone after she'd received her patriarchal blessing. She was happy that she'd been promised an eternal companion therein and couldn't understand why some of her female friends in the ward had cynically said things like, 'Sure...though probably in the next life'. 'Why does it matter when blessings come,' she asked me, 'as long as the promise has been given'? In her case, she ended up single for only a decade before meeting and marrying a nice man in her stake, but she'd already made her choice, so the timing of the actual wait is neither neare nor there. The last time I spoke to her on the phone, she said that everything good in her life had begun with her very painful decision to let her earlier partner walk away.

I am sure the promise that this single woman had that she would some day have an eternal companion was a great comfort to her and gave her strength. The big difference is that gays are not promised that they will be able to marry a man in the next life. As I have said before being married to a woman for eternity is just something that repells me. It is probably a pretty universal feeling. After all that is the reason we are gay and not straight. The opposite sex doesn't work for us.

[california boy]

I am married for a number of reasons. Of course sex within marriage between man and woman is acceptable before God and his angels and thus not a sin. Sexual relations outside of that is of course sin.

Perhaps gay men want to marry for a number of reasons as well. Perhaps it is more than as you claimed in your post

It really appears to me as a way to legitimize sin.

Is that such a hard concept to understand? There is more to wanting to marry than to just legitimize sin.

Edited December 12, 2012 by california boy

[Calm]

I am sure the promise that this single woman had that she would some day have an eternal companion was a great comfort to her and gave her strength. The big difference is that gays are not promised that they will be able to marry a man in the next life. As I have said before being married to a woman for eternity is just something that repells me. It is probably a pretty universal feeling. After all that is the reason we are gay and not straight. The opposite sex doesn't work for us.

Isn't it all an issue of trust in God though that heaven will be heavenly for us? If the whole point of God doing this is that we "might have joy" then does it really matter right now to know the specific details for us as individuals, why can't one find the celestial kingdom and exaltation appealing just based on the concept of the joy that God has promised each of us if we accept his gifts and grace and commandments fully?

There are things that I know I won't have the opportunity to do in this life that I am hoping to not only be able to do, but will continue to want to do in the next one. I don't want to be 'above' enjoying certain activities like sky diving and mountain climbing and comic book reading (my parents never let me get the comic books I wanted, we had to go with Richie Rich and Archie when I wanted Thor and Daredevil). But there is no promise that such things will be activities in the Celestial Kingdom. I could worry that I am going to miss out on those things because I made other choices here (like spending money on food for the family rather than on comic books)....or I can just leave it up to God to know what will bring me the most joy through the eternities, whatever that is.

*I am not trying to trivialize the sacrifice that those who choose to give up having a romantic companion by comparing it to giving up comic books, etc. There are things that I have given up that are too precious and painful to list so I must resort to the lesser important things. I am just making a point that everyone has good things they want in this life and won't be getting because of trying to choose the better way and we have a choice whether to let that potential loss consume us or not.

Edited December 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

Perhaps gay men want to marry for a number of reasons as well. Perhaps it is more than as you claimed in your post

Is that such a hard concept to understand? There is more to wanting to marry than to just legitimize sin.

Homosexuality is the greatest threat to human civilization......there, I said it!

[Calm]

Homosexuality is the greatest threat to human civilization......there, I said it!

Even more than atheism? War? Fanaticism?