Mormonsandgays

[Buzzard]

I'd love to listen. Go ahead and point me to any scripture - cannonized or otherwise - that discusses the process by which spirit children are birthed.

You can't be serious. Here is one I found in about 30 seconds: " Within your body is the power to beget life, to share in creation. The only legitimate expression of that power is within the covenant of marriage. The worthy use of it is the very key to your happiness. Do not use that power prematurely, not with anyone. The misuse of it cannot be made right by making it popular."

How else would you characterize "share in creation"? I suppose you will blow it off because it was said by Boyd K. Packer, but last time I checked, we still sustained him as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator".

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

There are many ills, disorders and diseases that will remain with the victim to the end of his/her mortal life. With the miracle of the resurrection, these will all be removed, and the body will be whole and perfect.

The fact that a disorder or abnormality is (at present) incurable does not sustain the conclusion that it will last into the eternities. In fact, the doctrine of the resurrection contradicts such a notion.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

So, let's go back to my post you over-reacted to, which was an attempt to illustrate that having a desire to ___ does not make you a ____ in a gospel sense, to refute the worldly assertion that simply having the desire to do something makes you defined by it.

What examples would you prefer I used instead?

The meaning of language is important to me, as are the implied message in that language.

As illustrated in my previous post, having a homosexual attraction DOES make you homosexual. Acting on it is outside of the definition. To be a thief you have to have acted on it.

Before it's pointed it out, 'being a paedophile' is also about sexual attraction, not the act. But both the 'world' and the church would hopefully agree it's a psychiatric condition that can and should be treated. The church is not (now) saying the same of same sex attraction.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can not make it any more clear than it already is.

I have confidence in you. Please try.

Edited to add:

Perhaps we could approach it in this way: Please give a hypothetical character sketch of the sort of person who is part of the "chaff" that the Church is endeavoring to remove with the introduction of this website.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

I read this as saying that consciously dwelling on an improper thought is itself a chosen action and can therefore be a sin. A simple thought coming into one's mind is not something consciously chosen and so is not itself sin.

That makes sense....I just have a hard time correlating the idea of a "simple thought" with the very real feelings and thoughts that encompass sexuality and love, which are intense and complex and driving and forceful and, for some, overwhelming.

This is likely a result of my own weaknesses, but I can't imagine living in a world where I cannot even daydream regarding my lust for someone to whom I am attracted to, but then again, I am a shameless, anti-religious heathen and glutton.

[Buckeye]

You can't be serious. Here is one I found in about 30 seconds: " Within your body is the power to beget life, to share in creation. The only legitimate expression of that power is within the covenant of marriage. The worthy use of it is the very key to your happiness. Do not use that power prematurely, not with anyone. The misuse of it cannot be made right by making it popular."

How else would you characterize "share in creation"? I suppose you will blow it off because it was said by Boyd K. Packer, but last time I checked, we still sustained him as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator".

That's mortal creation. We're discussing how spirit children are created, not their mortal bodies. Please point me to any source for how spirit children are created.

[Erin15]

As illustrated in my previous post, having a homosexual attraction DOES make you homosexual. Acting on it is outside of the definition. To be a thief you have to have acted on it.

I think that is an extremely dangerous worldy definition to teach people to define themselves like that. The message we should be sending people is that you choose what you are, you are not defined by your desires.

Hence, like I said earlier, being attracted to same-sex doesn't make you anything. Only your actions can make you something.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Erin15

[canard78]

In a Gospel sense, the distinction is important. I understand that the world uses its own definitions, which is why I have been trying to explain the difference to you.

Where's my CFR button? CFR please. Can you show me where the church has redefined the actual meaning of the word homosexual?

Being homosexual is the same as being gay or having same sex attraction. They are all the desire to... Not the act of...

[DavidB]

I have confidence in you. Please try.

Edited to add:

Perhaps we could approach it in this way: Please give a hypothetical character sketch of the sort of person who is part of the "chaff" that the Church is endeavoring to remove with the introduction of this website.

I posted two sentences, those sentences are clear as what I personally see as part of the purpose of the website. I do not know how to help you understand something so clear.

[Erin15]

Buckeye, you didn't answer my question, so I will ask it again:

We cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.

Do you sustain President Hinkley and his statements, or do you not?

[Scott Lloyd]

I posted two sentences, those sentences are clear as what I personally see as part of the purpose of the website. I do not know how to help you understand something so clear.

I suggested a way: by giving a hypothetical example in the form of a character sketch.

Complete this sentence: "By introducing the new website, the Church is endeavoring to filter out the chaff, exemplified by the sort of person who ...."

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

So, I will ask you straight out: Do you sustain President Hinkley and his statements, or do you not?

We sustain leaders, not ideas. I sustain my leaders, including the current Prophet. But that does not mean I agree with everything he says, particularly when my own experiences and prayers say otherwise. In addressing the 1978 revelation, Elder McConkie said:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

I believe this statement reflects the way all church leaders act (including myself in a very limited capacity) - with limited understanding and without a complete light and knowledge. I will not counsel church leaders on how to govern the church (this board is for general discussion, not counseling the brethren), and so I sustain them in their burdens. But I also reserve to myself my belief as to what is right and wrong. There were many members who desired and prayed in their own homes for blacks to receive the priesthood prior to the revelation. Doing so was not a failure to sustain the Prophet.

PS - not to cut hairs, but I no longer sustain President Hinckley as Prophet because he is no longer a Prophet. That's a moot point for this argument because the current Prophet, who I do sustain, believes the same way as President Hinckley did.

[pogi]

Fair enough. We don't exactly know how spirit bodies are created, but we do know that the entire first presidency and apostles of the Church are agreed and declare that "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother."

I don't see them turning their backs on such a recent proclamation. "Marriage between a man and woman is essential to His eternal plan." Pretty clear language that homosexuality is not a part of His eternal plan.

Anybody care to address the proclamation to the world? This is not just one man's words, this is carefully, and deliberately, worded and agreed upon by all of the prophet, seers, and revelators of the Church. It was not proclaimed to our Church alone, but to the entire world as our official stance on the family and the plan of salvation.

[canard78]

I think that is an extremely dangerous worldy definition to teach people to define themselves like that. The message we should be sending people is that you choose what you are, you are not defined by your desires.

Hence, like I said earlier, being attracted to same-sex doesn't make you anything. Only your actions can make you something.

But the point of the new website is to teach Mormons with a limited understanding of homosexuality the opposite. They don't 'choose' their same sex attraction. They don't 'choose' to be homosexual, just as I don't 'choose' to be heterosexual.

I don't know if you're married or not, but if you are now, if someone had asked before your marriage if you were heterosexual (or 'straight'), would you have said 'yes' or would you have said 'I choose to not define myself in that way?'

Where we agree is whether each person chooses to act on it in the appropriate way is what God is interested in.

[Walden]

By going to the dictionary and looking up the word lust. God says in other places that a man should desire after his wife. Huzzah!

1.

intense sexual desire or appetite.

2.

uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

3.

a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followedby for ): a lust for power.

4.

ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

So essentially, an LDS homosexual must disavow any "intense sexual desires, illicit desires {which would be any homosexual desires, since homosexuality is illicit in the LDS faith} passionate desires, ardent enthusiasm, etc." to remain a member in good standing? Essentially, they must be a completely sexless being, except for the occasional, random thought that then must be erased/pushed from their mind the instant it enters?

The more I read the rationalizations, the more respect I have for homosexuals who choose to remain in the LDS church. Their's is not a lot that I could bear in life.

[Scott Lloyd]

We sustain leaders, not ideas. I sustain my leaders, including the current Prophet. But that does not mean I agree with everything he says, particularly when my own experiences and prayers say otherwise. In addressing the 1978 revelation, Elder McConkie said:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

I believe this statement reflects the way all church leaders act (including myself in a very limited capacity) - with limited understanding and without a complete light and knowledge. I will not counsel church leaders on how to govern the church (this board is for general discussion, not counseling the brethren), and so I sustain them in their burdens. But I also reserve to myself my belief as to what is right and wrong. There were many members who desired and prayed in their own homes for blacks to receive the priesthood prior to the revelation. Doing so was not a failure to sustain the Prophet.

Nor was it in any way inconsistent with what had been said in the past on the subject. Church leaders had stated that sometime in God's eternal plan, they would have the opportunity to hold the priesthood.

On the contrary, prophets and apostles have been unequivocal and clear in their condemnation of homosexual behavior. Your fanciful notion is not merely inconsistent with but absolutely contradicts what has been said in the past.

[Scott Lloyd]

The more I read the rationalizations, the more respect I have for homosexuals who choose to remain in the LDS church. Their's is not a lot that I could bear in life.

If they abide by the teachings and obey the commandments, I too have great respect for them. And I agree they have an extremely difficult burden to bear.

[Buckeye]

Nor was it in any way inconsistent with what had been said in the past on the subject. Church leaders had stated that sometime in God's eternal plan, they would have the opportunity to hold the priesthood.

On the contrary, prophets and apostles have been unequivocal and clear in their condemnation of homosexual behavior. Your fanciful notion is not merely inconsistent with but absolutely contradicts what has been said in the past.

They also said that no blacks would receive the priesthood until all whites had the opportunity. That proved to be false. Blacks now hold the priesthood even though many whites have never heard of the church.

They also said that the reason blacks were denied was because of their pre-mortal failures. That proved to be false. It's now "folklore".

Edited December 6, 2012 by Buckeye

[pogi]

Essentially, they must be a completely sexless being, except for the occasional, random thought that then must be erased/pushed from their mind the instant it enters?

The more I read the rationalizations, the more respect I have for homosexuals who choose to remain in the LDS church. Their's is not a lot that I could bear in life.

I too have no greater respect than for homosexuals who choose to remain LDS. What is required of them is beyond what I would wish on anybody.

I don't believe that homosexuals are required to disavow their feelings and self-titles of homosexuals. If there is one thing I know, the more you try to not thinking about something, the more you think about it. The only possible path to celibacy is through radical self acceptance, that includes their desires. They must embrace themselves through non-judgment. To reject these feelings as evil or bad, would be to reject themselves as evil or bad. They are not!

[blackstrap]

When the brethern say things which I agree with ,they are acting as prophets,seers,and revelators. When they say something that I feel is in error and needs to be corrected,then they are acting as fallible men. Yes, I think I have the proper way to understand doctrine!

As to the " chaff " spoken of,I interpretted it as those who refuse to love and respect gays in or out of the family. I'm probably wrong though.

[Buckeye]

Sorry to bug out. Have to go to my kid's x-mas concert.

[pogi]

They also said that the reason blacks were denied was because of their pre-mortal failures. That proved to be false. It's now "folklore".

They never came out with an official stance about blacks as they have done with the proclamation to the world. Nor did they use words like "eternal" when speaking of blacks not holding the priesthood. History shows that the priesthood ban has been on several groups, later to be accept into the priesthood. This has never been the case with gay marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

They also said that no blacks would receive the priesthood until all whites had the opportunity. That proved to be false. Blacks now hold the priesthood even though many whites have never heard of the church.

They also said that the reason blacks were denied was because of their pre-mortal failures. That proved to be false. It's now "folklore".

It was folklore.

Those who properly distinguished between authoritative pronouncement (such as statements by the First Presidency) and mere expressions of opinion could confidently pray and ask God to hasten the day when all worthy male Church members could hold the priesthood, as was promised (see Official Declaration 2). They did, and their prayers were answered.

By contrast, there has never been so much as a hint that what has been consistently condemned as grave sin will cease to be regarded as such. Even with plural marriage, it can be shown from the scriptures that God at certain times authorizes it. This has never been said with regard to the expression of homosexual inclinations.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[peteolcott]

Buckeye, you didn't answer my question, so I will ask it again:

Do you sustain President Hinkley and his statements, or do you not?

I do not. The first two prophets were more accutely aware of their own fallibility than the prophets since that time.

[Scott Lloyd]

When the brethern say things which I agree with ,they are acting as prophets,seers,and revelators. When they say something that I feel is in error and needs to be corrected,then they are acting as fallible men. Yes, I think I have the proper way to understand doctrine!

Fortunately, no one is bound by your simplistic cynicism.

As to the " chaff " spoken of,I interpretted it as those who refuse to love and respect gays in or out of the family. I'm probably wrong though.

But it was DavidB who made the statement, so the clarification will have to come from him.

Does the "chaff" include those who find homosexual behavior repellant and deplorable, even if they have the love and respect you speak of here?