Clarify The Sin

[Ahab]

she isn't my wife just because I want sexual relations with her or because she is feminine. It goes way beyond that.

It's that and the fact that you appreciate her personality, but if a man had the same personality you wouldn't have the same feelings for him because you would resist those "homosexual" urges. Thus, it would be your desire to find someone like that but as a woman.

I'm assuming you're a man, of course. With a name like rockpond that seems like a reasonable assumption.

[rockpond]

1 Cor. 11:11

Thanks.

[rockpond]

It's that and the fact that you appreciate her personality, but if a man had the same personality you wouldn't have the same feelings for him because you would resist those "homosexual" urges. Thus, it would be your desire to find someone like that but as a woman.

I'm assuming you're a man, of course. With a name like rockpond that seems like a reasonable assumption.

I am a man.

Another man with the same personality as my wife wouldn't cause "homosexual urges".

[canard78]

I understood you. Do you understand the point I was making. They still had the bodies to do it.

They may have been created with the equipment. Or there may have been a physical change to their bodies when they fell. We don't know that their 'Eden' bodies were equipped with sperm and eggs that were available if they had known how to use it.

I understand your point that they had adult bodies in the garden, not children's bodies. I just don't agree with the conclusion that if they'd stayed there long enough that they would have eventually, in their innocence, worked out the mechanics. I'm not even sure there were any mechanics available while in the garden.

The Book of Mormon makes it clear that whatever the mechanics were... they weren't going to have kids as long as they were in Eden.

[canard78]

I am a man.

Another man with the same personality as my wife wouldn't cause "homosexual urges".

I'm amused you're even having to answer that question. I have some great male friends. I really enjoy their personality. But I don't want to hold their hand or kiss them. I could spend the next 50 years hanging out with them several times a week and I'd still not want to kiss them.

As usual, with homosexuality, this has gone way off topic.

You asked some really good questions, via the blog-post.

I wonder how many people here have actually read the article first.

So far I don't think I've seen any decent arguments for why two married or unmarried men holding hands/kissing is a sin when an unmarried male/female couple doing that is not a sin.

We had one about it being comparable to a man and woman who are married to other people kissing. But that's not even close to a valid comparison.

[canard78]

How do you know what is the participant's hearts, whether good or evil? Again, I see a double standard in the defense of gay couples doing the same thing, where it is OK for them but not for others under any circumsatnce.

The context of the behavior and the intent of the heart have a lot to do with whether these things are sins. It doesn't help anyone to give carte blanche to gay couples and condemn the married couples.

There's no justification for a male/female who are married to other people to kiss/be romantically involved. That's a complete betrayal of their existing relationships. Are you saying there are times when this is ok? Can you give an example?

Two men or women kissing/holding hands is not breaking any commitment of loyalty. So I still don't see how it can be compared.

[Ahab]

I am a man.

Another man with the same personality as my wife wouldn't cause "homosexual urges".

Then you're either just not imagining all of the possibilities or you've already learned that that would be a "bad" thing and you therefore hate the idea of it as far as doing that with someone of the same sex, yourself.

I still like it when I see people of the same sex hugging each other or kissing each other on the cheek, and although I've gone farther than that before with people of the same sex I can no longer tolerate the idea because I hate it and know it is not a good thing for people of the same sex to do. It's not that I'm afraid of it, though, like some people I know. I've been there and done that, and I only have pity for the people who still don't know that's not a good thing to be doing. Love now prevents me from doing it.

[CV75]

There's no justification for a male/female who are married to other people to kiss/be romantically involved. That's a complete betrayal of their existing relationships. Are you saying there are times when this is ok? Can you give an example?

Two men or women kissing/holding hands is not breaking any commitment of loyalty. So I still don't see how it can be compared.

I see a good deal of prejudice and tunnel vision displayed when someone equates kissing, holding hands, and supporting someone with romantic involvement. That is the nature of prejudice (or inexperience or immaturity); the observers easily misinterpret things. This is why I consider such behaviors as sins only when the heart is not in the right place.

Injecting romance into the equation, when an unmarried couple kiss, hold hands and support each other in ways that they know are coming across as signals of romantic involvement (even if they are not so involved), and also know that this would concern or offend their brothers and sisters, avoiding “the appearance of evil” would be the righteous thing to do and intentionally doing these things to provoke or to be judged of others would be a sinful thing to do.

When an unmarried couple kiss, hold hands and support each other in ways that they know are signals of their romantic involvement and also know that this would concern or offend their brothers and sisters, being considerate of others would be the righteous thing to do and not seeking the welfare of others would be a sinful thing to do.

Let’s say a romantically involved gay couple are kissing, holding hands, and supporting each other emotionally. There are many ways in which this could be sin. In some cases, they might be promoting the appearance of evil. Or they might be provoking their brothers and sisters, or challenging them to judge them. In cases of strong emotional connections where gender and sexuality are key factors, the sin is in lying to themselves and to each other that this is not the wrong direction to be heading with their intimacy. The list goes on and on, and at any point along the way they can cross the line into what is displeasing to God. Same as heterosexual couples!

So there is sin in it, largely depending on where the heart is, and people being people, the sin easily devolves from there.

[Calm]

Yes, it does feel right.

To me too...save I don't believe it would necessarily be akin to sexual relations, unless by that you mean something is contributed from each of two people to grow a third's spirit.

[Ahab]

To me too...save I don't believe it would necessarily be akin to sexual relations, unless by that you mean something is contributed from each of two people to grow a third's spirit.

This reminds me of when I was a young boy wondering where babies come from, and I still believe the answer I was given.

It's just that for some reason some people seem to think there's a different way to do it in heaven other than through a man and woman doing what parents do when they create their children. But we are literal children of our Father (and Mother) in heaven.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Ahab

[Questing Beast]

I'm not sure who you are addressing in this post. I'm already married & sealed to my wife. But...

What I expect is that we as church members will change attitudes as the Brethren have asked... a change such as this would need to come through revelation and as with the 1978 revelation, it can only come when we are ready to receive it and IF it is the Lord's will.

I was addressing you, sorry for the confusion.

So, asked again another way, what do you expect "the brethren" to receive from God? More types of marriage? Eternal families achieved some other way than the "historical method" of man and wife? We are on the cusp of that technology right now. We've already discussed "designer children" on this forum recently, where genetics and artificial pregnancy are soon to be doable. That makes not just the man, but also the woman, redundant. We can make babies without the natural way, and leaving sex just for fun. Would that inevitability (given our present rate of technological advancement) make any sex between consenting adults okay? I'm interested in finding out what you expect to happen. If you don't expect any changes, why are you engaged in this conversation?

Personally, I can't see any changes within a human lifetime. It seems impossible to expect the Church to change even enough to allow even romantic behavior, which is okay between boys and girls (men and women), but where SSA is concerned, and admitted, must be viewed as engaging in a limited form of sinful behavior, since homosexual sexual activities are sinful. "Marriage" has nothing to do with it....

[Questing Beast]

I find it really interesting reading this. Over on the LeGrand Richards thread you were talking about your incredulity at a member refused to accept the 1978 priesthood restoration to black members. He persisted in his view that it was not acceptable while you were 'exstatic.' You observed that his upbringing and environment had lead to him and you reaching very different perspectives on black people and you struggled to understaned how he could have such a different view.

Reading the post above... are you not the same as the man you met? Some social/environmental influence from some point in your life means you can't reconcile a position that goes against your perspectives on life.

I didn't make myself immune. My upbringing and my society and culture make me very averse to sexual practices that I believe to be aberrant. That's not even to say that I am immune from temptation to some of those practices. But isn't that what "self control" is supposed to be for? If we just do everything we feel like doing, this world of humans will last about another week, if that....

[rockpond]

I was addressing you, sorry for the confusion.

So, asked again another way, what do you expect "the brethren" to receive from God? More types of marriage? Eternal families achieved some other way than the "historical method" of man and wife? We are on the cusp of that technology right now. We've already discussed "designer children" on this forum recently, where genetics and artificial pregnancy are soon to be doable. That makes not just the man, but also the woman, redundant. We can make babies without the natural way, and leaving sex just for fun. Would that inevitability (given our present rate of technological advancement) make any sex between consenting adults okay? I'm interested in finding out what you expect to happen. If you don't expect any changes, why are you engaged in this conversation?

Personally, I can't see any changes within a human lifetime. It seems impossible to expect the Church to change even enough to allow even romantic behavior, which is okay between boys and girls (men and women), but where SSA is concerned, and admitted, must be viewed as engaging in a limited form of sinful behavior, since homosexual sexual activities are sinful. "Marriage" has nothing to do with it....

Well apparently that is how they were making babies on Krypton... well, up until its collapse into a black hole.

Do I have to expect changes to be engaged in this conversation?

I would say that I am open to the possibility that the Lord could reveal that same-gender marriages are okay and that gay couples could be sealed. I'm not saying that must happen, just that I'm open to the possibility of it happening. And I do hope for it. But it isn't my call.

[Ahab]

We are on the cusp of that technology right now. We've already discussed "designer children" on this forum recently, where genetics and artificial pregnancy are soon to be doable. That makes not just the man, but also the woman, redundant.

If someone were to make a man or a woman without any part of a man or a woman, it would not be a man or a woman, really. It may be a lot like one butr it would be some other kind of being, like some kind of android or robot even if it is a biological unit.

I know it doesn't have to be done the "old fashioned" way, but it at least requires the parts of a man and woman to make another person who is the same kind of being we are, and we are the same kind of being as our Father in heaven.

The world is getting very weird, I think, and if it gets very much more more weird I think I wouid just rather get off of it, please.

[Questing Beast]

I see a good deal of prejudice and tunnel vision displayed when someone equates kissing, holding hands, and supporting someone with romantic involvement. ...

The situation was "romantic attachment" being sinful, even if it only goes far enough to kiss and hug and hold hands romantically. What you are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with "walking near the edge of the cliff"....

[CV75]

The situation was "romantic attachment" being sinful, even if it only goes far enough to kiss and hug and hold hands romantically. What you are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with "walking near the edge of the cliff"....

And I think I commented that, at the point the workings of the heart(s) involved become offensive to God, it is sin.

Kissing, hugging, and holding hands are behaviors that become "sexual" (either homo- or hetero-) in the mind and heart before they lead to and become part of sexual activity in the flesh. When a temptation crosses over into indulgence of the heart and mind, this is one point at which the workings of the heart(s) involved become offensive to God, and as this level of indulgence evolves into the spirit and body, it is still sin.

[california boy]

It seems to me that this entire debate misses the point of discipleship entirely. Following Jesus Christ is not about quantifying how close you can get to the edge of the cliff within falling over, but rather, seeing how high you can climb with faith, obedience, and love.

While I cannot speak for others, I know in my heart that if I was challenged with homosexual feelings, I would naturally and willingly avoid any situation where I would be tempted to sin. That would include associating with other people facing the same challenge, and I would certainly never put myself in a situation where I would be holding hands or dating one. That would be reckless.

Like the faithful of the past, I would remove myself from situations where I would be tempted.

This behavior would come from my love of the Savior and my desire to follow him.

With all due respect, I don't think you have any idea what you would do if you were gay.

I personally think it is very shallow to think that the most profound way you can share your life with someone only happens when you can have sex with them. But then I am amazed at people who feel that sex is the most important thing in a heterosexual marriage.

The question I would ask you is, if the church told you that from this point on, you could never have sex with your spouse (assuming you are married) would you divorce that spouse because it would tempt you too much, or would you vow to be celibate and live the rest of your life without any sexual relationships??

[california boy]

A lot of the discussion on this thread has centered around having children in the eternities. No one has any idea how that process will happen. It is all speculation. Nothing has been revealed on that matter. The church has no doctrine on how spirit children are created.

That said, as a gay man, I would rather live eternally with the man I love even if it means never having eternal increase or even if it means that I will not reach the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. The idea of living with a woman for eternity is revolting to me. I believe with all my heart that there is a place for gay children of God in this next life. It may not be the same role you play, but then either is this earth life the same role.

The OP brings up real points that frankly has NOT been discussed much. No one has provided doctrine showing that homosexual behavior includes holding hands with someone you are romantically attracted to. Do we really have two standards in this church for what a sin is? Those that compare it to a married man holding hands with a woman who is not their wife completely ignores the fact that the person is breaking their SACRED covenants they made at marriage. Not the same thing at all.

Just my thoughts.

[Erin15]

The question I would ask you is, if the church told you that from this point on, you could never have sex with your spouse (assuming you are married) would you divorce that spouse because it would tempt you too much, or would you vow to be celibate and live the rest of your life without any sexual relationships??

I would fast and pray to The Lord for guideance, and then I would do what he asked me to do.

I would rather live eternally with the man I love even if it means never having eternal increase or even if it means that I will not reach the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom.

But, you see, that is exactly the problem. Your post is full of declarations of what you want. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ is not about what you want, it is about what He wants.

Being a disciple means laying down your very heart upon the alter, and giving up what you want most, because you love Him, and because you want to serve Him, and because you trust Him.

If you are not willing to follow Him, then it quite frankly does not matter how much we discuss holding hands. It is all moot without first obtaining a desire to obey His word and establish His righteousness.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Erin15

[canard78]

With all due respect, I don't think you have any idea what you would do if you were gay.

I personally think it is very shallow to think that the most profound way you can share your life with someone only happens when you can have sex with them. But then I am amazed at people who feel that sex is the most important thing in a heterosexual marriage.

The question I would ask you is, if the church told you that from this point on, you could never have sex with your spouse (assuming you are married) would you divorce that spouse because it would tempt you too much, or would you vow to be celibate and live the rest of your life without any sexual relationships??

It's a very good question and one that people rarely properly answer.

FWIW, if the church imposed something like this, I would leave or ignore them until they asked me to leave. Not because sex is more important, but because I consider the church to only be a vehicle for traveling the path to godliness. If it started interfering with my family relationships and my values within it, I'd go and find a better vehicle.

[canard78]

A lot of the discussion on this thread has centered around having children in the eternities. No one has any idea how that process will happen. It is all speculation. Nothing has been revealed on that matter. The church has no doctrine on how spirit children are created.

You're right. None at all.

These days they even say the idea is speculation. "The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C13

That said, as a gay man, I would rather live eternally with the man I love even if it means never having eternal increase or even if it means that I will not reach the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. The idea of living with a woman for eternity is revolting to me. I believe with all my heart that there is a place for gay children of God in this next life. It may not be the same role you play, but then either is this earth life the same role.

Once upon a time at least one church leader taught that the best hope for black members was for them to go there as servants. Now we refute and distance ourselves from those comments. But it took a long, long time.

Maybe in 100 years there will be a place in the highest degree of glory for gay couples and they'll be sealing you to your husband in the temple.

Sadly, I don't think it will happen in our lifetime.

The OP brings up real points that frankly has NOT been discussed much. No one has provided doctrine showing that homosexual behavior includes holding hands with someone you are romantically attracted to. Do we really have two standards in this church for what a sin is? Those that compare it to a married man holding hands with a woman who is not their wife completely ignores the fact that the person is breaking their SACRED covenants they made at marriage. Not the same thing at all.

Just my thoughts.

Yep, it's usually the way on here. If you present something that's actually quite awkward to answer the easy tactic is to change the subject.

We have heterosexual Mormon couples who marry and are not sealed (if the woman has been previously sealed or if the couple simply don't want to). This is not considered sinning.

We also have couples (often younger) who date, hold hands, kiss but have no intention of marrying each other (and no plan of having sex with each other). This is also not considered sinning.

Isn't there a Utah trend for 'non-committal making out' - I'm sure some people disapprove, but it won't land you in the Bishops office.

No-one would compare the behaviour above to the couple who are kissing (romantically) but married to someone else. That's a betrayal and entirely different to the examples above or gay affection.

So I agree, there are many unanswered issues.

[canard78]

I would fast and pray to The Lord for guideance, and then I would do what he asked me to do.

And if your fasting and prayer gave the answer that the prophets command was not right for you, would you live accordingly, even if the church took disciplinary action against you?

But, you see, that is exactly the problem. Your post is full of declarations of what you want. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ is not about what you want, it is about what He wants.

Being a disciple means laying down your very heart upon the alter, and giving up what you want most, because you love Him, and because you want to serve Him, and because you trust Him.

If you are not willing to follow Him, then it quite frankly does not matter how much we discuss holding hands. It is all moot without first obtaining a desire to obey His word and establish His righteousness.

And once that's established and a willingness expressed to "obey His word" (which many gay members do), what does His word say on gay affection/companionship?

If I go and have a lemonade at a bar with friends, that doesn't mean I'm going to start doing vodka shots with them.

If I go into a store that sells lads mags, I don't have to buy them.

If I subscribe to a Satellite/Cable package with a channel that sometimes shows inappropriate content, I don't have to watch it, even though I might even watch that channel for other programs.

I frequently play with face cards with friends, but I don't gamble.

If sex between the same gender, even within marriage, is a sin, and I recognise that is the LDS standard, why is affection wrong? What about friendship? If a gay man was celibate but had a close male friend (who was also gay) who he socialised with a lot, would that be a sin? The OP's question is where is the sin, and why? You've not answered that.

[bluebell]

A lot of the discussion on this thread has centered around having children in the eternities. No one has any idea how that process will happen. It is all speculation. Nothing has been revealed on that matter. The church has no doctrine on how spirit children are created.

This is true. The church has doctrine on who will be allowed to have eternal increase, but definitely not on how that will be accomplished.

[california boy]

I would fast and pray to The Lord for guideance, and then I would do what he asked me to do.

But, you see, that is exactly the problem. Your post is full of declarations of what you want. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ is not about what you want, it is about what He wants.

Being a disciple means laying down your very heart upon the alter, and giving up what you want most, because you love Him, and because you want to serve Him, and because you trust Him.

If you are not willing to follow Him, then it quite frankly does not matter how much we discuss holding hands. It is all moot without first obtaining a desire to obey His word and establish His righteousness.

Well I personally wouldn't presume who is a disciple of Christ and who isn't. Perhaps you are more comfortable in that role than I am. We are all on our own personal journey back to God.

[Erin15]

Well I personally wouldn't presume who is a disciple of Christ and who isn't.

Why not? The Gospel makes it perfectly clear what level of commitment He requires of those who would be His followers.

We are all on our own personal journey back to God.

We may all be on our own personal journey, but that does not mean that all of us are headed towards God. There are many diverse paths that lead only into the mist, so many that they are beyond count. There is only one path that leads back to God, and it is narrow and straight.

And if your fasting and prayer gave the answer that the prophets command was not right for you, would you live accordingly, even if the church took disciplinary action against you?

My loyalty is to Him first and the church second, so in your theoretical question, I would follow Him.

The OP's question is where is the sin, and why? You've not answered that.

I explained in my first post that looking for the line shows an incorrect approach to begin with.

If you need something more concrete, I'll give you this: The sin occurs when the spirit leaves.

FWIW, if the church imposed something like this, I would leave or ignore them until they asked me to leave. Not because sex is more important, but because I consider the church to only be a vehicle for traveling the path to godliness. If it started interfering with my family relationships and my values within it, I'd go and find a better vehicle.

There is no other vehicle. There is only The Lord's Church and babylon.