Prophets Saw Our Day

[Calm]

At times it was taught that someday it would change and at times it was taught that it wouldn't be until after the second coming.

EVen if the change took place after the second coming, it was still an anticipated change.

There is nothing that I know of that is parallel to the homosexual situation. If something changes, it will be new doctrine, not confirmation of something expected but just not specific in the past.

Edited August 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

EVen if the change took place after the second coming, it was still an anticipated change.

There is nothing that I know of that is parallel to the homosexual situation. If something changes, it will be new doctrine, not confirmation of something expected but just not specific in the past.

True.

The parallel (or one of the parallels) in the two situations is that they were/are both policies that cannot point to revealed truth as their origin. At least not that I'm aware of... I'm open to being corrected.

The policy against homosexual marriage seems based upon our understanding that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman. But, drawing the conclusion that He must therefore NOT ordain any other kind of marriage is an extrapolation that I'm not willing to make.

[canard78]

Okay... where is the revelation on God's will for homosexual persons?

I'd be interested in this too. There is revelation that there should be no sex outside of marriage. Very clearly.

We know that marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned; but where is the revelation that marriage between two men or between two women is prohibited?

[Questing Beast]

The Proclamation on the Family was specifically in response to the growing attitudes anti marriage and anti family. Specific to the language of the proclamation is the "gender" doctrine, "male and female" eternally, end stop. It is not in the nature of the gender, whichever, to go sexually after its own kind. This is inarguable as the proclamation states that families result from this eternal gender. Now, there is nothing to stop a male who is repulsed by females, or at least finds them neuter sexually, from disciplining himself enough to have sexual intercourse with a wife. This is being and has been done, even though it is far less than satisfying to the man or woman concerned. The only thing missing is the biological pleasure, the "romantic feelings", due to a lack of eternal sexual attraction. What does that tell us? It tells me that this world includes things that "don't work". To assume that a defect is somehow eternal is ridiculous and wrong as well....

[rockpond]

The Proclamation on the Family was specifically in response to the growing attitudes anti marriage and anti family. Specific to the language of the proclamation is the "gender" doctrine, "male and female" eternally, end stop. It is not in the nature of the gender, whichever, to go sexually after its own kind.

Actually, it is... for a small percentage of the population.

This is inarguable as the proclamation states that families result from this eternal gender. Now, there is nothing to stop a male who is repulsed by females, or at least finds them neuter sexually, from disciplining himself enough to have sexual intercourse with a wife.

Ah, yes... what every young woman dreams of in a future husband!

This is being and has been done, even though it is far less than satisfying to the man or woman concerned.

Agreed, mixed-orientation marriages have a dismal success rate.

Except that gay people will tell you that their romantic feelings do work. Just not in the way that you think they should.

[CMZ]

I have mixed feelings about this. There are a lot of nuances involved. Some people act like it is the duty of the general authorities to go around making sure people find out about controversial historical issues. It is not. Their duty is to testify of Christ and take his gospel to all the earth. However, yes, it gets a little weird to intentionally try to keep somebody from finding out about something. And I think this has happened to some degree but perhaps not to the degree some people like to make it seem. I could get into more nuances but there's a submarine sandwich waiting for me in the kitchen. Whatever the back and forth on this is about how open or closed "the Church" seems to be at a particular time it never takes away my ability or the ability of other to learn from the scriptures and the many, many other writings available, including easily-obtained works that touch on controversial historical issues.

[CMZ]

Okay... where is the revelation on God's will for homosexual persons?

Here's a smattering:

• Genesis 2:24 (this is telling what a man is to do; doesn't say that a man should leave his father and his father and cleave unto his husband; and there's additional meaning in this verse)
  
• 1 Corinthians 11:11
  
• D&C 132:19-20
  

[CMZ]

You'll be able to produce some evidence then that the ban was done by revelation then will you? I've looked long and hard. I've found none yet.

I accept the later leaders needed a spiritual witness to feel comfortable restoring the p'hood to blacks. But there's no evidence to say those who started it were inspired.

There was a recent Church statement that said the origins of the ban are unclear but that the lifting of the ban was not. I say it began in vagary and ended in clarity. After the group of people who were around when the ban began all died off and we had a whole new batch of Church leaders and some of them wanted to lift the ban but felt like the answer they received was that the time had not yet come then it's extremely hard for me to read racism into that.

Recent talks by Elders Sitati and ****son shed more light on the matter.

Edit: I love how the proper spelling of a general authority's name gets edited by a bot.

Edited August 10, 2013 by CMZ

[CMZ]

The Proclamation on the Family was specifically in response to the growing attitudes anti marriage and anti family. Specific to the language of the proclamation is the "gender" doctrine, "male and female" eternally, end stop. It is not in the nature of the gender, whichever, to go sexually after its own kind. This is inarguable as the proclamation states that families result from this eternal gender. Now, there is nothing to stop a male who is repulsed by females, or at least finds them neuter sexually, from disciplining himself enough to have sexual intercourse with a wife. This is being and has been done, even though it is far less than satisfying to the man or woman concerned. The only thing missing is the biological pleasure, the "romantic feelings", due to a lack of eternal sexual attraction. What does that tell us? It tells me that this world includes things that "don't work". To assume that a defect is somehow eternal is ridiculous and wrong as well....

Exactly. I see no need to tell a person that what they feel they are feeling isn't real. But there's also no need to assume what they are feeling is eternal and unchangeable. At the same time what they are currently feeling doesn't need to be beaten or electro-shocked out of them (even if such measures worked). If you follow the gospel plan then eventually everything works out, even if there are impediments along the way. People, of the "straight" and the "gay" variety, who leave the Church over this issue tend to leave because they see a false dichotomy: one that insists that the only two possible positions anyone could ever take on this issue are:

1. Stay "faithful" to the Church and hate gays and lambast them every chance you get, or,
   
2. Leave the Church and proclaim your love for gays or that you are gay.
   

Neither one of those is a wise option.

[california boy]

The Proclamation on the Family was specifically in response to the growing attitudes anti marriage and anti family.

Can you explain why you feel gay marriage is anti marriage? It seems just the opposite to me. It is encouraging people to marry rather than forcing them to not marry. And why would gay marriage be anti family? That also seems like propaganda rather than fact. Not only does gay marriage not harm anyone's family, it actually encourages more stable family structures.

Specific to the language of the proclamation is the "gender" doctrine, "male and female" eternally, end stop.

Gay men do not want to change genders. Where did you get that idea?

It is not in the nature of the gender, whichever, to go sexually after its own kind.

Like Rockpond pointed out, it is apparent that it is in the nature of some to go after their own gender. Always has been, always will be. As you probably already know, it is also common in the rest of the animal kingdom. It is not just humans that have same gender attraction. In fact the whole difference between being gay and being straight is because it is their nature to go sexually after their own kind.

This is inarguable as the proclamation states that families result from this eternal gender. Now, there is nothing to stop a male who is repulsed by females, or at least finds them neuter sexually, from disciplining himself enough to have sexual intercourse with a wife. This is being and has been done, even though it is far less than satisfying to the man or woman concerned. The only thing missing is the biological pleasure, the "romantic feelings", due to a lack of eternal sexual attraction. What does that tell us? It tells me that this world includes things that "don't work". To assume that a defect is somehow eternal is ridiculous and wrong as well....

You would think so, and so did the brethren at one time. This policy did more to destroy families than probably any policy the church has ever come up with. If anything is anti family, it would be this policy. It was such an utter failure that the church leaders specifically caution against this approach. Marriage is not therapy. You would be going against the counsel of the church leaders to recommend this approacy to anyone.

Your position on this issue is so far off, I hope that you would consider carefully thinking and praying about why you are actually against gay marriage. If these are your reasons, you really need to reconsider your position on this matter.

[Bernard Gui]

I'm looking at anecdotal evidence like Hans Mattson: an emeritus 70 who disagrees with the church policy on homosexuals.

How many emeritus 70 agree with the church policy?

[Questing Beast]

Can you explain why you feel gay marriage is anti marriage? It seems just the opposite to me. It is encouraging people to marry rather than forcing them to not marry. And why would gay marriage be anti family? That also seems like propaganda rather than fact. Not only does gay marriage not harm anyone's family, it actually encourages more stable family structures.

Two adults committed to each other and genuinely considerate, like the ideal husband and wife relationship, are definitely a better family than a single adult trying to raise children. Already existing children benefit from two adults rather than in a stressed home where one adult is trying to do everything by him/herself. But if you take that truth to include all "couples" across the board as equal that is surely fallacious. Exceptions can work, they can also not work.

The issue here is not whether or not homosexual "couples" can or cannot make good parents. The issue is the potential unraveling of society by condoning and embracing an inimical lifestyle. And as this issue has not had any track record of success, not having had the time to do so thus far, nobody can say that the assertions you make are real. They may very well be the acid upon the religion that has held society together. That is the fear, as I am sure you are well aware and wish to allay with all your calm and logical reasoning. But neither the traditionalists nor the protagonists for change can have the authority of facts and experience to show their way is the best way, the safe way. It appears that "you" are getting your chance to show that all your arguments are true and that Judeo-Christianity, including Islam, are needlessly fearful of that future.

Gay men do not want to change genders. Where did you get that idea?

Yes, I know that. But there are the transgender, transsexuals who feel differently, and are every bit as "gay" on the outside, preferring only their same gender. The point I was making incompletely is that gender according to LDS doctrine/revelation is eternal. Biology of the mortal experience is temporary in the most definitive sense of the word. Sexual attraction as we know it is high 95 percent heterosexual and is the only relationship addressed in scripture as right and good. There are few direct references to the alternative sexual relationships. There are far more about the common sins of fornication and adultery, naturally enough since close to 99% of the people are heterosexual first, and "bi" second if they are not 100% hetero. The homosexual element was never part of Judeo-Christianity, and was specifically categorized with the pagans and their degenerate religious and societal practices: all of which included sex as part of their religious rites, including homosexual practices. All such were shunned as blatantly wicked in Judeo-Christianity. The great majority of Christians until very, very recently, openly condemned such practices. Now, very, very recently, "the polls" show a slightly more than 50% of all polled as agreeing that "GLBTs" should be allowed to "marry". Why the switch? The now-minority that still continue to adhere to traditional Judeo-Christianity's sexual ethics and commandments will say that wickedness is increasing in the world. You disagree, naturally enough.

Like Rockpond pointed out, it is apparent that it is in the nature of some to go after their own gender. Always has been, always will be. As you probably already know, it is also common in the rest of the animal kingdom. It is not just humans that have same gender attraction. In fact the whole difference between being gay and being straight is because it is their nature to go sexually after their own kind.

So you want to compare us, the only sapient species in the world of humans, to the rest of the animals? Go ahead. They have more in common with each other that we do with them. We are supposed to be different specifically because we are sapient and have "souls", etc. You seem to have tossed that belief as well.

What feels "natural" is biology speaking and nothing more. We already know that biology, passed on genetically in many instances, is hardly flawless, it results in many addictions, including sexual behaviors.

You would think so, and so did the brethren at one time. This policy did more to destroy families than probably any policy the church has ever come up with. If anything is anti family, it would be this policy. It was such an utter failure that the church leaders specifically caution against this approach. Marriage is not therapy. You would be going against the counsel of the church leaders to recommend this approac[h] to anyone.

Your position on this issue is so far off, I hope that you would consider carefully thinking and praying about why you are actually against gay marriage. If these are your reasons, you really need to reconsider your position on this matter.

I'm not suggesting marriage to the opposite gender as a solution for homosexuals across the board. In some cases it works out fine. That is for each couple to determine. In other cases it would never work, and it is these that Church policy is recommending remain celibate. As I said, if "you" have ever had sexual attraction for even ONE female in your whole life, you are not homosexual, you are "bi" and have made your choice.... Edited August 10, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Rivers]

I think we should respect whatever decision gay LDS choose to make and leave the judgement up to God.

[ERMD]

There was a recent Church statement that said the origins of the ban are unclear but that the lifting of the ban was not. I say it began in vagary and ended in clarity. After the group of people who were around when the ban began all died off and we had a whole new batch of Church leaders and some of them wanted to lift the ban but felt like the answer they received was that the time had not yet come then it's extremely hard for me to read racism into that.

Recent talks by Elders Sitati and ****son shed more light on the matter.

Edit: I love how the proper spelling of a general authority's name gets edited by a bot.

I quoted Emily ****inson here once and had the same thing happen.

ETA: Like it just did again.

Edited August 10, 2013 by ERMD

[california boy]

The issue here is not whether or not homosexual "couples" can or cannot make good parents. The issue is the potential unraveling of society by condoning and embracing an inimical lifestyle. And as this issue has not had any track record of success, not having had the time to do so thus far, nobody can say that the assertions you make are real. They may very well be the acid upon the religion that has held society together. That is the fear, as I am sure you are well aware and wish to allay with all your calm and logical reasoning. But neither the traditionalists nor the protagonists for change can have the authority of facts and experience to show their way is the best way, the safe way. It appears that "you" are getting your chance to show that all your arguments are true and that Judeo-Christianity, including Islam, are needlessly fearful of that future.

Ok, so you have this unfounded fear that society will unravel if gays are allowed to marry. Maybe you can tell me exactly how you fear society will unravel. Are you suggesting that straight couples will choose to not marry if gay couples marry? Will straight couples stop raising children? Will gay marriage increase divorce even more? Just tell me how you think society will unravel if gays can choose to marry rather than being forced to cohabitate together. And tell me how if gays only cohabitate together, then it will prevent society from unraveling.

Yes, I know that. But there are the transgender, transsexuals who feel differently, and are every bit as "gay" on the outside, preferring only their same gender. The point I was making incompletely is that gender according to LDS doctrine/revelation is eternal. Biology of the mortal experience is temporary in the most definitive sense of the word. Sexual attraction as we know it is high 95 percent heterosexual and is the only relationship addressed in scripture as right and good. There are few direct references to the alternative sexual relationships. There are far more about the common sins of fornication and adultery, naturally enough since close to 99% of the people are heterosexual first, and "bi" second if they are not 100% hetero. The homosexual element was never part of Judeo-Christianity, and was specifically categorized with the pagans and their degenerate religious and societal practices: all of which included sex as part of their religious rites, including homosexual practices. All such were shunned as blatantly wicked in Judeo-Christianity. The great majority of Christians until very, very recently, openly condemned such practices. Now, very, very recently, "the polls" show a slightly more than 50% of all polled as agreeing that "GLBTs" should be allowed to "marry". Why the switch? The now-minority that still continue to adhere to traditional Judeo-Christianity's sexual ethics and commandments will say that wickedness is increasing in the world. You disagree, naturally enough.

You are still confused. Transgender and transsexuals are not gay. They may or may not have same sex attraction. You are also wrong about gays always being lumped with pagans and their degenerate religious. While it is true that much of Christianity has evolved from pagan religions and many of the Christian rituals were borrowed from pagan religions. lumping homosexuality only to those religions is just not true. There have been numerous articles about this very subject. Here is a recent article about early Christian gay marriage.

So you want to compare us, the only sapient species in the world of humans, to the rest of the animals? Go ahead. They have more in common with each other that we do with them. We are supposed to be different specifically because we are sapient and have "souls", etc. You seem to have tossed that belief as well.

You grossly distorted what I wrote. I wasn't saying that gays are like animals, I was stating that gay attractions have been around since the beginning of the world. It is ALSO not a unique human attitude. Two different statements, neither one of them are comparing gays to animals. Shameful.

What feels "natural" is biology speaking and nothing more. We already know that biology, passed on genetically in many instances, is hardly flawless, it results in many addictions, including sexual behaviors.

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to suggest that same gender attraction is just an addiction? Same sex attraction is exactly the same as opposite sex attraction. It is part of how a person is wired. The only difference is what gender that person is attracted to. For someone who is straight it is natural that the person is attracted to the opposite gender. For someone who is gay, it is natural that the person is attracted to the same gender. This is pretty basic. You should be able to understand this concept.

I'm not suggesting marriage to the opposite gender as a solution for homosexuals across the board. In some cases it works out fine. That is for each couple to determine. In other cases it would never work, and it is these that Church policy is recommending remain celibate. As I said, if "you" have ever had sexual attraction for even ONE female in your whole life, you are not homosexual, you are "bi" and have made your choice....

I am glad you cleared this up. I would say that the vast majority of gay men have never had a sexual attraction to even ONE female. Sometimes this can be confusing to straight people. For example in high school, I had a girlfriend. I knew it was expected of me to have a girlfriend to fit in. So I choose a girl that was actually from a different school. By doing so, I managed to have a girlfriend that I didn't actually have to hang out with. I also married. Not because I was sexually attracted to my wife, but because at the time the church leaders promised me that if I would marry, these feelings of same sex attraction would diminish. Sometimes people get confused and think that just because gay men have dated women, or even married them then they must have been sexually attracted to them. There are many reasons why people marry. It is not always sexual attraction.

[Stone holm]

I don't believe that society will unravel if gays are permitted to marry. On the other hand, given that Mormonism is structured around the concept that the ongoing activity of Exalted Couples after they become such is producing spirit children through procreation and populating worlds with them, there is a definite distinction between lifting the ban on the extension of the Priesthood to those of African descent and any likelihood of the Church ever embracing SSM. Where things currently stand with respect to SSA very bluntly and honestly stated is "stay chaste and God will fix you in the hereafter.." Beyond that is really to draw wrong conclusions from Church policy and to set oneself, if you are gay, up for ultimate disappointment.

[rockpond]

I don't believe that society will unravel if gays are permitted to marry. On the other hand, given that Mormonism is structured around the concept that the ongoing activity of Exalted Couples after they become such is producing spirit children through procreation and populating worlds with them, there is a definite distinction between lifting the ban on the extension of the Priesthood to those of African descent and any likelihood of the Church ever embracing SSM. Where things currently stand with respect to SSA very bluntly and honestly stated is "stay chaste and God will fix you in the hereafter.." Beyond that is really to draw wrong conclusions from Church policy and to set oneself, if you are gay, up for ultimate disappointment.

To assume that spirit children are created via a similar process as creating physical children here on Earth is to suggest that Heavenly Mother got pregnant over 100 billion times.

[Stone holm]

To assume that spirit children are created via a similar process as creating physical children here on Earth is to suggest that Heavenly Mother got pregnant over 100 billion times.

Which is to assume there is only one Heavenly Mother which is a completely unwarranted assumption in Mormonism.

[Questing Beast]

Ok, so you have this unfounded fear that society will unravel if gays are allowed to marry. Maybe you can tell me exactly how you fear society will unravel. Are you suggesting that straight couples will choose to not marry if gay couples marry? Will straight couples stop raising children? Will gay marriage increase divorce even more? Just tell me how you think society will unravel if gays can choose to marry rather than being forced to cohabitate together. And tell me how if gays only cohabitate together, then it will prevent society from unraveling.

You are still confused. Transgender and transsexuals are not gay. They may or may not have same sex attraction. You are also wrong about gays always being lumped with pagans and their degenerate religious. While it is true that much of Christianity has evolved from pagan religions and many of the Christian rituals were borrowed from pagan religions. lumping homosexuality only to those religions is just not true. There have been numerous articles about this very subject. Here is a recent article about early Christian gay marriage.

You grossly distorted what I wrote. I wasn't saying that gays are like animals, I was stating that gay attractions have been around since the beginning of the world. It is ALSO not a unique human attitude. Two different statements, neither one of them are comparing gays to animals. Shameful.

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to suggest that same gender attraction is just an addiction? Same sex attraction is exactly the same as opposite sex attraction. It is part of how a person is wired. The only difference is what gender that person is attracted to. For someone who is straight it is natural that the person is attracted to the opposite gender. For someone who is gay, it is natural that the person is attracted to the same gender. This is pretty basic. You should be able to understand this concept.

I am glad you cleared this up. I would say that the vast majority of gay men have never had a sexual attraction to even ONE female. Sometimes this can be confusing to straight people. For example in high school, I had a girlfriend. I knew it was expected of me to have a girlfriend to fit in. So I choose a girl that was actually from a different school. By doing so, I managed to have a girlfriend that I didn't actually have to hang out with. I also married. Not because I was sexually attracted to my wife, but because at the time the church leaders promised me that if I would marry, these feelings of same sex attraction would diminish. Sometimes people get confused and think that just because gay men have dated women, or even married them then they must have been sexually attracted to them. There are many reasons why people marry. It is not always sexual attraction.

I won't respond in detail anymore at this time.

Suffice to say that I see homosexuality as an aberrant feature of imperfect mortality, inconsistent with "Mormon heaven", and therefore not part of it anymore than any other aberration of "nature". That "you" won't even consider that possibility, but instead hearken to your "biology speaking", is to my mind no different than any of us who follow our biological promptings because they feel right to us. For almost one hundred percent of us doing so causes few if any problems. For a few, doing this can cause inimical effects upon our health or worse. (the author of that book you referenced died of AIDS, after all, which is hardly a selling point for impartiality in historical research!) Some of our biological imperatives are legalized, many are illegal still and some always will be.

I don't personally see the future as particularly threatened by the open presence of what was always hidden away. And I don't expect "gayness" to increase in the earth, it isn't cost effective or convenient to the "vast majority" of "gays" (who are almost all anything but homosexual, but rather driven by a fad and peer group mentality and have not grown up enough to know what they really want to feel).

What I want to see is the end of "marriage" in the eyes of the Law. The legalese should dispense with the word "marriages" altogether, since Gov't never had any business intruding religious connotations into the legal system in the first place. "We the People" can correct this fault, rename it "domestic partnership" or whathaveyou, and be done with it. Sex is not involved or even implied as far as the interests of the State are concerned. Religious differences or no religious attachments at all are likewise not involved as far as the interests of the State are concerned, etc....

Edited August 11, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Hestia]

How many times do we need to discuss this topic.