Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

@ rockpond: If SSA is something dependent on our immortal or eternal identity, shouldn't there be some evidence at some point that God approves of it in mortality? And some evidence that doctrine allows for it? It seems so obviously false that it is no wonder that very few scriptures even reference homosexuality, but when they do it is an abomination.

 

Your "personal revelation", if it allows homosexuality equal place with heterosexuality, is a personal delusion instead. Why you are so intent on making this false hope into a reality is the poser. Does a dear loved one in your life follow SSA? If so, I can see the motivation to look for an answer that lets all of us off the hook of taking a hard stand on this one. But then what else is new? It's always something to test us and make us stand firm or move, searching for some relief to our discomfort and sorrow....

 

Yes, there should be some evidence that God approves of it in mortality.  But, it took us (speaking collectively) a while to move beyond some of the mortal prejudices that prevented God from letting us know that there were actually no reasons to keep blacks out of the temple and restricted from the priesthood.  So, I figure, if it is His will to approve of homosexuality then it may take a while for us to get to the point where we can receive that answer.  It seems apparent from this discussion board that we probably aren't ready yet.  I'd venture to guess that the broad majority of the Christian world still views the story of Lot as a condemnation of homosexuality.  And, of course, the Brethren seem to be increasingly calling on us to be more loving to gays and lesbians.

 

I think the fact that so few scriptures do reference homosexuality is an interesting observation.  The truest of all books, the Book of Mormon doesn't mention it.  Our canonized book of latter-day revelations & commandments also is absent any teaching on homosexuality.  Ditto for the Pearl of Great Price.

 

Isn't Leviticus the only place in the scriptures that refers to the homosexual sex act as an abomination?  And even then, the translation of the word toevah is questionable as it relates to our current definition of the word abomination.

[CV75]

Not something that I am willing to share with you in a forum like this.  Sorry, but you don't get to question my faith and then turn around and ask me to share deeply personal spiritual experiences with you.

I'm not questioning your faith at all, just the rationale for the belief you are openly sharing and defending while debating others' rationale. You mentioned "personal revelation" as part of your reasoning and I thought you might be willing to explain that to shed some light in defending your position.

 

I'm fine with anyone asserting his belief, and with him questioning and challenging mine, as evidenced in my being engaged in this conversation.

[rockpond]

I'm not questioning your faith at all, just the rationale for the belief you are openly sharing and defending while debating others' rationale. You mentioned "personal revelation" as part of your reasoning and I thought you might be willing to explain that to shed some light in defending your position.

 

I'm fine with anyone asserting his belief, and with him questioning and challenging mine, as evidenced in my being engaged in this conversation.

 

You said that my hope was "obviously without faith" (post #115).  Since my hope is based entirely upon my faith, I take that as questioning my faith.  I guess I misunderstood.

 

In a thread where I get responses like that and where I'm told that I am delusional (as QB just did), I don't think that my own personal revelatory experiences will be given any weight at all in defending my position.  And I'm not even sure that I would expect them to.  That's why they are personal revelations.

[Ahab]

You said that my hope was "obviously without faith" (post #115).  Since my hope is based entirely upon my faith, I take that as questioning my faith.  I guess I misunderstood.

 

In a thread where I get responses like that and where I'm told that I am delusional (as QB just did), I don't think that my own personal revelatory experiences will be given any weight at all in defending my position.  And I'm not even sure that I would expect them to.  That's why they are personal revelations.

The fact that you can receive personal revelation doesn't mean that revelation is true.  Satan can reveal things to us, too, so you shouldn't act as if God is the only one who can reveal things to people.  I think CV was just wanting you to share what you were told and then explain how what you were told leads to your reasoning.  Just don't expect everyone to believe you when you say God has told you something.  I know how to get revelation from God, myself, without having to rely on what you tell me.

[rockpond]

The fact that you can receive personal revelation doesn't mean that revelation is true.  Satan can reveal things to us, too, so you shouldn't act as if God is the only one who can reveal things to people.  I think CV was just wanting you to share what you were told and then explain how what you were told leads to your reasoning.  Just don't expect everyone to believe you when you say God has told you something.  I know how to get revelation from God, myself, without having to rely on what you tell me.

 

Thanks but when I talk about revelation you can assume that I am talking about that which comes from God through the Spirit.  Not Satan.  This is of course one reason why I would never share such a thing here... people who disagree are just free to tell me that I am listening to Satan, delusional, and without faith.

 

Like I said, I do not expect any weight at all to be given to my own personal revelations.  That is why I specify that they are "personal".

[Ahab]

Thanks but when I talk about revelation you can assume that I am talking about that which comes from God through the Spirit.  Not Satan.  This is of course one reason why I would never share such a thing here... people who disagree are just free to tell me that I am listening to Satan, delusional, and without faith.

 

Like I said, I do not expect any weight at all to be given to my own personal revelations.  That is why I specify that they are "personal".

Oh, I see now.   So when you say they are "personal" that means you're not willing to share them with us, as if "personal" means the equivalent of "I'm going to keep these thoughts to myself and not share them with you".  That's not what personal means, really, but I respect your right to keep your thoughts about things to yourself and share your thoughts as if nobody gave them to you.

[rockpond]

Oh, I see now.   So when you say they are "personal" that means you're not willing to share them with us, as if "personal" means the equivalent of "I'm going to keep these thoughts to myself and not share them with you".  That's not what personal means, really, but I respect your right to keep your thoughts about things to yourself and share your thoughts as if nobody gave them to you.

 

Personal meaning it has no relevance to you.  And, not willing to share because I have complete faith that I'll just be told that I am wrong (delusional, listening to Satan, without faith... take your pick of the insults used on me so far).  Why would you think I'd be willing to share a deeply spiritual experience here?

[CV75]

You said that my hope was "obviously without faith" (post #115).  Since my hope is based entirely upon my faith, I take that as questioning my faith.  I guess I misunderstood.

 

In a thread where I get responses like that and where I'm told that I am delusional (as QB just did), I don't think that my own personal revelatory experiences will be given any weight at all in defending my position.  And I'm not even sure that I would expect them to.  That's why they are personal revelations.

I tried to depersonalize it (post #115) by sticking to the principle that “A personal hope for what God will do that is not based on revelation is a false hope. A hope based on what we don't know (and faith and knowledge work hand in hand) is likewise a false hope, and obviously without faith or knowledge.”

 

A personal hope that is not based on revelation (scripture, revealed truth in any form) must be false. Since true hope is an outgrowth of faith (or belief) in revelation and/or knowledge gained from revelation, and since faith and knowledge build on each other, then false hope indicates a lack of faith and/or knowledge and/or revelation.

 

Yes, I was challenging your position. Giving revelatory (most basically scriptural) justification would lend weight to your position.

 

I do not think you are delusional, just mistaken in your belief and unable to justify it for others with questions about it. Since you brought up personal revelation, it seemed you were willing to go there, at least in the form of some scriptural insight that would clearly trump the arguments given. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re saying “No one can know, and even though I don’t know, I hope it’s what I want because I like what I want and is no better or worse than what you want. But probably better since I keep promoting what I want.” This is expressing hope without supporting knowledge.

[Ahab]

Personal meaning it has no relevance to you.  And, not willing to share because I have complete faith that I'll just be told that I am wrong (delusional, listening to Satan, without faith... take your pick of the insults used on me so far).  Why would you think I'd be willing to share a deeply spiritual experience here?

No revelance to me?  I'm interested in all things that can help me to know more truth than I know now, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that some aspect of truth would have no relevance to me.  If you have any truth, I am interested in it, so don't go thinking some truth has no relevance to me.  I also happen to be someone who is attracted to other men, the same sex that I am, so some truth on this issue would have relevance to me on that level as well.

 

And I'm willing to share a deeply spiritual experience here.  Why do you think I should assume you are not?

[rockpond]

I tried to depersonalize it (post #115) by sticking to the principle that “A personal hope for what God will do that is not based on revelation is a false hope. A hope based on what we don't know (and faith and knowledge work hand in hand) is likewise a false hope, and obviously without faith or knowledge.”

 

A personal hope that is not based on revelation (scripture, revealed truth in any form) must be false. Since true hope is an outgrowth of faith (or belief) in revelation and/or knowledge gained from revelation, and since faith and knowledge build on each other, then false hope indicates a lack of faith and/or knowledge and/or revelation.

 

Yes, I was challenging your position. Giving revelatory (most basically scriptural) justification would lend weight to your position.

 

I do not think you are delusional, just mistaken in your belief and unable to justify it for others with questions about it. Since you brought up personal revelation, it seemed you were willing to go there, at least in the form of some scriptural insight that would clearly trump the arguments given. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re saying “No one can know, and even though I don’t know, I hope it’s what I want because I like what I want and is no better or worse than what you want. But probably better since I keep promoting what I want.” This is expressing hope without supporting knowledge.

 

No one can know.  Exactly.  I was responding to the statements posted here that it could never happen.  Those statements are also without scriptural justification.  That was my point.

 

I am only promoting what I want in the same sense that you are promoting what you want.  How are we different other than you representing the (likely) majority view?

 

My scriptural insight is this:  If we can keep blacks from being sealed for over a century and a half and then say, institutionally:  oh sorry, we really had no revelation or doctrine or other reason for the restrictions and we disavow all that negative stuff that was said by church leaders.  Then I don't see it as a huge leap that someday the same could happen with homosexuals.

 

Further insight is that the continuing evolution of our doctrine with respect to homosexuality as well as a lack of any identifiable modern day revelation on the subject lends weight to the idea that we are still searching for answers on this.

[rockpond]

No revelance to me?  I'm interested in all things that can help me to know more truth than I know now, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that some aspect of truth would have no relevance to me.  If you have any truth, I am interested in it, so don't go thinking some truth has no relevance to me.  I also happen to be someone who is attracted to other men, the same sex that I am, so some truth on this issue would have relevance to me on that level as well.

 

And I'm willing to share a deeply spiritual experience here.  Why do you think I should assume you are not?

 

Alright, I'll open up.  I believe that it was revealed to me (personally, not for the church or others) that sexual orientation is eternal.  That homosexuals ought to be able to enjoy fulfilling, loving relationships in mortality, and that those relationships can continue in the next life.  There was some personal instruction in there relating to the people that I was praying about (people in my stewardship) but I don't think I need to go into that here.

 

For the record, I do not ever preach that to others nor do I teach it in church.

[Ahab]

... the continuing evolution of our doctrine with respect to homosexuality as well as a lack of any identifiable modern day revelation on the subject lends weight to the idea that we are still searching for answers on this.

Something that could only be said by someone who doesn't accept what our modern leaders have said about this as "revelation".

 

When I hear our Lord's servants telling me things I hear the voice of the Holy Spirit confirming what they are saying as "revelation".

 

Apparently to you that sounds to you like it's only their personal opinion, and you don't even regard it as their "personal revelation."

[USU78]

Nope.  Just my belief... as I clearly stated.

 

Belief is generally based upon something.

 

Other than wishyhopiness, just what is that "something?"

[rockpond]

Something that could only be said by someone who doesn't accept what our modern leaders have said about this as "revelation".

 

When I hear our Lord's servants telling me things I hear the voice of the Holy Spirit confirming what they are saying as "revelation".

 

Apparently to you that sounds to you like it's only their personal opinion, and you don't even regard it as their "personal revelation."

 

And if I don't get that Holy Spirit confirming what they are saying as revelation when you do?  Then what?

 

And which things am I supposed to conclude are their personal revelation?  The statements made in the 70's or before?  the 90's?  Only in the last decade perhaps, when we softened our stance?

[USU78]

What is the scriptural evidence that sexual orientation is not part of our eternal identity?

 

There is quasi-scriptural evidence here:  https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation ]/url]

[rockpond]

Belief is generally based upon something.

 

Other than wishyhopiness, just what is that "something?"

 

My belief that gender & sexual orientation are eternal.  That man is not meant to be alone.  That relationships in this life are important and are meant to last into the next.  That God wouldn't create someone capable of a committed loving relationship and then make them no longer love that person in the next life.  That homosexuality is not a mistake or an aberration.  That mortal prejudices and failings color our interpretation of scripture.  That our imperfectness and lack of epistemic humility can cause us to think that we are right when we are not.

 

Is that enough.

[rockpond]

 

There is quasi-scriptural evidence here:  https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation ]/url]

 

How is the family proclamation even quasi-scriptural evidence that sexual orientation is not eternal?

[Ahab]

Alright, I'll open up.  I believe that it was revealed to me (personally, not for the church or others) that sexual orientation is eternal.  That homosexuals ought to be able to enjoy fulfilling, loving relationships in mortality, and that those relationships can continue in the next life.  There was some personal instruction in there relating to the people that I was praying about (people in my stewardship) but I don't think I need to go into that here.

 

For the record, I do not ever preach that to others nor do I teach it in church.

To try to help foster an understanding between us, I'd now like to share my thoughts as I try to understand what you mean.

 

You say you were told that sexual orientation is eternal.  I can somewhat see how God could give a person that impression, based on my understanding of what sexual orientation is.  I would say my sexual orientation is directed mostly toward women, but I also have a sexual attraction toward men which I don't think is the least bit unhealthy.  Men are obviously sexually attractive, as most women will attest, and I don't see a good reason why a man should not be able to see another man as sexually attractive, too.  So when applying what you're saying to me I basically understand you to be saying that God told you that I'll always be sexually oriented in the way I am now.  I have no problem with that, just as I have no problem with my sexual orientation right now.

 

You also seem to be saying that God told you that homosexuals ought to be able to enjoy fulfilling, loving relationships in mortality, and that those relationships can continue in the next life.  I agree.  They ought to be.  We're all homosexuals, since we are all either male or female, and each one of us should be able to enjoy what you're saying God told you that we all should enjoy.  I happen to be in a wonderful relationship with my wife right now and I expect to be able to enjoy this relationship in the next life, too.

 

So what else did he tell you?  What were the thoughts that he (whoever it was) gave to you?  I think this is worth thinking about.

[rockpond]

To try to help foster an understanding between us, I'd now like to share my thoughts as I try to understand what you mean.

 

You say you were told that sexual orientation is eternal.  I can somewhat see how God could give a person that impression, based on my understanding of what sexual orientation is.  I would say my sexual orientation is directed mostly toward women, but I also have a sexual attraction toward men which I don't think is the least bit unhealthy.  Men are obviously sexually attractive, as most women will attest, and I don't see a good reason why a man should not be able to see another man as sexually attractive, too.  So when applying what you're saying to me I basically understand you to be saying that God told you that I'll always be sexually oriented in the way I am now.  I have no problem with that, just as I have no problem with my sexual orientation right now.

 

You also seem to be saying that God told you that homosexuals ought to be able to enjoy fulfilling, loving relationships in mortality, and that those relationships can continue in the next life.  I agree.  They ought to be.  We're all homosexuals, since we are all either male or female, and each one of us should be able to enjoy what you're saying God told you that we all should enjoy.  I happen to be in a wonderful relationship with my wife right now and I expect to be able to enjoy this relationship in the next life, too.

 

So what else did he tell you?  What were the thoughts that he (whoever it was) gave to you?  I think this is worth thinking about.

 

How are we all homosexuals?  You state that we are all either male or female but that is gender not orientation.

 

Your relationship with your wife works because you are "mostly" attracted to women.  But what of the man who is almost exclusively attracted to men?  Or the woman who is almost exclusively attracted to women?

[USU78]

How is the family proclamation even quasi-scriptural evidence that sexual orientation is not eternal?

 

Define what a glorified man is, and you've got your answer.

 

It's pleasing to many to assume based upon nothing but one's present desire (which is, more often than not, not the same as one's desire but scant years or months ago) that one's present desire will continue to be one's desire worlds without end.  There is nothing in scripture or in secondary literature, including conference talks, that supports the notion that our desires that are not in consonance with G-d's commandments will continue to be with us to plague us once we are assigned a kingdom following the resurrection.

 

I challenge you to find such support.

[Ahab]

How are we all homosexuals?  You state that we are all either male or female but that is gender not orientation.

 

The word "homosexual" technically refers to being one or the same, with our sexuality (or sex) being either male or female.  I know the word has a perjorative slang use, too, but technically each of us is only one of those of the same sex as we are, either male or female, even though we each have some genes and chromosomes of both a male and female within us.

 

 

 

Your relationship with your wife works because you are "mostly" attracted to women. But what of the man who is almost exclusively attracted to men? Or the woman who is almost exclusively attracted to women?

There's something wrong in those situations, because both men and women are sexually attractive and each person should be able to see how both sexes are sexually attractive.  If you're having trouble seeing women as sexually attractive, then you should give some more thought to why most men see them that way.  There's certainly nothing wrong with the men who do see women that way.  The problem is that you don't see them that way.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Ahab

[rockpond]

Define what a glorified man is, and you've got your answer.

 

It's pleasing to many to assume based upon nothing but one's present desire (which is, more often than not, not the same as one's desire but scant years or months ago) that one's present desire will continue to be one's desire worlds without end.  There is nothing in scripture or in secondary literature, including conference talks, that supports the notion that our desires that are not in consonance with G-d's commandments will continue to be with us to plague us once we are assigned a kingdom following the resurrection.

 

I challenge you to find such support.

 

You didn't actually answer my question about how the proclamation is quasi-scriptural support that sexual orientation is net eternal.  But...

 

If I understand what you are saying:  heterosexual orientation is eternal (will be part of glorified man) because it is in line with what you believe to be God's commandments.  Whereas homosexual orientation is not in consonance with our best understanding of God's commandments so it will be changed in the next life.  So you are saying the a heterosexual sexual orientation is eternal but a homosexual sexual orientation is not.  Is that an accurate appraisal?

[rockpond]

The word "homosexual" technically refers to being one or the same, with our sexuality (or sex) being either male or female.  I know the word has a perjorative slang use, too, but technically each of us is only one of those of the same sex as we are, either male or female, even though we each have some genes and chromosomes of both a male and female within us.

 

 

 

There's something wrong in those situations, because both men and women are sexually attractive and each person should be able to see how both sexes are sexually attractive.  If you're having trouble seeing women as sexually attractive, then you should give some more thought to why most men see them that way.  There's certainly nothing wrong with the men who do see women that way.  The problem is that you don't see them that way.

 

I'm using the terms homosexual and heterosexual in their most widely accepted current definitions.  And given that's the topic of this thread, maybe we should stick with those definitions.

 

That aside, are you saying that all homosexuals need to do is change their thought process and then they can be attracted to the opposite sex?

[Ahab]

I'm using the terms homosexual and heterosexual in their most widely accepted current definitions.  And given that's the topic of this thread, maybe we should stick with those definitions.

 

That aside, are you saying that all homosexuals need to do is change their thought process and then they can be attracted to the opposite sex?

Since all actions begin with a thought, then yes I would say that's where the appropriate changes needs to begin.  The appropriate thoughts will need to transcend from mere thoughts into appropriate feelings, though, before the appropriate actions can begin.

 

Not that a man should seek to rid himself of all thoughts and feelings toward other men and their sexuality, though.  I still think men are as sexually attractive as I ever did, although I no longer have sexual relations with them.  But I don't have sexual relations with anyone other than my wife, for that matter, regardless of whether another person is male or female.

[CV75]

No one can know.  Exactly.  I was responding to the statements posted here that it could never happen.  Those statements are also without scriptural justification.  That was my point.

 

I am not basing my argument on what I want (which is irrelevant), but what the scriptures lead me to conclude and believe. That is where we seem to be different.

 

My scriptural insight is this:  If we can keep blacks from being sealed for over a century and a half and then say, institutionally:  oh sorry, we really had no revelation or doctrine or other reason for the restrictions and we disavow all that negative stuff that was said by church leaders.  Then I don't see it as a huge leap that someday the same could happen with homosexuals.

That is not how it went down, and is not how the revelation was expressed, in tone or content. I think your portrayal does violence to the spirit of both the revelation and the message.

 

Further insight is that the continuing evolution of our doctrine with respect to homosexuality as well as a lack of any identifiable modern day revelation on the subject lends weight to the idea that we are still searching for answers on this.

There is no evolution of our doctrine with respect to homosexuality: homosexual intercourse is a sin. Due to the public discourse, the exploration of the various nuances and parameters of what “homosexuality” means and the demand by so many to have things spelled out for them, the subject has been addressed more explicitly and frequently in terms of behavioral limits, personal struggles, and how the saints should treat God’s children. I wouldn’t say any of the particulars or inspired counsel have evolved; God’s standards for His children have been the same from the beginning of time. If policy has changed, I cannot think of any offhand (except perhaps referrals for medical treatment), and while policy may evolve, policy is not doctrine.