Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[CV75]

homosexuals ought to be able to enjoy fulfilling, loving relationships in mortality, and that those relationships can continue in the next life

I agree with this, but it must be, as for everyone else, within the bounds the Lord has set, otherwise the blessings of D&C 132 cannot be realized.

 

Not all relationships are "homosexual" simply because a homosexually-oriented person is involved.

[CV75]

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.

Consider that eternal gender is a necessary complimenting feature for those that become one through like orientation toward the pattern of God as desccribed in D&C 132. Love takes many shapes and forms, and some are more suitable than others for continuing in an exalted state.

[rockpond]

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.

 

Based on the gay people the interactions I've had with gay people, I believe that their sexual orientation goes much deeper than just trying to change their thoughts.  But I don't deny your personal experience either (though you do not claim to be bisexual or even more of a heterosexual orientation than someone who leans almost exclusively towards a homosexual orientation).

[rockpond]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

What I have said is also based on years of prayer and scripture study.  Not on what I want.

 

So please tell me, how have I misrepresented the change within the church with respect to temple & priesthood restrictions for those of African descent?

 

Funny... "perhaps referrals for medical treatment"... yeah that little thing we used to do at the church owned university wherein we electrically shocked gay people while they looked at gay porn.  Just that.

 

I realize that the church has always condemned sexual activity between persons of the same gender.  One easy way to see the evolution of our doctrine on homosexuality is to read President (then Elder) Packer's address "To The One" that was subsequently produced in pamphlet form and distributed to Bishops as an official statement on homosexuality.  Then compare that to the current language on the MormonsandGays website.

 

"To The One" has been largely removed from the internet so it's tough to find but here's one link that has the text.

 

Don't take this the wrong way... I think the evolution is a good thing.  I just see no reason to believe that we are done receiving further light on the subject.

[rockpond]

Consider that eternal gender is a necessary complimenting feature for those that become one through like orientation toward the pattern of God as desccribed in D&C 132. Love takes many shapes and forms, and some are more suitable than others for continuing in an exalted state.

 

I'm not sure that a male and a female still "compliment" each other in the pattern of God if they have conflicting orientations.

[rockpond]

I agree with this, but it must be, as for everyone else, within the bounds the Lord has set, otherwise the blessings of D&C 132 cannot be realized.

 

Not all relationships are "homosexual" simply because a homosexually-oriented person is involved.

 

Sorry - to be clear - when I refer to a homosexual relationship I am talking about a union between two people of the same gender who have homosexual orientations.

[Ahab]

Based on the gay people the interactions I've had with gay people, I believe that their sexual orientation goes much deeper than just trying to change their thoughts.  But I don't deny your personal experience either (though you do not claim to be bisexual or even more of a heterosexual orientation than someone who leans almost exclusively towards a homosexual orientation).

It all involves thoughts, though.  I'm not discounting feelings or other actions.  I'm just saying that with more thought any person should be able to think about how each sex is or can be sexually attractive to each sex, so that men see both men and women as sexually attractive and women see both women and men as sexually attractive.  Don't dispel the thought with another thought.  Think about it, and then try to look at each one of us as our Father and Mother in heaven see us.  I'm sure they think we're all sexually attractive, in one way or another, without looking at any of us in disgust because of our sex.  Our other actions, sure.  Some of our actions are deplorable, but we are all sexually attractive in our own way.

[CV75]

What I have said is also based on years of prayer and scripture study.  Not on what I want.

 

 

"To The One" has been largely removed from the internet so it's tough to find but here's one link that has the text.

I'll not adress anyting I see as a deflection.

 

RE: Elder Packer's talk:

 

He says that homosexual temptation, like any temptation, is a temporary condition. The rest of the talk, and all the key points in it, have to be taken in that context.

 

The key points are eternal principles: Immorality and transgression are perversions of the law; the idea that succumbing to temptation (an invitation to pervert) is part of our nature and is therefore right for us is false doctrine; the tendency to succumb to temptation is not impossible to change; if someone is heavily involved in perversion, he can believe that it is impossible to stop; if someone makes a mistake, it is not the end of the world and no reason to believe that it is impossible to stop; if someone doesn’t stop succumbing to temptation, it can become an addiction; sex-change operations are not acceptable; the root of sin is selfishness, and the root of selfishness is spiritual. It is sometimes difficult to repent of sin.

 

My observation of his talk regarding the science of the day, is that he uses it to support the doctrines (listed above), but is still not doctrine, and he is not saying that it is.

[CV75]

I'm not sure that a male and a female still "compliment" each other in the pattern of God if they have conflicting orientations.

Of course they do-- they still have the same gender-dependent commandments and covenants.

[CV75]

Sorry - to be clear - when I refer to a homosexual relationship I am talking about a union between two people of the same gender who have homosexual orientations.

And when you say "union" you include homosexual intercourse and ultimately the hope of their creating spirit offspring. 

[rockpond]

And when you say "union" you include homosexual intercourse and ultimately the hope of their creating spirit offspring. 

 

Nope.  Just referring to a couple.

[rockpond]

I'll not adress anyting I see as a deflection.

 

RE: Elder Packer's talk:

 

He says that homosexual temptation, like any temptation, is a temporary condition. The rest of the talk, and all the key points in it, have to be taken in that context.

 

The key points are eternal principles: Immorality and transgression are perversions of the law; the idea that succumbing to temptation (an invitation to pervert) is part of our nature and is therefore right for us is false doctrine; the tendency to succumb to temptation is not impossible to change; if someone is heavily involved in perversion, he can believe that it is impossible to stop; if someone makes a mistake, it is not the end of the world and no reason to believe that it is impossible to stop; if someone doesn’t stop succumbing to temptation, it can become an addiction; sex-change operations are not acceptable; the root of sin is selfishness, and the root of selfishness is spiritual. It is sometimes difficult to repent of sin.

 

My observation of his talk regarding the science of the day, is that he uses it to support the doctrines (listed above), but is still not doctrine, and he is not saying that it is.

 

First, you did not respond to my request that you clarify your accusation that I had misrepresented what happened with respect to priesthood & temple restrictions.  I hope you are still planning to do so or that you will retract & delete your accusation.

 

Second, doctrine is the official teachings of the church.  To The One was delivered by an apostle at an official church gathering and then published by the church.  That makes it doctrine.  Is it truth?  Revelation?  Probably not.  But it is doctrine.

 

I'll clarify a bit about the evolution of which I speak but if you don't wish to see it, you won't.  And I'll stop.

 

For starters, he refuses to use the word homosexual as a noun.  And states that he won't.  We now have an official church website that clearly uses homosexual, gay, & lesbian as nouns.  That's significant.

 

But more important is that he teaches that homosexuality is something that can be caused just by talking about it.  That it is an addiction.  And that it is changeable.  How does he suggest changing it?  Getting rid of one's selfishness.

 

So, for decades we put the onus back on our homosexual brothers and sisters to correct their own homosexuality by removing selfishness that he says was likely not even a conscious choice.  We published that pamphlet and told our innocent youth that THEY needed to cure themselves of this malady.

 

Thank goodness we've moved away from that.

[Buckeye]

Rockpond,

 

I'm not going to wade back into this thread (I already said my peace), but just want to say how impressed I am with your temperment and patience.  Obviously, I agree with many of your views.  But regardless, you are to be commended for adding to the civility of this board.  Thanks.

[Ahab]

Rockpond,

 

I'm not going to wade back into this thread (I already said my peace), but just want to say how impressed I am with your temperment and patience.  Obviously, I agree with many of your views.  But regardless, you are to be commended for adding to the civility of this board.  Thanks.

What about me?  Don't I deserve a compliment?  Sheesh.

 

But yes, rockpond is a nice guy, and I really love him.  And in fact, I'm sexually attracted to him, too, even though I haven't seen what he looks like.

[CV75]

Nope.  Just referring to a couple.

Then since the requirements and blessings of D&C 132 apply only to married couples, that part of our conversation must have run its course.Those requirements and blessings are not applicable to couples and individuals that are not committed to temple marriage or its ideals. Those who are committed and qualify in their worthiness will have none of the blessings leading to and including eternal increase witheld from them, whether married or not in this world.

[CV75]

First, you did not respond to my request that you clarify your accusation that I had misrepresented what happened with respect to priesthood & temple restrictions.  I hope you are still planning to do so or that you will retract & delete your accusation.

Your request was a deflection from the topic at hand. Compare your post with OD2 and you will see two very different sets of content and tone.

 

Second, doctrine is the official teachings of the church.  To The One was delivered by an apostle at an official church gathering and then published by the church.  That makes it doctrine.  Is it truth?  Revelation?  Probably not.  But it is doctrine.

I summarized the doctrines from the talk.

I'll clarify a bit about the evolution of which I speak but if you don't wish to see it, you won't.  And I'll stop.

 

For starters, he refuses to use the word homosexual as a noun.  And states that he won't.  We now have an official church website that clearly uses homosexual, gay, & lesbian as nouns.  That's significant.

 

But more important is that he teaches that homosexuality is something that can be caused just by talking about it.  That it is an addiction.  And that it is changeable.  How does he suggest changing it?  Getting rid of one's selfishness.

 

So, for decades we put the onus back on our homosexual brothers and sisters to correct their own homosexuality by removing selfishness that he says was likely not even a conscious choice.  We published that pamphlet and told our innocent youth that THEY needed to cure themselves of this malady.

 

Thank goodness we've moved away from that.

He explains why he uses "homosexual" as an adjective--he is talking about a type of temptation, not a type of person. The entire talk is about dealing with temptation and changing suceptibility and reversing false notions about temptation and what it means about the person. The Church website uses "homosexual" in another way, for another purpose. Neither use in itself constitutes a doctrine, nor does the use of both indicate conflicting or evolving doctrine about homosexual behavior or sexual temptation.

 

Temptation can be caused by talking about it; it or its fruits can become an addiction; can be changed into a strength; can be overcome by overcoming selfishness.

 

Yes, the onus is on the one who is tempted to deal with it as Christ taught, and as Christ did. If he needs help, he should not be refused it, as Christ taught and did. The root cause of susceptibility to any temptation is ultimately selfishness. We just don't know on the basis of specific sciences why some people are susceptible to some temptations more than other temptations. That is the problem with inordinate application of science to religion and vice-versa, and inordinate expectations to do so.

[rockpond]

Then since the requirements and blessings of D&C 132 apply only to married couples, that part of our conversation must have run its course.Those requirements and blessings are not applicable to couples and individuals that are not committed to temple marriage or its ideals. Those who are committed and qualify in their worthiness will have none of the blessings leading to and including eternal increase witheld from them, whether married or not in this world.

 

I don't think I've ever disputed the content of section 132.  All I've said is that I'm open to the possibility of revelation that could extend those blessings to (including the accompanying temple ordinance) to homosexual couples.

[Ahab]

I don't think I've ever disputed the content of section 132.  All I've said is that I'm open to the possibility of revelation that could extend those blessings to (including the accompanying temple ordinance) to homosexual couples.

The real problem here is that you don't accept the idea that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a sin, and wrong.

 

Or maybe you think that while our Father says it is a sin now, he might change his mind later and say it is not a sin anymore.

 

Either way, your problem should be solved when you find out how our Father feels about it, and that he'll always feel that way about it.  Wishful thinking won't change that reality.

[rockpond]

Your request was a deflection from the topic at hand. Compare your post with OD2 and you will see two very different sets of content and tone.

 

I summarized the doctrines from the talk.

He explains why he uses "homosexual" as an adjective--he is talking about a type of temptation, not a type of person. The entire talk is about dealing with temptation and changing suceptibility and reversing false notions about temptation and what it means about the person. The Church website uses "homosexual" in another way, for another purpose. Neither use in itself constitutes a doctrine, nor does the use of both indicate conflicting or evolving doctrine about homosexual behavior or sexual temptation.

 

Temptation can be caused by talking about it; it or its fruits can become an addiction; can be changed into a strength; can be overcome by overcoming selfishness.

 

Yes, the onus is on the one who is tempted to deal with it as Christ taught, and as Christ did. If he needs help, he should not be refused it, as Christ taught and did. The root cause of susceptibility to any temptation is ultimately selfishness. We just don't know on the basis of specific sciences why some people are susceptible to some temptations more than other temptations. That is the problem with inordinate application of science to religion and vice-versa, and inordinate expectations to do so.

 

Then I ask that you kindly delete your accusation if you are not willing to support it.  I understand OD2.  If you read the church's response to the recent Randy Bott incident you might have a better understanding of my comments.

 

In your summaries you are making slight but critical alterations to Elder Packer's message to make it fit better with our current teachings.  For example, he didn't say that homosexuals just need to "deal with it" and overcome the temptation.  He said that they could change if they could just rid themselves of the underlying selfishness.  If you don't read that talk in its entirety and see it as suggesting that individuals can change their orientation, then I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

 

If you really want to understand why I see an evolution of doctrine and even a confusion of doctrine within our teachings on the subject of homosexuality, you can start reading the documents summarized on this website:  http://farbetweenmovie.com/resources/church-historydoctrine/

 

I don't believe God to be the author of such confusion and therefore must conclude that we are awaiting future revelation on the subject.

[rockpond]

The real problem here is that you don't accept the idea that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a sin, and wrong.

 

Or maybe you think that while our Father says it is a sin now, he might change his mind later and say it is not a sin anymore.

 

Either way, your problem should be solved when you find out how our Father feels about it, and that he'll always feel that way about it.  Wishful thinking won't change that reality.

 

I believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin.  Period.  Genders of the participants are irrelevant to me.  I don't believe that our Father has said otherwise and if He has ever spoken on the subject of gay marriage - please let me know when/where.

 

I didn't realize that a desire for further light and knowledge was now considered "wishful thinking".

[Questing Beast]

...

 

I don't believe God to be the author of such confusion and therefore must conclude that we are awaiting future revelation on the subject.

No, of course not, not as a TBM or other "orthodox" believer in Judeo-Christianity. "The Fall" plays heavily here and is responsible for this venue where opposition holds sway. Why you continue to deny the likelihood that homosexuality is a flaw of this "fallen world" and not of God's making is a poser to me. To hold the view that I do is simpler, requires no drawing on unsupported hopes for fulfillment, and withal answers all questions about why we have imperfection. You seem to ignore or deny that biological urges are a byproduct of this world and probably have no more to do with eternity as immortals than our present physical looks do....

 

ETA: I repeat that future revelation will not utterly overturn previous revelation. The reason why God never sent down revelation on SSM is because at no time in the past were his people in need of a clarification on the topic: there was no such consideration, much less an actual attempt at, SSM, until now. Revisionist history does not show Judeo-Christianity (the only "revealed" religion on the planet, to Judeo-Christians) as ever having accepted SSM of any kind. As you have so often said, sealings are not marriages....

Edited August 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

I believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin.  Period.  Genders of the participants are irrelevant to me.  I don't believe that our Father has said otherwise and if He has ever spoken on the subject of gay marriage - please let me know when/where.

 

I didn't realize that a desire for further light and knowledge was now considered "wishful thinking".

You know what I meant.  Don't play dumb with me.

[rockpond]

No, of course not, not as a TBM or other "orthodox" believer in Judeo-Christianity. "The Fall" plays heavily here and is responsible for this venue where opposition holds sway. Why you continue to deny the likelihood that homosexuality is a flaw of this "fallen world" and not of God's making is a poser to me. To hold the view that I do is simpler, requires no drawing on unsupported hopes for fulfillment, and withal answers all questions about why we have imperfection. You seem to ignore or deny that biological urges are a byproduct of this world and probably have no more to do with eternity as immortals than our present physical looks do....

 

Again, to hope for continued revelation is not a bad thing.

 

And, while your view that homosexuality is a flaw is simpler... it hurts people that I love.  It's also causing people that I love to leave the church.

 

Also, my understanding of sexual orientation is that it goes much deeper than just biological urges.  As I've noted, I believe it is part of our eternal identity.

[rockpond]

You know what I meant.  Don't play dumb with me.

 

I am not playing dumb.  I sincerely responded to your points with my honest answer.

[Questing Beast]

Again, to hope for continued revelation is not a bad thing.

 

And, while your view that homosexuality is a flaw is simpler... it hurts people that I love.  It's also causing people that I love to leave the church.

 

Also, my understanding of sexual orientation is that it goes much deeper than just biological urges.  As I've noted, I believe it is part of our eternal identity.

Your belief is not founded upon anything that God has revealed so far. "The Fall" is at least a metaphysical excuse for the condition of the world. LDS doctrine believes in it. You are LDS.

 

I understand very well how concern for loved ones being hurt by religious beliefs is a great problem. Problems with the Church's doctrines and the attitudes of its members cause people to leave all the time.

 

The simple truth is that we are imperfect here. Our love of one another is flawed by our imperfections. Not even the most pure heterosexual marriage is without flaws, and they are caused by weaknesses of the flesh, especially including the brain and the thoughts that it discerns. There is nothing special about heterosexual identity or orientation. It is what it is. Mostly it is bisexual, as "Ahab" points out using himself as an example. I concur completely. I have never, in my conscious memory (who knows what could be stuffed away in the subconscious from childhood!), had a homosexual encounter (had one adult male expose himself and make me touch him while he masturbated, when I was c. seven years old), and never felt curious about engaging in such. Yet I find the male quite sexually stimulating as much as the female, depending on the circumstances. I concluded long ago that I have the capacity to behave bisexually. And that I have a choice. I have committed to my choices, and am trying to convince my daughters to do likewise and follow their parents' example. But biology is already an often confusing gauge by which to judge morality. And in the current culture it is brushed aside as of little or no significance; just do what you want, it is all the same. Honesty is held up as a virtue, between any two people. You do that, apparently: you think a "marriage" between two people is sufficient to define it as "good". I don't. I see problems in doing relationships in other ways than heterosexual, and why cause needless problems?

 

Homosexuality is a flaw, a complex of biology and culture and upbringing. Most of humanity falls between "hardwired" heterosexual and homosexual, i.e. somewhere on the "bisexual" middle curve. But religious doctrine, asserted to be revealed by God, has always adhered to heterosexual marriage alone. That the State will make homosexual marriage legal has nothing at all to do with what God has already revealed. I do not expect any "further light and knowledge" to overturn thousands of years of what God has always said is a marriage. Like many other ways of not being worthy of full blessings, homosexual marriage will put the brakes on receiving those blessings, because it is not the ideal. But then, we fall for far less than the ideal in countless ways all the time and thus give up greater blessings of Joy.

 

I've said it before, "Mormon heaven" does not include homosexual marriage or anything like it. But I wouldn't put it past "God" to accommodate every kind of relationship with its level of joy, i.e. endless kinds of "heaven" for this and that. "Dog heaven", "cat heaven", and whatever humans want to accept for as long as they want to accept it. "God Is" in the Joy business, and we are all seeking for it the best we can....