Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 A doctrine that is so important that it is mentioned in the scriptures over and over again. Oh wait... actually it's not. p.s. I thought that the purpose of the LDS church was to bring souls to Christ. No, God's glory is to provide immortality (done deal for all) and eternal life for us all. he wants exaltation, that's it. Why don't you? In the Bible Paul preached to the Romans that homosexual behavior was sinful (see Romans 1:24-32). In Old Testament times Moses included in his law that homosexual relations were against God’s law (see Leviticus 20:13) Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued the following statement about homosexuality: “We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” which was written by twelve modern Apostles through inspiration from the Lord). “People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are. “We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attitude regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage? The purpose of a family is to bring souls to Christ for what end? What, exactly does Christ want to offer that is less than exaltation?
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Here's another source: Bergera, Gary James (Winter 2011), "Transgressions in the Latter-day Saint Community: The Cases of Albert Carrington, Richard R. Lyman, and Joseph F. Smith — Part 3: Joseph F. Smith, Patriarch to the Church", Journal of Mormon History 38 (1) http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol38/iss1/1/
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 You have to be taught to be a homophobe, and it isn't hard-wired like sexuality, thank heavens. Nope, you're being ignorant of the homophobe gene. It's scientific, you know.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Nope, you're being ignorant of the homophobe gene. It's scientific, you know. Now you're just being ridiculous. There's no gay gene, though studies have shown that genetics is one component. Homophobia is, unfortunately, learned behavior. Some people, like that little kid, are kind of screwed before they have a chance, but then they can always grow up.
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The "success" rate with these barely even registers. This was a good point. Many wish their"gay" gene would go away and it doesn't even after the clinical effort to help them choose otherwise. I can't believe we are even discussing if Gay is a choice!!! WOW, I want to say several things that are true and yet each would be reason to remove me from this thread. WOW is all I will say Yeah, I've tried to make a conscious effort to not engage in dialogue with people who still believe that sexual orientation is a choice. It's becoming an increasingly minority viewpoint - as it should. To try to point back to your original question. I think we (as a church) are becoming more welcoming, accepting, and open to homosexuals not just as members but actively participating. I think that trend will continue until further revelation is able to be requested and received. Alternatively, it's possible that voices like Packer & Oaks will drown out the trend. In that case, the church will continue to bleed membership. My family will likely be part of that if things head that direction.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Mormonsandgays.org"The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."It ought to give Rob and Darren pause that an apostate like me agrees with the church on this issue, and they don't. 2
Tacenda Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I would say handle them the same way you handle the Relief Society Pres. who spends her weekends gambling at the local casino, the fat elder's quorum teacher who eats a large pizza in a setting, or any other sinner in the building (which is all to some degree).Priceless! IOW, treat them like you do everyone else in the ward. We all sin in our own way. Didn't Uchtdorf say someting along those lines? In all honesty I believe if they are committed to one another and even better through a promise like marriage, I think they are going to be ok. It's not their fault they were born gay. It's just like tellin a straight person they should love someone of the same sex. Pretty scary thought huh? Now that's how a gay person feels.
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 No, God's glory is to provide immortality (done deal for all) and eternal life for us all. he wants exaltation, that's it. Why don't you? What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attitude regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage? The purpose of a family is to bring souls to Christ for what end? What, exactly does Christ want to offer that is less than exaltation? Not sure what point you are trying to make. But to answer your questions... Yes, I want immortality and eternal life for all. I can't speak to the purpose of every family, but in my family we are trying to help each other toward discipleship of Christ and an eternal exalted family. I'm not aware of Christ offering anything less than exaltation.
DBMormon Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Christ at least seem aware of those in his day who lacked sexual attraction for those of the opposite sex.10 ¶His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.It is an interesting scripture as Christ seems to acknowledge that some with SSA (or at least non-heterosexual feelings) come that way from the womb- some born that way- some choose to not be with a woman as part of a religious covenant- and some are made Eunichs (person cuts off the genitals of a man and forces them into servitude).Now while this scripture does not clearly say what born Eunichs should do, Christ is as least aware that it is not a choice Edited October 31, 2013 by DBMormon
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Dennis Michael Quinn (born March 26, 1944)[citation needed] is an American historian who has focused on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was a professor at Brigham Young University from 1976 until his resignation in 1988. At the time, his work concerned church involvement with plural marriage after the 1890 Manifesto, in which new polygamous marriages were prohibited. He was excommunicated from the church as one of the September Six and is openly gay.[1] Same-sex dynamics among 19th-Century Mormons[edit]Main article: Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsQuinn, who himself is openly gay, has publicly argued that homosexual relationships, between both men and women, were quietly accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leadership up until the 1940s.[1] This theme has arisen in Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power and is the central topic of Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. Several LDS scholars have disputed Quinn's work, calling it a distortion of LDS history and saying he completely misrepresented the facts.[10][11] They deny any acceptance from previous leaders of homosexuality, suggesting that Quinn conflated an absence of early Church proscriptions of homosexuality with tacit acceptance of same, and state the current leadership of the church “is entirely consistent with the teachings of past leaders and with the scriptures.”[10][11] There's the source for claiming Joseph Fielding Smith was gay. http://www.connellodonovan.com/smith.html There you have it.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Why does the church website say "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."? I told you I'm not going there. Amazing the church speaks of "individuals" and not as a collective group, no?
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 A hundred years ago there were very few gay people. 150 years ago there were no 'gay' people. Of course, there were also no 'straight' people then either. Both 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' -- and therefore the entire notion of 'sexual identity' -- are late 19th-century social constructs. As is always the case with newly hegemonic ideas, these constructions have become so reified in the West over the past century and a half that we now have trouble seeing them as anything other than essential, material, and always-already existing, but to speak of homo- or heterosexuality before the end of the 19th century is demonstrably ahistorical. And until very recent times -- the change in large part due to the reach of both traditional Euro-American colonialism and the Western entertainment industry's increasingly pervasive colonising of the global imagination -- it remained anachronistic to speak of 'gay' and 'straight' identities or 'orientations' outside of the West.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 There's the source for claiming Joseph Fielding Smith was gay. http://www.connellodonovan.com/smith.html There you have it. Well, no, that's not the source, though Donovan's site gives a decent summary. I'm surprised you've never heard of this, as it's not in dispute what happened. Oh, well, feel free to dismiss it, though I'm not sure why it matters to you.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Amazing the church speaks of "individuals" and not as a collective group, no? Not really, as gay people are individuals, are they not?
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Now you're just being ridiculous. There's no gay gene, though studies have shown that genetics is one component. Homophobia is, unfortunately, learned behavior. Some people, like that little kid, are kind of screwed before they have a chance, but then they can always grow up. YES, genetics is "one component" and there is no "gay gene". So why is Rob and my assertion that not all homosexuals "have to be" gay because they are born that way? Isn't it you who have brought up child rearing as a means of influencing how one thinks and behaves? Among certain persons, for some reason, this fact disappears when it comes to homosexuality.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Christ at least seem aware of those in his day who lacked sexual attraction for those of the opposite sex.10 ¶His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.It is an interesting scripture as Christ seems to acknowledge that some with SSA (or at least non-heterosexual feelings) come that way from the womb- some born that way- some choose to not be with a woman as part of a religious covenant- and some are made Eunichs (person cuts off the genitals of a man and forces them into servitude).Now while this scripture does not clearly say what born Eunichs should do, Christ is as least aware that it is not a choice What part of that scripture speaks of homosexuals?
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Not really, as gay people are individuals, are they not? "Individuals on Mormon Dialogue may not help but to make poor posts." How does that mean everyone on Mormon Dialogue?
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 YES, genetics is "one component" and there is no "gay gene". So why is Rob and my assertion that not all homosexuals "have to be" gay because they are born that way? Isn't it you who have brought up child rearing as a means of influencing how one thinks and behaves? Among certain persons, for some reason, this fact disappears when it comes to homosexuality. It doesn't disappear with me, as environmental factors may play a part in homosexuality. Either way, sexuality is pretty much hard-wired by early adolescence, so wherever it comes from, it's not a choice. Again, if homosexuality were a choice, you'd be able to show some data indicating that. Of course there isn't any such data. Or you'd be able point to reparative-therapy programs where people successfully choose not to be gay anymore, only those don't work, either. So, unless you have something other than your own say-so, it's not looking like a choice.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 "Individuals on Mormon Dialogue may not help but to make poor posts." How does that mean everyone on Mormon Dialogue? "Individuals do not choose to have such attractions." Are you suggesting this means, "but as a group they do"? Yikes.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Well, no, that's not the source, though Donovan's site gives a decent summary. I'm surprised you've never heard of this, as it's not in dispute what happened. Oh, well, feel free to dismiss it, though I'm not sure why it matters to you. No, you cite D. Michael Quinn as the source for your #165 citation. D. Michael Quinn got fired from BYU, can't get rehired, is openly gay, and was ex communicated from the LDS church. How is he a reliable source regarding Joseph Fielding Smith? And, nope I never heard of it and I highly doubt It but feel free to propagate it.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 No, you cite D. Michael Quinn as the source for your #165 citation. D. Michael Quinn got fired from BYU, can't get rehired, is openly gay, and was ex communicated from the LDS church. How is he a reliable source regarding Joseph Fielding Smith? And, nope I never heard of it and I highly doubt It but feel free to propagate it. Do your own homework. Yes, Michael Quinn is gay and was fired from BYU, but he is well-known as one of the most thorough and fair Mormon historians around. The thing about Mike Quinn is that, despite the way the church has treated him and ensured that he'll never work again, he still believes in the church and proclaims his testimony.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 It doesn't disappear with me, as environmental factors may play a part in homosexuality. But it does with some. Either way, sexuality is pretty much hard-wired by early adolescence, so wherever it comes from, it's not a choice. Please don't become a family therapist. Again, if homosexuality were a choice, you'd be able to show some data indicating that. Why? People can't chose how to act on their sexuality? What are you talking about? There's no homosexual in good standing with the Church because they choose not to act on it? Of course there isn't any such data. Or you'd be able point to reparative-therapy programs where people successfully choose not to be gay anymore, only those don't work, either. So, unless you have something other than your own say-so, it's not looking like a choice. Of course it's a choice. http://gawker.com/5917022/im-a-gay-mormon-whos-been-happily-married-for-10-years
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Do your own homework. Yes, Michael Quinn is gay and was fired from BYU, but he is well-known as one of the most thorough and fair Mormon historians around. The thing about Mike Quinn is that, despite the way the church has treated him and ensured that he'll never work again, he still believes in the church and proclaims his testimony. The Church did not make sure he never works again. Good grief. He can't work because of his choices, not The Church's. What, there's no California university willing to hire him? Must be because of the high number of Mormons there and all their donation dollars.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Remember, my argument on freedom to choose is how you use sexuality, not necessarily if you are gay or not. Rob's position was that your sexual orientation was a choice, which is what I have been responding to. I've said more than once that choosing to act on one's sexuality is a choice, but the sexuality itself isn't. Maybe you agree with me after all.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 "Individuals do not choose to have such attractions." Are you suggesting this means, "but as a group they do"? Yikes. They all have choice in their actions. Some do not have a choice in their attractions though, yes.
Recommended Posts