Harry Reid & Enda

[CV75]

Expanding it to include gay couples. But go ahead, continue to dictate what God can and cannot do.

That’s like saying, “Go ahead, continue to dictate what you think God can do because you think it’s a better idea than what He’s done.”

 

I always thought that carrying out the work of the immortality and eternal life of man constituted far more than procreative sex. Obviously, that's a part of it but not the only aspect.

It is the only aspect that got you here in the first place! As was the marriage of our first parents, the commandments to multiply and fill the earth, and the Savior’s Redemption. To replenish the earth involves more than offspring; it means to fill it up again, meaning to follow the same pattern that got it populated with the first two people in the first place (their marriage and all came out of that couple’s relationship). It means to fill it up again with the principles and covenants of the Gospel that get repeated generation after generation by every other individual through the divine family order.

 

Committing to love and care for another person til death or eternally is, by very definition, not serving "one's individual, loan ambition."

Of course it is when one’s own, individual, lone ambition is not to keep the command to replenish as I have described it.

 

...

 

Perhaps because this thread started about ENDA, and (as typical for threads on this and related subjects) got leveraged into promoting the false merits of accepting gay "marriage" within the LDS Church, there is confusion between what can be done by the US society of 2013 and what can be done that is consistent with God's revealed word.

[rockpond]

That’s like saying, “Go ahead, continue to dictate what you think God can do because you think it’s a better idea than what He’s done.”

It is the only aspect that got you here in the first place! As was the marriage of our first parents, the commandments to multiply and fill the earth, and the Savior’s Redemption. To replenish the earth involves more than offspring; it means to fill it up again, meaning to follow the same pattern that got it populated with the first two people in the first place (their marriage and all came out of that couple’s relationship). It means to fill it up again with the principles and covenants of the Gospel that get repeated generation after generation by every other individual through the divine family order.

Of course it is when one’s own, individual, lone ambition is not to keep the command to replenish as I have described it.

...

Perhaps because this thread started about ENDA, and (as typical for threads on this and related subjects) got leveraged into promoting the false merits of accepting gay "marriage" within the LDS Church, there is confusion between what can be done by the US society of 2013 and what can be done that is consistent with God's revealed word.

Since homosexuals are not really biologically designed to "multiply and replenish the earth" I don't find much relevance to the argument that they can't marry because they should be making babies.

[CV75]

Since homosexuals are not really biologically designed to "multiply and replenish the earth" I don't find much relevance to the argument that they can't marry because they should be making babies.

Huh? Men and women are so biologically designed, regardless of sexual orientation (gay people can and do make babies): “replenish” has as much to do with the spirit and the covenants as it does with the body, so marriage has everything to do with bringing these three together, and vice-versa! I would go so far as to say that Moses 6:59-60 applies very much to marriage since this is how living souls come into mortality, and was to be taught by Adam and Eve to their children, freely (verses 52-onward have everything to do with married parents teaching their offspring, using the first parents as the pattern for all who follow, to follow).

 

What really isn’t relevant at all is the very term “homosexual”, since the wide spectrum of what it entails supports the idea that marriage is for all men and women, regardless of sexual orientation (there are other orientations and preferences, too!). If marriage is not found to be a fulfilled or workable opportunity in this life, it can be made so in the next life. LDS just have to be “honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and …doing good” according to the standards of the Church, regardless of their circumstances.

 

Regardling "circumstances," many people that are not designed in one way or another to "multiply and replenish the earth" from a limited temporal perspective actually are designed to do so, from the Lord's perspective.

[rockpond]

Huh? Men and women are so biologically designed, regardless of sexual orientation (gay people can and do make babies): “replenish” has as much to do with the spirit and the covenants as it does with the body, so marriage has everything to do with bringing these three together, and vice-versa! I would go so far as to say that Moses 6:59-60 applies very much to marriage since this is how living souls come into mortality, and was to be taught by Adam and Eve to their children, freely (verses 52-onward have everything to do with married parents teaching their offspring, using the first parents as the pattern for all who follow, to follow).

 

What really isn’t relevant at all is the very term “homosexual”, since the wide spectrum of what it entails supports the idea that marriage is for all men and women, regardless of sexual orientation (there are other orientations and preferences, too!). If marriage is not found to be a fulfilled or workable opportunity in this life, it can be made so in the next life. LDS just have to be “honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and …doing good” according to the standards of the Church, regardless of their circumstances.

 

Regardling "circumstances," many people that are not designed in one way or another to "multiply and replenish the earth" from a limited temporal perspective actually are designed to do so, from the Lord's perspective.

 

Can homosexual people physically produce offspring?  Yep.  But I think we both agree that the ideal is that the parents stay together in a committed, loving relationship (i.e. marriage).  The success rate for mixed orientation marriages is pretty dismal and probably the primary reason why the church now suggests that we refrain from counseling heterosexual marriage as a cure or resolution to homosexuality.

 

So, if our official counsel is now for gay men and lesbian women to stay celibate, then the multiply & replenish argument has been voided.  You suggested that homosexuals who enter into same gender marriages have the lone ambition of avoiding this "replenish" commandment.  That's laughable.  They aren't trying to avoid having kids.  Many who I know desperately want to marry and raise kids.

 

I'll try to shorten the rest of the convo since I know your position:  You're likely thinking that they (homosexuals) can live celibate and worthy.  Then they can be "cured" in the next life and produce spirit children in their new heterosexual union.  To which, I would respond that we have no revealed authority on how spirit children are created and, in fact, the one creation account that we hear most often is accomplished by only one gender.  Then you'll say that I'm ignoring the beautiful "clarity" of Section 132.

 

So maybe we can just skip all that.  

[Scott Lloyd]

If the document is inspired, than wouldn't the words be what God wanted and not what the men intended? And it's not dangerous because I am living by what is currently revealed to us.

From the official Church statement disavowing Harry Reid's comments that the Church is changing on the gay rights issue:

 

"Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change."

 

[CV75]

Can homosexual people physically produce offspring?  Yep.  But I think we both agree that the ideal is that the parents stay together in a committed, loving relationship (i.e. marriage).  The success rate for mixed orientation marriages is pretty dismal and probably the primary reason why the church now suggests that we refrain from counseling heterosexual marriage as a cure or resolution to homosexuality.

 

So, if our official counsel is now for gay men and lesbian women to stay celibate, then the multiply & replenish argument has been voided.  You suggested that homosexuals who enter into same gender marriages have the lone ambition of avoiding this "replenish" commandment.  That's laughable.  They aren't trying to avoid having kids.  Many who I know desperately want to marry and raise kids.

 

I'll try to shorten the rest of the convo since I know your position:  You're likely thinking that they (homosexuals) can live celibate and worthy.  Then they can be "cured" in the next life and produce spirit children in their new heterosexual union.  To which, I would respond that we have no revealed authority on how spirit children are created and, in fact, the one creation account that we hear most often is accomplished by only one gender.  Then you'll say that I'm ignoring the beautiful "clarity" of Section 132.

 

So maybe we can just skip all that.  

You’re still arguing from a very temporal and 21^st century perspective on human relationships; I am arguing from the perspective of the eternal family design. Even the Gods are male and female, and created humanity in Their own image, male and female, spiritually and then naturally, etc.

 

Celibacy does not void the commandments to multiply and replenish. On the contrary, it prepares and qualifies the saints to fulfil those commandments on the Lord’s timetable and in His way.

 

The lone ambition I refer to is to enter a covenant the Lord simply doesn’t offer. It is to enter a “marriage” covenant with only a single sexual component, or a covenant that might as well be with oneself. A gay “marriage” is only an artificial substitute, suitable for some versions of man’s wisdom and philosophy alone. The desire to raise children is not sufficient justification for it in the Church covenants.

 

We know that the marriage covenant is structured a certain way and that any celestial spirit can bring himself in line with it. Whether that requires a “cure” or not, every kind of orientation has to fall within the bounds the Lord has set, no matter how we might treasure any outliers we might pursue. I think we often underestimate just how flexible we (and others, who we see through our eyes) can be, given the right light.

 

We do have revealed authority on how eternal increase is accomplished (marriage between a man and a woman). The eternal view has to be taken from what has been revealed about the spiritual and natural creations, the story of Adam and Eve as revealed in modern as well as Biblical scripture.

 

The Church has given the solution for gay people to manage their trials, but you seem to be grasping for an easier way when the Lord’s yoke has been the easiest to bear all along. Unfortunately in order to do so, you have to skip over the most salient points.

[rockpond]

From the official Church statement disavowing Harry Reid's comments that the Church is changing on the gay rights issue:

So are public affairs statements considered doctrine?

[rockpond]

You’re still arguing from a very temporal and 21^st century perspective on human relationships; I am arguing from the perspective of the eternal family design. Even the Gods are male and female, and created humanity in Their own image, male and female, spiritually and then naturally, etc.

Celibacy does not void the commandments to multiply and replenish. On the contrary, it prepares and qualifies the saints to fulfil those commandments on the Lord’s timetable and in His way.

The lone ambition I refer to is to enter a covenant the Lord simply doesn’t offer. It is to enter a “marriage” covenant with only a single sexual component, or a covenant that might as well be with oneself. A gay “marriage” is only an artificial substitute, suitable for some versions of man’s wisdom and philosophy alone. The desire to raise children is not sufficient justification for it in the Church covenants.

We know that the marriage covenant is structured a certain way and that any celestial spirit can bring himself in line with it. Whether that requires a “cure” or not, every kind of orientation has to fall within the bounds the Lord has set, no matter how we might treasure any outliers we might pursue. I think we often underestimate just how flexible we (and others, who we see through our eyes) can be, given the right light.

We do have revealed authority on how eternal increase is accomplished (marriage between a man and a woman). The eternal view has to be taken from what has been revealed about the spiritual and natural creations, the story of Adam and Eve as revealed in modern as well as Biblical scripture.

The Church has given the solution for gay people to manage their trials, but you seem to be grasping for an easier way when the Lord’s yoke has been the easiest to bear all along. Unfortunately in order to do so, you have to skip over the most salient points.

Is there any point in continuing this particular dialogue, CV?

You see my views as "temporal" and a "21st century perspective".

I see your views as an overreaching personal interpretation.

There is nothing you can write here that is going to override the whisperings of the Spirit in my life. And, there is nothing you can say that will change my hope for further revelation on the matter.

[california boy]

You’re still arguing from a very temporal and 21^st century perspective on human relationships; I am arguing from the perspective of the eternal family design. Even the Gods are male and female, and created humanity in Their own image, male and female, spiritually and then naturally, etc.

 

Celibacy does not void the commandments to multiply and replenish. On the contrary, it prepares and qualifies the saints to fulfil those commandments on the Lord’s timetable and in His way.

 

The lone ambition I refer to is to enter a covenant the Lord simply doesn’t offer. It is to enter a “marriage” covenant with only a single sexual component, or a covenant that might as well be with oneself. A gay “marriage” is only an artificial substitute, suitable for some versions of man’s wisdom and philosophy alone. The desire to raise children is not sufficient justification for it in the Church covenants.

 

We know that the marriage covenant is structured a certain way and that any celestial spirit can bring himself in line with it. Whether that requires a “cure” or not, every kind of orientation has to fall within the bounds the Lord has set, no matter how we might treasure any outliers we might pursue. I think we often underestimate just how flexible we (and others, who we see through our eyes) can be, given the right light.

 

We do have revealed authority on how eternal increase is accomplished (marriage between a man and a woman). The eternal view has to be taken from what has been revealed about the spiritual and natural creations, the story of Adam and Eve as revealed in modern as well as Biblical scripture.

 

The Church has given the solution for gay people to manage their trials, but you seem to be grasping for an easier way when the Lord’s yoke has been the easiest to bear all along. Unfortunately in order to do so, you have to skip over the most salient points.

This view of eternity is probably the single most reason why I decided to leave the church.  If I was suppose to remain celibate and whout any companionship for the rest of my earthly existence and the reward was that I would be eternally married in the next as a reward, then I wanted neither part of either promise.  I would rather spend eternity outside the Celestial kingdom than be pared with a woman for eternity.  If that idea didn't have any appeal for me here on earth, then why would it have any appeal in the next.  

[CV75]

rockpond (Quote function not working):

 

I am not trying to override your revelation, just weighing your interpretations against mine. If you wish to continue the dialogue, I am amenable.

 

An appeal to the "whisperings of the Spirit" isn't rational, and at least I am not saddling the dialogue with that. But by going there, who exactly are you trying to influence on a spiritual or emotional level  to give hope to for further revelation, while suggesting what that revelation is?

[CV75]

california boy (Quote function not working):

 

Perhaps the perceived value of the "reward," the Lord's will and your will can become be more acceptable to you someday. In the meantime, I naturally respect your right to choose and live according to your conscience.

[california boy]

california boy (Quote function not working):

 

Perhaps the perceived value of the "reward," the Lord's will and your will can become be more acceptable to you someday. In the meantime, I naturally respect your right to choose and live according to your conscience.

Why would the perceived value of the "reward" become more acceptable if a gay person is willing to be celibate throughout his earthly life rather than marry?  There is no place in the Celestial Kingdom for someone who is gay.  Both you and God have made that clear.  So if you can't be gay in the Celestial Kingdom, then what is the point of trying to get in?  No matter how hard one tries on this earth, unless they are willing to be with someone of the opposite sex in the next, then why try?

Alma 34:34

 that same spirit which doth ^bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

 

This is also Mormon doctrine.  It is not like I am going to magically not be gay in the next life.  

[thesometimesaint]

Can homosexual people physically produce offspring?  Yep.  But I think we both agree that the ideal is that the parents stay together in a committed, loving relationship (i.e. marriage).  The success rate for mixed orientation marriages is pretty dismal and probably the primary reason why the church now suggests that we refrain from counseling heterosexual marriage as a cure or resolution to homosexuality.

 

So, if our official counsel is now for gay men and lesbian women to stay celibate, then the multiply & replenish argument has been voided.  You suggested that homosexuals who enter into same gender marriages have the lone ambition of avoiding this "replenish" commandment.  That's laughable.  They aren't trying to avoid having kids.  Many who I know desperately want to marry and raise kids.

 

I'll try to shorten the rest of the convo since I know your position:  You're likely thinking that they (homosexuals) can live celibate and worthy.  Then they can be "cured" in the next life and produce spirit children in their new heterosexual union.  To which, I would respond that we have no revealed authority on how spirit children are created and, in fact, the one creation account that we hear most often is accomplished by only one gender.  Then you'll say that I'm ignoring the beautiful "clarity" of Section 132.

 

So maybe we can just skip all that.  

 

Now that would be interesting biology.

[CV75]

cb, for some reason my quote function isn't working.

 

The perceived value of the "reward" is whatever you give to it, according to your faith and will. The value you assign it can be compared to how you value everything else. That would be the only reason and the only way to make it worth one's while.

 

I don't know the sexual orientation of people in the Celestial Kingdom. Their presence in that kingdom is a function of what D&C 76 says about them, and it excludes this comparatively contrived attribute. As far as I can tell, anyone can make and keep the necessary covenants, in this life or the next, whenever the opportunity and conditions allows.

 

Regarding Alma 34:34, "this life" continues into the spirit world--people can develop a new evaluation of God's blessings anytime prior to the resurrection. Not that everyone will, but the opportunity and conditions to do so are there for everyone.

[rockpond]

rockpond (Quote function not working):

 

I am not trying to override your revelation, just weighing your interpretations against mine. If you wish to continue the dialogue, I am amenable.

 

An appeal to the "whisperings of the Spirit" isn't rational, and at least I am not saddling the dialogue with that. But by going there, who exactly are you trying to influence on a spiritual or emotional level  to give hope to for further revelation, while suggesting what that revelation is?

 

An appeal to the whisperings of the Spirit isn't rational?  It is for me.  By "going there", I'm only sharing my personal testimony, experience, & beliefs.  Readers here can do whatever they want with that.

 

My hope is that everyone desires further revelation.

[CV75]

An appeal to the whisperings of the Spirit isn't rational?  It is for me.  By "going there", I'm only sharing my personal testimony, experience, & beliefs.  Readers here can do whatever they want with that.

 

My hope is that everyone desires further revelation.

I see that the Spirit works spiritually, usually after we study things out in our mind, act in faith, try to sense what is right, etc. Spiritual forces may work or manifest through our rational and other physically-based systems, but is not a rational process itself. Alma 32:28 is a good example of "swelling motions" that "enlarge the soul" to "enlighten my understanding (which understanding is the rational component being influenced by the Spirit)."

 

The problem I see is that you specify and promote a particular spiritual revelation without being backing it up with sufficeintly rational specifics.

[california boy]

cb, for some reason my quote function isn't working.

 

The perceived value of the "reward" is whatever you give to it, according to your faith and will. The value you assign it can be compared to how you value everything else. That would be the only reason and the only way to make it worth one's while.

 

I don't know the sexual orientation of people in the Celestial Kingdom. Their presence in that kingdom is a function of what D&C 76 says about them, and it excludes this comparatively contrived attribute. As far as I can tell, anyone can make and keep the necessary covenants, in this life or the next, whenever the opportunity and conditions allows.

 

Regarding Alma 34:34, "this life" continues into the spirit world--people can develop a new evaluation of God's blessings anytime prior to the resurrection. Not that everyone will, but the opportunity and conditions to do so are there for everyone.

You are probably right.  I don't really value the reward.  I am sure you can understand why.  As far as faith goes, I do have faith in a lot of things, but it is hard to have faith in the kind of reward I would want when there has never been any church pronouncement about the Celestial Kingdom except in the context of opposite sex marriages.  

 

The faith that I have dictates that I know God loves all of his children.  Is all I can do is trust in the Lord with all my heart and know that He will find the place I belong in.  It may not be with all of you heterosexuals, but it will be the right place for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is also Mormon doctrine.  It is not like I am going to magically not be gay in the next life.  

It's my firm belief that is exactly what will happen -- with the caveat that I don't like the use of the term "magically" in this context.

 

Look closely at the scriptural passage you quoted. It says the same "spirit." SSA is a condition of mortality, attributable to whatever mortal causes, be they physical, congenital, psychological, whatever. Like all mortal blemishes and afflictions it will be done away in the resurrection. I'm confident of that.

 

The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame (Alma 40:23).

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't think I am the only one who holds this belief.

 

Salvation would be incomplete if individuals should arise in the resurrection with all the deformities, weaknesses and imperfections that are found in so many of the human family in this mortal existence. We have every reason to believe that the spirits of mankind and all other creatures were in a perfect form in the spirit world. It would be an awful stretch of the imagination to think that the imperfections found so frequently in mortality were defects which were designed in the creation. Moreover, as the Lord made it clear in relation to the man who was born blind, it was not an immortal condition.

 

By the great power and faith of the Son of God, he was able to correct deformity, blindness and give to the deaf the gift of speech, by the word of his power. The question has frequently been asked when a child has been born with some physical defect or deformity, was this a punishment or a condition which was his before he was born? No! All of these ills are ills of the flesh or defects that are due to mortal conditions which may have come upon the body even before birth, but we may be assured that these defects were not conditions which existed in the world of the spirits. It is the will of the Lord that in this restoration of all things there shall come perfection.The physical defects, some of which may have resulted before birth, are defects which are due to some physical and mortal condition and not an inheritance from the spirit world. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:185-189)

 

[rockpond]

I see that the Spirit works spiritually, usually after we study things out in our mind, act in faith, try to sense what is right, etc. Spiritual forces may work or manifest through our rational and other physically-based systems, but is not a rational process itself. Alma 32:28 is a good example of "swelling motions" that "enlarge the soul" to "enlighten my understanding (which understanding is the rational component being influenced by the Spirit)."

 

The problem I see is that you specify and promote a particular spiritual revelation without being backing it up with sufficeintly rational specifics.

 

I've spent many years studying this out in my mind.  I've studied the scriptures.  I've studied the words of the apostles.  I think that I've read most everything that the church has put out on the subject.  And I've prayed.  I discussed the matter with my bishop when I was counseling a young man in my ward.  Studied.  Prayed.  Discussed with a stake president.  My beliefs on this subject are not something that I arrived at casually, quickly, or because of societal trends.

 

I have presented you with rational specifics but you do not consider them rational.  And you likely never will as long as you believe that sexual orientation is a "contrived attribute".

 

My experience is that until someone internalizes the idea & belief that a homosexual orientation is not a weakness to be overcome, an illness to be cured, or a disability to be healed that they will always see my point of view as irrational.  My hope in getting involved in discussions such as this is that people might realize that you can be a faithful, worthy member of the church and hope for the day that we'll receive revelation on this subject.

[california boy]

It's my firm belief that is exactly what will happen -- with the caveat that I don't like the use of the term "magically" in this context.

 

Look closely at the scriptural passage you quoted. It says the same "spirit." SSA is a condition of mortality, attributable to whatever mortal causes, be they physical, congenital, psychological, whatever. Like all mortal blemishes and afflictions it will be done away in the resurrection. I'm confident of that.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't think I am the only one who holds this belief.

I guess if you are straight, this seems like a logical thing to hope for.  I can see how a straight person would look at being gay as some kind of blemish that God will just fix.  Unfortunately if you are gay, you don't look at your orientation as some kind of disease, deformity or mortal blemish.  If I was blind, or lame or even bald, I would hope that God would correct that defect.  But I am gay and I don't view it the same way as people with these mortal blemishes.  I am not diseased.

 

I don't really expect you to understand.  I am sure you are perfectly happy being straight and can't understand why anyone would not want to be straight.  I also realize that members want to shoehorn gay spirits into the same path that they are on.  You would have to want to understand how a gay person feels to see how that just doesn't work.  I doubt you have any desire to really understand.  You seem to already got the answer that works for you.  Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.

[ERayR]

I guess if you are straight, this seems like a logical thing to hope for.  I can see how a straight person would look at being gay as some kind of blemish that God will just fix.  Unfortunately if you are gay, you don't look at your orientation as some kind of disease, deformity or mortal blemish.  If I was blind, or lame or even bald, I would hope that God would correct that defect.  But I am gay and I don't view it the same way as people with these mortal blemishes.  I am not diseased.

 

I don't really expect you to understand.  I am sure you are perfectly happy being straight and can't understand why anyone would not want to be straight.  I also realize that members want to shoehorn gay spirits into the same path that they are on.  You would have to want to understand how a gay person feels to see how that just doesn't work.  I doubt you have any desire to really understand.  You seem to already got the answer that works for you.  Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.

 

 

Whether it is a blemish or not I suspect that something needs fixing.  Either the physical properties of the body or the orientation of the mind.  I suspect that what ever it is God will fix the problem just as he fixes the problems that each of us has and shoulders each of our problems .  When all is said and done each of us will be what we want to be and happy with where end up and what we are. 

[CV75]

cb, the faith I'm talking about is in Jesus Christ, and everything else flows from there. I agree that God loves all His children and has prepared a place for us all in His presence.

 

I do not agree that He segregates us into categories according sexual orientation, a continuum we observe in mortality that cannot serve as any kind of standard of godliness. All are alike unto Him, and He offers the same covenants and blessings to all. Our godly behavior flows from the covenants.

 

I do think we tend to segregate ourselves, and He certainly allows that.

[CV75]

rockpond, you really haven't answered the important questions I had, except to say "whisperings of the Sprit." Of course you've thought it out; your arguments aren't good, and the spiritual process isn't a rational one (by definition).

 

Sexual orientation is a contrived attribute in that there is such an extensive variety and continuum that it isn't reasonable to focus on just one extreme or the other. This is why the covenants were established. They help us establish a standard of behavior regardless of whatever is going on in our mortal minds and bodies; the spirit will become godly as a result, and in their resurrection both the spirit and the body on God's terms and not ours.

 

Again, the irrational part is the appeal to the Spirit, not any particular argument (good or bad). I myself do not believe, generally speaking, that homosexuality (as in orientation) is a weakness, illness or disability (though it can be in some cases). I see it is a tendency, characteristic, passion, preference, etc.. that some allow to distract them from the fundamental covenants of God, make them sick or weak, or to form the basis of their decision not to marry in this life and to wait upon the Lord in the meantime. It is something, like anything else, that we need to begin to master in this life, in faith. Nothing wrong with internalizing that.

 

Which is very different than jumping to the conclusion/hope for God to reveal a covenant of gay "marriage" as the alternative, whether in this life or the next.

 

Faithful, worthy members of the Church hope and believe all sort of things. Belief is not always rational, or correct, nor must it be. But when people discuss their beliefs from a standpoint of getting others to believe the same thing, their ideas will be tested for merit. That is what is going on here.

 

When we have all the evidence supporting the Church's stance on marriage, anticipation of gay "marriage" in the Church or in the eternal world may be anyone's prerogative, but is not well-founded. Putting it on par with gay civil rights additionally undermines the arguments for it.

 

This is why I think what the Church is currently saying about the subject of gay rights, gay LDS membership and gay "marriage" --three separate things entirely -- is the better way to go.

[california boy]

cb, the faith I'm talking about is in Jesus Christ, and everything else flows from there. I agree that God loves all His children and has prepared a place for us all in His presence.

 

I do not agree that He segregates us into categories according sexual orientation, a continuum we observe in mortality that cannot serve as any kind of standard of godliness. All are alike unto Him, and He offers the same covenants and blessings to all. Our godly behavior flows from the covenants.

 

I do think we tend to segregate ourselves, and He certainly allows that.

I am not quite sure if I am reading what you wrote correctly.  Do you not think there are genders in the next life?  Is there not separate callings for gods and goddess, priest and priestess, kings and queens?  For me, the idea of no difference between male and female in the next life seems to conflict with what we learn in the temple.

[california boy]

rockpond, you really haven't answered the important questions I had, except to say "whisperings of the Sprit." Of course you've thought it out; your arguments aren't good, and the spiritual process isn't a rational one (by definition).

 

Sexual orientation is a contrived attribute in that there is such an extensive variety and continuum that it isn't reasonable to focus on just one extreme or the other. This is why the covenants were established. They help us establish a standard of behavior regardless of whatever is going on in our mortal minds and bodies; the spirit will become godly as a result, and in their resurrection both the spirit and the body on God's terms and not ours.

I know this was directed at Rockpond, but I would like to add my perspective from someone who is actually gay and has dealt with this my entire life.

 

I think it is important for you to realize that "sexual orientation is a contrived attribute" is your opinion and the overwhelming scientific proof weighs heavily against this opinion of yours. I am sure you are aware of what the AMA and the APA has to say on this issue.   Probably the most undisputed proof is when a child is born with both sexes.  Parents of such children used to arbitrarily decide what sex their child would become.  The results, when guessed wrong was commonly a disaster.  The child ends up becoming the sex his orientation was despite what surgery was done.  These children clearly show that sexual orientation is not at all a "contrived attribute."  I hope you can see your view on this is in error and not at all what science tells us to be true.  I can see how this erroneous view can completely color your other beliefs.  

 

 

 

Again, the irrational part is the appeal to the Spirit, not any particular argument (good or bad). I myself do not believe, generally speaking, that homosexuality (as in orientation) is a weakness, illness or disability (though it can be in some cases). I see it is a tendency, characteristic, passion, preference, etc.. that some allow to distract them from the fundamental covenants of God, make them sick or weak, or to form the basis of their decision not to marry in this life and to wait upon the Lord in the meantime. It is something, like anything else, that we need to begin to master in this life, in faith. Nothing wrong with internalizing that.

I somewhat agree with the first part of what you are saying.  And I would agree that homosexuality generally does lead people away from at least organized religion.  And of course why wouldn't it.  I think perhaps this is the whole point of Rockpond's point of view.  Current policies do lead homosexuals away from the church.  Very few are able to continue within the structure of the church.  Without that weekly contact with the church, it can make them less spiritual as would be expected.  But it is hardly the reason why they choose not to marry.  The reason gays do not marry is simply because the church at this time does not recognize gay marriage.  If that policy ever changes in the future, then I am sure gays will be much more likely to stay within the church, live within the covenants and grow in the gospel just as heterosexual couples now do.  It is much more logical that God would want this life for His gay children.  And that is the logic to what Rockpond keeps pointing out to you.

 

 

 

Which is very different than jumping to the conclusion/hope for God to reveal a covenant of gay "marriage" as the alternative, whether in this life or the next.

 

Faithful, worthy members of the Church hope and believe all sort of things. Belief is not always rational, or correct, nor must it be. But when people discuss their beliefs from a standpoint of getting others to believe the same thing, their ideas will be tested for merit. That is what is going on here.

 

When we have all the evidence supporting the Church's stance on marriage, anticipation of gay "marriage" in the Church or in the eternal world may be anyone's prerogative, but is not well-founded. Putting it on par with gay civil rights additionally undermines the arguments for it.

 

This is why I think what the Church is currently saying about the subject of gay rights, gay LDS membership and gay "marriage" --three separate things entirely -- is the better way to go.

 

 

 

You talk about evidence supporting the Church's stance on marriage, anticipation of gay marriage, I personally find a complete lack of evidence.  There is no scripture on this issue.  There are no revelations on this issue.  There are only pronouncements and opinions of leaders that are also a product of their time.   It took 150 years for a black person to marry in the temple.  It may only take a little longer for gay members to be able to marry in the temple.  And that is what Rockpond is logically pointing out to you.  Now if you can point to something concrete or revealed concerning gay marriage, then I am all ears.