Harry Reid & Enda

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

 

Blacks have always been welcome to join the Church, and there is historical evidence that JS Ordained black men to the Priesthood.. Plus the Polynesian blacks have been going to the Temple since the 1950's. There is also the fact that there has always been the prophecy that someday all worthy men would hold the Priesthood. We have no such prophecy or scripture concerning our homosexual brothers and sisters.

 

That being said any mistreatment of our homosexual brothers and sisters is to be roundly condemned.

[california boy]

CB:

 

Blacks have always been welcome to join the Church, and there is historical evidence that JS Ordained black men to the Priesthood.. Plus the Polynesian blacks have been going to the Temple since the 1950's. There is also the fact that there has always been the prophecy that someday all worthy men would hold the Priesthood. We have no such prophecy or scripture concerning our homosexual brothers and sisters.

 

That being said any mistreatment of our homosexual brothers and sisters is to be roundly condemned.

Oh yeah, the prophecy by Brigham Young that said that all the sons of Adam would receive the priesthood before blacks.  Fortunately, God thought sooner would be better.  BTW, polynesians are not black.  What you can't refute is that blacks could not go to the temple for 150 years because of church policy, or doctrine?  I can no longer figure that one out.

 

And you are right there is no prophecy or scripture concerning our homosexual brothers and sisters FOR EITHER position.  Neither you or I can make a statement of any kind that we know the will of God on this matter.  Personally, like you, I am not holding my breath that there will be any revelation on this any time soon.  I don't think the prophet is any where near as concerned or praying so hard as Spencer W. Kimball did concerning blacks holding the priesthood.  I think realistically a lot of it has to do with how important the prophet thinks it is to retain and involve God's gay children in the church.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes there are black Polynesians.

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5c727cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

 

BY said a lot of incorrect things.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Polynesians

 

http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood

[california boy]

Yes there are black Polynesians.

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5c727cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

 

BY said a lot of incorrect things.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Polynesians

 

http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood

So what does this actually have to do with what I wrote.  According to your link, there were a total of 5 black people ordained to the priesthood  for the first 130 years of church history.  What does that say about church policy or church doctrine other than when there has been a lack of revelation, the church leaders have gotten things wrong concerning who can marry in the temple.  

[thesometimesaint]

So what does this actually have to do with what I wrote.  According to your link, there were a total of 5 black people ordained to the priesthood  for the first 130 years of church history.  What does that say about church policy or church doctrine other than when there has been a lack of revelation, the church leaders have gotten things wrong concerning who can marry in the temple.  

 

That the exclusion wasn't based on skin color. We really don't know why the exclusion other than it is up to God.

 

No doubt our leaders have gotten plenty of things wrong including unofficial explanations of whom can hold the Priesthood. I make no excuses for things that are wrong. But I do ask forbearance as none of us can cast the first stone.

[CV75]

Do you not think there are genders in the next life?

No. You seem to have misread what I wrote about "sexual orientation" as being about "gender."

[CV75]

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. 

It is important for you to realize that when I say “sexual orientation is a contrived attribute,” it is in the context where people use it to describe a behavioral trait, which behavior is exercised by choice and is therefore not inherent. It is further contrived to then mislabel that behavior as a fundamentally intrinsic identity. Remember we are talking about a subset of people who have the Gospel and know that their behavior is not merely instinctual and uncontrollable.

 

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.

The underlying logic of the covenant, which is by the nature of the Gospel beyond man’s wisdom, is that a male and a female on any level (spiritual, physical, temporal, eternal, etc.) forms the basis for life on any level. Do you see the difference between people not liking that and therefore not believing it; people not believing it and therefore not liking it; and people believing and/or liking it regardless? And then the differences between doing something based on belief or preference?

 

You’re saying two things: 1) “…homosexuality generally does lead people away from at least organized religion…” 2) “Current policies do lead homosexuals away from the church.” The confusion is not only between thoughts, behavior and identity, and between liking and believing, but also between chosen behavior and policy that is liked, believed, or both/neither.

 

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.

There is nothing revealed about gay “marriage" because it simply does not exist. It isn't a male/female covenant about life. It is simply contrived by man's wisdom having nothing to do with what God has or will reveal as part of His program for us. Just like many other things.

 

On the other hand, there is plenty revealed about the eternal covenant of marriage. As far as belief based on existing revelation, this trumps the idea that "Well, maybe things can change."

[california boy]

No. You seem to have misread what I wrote about "sexual orientation" as being about "gender."

I didn't think that is what you were saying, which is why I asked the question.  But I am still a bit confused on what your opinion is concerning sexual orientation after we die.  Do you think that there will be no sexual orientation after we die?  Maybe you could explain a little more completely what your opinion is on this.  I am a bit confused.

[rockpond]

rockpond, you really haven't answered the important questions I had, except to say "whisperings of the Sprit."

What are the important questions you had that I haven't responded to? If you don't mind telling me what they are, I'll do my best to answer them.

[california boy]

 

It is important for you to realize that when I say “sexual orientation is a contrived attribute,” it is in the context where people use it to describe a behavioral trait, which behavior is exercised by choice and is therefore not inherent. It is further contrived to then mislabel that behavior as a fundamentally intrinsic identity. Remember we are talking about a subset of people who have the Gospel and know that their behavior is not merely instinctual and uncontrollable.

Well I can certainly understand the confusion when you start inventing your own definitions for "sexual orientation".  Do you have such a distain for gay people that you can't quite acknowledge that some people have same sex attraction?  If that is not the reason, can you tell us all why you feel the need to invent your own definitions for sexual orientation?

 

 

 

 

The underlying logic of the covenant, which is by the nature of the Gospel beyond man’s wisdom, is that a male and a female on any level (spiritual, physical, temporal, eternal, etc.) forms the basis for life on any level. Do you see the difference between people not liking that and therefore not believing it; people not believing it and therefore not liking it; and people believing and/or liking it regardless? And then the differences between doing something based on belief or preference?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  What does not liking what? What does believing and/or liking referring to?  Are you talking about acceptance of the gospel or what?  

 

 

 

You’re saying two things: 1) “…homosexuality generally does lead people away from at least organized religion…” 2) “Current policies do lead homosexuals away from the church.” The confusion is not only between thoughts, behavior and identity, and between liking and believing, but also between chosen behavior and policy that is liked, believed, or both/neither.

Is all I am saying is that it is human nature to want to fall in love and spend our lives with someone that we are attracted to.  "It is not good for man to be alone"  When the church dictates that a gay person must not associate with those that he is attracted to and to remain celibate throughout his life, with no hope of ever having any kind of relationship with someone to share this life with, most people will walk away from such a policy.  I don't know what the specific stats are, but I can tell you that I meet a large number of former Mormons that have felt like they had to make a life for themselves away from the Mormon church.  I think what most people can agree with is that the current policy makes retaining gay members extremely difficult.  

 

 

 

There is nothing revealed about gay “marriage" because it simply does not exist. It isn't a male/female covenant about life. It is simply contrived by man's wisdom having nothing to do with what God has or will reveal as part of His program for us. Just like many other things.

 

On the other hand, there is plenty revealed about the eternal covenant of marriage. As far as belief based on existing revelation, this trumps the idea that "Well, maybe things can change."

I hate to point out the obvious to you, but gay marriage does actually exist, just not within the Mormon church.  Of course you are entitled to your opinion on what God will or will not reveal.  But it is just that, your opinion.  I actually have no opinion at all on this issue.  I have no idea whether God will reveal something to the prophet concerning gay marriage.  How could I?  I certainly don't know the mind of God.  I actually am not even pushing for such a revelation.  If it happens, then it happens.  If it doesn't then it doesn't.  It is really up to God isn't it.

[CV75]

Well I can certainly understand the confusion when you start inventing your own definitions for "sexual orientation".  Do you have such a distain for gay people that you can't quite acknowledge that some people have same sex attraction?  If that is not the reason, can you tell us all why you feel the need to invent your own definitions for sexual orientation?

Again, I was using the term in a certain context, not with a personal definition. Big difference; you aren’t seeing that. Maybe you can by asking yourself, “Under what condition is a person’s self-conception, or personal and social identity contrived and not inherent, or, does one’s behavior necessarily dictate one’s self-conception, and/or vice-versa?”

 

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  What does not liking what? What does believing and/or liking referring to?  Are you talking about acceptance of the gospel or what? 

Similar to the relationship between self-conception, behavior and identify, there are permutations of relationship between liking what the Church teaches and believing it. You can believe something you don’t like, like something you don’t believe, disbelieve it because you don’t like it, believe it because you like it, etc. and still choose your actions accordingly, some on the basis of sacrifice and some on the basis of selfishness.

 

Is all I am saying is that it is human nature to want to fall in love and spend our lives with someone that we are attracted to.  "It is not good for man to be alone"  When the church dictates that a gay person must not associate with those that he is attracted to and to remain celibate throughout his life, with no hope of ever having any kind of relationship with someone to share this life with, most people will walk away from such a policy.  I don't know what the specific stats are, but I can tell you that I meet a large number of former Mormons that have felt like they had to make a life for themselves away from the Mormon church.  I think what most people can agree with is that the current policy makes retaining gay members extremely difficult.  

But look at all the other, overriding policies and Gospel doctrines that make retaining gays extremely easy.

 

I hate to point out the obvious to you, but gay marriage does actually exist, just not within the Mormon church.  Of course you are entitled to your opinion on what God will or will not reveal.  But it is just that, your opinion.  I actually have no opinion at all on this issue.  I have no idea whether God will reveal something to the prophet concerning gay marriage.  How could I?  I certainly don't know the mind of God.  I actually am not even pushing for such a revelation.  If it happens, then it happens.  If it doesn't then it doesn't.  It is really up to God isn't it.

Marriage within the Mormon Church is all I’m talking about. You interjected yourself into that conversation but on an irrelevant basis. The point is that people, including yoruself, can believe and opine as you indicated and still find a way to be faithful, worthy members of the Church.

 

My point is that it really doesn't matter what faithful, worthy members believe, but when they try to sell their specific beliefs to others, they can expect to be challenged.

[rockpond]

But look at all the other, overriding policies and Gospel doctrines that make retaining gays extremely easy.

 

What policies and doctrines do we have that make it extremely easy for us to retain gay members?