What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah....

[rockpond]

Actually he did. You just refuse to accept it because if goes against this notion and idea that one day it will be ok and God will reveal it in the future. Sorry but you are just wrong and your bias is preventing you from seeing the trees.

 

Sorry, I believe in revelation as revelation.  Not revelation being whatever statements we choose to call revelation and interpret as God's will.

 

Exhibit A:   Saying that the Proclamation is revelation is just simply not true.  It doesn't claim to be revelation and was not presented as revelation when it was published.  Second, claiming that it says something about God's will for His homosexual children is also false.  It doesn't.

[Calm]

I don't know where God has defined marriage. You seem to believe that men can put words in His mouth. I don't. Sorry......

Your response seems to be that whatever prophets and apostles say is the revealed word of God. I wonder how you can feel that way. You seem to have a very "low bar" for what is revelation. I'll admit that when I was younger, I had a very similar mindset but it's not a view I can still logically hold onto. So, I'll ask this question: If it's true that whatever prophets & apostles say is revelation from God, then why do we often reject what prophets and apostles say in general conference (or other official forums) and conclude that they were wrong? And, how is it that what they say can sometimes be revelation from God and sometimes be opinions or errors?

It seems to me that it is more than "whatever". He has pointed out a consistent picture toward same sex behaviour that has developed as the behaviour has developed...adding SSM into the counsel once SSM became part of homosexual behaviour. Consistent repeated instruction may still not meet the "bar" for you or some others but in this case it seems highly inappropriate to claim that the bar is set low or "whatever" is being used for his reasoning.

Others could say you are refusing to accept anything that comes out of their mouths, that no matter what they say unless they agree with you it won't count...that you set the bar so high it would take a world champion to even consider approaching it.

Both extremes are inappropriate IMO. You desire ainstruction that is not just described as a revelation but follows the rigid structure of a few revelations that have been received in modern times, you want it seems for the prophet to announce "thus sayeth the Lord when the Spirit came to me that homosexual marriage is allowed/considered a sin and this is to be considered part of the New and Everlasting Covenant which we as Saints commit to" and then perhaps in Conference the announcement is sustained. If this is too extreme, then if you could point to something you see as a revelation so we know what you expect, it would be helpful.

[rockpond]

Well the Church (the organization we esteem as the only true and living church) just issued a statement on recent events. You can read it here:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

 

Most notable to this conversation:

 

 

There you have it. That should (but it won't) settle the issue for faithful members of the Church. Not only does an official announcement from the Church clearly say that the law of chastity says sexual relations are proper  only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded, it also refers to the Proclamation as doctrine, which has been the topic of much debate here. 

 

I know the responses will be something to the effect of this changes nothing or does not constitute revelation, yada, yada. But the Church cannot be more clear than that. If you want to rely on the fact that some leaders of the church issued statements about blacks and the priesthood that proved untrue, go for it. But you might be walking on dangerous ground.

 

I am not saying that the Church hasn't been clear on their definition of marriage.

[rockpond]

It seems to me that it is more than "whatever". He has pointed out a consistent picture toward same sex behaviour that has developed as the behaviour has developed...adding SSM into the counsel once SSM became part of homosexual behaviour. Consistent repeated instruction may still not meet the "bar" for you or some others but in this case it seems highly inappropriate to claim that the bar is set low or "whatever" is being used for his reasoning.

Others could say you are refusing to accept anything that comes out of their mouths, that no matter what they say unless they agree with you it won't count...that you set the bar so high it would take a world champion to even consider approaching it.

Both extremes are inappropriate IMO. You desire ainstruction that is not just described as a revelation but follows the rigid structure of a few revelations that have been received in modern times, you want it seems for the prophet to announce "thus sayeth the Lord when the Spirit came to me that homosexual marriage is allowed/considered a sin and this is to be considered part of the New and Everlasting Covenant which we as Saints commit to" and then perhaps in Conference the announcement is sustained. If this is too extreme, then if you could point to something you see as a revelation so we know what you expect, it would be helpful.

 

Our teachings on homosexuality have evolved over the past 50 years.  Granted over the past 20 years we've been consistently discussing the "definition of marriage".  That part has been consistent.  I don't see the rest as indicative of a clear *revealed* understanding of God's will.

 

I'm not asking for a "thus sayeth the Lord" proclamation.  But something that actually does claim to be revelation (as opposed to "our understanding" or a proclamation) would be more what I am looking for.

 

Given that we have a clear and present example of having taught something for a century and then backing off and condemning those teachings, I do think that we're going to need to raise the bar a bit to resolve this issue within the church.

[Mystery Meat]

I am not saying that the Church hasn't been clear on their definition of marriage.

 

It is His church....

[rockpond]

It is His church....

 

Yep, just that simple.

 

Was it His will to keep those of African descent out of the temple for 125 years?  Or was that a church policy instituted by men?

[Mystery Meat]

Our teachings on homosexuality have evolved over the past 50 years.  Granted over the past 20 years we've been consistently discussing the "definition of marriage".  That part has been consistent.  I don't see the rest as indicative of a clear *revealed* understanding of God's will.

 

I'm not asking for a "thus sayeth the Lord" proclamation.  But something that actually does claim to be revelation (as opposed to "our understanding" or a proclamation) would be more what I am looking for.

 

Given that we have a clear and present example of having taught something for a century and then backing off and condemning those teachings, I do think that we're going to need to raise the bar a bit to resolve this issue within the church.

 

The Church condemned the folklore, but it never once condemned the actual ban. It said we don't know.

[Mystery Meat]

Yep, just that simple.

 

Was it His will to keep those of African descent out of the temple for 125 years?  Or was that a church policy instituted by men?

 

We don't know, and neither does the Church at this point in time. Any speculation one way or the other, would be just that, speculation.

[rockpond]

The Church condemned the folklore, but it never once condemned the actual ban. It said we don't know.

 

It wasn't folklore that was condemned.  Those were teachings of the prophets and apostles.  For over a century.

[rockpond]

We don't know, and neither does the Church at this point in time. Any speculation one way or the other, would be just that, speculation.

 

So a prophet can decide that certain people should not be allowed in the temple and we don't know if it is God's will?

 

So how do you know that it is also God's will that gay couples not be married?

[Buzzard]

So a prophet can decide that certain people should not be allowed in the temple and we don't know if it is God's will?

 

So how do you know that it is also God's will that gay couples not be married?

You  may want to check out this statement hot off the presses from the church instructing LDS leaders not only not to officiate at SSM ceremonies, but not to allow SS receptions in meetinghouses. There is a thread on it just started up in the main forum. It refers to the DOCTRINES (not policies) contained in the Proclamation. The further light and knowledge you were seeking, maybe?

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

[Mystery Meat]

It wasn't folklore that was condemned.  Those were teachings of the prophets and apostles.  For over a century.

 

Some of which was folklore, taught in an attempt to explain the ban. Just because it was taught by prophets and apostles doesn't mean it wasn't folklore.

 

 

o a prophet can decide that certain people should not be allowed in the temple and we don't know if it is God's will?

 

So how do you know that it is also God's will that gay couples not be married?

 

The difference between homosexuality and priesthood bans have some interesting comparisons but are ultimately vastly different. In the days of Abraham, homosexuality was condemned. Under the Mosaic Law, homosexuality was condemned. After the Mosaic Law was fulfilled, homosexuality was condemned. Modern day prophets and apostles have condemned homosexuality. That is a lot of precedent. There are plenty of examples of men and women being married in scripture, even to the point of marriage reaching a special place in religious practice. There are no examples or verbiage to even suggest that gay marriage is approved. Basic reason and logic leads to only one place.

 

The ban to people of African descent has no scriptural precedent. It is comparing apples and oranges. 

[rockpond]

You  may want to check out this statement hot off the presses from the church instructing LDS leaders not only not to officiate at SSM ceremonies, but not to allow SS receptions in meetinghouses. There is a thread on it just started up in the main forum. It refers to the DOCTRINES (not policies) contained in the Proclamation. The further light and knowledge you were seeking, maybe?

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

 

Thanks for the link.  I just read through it.  No objections.

 

And yes, the Proclamation is definitely a statement of doctrine, not policy.

[Mystery Meat]

The further light and knowledge you were seeking, maybe?

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

 

He (or she?) will not be satisfied until we get the revelation saying that homosexual marriages are part of God's plan of salvation. Anything less then that and he will say it is like blacks and the priesthood and is false doctrine that will one day be corrected (as society changes of course).

[rockpond]

Some of which was folklore, taught in an attempt to explain the ban. Just because it was taught by prophets and apostles doesn't mean it wasn't folklore.

 

 

The difference between homosexuality and priesthood bans have some interesting comparisons but are ultimately vastly different. In the days of Abraham, homosexuality was condemned. Under the Mosaic Law, homosexuality was condemned. After the Mosaic Law was fulfilled, homosexuality was condemned. Modern day prophets and apostles have condemned homosexuality. That is a lot of precedent. There are plenty of examples of men and women being married in scripture, even to the point of marriage reaching a special place in religious practice. There are no examples or verbiage to even suggest that gay marriage is approved. Basic reason and logic leads to only one place.

 

The ban to people of African descent has no scriptural precedent. It is comparing apples and oranges. 

 

So do I get to take the same liberty now and selectively call some of the teachings of prophets and apostles "folklore".  Because you just told me that what they are saying now is equivalent to the revealed word of God.  Isn't that a little confusing?

 

And actually, restrictions on the priesthood do have scriptural precedent.

 

But that's not the point, is it?  The question was this:  "So a prophet can decide that certain people should not be allowed in the temple and we don't know if it is God's will?"

[rockpond]

He (or she?) will not be satisfied until we get the revelation saying that homosexual marriages are part of God's plan of salvation. Anything less then that and he will say it is like blacks and the priesthood and is false doctrine that will one day be corrected (as society changes of course).

 

Is that your conclusion on the priesthood & temple ban?  That is was false doctrine that was corrected as society changed?

 

p.s.  He.

[Mystery Meat]

My conclusion is I don't know. I can come up with all sorts of reasonable explanations for why the Lord would have revealed the ban to BY. Each one of them makes me uncomfortable due to the culture we live in. I do not, however, believe that the culture was the reason for the revelation removing the ban, at least not because he needed his Church to be mainstream.

 

 

So do I get to take the same liberty now and selectively call some of the teachings of prophets and apostles "folklore".  Because you just told me that what they are saying now is equivalent to the revealed word of God.  Isn't that a little confusing?

 

And actually, restrictions on the priesthood do have scriptural precedent.

 

But that's not the point, is it?  The question was this:  "So a prophet can decide that certain people should not be allowed in the temple and we don't know if it is God's will?"

 

You can do whatever you want. The Church has now disavowed those old explanations for the ban, without ever disavowing the ban itself. I probably shouldn't have used the word folklore, but the Church has said that the reasons used to justify were largely wrong. If that is confusing to you I don't know what to tell you.

 

Yes, there is scriptural precedent for priesthood bans. The Levites come to mind right off. However, this ban is different as it related to an entire race. So I think the notion that the Lord has restricted holders of the priesthood in the past only strengthens the argument that there may have been a divine reason for the ban to begin with, but we don't know that.

 

To answer your question: In our day, meaning right now, anybody regardless of race can enter the temple so long as they are worthy to do so. We can know that this is the will of the Lord through prayer and fasting. The Church leadership apparently hasn't received an answer on the ban one way or the other, perhaps because the Lord doesn't see how it is relevant to today. It is not current practice, doctrine, and policy. Why should it matter to us now? If the leadership got an answer that the ban was unjustified they would have said as much. But they didn't. 

 

In our day, people engaging in homosexual sex either outside or inside "marriage" cannot enter the temple, and I assume this is what you are getting at. Is this the will of the Lord? I say yes, and so do men we currently sustain as prophets seers and revelators.

[rockpond]

My conclusion is I don't know. I can come up with all sorts of reasonable explanations for why the Lord would have revealed the ban to BY. Each one of them makes me uncomfortable due to the culture we live in. I do not, however, believe that the culture was the reason for the revelation removing the ban, at least not because he needed his Church to be mainstream.

 

 

You can do whatever you want. The Church has now disavowed those old explanations for the ban, without ever disavowing the ban itself. I probably shouldn't have used the word folklore, but the Church has said that the reasons used to justify were largely wrong. If that is confusing to you I don't know what to tell you.

 

Yes, there is scriptural precedent for priesthood bans. The Levites come to mind right off. However, this ban is different as it related to an entire race. So I think the notion that the Lord has restricted holders of the priesthood in the past only strengthens the argument that there may have been a divine reason for the ban to begin with, but we don't know that.

 

To answer your question: In our day, meaning right now, anybody regardless of race can enter the temple so long as they are worthy to do so. We can know that this is the will of the Lord through prayer and fasting. The Church leadership apparently hasn't received an answer on the ban one way or the other, perhaps because the Lord doesn't see how it is relevant to today. It is not current practice, doctrine, and policy. Why should it matter to us now? If the leadership got an answer that the ban was unjustified they would have said as much. But they didn't. 

 

In our day, people engaging in homosexual sex either outside or inside "marriage" cannot enter the temple, and I assume this is what you are getting at. Is this the will of the Lord? I say yes, and so do men we currently sustain as prophets seers and revelators.

 

Well, men that we sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators also said that the priesthood/temple ban for blacks was the will of God.  And yet we (as a church) have backed away from that now.

 

You asked "Why should it matter to us now?"  Because the Church recently published an article on its website that said we don't know why a minority was prevented from entering the temple and holding the priesthood but there was a culture of prejudice at the time.  What is to say that 50 years from now another church article won't say the same about homosexuals and gay marriage?  That is why it matters to me.

 

What I find difficult to understand is that you are able to easily discount things that were repeatedly and consistently taught by prophets and apostles for over a century.  You are able to say: "I don't know" if it was God's will.  But when it comes to homosexuality, you are very solid that what is being taught by prophets and apostles for just the past few decades is definitely God's will.

[Mystery Meat]

The prophets were wrong on everything. Let's just ignore them from here on out when we disagree with them.

[jwhitlock]

Correction: Whatever they say when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the revealed word of God. It doesn't have to be canonized. It doesn't even have to be written down.

Your practice regarding whatever they say that doesn't suit you is to deny that they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, regardless of how forcefully, unitedly and consistently they express it over time. That's your privilege, I suppose, and it's internally convenient for you, but it is not binding on others.

 

This is an excellent point, Scott. The inspired and consistent statements that have come from church leaders are indeed revelation because, as the Doctrine and Covenants notes, that is what inspiration is.

 

Revelation. 

 

It's really as simple as that.

 

For someone to claim that there's been no clear revelation on the subject, is to deny that inspiration is revelation. To deny that a plainly inspired document such as the Family Proclamation is not revelation is to say that because it's "only" inspired, it doesn't count as revelation. It's to discount the power of inspiration from the Holy Ghost as true revelation, which is a very odd position for anyone claiming to be a member of the church to take.

 

One of the things that's happened in this thread since I had to get back to real life and do other things, is that those who support SSM dishonestly allowed the discussion to be turned into whether homosexuality was sinful. That's a red herring and irrelevant; the discussion is really about whether homosexual -->behavior<-- is sinful or not. And it's quite clear from the -->inspired<-- statements of church leaders, and from the -->inspired<-- statements in the scriptures that homosexual behavior is sinful and not pleasing to God.

 

There are quite a few attempts being made to fully discount prophetic statements made in conference and in other venues, using such sophistries as "then you must be claiming that EVERYTHING said in general conference is from God". That is also a very strange argument for someone who claims to be a member of the church to make. I sense a real desire to dismiss the prophets as irrelevant and mistaken whenever their statements don't agree with the sophistries of the world.

 

As I have noted, the statements from those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators concerning SSM and homosexual behavior have been remarkably consistent and specific over time. To think that they'll somehow change as the church becomes more "enlightened", or in other words, chooses to forsake God and embrace the ways of the world, is to deny that the church is guided by God in our day.

 

This is all rather interesting to me. If you subscribe to the notion that Satan's deceptions will affect members of the church in the last days (as I do), then this thread is evidence that this very thing is happening.

[rockpond]

The prophets were wrong on everything. Let's just ignore them from here on out when we disagree with them.

 

I'm not sure why I even expected a real response from you.

[rockpond]

This is an excellent point, Scott. The inspired and consistent statements that have come from church leaders are indeed revelation because, as the Doctrine and Covenants notes, that is what inspiration is.

 

Revelation. 

 

It's really as simple as that.

 

For someone to claim that there's been no clear revelation on the subject, is to deny that inspiration is revelation. To deny that a plainly inspired document such as the Family Proclamation is not revelation is to say that because it's "only" inspired, it doesn't count as revelation. It's to discount the power of inspiration from the Holy Ghost as true revelation, which is a very odd position for anyone claiming to be a member of the church to take.

 

One of the things that's happened in this thread since I had to get back to real life and do other things, is that those who support SSM dishonestly allowed the discussion to be turned into whether homosexuality was sinful. That's a red herring and irrelevant; the discussion is really about whether homosexual -->behavior<-- is sinful or not. And it's quite clear from the -->inspired<-- statements of church leaders, and from the -->inspired<-- statements in the scriptures that homosexual behavior is sinful and not pleasing to God.

 

There are quite a few attempts being made to fully discount prophetic statements made in conference and in other venues, using such sophistries as "then you must be claiming that EVERYTHING said in general conference is from God". That is also a very strange argument for someone who claims to be a member of the church to make. I sense a real desire to dismiss the prophets as irrelevant and mistaken whenever their statements don't agree with the sophistries of the world.

 

As I have noted, the statements from those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators concerning SSM and homosexual behavior have been remarkably consistent and specific over time. To think that they'll somehow change as the church becomes more "enlightened", or in other words, chooses to forsake God and embrace the ways of the world, is to deny that the church is guided by God in our day.

 

This is all rather interesting to me. If you subscribe to the notion that Satan's deceptions will affect members of the church in the last days (as I do), then this thread is evidence that this very thing is happening.

 

I have no desire to dismiss the prophets as irrelevant.  That is most definitely not what I want.

 

I'm attempting to work through the issue of how do I dismiss everything they said about blacks and the priesthood while simultaneously concluding that they MUST be providing us with God's will regarding THIS minority.

 

They have been just as "consistent and specific" (actually less so, IMO) for just as long (actually less) as they were regarding reasons for keeping those of African descent out of the temple and out of the Priesthood.  And yet we've disavowed and condemned those teachings.

 

How are we to then conclude that their teachings NOW are the will of God but their teachings THEN were opinions?

 

You can attack me or we can try to work through the question.  And it's not a question that is only mine.  I'm running into others struggling with the same thing.

 

Or write me off as someone trying to attack the church or just deceived by Satan.

 

And I do subscribe to the notion that even the very elect can be deceived.  Who, exactly, is immune from that?  [rhetorical]

[california boy]

 

I love posts like this. Straight guys coming up with their own plan of how they too could be gay if they just worked hard enough at it.

I am not a "straight" guy at least I don't self-identify as straight. Whatever your definition is for "straight" it probably does not accurately describe anyone and is most certainly different than another's definition of "straight". I never said anything about a plan of how to be "gay". I don't know what be "gay" means. The label is entirely ambiguous to me and whatever your definition of "gay" is (I am unsure what your definition is by the way) probably does not line up with others' definitions of "gay".

It is just a theory for you. You haven't actually tried the theory out to see if it would really work have you. Would you be willing to continue your theory if you were thrown into prison for 20 years? Would you be willing to continue your little experiment if one night walking away from a gay bar you were beat to an inch of your life? Would you be willing to continue with your theory if your parents and brothers and sisters refused to ever see you again for the rest of your life?

Yes the part about developing sexual attractions to men is a theory for me, I haven't tried it. I have tried it with women and it worked in a similiar fashion. My attractions to women (including my wife) were not inborn. Some of the attractions I do not remember developing as they were part of the culture I grew up in. Other attractions I can specificially remember being exposed to for the first time. Sometimes the first exposure was not pleasant, but over time I came to be more comfortable with them, and eventually to find them very attractive.

I am very sorry for the pain you have gone through, there is no excuse for people to behave towards you in the manner you described. Your question is interesting and I have thought deeply about it. I cannot answer it with respect to men, but I can answer it with respect to women. As I have now been married for well over a decade and have developed strong love and attractions toward my wife, I cannot imagine anything that would cause me to willingly leave her side (even unto death).

The same could not be said if you had asked me 20 years ago. If you had told me that if I pursued a heterosexual relationship I would never be able to see my family again, would be thrown in prison, and would be beaten I probably would have given up the pursuit on the spot. I had not yet developed the strong heterosexual attractions and love for my wife I have now.

The part of your theory that I agree with is that yes a straight person can learn to have gay sex. And the opposite is true. A gay person can learn to have straight sex. But unfortunately orientation is not about sex at all. Who you have sex with is just the manifestation of the orientation.

I don't know what you mean by "orientation" I would like to hear your explanation. I will come back to this.

Unlike you, I have actually tested and lived this theory. I have tested it, I simply had not developed homosexual attractions before I developed heterosexual ones.

I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old. What does that mean to know that you are "gay". I don't know what it means to know that I am "straight", and I have been married for a long time. I certainly cannot imagine "knowing' at 12.

There was nothing in my childhood that turned me gay. I was raised in a conservative Mormon family. No one I knew was gay. No one knew I was gay. And like you, I formulated a plan on how I would learn to become straight. I started pretending to be straight when I was in high school. I found a girl that I could pretend to be my girlfriend. It wasn't hard pretending that we were a couple. My environment conditioned me to really need a girlfriend. I had a string of girlfirends like most boys my age. I knew what was expected of me. After serving a mission, I was told to get married. I was promised that if I got married, I would learn to be straight. It fit in with my plan on how I could learn to become straight. So of course I did what was expected. I was married for over 20 years. 20 years. Doing everything I could to learn to become straight. Is all I learned is to have straight sex. I never learned how to become straight. It was all a lie. I never was straight.

I cannot speak to your childhood, every person, even those living in the same household goes through unique experiences that help shape them as a person. Do I believe that anyone who passed through your exact same experiences would respond to them in exactly the same way as you have? Absolutely not! Many people, maybe even most would not have developed homosexual attractions in the environment you did, but I can contrive of other environments where you would not have developed homosexual attractions either.

I am not sure what it is you think us "straight" guys are doing in heterosexual marriages that you think you "gay" guys are unable of doing. I really do not understand this, you have already admitted that even people who self-identify as "gay" can learn to have "straight" sex. So what is it that "gay" men cannot do?

Can "gay" men not enjoy spending time with women?

Can "gay" men not serve women?

Can "gay" men not love women?

Do "gay" men not find women confusing? "Straight" men certainly do.

Do "gay" men not relate easier to men than women? "Straight" men have a very difficult time relating to women. I share much more in common with many guy friends than I do with my wife. When we have family gatherings I usually take the side of the brothers--in-law in debates while my wife usually takes the side of the sisters-in-law.

I am not sure what you think us "straight" guys are doing in heterosexual marriages, but it is a very difficult to live with women at times (I am sure most women would say the same about men). It is also the most rewarding, benficial, loving, and important thing I have done in my life, and the differences between man and woman cause both of us to change and to take upon us some of the attributes of the other which is wonderful.

Your post is nothing more than a scientist proposing a theory and then declaring it a fact, never having actually tested his theory. I could give you thousands of gays that have actually tried your theory and failed. They have allowed others to do ANYTHING to try and change them. Even BYU professors to administer shock therapy. They have tried to marry. They have lived a life of being rabidly homophobic. And they have been willing to die for being gay.

I am a scientist (well more of an engineer currently), so it does not surprise me that you view my post as a scientific theory. I am not sure what part of my theory you think failed. The main thesis of my theory is that those who do not currently have homosexual\heterosexual attractions can develop them and you agreed that this is possible. The second part of my thesis is that our sexual attractions are influenced by our culture which is kind of implied by the first part and you have not addressed this directly.

For you it is just a theory. For me, it is the story of my life. I can not express how much joy and relief that has come into my life when I finally gave up my little plan on how I was going to become straight.

I think the difficutly we are having is that you are placing huge value on the labels "straight" and "gay" and I don't know what you mean by them. I would be interested in hearing your explanation.

-guerreiro9

 

Thanks for taking the time to consider what I wrote.  I actually am not sure I can answer all of your questions.  And I am a bit confused by what you are proposing as your theory.  Are you saying that at some point in everyone's life, they choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual?

 

Because for me, if it was simply choosing whether I wanted to be heterosexual or homosexual, I would have easily, without any hesitation chosen to be heterosexual.  I struggled most of you youth and adult life trying to force myself into being heterosexual. 

 

What does it mean to be gay?  How did I figure out I was gay when I was 12 years old?  I simply had no sexual interest or attraction to women.  Seeing pictures of naked women is not a sexual experience.  I had no desire to do anything physical with a woman.  So unlike most of the boys in my ward who were trying to keep their sexual relationships with women within the bounds of the gospel, for me, it was a non issue.  For me, keeping my sexual feelings towards other guys was the challenge.  I don't think I have to be more specific than that.  That is what orientation means.  That is what being gay means.  

 

Even though I had relationships with my wife, it didn't change the fact that I never found those relations to be anything more than mechanical.  I am not going to go into much more detail than that.  I don't think this forum is the appropriate place to do so.  Hopefully I have given you enough to help you understand the difference between someone who is straight and someone who is gay.  

 

It is that orientation that doesn't change even on threat of death.  Even on threat of loosing your entire family, your friends, being discriminated against and all the other heartache that comes from not "being like everyone else."  It is a little more than who you are comfortable having a conversation with or that women are a mystery.

 

I hope that helps.  If not, let me know what still puzzles you.

[webbles]

I have no desire to dismiss the prophets as irrelevant.  That is most definitely not what I want.

 

I'm attempting to work through the issue of how do I dismiss everything they said about blacks and the priesthood while simultaneously concluding that they MUST be providing us with God's will regarding THIS minority.

 

They have been just as "consistent and specific" (actually less so, IMO) for just as long (actually less) as they were regarding reasons for keeping those of African descent out of the temple and out of the Priesthood.  And yet we've disavowed and condemned those teachings.

 

How are we to then conclude that their teachings NOW are the will of God but their teachings THEN were opinions?

 

This is how I work through the issue:

 

The only thing they are asking me to dismiss (in regards to the priesthood ban) is the reasons given behind the ban.  I know, from the scriptures, that there have been various times when people were denied the priesthood.  I also know that during the recent ban, there were statements that mentioned that the ban would be removed at some time.  So that tells me that God does allow/cause priesthood bans and that He later removes them.  Any ban in place is only going to be temporary.

 

Marriage, on the other hand, has consistently been mentioned in the scriptures as between man and woman.  Every instance in the scriptures where it defines marriage, it is always between man and woman.  There have been no mention (either anciently or modernly) of a change to this definition.  No one has talked about a future when it could change, no one has talked of a past when it was changed.

 

So to me, the first issue (priesthood ban) was expected to go away and has ancient and modern confirmation of that expectation.  The second issue (marriage) is NOT going to change and has ancient and modern confirmation.

 

The two issues aren't even similar when I look at it that way.

[BlueDreams]

Our teachings on homosexuality have evolved over the past 50 years.  Granted over the past 20 years we've been consistently discussing the "definition of marriage".  That part has been consistent.  I don't see the rest as indicative of a clear *revealed* understanding of God's will.

 

 

The teachings have, the doctrine really hasn't. What's change is the discourse and the recognition that having these feelings do not make you a reprobate. It's changed as voices of those experiencing them were heard more. Frankly I don't see this as a massive shift and altering of doctrine and more about how that doctrine is presented and understood. As well as a general shift in tone towards anyone who may have feelings, temptations, addictions, etc that conflict with the doctrine of the church.

 

 

I'm not asking for a "thus sayeth the Lord" proclamation.  But something that actually does claim to be revelation (as opposed to "our understanding" or a proclamation) would be more what I am looking for.

 

Given that we have a clear and present example of having taught something for a century and then backing off and condemning those teachings, I do think that we're going to need to raise the bar a bit to resolve this issue within the church.

 

 

I think what Cal is stating is that it feels like a "what's the point" type of situation. Similar to a woman I met who saw 1 Cor 15 pointing to the fact that resurrection wasn't literal and I saw it as clear scripture that it was. Or having someone insist the Trinity is clearly spelled out in the bible when I feel it is clearly not. I assume you know the same scriptures that I do. things like the creation account where god creates man and woman and (paraphrasing) commands them to be one, stating it's the purpose that they leave behind all others. I view it as establishing the pattern for marriage to follow from there on out. I see that pattern reaffirm even more stridently in DC 132/other scriptures about ordinances. In fact, when I re-read it last night, specifically looking for a SSM loophole, not only could I not see it, but I saw clear prophetic words that would make me more hesitant to see SSM accepted and legitimized withing the church. In fact some of the revelation seemed pretty clear about today when it talks about how all other relationships, whether binding by our governing/social systems here on earth, will not hold in the next. The only ones are those sealed (male+female). 

 

This same pattern is further laid out to me in the temple....where it further expounds the creation account and the interaction of A+E as an eternal pattern and ordinance for us today....and this as a prelude for us to enter into the sealing ordinance as our own A+E.  

 

It's so intrinsic to just about everything that it seems ridiculous to try and point out some something that does claim to be revelation when it feels that just about every revelation dealing with marriage reasserts the Lord's initial pronunciation and creation of Adam and Eve for each other. To me the Blacks + Priesthood falls far short as a parallel, let alone establishing precedence. It gives credence to what is initially mentioned: letting go of false/harsh teachings that are not really found in scripture in the first place for things that are more in tune with the message of the Gospel. But the parallel ends there. Blacks had the priesthood before the ban, set apart by the Lord's servants partaking of the same covenants. There was no need for alteration in wording. At no point can the same be said for gay marriage. It takes far more extrapolation to see the reasons they came up with ban in the scriptures/gospel. Likewise it takes far more extrapolation to see SSM fitting. That's not a good thing. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD