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

[rockpond]

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.

That explains how the ban could have been God's will. It does not explain how we can justify dismissing all of the prophetic and apostolic teachings that were given, based in scripture, to explain the ban. But then turn around and insist that what we are teaching today, about a different minority also in a culture of prejudice, must unequivocally be the will of God.

I can't buy the reasoning that says: what we teach today about this minority is equivalent to the revealed word of God. But what was taught by prophets and apostles in years past about another minority is opinion, folklore, mistakes, and inconsistent with the gospel.

[rockpond]

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 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

All of that is pretty much what I would expect to see in scripture written by a heterosexually dominant culture.

Asking why we don't see any examples of homosexual marriage in ancient scripture is like asking why we know the names of all of Lehi & Sariah's sons but not the daughters.

[jwhitlock]

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]

 

We don't dismiss everything that's been said about blacks and the priesthood. Anyone who says that must be the way we approach the priesthood ban is not historically informed. Somethings we can dismiss. Other things are not so easily dismissed.  It's not a cut and dried situation; we're still trying to understand it. So you need to leave this concept behind that the ban was a total mistake, that God never condoned it, that everything associated with it was wrong. It's more complicated than that.

 

Otherwise, there was never anywhere near the consistency of statements and message about the priesthood ban that there has been about SSM and homosexual behavior over the years. There's really no comparison. In fact, to even infer that there was more agreement and consistency about the priesthood ban than there is about SSM and HB is to get it exactly backwards, and to ignore the historical data on both issues.

 

I don't really think you're willing to "work through the question". You have embraced the worldview that condones SSM and homosexual behavior as non-sinful, and all the evidence that's been presented about the consistency of the message of the church and the nature of revelation involved in that message has been dismissed out of hand by you using some very flimsy reasoning.

 

Blue Dreams in her post #325 is spot on with the perspective. There is simply no loophole, as she says, for SSM being accepted. There's been no possible opening that anyone can point to from prophetic statements or the scriptures. It just isn't there. Wishful thinking on your part using the priesthood ban as rationalization is just grasping at any straw in order to justify your position.

[EllenMaksoud]

I see a much broader and more nefarious process at work. Regardless on the motivation of individuals, I view this world at a macro level to be a conflict between righteousness and evil. 

 

What is completely absent from any national discussion regarding SSA of any kind is the extremely unhealthy results of a gay lifestyle. Further, there is no discussion about the fact that most male gay relationships last all of about three minutes; yes, I exaggerate but studies have shown since the early 80s with the outbreak of AIDS that gay sexual partners number in the hundreds if not thousands. No discussion of societal impact; it is a tabula rasa where the only thought is strictly rainbow lens of loving couples desperate to unite in marriage for the rest of their days on earth.

 

I see this is another chink in the armor of morality; it is societal decay in process and result.

 

As others have said, there will be consistent attacks on the all institutions that have the temerity to say anything negative against anything that would have been described as gross immorality five years ago and fifty years ago would have been unthinkable to discuss in decent society. 

 

This is the our Trojan horse and the results will be far-reaching and very destructive to anyone and everything that has anything to do with God and his gospel. This will be a time of itching ears where churches and their teachings will be turned inside out and evil will be called righteousness and righteousness will be called evil. In the words of Bette Davis as Margo Channing, "Fasten your seat belts, it is going to be a bumpy night".  

What bothers me is that gays can only have **** sex if they want penetrative intercourse. E-coli dwell in our intestines naturally, but in males, they have this long hose providing mechanical protection against getting the bugs into their bladder and finally into the kidneys where they do a lot of damage. So from a medical point of view, gay intercourse is high risk.

 

Even in normal hetero intercourse, the female is really vulnerable do the male needs to observe good hygene, and needs to not be bi-sexual. In certain European and Middle Eastern cultures, **** sex with a woman is a birth control method and is extremely unhealthy.

[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.

I am proposing that our sexuality is not innately inborn, but is affected by our culture and experiences. We do not explicitly choose many facets of our sexuality, but we can shape it by our choices. Even the facets of our sexuality that we did not explicitly choose were dependent on our culture and experiences and would not have manifested themselves in exactly the same manner in a different time and place.

Basically what I am saying is that sexuality functions in the same way as all other aspects of our being, which in my opinion should not be surprising.

To better illustrate what I mean I will use the comparison I used in an earlier post of African Americans in the United States.

African Americans commit a higher percentage of violent crimes per capita than any other ethnic group in the US (it's not much higher but it is higher). The question is then why is this so?

Is it something that is innately inborn. No it is not. Are they simply choosing to be more violent? No it is more complicated than that. Any ethnicity that had the same percentage of its population grow up in a similar culture and pass through similar experiences would have similar violent tendencies.

Can't the cultural upbringing be overcome? Yes it can, but it is much more difficult to form new personality traits as we age. Most people of any race never move beyond their upbringing. It is one thing for someone raised in a nonviolent environment to say "just don't be violent" it is quite another for someone raised in that environment to put aside the culture they grow up in.

I believe the same thing happens with our sexuality. We leave our formative years having developed certain unique sexual attractions. Some of these may be unwanted and we would choose not to have them if we could. Some of them may have been formed as the result of our choices. Regardless of how we acquired them we are attracted to them and we can no more instantly turn them off than we can instantly turn off enjoying chocolate or knowing our native language. They are not inborn however, and in a different time and place we would have developed a different set of unique attractions.

Does this mean that we cannot continue to develop additional sexual attractions? No it does not, but for some reason we as a species have a much more difficult time learning new things as we age.

When I was 12 years old I was not sexually attracted to females either, that was an attraction I developed later. I grew up in a very small predominantly mormon town and was not exposed to anything overtly sexual in my early years.

When I was in 7th grade I attended junior high in a much larger neighboring town. I remember being at lunch one day when a boy spread open a porno magazine he had stolen from his dad on the table. There was the female body in all its glory. I nearly threw up my lunch all over it. I find the female body very attractive now, but I had not developed those attractions yet, and I was not ready for what I had just seen.

When I was in high school there was a certain group of guys that were considered to be "cool". I played on sports teams with them and we were friendly, but as I was the new guy from the small town I was not a part of their group. I thought they were really cool though and I was drawn to them socially, so I made a concerted effort to become part of their circle. As I spent more time with them I quickly discovered that their sexuality was substantially different from my own. They openly talked of masterbation and shared pornography and had all had sexual experiences that I had not had. It was very uncomfortable for me at first, but over time I began to mold my sexuality to theirs until I started to find the same things they did attractive.

They found out very quickly that I had not had the same sexual experiences as them and they would tease me and try to remedy the situation. One night at a party they arranged for me to have my first make out session with a girl. It was awkward, although somewhat new and exciting. When the party was over they all high fived me and hooted and hollered and I slowly made my way home and cried myself to sleep. I could not believe what I had just done with that poor girl and I felt absolutely sick. There were additional make out sessions over the course of high school and the awkwardness and remorse slowly faded.

I have thought often of this time since then and wondered what would have happened if that group of friends had engaged in homosexual acts in addition to or instead of heterosexual ones. Would I have molded my sexuality to match theirs? I think the only honest answer I can give is yes. It would have been awkward at first, but eventually I would have come to enjoy the homosexual acts much like I did the heterosexual ones. As I really didn't have any previous sexual attractions at this time these would have become my dominant ones.

I eventually graduated high school with my virtue bruised but not destroyed. I never committed any serious sin that would keep me from serving a mission but there was still a repentance process I had to go through.

After my mission I entered college and began dating girls. I am not an overtly out going guy so it was always a little awkward with girls. Eventually I met my wife and we began growing closer, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Each new physical step even after marriage was a little awkward at first but slowly and it became a wondrous, glorious normal expression of heterosexual love. I was not attracted to each new thing until experiencing it but once I did my body and mind were perfectly capable of finding it attractive.

Does this help you understand why I think the word "orientation" is meaningless?

What was my "orientation" when I was 12 and the sight of the naked female body nearly induced vomiting?

What was my "orientation" when I was in high school and cried myself to sleep after making out with a girl for the first time.

How would you define my "orientation" if I am correct and I could have become attracted to homosexual acts in high school and only did not become so because I was not exposed to them.

My "orientation" now would be easier to define. You would define me as "straight" but that is a gross over simplification of what I have experienced to get to this point.

I don't believe I have an "orientation", I believe at each moment in time my sexuality was a unique combination of who I was at that moment and the experiences I had passed through.

Does this at all ring true with anyone or am I a complete and utter oddball?

-guerreiro9

[rockpond]

I am proposing that our sexuality is not innately inborn, but is affected by our culture and experiences. We do not explicitly choose many facets of our sexuality, but we can shape it by our choices. Even the facets of our sexuality that we did not explicitly choose were dependent on our culture and experiences and would not have manifested themselves in exactly the same manner in a different time and place.

Basically what I am saying is that sexuality functions in the same way as all other aspects of our being, which in my opinion should not be surprising.

To better illustrate what I mean I will use the comparison I used in an earlier post of African Americans in the United States.

African Americans commit a higher percentage of violent crimes per capita than any other ethnic group in the US (it's not much higher but it is higher). The question is then why is this so?

Is it something that is innately inborn. No it is not. Are they simply choosing to be more violent? No it is more complicated than that. Any ethnicity that had the same percentage of its population grow up in a similar culture and pass through similar experiences would have similar violent tendencies.

Can't the cultural upbringing be overcome? Yes it can, but it is much more difficult to form new personality traits as we age. Most people of any race never move beyond their upbringing. It is one thing for someone raised in a nonviolent environment to say "just don't be violent" it is quite another for someone raised in that environment to put aside the culture they grow up in.

I believe the same thing happens with our sexuality. We leave our formative years having developed certain unique sexual attractions. Some of these may be unwanted and we would choose not to have them if we could. Some of them may have been formed as the result of our choices. Regardless of how we acquired them we are attracted to them and we can no more instantly turn them off than we can instantly turn off enjoying chocolate or knowing our native language. They are not inborn however, and in a different time and place we would have developed a different set of unique attractions.

Does this mean that we cannot continue to develop additional sexual attractions? No it does not, but for some reason we as a species have a much more difficult time learning new things as we age.

When I was 12 years old I was not sexually attracted to females either, that was an attraction I developed later. I grew up in a very small predominantly mormon town and was not exposed to anything overtly sexual in my early years.

When I was in 7th grade I attended junior high in a much larger neighboring town. I remember being at lunch one day when a boy spread open a porno magazine he had stolen from his dad on the table. There was the female body in all its glory. I nearly threw up my lunch all over it. I find the female body very attractive now, but I had not developed those attractions yet, and I was not ready for what I had just seen.

When I was in high school there was a certain group of guys that were considered to be "cool". I played on sports teams with them and we were friendly, but as I was the new guy from the small town I was not a part of their group. I thought they were really cool though and I was drawn to them socially, so I made a concerted effort to become part of their circle. As I spent more time with them I quickly discovered that their sexuality was substantially different from my own. They openly talked of masterbation and shared pornography and had all had sexual experiences that I had not had. It was very uncomfortable for me at first, but over time I began to mold my sexuality to theirs until I started to find the same things they did attractive.

They found out very quickly that I had not had the same sexual experiences as them and they would tease me and try to remedy the situation. One night at a party they arranged for me to have my first make out session with a girl. It was awkward, although somewhat new and exciting. When the party was over they all high fived me and hooted and hollered and I slowly made my way home and cried myself to sleep. I could not believe what I had just done with that poor girl and I felt absolutely sick. There were additional make out sessions over the course of high school and the awkwardness and remorse slowly faded.

I have thought often of this time since then and wondered what would have happened if that group of friends had engaged in homosexual acts in addition to or instead of heterosexual ones. Would I have molded my sexuality to match theirs? I think the only honest answer I can give is yes. It would have been awkward at first, but eventually I would have come to enjoy the homosexual acts much like I did the heterosexual ones. As I really didn't have any previous sexual attractions at this time these would have become my dominant ones.

I eventually graduated high school with my virtue bruised but not destroyed. I never committed any serious sin that would keep me from serving a mission but there was still a repentance process I had to go through.

After my mission I entered college and began dating girls. I am not an overtly out going guy so it was always a little awkward with girls. Eventually I met my wife and we began growing closer, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Each new physical step even after marriage was a little awkward at first but slowly and it became a wondrous, glorious normal expression of heterosexual love. I was not attracted to each new thing until experiencing it but once I did my body and mind were perfectly capable of finding it attractive.

Does this help you understand why I think the word "orientation" is meaningless?

What was my "orientation" when I was 12 and the sight of the naked female body nearly induced vomiting?

What was my "orientation" when I was in high school and cried myself to sleep after making out with a girl for the first time.

How would you define my "orientation" if I am correct and I could have become attracted to homosexual acts in high school and only did not become so because I was not exposed to them.

My "orientation" now would be easier to define. You would define me as "straight" but that is a gross over simplification of what I have experienced to get to this point.

I don't believe I have an "orientation", I believe at each moment in time my sexuality was a unique combination of who I was at that moment and the experiences I had passed through.

Does this at all ring true with anyone or am I a complete and utter oddball?

-guerreiro9

Sorry, it does not rIng true with my experience or with the majority of people I've talked to about this subject. I don't think you're an oddball, though. It may just be that you are someone without strong sexual attractions... Meaning they had to be coaxed out a little. But I honestly don't know.

[rockpond]

We don't dismiss everything that's been said about blacks and the priesthood. Anyone who says that must be the way we approach the priesthood ban is not historically informed. Somethings we can dismiss. Other things are not so easily dismissed. It's not a cut and dried situation; we're still trying to understand it. So you need to leave this concept behind that the ban was a total mistake, that God never condoned it, that everything associated with it was wrong. It's more complicated than that.

Otherwise, there was never anywhere near the consistency of statements and message about the priesthood ban that there has been about SSM and homosexual behavior over the years. There's really no comparison. In fact, to even infer that there was more agreement and consistency about the priesthood ban than there is about SSM and HB is to get it exactly backwards, and to ignore the historical data on both issues.

I don't really think you're willing to "work through the question". You have embraced the worldview that condones SSM and homosexual behavior as non-sinful, and all the evidence that's been presented about the consistency of the message of the church and the nature of revelation involved in that message has been dismissed out of hand by you using some very flimsy reasoning.

Blue Dreams in her post #325 is spot on with the perspective. There is simply no loophole, as she says, for SSM being accepted. There's been no possible opening that anyone can point to from prophetic statements or the scriptures. It just isn't there. Wishful thinking on your part using the priesthood ban as rationalization is just grasping at any straw in order to justify your position.

We dismissed all of the reasons that were given for the priesthood ban. Those reasons were taught repeatedly and consistently over a century or more. Right after the 1978 revelation, an apostle said: forget everything I said (and what BY said) we spoke with a limited understanding and without the further light and knowledge we now have.

How do we now know that apostles and prophets aren't speaking with a limited understanding? Are we no longer eligible for further light and knowledge?

[jwhitlock]

We dismissed all of the reasons that were given for the priesthood ban...

 

 

That's not the point I was making. As a matter of fact, looking into the historical aspects of the ban based on one clear fact - that the Lord let the ban continue, despite the prophets asking that it be removed - indicates otherwise. While we can safely resolve cultural prejudices and other such actions as being overturned, we cannot in any way claim that the ban continued until 1978 without any involvement by the Lord. We just simply don't know everything yet, so it's unwise to dismiss the whole incident out of hand as being totally uninspired and without any revelatory nature to it.

 

And please, don't read more into my statement above in attempts to portray me as racist about this subject. It's a general statement that reflects the real world, not any particular agenda such as yours.

 

How do we now know that apostles and prophets aren't speaking with a limited understanding? Are we no longer eligible for further light and knowledge? 

 

 

As we continually keep telling you, it's simple. They have been specific, they continue to be specific, and they continue to be consistent in their statements on the subject. Their statements are supported by scripture. There are multiple witnesses. There are no loopholes, there is no disagreement among those who have prophetic callings for the church on this. Unlike President McKay and the Priesthood ban, there is no one in a prophetic calling asking for it to be overturned, so that same sex marriages in temples can be performed and homosexual behavior be reclassified as non-sinful.

 

And - you're not going to like this - those who really have the Spirit in their lives have the additional witness that what they're saying is true. The principle of multiple, consistent witnesses in a matter of doctrine and of the will of the Lord is plainly evident on this subject.

 

Yet you continue to want us to doubt clear prophetic statements because they conflict with the worldly position you've embraced. We have and continue to receive clear light and direction on the Lord's will concerning the deterioration of the world in these last days, and you reject it.

 

Your rationalization that "prophets have been wrong before, so we can just dismiss them as being wrong again if we don't agree with them" is simply a convenient way of justifying yourself. It's not valid.

[Tacenda]

JWhitlock, what if the church one day decides to give in and allow SSM in the confines of the church. Will you still back the church or your spiritual witness? Don't feel like you need to give an answer. Because it was probably rude to ask. But I keep thinking about some that might have thought the same way with the ban being lifted for blacks getting the Priesthood.  ETA: Confine is the wrong word here.  Just with the church's blessing. 

[rockpond]

That's not the point I was making. As a matter of fact, looking into the historical aspects of the ban based on one clear fact - that the Lord let the ban continue, despite the prophets asking that it be removed - indicates otherwise. While we can safely resolve cultural prejudices and other such actions as being overturned, we cannot in any way claim that the ban continued until 1978 without any involvement by the Lord. We just simply don't know everything yet, so it's unwise to dismiss the whole incident out of hand as being totally uninspired and without any revelatory nature to it.

And please, don't read more into my statement above in attempts to portray me as racist about this subject. It's a general statement that reflects the real world, not any particular agenda such as yours.

As we continually keep telling you, it's simple. They have been specific, they continue to be specific, and they continue to be consistent in their statements on the subject. Their statements are supported by scripture. There are multiple witnesses. There are no loopholes, there is no disagreement among those who have prophetic callings for the church on this. Unlike President McKay and the Priesthood ban, there is no one in a prophetic calling asking for it to be overturned, so that same sex marriages in temples can be performed and homosexual behavior be reclassified as non-sinful.

And - you're not going to like this - those who really have the Spirit in their lives have the additional witness that what they're saying is true. The principle of multiple, consistent witnesses in a matter of doctrine and of the will of the Lord is plainly evident on this subject.

Yet you continue to want us to doubt clear prophetic statements because they conflict with the worldly position you've embraced. We have and continue to receive clear light and direction on the Lord's will concerning the deterioration of the world in these last days, and you reject it.

Your rationalization that "prophets have been wrong before, so we can just dismiss them as being wrong again if we don't agree with them" is simply a convenient way of justifying yourself. It's not valid.

I have never portrayed you as a racist and I don't think that of you. I would appreciate it if you would avoid implying that I don't have the spirit in my life.

President McKay came along over 100 years into the ban. Previous to him, the teachings were consistent on the reasons for the ban by many prophets and apostles.

If you have evidence that the Lord told Pres. McKay to leave the ban in place, please share it. That is not my understanding of what happened.

Do you agree or disagree that prophets and apostles, teaching of the reasons for the ban, spoke with limited understanding prior to 1978?

[california boy]

I am proposing that our sexuality is not innately inborn, but is affected by our culture and experiences. We do not explicitly choose many facets of our sexuality, but we can shape it by our choices. Even the facets of our sexuality that we did not explicitly choose were dependent on our culture and experiences and would not have manifested themselves in exactly the same manner in a different time and place.

Basically what I am saying is that sexuality functions in the same way as all other aspects of our being, which in my opinion should not be surprising.

To better illustrate what I mean I will use the comparison I used in an earlier post of African Americans in the United States.

African Americans commit a higher percentage of violent crimes per capita than any other ethnic group in the US (it's not much higher but it is higher). The question is then why is this so?

Is it something that is innately inborn. No it is not. Are they simply choosing to be more violent? No it is more complicated than that. Any ethnicity that had the same percentage of its population grow up in a similar culture and pass through similar experiences would have similar violent tendencies.

Can't the cultural upbringing be overcome? Yes it can, but it is much more difficult to form new personality traits as we age. Most people of any race never move beyond their upbringing. It is one thing for someone raised in a nonviolent environment to say "just don't be violent" it is quite another for someone raised in that environment to put aside the culture they grow up in.

I believe the same thing happens with our sexuality. We leave our formative years having developed certain unique sexual attractions. Some of these may be unwanted and we would choose not to have them if we could. Some of them may have been formed as the result of our choices. Regardless of how we acquired them we are attracted to them and we can no more instantly turn them off than we can instantly turn off enjoying chocolate or knowing our native language. They are not inborn however, and in a different time and place we would have developed a different set of unique attractions.

Does this mean that we cannot continue to develop additional sexual attractions? No it does not, but for some reason we as a species have a much more difficult time learning new things as we age.

When I was 12 years old I was not sexually attracted to females either, that was an attraction I developed later. I grew up in a very small predominantly mormon town and was not exposed to anything overtly sexual in my early years.

When I was in 7th grade I attended junior high in a much larger neighboring town. I remember being at lunch one day when a boy spread open a porno magazine he had stolen from his dad on the table. There was the female body in all its glory. I nearly threw up my lunch all over it. I find the female body very attractive now, but I had not developed those attractions yet, and I was not ready for what I had just seen.

When I was in high school there was a certain group of guys that were considered to be "cool". I played on sports teams with them and we were friendly, but as I was the new guy from the small town I was not a part of their group. I thought they were really cool though and I was drawn to them socially, so I made a concerted effort to become part of their circle. As I spent more time with them I quickly discovered that their sexuality was substantially different from my own. They openly talked of masterbation and shared pornography and had all had sexual experiences that I had not had. It was very uncomfortable for me at first, but over time I began to mold my sexuality to theirs until I started to find the same things they did attractive.

They found out very quickly that I had not had the same sexual experiences as them and they would tease me and try to remedy the situation. One night at a party they arranged for me to have my first make out session with a girl. It was awkward, although somewhat new and exciting. When the party was over they all high fived me and hooted and hollered and I slowly made my way home and cried myself to sleep. I could not believe what I had just done with that poor girl and I felt absolutely sick. There were additional make out sessions over the course of high school and the awkwardness and remorse slowly faded.

I have thought often of this time since then and wondered what would have happened if that group of friends had engaged in homosexual acts in addition to or instead of heterosexual ones. Would I have molded my sexuality to match theirs? I think the only honest answer I can give is yes. It would have been awkward at first, but eventually I would have come to enjoy the homosexual acts much like I did the heterosexual ones. As I really didn't have any previous sexual attractions at this time these would have become my dominant ones.

I eventually graduated high school with my virtue bruised but not destroyed. I never committed any serious sin that would keep me from serving a mission but there was still a repentance process I had to go through.

After my mission I entered college and began dating girls. I am not an overtly out going guy so it was always a little awkward with girls. Eventually I met my wife and we began growing closer, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Each new physical step even after marriage was a little awkward at first but slowly and it became a wondrous, glorious normal expression of heterosexual love. I was not attracted to each new thing until experiencing it but once I did my body and mind were perfectly capable of finding it attractive.

Does this help you understand why I think the word "orientation" is meaningless?

What was my "orientation" when I was 12 and the sight of the naked female body nearly induced vomiting?

What was my "orientation" when I was in high school and cried myself to sleep after making out with a girl for the first time.

How would you define my "orientation" if I am correct and I could have become attracted to homosexual acts in high school and only did not become so because I was not exposed to them.

My "orientation" now would be easier to define. You would define me as "straight" but that is a gross over simplification of what I have experienced to get to this point.

I don't believe I have an "orientation", I believe at each moment in time my sexuality was a unique combination of who I was at that moment and the experiences I had passed through.

Does this at all ring true with anyone or am I a complete and utter oddball?

-guerreiro9

I do agree with you that we all have our own unique sexual experiences when growing up that can influence how we interact with others.  Your experiences may very well made you hesitate or feel you were not ready to pursue relationships with women.  I don't think it is anything like your comparison with certain groups being more susceptible to poverty or crime.  And I don't think that your experiences had anything to do with your orientation.  You seem to be consistently headed in just one direction.  It is just figuring out the right course for you to follow.  

 

Unless you were wishing that you could make out with the blonde kid with the piercing blue eyes that was teasing you into kissing the girl, then I would say you were pretty solidly straight.  Unless after being forced to kiss the girl, you went home crying because you couldn't kiss the guys teasing you, then I think you were pretty straight.  Unless when you are walking down the street with your wife and your eye is constantly attracted to other guys, and you are fantasizing being with them rather than your wife, then I would feel pretty safe in saying you were straight.  This isn't rocket science.  It might be difficult for some people to come to grips with their orientation but It is not that hard to figure out orientation for most people.  

 

I would say that the vast majority of people are pretty clear what their orientation is from a very early age and don't deviate much from it.  

[jwhitlock]

JWhitlock, what if the church one day decides to give in and allow SSM in the confines of the church. Will you still back the church or your spiritual witness? Don't feel like you need to give an answe. Because it was probably rude to ask. But I keep thinking about some that might have thought the same way with the ban being lifted for blacks getting the Priesthood.

 

What if we find out there is no God?

 

What if we find out that Christ was just a great teacher and not a Savior?

 

What if we find out that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, but was just a puppet being manipulated by an early 1800's corporation?

 

What if we find out that the church is actually being run by Vladimar Putin with President Monson taking orders from Moscow?

 

What if we find out that God has actually been pleased with homosexual behavior and actually wants marriage to be defined as, well, whatever people want to define it as?

 

What if we find out that Doctrine and Covenants 132 was not inspired or a revelation, but was actually written by evil, plotting, conservative men as justification for their own ends?

 

I'm not too worried.

[california boy]

Your rationalization that "prophets have been wrong before, so we can just dismiss them as being wrong again if we don't agree with them" is simply a convenient way of justifying yourself. It's not valid.

Rockpond is rationalizing that the prophets have been wrong before when there has not been a revelation from God on the subject.  That is all he is saying.  And the evidence seems to point to that possibility.

[BlueDreams]

Does this at all ring true with anyone or am I a complete and utter oddball?

-guerreiro9

No can't say that it was. I was a curious kid about sexuality and did experiment/explore this to a limited degree with my local neighbor friends. My friend and I (both girls) got curious and kissed and decided that wasn't right (in short I kissed a girl and I didn't like it). Whatever it was we were doing, it was with the assumption and orientation of heterosexuality. I stopped after awhile, becoming more aware that what we were doing probably wasn't right. After, around 13 or so, my abject attractions kicked in majorly and I had my first crushes. They were all boys.

 

That stated, I do think our orienation and sexual identity can be complex, far more so than we give credence. I found your story interesting. And i have heard other accounts of sexuality that are more fluid or complex. Like a man who's sexually attracted solely to men, finding space to be sexually attracted to his wife (but still not other women). Or another man who was sexually attracted to women, but various experiences growing up made women feel unsafe relationally so his intimate relationships were with men.   Or a woman who would define herself as straight, married, was good in such a relationship, but later in life fell in love with a woman. That's what I meant by the multidimensional nature of sexuality. The theory that I heard presented (in short), based on qualitative research, focused on 4 dimensions that helped to determine one's sexual expressions. These included aesthetics, erotically, affectional/romantic, and social. And it's talked more in terms of attraction/aversion...these fields may also alter a little during life. Likewise there's a growing theory that female sexual orientation may be more fluid/complex than men's (surprise, surprise). And there is a split between orientation and actual identity.

 

Basically stating one's bi, straight, or gay and you have been your whole life can easily be an oversimplification. We learn to dialogue our experience into acceptable narratives for sexuality. For example, I rarely admit about my sexual curiosity at a very young age, because no one ever talked about it and many tend to forget/remove from memory. It's taboo, so our memories as well as our script alter to accommodate it. If they don't fit it leads to a sense of confusion and push back or at the very least discomfort from others. We want it to fit our accepted dialogue/understanding of sexuality. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[jwhitlock]

I have never portrayed you as a racist and I don't think that of you. I would appreciate it if you would avoid implying that I don't have the spirit in my life.

President McKay came along over 100 years into the ban. Previous to him, the teachings were consistent on the reasons for the ban by many prophets and apostles.

If you have evidence that the Lord told Pres. McKay to leave the ban in place, please share it. That is not my understanding of what happened.

Do you agree or disagree that prophets and apostles, teaching of the reasons for the ban, spoke with limited understanding prior to 1978?

 

Whenever I dare think outside the box when it comes to forced busing desegregation, the priesthood ban, or anything else concerning race relations, there is always some enlightened progressive who gleefully wants to play the racist card without addressing what I'm really saying. Just being proactive in addressing it.

 

You're the one who's made the claim that the Spirit has supported your positions in regards to SSM, in direct contradiction to what the prophets have said about it. Who are we supposed to believe, you or the prophets?

 

You tap dance around the consistency issue by telling us that previous to President McKay, there was consistency in statements by -->many<-- of the apostles and prophets. Evidently, however, not even you believe that there was total consistency among all of them. Of course, this avoids Joseph Smith's views, and many who were acquainted with the prophet of the restoration. The disagreement didn't start with President McKay. It simply didn't become a major issue until his presidency. Before that, there were widely divergent viewpoints on the ban.

 

Read Prince and Wright's biography of President McKay, especially the civil rights era chapter that deals with the priesthood ban. Evidently will be a bit of an eye opener for you.

 

As for your last question, the priesthood ban is still irrelevant as a comparison or justification for ignoring the prophets on the subject of SSM. Otherwise I'm not inclined - or required - to respond to leading yes/no questions like this.

 

The prophets have been accurate and consistent in testifying that God lives, that Jesus Christ stands at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that The Book of Mormon is additional scripture from God, and that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet to restore the church in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

 

They've been just as consistent and inspired in counseling and declaring that SSM is not the will of the Lord and that homosexual behavior is sinful in the sight of the Lord. Of all those facts, there should be no question.

 

Continued leading questions trying to justify ignoring them aren't going to go anywhere.

[jwhitlock]

Rockpond is rationalizing that the prophets have been wrong before when there has not been a revelation from God on the subject.  That is all he is saying.  And the evidence seems to point to that possibility.

 

Rockpond is rationalizing. That rationalization has been demonstrated to be flimsy. In addition, there has been inspired revelation on the subject; that has been specifically addressed in this thread, so why are you trying to make that kind of dismissive claim out of hand?

 

Otherwise, there is no evidence that the church's or the Lord's stance on SSM is going to ever change. No loopholes. No previous statements that open such possibilities. Nothing.

 

And that's why, if you compare the priesthood ban side by side with the church's stance on SSM, any clear-thinking person will see who dissimilar the two situations are.

[rockpond]

What if we find out there is no God?

 

What if we find out that Christ was just a great teacher and not a Savior?

 

What if we find out that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, but was just a puppet being manipulated by an early 1800's corporation?

 

What if we find out that the church is actually being run by Vladimar Putin with President Monson taking orders from Moscow?

 

What if we find out that God has actually been pleased with homosexual behavior and actually wants marriage to be defined as, well, whatever people want to define it as?

 

What if we find out that Doctrine and Covenants 132 was not inspired or a revelation, but was actually written by evil, plotting, conservative men as justification for their own ends?

 

I'm not too worried.

 

And what if we find out that Heavenly Father has room in his Plan for His homosexual children to have loving, romantic, committed relationships in this life as well as in the eternities?

[rockpond]

Whenever I dare think outside the box when it comes to forced busing desegregation, the priesthood ban, or anything else concerning race relations, there is always some enlightened progressive who gleefully wants to play the racist card without addressing what I'm really saying. Just being proactive in addressing it.

 

You're the one who's made the claim that the Spirit has supported your positions in regards to SSM, in direct contradiction to what the prophets have said about it. Who are we supposed to believe, you or the prophets?

 

You tap dance around the consistency issue by telling us that previous to President McKay, there was consistency in statements by -->many<-- of the apostles and prophets. Evidently, however, not even you believe that there was total consistency among all of them. Of course, this avoids Joseph Smith's views, and many who were acquainted with the prophet of the restoration. The disagreement didn't start with President McKay. It simply didn't become a major issue until his presidency. Before that, there were widely divergent viewpoints on the ban.

 

Read Prince and Wright's biography of President McKay, especially the civil rights era chapter that deals with the priesthood ban. Evidently will be a bit of an eye opener for you.

 

As for your last question, the priesthood ban is still irrelevant as a comparison or justification for ignoring the prophets on the subject of SSM. Otherwise I'm not inclined - or required - to respond to leading yes/no questions like this.

 

The prophets have been accurate and consistent in testifying that God lives, that Jesus Christ stands at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that The Book of Mormon is additional scripture from God, and that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet to restore the church in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

 

They've been just as consistent and inspired in counseling and declaring that SSM is not the will of the Lord and that homosexual behavior is sinful in the sight of the Lord. Of all those facts, there should be no question.

 

Continued leading questions trying to justify ignoring them aren't going to go anywhere.

 

The prophets.  Always follow the prophets over me.  Always.

 

See, I can answer direct questions.  

 

And it's only "leading" because you don't like the answer.

 

I've listened to Greg Prince talk about President McKay's experience praying about the ban and I got a different impression than what you are claiming happened.  If you have evidence that the Lord told President McKay to leave the ban in place, please share it.

 

No tap dancing here... I say that there was consistency among *many* of the prophets and apostles because I don't know that ALL of them that we had prior to 1978 spoke on the subject of the priesthood/temple ban.  Just as now, not all of the prophets and apostles have spoken regarding gay marriage or even homosexuality.  But there was certainly the same level of consistency then regarding reasons for the ban as there is now regarding homosexuality.

[jwhitlock]

And what if we find out that Heavenly Father has room in his Plan for His homosexual children to have loving, romantic, committed relationships in this life as well as in the eternities?

 

And what if what the prophets are telling us now is accurate, revelatory, and God's will in the matter?

 

Since you like to ask leading questions, I'll ask some of my own.

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders were individuals called of God who received and continue to receive inspiration and revelation from Him?

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders were individuals who could make authoritative statements that expressed the will of God on a wide variety of subjects?

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders have spoken authoritatively about what God's will is concerning SSM and homosexual behavior?

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders sometimes speak in terms of opinion only, and that sometimes those are strong opinions?

 

Do you believe that just because a current or past church leader has expressed an opinion or viewpoint on something that turns out to be wrong, that we then have grounds to dismiss them as authoritative in all matters concerning the will of God?

 

If you don't want to give a yes/no answer to any of these, then feel free to elaborate, comment, tap dance, or whatever in responding to them.

[rockpond]

Rockpond is rationalizing. That rationalization has been demonstrated to be flimsy. In addition, there has been inspired revelation on the subject; that has been specifically addressed in this thread, so why are you trying to make that kind of dismissive claim out of hand?

 

Otherwise, there is no evidence that the church's or the Lord's stance on SSM is going to ever change. No loopholes. No previous statements that open such possibilities. Nothing.

 

And that's why, if you compare the priesthood ban side by side with the church's stance on SSM, any clear-thinking person will see who dissimilar the two situations are.

 

I'm not comparing the priesthood/temple ban and the church's stance on SSM, side by side.

 

I'm asking how you can be so certain that the Brethren now are not speaking with "limited understanding" when they were just 35 years ago?

 

I guess I'm not a "clear-thinking" person for hoping that we might be able to receive further light and knowledge on the subject of God's will for His homosexual children just as we received further light and knowledge regarding those of African descent.

[california boy]

The evils of gay marriage

 

And what it is doing to families in Utah.  

[rockpond]

And what if what the prophets are telling us now is accurate, revelatory, and God's will in the matter?

 

Since you like to ask leading questions, I'll ask some of my own.

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders were individuals called of God who received and continue to receive inspiration and revelation from Him?

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders were individuals who could make authoritative statements that expressed the will of God on a wide variety of subjects?

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders have spoken authoritatively about what God's will is concerning SSM and homosexual behavior?

 

Do you believe that our current and past church leaders sometimes speak in terms of opinion only, and that sometimes those are strong opinions?

 

Do you believe that just because a current or past church leader has expressed an opinion or viewpoint on something that turns out to be wrong, that we then have grounds to dismiss them as authoritative in all matters concerning the will of God?

 

If you don't want to give a yes/no answer to any of these, then feel free to elaborate, comment, tap dance, or whatever in responding to them.

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

No (not authoritative in the sense of God's will, but certainly authoritative in the sense of their callings)

 

Yes

 

No

 

There ya go.  Now do I get an answer to my agree/disagree question to you?

[jwhitlock]

And it's only "leading" because you don't like the answer.

 

I've listened to Greg Prince talk about President McKay's experience praying about the ban and I got a different impression than what you are claiming happened.  If you have evidence that the Lord told President McKay to leave the ban in place, please share it.

 

No tap dancing here... I say that there was consistency among *many* of the prophets and apostles because I don't know that ALL of them that we had prior to 1978 spoke on the subject of the priesthood/temple ban.  Just as now, not all of the prophets and apostles have spoken regarding gay marriage or even homosexuality.  But there was certainly the same level of consistency then regarding reasons for the ban as there is now regarding homosexuality.

 

No, it's a leading question because you demand a yes / no answer in support for a pre-determined rationalization that requires a more complex answer.

 

What don't you understand about "read the book" in your repeated demands for more evidence?

 

To continue to say that there is the same level of consistency is to ignore everything but the most superficial similarities between the two. The discussion will continue not have any point when such agenda-driven revisionism is used for rationalizations.

[guerreiro9]

Sorry, it does not rIng true with my experience or with the majority of people I've talked to about this subject. I don't think you're an oddball, though. It may just be that you are someone without strong sexual attractions... Meaning they had to be coaxed out a little. But I honestly don't know.

The sexual attractions were and are very strong once developed, but I contend that you cannot be attracted to something if you don't know it exists.

You can't crave chocolate if you have never been exposed to it either personally or through word of mouth.

This fits in perfectly well with my view of sexuality. How well does this fit in with your view of an innately eternal orientation?

What is my innately eternal orientation if I could have been attracted to males, females or both, but am only attracted to one because the experiences never came to develop the attractions to the other?

I don't think there is anything different about me. I was never attracted to certain things because I was never exposed to them. Once exposed to them and comfortable with them the attractions were just as strong as those claiming they are inborn. Only they were not....

-guerreiro9

[california boy]

Rockpond is rationalizing. That rationalization has been demonstrated to be flimsy. In addition, there has been inspired revelation on the subject; that has been specifically addressed in this thread, so why are you trying to make that kind of dismissive claim out of hand?

 

Otherwise, there is no evidence that the church's or the Lord's stance on SSM is going to ever change. No loopholes. No previous statements that open such possibilities. Nothing.

 

And that's why, if you compare the priesthood ban side by side with the church's stance on SSM, any clear-thinking person will see who dissimilar the two situations are.

What may appear to be flimsy to you was a big deal to all of those Blacks that were kept from receiving temple blessings for over 100 years because of a church policy.  I guess Rockpond and I have a different view of what flimsy is than you do.  We don't want history to repeat itself.  Is that so difficult to understand?

 

You feel that God has revealed His will on this matter though there is no definitive revelation that you can point to.  You look to the teachings and statements of the prophets as your proof, your revelation if you will.  Others feel that church leaders are assuming or guessing or deducting God's will.  That God has yet to reveal His will on this matter.   It is as simple as that.  Who is right will be revealed at some future date.