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

[jwhitlock]

I don't believe we can make such a statement concerning race.

SEE FairMormon Answers.

 

Elder Petersen said in this address: Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin.... In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.

 

IOW He will be "blessed" with being a servant to his white betters forever.

 

What, pray tell, is your purpose in posting this cherry-picked quote? Are you making the claim that this is representative of the entire church position over time on blacks and the priesthood, and that no one else had any divergent views on the subject? Are you telling us that the no one really said the ban would be lifted?

 

Or are you just taking a cheap shot?

 

Please clarify. Your post doesn't make much sense in the context of what I posted.

[thesometimesaint]

What, pray tell, is your purpose in posting this cherry-picked quote? Are you making the claim that this is representative of the entire church position over time on blacks and the priesthood, and that no one else had any divergent views on the subject? Are you telling us that the no one really said the ban would be lifted?

 

Or are you just taking a cheap shot?

 

Please clarify. Your post doesn't make much sense in the context of what I posted.

 

It is just one example of some of rationalizations by prominent LDS Leaders that claim that blacks will be not allowed the same priesthood rights and powers as whites. I never claimed that every member of the Church had the same opinion. I became a member in 1971, seven years before the ban was lifted, and certainly never agreed with the ban based on race, or the rationalizations behind it. Seeing that the Church declined to give blacks(of African Descent) the Priesthood from BY to SWK a logical conclusion would be that yes it was the opinion of the Church, and some white members, including prominent leaders, that blacks would never in this life, and the one to come, hold the Priesthood. Thankfully we, as a Church, in 1978 have moved on.

[jwhitlock]

It is just one example of some of rationalizations by prominent LDS Leaders that claim that blacks will be not allowed the same priesthood rights and powers as whites. I never claimed that every member of the Church had the same opinion. I became a member in 1971, seven years before the ban was lifted, and certainly never agreed with the ban based on race, or the rationalizations behind it. Seeing that the Church declined to give blacks(of African Descent) the Priesthood from BY to SWK a logical conclusion would be that yes it was the opinion of the Church, and some white members, including prominent leaders, that blacks would never in this life, and the one to come, hold the Priesthood. Thankfully we, as a Church, in 1978 have moved on.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case. You can't say that it was the opinion of -->the<-- church and -->some<-- white members and be consistent. You also have to ignore the clear statements that indicated the ban would be lifted at some point. Instead, you cherry-pick selected statements of those who were proven wrong, while ignoring other differing statements, and then come to a "logical" conclusion that it was the opinion of "the Church" that the ban would not be lifted in this life or in the next.

 

Your post is anything but logical.

[webbles]

Webbles, the comparison is unfair and demeaning. These are relationships of lust, usually one-sided, and can lead to severe harm in the case of children that has a lasting effect for years. Most gay/lesbian relationships are between 2 consenting adults (or at least peers of similar age). It is not the same. Furthermore I've studied up on people who find attraction/sex with animals. The development is very much more pathological. Most of them began with a mix of feeling disconnected from other people and opportunity. It's circles around lust and a very distorted picture of what love is over time (at best).  

 

Gay relationships can be unhealthy....but the reasons for them being unhealthy run parallel for why hetero relationships can be unhealthy (dependency, sex addictions, promiscuity, etc). There are relationships, psychologically speaking, that are healthy and relatively stable.

 

you're comparing apples and rotted oranges in making peach pie. There's reasons why someone should not include apples in it....but they are very different reasons for why rotting oranges shouldn't step near that pie (or be in the kitchen).

 

With luv,

BD

 

I agree that many of these relationships are unhealthy.  But if sexual orientation is not changeable (as rockpond has stated), then how do we deal with these individuals who have these other sexual orientations (and some of them do appear to be genetically based)?  If we say that they will change in the resurrection, how is that any different from stating that homosexuals will change?

[rockpond]

I agree that many of these relationships are unhealthy.  But if sexual orientation is not changeable (as rockpond has stated), then how do we deal with these individuals who have these other sexual orientations (and some of them do appear to be genetically based)?  If we say that they will change in the resurrection, how is that any different from stating that homosexuals will change?

 

I don't see bestiality as a sexual orientation.  I'm not sure what the basis would be for that.

[rockpond]

Fine.   However much I might like to share my life with someone else in a marriage relationship, is that the sin qua non of joy?

 

I don't think so.

[Buzzard]

I don't see bestiality as a sexual orientation.  I'm not sure what the basis would be for that.

I have heard on the radio, statements by people who proclaim to be in "love" with their pets, in the full physical sense of the word. They claim to have been born that way. As do people who are attracted to children. I am NOT trying to equate those predilections with SSA, only to point out that all of these groups claim that it is part of their innate makeup. 

Well society continues to hold those types of relationships, as well as others, to be wrong to the point of criminality. While apparently deciding that SS relationships are morally OK, as long as the two participants are adults, or if minors, not separated by too many years. Slippery slope? In my mind, not so much a slope as a mud bog. 

Thankfully, the Lord and his prophets are much more clear on what is acceptable and what is not. Deciding to follow the prophets is much easier than trying to keep up with the latest scientific study that "proves" something about our sexual makeup. 

[rockpond]

You've been using the priesthood ban as a rationalization that SSM might be allowed in the church someday. As has been extensively demonstrated on this thread, that is invalid.

 

The discussion is not about homosexuality. It's about SSM and homosexual behavior.  There has been consistency on those two items over time.

 

You misunderstand the whole point about the priesthood ban. The point is that it was always expected that it would be lifted at some point. That has not been the case for SSM or homosexual behavior. The latter appear, for all intents and purposes, to be the permanent will of the Lord.

 

Perhaps if you try to view the opinions that were taught about the priesthood ban as opinions of people trying to make some sense of it, and separate those opinions from the ban itself, the situation will become clearer. As has been demonstrated with President McKay, the Lord wanted the ban left in place for a period of time. It doesn't address how it came about (we don't know). The reasons for the ban were mostly speculative in nature. Statements about the ban being lifted have been proven to be prophetic. You can't view the priesthood ban at either extreme as being totally right or wrong, and  you can't view all statements on the ban made prior to 1978 as being all correct or incorrect. At this point, we know that some were correct, some were incorrect, and others are inconclusive.

 

On the other hand, statements concerning SSM and homosexual behavior have been consistent over time. Nothing has changed. The leadership of the church has reiterated this consistent message on those two specific items in the last week. The situation is far more cut and dried than the one around the priesthood ban.

 

Why is this so difficult, conceptually?

 

My suggestion is not that because the priesthood & temple ban was removed that SSM will therefore, someday, be allowed.  I'm asking how we can so definitively conclude that what they are teaching now must be the revealed word of God when prophets and apostles taught, with similar force, things that we now repudiate.

 

For example, if I had lived in the latter half of the 19th century, it would have been correct for me to believe the "seed of Cain" teachings about the blacks because that's what the prophet taught (and it continued to be taught for another century).  It also would have been appropriate for me to believe in the prophecy that those of African descent would not receive the priesthood until, at least, the Millenium.  And I would have been incorrect because Brigham Young's prophecy regarding the end of the ban was never fulfilled.

 

Our doctrine was that the ban was from God and was due to "seed of Cain" and "first estate" reasons.  Those things were taught over and over for 125 years by prophets and apostles.  The church no longer stands by any of that.  So, I repeat my question, how we can so definitively conclude that what they are teaching now must be the revealed word of God when prophets and apostles taught, with similar force, things that we now repudiate?

 

From President Uchtdorf:  "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine."

 

And:  "We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction."

 

I'm not saying that President Uchtdorf was necessarily referring to issues surrounding homosexuality though given the shifts happening within the church membership, I imagine that it is one of the issues he likely had in mind.

 

All I'm saying is that I hope and pray for the day when we have the "entire truth" through the revealed word of God.

[thesometimesaint]

You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this case. You can't say that it was the opinion of -->the<-- church and -->some<-- white members and be consistent. You also have to ignore the clear statements that indicated the ban would be lifted at some point. Instead, you cherry-pick selected statements of those who were proven wrong, while ignoring other differing statements, and then come to a "logical" conclusion that it was the opinion of "the Church" that the ban would not be lifted in this life or in the next.

 

Your post is anything but logical.

 

Actually I can and you do to. I don't ignore them. It is the divergence in those statement by our leaders that ultimately lead to the renunciation of the rationalizations for the ban based on race. I agree with the Church. 

[Calm]

I have heard on the radio, statements by people who proclaim to be in "love" with their pets, in the full physical sense of the word. 

 

I think you are listening to the wrong station....

[CV75]

All I'm saying is that I hope and pray for the day when we have the "entire truth" through the revealed word of God.

I think whether we think or suppose or doubt or hope that have the “entire truth” on this subject (or any other subject is beside the point. There are “many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” that could be addressed in light of AoF #9.

I think it is better to hope and pray to abide by the truth that we have so that we can become what the Lord has in store for us. The Comforter will certainly visit us. I believe that the truth about marriage, which we’ve seen evolve over the years and dispensations since Adam, is in its present state a blessing for all members, and that we can all become what the Lord has in store for us by abiding by the doctrines of marriage, whether we in good faith have the opportunity to marry or not in this life, given our circumstances.

It helps me to recognize that we are under covenant to abide the doctrines of the day, and if we don’t believe one or some of them (which is our God-given right), and it troubles us, that is part of our test. Given any shortcomings we see in current doctrine (real, perceived or imagined), we learn to transcend such difficulty and submit to the process of becoming like Christ.

[california boy]

There is no genetic cause, otherwise identical twins would always be the same orientation. (identical twins are always the same genetically)

I ran across this video and I was thinking about your response.  It might give you a little more insight on how twins dna actually relate to each other.

 

Twins DNA

[Kenngo1969]

I don't think so.

I don't, either.  (For context, my question to which Rockpond responds above is, "Do you think marriage is the sin qua non of happiness?")  Plenty of people, regardless of their sexual orientation, will depart this life not having had the opportunity to experience the love and happiness that can be found in a marital relationship.  Your mileage may vary, but I don't think that God is going to shortchange anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, who is faithful but departs this life without having had that experience.  I've experienced a good deal of frustration and futility in various aspects of my life, my own best efforts on various fronts notwithstanding (marriage/romance, however, frankly, being quite far down the list).  It seems my overriding quest in life is how to find fulfillment, and to refused to be defined by what I seem to lack on so many fronts and to choose to be defined, instead, by what I have.  

 

You may argue that that's different, both in quality and in degree, from the situation that confronts my gay brothers and sisters. You may be right.  But we all have our unique challenges to deal with in this life.  Perhaps that isn't fair, but we're only guaranteed fairness in the next life, not in this one.  And even two people with the hypothetically identical challenge would respond to it differently based on background, temperament, other experiences, et cetera.  But I still don't see how that justifies telling heterosexuals, "(1) Marriage between a man and a woman [regardless of what the state says] is ordained of God; (2) Sex outside of marriage is wrong; and (3) Therefore, if you never marry but you wish to remain obedient to the Law of Chastity, you must abstain from sexual relations" on the one hand, while telling homosexuals, "(1) doesn't apply to you because of your orientation;  thus, as long as the state says you're married, then (2) and (3) don't apply to you, either."

 

The bottom line is, whatever injustices and inequities (real or perceived) I must deal with in this life, do I trust my Heavenly Father to make them right in the long run?  If I do, does it really matter what I "miss out on" in this life?  If I don't, then I can certainly understand why the stances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with regard to chastity and legal marriage would be of overriding concern.  

[Kenngo1969]

I think you are listening to the wrong station....

KDOG?

[california boy]

I don't, either.  (For context, my question to which Rockpond responds above is, "Do you think marriage is the sin qua non of happiness?")  Plenty of people, regardless of their sexual orientation, will depart this life not having had the opportunity to experience the love and happiness that can be found in a marital relationship.  Your mileage may vary, but I don't think that God is going to shortchange anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, who is faithful but departs this life without having had that experience.  I've experienced a good deal of frustration and futility in various aspects of my life, my own best efforts on various fronts notwithstanding (marriage/romance, however, frankly, being quite far down the list).  It seems my overriding quest in life is how to find fulfillment, and to refused to be defined by what I seem to lack on so many fronts and to choose to be defined, instead, by what I have.  

 

You may argue that that's different, both in quality and in degree, from the situation that confronts my gay brothers and sisters. You may be right.  But we all have our unique challenges to deal with in this life.  Perhaps that isn't fair, but we're only guaranteed fairness in the next life, not in this one.  And even two people with the hypothetically identical challenge would respond to it differently based on background, temperament, other experiences, et cetera.  But I still don't see how that justifies telling heterosexuals, "(1) Marriage between a man and a woman [regardless of what the state says] is ordained of God; (2) Sex outside of marriage is wrong; and (3) Therefore, if you never marry but you wish to remain obedient to the Law of Chastity, you must abstain from sexual relations" on the one hand, while telling homosexuals, "(1) doesn't apply to you because of your orientation;  thus, as long as the state says you're married, then (2) and (3) don't apply to you, either."

 

The bottom line is, whatever injustices and inequities (real or perceived) I must deal with in this life, do I trust my Heavenly Father to make them right in the long run?  If I do, does it really matter what I "miss out on" in this life?  If I don't, then I can certainly understand why the stances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with regard to chastity and legal marriage would be of overriding concern.  

 

I think it would be completely fair to tell a gay member 

(2) Sex outside of marriage is wrong; and (3) Therefore, if you never marry but you wish to remain obedient to the Law of Chastity, you must abstain from sexual relations"

 

 

 

No one is arguing that gays should have a special privilege.  In fact quite the opposite.  We are saying that God is no respecter of persons.  He loves us all and wants all of his children to be happy.  "Adam fell that men might be, Men are that they might have joy"  "It is not good for man to be alone".  Sex outside of marriage is sinful.  Sex within the bonds of marriage is approved of God.

 

If a gay member never marries, then he receives the same restrictions concerning sex that you receive.  There is no special rule for being gay.

(1) doesn't apply to you because of your orientation;

 

 

Gay members get no free pass.  Gay members just want the same rules, not different ones.  So when church leaders deny gay members the right to marry, they better be pretty darn sure that this time, that doctrine is actually coming from God and not from "the product of their own time."  So far, NO church leader has been able to tell us where this policy came from.  Is it from God?  Or is it a practice handed down since Brigham Young days.  Can you tell us where that policy of not allowing gays to marry originated from?

 

Yes, we have been down this road before.  On such an important issue, I don't think the church needs another "unfortunate error" in policy.  I don't want a "we don't know where that policy came from" answer 20 or 30 years from now.  

 

This policy is effecting members lives now.  This policy is causing faithful members to move away from the plan of salvation.  This policy is causing members to move away from Christ.  If it is truly God's will then fine.  If it is not God's will, then this is a very grievous policy instituted from bigotry and prejudice against God's children no matter how good their intentions are.  That is ALL this discussion is about.  To make it something more than that is misrepresenting the discussion.  

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

 

Yes God wants us to be happy. But that isn't a "Get out of Jail Free" card to do whatever we like. God can look upon sin with the least degree of tolerance.

[california boy]

80% of Indiana Church Quits after Gay Choir Director Adam Fraley Pushed Out

 

An Indiana church has seen attendance drop by around 80 percent after its gay choir director left his position over work pressure he says is due to his sexual orientation.

WISHTV reports 34-year-old Adam Fraley, formerly choir director at Alexandria First United Methodist Church, resigned his position under the church’s previous interim minister after his workload was significantly increased.

 

Is this a glimpse into the future of how churches will deal with gay issues?  

[Mystery Meat]

I have always thought that there would come a day where members of the Church would be forced to make a choice between the Lord's standards and the worlds. I didn't know what the issue would be that would cause the turmoil and separating wheat from chaff. I think it is clear that at least in part, that homosexuality is that issue.

 

People can leave a church in Indiana or the Church on any issue. But if they are demanding that God change His law...it just sounds kinda like the Nephites at the end of the Book of Mormon. That isn't to say this minister isn't an idiot or didn't make an idiot of himself, but if what you are implying with this article is that members of the Church will start to leave if gay lifestyles are not tolerated then I think that is a sad commentary on their testimony.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have always thought that there would come a day where members of the Church would be forced to make a choice between the Lord's standards and the worlds. I didn't know what the issue would be that would cause the turmoil and separating wheat from chaff. I think it is clear that at least in part, that homosexuality is that issue.

 

People can leave a church in Indiana or the Church on any issue. But if they are demanding that God change His law...it just sounds kinda like the Nephites at the end of the Book of Mormon. That isn't to say this minister isn't an idiot or didn't make an idiot of himself, but if what you are implying with this article is that members of the Church will start to leave if gay lifestyles are not tolerated then I think that is a sad commentary on their testimony.

Reminds me of the occasion when many of Christ's disciples became offended at something He said and from that day would not follow Him. He asked his apostles, "Will ye also go away?" Peter replied with a question: "Lord, where should we go? Thou hast the the words of eternal life."

 

(Excuse me if this is a paraphrase; I'm not taking time to look up the precise text.)

[CV75]

Another thread links to a review of a book, which makes this point that I think is relevant to anyone’s position on the specifics of what the “many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” need to be:

“The Saints should always be seeking for further light and knowledge. Experience has shown, however, that an anxious interest in such light and knowledge can lead to being deceived, misled, and manipulated if we are not sufficiently grounded in true principles relating to revelation and learning…”

The write-up then alludes to some questions that can be asked about where our reasoning/conclusion is going in areas of special interest:

- Is the reasoning consistent with scripture?

- Does the conclusion contradict LDS scripture and prophets?

- Do LDS teachings and doctrines differ from the conclusion?

[california boy]

I have always thought that there would come a day where members of the Church would be forced to make a choice between the Lord's standards and the worlds. I didn't know what the issue would be that would cause the turmoil and separating wheat from chaff. I think it is clear that at least in part, that homosexuality is that issue.

 

People can leave a church in Indiana or the Church on any issue. But if they are demanding that God change His law...it just sounds kinda like the Nephites at the end of the Book of Mormon. That isn't to say this minister isn't an idiot or didn't make an idiot of himself, but if what you are implying with this article is that members of the Church will start to leave if gay lifestyles are not tolerated then I think that is a sad commentary on their testimony.

I doubt very much that many members will leave the church over gay marriage. Other then, of course, gay members who end up leaving because they feel that living a celibate life without marriage and without a helpmate is actually counter to the plan of salvation.

 

My purpose is linking the article is what I feel is a more likely pressure on religion in general rather than, as some like to suggest draconian measures by the government to force gay marriage on churches.

[california boy]

Another thread links to a review of a book, which makes this point that I think is relevant to anyone’s position on the specifics of what the “many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” need to be:

“The Saints should always be seeking for further light and knowledge. Experience has shown, however, that an anxious interest in such light and knowledge can lead to being deceived, misled, and manipulated if we are not sufficiently grounded in true principles relating to revelation and learning…”

The write-up then alludes to some questions that can be asked about where our reasoning/conclusion is going in areas of special interest:

- Is the reasoning consistent with scripture?

- Does the conclusion contradict LDS scripture and prophets?

- Do LDS teachings and doctrines differ from the conclusion?

I know you do not see things the same as I do, but oddly enough, the reason why I question the current policy on gay marriage is exactly because I don't feel that it is

 

- Is the reasoning consistent with scripture?

 

While there is scriptures against homosexuality outside of marriage, there are no scriptures concerning homosexuality within the law of chastity which is sexual relations within the bonds of marriage.  Allowing gay marriage is certainly more in keeping with the principles taught concerning heterosexual couples.

 

 - Does the conclusion contradict LDS scripture and prophets?

 

There are actually no reference concerning homosexuality in any of the LDS scriptures. Not one.  And no one can tell us where this idea that God forbids gay marriage originated from.  What prophet received that revelation?  How is this just not another case of men instituting policies because of the times they lived  in that were extremely prejudice against gays?  While the prejudice against gays is decreasing in the church, this policy is still in place, even though it is without any foundation or revelation at all.  Is it likely that this policy will change?  Only time and God will tell.  If there is a revelation that forbids gay marriage, then so be it, but there are many in the church that feel such a revelation has already occurred when none exists.

 

- Do LDS teachings and doctrines differ from the conclusion?

 

This is probably the biggest problem I have with this policy.  It is completely inconsistent with ALL the other teachings and doctrines of the church.  This is a church whose very foundational doctrine is based on marriage and the importance of family. 

Telling someone to live a celibate life rather than marrying is against everything taught us concerning the plan of salvation.  It is a completely different path that the entire human race is expected to follow simply because they are gay?  I think if this policy was in line with other church doctrine, it would be much easier to understand.  But it is not.

 

Look, I know that most on this board disagree with what I have said.  I understand that.  But if this is the criteria for determining truth, there are some major problems other than prejudice against homosexual sex with this policy.  For many the prejudice against homosexual sex is enough to dismiss the idea of gay marriage.  But let's not pretend that there are scriptures that condemn sex inside the bonds of marriage for anyone.  There are not.  It is the foundation of the law of chastity.  Unless of course you believe that God has some completely different plan for His gay children that runs completely counter to the plan He has instituted for the rest of His children.

[Buzzard]

I know you do not see things the same as I do, but oddly enough, the reason why I question the current policy on gay marriage is exactly because I don't feel that it is

 

- Is the reasoning consistent with scripture?

 

While there is scriptures against homosexuality outside of marriage, there are no scriptures concerning homosexuality within the law of chastity which is sexual relations within the bonds of marriage.  Allowing gay marriage is certainly more in keeping with the principles taught concerning heterosexual couples.

 

 - Does the conclusion contradict LDS scripture and prophets?

 

There are actually no reference concerning homosexuality in any of the LDS scriptures. Not one.  And no one can tell us where this idea that God forbids gay marriage originated from.  What prophet received that revelation?  How is this just not another case of men instituting policies because of the times they lived  in that were extremely prejudice against gays?  While the prejudice against gays is decreasing in the church, this policy is still in place, even though it is without any foundation or revelation at all.  Is it likely that this policy will change?  Only time and God will tell.  If there is a revelation that forbids gay marriage, then so be it, but there are many in the church that feel such a revelation has already occurred when none exists.

 

- Do LDS teachings and doctrines differ from the conclusion?

 

This is probably the biggest problem I have with this policy.  It is completely inconsistent with ALL the other teachings and doctrines of the church.  This is a church whose very foundational doctrine is based on marriage and the importance of family. 

Telling someone to live a celibate life rather than marrying is against everything taught us concerning the plan of salvation.  It is a completely different path that the entire human race is expected to follow simply because they are gay?  I think if this policy was in line with other church doctrine, it would be much easier to understand.  But it is not.

 

Look, I know that most on this board disagree with what I have said.  I understand that.  But if this is the criteria for determining truth, there are some major problems other than prejudice against homosexual sex with this policy.  For many the prejudice against homosexual sex is enough to dismiss the idea of gay marriage.  But let's not pretend that there are scriptures that condemn sex inside the bonds of marriage for anyone.  There are not.  It is the foundation of the law of chastity.  Unless of course you believe that God has some completely different plan for His gay children that runs completely counter to the plan He has instituted for the rest of His children.

No, he has the same plan for all his children. It just doesn't involve homosexual acts. In this life or the next. If you think he is picking on homosexuals, my adult daughter has had very limited dating opportunities. I hope for her that she will find a husband in this life, but if not, her expectation is that she must remain virtuous and chaste throughout her life. 

This life is SO short. We don't see it now, but God has one thing we don't have, infinite perspective. He knows that whatever our trials in life-and for some, that means not having sex-they will be but a moment, and if we can endure, our reward will be beyond what we can comprehend. And most importantly, we will be happy for eternity. If we (not just you, but any of us) indulge our temptations beyond the bounds the Lord has set in this life, it will lead to an eternity of regret. 

Just like you know most on this board disagree, I know you desperately want the choices you have made to be validated and accepted by God and his church. So far, the preponderance of the evidence is not on your side, the only glimmer being that there are no proscriptions against gay marriage in the standard works. That's not too surprising, however, considering that twenty years ago, no governmental entity on earth performed them, and the concept barely existed. 

The brethren have so far, however, given you no wiggle room. 

[rockpond]

No, he has the same plan for all his children. It just doesn't involve homosexual acts. In this life or the next. If you think he is picking on homosexuals, my adult daughter has had very limited dating opportunities. I hope for her that she will find a husband in this life, but if not, her expectation is that she must remain virtuous and chaste throughout her life. 

This life is SO short. We don't see it now, but God has one thing we don't have, infinite perspective. He knows that whatever our trials in life-and for some, that means not having sex-they will be but a moment, and if we can endure, our reward will be beyond what we can comprehend. And most importantly, we will be happy for eternity. If we (not just you, but any of us) indulge our temptations beyond the bounds the Lord has set in this life, it will lead to an eternity of regret. 

Just like you know most on this board disagree, I know you desperately want the choices you have made to be validated and accepted by God and his church. So far, the preponderance of the evidence is not on your side, the only glimmer being that there are no proscriptions against gay marriage in the standard works. That's not too surprising, however, considering that twenty years ago, no governmental entity on earth performed them, and the concept barely existed. 

The brethren have so far, however, given you no wiggle room. 

 

"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine." ~~ President Uchtdorf

 

"Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work." ~~ Elder Holland

 

#wiggleroom

[CV75]

there are no scriptures concerning homosexuality within the law of chastity which is sexual relations within the bonds of marriage.

And there doesn’t have to be: the marriage covenant as revealed in scripture speaks for itself, between a man and a woman, irrespective of the partners’ orientation. The covenant exists, no matter who is gay and who is not.

 

There are actually no reference concerning homosexuality in any of the LDS scriptures.

There is no reference to heterosexuality, either. The command to multiply and replenish the earth, the structure of marriage, etc. can be kept regardless of the participants’ sexuality. Sexual sin can likewise be committed regarless of the participants' sexuality.

 

This is probably the biggest problem I have with this policy.

But same-sex “marriage” does differ from marriage as laid out in the scriptures, which is the basis for the Church's doctrines. It is not a policy that we marry couples; it is a doctrine, covenant and ordinance. It is not a policy that we don't perform same-sex "marriages"; it is simply not doctrine nor an ordinance.

 

But let's not pretend that there are scriptures that condemn sex inside the bonds of marriage for anyone.

That is correct, and to be consistent, we need to assess our position on same-sex "marriage" with true marriage as defined in the scriptures.