thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 This is incorrect. Genetic triggers in identical twins do not always manifest identically, since other biological factors also come into play during fetal development. However, twin studies support higher incidents of homosexual orientation, thereby supporting that there is a genetic component to how sexual orientation is determined.The last I read of genetic twins doesn't support that. Please provide a link.
halconero Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Yet polyandry/polygamy is ok? When it seems to be adultery and God never, ever commanded or instituted it.Tacenda, last time I brought up levirate marriage as a case as a potential polygamous commandment you stopped answering. If a man dies, a brother of his, married or not, was commanded to take his sister-in-law in marriage.Yours is not a good example.
Tacenda Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Tacenda, last time I brought up levirate marriage as a case as a potential polygamous commandment you stopped answering. If a man dies, a brother of his, married or not, was commanded to take his sister-in-law in marriage.Yours is not a good example.Well that's funny because before posting I thought about that and someone might try bringing that up. But I never got an answer back when I asked if we even knew if the brother was already married when he is asked to marry his dead brother's wife. We don't, so how does that prove anything?
CV75 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 CV -- You are also alleging what the Church might do when you say that it won't ever authorize SSM. We're both speculating. And I follow church teachings and policies in my calling & stewardship.My comment isn’t about speculating. My comment is about conflating personal revelation (an irrational process) with a personal socio-political analysis (a rational process) in a rational discussion about justifying doctrine. I usually don't ask for feedback, but to give your approach to discourse a try: Do you agree that in principle, this is a problem? A "Yes" or "No" will suffice.Related to this is the separate problem of someone teaching an admittedly speculative socio-political position (albeit ecclesiastical) as a spiritual principle that has received sanction from the Holy Spirit in the form of personal revelation. Do you agree that this can be a problem?Whether or how well any of us follow church teachings and policies in our callings and stewardships isn’t relevant to this discussion. I’m saying that when someone says their speculative position is informed by personal revelation for ministering to people struggling with SSA or the lack of temple SS“M”, I think there is a problem. Do you agree?Perhaps another way to frame this discussion is to look at how the Church brings people with SSA to Christ. I think the Church accomplishes that without resorting to a vague possibility that temple SS“M” might be in the offing. This demonstrates the difference between how Church doctrine is taught according to its scripures adn manuals etc. (and by the Spirit) and how socio-political arguments are made under the guise (intentional or not) of faith. Do you agree? I have no idea what you mean by that. But I recognize your unwillingness to answer the question.Since the Church is not teaching a ban against temple SS“M”, answering the question would falsely insinuate that it does.
halconero Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Well that's funny because before posting I thought about that and someone might try bringing that up. But I never got an answer back when I asked if we even knew if the brother was already married when he is asked to marry his dead brother's wife. We don't, so how does that prove anything?I tried to answer your question.I'll ask you one: Did the levirate commandment still apply IF the brother WAS married?
Tacenda Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I tried to answer your question.I'll ask you one: Did the levirate commandment still apply IF the brother WAS married?No, I see it as really taking care of someone that needed it. Not instituting polygamy as a commandment. ETA: And definitely not commanding polygamy as a way to gain exaltation or be damned if you don't live it.
halconero Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Here is my point:Levirate marriage could be both a monogamous and polygamous commandment. I cannot answer your question because no, we don't know all the cases where it was performed. What I do know, from both the Bible, Rabbinical, and Anthropological resources, is that this law also applied in cases where the deceased man had no single brothers.What does this mean? That levirate marriage could be a potential command to live monogamously or polygamously.I only bring this up, because yes, this is evidence of a divine mandate of a potentially polygamous marriage. The same cannot be said for same-sex marriages.
halconero Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 No, I see it as really taking care of someone that needed it. Not instituting polygamy as a commandment. ETA: And definitely not commanding polygamy as a way to gain exaltation or be damned if you don't live it.Wrong. It did. I can provide referencesAlso, it wasn't just about caring for someone. Raising seed was party of the duty. It was done to preserve the original man's inheritance and family. I would also argue that neglecting levirate marriage, and the associated duties with it, would merit God's condemnation. It certainly did for Onan, who was condemned for not raising seed up to his brother, and instead spilling it on the ground.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 My comment isn’t about speculating. My comment is about conflating personal revelation (an irrational process) with a personal socio-political analysis (a rational process) in a rational discussion about justifying doctrine. I usually don't ask for feedback, but to give your approach to discourse a try: Do you agree that in principle, this is a problem? A "Yes" or "No" will suffice.Related to this is the separate problem of someone teaching an admittedly speculative socio-political position (albeit ecclesiastical) as a spiritual principle that has received sanction from the Holy Spirit in the form of personal revelation. Do you agree that this can be a problem?Whether or how well any of us follow church teachings and policies in our callings and stewardships isn’t relevant to this discussion. I’m saying that when someone says their speculative position is informed by personal revelation for ministering to people struggling with SSA or the lack of temple SS“M”, I think there is a problem. Do you agree?Perhaps another way to frame this discussion is to look at how the Church brings people with SSA to Christ. I think the Church accomplishes that without resorting to a vague possibility that temple SS“M” might be in the offing. This demonstrates the difference between how Church doctrine is taught according to its scripures adn manuals etc. (and by the Spirit) and how socio-political arguments are made under the guise (intentional or not) of faith. Do you agree? Since the Church is not teaching a ban against temple SS“M”, answering the question would falsely insinuate that it does. The question I asked does not mention a "ban against temple SSM". Here it is again, after I answer your questions, maybe you'll provide me with the same courtesy: Did the Lord allow His servants the latitude to promulgate false teachings regarding those of African descent for about a century or are we to disregard the gospel topics article on LDS.org which now disavows and condemns those teachings? To your first question: No, I do not believe that discussing my personal religious beliefs (and their source) on a board of this type is a problem. I don't consider revelation to be an irrational process. Do you? Second question: It would be a problem if I taught my own beliefs as doctrine of the church. But I don't. And I don't claim that my personal revelations have any bearing on the church. Third question: No, I don't see a problem with anyone using personal revelation to minister to people. But your question is a bit vague. Are we talking about just random people or are we talking about, for example, a Bishop providing counsel in his official capacity with a homosexual member. Because, yes, in that case it would be a problem if the Bishop were to let personal revelation override the current teachings & practices of the church in what he said to that member. Fourth question: No, I don't agree. But you might need to clarify your question if you want a better answer from me. How would the church bringing gay people to Christ "without resorting to a vague possibility that temple SS“M” might be in the offing" demonstrate "how socio-political arguments are made under the guise (intentional or not) of faith"?
Tacenda Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Wrong. It did. I can provide referencesAlso, it wasn't just about caring for someone. Raising seed was party of the duty. It was done to preserve the original man's inheritance and family.I would also argue that neglecting levirate marriage, and the associated duties with it, would merit God's condemnation. It certainly did for Onan, who was condemned for not raising seed up to his brother, and instead spilling it on the ground.Without knowing if this brother was married or not, we therefore shouldn't assume. And if he isn't married than I can see how it was given to raise seed. Sorry to be such a pain Halconero. It's something that I cannot give up, the argument that polygamy isn't a commandment in the bible. It may be in LDS scripture, for sure. But not the bible, IMO. But I don't want to derail, I just want to compare the two. Acting out homosexuality and acting out polygamy, both in the bible. Both condemned at one time, IMO.
halconero Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Without knowing if this brother was married or not, we therefore shouldn't assume. And if he isn't married than I can see how it was given to raise seed. Sorry to be such a pain Halconero. It's something that I cannot give up, the argument that polygamy isn't a commandment in the bible. It may be in LDS scripture, for sure. But not the bible, IMO. But I don't want to derail, I just want to compare the two. Acting out homosexuality and acting out polygamy, both in the bible. Both condemned at one time, IMO.Don't stop being plain Tacenda! That's okay. I apologize for coming off as aggressive. For me this issue is both a relgious thing, but as an academic one as well, as it's part of the course load I'm taking in Uni.I guess, I'm not really understanding your point. Are you saying that you don't think this commandment applied to married men? Or that the scriptures are ambiguous about it, so why speculate?I won't derail anymore either, so I'll leave it at this. Maybe I'll make another thread so we can continue, but here is one final point.In the Law of Moses polygamy is permitted. We both can recognize that in this context it is not being commanded, but allowed.Levirate marriage was a mosaic commandment. Agreed?Within the context of the Books of Moses, levirate marriage would also apply to divinely sanctioned polygamy. In academia, the burden of proof would be on you to prove otherwise. Again, I can provide biblical and scholarly references to levirate marriage laws also extending to already married brothers. No where in scripture does it say "by the way, this is only applicable to single men." To suggest so is academically dishonest (academically dishonest is a specific term that doesn't call into question your morality, just FYI, Tacenda )To be continued elsewhere.
Calm Posted January 7, 2014 Author Posted January 7, 2014 No, I see it as really taking care of someone that needed it. Not instituting polygamy as a commandment. Except the idea was to provide an heir for the dead man. How would this be possible if the widow did not remarry?
Daniel2 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 The last I read of genetic twins doesn't support that. Please provide a link.Here are a few of the resources that compile multiple studies on the biological basis of human sexuality, including the twins studies:http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR561inh0M9cj4RQuSdVDcUKK7CQ2pntohttp://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0720613094http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199931585/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1389136156&sr=8-1π=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70I'm interested your sources that suggest otherwise, SS. Can you share them, as well?D
BlueDreams Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Here are a few of the resources that compile multiple studies on the biological basis of human sexuality, including the twins studies:http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR561inh0M9cj4RQuSdVDcUKK7CQ2pntohttp://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0720613094http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199931585/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1389136156&sr=8-1π=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70I'm interested your sources that suggest otherwise, SS. Can you share them, as well?D TSS can talk for himself, but from what I've read/heard I've heard likewise as he has. There's a growing idea of both the potential fluidity of sexuality and also a more multidimensional outlook to sexual orientation/attraction that gives a nod to more social aspects as well as biological influence. And also that there is a distinction between orientation and identity. From what I've seen from raw numbers, this would be more in the realm of active theory than concrete fact. The same numbers can be used to point out that there are social influences (for example, the twin studies have also compared adopted siblings....their percentage is strangely slightly higher, indicating that there's more than a genetic trigger at play). Plus there is plenty that the twin studies just can't control when it comes to other influences. Either way, at least on my end from what I've seen, there isn't an actual consensus as to what "causes" sexuality. It's a study that is heavily influenced by both field of study (for example, I expected that all of the researcher you'd give, before looking, would be from those with a strong biological bend....I was not disappointed in this) and the political climate. The issue is sharply polarized and the conclusions/use of data from either end very well shows it. Human sexuality is not a matter of purely biological trigger and function. It's heavily ingrained, expressed, and interpreted by our psyche and society. From my perspective, if it deals with people/human behavior, research in this cannot find cause only correlation and to state otherwise is to go beyond the capacity of psychological study. I wish I could give objective resources, but it comes largely from my schooling and interests over the years. To say that there isn't any influence from biology/genetics is wrong...but to lay sexual orientation solely to the cause of biological triggers/genetics is also incorrect. With luv,BD
CV75 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 The question I asked does not mention a "ban against temple SSM". Here it is again, after I answer your questions, maybe you'll provide me with the same courtesy: Did the Lord allow His servants the latitude to promulgate false teachings regarding those of African descent for about a century or are we to disregard the gospel topics article on LDS.org which now disavows and condemns those teachings?Because you refer to the African issue in your question repeated above as a "ban" (for example, see your posts on pages 5 and 6), and your argument has been to are compare the Church's stance on SS“M” to that, I can only take your question in context of this discussion as an insinuation that the Church teaches a ban against SS“M”, and I can't go along with that.The Church doesn't reach a ban on SS“M”. It teaches marriage. When asked to clarify if this includes same-sex "marriage" the Church will clarify its position. This is not the same as teaching a ban (or now that I think of it, not the same as a false teaching for that matter). You may call it teaching a ban or a false teaching because you don't like the answer, but the question was irrelevant in relation to what the Church teaches about marriage.The use of Elder Holland's wrong road story only works if those in the car are heading down the path to a dead end in good faith, not grousing about whether that path is really the right one or not. The Lord's annointed drive the car in good faith; we (and the rest of the world, for that matter) are the passengers in good faith. Had Elder Holland and his son complained about the road they were on, stopped, argued, went too fast, turned around too impatiently--whatever malcontented people do while they're driving--they would not have derived the benefits of their proper attitude or unity and bonding while driving down the so-called "wrong road". Had they chosen the "right" road without or against the answer to prayer, or turned around too soon, they may well have run into a danger that their time on the "wrong" road spared them, or permitted Providence to remove.
rockpond Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Because you refer to the African issue in your question repeated above as a "ban" (for example, see your posts on pages 5 and 6), and your argument has been to are compare the Church's stance on SS“M” to that, I can only take your question in context of this discussion as an insinuation that the Church teaches a ban against SS“M”, and I can't go along with that.The Church doesn't reach a ban on SS“M”. It teaches marriage. When asked to clarify if this includes same-sex "marriage" the Church will clarify its position. This is not the same as teaching a ban (or now that I think of it, not the same as a false teaching for that matter). You may call it teaching a ban or a false teaching because you don't like the answer, but the question was irrelevant in relation to what the Church teaches about marriage.The use of Elder Holland's wrong road story only works if those in the car are heading down the path to a dead end in good faith, not grousing about whether that path is really the right one or not. The Lord's annointed drive the car in good faith; we (and the rest of the world, for that matter) are the passengers in good faith. Had Elder Holland and his son complained about the road they were on, stopped, argued, went too fast, turned around too impatiently--whatever malcontented people do while they're driving--they would not have derived the benefits of their proper attitude or unity and bonding while driving down the so-called "wrong road". Had they chosen the "right" road without or against the answer to prayer, or turned around too soon, they may well have run into a danger that their time on the "wrong" road spared them, or permitted Providence to remove. I assure you, I'm heading down the path in good faith. And you are still unwilling to answer the question. Your excuses are noted.
Mystery Meat Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Here is my question....Is it possible that homosexuality and attractions to those of the same gender is in large part biologically influenced and still a sin? I ask because my thoughts (after much reading since a discussion I had with California Boy a few weeks ago on this board) have changed dramatically on causes of same sex attraction.
rockpond Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Here is my question....Is it possible that homosexuality and attractions to those of the same gender is in large part biologically influenced and still a sin? I think that there are biologically influenced attractions that are sinful to act upon. But God hasn't spoken on whether or not homosexuality within the bounds of marriage is sinful.
Mystery Meat Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I think that there are biologically influenced attractions that are sinful to act upon. But God hasn't spoken on whether or not homosexuality within the bounds of marriage is sinful. Really? If we believe Amos 3:7 and that prophets (or apostles) have authority to speak on behalf of the Lord then I think he has.
Danzo Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I think that there are biologically influenced attractions that are sinful to act upon. But God hasn't spoken on whether or not homosexuality within the bounds of marriage is sinful. The mental gymnastics required for this conclusion are amazing!
rockpond Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Really? If we believe Amos 3:7 and that prophets (or apostles) have authority to speak on behalf of the Lord then I think he has. Amos 3:7 says that prophets and apostles have the authority to speak on behalf of the Lord? I don't see that in the verse.
Mystery Meat Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 The mental gymnastics required for this conclusion are amazing! Agreed. I think the only possible way to reach it would be to simply conclude that prophets and apostles dating back to old testament times (at least the days of Abraham) were only expressing their opinions on the matter. Which is fine, but I think that is wrong.
Mystery Meat Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Amos 3:7 says that prophets and apostles have the authority to speak on behalf of the Lord? I don't see that in the verse. Look again. The prophetic authority to speak on behalf of the Lord is Mormonism 101. I am not sure how you get around it or what the church would look like without it.
rockpond Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 The mental gymnastics required for this conclusion are amazing! I'm open to being shown where God has spoken on the matter.
Mystery Meat Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Rockpond, even if you are not satisfied with Amos 3:7 (which I think says exactly what I said it does), please refer to D&C 1:38 and D&C 133:71 for more scriptural support for the proposition that prophets and apostles have the authority to speak on behalf of the Lord. I am not sure how you get around this one.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.