First The Nfl, Now Disney...

[rockpond]

In an earlier post I talked about a deaf brother that concluded that he never wanted to hear; that being deaf was perfect for him; he could conceive of no other way of being. He became so attached to his present that he could not envision a possible change after this life. 

 

To sell our inheritance is when we become solely focused on mortality, we are attached to the now, which is necessarily a carnal existence. We cannot seem to separate ourselves from our carnal existence. What is worse is we conclude that the carnal is the ultimate form of existence. I have read many times on this Forum from gay individuals that there is no joy is the possibility that they may not be gay in the eternities.  I think that perception is a deception. I believe that there is something greater for each of us. I also don't think that we have a good handle on what that will look like. I can say that we will be one with Christ, but the words are more easily written than understood. 

 

I agree that we probably don't have a good handle on what it will look like.

 

But, one of the main tenets of our faith is that we are here on earth to create an eternal relationship with our spouse, correct?  Given that, can you see the pain and dissonance that is created for a gay member of the church who is told that the love they feel during this mortal existence doesn't carry over into the next life.  How would you feel if the love that you have for your spouse, wasn't going to exist after you pass through the veil?  Probably unimaginable, right?

[california boy]

 

You stated clearly that you believe gay people are born gay.  Do you believe that gay people need to change?  If so, what do they need to change?

 

I believe that we all will change regardless of gender or sexual preference. We all need to change and I don't think any of us needs to become so attached to our way of being or thinking that we think there is not a need for change. I think what you want to ask is do I think a gay person's sexual preference will or must change in the eternities. My answer is that I believe that God made male and female and that they joined together will be one. I think this union has an eternal value. Why does our Father in Heaven create gay people if they will not easily participate in this union? I have no clue what God has in store, but having put such difficult trials or burdens and that have confused so many people, I believe God will make it right. I honestly do not have a definitive answer to the question will a gay person lose their sexual preference.  It is easier for me to conceive that I may, through Christ, be changed completely in the eternities. This process of change will occur for each follower of Christ. Sexual preference as a focus loses its import in that context.  

 

Thanks for answering my question. Sometimes it is fun to speculate on things we know nothing about.  Like you, I to believe that God created man and women for a purpose.  Perhaps it is for the reasons you stated and perhaps a gay person can not participate in the eternities in the same way a straight couple does.  We really don't know.  

 

Perhaps God created gay people for an entirely different purpose and path.  Maybe not all souls want to have eternal increase.  And maybe not having eternal increase does not mean that gay children of God still have a wonderful eternity ahead of them. It may take a person of the opposite sex to have eternal increase, but it does not take a woman to create worlds without number.  At least what is recorded is that it was the male gods that created this earth.

 

I am very comfortable in my own skin.  I feel a peace with God that I never felt when I struggled so diligently trying to pretend I was straight.  I often think of the scripture, "Wickedness never was happiness."  It reassures me that I am on the path that was given to me by God, just as when you are on the path that God gave you to follow, you too feel a peace and happiness within your soul.  

 

You feel that those who are gay are deceived in thinking they will not change.  But you have absolutely no proof, revelation or doctrine to make such a statement.  We are on a different path is all.  God has something different for us if we just but learn also, to be more Christlike in this life.  "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto your own understanding."  It is what He has asked us to do.  I am ok with that.  And I am sure you are ok with the direction your soul is headed as well.

[Storm Rider]

I agree that we probably don't have a good handle on what it will look like.

 

But, one of the main tenets of our faith is that we are here on earth to create an eternal relationship with our spouse, correct?  Given that, can you see the pain and dissonance that is created for a gay member of the church who is told that the love they feel during this mortal existence doesn't carry over into the next life.  How would you feel if the love that you have for your spouse, wasn't going to exist after you pass through the veil?  Probably unimaginable, right?

 

I do see the dissonance and it is one of the things that confuses me. One side of me says you cannot take a sterile relationship i.e. one between two individuals of the same sex, and make it creative. It does not work using my mortal mind. The other side of me says I don't know how things will actually work out, but I have faith that all will be well and all the pain will be washed away.  

 

One of the things that I am trying to do is be as open to the will of God as possible.  A mortal mind can only conceive of so much and then our mind shuts down; we are incapable of seeing more. I don't know what each of us will be doing in the afterlife, but I have faith that each of us will be joyful with our place in his Kingdom.  I don't want to shut any doors on God's love and mercy. I think it is sad when we limit God's mercy or demand that God meet our desires and needs.  He has a unique way of molding the hearts of his disciples to reflect his will....or they are sadly no longer are his disciples.

 

There is a process of conforming to God's will.  We each need to be open to that process even though it will may be painful at times. Even Jesus asked that the Father's cup pass from him because of the pain.  IF, that is a big if, God said do "this" or when he demands a specific sacrifice of some of our members should we stand on the sidelines and say you don't have to do that and offer all kinds of reasons why it is unfair?  This seems counter-productive and short-sighted.

 

Can God create me a gay man and demand that I not experience my mortal sexuality? Fundamentally, I want to say that God and do anything he wants; however, would it be fair for God to do that?  I believe that self-sacrifice is a major part of being a disciple of Christ; but typically self-sacrifice is demanded in curbing our carnal desires and not completely forfeiting them, which is what the Church teaches its members.  We curb our personal aberrations and excesses, but we remain a sexual being. A gay brother or sister does not have that option in the Church.  Is that a price too high or is it an unrealistic expectation of these members?  

 

I am positive that some members hit this wall and conclude it is too high a price to pay.  They accept their sexual being and are not interested in curbing these desires.  I also think that there are other members who fight against these desires.  Some never marry and some do marry, but the desires are seldom, if ever, fully nullified.  

 

I don't have an answer for every individual's situation.  For me I know that I am called to follow Him and He is my Master and Savior. I am not willing to judge how others obey God in this life, but I am willing to proclaim that we each of us needs to be open to be changed and perfected through Christ. I have not and will not define what that change will be.  I remain convinced that we each will have our own little place that will fully meet our needs and we will be overjoyed with his mercy and grace.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for answering my question. Sometimes it is fun to speculate on things we know nothing about.  Like you, I to believe that God created man and women for a purpose.  Perhaps it is for the reasons you stated and perhaps a gay person can not participate in the eternities in the same way a straight couple does.  We really don't know.  

 

Perhaps God created gay people for an entirely different purpose and path.  Maybe not all souls want to have eternal increase.  And maybe not having eternal increase does not mean that gay children of God still have a wonderful eternity ahead of them. It may take a person of the opposite sex to have eternal increase, but it does not take a woman to create worlds without number.  At least what is recorded is that it was the male gods that created this earth.

 

I am very comfortable in my own skin.  I feel a peace with God that I never felt when I struggled so diligently trying to pretend I was straight.  I often think of the scripture, "Wickedness never was happiness."  It reassures me that I am on the path that was given to me by God, just as when you are on the path that God gave you to follow, you too feel a peace and happiness within your soul.  

 

You feel that those who are gay are deceived in thinking they will not change.  But you have absolutely no proof, revelation or doctrine to make such a statement.  We are on a different path is all.  God has something different for us if we just but learn also, to be more Christlike in this life.  "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto your own understanding."  It is what He has asked us to do.  I am ok with that.  And I am sure you are ok with the direction your soul is headed as well.

 

Do you have any proof, revelation, or doctrine that clarifies that man will not change, will not be perfected after this life? Just one will do. How many references or teachings do you want that addresses the concept that man will become one with God, that we will be perfected and changed?

[california boy]

Do you have any proof, revelation, or doctrine that clarifies that man will not change, will not be perfected after this life? Just one will do. How many references or teachings do you want that addresses the concept that man will become one with God, that we will be perfected and changed?

Joseph Smith taught "Life and work and activity all continue in the spirit world. Men have the same talents and intelligence there which they had in this life. They possess the same attitudes, inclinations, and feelings there which they had in this life" 

 

It makes sense to me.  If you are evil in this life, there is not going to be some magic wand that will make you righteous.  I don't think there will be a magic wand that will make me straight either.  

 

We both believe that we will be perfected in the next life.  The question is: What does that mean?  No one knows the answer to that question.  

[Gray]

Any and all statements about the afterlife must be by nature speculative. But I  see no reason why God would destroy anyone's relationships.

[thesometimesaint]

Any and all statements about the afterlife must be by nature speculative. But I  see no reason why God would destroy anyone's relationships.

 

God will destroy any relationship that is put before our relationship to him.

[Gray]

God will destroy any relationship that is put before our relationship to him.

 

I don't think God is that insecure.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think God is that insecure.

 

I don't think he is insecure at all. However God clearly taught that in the New Testament.

SEE Matthew 10:37

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[Sleeper Cell]

I'm saying that LDS cultural biases and beliefs against gay relationships affect what Latter-day Saints believe is God's view of them (namely, a familial rejection of same-gender relationships and those who form such partnerships). Though I'm aware you'll likely disagree, I believe people most often create God in their own image.

 

Do you believe that your own biases and beliefs about gay relationships don’t affect what you believe is God‘s view?

 

Of course, the beliefs of Latter-day Saints are affected by cultural biases.  They are also affected by the scriptures, the Proclamation on the Family, and the teachings of those whom they believe are authorized by God to speak for Him.

[Gray]

I don't think he is insecure at all. However God clearly taught that in the New Testament.

SEE Matthew 10:37

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

It's one of the more particular as opposed to universal teachings ascribed to Jesus. But I'm not sure I think it's true (assuming it was ever said by Jesus). 

[thesometimesaint]

It's one of the more particular as opposed to universal teachings ascribed to Jesus. But I'm not sure I think it's true (assuming it was ever said by Jesus). 

 

It is repeated through out the Scriptures. It is one our basic tenets. It's a thy will not my will thing.

[Gray]

It is repeated through out the Scriptures. It is one our basic tenets. It's a thy will not my will thing.

 

It doesn't ring true to me. I don't know that it's a basic tenet. It's somewhat obscure. 

[thesometimesaint]

It doesn't ring true to me. I don't know that it's a basic tenet. It's somewhat obscure. 

 

About as obscure as a Mack truck. We dedicate everything, including our will, to God. Whom gives it back again when we follow his will.

[Gray]

About as obscure as a Mack truck. We dedicate everything, including our will, to God. Whom gives it back again when we follow his will.

 

That's not quite the same thing as "God will destroy any relationship that is put before our relationship to him." As a father, I can't imagine a being higher than me doing such a thing. 

 

I don't think it's accurate to say we "dedicate our will to God." That sounds like God is asking us to give up our free agency, one of our most precious gifts. I think God expects us to to seek truth and goodness - once we've found that, we're automatically on the same page with God. 

[Daniel2]

Do you believe that your own biases and beliefs about gay relationships don’t affect what you believe is God‘s view?

Of course my biases and beliefs affect what I believe about God.

But here's the huge difference: my biases and beliefs about God or gay relationships aren't a stumbling block that prevent me from fully accepting any of my LDS family members and their significant others (including two family members who "have SSA" but have chosen mixed orientation LDS marriages). I have no reservations about hanging out with them, together with their spouses and their children. I don't worry about exposing my children to their LDS lifestyle, let alone being concerned about leaving my kids in their care. I willingly attend, acknowledge, and celebrate their weddings and anniversaries, even though I must wait outside the temple. I kneel and bow my head in respect during family prayers, and even read scriptures and attend church with my LDS family. I accept them and love them and interact with them just as they are.

Unfortunately, for most of my family, that is only a one-way street. Most of my siblings are threatened by the thought of "exposing" their children to my boyfriend (even when we don't have any physical interaction around them). He is not welcome or invited to family events. My family have made it clear they will not support or attend any marriage, and avoid discussion about and withhold any support of any of my relationships.

That key difference--that stumbling block within the church--was my point in the initial post that we're now discussing.

This is also my motivation to continually post here. I hope to effect change. I have a teenage gay nephew who's parents (my brother and his wife) are fervently against him "choosing to be gay." He will likely face rejection from his family should he ever come out. I am concerned about my own children's mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health, should any of them end up being gay. My hope and intent is to work for a world where gays, lesbians, Latter-day Saints, and everyone else can live, let live, love, and accept one another.

People often scornfully deride "the gay agenda" by saying "what they REALLY want is acceptance!" As if that's something evil or has some subversive, nefarious purpose. Well, a large part of the gay agenda IS about acceptance---but there's nothing nefarious or covert about it. We yearn for familial love and acceptance just as much as everyone else--and families are what's most important in life.

Daniel

[Damien the Leper]

Rejoice in wickeness!  Wallow in the mire!  Dance as all things good that don't bow down to your altar burn!

 

Rather dramatic and greatly exaggerated.

[strappinglad]

Then again we have this problem: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-pride-nudity-school-trustees-seek-clarification-133849944.html

[Sleeper Cell]

Of course my biases and beliefs affect what I believe about God.

But here's the huge difference: my biases and beliefs about God or gay relationships aren't a stumbling block that prevent me from fully accepting any of my LDS family members and their significant others (including two family members who "have SSA" but have chosen mixed orientation LDS marriages). I have no reservations about hanging out with them, together with their spouses and their children. I don't worry about exposing my children to their LDS lifestyle, let alone being concerned about leaving my kids in their care. I willingly attend, acknowledge, and celebrate their weddings and anniversaries, even though I must wait outside the temple. I kneel and bow my head in respect during family prayers, and even read scriptures and attend church with my LDS family. I accept them and love them and interact with them just as they are.

Unfortunately, for most of my family, that is only a one-way street. Most of my siblings are threatened by the thought of "exposing" their children to my boyfriend (even when we don't have any physical interaction around them). He is not welcome or invited to family events. My family have made it clear they will not support or attend any marriage, and avoid discussion about and withhold any support of any of my relationships.

That key difference--that stumbling block within the church--was my point in the initial post that we're now discussing.

This is also my motivation to continually post here. I hope to effect change. I have a teenage gay nephew who's parents (my brother and his wife) are fervently against him "choosing to be gay." He will likely face rejection from his family should he ever come out. I am concerned about my own children's mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health, should any of them end up being gay. My hope and intent is to work for a world where gays, lesbians, Latter-day Saints, and everyone else can live, let live, love, and accept one another.

People often scornfully deride "the gay agenda" by saying "what they REALLY want is acceptance!" As if that's something evil or has some subversive, nefarious purpose. Well, a large part of the gay agenda IS about acceptance---but there's nothing nefarious or covert about it. We yearn for familial love and acceptance just as much as everyone else--and families are what's most important in life.

Daniel

 

There is nothing nefarious about yearning for acceptance. Trying to coerce acceptance is a different matter.  The “gay agenda” used to be all about “live and let live” and “what two adults do in private …”  Now its “if you want to stay in business, you must facilitate and even participate in private events which you believe make a mockery of that which you hold sacred.  Otherwise, give up the business you have spent a lifetime building (along with your financial security).”  So much for “live and let live” and “acceptance.”  

 

 BTW, since legal and financial troubles cause considerable marital stress, so much for the argument that legalization of “gay marriage” will not affect anyone else’s marriage.

[Sleeper Cell]

Of course my biases and beliefs affect what I believe about God.

But here's the huge difference: my biases and beliefs about God or gay relationships aren't a stumbling block that prevent me from fully accepting any of my LDS family members and their significant others  ...

 

 

But they are. How can you say you fully accept someone when, in the same breath, you call their deeply held religious beliefs a “stumbling block” to your relationship? How can you say that  “I accept them and love them and interact with them just as they are,” then a couple of paragraphs later say that you want to “effect change?”   

 

I am trying to tread as lightly as possible on the subject of your particular family situation (it must be intensely painful for all concerned, and I know little about it, in any case).  But based on what you said, your family appears to be trying to do their best to accept you, personally,  without supporting those aspects of your  behavior which they believe are fundamentally immoral  From their prospective, your belief that your behavior is not a sin (coupled with your belief that  they should support your choice to engage in that behavior) -- created the stumbling block and they are doing the best they can to work around it by including you in family activities, while trying to avoid occasions for conflict.  Based on what you have said, I do not agree with their avoiding discussions and excluding your boyfriend from all family events.  But is it reasonable to believe that someone should support what they consider to be immoral behavior and, if they don’t, blame their beliefs -- rather than your beliefs -- for the resulting “stumbling block?“  

 

I suppose the real test is how I would feel if I were “the odd man out” in an analogous family situation.   As a practical matter, I may not have done as well as you have.  However,  I would not expect an evangelical Christian preacher to support his son’s  LDS baptism or a deeply committed pacifist to attend his son’s West Point graduation.  Nor would I expect my family to attend the wedding  or wedding reception for my polygamous marriage to a 16 year old girl, even if it were legal.  

[thesometimesaint]

That's not quite the same thing as "God will destroy any relationship that is put before our relationship to him." As a father, I can't imagine a being higher than me doing such a thing. 

 

I don't think it's accurate to say we "dedicate our will to God." That sounds like God is asking us to give up our free agency, one of our most precious gifts. I think God expects us to to seek truth and goodness - once we've found that, we're automatically on the same page with God. 

 

But that is exactly what the Scriptures say.

 

Jesus had his Agency. He could choose. He chose "Not my will, but thy will be done"

[Daniel2]

But they are. How can you say you fully accept someone when, in the same breath, you call their deeply held religious beliefs a “stumbling block” to your relationship? How can you say that “I accept them and love them and interact with them just as they are,” then a couple of paragraphs later say that you want to “effect change?”

Because I do not ask them to change any of their behavior or exclude any of their family members (even those I disagree with) in order for them to associate or interact with me.

While I hope for change within LDS culture, and that is one of my primary purposes in posting here, I do not ask my family to change anything about their relationships. I allow they and the exercise of their religion into my life fully, without any immediate change.

That's the difference. My boyfriend is excluded. In order to attend family functions, I must choose between attending alone and leaving him at home, or staying away, myself.

My beliefs require no such sacrifice from my family. They pray in my presence. I participate. They worship as a family. I attend alongside them. I associate openly and freely with every member of their families, and all are welcome in my home.

Yet my boyfriend cannot even appear in front of them and their families without angry outbursts and causing either they or I to leave.

No. I do not buy the argument that my beliefs are a stumbling block from fully accepting them or their relationships in even a fraction of the way that their beliefs are a stumbling block to accepting me and mine.

[thesometimesaint]

Because I do not ask them to change any of their behavior or exclude any of their family members (even those I disagree with) in order for them to associate or interact with me.

While I hope for change within LDS culture, and that is one of my primary purposes in posting here, I do not ask my family to change anything about their relationships. I allow they and the exercise of their religion into my life fully, without any immediate change.

That's the difference. My boyfriend is excluded. In order to attend family functions, I must choose between attending alone and leaving him at home, or staying away, myself.

My beliefs require no such sacrifice from my family. They pray in my presence. I participate. They worship as a family. I attend alongside them. I associate openly and freely with every member of their families, and all are welcome in my home.

Yet my boyfriend cannot even appear in front of them and their families without angry outbursts and causing either they or I to leave.

No. I do not buy the argument that my beliefs are a stumbling block from fully accepting them or their relationships in even a fraction of the way that their beliefs are a stumbling block to accepting me and mine.

 

That is sad. No one should use the behavior someone else as an excuse for their misbehavior. IE; Just be polite.

[Gray]

But that is exactly what the Scriptures say.

 

Jesus had his Agency. He could choose. He chose "Not my will, but thy will be done"

 

I was taking issue with your phrasing specifically. With respect I hope!

 

You yourself have pointed out that the scriptures on many occasions err. I'm surprised to see you make a "because the scriptures said so" argument. 

[CV75]

For years, members on these boards have suggested that as homosexuality becomes more socially accepted, organizations like the BSA and the LDS Faith will experience increasing social pressure to change.

The NFL'S pressure in Arizona was one such example that echoed the pressure that BYU football experienced over the church's racial policies of the 70's. And likely foreshadowed what is to come, regarding its policies on gays and lesbians.

Now, after its recent first lesbian couple in prime time kids' programming, Disney has joined the growing number of corporations that have entered the fray against the BSA:

The world is changing fast. I figured it's worth a head's up that, IMO, this is the type of pressure that will ultimately change the LDS Faith, as well.

 

Here's another conseqeunce of the pressure (since we're talking about the entertainment industry):

 

We got rid of cable quite awhile ago; we've been using online streaming servcies on our TV to pick and chosoe what we watch; and I just discovered how to hook it up to the antenna (TV has a digital/analog converter box). So we were flipping throught TV shows Friday night and came across "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"

 

Here's the scenario we came across: "Bill and Joe (whoever tha stars are), you are newlyweds on a flight to Hawaii; Jill and Jane, you will be the stage props since we can't afford real props..."

 

I never saw a less enthusiastic "newlywed" couple on a game show. In days past, there would have been a lot of humor and joking and silliness about being newlyweds. Not these SS newlyweds. They had the "dead eye" stare, wouldn't look at each other--not even a smile--and staunchily took their roles very, very seriously. No fun at all. It was as if this world-weary pair had tolerated each other for decades nd were living parallel lives.

 

OK I get it. We have to take SS"M" as a sacrament and it's off-limits to any humorous potential for improvisational prime-time situation comedy. The consequence is that TV has to suck the life out of what was once very fertile gound for uplifting entertainment and show families that marriage really isn't about love after all.