My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Gray]

Such as.....?

 

Oral sex

Contraception

Mixed-race marriage

Polygamous marriage 

[Benjamin McGuire]

ksfisher -

 

Don't you think though that for some it may well reasonably apply? That is the ambiguity. Given that we have members already who have undergone non-voluntary gender assignment surgery, we can conclude that it is quite likely that we have an eternally gendered woman, who is sealed in mortality to a woman, who hold the priesthood, and has become a father in Zion as a biological man. The ambiguity already exists, even if we do not and cannot produce a meaningful way to address it.

[Daniel2]

Sure, the Bible counts, but we have few examples within the Bible. Some of those are included in the Law of Moses, and the rest were written by Paul, who we don't always see eye to eye with as a people, anyway.

 

In any case, what's changing people's hearts on this is not what prooftexts aren't or are in a certain scripture, but what we encounter in real life with our families and friends. We encounter gay people living in these committed relationships and we see ourselves reflected in the mirror. They're just like us. An evil tree can't bring forth good fruit. The good principles we learned in the scriptures (the universal principles that all holy books seem to teach) are the same ones that are telling us we've been wrong about this issue. 

 

Mormons as a people are accustomed to following the spirit and listening to our hearts. That's why I think eventually we'll all change on this issue.

Just wanted to say kudos for the post, Gray. This is a topic that frequently brings up negativity and hard feelings. I appreciate the positive tone and emphasis in this post.

[wenglund]

The best way for most gay folks to find fulfillment and happiness in this life is to seek out a committed relationship with someone they are attracted to. It turns out they're not so different from us straight folks. 

 

So you and others may say.

 

However, reasonable people disagree, and believe that homosexual behaviors and relationships are deleterious,in spiritually and other respects. And, logically, their loving positions are governed accordingly. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

So you and others may say.

 

However, reasonable people disagree, and believe that homosexual behaviors and relationships are deleterious,in spiritually and other respects. And, logically, their loving positions are governed accordingly. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  Do you disagree based on evidence, studies, science, social studies, etc?  Or do you disagree because the LDS Church takes this position?

Edited April 7, 2014 by Teancum

[Gray]

Just wanted to say kudos for the post, Gray. This is a topic that frequently brings up negativity and hard feelings. I appreciate the positive tone and emphasis in this post.

 

Thanks Daniel, that is very much appreciated

[wenglund]

Here's the deal Wade.  I asked if prophets and apostles are infallible when someone here was using a position given that they felt backed up their argument.  Essentially the argument was "Because the LDS Leaders say so."  So I asked if they were infallible.  You came back and said "As Compared to You?"  I thought that was snarky.   

 

My question certainly wasn't intended to be snarky any more than I considered your question to be snarky, but I can't control for other people's hyper-sensitivity.

 

If you think it wasn't then fine but I don't claim revelation and expect millions to follow what I say. I don't make arguments like "Because President Monson said so."

 

So? I hadn't thought that you had claimed those thing or made that alleged argument. My question wasn't loaded up with such preconceptions. Rather, it was intentionally left open-ended so as spur healthy discussion and perhaps add perspective.

 

One poster here thinks my posts are not at all relevant to the discussion.  I think they are.

 

That is between you and the other participant. Not me.

 

When asked about the logic of the of the Church's policies one proposition is the eternal nature of men and women.  Another is God commands and too bad we have weaknesses and problems in this life.  Your job is to be tested and tried.  That is when I started discussing the reasoning and logic behind evil and suffering of which the weakness of the human condition is part of.

 

Okay?

 

One ornery poster basically accused my of simply wanting easy street.  Of course that was not my point.

 

Again, that has nothing directly to do with me and my question to you.

 

The point is reconciling a loving God, the type of God we and to some extent, the rest of the Christian world believes in (though we differ in many aspects) . Then I was told basically that all this has been discussed before and WHY AM I EVEN POSTING here.  This poster was also very flippant about what I believe are honest questions.

 

Again, this has nothing to do with me and my simple question to you.

 

Anyway , I will bow out of this thread.  Maybe if I have the energy at some point and if you sincerely have an interest I will start a thread on the problem of evil and suffering and why I think the various theodicy’s are lacking. I am not an expert on this but I am reading on it. A current easy light book on the subject is called God's Problem. It’s by Bart Ehrman.

 

That is fine, though all I really wanted here was a simple answer to my simple and straightforward question. All the drama and accusation you leveled against me were unwarranted, and you need to own up to that. I can respect, however, your decision to bow out of this thread. Have a nice day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

  Do you disagree based on evidence, studies, science, social studies, etc?  Or do you disagree because the LDS Church takes this position?

 

Both, and then some.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

Both, and then some.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Ok Wade I am sorry if I misread you.  I will attempt to be thicker skinned.

 

To answer your question.

 

I asked are LDS leaders infallible?  You asked "As compared to you?" 

 

Since I allegedly have the same path to God as they do then I would say we are equally fallible.  I certianly don't claim not to be.  Nor do I ask people to follow me as the LDS leader ask us to follow them with teachings like:

 

Follow the brethren and you won't go wrong.

Always follow the prophet and if they tell you to do something wrong it will be credited to you for righteousness. But don't worry the Lord won't let the prophet lead you astray.

That conference talks are equal to the canon.

 

That is the difference. It seems to me that LDS leaders demand we follow them but then when something is said that is unsavory or bad then they plead that they are not infallible.

 

We have seen progression and out right changes in the Church.  On the topic of this thread though I do not think the Church will ever change, Indeed they cannot based on the doctrine.   A homosexual who feels they cannot be celibate really has no place in the LDS Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

On the topic of this thread though I do not think the Church will ever change, Indeed they cannot based on the doctrine.   A homosexual who feels they cannot be celibate really has no place in the LDS Church.

Such a one need not feel he is incapable of living the commandments of God. If he comes to understand that, he does indeed have a place in the Church.

 

People can and do change, and they can and do overcome ungodly tendencies and desires.

 

This reminds me of one of the talks given in the priesthood session. This is from my brief summary report:

 

The purpose of general conference is only fulfilled if listeners are willing to act and to change, Elder Donald L. Hallstrom of the Presidency of the Seventy said in his priesthood session sermon of general conference.

He told of being a bishop in the Church and counseling a man about challenges in the man’s life. The man responded, “Bishop, I have a bad temper, and that’s just the way I am!”

“That statement stunned me that night and has haunted me ever since,” Elder Hallstrom reflected. “Once this man decided – once any of us conclude – ‘That’s just the way I am,’ we give up our ability to change. We might as well raise the white flag, put down our weapons, concede the battle and just surrender – any prospect of winning is lost. While some of us may think that does not describe ourselves, perhaps every one of us demonstrates by at least one or two bad habits, ‘That’s just the way I am.’”

He said that the congregation was attending the priesthood meeting “because who we are is not who we can become.

 

Edited April 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

Ok Wade I am sorry if I misread you.  I will attempt to be thicker skinned.

 

To answer your question.

 

I asked are LDS leaders infallible?  You asked "As compared to you?" 

 

Since I allegedly have the same path to God as they do then I would say we are equally fallible. 

 

I appreciate you answering, and I hope you don't mind a follow-up question for clarification. When you speak of "the same path," are you referring to the path of salvation, and/or are you referring to communicative and authoritative paths to God?

 

I ask because, from my own perspective of myself in comparison to Church leaders, I consider myself more vulnerable to fallibility than them since I lack certain keys or levels of responsibility they have that may necessitate unique, if not greater communicative access to God as well as greater certitude in those communications, not to mention their plausibly having greater instructive life experiences and have advanced further on the path of faith than me, and may even several respect be more worthy than me, to name a few.

 

I find my circumstances to be beneficially humbling and somewhat more trusting of those I believe God has called to lead me.

 

And, I trust that other members may be similarly disposed, thus putting the supposed arguement, "...because the leaders said so," in context.

 

In short, we logically look to our leaders for guidance and direction because we somewhat humbly trust more in them than ourselves and view them as less vulnerable to fallibility than ourselves, even though we don't view them as infallible.

 

You evidently see it otherwise, though I wouldn't have know for certain without asking.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

A homosexual who feels they cannot be celibate really has no place in the LDS Church.

 

...or said another way, the Church has no meaningful place in them.

 

Again, this dynamic isn't restricted to homosexuals. It applies to any and all whose behaviors and beliefs divert substantially from the path and end goal of the Church/gospel.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

  Do you disagree based on evidence, studies, science, social studies, etc?  Or do you disagree because the LDS Church takes this position?

 

What evidence would Teancum offer in support of each, any or all of the following:

 

1.  Homosexuals comprise 10% of any given population.

2.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to be a genetic disposition.

3.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to be both inborn and immutable.

4.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to male on male/female on female child sexual abuse.

5.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to promiscuity.

6.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to venereal diseases.

7.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to suicides/suicide attempts.

8.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to poor school performance.

9.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to low life expectancy.

10.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to mental health problems.

 

And then, please, follow up your response with a statement whether your position is based upon evidence, studies, science, social studies, etc, and whether your position is knee-jerk trendy-lefty, or reasoned and evidence based.

[Deborah]

Oral sex

Contraception

Mixed-race marriage

Polygamous marriage 

 

Contraception was never considered sin, nor was mixed race marriage, though it was counseled agains because of societal pressures and prejudices at the time. Polygamous marriage wasn't a sin and is only considered wrong if not authorized. Oral sex? Seriously? As I recall the message was always what goes on between a husband and wife is between them.

[USU78]

I'm not sure that's a good model for living your life

 

Cowardice and wishywashy morals are preferable, in your view?

[CV75]

It's not painful for me to live the commandments. It's pretty easy. But then again I'm not gay. 

Those that say that some folks are inherently different from other folks in their ability to access the healing, strengthening and enabling power of the Atonement through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel are bigoted.

[Daniel2]

Cowardice and wishywashy morals are preferable, in your view?

Somewhere beyond the mudslinging that comes from name calling--whether it be condemnations of "Bigotry!" OR "Cowardice and loose morals!"--lies the path of grace and mutual respect.

Daniel

Edited April 8, 2014 by Daniel2

[CV75]

Somewhere beyond the mudslinging that comes from name calling--whether it be condemnations of "Bigotry!" OR Cowardice and loose morals!"--lies the path of grace and mutual respect.

Daniel

But it is true that it is a bigoted thing to say that keeping the commandments is harder for a gay person than a straight person, simply because of sexual orientation, all other things about their makeup being equal. It is a thing of grace to tell this truth and so honor the inherent dignity of all God's children.

 

I refer you to this past conference's talks about the "Comfortable God" and "sleeping through the Restoration." With regards to the latter, don't miss the abundant life the Lord offers by dreaming up an alternative for Him to reveal (that was even the theme of a Lennon song, as well as an LDS Hymn "Have I Done any Good"!).

[Teancum]

What evidence would Teancum offer in support of each, any or all of the following:

 

1.  Homosexuals comprise 10% of any given population.

2.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to be a genetic disposition.

3.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to be both inborn and immutable.

4.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to male on male/female on female child sexual abuse.

5.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to promiscuity.

6.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to venereal diseases.

7.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to suicides/suicide attempts.

8.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to poor school performance.

9.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to low life expectancy.

10.  Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have no connection to mental health problems.

 

And then, please, follow up your response with a statement whether your position is based upon evidence, studies, science, social studies, etc, and whether your position is knee-jerk trendy-lefty, or reasoned and evidence based.

 

 

You can seach the evidence and you likely have to some extent.  There is plenty out there on most the items you listed on both sides.

 

My conclusions are based on reading both sides, listening to some speakers on the subject, people I know and prayer. You can label my position as knee jerkes trendy lefty if I can label yours as backwards and fanatically religous. Fair trade?

Edited April 8, 2014 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Contraception was never considered sin, nor was mixed race marriage, though it was counseled agains because of societal pressures and prejudices at the time. Polygamous marriage wasn't a sin and is only considered wrong if not authorized. Oral sex? Seriously? As I recall the message was always what goes on between a husband and wife is between them.

  Brigham Young taught that entering into a mixed marriage was worthy of death.

[Danzo]

  Brigham Young taught that entering into a mixed marriage was worthy of death.

 

How many did he kill?

[Teancum]

I appreciate you answering, and I hope you don't mind a follow-up question for clarification. When you speak of "the same path," are you referring to the path of salvation, and/or are you referring to communicative and authoritative paths to God?

 

I ask because, from my own perspective of myself in comparison to Church leaders, I consider myself more vulnerable to fallibility than them since I lack certain keys or levels of responsibility they have that may necessitate unique, if not greater communicative access to God as well as greater certitude in those communications, not to mention their plausibly having greater instructive life experiences and have advanced further on the path of faith than me, and may even several respect be more worthy than me, to name a few.

 

I find my circumstances to be beneficially humbling and somewhat more trusting of those I believe God has called to lead me.

 

And, I trust that other members may be similarly disposed, thus putting the supposed arguement, "...because the leaders said so," in context.

 

In short, we logically look to our leaders for guidance and direction because we somewhat humbly trust more in them than ourselves and view them as less vulnerable to fallibility than ourselves, even though we don't view them as infallible.

 

You evidently see it otherwise, though I wouldn't have know for certain without asking.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  Well to a certian extent I would say both.  Supposedly we have access to the same revelatory process.  Joseph Smith said anything that was revealed to him could be revealed to any Saint when they are ready.  I would grant the leaders have the bigger picture and certianly more experience than you or I do as far as church doctrine and policy goes.  So we agree on that part.  On the other hand we allegedly have the same priesthood and access to the Holy Ghost.

[Teancum]

...or said another way, the Church has no meaningful place in them.

 

Again, this dynamic isn't restricted to homosexuals. It applies to any and all whose behaviors and beliefs divert substantially from the path and end goal of the Church/gospel.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Certainly that is one way to look at it.  It is the position of the Church that one should certainly comply their lives to everything the Church teaches and requires and if not they may be in peril.

[USU78]

Brigham Young taught that entering into a mixed marriage was worthy of death.

no he did not. You have been reading the anti Mormon screeds again

[USU78]

Somewhere beyond the mudslinging that comes from name calling--whether it be condemnations of "Bigotry!" OR Cowardice and loose morals!"--lies the path of grace and mutual respect.

Daniel

so you agree with Gray that Abinadi was a fool?