My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Teancum]

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

 

 

Yep he sure did.

[wenglund]

  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.

 

Again, I appreciate the clarification. And, I don't necessarily disagree, though I might add that I believe the mantle of authority also offers certain fallibility advantages commensurate with the added responsibility, otherwise there would be little point in having Church leadership as opposed to every man for himself.

 

So, when it comes to trusting my own personal mind and heart compared with the combined hearts and minds of Christ's chosen leaders, I tend to defer to the latter, though I respect that others may believe differently.

 

Besides, it is meaningful to me to realize that the Church doesn't bear my name, nor have I been called to a position of authority by him whose name the Church bears, and so who am I to say for Christ and his Church?.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Fair enough. DO you beleive good and decent people can come up with different anwers to the same questions?

 

Yep.  I also reserve the right to think they are wrong.

[california boy]

The best advice I know if to follow the Spirit; don't worry about where it leads. It may be over hot coals and it may be through green fields. What is vital for each child of God is to follow.  I just don't have any answers as to why some suffer this and others don't. I have often said that when I get on the other side I would like to have a long conversation with my Father because, quite frankly, some of this mortal existence is harder than it needs to be.  I admit freely that I am one of those weaklings that also has drawn a line in the sand with our Father and said I will go here, but no further. He poked me in the eye about it and I sort of made it clear that I am not someone he can count on at all times and in all places. I need his mercy is so many, many ways.

 

Cal, I don't think you are any different than I am. We get up, we struggle with doing what is right, and we try to do our best. You have made choices that put you at odds with the Church; I make choices that make it clear I fall far, far away from any form of perfection.  I think what matters is that we keep trying and we keep learning.  If we have need of repenting, we should repent.  Some stuff is just too heavy to carry alone and we need to allow our Savior to share the burden if not carry the whole thing.

 

Many things will change in the Church; hopefully the result will be that all are more effective disciples.  Those changes may not involve an acceptance of what is sin, but I suspect we will see a much greater acceptance of all sinners.  

 

As an aside, I would encourage you to remember that we don't know the burdens that we each carry.  I promise you that there are many individuals that suffer in silence. They may appear happy, but their heart is heavy and their shoulders are bowed. Those are the ones that we should seek out and extend a helping hand. Those that always complain (do not think this applies to you; it does not) receive their reward ten times over. The ones you never would guess suffer the most cruel burdens and most of us never know of it.

 

Have peace in your life and with those you love and that love you. 

 

Well thanks for your comments.  They are greatly appreciated.  I know this is going to sound odd to some on this board, but I actually thank God for me being gay.  I have learned a lot about how hurtful judgement and shunning can be on someone.  If there has been a single thing that has tempered me and guided me towards being conscious of treating others with more charity than they may think they need, it is being gay.  For years, I cried to God to take this thorn away from me.  Now, in a half of life of experiencing it, I feel like being gay has been a blessing.  Yeah I know others will condemn me for that statement, but it really doesn't matter to me.  I am more happy, more content and feel closer to God than when I was trying so hard to pretend to be someone I was not.  It all has worked out well.  And I am fully prepared for God's judgement and condemnation for finding someone to share my life with and be able to love and strengthen.  He is an amazing person.  My life would not be the same without him.  Those that want me to leave that relationship have never met him or me.  

[wenglund]

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.

 

That isn't the spin I would put on it.

 

To me, it is a simple matter of spiritual business, where, like with most any non-spiritual  product or service, it comes down to value propositions and customer fit--i.e. where does the customer wish to go or make of him or herself in this life and the next, and can the Church enable the customer to meet their goals, solve their problems, and satisfy their spiritual needs. If so, then there is a fit, and if not, there isn't. To each their own.

 

Metaphorically speaking, if I, as a secular consumer,wish to go from NYC to SLC, then the Oriental Express, regardless of its many features and benefits, is not the place for me, nor me it--with no negative reflection on either. It just isn't a good business fit.,

 

Whereas, in terms of spiritual business, if my priority is to come unto Christ and to become like him, as opposed to consuming my lusts or whatever, then the Church is the place for me, and me for it. It is a good spiritual business fit.

 

Make sense?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

I don't why members believe that god is a western god who submits to equal rights in regards to whom one can marry. I don't think that god is influenced by theories of justice that come out of 21st century america or from the western world. 

 

I didn't realize that god became a postmodernist.

Good point.  But I also don't know why people think God is a bronze age God as well.   Christ certainly wasn't when He was on the earth. People want to build an entire paradigm around a few verses that are surrounded by other verses that those same exact people would be horrified if taught as doctrine.

[wenglund]

Good point.  But I also don't know why people think God is a bronze age God as well.   Christ certainly wasn't when He was on the earth. People want to build an entire paradigm around a few verses that are surrounded by other verses that those same exact people would be horrified if taught as doctrine.

 

...you mean like the Bronze-age 10 Commandments?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

Yep he sure did.

Referring to ourselves in the 3rd person are we ?

[california boy]

...you mean like the Bronze-age 10 Commandments?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The 10 Commandments were clearly given by revelation from God.  Quite frankly there is plenty in the Old Testament written by "men of their time"  that they attribute to God which I highly doubt God actually did or say.  I actually think that the Bronze Age God of the Old Testament says more about the authors of the Old Testament than it does about God, His wishes and what is a sin to God and what is not.

 

Most members would agree that there is a lot of "commandments" in both the Old and New Testament that we would be horrified if it was treated as doctrine.  Homosexuality whether in or out of marriage just seems to be something that people desperately want to keep as coming from God.  Church leaders certainly enforce this belief, not based on any revelation from God as we have discussed earlier in this thread, but based on their collective view of Homosexuality.  So for now, that is the policy of the church.  Will it ever change?  I certainly am not counting on it.

[Teancum]

How many did he kill?

 

Dozens I am sure......

[Teancum]

Yep.  I also reserve the right to think they are wrong.

 

Same here!  Wow! we agree!

[Tacenda]

Consider this: what would be the state of the church today if it hadn't rescinded the ban on priesthood for blacks in 1978? In 2014 it would be viewed as an organization comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church, and its membership would probably be not much bigger than that group.

Now fast forward 30 years from now. If the church keeps the same position 30 years from now, what will be the result? In 2014 we've just barely tipped over the point where most people's hearts have softened on the issue of gays and gay marriage. 30 years from now it will only be a very tiny minority who think treating gay relationships differently from straight ones is acceptable or right. How would the church survive in such an environment? It doesn't do much good to preach the restored gospel to empty pews.

I predict the woman not getting the PH would be detrimental also.

[wenglund]

The 10 Commandments were clearly given by revelation from God.  Quite frankly there is plenty in the Old Testament written by "men of their time"  that they attribute to God which I highly doubt God actually did or say.  I actually think that the Bronze Age God of the Old Testament says more about the authors of the Old Testament than it does about God, His wishes and what is a sin to God and what is not.

 

Most members would agree that there is a lot of "commandments" in both the Old and New Testament that we would be horrified if it was treated as doctrine.  Homosexuality whether in or out of marriage just seems to be something that people desperately want to keep as coming from God.  Church leaders certainly enforce this belief, not based on any revelation from God as we have discussed earlier in this thread, but based on their collective view of Homosexuality.  So for now, that is the policy of the church.  Will it ever change?  I certainly am not counting on it.

 

In other words, just because a commandment was given during the so-called Bronze Age, doesn't mean the commandment is horrific or not reasonably enforce and the will of God today.

 

And, just because ancient or modern scriptures don't contain explicit commandments against various sexual deviancies or fetishes, like pedophilia, doesn't mean they aren't rightly sin in the eyes of God and the Church.

 

But, not to worry. Those intent on consuming their lust will invariably find a way to rationalize their actions even if it requires some wresting of the scriptures.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

In other words, just because a commandment was given during the so-called Bronze Age, doesn't mean the commandment is horrific or not reasonably enforce and the will of God today.

 

And, just because ancient or modern scriptures don't contain explicit commandments against various sexual deviancies or fetishes, like pedophilia, doesn't mean they aren't rightly sin in the eyes of God and the Church.

 

But, not to worry. Those intent on consuming their lust will invariably find a way to rationalize their actions even if it requires some wresting of the scriptures.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I never said any of those things.  But I highly doubt you were trying to understand what I DID say.

[Mystery Meat]

"The truthfulness of an idea cannot be judged by the amount of butt cheeks in the pews."

 

-Me-

Edited April 8, 2014 by lvjd66

[Kenngo1969]

The discussion has moved on from here, but at the risk of intruding, I think this is still relevant to it.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are asked by those who favor homosexual intimate relationships and marriages to recognize that being gay but not being allowed to form physically intimate relationships with people of the same gender in the same way that people of opposite genders are allowed to form such relationships is, essentially, The Trial of All Trials.  Surely, a loving God wouldn't do that to His children.  I'm not sure how we, with finite minds and limited perspectives, are supposed to be able to conclude with any degree of certainty that a "loving" god (quotation marks and small "g" intentional) wouldn't do that to his children.  Is He infinite and omniscient or not?  Does He have an eternal perspective or not?  Does God, should God, care whether we think He's racist or sexist or homophobic or politically incorrect?  Are we, by contrast, finite beings with limited knowledge and a limited perspective or not?  Calmoriah earlier posted this:

 

The "test" may not be for the child but for others.

 

I think of that possibility a lot when I think of my daughter and my own problems which seem outwardly to be totally useless for everyone and at times extremely crippling and cruel.

The longer I live, the more I see this life as a time we learn what absolutely most important to us and I see that as necessity so that we can fully commit ourselves to accepting the gifts/burdens that God has for us (Christ said his yoke was light, but it is still a yoke). The "test" is for us to see what answers we want to give to the choices we are presented with, enduring to the end is simply one way of expressing and experiencing the choice to ensure we want it to be our eternal choice.

 

My original reply was via PM, and she graciously allowed me to repost it here.  I said:

 

I have a feeling that, just as we're confused (at least, from the outside looking in) by each other's trials in this life (e.g., "What did she do to deserve that?" or "If she would only do [or not do] [x], she wouldn't have that trial"), we'll be confused by the blessings we each get in the next life. 

 

And when we ask, "Wait ... I'm confused; what did she do to get those blessings?" The response will be, "You know that trial that you said could be pretty easily overcome if only she just did [or did not do] [x], or the one you wondered what she did to deserve? This blessing is for how well she handled that, even though you thought it could be handled better (or you didn't think she deserved it)." And then, to reduce the sting of that relatively-mild-but-still-stinging rebuke, maybe God will nod, wink, and smile at both of us.

 

Are you confused?  Are you disheartened?  Are you wondering why you’ve had it so good when others seem to have had it so bad?  (If so, be careful: life’s only constant in that regard is change.)  Conversely, do you, perhaps, wonder the opposite – Are you wondering why you’ve seemingly had it so bad when others seem to have it so good?  Are you otherwise at a loss for how to explain the vicissitudes of this Earthly life?  Welcome to mortality!  This is only the Second Act, folks.  There was a First Act before this one, and there will be a Third Act after it.  Figuratively speaking, don’t leave the play in the middle simply because you were told it was a comedy or an uplifting drama and you’re wondering how things possibly could turn out well after such a horrible Second Act.  [And I’ll add here: This goes for people who sacrifice what seems like The Big Deal in mortality of having the most intimate relationship possible with another human being, as well as for people who made other significant sacrifices by agreeing to live in far-less-than-optimal circumstances here in mortality – whatever they may be.]

 

 

Edited April 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

so you agree with Gray that Abinadi was a fool?

Not sure how you arrived at that presumption based on what I said, which was completely unrelated. Edited April 8, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

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.

"Some things which are true are not very useful." There may be a great deal of things which may be accurately be labeled as "bigoted," but in my experience, resorting to name calling is rarely useful in these kinds of situations and rarely proves beneficial to fostering mutual understanding.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Daniel2

[USU78]

Not sure how you arrived at that presumption based on what I said, which was completely unrelated.

you should pay attention to more of the thread than one post

Edited April 8, 2014 by USU78

[Maestrophil]

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

A homosexual who WILL not has no place.

I know heterosexual people who intend to be celibate and slip who still have a place, would not the same apply for any homosexual who is "willing" to keep the commandments but may need repentance from time to time?

Edited April 8, 2014 by Maestrophil

[USU78]

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?

So. . . you can dish it but not take it, neh?

[Calm]

That would seem to leave the door open for someone justifying their actions by saying that they were another gender in the premortal life. I've never heard of that interpretation of the Proclamation and I think that you would be hard pressed to find any reference to the church teaching that ones gender may change as you progress throught the plan of salvation.

Since we didn't have biological gender in the previous life, how can that be said to chane due to progression? The idea is, I believe, not having a changing gender, but rather a temporary biological one that does not reflect correctly the eternal nature.

Contraception was never considered sin, nor was mixed race marriage, though it was counseled agains because of societal pressures and prejudices at the time.....Oral sex? Seriously? As I recall the message was always what goes on between a husband and wife is between them.

I don't know if it was officially considered sin but there definitely were individual members who considered both contraception and interracial marriage a sin. Oral sex...the story goes that a letter was sent out in response to bishops being asked if it was okay, that it was not okay and was in fact immoral. It was rescinded the follwing year or so with a letter saying leave it to the couple and God. I would not be surprised to find that at least some of my grandparents considered it a sin given some of their attitudes (a great aunt taught my mom before marriage to be brave and endure, "men are beasts"; thankfully, Mom didnt believe her)

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

Did he actually teach this or did it refer to the raping of a slave by an owner? Serious question, I would very much like to see what you believe has him teaching mixed marriage was a sin worthy of death. I think it quite possible that he did, but I also think he may have been misinterpreted. Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Since we didn't have biological gender in the previous life, how can that be said to chane due to progression? The idea is, I believe, not having a changing gender, but rather a temporary biological one that does not reflect correctly the eternal nature. I don't know if it was officially considered sin but there definitely were individual members who considered both contraception and interracial marriage a sin. Oral sex...the story goes that a letter was sent out in response to bishops being asked if it was okay, that it was not okay and was in fact immoral. It was rescinded the follwing year or so with a letter saying leave it to the couple and God. I would not be surprised to find that at least some of my grandparents considered it a sin given some of their attitudes (a great aunt taught my mom before marriage to be brave and endure, "men are beasts"; thankfully, Mom didnt believe her)Did he actually teach this or did it refer to the raping of a slave by an owner? Serious question, I would very much like to see what you believe has him teaching mixed marriage was a sin worthy of death. I think it quite possible that he did, but I also think he may have been misinterpreted.

As much as I dislike the practice, CFR that Mormonism teaches we did not have a gender before this life.

[CV75]

"Some things which are true are not very useful." There may be a great deal of things which may be accurately be labeled as "bigoted," but in my experience, resorting to name calling is rarely useful in these kinds of situations and rarely proves beneficial to fostering mutual understanding.

It is not true that dificulty in keeping the commandmnets is a function of sexual orientation. It is destructive to say that it is. It establishes a non-existent (false) spiritual enmity between "straights' and "gays". How much more prejudiced (bigoted) can one be? It is truly (and accurately described as) bigoted. A mutual understanding of that will be very useful in talking about what actually is important.

[Tacenda]

Referring to Kenngo's remark, in gays going through a test, made me think. I'd like to see what heterosexuals would say or feel about only having sex to procreate, since that's why humans marry, to have children. We should only have sex for that. Heterosexuals have a lot of explaining to do if that's the case. What if they've been in the wrong? I'd love to see what they say. Since it's so easy to tell a gay person they shouldn't express love in that way since the idea is to have children.