My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Teancum]

The Lord does not recognize same sex unions as marriage, and thus, any homosexual behavior -- even if by the government's definition it has occurred within a marriage --  is breaking the law of chastity.

 

It is better said  that the LDS Church teaches that the Lord does not recognize same sex unions as marriage. 

Edited April 6, 2014 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

You are quite right. But even so a Celestial being will not have any desires contrary to the law of a Celestial Kingdom, whatever his feelings may be in this life.

Repeating the quote from Elder Wickman in my prior post:

 

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

It is better said  that the LDS Church teaches that the Lord does not recognize same sex unions as marriage. 

And therefore, there can be no lawful or righteous expression of homosexuality -- anytime, anywhere.

 

Just follow the logic.

[california boy]

Alma 34:34 "Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

 

All the more reason to repent now and live according to the laws of God. Do you really think in the eternities that you will be able to live the way you want even in contradiction to God's laws?

Yes.  I don't personally think that homosexual behavior is that big of problem for God who has homosexual children.  There are more important lessons to learn on this earth life.  Like being Christlike in how we treat others.  If it was a big deal for Christ, he had 3 years of laying out his gospel.  Not a word about homosexuality.  Just my opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes.  I don't personally think that homosexual behavior is that big of problem for God who has homosexual children.  There are more important lessons to learn on this earth life.  Like being Christlike in how we treat others.  If it was a big deal for Christ, he had 3 years of laying out his gospel.  Not a word about homosexuality.  Just my opinion.

False dichotomy.

 

One should strive to obey all the commandments of God.

[canard78]

We have been encouraged to study the doctrines contained in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Doing so will answer these questions.

 

It's discussions like these that make me grateful that I'm no longer bound by the confines of mormon cultural assumptions.

[california boy]

You have no basis for your percentages. I think it is more like 50/50. Half stick it out one way or the other and rise to positions of leadership. But, of course, there aren't any studies. It would not be politically correct to conduct such studies.

There was a general authority who was ex'd, came back and lived out his days in church leadership positions.

I unfortunately no longer have the article, so I can't give you the reference, but there was an article quite some time back in the Sunstone by a BYU professor who was involved in the whol electric shock therapy BYU cure.  He reported in the article that he had 300 married gay men he was in contact with.  After 5 years, all but 6 had divorced.  I think his study had a big influence on the church changing it's then prevelant position telling gay members to just get married, it will all go away if you just wish it so.

 

If someone knows of the article, I would love to have the reference. 

[Teancum]

And therefore, there can be no lawful or righteous expression of homosexuality -- anytime, anywhere.

 

Just follow the logic.

  It is only logical if one accepts The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true church and the only one that have prophets that realy do speak for God.  Most don't.

[Bob Crockett]

I have never advised that it will "all go away if you just wish it so" nor have I suggested that gays just get married.  I have merely observed that there is a huge hidden unstructure of gay Latter-day Saints who have done exactly that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because obviously not all heterosexual unions multiply and replenish the earth.  Many are unable to.  There are always exceptions in this world, as it turns out.

I view the commandment as applying not just in mortality but encompassing the entire destiny of the earth. It will one day be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. At some point, those who live worthy but cannot have progeny in mortality will have that opportunity in the hereafter.

[Scott Lloyd]

  It is only logical if one accepts The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true church and the only one that have prophets that realy do speak for God.  Most don't.

I couldn't disagree more fervently.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

Given the assumption that sexual fulfillment is the most important thing in life, and that to be denied or frustrated in complete sexual fulfillment is to be horribly, and uncharitably and unjustifiably oppressed, what ought the LDS policy ought to be when something happens the attraction within a marriage? Say, a husband notices that he is a person who is attracted to younger women, or a different shade or height, or temperament? Suppose, in a completely unreaslistic fantasy/science fiction situation, that a man somehow finds himself in a relationship with an old woman when years before he had cheerfully committed to a young woman? What about weight gain or loss? What about the effects of illness in a partner? What if one partner's desire and responsiveness changes? Say, what if a partner begins to recall sexual abuse, and no longer wants to be touched. What if one partner lacks the other's newly changed, or unchanged curiousity or taste? What if one partner meets someone else who happens to be more attractive to them than their marriage partner? What if sexual addiction is a factor in one or the other partner's behavior? And supposing, just supposing, this sort of thing happens to a gay couple in a Utopian, tolerant, accepting society? What if the magic goes away, the spark dies, if the geiger counter of their desire starts clicking in different directions? What if marriage, whose denial seemed the ultimate in oppression, when the ordinary course of life turns that wonderful and noble institution into an intolerable bondage? What happens to the ideal of committment then?

What if tolerance and acceptance doesn't address or define the whole problem? What if the notion of tolerance and acceptance is simply a means of rhetorical focus, designed to exclude as much as it brings into consideration? What if marriage is about something more important than tolerance and sexual fulfillment?

Just asking.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Because sexual relations are NOT the most important thing.  Human relationships, companionship, love.  We are wired to want those things in life.  If the church had a policy that gay couples could live together without sex, then your theory would work.  It does not.  Heck you evidently can get your temple recommend taken away for even having gay friends if you are gay.

 

Man Fired From LDS Church For Refusing To Give Up Gay Friends

Drew Call's Stake President Would Not Renew Temple Recommend Based On Call's Association With Gay People.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ official policy is to accept gay people as members of the church so long as they take what is, in essence, a vow of chastity. But one Salt Lake City man, a church employee for more than a decade, is surprised and angered that he lost his temple recommend—a prerequisite for employment in the church—after he refused to give up his gay friends and was fired.

 

[Teancum]

It's discussions like these that make me grateful that I'm no longer bound by the confines of mormon cultural assumptions.

 

 

You took the words right out of my mouth.  And such discussions convince me more and more I never will be bound by the confines of the Momron cutural assumptions nor by its edicts and commands unless I am certain they are truthful, good and right.  I need to visit this board every once in a while to confirm that this is a good thing for me at least.

[Teancum]

I couldn't disagree more fervently.

 

 

You could not disagree that most don't accept the authority of the LDS Church or it is only logical if one does?  Or perhaps your point is because YOU believe the LDS Church does speak for God that it is logical to accept it whether one believes it or not?

[DBMormon]

Sorry, it is doctrine.

Gordon B. Hinckley:

"With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history”

 

 

You seem unaware of how something becomes Doctrine.  It may yet become so, but it is not Doctrine

[CMZ]

 

I think that I am as knowledgeable about the condition we call homosexuality as any heterosexual in the Church. My life has brought me into close association with many fine people whom, fortunately, I had the privilege of knowing well before I knew of their sexual orientation. My professional activities have led me to be a student of the research on this condition. As a priesthood leader and as a therapist I have worked with many people over the years as they have struggled with difficulties they face in resolving the tensions between the homosexual lifestyle and the gospel path. No one knows what determines that one individual will be drawn toward members of his own sex and another to the opposite sex. There is beginning to be some evidence that there may be a biochemical factor. Perhaps certain life experiences make the opposite sex seem more dangerous and less attractive to some than to others. Whatever the origins, I have never met a homosexual who remembered choosing to be so oriented. Each experiences it as an unbidden affliction.

Given that premise, it has nevertheless been my observation that those who act on those unbidden feelings lose the Spirit and before they know it are pulled step by step into a world at complete odds with the Kingdom. Those who earnestly seek to conform to the Plan are provided small miracle after small miracle until they are able to experience every blessing of the gospel. I have yet to find an exception to this rule. This puts me at odds with both those who treat men and women with homosexual feelings as though they were voluntary perverts and also with those who insist that there can be no genuine reconciliation between such persons and the highest standards of the Kingdom.

 - Carlfred Broderick, The Core of My Faith

Edited April 6, 2014 by CMZ

[smac97]

Within a marriage, I would think SSA aren't breaking the law of chastity.

This seems rather pharisaical, don't you think? You can't re-define the terms when those terms are inconvenient.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

It is better said  that the LDS Church teaches that the Lord does not recognize same sex unions as marriage.

No, that's not "better said." The LDS paradigm doesn't work that way.

If you are outside that paradigm, so be it. But this thread is about "our policies with homosexuality" (and not "policies" as much as "doctrines").

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Yes.  I don't personally think that homosexual behavior is that big of problem for God who has homosexual children.

God also has fornicating children. And adulterous children. By your reckoning, these must be no big deal.

But that reckoning is not compatible with the Restored Gospel.

There are more important lessons to learn on this earth life.  Like being Christlike in how we treat others.

So we are free to disregard the Law of Chastity as long as we treat others well?

That reckoning is not compatible with the Restored Gospel.

If it was a big deal for Christ, he had 3 years of laying out his gospel.  Not a word about homosexuality.  Just my opinion.

So you are of the school of thought which holds that the Bible contains every word ever uttered by Christ? That doesn't seem very reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

It is only logical if one accepts The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true church and the only one that have prophets that realy do speak for God.  Most don't.

This thread is about "our policies with homosexuality." This discussion takes the LDS paradigm as a given.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Because sexual relations are NOT the most important thing.  Human relationships, companionship, love.

All of which a person with SSA can have without violating the Law of Chastity.

I agree with you that sexual relations are not the most important thing. Some on this thread seem to think that sex is the sine qua non of happiness. It is not. Latter-day Saints can have "human relationships, companionship, love" and so on and still obey God's commandments pertaining to the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cdowis]

But one Salt Lake City man, a church employee for more than a decade, is surprised and angered that he lost his temple recommend—a prerequisite for employment in the church—after he refused to give up his gay friends and was fired.

 

 

And what is the source of this information -- what does the Stake Pres have to say about it?  Or is this just from the "one SLC man" statement.  Is this individual still a member of the church?  Is this first hand, second hand information or just another rumour.

 

Colour me skeptical of such statements.

[ERayR]

How does Giving those with SSA more room in the Church and allow them to participate in spite of a behavior they neither chose nor can likely change in mortality affect the eternal destiny of God's Children without SSA.  What is the loss / gain of our Doctrine.  I think this is the heart of my issue.   In otherwords, The Church has explained that God sees homosexuality as a deterrent to his children's salvation.  How would more of his Children be affected negatively by homosexuality being more accepted?

 

 

 

The operative word being "behavior".  There are those who are alcoholics (according to some an inherited tendency), those who gamble (again according to some an inherited tendency), Those who have strong attractions toward sexual promiscuity (again according to some inherited predilections).  All are appetites of the flesh and we are expected to control these appetites(behaviors if you will).  Why should homosexual appetites receive special absolution?

 

Should alcoholism be excused?  Should prostitution and promiscuity be accepted?  Should gambling become an acceptable church activity?

[Teancum]

No, that's not "better said." The LDS paradigm doesn't work that way.

If you are outside that paradigm, so be it. But this thread is about "our policies with homosexuality" (and not "policies" as much as "doctrines").

Thanks,

-Smac

 You equate "our" or the "LDS Church" as God's position. I understand that. I used to as well. I no longer comprehensively accept that and I think I base it on reasonable evidences.  I do think the LDS Church gets some things right and some things wrong.   I guess since the majority of the posters here think and believe the LDS Church=God's will it is acceptable to state it as such.  But in discussings such things with others who rightfully don't hold this position, which as you know is  many times the majority of most human beings, it does not do much to foster a discussion when such things are stated as fact.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

You could not disagree that most don't accept the authority of the LDS Church or it is only logical if one does?  Or perhaps your point is because YOU believe the LDS Church does speak for God that it is logical to accept it whether one believes it or not?

Sorry. I misunderstood when you said, "Most don't."

 

I thought you meant that most of the prophets don't speak for God.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd