My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Calm]

Perhaps. Or is is a moot point whether he gave it or not if he can prevent it.

We are taught that God can use our weaknesses in positive ways to change us into better people. Why then would he choose to remove them and remove that opportunity for us?

That at times we don't take advantage of the opportunity to change and instead embrace our weaknesses should not lead God IMO to simply choose to protect us from the consequences of our choices by removing the necessity of that choice.

[MorningStar]

None of us chooses which trials, weaknesses, etc. we are going to have.  I don't think God makes anyone a homosexual anymore than he makes people have a temper, addiction, urge to commit adultery, etc.  

[Teancum]

We are taught that God can use our weaknesses in positive ways to change us into better people. Why then would he choose to remove them and remove that opportunity for us?

That at times we don't take advantage of the opportunity to change and instead embrace our weaknesses should not lead God IMO to simply choose to protect us from the consequences of our choices by removing the necessity of that choice.

 I understand the principle but some "weaknesses" seem extremely cruel.  For a believing LDS being homosexual seems to rank up among the most cruel. I cannot imagine "proving" my own child in such a way.

[Teancum]

None of us chooses which trials, weaknesses, etc. we are going to have.  I don't think God makes anyone a homosexual anymore than he makes people have a temper, addiction, urge to commit adultery, etc.  

 

 

But if he is omnipotent and can prevent it what difference is there?

[CMZ]

Does God ever intervene is such things?  Does God heal some and not others?  If yes why?

 

Very complex topic. But I think the answer is yes. We hear all the time of people being taken from life tragically early while also hearing of others who experience miraculous healings or rescues. I still haven't attained the point of intelligence where I can explain all the reasoning for the different situations. Homosexuality MAY have a biological basis. It may also have a biological basis for some who experience it but not for others. Some may overcome it in this life and some may not. I can't explain everyone's situation. But I do know insisting it is permanent and immutable is not in accordance with gospel principles. I think the Church's opposition to gay marriage is in part because they want to keep people from forming relationships that cannot be made eternal. And the D&C talks about this very subject: relationship contracts that cannot be made eternal. Yes, I do think celibacy is preferable to entering a relationship that cannot continue in the eternities.

[Calm]

Does God ever intervene is such things?  Does God heal some and not others?  If yes why?

You will have to ask God that.

My assumption is that in some cases healing leads a person (or people given that many may be influenced by the person who is healed) to have more opportunities to come to God while in other cases not healing creates greater opportunities (this would include opportunities that are not fulfilled until the next life).

[CMZ]

None of us chooses which trials, weaknesses, etc. we are going to have.  I don't think God makes anyone a homosexual anymore than he makes people have a temper, addiction, urge to commit adultery, etc.  

 

This is exactly what Elder Hallstrom spoke of last night.

[MorningStar]

But if he is omnipotent and can prevent it what difference is there?

Why doesn't He prevent Cancer, OCD, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, anxiety disorders, and every other trial?

[why me]

Thanks.

Although I have no proof of this, I do believe that african members are not that bothered about not getting the priesthood until 1978. Most have an understanding of white mentality due to colonialism. what would be important to them is that they can have the priesthood now.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormons-africa-bright-land-hope

 

Take a look at picture number 7.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

I understand the principle but some "weaknesses" seem extremely cruel.  For a believing LDS being homosexual seems to rank up among the most cruel. I cannot imagine "proving" my own child in such a way.

They do indeed.

Currently I have a child whose "God given" conditions prevent her from leaving the house, let alone having a loving relationship in marriage (I had my first child by her age, she has never even talked to a man she is attracted to, maybe never even met one). It is not a situation I would ever choose for her....unless I knew for certain it was the best way for her to achieve eternal joy.

[The Nehor]

I understand the principle but some "weaknesses" seem extremely cruel.  For a believing LDS being homosexual seems to rank up among the most cruel. I cannot imagine "proving" my own child in such a way.

I can't imagine "proving" my own child by having them live in the Warsaw ghetto in 1941. God seems to be willing to give us trials that appear unendurable. It is scary but I take some small comfort that if omniscience allows something to be endured that means it can be endured.

[Teancum]

Why doesn't He prevent Cancer, OCD, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, anxiety disorders, and every other trial?

 

Well that is my whole point really but it is a topic for another thread.

[Teancum]

I can't imagine "proving" my own child by having them live in the Warsaw ghetto in 1941. God seems to be willing to give us trials that appear unendurable. It is scary but I take some small comfort that if omniscience allows something to be endured that means it can be endured.

 

And this is the crux of it.  But like I just said it is a topic for another thread.

[CMZ]

And this is the crux of it.  But like I just said it is a topic for another thread.

 

I don't experience homosexual tendencies but I do experience an excruciating yet mostly private medical condition that may be relieved in this life. Or, more likely, it may not be. But whatever the prognosis is on that the existence of this medical condition doesn't mean that I lose my faith in gospel principles, or that gospel principles become a slave to the condition, or that gospel principles do not exist.

[ERMD]

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

Enlighten me.

Take note, how something is added to the scriptural canon is not the same as being doctrine.

I find it hard to argue with a Prophet of God who states that something approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is doctrine.

Argue with them at your peril. I'll have none of it.

[CMZ]

Argue with them at your peril.

 

Exactly.

Edited April 6, 2014 by CMZ

[smac97]

"Your" policies. Good description. Not God's though.

With respect, I disagree. I believe the Church's position on this issue, both in terms of "policy" and "doctrine," are well-supported by scripture.

Keep your cultural bias.

LOL. Speaking of cultural biases . . .

The easy road these days is to jump on the SSM bandwagon. That is how our culture is trending. It is more challenging to adhere to the standards and teachings given us from God and be subjected to ridicule and calumnies from . . . well, people like you.

It serves you well. As long as you and a majority of Mormons (sorry, members of the church of... Etc) hold on to this prejudice you'll likely be able to maintain the status quo.

The Church's position on SSM and SSA is principled and reasoned, not "prejudiced" (that term being generally construed as "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason"). But hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of you and your cultural bias leveling unsubstantiated slurs against an entire religion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

None of us get to choose our trials.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

Either we choose to overcome them or not.  Regardless we all get to live with them. 

 

Life is neither fair nor easy.  I am sure carrying a cross was not a barrel of laughs.

[mfbukowski]

I don't experience homosexual tendencies but I do experience an excruciating yet mostly private medical condition that may be relieved in this life. Or, more likely, it may not be. But whatever the prognosis is on that the existence of this medical condition doesn't mean that I lose my faith in gospel principles, or that gospel principles become a slave to the condition, or that gospel principles do not exist.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.

 

And you don't whine about the fairness of it.

 

I have had the benefit of experiencing extreme physical pain in this life and thank God for it.  If it does not kill you it makes you stronger, and if it kills you, so what?

 

Pain can be a great teacher.  It concentrates what might be a lifetime of trials into a few years or even hours.  Conquer it and you have conquered everything life can throw at you.

 

Everyone has to die sometime.  You must be ready any time.  Whining is just weakness.

[Thinking]

You have no basis for your percentages. I think it is more like 50/50.

 

You dispute a percentage for lack of basis (reference), then give a ratio because that's what you think it is. Nice!

[ERayR]

The Church has not explained that God sees homosexuality as a deterrent to his children's salvation; only that the willing refusal of His covenants is. Specific to sexuality, acting on sexual impulses outside of the covenants is a deterrent to his children's salvation.

 

It is not the homosexuality that is the detriment.  It is the behavior of acting on it. 

[smac97]

Fortunately how God judges each of us is not up to you.  It is up to God.

First, I have not judged anyone.

Second, I agree that Judgment is up to God.

Third, defending God's commandments against those who seek to undermine them is not "judgment."

 

You are welcome to pick up a stone and throw it in my direction if you wish.

I haven't done anything like that.

 

I would love to be a participant in the law of Chastity,

It is refreshing that you acknowledge the Law of Chastity, as espoused by the LDS Church, prohibits same-sex behavior.

 

but the church does not recognize gay marriage.

Nor does God. That is my belief.

 

This position is not from a revelation from God,

Yes, it is.

 

but from leaders assuming what they think God might want.

No, it isn't.

But it's refreshing to see you carrying out your reasoning in this way. There are some people who are members of the Church who want to have their cake and eat it too, who want to claim church membership, but then go against the teachings of the Church vis a vis SSM/SSA. That is the popular, easier thing to do these days (if you don't believe me, just ask Brendan Eich), but sooner or later it bumps up against the reality of revealed truths and sustaining the Brethren. Sooner or later, a person much acknowledge God's commandments on these issues, or else end up . . . well, where you are (denying the prophetic calling of LDS leaders).

 

It is not just that Christ did not condemn homosexuality,

Well, to be a bit more specific, he condemned homosexual actions.

 

Nor in ALL of the communication with Joseph Smith did Christ feel the need to condemn homosexual couples who choose to spend their life together.

Well, we don't know that, either. But Joseph Smith also did not have much to say about pornography, either. Or meth / heroin / cocaine. Fortunately, Joseph Smith was not the last prophet we have had in this dispensation.

Are you really going to go with the "We don't have prophetic counsel on SSA/SSM" schtick? Really? First, we have lots of such counsel. Second, would you submit to a canonized, point-blank prohibition on same-sex behavior? Or would you just find another excuse to evade the Law of Chastity? (BTW, you're the one who has put your non-compliance with the LoC into this thread ("I would love to be a participant in the law of Chastity..."), not me.)

 

It is not like you are on really solid ground here.

Yes, I am.

 

Can you name ONE revelation from God about homosexuality?

I can name many.

 

More in the next post.

Edited April 6, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Continue from the previous post:

(I am not talking about one scripture, but rather one prophet who proclaimed a revelation from God on homosexuality.  There are plenty in the scriptures that are not God's words or even thoughts)

Ah, so you demand "ONE revelation," then immediately circumscribe and restrict what you deem to be a "revelation" on the subject.

With respect, you don't get to dictate or define the terms and insist that we adhere to them. But seeing as you seem to think you do, I'll decline to follow you down this rabbit trail. However, if you are interested in a legitimate and reasoned discussion of the doctrinal/scriptural basis for the Church's position of SSM/SSA, I'll participate then.

 

Is it treated the same as adultery and fornication?  Did Paul claim what he wrote in a letter to be from God?  Does every letter a prophet writes come from God?  If I am suppose to  center my entire life around what God wants me to do as a gay man, do I not deserve just ONE revelation from God about this?  Could He have a 5 minute meeting with the prophet and tell him what HE wants his gay children to do?  What will happen to us after we die?

Again, if you want to have a legitimate and reasoned discussion of the doctrinal/scriptural basis for the Church's position of SSM/SSA, I'll participate then. But I'm not sensing such a willingness. You are attempting to preemptively evade/negate the scriptural and doctrinal basis for the Church's position. We can't have a reasoned discussion when you arbitrarily restrict and re-define terms before the discussion has even begun.

 

Look I totally realize that you are willing to take the opinion of church leaders on this subject.

It's more than that. I have examined these issues in detail. I am not merely the doctrinal parrot you are trying to characterize me as.

 

And why wouldn't you?  You don't have to deal with this issue.

Actually yes, I do have to "deal with this issue." I also have to "deal with" pornography, adultery, fornication, and other sundry violations of the Law of Chastity. I am a father of children who are growing up in a culture which is drifting further and further away from God's commandments, which is telling them in every way, shape and form to disregard the Law of Chastity, to reject it altogether or re-define it so as to create a convenient exception for them. I also have to "deal with" the Word of Wisdom and many other commandments which I strive to obey, but which nevertheless affect me in various and sundry ways. And some day, I may be subject to a Brendan Eich-type pogrom, which folks on your side of this issue seem to be dishing out with alarming effectiveness.

So with respect, you do not get to exclude people from discussing SSA/SSM.

 

You can marry who you wish.

No, I can't. I can only marry one woman who has agreed to marry me. I have the same restrictions placed upon me that are placed upon everyone else.

 

Your path has been clearly laid out by modern day revelation.

Thank you for acknowledging that (or, at least, acknowledging that I believe this). It is appreciated (unless you were being snide, which I hope is not the case).

 

Mine has not.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that. In the LDS paradigm, it is not that there is no path for people in your situation. Rather, there is a path, and you are not presently willing to stay on it. I understand that. Were it not for the experiences I have had, I would not be willing to cede authority to the scriptures and then Brethren on vital issues such as this. But I have had such experiences, so I am willing to cede such authority. I recognize this is not something that you can take my word about. You'd have to have your own basis for following the scriptures and the Brethren.

 

I am not willing to "trust" those that are in charge, who happen to all be straight, and don't really have any skin in the game to issue what they think God could possibly say about this subject.

I think you materially misconstrue how the Brethren feel about this issue. They care about all of God's children, including those with SSA. I think you unfairly malign them when you claim they don't have "skin in the game."

 

So yes, I feel there is more important lessons to be learned on this earth life than who I am suppose to not fall in love with and share my life with.

I understand. Adherence to the Law of Chastity can be a difficult thing, particularly when you lack a testimony of the Restored Gospel. If and when you should ever happen to develop the latter, then I would hope that the former would become more tractable.

I wish you the best in your endeavors.

Sincerely,

-Smac

[CV75]

It is not the homosexuality that is the detriment.  It is the behavior of acting on it. 

Precisely. Which can only be performed outside of the covenants.

[ERayR]

 If God created the world and all that is in it God created us as we are.  Whether something is a fluke of nature or caused by God to me is a moot point. If God is omnipotent he can prevent it. He could have not allowed homosexuality to be something someone is born with if it is such an evil.  I guess it is like any problem, illness, tragedy of nature. Whether God causes it or not, or creates someone some way or another is moot if God can prevent it. 

 

Yep Its all God's fault.  I got that too.