My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[mfbukowski]

 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. 

I see.

 

We are here to be tested but God should prevent us from actually taking the test.

 

In other words, our existence on earth is pointless, we are just here to have a good time and God is evil for testing us in the first place.

 

Interesting.

Edited April 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

Continue from the previous post:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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 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."

 

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

Your whole post falls apart by not being able to point to a single revelation that the church even claims has occurred.  If the church leaders can not even claim a revelation, then how am I suppose to pretend that they have received any.  Despite your game playing with some rabbit hole nonsense, until the prophet, any prophet, at any time in the history of mankind can declare that he has received a revelation from God concerning homosexuality, no such revelation has occurred.  If you can point to one, then you indeed have a claim to know the will of God on this subject.  If you can not point to such a revelation, then you can only point to the will of the leaders of the church on this subject.  And I completely understand why and how that is enough for most members, especially if they are not gay.

 

I fully understand that you believe the church leaders lead the church under God's direction.  Perhaps they do.  But it is pretty difficult to make any definitive statement about God's clear plan for His gay children when throughout the history of mankind, such a plan has not been received.  

 

Do you belong to a church that claims latter day revelation?  Do you belong to a church who's basic principles and doctrine have come through direct revelation from God and His messengers?  Did John the Baptist come back to earth to restore the Aaronic Priesthood?  Was Joseph Smith visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah etc.  Was the 76th section of the D&C revealed by direct revelation from God?  My point is, don't be coy with me.  You should know the difference between revelation and group decisions. It might not be what you need to embrace the policies of the church on SSM, but, I need more than a committee decision.  Those committee decisions have not always worked out to be the will of God.

 

Let me end, since you seem to be confused.  I KNOW the churches position on gay marriage.  There is no room for equivocation.  Church leaders have been united and with a clear voice in proclaiming what they think on the subject.  But NONE have said this policy came from a revelation from God.  And also to be clear, I am not arguing for change in the church.  Church leaders can and should lead the church the best they can.  Right now, there is a complete consenses that SSM is not allowed.  This is the policy they want to stick with.  But don't claim that policy came from revelation from God unless you can point to a revelation claimed by prophet leaders.  If you are still confused, please refer to Spencer W. Kimball's change in priesthood policy.  That did not come from committee, it came from God.  

[Deborah]

But NONE have said this policy came from a revelation from God.

 

 

Because it's not a policy. Marriage under the N&E Covenant is an doctrine. Why would they need a revelation for something which is a part of the law of chastity and the law of the marriage covenant.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

I am happy that you are coping with your illness. I hope you continue.  If your faith strengthens you great. That does not make it true.  Good honest people ask the questions I am asking and some of them post here.  You may wonder about such things.   Really what I am getting at is the problem of evil and suffering which is a topic for another thread. The answers that you find comfort from used to comfort me.  But they no longer do.  That does not make me bad or good nor does it you.   Like I said, some are not as troubled by such things. Others are.  The topic of this thread causes me great sorrow for those who are ,members of the church and looked upon like because of what they are they are flawed, or suffering or struggling.  Elder Andersen used those very words.   So yea I wonder if the God that the LDS church teaches is real why He would put or even allow one of his children to be tested or tried in such an awful way.   This seems cruel to me.

[mfbukowski]

Your whole post falls apart by not being able to point to a single revelation that the church even claims has occurred.  If the church leaders can not even claim a revelation, then how am I suppose to pretend that they have received any.  Despite your game playing with some rabbit hole nonsense, until the prophet, any prophet, at any time in the history of mankind can declare that he has received a revelation from God concerning homosexuality, no such revelation has occurred.  If you can point to one, then you indeed have a claim to know the will of God on this subject.  If you can not point to such a revelation, then you can only point to the will of the leaders of the church on this subject.  And I completely understand why and how that is enough for most members, especially if they are not gay.

 

I fully understand that you believe the church leaders lead the church under God's direction.  Perhaps they do.  But it is pretty difficult to make any definitive statement about God's clear plan for His gay children when throughout the history of mankind, such a plan has not been received.  

 

Do you belong to a church that claims latter day revelation?  Do you belong to a church who's basic principles and doctrine have come through direct revelation from God and His messengers?  Did John the Baptist come back to earth to restore the Aaronic Priesthood?  Was Joseph Smith visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah etc.  Was the 76th section of the D&C revealed by direct revelation from God?  My point is, don't be coy with me.  You should know the difference between revelation and group decisions. It might not be what you need to embrace the policies of the church on SSM, but, I need more than a committee decision.  Those committee decisions have not always worked out to be the will of God.

 

Let me end, since you seem to be confused.  I KNOW the churches position on gay marriage.  There is no room for equivocation.  Church leaders have been united and with a clear voice in proclaiming what they think on the subject.  But NONE have said this policy came from a revelation from God.  And also to be clear, I am not arguing for change in the church.  Church leaders can and should lead the church the best they can.  Right now, there is a complete consenses that SSM is not allowed.  This is the policy they want to stick with.  But don't claim that policy came from revelation from God unless you can point to a revelation claimed by prophet leaders.  If you are still confused, please refer to Spencer W. Kimball's change in priesthood policy.  That did not come from committee, it came from God.

Read the Proclamation on the Family.

[Teancum]

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

  Tell me what are the attributes of God? 

 

Tell me how you answer the problem of evil and suffering?   What theodicies do you find compelling.

 

If you can share some thoughtful answers please do so. Other wise don't bother.  I am seriously thinking and wondering and studying and even praying about such things.  Snotty remarks like yours above is not helpful though it is revealing.

[Teancum]

I see.

 

We are here to be tested but God should prevent us from actually taking the test.

 

In other words, our existence on earth is pointless, we are just here to have a good time and God is evil for testing us in the first place.

 

Interesting.

  I am not sure we are all here to simply be tested. And you have read something into my comments that I did not mean at all.   I look at it from a parents stand point.  How can I best help my children learn and grow. A certain amount of trials can be good. Others can break someone,. Others are cruel.  To answer some simply as a test and say tough crap is IMO immature and not thoughtful at all.  Can you explain what the people that went through the holocaust as a simple test?  What about the kidnapping and rape of a small child.  What test was that child going through?  Maybe you should ponder this a bit.

[mfbukowski]

I am happy that you are coping with your illness. I hope you continue.  If your faith strengthens you great. That does not make it true.  Good honest people ask the questions I am asking and some of them post here.  You may wonder about such things.   Really what I am getting at is the problem of evil and suffering which is a topic for another thread. The answers that you find comfort from used to comfort me.  But they no longer do.  That does not make me bad or good nor does it you.   Like I said, some are not as troubled by such things. Others are.  The topic of this thread causes me great sorrow for those who are ,members of the church and looked upon like because of what they are they are flawed, or suffering or struggling.  Elder Andersen used those very words.   So yea I wonder if the God that the LDS church teaches is real why He would put or even allow one of his children to be tested or tried in such an awful way.   This seems cruel to me.

This just doesn't even grasp a thread of what we believe.

If you think it was cruel that God allowed his perfect son to be crucified, that's your business.

But that has nothing to do with ssm.

Start your own thread about God being cruel if you like, but that's not the point here at all.

Edited April 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure we are all here to simply be tested.

Ok well I am, and yes I have pondered it longer than you have been alive, and your concern about me being "immature is a concern of youth.

Trust me, I'm mature.

So now what? What's your point?

The answers to your questions have been discussed a million times here.

[wenglund]

 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. 

 

You are assuming that an omnipotent being would prevent evil and sin? If so, could you explain your basis for that belief>

 

I ask because my perception of the purpose of life and the opposing nature of man (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak), as well as the realities of life (people doing bad/harmful things), suggests something quite different to me than what you seem to imply.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

  Are the prophets and apostles infallible?

 

As compared with you?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

mfbukowski,

 

First this is not your thread. I have been discussing the issues of this thread and the do tie into the problem of evil and suffering.   But I have noted a number of times it is likely a better topic for another thread. 

 

Next why so strident. I am being polite.  You are not. 

 

Your opened a response to me with this:

 

I see.

 

We are here to be tested but God should prevent us from actually taking the test.

 

In other words, our existence on earth is pointless, we are just here to have a good time and God is evil for testing us in the first place.

 

Interesting

 

.

I noted this was not my point at all. 

 

Are you not able to deal with decent people asking honest questions without going off on one? 

 

Ok well I am, and yes I have pondered it longer than you have been alive, and your concern about me being "immature is a concern of youth.

Trust me, I'm mature.

So now what? What's your point?

The answers to your questions have been discussed a million times here.

 

 Do you know how long I have been alive?  I am happy your are certain. I once was.  I am no longer.  Answers that used to work for me don't now.  What you call answers to my questions being discussed here is fine.  I rarely post here.  I know most the answers you would give. I don't find them compelling and in fact they are often create more problems.

 

My point, if you would calm down and read what I wrote it this:  Most the answers the believers in the LDS Church are giving here is this is simply a test, too bad, deal with it.  My questions have validity and are right on point with the responses on this thread.  If you want to discuss civilly great. If you continue on your tone of the past couple posts please don't bother.

[Teancum]

You are assuming that an omnipotent being would prevent evil and sin? If so, could you explain your basis for that belief>

 

I ask because my perception of the purpose of life and the opposing nature of man (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak), as well as the realities of life (people doing bad/harmful things), suggests something quite different to me than what you seem to imply.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

I am asking why would an omnipotent being that is also omniscient want, or allow, his children to be put in a position where they love the Church they are members of and they have likely been born with an issues that is so opposed to the very core of what it means to be a son or daughter of God and what their potential is in the eternities. 

[Teancum]

As compared with you?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 Ahh I thought I could have  a discussion with you but nah the old Wade pops up.

 

Thanks all for reminding me why I rarely post in this board.   Keep patting each other on the back.

[wenglund]

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

 

Yes, of course. While I don't pretend to fully understand the mind of God, from what little I do know, I suspect that the reasons for different treatment are varied--but may generally be because people are different (they are at different stages of personal development, and different people respond differently to different things, etc.) and circumstances are different (some circumstances lend themselves to divine intervention and others do not, and some circumstances are more impacting upon God's will and plan for man than others, etc.).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 7, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

 Ahh I thought I could have  a discussion with you but nah the old Wade pops up.

 

Thanks all for reminding me why I rarely post in this board.   Keep patting each other on the back.

 

??? 

 

I am trying to figure out why my thought-provoking and exploratory question, in response to your equally thought-provoking and exploratory question,  would be a barrier to a discussion with you, let alone a pat on someone else's back? 

 

Did I somehow touch a nerve by comparatively directing the magnifying glass of scrutiny from Church leaders back to you?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

What test was that child going through? Maybe you should ponder this a bit.

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.

Edited April 7, 2014 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

I am asking why would an omnipotent being that is also omniscient want, or allow, his children to be put in a position where they love the Church they are members of and they have likely been born with an issues that is so opposed to the very core of what it means to be a son or daughter of God and what their potential is in the eternities. 

 

You mean, why would God create mortals with dual and opposing/waring natures (spirit vs flesh, spiritual vs carnal)?

 

It is because God's children cannot fully become like God without this opposition and without subjecting the flesh to the spirit.

 

This isn't just a homosexual dynamic. We all face such internal wars in various ways, though for good reason.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 7, 2014 by wenglund

[smac97]

Your whole post falls apart by not being able to point to a single revelation that the church even claims has occurred.

I said it twice. Here it is a third time: 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.

 

If the church leaders can not even claim a revelation,

I reject this premise.

 

then how am I suppose to pretend that they have received any.

I also reject this conclusion based on the above faulty premise.

 

Despite your game playing with some rabbit hole nonsense, until the prophet, any prophet, at any time in the history of mankind can declare that he has received a revelation from God concerning homosexuality, no such revelation has occurred.

Yes, there has.

 

If you can point to one, then you indeed have a claim to know the will of God on this subject.

I already claim that.

 

If you can not point to such a revelation,

I reject this premise.

 

then you can only point to the will of the leaders of the church on this subject.

I also reject this conclusion based on the above faulty premise.

 

And I completely understand why and how that is enough for most members, especially if they are not gay.

I also reject this conclusion based on the above faulty premise.

 

I fully understand that you believe the church leaders lead the church under God's direction.  Perhaps they do.  But it is pretty difficult to make any definitive statement about God's clear plan for His gay children when throughout the history of mankind, such a plan has not been received.

I also reject this conclusion based on the above faulty premise.

I reject the notion that God necessarily speaks in "black letter law." He does do that at times, but not always. I also reject your premise that anything-but-black-letter-law is insufficient.

 

Do you belong to a church that claims latter day revelation?

Yes. But I perceive that you do not understand or accept the revelatory process.

 

Do you belong to a church who's basic principles and doctrine have come through direct revelation from God and His messengers?

Yes. But again, I think you do not understand or accept the revelatory process.

 

More in the next post.

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post.

 

Did John the Baptist come back to earth to restore the Aaronic Priesthood?  Was Joseph Smith visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah etc.  Was the 76th section of the D&C revealed by direct revelation from God?

Yes, yes and yes.

 

My point is, don't be coy with me.

I am not being coy. I am attempting to be respectful, while still defending my beliefs.

 

You should know the difference between revelation and group decisions.

The Church's position on SSM/SSA is based on revealed doctrines from God, not "group decisions" devoid of divine guidance.

 

It might not be what you need to embrace the policies of the church on SSM, but, I need more than a committee decision.

So do I. The fact that you are characterizing the Church's position on this issue as merely "a committee decision" tends to substantiate my perception about your position vis a vis the Church and its doctrines. There is no point in discussing those doctrines with you when you have preemptively dismissed them as products of "a committee decision" rather than revelation.

 

Those committee decisions have not always worked out to be the will of God.

See?

 

Let me end, since you seem to be confused.

Yes, let's end. Not because I am confused, but because reasoned discourse does not appear possible. 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.

 

I KNOW the churches position on gay marriage.  There is no room for equivocation.

Your comments below show that you do not know the Church's position. At least, you do not understand it.

 

Church leaders have been united and with a clear voice in proclaiming what they think on the subject.

Yeah, right there. "What they think of the subject" is not the basis of the Church's position on SSM/SSA.

 

But NONE have said this policy came from a revelation from God.

None have called it a mere "policy," either. The Church's positions on SSM/SSA are based on revealed doctrines. You have preemptively rejected the scriptural basis for the Church's position, but that just doesn't work. You don't get to unilaterally declare what the Church believes and why it believes it. You don't get to declare that the Church has no claimed revelatory guidance on SSM/SSA when it does.

 

And also to be clear, I am not arguing for change in the church.  Church leaders can and should lead the church the best they can.  Right now, there is a complete consenses that SSM is not allowed.  This is the policy they want to stick with.

This is also the doctrine they are obligated to stick with.

 

But don't claim that policy came from revelation from God

I do claim it. With respect. With humility. But also with boldness. I claim it.

 

unless you can point to a revelation claimed by prophet leaders.

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.

 

If you are still confused, please refer to Spencer W. Kimball's change in priesthood policy.  That did not come from committee, it came from God.

I am not, and have not been, confused. I respect your position, and I would appreciate some reciprocity. We would also need to ditch the preemptive declarations about what the Church believes and claims.

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2014 by smac97

[Storm Rider]

Your whole post falls apart by not being able to point to a single revelation that the church even claims has occurred.  If the church leaders can not even claim a revelation, then how am I suppose to pretend that they have received any.  Despite your game playing with some rabbit hole nonsense, until the prophet, any prophet, at any time in the history of mankind can declare that he has received a revelation from God concerning homosexuality, no such revelation has occurred.  If you can point to one, then you indeed have a claim to know the will of God on this subject.  If you can not point to such a revelation, then you can only point to the will of the leaders of the church on this subject.  And I completely understand why and how that is enough for most members, especially if they are not gay.

 

I fully understand that you believe the church leaders lead the church under God's direction.  Perhaps they do.  But it is pretty difficult to make any definitive statement about God's clear plan for His gay children when throughout the history of mankind, such a plan has not been received.  

 

Do you belong to a church that claims latter day revelation?  Do you belong to a church who's basic principles and doctrine have come through direct revelation from God and His messengers?  Did John the Baptist come back to earth to restore the Aaronic Priesthood?  Was Joseph Smith visited by God the Father, Jesus Christ, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah etc.  Was the 76th section of the D&C revealed by direct revelation from God?  My point is, don't be coy with me.  You should know the difference between revelation and group decisions. It might not be what you need to embrace the policies of the church on SSM, but, I need more than a committee decision.  Those committee decisions have not always worked out to be the will of God.

 

Let me end, since you seem to be confused.  I KNOW the churches position on gay marriage.  There is no room for equivocation.  Church leaders have been united and with a clear voice in proclaiming what they think on the subject.  But NONE have said this policy came from a revelation from God.  And also to be clear, I am not arguing for change in the church.  Church leaders can and should lead the church the best they can.  Right now, there is a complete consenses that SSM is not allowed.  This is the policy they want to stick with.  But don't claim that policy came from revelation from God unless you can point to a revelation claimed by prophet leaders.  If you are still confused, please refer to Spencer W. Kimball's change in priesthood policy.  That did not come from committee, it came from God.  

 

As I read your post I recognize the logic and why you stand on on the demand that there must be a revelation - that a policy will not suffice. Because of my belief in the Church I am forced to acknowledge that the leaders are simply men. They may be called of God, but policies are not revelation and sometimes policies are instituted by men rather than God.  It is not fair that I use this belief when it suits me and ignore it when it does not.

 

However, a few things go through my head as I think of this. First, must we be compelled in all things to guide us? Must we have a revelations that defines abusing drugs is wrong morally?  What about the various forms of child abuse? Must God define each and every one for us to know that he rejects all child abuse as sinful?  Second, there may be a difference between the policies regarding the priesthood and the policy regarding homosexuality. On the one hand the priesthood restrictions was a change to the process. Homosexuality behavior has been defined as sinful since the very beginning. 

 

The demand for a specific revelation would not be a clarification or a change in position, but it is a request that God be perfectly clear that what he has said from the beginning remains the same today. As I write this I my mind argues with itself.  I understand most of the pros and cons to this position.

 

Maybe if we approached it from another direction, would you be able to more easily follow Christ as his disciple if the prophet would have a revelation from God on this matter? In other words, would you or would those who practice homosexual behavior abandon it and renew their commitment to be a disciple of Christ?  I suspect that some would, but many would not. It would not affect them one wit; rather the revelation would result in the accusations of men being men being just as prevalent.  It is danged if you do and danged if you don't. 

[why me]

The problem with gay rights and this includes the right to marry is that it has been a rather new struggle. I think that it all began when Hollywood began to show gay couples and gay people living in a positive way. Of course, hollywood homosexuals who had some influence in broadcasting were influential in getting gay characters on the sitcoms. It all started with Ellen and took off from there. If we remember when Ellen came out with her sitcom character being gay the reaction was negative. But with perseverance and fortitude hollywood continued with the gay character theme in sitcoms and eventually began to soften the hearts of the TV audience. And of course, the young people have been bombarded with the gay rights theme for most of their lives more or less telling them that if they are against such rights they are bigoted. .

 

This softened american and western viewpoints on gay rights and their right to marry. Not to mention the propaganda that was behind it. Even Bill Mahar just came out with the gay mafia view on it. It is rather common knowledge that if anyone comes out against gay marriage and they are in the public spotlight, they may lose their advert contracts, sponsorships etc.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

 

So it is rather difficult to have a free debate on this issue and its impact on society and on religion. When it comes to the gay right to marry, it is difficult to oppose if one is in the public spotlight such as actors, teachers, CEOs, etc.    .

 

But to assume that after 2014 years, god has suddenly changed his mind on gay marriage because hollywood has softened up the western public on the issue would be a stretch.

Edited April 7, 2014 by why me

[sunstoned]

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

You and me both.

[california boy]

As I read your post I recognize the logic and why you stand on on the demand that there must be a revelation - that a policy will not suffice. Because of my belief in the Church I am forced to acknowledge that the leaders are simply men. They may be called of God, but policies are not revelation and sometimes policies are instituted by men rather than God.  It is not fair that I use this belief when it suits me and ignore it when it does not.

 

However, a few things go through my head as I think of this. First, must we be compelled in all things to guide us? Must we have a revelations that defines abusing drugs is wrong morally?  What about the various forms of child abuse? Must God define each and every one for us to know that he rejects all child abuse as sinful?  Second, there may be a difference between the policies regarding the priesthood and the policy regarding homosexuality. On the one hand the priesthood restrictions was a change to the process. Homosexuality behavior has been defined as sinful since the very beginning. 

 

The demand for a specific revelation would not be a clarification or a change in position, but it is a request that God be perfectly clear that what he has said from the beginning remains the same today. As I write this I my mind argues with itself.  I understand most of the pros and cons to this position.

 

Maybe if we approached it from another direction, would you be able to more easily follow Christ as his disciple if the prophet would have a revelation from God on this matter? In other words, would you or would those who practice homosexual behavior abandon it and renew their commitment to be a disciple of Christ?  I suspect that some would, but many would not. It would not affect them one wit; rather the revelation would result in the accusations of men being men being just as prevalent.  It is danged if you do and danged if you don't. 

Thank you for your response.  I actually agree with pretty much all that you said.  No I don't think that we need to be compelled in all things.  Most things make logical sense to most people.  Most things, Christ has given clear enough direction that every finite behavior does not need to be defined.  For example child abuse as you mentioned was addressed pretty clearly by the Savior.  Millstones seem like a pretty final answer to that question.  

 

I realize that for the majority of members, the church policy on gay marriage is clear enough and no further questions need to be answered.  But that is pretty much because it is an issue that they do not have to deal with.  They are not asked to not form close human bonds in this life.  They are not asked to wander through this world without a helpmate, something that God specifically declared the importance of.  These are pretty serious life changing decisions. It is a far more impactful issue to deal with than whether to indulge in drugs.  I think you understand that.  For some gay members, following the counsel of the leaders seems to be enough to give up so much in this life, with no clear understanding of what will happen in the next.  I obviously feel I need a bit more than just church policy.  Given the rate most gay members leave the church, I think it is safe to say that most need more than that.  Thank you for understanding that.  

 

Would everyone that is gay stay in the church if there was such a revelation?  Like you, I don't know.   And in all honesty, I am not sure what I would choose.  Certainly key for me would be KNOWING what God promises me in the next life.  If for example the promise is to be wed to a woman for eternity, then I would probably give it a pass.  If it were something else, then I may very well sacrifice what it would take to achieve such a reward.  Yes I know that some FEEL they know what is in store.  Perhaps for me, this part of the revelation would be the most important part.  It is also the least understood at this point.  Other than the opinion of Elder Oaks, little has been said about this.

[mfbukowski]

Do you know how long I have been alive?  I am happy your are certain. I once was.  I am no longer.

I presume you are not saying you no longer know how old you are. No, I am not certain about anything and I never said I was.

  

Answers that used to work for me don't now.  What you call answers to my questions being discussed here is fine.  I rarely post here.  I know most the answers you would give. I don't find them compelling and in fact they are often create more problems.

Indeed, I would wonder why you post here at all considering you know all the answers and find them unsatisfactory. Why ARE you here? 

My point, if you would calm down and read what I wrote it this:  Most the answers the believers in the LDS Church are giving here is this is simply a test, too bad, deal with it.  My questions have validity and are right on point with the responses on this thread.  If you want to discuss civilly great. If you continue on your tone of the past couple posts please don't bother.

Your complaints are all typical of anyone who cannot deal with evil in the world being compatible with a loving God.

In short your complaints are about problems with Christianity as a whole and have been discussed probably on every religious board ever invented.

If you look at the title of the thread, the thread is about very specific policies of the LDS church, and your complaints have nothing to do with those policies.

If you have anything RELEVANT to discuss I will be glad to do so and do it civilly, but your complaints are not relevant to the thread. I will be very willing to stop talking to you since your points are irrelevant to the discussion

Edited April 7, 2014 by mfbukowski