Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[wenglund]

Keep wincing... some of us believe that the "genesis of our spiritual path" should be following Christ rather than your obsession with procreative sex.

 

It seems odd to me that someone with your lengthy background in the gospel would fail to realize that entry (i.e. genesis) onto the path of Christ consist of REBIRTH (a form of procreation) as made possible through the marriage of the bridegroom to his wife the Church (man and woman), and that such a REBIRTH is not possible except their came before it an initial BIRTH.

 

In that regard, the path or plan of Christ necessitates our coming to and living on earth, which occurs through BIRTH made possible by mortal parents (man and women), which Christ exemplified and enabled us to follow him through his condescending and being BORN on earth (by way of his Father and his mother, Mary).

 

Hence, there are at least two BIRTHS (one literal and the other figurative) by which we enter the path of Christ in mortality, each made possible by the union of man and woman.

 

One may continue on that path of Christ, and may only complete the path, by being BORN yet again unto eternal life through the resurrection, thereby making a total of three BIRTHS/procreation within the plan of progression.

 

Besides, following Christ on his path unavoidably consist in part of obeying his commandments, the first of which is to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.  

 

How did you not get this during years of Church education?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

It seems odd to me that someone with your lengthy background in the gospel would fail to realize that entry (i.e. genesis) onto the path of Christ consist of REBIRTH (a form of procreation) as made possible through the marriage of the bridegroom to his wife the Church (man and woman), and that such a REBIRTH is not possible except their came before it an initial BIRTH.

 

In that regard, the path or plan of Christ necessitates our coming to and living on earth, which occurs through BIRTH made possible by mortal parents (man and women), which Christ exemplified and enabled us to follow him through his condescending and being BORN on earth (by way of his Father and his mother, Mary).

 

Hence, there are at least two BIRTHS (one literal and the other figurative) by which we enter the path of Christ in mortality, each made possible by the union of man and woman.

 

One may continue on that path of Christ, and may only complete the path, by being BORN yet again unto eternal life through the resurrection, thereby making a total of three BIRTHS/procreation within the plan of progression.

 

Besides, following Christ on his path unavoidably consist in part of obeying his commandments, the first of which is to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.  

 

How did you not get this during years of Church education?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think that you are over-applying the symbolism.  Pushing it too far.

[rockpond]

But I really don't see how they are.  There are no doctrines pointing to an opposing viewpoint.

Basically, what people are saying is "the existing doctrines aren't clear enough yet for me to accept, but I have no opposing doctrines to counter them either".

 

All the proof we need is in the scriptures, prophetic teachings and the temple.  And there is no proof against that I have ever seen quoted.  Religiously speaking anyway.

 

My personal views/beliefs on the points you outlined.  The first part of each is your statement >>> followed by mine.

 

1. Homosexual sex is a sin and is considered unnatural (ie, out of the eternal order). >>> Homosexual intercourse (all intercourse, for that matter) is a sin outside of wedlock.  The scriptures are silent on marriage for homosexual couples and celibacy is condemned in the scriptures.

2. God has ordained male and female(s) as the only kind of marriage from the beginning and the only marriage ever approved. >>>  Ordained & approved, yes, but your "only" statements are not supported by scripture.  Not even the Proclamation says "only".

3. All gospel evidence is that in the eternities only male/female marriage can and will exist.  >>> Again, you imply an exclusivity here that I don't see in the scriptures.  For me, evidence points to cultures that did not understand homosexuality in the way we do today and so they did not approach the subject of committed homosexual relationships in past scripture but I don't take that to indicate an exclusivity of hetero marriage.

4. Procreation IS the main goal of both sex and marriage (although there are obviously other emotional benefits).  >>> Procreation is A goal of sex and marriage.  There are others.

5. Exaltation and the work of our Heavenly Father includes and mandates eternal increase, something that can only accomplished heterosexually through eternal Mothers and Fathers.  >>> We know almost nothing about eternal increase.  The only narrative we have of spirit creation involves only males.

 

There are only a small handful of verses in the OT & NT that deal with homosexuality and none of them that specifically deal with committed relationships.  (Nobody here is arguing in favor of sex outside of marriage being "moral".)  Restoration scriptures are silent on the issue of homosexuality.  So, that leaves us with looking to latter day prophets, seers, and revelators.  Many of us see an evolution from the early messages on homosexuality (Kimball, Packer) to the current messages (see MormonsandGays.org) as reflective of a growing understanding that mimics the changes in teachings that we saw over the past 150 years with respect to blacks.  Since I am opposed to condemning someone to a life of celibacy and since I am opposed to mixed-orientation marriages, I look forward with hope and prayer for further light and knowledge in the church regarding the greater issues of homosexuality.

 

That's my best explanation in a nutshell.  Shoot it down if you choose but you are unlikely to change my belief system as it is founded on the same source as my testimony of the restored gospel.  I firmly believe that the church will need to obtain a greater understanding from God regarding His will for his gay children or our declining growth rate will accelerate until the church slips into irrelevancy.

[california boy]

It seems odd to me that someone with your lengthy background in the gospel would fail to realize that entry (i.e. genesis) onto the path of Christ consist of REBIRTH (a form of procreation) as made possible through the marriage of the bridegroom to his wife the Church (man and woman), and that such a REBIRTH is not possible except their came before it an initial BIRTH.

 

In that regard, the path or plan of Christ necessitates our coming to and living on earth, which occurs through BIRTH made possible by mortal parents (man and women), which Christ exemplified and enabled us to follow him through his condescending and being BORN on earth (by way of his Father and his mother, Mary).

 

Hence, there are at least two BIRTHS (one literal and the other figurative) by which we enter the path of Christ in mortality, each made possible by the union of man and woman.

 

One may continue on that path of Christ, and may only complete the path, by being BORN yet again unto eternal life through the resurrection, thereby making a total of three BIRTHS/procreation within the plan of progression.

 

Besides, following Christ on his path unavoidably consist in part of obeying his commandments, the first of which is to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.  

 

How did you not get this during years of Church education?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I am a bit confused about your strident importance of procreation and the importance of marriage that you preach.  You have literally been going on for pages on how important marriage is to the plan of salvation, yet you are single?  Shouldn't you be obsessing with your own lack of fulfilling the divine procreation process rather than those who are not even members of the church and don't share this belief???

 

It is my hope that you will redirect your negative obsession with gays and start focusing on the joys of life and the blessings of finding a mate to share your life with.  I hope God blesses you with a rich and fruitful life filled with joy and love and companionship.

[wenglund]

Note the emphasis I put on what you said.

 

Since we are not divine then I suggest we go with what Elder Holland said in April Conference:

 

 

I sometimes think that people equate courtesy and compassion with advocacy.  They are not the same.  

 

I like the way you emphasized the divine, particularly in light of the fact that the of voice of God is at times delivered by way of angels, both heavenly and earthly, with the understanding that their voice and God's are the same..

 

And, i also like Elder Holland's recommendation to be courteous and compassionate.  It is just that courtesy and compassion are oft mistakenly confused with timidity and appeasement, and some people may fail to recognize that there was great meekness and courtesy in Christ clearing of the temple, and that at times the greatest compassion is shown through exceeding pain (as with Christ's redeeming crucifixion). Certain cancers can't be removed except through painful cutting of the surgeons knife, and kept at bey through the ravages of chemo therapy. Children walking into the street or unwittingly into a minefield, may not be detoured by a gentle and soft voice, but will more likely respond to a loud and no-nonsense demand, and in such circumstances deep compassion for the child would demand such.

 

All I am suggesting is that while your point is well taken, there are times when a sharp tongue is the most courteous and compassionate mode of interaction. It all depends on the circumstances and the individuals involved. 

 

If it is of any consolation, I have been making a concerted effort to start off with the kinder-gentler approach, and I will tend not to escalate to sharper tones until I am first met with the same and/or I determine that stiff necks and calloused eyes and dulled ears may require it. On this subject, and with the usual suspect oft participating in such threads, escalation is oft well warranted in my estimation.

 

But, that may just be how I see things. I can respect if you see it otherwise. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[JLHPROF]

 

My personal views/beliefs on the points you outlined.  The first part of each is your statement >>> followed by mine.

 

1. Homosexual sex is a sin and is considered unnatural (ie, out of the eternal order). >>> Homosexual intercourse (all intercourse, for that matter) is a sin outside of wedlock.  The scriptures are silent on marriage for homosexual couples and celibacy is condemned in the scriptures.

 

But that silence is deafening - If there was ANY allowance by God for committed homosexual relationships surely He would have included it somewhere in his dealings with man.  He certainly influenced heterosexual marriage.  This is my point again, just like with women and the priesthood - if it was acceptable, there would be SOMEWHERE where God allowed for it.

 

2. God has ordained male and female(s) as the only kind of marriage from the beginning and the only marriage ever approved. >>>  Ordained & approved, yes, but your "only" statements are not supported by scripture.  Not even the Proclamation says "only".

 

Of course my "only" statements are supported by scripture.  Find a single example of a marriage not between man and woman that God ever approved.  I can find many with man and woman where God has arranged it.

 

3. All gospel evidence is that in the eternities only male/female marriage can and will exist.  >>> Again, you imply an exclusivity here that I don't see in the scriptures.  For me, evidence points to cultures that did not understand homosexuality in the way we do today and so they did not approach the subject of committed homosexual relationships in past scripture but I don't take that to indicate an exclusivity of hetero marriage.

 

You find the absence of committed homosexual relationships to be evidence that God hasn't spoken on the issue?  I find the absence to be evidence that God doesn't consider them as an option.  There is no option for them in the temple ordinances.   There is no option for them in the marriage ceremony.  There is no option for them in the creation.  There is just no option.  Again, the silence is deafening.

 

4. Procreation IS the main goal of both sex and marriage (although there are obviously other emotional benefits).  >>> Procreation is A goal of sex and marriage.  There are others.

 

I said the main goal, ie, the measure of its creation, its raison d'etre, its design and purpose.  I don't deny the other benefits but I believe that sex was given to man to multiply and replenish the earth (medical conditions excluded).  It was basically God's first command to mankind and is represented in God's own work and glory.

 

5. Exaltation and the work of our Heavenly Father includes and mandates eternal increase, something that can only accomplished heterosexually through eternal Mothers and Fathers.  >>> We know almost nothing about eternal increase.  The only narrative we have of spirit creation involves only males.

 

Genesis 1:26 - the Gods created male and female in their image - just as my wife and I create our children in our image.  Pretty straight forward.

D&C 132:19 - their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.  Homosexual relations prevent this from happening.

 

[rockpond]

 

 

My personal views/beliefs on the points you outlined.  The first part of each is your statement >>> followed by mine.

 

1. Homosexual sex is a sin and is considered unnatural (ie, out of the eternal order). >>> Homosexual intercourse (all intercourse, for that matter) is a sin outside of wedlock.  The scriptures are silent on marriage for homosexual couples and celibacy is condemned in the scriptures.

 

But that silence is deafening - If there was ANY allowance by God for committed homosexual relationships surely He would have included it somewhere in his dealings with man.  He certainly influenced heterosexual marriage.  This is my point again, just like with women and the priesthood - if it was acceptable, there would be SOMEWHERE where God allowed for it.

 

2. God has ordained male and female(s) as the only kind of marriage from the beginning and the only marriage ever approved. >>>  Ordained & approved, yes, but your "only" statements are not supported by scripture.  Not even the Proclamation says "only".

 

Of course my "only" statements are supported by scripture.  Find a single example of a marriage not between man and woman that God ever approved.  I can find many with man and woman where God has arranged it.

 

3. All gospel evidence is that in the eternities only male/female marriage can and will exist.  >>> Again, you imply an exclusivity here that I don't see in the scriptures.  For me, evidence points to cultures that did not understand homosexuality in the way we do today and so they did not approach the subject of committed homosexual relationships in past scripture but I don't take that to indicate an exclusivity of hetero marriage.

 

You find the absence of committed homosexual relationships to be evidence that God hasn't spoken on the issue?  I find the absence to be evidence that God doesn't consider them as an option.  There is no option for them in the temple ordinances.   There is no option for them in the marriage ceremony.  There is no option for them in the creation.  There is just no option.  Again, the silence is deafening.

 

4. Procreation IS the main goal of both sex and marriage (although there are obviously other emotional benefits).  >>> Procreation is A goal of sex and marriage.  There are others.

 

I said the main goal, ie, the measure of its creation, its raison d'etre, its design and purpose.  I don't deny the other benefits but I believe that sex was given to man to multiply and replenish the earth (medical conditions excluded).  It was basically God's first command to mankind and is represented in God's own work and glory.

 

5. Exaltation and the work of our Heavenly Father includes and mandates eternal increase, something that can only accomplished heterosexually through eternal Mothers and Fathers.  >>> We know almost nothing about eternal increase.  The only narrative we have of spirit creation involves only males.

 

Genesis 1:26 - the Gods created male and female in their image - just as my wife and I create our children in our image.  Pretty straight forward.

D&C 132:19 - their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.  Homosexual relations prevent this from happening.

 

 

 

1.  We can't hear the message if we aren't asking with a sincere and humble heart.  As a church, it seems that we think we already know the answer (as you've indicated).

 

2. & 3.  Scripture is written by man (based on his interaction with the divine).  If that man does not have an exposure to gay relationships, we won't see it reflected in scripture.  An absence of the subject reflects on the cultures from which our scriptures originate.  Silence may not mean that God has nothing to say, it may just mean that we have never asked correctly.

 

4.  I simply disagree with you here.  Assuming I live an average life span, procreative sex will have only been present for a small fraction of my married life.  My marriage and married sex life serve purposes far beyond procreation.  Further, we seal people in the temple who are beyond procreative years.  This leads to #5...

 

5.  There is nothing in those scriptures that explains how spirits are created nor that male & female are required.  This is something that simply has not yet been revealed.

[JLHPROF]

1.  We can't hear the message if we aren't asking with a sincere and humble heart.  As a church, it seems that we think we already know the answer (as you've indicated).

 

This is true, but all the prayer in the world can't make water dry.

 

2. & 3.  Scripture is written by man (based on his interaction with the divine).  If that man does not have an exposure to gay relationships, we won't see it reflected in scripture.  An absence of the subject reflects on the cultures from which our scriptures originate.  Silence may not mean that God has nothing to say, it may just mean that we have never asked correctly.

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Apostles in Greece and Rome had PLENTY of exposure to homosexual relationships.  Yet not one word on the subject except for Romans.

 

4.  I simply disagree with you here.  Assuming I live an average life span, procreative sex will have only been present for a small fraction of my married life.  My marriage and married sex life serve purposes far beyond procreation.  Further, we seal people in the temple who are beyond procreative years.  This leads to #5...

 

Marriage/sealing is in anticipation of future increase too.  Sex is for procreation, even if our mortal bodies pass through a short time when they are incapable of doing so.  In the eternities we know that increase resumes as per D&C 132:19.  The very act of sex was commanded by God to multiply and replenish.  I'll take God's direct instruction of its use over man's interpretation of what it might be for.

 

5.  There is nothing in those scriptures that explains how spirits are created nor that male & female are required.  This is something that simply has not yet been revealed.

 

Genesis 1:26 alludes to your basic genetic makeup.  Male and female have children that are in their image.  My kids look like me and my wife.  The Gods created man in their image, male and female.  Basic genetics.  Sex.  No being was ever created in any other fashion according to the Prophet Brigham Young.

[mormonnewb]

I neglected to mention a key element of the gospel related to sex, which is featured in the creation/garden narrative found in the temple and scriptures, The very first commandment given to mankind, which also necessitated the fall and subsequent salvation, is to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Procreation, then, is a fundamental principle of the gospel and is the genesis of each of our spiritual path--which genesis is not possible through sex between members of the same sex.

 

Again, this seems so obvious to me as to cause me to wince having to say it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

And what do you say about sex between heterosexual couples when procreation is no longer a possibility?  My wife and I are no longer able to have kids.  Are you saying that all of our "couplings" are no longer approved by HF (or at least, LESS approved than the couplings of a younger and fertile couple)?  If so, how dare you denigrate my birthday and Christmas like that!

 

[Rodeo]

So what kind of therapy for homosexuality do you suggest?

Abstinence coupled with prayer and faith to make one strong in resisting temptation.

[rockpond]

Abstinence coupled with prayer and faith to make one strong in resisting temptation.

 

That's not therapy.  That's religion.

 

But that's a relief because I thought you were promoting sexual orientation change therapy.

[rockpond]

 

1.  We can't hear the message if we aren't asking with a sincere and humble heart.  As a church, it seems that we think we already know the answer (as you've indicated).

 

This is true, but all the prayer in the world can't make water dry.

 

2. & 3.  Scripture is written by man (based on his interaction with the divine).  If that man does not have an exposure to gay relationships, we won't see it reflected in scripture.  An absence of the subject reflects on the cultures from which our scriptures originate.  Silence may not mean that God has nothing to say, it may just mean that we have never asked correctly.

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Apostles in Greece and Rome had PLENTY of exposure to homosexual relationships.  Yet not one word on the subject except for Romans.

 

4.  I simply disagree with you here.  Assuming I live an average life span, procreative sex will have only been present for a small fraction of my married life.  My marriage and married sex life serve purposes far beyond procreation.  Further, we seal people in the temple who are beyond procreative years.  This leads to #5...

 

Marriage/sealing is in anticipation of future increase too.  Sex is for procreation, even if our mortal bodies pass through a short time when they are incapable of doing so.  In the eternities we know that increase resumes as per D&C 132:19.  The very act of sex was commanded by God to multiply and replenish.  I'll take God's direct instruction of its use over man's interpretation of what it might be for.

 

5.  There is nothing in those scriptures that explains how spirits are created nor that male & female are required.  This is something that simply has not yet been revealed.

 

Genesis 1:26 alludes to your basic genetic makeup.  Male and female have children that are in their image.  My kids look like me and my wife.  The Gods created man in their image, male and female.  Basic genetics.  Sex.  No being was ever created in any other fashion according to the Prophet Brigham Young.

 

 

In your comments on #5, you are talking about creating mortal bodies.  Don't you think that "eternal increase" has to do with creating spirits and then worlds for those spirits to inhabit?

[JLHPROF]

In your comments on #5, you are talking about creating mortal bodies.  Don't you think that "eternal increase" has to do with creating spirits and then worlds for those spirits to inhabit?

 

Am I?  Pretty sure Adam and Eve weren't created mortal in the Garden.  Depending on what creation beliefs you have (and there are many, even in Mormonism) this still refers to genetic traits.

[rockpond]

Am I?  Pretty sure Adam and Eve weren't created mortal in the Garden.  Depending on what creation beliefs you have (and there are many, even in Mormonism) this still refers to genetic traits.

 

The bodies of Adam & Eve?  In the temple we watch & listen as God the father and Christ create their bodies.  No mention of Heavenly Mother.

 

Did Adam have a belly button?  

[JLHPROF]

The bodies of Adam & Eve?  In the temple we watch & listen as God the father and Christ create their bodies.  No mention of Heavenly Mother.

 

Did Adam have a belly button?  

 

Well, I subscribe in part to the Brigham Young version, so yes, Adam had a belly button.  Adam and Eve were immortal beings when they came here.  And they were they genetic descendants of their father and mother.  Just as we are.  Just as Christ was.  Just as Heavenly Father is.  So yes, sex is for procreation.  God's work is to further the existence of his race through his children.  Adam and Eve had parents.  That's what I believe.  That's what Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith believed.  And that's good enough for me.

[rockpond]

Well, I subscribe in part to the Brigham Young version, so yes, Adam had a belly button.  Adam and Eve were immortal beings when they came here.  And they were they genetic descendants of their father and mother.  Just as we are.  Just as Christ was.  Just as Heavenly Father is.  So yes, sex is for procreation.  God's work is to further the existence of his race through his children.  Adam and Eve had parents.  That's what I believe.  That's what Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith believed.  And that's good enough for me.

 

Interesting.  Well, I am satisfied that it is enough of a mystery that I am not going to use it as a reason to condemn people here to a life of celibacy.

[Rodeo]

That's not therapy.  That's religion.

 

But that's a relief because I thought you were promoting sexual orientation change therapy.

Oh, I get it now. You don;t want religion. Go to www.mormonsandgays.org and you will find not one single instance where they teach one to have homosexual relationships. No, they teach abstinence coupled with prayer and faith and change will come. Sexul orientation therapy can come in the form of "God" and "faith". Just read the cases on www.mormonsandgays.org I just read about Ty's story and he went from homosexual relationships to being married heterosexually. Change can happen if we let God in.

[rockpond]

Oh, I get it now. You don;t want religion. Go to www.mormonsandgays.org and you will find not one single instance where they teach one to have homosexual relationships. No, they teach abstinence coupled with prayer and faith and change will come. Sexul orientation therapy can come in the form of "God" and "faith". Just read the cases on www.mormonsandgays.org I just read about Ty's story and he went from homosexual relationships to being married heterosexually. Change can happen if we let God in.

 

Of course I want religion.  You don't know me but I am quite happily active in the church.

 

Ty's story is great but teaching that one can change their sexual orientation through faith (letting God in) is dangerous and harmful, in my opinion.  I don't think Ty recommends it.  There's also Josh Weed (another somewhat famous gay mormon man who is married to a woman) and I don't think he makes the blanket recommendation for gay people to enter mixed-orientation marriages.

 

Further, the official Church position is to not look at marriage as a cure and that changing one's orientation in this life is not possible for all.

[Buzzard]

There is no one more orthodox and socially conservative on this board than I, but this subject had been so done,  and overdone, and done again, and  , that I ALMOST am ready to just throw up my hands and scream "Fine, have it your way, then".  I can see why outside of the church, in the general society, the gays are  winning. It's not that I agree with them, I certainly don't. But they and their supporters nag, nag, nag. Talk about getting in touch with your feminine side. I admire the brethren for sticking to their guns, they must see the eternal ramification clearer even than I and my fellow defenders of orthodoxy on this board and in the church.

You notice that this my first post in this thread of over 400, because I am sick to death of this subject, in which Satan may very well win the battle out in society, but no amount of wheedling and whining, and saying love trumps obedience, etc,,blah, blah, blah, will ever change the eternal pillars of the Great Plan of Happiness.

And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that. At least any more. Refer to the plethora of previous hashings out of this subject for a more complete explanation of my reasons. 

Edited September 16, 2014 by Buzzard

[JLHPROF]

There is no one more orthodox and socially conservative on this board than I, but this subject had been so done,  and overdone, and done again, and  , that I ALMOST am ready to just throw up my hands and scream "Fine, have it your way, then".  I can see why outside of the church, in the general society, the gays are  winning. It's not that I agree with them, I certainly don't. But they and their supporters nag, nag, nag. Talk about getting in touch with your feminine side. I admire the brethren for sticking to their guns, they must see the eternal ramification clearer even than I and my fellow defenders of orthodoxy on this board and in the church.

You notice that this my first post in this thread of over 400, because I am sick to death of this subject, in which Satan may very well win the battle out in society, but no amount of wheedling and whining, and saying love trumps obedience, etc,,blah, blah, blah, will ever change the eternal pillars of the Great Plan of Happiness.

And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that. At least any more. Refer to the plethora of previous hashings out of this subject for a more complete explanation of my reasons. 

 

:clapping: :clapping: - when will people realize that God doesn't change and this law won't change, even IF the Church ever gives in.

[rockpond]

There is no one more orthodox and socially conservative on this board than I, but this subject had been so done,  and overdone, and done again, and  , that I ALMOST am ready to just throw up my hands and scream "Fine, have it your way, then".  I can see why outside of the church, in the general society, the gays are  winning. It's not that I agree with them, I certainly don't. But they and their supporters nag, nag, nag. Talk about getting in touch with your feminine side. I admire the brethren for sticking to their guns, they must see the eternal ramification clearer even than I and my fellow defenders of orthodoxy on this board and in the church.

You notice that this my first post in this thread of over 400, because I am sick to death of this subject, in which Satan may very well win the battle out in society, but no amount of wheedling and whining, and saying love trumps obedience, etc,,blah, blah, blah, will ever change the eternal pillars of the Great Plan of Happiness.

And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that. At least any more. Refer to the plethora of previous hashings out of this subject for a more complete explanation of my reasons. 

 

You'll note that this thread was not started by a supporter of gay marriage but by Rodeo, who is quite adamantly against it.  Nevertheless, Rodeo began the thread under a stated desire to gain more understanding.

[rockpond]

:clapping: :clapping: - when will people realize that God doesn't change and this law won't change, even IF the Church ever gives in.

 

Of course.  Because we've never seen any changes with regards to marriage & sealing.  Funny.

[Tsuzuki]

Nice try.

However, what you suggest would be ironic if procreation between dogs engendered the embryonic divine as it does with humans, particularly via parents who have progressed spiritually to the divine, and renders them capable of becoming Fathers and Mothers in the ultimate and godly senses of the words. Since they don't, then it isn't ironic.

If God saw fit to give them the gift of creation just as He did us, I would not be so quick to discount the possibility. It's not much different than God being an exalted primate.

[JLHPROF]

Of course.  Because we've never seen any changes with regards to marriage & sealing.  Funny.

 

Well as long as we haven't reached the point of Isaiah 24:5 yet:

 

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

 

because the rest of the stuff in that chapter doesn't sound much fun.  But I guess it has to happen at some point before the end.

[Daniel2]

There is no one more orthodox and socially conservative on this board than I, but this subject had been so done, and overdone, and done again, and , that I ALMOST am ready to just throw up my hands and scream "Fine, have it your way, then". I can see why outside of the church, in the general society, the gays are winning. It's not that I agree with them, I certainly don't. But they and their supporters nag, nag, nag. Talk about getting in touch with your feminine side. I admire the brethren for sticking to their guns, they must see the eternal ramification clearer even than I and my fellow defenders of orthodoxy on this board and in the church

I imagine some orthodox, Catholic conservative once said the same of Protestants...

I imagine some orthodox, British conservative once said the same of the Colonists...

I imagine some orthodox, male conservative once said the same of women...

I imagine some orthodox, Palistinian conservative once said the same of Isrealists...

I imagine some orthodox, White Supremacist conservative once said the same of Blacks...

I imagine some orthodox, Christian conservative once said the same of Muslims...

And the motivation is likely often similar; fear of the different, the other, the unknown, and/or a loss of power and control.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Daniel2