Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[rockpond]

Is this line gay bashing- "Homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions are an abomination:"

 

Some probably think that it is.  I think it is dependent on context.

 

I also think that it would be helpful to define "homosexual behavior".  A few pages back, I asked about that and was told that it could include something as innocent as hand-holding and kissing.  If that is the case, then I imagine there are people who would consider it "gay bashing" to call that an abomination and lump them together with sexual perversions.

[Daniel2]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sexual-immorality?lang=eng#"]https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sexual-immorality?lang=eng#

Is that gay bashing?

Some of them certainly are (although not strictly limited to 'gay' bashing)--especially those that recommend stoning, physical violence, or death for 'sinners.'

(Would anyone here suggest that stoning sinners is not 'bashing' them?)

Even so, those ancient scriptures, geared toward a far more barbaric and primitive culture, don't reflect the modern church's current approach to gay and lesbian issues.

The church's current approach is best demonstrated and encouraged on the church's most recent website ( http://mormonsandgays.org/ ) , as has been repeatedly explained and shared previously in this thread.

The premise of this thread and many of your subsequent posts emphasize that a greater understanding of same-sex attraction is needed to apparently return to emphasizing the sinful, abominable, objectionable, reprehensible aspects of gays' and lesbians' lives.

Instead of mirroring the church's current recommendations and approach, you have chosen to return to the rhetoric and tone of older prophets, thereby being out-of-step from your Faith's current teaching and tone.

One of the tennents of your church is modern prophesy and revelation. It is a strength that has been part of Mormonism from its inception. In the words of Joseph Smith:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."

Edited September 23, 2014 by Daniel2

[california boy]

The difference is that I am defining bad as bad and good as good. You are taking bad and trying to make it good and that which is good to be bad. You can't condemn righteousnous.

 

LOL.  Have you considered that you are sounding more like a Pharisee than following the example of Christ?  Do you read the New Testament much???

 

Defining bad behavior would be to state "sex outside of marriage is a sin whether you are straight or gay."  It does not include calling gays an "abominations," "sinful," "Satanic," "selfish," spreading debunked junk science from groups like the FRC, working to prevent her equal civil rights and recognition, and analogizing her relationships to pedophilia and causing the destruction of children and society?  

 

Let me repost what I also wrote in my post you quoted..

 

Maybe God wants us to be more concerned with our own salvation rather than the salvation of others.  Maybe those that rage against loving gay couples choosing to marry should be more concerned with making sure their families are loved and embrace the gospel.  There will always be sin in the world.  Trying to control other peoples sins was never part of the plan of salvation.  Maybe members of God's church should be more concerned with loving all who seek to follow Christ rather than being concerned with the sins of those that sit next to them in church.  A wise bishop once said, you are cant control the salvation of others.  You are only responsible for your own salvation.  The actions of others does not cause you to act differently or sin more.  Mormons have always lived in a world of sin.  Nothing has changed.  Fewer people joining the church has not been because of gay marriage, but rather from problems within the church itself.  Perhaps your focus should be on your own relationship with God.  Just a though,

 

Edited September 23, 2014 by california boy

[wenglund]

Wade -- You don't get to speak as to where my belief comes from. You are wrong.

 

We'll see. As the Savior declared: "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither doth a corrupt tree bringeth forth good fruit." (Luke 6:42)  If the sin of homosexual behavior is one day made holy by God through radically altering the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, and same sex partners are somehow miraculously enabled to have eternal increase, then you may know that the source from whence you derived your beliefs is good, whereas if such doesn't happen, then you may know that your source was corrupt. I know on which I am putting my money--it is the same source that considers good as bad and bad as good and up as down and down as up. Such is made all the more likely when one's beliefs align themselves more with the world and pop culture than they do revelations from God to his chosen leaders.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Rodeo, please don't let advocates of homosexual behavior use the canard of "gay bashing" to inanely distract your attention away from the far more important question of whether homosexual behavior is a sin and immoral per se. Keep pressing them on that question to see just how far they are willing to go in prideful violation of the woe in Isaiah 5:20.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

We'll see. As the Savior declared: "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither doth a corrupt tree bringeth forth good fruit." (Luke 6:42)  If the sin of homosexual behavior is one day made holy by God through radically altering the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, and same sex partners are somehow miraculously enabled to have eternal increase, then you may know that the source from whence you derived your beliefs is good, whereas if such doesn't happen, then you may know that your source was corrupt. I know on which I am putting my money--it is the same source that considers good as bad and bad as good and up as down and down as up. Such is made all the more likely when one's beliefs align themselves more with the world and pop culture than they do revelations from God to his chosen leaders.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I feel well aligned to the revelations from God to His chosen leaders and to the teachings of our Savior. We've discussed the new and everlasting covenant previously and I don't see any need for it to be radically altered to allow homosexual couples to be sealed. We have no knowledge of how eternal increase will work so I don't see that as a barrier.

I'm curious though, do you feel that the way you speak of homosexuals on these threads is "good fruit"?

[rockpond]

Rodeo, please don't let advocates of homosexual behavior use the canard of "gay bashing" to inanely distract your attention away from the far more important question of whether homosexual behavior is a sin and immoral per se. Keep pressing them on that question to see just how far they are willing to go in prideful violation of the woe in Isaiah 5:20.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You crack me up Wade. By all means, the two of you should keep spreading your "light" and "sweetness".

[wenglund]

I'm curious though, do you feel that the way you speak of homosexuals on these threads is "good fruit"?

 

Yes, my referring to homosexual behavior as a sin and immoral is "good fruit," just as it is "good fruit" for me to refer to adultery and fornication and pedophilia and bestiality and idolatry and theft and coveting and murder and child/spousal abuse, etc. as sin and immoral. It is certainly "good fruit" to know and declare the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. How did you not know this? Has the popular media failed to inform you?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 24, 2014 by wenglund

[rockpond]

Yes, my referring to homosexual behavior as a sin and immoral is "good fruit," just as it is "good fruit" for me to refer to adultery and fornication and pedophilia and bestiality and idolatry and theft and coveting and murder and child/spousal abuse, etc. as sin and immoral. It is certainly "good fruit" to know and declare the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. How did you not know this? Has the popular media failed to inform you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since I don't have cable, rarely watch television, and prefer reading to other forms of media -- there is much that the "popular media" has failed to inform me despite your insulting and mistaken characterization of me.

So you see, your demeanor on this discussion board makes it difficult for me to find the good fruit you claim to be sharing.

[Rodeo]

Some probably think that it is.  I think it is dependent on context.

 

I also think that it would be helpful to define "homosexual behavior".  A few pages back, I asked about that and was told that it could include something as innocent as hand-holding and kissing.  If that is the case, then I imagine there are people who would consider it "gay bashing" to call that an abomination and lump them together with sexual perversions.

When my children would see gay people kissing or holding hands I would tell them it was gross and against Gods laws. That is homosexual behavior and is a sin. Its important we teach our children the truth and stop sugarcoating immoral behavior.

[Rodeo]

LOL.  Have you considered that you are sounding more like a Pharisee than following the example of Christ?  Do you read the New Testament much???

 

Defining bad behavior would be to state "sex outside of marriage is a sin whether you are straight or gay."  It does not include calling gays an "abominations," "sinful," "Satanic," "selfish," spreading debunked junk science from groups like the FRC, working to prevent her equal civil rights and recognition, and analogizing her relationships to pedophilia and causing the destruction of children and society?  

 

Let me repost what I also wrote in my post you quoted..

Homosexual behavior is bad. Our church teaches us this truth. The wicked take the truth hard.

[Tacenda]

When my children would see gay people kissing or holding hands I would tell them it was gross and against Gods laws. That is homosexual behavior and is a sin. Its important we teach our children the truth and stop sugarcoating immoral behavior.

I think it's immoral to see hetersexuals kissing in public or making out that is. That is gross, but you see it as gross only because they are gay, and you made sure your children knew that was against God's laws. Do you leave any room for them to see gays as children of God and not to disdain them, because that's how your post came across, and felt like they may just look at any gay person now and remember that phrase from you and your conotation.

[Storm Rider]

I think it's immoral to see hetersexuals kissing in public or making out that is. That is gross, but you see it as gross only because they are gay, and you made sure your children knew that was against God's laws. Do you leave any room for them to see gays as children of God and not to disdain them, because that's how your post came across, and felt like they may just look at any gay person now and remember that phrase from you and your conotation.

 

I see a confusion in your statements above.  When Jesus was brought the woman caught in adultery he did not reach out to her adultery, but he reached out to her as a child of God.  He in no way condoned her behavior; rather he said go and sin no more.  

 

As disciples of Christ we have a responsibility to reflect the love of Christ toward each child of God, but that does not equate to approving of the behaviors of each of those children.  Sin is sin; it does not matter who is committing it.  Our brothers and sisters that deal with SSA are absolutely worthy of our love and acceptance as children of God.  However, we do not have to accept behavior that conflicts with God's teachings.  They have no special rights because they have SSA any more than a thief has special rights for stealing from another.  

 

I agree with you that I don't enjoy seeing anyone making out in public.  I find it immoral, crass, and outrageously bad taste.  

[Rodeo]

I think it's immoral to see hetersexuals kissing in public or making out that is. That is gross, but you see it as gross only because they are gay, and you made sure your children knew that was against God's laws. Do you leave any room for them to see gays as children of God and not to disdain them, because that's how your post came across, and felt like they may just look at any gay person now and remember that phrase from you and your conotation.

Homosexual behavior is gross. My kids grow up knowing its gross and to treat it as gross immoral behavior. Playboy models are also children of God, but I teach my kids that too is gross immoral behavior.

[tonie]

When my children would see gay people kissing or holding hands I would tell them it was gross and against Gods laws. That is homosexual behavior and is a sin. Its important we teach our children the truth and stop sugarcoating immoral behavior.

 

 

Homosexual behavior is bad. Our church teaches us this truth. The wicked take the truth hard.

 

 

Homosexual behavior is gross. My kids grow up knowing its gross and to treat it as gross immoral behavior. Playboy models are also children of God, but I teach my kids that too is gross immoral behavior.

 

 

Do you often engage in false presentations? This thread is a false presenation because you have done nothing to engage in a discussion that is "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin".

 

You have expressed you bigotry quite clearly and loudly. Your postings gives the the impression that you deliberately ignore the current instruction from the Church - please read mormonsandgays.org to "better understand" how the Church has instructed you to act. You do not encourage a better understanding.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you often engage in false presentations? This thread is a false presenation because you have done nothing to engage in a discussion that is "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin".

 

You have expressed you bigotry quite clearly and loudly. Your postings gives the the impression that you deliberately ignore the current instruction from the Church - please read mormonsandgays.org to "better understand" how the Church has instructed you to act. You do not encourage a better understanding.

If I don't fully accept the pop culture and what it accepts as good, then I am not really trying to understand anything. That seems to be what you are saying. What a shallow understanding.

[Rodeo]

Do you often engage in false presentations? This thread is a false presenation because you have done nothing to engage in a discussion that is "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin".

 

You have expressed you bigotry quite clearly and loudly. Your postings gives the the impression that you deliberately ignore the current instruction from the Church - please read mormonsandgays.org to "better understand" how the Church has instructed you to act. You do not encourage a better understanding.

I am trying to understand how SSA occurs and how it goes from that to homosexual behavior or to change and into heterosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is not the intended outcome for SSA.

[JLHPROF]

Do you often engage in false presentations? This thread is a false presenation because you have done nothing to engage in a discussion that is "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin".

 

You have expressed you bigotry quite clearly and loudly. Your postings gives the the impression that you deliberately ignore the current instruction from the Church - please read mormonsandgays.org to "better understand" how the Church has instructed you to act. You do not encourage a better understanding.

 

Homosexual acts are sinful.  Suffering from same sex attraction is a negative trait to be overcome, like anger, jealousy, fear.

Homosexual families may have redeeming qualities but aren't based on the eternal family as revealed by God.  Homosexuals may have many positive traits (and may not all be promiscuous creeps) and may even be good parents.  Raising children in a homosexual family teaches them to accept sin as normal.  Homosexuality is consistently being portrayed as both acceptable and just another lifestyle, a false portrayal.

What more is there to "understand"?  Now, if "understand" homosexuality is mean to learn to tolerate homosexuality then that is an understanding I can do without.  That's not bigotry - bigotry implies judging without evidence.  What this actually is would be a religious values belief - like saying I believe it's wrong to worship idols.  That's not bigotry against idolaters.

[rockpond]

When my children would see gay people kissing or holding hands I would tell them it was gross and against Gods laws. That is homosexual behavior and is a sin. Its important we teach our children the truth and stop sugarcoating immoral behavior.

 

So can you understand how declaring a gay couple holding hands and kissing to be a "sexual perversion" and an "abomination" might be considered gay bashing by some?  Does that make sense to you?  Or, not at all?

 

Also, can you see how calling it "gross" and teaching your kids that it is "gross" (which they are likely to repeat) could also contribute to situations like in the Hardy letter where gay kids have to flee their community to feel safe?

[rockpond]

Suffering from same sex attraction is a negative trait to be overcome, like anger, jealousy, fear.

 

When a homosexual overcomes "same sex attraction" what does he or she become?  Asexual?

 

A gay person can choose to not act on their innate sexual orientation but not acting on it does not make them heterosexual.  It does not necessarily make them capable of a successful long term relationship with someone of the opposite sex.  Yes, there are cases of that happening but it is not the recommended course.

[wenglund]

So you see, your demeanor on this discussion board makes it difficult for me to find the good fruit you claim to be sharing.

 

You say this as though you are amenable to finding good fruit from me were my demeanor more to your liking, when we both know that isn't true. You have long and invariably demonstrated that the inverting lens through which you filter the issues of homosexuality is permanently cemented through pride and willful ignorance to the point that you boldly and waveringly stand in open defiance of God's ordained Seers and Revelators, positioning yourself and the world above them if not also in the face of plethra of social science data. Be honest about your close-mindedness on this matter. You refuse to see good fruit even when it is plainly and abundantly manifest.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rodeo]

So can you understand how declaring a gay couple holding hands and kissing to be a "sexual perversion" and an "abomination" might be considered gay bashing by some?  Does that make sense to you?  Or, not at all?

 

Also, can you see how calling it "gross" and teaching your kids that it is "gross" (which they are likely to repeat) could also contribute to situations like in the Hardy letter where gay kids have to flee their community to feel safe?

Homosexual behavior is a sexual perversion. Why should I not treat it as anything but what it really is? Its not gay bashing at all. Its calling it for what it exactly is. I am not going to bow down to Hollywood and its gay agenda.

[JLHPROF]

When a homosexual overcomes "same sex attraction" what does he or she become?  Asexual?

 

A gay person can choose to not act on their innate sexual orientation but not acting on it does not make them heterosexual.  It does not necessarily make them capable of a successful long term relationship with someone of the opposite sex.  Yes, there are cases of that happening but it is not the recommended course.

 

It is not "becoming something else".  Religiously speaking, there are no homosexuals and heterosexuals.  We are all just God's children with our own traits and trials to work with.  SSA is a trait (possibly born with, possibly acquired, doesn't really matter).  It is NOT something unchangeable that they are and should be allowed to be.  It IS something that is within in them whatever its source.

 

I was born with or developed a foul temper when young.  It took much time and prayer to cease acting upon it.  It took recognizing those feelings as wrong.  So am I someone who had a negative trait (anger) and fought against it until it usually doesn't tempt me to act on it.  We expect people to overcome shyness.  We expect people to overcome lust.  We expect people to overcome jealousy.  Why is it any different to expect people to overcome a sinful attraction?  We expect people to overcome a sinful attraction to food (gluttony)?  We expect porn addicts to overcome a sinful attraction to pornography?

 

If someone is born with or develops an attraction for the same sex they are accountable not to act on it, just as I am with my temper.  Just as the porn addict is with pornography.  Just as the glutton is with food. They are accountable to recognize those feelings are wrong.

Claiming that we are asking homosexuals to go against their natural feelings is a poor excuse.  We are ALL expected to go against our natural feelings.  That is one of the main goals of life.  To overcome the natural man.  Homosexuals don't get a free pass just because their natural trait has become more societally acceptable or because sexuality is considered a unique situation.  It's no different than lust, anger, jealousy, gluttony, sloth or any other sinful behavior.

[rockpond]

You say this as though you are amenable to finding good fruit from me were my demeanor more to your liking, when we both know that isn't true. You have long and invariably demonstrated that the inverting lens through which you filter the issues of homosexuality is permanently cemented through pride and willful ignorance to the point that you boldly and waveringly stand in open defiance of God's ordained Seers and Revelators, positioning yourself and the world above them if not also in the face of plethra of social science data. Be honest about your close-mindedness on this matter. You refuse to see good fruit even when it is plainly and abundantly manifest.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

As I said.

[rockpond]

Homosexual behavior is a sexual perversion. Why should I not treat it as anything but what it really is? Its not gay bashing at all. Its calling it for what it exactly is. I am not going to bow down to Hollywood and its gay agenda.

 

I can't dialogue with you if you won't actually answer questions.

 

You are free to call "hand holding" between two gay people a sexual perversion and an abomination.  I am not saying that you shouldn't be free to do that.  But understand, that many will feel that is gay bashing.  To you it may be "calling it for exactly what it is" but others do not see it that way.  Does that mean you are suffering?  I don't think so.  As far as I'm concerned you still have not backed up your "suffering" claim.  But I don't believe you have any interest in backing up your statements anyway.

 

You, Wade, & Mola keep referring to Hollywood, pop culture, and some mysterious universal "gay agenda".  You'll note that none of us on the other side of this discussion have cited such sources.