Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[rockpond]

The church considers holding hands between two gay people as homosexual behavior....

 

CFR.  Again.

[rockpond]

I genuinely am interested in what happens, what really happens,for someone to go from having SSA, and why, to being dead 6 years later.

 

Rodeo -- It's not a simple formula that we can just provide to you.  Several of us here have been trying to help you see from the perspective of those who are homosexual.  It will take time and a willingness to open your mind and not assume that you know what you think you know.

 

For me, it took time.  Critical events for me were serving as YM President with a couple of gay young men in the priests quorum.  I had to take time to really get to know them.  Also critical was getting to know my lesbian aunts (who I've mentioned previously).  And, the years that I spent being a friend to and counseling a gay young man in the church (and discussing the issue with other priesthood leaders in my stake).

 

If you want to know what *really happens* then seek out gay Mormons and listen to them or read their stories (you may be shocked at the number of gay mormon blogs out there).  Consider spending time on sites like Affirmation.  Join a Facebook group like Mormons Building Bridges.

[rockpond]

Are you suggesting the Church's teachings on this vital subject has changed? Or has the rhetoric changed?

 

The Church has always been clear that sexual relations between two members of the same sex are sinful.

 

But if you compare, for example, President Packer's teachings from several decades back with the current teachings referenced on the MormonsandGays website, you'll see a different approach.

[JLHPROF]

The Church has always been clear that sexual relations between two members of the same sex are sinful.

 

But if you compare, for example, President Packer's teachings from several decades back with the current teachings referenced on the MormonsandGays website, you'll see a different approach.

 

Yep -

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated needs but to be seen. Yet too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

 

First we may hate/dislike and have to simply endure its existence.

Then we begin to tolerate and even pity those poor people who have to live with this trial.

And unavoidably and eventually we will come to accept and embrace them and their vice as good.

 

We are moving well towards step 2...let us hope step 3 never arrives.

[rockpond]

Yep -

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated needs but to be seen. Yet too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

 

First we may hate/dislike and have to simply endure its existence.

Then we begin to tolerate and even pity those poor people who have to live with this trial.

And unavoidably and eventually we will come to accept and embrace them and their vice as good.

 

We are moving well towards step 2...let us hope step 3 never arrives.

 

Or maybe we are just receiving the further light and knowledge we've been promised.

[JLHPROF]

Or maybe we are just receiving the further light and knowledge we've been promised.

 

Light is life (John 1:4).  Homosexual relations are the opposite of light as they deny life.

Edited September 25, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Rodeo]

CFR.  Again.

Let me ask- what wouldnt be considered homosexual behavior by two gay people?

[Rock_N_Roll]

Light is life (John 1:4).  Homosexual relations are the opposite of light as they deny life.

It is not the opposite of light.  It neither denies nor encourages life.  

Edited September 25, 2014 by Rock_N_Roll

[Daniel2]

Yep -

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated needs but to be seen. Yet too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

First we may hate/dislike and have to simply endure its existence.

Then we begin to tolerate and even pity those poor people who have to live with this trial.

And unavoidably and eventually we will come to accept and embrace them and their vice as good.

We are moving well towards step 2...let us hope step 3 never arrives.

Perhaps what you are actually confusing and potentially rejecting is the process by which God teaches his children and prepares his church for new revelation, line upon line, precept on precept, lifting here a little, then there a little...

It seems like some in this thread are eager to call the approach the church is now teaching is bad, or misguided, or in response to pop culture, instead of reflecting God's approach. Calling good evil, and evil good...........

And perhaps what the church may someday teach is that the dangers and condemnation currently attributed to "the gay lifestyle" will actually be revealed to be those of "the promiscuous lifestyle" and/or "the sexually-active-outside-the-bonds-of-marriage (whether spouses are of the same or of opposite genders) lifestyle."

EDIT: I see Rockpond beat me to it - you're so smart!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

It is not the opposite of light.  It neither denies nor encourages life.  

 

And that is based on?

[rockpond]

Let me ask- what wouldnt be considered homosexual behavior by two gay people?

 

That's not a response to the CFR.  You are claiming a specific definition of "homosexual behavior" held by the Church.  Provide a reference or stop claiming something to be the church's definition.

[rockpond]

Light is life (John 1:4).  Homosexual relations are the opposite of light as they deny life.

 

I don't read "life" in that verse to mean the mortal act of procreation.

[JLHPROF]

Perhaps what you are actually confusing and potentially rejecting is the process by which God teaches his children and prepares his church for new revelation, line upon line, precept on precept, lifting here a little, then there a little...

And perhaps what the church may someday learn is that the dangers and condemnation currently attributed to "the gay lifestyle" will actually be revealed to be those of "the promiscuous lifestyle" and/or "the sexually-active-outside-the-bonds-of-marriage (whether spouses are of the same or of opposite genders) lifestyle."

 

Oh for pity's sake - we are going in circles here.

There is no such thing as a same gender spouse and there never will be.  It denies the laws of existence and Godhood.  It is a temporal construct based on mortal weakness.  Marriage is an eternal union validated by God and no other marriage is worth a darn in the grand scheme.

 

I don't care if the entire world legalizes gay marriage and the Church starts allowing homosexual unions in the temple.  They won't be worth the paper they're written on.  The second we pass to the next life the union will mean nothing because it is not in keeping with eternal design.

The back and forth is fun but we are getting nowhere and it's pointless anyway.  No matter what we think, say, or do,  men simply can never actually be married to men and women can never actually be married to women.

[JLHPROF]

I don't read "life" in that verse to mean the mortal act of procreation.

 

It doesn't, but it equates light and life as synonymous.

As I have said a dozen times already, that which leads to light and life is of God.  That which prevents either light or life is not of God and cannot exist beyond this fallen life.

 

Let men "marry" men all they want.  Let women "marry" women.  It won't mean a thing in the eternities.  It can never lead to exaltation/Godhood.  It is only their salvation they risk.  I don't argue against homosexual marriage because I don't want to see it, but because those who participate in such acts are purposefully damning themselves.  And that is the saddest part.

[rockpond]

It doesn't, but it equates light and life as synonymous.

As I have said a dozen times already, that which leads to light and life is of God.  That which prevents either light or life is not of God and cannot exist beyond this fallen life.

 

Let men "marry" men all they want.  Let women "marry" women.  It won't mean a thing in the eternities.  It can never lead to exaltation/Godhood.  It is only their salvation they risk.  I don't argue against homosexual marriage because I don't want to see it, but because those who participate in such acts are purposefully damning themselves.  And that is the saddest part.

 

His ways are not our ways.

 

I believe in a God that is powerful enough to have created a place in His plan for His homosexual children.

 

You see it differently, and that's okay.  Like you said, no reason to keep talking in circles.

[california boy]

It doesn't, but it equates light and life as synonymous.

As I have said a dozen times already, that which leads to light and life is of God.  That which prevents either light or life is not of God and cannot exist beyond this fallen life.

 

Let men "marry" men all they want.  Let women "marry" women.  It won't mean a thing in the eternities.  It can never lead to exaltation/Godhood.  It is only their salvation they risk.  I don't argue against homosexual marriage because I don't want to see it, but because those who participate in such acts are purposefully damning themselves.  And that is the saddest part.

 

I see you point.  Male gods working together with the power of the priesthood could never create worlds without end.  Male gods could never have a close relationship like say God and Christ have.   And since we clearly know and understand how spirits are created by female and male gods being eternally pregnant, two male gods could never create spirit children.

[JLHPROF]

I see you point.  Male gods working together with the power of the priesthood could never create worlds without end.  Male gods could never have a close relationship like say God and Christ have.   And since we clearly know and understand how spirits are created by female and male gods being eternally pregnant, two male gods could never create spirit children.

 

Creating worlds doesn't require marriage.

God and Christ are Father and Son, not homosexual lovers.

And yes, spirit children are created the same way as earthly children.  According to Brigham Young and his contemporary GA's.  The GA's since have been silent on the topic but have never contradicted it.  And D&C 132 plus the blessings of the marriage ceremony promise husbands and wives eternal increase.  There is simply no way for two males to have "increase" together and any speculation to the contrary is pure science fiction.

[rockpond]

Creating worlds doesn't require marriage.

God and Christ are Father and Son, not homosexual lovers.

And yes, spirit children are created the same way as earthly children. According to Brigham Young and his contemporary GA's. The GA's since have been silent on the topic but have never contradicted it. And D&C 132 plus the blessings of the marriage ceremony promise husbands and wives eternal increase. There is simply no way for two males to have "increase" together and any speculation to the contrary is pure science fiction.

Yes, and BY also believed in counting his wives by the dozen. To suggest that Heavenly Mother created billions (if not trillions...) of spirit children the same way as earthly children is laughable. Something had to be different.

And I suspect that a gay couple could be satisfied spending eternity creating worlds without end.

[california boy]

And I suspect that a gay couple could be satisfied spending eternity creating worlds without end.

Me and my boyfriend are up for that.  Seems like that would keep us busy for a while and much more satisfying than being with a woman who is eternally pregnant, especially if I have to be involved in those pregnancies.

[Daniel2]

JLH:

 

Do you believe that Elohim and Jehovah literally created both the physical and the spiritual bodies of animals and plants? 

 

Or were plants' and animals' spiritual and physical bodies pro-created by their own Celestialized plant and animal progenitors that were of their same, only exalted, species?

 

In other words, is there some celestial heavenly-father-butterfly and a heavenly-mother-butterfly, procreating bajillions of spirit baby butterflies, that then came down and formed physical bodies for their spirit children butterflies to inhabit and gain a 'second estate'....?

 

Or did Elohim and Jehovah create all life on earth?

 

And, as a follow up question: do you believe that plants and animals can accurately be characterized as "life"?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

JLH:

 

Do you believe that Elohim and Jehovah literally created both the physical and the spiritual bodies of animals and plants?

 

Depends on the definition of "create".  No, I don't believe they literally created their bodies.

 

Or were plants' and animals' spiritual and physical bodies pro-created by their own Celestialized plant and animal progenitors that were of their same, only exalted, species?

 

Yes, I believe this is closer to what happened, although how such living beings became fallen is something of an unexplained factor.

 

In other words, is there some celestial heavenly-father-butterfly and a heavenly-mother-butterfly, procreating bajillions of spirit baby butterflies, that then came down and formed physical bodies for their spirit children butterflies to inhabit and gain a 'second estate'....?

 

Or did Elohim and Jehovah create all life on earth?  SEE BELOW

 

And, as a follow up question: do you believe that plants and animals can accurately be characterized as "life"?

 

 

Try this if you want to know my thoughts:

 

 

Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.  - Brigham Young

and these:

 

We are informed that the Lord God made every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew on our planet.  As vegetation was created or made to grow upon some older earth, and the seeds thereof or the plants themselves were brought to our earth and made to grow, so likewise man and his helpmate were brought from some other world to our own, to people it with their children. And though it is said that the "Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground"-it by no means follows that he was "formed" as one might form a brick, or form the dust of this earth. We are all "formed" of the dust of the ground, though instead of being moulded as a brick we are brought forth by the natural laws of procreation; so also was Adam and his wife in some older world. And as for the story of the rib, under it I believe the mystery of procreation is hidden. - BH Roberts

and this:

 

The surface, warmed and dried by the cheering, rays of the now resplendent sun, is prepared for the first seeds of vegetation. A Royal Planter now descends from yonder world of older date, and bearing in his hand the choice seeds of the older Paradise, he plants them in the virgin soil of our new-born earth. They grow and flourish there, and, bearing seed, replant themselves, and thus clothe the naked earth with scenes of beauty and the air with fragrant incense. Ripening fruits and herbs at length abound. When lo! from yonder world is transferred every species of animal life. Male and female, they come, with blessings on their head; and a voice is heard again, "Be fruitful and multiply," Earth, its mineral, vegetable and animal wealth -- its Paradise, prepared, down comes from yonder world on high, a Son of God, with his beloved spouse. - Parley P. Pratt

 

This is what I believe for the most part, and also why I know that there can be no homosexual union in the next life - it doesn't fit the order of existence and it prevents the continuation of this process by those who would call themselves Gods.

[Daniel2]

So, even though the scriptures say that God and Christ "created all life", and are, indeed, the "Father" of all life on earth, you're saying that the process by which they "created" life is actually a non-procreative process.

 

In fact, something else "pro-created" it, and they just "brought the seeds from somewhere else" and apparently of some other "substance" than their own beings. 

 

Is that accurate?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

Try this if you want to know my thoughts:

and these:

and this:

This is what I believe for the most part, and also why I know that there can be no homosexual union in the next life - it doesn't fit the order of existence and it prevents the continuation of this process by those who would call themselves Gods.

Beautiful statements. But I don't see any of them precluding the possibility of homosexual unions. For me, none of them suggest that those unions couldn't have an eternal increase.

[Daniel2]

Light is life (John 1:4). Homosexual relations are the opposite of light as they deny life.

 

JLH,

John 1:4 states, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

This passage is referring to Jesus Christ. Yet clearly, the life it is speaking of is not referring to procreation-------because Jesus never biologically procreated.

Surely, there "is life in" every living being animated by a spirit; what the scriptures refer to as "the breath of life." Those of us who are gay contain life within us just as much as those of you who are straight.

Where do you get the idea that "homosexuality denies light and life"? What is your reference?

Surely, there are many ways in which humankind can affirm, promote, endorse, uphold, and sustain life-----beyond procreation.

In fact, according to your own admission, you believe God and Jesus Christ "created" life WITHOUT actually procreating it.

Additionally, one of the most prominent theories on why evolution biologically favors homosexual orientation, despite the fact that gays and lesbians don't biologically pass on their own genes, is because of kin selection. This explains why the more sons a woman has, the more likely her subsequent sons are to have homosexual orientations...

Kin selection suggests that younger siblings are increasingly gay so as to benefit the procreation of the genes of the family group, assist in raising.... supporting....affirming.... protecting.... upholding... sustaining.... the life of the family through creating a younger set of nurturing males who don't have children of their own to compete for the family group's resources, but instead advance the cause of the continuation of family by assisting with rearing of the children, helping perform labor, protecting the group, etc. In other words, gays affirm life, and benefit the group.

The mother's uterine environment retains antibodies with each passing male pregnancy.... Through these antibodies, her own body "remembers" and marks how many reproductive males are in the group. The hormonal make-up of the mother's uterus is different for each of her subsequent children.... and those hormones trigger epigentetic marks within the DNA of her younger male offspring... Homosexuality is therefore not the product of any single gay gene, but a combination of genetic hormonal memory triggering certain genes based on the uterine environment--all with the intent of protecting children, furthering the interests of the preservation of family and tribe, and.... affirming life.

 

The Celestial Kingdom, if one subscribes to LDS theology, will be filled with celestialized heavenly fathers and mothers, each begetting billions upon billions of spirit children, preparing to assume second estates on earths else where throughout time and space.

 

If procreation IS the vehicle which clothes eternally-existent 'intelligences' with spirit bodies, and such heavenly fathers and mothers are continuously procreating.... who is there to lend a hand with all those newly procreated spirit children...?  Do the heavenly parents do all the work?  Is there anyone else to lend a helping hand... to nurture when heavenly parents' attention may be focused on other children, or a new pregnancy, or another birth...?  What are the logistics of heavenly 'schools' or 'play groups' or 'learning environments'?

 

What if homosexuals in eternity serve the same function as their earthly counterparts--a celestialized 'kin selection,' in which same-sex couples don't procreate in and of themselves, but help raise and nurture and protect and teach their celestial neices and nephews...?

 

Or what if celestialized same-sex couples "create" and "father" life in the same fashion that you believe that Elohim and Jehovah did.... through non-procreative creation processes?

 

While the quotes you offered are interesting and the imagry is beautiful, as Rockpond said, they don't preclude the possibility of same-sex couples having an as-yet-unrevealed role in the heavenly order.  Such passages, beautiful as they are, are the speculation of men--not cannonical revelations of Mormonism. 

 

Ultimately, there is much that Latter-day Saints don't yet know or understand, because LDS theology has, thus far, revealed very little about how spirit children are formed, and the mysteries and wonders of the creative process, organization and roles [if any] of same-sex couples, and heavenly familial order. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

You dont get it. A smoker is welcome, even with his visible pack. I used to bring my cigarettes to church and go outside inbetweenclasses to smoke. The difference is a smoker isnt smoking inside the building during church service. The church considers holding hands between two gay people as homosexual behavior and as such is not welcomed in church service meetings.

 

How would anyone else at church know if they are gay or just from a different culture? It isn't like they run around with pink triangles proclaiming gayness. Men holding hands and even a nonsexual kiss are parts of many cultures.