Question

[Duncan]

something I don't understand is this business of Transgendered folks. In the POF it says "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

 

Were they transgendered in the premortal life?, if the same spirit that posesses your body when you die (Alma 34:34) rises with you in the next life are you LGBT there as well?

 

One thing I can see happening is single gay folks in the Church being told to be chaste like single heterosexuals but the Church will allow them to be married just like a non gay couple, not in the Temple,  the same standard for straight and gay would be the same, be chaste until you are married to whomever and fidelity afterwards.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Duncan

[KevinG]

Sure, generally speak we should. But we should also be able to test the things they say, question whether it works, pray about things and determine for ourselves what is best. As I said, it's not like I go around thinking someone who does the M word is turning hisself gay or something. That religious leader's idea is laughable these days.

Not directly, but indulging our selfish desires can lead to diminishing our spiritual selves, or becoming jaded and getting into riskier behavior. What was stated in 1960s terms regarding intimacy and sex, should not be dismissed in principle simply because our language surrounding sexuality is more nuanced and pretty in 2015.

[california boy]

The need for companionship is good but like just about everything in this life the devil can use it to create codependent relationships, abusive relationships, and pain and suffering of all kinds.

That is not what we are talking about though. Sometimes we have to go without things we want. I want to be married and have children but have failed to this point and may never have the opportunity in this life. At one point I wanted it so badly I ended up in an unhealthy relationship and it took God doing the revelatory equivalent of screaming at me, reminding me of my covenants to obey, and calling me to fulfil that covenant to obey NOW.

It hurts but sometimes God requires us to live in unpleasant circumstances with unfulfilled desires, even righteous unfulfilled desires. Perhaps there is something wrong with me in this fallen state that means it should not happen. I don't know.

I don't know about homosexuality either.

 

Two things.  We are not talking about abusive relationships.  We are talking about healthy and happy gay relationships.

 

And we are not talking about those who can not find a companion.  We are talking about a gay person who has found a companion.

 

Obviously if a gay person could not find a companion, they would be in the same situation as you. 

[Rob Osborn]

Its not hard to see how we keep sliding down that slope into spiritual darkness.

[The Nehor]

Yes but "overcoming" being gay, which has been defined by the church as being celibacy in this life still puts you out of sync with one of the very fundamental eternal principles of multiply and replenish the earth and the eternal nature of the family.  Some have even stated that this is the most important part of our life here on earth.   It also goes against the instruction that it is not good for man to be alone.  

 

Being gay puts one in violation of those commandments no matter how faithful you are.  I can't think of another "weakness" that no matter what you do, you are in violation of the will of God.

Being sterile?

Eventually you have to accept that if God wanted us to obey commandments it is impossible to fulfil then it is really his problem. He either should have designed reality better or has some purpose and that person is excused. The Doctrine and Covenants talk about trying to fulfil a command and, if the saints found it impossible, that it was no longer required. I believe this applies to individuals as well.

[stemelbow]

As that is a reason for avoiding masturbation and not the commandment itself it falls under my "treat reasoning for the commandments with skepticism even if it comes from apostles" clause.

Well the distinction is clear at least.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

Were they transgendered there as well?

...

 

 

Somebody on one of the other boards (I forget which) mentioned

"gay" -- "luke warm in during the war in heaven" -- and then went

on to say that those "valiant" in that long-ago celestial struggle are

destined to be born into righteous LDS families, etc. etc.

 

I stopped reading at that point.

Seemed like contradictions to me.

 

UD

[KevinG]

Being gay is not a sin. Acting on those desires no matter how powerful or deeply felt is.

Celibacy is not the only option. There are gay men who choose to marry women and have families.

I'm not claiming this is easy for those who,are homosexual. But conflating desire with behavior, then claiming no agency in the matter of how we choose to act on our desires, is not an honest approach to this very sensitive discussion.

[Ahab]

but it is.

No it's really not, just as it is also not a problem to realize the opposite sex is sexually attractive.

The problem is to have sexual relations with anyone that we should not have sexual relations with, whether that person is the same or opposite sex.

[The Nehor]

Two things.  We are not talking about abusive relationships.  We are talking about healthy and happy gay relationships.

 

And we are not talking about those who can not find a companion.  We are talking about a gay person who has found a companion.

 

Obviously if a gay person could not find a companion, they would be in the same situation as you.

I agree which is why I put in a transition that that is not what we are talking about.

I agree also that the gay person has it harder. There is no obvious defect in their potential companion like mine had. We do both have to say no to what we want because God said so. I obeyed but I was furious with God for over a year after that incident. Yes, the situations are not perfectly analogous. If you are trying to convince me that your situation and the situation of those with SSA is worse I agree with you. Unfortunately I cannot find a proviso in the commandments that says you can break them once you reach a certain threshold of suffering. I wish there were one. Believe me, I do.

[stemelbow]

Not directly, but indulging our selfish desires can lead to diminishing our spiritual selves, or becoming jaded and getting into riskier behavior. What was stated in 1960s terms regarding intimacy and sex, should not be dismissed in principle simply because our language surrounding sexuality is more nuanced and pretty in 2015.

huh? Not sure what you mean. Are you saying we should accept that doing the M word does turn people gay?

[stemelbow]

Being gay is not a sin. Acting on those desires no matter how powerful or deeply felt is.

We assume.

Celibacy is not the only option. There are gay men who choose to marry women and have families.

often at the expense of those families.

I'm not claiming this is easy for those who,are homosexual. But conflating desire with behavior, then claiming no agency in the matter of how we choose to act on our desires, is not an honest approach to this very sensitive discussion.

Sure one can choose celibacy, but doing so is not easy and is miserable--kinda like how Helen mar Kimball talked about the misery of having to live in polygamy. We say now, "well if they chose not to live in polygamy they didn't have to" but we expect gay people to live, essentially, in polygamy or forego eternal blessings.

I just don't see it as simple to say, "well they still have a choice". But I'm speaking as a sexually active, and sexually fulfilled man.

[KevinG]

huh? Not sure what you mean. Are you saying we should accept that doing the M word does turn people gay?

No.

[KevinG]

Until we learn the distinctions between sexual attraction, companionship, and love, we will not succeed in human relationships of any type.

I don't assume acting sexually on attraction outside of marriage ordained by the church is sin. It is by its very definition a sin according to our doctrines and practices. It will remain such until those doctrines and practices are shown to be in error, or for eternity.

We don't define what sin is based on social desirability.

[stemelbow]

Until we learn the distinctions between sexual attraction, companionship, and love, we will not succeed in human relationships of any type.

I don't assume acting sexually on attraction outside of marriage ordained by the church is sin. It is by its very definition a sin according to our doctrines and practices. It will remain such until those doctrines and practices are shown to be in error, or for eternity.

We don't define what sin is based on social desirability.

But ultimately we have to let God decide what is and what is not sin. We could say, killing someone is a sin. But then we'd be incriminating people whom God, apparently, justified. We'll see, exceptions will abound, and we'll all be feeling a little silly with all of our misunderstandings.

[KevinG]

But ultimately we have to let God decide what is and what is not sin. We could say, killing someone is a sin. But then we'd be incriminating people whom God, apparently, justified. We'll see, exceptions will abound, and we'll all be feeling a little silly with all of our misunderstandings.

There is a cure for that. It's called continued revelation which brings us closer to the big picture step by step. Not social pressure, not rationalization. The D&C section 93 is very clear that additional light and knowledge come through obedience to what we have already been given.

...and in 1000 years from now I beleive we could all feel a little silly about how little we really knew.

[Ahab]

There is a cure for that. It's called continued revelation which brings us closer to the big picture step by step. Not social pressure, not rationalization. The D&C section 93 is very clear that additional light and knowledge come through obedience to what we have already been given.

...and in 1000 years from now I beleive we could all feel a little silly about how little we really knew.

I'm amazed how very few people feel a little silly right now about how little they know, and how little they do appreciate what they can know right now.

[ksfisher]

But ultimately we have to let God decide what is and what is not sin.

 

But until we hear it right from his mouth we need to trust in and have faith in the apostles and prophets that He has chosen to speak for him.  But, perhaps, even if we heard it right from God's mouth we wouldn't believe either.

 

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

John 5

[KevinG]

Out of positive votes for the day...

[stemelbow]

But until we hear it right from his mouth we need to trust in and have faith in the apostles and prophets that He has chosen to speak for him.  But, perhaps, even if we heard it right from God's mouth we wouldn't believe either.

 

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

John 5

eh...seems more appropriate to just put our faith in God, figuring out what from the prophets and apostles applies to us.

[ksfisher]

eh...seems more appropriate to just put our faith in God, figuring out what from the prophets and apostles applies to us.

 

I may not be understanding what you're saying here.  Are you saying that if we have faith that we will be able to tell which words from the prophet applies to us and which doesn't?

 

 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

 

Matthew 21     ...but we would never do that.

[stemelbow]

I may not be understanding what you're saying here.  Are you saying that if we have faith that we will be able to tell which words from the prophet applies to us and which doesn't?

 

 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

 

Matthew 21     ...but we would never do that.

Sure why not. We read the Bible and easily eschew things like stoning people for disbelief. There will always be things coming at us from apostles and prophets that just might be a little unhelpful and not practical. We need to learn to figure out what is working for us.

[california boy]

I agree which is why I put in a transition that that is not what we are talking about.

I agree also that the gay person has it harder. There is no obvious defect in their potential companion like mine had. We do both have to say no to what we want because God said so. I obeyed but I was furious with God for over a year after that incident. Yes, the situations are not perfectly analogous. If you are trying to convince me that your situation and the situation of those with SSA is worse I agree with you. Unfortunately I cannot find a proviso in the commandments that says you can break them once you reach a certain threshold of suffering. I wish there were one. Believe me, I do.

For me, it is not about who has it harder or easier.  I don't think that is the issue.  There are a lot of people that have more difficult lives than either you or me.  The issue for me has to do with eternal principles and not just what happens in this life.  If you are gay, you have one choice.  Being celibate rather than marrying.  That is it.  The implication is that you will never have a family or children in this life.  

 

And the "reward" is that you get to be married to a woman for eternity.  Yippie.  Something that the gay  member was willing to live a life of celibacy because they have no interest in marrying a woman is the "promise" for eternity.  Just not a motivator for a gay member.  Sorry.  

 

if I belong in hell for finding my boyfriend, sharing my life, and loving him on this earth life, then perhaps hell is where I belong in the next, because the Celestial Kingdom doesn't sound that great.  

 

Or, if indeed, the same spirit that resides here on earth will reside in the heavens, then I am not going to have any increase there either. Can you see how this "plan of happiness"  has no happiness for me??  

 

The only way this plan of happiness can fit into current Mormon doctrine is the magic wand theory.  When you die, poof you will become straight, and you better like it.  Cause that is all we got for ya.

[KevinG]

For me, it is not about who has it harder or easier. I don't think that is the issue. There are a lot of people that have more difficult lives than either you or me. The issue for me has to do with eternal principles and not just what happens in this life. If you are gay, you have one choice. Being celibate rather than marrying. That is it. The implication is that you will never have a family or children in this life.

And the "reward" is that you get to be married to a woman for eternity. Yippie. Something that the gay member was willing to live a life of celibacy because they have no interest in marrying a woman is the "promise" for eternity. Just not a motivator for a gay member. Sorry.

if I belong in hell for finding my boyfriend, sharing my life, and loving him on this earth life, then perhaps hell is where I belong in the next, because the Celestial Kingdom doesn't sound that great.

Or, if indeed, the same spirit that resides here on earth will reside in the heavens, then I am not going to have any increase there either. Can you see how this "plan of happiness" has no happiness for me??

The only way this plan of happiness can fit into current Mormon doctrine is the magic wand theory. When you die, poof you will become straight, and you better like it. Cause that is all we got for ya.

My view that the only thing lost is eternal increase (lineage) is the only thing lost, and you can still receive celestial glory fits within the scope of Mormon Doctrine. Please stop the hyperbole about Mormon doctrine damning all people with same sex attraction to hell (aka outer darkness).

If you want all the blessings in store you had better love all the laws of the Gospel. That applies to white straight guys too. Cause that's all we got for anyone regardless of their favorite sin.

Edited February 19, 2015 by KevinG

[ksfisher]

Sure why not. We read the Bible and easily eschew things like stoning people for disbelief. There will always be things coming at us from apostles and prophets that just might be a little unhelpful and not practical. We need to learn to figure out what is working for us.

 

I'm not sure why God would bother sending us apostles and prophets if what they are teaching is optional.