Question

[Uncle Dale]

We're they released because of, or publicly known to have Same Sex Attraction?

If so the only difficulty I can think of is again publishing intimate details of their lives without them being around to speak for themselves.

Someone dealing with it in the current day would be a more powerful resource IMO.

 

 

OK -- that's about as much as I needed to hear, to set my

mind at ease.

 

Last year we had a house guest -- a lady who attended

school with my wife, "way back when." She got to talking

about the schoolbooks they had in junior high, and

remarked that the history textbook had only a single

picture featuring a woman, up to and including the

Truman/Eisenhower era.

 

She felt like "an alien" reading a required textbook that

had practically no representations of her sex -- and the

Betsy Ross graphic was more a depiction of a flag

than it was of the seamstress's face.

 

I've felt like that -- more than once -- that there was

not even one person similar to myself within a thousand

miles in any direction.... but the feeling passed, eventually.

 

UD

 

ps I forgot to mention that the former schoolmate was

also Black -- but she didn't say whether there were any

black faces in that old history book -- perhaps one or two.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[The Nehor]

I have no need to inquire very deeply into your personal history

(beyond that which you care to share openly), but I do have a

question, that other participants here may find it hard to answer.

 

If a young gay or lesbian member came to you, and sought your

advice, as to which Church leaders or Church social service

professionals might be consulted, for their "otherness," could

you offer useful advice? Are there official support groups?

 

How does such a member change his/her attraction instincts,

so as to be "seeking" (I won't use other, more explicit words)

the company of the opposite sex for intimacy and procreation?

 

UD

 

I hate to be crass but support groups of this nature tend to be a bad idea. At least from what I hear from my friends in other faiths they tend to discuss their temptations and form strong bonds and then hook up with each other. Same reason several priesthood leaders have given me and others the counsel to never study scriptures alone together with someone you are attracted to unless you are married. Spiritual experiences are powerful and often stir up other feelings.

 

I would advise one-on-one counseling with a bishop and add a therapist or other health professionals as needed.

[ksfisher]

never study scriptures alone together

Made me laugh.

[The Nehor]

Made me laugh.

 

Now that I read it again it does sound like a horrible euphemism.

[Ahab]

I have no need to inquire very deeply into your personal history

(beyond that which you care to share openly), but I do have a

question, that other participants here may find it hard to answer.

If a young gay or lesbian member came to you, and sought your

advice, as to which Church leaders or Church social service

professionals might be consulted, for their "otherness," could

you offer useful advice? Are there official support groups?

Anyone who can empathize with someone's attraction to someone of the same sex and still support the idea that each person needs a companion of the opposite sex to attain a "fullness of joy" would be who they should takw counsel from. Just ask for me if you can't find someone else to help you.

How does such a member change his/her attraction instincts,

so as to be "seeking" (I won't use other, more explicit words)

the company of the opposite sex for intimacy and procreation?

UD

It falls under the "bring all the good that you have and see if we have something to add to it" idea. Nobody needs to no longer realize that those of the same sex are sexually attractive. In fact more people should realize they are. We should just try to help those that don't realize that the opposite sex is sexually attractive to realize they are attractive, too.

[Uncle Dale]

I hate to be crass but support groups of this nature tend to be a bad idea.

...

 

 

I was very surprised when I got the same response from our

family physician, in regard to associating with a cancer survivors

support group. Seems that the major objection, from a physician's

viewpoint, is that within such groups all sorts of self-treatment

and reliance upon unproven "miracle cures" proliferate.

 

On the other hand, the cancer specialist I was referred to thought

that getting into a local support group with people going through

the same troubles could be therapeutic, in and of itself.

 

Now I'm thoroughly confused -- but tempted to shy away from

anybody I hear of with the same malady. Strange, hunh?

 

UD

Edited February 20, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Stargazer]

Ar a recent General Conference, Elder Oaks seemed to suggest that same sex attraction stems from the fallen nature (a temporary condition) and not from the eternal natures of certain men and women. This caused me to wonder if all the concern and skirmishing that goes on about SSA is just a futile waste of time and energy because after the resurrection, when the fallen nature and the devil's power to tempt mankind will finally be brought to an end, it could be that the hold same sex attraction has on some hearts and minds will simply evaporate into the ether as the morning dew dissipates before the blazing summer sun. Could it be that just as lost limbs, sensory organs and injured mental capacities are going to be restored in the resurrection to those who now temporarily suffer loss, that in similar manner a distorted sense of self and one's gender role will also be corrected and restored to proper order when the fallen nature is overcome through and by the atoning power of Christ?

 

Well, I've tried arguing this before around here and you should have heard the screaming and complaints about my insensitivity. 

[Ahab]

Well, I've tried arguing this before around here and you should have heard the screaming and complaints about my insensitivity.

Yeah sometimes I just want to give a big man hug to people who think there is something wrong with realizing others of same sex are sexually attractive. It would probably not have the intended effect though and they would probably be even more afraid of me. But then again maybe they would like it and we would just laugh together. Hmm. Maybe I should just try it and see.

[BlueDreams]

What if sexual orientation was an eternal component of a particular person?

I think we dare not go there. I'm sure plenty will say, "no way...I know it".

but it's possible.

If it were eternal and people who are gay will always be so, perhaps we are really wrong about how the practice is seen in God's eyes. It's not like we haven't been wrong before.

 

I don't know if it actually matters one way or another. This assumes that if sexual orientation is somehow eternal in construct that the expression of sexuality and our arrangement of it on earth and heaven will differ. I don't know if that would be true. 

 

A lightweight example: My patriarchal blessing states that I'll be really talented artistically. I am. And since it's a PB I assume something about being artistic means that it is an eternal trait (easy to believe.....look at a sunset). Does that mean that how I creatively express will always be a paintbrush and canvas, long into the eternities and beyond. No, Doubtful. My guess is that my current expression of this eternal trait is extremely limited by our human existence. It's fullest expression is not reached and never will be on this earth.

 

So what would it mean if our sexual orientation was a component permanently apart of our eternal being? No idea. But my guess is that our immediate assumptions are probably extremely limited by our human existence, our own biases about it, and the constructs we've formed as a society around sexuality in general. I would assume that there would be order in it, one that still, somehow follows the greater purpose to our eternal existence. 

 

With luv,

BD

[california boy]

Anyone who can empathize with someone's attraction to someone of the same sex and still support the idea that each person needs a companion of the opposite sex to attain a "fullness of joy" would be who they should takw counsel from. Just ask for me if you can't find someone else to help you.

It falls under the "bring all the good that you have and see if we have something to add to it" idea. Nobody needs to no longer realize that those of the same sex are sexually attractive. In fact more people should realize they are. We should just try to help those that don't realize that the opposite sex is sexually attractive to realize they are attractive, too.

 

LOL.  Yeah that will work.  

[stemelbow]

I don't know if it actually matters one way or another. This assumes that if sexual orientation is somehow eternal in construct that the expression of sexuality and our arrangement of it on earth and heaven will differ. I don't know if that would be true. 

 

A lightweight example: My patriarchal blessing states that I'll be really talented artistically. I am. And since it's a PB I assume something about being artistic means that it is an eternal trait (easy to believe.....look at a sunset). Does that mean that how I creatively express will always be a paintbrush and canvas, long into the eternities and beyond. No, Doubtful. My guess is that my current expression of this eternal trait is extremely limited by our human existence. It's fullest expression is not reached and never will be on this earth.

 

So what would it mean if our sexual orientation was a component permanently apart of our eternal being? No idea. But my guess is that our immediate assumptions are probably extremely limited by our human existence, our own biases about it, and the constructs we've formed as a society around sexuality in general. I would assume that there would be order in it, one that still, somehow follows the greater purpose to our eternal existence. 

 

With luv,

BD

Fair point. The problem we face, though, is if it is an eternal component of us, it is also possible we are wrong about the practice of it in this life is sinful. I don't see it upsetting the eternal grand scheme of things as some others do, just like we now know black people not being cursed, not being less valiant in the pre-mortal world did not upset the eternal scheme of things.

mmm...something to think about. I wonder as we move forward in life if we come around to the notion that gay activity is not sinful. We'll have some 'splaining to do. Plenty of trying to take the foots out of our past leader's mouths, which is often what we do now when trying to explain our past.

[california boy]

I don't know if it actually matters one way or another. This assumes that if sexual orientation is somehow eternal in construct that the expression of sexuality and our arrangement of it on earth and heaven will differ. I don't know if that would be true. 

 

A lightweight example: My patriarchal blessing states that I'll be really talented artistically. I am. And since it's a PB I assume something about being artistic means that it is an eternal trait (easy to believe.....look at a sunset). Does that mean that how I creatively express will always be a paintbrush and canvas, long into the eternities and beyond. No, Doubtful. My guess is that my current expression of this eternal trait is extremely limited by our human existence. It's fullest expression is not reached and never will be on this earth.

 

So what would it mean if our sexual orientation was a component permanently apart of our eternal being? No idea. But my guess is that our immediate assumptions are probably extremely limited by our human existence, our own biases about it, and the constructs we've formed as a society around sexuality in general. I would assume that there would be order in it, one that still, somehow follows the greater purpose to our eternal existence. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Great post.  I agree with you.  I truly believe that God's gay children have an important role to play in the next life that is totally different than those that are off having billions of babies.  Our spirits want something different, and there will be harmony between all  in bringing about the works of God.  The talents and briliants of Michelangelo, DaVinchi  and other great gay artists will not go to waste.  It is what will make heaven so beautiful.

Edited February 20, 2015 by california boy

[stemelbow]

If homosexuality were universally practiced, the human race would be extinct in one generation.  That should mean something.

Sure. It means we should never try to coerce people to practice sex with the gender they are not attracted to.

[smac97]

What if sexual orientation was an eternal component of a particular person?

The concept of Eternal Progression is inextricably linked to eternal increase. We are created as the spirit "children" of God. We are literally His children. "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Temple work is entirely devoted to sealing spouses, a man and a woman, to each other and to their children. Eternal marriages, eternal families, eternal increase.

What we call "sexual orientation" appears to be part and parcel of the eternal scheme of things.

 

I think we dare not go there. I'm sure plenty will say, "no way...I know it".

but it's possible.

If it were eternal and people who are gay will always be so, perhaps we are really wrong about how the practice is seen in God's eyes. It's not like we haven't been wrong before.

I see deviations from God's plan for His children to be a condition of this mortal probation. There are many ways people can struggle with matters of sexuality. Some people, including people in the LDS Church, struggle with abstaining from sex outside of marriage (adultery or fornication). Some struggle with pornography, lasciviousness, and so on. Some people conflate sexuality with violence. Some are sexually attracted to children, or family members, or inanimate objects, or animals. These are all variations on a theme. Some of us have struggles in other ways. Some struggle with chemical dependencies and addictions. Some eat too much. Some lack a work ethic. Some have difficulty controlling their temper and/or improperly resort to violence. Some are greedy. Some seek unrighteous dominion. Some are dishonest. Some are profane. Some shirk important responsibilities.

I could go on forever. King Benjamin pretty much nailed it when he said this: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

And then there are all sorts of additional afflictions which affect God's children: diseases which afflict body and mind, familial and social disfunctions, political and socioeconomic injustices, wicked combinations, and so on. These "external" afflictions likewise lead the children of God astray.

I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent.

I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and separate it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets, and to instead go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod. Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

And on a somewhat more upbeat note, I'll end with this encouragement from our Lord: "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 20, 2015 by smac97

[Bobbieaware]

Fair point. The problem we face, though, is if it is an eternal component of us, it is also possible we are wrong about the practice of it in this life is sinful. I don't see it upsetting the eternal grand scheme of things as some others do, just like we now know black people not being cursed, not being less valiant in the pre-mortal world did not upset the eternal scheme of things.mmm...something to think about. I wonder as we move forward in life if we come around to the notion that gay activity is not sinful. We'll have some 'splaining to do. Plenty of trying to take the foots out of our past leader's mouths, which is often what we do now when trying to explain our past.

There's one all-important element of the gospel that's not being included in this discussion. That missing element is the mighty transformative power of an infinite and eternal God. Your approach reminds me of the argument of the "zero sum game" some make when they propound the supposedly static and non-dynamic nature of the US economy. If this infinite and eternal creative power of God was able to transform the desperately wicked Alma and the sons of Mosiah into some of the greatest men of God of all time, then I'm confident he has the power to make things right and set all things in their proper order without violating anyone's free agency -- a little bit of genuine faith is all that's going to be required. And when the fallen state is overcome by the glorious resurrection, it will then surely be much easier to leave behind the sinful nature of a once fallen world that will be left far, far behind.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

The concept of Eternal Progression is inextricably linked to eternal increase. We are created as the spirit "children" of God. We are literally His children. "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Temple work is entirely devoted to sealing spouses, a man and a woman, to each other and to their children. Eternal marriages, eternal families, eternal increase.

What we call "sexual orientation" appears to be part and parcel of the eternal scheme of things.

 

I see deviations from God's plan for His children to be a condition of this mortal probation. There are many ways people can struggle with matters of sexuality. Some people, including people in the LDS Church, struggle with abstaining from sex outside of marriage (adultery or fornication). Some struggle with pornography, lasciviousness, and so on. Some people conflate sexuality with violence. Some are sexually attracted to children, or family members, or inanimate objects, or animals. These are all variations on a theme. Some of us have struggles in other ways. Some struggle with chemical dependencies and addictions. Some eat too much. Some lack a work ethic. Some have difficulty controlling their temper and/or improperly resort to violence. Some are greedy. Some seek unrighteous dominion. Some are dishonest. Some are profane. Some shirk important responsibilities.

I could go on forever. King Benjamin pretty much nailed it when he said this: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

And then there are all sorts of additional afflictions which affect God's children: diseases which afflict body and mind, familial and social disfunctions, political and socioeconomic injustices, wicked combinations, and so on. These "external" afflictions likewise lead the children of God astray.

I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent.

I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and exempt it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets and go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod. Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

Thanks,

-Smac

And? If it wasn't considered sin by God? We just thought it was? "it" being sex with someone of the same gender.

[rockpond]

It is either a flaw, and will be corrected or overcome. Or it is designed and we will be corrected in our beliefs. I will not lose faith in Christ and the plan of Salvation either way.

I have asked "why" in my prayers, wanting to be an ally of my homosexual friends- and once I move past my prejudices and snap judgements, the conclusion I have reached is that the reason homosexual behavior is prohibited by our religion, is our emphasis on eternal Increase being an integral part of celestial glory. There are lots of implications for me, including my not judging homosexuality any harsher than my own favorite sins of sloth, gluttony, and lightness of mind.

In the eternities our treasures may be the same as they are now. I would no sooner consign a homosexual friend to banishment from the celestial kingdom, than I would myself for my own violations of Gospel laws. In fact I would welcome my friends into my eternal home and treasure their company. If our eternal fate is celestial parent vs celestial ministering angel, and we have chosen our path, I can see a place for all of us.

Having said that, any blessing we choose to reject once we accept the gospel, will certainly be a loss. Be it an eternal increase, or other things sacrificed to our own desires over God's plan.

I know on this earth it is not my place to judge others and consign them to hell for believing differently than me. God has given us rules and regulations for our happiness. If we are in error, and ready to listen (ex. Blacks and Priesthood) He will guide us to greater light and knowledge. If we are not in error, His mercies will guide each of us to the full blessings we are able to accept. In the interim our greatest commandment and duty is to love God and love one another. That dictates how we should act more than any other regulation or rule.

 

All around great post, Kevin!  In response to what your conclusion that I put in bold above, I'll quote ksfisher from earlier in the thread...

 

This seems to be assuming things that we really don't know about the nature and functions of a resurrected body.

 

Until we know how "eternal increase" works, I don't think we can use it as a reason to condemn gay people to celibacy.

[ksfisher]

And? If it wasn't considered sin by God? We just thought it was? "it" being sex with someone of the same gender.

 

You could rationalize your way out of obeying any commandment that way.

[ksfisher]

 

 

Until we know how "eternal increase" works, I don't think we can use it as a reason to condemn gay people to celibacy.

 

But we do know a great deal about how mortal bodies work now, although there is more to learn, and we do know what commandments we have been given in this life.

[stemelbow]

You could rationalize your way out of obeying any commandment that way.

Sure. What's wrong with that? It's all our individual figuring out. We can't just accept what's told us. we have to individually decide for ourselves if what is told us matters.

I think the problem we've faced and will continue to have to deal with is our individual inability to take responsibility. "well the prophet said it, so it must be true" is cute and helpful to some extent. But sticking to that for fear of not trusting ourselves misses the opportunity to further our personal relationship with becoming. It seems to me.

[smac97]

And? If it wasn't considered sin by God?

I have no interest in speculating about unrealistic hypotheticals. We might as just ask "What would we do if a time traveler went back in time and saved Jesus from dying on the Cross?"

 

We just thought it was? "it" being sex with someone of the same gender.

I don't think we (the Church) are collectively in doctrinal error regarding this issue. That is, I think we have the revealed mind and will of God regarding this issue. This stands in contrast to, say, extra-canonical folk doctrines about blacks and the priesthood (I assume this is where you are headed). As I have said previously about this issue:

 

The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for the Church's position on SSA.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Sure. What's wrong with that? It's all our individual figuring out. We can't just accept what's told us. we have to individually decide for ourselves if what is told us matters.

With respect, I sort of disagree with you here. We have to individually decide for ourselves if what is told us is true. That analysis necessarily allows for differences of opinion. However, that analysis and the resulting differences of opinion means that some of us will arrive at the wrong answer. That is why God has given us scriptures, priesthood leaders, collective and individual revelation, and so forth.

 

I think the problem we've faced and will continue to have to deal with is our individual inability to take responsibility. "well the prophet said it, so it must be true" is cute and helpful to some extent. But sticking to that for fear of not trusting ourselves misses the opportunity to further our personal relationship with becoming. It seems to me.

I agree with you here. Here are a few quotes which I have found useful when considering this issue:

"A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

—Neil L. Andersen, "Trial of Your Faith," Oct 2012

 

"...while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within."

—Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin B. Firmage [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999], 140).

 

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

—Brigham Young, "Eternal Punishment," Journal of Discourses 9:150

 

"We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable, creating labor and difficulties for our successors to perform and contend with, which we ought not to transmit to them. The interests of posterity are, to a certain extent, in our hands. Errors in history and in doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them [...] We know what sanctity there is always attached to the writings of men who have passed away, especially to the writings of Apostles, when none of their contemporaries are left, and we, therefore, feel the necessity of being watchful upon these points."

—Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Daniel H. Wells, in Messages of the First Presidency, comp. James R. Clark (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 2:232

 

"I admire men and women who have developed the questioning spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas and stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent—if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it."

—Hugh B. Brown, counselor in First Presidency, Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958

 

"Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth."

—Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "What is Truth?" CES Broadcast, Jan 2013

 

"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."

—J. Reuben Clark, The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

Sure. What's wrong with that? It's all our individual figuring out. We can't just accept what's told us. we have to individually decide for ourselves if what is told us matters.

 

Yes and no.  Sometimes God's test is to see if we will follow our file leaders.  Sometimes God's test is to see if we will figure things out for ourselves.  Sometimes God expects a bit of both.

 

It's the Following Blindly into the ditch sin VERSUS what I like to call the Israel Barlow principle.

 

Obedience is the first law of heaven but every man must answer for his own decisions.

Balancing it is one of the toughest principles of the Gospel to master.

[Ahab]

LOL. Yeah that will work.

I just meant that it's the kind of counseling that is needed. Nobody can make anyone else stop realizing that people of the same sex are sexually attractive, not even our Lord, and he wouldn't even try. Everyone should just realize that people of the opposite sex are sexually attractive, too. Otherwise they're pretty much oblivious to how the other sex is sexually attractive, too.

[Ahab]

Great post. I agree with you. I truly believe that God's gay children have an important role to play in the next life that is totally different than those that are off having billions of babies. Our spirits want something different, and there will be harmony between all in bringing about the works of God. The talents and briliants of Michelangelo, DaVinchi and other great gay artists will not go to waste. It is what will make heaven so beautiful.

You don't have to be gay to be talented and any artist who is talented is not talented because he is gay. Get real.