Question

[Uncle Dale]

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.

I appreciate your candor and humor, in contributing to what

has become an interesting, but perplexing discussion.

Your exact same words, practically, were voiced by our lesbian

priest here in Hilo -- I say "our" even though I've left CoC, and

even though she was assigned to our neighbor branch and

did not always show up every Sunday where I attended.

One thing she tried to do was to break down our outdated and

prejudicial stereotyping. Yes, some lesbians (ordained or not)

avoid using feminine makeup and cut their hair short, but if

she chose to do the opposite, she was no different than

millions of other gals, no matter their gender preferences.

There was a rumor going round that her ordination, and others

administered here in Hawaii, and elsewhere, cost McMurray

the presidency of CoC. I doubt very much that was the case,

and I doubt very much that a baptism conducted under her

hands was any less valid than that done by a male priest.

But, of course I've been wrong now and then -- and it is in

reading discussions such as this thread, that I gain new

information to help me debelop my opinions.

UD

[stemelbow]

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?"

I don't think it's unrealistic.

 

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:

 

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

Thanks,

-Smac

That's fine. But the Church could still be wrong.

[smac97]

I don't think it's unrealistic.

That's fine. But the Church could still be wrong.

The Church could always be wrong about anything. Short of those who have received a sure witness of Christ, the rest of us are proceeding by faith.

The Church teaches that God exists. It "could still be wrong about that," but I don't think it is.

The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind. It "could still be wrong about that," but I don't think it is.

The Church teaches that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel through divine means, messengers, and priesthood power. It "could still be wrong about that," but I don't think it is.

The Church teaches that The Book of Mormon is an ancient record. It "could still be wrong about that," but I don't think it is.

The Church teaches that it is the only true and living church on the face of the earth. It "could still be wrong about that," but I don't think it is.

The Church teaches that Joseph Smith's prophetic mantle now rests on the shoulders of Thomas S. Monson. It "could still be wrong about that," but I don't think it is.

Now, I supposed we can theoretically say that the Church could be a state of profound apostasy, out of communion with God, and totally wrong about a doctrinal precept which has been abundantly addressed by both ancient and modern prophets, and that all of these ancient and modern prophets were also totally wrong about this precept. But I don't think that's the way of things. I think people with SSA have a far greater potential eternal destimony than what is being posited in this thread (I'm thinking of gross stereotypes portrayed earlier in this thread about homosexuals being relegated to being artsy in the eternities).

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited February 20, 2015 by smac97

[The Nehor]

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.

We have to determine the source of the counsel. God Was not optimistic about the future of those do not abide the law and seek to become a law unto themselves.

[BlueDreams]

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.

It's possible that are view of it as sinful is at least in part wrong (I don't think some things are going to go away, gay or straight.....such as sex outside of marriage). But the way our world has set up the general understanding of sexuality is so dichotomous that I would be just as, if not more so, hesitant, to assume that the developing view of sexual orientation is also correct. On the black issue for example.....were we wrong? Yes, in a lot of ways. Were we completely wrong? At our basic core doctrines, no....we just interpreted it from the lens of the current social standings which were pretty wrong. Was the civil rights movement right? Yes, in many ways a god-breathed movement. Was every aspect about it 100% godly? No, I would state that the black separatist movement that began to develop was not the Zion ideal.

 

Similarly, have we been wrong about how we treat or think about our LGBT brothers and sisters? Yes, most definitely. Are there areas that we need more understanding, empathy, love, and basic knowledge? Yes, see Oaks talking about the need to understand transgender concerns. Is there things that are good/correct about the gay rights movements? Of course. Are there things that are probably inconsistent or in direct opposition to eternal purposes? Yes, most definitely.  

 

I do hesitate to state that just because there are LGB sexual orientations that have some more eternal nature, to assume that means that our current earthly trends toward SSM is the correct expectation for what the divine expression of said orientation will be. I don't see a lot of scriptural basis for said view. I've worked to be exposed to other views, getting to know a wide range of voices who've expressed their orientation in varying ways based on their own choices/experiences in this life, and deeply thinking about the concerns in multiple "camps." It was something that I prayed about when I was younger. And it's still something I actively think about and explore. In all of that, my hesitation remains as to whether or not gay sexual activity is a) sinful and b) something on par with opposite sex pairings in the eternal scheme of things. 

 

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.

 

I keep thinking back to an experience I had of this summer as well as a few months ago. I first witnessed a dialogue between a variety of therapists who fell around the spectrum of LGBT concerns and beliefs and decided to sit down and hash it out together. They had a cool name that now escapes me (the guild maybe?....i wish I was better with names). It was very interesting to hear and watch, since on any giving tuesday you wouldn't expect them to sit there together with both and obvious warmth and desired purpose between quite varying POV's. And though there was not 100% agreement, what struck me most was the unity between them and the capacity to learn from such distinctions. It was, in it's own rights, zionistic, even as some of the choices would not be deemed all too "Mormon" (such as the man in a partnership for a couple decades and who had raised a son with him). What made it more was not the actual stances, but the desire to truly understand and respect the other, earnestly believing that there are things this brother or that sister sees that I cannot....and I need that view. I think that all God's children, no matter where they are at....if there is a godly goodness in their life, there is something that I need to learn from them and there is something that is a reflection of the source of all true light. I think that light is far more expansive than we often allow ourselves to see.  

 

The other is a group that I participated in that I can't tell you much about because it was confidential. But it was a group of women (LDS to some extent) in which I was the only straight person in the room. I also remember this fondly, warmly and with interest as our ideas converged and touched each other....even as it became apparent that our walks in life would continue to be very different.

 

The one thing these experiences and others have taught me is that I'm not one to hold major labels or unifying expectations to all who have at least some experience diverse forms of sexuality. Orientation is not an expression nor is it identity, IMHO. Orientations can formate how we view those, and our capacities within expression/ID....but it's not the same. So I do believe that God's gay children have important roles to play in the next life, because they are God's children. Their capacity as such is infinite and eternal due to it. What that means I am less comfortable painting broadly as giving a clustered expectation or role for all people who ever experienced varying sexual orientations. After all, your desires, as a gay man are not the same as Josh Weed's, who isn't the same as Tom Christofferson's, who probably won't be the same as Anderson Cooper. The single similarity is an orientation, not the earthly expression or identity....which makes assuming the eternal purpose to said experience/orientation on earth difficult to surmise. 

 

 

Speaking of Tom Christofferson, I should go so that I can watch him  in  a 2 hr discussion today. Yes, this is called bragging....I'm super excited!

 

With luv,

BD

[Ahab]

Orientation is not an expression nor is it identity, IMHO. Orientations can formate how we view those, and our capacities within expression/ID....but it's not the same. So I do believe that God's gay children have important roles to play in the next life, because they are God's children. Their capacity as such is infinite and eternal due to it. What that means I am less comfortable painting broadly as giving a clustered expectation or role for all people who ever experienced varying sexual orientations.

Orientation is a pretty good word to refer to what we're talking about when talking about sexual orientation. When I was first hired at my current job I went to what was called an orientation meeting to learn some things about my job and the organization I work for, knowing there would be more for me to learn.

So just think about how much there is to realize about sexuality, involving both sexes, whether it is good or evil. Some of the attractions are good, for some sexes, and some of them aren't, for some sexes, so we just need to get to the point where we can appreciate and understand what is good for each sex, and what isn't, even if we are attracted to what isn't good for us.

[Stargazer]

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

 

<snip />

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

 

And thank you for THAT!  You've just given me excellent material for my High Priests Group lesson this Sunday!

Edited February 20, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

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.

 

I know who Israel Barlow is, but what, pray tell, is "the Israel Barlow principle"?

[JLHPROF]

I know who Israel Barlow is, but what, pray tell, is "the Israel Barlow principle"?

 

If you know the story, you know the principle.  When the prophet makes a suggestion unless you have a really good reason you should probably follow it despite any reservations.

 

 

“My grandfather was assisting in the building of the Temple at Nauvoo and was driving a pair of beautiful high-spirited black mares. One day while backing his wagon in at the quarry which was down by the river’s edge, the Prophet came over to him and s ‘Israel, on your next trip, stop and buy yourself a buggy whip,’ to which grandfather assented. On his next trip up town he bought a buggy whip and returned for another load of rock. Backing the team in this time, he attempted to stop them as usual by saying, ‘Whoa,’ to which they paid no attention, but kept backing until Israel, in excitement, was compelled to use the whip which the Prophet had told him to buy. The horses jumped forward and the wagon stopped right at the edge of the quarry, beyond which they would have plunged below.

“Grandfather frequently told this story as an illustration of what obedience meant. Grandfather accepted everything the Prophet Joseph Smith told him and never questioned ‘why?’ Some would call this blind obedience, but not so. Israel Barlow knew full well the divine calling of the Prophet and bore that testimony to the day of his death.” (In Ora H. Barlow, The Israel Barlow Story and Mormon Mores, pp. 195–96.)

 

Work and the Glory tells it better....

Edited February 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[california boy]

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.

I think you took this wrong.  What I was saying is that possibly God's gay children have something special to add to the bigger plan of God.  I wouldn't throw out the gensis of Michaelangelo or DiVinchi out just because they are gay.

Edited February 21, 2015 by california boy

[california boy]

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

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Are you serious?  Can you name ANY scriptures about SSA in the Book of Mormon?  How about the D&C?  How about the Pearl of Great Price??    Where are these substantial scriptural reference you speak of?  From a total of 2 writers in the Bible?  I can find more scriptures telling us that murder is acceptable to God.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't know what's going to happen with regard to those who are attracted to their own gender in this life. Should someone in that situation marry someone of the opposite gender?  Not without both components of the couple going into such a venture with eyes wide open and an unusual willingness to make the relationship work. That might be the right choice for some.  Is it fair to ask those who are attracted to their own gender to remain celibate for life?  No, but life isn't fair.  The minute we start asking, "Why would God do [x]?" or saying, "I don't think God would do [x]," or trying to come up with reasons why God might (not) do [x], or even speculating about what God will or won't do in the eternities when He hasn't said anything on these matters is, in my opinion, the minute we start getting into trouble.  (See Isaiah 55:8-9).  There are only two things regarding this topic about which I am certain: (1) God loves all of His children, and (2) If, whatever our lot in this life, we remain faithful, God's not going to have to tell any of us, "I know you were expecting something more, or better, or different, and I know this means it sucks to be you, but ... sorry. This is the best I could do."

 

Some of the Brethren have stated that same gender attraction is something that will be overcome in the resurrection.  I don't know of any official teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to that effect, but, given what the Proclamation on the Family says about gender and reproduction, from a certain vantage point, the teaching that same gender attraction is a burden of mortality makes sense.  And I know many gays have said they don't want to be straight, even in the resurrection.  But life abounds with choices, and most of those choices involve tradeoffs, even, oftentimes, trading something good for something better.  No, God isn't going to exalt any of us against our will.  Perhaps life's greatest test is seeing if we will surrender the one thing that is truly ours to give back to God (since He's responsible for everything else we have, anyway): "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they are willing to do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them."

Edited February 21, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[carbon dioxide]

I think you took this wrong.  What I was saying is that possibly God's gay children have something special to add to the bigger plan of God.  I wouldn't throw out the gensis of Michaelangelo or DiVinchi out just because they are gay.

What does their homosexuality have to do with their accomplishments?  There are some Elton John songs that I like.  I am sure I would like them just the same if he was heterosexual.   I am sure there are bisexuals that have accomplished many things. I am sure there are people who have even more extreme lifestyles that have accomplished stuff.  But even if a man does many great things, no unclean thing can enter the Celestial Kingdom. 

Edited February 21, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

What does their homosexuality have to do with their accomplishments?  There are some Elton John songs that I like.  I am sure I would like them just the same if he was heterosexual. 

I rewrote my post because I think I was still not being clear.

 

 

I think you took this wrong.  What I was saying is that possibly God's gay children have something special to add to the bigger plan of God.  I wouldn't throw out the gensis of Michaelangelo or DiVinchi out just because they are gay.

[smac97]

Are you serious?

Quite. There is no serious contention available to suggest that the LDS position on SSA is scripturally/doctrinally unfounded. None. To suggest otherwise is to act in bad faith. There are oodles of guidance on this topic, both in the scriptures and from modern prophets and apostles.

 

Can you name ANY scriptures about SSA in the Book of Mormon?

As soon as you explain A) your apparently arbitrary exclusion of scriptures you don't like from the LDS canon, and B) your wholesale disregard of the many, many statements we have from prophets and apostles on this subject, I will consider your request. Until then...

 

How about the D&C?  How about the Pearl of Great Price??

See above.

 

Where are these substantial scriptural reference you speak of?  From a total of 2 writers in the Bible?

If we were having a good faith discussion about this topic, we could talk about there being a lot more than "2 writers in the Bible" who have addressed this issue. But we aren't having a good faith discussion, are we?

As I observed before, 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." (Mosiah 4:29).

 

I can find more scriptures telling us that murder is acceptable to God.

No, you can't. I can count the number of such scriptures on one hand and still have five fingers left over.

If I felt you were asking these questions in good faith, I would give you a substantive response. But I don't think you are, so I won't.

I will say this, though: SSA looms large in the public consciousness, but only because its advocates hold tremendous sway in communications media (TV, movies, print, news, politics, you name it). But at the end of the day, only about 2% of the population appears to identify as SSA. Heterosexual fornication (and, I suspect, adultery) are far, far more prevalent in the Church. So it wouldn't really be surprising to see generally more attention paid to these topics.

Moreover, even a cursory review of the "Topical Guide" to the scriptures published by the Church shows a wealth of entries which are applicable to people with SSA. "Fornication" in the Topical Guide has 23 entries. "Adultery" has 22 entries. "Homosexuality" has 9 entries. "Chastity" has 27 entries (many of them are in The Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP). "Lasciviousness" has 11 entries (5 of which are in The Book of Mormon). "Lust" has 45 entries (7 of which are in The Book of Mormon, and 4 of which are in the D&C). "Sexual Immorality" has 15 entries. "Whore, Whoredom" has 43 entries (many of which are in The Book of Mormon and the D&C).

Many (most? all?) of these topics have ready application to people with SSA. In the LDS paradigm, homosexual sexual activity is per se "fornication." There is no getting around that. So all of those Topical Guide entries about fornication are applicable to people with SSA. Topics like "Chastity" "Lasciviousness" and "Lust" and "Sexual Immorality" apply broadly to any sexual behavior/activity/conduct, and so all of those entries are also applicable to people with SSA. Even "Adultery" is potentially applicable (a person with SSA who is nevertheless in an opposite sex marriage is just as constrained from extra-marital sex with persons of the same sex as with persons of the opposite sex).

Again, 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 21, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know what's going to happen with regard to those who are attracted to their own gender in this life. Should someone in that situation marry someone of the opposite gender?  Not without both components of the couple going into such a venture with eyes wide open and an unusual willingness to make the relationship work. That might be the right choice for some.  Is it fair to ask those who are attracted to their own gender to remain celibate for life?  No, but life isn't fair.  The minute we start asking, "Why would God do [x]?" or saying, "I don't think God would do [x]," or trying to come up with reasons why God might (not) do [x], or even speculating about what God will or won't do in the eternities when He hasn't said anything on these matters is, in my opinion, the minute we start getting into trouble.  (See Isaiah 55:8-9).  There are only two things regarding this topic about which I am certain: (1) God loves all of His children, and (2) If, whatever our lot in this life, we remain faithful, God's not going to have to tell any of us, "I know you were expecting something more, or better, or different, and I know this means it sucks to be you, but ... sorry. This is the best I could do."

 

Some of the Brethren have stated that same gender attraction is something that will be overcome in the resurrection.  I don't know of any official teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to that effect, but, given what the Proclamation on the Family says about gender and reproduction, from a certain vantage point, the teaching that same gender attraction is a burden of mortality makes sense.  And I know many gays have said they don't want to be straight, even in the resurrection.  But life abounds with choices, and most of those choices involve tradeoffs, even, oftentimes, trading something good for something better.  No, God isn't going to exalt any of us against our will.  Perhaps life's greatest test is seeing if we will surrender the one thing that is truly ours to give back to God (since He's responsible for everything else we have, anyway): "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they are willing to do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them."

Regarding the part I bolded above for reference: If it turns out (as I'm confident it will) that there is no such thing as SSA in the resurrection, I'm pretty certain that attitude won't stay with them. That is to say, the reason they want to retain their SSA is that they have it now. If they didn't have it, I don't think they would want it in the hereafter. Do you know any straight person who wants to be homosexual, either now or later?

 

For that matter, to cherish any ungodly predilection to the point that one wouldn't want to give it up, ever, is shortsighted indeed.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

 If it turns out (as I'm confident it will) that there is no such thing as SSA in the resurrection, I'm pretty certain that attitude won't stay with them.

 

I usually agree with you on this topic, but I don't think this is scriptural.

Our bodies will be raised just as we lay them down.

I think it's more accurate to say that SSA will be removed eventually in the next life.  I think it could well rise in the resurrection.

[Scott Lloyd]

I usually agree with you on this topic, but I don't think this is scriptural.

Our bodies will be raised just as we lay them down.

I think it's more accurate to say that SSA will be removed eventually in the next life.  I think it could well rise in the resurrection.

Do you hold that one racked with, say, cerebral palsy, will have that condition in the resurrection?

 

If you believe, as I do, that SSA is a disorder, my view is indeed scriptural. See Alma 40:23. It is my fervent belief that this pertains as much to sexual disorders as it does to anything else.

[JLHPROF]

Do you hold that one racked with, say, cerebral palsy, will have that condition in the resurrection?

 

If you believe, as I do, that SSA is a disorder, my view is indeed scriptural. See Alma 40:23. It is my fervent belief that this pertains as much to sexual disorders as it does to anything else.

 

I view it more as someone with a drug addiction or alcoholism than cerebral palsy.

It's a disorder because the brain has become conditioned to something it shouldn't.  That conditioning may take some time after the body is raised up to be removed.

 

 

Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth.  - Gospel Principles pg 242

[Ahab]

Regarding the part I bolded above for reference: If it turns out (as I'm confident it will) that there is no such thing as SSA in the resurrection, I'm pretty certain that attitude won't stay with them. That is to say, the reason they want to retain their SSA is that they have it now. If they didn't have it, I don't think they would want it in the hereafter. Do you know any straight person who wants to be homosexual, either now or later?

For that matter, to cherish any ungodly predilection to the point that one wouldn't want to give it up, ever, is shortsighted indeed.

The thing is, though, it's not ungodly for a man to realize that men are sexually attractive. It's just a problem when men don't realize women are sexually attractive, too, and hence they don't realize how wonderful women truly are and how they can enhance the life of any man. Not to take anything away from how wonderful men are and can be on their own, but to realize men are even better with women.

I can see the value and the attractions of each sex, individually, and the reason I have a woman as my spouse is because we have more and more potential together than any sex does on its own.

[teddyaware]

I usually agree with you on this topic, but I don't think this is scriptural.

Our bodies will be raised just as we lay them down.

I think it's more accurate to say that SSA will be removed eventually in the next life.  I think it could well rise in the resurrection.

 

As a general rule, except for the sons of perdition, our bodies WILL NOT be raised with the same weaknesses, sinful proclivities and deeply ingrained wicked habits we had on earth because the post-death spirit world experiences of all God's earthly children, regardless of which kingdom of heavenly glory they eventually obtain, will be an experience of continued repentance and dynamic spiritual refinement. For the righteous in paradise, they will continue to grow and progress spiritually as they endure to the end in service to God and their fellow man (a great many of the righteous there will be called upon to leave the blessed precincts of paradise in order to enter the realm of the spirit prison that they might seek out and preach the Gospel of repentance to the wicked and rebellious who will be found dwelling in that place of chastising spiritual punishment).

 

In D&C 76, this spirit prison of punishment of the unrepentant dead is called "the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of almighty God." There, like Alma the Younger, the spirits of the wicked and rebellious are exposed, without mitigation, to the consequences of their own wicked choices as a just and wise form of divine "tough love" that is calculated to soften hardened hearts to bring newly penitent souls unto Christ through genuine and sincere repentance. As we are told in D&C 76, the time will eventually come when Christ will finish His work of trodding the wine press of divine wrath (symbolically speaking, the still unrepentant and stiff-necked wicked are the grapes) when He will have "overcome" all His enemies -- the previously unrepentant and rebellious wicked -- by His love and wisdom.

 

Again, Alma's experience in "hell" shows us how this process can work. After these formerly wicked and rebellious souls repent and are forgiven, through the atoning blood of Christ , they will come forth in the last resurrection when, we are told, they will bow the knee in humble reverence to God the Father, and by living faith in Christ and His atonement proclaim with joy that Jesus is the Christ. These redeemed (forgiven) souls will then be made heirs of salvation, to live in a state of heavenly glory and very real righteousness. But they will not receive a fulness of God's eternal rewards in the resurrection, for such supernal blessings are only bestowed upon those who WILLINGLY come unto Christ with great love, faith and joy in Him, without having to first be awakened form "the sleep of death" by being trod upon in the winepress of God's fierce justice.

 

Now the preceding doesn't mean there won't be much more to learn and do beyond the grave, but God's great program of salvation for the dead does seem to clearly indicate many of the ungodly passions that afflict fallen man will be overcome as repentant men and women of all stripes and degrees of glory emerge out of the fallen state and in into a a state of redemption and relative holiness by the resurrection from the dead, where the fallen nature and the power of the devil have no more hold over the children of men.

Edited February 23, 2015 by teddyaware

[california boy]

The thing is, though, it's not ungodly for a man to realize that men are sexually attractive. It's just a problem when men don't realize women are sexually attractive, too, and hence they don't realize how wonderful women truly are and how they can enhance the life of any man. Not to take anything away from how wonderful men are and can be on their own, but to realize men are even better with women.

I can see the value and the attractions of each sex, individually, and the reason I have a woman as my spouse is because we have more and more potential together than any sex does on its own.

 

You do realize that being bisexual is different than being homosexual right??

[Pahoran]

it justifies it in this way. Perhaps individual people have revelation from God suggesting homosexual activity is not a sin.

If anyone claims to have had such a revelation, I will believe them.

But it certainly didn't come from God.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I view it more as someone with a drug addiction or alcoholism than cerebral palsy.

It's a disorder because the brain has become conditioned to something it shouldn't.  That conditioning may take some time after the body is raised up to be removed.

What I keep hearing is that SSA is a condition that people are born with and which will always be with them through no fault of their own.

 

If that's true, it is more like a congenital disorder than like alcoholism or drug addiction. My application of Alma 40:23 ("not a hair of their heads") stands.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

You do realize that being bisexual is different than being homosexual right??

Yes. Bisexuals realize that both men and women are sexually attractive while homosexuals think only their own sex is.