Is Homosexuality Inherently Evil? Why?

[SmileyMcGee]

Already did.

And so did rodheadlee.

"Because God said so." No, you have not answered the question.

[Buckeye]

Some have.

Brigham Young had his own bedroom separate from his wives.

Lorenzo Snow only lived with his wife who was still having children after the manifesto.

 

At certain points in Church history any relations incapable of producing a child were frowned upon.  Never outright called sin, but definitely frowned upon.

 

Yes, but the current church teachings expressly allow, and even encourage, sex for non-procreative reasons. Every LDS couple I've ever discussed the issue with admits to using birth control at various times during their marriage. So, to point out the very obvious, it's going to be tough going to convince current church members on this point.

 

If I may ask, and please feel free to ignore this request if it's too personal, but do you plan to remain celebate after menopause? And has your marriage involved sexual relations solely for the purpose of procreation?

[The Nehor]

"Because God said so." No, you have not answered the question.

All our rationalizations for why about pretty much all of the commandments are speculation. We build up huge chains of reasoning around them but we are not required to understand, just obey. Understanding is good but is not mandatory and we are not exempt from following any law we do not know the reason for.

[Buckeye]

I gave you a rep point.  Because you have come to the same conclusion that I have come to.  No matter what I do, I will not enter the Celestial Kingdom.  And if I choose to be celibate, which as you point out, until recently was also against church doctrine, I would be facing eternity married to a woman.  That prospect gives me no hope of happiness.  If I could be happy married to a woman, I would be married to one here on earth.  There is no plan of happiness for God's gay children.  I am sure God will have something for me.  I will just have to wait and see.  The heavens seem to be silent on this subject since the beginning of time.  It is better to find happiness in this life than be celibate and alone in these life.  The results are the same either way.  As you point out, I am wicked no matter what I choose.

 

All the props in the world to you CB. But I sure hope you're wrong.

 

I do find the delimma, as you set it out, to be intriguing. I guess I've never thought much on it being a sin to willfully avoid a heterosexual marriage if you're gay. If things really are as bad as you've concluded then I can't see anyone faulting your choice. As you put, either way you're sinning.

[HappyJackWagon]

All the props in the world to you CB. But I sure hope you're wrong.

 

I do find the delimma, as you set it out, to be intriguing. I guess I've never thought much on it being a sin to willfully avoid a heterosexual marriage if you're gay. If things really are as bad as you've concluded then I can't see anyone faulting your choice. As you put, either way you're sinning.

I agree. It's hard to believe that God would have a plan of happiness for everyone except his gay children. It doesn't make sense and I reject that idea.

[JLHPROF]

So just be aware that the harsh judgement will rally others to the defense of the underdog.

 

People can do whatever they please.  Law of agency.  But as Pres. Kimball said on the other thread:

 

"opinion cannot change laws or absolute truths.

This is absolute. It cannot be disproved. A million brilliant minds might conjecture otherwise, but it is still true."

[JLHPROF]

"Because God said so." No, you have not answered the question.

 

You keep using that phrase.  That's not what I said at all.  Try again.

[HappyJackWagon]

People can do whatever they please.  Law of agency.  But as Pres. Kimball said on the other thread:

 

"opinion cannot change laws or absolute truths.

This is absolute. It cannot be disproved. A million brilliant minds might conjecture otherwise, but it is still true."

I just find it fascinating that so many have the hubris of believing they have ABSOLUTE truth. In a church of continuing revelation and restoration it seems incredibly prideful for anyone to believe they know the mind and will of God in a perfect way. To me, that is an impossibility.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else of anything on this thread.  It's really just yet another excuse for the same old back and forth.

 

Smiley asked for the doctrinal reason homosexuality is wrong.  I provided one.

 

Considering all the excuses made why it's not wrong I'd like to know why we can't apply those same excuses to pretty much any sin?

Why is murder wrong?

Why is adultery wrong?

 

If you can show me why they are wrong but homosexuality is right I would be interested to read it.

You are the ones looking to have the established law changed.  Why don't you prove to me that homosexuality is NOT sinful and is perfectly in keeping with the laws and plans of God?

[Gray]

They do in the resurrection, where men are still resurrected as men and women are still resurrected as women, with all the same body parts intact, and fertility (of a sort) restored to those perfected bodies.

 

We're not talking about other worlds or other lives. We're talking about this life. To say that there is literal procreation in the afterlife is speculation upon speculation. 

[JLHPROF]

I just find it fascinating that so many have the hubris of believing they have ABSOLUTE truth. In a church of continuing revelation and restoration it seems incredibly prideful for anyone to believe they know the mind and will of God in a perfect way. To me, that is an impossibility.

 

I didn't say it.  Pres. Kimball did.

But then you don't hold prophetic teachings in too high a regard either do you?

[JLHPROF]

We're not talking about other worlds or other lives. We're talking about this life. To say that there is literal procreation in the afterlife is speculation upon speculation. 

 

No, I am talking about all of eternity.  Why would I apply an eternal law only to this life?

The law existed before this creation and will exist after this creation.  And I firmly believe there is literal procreation in the afterlife.

[HappyJackWagon]

I didn't say it.  Pres. Kimball did.

But then you don't hold prophetic teachings in too high a regard either do you?

Hasn't this thread illustrated that we all tend to pick and choose which words we believe. You reject some of the new words of prophets while I accept them but conversely you accept some of the old words that I reject. We all do it. We are all cafeteria mormons to a degree. If you think otherwise you're fooling yourself.

[The Nehor]

I just find it fascinating that so many have the hubris of believing they have ABSOLUTE truth. In a church of continuing revelation and restoration it seems incredibly prideful for anyone to believe they know the mind and will of God in a perfect way. To me, that is an impossibility.

There is this neat thing called revelation where we can know things for certain.

Now I agree that all the rationales people are throwing around as to why are dubious but revelation seems clear on the SSM question.

[Gray]

People can do whatever they please.  Law of agency.  But as Pres. Kimball said on the other thread:

 

"opinion cannot change laws or absolute truths.

This is absolute. It cannot be disproved. A million brilliant minds might conjecture otherwise, but it is still true."

 

Assuming, of course, we haven't mistaken opinion for law/absolute truth 

[HappyJackWagon]

As has already been discussed, revelations are received and interpreted by imperfect people, thus removing the liklihood of their perfection. There are clear examples of revelations that have been proven wrong or changed over time even when they were thought to be absolute. Playing a trump card of revelation really doesn't solve the problem of fallibility.

[Gray]

  Why don't you prove to me that homosexuality is NOT sinful and is perfectly in keeping with the laws and plans of God?

 

Having observed the fruits of committed gay marriage vs the orthodox tradition, I have found the former to have born out as being godly and as equally worthy as "traditional" marriage. But of course in all matters of morality, our judgement on these matters is always subjective. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

No, I am talking about all of eternity.  Why would I apply an eternal law only to this life?

The law existed before this creation and will exist after this creation.  And I firmly believe there is literal procreation in the afterlife.

 

You may believe that, but it's speculation. And it doesn't make a great deal of sense, when you really think about it. At least that's my opinion

Edited March 19, 2015 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

Having observed the fruits of committed gay marriage vs the orthodox tradition, I have found the former to have born out as being godly and as equally worthy as "traditional" marriage. But of course in all matters of morality, our judgement on these matters is always subjective. 

 

I didn't ask if you found it moral or pleasing.

I asked for some doctrinal justification for the practice.

 

If we have to show that it is doctrinally wrong, please show that is doctrinally correct, in keeping with the laws and plans of God.

If doctrinal change is sought, please provide the justification.

[Bobbieaware]

This is just circular reasoning and in no way addresses why homosexuality prevents entrance into the celestial kingdom.

I didn't say homosexual tendencies prevent exaltation. I said GIVING IN to the tendencies prohibit exaltation.

Of course, the reason you're looking for is so obvious that it would seem this thread should be unnecessary. Eternal marriage between a man and a woman, and the eternal offspring that spring from that marriage, is what the highest degree of glory is all about. So giving into homosexual impulses -- rather than patiently awaiting the day of transformation (resurrection) when God will heal all the negative effects that come to mankind in consequence the fall -- will stymie God's design for ultimate human happiness. Anything that stands in the way of preventing men and women from fully becoming like Heavenly Father (in the case of men) and Heavenly Mother (in the case of women) cannot be good thing. Leave the word 'sin' out of it if you want. But anything that prevents men and women from becoming like God IN EVERY WAY is not a good thing. Falling short of full exaltation is not a good thing because by falling short one does not fulfill the full measure of his creation.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

As has already been discussed, revelations are received and interpreted by imperfect people, thus removing the liklihood of their perfection. There are clear examples of revelations that have been proven wrong or changed over time even when they were thought to be absolute. Playing a trump card of revelation really doesn't solve the problem of fallibility.

If the concerted word of God throughout this dispensation and other dispensations is subject to disputation then anyone who holds this view should leave.

Is there a God? The revelations say so but they might be wrong. Is Jesus the Savior? Sure, he is all over the scriptures but they might have gotten some interference on the line. Is Joseph Smith a prophet? Who knows, the Lord seems to acknowledge him in the D&C directly but there might have been an error in the receiver.

Yes, there are imperfect revelations but the antidote to those is more revelation. We have gotten a lot on this matter. This is not a few of the 12 sharing a personal interpretation. The combined First Presidency and 12 have spoken. Why is all the quibbling on this issue? For some it is because they suffer from the temptation. For others they are uncomfortable going against the grain of popular thought. For the former I have sympathy. For the latter I wonder how the hell they expect to get the same reward as Abinadi or Daniel when their first thought when things get uncomfortable is to doubt the revelation instead of worldly acclaim.

[JLHPROF]

If the concerted word of God throughout this dispensation and other dispensations is subject to disputation then anyone who holds this view should leave.

Is there a God? The revelations say so but they might be wrong. Is Jesus the Savior? Sure, he is all over the scriptures but they might have gotten some interference on the line. Is Joseph Smith a prophet? Who knows, the Lord seems to acknowledge him in the D&C directly but there might have been an error in the receiver.

Yes, there are imperfect revelations but the antidote to those is more revelation. We have gotten a lot on this matter. This is not a few of the 12 sharing a personal interpretation. The combined First Presidency and 12 have spoken. Why is all the quibbling on this issue? For some it is because they suffer from the temptation. For others they are uncomfortable going against the grain of popular thought. For the former I have sympathy. For the latter I wonder how the hell they expect to get the same reward as Abinadi or Daniel when their first thought when things get uncomfortable is to doubt the revelation instead of worldly acclaim.

 

I totally agree with this.

[JLHPROF]

You may believe that, but it's speculation. And it doesn't make a great deal of sense, when you really think about it. At least that's my opinion

 

Makes plenty of sense considering that this earth life is in the image of the eternities.

Unless you are planning on being resurrected like Ken and Barbie.

[Buckeye]

...  Why is all the quibbling on this issue? For some it is because they suffer from the temptation. For others they are uncomfortable going against the grain of popular thought. For the former I have sympathy. For the latter I wonder how the hell they expect to get the same reward as Abinadi or Daniel when their first thought when things get uncomfortable is to doubt the revelation instead of worldly acclaim.

 

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously then you must take others' just as seriously. No one here has said that they support SSM because they are uncomfortable going against popular thought. Their support derives from seeing actual SSMs, living alongside gay couples and families, and through experience and prayer coming to the judgment that such unions/families are good. If you want to have a productive discussion, that is what you have to confront. Not some strawman argument of political correctness. That's not any more fair than people who dismiss religous objectors to SSM as nothing more than bigots.

 

Edit to add: In reality, many of us active church members who support SSM do so against the "popular thought" of our family and friends.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If the concerted word of God throughout this dispensation and other dispensations is subject to disputation then anyone who holds this view should leave.

 

And you feel, & JLHPROF agrees, thay you are an adequate judge of who should stay and leave? Interesting.

 

People stay, despite the doubt, because of faith. But having faith doesn't mean we believe we have a perfect knowledge. I'm pretty certain Alma 32 addresses that

 

 

Why is all the quibbling on this issue? For some it is because they suffer from the temptation. For others they are uncomfortable going against the grain of popular thought. For the former I have sympathy. For the latter I wonder how the hell they expect to get the same reward as Abinadi or Daniel when their first thought when things get uncomfortable is to doubt the revelation instead of worldly acclaim.

I don't fit either of your reasons for quibbling. Mine is I simply don't believe it. I'm not tempted in that way and I'm not concerned with popular thought on the subject.  I object to the immorality of bigotry that discounts the OTHERS (however we might describe that category- in this case gays) and treats them as less than, or unworthy, or eternally damned. I'm very comfortable rejecting the cultural bigotry against gays as found in the church despite going against the popular thought within the church. I believe that God is more loving and compassionate for all of his children than threads like this would indicate. I want to believe in a loving, merciful God, not one who creates and then rejects an entire population of his children based on circumstances out of their control.