mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Not sure what you're getting at.Now do you know what I am getting at?
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Now, in addition to Scott's "self-evident" argument we have Russell's "goes without saying" argument.Conflicts between section 132 and modern teachings? Well, let's just insert some extra language in the D&C that is "self-evident".Lack of scriptural support for condemning gay marriage? Well, it "goes without saying".With all DUE respect, it appears that you are the one now at odds with Seth who knows also that "it goes without saying". I presume you are comfortable with the conflict, as he is, apparently. Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) On the other hand the problem may resolve itself. Only 2 percent of the population is gay. Of those who would want to be a Mormon?Apparently if we are right, there is no coherent theology that they could believe in Mormonism.Were I gay, I would find Mormonism to be the least coherent possible explanation for God. Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) On the other hand the problem may resolve itself. Only 2 percent of the population is gay. Of those who would want to be a Mormon? Apparently if we are right, there is no coherent theology that they could believe in Mormonism. Were I gay, I would find Mormonism to be the least coherent possible explanation for God.Only if one's vision is limited to the here and now, refuses to try to glimpse eternity, and is determined to regard his/her same-sex attraction as an everlastingly immutable condition. There are those who have been able to get beyond such limited vision, despite being beset with this affliction. Having same-sex attraction does not mean one is compelled to embrace the shrill political dogma of the gay-rights movement, which I fear is drowning out as it tries to shout down the message so eloquently expressed by Elder Wickman: The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course. Edited May 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Cinnamon Bear Head Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Is being gay something one is 'inflicted' with?
CV75 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I'm not conflating sexuality with marriage (though they are connected) I'm just not confining my comments to the box you created.I think it is clear that I have not been "boxing" over sexuality and that you keep bringing it up. You clearly approach marriage from a sexual standpoint (talk about bias!!!). But it and the other the principles I've been associating with it (opposition --including gender-- and atonement) are all spiritual and are far more reaching than that. This is why the natural man is an enemy to God. He boxes himself into the fallen condition by his limited capacity. Sexual capacity, like every other divine but imperfect gift God has given man, is perfected in Christ. As Elder Bednar said, “the enabling power of the Atonement strengthens us to do and be good and to serve beyond our own individual desire and natural capacity… the enabling and strengthening aspect of the Atonement helps us to see and to do and to become good in ways that we could never recognize or accomplish with our limited mortal capacity.”https://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/04/the-atonement-and-the-journey-of-mortality?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng Sexual capacity is not just a hetero-/homo- design. Grace covers all the forms, and covers them for all the forms of life (including those that reproduce asexually). Whoever possesses human life, his existence and his capacities (however they may be used) are dependent on marriage as God defined it and his perfection in existence and capacity is dependent on God's grace. 2
Teancum Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Except the counsel in the manual on marriage is about all races, not just blacks marrying other races and Canard used that as part of his argument iirc. (The counsel is also about not mixing income, education and other social characteristics...iow, marriages between those of similar backgrounds are statistically more likely to succeed so be cautious not to assume that attraction is all that is needed, etc. etc)Ok. Perhaps Canard can clarify.
CV75 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Is being gay something one is 'inflicted' with?That depends how he handles his sexuality.
rodheadlee Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I think you misunderstand Rockpond. There are two sets of new testament verses (Romans and Corinthians) that condemn some types of homosexuality. In the old testament we only have Leviticus declaring it an abomination (along with 13 dietary restrictions). Nothing in the BOM, D&C, or Pearl of Great price. This is not a lot to go off of. So Paul condemns it twice. Paul also says things like "Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church." and yet we let women speak in sacrament meeting all the time. In my opinion there is just as much scriptural basis for the racist justifications of the priesthood ban as there is condemnation of homosexuality in the scriptures.You left out Jude. 7 Even as aSodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to bfornication, and going after cstrange flesh, are set forth for an dexample, suffering the evengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these afilthy dreamers bdefile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 1
Tacenda Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I don't have references at this time, but recall either hearing or reading that men were physically closer back in JS' s time. It wasn't unheard of for them to kiss, not like male & female do though. Is it possible that men in the beginning could be bi-sexual, but usually reserve the sex part for women only. Sometimes I get the idea men prefer to be with men, but leave the sexual part for their spouses. I'm not saying all men, but did read/hear that some of the early church leaders would kiss and be affectionate. Could it be possible that our labeling homosexuality opened the door to choosing one over the other for some? Or maybe those that leaned toward that side more. I don't know if this has been addressed yet on the board. It is such a complex topic. Edited May 13, 2015 by Tacenda
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 You left out Jude. 7 Even as aSodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to bfornication, and going after cstrange flesh, are set forth for an dexample, suffering the evengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these afilthy dreamers bdefile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. The strange flesh would be the flesh of angels, not homosexuality.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 On the other hand the problem may resolve itself.Only 2 percent of the population is gay. Of those who would want to be a Mormon?Apparently if we are right, there is no coherent theology that they could believe in Mormonism.Were I gay, I would find Mormonism to be the least coherent possible explanation for God.I have no idea how glibly you spoke this, but this is certainly my position. If I had a gay child, while I would accept whatever they chose, I would encourage them to seek spirituality elsewhere.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Only if one's vision is limited to the here and now, refuses to try to glimpse eternity, and is determined to regard his/her same-sex attraction as an everlastingly immutable condition. There are those who have been able to get beyond such limited vision, despite being beset with this affliction. Having same-sex attraction does not mean one is compelled to embrace the shrill political dogma of the gay-rights movement, which I fear is drowning out as tries to shout down the message so eloquently expressed by Elder Wickman:So the missionaries track into a family consisting of two married gay men and their two adopted children. We tell them that to find peace and happiness they must leave the one they love, break up their family, live celibately, and if they endure to the end, in the eternities they will one day get to be sealed to a woman they haven't met yet. Let's flip this. If some missionaries showed up on my door, told me to leave my wife and kids, and if I was lucky one day I would get to be married to a dude (and they said that doing so would make me happier), I am pretty sure I wouldn't have to think very hard about that one before showing them the door. 3
rodheadlee Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The strange flesh would be the flesh of angels, not homosexuality.It's in the topical guide under homosexuality. carry on.
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Only if one's vision is limited to the here and now, refuses to try to glimpse eternity, and is determined to regard his/her same-sex attraction as an everlastingly immutable condition. There are those who have been able to get beyond such limited vision, despite being beset with this affliction. Having same-sex attraction does not mean one is compelled to embrace the shrill political dogma of the gay-rights movement, which I fear is drowning out as tries to shout down the message so eloquently expressed by Elder Wickman:That is the paradox in same-sex marriage in the temple. To be exalted one needs to be like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. There would have to be a whole theological explanation for same-sex marriage which does not exist, & I see none forthcoming.Barring that theology, same sex marriage in the temple just makes no sense.Those who are seeking same-sex temple marriage,if any,even should they walk through the temple doors and receive the ordinance,would be seeking what is not possible to obtain with present theology. So it is a total paradox. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I have no idea how glibly you spoke this, but this is certainly my position. If I had a gay child, while I would accept whatever they chose, I would encourage them to seek spirituality elsewhere.It was not glib, it is the only path which makes sense.
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The strange flesh would be the flesh of angels, not homosexuality.In Mormon theology, there is no such thing as the flesh of angels, which is different than any other kind of flesh. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 So the missionaries track into a family consisting of two married gay men and their two adopted children. We tell them that to find peace and happiness they must leave the one they love, break up their family, live celibately, and if they endure to the end, in the eternities they will one day get to be sealed to a woman they haven't met yet. Let's flip this. If some missionaries showed up on my door, told me to leave my wife and kids, and if I was lucky one day I would get to be married to a dude (and they said that doing so would make me happier), I am pretty sure I wouldn't have to think very hard about that one before showing them the door.Correct. If that bothers you, come up with a new Mormon theology and amaze the world. It appears there is no other way.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 It's in the topical guide under homosexuality. carry on. I wasn't aware the topical guide was scripture. As has already been pointed out, the sin of Sodom has never been understood scripturally (i.e. by those writing the scriptures) to be homosexuality. That is a relatively modern construct. That said I did leave out a third reference by Paul in Timothy though.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Correct. If that bothers you, come up with a new Mormon theology and amaze the world. It appears there is no other way.It obviously doesn't bother me enough to leave and I don't expect the church to ever change on this point (even though I wish there was a way to make it happen). My point to Scott was that Mormon theology would have very little appeal to the family described.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 In Mormon theology, there is no such thing as the flesh of angels, which is different than any other kind of flesh.I'm not sure what Mormon theology has to do with figuring out what Jude meant when he literally said "they went after other flesh" There is no other kind of flesh? How did they go after other flesh then? 1
rodheadlee Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I wasn't aware the topical guide was scripture. As has already been pointed out, the sin of Sodom has never been understood scripturally (i.e. by those writing the scriptures) to be homosexuality. That is a relatively modern construct. That said I did leave out a third reference by Paul in Timothy though.So you're saying those angels the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with were not male angels? edited to add: I don't think the men of Sodom were even aware that the visitors were angels. Edited May 13, 2015 by rodheadlee
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I'm not sure what Mormon theology has to do with figuring out what Jude meant when he literally said "they went after other flesh" There is no other kind of flesh? How did they go after other flesh then?Homosexuality. Read the story of Sodom and G.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 So you're saying those angels the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with were not male angels?Okay let me make my viewpoint clear. Anciently it is very clear from the scriptures that the sin Sodom was destroyed for was not homosexuality. I will further say that a condemnation of the gang raping of Angels (assume male angels if you would like), men, women and who knows what else offers no useful commentary on homosexual relationships today. There are places the bible explicitly condemns certain homosexual behaviors (Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians, Timothy). I personally would not add Sodom to that list as gang rape does not seem to match up with homosexual behavior any more than it does with heterosexual behavior. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Homosexuality. Read the story of Sodom and G.Have you read the story? Three angels visit lot. The towns people come bang on Lot's door and want to gang rape them. Lot offers his daughters instead. He wishes to protect his guests ("for they have come under the protection of my roof") so much that he is willing to sacrifice his daughters instead. The crowd accepts the offer of the daughters but also want the angels. At this point the angels blind the crowd, encourage Lot to flee with his family and then destroy the city. The prophet Ezekial said of Sodom: Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. I can't see how you get from this a condemnation of homosexuality. Gang rape? Yes. Haughty and detestable? Yes. Didn't help the poor? Ezekial thought so. Went after "other" (ironically the greek here is hetero) flesh? According to Jude, yes. Given that words for homosexual activity existed in greek (and other flesh is not one of them) and given that the gang rape was to be of angels, and given that there is no corollary between gang rape and homosexual behavior, I don't see how anyone can read a condemnation of same sex relationships from the story of Sodom even when overlayed with the words of Jude. Edited May 13, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
Recommended Posts