Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 It can't because it is not so. The identical twin cases proves that being gay is not inborn.That may very well be true. I know the Church has not staked out a position one way or the other on the question, and neither have I. I don't think it makes much difference as pertaining to the doctrines and beliefs of the Church on this subject.
ALarson Posted May 12, 2015 Author Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" Means that they left out gay marriage? really Rock pond. So that to you means that "We don't know that gay marriage is not ordained"? Furthermore, that some how "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God", means something entirely different than "Marriage is between a man and a woman"? It does not need to be address is because the only marriage that is ordained of God is that of a man and a woman. Nothing else is or it would have specified it. Obtuse indeed.I think Rockpond's argument is as valid as anyone saying that just because the proclamation doesn't specifically state that marriages between "a man and multiple women" are ordained by God means they are not ordained by God.. Members of the church do believe plural marriages are ordained of God under certain circumstances The only thing that statement tells us is that a "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God". It doesn't address other forms or types of marriages. Edited May 12, 2015 by ALarson
ALarson Posted May 12, 2015 Author Posted May 12, 2015 She's not declaring doctrine. She is saying what is clear to most believing members of the Church: that the Brethren were inspired to draft and issue "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I've already explained that their having been so inspired is why I agree that it is a revelatory document.So, you believe it was/is a revelation?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 There were several posts before and after the one I linked to that probably would deserve review. But I am retracting my position and apologizing to RockPond.Thanks,-SmacYes posts like this one: Smac,My suggestion regarding the website potentially being something that is needed was referring to the possible need for gay members of the church to connect with others in the same situation on a social level, not for fornication or adultery. I have never made any suggestions that I approve of adultery and fornication despite your implications that I somehow think they are okay when desired.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) So, you believe it was/is a revelation?As I have repeatedly expressed here on this board, I don't see it as a revelation in the sense of declaring new doctrine or doctrine that was not already had among the Latter-day Saints. That said, I believe the content of the proclamation is verily true and represents the mind and will of God, and that He inspired the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to draft and issue it with their imprimatur as a solemn statement to people everywhere regarding the divine will. Furthermore, I believe that those who dismiss, minimize or distort the proclamation in any way do so at their own spiritual peril. Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) It can't because it is not so. The identical twin cases proves that being gay is not inborn.This is simply not true. Identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to both be straight or gay. While it is true that not all identical twins share the same orientation, if you were to study the matter you would discover that depending on the situation identical twins are not exposed to the same womb environment. Some identical twins share a placenta, some don't, and most identical twins have their own amniotic sac. This results in significant hormone differences from the mother. Additionally twin to twin transfusion syndrome can result in large differences between identical twins. Edited May 12, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
ALarson Posted May 12, 2015 Author Posted May 12, 2015 As I have repeatedly expressed here on this board, I don't see it as a revelation in the sense of declaring new doctrine or doctrine that was not already had among the Latter-day Saints. That said, I believe the content of the proclamation is verily true and represents the mind and will of God, and that He inspired the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to draft and issue it with their imprimatur as a solemn statement to people everywhere regarding the divine will. Furthermore, I believe that those who dismiss, minimize or distort the proclamation in any way do so at their own spiritual peril.Thanks for the clarification. But, I believe the distortion can and is occurring on both sides of the argument to fit specific opinions. That's probably a natural thing to do though.
Calm Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 It can't because it is not so. The identical twin cases proves that being gay is not inborn.Something can be inborn without being purely genetic. To be obvious, a baby can be born with an addiction or a deficiency in nutrition resulting in less developed systems due to the mother's behaviour during the pregnancy. (I am not suggesting that homosexuality is caused by a deficiency in nutrition or the use of drugs.)
ksfisher Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) As I have repeatedly expressed here on this board, I don't see it as a revelation in the sense of declaring new doctrine or doctrine that was not already had among the Latter-day Saints.That said, I believe the content of the proclamation is verily true and represents the mind and will of God, and that He inspired the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to draft and issue it with their imprimatur as a solemn statement to people everywhere regarding the divine will.Furthermore, I believe that those who dismiss, minimize or distort the proclamation in any way do so at their own spiritual peril.So perhaps it could be said that the Proclamation is based on revelation.This would seem to fit with Sister Oscarson's statement that it is a revelatory document. Edited May 13, 2015 by ksfisher 1
rockpond Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 You keep saying this. Why does it need to be different than that of heterosexuals? I have yet to see a valid reason for it.Look at these threads... I keep being told that the gospel revolves around a man and a woman marrying and having children. Many, if not most, gay people can participate in that plan. And since the proposed doctrine (celibacy, marriage in the next life) I hope for further clarification through the revealed word of God. If you feel that it's all crystal clear (which is what I gather from your statements) that's great! Live according to that testimony. My personal life experiences (which I don't expect you to understand) lead me to hope and pray and look for more. Continued assertions by you and others here that my hope is in vain will not ever sway me. I am fixed and determined to follow my testimony and what the spirit has whispered to me (which is not meant as a condemnation of anyone else - were just different). 2
california boy Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Once a marital relationship has been determined in the hereafter, it is only reasonable to assume that a vicarious temple ordinance will be performed in mortality to seal that couple as husband and wife after it has been made known to those who can perform the vicarious ordinance. Whether that is done during the Millennium or at some other time is of no great moment. I don't see it as a contradiction. The passages you refer to apply to those who, through their own choice and in defiance of divine law, refused to marry when they had that capability and opportunity. I think that gays will be appointed partners to marry for eternity just like they used to match up couples at junior high school dances. The gay men will line up on one side of the great hall and the women who no straight guy in his right mind would ever marry will be lined up on the other side. They will be marched together, ordered to hold hands when they meet the person of the opposite sex and will forever be joined together for the eternities. Everyone will have an eternal companion and all gay men will forever be magically turned straight, freed from their "affliction". There, problem solved and as many insist, no revelation is needed. This truth makes every "faithful" Latter-day Saint happy because being gay is a temporary condition, but eventually they will all be straight just like them. We all know that God would not tolerate differences in His plan. I don't understand why some people can't get that.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 [sigh] Again, can a thread closure be far behind?
california boy Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I see same-sex attraction as a malady, perhaps a congenital one like any birth defect. Ergo, being "made whole" in the resurrection ("not so much as a hair of their heads shall be lost," according to the Book of Mormon) would entail the removal of this along with all other maladies. Well at least we agree on one thing. I don't have to work on overcoming homosexuality in this life any more than a lame man has to work on overcoming his affliction. I will magically be turned straight in the next life and I can pretend that it just never happened. Of course I will have to repent of being with another man, but how hard will it be to repent of something I will have no desire to ever do again? We all have sins that we will need to repent of. This one seems pretty easy. I will want to throw up rather than ever be with a man again. I like it. Another problem solved without any revelation needed. 1
california boy Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) [sigh]Again, can a thread closure be far behind? A thread is going to be closed by me agreeing with you? How could that possibly be? What could you or anyone else possibly disagree agree with what I have proposed. It all came from your own ideas which are solid as a rock. So is your new tatic to bully me out of participating in threads rather than respond to my posts? Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot (sigh) Edited May 13, 2015 by california boy
smac97 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Well at least we agree on one thing. I don't have to work on overcoming homosexuality in this life any more than a lame man has to work on overcoming his affliction. I think the more apt comparison of "afflictions" would be those who struggle with pornography, or adultery, or fornication, or prostitution, or other types of sexual sin. Which is to say that notwithstanding your marked sarcasm, people do have to work on overcoming such afflictions. And none of these people are justified in saying "But my sin is not like any of the others because I feel good about it." Feelings are not determinative when it comes to the Law of Chastity. Of course I will have to repent of being with another man, but how hard will it be to repent of something I will have no desire to ever do again? We all have sins that we will need to repent of. This one seems pretty easy. I will want to throw up rather than ever be with a man again. I like it. Another problem solved without any revelation needed. Sarcasm in lieu of substance. 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." Thanks, -Smac Edited May 13, 2015 by smac97 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I think Rockpond's argument is as valid as anyone saying that just because the proclamation doesn't specifically state that marriages between "a man and multiple women" are ordained by God means they are not ordained by God.. Members of the church do believe plural marriages are ordained of God under certain circumstances The only thing that statement tells us is that a "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God". It doesn't address other forms or types of marriages. How on Earth is that valid? IF other relationships were ordained of God it would have specified it. About plural marriage, what specifically do you think makes that a valid comparison to question weather homosexuality should be recognized? Plural marriage is a man that enters into multiple marriages between several women. The women are not married to each other.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Furthermore, I believe that those who dismiss, minimize or distort the proclamation in any way do so at their own spiritual peril.I think this is the ultimate issue I have with those that are essentially dismiss the PotF. You start rationalizing this away and it becomes easy to do it with other authoritative statements. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Look at these threads... I keep being told that the gospel revolves around a man and a woman marrying and having children. Many, if not most, gay people can participate in that plan. And since the proposed doctrine (celibacy, marriage in the next life) I hope for further clarification through the revealed word of God.If you feel that it's all crystal clear (which is what I gather from your statements) that's great! Live according to that testimony. My personal life experiences (which I don't expect you to understand) lead me to hope and pray and look for more.Continued assertions by you and others here that my hope is in vain will not ever sway me. I am fixed and determined to follow my testimony and what the spirit has whispered to me (which is not meant as a condemnation of anyone else - were just different).So if a woman for what ever reason cannot marry in this life, do we need a new revelation to ask "what happens to those that can't marry in this life"? It is exactly the same thing with those that have ssa. We have been told that if they stay faithful they will be made whole. That is the same thing said of women or men that do not have the chance to be married. Again you have just asserted that we need a revelation. You have not addressed why we need a revelation. You are ignoring what has already been talked about. I cant help you when you do that.
SteveO Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 "How shall we look when we are damned"?Try and use the cultural shaming and mockery all you want. But you're the ones who seem to need the validation of faithful church members--and that's really what this whole discussion is about...carry on 3
ALarson Posted May 13, 2015 Author Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) How on Earth is that valid? IF other relationships were ordained of God it would have specified it. About plural marriage, what specifically do you think makes that a valid comparison to question weather homosexuality should be recognized? Plural marriage is a man that enters into multiple marriages between several women. The women are not married to each other.It's just as valid as your argument that since ALL types of relationships or marriages aren't named, the others must not be ordained of God. It states "marriage between a man and A woman". How does that include plural marriages? Do you believe under certain circumstances, plural marriages are ordained of God? The proclamation does not address gay marriage and it also does not address plural marriage. Edited May 13, 2015 by ALarson
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 She's not declaring doctrine. She is saying what is clear to most believing members of the Church: that the Brethren were inspired to draft and issue "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I've already explained that their having been so inspired is why I agree that it is a revelatory document. Great, then her statement isn't "doctrine." You may agree or disagree if you wish.
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Yeah and they can chose other wise to marry as the Lord has out lined. They still have a choice. Do you deny that? Desire is quite irrelevant. Not really the same choice offered to straight members of the church. All members may be equal, but some are more equal than others.
thesometimesaint Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Not really the same choice offered to straight members of the church. All members may be equal, but some are more equal than others. But my sins are special. God will beat me with but few strips, and I will at last be saved in the kingdom of Heaven. 3
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) But my sins are special. God will beat me with but few strips, and I will at last be saved in the kingdom of Heaven. John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. If we actually apply this scripture in real life, we can see the real world results and see which position is of God and which is of man. Edited May 13, 2015 by Gray 1
ERayR Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. If we actually apply this scripture in real life, we can see the real world results and see which position is of God and which is of man. I see but you won't believe me. 1
Recommended Posts