Meridian Magazine: Can You Help Your Children Choose Heterosexuality? (Answer: Yes)

[Scott Lloyd]

That one is already sounding pretty dated. I refer to this sentence:

 

"While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life."

 

I think the church is wiser now and no longer makes claims that people can change their sexual orientation either through prayer or discredited practices like "reparative therapy". 

 

But, even on the more contemporary Mormons and Gays website, it makes it clear that the current position that sexual orientation is not something that will persist in the resurrection if you are gay. So you're right, church leadership has taken a position on the issue. 

I couldn't disagree more strongly that the passage you cite is "dated." Are you saying there are not many Latter-day Saints who, with persistent effort, faith and reliance on the Atonement, have overcome same-gender attraction in mortality? I think you would have a hard time proving that. Bear in mind it didn't say they had "change(d) their sexual orientation." It said they had "overcome" it. People can "overcome" in many respects the inclination to sin, even though the capacity to do so is still present. I imagine it's no different with the inclination to violate the law of chastity by engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

In any event, I could have cited the "Mormons and Gays" website. I chose the pamphlet, because it predates the website and it is among the manuals and instructional materials in the Church's curriculum, both online and in print.

 

I could also have cited this Q and A with Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman:

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

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.

 

So there are mulitiple sources from the Church, all indicating that homosexuality is not forever.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Yes.  It was removed as of this morning.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150929192742/http://ldsmag.com/helping-our-children-choose-heterosexuality/

 

It's been archived for posterity. 

[Bobbieaware]

I’m glad you brought up Lehi’s teachings on opposition. “An opposition” can be either complementary (by receiving the atonement), adversarial (by rejecting the atonement), liberating (by enabling choice or agency), or differentiating (by providing a reference to exist). The law of opposition is laid out along with the story of Adam and Eve and the atonement. All these relationships are seen in the chapter. Here is how gender is covered by these principles:

 

Opposition as adversarial: righteousness and wickedness, holiness and misery, good and bad (verse 11).

 

Opposition as complementary (both by receiving the atonement, and by answering the ends of the atonement): Verses 15, and 19-25 show the complementary role of parents (mother and father, opposite sexes) in bringing the plan of happiness (“joy”) to fruition. This is the model for all God’s children. Verse 10 shows how, by answering the ends of the atonement, punishment and happiness are complementary.

 

The teachings about mercy and justice being reconciled in the Atonement reflects a complementary relationship between two otherwise opposing principles. This opposition between mercy and justice is demonstrated in other scriptures (Alma 42, Alma 34, Mosiah 3 and other places). Wisdom is associated with knowledge and power with faith; these opposing forces are both good and work well together according to Alma 32. All the interactions contribute to His eternal purposes (the immorality and eternal life of man which involves exaltation and the continuation of the seeds, etc.) and are all expressed through the experience of Adam and Eve, people of opposing genders brought into a marriage.

 

President Hunter spoke of opposition in terms of gravity, friction and resistance (life’s adversities and challenges)—not in an adversarial but in a complementary, strengthening sense.

 

Opposition as liberating by enabling choice or agency: “…the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life,,, so that he should act for himself. …man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” (verse 16). When Lehi mentions the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, they are both good. One is forbidden and the other (with all the others) not, but that does not make one good and one bad.

 

The two trees were originally in opposition to be enticing to Adam and Eve (verse 16). The Atonement brings them together as one so that God’s purposes are fulfilled. For now, we access the tree of knowledge through our physical/temporal experience, and access the tree of life through our spiritual/eternal experience. Because of the Resurrection, our access to the tree of life will be also accessed physically and our access to knowledge becomes eternal. Thus opposing principles, all good, are brought together.

 

Opposition as differentiating by providing a contrasting reference point for existence: “if it should be one body [and not a compound in one] it must needs remain as dead …wherefore, all things must have vanished away” (Verses 11 and 13). If all things were the same thing, there would be no sense of or viability in what anything is. (Gay marriage does not form a compound in one of the partners because they are of the same gender. The compound in one of 2 Nephi 2 specifies that opposing principles be brought together.)

Excellent summary!

I neglected to point out to Gray that the opposite of self-regenerating animals are those animals, like humans, that propagate through interaction with an external being that is of an opposite sex. So there really is opposition in all things!

[CV75]

I don't know how to say more plainly than I have that it's not as cut-and-dried as you suggest, and even if it was, it's extremely problematic to extrapolate from a tiny, isolated population.

I Nephi 14:12, "And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw." Its cut and dried in some places!

[california boy]

On the contrary, the Church has made it clear that homosexuality is a condition that will not transcend mortality.

 

From the pamphlet "God Loveth His Children."

 

This notion that "the Church doesn't even claim to know how these things work in the eternities" is a persistent and pervasive myth that deserves to die a quick and merciful death.

 

Since this is fundamental to my salvation and the eternal salvation of virtually every gay person who has ever lived, I would like to know if even you think that this is DOCTRINE?  Did this absolute knowledge as to what happens in the eternities to all gay people come from REVELATION?  Is this a clear statement from GOD?

 

If the statement is true, then does that mean that 99.9% of all gays who have ever lived in the world do not have to worry about overcoming their same sex attraction in this life because it will automatically disappear.  And their loving relationships on this earth will not be counted against them because they will be judged on the knowledge they have in mortality?

 

If this statement is true, then will only LDS gays be condemned for acting out in this life because they knew better?

 

If this statement is true, then being gay seems to be the LEAST thing to worry about in mortality since it is a single behavior that simply disappears when we die unless of course you are a member of the church. 

 

Since you believe the church has all the answers on this issue, I would love your thoughts and references to the questions I ask.  This is about personal salvation.  Not much interested in opinion here.

[CV75]

Excellent summary!

I neglected to point out to Gray that the opposite of self-regenerating animals are those animals, like humans, that propagate through interaction with an external being that is of an opposite sex. So there really is opposition in all things!

...and (with regards to asexual reproduction) one being is original and one is a copy; one gives energy; the other takes it; one is inside and one is outside; one is in front, the other in back, or before and after; one is dying and one is growing; we could go on and on.

[rockpond]

On the contrary, the Church has made it clear that homosexuality is a condition that will not transcend mortality.

 

From the pamphlet "God Loveth His Children."

 

This notion that "the Church doesn't even claim to know how these things work in the eternities" is a persistent and pervasive myth that deserves to die a quick and merciful death.

 

Yes... and the next pamphlet that is released to further define the Church's position regarding homosexuality (I think that'll be the 4th one in my lifetime) will also update our understanding.  Wait for it...

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 - I don't think the anthropological evidence supports your assertions that this is a "new" thing.

 

On the contrary, the anthropological and historical evidence both support the proposition that fixed, essential, gendered 'sexual orientations' are completely new things. Here are couple of accessible references:

 

'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation': 'The social-constructionist approach has posed important challenges to ahistorical, essentialist accounts of sexual orientation and extended our understanding of the impact of culture on human sexuality. Most constructionist analyses have focused on homosexual identities, however, ignoring heterosexuality and bisexuality. By attending predominantly to homosexual identities, researchers may seem to support the notion that only "deviant" sexuality (i.e., homosexuality) is socially constructed as opposed to the more radical idea that all sexual orientations are constructed, or that the entire concept of a sexual orientation is itself a social construction. After all, heterosexuality as a sexual identity (rather than as a default behavior pattern) is a rather recent phenomenon in our society, only called into being by the existence of homosexuality'.

'Sexual orientation, according to this definition, has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space. I will not dwell on the third quality, that of consistency, although there is considerable evidence to challenge the notion that sexual orientation is consistent over time and/or space. Instead, I wish to examine the first and second factors, those of sexuality and gender. I will claim that "sexual orientation" (as it is understood in modern Western culture) privileges both sexuality and gender as fundamental, biological categories of experience. By this I mean that the way in which sexual orientation is understood by both the mainstream culture and the scientific community has resulted in the assumption of sexuality and gender as basic and self-explanatory. Our cultural construct of sexual orientation focuses attention narrowly on sexuality and gender as the key elements of relationships instead of examining the wide range of human bonding preferences'.

'Perhaps sex-centrality was inevitable given the increasing discourse of sexuality in Western culture and the proliferation of a sexual zoology ... In addition to typologies of sexuality becoming more elaborate, Freudian theory increased the pervasiveness of sexual discourse by fostering the notion that no human bonding is free from sexuality. Thus not only were a variety of sexual categories available, but all human relationships (friendships, parent-child relationships) became imbued with sexuality, and emotional attachment came to be seen as linked with sexual desire'.

'Sexual Orientation and Mental Health': 'Historically speaking, sexual orientation is a fairly new construct. Although heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are ubiquitous across human societies, notions of “the homosexual” and “the heterosexual”—as well as the very idea that individuals can be defined in terms of their sexual attractions and behaviors—emerged in medical discourse only in the nineteenth century. They are usually traced to Karl Maria Benkert's use of “homosexuality” in 1868 in a German-language pamphlet. Benkert also introduced the term “heterosexual” in 1868'.

I unfortunately can't recall the title of the book, but a historian who was then working at the University of Wisconsin-Madison published a monograph on this topic in the late 1990s in which he did a thorough job of tracing the genealogy (in the Foucauldian sense) of the construction of the notion of sexual orientation in Western thought.

Beyond all this, my academic focus is Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. I work in a research school that covers the fields of anthropology, history, and linguistics. It's a simple reality for every one of my colleagues and me that conceptions of 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' (and even 'bisexuality') were introduced into these areas by means of Euro-American colonialism and in many cases remain foreign though increasingly domesticated ideas. If you're interested, there's an extensive literature on the widespread prevalence in numerous Melanesian societies of boys being socialised by older males into primarily same-sex behaviour via elaborate mythic and ritual complexes, though of course they also married and bore children. The penetration of Christianity throughout the region has nearly obliterated this phenomenon, but it was still happening only a few decades ago. I've lived in parts of Indonesia where male prostitutes are as common as female ones, and men simply don't distinguish between the two. As one of my close friends once said to me in response to a query, 'Sex is sex'. This has been the dominant approach to sexuality for most of the world's people across time.

 

Dominant discourses typically mask their own social construction, seeking to appear 'always already' existent, which is why historical illiteracy is the happy companion of ascendant social movements. The prophets, thankfully, seem less inclined to eternalise the temporal.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes... and the next pamphlet that is released to further define the Church's position regarding homosexuality (I think that'll be the 4th one in my lifetime) will also update our understanding. Wait for it...

As far as I know there never was a time when the Church position was that homosexuality persists in the hereafter. The very notion strikes me as bizarre. The fact that some individuals became confused in their minds obliging the Church to teach them does not mean the Church itself was ever inconsistent on this point.

The concept of the resurrection being a restoration of the body in its full and complete state (not so much as a hair of their heads will be lost) is enough for me to understand that homosexuality, like all maladies and disorders, will be gone.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Why do you think race is eternal?

 

Race is a social construct. Skin color is just the amount of melanin in the skin. We are not a color blind species. Which I assume is an eternal feature. However the racial attributes attributed to people of different skin colors will hopefully not be eternal.  

[canard78]

BD,

I'm curious about this particular piece in your post. Aren't there some parts of each us that are inherently wrong and should be suppressed? We talk about how we need to overcome the natural man and become more like God. How is that not a form of suppression?

There's a difference between "suppressing" something compared to "controlling," "managing" or "improving."

It's not just semantics. The former is unhealthy and leads to problems further down the line. The others are positive, healthy and productive.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Race is a social construct. Skin color is just the amount of melanin in the skin. We are not a color blind species. Which I assume is an eternal feature.

 

Actually there's a growing body of historical scholarship that traces the genealogy of pigmentation-as-race. It's also a relatively recent construct (18th--19th centuries). A good introduction is Foreign Bodies: Oceania and the Science of Race 1750--1940, available for free.

 

As I have before noted from my own research, 16th-century Europeans variously described Papuans as black, white, and brown, and nearby Moluccan chiefs were often described as being white -- none of which resonates with a 21st-century perception of skin colour.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Damien the Leper]

If I understand you, I must say it is not a sentiment but a revelation from God.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

and,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:21)

Why would a believer in the Almighty God of miracles lose faith and come to believe this life is a not a flash in the pan compared to eternity, and no longer believe the God of love, mercy and justice will much more than compensate those who sacrifice temporal pleasure and comfort to fulfill the commandments of God? What motivation would there be in worshipping God if what I say is not true? Fear?

Because for some of us, a God isn't necessary. Not that we believe deities are inherently bad but we no longer identify with such a worldview. No amount scripture, prophetic pronouncement, theological and spiritual hearsay, Hebrews 11:1, etc. will suffice. We live in this world and each of us has one chance to make it better. A checklist of sacraments will not relieve the impoverished, the hungry, the oppressed, the broken and the beaten. As a humanist, I don't have time to waste waiting around for a dubiously existing entity to finally show up bring about apocalypse, judgement and paradise. I have better things to do than sit in a pew on Sunday and then two hours of monotonous and mundane classes.

For me, God can't save us. We need to save each other and ourselves.

[Damien the Leper]

So although the scriptures and the living prophets forbid the practice of homosexual sex if one wants to be a fully participating member of the Church, I'm the one who's off base?

You need a much better understanding of scripture. That's part of the problem. Without a relationship with the language in which the text was written in, the historical context, audience, etc. not even revelation stands a chance. Tell me, are you familiar with these terms and their etymology?:

Malakoi

Arsenokoitai

To'ebah

Here's some help:

1. Malakoi comes from the Greek malakos which literally means soft. But Paul uses it in reference to a feminine male prostitute.

2. Arsenokoitai does not translate properly to "sodomite" (Latin Vulgate) or "offender of one's self". It is mostly speculation as to what the term means.

3. To'ebah, a Hebrew word, does not literally translate to abomination.

Therefore, if modern revelation is not informed but history, text, anthropology and linguistics then it's probably best to take the hard road and set said revelation on the back burner.

[The Nehor]

Excuse me if I am naive enough to believe the prophets. It's called living faith in the infinite and eternal atoning and healing power of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ suffered the sum total of all human suffering, degradation and spiritual alienation and it worked out marvelously well for him. So why shouldn't we believe the prophets when they say as long as we keep the faith it will more than work out for the best for us as well? I'm mystified.

I do not disagree but again, if that statement completely informs your actions then you are doing very well or are broken. If it does not completely inform your actions then why would you expect it to easily do so for others?

[jkwilliams]

On the contrary, the anthropological and historical evidence both support the proposition that fixed, essential, gendered 'sexual orientations' are completely new things. Here are couple of accessible references:

 

'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation': 'The social-constructionist approach has posed important challenges to ahistorical, essentialist accounts of sexual orientation and extended our understanding of the impact of culture on human sexuality. Most constructionist analyses have focused on homosexual identities, however, ignoring heterosexuality and bisexuality. By attending predominantly to homosexual identities, researchers may seem to support the notion that only "deviant" sexuality (i.e., homosexuality) is socially constructed as opposed to the more radical idea that all sexual orientations are constructed, or that the entire concept of a sexual orientation is itself a social construction. After all, heterosexuality as a sexual identity (rather than as a default behavior pattern) is a rather recent phenomenon in our society, only called into being by the existence of homosexuality'.

'Sexual orientation, according to this definition, has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space. I will not dwell on the third quality, that of consistency, although there is considerable evidence to challenge the notion that sexual orientation is consistent over time and/or space. Instead, I wish to examine the first and second factors, those of sexuality and gender. I will claim that "sexual orientation" (as it is understood in modern Western culture) privileges both sexuality and gender as fundamental, biological categories of experience. By this I mean that the way in which sexual orientation is understood by both the mainstream culture and the scientific community has resulted in the assumption of sexuality and gender as basic and self-explanatory. Our cultural construct of sexual orientation focuses attention narrowly on sexuality and gender as the key elements of relationships instead of examining the wide range of human bonding preferences'.

'Perhaps sex-centrality was inevitable given the increasing discourse of sexuality in Western culture and the proliferation of a sexual zoology ... In addition to typologies of sexuality becoming more elaborate, Freudian theory increased the pervasiveness of sexual discourse by fostering the notion that no human bonding is free from sexuality. Thus not only were a variety of sexual categories available, but all human relationships (friendships, parent-child relationships) became imbued with sexuality, and emotional attachment came to be seen as linked with sexual desire'.

'Sexual Orientation and Mental Health': 'Historically speaking, sexual orientation is a fairly new construct. Although heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are ubiquitous across human societies, notions of “the homosexual” and “the heterosexual”—as well as the very idea that individuals can be defined in terms of their sexual attractions and behaviors—emerged in medical discourse only in the nineteenth century. They are usually traced to Karl Maria Benkert's use of “homosexuality” in 1868 in a German-language pamphlet. Benkert also introduced the term “heterosexual” in 1868'.

I unfortunately can't recall the title of the book, but a historian who was then working at the University of Wisconsin-Madison published a monograph on this topic in the late 1990s in which he did a thorough job of tracing the genealogy (in the Foucauldian sense) of the construction of the notion of sexual orientation in Western thought.

Beyond all this, my academic focus is Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. I work in a research school that covers the fields of anthropology, history, and linguistics. It's a simple reality for every one of my colleagues and me that conceptions of 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' (and even 'bisexuality') were introduced into these areas by means of Euro-American colonialism and in many cases remain foreign though increasingly domesticated ideas. If you're interested, there's an extensive literature on the widespread prevalence in numerous Melanesian societies of boys being socialised by older males into primarily same-sex behaviour via elaborate mythic and ritual complexes, though of course they also married and bore children. The penetration of Christianity throughout the region has nearly obliterated this phenomenon, but it was still happening only a few decades ago. I've lived in parts of Indonesia where male prostitutes are as common as female ones, and men simply don't distinguish between the two. As one of my close friends once said to me in response to a query, 'Sex is sex'. This has been the dominant approach to sexuality for most of the world's people across time.

 

Dominant discourses typically mask their own social construction, seeking to appear 'always already' existent, which is why historical illiteracy is the happy companion of ascendant social movements. The prophets, thankfully, seem less inclined to eternalise the temporal.

I must say this is fascinating. Using poststructuralism (Foucault, even) to deconstruct binary notions of sexuality is, well, pretty freaking awesome (and I'm not being sarcastic). Of course you're correct that sexuality is not so easily classified and quantified. Sexuality has long been seen as a continuum, with "pure" heterosexuality on one end and homosexuality on the other end, but even that is too limiting a view, IMO. It's more of a spectrum, and I would imagine no two people are alike. What you are correctly rejecting is the attempt to impose a structure on sexuality, in this case a binary one. Obviously, this binary structure falls apart completely as soon as you note the presence of those who don't fit within the gay-straight dichotomy.

The ironic part of your posts is that you are attempting to replace this binary structure with a monolithic one. You're not really rejecting the dichotomy, just lopping off one end. Homosexuality is unnecessary, you tell us, because it is an artificial label/definition set by Western culture. The logical extension of this is that the other end of the dichotomy, heterosexuality, is equally just a construct. So, you're not really advocating the nonexistence of homosexuality, but rather you are imposing a dominant discourse that privileges heterosexuality. And the only reason for doing so is your religious belief. That's entirely appropriate (this is a religious forum after all), but it seems odd to use poststructuralist arguments to advocate for the kind of "grand narrative" that poststructuralism rejects. That's the kind of argument that seems destined to be run over by a laundry van.

[rockpond]

As far as I know there never was a time when the Church position was that homosexuality persists in the hereafter. The very notion strikes me as bizarre. The fact that some individuals became confused in their minds obliging the Church to teach them does not mean the Church itself was ever inconsistent on this point.

The concept of the resurrection being a restoration of the body in its full and complete state (not so much as a hair of their heads will be lost) is enough for me to understand that homosexuality, like all maladies and disorders, will be gone.

Yes, in previous pamphlets the concept of homosexuality in the hereafter was not discussed. As you seem to imply, it didn't really need to be addressed because homosexuality had not yet been clearly identified as an immutable trait.

By the way, Scott, before you open your thread, I'll just note that being the 20 year anniversary of the Proclamation I do expect more references to man-woman marriage in conference. This is the pattern that we'd expect and doest represent a hindrance to Dehlin's 40 yr prediction.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I must say this is fascinating. Using poststructuralism (Foucault, even) to deconstruct binary notions of sexuality is, well, pretty freaking awesome (and I'm not being sarcastic).

 

I think you've almost completely misread me -- and those I've linked to -- but thanks for the assessment.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

I think you've almost completely misread me -- and those I've linked to -- but thanks for the assessment.

It's not the first time I've misread someone, and most likely not the last. So, for morons like me, can you provide the gist of what you're saying? The quotes you provided are about imposing sexual classifications on behavior and privileging gender and sexuality "as fundamental, biological categories of experience." You correctly state this is a pretty recent phenomenon. Beyond that, I don't know what your point is. Please clarify.

[bcuzbcuz]

What do you think about this 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

 

 

"But the Hewletts did find that their informants -- whom they knew well from years of field work -- "were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them," and, in the case of the Aka, had a hard time even understanding about what the researchers were asking when they asked about homosexual behaviors."

Wow, two people (the Hewletts) visit a small tribe who seemingly provide radical information about sexuality. Sounds like absolute proof to me.......not!

[Bobbieaware]

I do not disagree but again, if that statement completely informs your actions then you are doing very well or are broken. If it does not completely inform your actions then why would you expect it to easily do so for others?

Because the message of the Gospel is an exceedingly powerful message of positivity and ultimate triumph. Prophet after prophet testifies that, except for the sons of perdition, it"s all going to end very well for all of us. If one believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, why should victorious message of the scriptures and the prophets be fully embraced with unshakable faith? Are we not assured that if we but have faith all things are possible with our omniscient and omnipotent God? My life's battle cry is, "I can do all things through Chrsit who strengthens me (Paul)," If some members cannot accept and wholeheartedly embrace the Gospel's overwhelmingly positive message of sure hope, that is their business. But as for me, I will walk in the footsteps of Ammon, who said:

12 Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever. (Alma 26)

Edited October 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

I edited my post before I saw your CFR.

 

Had you waited eight minutes you would have saved yourself some embarrassment.

 

But the important thing is you can now dispense with a misconception you had harbored. At least I hope you won't be repeating it.

There's no embarrassment. Why would there be? You made a claim in a post that you didn't back up. I called for a CFR. 8 minutes later you edited your post that answered (poorly) the CFR.

 

Should I wait 10 minutes on any post you write and then go back and check it in hopes that you've edited before I ask for clarification or a CFR? Get real.

 

ETA- I will say that a pamphlet from 8 years ago isn't difinitive. The church's position on this topic has changed more recently as evidenced by mormonsandgays.com.

 

I don't doubt that what you say had previoulsy been the church's official position. Today they don't seem ready to make any difinitive statements about whether it continues in the next life or not.

Edited October 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[The Nehor]

Because the message of the Gospel is an exceedingly powerful message of positivity and ultimate triumph. Prophet after prophet testifies that, except for the sons of perdition, it"s all going to end very well for all of us. If one believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, why should victorious message of the scriptures and the prophets be fully embraced with unshakable faith? Are we not assured that if we but have faith all things are possible with our omniscient and omnipotent God? My life's battle cry is, "I can do all things through Chrsit who strengthens me (Paul)," If some members cannot accept and wholeheartedly embrace the Gospel's overwhelmingly positive message of sure hope, that is their business. But as for me, I will walk in the footsteps of Ammon, who said:

12 Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever. (Alma 26)

Be careful not to bruise your chest there.

[Gray]

I couldn't disagree more strongly that the passage you cite is "dated." Are you saying there are not many Latter-day Saints who, with persistent effort, faith and reliance on the Atonement, have overcome same-gender attraction in mortality? I think you would have a hard time proving that. Bear in mind it didn't say they had "change(d) their sexual orientation." It said they had "overcome" it. People can "overcome" in many respects the inclination to sin, even though the capacity to do so is still present. I imagine it's no different with the inclination to violate the law of chastity by engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

In any event, I could have cited the "Mormons and Gays" website. I chose the pamphlet, because it predates the website and it is among the manuals and instructional materials in the Church's curriculum, both online and in print.

 

I could also have cited this Q and A with Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman:

 

So there are mulitiple sources from the Church, all indicating that homosexuality is not forever.

 

Well, it said they've overcome their attraction, not their behavior. There is no real evidence that it's even possible to do so. The pamphlet you linked didn't offer any evidence in support of that claim. So-called reparative therapy is a discredited practice for good reason. 

[Gray]

Excellent summary!

I neglected to point out to Gray that the opposite of self-regenerating animals are those animals, like humans, that propagate through interaction with an external being that is of an opposite sex. So there really is opposition in all things!

 

So which is the evil group, sexual reproducers or asexual reproducers?