Progression of Intelligence(s) & LGBT

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And some will choose that here first.

Isn't my choice, but it is their choice.

[Rock_N_Roll]

13 hours ago, waveslider said:

You are correct. I have not raised anyone who turned out to be gay. 

That's what I thought.  Get back to me when you know what you're talking about on this subject. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Always the appeal to feelings over reason.  No wonder there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth after God follows the unalterable law.

Personally I do believe sexual attraction to be a function of mortality. 
Is sexuality eternal?  I don't know.  Christ and Paul didn't think much of physical attractions but love to the point of sacrificing self was a correct principle.
Is sexual procreation eternal?  I think so based on the teachings of President Young and D&C 132 and others.  But does that come from a sexuality or some other source?

I would tend to agree with you that sexually does seem to be a function of mortality, and there is so much we don't know about the next life, including the speculations of Brigham and others.  

As for feelings, I was only attempting to turn your scenario back around and apply it to a heterosexual.  

And I don't think Mormons believe that laws are unalterable.  Sounds like a Calvinist God to me.  

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think Mormons believe that laws are unalterable.  Sounds like a Calvinist God to me. 

Check again.  Mormonism is full of statements about unalterable law.  Even God is only God because he obeys these eternal laws.
 

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 11:28 AM, Rivers said:

I don't think eternal heterosexual marriage is needed for the  purpose of eternal procreation in the same way that mortals procreate. 

There is complimentary relationship between men and women. 1 Cor. 11:11.  Men and Women will need each other in same way in which body and spirit need each other.  It's like the whole yin and yang concept. 

So for me it's not so much a question of whether same-sex attraction is eternal as whether gender is eternal.

 

 

I think there is definitely a complimentary aspect between heterosexual men and heterosexual women, and I think 1 Cor. 11:11 speaks to that. 

And it's clear that historically, we've all depended on the sexual compatibility between men and women for our very existence, so you'll get no argument from me that the entire human race (regardless of our sexual orientation) has depended on the synergy between the two sexes for procreation.

Interesting that you bring up the "body and spirit" and "yin and yang" concept.  I believe that the 'yin and yang' also applies to the complementariness of diverse sexual orientations... that is, 'heterosexual and homosexual' can be viewed as complimenting each other in a similar fashion and 'male and female.'  No two single binary traits encompass all that an individual is or offers, so just because 'heterosexual men and heterosexual women' compliment each other doesn't negate the concept that 'homosexual men and heterosexual men' can compliment each other, or that 'homosexual women and heterosexual women' can compliment each other, or even that 'homosexual men and heterosexual women' can compliment each other...  I could go on with all the various permutations, but I think you can imagine the rest.

Biologists studying sexual orientation have proposed an evolutionary that is reflective of the synergy between heterosexual and homosexual that I'm referring to above; namely, an advantage to homosexual offspring complimenting and contributing to the family and/or tribe; namely, kin selection.  If you're unfamiliar with it, you can read about it here (The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality) or here ("Kin selection hypothesis" may explain homosexuality from an evolutionary point of view).

Ultimately, the concept that different people can serve diverse, but still important functions meshes well with further verses in Corinthians:

Quote

 

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 

 There are different kinds of service... There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good... All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines... Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ... Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.  If they were all one part, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”  On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it,  so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Daniel2

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Maybe if I think hard enough about it I can make reality change via mind control

 

16 hours ago, waveslider said:

I can agree to disagree with you....

 

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- Are you still living in the mid 20th century? Claiming that orientation is a choice makes you appear oblivious to the research and scholarship on the subject. Check out the church's website Mormonsandgays.org and see what the church says about SSA as a choice.

"Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

16 hours ago, waveslider said:

.....it is a choice and we can control who we are attracted to.

Okay, I'll rephrase since I was wrong. We can control acting upon who we are initially attracted to, creating something more than an instant infatuation, or not. I think it is more of a semantics thing here. For instance I am attracted to women personally, but I have never allowed myself to stay attracted to a woman who is married to someone else longer than the initial recognition of beauty. I have never fallen in love with someone else' wife. We can control whom we fall in love with.

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- You're a funny guy. See answer #2

If the ability to be mistaken is funny, that's fine with me.

 

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

4- Again, you may want to update your understanding of both the research and the LDS church position. You are speaking specifically of attraction and orientation  as an abominable choice, not lifestyle here.

For the purpose of discussion it would be really helpful if you were better prepared with information from this century.

 

16 hours ago, waveslider said:

I just think it is harder for some people to change than for others, but it is still possible or else it wouldn't be considered an abomination that needs repenting from. Just because our increasing Godless society condones sinful behavior doesn't make it good.

I think this still applies to acting upon an infatuation, or not, so I'll let this statement stand.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Check again.  Mormonism is full of statements about unalterable law.  Even God is only God because he obeys these eternal laws.
 

It comes down to interpretation.  Brigham believed in a progressing God, he had many debates about the topic with Orson Pratt.  I think Mormonism in general believes in the progressing God concept over the unalterable law God.  But there is a tension there for sure.  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It comes down to interpretation.  Brigham believed in a progressing God, he had many debates about the topic with Orson Pratt.  I think Mormonism in general believes in the progressing God concept over the unalterable law God.  But there is a tension there for sure.

Progression by following more law is unrelated to the changing of law.
Baptism is the law. That will never change.
After Baptism we move towards the temple.

Progression and alteration are not the same.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, waveslider said:

 

 

"Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

Okay, I'll rephrase since I was wrong. We can control acting upon who we are initially attracted to, creating something more than an instant infatuation, or not. I think it is more of a semantics thing here. For instance I am attracted to women personally, but I have never allowed myself to stay attracted to a woman who is married to someone else longer than the initial recognition of beauty. I have never fallen in love with someone else' wife. We can control whom we fall in love with.

If the ability to be mistaken is funny, that's fine with me.

 

I think this still applies to acting upon an infatuation, or not, so I'll let this statement stand.

I respect you for admitting that. It's not something I see very often on this board. I am curious though. Did your opinion change based solely on the authority of the person/website making the claim?

You're talking about a couple of different things here.

1- attraction: if you are truly able to turn off attraction like a light switch I'm impressed. Though I would never act on attraction I can't honestly say I have the ability to choose not to be attracted to a person as a matter of will. Levels of attraction may lessen for various reasons but I can't choose NOT to be attracted any more than I could choose to be attracted to a male. It won't work for me regardless of my efforts to choose it.

2- Falling in love: Falling in love with someone is very different than attraction. I can explain if necessary.

In some cases people, both hetero and homo behave based on infatuation or lust. But in some cases that initial attraction deepens into love. This is also true for both hetero and homo attracted individuals. You're not implying that all homosxual behavior is based only on infatuation are you? Are you denying that gay people fall in deep love just like hetero people? I hope I'm misunderstanding you

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Progression by following more law is unrelated to the changing of law.
Baptism is the law. That will never change.
After Baptism we move towards the temple.

Progression and alteration are not the same.

I see it differently, but who's to say which of us is right, as I think we can both be right according to our perspective.  Baptism is just a ritual, I don't see it as being core to the gospel.  Same with the temple, which has also changed significantly since the 1840s.  To me, progression means alteration, that is how I personally define it.  

I think God values life, but how that applies to specific laws is situational.  

[waveslider]

41 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

That's what I thought.  Get back to me when you know what you're talking about on this subject. 

You seem to have missed the rest of my post. I do know what I am talking about. Sin is sin no matter what flavor, and weaknesses are called weaknesses because they can't be over come by ourselves, only through Christ. I have prayed every bit as hard as you have for your child, I have fasted every bit as hard, and given blessings as well. The difference was that my son decided to keep trying no mater what, not giving in because he self identifies with his weakness, but rather overcoming them and choosing to pick himself back up again with far more control over his desires than ever before, because of the tender mercies of Christ sending the Comforter for help and guidance. Now he is ready. He is almost 20 and has wanted to go on his mission since he turned 18. It isn't easy, but it isn't hopeless either. Even though society claims that a certain weakness is impossible to change, doesn't make it true. Just because it is concerning gayness does it make this statement by Jesus a lie?:

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
Matthew 19:26

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, waveslider said:

You seem to have missed the rest of my post. I do know what I am talking about. Sin is sin no matter what flavor, and weaknesses are called weaknesses because they can't be over come by ourselves, only through Christ. I have prayed every bit as hard as you have for your child, I have fasted every bit as hard, and given blessings as well. The difference was that my son decided to keep trying no mater what, not giving in because he self identifies with his weakness, but rather overcoming them and choosing to pick himself back up again with far more control over his desires than ever before, because of the tender mercies of Christ sending the Comforter for help and guidance. Now he is ready. He is almost 20 and has wanted to go on his mission since he turned 18. It isn't easy, but it isn't hopeless either. Even though society claims that a certain weakness is impossible to change, doesn't make it true. Just because it is concerning gayness does it make this statement by Jesus a lie?:

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
Matthew 19:26

You need to consider that you're putting your child at risk because of your personal religious beliefs.  This is very scary and sad to see to, we have such a horrible suicide problem, not to mention quality of life and psychological problems because of ignorant beliefs like this.   Please consider the material at the family acceptance project website.  Your child needs your love and support and acceptance for who they are, not your judgments and uninformed opinions.  

https://familyproject.sfsu.edu/

[Rock_N_Roll]

46 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Even though society claims that a certain weakness is impossible to change, doesn't make it true. Just because it is concerning gayness does it make this statement by Jesus a lie?:

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
Matthew 19:26

Of course I believe “with God all things are possible.”  With God’s help, a man could move mountains if he had that much faith.  God could have “healed” my son and taken away “the gay”…but He didn’t.  I haven’t seen any mountains moved in my lifetime, and I’ve only heard of a few (and I’m skeptical) homosexuals who have allegedly changed their sexuality.  Have you met any? 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Rock_N_Roll

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I respect you for admitting that. It's not something I see very often on this board. I am curious though. Did your opinion change based solely on the authority of the person/website making the claim?

You're talking about a couple of different things here.

1- attraction: if you are truly able to turn off attraction like a light switch I'm impressed. Though I would never act on attraction I can't honestly say I have the ability to choose not to be attracted to a person as a matter of will. Levels of attraction may lessen for various reasons but I can't choose NOT to be attracted any more than I could choose to be attracted to a male. It won't work for me regardless of my efforts to choose it.

2- Falling in love: Falling in love with someone is very different than attraction. I can explain if necessary.

In some cases people, both hetero and homo behave based on infatuation or lust. But in some cases that initial attraction deepens into love. This is also true for both hetero and homo attracted individuals. You're not implying that all homosxual behavior is based only on infatuation are you? Are you denying that gay people fall in deep love just like hetero people? I hope I'm misunderstanding you

My opinion didn't change so much as how I viewed attraction and was using wrong terminology to try and describe what I am meaning. I have a technical background as a further education, not a formal education at a University, although I do spend a lot of time studying things informally because I am addicted to learning new things. With the internet at my fingertips I am able to satisfy a lot of these desires along with audiobooks and kindle apps. I guess my informal education shows a lot when I write sometimes.

I am not able to turn off attraction like a light switch. It is more like choosing not to dwell on it, and instead trying all the harder to hear the Spirit guiding me and answering my prayers to want to more perfectly follow Christ's plan for me. This is not always easy but the more years I practice it, the stronger I become, because I really hate when the Spirit leaves me. I find my weaknesses abhorrent, especially when I continue to fall for them, and lose the Spiritual guidance until I get back on my knees and repent again. I have in this way made some of my weaknesses strengths, so much so that my very nature has changed a little bit at a time, and I am no longer even tempted with some of them anymore. The mastery of one weakness just opens my awareness to my other weaknesses though, and it is a constant struggle as I am humbled each and every time I repeatedly fall for the same stupid things caused by these other weaknesses. I am a work in progress as I think we all are, or at the very least should be. Each and every weakness always starts out, for me at least, as something I can in no way stop doing without constant prayer. The minute I forget to pray, I find myself choosing the weakness that is immediately before me. I almost immediately start kicking myself for doing that so easily. The guilt I feel increases until I am more able to obey my conscience a little longer in between falling for it again. I feel the conscience is really the basis for revelation, as it is called the light of Christ. The more I obey it the less guilt I feel, as opposed to when I was inactive and just chose to ignore my guilt until I no longer felt it, and stopped receiving any inspiration or personal revelation at all. I hope I never do that again.

I am not implying that all homosexual, or even heterosexual, love is only based on infatuation or lust. I think sinful love isn't based off of what that true love is supposed to be, but rather a misunderstanding of what that true love actually is. I personally think that the only way we can actually know what real love is, is by learning it directly from Christ and His example of it. He loves each and everyone so deeply that if we felt even a percentage of that type of love (which sometimes we do), for any other human being, it could easily be mistaken for a romantic type of love, but when we acted upon it in a wrong manor we would find that the love isn't the same anymore, because we actually cause harm to not only our own spirit, but to the spirit of the person of whom we are feeling that love for. A lot of times we can't even put a finger on what changed in that type of scenario. When we understand that that love is only a truer understanding of how God loves each and everyone of us, on an individual and highly personal basis, we can then place that love in it's proper perspective and more fully obey God's commandments. Just my take on things anyway.

Edited September 22, 2016 by waveslider
Mispellings

[waveslider]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You need to consider that you're putting your child at risk because of your personal religious beliefs.  This is very scary and sad to see to, we have such a horrible suicide problem, not to mention quality of life and psychological problems because of ignorant beliefs like this.   Please consider the material at the family acceptance project website.  Your child needs your love and support and acceptance for who they are, not your judgments and uninformed opinions.  

https://familyproject.sfsu.edu/

I never said it was my own judgements of my child. It was all his own. He was the one who voluntarily wanted to go to the bishop for help. I wasn't even aware that anything was wrong. I never once pushed him to go on his mission. I have always accepted him, as well as my daughter too, for who they are. If their particular weaknesses were gayness this also wouldn't change. I think the thing that makes it so that the child isn't at risk of suicide is by nurturing a personal relationship with Heavenly Father for themselves. My daughter is still growing her testimony at her own pace, and I am not pushing anything, only being supportive regardless of when she doesn't feel like trying to be spiritual, or not. My son on the other hand was self motivated by his personal relationship in order to choose to work on his weaknesses, I 100% backed him on it too.

I do see that suicidal thoughts are more common with gayness, but I think that is more due to the way society in general has viewed it, and still views it as the pendulum starts to swing too far to the opposite side of things as well. Unfortunately God condemns any form of adultery and fornication, gay or not. It is touchy, but I think if you nourish the personal relationship with God and the child things can work out a lot better without as much pressure. We are there to help comfort and love our kids no matter what weaknesses they have. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[waveslider]

28 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

Of course I believe “with God all things are possible.”  With God’s help, a man could move mountains if he had that much faith.  God could have “healed” my son and taken away “the gay”…but He didn’t.  I haven’t seen any mountains moved in my lifetime, and I’ve only heard of a few (and I’m skeptical) homosexuals who have allegedly changed their sexuality.  Have you met any? 

Perhaps it isn't about changing anything but control over desires. Not taking gayness out of people, but helping them to grow closer to God and learning to master their weaknesses so that they become a little more Godlike, one small step at a time, while they work with God in their own way as we show our support and love for them, instead of labeling them by their particular weaknesses, but viewing them as them. All this while we do the same thing with our own particular weaknesses, with God.

[rockpond]

On 9/20/2016 at 1:19 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Therefore SS couples may also be capable of organizing intelligences in eternity because it doesn't involve a kind of sxual reproduction.

I haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to respond to your OP:

I agree with this statement and the logic behind it.  It doesn't make sense to me that our Heavenly Mother and Father produced the 100+ billion spirits that have existed on this planet (so far) through anything similar to the male/female sexual reproduction we know.  I get that time is different in that sphere but... 100 BILLION?!  The organization of intelligences into spirits through priesthood power makes far more sense to me.

And once I came to that realization/belief, I no longer could see any obstacle to the eternal progression of same-sex couples.  Thus my belief that acceptance and honoring of gay marriage and sealings will one day be revealed.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

  It doesn't make sense to me that our Heavenly Mother and Father produced the 100+ billion spirits that have existed on this planet (so far) through anything similar to the male/female sexual reproduction we know.  I get that time is different in that sphere but... 100 BILLION?! 

• Knowest thou not that eternities ago thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in His presence, and with thy mother, one of the queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirits in the spirit world, among the Gods?  That as thy spirit beheld the scenes transpiring there, and thou grewest in intelligence, thou sawest worlds upon worlds organized and peopled with thy kindred spirits who took upon them tabernacles, died, were resurrected, and received their exaltation on the redeemed worlds they once dwelt upon.  Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, madest a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring.  You also chose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world to be your head, stay, husband and protector on the earth and to exalt you in eternal worlds.  All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage.  Leaving thy father and mother’s bosom and all thy kindred spirits thou camest to earth, took a tabernacle, and imitated the deeds of those who had been exalted before you.
  - President John Taylor

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• Knowest thou not that eternities ago thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in His presence, and with thy mother, one of the queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirits in the spirit world, among the Gods?  That as thy spirit beheld the scenes transpiring there, and thou grewest in intelligence, thou sawest worlds upon worlds organized and peopled with thy kindred spirits who took upon them tabernacles, died, were resurrected, and received their exaltation on the redeemed worlds they once dwelt upon.  Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, madest a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring.  You also chose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world to be your head, stay, husband and protector on the earth and to exalt you in eternal worlds.  All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage.  Leaving thy father and mother’s bosom and all thy kindred spirits thou camest to earth, took a tabernacle, and imitated the deeds of those who had been exalted before you.
  - President John Taylor

Nice quote but I don't know what your point is.

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I never said it was my own judgements of my child. It was all his own. He was the one who voluntarily wanted to go to the bishop for help. I wasn't even aware that anything was wrong. I never once pushed him to go on his mission. I have always accepted him, as well as my daughter too, for who they are. If their particular weaknesses were gayness this also wouldn't change. I think the thing that makes it so that the child isn't at risk of suicide is by nurturing a personal relationship with Heavenly Father for themselves. My daughter is still growing her testimony at her own pace, and I am not pushing anything, only being supportive regardless of when she doesn't feel like trying to be spiritual, or not. My son on the other hand was self motivated by his personal relationship in order to choose to work on his weaknesses, I 100% backed him on it too.

I do see that suicidal thoughts are more common with gayness, but I think that is more due to the way society in general has viewed it, and still views it as the pendulum starts to swing too far to the opposite side of things as well. Unfortunately God condemns any form of adultery and fornication, gay or not. It is touchy, but I think if you nourish the personal relationship with God and the child things can work out a lot better without as much pressure. We are there to help comfort and love our kids no matter what weaknesses they have. Just my two cents worth anyway.

I'm glad to know that you're being supportive.  I was very direct with my comments because I care about the safety and health of people who identify as LGBT.  I'm still concerned that you see this as a weakness, or that you adhere strictly to the assumptions that God condemns certain behavior.  If you believe these things, I hope you keep them to yourself and just love your kids.  The church teaches these things too, and that is why so many people who identify as LGBT are hurting and leaving the church.  Put your family first before your preconceived concepts of God.  The health and safety of your children are at stake.  

[Daniel2]

18 hours ago, waveslider said:

Unfortunately [in] the LGBTQ movement ... so many vocally identify themselves by that behavior...

I know the sentence above was only a small part of your post, but I’d like to start by responding to the misconception it rests on, because I think it’s a misconception that’s very, very significant to this discussion.

I think your words above represent the same views a clear majority of how many conservative (non-gay-affirming) religious people feel: that the LGBT community are somehow self-identifying themselves “by their behavior” (which, obviously, is a behavior that conservative (non-gay-affirming) religions believe to be sinful).

However, I don’t believe that is the case.  As a ‘gay’ man, I don’t identify myself by sexual behaviors I engage with any more or any less than ‘straight’ individuals do.  In my day-to-day life, I cannot think of virtually ANY situations in which I have even peripherally introduced or identified myself by the same-gender sexual behaviors my husband and I engage in. 

The only exceptions to that general rule have been when I have been engaged in intimate, personal, and private conversations with close friends when we’ve each/all been discussing our sex lives—something that straight people do, as well (and I only say that, because many of those conversations have been with my straight friends in which they’re interested in comparing/contrasting the quality of the intimacy within our personal relationships).

Again, except in those personal, private, intimate discussions, I don’t run around introducing or self-identifying with the same-sex sexual behaviors I engage in in my private life.  Frankly, that’s no more anyone’s business than it’s my business to know theirs.  I don’t ask straight people about their sexual habits, and just because I presume that someone is straight, it doesn’t mean I’m focusing or thinking about the type of romantic or sexual behaviors they engage in with their opposite-sex partner at home (or anywhere else!).  The term “straight” simply means they are romantically-attracted to and/or potentially involved in a relationship with someone of the opposite gender.  What they do sexually, or the behaviors associated with being straight, never cross my mind.

In similar fashion, when I introduce myself, the conversation often includes a description of my family, and I don’t anticipate or expect those who I meet to presume or imagine what I do in the bedroom.  When I first meet coworkers, customers, neighbors, friends, or any new acquaintances, I will often make passing reference to my husband… (case in point, very often in the business world, when opening a new account, or taking care of a medical or utility bill, or picking up a prescription, or a million other small acts I do every week, people will ask, ‘And what is your relation to Mr. My-Husband’s First-Name Daniel2?’ and I reply simply, ‘He’s my husband.’ And they say, ‘Great, thanks…’ and move on to the next question).  I NEVER say, “Oh, by the way, everyone… I’m gay… and let me make sure you ALL know exactly what that means… When I’m having sex with my husband here’s what I enjoy when it comes to sex………” In fact, I RARELY, if even EVER, say the words, “I’m gay.”  Usually, when I make a reference to my husband, that’s a given.  

Additionally, if either my husband or I eventually become sexually incapacitated due to disease, accident, or age, we wouldn't stop being married, and we wouldn't stop being gay, even if we weren't sexually active.  I would love, nurture, and care for him, regardless of whether or not we were able to continuing to engage in intimate relations... So the idea that I am 'defining myself by the sexual behaviors I engage in' simply by using a term (gay) that acknowledges the gender of the people to whom I am predisposed to love, and in my case, to whom I am married, seems absolutely foreign to me.

In sum, my homosexual orientation is a part of me—just as important as it is for my heterosexual counterparts, because it shapes and informs my family, my relationship and identity in relation to my spouse.  When I was single, saying “I’m gay” merely suggested the gender of the people I was open to dating… but it still didn’t really describe what sexual behaviors I would be engaging with—just the gender of the person. So ultimately, the fact that I am gay doesn’t really mean that I “self-identify by my behavior” any more or any less than those of you who are straight do, and it’s just as important or unimportant, depending on how you view each issue or any given circumstance.

I will respond to the rest of your post in a separate post than this, because this one has already gotten quite lengthy.

Best,

D

Edited September 22, 2016 by Daniel2

[waveslider]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Put your family first before your preconceived concepts of God.

It isn't my preconceived concepts of God. It is very, very clear in the scriptures that adultery and fornication are sins. They are therefore contrary to God's laws. This is also why the church takes such a solid stance against sxual immorality. The scriptures are so riddled with this knowledge that I don't even want to take the time to copy and paste any of them here. It is common knowledge. If you choose to believe that it is just my preconceived notion of God, there is nothing I can say to such a blindness to scriptural doctrine. The problem of LGBTQ people being suicidal is more caused by society's misconceptions about that lifestyle than God's stance. Sin against God causes guilt, and a society that adds to that guilt, or tries to discount that guilt, depending on the pendulum swing that society has taken over time about it, is what causes so much confusion and therefore suicidal thoughts, for the most part.

While I don't want to hurt peoples' feelings, I won't take the blind eye of political correctness and deny what sin is, just because I might cause hurt feelings. The PC movement is only serving to cause people to not take a stand for what is right, and just having no backbone at all. I think instead perhaps we need to stop labeling people by their deeds, and realize that we all need to be born again, from our fallen sinful state, and change into someone who chooses, however hard it is to do so, to follow Christ in keeping God's commandments. An adulterer is no worse, nor better, than someone who commits the act of sodomy. It is all sinful and needs to be changed. I think that if we are open in our discussions to those who have a hard time with this, they will actually be capable of understanding where we are coming from, instead of tip toeing around the subject as if were broken egg shells. If we are too scared to talk about it, it is just leaving things to be assumed and can often lead to assumptions that people are uncaring and bigoted.

That said, I do know that judging only upon written word, as on this discussion board, it is hard to see the emotions and body languages behind what is being said, so I hope I am not sounding too harsh. I am actually very open minded about this and I just don't know how to use words to convey what I am actually thinking about. I am only coming from a place of love, knowing that I am no better than anyone else, just because my weaknesses are not as apparent as others are, especially since I don't choose to self identify by my character flaws and sinful behaviors. Labeling just serves to create an us vs them mentality. Perhaps if we could stop creating such a fuss over one type of lifestyle as a society we might find a lot less tendency for people to want to choose suicide for not fitting in, instead of bending God's laws so we can continue to have such labels. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

  Put your family first before your preconceived concepts of God.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Luke 14: 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

[waveslider]

41 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I know the sentence above was only a small part of your post, but I’d like to start by responding to the misconception it rests on, because I think it’s a misconception that’s very, very significant to this discussion.

I think your words above represent the same views a clear majority of how many conservative (non-gay-affirming) religious people feel: that the LGBT community are somehow self-identifying themselves “by their behavior” (which, obviously, is a behavior that conservative (non-gay-affirming) religions believe to be sinful).

However, I don’t believe that is the case.  As a ‘gay’ man, I don’t identify myself by sexual behaviors I engage with any more or any less than ‘straight’ individuals do.  In my day-to-day life, I cannot think of virtually ANY situations in which I have even peripherally introduced or identified myself by the same-gender sexual behaviors my husband and I engage in. 

The only exceptions to that general rule have been when I have been engaged in intimate, personal, and private conversations with close friends when we’ve each/all been discussing our sex lives—something that straight people do, as well (and I only say that, because many of those conversations have been with my straight friends in which they’re interested in comparing/contrasting the quality of the intimacy within our personal relationships).

Again, except in those personal, private, intimate discussions, I don’t run around introducing or self-identifying with the same-sex sexual behaviors I engage in in my private life.  Frankly, that’s no more anyone’s business than it’s my business to know theirs.  I don’t ask straight people about their sexual habits, and just because I presume that someone is straight, it doesn’t mean I’m focusing or thinking about the type of romantic or sexual behaviors they engage in with their opposite-sex partner at home (or anywhere else!).  The term “straight” simply means they are romantically-attracted to and/or potentially involved in a relationship with someone of the opposite gender.  What they do sexually, or the behaviors associated with being straight, never cross my mind.

In similar fashion, when I introduce myself, the conversation often includes a description of my family, and I don’t anticipate or expect those who I meet to presume or imagine what I do in the bedroom.  When I first meet coworkers, customers, neighbors, friends, or any new acquaintances, I will often make passing reference to my husband… (case in point, very often in the business world, when opening a new account, or taking care of a medical or utility bill, or picking up a prescription, or a million other small acts I do every week, people will ask, ‘And what is your relation to Mr. My-Husband’s First-Name Daniel2?’ and I reply simply, ‘He’s my husband.’ And they say, ‘Great, thanks…’ and move on to the next question).  I NEVER say, “Oh, by the way, everyone… I’m gay… and let me make sure you ALL know exactly what that means… When I’m having sex with my husband here’s what I enjoy when it comes to sex………” In fact, I RARELY, if even EVER, say the words, “I’m gay.”  Usually, when I make a reference to my husband, that’s a given.  

Additionally, if either my husband or I eventually become sexually incapacitated due to disease, accident, or age, we wouldn't stop being married, and we wouldn't stop being gay, even if we weren't sexually active.  I would love, nurture, and care for him, regardless of whether or not we were able to continuing to engage in intimate relations... So the idea that I am 'defining myself by the sexual behaviors I engage in' simply by using a term (gay) that acknowledges the gender of the people to whom I am predisposed to love, and in my case, to whom I am married, seems absolutely foreign to me.

In sum, my homosexual orientation is a part of me—just as important as it is for my heterosexual counterparts, because it shapes and informs my family, my relationship and identity in relation to my spouse.  When I was single, saying “I’m gay” merely suggested the gender of the people I was open to dating… but it still didn’t really describe what sexual behaviors I would be engaging with—just the gender of the person. So ultimately, the fact that I am gay doesn’t really mean that I “self-identify by my behavior” any more or any less than those of you who are straight do, and it’s just as important or unimportant, depending on how you view each issue or any given circumstance.

I will respond to the rest of your post in a separate post than this, because this one has already gotten quite lengthy.

Best,

D

Identifying by behavior doesn't always mean sxual behavior. Having a gay relation is still a behavior. I see that you label yourself as such on where it identifies who posted what, where it says, "Culturally-Mormon Gay Dad." It isn't necessary. I'm not knocking you for it. I it just further illustrates the point I was trying to make when I said this:

41 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Unfortunately [in] the LGBTQ movement ... so many vocally identify themselves by that behavior...

My point is that it seems like many, even if it isn't you included, do make a lot more ado about being LGBTQ than is necessary, and that causes a lot more problems just because if creates more of a discussion about it all by itself, when in fact it is only one aspect of human behavior. It creates an us vs them type of rift more often than if it weren't so openly broadcast to everyone. I'm quite certain as you pointed out that when the subject does come up naturally, that most people are quickly able to move on to the next thing. Most people won't just start going off on it, although I'm sure there are a few idots who would, I still think the majority of people won't be bothered by it at all.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Acknowledging reality doesn't create a separate class of humanity.

Yes, there are gay children of God and there are white children of God, and Asian children of God etc. etc. To deny this denies the value of the individual in favor for an amorphous concept. We are not only children of God, but I am also a child of God. That means I fit in the collective in all the ways that make me similar, but it also recognizes my value as an individual.

None of those have their customized paths to exaltation. The celestial kingdom is not segregated with its own Asians only method of exaltation.

I think maybe you didn't follow the discussion 

The question was about how men could be sealed to men, essentially, how the genealogy would work, etc.