Progression of Intelligence(s) & LGBT

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

The genealogy would work the same way it works now. 

#thatwaseasy

 

Seriously though, what is the perceived genealogical challenge with same-gender parents?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The genealogy would work the same way it works now. 

#thatwaseasy

Seriously though, what is the perceived genealogical challenge with same-gender parents?

Suffice it to say that there are conditions under which God would cease to be God, so He opts not to do them and to sustain eternal law instead. Where this teaching is intrinsically intertwined with the teaching of the story of Adam and Eve (Alma 42, 2 Nephi 2), the union of male and female is the only way Gods go, and after that how They do what They do with what They’ve got to do it with is perfectly fine.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

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.

If you are open minded, then you need to open your ears and listen.  Start by listening to the experiences of LBGT individuals in Mormon communities.  As you listen to the experiences of these families I believe that can trigger empathy and a desire to understand.  I'm no expert on how to open hearts and minds to learning something new.  

I can tell you that I used to have very similar views to yours on this subject. I too used to think that God was very clear about what was sin and what wasn't.  This was only a few years ago.  I'm ashamed to admit it, but I remember distinctly when Elder Packer gave his conference talk in 2010 where he said something about a loving God never creating someone with these inborn tendencies.  Then when that talk was later edited to soften the language I was angry because I thought the PR department of the church was changing the clear words of God.  I was frustrated by these efforts of the church to appease the world for political correctness purposes.  I was a true believer that Elder Packer's words were inspired by God, but unfortunately the world wouldn't hear his words.  This was all part of my journey in the past few years that led me to a complete change of perspective.  So I get where you're coming from.

I don't know how my new understanding could reach the ears of my old self.  My old self was so sure of his correctness, so sure of his understanding about God, so sure of the definition of sin and the difference between right and wrong.  I wish like anything I knew how to get through to you.  Primarily because of what you shared about having a gay child.  These children need our help and love and acceptance.  Your position about what is sin and what isn't sin, as a parent of a gay child is putting your child at serious risk, whether you know it or not.  I pray and hope that your heart will be softened enough to learn.  

Start with the family acceptance project.  There are great resources on this page.  One of the co-founders is the great Robert Rees, a very thoughtful Mormon who's been involved in the Mormon scholarly community for many many years.  

http://www.familyacceptanceproject.org/

A list of many other great resources for the LGBT community is here.    

http://www.mormonspectrum.org/lgbtq/

Best wishes to you and your family

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

When people say they are putting God first, what does that really mean?  Did God specifically say that to put God first you have to view homosexual relationships as immoral in order to be on God's side?   What specifically does God want you or anyone else to do with respect to this topic?  How are you showing your allegiance to God?  

Does God need us to step in line behind a specific interpretation of his commandments, and to enforce that ideology at the expense of individuals including our families that may not toe the line with that ideology?  How does God want you to show your love to him?  

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When people say they are putting God first, what does that really mean?  Did God specifically say that to put God first you have to view homosexual relationships as immoral in order to be on God's side?   What specifically does God want you or anyone else to do with respect to this topic?  How are you showing your allegiance to God?

Does God need us to step in line behind a specific interpretation of his commandments, and to enforce that ideology at the expense of individuals including our families that may not toe the line with that ideology?  How does God want you to show your love to him?

By putting his will above your own desires and loving him and his way more than you love anything else.

Homosexual or heterosexual, it is wrong to marry someone God doesn't want you to marry.  Even if you are attracted to someone, even if both share that attraction, that doesn't mean that marriage is the right course.  People of faith do still pray about who to marry right?
I can say that when I was single I prayed for quite some time about a young lady and despite my feelings for her God kept telling me no.
Whereas with the woman who became my wife "fate" kept bringing us back together despite some big challenges and the Lords very clear answer to both our prayers was a definite yes.
Now I'm not saying this is foolproof.  I bet there are many of those in SSM who claim God witnessed his approval to them despite it contradicting the revealed word.
But putting aside debate over authenticity of revelations the principle being discussed here is about what to do when OUR feelings contradict GOD'S will for us.

So what is putting God first?  It means putting your own feelings completely aside if they contradict God in any way.  Determining what God wants is a different subject from your question here.
The list of things that would feel better to our tender emotions to ignore God's will is very, very long.

[Daniel2]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

That is one of many Biblical passages that I consider to be pretty despicable.

Any God that would require me to hate my husband or children is not worthy of my adoration or worship, and I certainly wouldn't follow him in any sort of discipleship.  I am very comfortable in my lack of support for the sentiments it expresses.

But if you feel that it is reflective of the values, spirit, and vision of the Faith you're trying to promote, by all means, keep sharing with others.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

That is one of many Biblical passages that I consider to be pretty despicable.

Any God that would require me to hate my husband or children is not worthy of my adoration or worship, and I certainly wouldn't follow him in any sort of discipleship.  I am very comfortable in my lack of support for the sentiments it expresses.

But if you feel that it is reflective of the values, spirit, and vision of the Faith you're trying to promote, by all means, keep sharing with others.

The fact that you find any of the word of God despicable is very telling.
And I don't for one second think "hate" should be taken literally here.  The principle being taught in both scriptures is simple.  God first, family second, self last.
God expects us to love one another.  It is the second commandment.  But never at the expense of violating the first great commandment.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The genealogy would work the same way it works now. 

#thatwaseasy

 

Seriously though, what is the perceived genealogical challenge with same-gender parents?

Don't ask me, ask Daniel2

 He's the one who brought it up.

See immediately below 

Edited September 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 9/21/2016 at 1:46 PM, Daniel2 said:

So, to state what you're suggesting above in plain terms, you're saying that:

In cases where the parties are still alive: once biologically-begotten children of a same-sex couple are old enough to no longer depend on their same-sex parents for help, after disavowing their own parents' (same-sex) marriage and getting baptized, they can (or should be able to) simply choose another good LDS family to be sealed to that has parents that are male and female... Is that it?

Your explanation of that which happens "after mortal life is over" is a little less clear to me... You say "this may also be done in temples" after said parties are all dead.  But that still doesn't get to the heart of what I meant.  Lets say both of the same-gender, biological parents and their children are already all deceased, and genealogy is attempted to be done so that temple work can also be done.  Presumably (and quite obviously), the same-gender parents won't be sealed to one another... So how do temple workers decide who to seal the children to...? Should they just 'skip' over any same-gender parent generations, erasing them the intent, using God's sealing power, to link together the entire great human family back to Adam and Eve?

Interesting notion that humans use medicine to carry out all sorts of things that God does not opt to do with his powers... or condone us to do.  But by focusing only on the "opt(ion) not to do," I think that's moved the goal post ever so slightly.  Also, while the Atonement allegedly exists to bridge the gap between people who choose to sin, I don't see that it's relevant to the question of whether or not divine beings are capable of procreation... So that also seems to be a bit of an unrelated tangent.

It seems to me that everything that medicine has come up with, thus far, is something that God is historically ABLE to do, even if/when he choses not to.  The implication that God simply chooses not to procreate with a same-sex spouse seems to be an admission that He would be just as physically capable of doing so, it's just that He "opts not to"... Is that what you're saying...?  That he's powerful enough to do so, but he just "opts not to"?

EDIT: P.S.  LOVE Gibran's self portrait there... His poetry is part of my post-Mormon scriptural cannon.  Bonus points for his artwork!  

This is the quote Which brought up problems with genealogy.

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, waveslider said:

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:

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.

Personally, I'm not sure that "having a relationship" is typically considered "a behavior."  I suppose that's open for interpretation, so perhaps that distinction is mostly semantics...  Even so, my point was that even when I was single; even when I wasn't dating; even when I wasn't proactively pursuing a same-sex relationship in any measurable way, I was still gay.  Do you consider the state of being attracted to someone/something "a behavior"...?

Yes, in my self-description here, one of the words I chose to include is "Gay" (among several others that are pertinent to the audience and type of discussions going on here, including "culturally-Mormon" and "Dad").  There's several reasons for my inclusion of that: first and foremost, the vast majority of topics that I post on here are both LDS and LGBT and family-related, so my choice to include it in that personality snap-shot was to give posters a head's up on why the intersections between those three issues are the one I post most about.  In my experience, many people here appreciate understanding some of the fundamental basics of other posters (others include their membership status, gender, family relationship to the issue--if any, etc., depending on the topic being discussed)--it helps give context to where other posters are coming from.  So, while you feel it's not necessary, from my perspective, it's helped avoid misconceptions and has aided understanding from where I'm coming from and why I'm posting here.

I've said several times here on the board that in my real life away from this site, I spend FAR less time discussing my gayness with people I interact with.  This is a discussion board for discussing things related to Mormonism, and my motivation for posting here is to try to foster understanding and build bridges around those topics.  Given that intent, I really don't consider that my use of the word "Gay" in my self-description is an illustration of your allegation that, "Unfortunately [in] the LGBTQ movement ... so many vocally identify themselves by that behavior..."  Perhaps the additional context I've offered here would change your point of view on that, but perhaps not.

Next, you say:

"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."

Well... I'd like to push back on you just a bit on that point, because again, I see things differently.  Until just a few years ago, I was unable to marry my husband.  The fact that I can, now, is only due to political LGBT activism.  And much of the success of that LGBT activism that culminated in marriage equality for same-gender couples was due to our visibility.  As a gay man, I do feel it's important for people to understand I am gay, because many people didn't realize that in calling for marriage to be preserved only for opposite-sex couples, they were actually harming their fellow family members... their brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc.  'Homosexuals' were people to be feared... If one believes only the images of gay people by the anti-same-sex marriage crowd, we should be feared as pedophiles coming for  your children, or radicals trying to 'redefine' marriage out of existence and 'destroy marriage' to create a 'marriage-less society.'  It was and continues to be important for people to understand that I, and the VAST majority of same-sex couples out there, just want the same protections from unconstitutional discrimination and equal treatment and government respect for our relationships that our straight brothers and sisters enjoy.

You suggest that our visibility--our 'coming out' as gay and lesbian--'causes a lot more problems.'  From my perspective, it's solved problems that had been existing for a long time.  Unjust discrimination and inequality in how our government treated LGBT citizens.  Not just in marriage, but historically, LGBT citizens lost their jobs and were viewed to be threats to democracy, safety, security, etc.  Unlike race or gender, sexual orientation isn't always easy to discern.  Many of us could 'pass' as stereotypically heterosexual, and like chameleons, had learned to 'blend in' to avoid the problems that came from being openly gay.  And when a certain segment of the population is invisible, there's no reason to try to protect them.  They're entirely absent from the political discussion.  So, much like this discussion board itself, true discussion, understanding, and any possible mutually respect--and ultimately, in the realm of politics, true change--can only happen when we are willing to meet together in the public sphere and be true and authentic as we attempt to engage in respectful dialogue while acknowledge our differences and can talk through them. 

In fact, my decision to self-identify as an openly gay man is much like many Latter-day Saints understandable desire to feel free to live their religion openly and without fear of censure.  Most I know of want to be able to advocate in the public sphere for the values their religion professes, and they lay claim to that constitutional right to do so.  Their freedom of religion and freedom of speech is protected, and they shouldn't have to hide their religion just because some people might (and I've encountered some that do!) feel that:

"Mormons make a lot more ado about being LDS than necessary, because that causes a lot more problems just because it creates more of a discussion about it all by itself, when in fact religion 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."

Edited September 23, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The fact that you find any of the word of God despicable is very telling.
And I don't for one second think "hate" should be taken literally here.  The principle being taught in both scriptures is simple.  God first, family second, self last.
God expects us to love one another.  It is the second commandment.  But never at the expense of violating the first great commandment.

It's only telling if you believe that everything in The Bible is actually the word of God.  Which I don't.  But I'm very comfortable being recognized as and understood to be a non-believer in much of what The Bible says (as well as The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price).

In contrast to the scriptures you quoted about putting God over family, my personal beliefs reflect these values:

I believe in the authority of reason and conscience. The ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, nor a document, nor an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.

 

I believe in the worth and dignity of each human being.  All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice – and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human life.

 

I believe in the motive force of love.  The governing principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy.

And for the record, I don't think anyone should put God over family.  Though I understand most Biblical-literalists (including most Latter-day Saints) do. 

Again, for those that feel that that's a great value to promote, more power to ya... I fully support your ability to continue sharing the convictions of your beliefs, even those that I disagree with.

In sum, I hope the fact that I reject the concepts of putting God over family or 'hating' family members is telling about myself and my personal beliefs.  I consider that a compliment.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't ask me, ask Daniel2

 He's the one who brought it up.

See immediately below 

Rockpond, after seeing my quote in context, does my question make more sense regarding the potential problems that the LDS church could experience once same-sex couple are able to procreate children of their own (instead of relying on an egg or sperm donor)? 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

It's only telling if you believe that everything in The Bible is actually the word of God.  Which I don't.

So you reject:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Pretty fundamental doctrine to reject.

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Rockpond, after seeing my quote in context, does my question make more sense regarding the potential problems that the LDS church could experience once same-sex couple are able to procreate children of their own (instead of relying on an egg or sperm donor)? 

Okay... yes, I get it now.  I thought the question was regarding genealogy AFTER same gender sealings are recognized by the Church.  Until that time, yes, there is a problem with sealing the children of same gender parents.  Add this to the list of reasons that we will someday have sealings for all couples.

Until then, I imagine such questions will just be dismissed by the majority of Latter-day Saints with the usual comment that all things will work out in Heaven.  Though comforting and consistent with the nature of God, that hypothesis is also dismissive of the sealing power.  Rendering it nearly pointless.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Until then, I imagine such questions will just be dismissed by the majority of Latter-day Saints with the usual comment that all things will work out in Heaven.  Though comforting and consistent with the nature of God, that hypothesis is also dismissive of the sealing power.  Rendering it nearly pointless.

Not at all pointless -- the sealing power is precisely how things are worked out in Heaven, a thought most comforting and consistent with the nature of God!

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So what is putting God first?  It means putting your own feelings completely aside if they contradict God in any way.  Determining what God wants is a different subject from your question here.
The list of things that would feel better to our tender emotions to ignore God's will is very, very long.

I can agree with your premise that putting God's will first and foremost is how most people interpret putting God first in a religious context.  The challenge with this is what you mentioned mentioned in your next sentence.  How do we determine what God wants?  I would argue that there is no 100% objective way of determining what God wants.  Therefore, you're left to make your own decisions, we are agents unto ourselves and that at the end of the day the ethic that makes the most sense to me is the ethic of treating others with love, kindness, and empathy.  To me, that's what it means to put God's will first.  

[waveslider]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If you are open minded, then you need to open your ears and listen.  Start by listening to the experiences of LBGT individuals in Mormon communities.  As you listen to the experiences of these families I believe that can trigger empathy and a desire to understand.  I'm no expert on how to open hearts and minds to learning something new.  

I can tell you that I used to have very similar views to yours on this subject. I too used to think that God was very clear about what was sin and what wasn't.  This was only a few years ago.  I'm ashamed to admit it, but I remember distinctly when Elder Packer gave his conference talk in 2010 where he said something about a loving God never creating someone with these inborn tendencies.  Then when that talk was later edited to soften the language I was angry because I thought the PR department of the church was changing the clear words of God.  I was frustrated by these efforts of the church to appease the world for political correctness purposes.  I was a true believer that Elder Packer's words were inspired by God, but unfortunately the world wouldn't hear his words.  This was all part of my journey in the past few years that led me to a complete change of perspective.  So I get where you're coming from.

I don't know how my new understanding could reach the ears of my old self.  My old self was so sure of his correctness, so sure of his understanding about God, so sure of the definition of sin and the difference between right and wrong.  I wish like anything I knew how to get through to you.  Primarily because of what you shared about having a gay child.  These children need our help and love and acceptance.  Your position about what is sin and what isn't sin, as a parent of a gay child is putting your child at serious risk, whether you know it or not.  I pray and hope that your heart will be softened enough to learn.  

Start with the family acceptance project.  There are great resources on this page.  One of the co-founders is the great Robert Rees, a very thoughtful Mormon who's been involved in the Mormon scholarly community for many many years.  

http://www.familyacceptanceproject.org/

A list of many other great resources for the LGBT community is here.    

http://www.mormonspectrum.org/lgbtq/

Best wishes to you and your family

I don't think you do understand where I am coming from. It is very clear what God has said concerning gay relations:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:......"
Leviticus 20:13

My son isn't gay. His weakness that he was overcoming was a different sin. He has no suicidal thoughts, but rather huge confidence in God's power to change a weakness into a strength, and as a result has gotten much closer to his Father in Heaven and in understanding the atonement, and far better in tune with personal revelation than if he hadn't dealt with his own weakness.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is that we are all born with weaknesses. Some of those weaknesses are more apparent than others, some are socially acceptable and even condoned by society to the point of calling someone who follows Christ, "a bigot," and losing their lively hoods, for following God's commandments according to their own dictates, instead of bending to the will of someone from the LGBTQ community and offering their professional services to them against their own inner convictions of God, in a land where freedom of religion and free enterprise are supposed to be the American dream (It seems we need to be asleep from the repercussions of political correctness in order to have that dream now days).

Feeling powerless to those weaknesses, instead of trusting that the infinite atonement actually works real miracles (and not just at the time of judgement either), is what causes suicidal thoughts. Satan uses that form of deception all the time, especially for those who think that they are labelled by their weaknesses, because imperfect people with their imperfect science falsely says, "they were born that way so there is no changing that fact." That all said, I am very open minded, but I don't see that being born with more of a tendency to be sxually attracted to the same sex isn't something that limits the power of God, to conform to His commandments, through such a merciful act as an infinite and eternal atonement. To me the only difference between the weaknesses that people identify with being LGBTQ, and other weaknesses of the flesh is what society makes of it, not anything else. If we can't change our very natures, then why did Jesus say: "...... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)?

I'm am grateful for your concern, but it seems I wasn't quite clear in what my view points were and those of my son's learning how to become just a little more Christ like. If he were gay I would definitely check out help to prevent suicidal thoughts, but not because of his gayness, but because of the way Society has and still does view it, like a pendulum that has swung too far in both directions, instead of just recognizing it for what it truly is, a weakness of the flesh in God's eyes, that can be changed through miracles. That we as humans not only can change our very natures, but will if we whole heartedly follow Christ, even if it takes beyond this mortal life to get there.

I apologize that it is hard to convey where it is I am coming from, because I am limited to written words to convey it. I do have a loving concern for those of the LGBTQ community, because they have more of a burden to bear since society has really screwed up the whole thing far out of proportion and that causes a lot more problems than it should.

Edited September 23, 2016 by waveslider
mispellings

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Personally, I'm not sure that "having a relationship" is typically considered "a behavior."  I suppose that's open for interpretation, so perhaps that distinction is mostly semantics...  Even so, my point was that even when I was single; even when I wasn't dating; even when I wasn't proactively pursuing a same-sex relationship in any measurable way, I was still gay.  Do you consider the state of being attracted to someone/something "a behavior"...?

Yes, in my self-description here, one of the words I chose to include is "Gay" (among several others that are pertinent to the audience and type of discussions going on here, including "culturally-Mormon" and "Dad").  There's several reasons for my inclusion of that: first and foremost, the vast majority of topics that I post on here are both LDS and LGBT and family-related, so my choice to include it in that personality snap-shot was to give posters a head's up on why the intersections between those three issues are the one I post most about.  In my experience, many people here appreciate understanding some of the fundamental basics of other posters (others include their membership status, gender, family relationship to the issue--if any, etc., depending on the topic being discussed)--it helps give context to where other posters are coming from.  So, while you feel it's not necessary, from my perspective, it's helped avoid misconceptions and has aided understanding from where I'm coming from and why I'm posting here.

I've said several times here on the board that in my real life away from this site, I spend FAR less time discussing my gayness with people I interact with.  This is a discussion board for discussing things related to Mormonism, and my motivation for posting here is to try to foster understanding and build bridges around those topics.  Given that intent, I really don't consider that my use of the word "Gay" in my self-description is an illustration of your allegation that, "Unfortunately [in] the LGBTQ movement ... so many vocally identify themselves by that behavior..."  Perhaps the additional context I've offered here would change your point of view on that, but perhaps not.

Next, you say:

"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."

Well... I'd like to push back on you just a bit on that point, because again, I see things differently.  Until just a few years ago, I was unable to marry my husband.  The fact that I can, now, is only due to political LGBT activism.  And much of the success of that LGBT activism that culminated in marriage equality for same-gender couples was due to our visibility.  As a gay man, I do feel it's important for people to understand I am gay, because many people didn't realize that in calling for marriage to be preserved only for opposite-sex couples, they were actually harming their fellow family members... their brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc.  'Homosexuals' were people to be feared... If one believes only the images of gay people by the anti-same-sex marriage crowd, we should be feared as pedophiles coming for  your children, or radicals trying to 'redefine' marriage out of existence and 'destroy marriage' to create a 'marriage-less society.'  It was and continues to be important for people to understand that I, and the VAST majority of same-sex couples out there, just want the same protections from unconstitutional discrimination and equal treatment and government respect for our relationships that our straight brothers and sisters enjoy.

You suggest that our visibility--our 'coming out' as gay and lesbian--'causes a lot more problems.'  From my perspective, it's solved problems that had been existing for a long time.  Unjust discrimination and inequality in how our government treated LGBT citizens.  Not just in marriage, but historically, LGBT citizens lost their jobs and were viewed to be threats to democracy, safety, security, etc.  Unlike race or gender, sexual orientation isn't always easy to discern.  Many of us could 'pass' as stereotypically heterosexual, and like chameleons, had learned to 'blend in' to avoid the problems that came from being openly gay.  And when a certain segment of the population is invisible, there's no reason to try to protect them.  They're entirely absent from the political discussion.  So, much like this discussion board itself, true discussion, understanding, and any possible mutually respect--and ultimately, in the realm of politics, true change--can only happen when we are willing to meet together in the public sphere and be true and authentic as we attempt to engage in respectful dialogue while acknowledge our differences and can talk through them. 

In fact, my decision to self-identify as an openly gay man is much like many Latter-day Saints understandable desire to feel free to live their religion openly and without fear of censure.  Most I know of want to be able to advocate in the public sphere for the values their religion professes, and they lay claim to that constitutional right to do so.  Their freedom of religion and freedom of speech is protected, and they shouldn't have to hide their religion just because some people might (and I've encountered some that do!) feel that:

"Mormons make a lot more ado about being LDS than necessary, because that causes a lot more problems just because it creates more of a discussion about it all by itself, when in fact religion 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 do think that semantics are much of the issue between our miscommunications here. I view a tendency for SS attraction as simply one facet of what is termed a, "Weakness of the flesh."

I am not saying that SS attraction isn't a difficult burden to bear, but rather that all weaknesses of the flesh are just as hard to learn to turn into strengths in overcoming them. I view true weaknesses of the flesh as something that can never be changed by ourselves. It takes the atonement and God's miracles to change them, as we offer the sacrifice of our broken heart, in order for that change to happen.

Unfortunately I agree that society has been unfair to those of the LGBTQ community. It has been horrible to know that society has been that way. Also on the flip side I see that the pendulum swing has been going too far the opposite way as well. There are ways that gay couples could have enjoyed all the rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples without having to redefine, "Marriage," in order to do so. Governmental regulations could have just as easily been changed. Now as a result there is the very real threat that churches could be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. In reality temple marriages are threatened even though you choose to think otherwise. It isn't an unfounded fear. I wouldn't think such if there weren't already businesses that have dealt with the same thing for refusing services to gay couples, whereas before there was always a right to refuse service to anyone, for no reason at all.

My thought on all of this is that society is far more to blame than you care to see. Before slavery ended, no one needed to get a marriage license to get married. Government didn't perform any marriages. All marriages were performed in churches. Marriage licenses became required in order for Democrats to keep mixed race marriages from happening, but I digress. Basically governmental regulation caused inequal rights, not Christian beliefs. If government still remained outside of marriages to this day, you wouldn't have needed outspoken gay people to make it happen, all you would have had to do was form, or find, a church that was willing to perform such a wedding. No controversy, no bigoted nothing. I stand by my stance that society is more to blame than God.

P.S. That quote you wrote of mine, where you changed a few words? It doesn't make as much sense, since Mormons aren't forcing everyone to bend on their morals, in order to make sure Mormons don't get offended. Mormons aren't putting bakeries out of business for refusing to bake a cake for them. Mormons just go to the next bakery that will bake a cake for them. Two completely different contexts:

"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 (perhaps I should have used the words, "forced upon," instead of, "Broadcast to,") everyone."

"Mormons make a lot more ado about being LDS than necessary, because that causes a lot more problems just because it creates more of a discussion about it all by itself, when in fact religion 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."

 

[CMZ]

On 9/20/2016 at 0:19 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.

 

Then the hymn would say, "Truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me I've another father there."

[Bernard Gui]

On September 23, 2016 at 2:30 PM, waveslider said:

I am not saying that SS attraction isn't a difficult burden to bear, but rather that all weaknesses of the flesh are just as hard to learn to turn into strengths in overcoming them. I view true weaknesses of the flesh as something that can never be changed by ourselves. It takes the atonement and God's miracles to change them, as we offer the sacrifice of our broken heart, in order for that change to happen.

This is precisely the attitude of a good friend who is gay and Mormon. The short version of the story as I recall it...I have his permission to share.

We met very briefly through miraculous circumstances on a road trip when he was 18 and Sis Gui and I were young marrieds. We did not know he was gay. We gave him a Book of Mormon. That was the end of our contact. Back home, he read the book and received a strong witness it was true. A year after our first and only meeting, he contacted us to tell us he had joined the Church and had been called to serve a mission in Europe.

We did not hear from him again for a very long time. A few years ago we found him on Facebook and discovered to our surprise that he was gay and to our sadness that he was dying from AIDS. He had served his mission, but felt he was badly mistreated by other missionaries, not knowing he was gay, but giving him a hard time because of some of his behaviors.

When he returned home, he angrily rejected the Church and fully embraced a gay lifestyle. He eventually contracted AIDS as a result. One particularly bad day he looked in the mirror and thought,"This is not me. This is not who I really am." He decided to go back to church and start on the path of repentance and reconciliation. He accepted his condition as a gay Mormon and recommitted himself to a life of celibacy and service, as he says, trusting in God's justice and mercy to make everything right in the eternities. He has served in two branch presidencies and is currently branch mission leader. He also has participated in a number of gay Mormon organizations and presented at their conferences and in discussions.

Despite his severe illness, for which he receives helpful medical treatment, he spends each day with the missionaries, helping old or sick people in his branch, doing chores for friends, anything he can to help others when he feels strong enough, and journals his day on Facebook. Every entry is filled with faith, good works, and most importantly good cheer.

The recent LDS/LGBT ruckus caused our daughter Dulceilento some real grief. Some of her close friends were criticizing or leaving the Church over the issue. Meanwhile, Sister Gui had posted a Facebook comment that she hoped everyone would be tolerant of both sides. Some of her LDS friends also surprisingly took offense and came down really hard on her for trying to defend the Church. Our friend posted a response to those folks. In essence, he said he trusted God and the Prophets (if it's good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for me), and had a faith-infused assurance that his eternal destiny was secure by following this course. This was a great comfort to our daughter, who said she was so grateful to hear this expression of faith from someone who was directly affected by these things. This little blessing came from that chance meeting over 40 years ago.

 I never cease admiring his Christ-like life and the mysterious ways of God.

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On September 20, 2016 at 0:19 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.

Thoughts? Rip away

Alma said it best.

Quote

Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear.

 

[waveslider]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is the attitude of a good friend who is gay and Mormon. Briefly the story as I recall it...I have his permission to share.

We met very briefly through miraculous circumstances on a road trip when he was 17 and Sis Gui and I were young marrieds. We did not know he was gay. We gave him a Book of Mormon. That was the end of our contact. Back home, he read the book and received a strong witness it was true. A year after our first and only meeting, he contacted us to tell us he had joined the Church and had been called to serve a mission in Europe.

We did not hear from him again for a very long time. A few years ago we found him on Facebook and discovered to our surprise and sadness that he was dying from AIDS. He had served his mission, but felt he was badly mistreated by other missionaries, not knowing he was gay, but giving him a hard time because of some of his behaviors.

When he returned home, he angrily rejected the Church and fully embraced a gay lifestyle. He eventually contracted AIDS as a result. One particularly bad day he looked in the mirror and thought,"This is not me. This is not who I really am." He decided to go back to church and start on the path of repentance and reconciliation. He accepted his condition as a gay Mormon and recommitted himself to a life of celibacy and service, as he says, trusting in God's justice and mercy to make everything right in the eternities. He has served in branch presidencies and is currently branch mission leader. He also has participated in a number of gay Mormon organizations and presented at their conferences and in discussions.

Despite his severe illness, for which he receives helpful medical treatment, he spends each day with the missionaries, helping old people in his branch, doing chores for friends, anything he can to help others when he feels strong enough, and journals his day on Facebook. Every entry is filled with faith, good works, and most importantly good cheer.

The recent LDS/LGBT ruckus caused our daughter Dulceilento some real grief. Some of her close friends were criticizing or leaving the Church over the issue. We asked our friend to write her a note about his feelings. In essence, he said he trusted God and the Prophets (if it's good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for me), and had a faith-infused assurance that his eternal destiny was secure by following this course. This was a great comfort to our daughter, who said she was so grateful to hear this expression of faith from someone who was directly affected by these things. This little blessing came from that chance meeting over 40 years ago.

 I never cease admiring his Christ-like life.

 

What a true testament of the power of Christ's atonement and a person's desire to follow our Savior at any cost. Thanks for sharing that. That guy is a hero! What a neat experience to see the fruits of one act of missionary service, that could so easily be seen as very insignificant without understanding what results from planting such a small seed could become!

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, waveslider said:

What a true testament of the power of Christ's atonement and a person's desire to follow our Savior at any cost. Thanks for sharing that. That guy is a hero! What a neat experience to see the fruits of one act of missionary service, that could so easily be seen as very insignificant without understanding what results from planting such a small seed could become!

He is a far better Saint than I ever will be. It is a testimony of the power of the Atonement. We all have our crosses to bear. He bears his with grace and dignity.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/20/2016 at 5:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I usually agree with Orson, but in this case he is wrong.  There was no first god.  There was no beginning and there shall be no end.  There is an infinity of gods and of worlds.  However, the mystery of the nature of intelligence(s) is beyond my capacity to understand or explain.  Not sure what is correct, although I favor individual intelligences existing eternally -- cannot be created and cannot be destroyed -- and have the fundamental capacity (within limits) of free agency.

This philosophy neither I can understand nor I can accept......   There's only one explanation "mystery". "beyond my capacity to understand" and "eternal" .....The worst part is, "Not sure what is correct" .........

There are better answers out there.....(Perhaps not out there, in real world)....   

[hope_for_things]

On 9/23/2016 at 2:24 PM, waveslider said:

I don't think you do understand where I am coming from. It is very clear what God has said concerning gay relations:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:......"
Leviticus 20:13

My son isn't gay. His weakness that he was overcoming was a different sin. He has no suicidal thoughts, but rather huge confidence in God's power to change a weakness into a strength, and as a result has gotten much closer to his Father in Heaven and in understanding the atonement, and far better in tune with personal revelation than if he hadn't dealt with his own weakness.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is that we are all born with weaknesses. Some of those weaknesses are more apparent than others, some are socially acceptable and even condoned by society to the point of calling someone who follows Christ, "a bigot," and losing their lively hoods, for following God's commandments according to their own dictates, instead of bending to the will of someone from the LGBTQ community and offering their professional services to them against their own inner convictions of God, in a land where freedom of religion and free enterprise are supposed to be the American dream (It seems we need to be asleep from the repercussions of political correctness in order to have that dream now days).

Feeling powerless to those weaknesses, instead of trusting that the infinite atonement actually works real miracles (and not just at the time of judgement either), is what causes suicidal thoughts. Satan uses that form of deception all the time, especially for those who think that they are labelled by their weaknesses, because imperfect people with their imperfect science falsely says, "they were born that way so there is no changing that fact." That all said, I am very open minded, but I don't see that being born with more of a tendency to be sxually attracted to the same sex isn't something that limits the power of God, to conform to His commandments, through such a merciful act as an infinite and eternal atonement. To me the only difference between the weaknesses that people identify with being LGBTQ, and other weaknesses of the flesh is what society makes of it, not anything else. If we can't change our very natures, then why did Jesus say: "...... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)?

I'm am grateful for your concern, but it seems I wasn't quite clear in what my view points were and those of my son's learning how to become just a little more Christ like. If he were gay I would definitely check out help to prevent suicidal thoughts, but not because of his gayness, but because of the way Society has and still does view it, like a pendulum that has swung too far in both directions, instead of just recognizing it for what it truly is, a weakness of the flesh in God's eyes, that can be changed through miracles. That we as humans not only can change our very natures, but will if we whole heartedly follow Christ, even if it takes beyond this mortal life to get there.

I apologize that it is hard to convey where it is I am coming from, because I am limited to written words to convey it. I do have a loving concern for those of the LGBTQ community, because they have more of a burden to bear since society has really screwed up the whole thing far out of proportion and that causes a lot more problems than it should.

Apparently I confused your talk about weaknesses of your son in the context of this discussion with your son being gay.  That doesn't stop you from having an opportunity to learn and educate yourself.  If you do care about the LGBTQ community, you should listen to their stories.  Be willing to put aside what you think you already know about them, and what you think you already know about what God has said.  Open your mind and heart, I have confidence that when people do this, they are inspired and touched and will learn.  Of course, it helps a lot to have a family member or friend that you are aware of who is LGBTQ.  Start looking around, they likely exist in your circle somewhere, you just may have not been aware of them.  Best wishes.