New Research Reports Most Younger Mormons Now "Strongly Favor" or "Favor" SSM

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Forget it.  I'm out.  I'm reminded of an old saying about wrestling with pigs ... 

 Yes, good old George Bernard Shaw. Who or what are you implying is a pig? 

Edited May 3, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I have  Nickelback  on my iPod I used for walking, 60 this year. 

 

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Mine has not, and I know who Nickelback is. I listen to pop and rock, and had boys who liked Nickelback - personally, I felt they had about one good song. My position has not changed on this issue for 30 years - ever since I learned constitutional law. I encourage others to do the same, and like me, and the dissenting SCOTUS justices, they will probably be disturbed by the enormity of the power grab in this particular SCOTUS decision.  As Justice Alito concluded: "all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."

 

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I'm over fifty and I listen to Nickelback.🤭

 

9 hours ago, gopher said:

Since hatred is the only valid reason for opposing SSM (according to many), it's no wonder youth don't want to be accused of hatred.  Plus they are easily influenced by celebrity Mormons who support SSM like that lead singer of Nickelback.

If gopher's statement is true then, what that means is that Mormons over 50 are influenced more by Nickelback than what the church leaders are telling them.  Some might find that a bit disturbing.  Because the one thing that is clear, support for gay marriage has shifted dramatically amongst Mormons over 50.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/1/2018 at 4:45 PM, kllindley said:

I hate the wording of the question. They don't distinguish between whether the individuals support legalizing SSM or support it as a morally acceptable decision. 

I support alcohol sales remaining legal. I do not personally drink, nor would I encourage anyone else to drink. I actually work to help people reduce their alcohol consumption and would be happy if the alcohol industry dried up. So do I "support alcohol" or not? 

Oh a troublemaker, are you?

Whasamattah? You got a mind of your own or sumptin?   You must be oneathoseguys that just think too much.

 

 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Slight tangent. Does God, from the LDS perspective, get to decide what sin is? If God was once human, then morality is bigger than God, since God followed moral rules to become God. It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion, that God is the perfect moral guide since he knows morality perfectly, but not the creator of morality. In that case, it could very well be that at a future moment morality would dictate that same sex marriage is moral and God would go along with it.

Not sure. Just theories. As far as I am aware no revelation has come forth on this point. We can reason our way to guesses but that is not definitive.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Eek! said:

Does it sound fair to you that God would burn someone who is being true to their conscience?   Are you totally comfortable worshiping that kind of being?  Does the prospect of so many otherwise good people being burned make your presumed immunity all the more delicious? 

Or it is possible that the scripture you're referring to, or at least the standard interpretation thereof, is not the highest level of truth on the subject? 

Yes, I lust for the sweet sweet smell of barbecued sinner. Then I can laugh at their burning in hell. And all this while I dwell with the righteous and perfect who definitely glory in the pain of others.

If anyone is doing the best they can with the light of truth they have been given I suspect they will be fine. Still, I have seen conscience used to excuse sin too often. I begin to suspect some people sometimes use it as a trump card to get out of doing something they do not want to do or as an excuse to do something they want to do. People are good at self-deception.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Or, as many of us like to call it..... marriage.

When my husband and I introduce one another, we don’t say, “Nice to meet you, too! And this is my gay husband...”

Or when we speak about our wedding, we don’t say “our gay wedding anniversary is....” or “the date we got gay married was...”

When we check forms about our marital status, we check the “married” check box, not a “gay married” box.

There’s all sorts of couples who get married.... some are interracial, others are inter-Faith, or may be same-sex, or non-religious, or intergenerational, or same-race, or opposite-sex, or same-Faith (whether LDS, Catholic, Jewish or other Faiths), and some may be polygamist, etc. 

In each case, each couple simply gets—you guessed it!—married.  

I thought calling everything gay was one of the gay perks of being gayishly gay. So gaily confused now.......

[Stargazer]

On 5/2/2018 at 3:23 AM, nuclearfuels said:

As a Libertarian, the SLTrib doesn't speak for me politically, just as Deseret News doesn't speak for me spiritually.  Nor do cleverly crafted sophist surveys speak for me.  Crafted too many of those surveys in college, designed to elicit a specific reaction while claiming objectivity. Nah, brah - convincing arguments take different shapes, like logic, reason, science, math.

What I'd like to see is a survey like that which included questions about acceptability of polyamory, polygamy, polygyny, etc.

A few versus come to mind though, about the rising generation, to say nothing about how the odds are stacked against their spiritual develpment more than any other generation in history

3 Nephi 1:30

30 And thus were the Lamanites afflicted also, and began to decrease as to their faith and righteousness, because of the wickedness of the ^arising generation.

Mosiah 26:1

1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the ^awords of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did ^bnot believe the tradition of their fathers.

That reminded me of this:

 

 

[Stargazer]

On 5/2/2018 at 3:39 AM, JulieM said:

All very true.  I work with the young women now and this topic is important to them.  I have to say that the majority support their gay friends and their right to marry.  Lots of rainbows drawn on their binders with “gay pride” in rainbow colors.  This next generation will not be opposing gay marriage (the majority of them), imo.

It's not surprising, actually.

Young people tend to be more idealistic, it is said, yet consider that they have been raised in an environment where they go to public school every day, where certain opinions are fostered and others demonized. Even if not overtly so, and ask yourself how many people in Hollywood and the news media possess opposed opinions, and how much this appears in mass media.  Any given celebrity, any given news personality or any given public figure will, likely as not, profess to follow one side rather than the other.  And all those who do, in fact, believe otherwise, will be minimized, tut-tutted, and outright vilified for their opinions.  And then consider that young people are perhaps far more sensitive to being seen as being part of the "out" rather than the "in" crowd.  

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Then write like a lawyer, with claims and evidence and without sarcasm and hyperbole, and we'll take you seriously. I imagine your law school professors would offer you the same advice.

With due respect, you shouldn't presume to speak for any of my former law professors: they're perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, and I'm perfectly capable of asking for their advice when it is warranted. Neither they nor I need you to mediate for us.  And if you think that court opinions are, and have been, free of sarcasm and hyperbole, time immemorial and worlds without end, with further due respect, you haven't read very many of them.  In any case, whenever anyone around here "writes like a lawyer," almost invariably the response of one or more of the "Nons" is to snort derisively with an airy, dismissive wave of the hand ✋, "Yeah, well, this isn't a courtroom."

Thanks for the advice, but, doubtless, you've heard that old saying about free advice ...

 

 

 

 

[Eek!]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, I lust for the sweet sweet smell of barbecued sinner. Then I can laugh at their burning in hell. And all this while I dwell with the righteous and perfect who definitely glory in the pain of others.

I think we are all in this together to a far greater extent than is presently apparent.   Especially if "we without our dead cannot be saved", and if we are all one family, and if we love one another. 

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If anyone is doing the best they can with the light of truth they have been given I suspect they will be fine. Still, I have seen conscience used to excuse sin too often. I begin to suspect some people sometimes use it as a trump card to get out of doing something they do not want to do or as an excuse to do something they want to do. People are good at self-deception.

Well said.    

One of our mind's superpowers is the ability to see things as we want them to be.  When we take the path of least resistance, the result is self-deception and excuses.  But used properly - teach the mind correct principles and exercise the will to focus on them consistently - it is transformational. 

Off topic:  I've been curious about this for a while now - are you a professional writer?   Even when we disagree (or, especially when we disagree), you write circles around me.  Not that you single me out from the crowd for special treatment in this regard. 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Eek!

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, you shouldn't presume to speak for any of my former law professors: they're perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, and I'm perfectly capable of asking for their advice when it is warranted. Neither they nor I need you to mediate for us.  And if you think that court opinions are, and have been, free of sarcasm and hyperbole, time immemorial and worlds without end, with further due respect, you haven't read very many of them.  In any case, whenever anyone around here "writes like a lawyer," almost invariably the response of one or more of the "Nons" is to snort derisively with an airy, dismissive wave of the hand ✋, "Yeah, well, this isn't a courtroom."

Thanks for the advice, but, doubtless, you've heard that old saying about free advice ...

 

 

 

 

You're back! I thought you said you were out because you didn't want to wrestle with a pig..?

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Off topic:  I've been curious about this for a while now - are you a professional writer?   Even when we disagree (or, especially when we disagree), you write circles around me.  Not that you single me out from the crowd for special treatment in this regard. 

Sort of, I write and edit in a corporate environment for a living and write a little on the side for fun.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Slight tangent. Does God, from the LDS perspective, get to decide what sin is? If God was once human, then morality is bigger than God, since God followed moral rules to become God. It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion, that God is the perfect moral guide since he knows morality perfectly, but not the creator of morality. In that case, it could very well be that at a future moment morality would dictate that same sex marriage is moral and God would go along with it.

Very perceptive for a Catholic.

For me, morality is the one thing that does not change, and that is why it is eternal and why God has voluntarily chosen these rules through self determination, perhaps as we might determine for ourselves to only eat healthful foods. Like us, He chose to obey.

Read the Didache. Morality is the way of life, immorality the way of death.

Morality comprises the rules necessary for survival of the species. There is a reason they have evolved over eternities.

Figure out how that applies to ssm.

It is not a universalizable principle for all humanity. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, but 0 calories!  The can is very full, yet at the same time empty.

Oh no sir, it contains VERY valuable caffeine in a semi-acceptable form for LDS.  

PRICELESS

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Very perceptive for a Catholic.

Well, it comes from Plato, and you know how us Catholics love that Greek philosophy  

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For me, morality is the one thing that does not change, and that is why it is eternal and why God has voluntarily chosen these rules through self determination, perhaps as we might determine for ourselves to only eat healthful foods. Like us, He chose to obey.

That contradicts what the other poster said: that whatever God decides is right and his decision makes it right. You are saying that God always chooses the right, but his choice does not create the right. I'm wondering if there is a Mormon consensus on this. I ask because you have a very unique view of Mormonism so I'm never quite sure if your answer is what the majority of Mormons believe

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Morality comprises the rules necessary for survival of the species. There is a reason they have evolved over eternities.

Figure out how that applies to ssm.

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that homosexual has been against morality because it doesn't help the species survive?

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Very perceptive for a Catholic.

For me, morality is the one thing that does not change, and that is why it is eternal and why God has voluntarily chosen these rules through self determination, perhaps as we might determine for ourselves to only eat healthful foods. Like us, He chose to obey.

Read the Didache. Morality is the way of life, immorality the way of death.

Morality comprises the rules necessary for survival of the species. There is a reason they have evolved over eternities.

Figure out how that applies to ssm.

It is not a universalizable principle for all humanity.

 

Why does everything need to be universalizable? Gay people will always be a small minority of the population. It's not a question of straight people entering into marriage with someone of the same gender and so the human race dies out. It's a question of what to do if you're gay.

Gay marriage is the moral option if you're gay. Straight marriage is the moral option if you're straight. Simple, and it passes Jesus' test of "good fruits". Other options for gay people (marry against your orientation or stay single) don't usually lead to good outcomes, just as those same options wouldn't lead to good outcomes for straight people either.

Morality doesn't change, but our moral awareness changes and evolves all the time. Hopefully we awaken to a fuller understanding of morality over time.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Gray

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Very perceptive for a Catholic.

For me, morality is the one thing that does not change, and that is why it is eternal and why God has voluntarily chosen these rules through self determination, perhaps as we might determine for ourselves to only eat healthful foods. Like us, He chose to obey.

Read the Didache. Morality is the way of life, immorality the way of death.

Morality comprises the rules necessary for survival of the species. There is a reason they have evolved over eternities.

Figure out how that applies to ssm.

It is not a universalizable principle for all humanity. 

 

 

So... if an action "comprises a rule necessary for survival of the species," you're saying that's moral....?

In other words, it seems you're suggesting that actions which perpetuate the species---survival of the fittest--the laws and rules of evolution---are comprised within "morality"....?  As in... the strongest alpha male taking the wives of the weaker males in the clan/tribe to ensure the fittest offspring possible?  Or occasional culling of the weaker members of the tribe who are a drain on resources and don't reproduce anymore...? Or any other number of behaviors that maximize survival of the species by ridding the population of the weak and infertile who are a drain on resources....?

The implication behind your statement that "It is not a universalizable principle for all of humanity" seems to suggest that if any given action isn't "a universalizable principle for all humanity", it isn't or can't be "moral".....?  An action like... cutting the head off an intoxicated and incapacitated tyrant who may or may not pursue you after you escape the city under cover of darkness and head into the desert....?  Or a command to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in order to inherit any given promised land?  Or taking additional wives without your own wife's knowledge and while denying doing so publicly?

Finally, if it can be demonstrated how homosexuality helps the species to survive, would you then consider it moral....?

Ironically, from my perspective, "morality" is a higher law that teaches us to transcend the laws of evolution/survival of the fittest/perpetuate the species no matter the cost.  "Morality" asks more of us than to focus soley on actions that allow us to perpetuate our own genome, for evolution doesn't include caring for the sick, afflicted, disabled, etc.  Evolution doesn't encourage monogamy.  Evolution doesn't focus on charitable giving, unless survival is a side-effect.  In my view, morality most often transcends evolution/survival instincts.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Daniel2

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That contradicts what the other poster said: that whatever God decides is right and his decision makes it right.

If you are referencing me, I'm not sure you have correctly captured my thoughts.

I think God declaring 2+2=4 does not make it so.  The sum of 2+2 is an immutable truth, and God, being omniscient, morally perfect, and the "God of truth," is stating that truth, not creating it.

Again, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (under the entry for "Law: Divine and Eternal Law"): 

Quote

LDS revelation emphasizes the existence and indispensability of law. The relation of divine law to other species of law has not been given systematic treatment in Mormon thought as it has in traditional Christian theology (e.g., the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas). But distinctive observations about divine law and eternal law may be drawn from Latter-day scriptures and related sources.

Aquinas identified four categories of law: (1) eternal law, which is coextensive with the divine mind and with the overall purpose and plan of God; (2) natural law, which addresses mankind's proper participation in eternal law but is discovered by reason without the assistance of revelation and promulgation; (3) divine positive law, also a part of the eternal law, which pertains to the sacraments and ordinances necessary to the attainment of mankind's supernatural end made known by revelation; and (4) man-made positive law, which regulates the affairs of mankind not specifically addressed by God's law (e.g., laws that regulate such things as corporations, stocks, bonds, wills, and trusts) or which mandate the natural law with the power of the state.

I like this framework.  It makes sense to me.

A bit more:

Quote

LDS sources affirm laws roughly corresponding to each of these four types. Unlike traditional Jewish and Christian theologies, which place God outside of, and antecedent to, nature, however, LDS theology places God within nature.

Placing God "within nature" makes sense to me.  And it resolves the "is the truth of 2+2=4 a creation of God, or rather an acknowledgment by God of an eternal truth to which is bound?"-type questions.

Back to the EOM:

Quote

"Divine" laws are instituted by God to govern his creations and kingdoms and to prescribe behavior for his offspring. Such law, in the terms of Acquinas's categories, would be divine positive law (i.e., law existing by virtue of being posited or enacted by God). Some Latter-day Saints believe that "eternal" law is self-existent, unauthored law, which God himself honors and administers as a condition of his perfection and Godhood. It should be noted that the adjectives "divine" and "eternal" do not have fixed usages in writing (see Time and Eternity).

This reflects my understand (at present, anyway).

More from the EOM:

Quote

Latter-day scriptures and other sources do not explicitly state that eternal law exists independently or coeternally with God. This characteristic of eternal law is sometimes inferred, however, from two concepts that do have support in scripture and other LDS sources:

1. God is governed (bound) by law. Latter-day scriptures state that "God would cease to be God" if he were to allow mercy to destroy justice, or justice to overpower mercy, or the plan of redemption to be fulfilled on unjust conditions (Alma 42:13). Scriptures further state that "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say" (D&C 82:10), implying that God by nature and definition-not by any external coercion-is righteous and trustworthy. Some Church writers have said that "[God] himself governs and is governed by law" (MD, p. 432) and that "the Lord works in accordance with natural law" (DS 2:27). They likewise speak of "higher laws" that account for providence and miracles.

I hope this clarifies my position.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You are saying that God always chooses the right, but his choice does not create the right.

I think that is probably correct.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm wondering if there is a Mormon consensus on this. I ask because you have a very unique view of Mormonism so I'm never quite sure if your answer is what the majority of Mormons believe

I am not sure if there is a unified consensus, but I think a majority or big plurality of Latter-day Saints who were to study this matter would probably come away with conclusions pretty similar to those above.

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that homosexual has been against morality because it doesn't help the species survive?

I think homosexual behavior is against morality because God has said so.  From this, and from the constellation of associated concepts within the Restored Gospel (particularly pertaining to marriage and procreation), we can extrapolate and infer some things.

For me, I think God authorizes sexual behavior for two reasons: to strengthen the bonds between husband and wife, and for the procreation of children (the EOM article about "Sexuality" is worth a read).  Consequently, sexual behavior is confined to some fairly strick parameters: sexual behavior between a husband and wife is authorized.  All other sexual behavior is prohibited.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you are referencing me, I'm not sure you have correctly captured my thoughts.

I believe it was RevTestament.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think God declaring 2+2=4 does not make it so.  The sum of 2+2 is an immutable truth, and God, being omniscient, morally perfect, and the "God of truth," is stating that truth, not creating it.

Yes, this seems to match what Mark was saying.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I like this framework.  It makes sense to me.

Aquinas was nothing if not systematic! He creates a great framework for theology, based a lot on Aristotle. Two interesting notes on his book Summa Theologica. During the Council of Trent (one of the great ecumenical councils of the Church that was responding to protestantism and has been the driving force in Catholicism for 500 years), his book and the Bible were both placed on the altar. When Aquinas was around 50 he had a mystical divine experience which led him to say, "all I have written seems like straw." Systematic theology pales when compared to direct experience of God.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Placing God "within nature" makes sense to me.  And it resolves the "is the truth of 2+2=4 a creation of God, or rather an acknowledgment by God of an eternal truth to which is bound?"-type questions.

That seems to follow if God is within nature. I've had this discussion before, I think with Mark, as to the differences between Catholicism and Mormonism when it comes to God being natural or supernatural.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

More from the EOM:

I hope this clarifies my position.

Yes, it certainly does. Thank you.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For me, I think God authorizes sexual behavior for two reasons: to strengthen the bonds between husband and wife, and for the procreation of children

This is the Catholic position as well. I suppose this is why, traditionally, Catholics and Mormons have both had large families.

Thanks!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I believe it was RevTestament.

Yes, this seems to match what Mark was saying.

Aquinas was nothing if not systematic! He creates a great framework for theology, based a lot on Aristotle. Two interesting notes on his book Summa Theologica. During the Council of Trent (one of the great ecumenical councils of the Church that was responding to protestantism and has been the driving force in Catholicism for 500 years), his book and the Bible were both placed on the altar. When Aquinas was around 50 he had a mystical divine experience which led him to say, "all I have written seems like straw." Systematic theology pales when compared to direct experience of God.

That seems to follow if God is within nature. I've had this discussion before, I think with Mark, as to the differences between Catholicism and Mormonism when it comes to God being natural or supernatural.

Yes, it certainly does. Thank you.

This is the Catholic position as well. I suppose this is why, traditionally, Catholics and Mormons have both had large families.

Thanks!

And, in more recent times, have aligned themselves with one another on public affairs pertaining to promoting and safeguarding the traditional family.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Aquinas was nothing if not systematic! He creates a great framework for theology, based a lot on Aristotle. Two interesting notes on his book Summa Theologica. During the Council of Trent (one of the great ecumenical councils of the Church that was responding to protestantism and has been the driving force in Catholicism for 500 years), his book and the Bible were both placed on the altar. When Aquinas was around 50 he had a mystical divine experience which led him to say, "all I have written seems like straw." Systematic theology pales when compared to direct experience of God.

That has been my sentiment as well.  The former (systematic theology) helps us in conceptualizing and comprehending and appreciating the latter ("direct experience of God").

I had an experience years ago that set me on my current path.  I have spent a fair amount of my spare time in the 20+ years since in studying and seeking to improve my grasp of the meaning and ramifications of that experience.

That experience told me "what" to do.  My studies have helped me understand "why" and the "how" I should do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Slight tangent. Does God, from the LDS perspective, get to decide what sin is? If God was once human, then morality is bigger than God, since God followed moral rules to become God. It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion, that God is the perfect moral guide since he knows morality perfectly, but not the creator of morality. In that case, it could very well be that at a future moment morality would dictate that same sex marriage is moral and God would go along with it.

This is an interesting premise. That “God gets to” do something -- that He is enabled or given the opportunity to decide, choose and do – reveals something I think is fairly universally understood on a visceral level until we start talking about it! It gets to the LDS idea of eternal progression.

No one can legitimately enable himself, or authorize himself to do anything; that must come from a higher authority. Nor can anyone activate himself beyond his inherent capacity; that also must come from a higher power. This is why we refer to grace as an enabling power. https://www.lds.org/topics/grace?lang=eng

The same goes for opportunity. One cannot create for himself opportunities that do not exist “out there.” The “out there” must be provided to him. “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. [BUT] All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” (D&C 93:29-30.

So if God was once human, He had a Human God with whom he was in the beginning. He did not merely follow moral rules to become God; He first required enabling and the opportunity to do so. (93:1-20). This came from a Person, not a principle, which is why morality does not dictate, and due to the principle of moral agency (D&C 101:78, which is not “morality”), neither does the Person. God never tells us what is moral, but He commands us how to become like Him, by acting “in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity [i.e. progression].”

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You're back! I thought you said you were out because you didn't want to wrestle with a pig..?

Contrary to some perceptions, perhaps, I'm not waiting with 'bated breath, on the edge of my seat, all aquiver, for people's reaction to what I write.  Frequently, I'm reminded in ways large and small,  that this is other people's cyber world and I simply live in it.  Fine.  Largely, I'll leave you to it.  Have fun.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, it comes from Plato, and you know how us Catholics love that Greek philosophy  

That contradicts what the other poster said: that whatever God decides is right and his decision makes it right. You are saying that God always chooses the right, but his choice does not create the right. I'm wondering if there is a Mormon consensus on this. I ask because you have a very unique view of Mormonism so I'm never quite sure if your answer is what the majority of Mormons believe

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that homosexual has been against morality because it doesn't help the species survive?

As the "other poster" please realize that I did not speak as an official spokesman of "Mormon Doctrine." In fact I concluded that "I don't believe you will find any LDS consensus on this issue:"

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

That is an interesting thought. God has changed positions on certain things such as polygamy - disallowing it when the people were not able to live it righteously. However, the way the scriptures read, makes it seem God is not likely to change His position on the issue of homosexual relations since it is contrary to His design. I would not necessarily say that morality is bigger than God either. I believe Yeshua followed what His Father taught, and was bound by it, just like the Father was. How this all began, we don't quite understand, but I believe on some prior world or perhaps before all worlds God was basically elected to be God, and so the rules were agreed to ever since. I don't believe you will find any LDS consensus on this issue.

However, I stand by my statement.

Quote

MB: For me, morality is the one thing that does not change, and that is why it is eternal and why God has voluntarily chosen these rules through self determination, perhaps as we might determine for ourselves to only eat healthful foods. Like us, He chose to obey.

MiserereN: That contradicts what the other poster said: that whatever God decides is right and his decision makes it right. You are saying that God always chooses the right, but his choice does not create the right. I'm wondering if there is a Mormon consensus on this. I ask because you have a very unique view of Mormonism so I'm never quite sure if your answer is what the majority of Mormons believe 

Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I believe that even God has to uphold the law of justice. If He tries to change that, I believe He would no longer be God. So that is not something that is created by His word. It's more of a law of morality. That God will seek to make us equal through justice - eye for an eye kind of stuff.  It is an enduring truth and a foundation of the atonement. Nevertheless, He has given commandments which are not necessarily immutable. He might command a law of inheritance for a polygamous family in Moses' day, but none for Christians. Is that a violation of justice? He commanded animal sacrifices for Israel, but none for Christians. If He commanded the Church not to enter polygamy, and it did, are they sinning? I say yes. They are sinning against Him and His word. If He commanded Israel to go into the Holy Land, and they did not, was He justified in punishing them in the wilderness for 40 years or not? They sinned against Him. He didn't have to command them to enter the land. That was not really a matter of righteousness was it? There are many examples of commandments, which I believe may be temporary. Yet, not to follow them, I believe is sin, because we would be breaking His law, which is at least one definition of sin.

Edited May 3, 2018 by RevTestament

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Why does everything need to be universalizable? Gay people will always be a small minority of the population. It's not a question of straight people entering into marriage with someone of the same gender and so the human race dies out. It's a question of what to do if you're gay.

Gay marriage is the moral option if you're gay. Straight marriage is the moral option if you're straight. Simple, and it passes Jesus' test of "good fruits". Other options for gay people (marry against your orientation or stay single) don't usually lead to good outcomes, just as those same options wouldn't lead to good outcomes for straight people either.

Morality doesn't change, but our moral awareness changes and evolves all the time. Hopefully we awaken to a fuller understanding of morality over time.

Picking up from my post above, each sphere is its own universe, so its attendant moral code would be unchanging and universal for that sphere. It is said that God in His sphere obeys all eternal laws, but these were given to Him (they did not come out of nowhere).  As you pointed out, people choose to abide in different spheres, each reflecting their preferred, unchanging morality, which to them, is universalized as far as they are concerned. The sphere of revealed religion is different from spheres that "evolve" without it.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

So... if an action "comprises a rule necessary for survival of the species," you're saying that's moral....?

Where the design of the restored Gospel is for LDS to pattern their temporal experience after God’s spiritual experience, I think the reference to universality has to do with the universe and "species" of gods, not so much what might be argued from scientific perspectives. Both views carrying a bias, of course.

Edited May 3, 2018 by CV75