Jeff Robinson on the LGBT issue at FairMormon

[Thinking]

 

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This isn't about 'gay couples' at all. It's about all of us. In the end (meant literally in this case) the choice before all of us is whether we accept the Saviour's offer of salvation, repent of all our sins, and fully accept the 'laws and ordinances' of the gospel.

It's enough about gay couples that you avoided answering a very simple, straightforward question.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

What happens to a gay person who marries someone of the same sex for life and has no intentions of returning to the Mormon Faith because they don't believe Mormon leaders speak for God?"

Are you stating that the Plan of Salvation sends all gay couples as I have described to outer darkness?  I just want to be clear where I am headed.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's enough about gay couples that you avoided answering a very simple, straightforward question.

Nonsense. The Plan of Salvation allows all men and women the option of not repenting and therefore intentionally and knowingly placing themselves outside the reach of the Lord's saving grace. It also encourages, actively and repeatedly, all women and men to repent, regardless of their individual circumstances. To suggest that this is somehow specifically about 'gay couples' is an obvious (and an intentionally emotion-laden) fallacy, to which you have just added.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's enough about gay couples that you avoided answering a very simple, straightforward question.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

What happens to a gay person who marries someone of the same sex for life and has no intentions of returning to the Mormon Faith because they don't believe Mormon leaders speak for God?"

Are you stating that the Plan of Salvation sends all gay couples as I have described to outer darkness?  I just want to be clear where I am headed.

I respect california boy's choices and life path. 

That said, this is neither a simple nor a straightforward question. Are you claiming that california boy actually to any degree believes that whatever Hamba's answer might be is truly where he is headed? 

[Thinking]

On 8/11/2018 at 1:46 PM, kllindley said:

Again, who is telling them they have to be celibate? Can you cite anywhere in Church materials that says this?

"We expect celibacy of any person that is not married." Dallin H. Oaks

[Thinking]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Are you claiming that california boy actually to any degree believes that whatever Hamba's answer might be is truly where he is headed? 

No. IMO I believe that california boy wants to know where Hamba thinks he is headed.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

CFR for the first line; and for the second line, well, as they say, “Good luck with all that!”

The Church does not teach celibacy as a religious principle. On the contrary, we are to keep the commandments of marriage given in the Garden of Eden (the man and woman are created as a couple to be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth, etc.).

As with any commandment, we are accountable only to the extent we are able in good faith to keep it according to our given circumstances. Thus Church also teaches, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” The ordinance of marriage can be received in the spirit world by proper priesthood authority.

If in this life only we have hope only in non-Mormon speak (i.e. understanding), we are of all men most miserable. 

Understanding the scope of chastity in relation to marriage and sexual relations is a far cry from teaching celibacy. We do not say that children and unmarried persons are to live a life of celibacy, but rather they are to live the law of chastity, understanding the doctrine of eternal marriage as a principle of chastity. We do not say that abstaining from marriage is an eternal, godly attribute in and of itself, but that contracting marriage is.

Thinking just linked to the Oaks/Wickman interview.  I hope that will be enough to end the wordplay insanity from you and kllindley. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This isn't about 'gay couples' at all. It's about all of us. In the end (meant literally in this case) the choice before all of us is whether we accept the Saviour's offer of salvation, repent of all our sins, and fully accept the 'laws and ordinances' of the gospel. The alternative -- again, for every single one of us -- is not to accept the Saviour's offer of salvation, not to repent of all our sins, and not to fully accept the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

That's not what the Lord wants for us, which is why he will exhaust every possible opportunity to convince us otherwise first, even allowing us to get a foretaste of outer darkness by suffering for our own sins in a temporary hell if necessary -- but in the end (again, literally) if we prefer our ways to His, He will let us go.

***

I'm not 'schooling' you. This is an LDS discussion board. If you're going to discuss matters with Latter-day Saints with any degree of mutual respect, you should at least expect us to point out where you've got our doctrine wrong.

And this is not 'what the Plan of Salvation is if you are gay'. It is, simply, what the Plan of Salvation is if you are human, which we all are.

I have seen you repeatedly on this board try to portray the teachings of Jesus Christ as somehow specially onerous to people who've acquired a homosexual sexual orientation. I don't expect you to ever alter that tactic, but it's nonsense. Basic Christianity is clear on this point: every single one of us is estranged from God in a multitude of ways. All sin is equal in the eyes of God. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. This means we are all equally in trouble.

Thankfully, Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins specifically to open up a space for us in which we can choose to repent, to deny ourselves of all ungodliness, to say, as He did when he was on the brink of a literal hell, 'Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done'.

As C.S. Lewis so aptly noted:

 

Thank you for you answer. And yes, I expect you to point out what Mormons teach. Nice to know where Mormons stand in regards to gay couples.  And yes, it has everything to do with gay couples for me.  I love my partner.  I always will.  You can't just unloved someone because someone on a Mormon Discussion group tells you that they believe all gay couples that refuse to stop loving their partners after they die are going to go to the same place as the most evil and vile people who have ever lived on the earth.

No I don't believe that for one minute.  But it certainly is eye opening that this is apparently what Mormonism teaches happens to gay couples when they die.  Personally, I have long ago quit caring what others think about me being gay and who I love.  I do accept the Savior and his Atonement.  I just don't accept the Mormon version of what that means. Why would I?  For me, this kind of condemnation for loving someone that you are naturally attracted to does not match anything that the Savior taught.  Loving my partner is not a sin and never will be.  I am not estranged from God.  I never have been.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

IMO I believe that california boy wants to know where Hamba thinks he is headed.

Once again, this is basic Christianity. I don't get to decide where another person is 'headed'. Without faith in Jesus Christ and repentance of all our sins, every one of us is headed to spiritual death. No exceptions.

But who am I to tell someone that she or he is not going to repent and therefore is doomed? As Latter-day Saints, we understand that God in His infinite love and mercy designed the Plan of Salvation specifically to exhaust every conceivable opportunity for every single one of His children to repent and turn to Him. 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you believe this as well?  I can usually tell when you are poking fun.  Not sure on this one, given Hamba's answer.

I thought the single mothers bit would make it clear I was joking.

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Nice to know where Mormons stand in regards to gay couples.

Your constant attempt to turn statements of basic Christian principles regarding the reality of sin and the universal need for redemption into 'Mormons hate gay couples and want them to burn in hell' is transparently disingenuous and, at this point, irksome. <sigh>

[Hamba Tuhan]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not estranged from God.  I never have been.  

Well, it sounds like you have no need of a saviour or an atonement then. I, on the other hand, very much do. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I thought the single mothers bit would make it clear I was joking.

I am just trying to figure out Mormon belief here.  Yeah it should just be a joke, but some don't seem to be joking when they pronounce exactly where I am headed after I die unless I conform to Mormon belief.  And there are quite a few Mormons who support his belief.  

Fortunately, I don't think God cares what Mormons or any other religion believes.  He is my judge.  He looks upon my heart.  I trust in Him.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your constant attempt to turn statements of basic Christian principles regarding the reality of sin and the universal need for redemption into 'Mormons hate gay couples and want them to burn in hell' is transparently disingenuous and, at this point, irksome. <sigh>

Yet, according to you, this is the Mormon stance on gay couples that are committed to loving their partners not just in this life, but throughout eternity.  So I don't really see why you don't think I would ignore your doctrine.  

Not all Christians think that it is a sin for a gay person to love his partner and be committed to that love both in this life and the next.  You make leaps not only for what I believe but now for what other believe.  It must be exhausting.

Edited August 13, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Well, it sounds like you have no need of a saviour or an atonement then. I, on the other hand, very much do. 

How the heck do you feel you can rise to the level of telling me whether I feel I need the Savior or his Atonement?  

I asked for your perspective Mormon belief about gay couples who love their partners and are committed to that love for eternity.  And I appreciate your answer.  I certainly didn't ask for your judgement of what my relationship with God or His Atonement is.  You have crossed the line. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I certainly didn't ask for your judgement of what my relationship with God or His Atonement is.  You have crossed the line. 

Mate, you're the one who told us what your relationship with God is: 'I am not estranged from God.  I never have been'.

Do you even read what you write???

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't really see why you don't think I would ignore your doctrine.  

'My doctrine is not mine' ... but yes, you've made it abundantly clear how much you ignore the doctrine. I mean, one can hardly drag you into a conversation on the topic.

Quote

It must be exhausting.

Not as exhausting as some things that I can think of ...

Edited August 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, you're the one who told us what your relationship with God is: 'I am not estranged from God.  I never have been'.

Do you even read what you write???

'My doctrine is not mine' ... but yes, you've made it abundantly clear how much you ignore the doctrine. I mean, one can hardly drag you into a conversation on the topic.

Not as exhausting as some things that I can think of ...

I have tried to have a good faith discussion with you to understand your beliefs on Mormon Doctrine when it comes to gay. couples who are in a loving relationship and plan on keeping that love not only for their time on earth but also in the next life.  You have been kind enough to explain your view that all gay couples who have this attitude will be sent to outer darkness to join the rest of the most vile and evil people who have ever lived on this earth.  I haven't attacked that point of view.  I haven't even asked for a CFR that this view is what the Mormon Church teaches specifically about gay couples in this situation.  

BUT when you start to cut and paste phrases I have said from three different posts and ignore both the context an other comments I have made, and start to tell me whether I need Christ and His Atonement, then you have crossed the line in explaining your beliefs into explaining what my beliefs are to me.  

You also presume to speak for other Christian churches in what they view as sin and what they think the fate of such gay couples.  Simply put, you don't have that right to speak for them either.  There are numerous Christian churches that both approve of gay marriage and do not consider it a sin AT ALL.  Here is a partial list of Christian Churches that support gay couples marrying.

The Metropolitan Community Church,

the United Church of Christ,

the United Church of Canada,

the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),^[5] 

the Episcopal Church of the United States,

the Anglican Church of Canada,

The Episcopal Church

the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America,

the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada,

The Presbyterian Church USA

the Church of Denmark,

the Church of Sweden,

the Church of Norway,

the Protestant Church in the Netherlands,

the United Protestant Church of France,

the United Protestant Church in Belgium,

the Icelandic Church,  

the Evangelical Church in Berlin, Brandenburg and Silesian Upper Lusatia,

the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland,

the Protestant Church in Baden,

the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Northern Germany,

the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),

the Quakers,

the Liberal Old Catholic Church 

the Unitarian 

You don't speak for me.  You don't speak for other Christian churches and you don't even speak for the Mormon Church.  Now if you have a direct quote from someone who does speak for the Mormon church that specifically addresses what happens to gay couples after death then I AM ALL EARS.  Cutting and pasting remarks from various statements by church leaders is also not going to work for me either.  If they have a clear and specific stand on this issue, then you should be able to find such a statement.  

But if you are going to continue this conversation with me, I want you to know that I do not appreciate you cutting a phrase here from this post and pasting a phrase from another post all completely out of context and totally ignoring everything else I have said.  Nor do I appreciate you telling me what I believe.  THAT is against board rules.  

 

 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Thinking just linked to the Oaks/Wickman interview.  I hope that will be enough to end the wordplay insanity from you and kllindley. 

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any reference to a doctrinal association for celibacy in here. I think you need to end the "wordplay insanity" and use words and sentences that actually describe the concepts the church teaches and integrates.

[kllindley]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

"We expect celibacy of any person that is not married." Dallin H. Oaks

 

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Thinking just linked to the Oaks/Wickman interview.  I hope that will be enough to end the wordplay insanity from you and kllindley. 

He did link the interview.  Did you read that interview, or the context of the quote?  It completely undermines your accusation that there is a different standard for "straight" and "gay" members.  Elder Oaks (responding to a question that referenced being celibate) explained that the Church teaches celibacy for any person who is not married.  1) That's not what you claimed.  You said that they teach chastity for "straight" members and celibacy for "gay" members.   So, unless you want to take Elder Oaks completely our of context and pretend he said something he didn't, this is not an example of having different standards for "straight" and "gay" individuals.  

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

He did link the interview.  Did you read that interview, or the context of the quote?  It completely undermines your accusation that there is a different standard for "straight" and "gay" members.  Elder Oaks (responding to a question that referenced being celibate) explained that the Church teaches celibacy for any person who is not married.  1) That's not what you claimed.  You said that they teach chastity for "straight" members and celibacy for "gay" members.   So, unless you want to take Elder Oaks completely our of context and pretend he said something he didn't, this is not an example of having different standards for "straight" and "gay" individuals.  

Amen. He says, "We expect celibacy of any person that is not married." He means we expect abstinence from sexual relations, not the abstinence from marriage. That makes no sense: "We expect abstinence from marriage of any person that is not married." Laughable!

[kllindley]

On 8/12/2018 at 12:33 AM, rockpond said:

Do you have reputable data to suggest that the odds are greater that a gay person will become bisexual/straight later in life rather than remaining predominantly gay?  Or is that just your opinion?

I agreed to answer this question, and intend to do so.  But first, I want to clarify what the claim is.  My claim was that a youth who identifies as LGB is more likely to change that identification as they move into adulthood.  Again, insisting on creating a mythical "gay person" is misguided and distorts the conversation.  If we define a "gay person" as someone who experiences exclusively homosexual attraction throughout their lives, then of course none of them will ever "become bisexual/straight."  By definition.  If on the other hand we define "gay person" as any person who at any point puts an "X" in the "gay" box when asked to identify as straight/gay/bisexual, then yes a lot of them will later select bisexual.  If we further expand the definition to any person who identifies as not exclusively heterosexual, the numbers start to change dramatically.

 

Dr. Robert Burriss explains the following study: Hu, Y., Xu, Y. & Tornello, S.L. Arch Sex Behav (2016) 45: 651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0541-1

Quote

Of the participants who reported a same-sex attraction at wave one, which took place in 1994 when the participants were in grades 7 to 12, only 10% still reported a same-sex attraction at wave 2 a couple of years later. Of those who were attracted to the same-sex in wave 2, only 12% reported the same attraction at wave 3 in 2001. But as the participants entered early adulthood, their attractions seemed to have become more stable: 73% of people who reported a same-sex attraction at wave 3 were still attracted to their own sex at wave 4.

And further:

Quote

Among LGB respondents, many changed in their reported attraction over the course of the study. In fact, it was more likely for those with a same- or both-sex attraction to vary in what they found attractive.

 

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081371/

Quote

Combining reports across the four waves, 10% of males and 20% of females at some point described themselves as mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, or completely homosexual, while 2% of both males and females reported ever being “unsure” of their orientation. 

From that 10% only .5% identified as LGB throughout all waves of the study. 

Quote

When consistently completely heterosexuals were excluded from the sample (Figs. 4, ,5), as expected, mobility scores increased substantially (ranging from approximately 0.5 to 0.8).

Meaning that changes in sexual orientation were reported at 50-80% of the transitions (data points from consecutive waves)

 

From: Lisa Diamond's 2016 Article:

Quote

Furthermore, the majority of the nonheterosexual respondents had undergone multiple changes in sexual identity: 82 % of the lesbian/bisexual women and 78 % of the gay/bisexual men reported having switched their sexual identity label at least once after having first adopted a nonheterosexual identity, and 45 % of women and 34 % of men reported two or more identity changes

 

Another article about the current research around sexual orientation:

Quote

In sum, the vast majority of adolescents, emerging adults, and adults who experience same-sex attractions, fantasy, and behavior also experience other-sex attractions, fantasy, and behavior.

 Another research study: Stability and change in sexual orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood found that:

Quote

Although some support for each hypothesis was found, initial sexual orientation identity interacted with gender to predict a more complex pattern. For the sample as a whole, heterosexuality was the most stable identity. For women, bisexuality and homosexuality were equally unstable and significantly less stable than heterosexuality, suggesting that sexual orientation identity fluidity is a pattern that applies more to sexual minority women than heterosexual women

 Despite previous conceptions of sexuality as non-fluid:  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15299716.2016.1259138?journalCode=wjbi20

Quote

Previous theories of sexual orientation development and sexual fluidity are limited because they describe these processes separately and represent the experiences of only some sexual orientation subgroups. This study qualitatively examined sexual orientation development and sexual fluidity among 18 young adults, ages 18 to 26 years. Participants reported sexual fluidity in attractions on an online survey and represented a range of gender identities and sexual minority subgroups.

 

This entire article is worth a read, but these quotes are especially notable:

Quote

Diamond says that when the early studies on sexual fluidity came out, many researchers still did not recognize bisexuality as a valid orientation. And that posed a special challenge for sexual fluidity. If researchers were not convinced of a person’s ability to be attracted to both sexes, it was that much harder for them to recognize a person’s temporally segregated attraction to both sexes. And so, says Diamond, sexual fluidity suffered a similar fate as bisexuality, and was dismissed as “inconvenient noise cluttering the real data on sexual orientation.”

Tate agrees that scientists were under the sway of an alternative interpretation of sexuality. “Sexual fluidity has probably always existed,” she says, but most scientists were committed to an incompatible narrative, in which sexuality is fixed at a young age. “Scientists tried to erase or deny everything that did not fit into that narrow story,” she says. “Even in 2016, only some of us in behavioral science are able to see through this pretense.”

Quote

Many researchers consider Diamond’s work to be definitive, providing the first systematic evidence of fluidity in a longitudinal study, and likely the first to use the term sexual fluidity.

Even today only a few people study sexual fluidity. But researchers believe it has the potential to improve lives, just like the recognition and acceptance of homosexuality did. In the words of Erin Davis, a sociologist at Cornell College, recognition of sexual fluidity can mean that “[people] do not have to discount past experiences or limit future options.”

 

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I am just trying to figure out Mormon belief here.  Yeah it should just be a joke, but some don't seem to be joking when they pronounce exactly where I am headed after I die unless I conform to Mormon belief.  And there are quite a few Mormons who support his belief.  

Fortunately, I don't think God cares what Mormons or any other religion believes.  He is my judge.  He looks upon my heart.  I trust in Him.  

I don’t know. I could say Telestial since some people would describe your romantic relationship as a whoredom but I was never too clear on what a whoredom actually is. Then again the Judge of my faith says that whores and traitors will enter the Kingdom of God before self-satisfied church goers so I am not sure of.

 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any reference to a doctrinal association for celibacy in here. I think you need to end the "wordplay insanity" and use words and sentences that actually describe the concepts the church teaches and integrates.

 

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

He did link the interview.  Did you read that interview, or the context of the quote?  It completely undermines your accusation that there is a different standard for "straight" and "gay" members.  Elder Oaks (responding to a question that referenced being celibate) explained that the Church teaches celibacy for any person who is not married.  1) That's not what you claimed.  You said that they teach chastity for "straight" members and celibacy for "gay" members.   So, unless you want to take Elder Oaks completely our of context and pretend he said something he didn't, this is not an example of having different standards for "straight" and "gay" individuals.  

 

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Amen. He says, "We expect celibacy of any person that is not married." He means we expect abstinence from sexual relations, not the abstinence from marriage. That makes no sense: "We expect abstinence from marriage of any person that is not married." Laughable!

Yep, Oaks says that expectation is celibacy before marriage.  But the church doesn’t accept gay marriage so if you aren’t able to enter into an opposite sex marriage you are just left with celibacy. 

But, the word celibacy is defined as abstinence from both sexual relations AND marriage.  So, to say that the church expects celibacy is not really an accurate use of the word.  But I think his message is clear. 

[california boy]

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

He did link the interview.  Did you read that interview, or the context of the quote?  It completely undermines your accusation that there is a different standard for "straight" and "gay" members.  Elder Oaks (responding to a question that referenced being celibate) explained that the Church teaches celibacy for any person who is not married.  1) That's not what you claimed.  You said that they teach chastity for "straight" members and celibacy for "gay" members.   So, unless you want to take Elder Oaks completely our of context and pretend he said something he didn't, this is not an example of having different standards for "straight" and "gay" individuals.  

So I am a bit confused about church direction here.  What I do know is that the ill advised promise to marry didn't work out so well.  Does the church want me to stay. celibate or keep trying to marry someone of the opposite sex?

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

There are numerous Christian churches that both approve of gay marriage and do not consider it a sin AT ALL.

And yet here you are, week after week, railing against members of one Christian church that doesn't approve and does consider it a sin. It's certainly an interesting phenomenon.

Quote

Nor do I appreciate you telling me what I believe. 

You mean something like taking the belief that all who are saved must fully repent of all their sins and twisting it into some kind of specific animus against 'gay couples'? Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either.

Joseph Fielding Smith made it clear that even 'those who enter the telestial kingdom ... are heirs of salvation, but before they are redeemed and enter into their kingdom, they must repent of their sins, and receive the gospel, and bow the knee, and acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world' (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:22).

An unwillingness to repent no matter what removes this option: 'The second death is spiritual; it is banishment from the presence of the Lord. It is similar to the first spiritual death, which has passed upon all men who have remained unrepentant' (ibid., 2:222-23).

Thankfully, I genuinely don't believe we'll see very many people make that choice in the end, no matter how wed to it they might claim to be now.

On this point, I share the prophet Alma's hope for every single one of us: 'And may the Lord grant unto you repentance, that ye may not bring down his wrath upon you, that ye may not be bound down by the chains of hell, that ye may not suffer the second death' (Alma 13:30).

Edited August 14, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yep, Oaks says that expectation is celibacy before marriage.  But the church doesn’t accept gay marriage so if you aren’t able to enter into an opposite sex marriage you are just left with celibacy.  

But, the word celibacy is defined as abstinence from both sexual relations AND marriage.  So, to say that the church expects celibacy is not really an accurate use of the word.  But I think his message is clear. 

No, you are “just” left with every other covenant you can enter, and you can continue to choose to be chaste (abstinence from pre- or extramarital sex is a self-enforced restraint). So, it’s not a matter of the Church not accepting gay marriage. It’s a matter of the Church properly administering the keys to perform the ordinances as they were instituted from the beginning, and whether one chooses to believe and abide accordingly.

I am glad you are at last agreeing that to say that the Church expects celibacy is not really an accurate use of the word and that we seem to agree that what Elder Oaks meant apples to all.