Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Identity = Child of God > Gay Man


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks my friend. I see a few statements in that passage. I don't see any commands.

I guess I'm thinking of this: “Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man” (D&C 49:15). 

Synonyms for "ordain" include "decree," "dictate," "impose," "institute," "order," "prescribe."  Synonyms for "ordained" include "commanded," "ordered," "established," and "appointed."  So could we say "Marriage is {ordered / decreed / imposed / instituted / prescribed / commanded / appointed} of God unto man"?

Also, Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and yet elsewhere fornication and adultery are prohibited.  This seems to constrain sex (a necessary component of multiplying and replenishing) to marriage.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It seems according to what I read, it is a requirement for eternal life in the highest of the three Celestial kingdoms. Is that correct?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If that is correct, I still don't understand it as a "command."

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  

For me, it looks like a commandment, though one an individual may not be able to obey in this life.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It is a requirement for highest exaltation, but can't a single person in the spirit world be sealed to his or her grandfather and still qualify?  Doesn't, in that case the grandson become part of an eternal family by sealing and thus qualify for a higher, or perhaps even highest degree of exaltation?

I don't think so.  See D&C 132.  Particularly verses 17-21.

As I understand it, marriage is a requirement, as much as baptism and the other saving ordinances.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in all of this because three weeks ago in Elders Quorum, based on the conference talk, they had a long discussion on single, divorced, and widowed persons in the church. The consensus seemed to be that all are eligible for exaltation to "eternal life."

Certainly.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps the unspoken understanding among the men was that exaltation did not include the highest of the three levels of the celestial kingdom?

I think it more likely that the unspoken understanding is that all of the saving ordinances not yet performed will be completed during the Millennium.  See, e.g., this quote from Brigham Young:

Quote

In the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God, and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. If we ask who will stand at the head of the resurrection in this last dispensation, the answer is - Joseph Smith, Junior, the Prophet of God. He is the man who will be resurrected and receive the keys of the resurrection, and he will seal this authority upon others, and they will hunt up their friends and resurrect them when they shall have been officiated for, and bring them up. And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then man will be sealed to man until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene. This will be the work of the Latter-day Saints in the Millennium. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.116)

And this one (same link) :

Quote

As I have frequently told you, that is the work of the Millennium. It is the work that has to be performed by the seed of Abraham, the chosen seed, the royal seed, the blessed of the Lord, those the Lord made covenants with. They will step forth, and save every son and daughter of Adam who will receive salvation here on the earth; and all the spirits in the spirit world will be preached to, conversed with, and the principles of salvation carried to them, that they may have the privilege of receiving the Gospel; and they will have plenty of children here on the earth to officiate for them in those ordinances of the Gospel that pertain to the flesh. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.403)

And this one (same link) :

Quote

We are trying to save the living and the dead. The living can have their choice, the dead have not. Millions of them died without the Gospel, without the Priesthood, and without the opportunities that we enjoy. We shall go forth in the name of Israel's God and attend to the ordinances for them. And through the Millennium, the thousand years that the people will love and serve God, we will build temples and officiate therein for those who have slept for hundreds and thousands of years -- those who would have received the truth if they had had the opportunity; and we will bring them up, and form the chain entire, back to Adam. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.404)

More quotes at the link.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Yes. Thank-you. I read that.

Everyone’s different, so long as they’re happy, and respecting others different expressions and solutions to similar contexts then great. 

Sounds good.

55 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

It’s just odd when people have a moral panic over what identifications I myself choose to place emphasis over.

It is more odd that you label simple discussion or disagreement as "a moral panic."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:
Quote

I think his reasoning and broad historical review are sound.

Why? Dies he have expertise on this or do you just like what he says.

I think his training as a historian is somewhat relevant.  And his points some across as both reasoned and reasonable.  As for the "why," I lay out my thoughts in the OP.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:
Quote

I'm not convinced that "changes over time" are inevitably better.  Some changes are good, some are not.

Some are good some are not.  Personally I think in the area that is the topic of this thread society is doing much better in spite of religions that oppose such things because they think God says so.

Broadly speaking, I think things pertaining to sexual ethics are getting worse.  There are some areas of improvement, to be sure.  I am very glad that most societies have abandoned notions denying spousal/marital rape.  I am glad we have improved communications and understanding about other forms of sexual assault.  However, I think we have become a heavily sexualized society.  I think we have substantially eroded the sorts of sexual ethics and constraints that I believe were put in place by God.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:
Quote
Quote

And your conclusion and approach is severely tainted by your religious beliefs and bias.  Others are going to take that into account as far as how credible you may be on the topic

Ad hominem doesn't really do much.

It was not ad hominem.

Sure seems like it.  "Spencer has an opinion.  Spencer is religious.  Ergo, Spencer's opinion is severely tainted."

Oh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Marriage, like baptism, is a salvific ordinance.  It is, nevertheless, unique among these ordinances in that it is the only one that requires the ongoing consent of and participation by another person.

For Latter-day Saints it is. Not so for  other Christians.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Teancum said:

For Latter-day Saints it is. Not so for  other Christians.

It is as a matter of truth and LDS acknowledge that it is, regardless of whether or not other people agree with us or acknowledge that truth.  Your opinion is that of one who does not believe it is what it is.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Peacefully said:

When I was younger I was attracted to  both men and women, but when I thought about spending my life with someone, I could only picture myself with a man, and sexual activity was only a small part of that thought process. If someone forced me to marry a woman, it wouldn’t feel natural to me. I don’t think our gay brothers and sisters can just decide to marry the opposite sex because it wouldn’t feel natural to them. Yes, some can make the transition, but that doesn’t mean it works for all. Saying that the only other option is celibacy isn’t very helpful because the church doesn’t only say no sex, we say no kissing, holding hands or anything else that may give rise to homosexual feelings. So basically no intimacy with a partner of the same sex. The people who I hear advising this are usually married heterosexuals. 

Please don’t parse my words. I’m not here to argue or to convince anyone. Let’s all just have some compassion and assume our gay brothers and sisters on the board are capable of making the right decisions for them and their families. It is between them and God. 
 

 

 

It is interesting how mixed my feelings were when I had sex with my wife. The Church was telling me it was moral to have sex with my wife.   But my body was telling me it was wrong, even immoral.  It felt like I was just using her while thinking about men.  That still seems immoral to me.  I think it is another reason why these mixed marriages fail so often.  

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure seems like it.  "Spencer has an opinion.  Spencer is religious.  Ergo, Spencer's opinion is tainted."

I di not say tainted.  But is strongly influenced.  As is mine by rejecting that the LDS leaders are getting God's message on this issue.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I di not say tainted. 

You're right.  You said severely tainted ("And your conclusion and approach is severely tainted by your religious beliefs and bias").

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But is strongly influenced.  As is mine by rejecting that the LDS leaders are getting God's message on this issue.

We all have opinions that are informed by information we have, by our reasoning and intellect, by our presuppositions borne of experience and generalized worldview, and so on.

Disparaging and discounting my perspective as "severely tainted" and/or "strongly influenced" by my religious belief sure comes across as ad hominem.  And special pleading too, since you fault my perspective due to my biases while privileging your perspective despite your biases.  

Also, my perspective is not based solely on "LDS leaders {} getting God's message on this issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You're right.  You said severely tainted ("And your conclusion and approach is severely tainted by your religious beliefs and bias").

Sorry I stand corrected. I did say that.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We all have opinions that are informed by information we have, by our reasoning and intellect, by our presuppositions borne of experience and generalized worldview, and so on.

Agree.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Disparaging and discounting my perspective because it is "severely tainted" and/or "strongly influenced" by my religious belief sure comes across as ad hominem.  And special pleading do, since you fault my perspective due to my biases while privileging your perspective despite your biases.  

Ok. I did say my view is influenced by my bias as well but I don't pretend I know what God thinks about it.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, my perspective is not based solely on "LDS leaders {} getting God's message on this issue."

I am not sure I said solely.  But it is influenced and it seem to me based on what you post it is heavily influenced by it.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Teancum said:
Quote

Disparaging and discounting my perspective because it is "severely tainted" and/or "strongly influenced" by my religious belief sure comes across as ad hominem.  And special pleading do, since you fault my perspective due to my biases while privileging your perspective despite your biases.  

Ok. I did say my view is influenced by my bias as well but I don't pretend I know what God thinks about it.

But you do pretend that your position is informed by . . . what?  What authority lends probative weight and credence to your opinion?

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:
Quote

Also, my perspective is not based solely on "LDS leaders {} getting God's message on this issue."

I am not sure I said solely.  But it is influenced and it seem to me based on what you post it is heavily influenced by it.

You juxtaposed my position with yours, saying that your position is influenced "by rejecting that the LDS leaders are getting God's message on this issue."  I was clarifying the basis for my perspective, which is more than "LDS leaders {} getting God's message on this issue."  That's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

It is interesting how mixed my feelings were when I had sex with my wife. The Church was telling me it was moral to have sex with my wife.   But my body was telling me it was wrong, even immoral.  It felt like I was just using her while thinking about men.  That still seems immoral to me.  I think it is another reason why these mixed marriages fail so often.  

And not fair to the woman you married unless she knew exactly what She was signing up for. 
I just can’t imagine telling you or anyone else that your alternative is to be alone. Sure you can have friends, but no dating, no touching, except a platonic handshake or hug now and again. No special person to share your hopes and dreams. No children. Of course some heterosexuals don’t get those things in this life either, but at least we have the church’s blessing to pursue them. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm a lawyer, so "parsing" out other people's arguments and ideas is a daily habit.

My particular style of parsing is called fisking: "A rebuttal to an article or blog made by quoting its content in sections and refuting each section individually."

There are pros and cons to it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

That is your style and what you are comfortable with, but I’m not sure every post lends itself to being refuted point by point. But I have learned a new word - fisking. I respect your expertise on legal matters, even if we don’t see eye to eye on this topic. 

Edit: Looked up “fisking”

fisking is characteristically an incisive and fierce point-by-point rebuttal, and the aim is generally to weaken the target's credibility rather than seek common ground.

the act of making an argument seemwrong or stupid by showing the mistakes in each of its points, or an instance of doing this:

 

Is this the goal of your “fisking”? I think maybe sometimes, but not always?

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, one reason is because this board has a variety of viewpoints.  I like presenting ideas and arguments here, as I know they will be tested through a variety of analytical lenses.

Sarcasm in lieu of substance.

Not sure why you are saying that.  I am not advocating for mixed orientation marriages.  I am not advocating against them, either.  I am mostly collating data.

"Homosexuality" as a fixed "identity" appears to be a modern concept, yes.  The word wasn't even coined until the late 19th century.  But certainly the behavior has been around for time out of mind, as is the "experience {of} various kinds of attractions to both males and females."  

I am curious about how widespread it was in the Church to tell gay men to marry.  I have not been able to find information about that.

As for whether mixed-orientation marriages can actually work, consider this article (from August 2020) (emphasis added) :

I'd like to see the polling data and methodology.

I think this comment by Ty Mansfield merits some consideration:

And this one from Jeff Bennion (also gay and in a mixed-orientation marriage) (same link) :

And this one from Elder Ballard (same link) :

The article also includes comments from Josh Weed that also deserve some consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

We have seen these poster marriages before haven’t we. 
 

From the NBCNews

David Matheson, a once prominent Mormon “conversion therapist” who claims to have helped some gay men remain in heterosexual marriages, is looking for a boyfriend.

Matheson, who was married to a woman for 34 years and is now divorced, also confirmed in an interview with NBC News that he is now dating men.

This guy wrote the Evergreen manual fir the Church   Evergreen, for those that don’t know was the Churches attempt to change gay behavior. It is no longer used. Because he was so trusted and a “Success story” my family wanted me to meet with the guy   I would fly down to LA twice a month to meet with David for 3 hours. The vast majority of his practice preyed on Mormons trying to become straight.  He sat right across from me and looked me in the eye and said that he is no longer gay   He was happy being married to a woman and had no gay feelings. And I could become straight just like him   He was married for 24 years before acknowledging that he was still gay, got divorced and is now dating 

My point is, quoting gay guys in mixed marriages is not really a credible source to base your ideas on   It only tells you what they are willing to say publicly at that moment    Statistic say something else

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, california boy said:

My point is, quoting gay guys in mixed marriages is not really a credible source to base your ideas on   It only tells you what they are willing to say publicly at that moment    Statistic say something else

Okay.  What statistics do you have in mind?  CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

That is your style and what you are comfortable with, but I’m not sure every post lends itself to being refuted point by point. But I have learned a new word - fisking. I respect your expertise on legal matters, even if we don’t see eye to eye on this topic. 

Edit: Looked up “fisking”

fisking is characteristically an incisive and fierce point-by-point rebuttal, and the aim is generally to weaken the target's credibility rather than seek common ground.

the act of making an argument seemwrong or stupid by showing the mistakes in each of its points, or an instance of doing this:

 

Is this the goal of your “fisking”? I think maybe sometimes, but not always?

I "fisk" comments I agree and don't agree with.  And I try to remain civil and respectful in the process.  So sometimes I am attempting to disprove or rebut an argument, and sometimes I am not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Back to the topic now.  Can we all now admit that we have gay or bisexual tendencies, or have had, or may have in the future.  That would be swell.  I would like to think we are all mature enough to admit that as at least a possibility.  Thank you.

Nope sorry.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that I myself had no sexual attraction to women in the past nor do as of now.

I’m grateful for those that do, otherwise I wouldn’t exist, but yeah, hard nope.

Edited by Canadiandude
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Back to the topic now.  Can we all now admit that we have gay or bisexual tendencies, or have had, or may have in the future.  That would be swell.  I would like to think we are all mature enough to admit that as at least a possibility.  Thank you.

If there is a "spectrum" or "continuum," then it would follow that at one end there are the "strictly attracted to members of the opposite sex" folks (statistically, most people fall here).  At the other and there are "strictly attracted to members of the same sex," and in between there are varied shades.  

And it appears that some may experience "fluidity," wherein their position on this spectrum/continuum can shift.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Back to the topic now.  Can we all now admit that we have gay or bisexual tendencies, or have had, or may have in the future.  That would be swell.  I would like to think we are all mature enough to admit that as at least a possibility.  Thank you.

Nope. I’m all the way on the heterosexual female end of the spectrum. I certainly find other women attractive in a friend or kindred spirit way but not sexually. Not yesterday, today or tomorrow. This is one reason I am so sympathetic with gay people who try to embrace traditional religions. I cannot imagine being told I have to either marry another woman or stay celibate. 🤷‍♀️

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Nope. I’m all the way on the heterosexual female end of the spectrum. I certainly find other women attractive in a friend or kindred spirit way but not sexually. Not yesterday, today or tomorrow. This is one reason I am so sympathetic with gay people who try to embrace traditional religions. I cannot imagine being told I have to either marry another woman or stay celibate. 🤷‍♀️

What she said.  

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Nope. I’m all the way on the heterosexual female end of the spectrum. I certainly find other women attractive in a friend or kindred spirit way but not sexually. Not yesterday, today or tomorrow. This is one reason I am so sympathetic with gay people who try to embrace traditional religions. I cannot imagine being told I have to either marry another woman or stay celibate. 🤷‍♀️

I think it would help if the message of discipleship was extended and received (or remembered) as intended (“he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness”) rather than being told what and what not to do. I think the spiritual promptings that guide people into the message of the restored gospel start out this way. But of course we all chafe on one point or another along the path of discipleship.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting how mixed my feelings were when I had sex with my wife. The Church was telling me it was moral to have sex with my wife.   But my body was telling me it was wrong, even immoral.  It felt like I was just using her while thinking about men.  That still seems immoral to me.  I think it is another reason why these mixed marriages fail so often.  

Your body told you it was wrong?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

But you do pretend that your position is informed by . . . what?  What authority lends probative weight and credence to your opinion?

 

What are my sources for concluding what I conclude?  Is tat what you mean?  What do you think I am "pretending" about? Sorry but I am not sure I follow.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

You juxtaposed my position with yours, saying that your position is influenced "by rejecting that the LDS leaders are getting God's message on this issue."  I was clarifying the basis for my perspective, which is more than "LDS leaders {} getting God's message on this issue."  That's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

My point is we all have bias.  For example, as a believing Latter-day Saint I was at one point extremely opposed to homosexual marriage. As my faith transitioned and I explored the issue more my stance had turned 180 degrees.  My religion severely influenced my position. Once I got passed the God says so on the topic I started looking at the ethical issues and the human rights issues and changed my thoughts on the topic.  But I still have bias. As do you.  And if your experience as a believing Latter-day Saint is similar to mine the Church is a strong influence on your ideas about this topic.  And of course there are other influences for you as well.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Nope. I’m all the way on the heterosexual female end of the spectrum. I certainly find other women attractive in a friend or kindred spirit way but not sexually. Not yesterday, today or tomorrow. This is one reason I am so sympathetic with gay people who try to embrace traditional religions. I cannot imagine being told I have to either marry another woman or stay celibate. 🤷‍♀️

 

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

What she said.  

What they said. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Peacefully said:

And not fair to the woman you married unless she knew exactly what She was signing up for. 
I just can’t imagine telling you or anyone else that your alternative is to be alone. Sure you can have friends, but no dating, no touching, except a platonic handshake or hug now and again. No special person to share your hopes and dreams. No children. Of course some heterosexuals don’t get those things in this life either, but at least we have the church’s blessing to pursue them. 

Of course it wasn’t fair to either one of us. Church leaders should have never promised that marriage would somehow change my orientation.  It was a false promise taking advantage of someone who trusted in their claims to know the will of God.

I learned to never trust anyone who claims to know what God thinks.  It is up to each and every one of us to have our own relationship with God.  He will guide us.

 This is an issue that many have had confirmed a different answer from the ones put out by church leaders 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...