your thoughts on this video?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by butterfly »

Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm
butterfly wrote: June 21st, 2017, 7:11 pmThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that “the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. (M. Russell Ballard, 2014).
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2015/09/the ... g=eng&_r=1

What does it mean if you cannot consciously choose something? Is it still a sin? We know that in order to sin, you must choose it of your own free will, otherwise it is at most a transgression. Elder Ballard thinks a person cannot choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. Do you remember the moment you chose to be heterosexual or was it just the way you always were?
When does your heterosexuality become a sin? It becomes a sin when you act upon it outside the bonds of marriage.
The church obviously believes strongly that homosexual influence plays a huge part in whither or not a person decides to have homosexual feelings. Parents teaching that it is acceptable is one of the main reasons it is so prevalent in society now. With the November 2015 policy, the church has made their position very clear that a parents lifestyle can affect their child's choices in life. It was VERY clear from the video of the 12 year old girl that there was definitely parental influence.

If homosexual attraction is not a sin, then why should lust for hetrosexuals be a sin? Isn't lust for hetrosexuals just attraction without acting on it?! Jesus said that physical sexual relations aren't the only definition for sin and that lust is almost the same. Shouldn't this also apply to a woman lusting after another woman?
...desiring things contrary to God’s will or desiring to possess things in a manner that is contrary to His will is lust, and it leads to unhappiness.
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/10/love ... t?lang=eng
The Savior cautioned, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
According to the Family Proclamation, if God's will is that only men and women marry, so they can raise a family and fulfil the Plan of Salvation, therefore is not every other option contrary to His will? Obviously, temple marriages and sealings are for male and female only and all other marriage combinations are forbidden and against His will and plan.

God knows there is no progression for homosexuals unless they choose to progress and change to follow His commandments, one of which is to multiply and replenish the Earth. Homosexuality is therefore agaist His will since natural procreation isn't possible.

I personally believe that the "Morning and Gay" website is poorly done and that most of the information on it is posted because of the social pressures of the political left and to appease them to stop attacking the church. If that's what members of the church truly believe, how is there ever hope for change for homosexuals to follow God's plan?

It's unfortunate that the church is slowly caving to social and political power rather than standing up for what we've always said. That's why people think the chruch will reverse it's stance on gays just like it did on blacks as discussed earlier in the forum thread. They believe if enough pressure is applied, the church will change. Unfortunately, it seems to be working to some degree. It seems like the church's stance on homosexuality might be the major fracturing point for the members to choose who they will serve in the last days. I agree with many others here in the thread and I don't see the church ever changing the stance that homosexual marriage and sexual relations are a sin and that will cause many more to leave the church and many more not to join.

What I like about this video the most is that it shows the world that we will not tolerate that kind of behaviour in sacrament meeting. If standing up for what we believe is unpopular with the world, that means we are setting an example of righteous living.
Just to be clear, are you saying you disagree with elder Ballard when he says "individuals do not choose to have such (homosexual) attractions"?
It's a very scary thing for many people if he's right. That would mean that no matter how righteous you are, how good of a parent you are, your child could be homosexual.
It also means that it's not something you could help them "repent" from. If they didn't choose homosexuality to begin with, then there was no sin. One must willfully choose to rebel against God in order for it to be sin. Elder Ballard says you can't choose homosexuality so therefore it cannot be a sin according to him.

I understand lust differently than you describe. I am very attracted to my husband but I have never lusted after him. Attraction is normal and good and actually based on several aspects of a person, not just sexuality.
Lust, however, is trying to satisfy your own selfish and carnal desires without regard to the other person.
A homosexual (or heterosexual) can be attracted to someone without ever lusting.

You state that homosexuality is against God's will because it doesn't allow for procreation. What about heterosexual couples who struggle with infertility- can we conclude that their marriage is against God's will because they can't have children?
If, whatever is causing a husband and wife to not bear children, can be healed in the next life, then can whatever is causing homosexuality also be healed in the next life?

If we want hope for homosexuals to follow God's plan, then we first must understand what makes them homosexual. Telling a blind man to repent in order to gain his sight shows that the doctor doesn't understand what causes blindness. According to elder Ballard, telling a homosexual to repent shows you don't know what causes homosexuality.


I agree there are a lot of similarities between the church's stance on gays and blacks & the priesthood. Blacks were believed to have sinned, that's why they were black. They could not enjoy the same privileges as whites because God was obviously punishing them for their sins. Today homosexuals are that way because of "sin". They cannot enjoy the same privileges as heterosexuals because God wants to punish them.

Honestly, the reason why the church is being so swayed by liberal parties on this issue, IMO, is because the church doesn't know what God's will actually is on this subject. There are a few random verses from the bible that some construe to be saying that homosexuality is an abomination. Besides that, there's no revelation on it. There have been several policy changes and updates, but that doesn't sound like the revealed word of God.

The only way to know is to ask God yourself, which is what those who have homosexual loved ones tend to do. And, not surprisingly, they're the ones who come back from the work of seeking and knocking and are filled with love and understanding for homosexuals instead of fear and condemnation.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Robin Hood »

I do not subscribe to the idea that homosexuals are born "that way". This is nonsense, as statistical studies of identical twins has clearly demonstrated.
Choice is certainly involved.
I'm not claiming that most homosexuals decide to become so as a one time decision, but I am saying that a series of choices, many of which on their own seem unimportant, have the cumulative effect of orientating someone in that way.

Gage
captain of 100
Posts: 702

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Gage »

Robin Hood wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 6:05 am I do not subscribe to the idea that homosexuals are born "that way". This is nonsense, as statistical studies of identical twins has clearly demonstrated.
Choice is certainly involved.
I'm not claiming that most homosexuals decide to become so as a one time decision, but I am saying that a series of choices, many of which on their own seem unimportant, have the cumulative effect of orientating someone in that way.

I agree. We are not seeing a rise in homosexuality today because more people are being born that way. We are seeing a rise in it because it is more accepted, it seems it is almost encouraged. A man can legally marry another man. Children are taught from birth that it is normal and ok. Religion teaches it is wrong, not as many religious folks today. For these reasons, more and more are "giving into" and "acting on" any homosexual feelings or thoughts, curiosity, etc. Just my 2 cent, I could be wrong, guess we find out one day.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sunain »

butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 1:28 amJust to be clear, are you saying you disagree with elder Ballard when he says "individuals do not choose to have such (homosexual) attractions"?
It's a very scary thing for many people if he's right. That would mean that no matter how righteous you are, how good of a parent you are, your child could be homosexual.
It also means that it's not something you could help them "repent" from. If they didn't choose homosexuality to begin with, then there was no sin. One must willfully choose to rebel against God in order for it to be sin. Elder Ballard says you can't choose homosexuality so therefore it cannot be a sin according to him.

I understand lust differently than you describe. I am very attracted to my husband but I have never lusted after him. Attraction is normal and good and actually based on several aspects of a person, not just sexuality.
Lust, however, is trying to satisfy your own selfish and carnal desires without regard to the other person.
A homosexual (or heterosexual) can be attracted to someone without ever lusting.

You state that homosexuality is against God's will because it doesn't allow for procreation. What about heterosexual couples who struggle with infertility- can we conclude that their marriage is against God's will because they can't have children?
If, whatever is causing a husband and wife to not bear children, can be healed in the next life, then can whatever is causing homosexuality also be healed in the next life?

If we want hope for homosexuals to follow God's plan, then we first must understand what makes them homosexual. Telling a blind man to repent in order to gain his sight shows that the doctor doesn't understand what causes blindness. According to elder Ballard, telling a homosexual to repent shows you don't know what causes homosexuality.

The only way to know is to ask God yourself, which is what those who have homosexual loved ones tend to do. And, not surprisingly, they're the ones who come back from the work of seeking and knocking and are filled with love and understanding for homosexuals instead of fear and condemnation.
The church is very clear, homosexual acts are a sin. I do disagree with Elder Ballard's opinion, but there is as you have said little or no proof either way to say when people become homosexual's. People argue they are born that way but I believe, like many others, that at some point in their life they had to make conscious decision to be that way and that the current social climate of acceptance is fueling more to come out because their fear of prosecution is gone. Why has it only been morally acceptable for the last couple decades?! Because we are in the last days and Satan is using every trick in his playbook to destroy the family.

I think though that this video gives a bit more insight. If the parents taught her that acting that way was morally and socially unacceptable, would she still think she's homosexual?

Married couples that can not have children of their own in mortality can adopt. I think this is part of God's plan to get children that wouldn't have otherwise had a loving home. They will be healed and Elder Hafen has said that healing is also possible for homosexuals in the next life also. Blindness is a physical problem like not being able to have children. Many people are born with untreatable physical conditions. I believe though that Homosexuality is a mental/psychological disorder and for those that truly choose to change, just like with a golden investigator trying to change bad habits, it is possible to be helped.

My opinion on the homosexual issue almost completely aligns with what Elder Bruce C. Hafen has said. I believe it is a psychological disorder. Social acceptance does not make it morally right.
Homosexuality 'not in your DNA,' says LDS leader

By Rosemary Winters

The Salt Lake Tribune
Published September 19, 2009 5:36 pm

People who are attracted to members of their own sex can change, an LDS general authority said Saturday, so they shouldn't let Satan persuade them they can't.

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, spoke at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International, a nonprofit group that helps Mormons "overcome homosexual behavior" and "diminish same-sex attraction." The event was held at the LDS Church's Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City.

Hafen promised attendees, "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

Whenever the devil -- whom Hafen referred to as "the adversary" -- tries to "convince you that you are hopelessly 'that way,' so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying," Hafen said. "He is the father of lies."

Last month, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution advising mental health professionals against telling their clients they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

No solid evidence exists that such efforts work, the APA concluded, and some studies suggest the potential for harm, including depression and suicidal tendencies. A task force reviewed 83 studies on sexual-orientation change conducted since 1960.

The "long-standing consensus" of the behavioral and social sciences, the APA noted, is that homosexuality is a "normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation."

Will Carlson of Equality Utah, which advocates on behalf of gay and transgender Utahns, when contacted by The Tribune, said, "These young men and women at Evergreen are experiencing normal attractions right now ... It's irresponsible for [Hafen] to suggest that if someone just wants to bad enough, they can be straight."

Hafen spent a large portion of his talk, held during a Sunday-like service, criticizing the gay-rights movement and denying a biological link to sexual orientation. Same-sex attraction is "not in your DNA," he said.

He attacked the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, deeming it politically motivated.

"In the early 1970s, the public and most lawyers, doctors and therapists saw homosexuality not as normal adult behavior but as a psychological disorder," he said. "We have witnessed primarily an aggressive political movement more than we've witnessed substantive change in the medical or legal evidence."

Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Utah, in an interview with The Tribune , called Hafen's assertion "hilarious" and "absolutely untrue."

Homosexuality had been listed as a disorder, Diamond said, without any real scientific data. The APA reversed course after a pioneering psychologist, Evelyn Hooker, produced research to show there was no difference between the mental health of straight and gay individuals, she said.

"That moment really did represent, in fact, the triumph of science over prejudice," Diamond said.

There is "strong evidence" that there are "biological contributions" to sexual orientation, Diamond noted, but it's a complex process. She called arguments about the lack of a so-called "gay gene," a "smoke screen" for those who promote sexual-orientation change.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref ... i_13377659
Last edited by Sunain on June 22nd, 2017, 7:56 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by David13 »

butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 1:28 am

...



The only way to know is to ask God yourself, which is what those who have homosexual loved ones tend to do. And, not surprisingly, they're the ones who come back from the work of seeking and knocking and are filled with love and understanding for homosexuals instead of fear and condemnation.

Or maybe they just pop into "political correctness" on their own, since "everybody" else does nowadays. And maybe because someone in the family ...

It's funny the same people who say homos are "born that way" turn around and say (now, since it's become the latest fad) that a man can become a woman and a woman can become a man.

You know, there is an understanding, obtained from seeking and knocking, that isn't "fear and condemnation" but an understanding of God's plan.

And it isn't being an apologist for sin.

I didn't watch the video. From the comments its far too sickening for me to watch. But tell me this, how does a 12 year old know anything about what they will become?

I know there are many 12 year olds who say they are (or will become) an attorney or a doctor, and after that freshman year of college, after grades come out, turn around and decide they will "be" something else.
dc

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by David13 »

David13 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 7:51 am
butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 1:28 am

...



The only way to know is to ask God yourself, which is what those who have homosexual loved ones tend to do. And, not surprisingly, they're the ones who come back from the work of seeking and knocking and are filled with love and understanding for homosexuals instead of fear and condemnation.

Or is it like I posted elsewhere, that their morality is only for other people, other familys, and that when their family does it, well, it's not really sin, it's just love, and it really isn't that bad, and well, everybody's doing it, and yes, we are all modern now. And it's not their fault, etc.


dc

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by passionflower »

None of us are objective or even rational when it comes to our own children, or grandchildren even. Ask any elementary school teacher. I am like this, too, but the difference here is that I admit it.

Compared to other kids, we always believe our own are extra talented, extra beautiful, seldom in the wrong, always should get the best from everyone in all situations, and are extra deserving of love, praise and sympathy,. etc. And almost no matter what, we are overprotective and always on their side in an "us vs them" way. In our eyes our kids simply aren't just ordinary everyday garden variety people, they are superstars.

That might explain it, David.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Serragon »

Robin Hood wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 6:05 am I do not subscribe to the idea that homosexuals are born "that way". This is nonsense, as statistical studies of identical twins has clearly demonstrated.
Choice is certainly involved.
I'm not claiming that most homosexuals decide to become so as a one time decision, but I am saying that a series of choices, many of which on their own seem unimportant, have the cumulative effect of orientating someone in that way.
A huge number of young boys who are molested become homosexuals as well. It is clear that for the most part this is learned behavior. They are taught to be aroused by something. Nearly all of the homosexuals I have had friendships with have admitted that the initial idea was implanted by someone; most often it is some sort of shepherding/mentoring but it can also be as simple as something from a book or movie.

This idea is then nurtured until it becomes the dominate or preferred form of sexual desire. it is really just a sexual fetish out of control. The idea that it represents your identity and that you are some new type of human being is what is so damaging.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Robin Hood »

Serragon wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:33 am
Robin Hood wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 6:05 am I do not subscribe to the idea that homosexuals are born "that way". This is nonsense, as statistical studies of identical twins has clearly demonstrated.
Choice is certainly involved.
I'm not claiming that most homosexuals decide to become so as a one time decision, but I am saying that a series of choices, many of which on their own seem unimportant, have the cumulative effect of orientating someone in that way.
A huge number of young boys who are molested become homosexuals as well. It is clear that for the most part this is learned behavior. They are taught to be aroused by something. Nearly all of the homosexuals I have had friendships with have admitted that the initial idea was implanted by someone; most often it is some sort of shepherding/mentoring but it can also be as simple as something from a book or movie.

This idea is then nurtured until it becomes the dominate or preferred form of sexual desire. it is really just a sexual fetish out of control. The idea that it represents your identity and that you are some new type of human being is what is so damaging.
You are absolutely correct.
I have counseled with SSA men through my current church calling. I spoke with one not so long ago who was gracious enough to admit he wasn't born that way. He said he doesn't know how he came to be homosexual, and can't remember any specific incident or incidents etc., but believes it might have been something as simple as really admiring a male role model when very young.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1794
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by kittycat51 »

I also know that teenagers going through puberty because of raging hormones can be turned on by anything...watching a movie with an actor or actress that is really good looking or beautiful can stir emotions. This in turn is misinterpreted that "oh I must be gay/lesbian to feel this way."
Ever watch Seinfeld where George is turned on by a massage by a male massage therapist? Same theory.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Michelle »

Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.

Gage
captain of 100
Posts: 702

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Gage »

Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 12:02 pm Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.
its the same as the dumb argument about homosexuals and transgenders civil rights. We all know its not a civil issue.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by braingrunt »

I've said before, I think I chose my orientation. But it's complicated. So calling it "a choice" is problematic, while calling it "choices" is better.

People sometimes feel helpless when they are not. Some people believe that you cannot control dreams for instance, and I concede not perfectly. But I have not taught my kids to think that way, and they rarely have nightmares, and instead express excitement about what they are going to put on the "dream channel".
When it comes to mind and spirit I am cautious in telling my kids what they can't do because you know, faith is power; or at least disbelief is damning because it stops you.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Serragon »

All emotions can be cultivated and nurtured or starved to almost nothingness. This is true of love, anger, hate, and attraction. Once you understand this principle your perception of the world changes.

My wife and I have a great relationship because we have both chosen to love each other. We are not "in" love with each other as that signifies some outside influence that we have no control over.

If you are a person who is attracted to people of the same sex and you have let that become a defining characteristic, then you have gotten there by nurturing and choice.

User avatar
RocknRoll
captain of 100
Posts: 532

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by RocknRoll »

Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm The church obviously believes strongly that homosexual influence plays a huge part in whither or not a person decides to have homosexual feelings.
Where do you get this? I haven't seen any example of where "the church obviously believes" this. Can you cite an example?
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm Isn't lust for hetrosexuals just attraction without acting on it?!
No. Attraction and Lust are not the same thing.
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm According to the Family Proclamation, if God's will is that only men and women marry, so they can raise a family and fulfil the Plan of Salvation,
Can you cite exactly where in the Proclamation it says "God's will is that only men and women marry". Pay specific attention to your words "only" and "marry".

Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm therefore is not every other option contrary to His will? Obviously, temple marriages and sealings are for male and female only and all other marriage combinations are forbidden and against His will and plan.
ALL other marriage combinations? What about 'male and female and female and female'?

User avatar
RocknRoll
captain of 100
Posts: 532

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by RocknRoll »

Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm God knows there is no progression for homosexuals unless they choose to progress and change to follow His commandments, one of which is to multiply and replenish the Earth. Homosexuality is therefore agaist His will since natural procreation isn't possible.
Following this logic, then marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, would be "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible".
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm I personally believe that the "Morning and Gay" website is poorly done and that most of the information on it is posted because of the social pressures of the political left and to appease them to stop attacking the church.
If it's the "Mormonandgay" website you are referring to...that was put together with approval by the First Presidency.
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm It's unfortunate that the church is slowly caving to social and political power rather than standing up for what we've always said. That's why people think the chruch will reverse it's stance on gays just like it did on blacks as discussed earlier in the forum thread. They believe if enough pressure is applied, the church will change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you do not approve of the revelation, given by God to Spencer W. Kimball, regarding blacks and the priesthood. Am I reading this right?

PS. And just to state my opionion about the video...I don't believe it was appropriate to stand and read her "testimony". Testimony meeting is for testifying of Christ and the truthfulness of His gospel. It didn't sound like a testimony to me.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sunain »

RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:25 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm According to the Family Proclamation, if God's will is that only men and women marry, so they can raise a family and fulfil the Plan of Salvation,
Can you cite exactly where in the Proclamation it says "God's will is that only men and women marry". Pay specific attention to your words "only" and "marry".
"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."
Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-procl ... g&old=true
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:25 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm therefore is not every other option contrary to His will? Obviously, temple marriages and sealings are for male and female only and all other marriage combinations are forbidden and against His will and plan.
ALL other marriage combinations? What about 'male and female and female and female'?
Nope. Today, even when a man is sealed to a second wife after the first dies, his two wives are not sealed to each other.
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm It's unfortunate that the church is slowly caving to social and political power rather than standing up for what we've always said. That's why people think the chruch will reverse it's stance on gays just like it did on blacks as discussed earlier in the forum thread. They believe if enough pressure is applied, the church will change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you do not approve of the revelation, given by God to Spencer W. Kimball, regarding blacks and the priesthood. Am I reading this right?
No. Continuing revelation is part of the church. I never said that I did not approve of that revelation. I am saying there will be no such revelation for homosexuals like many are hoping for. That's what others were also saying in the thread. Hence, that also leads into what I was saying that there is no progression for homosexuals except through change to hetersexuality by choice or as I quoted above, through the healing power of the resurrection.
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm God knows there is no progression for homosexuals unless they choose to progress and change to follow His commandments, one of which is to multiply and replenish the Earth. Homosexuality is therefore agaist His will since natural procreation isn't possible.
Following this logic, then marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, would be "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible".
See the above post about adoption and physical healing after Resurrection. It will never be naturally possible for homosexuals to bear children.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45750&p=789922#p789780
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
PS. And just to state my opionion about the video...I don't believe it was appropriate to stand and read her "testimony". Testimony meeting is for testifying of Christ and the truthfulness of His gospel. It didn't sound like a testimony to me.
Agreed. This whole video incident may cause the First Presidency and the 12 to ponder and pray about the current role of testimony meeting.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Michelle »

RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm God knows there is no progression for homosexuals unless they choose to progress and change to follow His commandments, one of which is to multiply and replenish the Earth. Homosexuality is therefore agaist His will since natural procreation isn't possible.
Following this logic, then marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, would be "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible".
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm I personally believe that the "Morning and Gay" website is poorly done and that most of the information on it is posted because of the social pressures of the political left and to appease them to stop attacking the church.
If it's the "Mormonandgay" website you are referring to...that was put together with approval by the First Presidency.
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm It's unfortunate that the church is slowly caving to social and political power rather than standing up for what we've always said. That's why people think the chruch will reverse it's stance on gays just like it did on blacks as discussed earlier in the forum thread. They believe if enough pressure is applied, the church will change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you do not approve of the revelation, given by God to Spencer W. Kimball, regarding blacks and the priesthood. Am I reading this right?

PS. And just to state my opionion about the video...I don't believe it was appropriate to stand and read her "testimony". Testimony meeting is for testifying of Christ and the truthfulness of His gospel. It didn't sound like a testimony to me.
RocknRoll,

You are either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant. There is nothing logical about a righteous infertile couples marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, being "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible". 1. There is no willful disobedience. 2. The situation is temporary.

We can argue all day about whether someone with homosexual tendencies is being willfully disobedient or not. In reality, if they do not choose or become "healed" from those tendencies in the resurrection and choose a companion of the opposite gender, they cannot obtain Godhood. They cannot procreate.

The arguments and references have already been provided.

Suffice it to say: the defining characteristic of the LDS faith that has brought the greatest amount of persecution is the doctrine that we may one day become Gods. Godhood being defined be eternal increase.

All who are otherwise righteous, but do not merit eternal increase aka "natural procreation" in the eternities can only attain angelhood,being subject to the Gods.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sirocco »

If I was a God I'd live on a mountain and throw lighting at people, that would be my way...

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by butterfly »

Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 12:02 pm Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.
I can see why this view can be perplexing; hopefully I can explain. Some members say homosexuals shouldn't marry because of the fact that they can't procreate. This sounds like these same members believe that the only reason to marry is if you can procreate. Following that logic, any man or woman who is infertile should not marry.

After the resurrection, everything changes. Men and women are no longer infertile and, if we believe elder Haven's talk which Sunain posted, then "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."
So, if these opinions are true, then after the resurrection homosexuality won't be a concern.

So what should infertile men and women and homosexuals do during this life while they're both experiencing a temporary problem? Should the infertile couple not marry because they are dealing with a temporary problem? Of course not- marriage is about a lot more than just having kids.

Should a homosexual couple not marry just because they can't have kids? Of course not- marriage is about more than having kids.

If you think homosexuals shouldn't marry, then that's fine, but your reasoning should make sense. If homosexuality will be "healed" after the resurrection, then no one has to worry about procreation in the eternities.

In addition, who are we to say we know all the possibilities of family union and procreation after this life? Just looking at the wide variety of breeding habits and family structures in the animal kingdom are enough to see that God created many different forms of family life- from bees and ants to lions and cows to asexual organisms and homosexual mating - all of these happen among instinctual life - these animals aren't choosing to rebel against God, this is how they were created.

And we should remember LDS doctrine, too. Many members support Joseph Smith in what today would be considered holy pedophilia. What about David and Solomon and all their wives and concubines? How about Lot and his incestuous relations with his daughters. How can we accept all these sexual deviances and claim these were righteous men and then at the same time claim that we "know" homosexuality is an abomination. I don't think that the church as a whole has been given any definitive revelation that says marriage in the eternities is only 1 man and 1 woman.

Food for thought-How was Jesus born? there was no sex involved at all, hence she was the Virgin Mary. So maybe you don't need a man and a woman after all...

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by butterfly »

Sunain wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 7:39 am
butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 1:28 amJust to be clear, are you saying you disagree with elder Ballard when he says "individuals do not choose to have such (homosexual) attractions"?
It's a very scary thing for many people if he's right. That would mean that no matter how righteous you are, how good of a parent you are, your child could be homosexual.
It also means that it's not something you could help them "repent" from. If they didn't choose homosexuality to begin with, then there was no sin. One must willfully choose to rebel against God in order for it to be sin. Elder Ballard says you can't choose homosexuality so therefore it cannot be a sin according to him.

I understand lust differently than you describe. I am very attracted to my husband but I have never lusted after him. Attraction is normal and good and actually based on several aspects of a person, not just sexuality.
Lust, however, is trying to satisfy your own selfish and carnal desires without regard to the other person.
A homosexual (or heterosexual) can be attracted to someone without ever lusting.

You state that homosexuality is against God's will because it doesn't allow for procreation. What about heterosexual couples who struggle with infertility- can we conclude that their marriage is against God's will because they can't have children?
If, whatever is causing a husband and wife to not bear children, can be healed in the next life, then can whatever is causing homosexuality also be healed in the next life?

If we want hope for homosexuals to follow God's plan, then we first must understand what makes them homosexual. Telling a blind man to repent in order to gain his sight shows that the doctor doesn't understand what causes blindness. According to elder Ballard, telling a homosexual to repent shows you don't know what causes homosexuality.

The only way to know is to ask God yourself, which is what those who have homosexual loved ones tend to do. And, not surprisingly, they're the ones who come back from the work of seeking and knocking and are filled with love and understanding for homosexuals instead of fear and condemnation.
The church is very clear, homosexual acts are a sin. I do disagree with Elder Ballard's opinion, but there is as you have said little or no proof either way to say when people become homosexual's.
I think what you mentioned here is a key point- we are dealing with opinions. Revelation straight from God is the only way to know the answers to homosexuality questions. I think a lot of people are mistaking culture and social norms for the Spirit.

We should err on the side of caution. Imo, I'd rather be too loving to a "sinner" than to wrongfully cast out an innocent. You'd think that if homosexuality was going to send you to hell, God would've put major warning scriptures about it in the BOM, where the fullness of the everlasting gospel is contained.

My opinion on the homosexual issue almost completely aligns with what Elder Bruce C. Hafen has said. I believe it is a psychological disorder. Social acceptance does not make it morally right.
Homosexuality 'not in your DNA,' says LDS leader

By Rosemary Winters

The Salt Lake Tribune
Published September 19, 2009 5:36 pm

People who are attracted to members of their own sex can change, an LDS general authority said Saturday, so they shouldn't let Satan persuade them they can't.

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, spoke at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International, a nonprofit group that helps Mormons "overcome homosexual behavior" and "diminish same-sex attraction." The event was held at the LDS Church's Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City.

Hafen promised attendees, "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

Whenever the devil -- whom Hafen referred to as "the adversary" -- tries to "convince you that you are hopelessly 'that way,' so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying," Hafen said. "He is the father of lies."

Last month, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution advising mental health professionals against telling their clients they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

No solid evidence exists that such efforts work, the APA concluded, and some studies suggest the potential for harm, including depression and suicidal tendencies. A task force reviewed 83 studies on sexual-orientation change conducted since 1960.

The "long-standing consensus" of the behavioral and social sciences, the APA noted, is that homosexuality is a "normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation."

Will Carlson of Equality Utah, which advocates on behalf of gay and transgender Utahns, when contacted by The Tribune, said, "These young men and women at Evergreen are experiencing normal attractions right now ... It's irresponsible for [Hafen] to suggest that if someone just wants to bad enough, they can be straight."

Hafen spent a large portion of his talk, held during a Sunday-like service, criticizing the gay-rights movement and denying a biological link to sexual orientation. Same-sex attraction is "not in your DNA," he said.

He attacked the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, deeming it politically motivated.

"In the early 1970s, the public and most lawyers, doctors and therapists saw homosexuality not as normal adult behavior but as a psychological disorder," he said. "We have witnessed primarily an aggressive political movement more than we've witnessed substantive change in the medical or legal evidence."

Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Utah, in an interview with The Tribune , called Hafen's assertion "hilarious" and "absolutely untrue."

Homosexuality had been listed as a disorder, Diamond said, without any real scientific data. The APA reversed course after a pioneering psychologist, Evelyn Hooker, produced research to show there was no difference between the mental health of straight and gay individuals, she said.

"That moment really did represent, in fact, the triumph of science over prejudice," Diamond said.

There is "strong evidence" that there are "biological contributions" to sexual orientation, Diamond noted, but it's a complex process. She called arguments about the lack of a so-called "gay gene," a "smoke screen" for those who promote sexual-orientation change.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref ... i_13377659
Interesting article. Do you know of anyone who was "healed" of their homosexuality as Brother Hafen suggests is possible? I'm wondering what success rate he has seen that makes him believe this way.
Even if you believe homosexuality is not physical but rather psychological, I don't see how that makes a big difference. For example, if someone has clinical depression, do we tell them to repent enough and desire to change enough and the depression will go away? Or if someone is schizophrenic, is the way they are to be healed is to be told they're an abomination?

If homosexuality is in fact a psychological disorder, then how will shaming and a call to repentance and "just try harder" going to help?

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sirocco »

Yeah I never understood that when people say being gay is a mental disorder, that it can be healed, mental disorders can't be healed.
I have one, there is no cure (I yammer about it in the autism thread).
And no, I don't think "gay frog water" gave me aspergers.

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by passionflower »

Marraige has been degraded for centuries now. Today the institution is not in some perfect God inspired state.

You won't find anything scriptural to support the idea that God instituted marraige to create ideal romantic companionship. Therefore, just because people love each other they therefore should be able to marry is bogus. The Romantic companionship type marraige is strictly a modern construct, and anciently, "being in love" was considered a form of insanity. Think about it. When "in love" people do not think straight, are completely irrational, and cannot be objective about the object of their "love". This kind of love is also fleeting and undependable.

During biblical times marraiges were arranged by parents, usually the mother of the groom. There was no courtship, no dating, no dances or bars, and the two sexes were pretty much separated. I have friends in India and there, when parents decide their son is ready for marraige, they put an ad in the paper, if they haven;t had their eye on some girl ( like the daughter of a friend ) before then. these marraiges have a high degree of success.

No one would dream of matching up their son with another man. Why? Because no issue is possible. The real and serious reason for marraige actually is to produce offspring. Abraham would have been able to divorce Sarah if she had not produced the heir. This is why she had a handmaid, to insure her marraige, and this is where the idea of the "bridesmaid" comes from.

When we are doing sealing work in the temple, we are not trying to preserve ideal romantic companionships. We are trying to give parents children and children parents. It just so happens that a sealing of the parents has to occur before this can be done. The blessings of Abraham Isaac and Jacob relate to posterity, not "being forever with the one you love".

Two men or two women cannot multiply and replenish the earth. In the beginning God made male and female only and he made them for each other.

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by butterfly »

David13 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 7:51 am

You know, there is an understanding, obtained from seeking and knocking, that isn't "fear and condemnation" but an understanding of God's plan.

And it isn't being an apologist for sin.
What does it mean to you to be an apologist for sin? (I'm sincerely asking).
But tell me this, how does a 12 year old know anything about what they will become?

I know there are many 12 year olds who say they are (or will become) an attorney or a doctor, and after that freshman year of college, after grades come out, turn around and decide they will "be" something else.
dc
This was my first thought, too. Lots of 12 yr olds aren't interested in the opposite sex, it's completely normal that way. They're just getting out of elementary school, many of them won't really hit puberty for a few more years. How can they already know who they're attracted to when most of those hormones haven't even gotten started?
If it were an adult who spoke in this video about years of struggle with homosexuality then it would be a lot more credible. But 12 yrs old is really young to say you've completely come to know you're homosexual.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Michelle »

butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:14 pm
Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 12:02 pm Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.
I can see why this view can be perplexing; hopefully I can explain. Some members say homosexuals shouldn't marry because of the fact that they can't procreate. This sounds like these same members believe that the only reason to marry is if you can procreate. Following that logic, any man or woman who is infertile should not marry.

After the resurrection, everything changes. Men and women are no longer infertile and, if we believe elder Haven's talk which Sunain posted, then "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."
So, if these opinions are true, then after the resurrection homosexuality won't be a concern.

So what should infertile men and women and homosexuals do during this life while they're both experiencing a temporary problem? Should the infertile couple not marry because they are dealing with a temporary problem? Of course not- marriage is about a lot more than just having kids.

Should a homosexual couple not marry just because they can't have kids? Of course not- marriage is about more than having kids.

If you think homosexuals shouldn't marry, then that's fine, but your reasoning should make sense. If homosexuality will be "healed" after the resurrection, then no one has to worry about procreation in the eternities.

In addition, who are we to say we know all the possibilities of family union and procreation after this life? Just looking at the wide variety of breeding habits and family structures in the animal kingdom are enough to see that God created many different forms of family life- from bees and ants to lions and cows to asexual organisms and homosexual mating - all of these happen among instinctual life - these animals aren't choosing to rebel against God, this is how they were created.

And we should remember LDS doctrine, too. Many members support Joseph Smith in what today would be considered holy pedophilia. What about David and Solomon and all their wives and concubines? How about Lot and his incestuous relations with his daughters. How can we accept all these sexual deviances and claim these were righteous men and then at the same time claim that we "know" homosexuality is an abomination. I don't think that the church as a whole has been given any definitive revelation that says marriage in the eternities is only 1 man and 1 woman.

Food for thought-How was Jesus born? there was no sex involved at all, hence she was the Virgin Mary. So maybe you don't need a man and a woman after all...
Wow Butterfly. I respectfully disagree with everything in your post.

2 Nephi 16: 9-10

9 And he said: Go and tell this people—Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not.

10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes—lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and be healed.

Post Reply