Australia seals it's fate, SSM vote 61% yes

[Elizabeth]

Daniel2... you are deceived by Lucifer and have the same cunning and charming ways that he has, do you want to also share his unfortunate fate?

[Daniel2]

Daniel2... you are deceived by Lucifer and have the same cunning and charming ways that he has, do you want to also share his unfortunate fate?

No, Elizabeth, it is you who are deceived by Satan in denying the revelatory power that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God," including His plan for his gay sons and lesbian daughters.

In the words of Joseph Smith:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation. A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost. This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow.

[Dave62]

Daniel, you remind me of Korihor, but just in different language and time. You would make Gramsci proud.

[JustDan]

Mary, a woman and Heavenly Father a male, and Heavenly Father appointed a mortal man Joseph to rear the child with Mary a woman.

This is not in accordance with Eternal Law, reason, or the will of our Heavenly Father.

Sure it is. God impregnated Mary, who remained a virgin, through the power of the Holy Ghost, so clearly there's alternatives to the procreation mortals are limited to during their mortal state.

And together, two men (Elohim, the Father, and Jehovah, his son) created Adam, the first man, and both ministered to him in the garden.

See? We're coming up with all KINDS of procreation and parenthood already!

Do you mean to imply a homosexual tone to the relationship between Elohim and Jehovah?

That is all kinds of wrong.

[Daniel2]

Daniel, you remind me of Korihor, but just in different language and time. You would make Gramsci proud.

I can understand and appreciate why you would classify me in the same category, even though I obviously feel differently. At on some level, I'm actually replying to Elizabeth's almost instantaneously definitive (in her assurance of her own Rightness and at my Wrongness) retorts to my comments by responding back with the same rapid flippancy in an attempt to hold a mirror up to show her how abrasive such retorts come across.

In truth, my exploration and ruminations on the issue are far more profound that my previous comments let on. As a gay man born and raised with a deep love of the LDS Faith, I spent the first 30 years of my life trying to reconcile the church teachings that informed my youth with the feelings of attraction I felt towards the men I felt myself drawn toward.

I can understand that for those that have never had reason to try to reconcile them, the thought of even attempting to do so is not only foreign, it's likely repulsive on some levels. That makes it easy to dismiss any earnest attempts to find a bridge between the two divides as having been "deceived by Satan."

While you may dismiss my words as having been deceived by the devil a la Korihor, there are many thoughtful, prayerful, and sincere devout LDS members; parents, families, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and other family members struggling to find, pray, and hope for a revelation offering a welcoming space in the church and in God's kingdom for their beloved gay and lesbian family members. Many like me search the scriptures with no desire to destroy the church, as Korihor did, but rather with a pure intent and an optimistic hope that God will reveal, line upon line, a place that will make sense and fit into a new understanding of God's plan for his gay children, even if it's different than that for his straight ones.

And in all honesty, after decades of research, the only thing that truly makes sense to me is that, like interracial marriage and blacks being denied the priesthood and temple blessings, the membership and leadership of the church are currently subject to the cultural biases against same-sex relationships that have endured for decades. I truly believe that as the prejudices of previous generations fade into history, that emerging generations of LDS Leadership will be open to asking questions that the current leadership refuse to even ask. And I genuinely believe that at some time in the not-too-distant future, the LDS church will celebrate a "long promised day" when a standing apostle will stand in the tabernacle and declare, following the revelation allowing married same-sex couples the blessings of full fellowship, words echoing those spoken by Bruce R. McKonkie in 1978:

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that gays and lesbians would not receive the blessing of eternal marriage. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Boyd K. Packer or President Thomas S. Monson or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the LGBT matter before the first day of June of this year [2026]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r- ... nto-god-2/

It has happened before in LDS culture and doctrine, on more than one occasion. And I believe such revolutionary new revelations will happen again, just as the 9th Article of Faith asserts.

[Daniel2]

Mary, a woman and Heavenly Father a male, and Heavenly Father appointed a mortal man Joseph to rear the child with Mary a woman.

Sure it is. God impregnated Mary, who remained a virgin, through the power of the Holy Ghost, so clearly there's alternatives to the procreation mortals are limited to during their mortal state.

And together, two men (Elohim, the Father, and Jehovah, his son) created Adam, the first man, and both ministered to him in the garden.

See? We're coming up with all KINDS of procreation and parenthood already!

Do you mean to imply a homosexual tone to the relationship between Elohim and Jehovah?

That is all kinds of wrong.

No, I don't mean to imply that there was a sexual relationship at all between Elohim and Jehovah; in fact, my point was exactly the opposite. If two male Gods, father and son, can create a man together, it seems clear that there's a non-sexually-procreative means to create life. I understand that heterosexual modern members of the LDS Faith presume that spirit children are created spiritually through sexually-procreative processes. My point is to suggest that that is just a cultural presumption, not actually specified in LDS doctrine or cannon, and that perhaps, if two male gods can create life, then sex isn't involved in the procreation of spirit children at all.

[JustDan]

No, I don't mean to imply that there was a sexual relationship at all between Elohim and Jehovah; in fact, my point was exactly the opposite. If two male Gods, father and son, can create a man together, it seems clear that there's a non-sexually-procreative means to create life. I understand that heterosexual modern members of the LDS Faith presume that spirit children are created spiritually through sexually-procreative processes. My point is to suggest that that is just a cultural presumption, not actually specified in LDS doctrine or cannon, and that perhaps, if two male gods can create life, then sex isn't involved in the procreation of spirit children at all.

Right, but it does sound like you are using the fact that two male Gods (as you call them) worked together to create life as a justification for two male children of God being in a homosexual relationship.That may be my misreading...

There is no place for homosexuality or other such in the heavens. There is no basis for that. No example in the creation of mankind that gives acceptance of that sin.

[Z2100]

Well, if the church does accept homosexuals in the future sometime this century, then I'm going to do whatever i want (that includes leaving the church).

That's what a lot of people said about interracial marriage (remember, Brigham Young said that the penalty for such is and would always be 'death on the spot')... Chalk it up to God sifting the wheat from the tares from time to time.

Well, interracial marraige is different. And when BY said "death on the spot" he just meant that the interracial couple would have a colored child. Black= the color of death. It's always been man women for about 6920 years. I don't think God would change his doctrine.

[Daniel2]

No, I don't mean to imply that there was a sexual relationship at all between Elohim and Jehovah; in fact, my point was exactly the opposite. If two male Gods, father and son, can create a man together, it seems clear that there's a non-sexually-procreative means to create life. I understand that heterosexual modern members of the LDS Faith presume that spirit children are created spiritually through sexually-procreative processes. My point is to suggest that that is just a cultural presumption, not actually specified in LDS doctrine or cannon, and that perhaps, if two male gods can create life, then sex isn't involved in the procreation of spirit children at all.

Right, but it does sound like you are using the fact that two male Gods (as you call them) worked together to create life as a justification for two male children of God being in a homosexual relationship.That may be my misreading...

There is no place for homosexuality or other such in the heavens. There is no basis for that. No example in the creation of mankind that gives acceptance of that sin.

I appreciate your clarification. While I wasn't using the creation of Adam as a means to justify a same-gender relationship, I was using it as an example that creation/procreation isn't limited to sexual-procreation between two opposite genders.

I believe that even if same-gender couples don't procreate in the eternities, there may be other divine destinies for said couples. As I mentioned previously, 2/3 of the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom will not be "exalted" in the sense that they will continue to have eternal increase, and I think it's entirely possible that same-gender couples could have a place in those portions of God's kingdom.

I disagree that "there is no place for homosexuality in the heavens." There is nothing in the revealed word of God that says that.

I also disagree that there's "no example in the creation of mankind that gives acceptance of" same-gender relationships. The revealed personal experiences of thousands of loving, committed same-sex couples who experience the gifts of the fruits of the spirit (peace, love, joy, and hope) from and within their relationships contradicts the virtual silence of the scriptures on whether or not God can or does approve of the love shared between said committed couples.

[Daniel2]

Well, interracial marraige is different. And when BY said "death on the spot" he just meant that the interracial couple would have a colored child. Black= the color of death. It's always been man women for about 6920 years. I don't think God would change his doctrine.

Even if I were to accept your explanation (which I find strange and convoluted in it's attempt to explain the simplicity and clarity of Brigham Young's words---but that's beside my point), I understand you feel that interracial marriage is different. Every type of relationship IS "slightly different" from the next. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that God can't ultimately choose to allow same-sex couples.

When you say, "I don't think God would change his doctrine," can I ask why you think God wouldn't...?

Why wouldn't God choose to acknowledge, allow, and even bless loving and committed relationships between his gay and lesbian children?

If we believe the 7th Chapter of Matthew, we're admonished and promised that our Father in Heaven will reward those that ask and seek:

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

[Sunain]

It has happened before in LDS culture and doctrine, on more than one occasion. And I believe such revolutionary new revelations will happen again, just as the 9th Article of Faith asserts.

Homosexuality is not one of those things that will have a revelation to change it. There are too many other scriptures and modern day revelations (past 10-25 years) that it would contradict. It is not the same type of issue as black people being allowed to have the priesthood again. For me and most members of the church, this would cause US to leave the church if they backtracked because no one would sustain the prophet that made that decision.

[gardener4life]

So is gay marriage now legal in all of Europe too?

[Fiannan]

So is gay marriage now legal in all of Europe too?

Not eastern Europe. When cultural Marxism was restructuring the mindsets of the western Europeans during the Cold War the eastern people were sheltered by the fact they had economic Marxism - and the governments in charge at the time were 100% against social policies that were supported by the western cultural Marxists. So eastern people still retain fairly conservative values and are quite nationalistic.

[gardener4life]

So is gay marriage now legal in all of Europe too?

Not eastern Europe. When cultural Marxism was restructuring the mindsets of the western Europeans during the Cold War the eastern people were sheltered by the fact they had economic Marxism - and the governments in charge at the time were 100% against social policies that were supported by the western cultural Marxists. So eastern people still retain fairly conservative values and are quite nationalistic.

Thanks for commenting! You know its really interesting how those people in the former eastern Soviet bloc regime countries...they look just like us! It's really amazing. I was looking learning polish recently and I was shocked the people they looked like people you could see on the street in Germany, or Britain, or Scandinavia.

Its really interesting how a lot of people out there aren't that different than we are.

[Spaced_Out]

God and heavenly mother made the spirit body of Jesus and Adam. The creation of the first man physical body is something unique and not well known how it was done. But on earth and in heaven it requires male and female. It takes heavenly parents and gender is essential to premortal, mortal and life after death. God does not put female spirit into a male body and visa versa, the divine nature and destiny is never confused.

Yes black's of African decent only got the PH after a time but were never refused baptism. JS even ordained a few to the PH. Homosexuality is an abomination and the scriptures since the beginning have declared it as such. One of the chief purposes of mortality is to overcome the natural man. Controlling sexual desire is the most important of all the weaknesses of the natural man. Giving in to it's miss use can only lead to major problems.

I hear the same arguments from paedophiles they are simply only attracted to young children - no matter how hard they try they cant overcome the urge to be attracted to very young children. Yes homosexuality is not the same level of sin, but the principle and nature of the sin is the same. Paedophilia is not accepted as it is politically incorrect as one could be hurting a child that is not able to give consent - but homosexuality is now just justified as consent between adults, and giving into the temptation is justified.

God is everlasting and never changing the laws of God and PH is based on principles that have always existed even before Heavenly Fathers spiritual body was created by male and female exalted beings - there can be no change to these eternal principles..

THE FAMILY, A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD
ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

[Crackers]

Daniel2, You say that the Proclamation does not preclude homosexual relationships, and yet by its absence, it does just that. The Proclamation goes into great detail about the family, but makes no allowance for deviation. I suspect you would like to see more vulgar and explicit verbiage regarding the “sacred powers of procreation,” but a reasonable Christian does not read this to think it is intended to create an exception for sex other than between a married man and woman as long as life isn’t created. That’s a bigger stretch than I am willing or able to fathom. I appreciate the beautiful and accurate language the brethren chose; the fact that you find it vague reflects the vagaries of your own mind on this topic.

Your assertion that you feel “peace, love, joy and hope” in your relationship does not prove that it is good in the sight of God. My mother said those same things about her affair. Anyone could say that about their fornication. I might think it occasionally about Diet Dew or cheesecake. Satan loves it when we think we have found “fruits of the spirit,” when really we have only found some cheap (and immoral) counterfeit. That is enough to keep people from searching for the real deal because they think they already have it.

A side note on that: I would rather have a mediocre-seeming, or even difficult marriage that has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise than an easy, “love and joy” relationship that has no chance of continuation into the eternities. The former will continue and improve and increase eternally. The other ends with death, if not sooner. There is a place in the Kingdoms of God for those who practice homosexual behavior. It is called the Telestial Kingdom. Just wanting something really, really bad doesn’t make it so.

[Thinker]

It is known that homosexuality is statistically harmful physically and psychologically. So WHY would governments all over the world support what hurts and often kills? POPULATION CONTROL. And people have been subjected to mind control to change their beliefs about homosexuality...

The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html

From the 1989 book, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books) which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement.

Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk's groundbreaking 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America", this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we've all seen and been affected by over the years -- but never understood what was happening....

A founding work of the modern homosexual movement, this book covers a wide discussion of tactics and observations relating to the homosexual movement. But the overall main psychological strategies are well summarized in a ten-page section (pp. 147-157) titled "Pushing the right buttons: halting, derailing, or reversing the 'engine of prejudice'". Reprinted below, this is the meat of the book which has been re-used and referred to by the homosexual movement countless times.

It discusses (1) Desensitization, (2) Jamming, and (3) Conversion."

IE: When someone asks or says something that could make homosexuality look unappealing - homosexual agenda mind control teaches to ignore the question or comment and attack the person by calling them names like, "homophobe, bigot, hater." Make others see what happens to people who don't go along with their agenda. Play to peer-pressure. Make people who support homosexuality (even though it's known to be harmful) - look loving and nice. Make people who point out the harm of homosexuality look horrible and mean. This way, people will come to accept homosexuality - by force - but most don't realize they are even being mentally controlled.

Homosexual agenda ideologies are anti-logic. If there was logic, people would realize that if you start giving rights based on sexual distortions - then rapists and pedophiles will have rights. And consider the goals of LBGTQrstuv, especially this and how it's getting closer to fulfilling:

"A Self-Styled 'Gay Revolutionary' Offers a Challenge to Straight America:
"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, ...wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. ...We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed..."

Michael Swift - Boston Gay Community News - February 15-21, 1987

[Todd]

I just finished reading Tom Christofferson's (Elder Christofferson's gay brother) book. I found it interesting that the reason he came back to the church and was re-baptized was because his life was missing the holy spirit.

Here is what Tom said in reply to a person who asked him why he left his loving relationship with a man, to be re-baptized into the church and regain his blessings:

“Because the way I feel now, the way I experience the influence of the Holy Ghost, is powerful and delicious to me, and I don’t ever want to live without it again. And, at least at this point, I don’t see a way for us to be united in that effort.” I have wondered if I had been a better example of the believers (see 1 Timothy 4: 12), if that could have awakened a desire in my partner to understand and experience the confirming power of the Spirit and the redemptive and enabling powers of Christ’s Atonement. I pray that someday he will know— and all who do not today share that awareness will know— the sweetness of communion with Heavenly Father and His Son through the Holy Spirit. To receive the ordinance bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost has been for me the tenderest compensation for the changes I have made in my life, and I hope to live so that it always will be so.

Christofferson, Tom. That We May Be One: A Gay Mormon’s Perspective on Faith and Family (Kindle Locations 1789-1795). Desreet Book Company. Kindle Edition.

The great satanic lie that has consumed our world is: "Do as thou Wilt." Following one's sexual impulses, emotions, living true to one's self,etc, are prime examples of "Doing as thou Wilt."

We, as moral agents, can only give God one thing... our WILL. This is why we are taught the law of sacrifice, chastity and giving our all.

I commend Tom Christofferson in following the Savior's supreme example and overcoming the natural man that he might know Him. Even though the cup of adversity was not taken from Tom (his attraction to men), he submitted his will to the Father.

Let us all embrace the living gospel of Jesus Christ and live according to his everlasting counsel: "...not my will, but thine, be done."

[Daniel2]

Just watched this for the first time, and if this is the tone and message from adherents from any religion over allowing equal access to loving couples to receive the same rights and responsibilities to form and protect their families in the civil square, it's no wonder that its growth is slowing and its retention rates are plummeting, especially among the rising generation. Thankfully, your church leaders don't take this approach.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2, You say that the Proclamation does not preclude homosexual relationships, and yet by its absence, it does just that. The Proclamation goes into great detail about the family, but makes no allowance for deviation. I suspect you would like to see more vulgar and explicit verbiage regarding the “sacred powers of procreation,” but a reasonable Christian does not read this to think it is intended to create an exception for sex other than between a married man and woman as long as life isn’t created. That’s a bigger stretch than I am willing or able to fathom. I appreciate the beautiful and accurate language the brethren chose; the fact that you find it vague reflects the vagaries of your own mind on this topic.

Your assertion that you feel “peace, love, joy and hope” in your relationship does not prove that it is good in the sight of God. My mother said those same things about her affair. Anyone could say that about their fornication. I might think it occasionally about Diet Dew or cheesecake. Satan loves it when we think we have found “fruits of the spirit,” when really we have only found some cheap (and immoral) counterfeit. That is enough to keep people from searching for the real deal because they think they already have it.

A side note on that: I would rather have a mediocre-seeming, or even difficult marriage that has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise than an easy, “love and joy” relationship that has no chance of continuation into the eternities. The former will continue and improve and increase eternally. The other ends with death, if not sooner. There is a place in the Kingdoms of God for those who practice homosexual behavior. It is called the Telestial Kingdom. Just wanting something really, really bad doesn’t make it so.

No, not really. The absence of same-sex families is called "plausible deniability." That way, when some future LDS prophet reveals God now accepts same-sex relationships, said future leaders can point out that nothing in the Proclamation prohibited same-sex marriage.

After all, if it's "absence" from the Proclamation precludes the possibility that God could ever sanction any given specific type/form of marriage, why doesn't the proclamation specifically mentioned polygamy--a form of marriage we KNOW is sanctioned by God, according to Mormonism?

No, I wouldn't care to see more vulgar and explicit language---vulgarity and explicitness isn't necessary to specifcy physical intimacy between either opposite-sex or same-sex couples.

While I understand your point about your mother feeling her affair was inherently worthy, I can flat out tell you that having studied the entire issue probably a LOT more than you have, and having tried to live with an unnatural marriage with unnatural affections towards a woman, and then having experienced a relationship with someone to whom I am fully, naturally, spiritually, emotionally, physically, and intimately matched, I am FAR more prepared to listen to and believe my own heart, might, mind, and strength than I am the words of a dusty book and the biases of aging men who's minds and hearts are held captive by the prejudices of yesteryear. The only weapon they and people like you have is to convince me to not trust my own faculties in deference to others that allegedly know me better than I know myself.

I can honestly, truly, and earnestly say that I will be entirely at peace if I must stand before God and Christ at a judgment bar that I sincerely know that I lived the best life I knew how with the resources I've been given. Even though I know people like you who have judged me and the desires of my heart as having been "deceived by the devil" and possibly just wanting to have made excuses "to sin" in your eyes, I trust that if God is as good and just as you say, he truly will know the intent of my heart and can judge that my intentions were as sincere as they were well-intentioned. I am fully content knowing that God--and not all the posters here who spew vitriolic, anti-gay rhetoric at every turn--will judge me.

[Todd]

Daniel2, You say that the Proclamation does not preclude homosexual relationships, and yet by its absence, it does just that. The Proclamation goes into great detail about the family, but makes no allowance for deviation. I suspect you would like to see more vulgar and explicit verbiage regarding the “sacred powers of procreation,” but a reasonable Christian does not read this to think it is intended to create an exception for sex other than between a married man and woman as long as life isn’t created. That’s a bigger stretch than I am willing or able to fathom. I appreciate the beautiful and accurate language the brethren chose; the fact that you find it vague reflects the vagaries of your own mind on this topic.

Your assertion that you feel “peace, love, joy and hope” in your relationship does not prove that it is good in the sight of God. My mother said those same things about her affair. Anyone could say that about their fornication. I might think it occasionally about Diet Dew or cheesecake. Satan loves it when we think we have found “fruits of the spirit,” when really we have only found some cheap (and immoral) counterfeit. That is enough to keep people from searching for the real deal because they think they already have it.

A side note on that: I would rather have a mediocre-seeming, or even difficult marriage that has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise than an easy, “love and joy” relationship that has no chance of continuation into the eternities. The former will continue and improve and increase eternally. The other ends with death, if not sooner. There is a place in the Kingdoms of God for those who practice homosexual behavior. It is called the Telestial Kingdom. Just wanting something really, really bad doesn’t make it so.

No, not really. The absence of same-sex families is called "plausible deniability." That way, when some future LDS prophet reveals God now accepts same-sex relationships, said future leaders can point out that nothing in the Proclamation prohibited same-sex marriage.

After all, if it's "absence" from the Proclamation precludes the possibility that God could ever sanction any given specific type/form of marriage, why doesn't the proclamation specifically mentioned polygamy--a form of marriage we KNOW is sanctioned by God, according to Mormonism?

No, I wouldn't care to see more vulgar and explicit language---vulgarity and explicitness isn't necessary to specifcy physical intimacy between either opposite-sex or same-sex couples.

While I understand your point about your mother feeling her affair was inherently worthy, I can flat out tell you that having studied the entire issue probably a LOT more than you have, and having tried to live with an unnatural marriage with unnatural affections towards a woman, and then having experienced a relationship with someone to whom I am fully, naturally, spiritually, emotionally, physically, and intimately matched, I am FAR more prepared to listen to and believe my own heart, might, mind, and strength than I am the words of a dusty book and the biases of aging men who's minds and hearts are held captive by the prejudices of yesteryear. The only weapon they and people like you have is to convince me to not trust my own faculties in deference to others that allegedly know me better than I know myself.

I can honestly, truly, and earnestly say that I will be entirely at peace if I must stand before God and Christ at a judgment bar that I sincerely know that I lived the best life I knew how with the resources I've been given. Even though I know people like you who have judged me and the desires of my heart as having been "deceived by the devil" and possibly just wanting to have made excuses "to sin" in your eyes, I trust that if God is as good and just as you say, he truly will know the intent of my heart and can judge that my intentions were as sincere as they were well-intentioned. I am fully content knowing that God--and not all the posters here who spew vitriolic, anti-gay rhetoric at every turn--will judge me.

Good for you Daniel. May I ask a question? Did you have any kind of an intimate relationship with a man while you were still married to your wife?

[Fiannan]

If a mother and daughter wanted to get married, and yes there are those who exist who have tried, should they be allowed to?

[Daniel2]

It takes heavenly parents and gender is essential to premortal, mortal and life after death. God does not put female spirit into a male body and visa versa, the divine nature and destiny is never confused.

Yes black's of African decent only got the PH after a time but were never refused baptism. JS even ordained a few to the PH. Homosexuality is an abomination and the scriptures since the beginning have declared it as such. One of the chief purposes of mortality is to overcome the natural man. Controlling sexual desire is the most important of all the weaknesses of the natural man. Giving in to it's miss use can only lead to major problems.

I hear the same arguments from paedophiles they are simply only attracted to young children - no matter how hard they try they cant overcome the urge to be attracted to very young children. Yes homosexuality is not the same level of sin, but the principle and nature of the sin is the same. Paedophilia is not accepted as it is politically incorrect as one could be hurting a child that is not able to give consent - but homosexuality is now just justified as consent between adults, and giving into the temptation is justified.

God is everlasting and never changing the laws of God and PH is based on principles that have always existed even before Heavenly Fathers spiritual body was created by male and female exalted beings - there can be no change to these eternal principles..

THE FAMILY, A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD
ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

While I agree with the concept that gender is an essential personal characteristic at any phase of our existence, there is nothing in LDS scripture, cannon, or even teachings that precludes the possibility that a daughter of God could/can be born into a biological body that isn't either partially or fully female, or that a son of God could/can be born into a biological body that isn't either partially or fully male. In fact, we know that biology isn't that simple and that nature isn't always so clear cut; for example, some people ARE born intersex, with genes or other gender-based characteristics that aren't always clearly male vs. female. And LDS doctrine even makes some allowance for this, given that Mormonism teaches that imperfections of the flesh sometimes manifest themselves because our mortal bodies aren't always perfect (such as birth defects of any/all sorts).

If you believe that I'm wrong and that LDS cannon does assert that "God does not put female spirit into a male body and visa versa, the divine nature and destiny is never confused," please cite the reference(s) that say(s) so.

When it comes to whether or not "natural" is truly good or not, LDS scripture is somewhat contradictory, depending on context. On one hand, the scripture suggests that "the natural man is an enemy to God" and must be subdued; in this sense, "natural" is bad/prohibited/something to be overcome. On the other, other scriptures discuss the dangers of leaving or changing "the natural use into that which is against nature"; in this sense, "nature" is good/approved/the appropriate use. I suggest that for a straight man is naturally attracted to women---that is a good, inherently worthy attraction and exercising one's "natural" attractions within the appropriate bounds is ordained of God. That is the same use I mean when I say that as a gay man, I'm "naturally" attracted to men, and that is a good, inherently worthy attraction. Just as it would be (and was) sinful for a straight man to abandon his heterosexual attractions and engage in sexual relationship with men, the opposite is true for those of us who are gay; it's a sin to reject our natural attractions towards men and try to force them into an opposite-sex marriage, which is entirely unfair to our opposite-sex spouse (and children).

No, homosexuality is no more similar to pedophilia than heterosexuality is. Period. No one is suggesting that gays must be gay ONLY because "that's how we're naturally attracted"--because that's just as true of and for heterosexuals, so the comparison to homosexuality but not to heterosexuality is nonsensical. The reason pedophilia is different from heterosexuality AND homosexuality is because it (pedophilia) preys on children and victimizes them. It's no more similar to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality (and, in fact, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual).

[Daniel2]

Good for you Daniel. May I ask a question? Did you have any kind of an intimate relationship with a man while you were still married to your wife?

While I didn't have a relationship with a man while I was still married to my wife, I regret that I was not faithful on more than one occasion, but never more than once with any given individual. That isn't something I'm proud of and had to repent of.

Sadly, my story is far from unique. Marrying under such circumstances even with the best of intentions but while denying one's individual capabilities and the realities of life are a set up for disaster. Mixed orientation marriages are almost always dysfunctional and are rarely successful (though a minority are, depending on a variety of factors, including the honestly and openness between the spouses). That is why, when it comes to the gender to which we are sexually attracted, I believe it's a sin for ANY of us to "abandon our natural affection" and attempt to force intimacy on a gender to whom we are not naturally attracted. When it comes to consenting adults, loving intimacy and natural affection are gifts from God; I believe he's displeased when we reject those gifts, especially when we fail to trust the whisperings he gives to our heart, mind, and soul in favor of following the words of others, most often motivated by fear or condemnation.

[Daniel2]

If a mother and daughter wanted to get married, and yes there are those who exist who have tried, should they be allowed to?

Most countries and states I'm aware of don't allow marriages between family members that are first cousins or closer, and I'm certainly not proposing any changes in that regard.

I'm sure there's legal questions related to that question which would be better answered by those more informed on those issues than I, should that question ever be posed before courts of law.