LDS LIVING--Lesbian says, "heavenly father made me to be gay."

[TrueIntent]

I am MORE than a little skeptical of the assertion that the church uses this magazine to promote social change and perceptions. I am more inclined to agree with it being click bait.

This is what I think we will see more and more from church leaders: Clarification that homosexual acts are sinful, and a greater call for compassion and charity for those who suffer from that persuasion, whether it be inborn or learned behavior.

So, you believe that LDSliving content is not used to promote social issues within the church or to correct members cultural beliefs? My question to you would be, then what is LDSliving for? And why would the church own a publication that is used to bait members?

Yes, I think it is a magazine with a target audience. It doesn't have to have a specific cultural or social cause in order to exist. Most magazines exist in order to make a profit. I don't use LDSLiving as a companion to my scriptures in my personal studies. I don't use it to hone my views on homosexuality. If the brethren want to "push" an agenda as you are saying, they have better venues to do that.

Lol....I agree...they should use the scriptures and "revealed revelation" and post on their official website. They do have better venues. It doesn't shape my views on homosexuality, and maybe "pushing an agenda" is too harsh...they do use to plant seeds and ideas I believe. So after the church essays came it, it was a mess...the church began publishing articles with a slant, you know sugar coating some of the information....it's the church's way of exposing members to issues....Most won't read scriptures or even listen to conference talks after the fact, but they will share things on social media that matter to them. (like i am doing right now)....Im ' mostly just making a point that the church NO LONGER teaches people are not born with this feelings (which opens up a whole litany of doctrinal questions in a good way). But most people in the church, who claim to follow leaders, won't acknowledge this. It's been on the mormons and Gays website forever....when the church says "i don't know", when they used to say they knew, it means....they are changing their stance, and YES they believe some people MAY be born this way. People won't believe that God makes people a certain way....but you can find instances in the scriptures where God says he made people deaf, mute, blind....he also made people male and female....he does make certain things certain way.........ooooo...that points out a contradiction.....we claim that we are born with our "male and female" divine nature already in place...if we then acknowledge that people are born Gay....what does that mean...to me, it doesn't have to contradict....but of course the church has always meant in a literal sense...I view this spiritually. (anyway...thats not your question but just a thought.

Also, what's interesting, is that I believe it was BYU students, or some organization on campus that did the official interview, and then it appears LDSliving picked it up. based on my understanding, LDSliving chooses what they will feature. But it tells you what may be going on at BYU campus.

Another question I would ask...if LDSLIVING is merely used to push a profit, why would a church owned publication be allowed to use the church's name if they completely disagree with the content. That feels wrong to me, that they would publish any old thing for the sake of money....it reminds me of Satan in the temple video..."you can buy anything in this world for money"....I don't think, and I hope the church would never allow that. The church does a lot of good, I would hope money doesnt trump it's goodness.

[Sunain]

Another question I would ask...if LDSLIVING is merely used to push a profit, why would a church owned publication be allowed to use the church's name if they completely disagree with the content. That feels wrong to me, that they would publish any old thing for the sake of money....it reminds me of Satan in the temple video..."you can buy anything in this world for money"....I don't think, and I hope the church would never allow that. The church does a lot of good, I would hope money doesnt trump it's goodness.

Here's your answer:

LDS Living Magazine is an independent work, and is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed in the magazine are the responsibility of the various authors and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Church. Contributors include Church members and members of other faiths.
http://www.ldsliving.com/about_us

[TrueIntent]

When you label yourself by your weakness then you make it much more difficult for yourself. No doubt that living with those inclinations is a big challenge. But so are many other things. Trying to pattern your life after God requires a difficult path through mists of darkness and much sacrifice.

Although I have studied the topic, I also understand the gospel and the purpose of marriage and male and female becoming one. I also understand that we have choice, and that we must choose the right even when it is hard or seems impossible to do so. Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven. God gives us weaknesses so that we will have something to offer at the altar.

When I got married I gave up the opportunity to engage sexually with other women. I live every day knowing that my wife is the only one I have ever or will ever know intimately. I’m willing to do that. Doesn’t matter how attractive other women are, I cleave to my wife because this is God’s design for men and woman. In Eden he separated woman from man, he took one flesh and divided it into two incomplete parts. For this cause, the marriage covenant brings about one flesh and restores two into one.

It’s never been anything else. The entirety of the doctrine is based on this dynamic. There is 0 doctrinal basis for it, it doesn’t exist. People need true doctrine, not excuses for remaining in a state that robs them of the blessings of God’s covenants.

Again, I’m not saying this is easy, but the entire gospel is not easy. It is HARD to walk the path and this is by design. We are meant to wrestle, climb, and seek, this is part of everyone’s journey and we all have a different thing or thing to struggle with. We all have the natural man to overcome.

People who struggle with anything deserve our love and fellowship, but we will not encourage people in a path that leads them away from God’s highest blessings. That is not love.

I agree with you about "male and female being one"...i believe that is necessary. And I'm not trying to make a case for exaltation....but I don't necessarily believe there isn't one.....if I can make a case for a heavenly mother, from just symbolism, I'm sure I could for this, but Im not as well read on this topic...Im just making a point, the church's case is "we don't know...they may be born that way...which means we believe some are....So from that, we should make some new doctrinal cases...about grace, the atonement...etc.

But I have heard the phrase about Eunuchs in the bible where Christ says there are some that are single for the sake of heaven, and there are angels that are single in heaven....to use the word Eunuch, well that's a male with not testes (this has cultural implications, as Eunuchs have interesting roles.) and...because of all the variations in the human body...we always say, that God will sort it all it...like Im assuming this is what a church would tell a hermaphrodite...why would we not believe the same about Gays. About the male and female becoming one....what if they are doing their absolute best...Would grace not apply, and would they not be entitled to the same blessings? I just feel like there is a denial of grace here....and maybe the atonement....could the atonement not change their desire (if so, why are we teaching celibacy and behavior control).....I don't know that I believe there is zero doctrinal basis for it....like I said....people have had near death experiences where they were with their partner in heaven....does that not constitute personal revelation for an individual??? I just don't want to be dismissive. Like what is personal revelation? I don''t think being gay has anything to do with being attracted to someone necessarily......some of the most beautiful people feel ugly.....you can be drawn to someones spirit or repulsed by it. if its not about the outward, can't it be about the inward...and it is pretty clear some gay males have feminine spirits. I mean....so far...Im not convinced.

Im really not trying to preach doctrinally here, i haven't heavily studied this enough to be an expert, but I have studied it enough to have a strong opinion...my passion is women in scripture....i am a woman ...i do study heavenly mother, and women a lot....but because of my studies on women, and life experiences, i tend to defend the minority...and what I have realized is that there are somethings we have hidden, because it bothers us that women could have "power". All I know, is that the church has a different stance...we now teach "we don't know if they are born this way"(from an apostle)....and LDSLiving took it up a notch by publishing an article that said they were absolutely born this way.....this opens up new doctrinal questions that we should discuss.

[Fiannan]

This is really interesting. Young women today will absolutely see lesbian relationships in the dramas they watch, the music videos they tune into, they will hear about them in their conversations with friends, will see the colorful rainbow banners, and they are the most popular porn genre for young women. And not only that now they can hear how fantastic it is to be a lesbian Mormon. Oh sure, you might have to skip the marriage thing, for the time being, in Church but at this rate I am not sure for how long.

Maybe with the shortage of active male LDS men today this could be an alternative?

As for the concrete reasoning people who might be reading this there is such a thing as using irony to make a point.

[Fiannan]

What about barren women..they can't have children....not everyone in a marriage has children.

And what about all the Mormon people who never touched a cigarette in their lives who die of lung cancer? Does this negate the WofW?

[Fiannan]

I know a woman who is a bi-sexual who thinks it is funny to seduce heterosexual women and turn them lesbian. She has a lot of psychopathic traits. She has said that it doesn't always work. After the break-up (she says she cannot stand the idea of sharing bills and listening to another woman go on about their emotions and such) she says the liberal ones just go on with their lives and figure it was an interesting experiment in an alternative lifestyle while the conservative women get so mixed up in their upbringing and the violation of their original self-concept that in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance they are the ones who go full-lesbian. She said she has won 6 times and all the women are now in long-term relationships with other women.

Might more conservative people be so "this or that" or "right and wrong" that this leaves them vulnerable when they have desires that conflict with how they were raised?

[oneClimbs]

When you label yourself by your weakness then you make it much more difficult for yourself. No doubt that living with those inclinations is a big challenge. But so are many other things. Trying to pattern your life after God requires a difficult path through mists of darkness and much sacrifice.

Although I have studied the topic, I also understand the gospel and the purpose of marriage and male and female becoming one. I also understand that we have choice, and that we must choose the right even when it is hard or seems impossible to do so. Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven. God gives us weaknesses so that we will have something to offer at the altar.

When I got married I gave up the opportunity to engage sexually with other women. I live every day knowing that my wife is the only one I have ever or will ever know intimately. I’m willing to do that. Doesn’t matter how attractive other women are, I cleave to my wife because this is God’s design for men and woman. In Eden he separated woman from man, he took one flesh and divided it into two incomplete parts. For this cause, the marriage covenant brings about one flesh and restores two into one.

It’s never been anything else. The entirety of the doctrine is based on this dynamic. There is 0 doctrinal basis for it, it doesn’t exist. People need true doctrine, not excuses for remaining in a state that robs them of the blessings of God’s covenants.

Again, I’m not saying this is easy, but the entire gospel is not easy. It is HARD to walk the path and this is by design. We are meant to wrestle, climb, and seek, this is part of everyone’s journey and we all have a different thing or thing to struggle with. We all have the natural man to overcome.

People who struggle with anything deserve our love and fellowship, but we will not encourage people in a path that leads them away from God’s highest blessings. That is not love.

I agree with you about "male and female being one"...i believe that is necessary. And I'm not trying to make a case for exaltation....but I don't necessarily believe there isn't one.....if I can make a case for a heavenly mother, from just symbolism, I'm sure I could for this, but Im not as well read on this topic...Im just making a point, the church's case is "we don't know...they may be born that way...which means we believe some are....So from that, we should make some new doctrinal cases...about grace, the atonement...etc.

But I have heard the phrase about Eunuchs in the bible where Christ says there are some that are single for the sake of heaven, and there are angels that are single in heaven....to use the word Eunuch, well that's a male with not testes (this has cultural implications, as Eunuchs have interesting roles.) and...because of all the variations in the human body...we always say, that God will sort it all it...like Im assuming this is what a church would tell a hermaphrodite...why would we not believe the same about Gays. About the male and female becoming one....what if they are doing their absolute best...Would grace not apply, and would they not be entitled to the same blessings? I just feel like there is a denial of grace here....and maybe the atonement....could the atonement not change their desire (if so, why are we teaching celibacy and behavior control).....I don't know that I believe there is zero doctrinal basis for it....like I said....people have had near death experiences where they were with their partner in heaven....does that not constitute personal revelation for an individual??? I just don't want to be dismissive. Like what is personal revelation? I don''t think being gay has anything to do with being attracted to someone necessarily......some of the most beautiful people feel ugly.....you can be drawn to someones spirit or repulsed by it. if its not about the outward, can't it be about the inward...and it is pretty clear some gay males have feminine spirits. I mean....so far...Im not convinced.

Im really not trying to preach doctrinally here, i haven't heavily studied this enough to be an expert, but I have studied it enough to have a strong opinion...my passion is women in scripture....i am a woman ...i do study heavenly mother, and women a lot....but because of my studies on women, and life experiences, i tend to defend the minority...and what I have realized is that there are somethings we have hidden, because it bothers us that women could have "power". All I know, is that the church has a different stance...we now teach "we don't know if they are born this way"(from an apostle)....and LDSLiving took it up a notch by publishing an article that said they were absolutely born this way.....this opens up new doctrinal questions that we should discuss.

I too have an interest in Heavenly Mother, I just posted some observations here: http://oneclimbs.com/2017/09/24/the-mot ... ly-spirit/

Look, I have a aunt that was full on living a lesbian lifestyle, was suicidal and everything. She came to understand the doctrine and rejected it. The attraction is miniscule now, she values choice more and is active and has a temple recommend.

I don’t believe in a narrative that encourages a lifestyle that defies the original pattern in Genesis, that was re-emphasized by Christ, that is the foundation of the Abrahamic covenant and is implied throughout scripture. Just because something is hard for people doesn’t mean we don’t continue to teach the doctrine.

This is a complex issue. No doubt that we need to befriend and help these people, but when some demand that we change doctrine to suit their lifestyle that is problematic.

Imagine if a man struggled with attraction to 12 year old girls and said that there shouldn’t be any reason that he shouldn’t be able to marry a young girl. Let’s say society lowers the age of consent. What if this man says he feels judged because of what we teach?

What if a man wants to marry his dog and says thos old testament verses about bestiality are outdated and that Jesus never taught anything against bestiality?

Why should age or species matter? Are we treating these people bad because we teach doctrine? You can make a case for anything you want but look at the patterns. I’ve said this before elsewhere but in Nephi’s vision there was a Path and a rod. There wasn’t a sign every 2 feet that said “don’t step off the path here” but some people justify stepping off the path because there isn’t any sign that tells them they can’t. The point they continue to miss is: there is a path and because there is a path that is your great sign of which direction you should go.

[oneClimbs]

Again, it doesn’t matter how you were born or how you were raised, if you are conscious, you can choose. Even if it is hard, remember that sacrifice brings the blessings of heaven and perhaps giving up an attraction to fufill God‘s destiny for his children will be the thing that actually brings you the greatest happiness.

And when we see people say, “but I feel like I should do it my own way“ that doesn’t ever seem to work in the Scriptures.

[Lyster]

When a person says "I am gay", they have laid claim upon the title. Being gay means that they have claimed attraction to their same sex, they have owned it. Quite simply, if I say "I am a drunk, I am a pedophile, or I am a liar", I would also lay claim to them.

By laying claim to it, you admit one of two logical pathways.

1) You feel there is nothing you can do about it. It is your nature. If this is the case, you deny the power of the Atonement. You claim that Christ cannot heal you. You have no hope, which we learn is critical in the equation of faith, hope, and charity (Moroni 7:40-48).

2) You have no desire to change. You believe that your will is superior to Heavenly Father's. This is, by definition, pride.

If someone tells me, as they have before, that they have struggled with same-sex attraction, and then strive to live by the teachings of the gospel and repent, that is the same as someone who has been a drunk, but not struggles and strives to repent.

When they continually label themselves as gay, and have no desire to learn, progress, and change, they have hit a roadblock (one of their own choosing) and basically thrown a middle finger up to the Atonement.

That is the issue.

[Lyster]

We would never give up on our beloved friends and family who struggle with other sins-BECAUSE WE LOVE THEM-and yet are expected to let others continue in things that they can overcome... because... we love... them?

What?

[skmo]

I also believe that the church is currently teaching gay members to live a celibate lifestyle...that they will have to backtrack on that. This is an extreme teaching, and we shouldn't expect others to live a lifestyle that leadership and priesthood holders would struggle to live themselves (this is my personal opinion).

And it is inarguably an incorrect opinion if you believe in the gospel. As society decided it was time to start to significantly change the rules of gender, sexuality, and marriage God reveals to us the Proclamation to the World on the family. Sexual contact is only appropriate between a married man and woman. Gender is an important individual characteristic with an eternal identity, and one's gender cannot be changed no matter how many surgeries and hormones one has.

I can't speak for what this woman has in her life, but I could say Heavenly Father made me to be hyper-sexual, desiring to have absolutely as many of them as I could possibly convince to be intimate with me. Of course, He also told me I was to bridle my passions, and that there was one appropriately applicable path for all of those passions. As I failed to remain on that path, I lost my blessings which I am diligently working to get back.

[Thinker]

from mormonandgay.org:

Many people pray for years and do all they can to be obedient in an effort to reduce same-sex attraction, yet find they are still attracted to the same sex. ... The intensity of your attractions may not be in your control

This is from an official church webpage. It acknowledges that being gay is not a choice. However, it does not say if God has made people gay or if being gay is just something that happens in this fallen world.

True. At birth, babies have brains that are only 25% developed so they can adapt to environmental changes. Nobody is born with deviant sexual preferences. It’s so obvious it pains me that others have been fooled to believe otherwise.

Studies conclude that homosexual preferences are learned - often from various factors like physical &/or sexual abuse, absent or passive dad along with domineering mother, being called “gay” and believing others’ put downs etc. It may FEEL to someone as if they had always felt a certain way - especially if abuse etc began at a young age. So in that sense how they feel is not a choice, but of course action is choice, as is our choices on what to focus on & what to ignore etc.

The church will never accept homosexual behavior, but I do think they are trying to appease homosexual mobs who have a nack for shifting blame, making good to be evil & evil to be good & other manipulative tactics - which are NOT loving at all.

Love is not kissing up and essentially saying, “Sure - go ahead hurt yourself & others, anything you want I just want MYSELF to seem like a good guy so I will go along with whatever harmful insanity you want.”

Love is acknowledging what is, while striving for what is best.
According to US nation-wide gathered health reports, those practicing homosexuality have many more cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV, mental illness & anal sex complications.
Why would anyone encourage behavior KNOWN to be harmful?
Love is wanting & striving for health rather sickness for self and others.

[Serragon]

Pride comes naturally to me. Yet the Lord expects me to subdue and change this aspect of my character.
Envy comes naturally to me. Yet the Lord expects me to subdue and change this aspect of my character.
Anger comes naturally to me. Yet the Lord expects me to subdue and change this aspect of my character.
Sexual arousal comes naturally to me. Yet the Lord expects me to subdue and control this aspect of my character and only use it within bounds He has set.
Gluttony comes naturally to me. Yet the Lord expects me to subdue this and keep my appetites within bounds He has set.


Charity does not come naturally to me. Yet the Lord expects me to develop this character trait and make it dominant.
Love does not come naturally to me. Yet the Lord has commanded that I have this for all people.
Faith does not come naturally to me. Yet the Lord expects me to develop this aspect of my character and use it guide my life.

It seems that the Lord is not really too concerned with what I naturally have or don't have. It would seem that all of us have things to reject, and things to develop. For each of my weaknesses, there are those for whom they have never been struggles. And yet, we are not different creatures with different identities.

Pretending that an attraction to others of the same sex is good and wholesome and should be embraced is really missing the point of our creation. Pretending it is your identity is to reject who you really are.

[captainfearnot]

Love is not kissing up and essentially saying, “Sure - go ahead hurt yourself & others, anything you want I just want MYSELF to seem like a good guy so I will go along with whatever harmful insanity you want.”

Love is acknowledging what is, while striving for what is best.
According to US nation-wide gathered health reports, those practicing homosexuality have many more cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV, mental illness & anal sex complications.

Thinker, a lot of your reasoning in opposition to homosexuality seems to center on the health risks associated with it. This seems like a non-sequitur to me for several reasons.

First of all, is it your opinion that if the health risks associated with homosexuality could be completely mitigated, then it would cease to be immoral? Somehow I doubt it. Same sex contact would still be deemed immoral by the church, I'm guessing, so why even bring up the health risks at all?

Secondly, anal sex is not synonymous with homosexuality. There are plenty of gays who never do it, and there are plenty of straights who do. If your crusade is against anal sex, then why would the sexual orientation of the participants matter?

Then there are the health parameters in which gays, as a population, fare better than straights. If we can find studies that show that gays are less likely than straights to be obese, for instance, is that relevant to the morality of homosexuality? Of course not.

Finally, is increased risk to personal health and safety always immoral? If it's immoral to engage in anal sex because of the health risks, is it also immoral to ride a motorcycle to work? Is it immoral to be overweight? My life insurance application asks me if I smoke, if I'm overweight, and if I race cars, scuba dive, or pilot private planes, but it doesn't ask me if I engage in anal sex.

Seems like there are lots of things we can do that put our lives at risk for the sake of fun and recreation, but most of us don't consider all of them to be immoral. We generally allow adults to assess risks to their person and make their own decisions accordingly.

Why would anyone encourage behavior KNOWN to be harmful?

Gay adults, like straight adults, can study the statistics on their own (or not, as they choose) and decide what activities they want to engage in accordingly. If being gay (or acting on same sex attraction, as the church seems to put it nowadays) is a sin, then people who want to live the LDS version of a moral lifestyle must refrain from it. But I don't think it follows that homosexuality is immoral because anal sex carries a health risk.

[TrueIntent]

When you label yourself by your weakness then you make it much more difficult for yourself. No doubt that living with those inclinations is a big challenge. But so are many other things. Trying to pattern your life after God requires a difficult path through mists of darkness and much sacrifice.

Mathew 8:13....Jesus says, ."I will have mercy, and not sacrifice", But joseph smith taught , This quote is from Joseph smith....".Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life. " It appears they contradict each other...BUT REALLY they don't....Hebrews 7:7 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Whats the difference.....Joseph is teaching the levitical law to bring people to the law of Melkezedek, a higher order.

Sacrifice is under the levitical law...the priesthood of aaron (laws of the flesh).....BUT under Christ, the melkezedek...is a law of the spirit. See Hebrews 7.....Joseph Smith was a Moses type....he was administering a Leveitcal law (though he attempted to administer the higher just like moses did, the saints could not live it, so they were given a lesser...as a church anyway).

A change comes in the law....11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Notice the law of aaron is referred to as a "carnal one" law after the flesh. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. The law makes nothing perfect...it just draws us to God for a better hope...which is what many people are doing...living the law...then going to God for a "better hope"....the end of the law is Christ, and the law, as we know makes one dead.


For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.


The law makes men with high priest which have "infirmity"....what does this mean??????????

Next Chapter.....10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

In Moroni, the final chapters of the book of mormon...he talks about accepting Grace.


Although I have studied the topic, I also understand the gospel and the purpose of marriage and male and female becoming one. I also understand that we have choice, and that we must choose the right even when it is hard or seems impossible to do so. Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven. God gives us weaknesses so that we will have something to offer at the altar.

When I got married I gave up the opportunity to engage sexually with other women. I live every day knowing that my wife is the only one I have ever or will ever know intimately. I’m willing to do that. Doesn’t matter how attractive other women are, I cleave to my wife because this is God’s design for men and woman. In Eden he separated woman from man, he took one flesh and divided it into two incomplete parts. For this cause, the marriage covenant brings about one flesh and restores two into one. So i think we believe differently on this....making a covenant in spirit, of a higher order...isn't giving up anything....its the opportunity to wash anothers feet... So for me, I begged God to let me be the one to do it....Before..i viewed marriage as "loyalty" to ones spouse , and fidelity....Now, as a covenant, I view it as, the offering anyway, in the symbolic nature of saying...please let me "wash my spouses feet"....symbolically...let me be the one I beg you to serve this person that way. It's your mission..your role and duty...your honor to wash their feet. It's made in spirit, not in flesh...the flesh becomes the outward manifestation of what you made in spirit, but spirit has taken the lead. does that makes sense...you may be meaning the same thing.

It’s never been anything else. The entirety of the doctrine is based on this dynamic. There is 0 doctrinal basis for it, it doesn’t exist. People need true doctrine, not excuses for remaining in a state that robs them of the blessings of God’s covenants. (ill see if I can get you some information on errors in translation....like I said....what constitutes personal revelation?)

Again, I’m not saying this is easy, but the entire gospel is not easy. It is HARD to walk the path and this is by design. We are meant to wrestle, climb, and seek, this is part of everyone’s journey and we all have a different thing or thing to struggle with. We all have the natural man to overcome.

People who struggle with anything deserve our love and fellowship, but we will not encourage people in a path that leads them away from God’s highest blessings. That is not love.

SO this I think is where we differ doctrinally, Christ does not require sacrifice...he was the sacrifice...he requires broken heart and contrite spirit, and willingness to follow his spirit to enter into his fellowship... i simply can't believe gay people in the church have never done this...Your aunt is one case, my friend is another...they contradict each other (the truth is somewhere in the middle because they probably are following the spirit).....my point is....there are levels of obedience and sacrifice...just like the temple ceremony...but we don't stay on that level...we don't stay at the mosaic law. We transistion to a higher law.....one law, reveals another. This also is individual (we can not assume that they are not living laws written on their own heart...it says NO MAN CAN INSTRUCT ANOTHER)....same thing with Nephi following the spirit and laban....when you follow the spirit..the important part is to discern the spirit...what fruits does it produce (this is the judge for what spirit you follow)....like I said...gays in monogamous relationship (there is a male and female in spirit...marriage is an earthly institution...a sealing is heavenly...covenants are made directly with God).....
On a side note,.....reception of the ordinances through the church does not mean that the "gentiles are not receiving the same ordinances in spirit"....paul taught this as does the book of mormon with the laminates being baptized by fire and not know it...paul refers to circumcision. at the end of the day...we keep dismissing a huge group of people who say they are receiving confirming witnesses of peace....the is what Melkezedek means, King of Peace...there is so much symbolism in this. I just can not dismiss the idea that everyone in the gay religious community is not acting with real intent...and that they are fighting a "fake' battle, and offering a "fake" broken heart and contrite spirit. My next step will be to give you some solid evidence on translation errors.....ive read some essays...ill see what i can dig up. As a woman...when I have been dismissed on the doctrine of polygamy....I received an overwhelming feeling of peace dismissing the doctrine, as did some of my friends...it was my own wrestle. I WILL NOT dismiss another's witness....I will try to understand it in every way possible before I will dismiss it. My witness matters to me, just like it does to them.





I agree with you about "male and female being one"...i believe that is necessary. And I'm not trying to make a case for exaltation....but I don't necessarily believe there isn't one.....if I can make a case for a heavenly mother, from just symbolism, I'm sure I could for this, but Im not as well read on this topic...Im just making a point, the church's case is "we don't know...they may be born that way...which means we believe some are....So from that, we should make some new doctrinal cases...about grace, the atonement...etc.

But I have heard the phrase about Eunuchs in the bible where Christ says there are some that are single for the sake of heaven, and there are angels that are single in heaven....to use the word Eunuch, well that's a male with not testes (this has cultural implications, as Eunuchs have interesting roles.) and...because of all the variations in the human body...we always say, that God will sort it all it...like Im assuming this is what a church would tell a hermaphrodite...why would we not believe the same about Gays. About the male and female becoming one....what if they are doing their absolute best...Would grace not apply, and would they not be entitled to the same blessings? I just feel like there is a denial of grace here....and maybe the atonement....could the atonement not change their desire (if so, why are we teaching celibacy and behavior control).....I don't know that I believe there is zero doctrinal basis for it....like I said....people have had near death experiences where they were with their partner in heaven....does that not constitute personal revelation for an individual??? I just don't want to be dismissive. Like what is personal revelation? I don''t think being gay has anything to do with being attracted to someone necessarily......some of the most beautiful people feel ugly.....you can be drawn to someones spirit or repulsed by it. if its not about the outward, can't it be about the inward...and it is pretty clear some gay males have feminine spirits. I mean....so far...Im not convinced.

Im really not trying to preach doctrinally here, i haven't heavily studied this enough to be an expert, but I have studied it enough to have a strong opinion...my passion is women in scripture....i am a woman ...i do study heavenly mother, and women a lot....but because of my studies on women, and life experiences, i tend to defend the minority...and what I have realized is that there are somethings we have hidden, because it bothers us that women could have "power". All I know, is that the church has a different stance...we now teach "we don't know if they are born this way"(from an apostle)....and LDSLiving took it up a notch by publishing an article that said they were absolutely born this way.....this opens up new doctrinal questions that we should discuss.

I too have an interest in Heavenly Mother, I just posted some observations here: http://oneclimbs.com/2017/09/24/the-mot ... ly-spirit/

Look, I have a aunt that was full on living a lesbian lifestyle, was suicidal and everything. She came to understand the doctrine and rejected it. The attraction is miniscule now, she values choice more and is active and has a temple recommend.

I don’t believe in a narrative that encourages a lifestyle that defies the original pattern in Genesis, that was re-emphasized by Christ, that is the foundation of the Abrahamic covenant and is implied throughout scripture. Just because something is hard for people doesn’t mean we don’t continue to teach the doctrine.

This is a complex issue. No doubt that we need to befriend and help these people, but when some demand that we change doctrine to suit their lifestyle that is problematic.

Imagine if a man struggled with attraction to 12 year old girls and said that there shouldn’t be any reason that he shouldn’t be able to marry a young girl. Let’s say society lowers the age of consent. What if this man says he feels judged because of what we teach?

What if a man wants to marry his dog and says thos old testament verses about bestiality are outdated and that Jesus never taught anything against bestiality?

Why should age or species matter? Are we treating these people bad because we teach doctrine? You can make a case for anything you want but look at the patterns. I’ve said this before elsewhere but in Nephi’s vision there was a Path and a rod. There wasn’t a sign every 2 feet that said “don’t step off the path here” but some people justify stepping off the path because there isn’t any sign that tells them they can’t. The point they continue to miss is: there is a path and because there is a path that is your great sign of which direction you should go.

[Fiannan]

Thinker, a lot of your reasoning in opposition to homosexuality seems to center on the health risks associated with it. This seems like a non-sequitur to me for several reasons.

One could more easily bring up the fact that homosexuality equals a lack of continuation of a culture. Cultures are based on people having reproductive sex and making babies. A culture that does not do it dies, a culture that does a lot of it grows and thrives.

[TrueIntent]

I guess if I am going to preach what I believe, I should be willing to debate it doctrinally,.....Give me a little bit of time....but I have just briefly looked at scriptures Christianity uses against homosexuality. I'm prepared to give you a hefty debate for the first two i just read. I will give you doctrine, and teach from the scriptures...just the first two verses I read show heavy errors in translation when compared with hebrew meaning in other contexts--so Im sure there are more. I don't think anyone on this thread will listen to me anyway, but I bet there are some gay people reading this discussion who would like to know what I understand,....maybe it will offer them some peace. It may take me a couple days, but I will post again on this thread. If something is true, we should be able to find it throughout the scriptures.

Btw... some of these comments on this thread are disgusting. and please don't bear your witness of Jesus Christ to anyone...we wouldn't want you to turn them away from Him.

In the voice of Arnold....I'll be back.

[passionflower]

Love is not kissing up and essentially saying, “Sure - go ahead hurt yourself & others, anything you want I just want MYSELF to seem like a good guy so I will go along with whatever harmful insanity you want.”

Love is acknowledging what is, while striving for what is best.
According to US nation-wide gathered health reports, those practicing homosexuality have many more cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV, mental illness & anal sex complications.

Thinker, a lot of your reasoning in opposition to homosexuality seems to center on the health risks associated with it. This seems like a non-sequitur to me for several reasons.

First of all, is it your opinion that if the health risks associated with homosexuality could be completely mitigated, then it would cease to be immoral? Somehow I doubt it. Same sex contact would still be deemed immoral by the church, I'm guessing, so why even bring up the health risks at all?

Secondly, anal sex is not synonymous with homosexuality. There are plenty of gays who never do it, and there are plenty of straights who do. If your crusade is against anal sex, then why would the sexual orientation of the participants matter?

Then there are the health parameters in which gays, as a population, fare better than straights. If we can find studies that show that gays are less likely than straights to be obese, for instance, is that relevant to the morality of homosexuality? Of course not.

Finally, is increased risk to personal health and safety always immoral? If it's immoral to engage in anal sex because of the health risks, is it also immoral to ride a motorcycle to work? Is it immoral to be overweight? My life insurance application asks me if I smoke, if I'm overweight, and if I race cars, scuba dive, or pilot private planes, but it doesn't ask me if I engage in anal sex.

Seems like there are lots of things we can do that put our lives at risk for the sake of fun and recreation, but most of us don't consider all of them to be immoral. We generally allow adults to assess risks to their person and make their own decisions accordingly.

Why would anyone encourage behavior KNOWN to be harmful?

Gay adults, like straight adults, can study the statistics on their own (or not, as they choose) and decide what activities they want to engage in accordingly. If being gay (or acting on same sex attraction, as the church seems to put it nowadays) is a sin, then people who want to live the LDS version of a moral lifestyle must refrain from it. But I don't think it follows that homosexuality is immoral because anal sex carries a health risk.

I see your point here, and yes homosexual behaviour would still be a sin even if no health risks occurred, but the health risks homosexuals themselves and to the general population are very real. There are pregnant wives who have innocently contracted AIDS from their philandering husbands and then passed this on to the unborn child. Other people through no fault of their own became victims of STD's, especially HIV/AIDS, just by going to the dentist, etc. Homosexual behaviour has ended up victimizing and killing an amazing number of innocent people over the years. It is not responsible for any society to allow the spread of disease in favor of allowing adults to assess the risks for themselves. I am sure this couldn't be what you mean.


Unlike True Intent attempts to assert, gay people, male or female, do strongly tend to have multiple sex partners and are now main carriers of STDs. In Africa this is a real real issue, and AIDS is taking a most destructive tole on the population there. Teaching abstinence is not popular today, just safe sex. Homosexuals are still by far the largest at risk group for AIDS and all STD's for that matter, with black people in the forefront of this. If gay men are as nonpromiscuous and true blue as True Intent says, then what IS the cause of the present world wide HIV/AIDS epidemic? And if anybody thinks this epidemic is calming down, think again. Right now there is a strain in Africa that is resistent to drug therapy ( which the US gives $30,000,000 a year to African nations to pass out) It seems a number of black africans over there, when they stopped feeling sick, would stop taking their drugs, and go back to their highly sexual lifestyle as if nothing is wrong. Well, we all know this creates resistant strains, and that's exactly what we have.

[passionflower]

I guess if I am going to preach what I believe, I should be willing to debate it doctrinally,.....Give me a little bit of time....but I have just briefly looked at scriptures Christianity uses against homosexuality. I'm prepared to give you a hefty debate for the first two i just read. I will give you doctrine, and teach from the scriptures...just the first two verses I read show heavy errors in translation when compared with hebrew meaning in other contexts--so Im sure there are more. I don't think anyone on this thread will listen to me anyway, but I bet there are some gay people reading this discussion who would like to know what I understand,....maybe it will offer them some peace. It may take me a couple days, but I will post again on this thread. If something is true, we should be able to find it throughout the scriptures.

Btw... some of these comments on this thread are disgusting. and please don't bear your witness of Jesus Christ to anyone...we wouldn't want you to turn them away from Him.

In the voice of Arnold....I'll be back.

Not buying this. Only the Prophet and the Apostles have the right to interpret scripture for the church at large. Period. The end. The truth in the scriptures is only revealed by revelation alone, through the Priesthood.

With your faith in what you are attempting here, maybe you would have wanted Joseph Smith to have handed the BOM to Charles Anthon to translate after all?

[TrueIntent]

I guess if I am going to preach what I believe, I should be willing to debate it doctrinally,.....Give me a little bit of time....but I have just briefly looked at scriptures Christianity uses against homosexuality. I'm prepared to give you a hefty debate for the first two i just read. I will give you doctrine, and teach from the scriptures...just the first two verses I read show heavy errors in translation when compared with hebrew meaning in other contexts--so Im sure there are more. I don't think anyone on this thread will listen to me anyway, but I bet there are some gay people reading this discussion who would like to know what I understand,....maybe it will offer them some peace. It may take me a couple days, but I will post again on this thread. If something is true, we should be able to find it throughout the scriptures.

Btw... some of these comments on this thread are disgusting. and please don't bear your witness of Jesus Christ to anyone...we wouldn't want you to turn them away from Him.

In the voice of Arnold....I'll be back.

Not buying this. Only the Prophet and the Apostles have the right to interpret scripture for the church at large. Period. The end. The truth in the scriptures is only revealed by revelation alone, through the Priesthood.

With your faith in what you are attempting here, maybe you would have wanted Joseph Smith to have handed the BOM to Charles Anthon to translate after all?

so why do members even bother reading the scriptures if the prophet will just interpret it for them....my next question would be, are members not entitled to receive their own revelation on scripture, can we only allow the church to interpret the meaning of a scripture for us...Joseph Smith used Hebrew translation to correct the Bible for the Joseph Smith Translation...he used the Jews understanding for his own. Im not interpreting scripture for the church at large...Im interpreting it for the thread I posted, and for myself. And, you should be excited about this...if I'm wrong...you can debunk me with more scripture.....you should be welcoming this! You don't even have to read what I post....btw...im not asking anyone but the jews, to give me translation of the scriptures....Im going to use hebrew, scripture, cultural teachings at the time. I will be doing it by revelation....do you believe the JST was revealed??? Do you believe D&C was revealed....the more understanding Joseph gain from his studies...the more that was revealed. Haven't you studied "keys of knowledge"....were supposed to be obtaining knowledge. You just threw Joseph under the bus....if what Joseph revealed was true...it should stand up to scriptural scrutiny. I believe it does. You can debunk all my stuff with scripture if what I say bugs you. Don't you want to know the truth...I mean i just declared that the first two scriptures that I looked up on homosexuality dont stand up to hebrew translation with compared to other scripture...Don't you even want to know???

Btw...based on what you just said...why are you even on the forum? Isn't that what we do here....debate scripture and understanding? you make no sense. Pull the beam out of your eye

[TrueIntent]

Love is not kissing up and essentially saying, “Sure - go ahead hurt yourself & others, anything you want I just want MYSELF to seem like a good guy so I will go along with whatever harmful insanity you want.”

Love is acknowledging what is, while striving for what is best.
According to US nation-wide gathered health reports, those practicing homosexuality have many more cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV, mental illness & anal sex complications.

Thinker, a lot of your reasoning in opposition to homosexuality seems to center on the health risks associated with it. This seems like a non-sequitur to me for several reasons.

First of all, is it your opinion that if the health risks associated with homosexuality could be completely mitigated, then it would cease to be immoral? Somehow I doubt it. Same sex contact would still be deemed immoral by the church, I'm guessing, so why even bring up the health risks at all?

Secondly, anal sex is not synonymous with homosexuality. There are plenty of gays who never do it, and there are plenty of straights who do. If your crusade is against anal sex, then why would the sexual orientation of the participants matter?

Then there are the health parameters in which gays, as a population, fare better than straights. If we can find studies that show that gays are less likely than straights to be obese, for instance, is that relevant to the morality of homosexuality? Of course not.

Finally, is increased risk to personal health and safety always immoral? If it's immoral to engage in anal sex because of the health risks, is it also immoral to ride a motorcycle to work? Is it immoral to be overweight? My life insurance application asks me if I smoke, if I'm overweight, and if I race cars, scuba dive, or pilot private planes, but it doesn't ask me if I engage in anal sex.

Seems like there are lots of things we can do that put our lives at risk for the sake of fun and recreation, but most of us don't consider all of them to be immoral. We generally allow adults to assess risks to their person and make their own decisions accordingly.

Why would anyone encourage behavior KNOWN to be harmful?

Gay adults, like straight adults, can study the statistics on their own (or not, as they choose) and decide what activities they want to engage in accordingly. If being gay (or acting on same sex attraction, as the church seems to put it nowadays) is a sin, then people who want to live the LDS version of a moral lifestyle must refrain from it. But I don't think it follows that homosexuality is immoral because anal sex carries a health risk.

I see your point here, and yes homosexual behaviour would still be a sin even if no health risks occurred, but the health risks homosexuals themselves and to the general population are very real. There are pregnant wives who have innocently contracted AIDS from their philandering husbands and then passed this on to the unborn child. Other people through no fault of their own became victims of STD's, especially HIV/AIDS, just by going to the dentist, etc. Homosexual behaviour has ended up victimizing and killing an amazing number of innocent people over the years. It is not responsible for any society to allow the spread of disease in favor of allowing adults to assess the risks for themselves. I am sure this couldn't be what you mean.



Unlike True Intent attempts to assert, gay people, male or female, do strongly tend to have multiple sex partners and are now main carriers of STDs. In Africa this is a real real issue, and AIDS is taking a most destructive tole on the population there. Teaching abstinence is not popular today, just safe sex. Homosexuals are still by far the largest at risk group for AIDS and all STD's for that matter, with black people in the forefront of this. If gay men are as nonpromiscuous and true blue as True Intent says, then what IS the cause of the present world wide HIV/AIDS epidemic? And if anybody thinks this epidemic is calming down, think again. Right now there is a strain in Africa that is resistent to drug therapy ( which the US gives $30,000,000 a year to African nations to pass out) It seems a number of black africans over there, when they stopped feeling sick, would stop taking their drugs, and go back to their highly sexual lifestyle as if nothing is wrong. Well, we all know this creates resistant strains, and that's exactly what we have.

Have you ever seen anyone in the last throes of this disease? Or syphilis, for instance? I have, and it isn't pretty. With friends like lovey-dovey=self- validating True Intent, who needs enemies?

Do you people seriously not read what you write.....gay people, male or female, do strongly tend to have multiple sex partners and are now main carriers of STDs. So do straight people...what about the AIDS rate in africa....Can't you hear what you say? I didn't apply a blanket statement to gays just like I won't to heterosexuals...Heterosexuals are promiscuous...you can't dump your views on an entire group of people and dismiss the facts.. You sound like a bigot....You can not dismiss the Entire continent of Africa and their AIDS epidemic...you can still get killed for being gay in those counties..that's not from gay people ....These comments are just insane. Do you people who claim to follow Jesus Christ, even read what you write.

[captainfearnot]

One could more easily bring up the fact that homosexuality equals a lack of continuation of a culture. Cultures are based on people having reproductive sex and making babies. A culture that does not do it dies, a culture that does a lot of it grows and thrives.

This looks like another non-sequitur to me, because the same could be said of anyone who chooses not to procreate, whatever the reason. That's fine within a religious context, where we believe it is a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. (Although even in Mormonism, the healthy straight couple that chooses not to have kids is on nowhere near the same level of transgression as the gay couple.) But we also believe that it is a commandment to refrain from homosexual relations, full stop, so there is no need to parse it further.

If your're trying to establish a secular or pluralistic basis for the immorality of homosexuality in society, then we would have to conclude that anyone who chooses not to procreate, for whatever reason, is being equally immoral. On that basis everyone should be judged according to how their actions would affect society if everyone in the world did the same thing. This would likely condemn those who choose to have 12 kids along with those who choose to have zero.

Luckily there is room in our culture for a small percentage of couples who want huge families to have as many children as they want, and there is also room for a certain number of couples who don't want any kids to refrain, without any undue catastrophic effects.

[Robin Hood]

Well, that's me done with LDS Living.

[TrueIntent]

Well, that's me done with LDS Living.

Why must we be so all or nothing? There is lot's of good content on LDSliving...I don't agree with all of it, but there is some I agree with.

[Lizzy60]

Well, that's me done with LDS Living.

Why must we be so all or nothing? There is lot's of good content on LDSliving...I don't agree with all of it, but there is some I agree with.

Yeah, and the brownies I'm bringing to you are mostly good. Only a few have poop in them, so just spit those out.