- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
It seems to me that it is less because of the natural order of the eternities and the doctrines of foundation of families (which come in all shapes, sizes and dysfunctions), and more because the church is establishing the idea that it is a CHOICE, and that makes it SIN. Remove that argument, and accept it is not choice but the way the person is, and it seems the eternities can provide ways for individual adaptations.
Absolutely! There really is the possibility that the linear, literal picture of the eternities we Mormons have been taught is so…fiction! Einstein was so ahead of his time when he proved his theory of relativity. Time IS relative…and is related to energy, mass and speed. Personally, I think the Sunday School, Saturday’s Warrior picture of eternal life is just a simple, palpable story that we might be able to grasp to live the right way. It teaches us important lessons for our stage threeness. When we move on, we can accept them for what they were. When we learn to live the absolute law of love, the “rules” fade away.
It’s too bad there’s so much suffereing getting there though…
😥 Heber13 wrote:Poppyseed wrote:Marriage between a man and a man, while it may satisfy temporarily here on earth, goes against the very basic parts of our doctrine, society and the very nature of God’s familial relationship to us.
Poppy…but what if…what if we really accept that biologically SSA is who the person is, and so they are allowed to have a civil gay marriage (not in the temple) for this life, and live the Law of Chastity within that marriage, and have happiness in this life…and things in the eternities you mentioned about celestial families get worked out in the eternities?Couldn’t the church take that stance? Because ordinances can be done by proxy, multiple marriages or sealings get worked out later (wives sealed to multiple husbands, single men and women die before sealed in the temple, part-member family situations, etc), individuals with genetic disorders not accountable in this life (I’m thinking like mental handicaps or something) will have that fixed later, and babies that die before 8 will have that taken care of through the atonement.
If the gospel can provide for so many different circumstances of life…why not those of same sex attraction?
It seems to me that it is less because of the natural order of the eternities and the doctrines of foundation of families (which come in all shapes, sizes and dysfunctions), and more because the church is establishing the idea that it is a CHOICE, and that makes it SIN. Remove that argument, and accept it is not choice but the way the person is, and it seems the eternities can provide ways for individual adaptations.
Would you agree that it hinges on that definition of sin more so than the doctrines of what the ideal family needs to be?
Except that we are more than our biology. If I am born without an arm, my spirit still has one. You see what I mean? And I am not talking about the “ideal family”. I am talking about the basic unit of society….and the basic unit in the plan of happiness. Every variance springs from that basic unit no matter how earth life changes things.. The word “ideal”, imo, distorts the issue.
Quote:If the gospel can provide for so many different circumstances of life…why not those of same sex attraction?
What part of the gospel is leaving people with SSA out? The standards AND the grace are for everyone no matter the circumstances. If the problem is biological, then Christ can heal either in the course of this life OR at the time of the resurrection. Obedience is required independent of the timing of the restoration. I think it really comes down to a spiritual understanding of “who” a person is and how to define that. Are we looking at a person as an eternal being….a spirit having a physical experience? Or do we simply see ourselves as flesh only? If a person was gay in the pre earth life and if that circumstance continued on into the eternities….if gay marriage was a basic unit to the plan of happiness…… I tend to think our doctrine would reflect that.
Does the church need to adapt to the needs of the people? yes. But I have a hard time seeing them come at the expense of these core doctrines.
This may be a slight tangent, but the basic unit of society is actually community. Humans have never gone off alone from the tribe, just one man, one woman. You could say that there are “sovereign” levels of society, from the individual, to the couple, to the family, to the neighborhood, to the community, etc. But the human experience has always been communal, beyond just family. This is how humans have dealt with random mutations: blindness, deformity, extreme disability, etc. Families need community for the resources afforded. Pioneer families attempted to have lots of boys to help on the farm, hence the large families, but for barn-raising, harvesting, etc., the community was needed. In hunter/gatherer societies, individual families may have been more autonomous to the community, but they still gathered in community to pool resources for the very protection of those resources.
If the human experience is a metaphor/mythical construct for eternal life, then I think Ray’s concept of “communal creation” in the eternities makes a lot of sense. And, just as a community need not exclude anyone based on their human condition (blind, disabled, gay, straight), so this concept of the eternities need not exclude anyone, regardless of their mortal condition.
Please realize, everyone, that I have used the phrase “integrated fully” carefully each time I have commented recently. “Integrated fully” means no differences whatsoever, and I just think allowing homosexuality to be expressed within the Law of Chastity in EVERY way heterosexuality can be expressed might be asking too much of the Church right now or in the near future. Remember, I’m not hung up on “sexual” activity in the eternities, so, theoretically, mortal sexual orientation isn’t all that big a deal from an eternal standpoint – for those people for whom it is totally hardwired in mortality. That easily would fall under not being punished for Adam’s transgression, imo. The issue isn’t the “ideal” or the theoretical; it is the real and the practical. Just as one example, there are SO many people for whom sexual orientation is NOT hard-wired that I’m just not sure what the correct theological and practical stance would be – so I can accept going more slowly than some might want and waiting until the science is MUCH clearer on the overall topic.
I will repeat, I read Jacob 5 and see God telling us that we will continue to be pruned as a church organization until the final pruning is done – but that the pruning can only occur at a rate that won’t kill the tree. I’m just not sure the kind of “solutions” I would like to see implemented actually can be implemented right now without killing the current root of the tree – and I’ve reached peace with having to wait for the root to strengthen, even if that takes longer than I’d like. As I said in the thread about expectations, I’ve let go of any unrealistic expectations with this topic – which leaves me understanding and being fine with why homosexual members currently leave in such high numbers. The LDS Church simply isn’t ready for them yet – and I actually am ok with that, given the rest of our theology that doesn’t hold them accountable for leaving if they simply can’t stay.
A few years back my gay nephew killed himself…over being gay. He’d been hurt, really from the time he 10 years old and on, by bullying at school, anti-gay rhetoric in the church, and so on and so on. I’m a believing, temple rec. holding Mormon, but I think that if I had or ever do have a gay son or daughter, I will tell them the BOM is true, JS was telling the truth, etc., but stay as far away from the present day church as you because there is no place in it for you. The current admonition of the church that “gayness” is not the problem, this is not a sin, but acting on it is…it is just not realistic. I believe (as Martin Luther, a one time celibate priest, came to believe) that the human sex drive is irrepressible and that God intended it to be so, ideally within the bounds of marriage. This does not mean there aren’t any gays who haven’t done it and are currently doing––lifelong celibacy. But the percentage of the church gay population who succeed at this is miniscule. (I read that Evergreen’s success statistic for changing one’s gay orientation is 0.04%. Is this accurate? I don’t know, but it seems about right. Please correct me if I’m wrong.) Just my opinion….
Wow, this thread is really exploring some great and varied views. I think Poppyseed gives some clarity with the ideal model for LDS theology; the family. The main focus is to become Christ-like, in every sense of the word, and hence the “becoming a god” focus on all of our ordinances and practices. Not that I believe all of it, but I think the church believes it. And therein lies the problem. The church would indeed need a great paradigm shift to incorporate homosexual behavior into the big plan. And as for being born gay and ignoring your feelings: Ricky Gervais said once in an interview, “If God exists, why did He make me an aethiest?”. I think it is sin notto act on our feelings. I am afraid that too many of us are “farsighted”. The scriptures speak of a “blindness” that is caused by looking beyond the mark. The Jews were looking into the future for the advent of Christ. They became so fixated on a future event that they totally missed that marvelous reality that Christ was there in their midst. You see, they expected a “perfect” Christ, one that would come to reign in power and glory, one that would deliver them from physical bondage. The Jesus Christ before them was just an “ordinary looking man”, surely not what they expected. So today, we are also so darned farsighted that we totally miss the wonders of this mortal life. We wake in the morning and dream of how we are one day to become as our Father in Heaven is now. When we look in the mirror and all we see is an imperfect human being, we lose faith. We simply cannot deal with who we are RIGHT NOW. Perhaps the person we are right now is gay and we are looking for that perfect person that way that the Jews sought that “perfect Christ”. The Jews wanted Christ to be just like God today (no mortal experience). We want everyone to be a God today. Nobody can have any serious flaws, if they do, we can’t except them just the way that the Jews couldn’t accept Christ.
What would it take for Latterday Saints to stop living for what we may someday become and start excepting ourselves and others for what we are today, right now, right this very minute? What will it take for us to stop being so dang farsighted that we lose sight of mortality?
ken wrote:The current admonition of the church that “gayness” is not the problem, this is not a sin, but acting on it is…it is just not realistic. I believe (as Martin Luther, a one time celibate priest, came to believe) that the human sex drive is irrepressible and that God intended it to be so, ideally within the bounds of marriage. This does not mean there aren’t any gays who haven’t done it and are currently doing––lifelong celibacy. But the percentage of the church gay population who succeed at this is miniscule. (I read that Evergreen’s success statistic for changing one’s gay orientation is 0.04%. Is this accurate? I don’t know, but it seems about right. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Just my opinion….
Why isn’t it realistic? Hard maybe. But lots of folks do it no matter which side their bread is buttered.
The church is not Evergreen. I think it is important to differentiate. I really think at the end of the day the church is trying to point people to Christ and his gospel for healing. If one gets therapy and it helps in pointing a person to Christ….well, that would be a bonus. And the fact that the church is saying that SSA is not sinful is HUGE because it shows the church isn’t condemning people, only behaviors. We just gotta get people with SSA to stop hating themselves and the people in the church to expand their thinking so they can love in better ways. BUT…. If controlling sexual feelings isn’t realistic for the SS attracted, then it must not be realistic for the rest of us. You might as well just lift the law of chastity off of all of us married or not. Why not let our teens act everytime they have an urge? Why not let everyone explore their sexual feelings, fantasize and experiment. Let’s let lust run a muck!
I don’t like saying things like “its hard so don’t make people live that way.” I think it degrades a person in a way. It underestimates the human abilities, not to mention the power of God. I mean what are we really saying here….that having an orgasm is more important than being reconciled to God?
And on another note…..I do think community is an important part of society. I do think we need each other for lots of reasons. But there wouldn’t be community in the first place if there weren’t mommys and daddys. Even if you boil down humanity to its most basic parts….take away theology…..you have an egg and a little spermy.
I
MWallace, I get the farsightedness we all have sometimes, though I’m not sure that’s some huge problem with Jews. I wasn’t there, so I won’t presume. But what wehave is a living church that apparently receives revelation through a prophet, is the one true church, and therefore claims to know the will of God. I wonder if some of you have problems with this aspect, that the church is true but is wrong on a major area, like homosexuality. Perhaps the church is ignoring revelation? I know it took a lot of prayer and asking to receive the 1978 revelation, maybe the church leaders are afraid to even ask the big guy about homosexuality. Again, I’m outside the cuff when it comes to revelation and interpretation, so this isn’t too much of a problem for me, but I can see TBM’s really struggling to reconcile how the true church would proclaim a stance antithetical to their own feelings about this subject.
This issue is so complex, and it brings so much pain and sorrow. One of the biggest contributors to that pain is “faithful” Church members. Ken, I appreciated your remarks. I agree with you. The Church is not a healthy place for most gays. Some can deal with this issue; however, most have to seek refuge in a safer environment — a safer church. My son attends another church now, and I am so relieved and happy he has found peace elsewhere. It is simply too caustic to sit amongst “faithful” saints who have all the answers and all the judgments wrapped up in a neat little pretty package. The same arguments, the same scriptural references, the same judgments, the same prejudices used over and over and over and over again! We must leave the judgment to the experts — and none of them live here on earth. Ophelia wrote:This issue is so complex, and it brings so much pain and sorrow. One of the biggest contributors to that pain is “faithful” Church members. Ken, I appreciated your remarks. I agree with you. The Church is not a healthy place for most gays. Some can deal with this issue; however, most have to seek refuge in a safer environment — a safer church. My son attends another church now, and I am so relieved and happy he has found peace elsewhere. It is simply too caustic to sit amongst “faithful” saints who have all the answers and all the judgments wrapped up in a neat little pretty package. The same arguments, the same scriptural references, the same judgments, the same prejudices used over and over and over and over again! We must leave the judgment to the experts — and none of them live here on earth.
I am so sorry for your son’s pain. I guess I just wanted to ask you, what changes do you feel the church needs to make so homosexuals don’t have to leave? Do the changes have to be doctinal or marrriages offered? From your experience and feelings, is there a middle ground in your thinking?
Ophelia wrote:This issue is so complex, and it brings so much pain and sorrow. One of the biggest contributors to that pain is “faithful” Church members. Ken, I appreciated your remarks. I agree with you. The Church is not a healthy place for most gays. Some can deal with this issue; however, most have to seek refuge in a safer environment — a safer church. My son attends another church now, and I am so relieved and happy he has found peace elsewhere. It is simply too caustic to sit amongst “faithful” saints who have all the answers and all the judgments wrapped up in a neat little pretty package. The same arguments, the same scriptural references, the same judgments, the same prejudices used over and over and over and over again! We must leave the judgment to the experts — and none of them live here on earth.
Thanks Ophelia for your post! And I also appreciate all the other posts too…I think dialogue on this is soooo important for all of us. I’m sure we all have family or friends that have suffered because of the intolerance towards gays. I’m happy for your son, Ophelia, and the peace he has found.
It seems we all get stuck with old teachings somewhere. There are many who still believe the Earth is 6000 years old, like I was taught in seminary. Many believe in a literal global flood in Noah’s time. Many don’t accept evolution in any way.
But most believe that these teachings are metaphor today. That is the only way to resolve the conflict between “true” scripture and true history. So why do we keep insisting these same scriptures cannot be open to different interpretations today wrt homosexuality? I don’t doubt the men that said and wrote the words condemning homosexuality were doing the best they could with their understanding at the time; and they felt it was God’s will.
Just like many LDS prophets did regarding the blacks pre-1978. That changed. So can this.
Poppyseed, I’m sure you think I always pick on you
I have resigned myself that I cannot have any influence over the Church. I am NOT a prophet, I do not receive revelation. That does not mean that I cannot pray and receive an individual answer to a prayer. Here is some research that I found over the internet. It involves the effects of maternal drug use on the unborn fetus. 8: Fetal Drug Addiction
Chapter 8 Overview
This chapter will explain briefly some health issues a fetus may experience as a result of drug exposure.
Why is prenatal drug exposure a problem?
Because of their chemical dependency and lack of information about prenatal care, pregnant substance abusers are more likely than other women to have poor nutrition before and during the time they are pregnant. Many women also smoke cigarettes; the number one cause of poor birth outcome is smoking. Physical and sexual abuse of children with parents addicted to either alcohol or opiates is as high as 22% in one study of 200 families. If neglect was included, the incidence rose to 40%. Parents who must devote a major portion of their energy and financial resources to their habit have less left over for the child. Violence, disorganization and criminality in the family are more common. All of these factors compromise maternal health and place the developing fetus at risk.
Characteristics of Chemically Involved Pregnant Women:
* Mid to late 20’s;
* Low self-esteem;
* Poor self-concept;
* Limited family support;
* Long history of violent or unhealthy relationships;
* Likely to be victims of early sexual or physical abuse;
* Limited education;
* Frequently unemployed;
* No job skills;
* Problems maintaining adequate stable housing;
* Little prenatal care and/or health problems;
* Poor parenting skills;
* Background of dysfunction/chemically dependent families;
* Need for a wide range of services;
* Poly drug use; and
* Mental health problems.
You will notice that physical and sexual abuse of children is as high as 22-40% in one study of 200 participants. If I were going to spend 20 million dollars, I wouldn’t spend it fighting gay marriage in California, I would spend it to prevent and treat drug abuse in pregnant women. If i had any power at all, I wouldn’t wait until a young man was 15 to 16 years old and then refer them to Evergreen. I would treat the young teens who are 15 and 16 years old who are beginning to experiment with and become addicted to drugs. I would spend the money trying to help these young women of child baring age recover from drug dependency before they become pregnant. If these young, chemically dependent women were pregnant, I would spend the money to treat them in rehabilitation centers. I wouldn’t wait until there sons are taken away by the State, removed from the home and placed in foster care. I wouldn’t wait until the adoptive parents approach their bishop with the concerns that their son is gay. I wouldn’t wait for a “revelation” . I don’t need one. I’ve seen these children whose mothers used methamphetamine and angle dust during pregnancy. I’ve seen them have seizures. I’ve seen them born with the blank stare. I’ve seen them go through drug withdrawal. I’ve seen them develop cerebral palsy. So go ahead, spend 20 million dollars on California Proposition 8 (if it makes you feel better). Spend thousands of dollars on Evergreen International – see what changes – NOTHING.
http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section7/ch1_33/sec7ch8.htm PCP/Angel Dust is inexpensive and easy to manufacture. It was used as an anaesthetic in humans, but now is restricted to veterinary use because of severe personality changes and psychosis. There are reports of three infants with symptoms of withdrawal attributed to PCP: jitteriness, increased tone, vomiting, diarrhea, irritability, fine tremors, coarse flapping movements of the extremities, roving eye movements, nystagmus, poor visual fixation, hyperreflexia, and respiratory distress. These effects are the same as are seen in adult humans, older children and mice exposed to PCP. One infant had microcephaly, and another whose mother smoked five-six PCP laced marijuana cigarettes a day, had dysmorphic features. This infant had Cerebral Palsy at two months follow-up.
The addicted parent needs treatment and the addicted infant needs protection. Most addiction treatment personnel do not evaluate the care of children in the course of their work. Protective service workers, on the other hand, are usually unfamiliar with the treatment of addiction.
Adoption: Nobody’s Children Monday, Oct. 09, 1989
* Print
* Reprints
* Email
* digg it
* Twitter
* LinkedIn
* Buzz up!
* Facebook
*
MORE…
o
Add to my:
+ del.icio.us
+ Technorati
+ reddit
+ Google Bookmarks
+ Mixx
+ StumbleUpon
o
Blog this on:
+ TypePad
+ LiveJournal
+ Blogger
+ MySpace
(3 of 5)
While the task force opposed adoption by homosexuals, growing numbers of gay men and women — who are generally spurned by ordinary adoption agencies — have sought special-needs kids. Says a New York social worker involved in placing the city’s 300 homeless AIDS babies: “We have recruited single men because many of them are not afraid of AIDS. We also find men very nurturing parents.”
Frank and Dante, a gay Long Island couple, have not only taken in the fragile 19-month-old Mickey; they are also preparing to adopt two-year-old Jonathan, who has weathered two bouts of AIDS-related pneumonia and, under their care, blossomed from an emaciated infant into a chubby, cheerful toddler. A private adoption agency, Leake & Watts, provides the men with $1,200 for each child a month in city, state and federal funds instead of the $437 subsidy for a healthy child.
On their mantel, Frank and Dante keep a silver-framed picture of their adopted son Alex, who was ten months old when he died of AIDS-related pneumonia last year. If Mickey too succumbs, they will consider adopting another child with AIDS. “I think we were called to take care of them,” says Frank, a former Franciscan brother. “We know what it is like to go through the loss of a child, but we also know there is another baby out there.”
Early stability may be especially important to the prospects of drug children, especially crack babies. “George,” just ten months old, has already endured surgery on his throat and intestines. When he arrived at the Children’s Institute International in Los Angeles six months ago, he weighed only 5 lbs. “He looked like a child assigned a set of skin three times too big,” recalls Sheila Anderson, director of the infant’s shelter at C.I.I. Crack babies frequently have trouble keeping down their food. Given to spasms, trembling and muscular rigidity, they resist cuddling by arching their backs, an early sign of what some studies suggest may be lasting neurological and emotional disorders. In pediatric intensive-care units around the country, they fill the night air with their inconsolable “cat cries,” a distinctive high-pitched whine that conveys who knows what inexpressible misery.
from:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958718-3,00.html To us, the evil isn’t maternal drug abuse – it is gay adoption. That is what we have to fight, not the mom who is stoned out of her mind, but the homosexual or single parent homes that adopt these children. These “gay” families are the “dysfunctional” families, not the heterosexual couples who conceive children while dead drunk and then abandon them. Remember the “gays” are the problem.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.