- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We assume we have all these answers about gender and sexuality, but the fact is we don’t. There are children born all the time who do not display typical genitalia. There are also people who live their whole lives and never even know that they are intersex. Here is a marvelous link if anyone would like to learn more about intersex:
http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex There are animals that can change gender entirely. Since everything is created spiritually first, what is their spirit? Boy or girl?
So, I know this is slightly to the side of the SSM topic, but it goes along with the Proclamation. What happens to those born intersex? If their spirit has been and always will be one gender why are we assigning a gender to them during infancy??? What if the wrong one is chosen? Then is the person wicked for having relationships or for reassigning themselves to what feels like the correct gender?
What about the fact that homosexual behavior is found in the animal kingdom? That takes away the “unnatural” argument.
I’m glad someone else mentioned that procreation is not the only reason for marriage. That bears repeating. I like what is said in The Power of Myth. The main purpose of marriage is to become ONE with your spouse in every way. Not all couples have children for physical or other reasons. Their marriages are still valid. They are still having intercourse.
Why would it be any different for a SS married couple to have intercourse than a hetero married couple? If they are married then what is the difference? Let’s say all the people in this scenario are sterile.
Our entire society has degraded marriage. We should actually be encouraging homosexuals into monogamous SSM. I feel like society would be much better off. But, then, I see monogamy as a pretty fabulous thing. We should be teaching our children that marriage is about becoming one with their spouse. It isn’t only about finding a sex partner and co-parent. When we make marriage all about sex and kids the marriage fails! They will be divorced as soon as the last kid is in college-if not sooner.
Really, the Old Testament is done away-fulfilled. We are under the New Covenant. Lust is destructive in ALL its forms. Do any hetero couples avoid lustful thinking before marriage? I am willing to bet SS couples would be about the same. Sexual intimacy between a monogamous couple is a beautiful thing. I love the concept of “no s3x outside of marriage.”
I sense fear from my LDS friends. They are afraid that SSM will “destroy the family.” You cannot love the people you fear. Fear and love do not coexist. I also sense disdain. That makes me very sad.
I watched this show a few days ago on hulu. Some of you might find it interesting. An LDS woman goes and lives with a gay couple (who have 4 children) for 30 days:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/24921/30-days-same-sex-parenting Justme, Your post has much of good spirit in it, and some good realities to face squarely.
The Proclamation on the Family is a human document with some good wisdom as well as some bluster, hyperbole, and superlatives that are the interpolations of men. It is sanctified as a sacred text by the faith of millions of LDS members, our sisters and brothers. It says gender is eternally essential.
The way I read modern prophets and revelations outside the LDS tradition, a sense of gender does indeed exist in the eternal world. But that gender is never expressed as “essential”. In fact, one of the preponderant aspects of descriptions of the personal, bodily Highest is the absence of clear gender assignment, or the inclusion of both genders.
Fear is a bad thing. Let’s seek that belief and acceptance Joseph Smith idealized when he said, “Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in His views and boundless in his mrecies than we are willing to believe or to receive….” *
Tom
* Full disclosure “…and at the same time more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect in every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be…”
Tom Haws wrote:Hmm. I totally feel like I understand where you are coming from. But for some reason in the past 6 years I am no longer seeing it that way, as a bunch of rules. Rather I see I kept my first estate by being courageous (faith-filled) enough to accept the second estate. And I agreed to invest fully in the experience to glorify the Father.
Yeah, in fact, this very conversation is weakening my faith in the ideas of various rules, chastity, WoW, etc. (no offense Heber, or anyone else). It honestly just feels so foreign to me, I don’t quite know how to explain it. I think I accepted it for so many years because I just repressed the questions I always had. I remember having these questions before in life, even when I was a TBM, but for some reason I just ignored them. Now that I have the courage to ask them, the whole concept feels foreign to me.Let me try to explain a little more. Heber13, I see your point, and I understand your words. Indeed, I can recite the very same thing as truth because I have been taught it my entire life (not saying that’s why you are doing it). But the truth is, I just don’t really believe it. I have some serious concerns accepting the whole “God/prophet” pattern. I am hopeful that “God” speaks to prophets, and I believe I can benefit from what many “prophets” say. But I have some problem accepting one individual’s recipe for success as absolute truth when there seems to be so many voices crying in the wilderness (not too mention a myriad of psychological phenomena that contribute, and the abundance of, to me, underwhelming support for their reliability in revealing truth). See Heber, I feel like you’re telling me the same things I’ve been taught my whole life (no offense). And I see how the whole Mormon paradigm of thought fits together, and rather beautifully if self-contained in a box. But alas, there is more in life, and the whole paradigm breaks down for me as soon as I begin to consider even one other religion (like Islam for example).
Maybe a decent comparison is to learning a new game, say football if you don’t know the rules. You take all this time learning the rules, and you recognize that within the game laid out, the rules make sense, they are self-fulfilling, and self-sustaining, and even necessary. But then you step back, and go “Hmmm, that’s dumb, it’s just a bunch of guys beating each other up over a ball.” (DISCLAIMER: I actually really like football). Does that make sense?
Imagine, just for a moment, that you entered this world with all your cognitive faculties, but with no experience (avoid the philosophical and psychological preposterousness of my example). That is, you can deduce things, think critically, and examine information, but you have no preconceived notions, no religion, etc. How would you learn what truth is? If you observed the world around you, would you deduce all the truth within Mormonism? Would you reject homosexuality? What if you saw that it exists in other animals? Would you deduce what Darwin deduced? Would you deduce that gender is eternal in spite of natural evidence in the contrary? Then what would happen if you had a “vision” telling you things contrary to what you’d observed? Would you believe that, or what you have observed? Just a thought exercise.
just me wrote:Really, the Old Testament is done away-fulfilled. We are under the New Covenant. Lust is destructive in ALL its forms. Do any hetero couples avoid lustful thinking before marriage? I am willing to bet SS couples would be about the same. Sexual intimacy between a monogamous couple is a beautiful thing. I love the concept of “no s3x outside of marriage.”
I sense fear from my LDS friends. They are afraid that SSM will “destroy the family.” You cannot love the people you fear. Fear and love do not coexist. I also sense disdain. That makes me very sad.
Well said just me. I like it. There absolutely is evidence to the contrary in nature. However, I’m not even sure I agree with “Lust is destructive in ALL its forms.” I see that it ought to be reigned in and controlled, or it could result in bad things, but it is still a part of me. Not to be too graphic, but I’m not even sure how one is “intimate” without some lust. Maybe I’m just doomed to hell because I can’t purify myself completely from lust. But if that’s the case, then the majority of the human race is in the same boat.Loved your comments about fear just me. Great comments.
jmb275 wrote:
Well said just me. I like it. There absolutely is evidence to the contrary in nature. However, I’m not even sure I agree with “Lust is destructive in ALL its forms.” I see that it ought to be reigned in and controlled, or it could result in bad things, but it is still a part of me. Not to be too graphic, but I’m not even sure how one is “intimate” without some lust. Maybe I’m just doomed to hell because I can’t purify myself completely from lust. But if that’s the case, then the majority of the human race is in the same boat.Loved your comments about fear just me. Great comments.
Thank you Tom and jmb. That’s just really how I feel.
I may be wrong about lust. However, to me lust is always selfish and only concerned with the physical self. It is not concerned for the emotional or spiritual needs of self or others. To me, that is destructive. I could be playing the semantics game, but I can see a difference between lust and sexual desire. I’m a girl, though! LOL I’m sure my DH has a different take on it than me-more like yours.
Here is the dictionary definition that I am thinking when I say lust: an uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite. One synonym is “covet.”
Anyway, I’m off topic a little. Obviously sexual desire is a wonderful part of courting and marriage.
Yes, just me. Lust=covet. We just happen to have two words for it in English. I used to lust after big houses; it always gave me a knot in my stomach. Here’s a lesson from
a near death story
Quote:On the screen, I saw two forms of Light conjoining with one another in the act of making Love. My guide then asked me to tell her which was the male and which was the female? I said, “I dunno!” She smiled at me and said it does not matter. She went on to say that the two Lights were what God saw when he looked upon us. She explained that God always sees us as our higher selves and that gender is a very temporary thing that will not be around forever. It was further explained to me that God himself is both a Mother essence and a Father essence to us, therefore; God fully understands our attractions for members of similar genders. It was told to me (or rather I was reminded) that there are no mistakes in the way each of us were made. God knew what each of us would be challenged and blessed with. We each act according to our heart (or developed Soul center) and as we mature Spiritually, we come up higher each time.
One other thing I was shown was a couple engaging in activities that focused on Lust rather than Love. My lady guide said that these individuals were in great spiritual duress and bringing upon themselves a life that would present much challenge. I saw that their Soul Lights began to dim significantly and there was a dark haze all about them. My lady guide then told me a time would come when these individuals would need to learn to come to God with their sexual selves, so that he could help them to use their sexuality in a more Loving way. More than likely, emotional or mental illness would emerge and help guide them to a more Loving path of expression. As I looked upon the figures, I sadly commented that lust was a major factor that involved many gay people. The lady smiled at me and explained that all fall into lust before we fully embrace the Light within ourselves. Later the lady also revealed to me that the two dimly beings in spiritual duress … had been a married heterosexual couple.
@just me: love your insight, very succinct. Tom Haws wrote:It was told to me (or rather I was reminded) that there are no mistakes in the way each of us were made. God knew what each of us would be challenged and blessed with.
I have no idea where you got this reference and it all sounds a little “new-agey” to me but I absolutely LOVED this quote. If there was some way to have all people everywhere understand this sentiment the world would be a different place. I feel exactly like what this quote is expressing and I guess that is why I have such a difficult time wrapping my mind and heart around an understanding of why people feel otherwise. I may have had a little too much to drink tonight
😆 😆 jmb275 wrote:See Heber, I feel like you’re telling me the same things I’ve been taught my whole life (no offense). And I see how the whole Mormon paradigm of thought fits together, and rather beautifully if self-contained in a box. But alas, there is more in life, and the whole paradigm breaks down for me as soon as I begin to consider even one other religion
I totally know what you’re saying, and have a great respect for you and your opinions, far more than I would have allowed myself to have 2 years ago when I would have just thought you were wrong and I was right (one evidence that God loves me and has given me trials to help me break my mold and progress in my thinking and ability to accept and love others for who they are–and for that, I am grateful for my trials). No offense taken. You see, I totally understand that as part of my journey for finding meaning…I have not let go of all my TBM beliefs, and in some ways returned back to accept many of them with more passion than I had previously, but let go of others. My prior post is so canned and so familiar…we’ve all heard it before and it wasn’t a new insight…but it is just how I feel and hope that by sharing it with the group on this topic, we can challenge this thinking so I can tell if it still holds up to me or not, or if there is deeper meaning to it or not, but it is still how I view things.
The difference for me now, is that I no longer believe mormonism is the ultimate and only explanation of the truth. I no longer feel I have to convert you to this in order for us to agree. I no longer fear that entertaining other thoughts is leading me to apostacy.
I guess the football analogy kind of works, because I still come back to it. I love football, and the rules are just one way to play the game, but as long as we accept those rules and play by it, we can be creative on how to work our game strategy within those rules – it changes my thoughts and preparations for the game. If we had to recreate the rules of the game each time we played, we wouldn’t have time to get sophisticated with our strategy, practicing our team plays, developing our talents, because the rules would constantly be changing. There would be no point in practicing as a Quarterback if you didn’t know if the next game the rules were changed that you couldn’t forward pass the ball. So having established guidelines gives you a fundamental origin point you can use to move ahead.
I have tried to watch Australian rules football. I don’t understand the rules (but I do like the guys in the long white coats that hold up pointer fingers…way cool
That doesn’t mean grid-iron football is “better” than Australian rules…or that Australian rules is “wrong” – it is just a different set of rules, and a different way to play. And if others want to play grid-iron football, they shouldn’t start demanding we change the rules to meet their needs. Either play by the rules we have, or go play your own game but don’t make me change the rules of the game that I like so much.
It is how I view SSM. The rule is one man and one woman. That works for me. I think it helps my daughters grow up with hopes of what family life for them will be like and how to prepare for it. I think it helps children benefit from a father who is different than a mother. With this “rule of the game” – we can develop our strategies and thoughts on how to strengthen families with our roles and responsibilities in the family team.
If others want to play by different rules…fine…go ahead. Be homosexual if you want. Adopt kids if you want. But don’t call it marriage, call it what it is – co-habitating or living together. If you force me to change my rules on what marriage is, it forces me to teach my kids differently about what family life is. Instead of challenging the rules, go play your own game, call it what you want, but the rules of marriage have already been established over centuries of time and I don’t want that to change. I think there is value in keeping it the way it is. I don’t feel I’m a bigot for that…I’m just selfish that I want it to stay the way it is. Who sets our rules? The government, by law. So if it is important to enough people to change that rule, then go through the democratic process to have the law changed (i.e. No on Prop 8 groups) and if enough people agree to change that rule, than we all have to live with it…but I will vote my preference for what I think is the best way to preserve the integrity of the game in the long run…I respect others can vote their conscience on it too. I have no problem with the church realizing the issue impacts the church teachings so they want to fight for their self-interests and keep the rules that can protect our families. If they lose the battle and will be forced to change (like they did with polygamy), then they will and the church will go on. They just would rather not and are fighting to protect their current rule-system.
Maybe I’m not developed or smart enough to want to let go of rules yet…rules give me a safety of how to frame things. I like rules to keep things orderly and to help me progress. But I hope I’m open to realize some rules are bad and do need to change. I just don’t think marriage is one of them, and feel there are plenty of scriptures to back up the fact that God views it that way too.
Does that explain where I’m coming from, or did you alerady kind of know my take on it?
Maybe it would help me to understand what current homosexual couples can not do currently because they are not married that requires us to change the rules of marriage? If it is tax breaks or something, why can’t the laws be changed to meet those concerns without changing the definition of marriage?
Tom Haws wrote:Hmm. I totally feel like I understand where you are coming from. But for some reason in the past 6 years I am no longer seeing it that way, as a bunch of rules. Rather I see I kept my first estate by being courageous (faith-filled) enough to accept the second estate. And I agreed to invest fully in the experience to glorify the Father.
Tom, I’m behind you by about 5 1/2 years…so be patient with me as I need to get to where you are.
😳 I have become WAY less rulesy as I let go of things…they used to bring me so much fear about breaking them, that I was finding that fear was driving most of my motivations to be perfect…and it is hard to be tolerant of others when you’re so fearful of punishments in your own life. The extension is that I would fear punishment for those I cared about if they mess up (according to me)…and while I thought I was caring for others by warning them … it doesn’t make others feel that way, does it?
Instead, I really like to let go of fear, and try to have love be my motivation and view the rules and commandments as challenges or wise direction. It has changed me and I feel more relaxed now, and more at peace and easy going.
If our experience here in the 2nd estate is all about rules…I think we miss soooooo much about what else this experience has to offer. I don’t want to abandon all rules…just put them in perspective. Having said that, I still think there are some rules that are still important (family is a big one for me). But I don’t want others to dictate to me what my rules need to be, so there is value in debating them and challenging them…but ultimately, they are less important to me than loving others.
Adam and Eve had rules. But more important than Adam keeping all the rules, was the test their true nature and ultimately provide them with an experience to pass through, which was more important than the rules themselves. Right?
just me wrote:I sense fear from my LDS friends. They are afraid that SSM will “destroy the family.” You cannot love the people you fear. Fear and love do not coexist. I also sense disdain. That makes me very sad.
That makes me sad too. Just as I mentioned to Tom, fear is NOT the way to go, it should not be the driving force.
Love should be.
I think the issue can be debated in love…it doesn’t have to devolve into hate and fear. That is not the Gospel of Christ.
Thanks for your posts.
Heber13 wrote:
I think the issue can be debated in love…it doesn’t have to devolve into hate and fear. That is not the Gospel of Christ.I couldn’t agree more. I think, Heber, you’re in that place where the “rule” change of SSM is so huge you’re struggling with the philosophical ramifications. I actually think that is the big issue with the brethren as well. It’s just a huge paradigm shift. But, allow me a couple points:
first, the idea of centuries of heterosexual monogamous marriage is false. Really only the western world has adopted this carte blanche and it’s only been 300 years at best of that sentiment broadly.
Heber13 wrote:If others want to play by different rules…fine…go ahead. Be homosexual if you want. Adopt kids if you want. But don’t call it marriage, call it what it is – co-habitating or living together. If you force me to change my rules on what marriage is, it forces me to teach my kids differently about what family life is
This is the idea that baffles me the most, sorry. How does the existence of SSM “force” you to teach your kids differently about what family is? The concept of divorce is so much more devastating by 1,000 times and yet you’re scared to admit that two loving committed people who happen to be the same gender is a “family”? You keep mentioning terms like “protecting” marriage or “protecting” family as if those institutions are being attacked relentlessly. Again, I apologize, but adding another classification to what “marriage” is or what “family’ is, does not spell doom for those institutions. Not to go crazy on the sports analogies but it was like when the American League added the designated hitter in baseball. Purists went absolutely ballistic saying it was the end of the game as we know it. Now, two generations later, nobody even talks about it and it’s accepted as another interesting part of a very interesting game. (Although rather boring
I’d love to hear all of the scriptural references you alluded to that tells us that God wants marriage to be between one man and one woman. (Sodomy references don’t count
😈 As for the law, there is roughly 1,000 state and federal statutes that use the term marriage, everything from extensive tax codes, to divorce laws, joint property rights, privacy concerns, domestic violence laws, etc, etc.
In time, it will be impossible to argue that denying equal access to laws, (domestic violence being the most scary) because of the term “marriage”, is constitutional. Exactly the same process as happened with the miscegenation cases (Loving v. Virginia).
And, one last apology, but when you use terms like “protecting”, “force”, “fighting”, those sound like fear words and not love words.
Thank you, Heber, for engaging honestly because this is a critically important issue, judging by the DaMU backlash over prop 8.
Heber13, I just want to say there are a lot of good insights in your post, and I admire your honesty. Swimordie already went over my concerns, which are things I have to confront myself. Reminders to self: going slowly is a good thing, honesty is a good thing. My great lament over the whole SSM saga is that the two sides can’t talk to each other better in public. I voted for the Arizona version, but was continually saddened by the arguments and language used by my church fellows to support their position. I don’t know that I voted “right”. But I know I was ready for a better dialogue on the “rules”.
I guess it would be an interesting exercise to try to discuss why I voted “Yes”.
Tom
just me wrote:I may be wrong about lust. However, to me lust is always selfish and only concerned with the physical self. It is not concerned for the emotional or spiritual needs of self or others. To me, that is destructive. I could be playing the semantics game, but I can see a difference between lust and sexual desire. I’m a girl, though! LOL I’m sure my DH has a different take on it than me-more like yours.
Here is the dictionary definition that I am thinking when I say lust: an uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite. One synonym is “covet.”
Ah, I see what you’re saying. I agree that uncontrolled desire or appetite is probably not a good thing generally.Tom Haws wrote:Yes, just me. Lust=covet. We just happen to have two words for it in English. I used to lust after big houses; it always gave me a knot in my stomach.
Here’s a lesson from
a near death story
Quote:On the screen, I saw two forms of Light conjoining with one another in the act of making Love. My guide then asked me to tell her which was the male and which was the female? I said, “I dunno!” She smiled at me and said it does not matter. She went on to say that the two Lights were what God saw when he looked upon us. She explained that God always sees us as our higher selves and that gender is a very temporary thing that will not be around forever. It was further explained to me that God himself is both a Mother essence and a Father essence to us, therefore; God fully understands our attractions for members of similar genders. It was told to me (or rather I was reminded) that there are no mistakes in the way each of us were made. God knew what each of us would be challenged and blessed with. We each act according to our heart (or developed Soul center) and as we mature Spiritually, we come up higher each time.
One other thing I was shown was a couple engaging in activities that focused on Lust rather than Love. My lady guide said that these individuals were in great spiritual duress and bringing upon themselves a life that would present much challenge. I saw that their Soul Lights began to dim significantly and there was a dark haze all about them. My lady guide then told me a time would come when these individuals would need to learn to come to God with their sexual selves, so that he could help them to use their sexuality in a more Loving way. More than likely, emotional or mental illness would emerge and help guide them to a more Loving path of expression. As I looked upon the figures, I sadly commented that lust was a major factor that involved many gay people. The lady smiled at me and explained that all fall into lust before we fully embrace the Light within ourselves. Later the lady also revealed to me that the two dimly beings in spiritual duress … had been a married heterosexual couple.
Loved it Tom. Thanks for sharing!Heber13 wrote:But I don’t want others to dictate to me what my rules need to be, so there is value in debating them and challenging them.
Thank you for your explanation Heber. I understand where you’re coming from. Although you haven’t given any reason why the proposed solution of having the gov’t not be involved in marriage altogether, having only civil contracts, and allowing you, religion, and everyone else to define marriage how they want.However, I must point out that this statement is the ultimate irony of your argument. You don’t want others to dictate to you what your rules need to be, but you are okay dictating to homosexuals what their rules need to be? This is why I believe we should get out of the business of dictating marriage altogether. That’s why I like the alternative solution mentioned above. As I have said, I was not for gay marriage, nor against. I am for equal rights (which by the way they DO NOT have, even in CA although in CA it is close). I am in favor of getting out of the business of dictating personal relationships. That way I don’t define the rules for everyone, and they don’t define the rules for me. Everybody wins!
EDIT: Sorry Heber if it feels like we’re ganging up on you. Know that it’s not my intention at all to disparage you. Only a few short months ago I was in your position defending Prop 8 with vigor (as I alluded to in previous posts). For reference to everybody (I have posted these links before) see what I wrote about Prop 8 just less than a year ago. It will blow your mind.
http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=36http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=36” class=”bbcode_url”> http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=33http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=33” class=”bbcode_url”>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.