carlimac

I agree, except I would point out that we are not asking anything of them. It is the Lord that asks, or requires, it. And if they do not want to believe that, they have the God-given right to reject the teaching.

I see where you're going, Vort, and I think you're semantically right.  But I would also grant what I think is SoulSearcher's intended point, which I interpret as being that sexual intimacy "spills over" into every other aspect of a relationship.  The sort of emotional intimacy I share with my daughters, my sisters, and my mother, is vastly different than the sort of emotional intimacy I share with my wife.
 
As Latter-day Saints, we are asking our same-sex-attracted brothers and sisters to give something up.  Where I disagree, is with the suggestion that the sacrifice we're requesting is impossible, unparalleled, and/or unjustified.

I'd claim understatement, throw out "duh" and "no kidding" sort of sarcastic remarks, and generally point out the obviousness of this thought but, sadly, in today's blinded-by-the-mists-of-darkness world, this, for some unfathomable reason, is apparently not obvious at all.

OK, thanks for the clarification.  I would note, though, that Mormonism isn't demanding that gays "experiment with straightness".  It is arguing for celibacy--more on that below.
 
 
Some?  That seems like a bit of an understatement, based on the reaction I saw.  I realize that the press and internet chatter can present a distorted view of reality, but I'm genuinely curious--Can you name ten gay people who publicly stated that they no problem with the relationships (not the gaudy, sensationalized presentation of the relationships, but the relationships themselves) in that TV show?
 
Can you name five?
 
 
Again, allowing for the distortions of media and internet echo chambers:  The reactions I've seen to Weed, and that TV show, and idea of reorientation therapy (regardless of the method used), and celibacy generally; go far beyond loving concern for others borne of sad experience.  It is a shrieking demand for immediate acquiescence and an utter contempt for actual discussion, rather akin to what I hear when my three-year-old thinks I'm about to take away her dessert.
 
Now, I'm not going to pretend that a life of celibacy is easy.
 
On the other hand:  there is an idea out there--an idea hatched in the Sexual Revolution, and freely disseminated nearly universally (but certainly not exclusively) by most gay rights advocates of which I am aware--that a sexless life is a life not worth living; and that celibacy--or even chastity for a limited period of time pending marriage--is per se abnormal, unnatural and unhealthy. 
 
That idea is frankly silly, dismissive to the richness of the broader human experience, and utterly debasing to humanity.  And--to be blunt--it didn't come from us. (And in this instance I use "us" to describe not only Mormonism, but the Christian Right and social conservatives generally.)
 
This wave of gay suicides and clinical psychological disorders is not caused by Christians who claim (as they have consistently done for two thousand years) that a person can, and in some cases should, live without sex.  It's caused by the intelligentsia, the media, and the political classes who have begun claiming, within the last five decades, that a person can't.
 
And, I would also note that the mere possibility, for a straight person, that he might be able to indulge in sex a year, or five, or ten years in the future; isn't as much of a balm in the here-and-now as one might think.  Ask any teenaged boy.
 
 
I would rather say that part of being human is a sexual relationship--it is, as I've already conceded, a big deal. 
 
But we are not less human if we abstain from such relationships.  This idea is being promulgated all over the social policy arena, and I submit that it is far more inherently painful to those (not just gays) who face a life of celibacy, than is the idea of a consecrated life that is celibate but nonetheless full of friendship, service, education, and culture.
 
And of course, gays and straights aside, there are other categories of people out there whose sexual proclivities are harmful to others, and so they will never know what they would categorize as a "meaningful" sexual relationship. This isn't to say that gay relationships are as horrifying or evil as some of those other types of relationships.  It is, however, to suggest that lifetime celibacy is not a form of martyrdom unique to Christian homosexuals.
 
 
Mormonism, at least, calls straights out for their sexual sins quite a bit. 
 
And theologically, within Mormonism and many other Christian sects, unmarried straights do not have an approved sexual outlet--except for (straight) marriage.  But, here's the problem:  Marriage isn't just about sex.  If I'm single, and no woman in the pool of potential partners meets my criteria for emotional/mental health, or life plans, or attitudes on children and family life, or criminal history, income/career, or religion, or education . . . for all practical purposes, I'm just as "stuck" as I would be if I were gay.  I can either stay single--and celibate--in hopes that if I wait long enough, an opportunity will present itself for a relationship that meets all of my standards, or I can start to compromise. 
 
But now we've got the gay rights advocates insisting on coming into media, schools, the mental health professions, and--increasingly--religion; and insisting that while it's perfectly okay to lower your standards in a mate with regard to education, or religion, or criminal background or whatever--the one standard for a potential marriage partner that is sacrosanct and must never be compromised, is sexual identity.  Unless, of course, you're straight--because experimentation is normal, and look at all those straight guys in prison who form gay relationships in the absence of women, and--who knows?--you might actually like it.
 
All this, of course, redounds to what I was hinting at in my earlier post here: that much of the gay rights movement to date has not actually been about people, in all their complicated, many-faceted, multi-dimensional glory.  It's about sex, and--in my opinion--merely one aspect of a larger social trend regarding sex generally that in practice doesn't really result in sexual autonomy or fulfillment so much as it results in making sure that certain preferred groups get sex in the way and with the frequency that they desire.

My youngest daughter (now 30) is gay...she has a "wife", I have decades members long friends who have grown cold to me as a result. My daughter helped with my youngest son (via assistance help pay for his mission) and comes over every Sunday with her spouse for Sunday dinner. Some of my LDS friends think I am encouraging her by letting her come over with he spouse. My daughter nd I are very close. But I love her as I do with all of my other 3 childern. I love her with all my heart and would lay down my life in an instant for here. As far as any childern she might adopt or have through artificially, I would treat that child I would treat like my other 8 grandchildren. But God and nature has already passed judgment on the children of those...they cannot reproduce and even if adopted, in short they cannot ensure if they would be gay. But like all others we should be loving and compassionate, just like all God's children, that we remain blameless before our Father and Saviour, that we remain the worthy children of our Father in Heaven. Because I need to remain forgiven and bathed in the blood of Christ. God help us all to b the same.

Dude, if you think that just being part of the the religion of Islam means one is oppressive to woman, you've got some serious issues. Polygamy in and of itself is oppressive to no one; as long as each party enters into the agreement free of choice it's not oppressive. (which can be said the same of any marriage as long as it is entered into free of choice one does not force another human being to do something with the threat of physical violence it's not oppressive.)
 
Proponents of homosexual unions who oppose polygamy have absolutely 0 leg to stand on.  They are hypocrites.

Does the LBGT community generally oppose polygamy?  If so, why?  Frankly, it has a stronger historic tradition, and there are religious motivations.  Why deny those?  Why would an LBGT person--especially one who insists on same-sex marriage--dare judge the loving, committed relationships of a man or woman and his/her spouses?  My tongue is not in my cheek.  I'm completely serious.  Personally, I've always thought polygamy had much stronger grounds to stand on than same-sex marriage.

I read a great education article some months ago that I can't locate at the moment, but it spoke of poverty and its effects in low-performing schools.
 
The solution is very three-fold.
 
The schools need to be fixed, the community needs to be fixed, and the homes need to be fixed. Yes, it's quite the challenge. You'll have the students that will push through and survive and succeed no matter what, but for a greater change all three of these components must be fixed. Leave one out and the assurance of success falls dramatically.
 
The Church teaches so much about values being taught in the home. Everything goes back to the home. And darn it if I don't believe this whole-heartedly. But without community examples everything falls through.
 
It's a big job. Platitudes about families and communities fixing themselves have their fair share of truth but the problem is greater than that.

BYU might have a challenge remaining such a steal for a great college education. And to think all they (LGBTs) wanted was to be left alone so they could live their lives. Sheesh! 
 
Have you heard about the $125,000 the Christian bakers have to pay the lesbians because of their 90 symptoms related to stress and heartbreak after being denied a cake for their wedding? Seriously absurd. 

I find it interesting that the concept of the state has been around as long as it has, and Godless' notion has only existed for less than a dozen or two years.  Yet he states it with such surety, as if the notion was so obviously above reproach, it needs no justification or persuasion.

How precisely has the LDS church jeopardized its tax-exempt status?... besides having religious definition of marriage that fell out of favor in less then a decade? 

Someone more versed in Tax law could better answer....  But here are a few things I see...
 
1. Less money toward the mission of the church because it is diverted to a tax bill
2, The church becomes a target to IRS investigations and related politics. 
 
That being said I think the church has an out.  If it comes down to it the LDS Church can get out of the legal marriage business.  It can tell its leaders not to perform any marriages whatsoever.  It can inform it members to acquire and legal marriage outside the Temples before going to the Temples to be Sealed to their spouse (like they do in England currently).  Rendering Sealings a purely religious ordnance with no legal standing.   This should allow the LDS Church to avoid the issue entirely if it happens and not require to much change in how the Church does things.

I had a friend who confided in me that she hadn't had sex with her husband for 4 years. She had severe anxiety and I believe she was abused as a teenager by her father. I don't think any amount of explaining the necessity of it for her marriage or for her husbands sake, even comparing it to the Sabbath sacrament would do any good. She already felt so much guilt about it that comparing sex in her marriage to a religious ritual or rite would have only compounded the problem. She was Catholic but I don't think that had anything to do with her situation. ( I say "was" because she died of cancer at age 49)
 
There are 1001 reasons why women and men have negative feelings towards sex. In my opinion, it's just as important for the spouse that isn't getting any to be long suffering and patient and full of love as it is for the person who can't give out to try to overcome whatever is preventing them from desiring it and giving it. When the one who is deprived becomes sulky, pestery, whiney or even preachy about it, uh...that is about the biggest turn off ever. 

I wonder the same thing, Eowyn. In one report I saw, the rioters set fire to a CVS pharmacy and when the firefighters showed up to put out the fire, they cut holes in the hoses.  Why?  Was the CVS owned by one of the officers?  What is the goal of setting fire to a business and then sabotaging the firefighters in putting it out? BTW, the building was near homes.  I just don't get it.

It is frightening how rapidly lawlessness and rioting begins within certain demographics of the population. Sad really that in 2015 America, this type of behavior is tolerated. The media should be held accountable for the inflamatory and irresponsible "reporting" of news so called.
 
As a side note...can u imagine what the leftist media in our country would be saying if Bush were yucking it up at media swarays while Baltimore was in chaos.

... that I have now officially joined and have officially been made an official member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
That being due to my baptism and confirmation yesterday.
I have been meeting with the missionaries, posting on the forums, praying, studying scripture, visiting stakehouses and the Los Angeles Temple or attending services daily.
That is, some activity every day.
I have met a lot of new people.  Of course a major topic is Utah.  Inevitably someone is going there, coming from there, etc.
I have had a chance to look back 52 years when my mother and I visited the Temple in Salt Lake City.  She was a Mormon Tabernacle Choir fan (big fan) so we had to stop.
In two weeks I will be there again.
I also was able to recall 40 years ago stopping in front of the impressive looking Los Angeles Temple and praying.
So it looks like there was just some inevitability to it all.
And it has now come to pass.
Now, if I can make it in happiness (a job?) to Utah this year to live, all will be right with the universe or at least part of it in Utah.
The stake president early on said, or, you can just 'hang out' here (if you don't make it to Utah).  Yes.
dc
 
Previous reference:
http://lds.net/forums/topic/56658-utah-and-lds/#entry815683

Good Afternoon carlimac,
 
I'm sorry that you experienced such behavior from those people on Facebook. Its really tough to have someone ridicule you and treat your sacred beliefs with such disdain.
 
There is confusion inside and outside of the Church as to how to deal with these things and people seem to be conflating and mixing up philosophies. I don't know how often members of the Church really consider life on the terms that I detailed. Meaning, I read and hear posts from members of the Church and their message seems to ignore the fact that God is real, we are literally His children and He has a plan for us.
 
Of course most people on this earth do not know or understand the fact that they are God's children, however, when you do know this an understand this then you can at least approach the question from the right perspective and you will not be fooled by some of the very persuasive and pleasing messages that are being presented but which are counter to what God has revealed. The modern day justification for allowing all sorts of behavior uses terms such as love and tolerance to try to make their message appealing to many people, and it works. Most people want to be good and do good. They are simply confused as to what love is and what tolerance is.
 
So, my message wasn't meant to be something that you go and say to those who support transgender or homosexual relationships, not unless the Spirit prompts you, but rather I wanted to cut out the clutter and get to the core of the issue so as to provide a clear picture as to what we are talking about and what is really at stake. I hope that my words will be helpful to someone in seeing what it is we are really talking about.
 
-Finrock

I certainly agree with you Finrock in idea and theory. But putting that into practice is a whole nuther side of the issue. For the most part, those who are engaged in gay relationships or are transgendered want no part of anyone telling them what they are doing is sinful or wrong.  They are SO protective of their "rights" to act any way they feel and to engage in any kind of behavior they want to that they become the bullies they cry out against. And yet they can't see their actions as bullying. They feel they are perfectly justified in ranting, using the grossest of language and insults against anyone who is religious.
 
 I recently had that experience. I'm no New Testament apostle and have no desire to put myself in that situation over and over again.  I also think that deep down, most homosexuals and transgenders know that their choice of behavior is offensive to God and to nature, so don't need us telling them that.  
 
I prefer to just keep my ideas and beliefs on the matter to myself, unless it's in some anonymous forum, like this one. (Semi- anon anyway) Or on a comments section where I can try to word a response with logic using the spirit as my guide. But to tell someone these things to their face, I believe is a dangerous proposition. I actually felt threatened by the gang mentality of this particular facebook group when I spoke up, even in the most civil and inoffensive manner I could muster. I spoke of God and Jesus Christ, tried to explain and defend Church leaders and in response was berated and felt like they were spitting in my face. I think they would have if I had been in there presence and not just on facebook. they twisted my words and were obviously intent on humiliating me and my beliefs.  I'm done with that.  

Or maybe I should say 'Lehi's dream comes to Australia'.
 
26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. 27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit. ...33...And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.  (1 Nephi 8:26,33)
 
I came home from work today and my husband flicked on a current affairs program that just happened to show an interview with the actors from the Book of Mormon musical. They were mocking the missionaries and laughing hysterically about comments they were making about the church that were unbelievably ignorant and ill-informed.  I have read about the musical on American news websites and lds forums like this one, and thought I was ok with just ignoring its existence ('heeding it not' as Lehi said). But, I was totally unprepared for how it made my heart stop cold when I realized it was coming right here to my own community. To see people on a popular television show openly mocking my religion was really quite confronting. 
 
We have such a small population of LDS in this largely secular country where Mormons are mostly known as stereotypes (missionaries on bikes, pushy missionaries who 'put their foot in the door', polygamy, and I've even heard that Mormon women are not allowed to cut their hair!). I can imagine how much worse it's going to be when the musical arrives here and mocking Mormonism becomes part of regular conversation. 
 
I suppose the church has the next 18 months or so to figure out how to deal with the possible effects of this musical in Australia...the missionaries in this article have the right idea, but I don't know how their plan would go over here.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle-tumminio/dont-judge-a-book-of-mormon-by-its-cover-how-mormons-are-discovering-the-musical-as-a-conversion-tool_b_3267252.html
 
Has anyone here seen the musical or dealt with the effects of being made a laughing stock in the community because of it? 
 
And why the heck is it ok to bash us for our religion on a current affairs program - would anyone be brave enough to discuss a musical about Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims whilst chortling with hilarity? There would be discrimination lawsuits galore!
 
 

I *might* be close to an expert on this subject so I'll break down the person's post for you and discuss the traits of AIS.
"When I was born I was just like any other baby and was born a male,"
If the child had AIS they would appear female, not like 'any other male'. PAIS on the other hand can happen in an otherwise male looking baby.
" but something changed when I hit puberty. Instead of growing up and out I developed hips, my fingers got long and slender"
Many people have wide hips - I did as well. It has to do with hormone levels at the time of the fat distribution. Fingers growing long and slender is not a characteristic of AIS or PAIS. It isn't a characteristic of anything except for the authors attempt to describe themselves in a more feminine way.
" and I started growing breasts. "
Breasts can develop for any number of reasons. AIS normally causes *some* breast tissue development, but normally requires the supplementation of female hormones for a female like puberty to occur.
"I was very into sports at that time and had to quit because changing clothes in the locker room was just too humiliating because my body was very feminine not masculine.
"By the time High School came I had to strap my breasts down to hide them and I had full hips like a woman and feminine body, my cheek bones developed"
Breast development in an otherrwise normal male at birth (as the person described themselves) should be so minor as to not require binding except for the case of extreme genetic factors. MTF transsexuals who take hormones and block testosterone usually don't develop into any more than an A cup unless they are overweight.
" and found no interest at all in dating women."
This has nothing to do with anything. Anyone can like or not like women based on sexual preference. It isn't something that "changes" at puberty really. This is just another attempt to build sympathy with the reader.
"My doctor diagnosed me and put me on hormones and almost within a month I looked like I had always been a woman with no signs of anything male and that's the way I've lived since then, although I still have male genitalia. My transition started naturally so early with no hormones that literally no one has ever known or asked me if I was born a man or looked at me twice."
A doctor diagnosed him with... what? Doctors do not diagnose people with anything and put you on cross-sexed hormones. Also they take a LOT longer than a month to act. Bone structure is harder for AIS women and much harder for those with PAIS.
The point is, people do not spontaneously go from "normal male" to "normal looking female" even with help from hormones and maybe even surgery. The testosterone being produced in this person's testes would rapidly have diminished any effect from their estrogen production. If this person was truly AIS, they would have in all likelihood been raised as female as most doctors do not do chromosomal tests at birth to reveal the Y chromosome. AIS is usually only discovered later when the girl does not have a normal period come puberty.
Now to your personal attack on my intelligence. I forgive you - you clearly thought I was here spreading misinformation when in fact I was trying to warn other members of a troll who was trying to stir up trouble considering this church's very binary stance on gender.
I am well read in this subject - it affects me every day of my life.

I start with the axiom that we are all children of God and that mortality is not our natural condition. This life should be viewed and measured from the context of what is our ultimate purpose for being here on this earth. So, we all started out "healthy" as spirits. When we enter mortality we immediately become unhealthy due to the natural man. As we experience mortality we either progress towards a return to our natural state, which is being with God, or we digress further from our natural state by becoming more separated from God. Moving towards God is "healthy" whereas moving away from God is "unhealthy". The healthiest mental state possible is having the mind of God. Any deviation from this standard represents an illness to some degree.
 
Committing sin causes mental illness. If we exist in a state of rebellion against God to any degree, to that same degree we are suffering from a mental illness. When we live in sin or when we adopt sinful philosophies we are necessarily delusional and are suffering a form of mental illness.
 
Bruce Jenner is suffering from a severe form of mental illness and because our society in large measure is suffering from mental illness as well, it doesn't even recognize that this is a problem and should not be supported but rather we should be doing something to help this poor fellow and people like him.
 
We should be helping one another become more like Heavenly Father. We should be helping our brothers and sisters know who they are and what their potential is. When we forget this basic purpose and basic knowledge and we try to segregate life in to boxes then we do ourselves and others a disservice because we become enablers and supporters of behavior that will lead people to hell rather than to happiness and we will suffer right along side them. So, this isn't just a case where we can say, "Well, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I care?" If God didn't exist, and if we weren't brothers and sisters, and if the Plan of Salvation was false then maybe we could get away with stating that things like this don't hurt anybody so why should we care. But because God is real and because the Plan of Salvation is real it means that we are all affected by what each person does to some degree. Because we are all connected we ought to be fighting for the cause of Zion rather than just apathetically allowing the notions of what is normal and healthy to be degraded in society to the point where eventually anything and everything goes.
 
-Finrock

In what way is believing someone needs psychiatric help vilefying them?

What is your degree in?  Have you personally met Mr. Jenner? 
 
Or are you purporting that watching a television interview allows you and your whatever-degree to accurately and appropriately diagnose a total stranger?  Because if it's on TV, it's 100% accurate and true, right?  Just as true as Kim Kardashian's butt is "natural", right?
 
There is not one person on this planet who has all the answers to anything, much less the subject of gender identity.  We support the diagnosis of illness - mental or physical - in so many ways, yet anything that has to do with sex, the PC thing to say these days is that it's all good.  How dare anything get in the way of anyone when it comes to all things related to sex.  Whether it's gender identity, sexual orientation or any one of the labels that we like to use nowadays.
 
We can speculate that a mental illness (and isn't it really just a biological illness/disorder that manifests itself in a psychological way?) is at the root of x, y or z behavior....but if sex is any way involved.....nope, that has nothing to do with anything that might relate to an illness or disorder.  Say it ain't so, Joe.
 
We can speculate all we want that...for instance....a brutal sexual crime against a person may have contributed to X actions or behaviors.  Except when it comes to sex.  At least anything that involves same-gender sex.  We  understand that there have been instances where women have turned to promiscuity or become asexual in response to a brutal sexual assault, but we can't speculate that a similar assault might have resulted in a woman reacting in a way that involves same-gender sex.  It's to the point where you are vilified for even having a thought...for wondering if that is a possibility.
 
Do we know for absolutely sure that there is one and only once cause of something like same-sex attraction? Or transgenderism?  If you have that information, please do share it with us.
 
Even those who genuinely try to understand...I mean, I don't get it...from a purely logical viewpoint, I don't get it.  God made man and woman.  He made their bodies in such a way that they specifically fit together in order to create life.  But if you take two same-sex people, you cannot create more life without outside/artificial assistance. And once again, God created man AND woman.  Not just one sex/gender.
 
Yet, heterosexual people who believe that there is a God and that He had a purpose and design in creating man AND woman, we aren't allowed to have that belief anymore.  It's not enough that I have my beliefs and you have yours.  You want me to accept your beliefs while you reserve the right to reject mine.  And vilify me for it.  And discriminate against me for it. And try to deny me MY rights.
 
I don't "get" transgenderism.  I really don't.  I don't think it is possible for ANYONE who is not experiencing that situation to understand it.  But I get vilified for even not "getting" it.  For not jumping up and down and saying "Yay, I am so happy for you!".
 
We just won a wrongful termination case for a transgender client.  I did respond with "Yay, I am so happy for you!" in that instance.  To fire a person just for being transgender and just because you are uncomfortable with it, is wrong.  My co-workers are uncomfortable with the fact that I am Mormon (although, frankly, being "religious" in any way freaks them out), that I am not as wildly liberal as they are.  Should I be fired from my job because of that?
 
I was seriously happy for this client.  Even if I don't get transgender, I get that this person is a PERSON, they are kind, and sweet and were outstanding at their job.  But for some, it is no longer enough that I treat this client the same way I treat all clients (and other human beings).  I am being asked to toss aside the gospel as I know it, to toss aside my religious beliefs and say "Yep, you're right and I'm wrong".
 
And if you don't believe that that is what is happening and will only continue to get worse, then you are in denial.
 
Let the flaming being.......

In a Tribtalk session held right after the Church's statement on nondiscrimination legislation earlier this year, someone specifically asked Elder Oaks about gender identity issues and as I recall he openly acknowledged that we may yet receive additional revelation on that particular issue. We know that mortals are subject to all sorts of birth defects, and I'm open to the theological possibility of a female spirit being born with male generalize (and vice versa). That said, I think parents who use such excuses to put their own kids under the knife while they are still minors are acting far more reprehensiblly than the much-maligned parents who send their gay kids off for reparative therapy.
Theologically speaking, Jenner is clearly ill in some way. But I have no idea whether the treatment Jenner has elected to receive is actually bringing him/her more closely in harmony with his/her perfected state, or driving him/her farther from it. So, I withhold judgment except for some general tut-tutting about the whole darned family being a bunch of inveterate publicity hounds.

Doctors are afraid to say anything in today's environment concerning anyone about anything concerning themLBGT community, even in preschool, or any grand level...even though an alarming number of those seeking "Gender Reassignment" fall into deep depression and many commit suicide. We life in a world where it is abuse to speak out against anything. Thankfully we can still speak out about child abuse.