Gay but clean?

[MarginOfError]

While President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball taught that no one is born homosexual. I realize that's no longer politically correct, but I believe it was true when he taught it...and that it's still true today.

Like President Spencer W. Kimball?

Yeah, Spencer W. Kimball was authorized to interpret scripture. Perhaps you can refer me to what scripture he was interpreting under that statement. And you could also point out to me where having the keys and authority to interpret scripture makes one flawlessly qualified to interpret scientific research.

[Daniel2020]

Pam, Soulsearch, Wingnut, et al.:

If you are willing to agree that:

1. Pedophiles are born that way

2. Pedophiles don't sin until they act upon they're (perverted) desires

Then your (reciprocal) arguments about homosexuality will carry a lot of weight with me. But if you maintain they don't apply to all sins then I'll consider my case proved that the argument that homosexual don't sin unless they act on their desire is nothing more than political correctness in disguise.

[Daniel2020]

Yeah, Spencer W. Kimball was authorized to interpret scripture... And you could also point out to me where having the keys and authority to interpret scripture makes one flawlessly qualified to interpret scientific research.

Would you kindly point me the "scientific research" that has established a significant difference in the genes, chromosomes, etc. of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus far only "scientific research" that anyone I've seen relates to behavioral--not fundamental biological--differences. I'm asking for "scientific proof" that homosexuals are born that way--and that homosexuality is not a learned behavior.

----------

Back when I took geology in college "scientific research" said we were entering a mini ice age; now it says were in an era of global warming. Also only religious fanatics believe in plate tectonics--there was lots of "scientific research proving plate tectonics wrong. So forgive me when I say that I don't consider "scientific research" capable of answering these questions. Nor do I think it is able to establish what is morally right and wrong.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Daniel2020

[Soulsearcher]

Like what? (Other than teaching that are no longer politically correct.)

Why would it matter about politically correct? If it was gods word and true once, according to you it doesn't change. Blacks holding the priesthood, polygamy, changes in the temple ceremonies. All things that changed through continuing revelation.

[LocalFarms]

Daniel 2020:

Let me first state that I am a person that struggles with ssa. I think my beliefs fall closer to yours than others in this discussion but there a few points I wanted to bring up.

There's a difference between an impure thought simply entering your brain and entertaining such thought. Let's use your pedophile situation as an example. I don't believe it is a sin for the temptation to lust after a child to enter the brain of a pedophile. It is when the pedophile gives in to the temptation and fantasizes in an impure way about a child that they are comitting sin.

Also a drug addict physically never stop craving drugs. They are desiring after something evil only if they willfully entertain those cravings that they sin because they are seeking after the drug... even if in their own minds.

In the same way, someone with ssa will have it the rest of their life. They will never be free from the temptation to lust after one of their own sex. It is when they entertain those thoughts and tempt themselves that they have commited the sin you are refferencing.

[LocalFarms]

Wanted to rephrase one of my statements above. Someone with ssa will have it the rest of their lives except in the case of divine intervention(miracles) which do happen.:)

[Dravin]

Pam, Soulsearch, Wingnut, et al.:

If you are willing to agree that:

1. Pedophiles are born that way

2. Pedophiles don't sin until they act upon they're (perverted) desires

Not sure about born that way but pedophiles don't sin until they act upon those desires (either by lusting [which is not the same thing as having a temptation] or committing acts). Temptation is not sin, even the Savior was tempted* , so if you want to maintain that temptation is sin you must conclude the Savior was not sinless. Somethings tells me you aren't inclined to do so which means you need to adjust one end of your 'logical' chain.

* I'm not implying the Savior was tempted with homosexual or pedophliac desires.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Dravin

[LostSheep]

Ok...um...so last night, me and another guy that I have a crush on snuggled...for hours while watching tv. No kissing. Just affectionate holding and stroking hair and arms. Have I already sinned by LDS standards?

[Dravin]

Ok...um...so last night, me and another guy that I have a crush on snuggled...for hours while watching tv. No kissing. Just affectionate holding and stroking hair and arms. Have I already sinned by LDS standards?

That's really something you should be talking to your Bishop about not a bunch of random people online. Hypotheticals are one thing, this is another.

[LostSheep]

That's really something you should be talking to your Bishop about not a bunch of random people online. Hypotheticals are one thing, this is another.

I'm only asking because I'm curious. I don't have a bishop.

[Gwen]

Pam, Soulsearch, Wingnut, et al.:

If you are willing to agree that:

1. Pedophiles are born that way

2. Pedophiles don't sin until they act upon they're (perverted) desires

Then your (reciprocal) arguments about homosexuality will carry a lot of weight with me. But if you maintain they don't apply to all sins then I'll consider my case proved that the argument that homosexual don't sin unless they act on their desire is nothing more than political correctness in disguise.

there are a lot of things in this world we can't explain. if someone is born with an inclination toward children i don't know. in the end the doctrine is the same. if someone has any "natural man" (aka physical) desire (addictive tendencies, inclination toward substance addiction, sexual, food, etc) the desire/thought/tendency/etc is not the sin. the action/behavior of indulging it is.

so yes your pedophile example does hold up under the lines being drawn in this thread. IF they are born that way and DO NOT indulge in behavior outside of the limits set by the lord then THEY ARE NOT SINNERS anymore than the rest of us.

now you have been told a couple times not to stay on topic. i will be deleting any further posts i see that are off topic.

[Gwen]

I'm only asking because I'm curious. I don't have a bishop.

if you don't have a bishop then why do you care about lds standards? as for your question i think you will have to take all the info from this discussion and come to that conclusion yourself. no one can really say where the line is without details that would be inappropriate to share here.

[LocalFarms]

Ok...um...so last night, me and another guy that I have a crush on snuggled...for hours while watching tv. No kissing. Just affectionate holding and stroking hair and arms. Have I already sinned by LDS standards?

The line is crossed when you start to seek after selfish desires instead of what G_d desires for you. Have you crossed that line?

[LostSheep]

Ok...This is a general discussion thread, and I was just making conversation about the church's double standard. Of course, people's opinions seem to range from it being okay as long as you don't cross the line into fornication, to gays being born sinners. Very interesting.

[Gwen]

are you worried about a double standard or looking for an excuse to toss the church aside and do what you want? sounds like something you need to work out with god.

[Voyager]

I amy be wrong but didn't Elder Boyd K. Packer say one of the greatest threats to the Church was from homosexual activists?

[ronism99403]

Pam, Soulsearch, Wingnut, et al.:

If you are willing to agree that:

1. Pedophiles are born that way

2. Pedophiles don't sin until they act upon they're (perverted) desires

Then your (reciprocal) arguments about homosexuality will carry a lot of weight with me. But if you maintain they don't apply to all sins then I'll consider my case proved that the argument that homosexual don't sin unless they act on their desire is nothing more than political correctness in disguise.

What a nasty post! Pedophilia temptation, when acted upon, always harms the innocent. How is that always true with homosexuality?

[ronism99403]

I amy be wrong but didn't Elder Boyd K. Packer say one of the greatest threats to the Church was from homosexual activists?

He was wrong. As he was in his talk "to the one".

[ronism99403]

So why do we bother reading the words of dead prophets and apostles contained in the scriptures? The answer is: truth is eternal.

A scriptural inerrantist is among us. "No new revelation now. Bad Mormons! Bad Mormons! We already have a Bible. What more do we need?"

[ronism99403]

Why not seek answers to such questions from the cannon of scripture? The scriptures make it very clear that gays (the effeminate) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Here's what the apostle Paul said; it's been canonized:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Note well the scriptures speaks both of the homosexual act (abusers of themselves with mankind) and the state of being homosexual (the effeminate) as being things that prevent a person from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Here’s the principle that teaches us why:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)

Before condemning what I posted you might reflect on:

…Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth...the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness…(2 Nephi 9:40)

At first, I thought you were an adherent to some Calvinistic--Protestant sect. Imagine my surprise at the awful realization that you might be a Mormon.

[ronism99403]

Daniel 2020:

Let me first state that I am a person that struggles with ssa. I think my beliefs fall closer to yours than others in this discussion but there a few points I wanted to bring up.

There's a difference between an impure thought simply entering your brain and entertaining such thought. Let's use your pedophile situation as an example. I don't believe it is a sin for the temptation to lust after a child to enter the brain of a pedophile. It is when the pedophile gives in to the temptation and fantasizes in an impure way about a child that they are comitting sin.

Also a drug addict physically never stop craving drugs. They are desiring after something evil only if they willfully entertain those cravings that they sin because they are seeking after the drug... even if in their own minds.

In the same way, someone with ssa will have it the rest of their life. They will never be free from the temptation to lust after one of their own sex. It is when they entertain those thoughts and tempt themselves that they have commited the sin you are refferencing.

Maybe SSA is more than just lust.

[LocalFarms]

Maybe SSA is more than just lust.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your post. Are you saying that I'm saying it is? For me ssa is like a physical addiction.

[ronism99403]

Pam, Soulsearch, Wingnut, et al.:

If you are willing to agree that:

1. Pedophiles are born that way

2. Pedophiles don't sin until they act upon they're (perverted) desires

Then your (reciprocal) arguments about homosexuality will carry a lot of weight with me. But if you maintain they don't apply to all sins then I'll consider my case proved that the argument that homosexual don't sin unless they act on their desire is nothing more than political correctness in disguise.

OK, I've calmed down a bit after reading your post. So I will say this in reply to IT. We are all fallen. I will, therefore, concede that homosexual desires may be a manifestation of that fallen state for some people, but it does not become sin unless acted upon. Just as the desire to lie, which is an ubiquitous desire for all mankind, does not become sin unless acted upon. And even though the desire to lie is common among nearly all of us, it is still perverse.

I am glad that we have a Father who sacrificially loves all of us.

[ronism99403]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your post. Are you saying that I'm saying it is? For me ssa is like a physical addiction.

For me, who is in a loving relationship with a lovely man, it is so much more. I imagine that for straight guys who are single, their physical attraction to women may feel like a physical addiction as well.

[Elgama]

For me, who is in a loving relationship with a lovely man, it is so much more. I imagine that for straight guys who are single, their physical attraction to women may feel like a physical addiction as well.

I have actually begun to wonder and right now is a just musing as a result of all these threads if heterosexuality is as much a deviation from where we should be as homosexuality. Personally I find both men and women beautiful and for me love comes from who they are not what they are if that makes sense. Like I have inherited my parents addictive genes, my Father's addiction is too sex, my Mother's to alcohol, mine does not manifest itself in a way that keeps me from the Temple, I can bite my nails and still go etc, so the heterosexual's desire does not mean they need to deviate from the Temple Covenants, but nor do they have their agency or a choice in the matter. I think it also explains the intolerance and misunderstandings. My best friend is gay and the idea of a relationship with a woman makes him physically sick, and I should imagine someone who is entirely heterosexual feels the same revulsion at the idea of a relationship with someone of the same sex equally repulsive. And then you have those of us in the middle that don't understand why you can't just love a person for who they are. And hen you have those like my Dad who don't seem to have a switch off button when he see's a woman of a certain type, whereas I find that repulsive.

Because it goes to the very heart of who we are its easy to see where repulsion and fear comes from because unlike with say racisum where its fear of the unknown it is really sick and revulsion coming from within for many people. And lack of complete understanding on the part of those that just plain don't get those feelings. I personally struggle to understand why someone can't just focus on their partners goodness etc and use that to create the attraction. Think about how you felt when it was suggested that paedophiles were wired that way. Having watched a lot of documentaries, as repulsed as I am at the idea I do believe it is down to their wiring, but they do need to fight against it because their actions remove innocence and real agency.

I see homosexuality is wrong because in order to reach our full potential male and female need to be one, worlds cannot be created without it. However I have also seen the heartache extreme sexual desires on either side can cause in life, I also don't condemn my Father for his running around with many women because at 70 he has finally learned to be honest and tells any woman he is involved with he is not capable of being faithful. Its something we all have to sort out with Heavenly Father in the end. And concerning the original post no its not wrong to be gay and celibate or chaste.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Elgama