The LGBT stumbling block.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

• We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply.  Homosexual relationships do not produce life, and thus such a relationship violates that directive
• Children do best in homes with a male and female parent.  Children growing up in same sex households are at a disadvantage here
• If indeed the purpose of eternal marriage and forever families is to construct a new family tree for humanity in the Celestial Kingdom, it isn't obvious to me how homosexual pairings contribute to it.

I agree with all these, but in my mind they miss the central mark. The sexual act is the combining of two people to be "one flesh". It is a merging not only of bodies but of spirits. This must only occur within the bonds of marriage, and must only happen between the two fundamental types of people: male and female. Life itself is the result of such a union. If sexual intercourse is not holy, nothing is. (Which is precisely why we see so many today for whom nothing is holy.)

The act of sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex is, of course, a mockery of sex, and thus a mockery of something intrinsically holy. But God is not mocked. The sexual power we have been granted in mortality, miraculous as it is, is but a shadow and a prefigurement of the power wielded by the exalted.

It is a sign not only of the wickedness of our times but of the willful ignorance of our peoples that homosexual relations are widely accepted and celebrated, to the point of mocking marriage itself. Not even the ancient Greeks, unabashed homosexual pederasts that they were, made a marital relationship of homosexual interactions. Even they understood that marriage is something different from a sexual license or a mere social contract, but rather is the fundamental unit upon which society is built, the formalization of the very union of the sexes.

How we as a society can have lost sight of this, I don't understand, but I strongly suspect it has to do with selfishness and willful blindness. But of course, gravity doesn't stop working just because we say it doesn't, or even pass a law against recognizing gravity. As we step over this cliff edge and celebrate our new-found "freedom", it is only a matter of time until we hit ground.

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not even the ancient Greeks, unabashed homosexual pederasts that they were...

I agree with everything you said above.  Well put.

I wanted to comment on this part though, because I've spent some time studying the matter.  The extent of this kind of behavior in ancient Greece is highly exaggerated.  It did exist, but was more common in some City-States than others and in no case was it as common as we're told.

Anyway, just a side note.

[Vort]

Just now, unixknight said:

I agree with everything you said above.  Well put.

I wanted to comment on this part though, because I've spent some time studying the matter.  The extent of this kind of behavior in ancient Greece is highly exaggerated.  It did exist, but was more common in some City-States than others and in no case was it as common as we're told.

Anyway, just a side note.

That may be the case. I haven't done any real kind of personal study on the matter except reading translations of ancient literature (and commentary on the ancient literature) that describe such societal constructs. I would not be at all surprised to find that such pederasty was more common in urban areas, and that even there it was not the dominant relationship. If nothing else, we can recognize that female prostitutes have been around a long, long, long time. And I don't think their primary clientele consisted of other women.

[Vort]

I would add that what (relatively little) study I've done about Sparta suggests that pederasty was formalized into the military such that the seven-year-old inductees were assigned out to their older "partners". It is said that when the young men married at around 20 or 25, their wives' heads were typically shaved so that there was less difference for the men on their wedding night. I'd be interested to know from someone who has actually studied that period how true all this is.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

That may be the case. I haven't done any real kind of personal study on the matter except reading translations of ancient literature (and commentary on the ancient literature) that describe such societal constructs. I would not be at all surprised to find that such pederasty was more common in urban areas, and that even there it was not the dominant relationship. If nothing else, we can recognize that female prostitutes have been around a long, long, long time. And I don't think their primary clientele consisted of other women.

I had been doing research when I was working on building an army for a historical wargame.  One of the sources pointed out that our impression of widespread homosexuality in ancient Greece had more to do with modern interpretations of certain imagery and statements than on that being the intended meaning.

For example, people commonly claim that Alexander the Great was in a romantic relationship with his best friend.  On looking at the original source documents, it turns out that entire idea is based on Alexander once having made a comment that this friendship was like that of Achilles and Patroclus.  From that, people infer that, since Achilles and Patroclus were a couple... 

But not so fast!  Everything Alexander would  have known about the nature of Achilles and Patroclus would have been based on the Illiad and contemporary writings.  There was no mention of such a relationship whatsoever.  In fact, I've read the Illiad and both Achilles and Patroclus were said to have taken captive Trojan women into their tent for... companionship.  The notion that they were lovers comes from writings that were made centuries later.  Essentially, a Roman fanfic where somebody was shipping Achilles and Patroclus.

And on that basis alone, it's commonly believed that Alexander the Great was at least bi, if not gay.

[mirkwood]

@unixknight These are the two most recent paints.  Not up to my old standards.  😕

anthropology careers and salaries

 

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

@unixknight These are the two most recent paints.  Not up to my old standards.  😕

anthropology careers and salaries

 

Noooooice!  I especially like the Beholder.

[mirkwood]

34 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Noooooice!  I especially like the Beholder.

Thanks.  I think this is the figure I'm going to work on during GC this spring.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Phineas said:

The whole LGBT issue seems to be a major stumbling block for a lot of members.

No it isn't. It's a lie they're telling themselves or others to justify something pleasing to the carnal mind.

The stumbling block is, as it has always been, things that are pleasing to the carnal mind. It is not "the whole LGBT issue". That's merely the current trendy excuse.

10 hours ago, Phineas said:

Many see the Church as being harmful and intolerant towards LGBT people.

Also a lie people like to tell. Well...the harmful part is. The church IS intolerant* -- and well should be. The idea that such intolerance is harmful is nonsense.

*Of course the way it is intolerant and what, exactly, it is intolerant against matters. 

10 hours ago, Phineas said:

 I am curious to hear how other faithful Later-day Saints reconcile the Church’s teachings concerning this topic with Christ’s teachings on love and compassion.   

It's been well explained by others...but it's a bit of a silly question if one steps back and looks at it more broadly. It's essentially asking how love and compassion are reconciled with sin and/or sinful drives.

The answer isn't complicated.

Sin is an intolerable thing BECAUSE of love and compassion.

[Phineas]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But that's not the question.  This is not a political question but a religious one.  The question was about "Love who you want to Love"...  do gay people who follow the LDS commandment discriminated from loving who they want to love?

Yes.  In the same way that Jews discriminate against people who love pork.

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Phineas said:

Yes.  In the same way that Jews discriminate against people who love pork.

So, you're saying that because you cannot have sex with someone you are physically attracted to that you are discriminated from love?

[unixknight]

About 10 years ago I had a co-worker who was gay.  We got along fine because we shared interests in things like comic books, gaming and Star Trek.  One day I was telling  him about a friend I have who is gay but lives celibately because he's LDS and faithful.  My co-worker said:  "What a shame he has to suppress who he is to follow his church."

One of the downsides of being an introvert is that we really suck at quickly coming back with the right thing to say.

I didn't really respond to that, but what I should have said was: "He is being exactly who he wants to be.  He's not defined by who he's attracted to."  'course... I only thought of that answer later.

[wenglund]

12 hours ago, Phineas said:

Yes.  In the same way that Jews discriminate against people who love pork.

Interesting and revealing analogy. Does this mean that you view homosexual behavior as conditionally sinful, if at all, rather than intrinsically sinful?

If so, then under what conditions do you view it as sinful, and are these condition of man or of God?

I am just attempting to determine to what extent your view on this specific matter is worldly based or Christ centered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

Where to begin?  I believe there are great concerns about attempting to come to "conclusions" based completely in what we can discover between birth and death.  Nevertheless, let us reason together and work towards some understanding.  In Science there are two ways we make intelligent decisions.  Most think only in terms of one but the reality is that there are two methods in humans - and we are humans.  Both processes involve learning but the expression and understanding is different.  I will try to explain.

One method of learning has to do with what I will call decision learning.  That is a cognitive recognition - a process of cognitive choice and then a response based in current time and place.  This is what most of us think of as a intelligent choice where we cognitively consider the possibilities in our field of view and determine an action.  The second method is a little different.  Perhaps the best way to express this is what we call "muscle memory". Muscle memory becomes a automatic wired in choice based in previous experiences, learning and choices.  It is a process of discipline sort of speaking.  Another way of saying this is habit or even addiction.  But addiction carries with it something beyond habit.  What many do not realize is that basically 99% of our intelligent choices are made utilizing our second method.  Very seldom do we sit and ponder for a time about what we want to do next.  Most of what we do happens almost without us thinking of it and the moment.

During our mortality - our brain is in its most important development and learning stage up until we are about 25.  But even more important - we humans develop most of our "intellectual" skills as infants.  Our most important time of learning takes place when we are very young - there are some (myself included) that believe, we begin learning during and wiring our future actions in mortality while we are still developing in our mother's womb.   AT THIS PLACE IN MY POST I WANT TO MAKE A VERY IMPORTANT POINT - it concerns the importance of a man and a woman working together in the highest possibility of love to sacrifice for the next generation to conceive and bring children into mortality that begins, not with the birth of the child but with conception and perhaps - even with preconception preparations.   I would go as far as to say this is the most important intelligent choice we humans can work towards.  It is the most divine and loving (intelligent) possibility we mortals can achieve or hope to achieve.  It is the most important and intelligent choice we will ever make in all eternity.

Some of us will find this intelligent choice a part of our birth and childhood experience and thus a seemingly logical endeavor.  But for most of us - there are mistakes in our learning experiences - some of our own making and some from our very early childhood caused by the mistakes of others.  Regardless of the origins of our learning experience mistakes - G-d love us all and we are intelligent and can work towards fixing (repenting) of our past learning mistakes.  Religiously we know that small children are not responsible (yet) for their learning mistakes - but when we reach accountability we do become responsible for our learned mistakes to do something to better ourselves and as much as possible rewire and fix our learned mistakes.

One of our worse learning mistakes (perhaps) is thinking we must face moving beyond our mistakes 100% on our own.  We should help others and we should be open to help others regardless of how habitual, embedded or our addictive our learned mistakes are (in ourselves or in others).  I personally believe that writing off our own or other's learning mistakes - is itself a fatal learning mistake that needs to be overcome (by repentance) as much or more so than any other possible learned mistake.

I believe there are a lot of learning mistakes - especially when it comes to sexual behaviors.  And as I have said - I also believe it is a learned mistake to not lovingly help someone (anyone) overcome whatever learning mistakes regardless of how difficult it may seem to us or them.  Also I cannot imagine a more important and loving endeavor than to help someone (anyone) overcome their sexual behavior based learned mistakes.  As Latter-day Saints we have a conventual obligation to lovingly assist everyone to complete their eternal purpose and I see no reason for us to create an atmosphere of bitterness or condemnation - but rather a "safe place" for everyone to overcome their learned mistakes.

 

The Traveler

[Phineas]

Just now, wenglund said:

Interesting and revealing analogy. Does this mean that you view homosexual behavior as conditionally sinful, if at all, rather than intrinsically sinful?

If so, then under what conditions do you view it as sinful, and are these condition of man or of God?

I am just attempting to determine to what extent your view on this specific matter is worldly based or Christ centered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I recognize that both the Old and New Testaments refer to homosexual behavior as a sin.  I recognize that Christ defined marriage as a union between male and female.  I understand the principles taught in the Proclamation on the Family.  

However, I have a ton of sympathy for gay and lesbian individuals.  I want them to be happy and not kill themselves.  I also hate seeing the church be demonized.  So I got some conflicting feelings on the matter.  It’s why a brought up the topic.  It’s a difficult one.

I had a striking insight reading the Book of Mormon a while back.  In Mormon 6 it talks about the final days of the Nephites and all the horrible things that were going on.  At the very end of the chapter in verse 22,  Mormon says something that really hit me.  I was expecting him to condemn everyone to Hell but instead he says, 

“...and the Father, yea, the Eternal Father of heaven, knoweth your state

and he doeth with you according to his justice and mercy.”

He leaves judgement to God who is both just and merciful.  So that’s the approach I try to take.

[Traveler]

51 minutes ago, Phineas said:

I recognize that both the Old and New Testaments refer to homosexual behavior as a sin.  I recognize that Christ defined marriage as a union between male and female.  I understand the principles taught in the Proclamation on the Family.  

However, I have a ton of sympathy for gay and lesbian individuals.  I want them to be happy and not kill themselves.  I also hate seeing the church be demonized.  So I got some conflicting feelings on the matter.  It’s why a brought up the topic.  It’s a difficult one.

I had a striking insight reading the Book of Mormon a while back.  In Mormon 6 it talks about the final days of the Nephites and all the horrible things that were going on.  At the very end of the chapter in verse 22,  Mormon says something that really hit me.  I was expecting him to condemn everyone to Hell but instead he says, 

“...and the Father, yea, the Eternal Father of heaven, knoweth your state

and he doeth with you according to his justice and mercy.”

He leaves judgement to God who is both just and merciful.  So that’s the approach I try to take.

I thought to respond to your post - hope you do not mind.  Jesus said that as a man thinks in their heart (meaning their core self) so are they.  I believe it to be a sin to even think of oneself as gay.  It is part of what I believe to be a learned mistake (see my above post) that requires repentance and a change of heart (at the very core) in order to stand forgiven and pure before G-d.

I was not introduced to what it meant for someone to be gay until I was in the army.  Because I was small (5'8" and 115 lbs) I looked 13; I discovered that I was a sexual target.  I quickly came to believe gays to be sexual predators and that violence was absolutely necessary to protect myself from their advances.  I have since learned that there is a vast spectrum of individuals that think of themselves in gay terms.  I have learned that someone can or will repent and change their core self into a Saint of G-d - but they cannot do it on their own (no one can change their core on their own).   I know that a person's core can change for someone that had learned to be gay (even at a very young age) I know some that have done it.  Some will say that such a person was never really gay but I have learned that whatever we have learned and applied to our core - we tend to believe it to be what we always were and will be.  But I believe we are intelligent agents that can reason and change even our core self.  We are what we will ourselves to be.  I believe it is important to believe we can do something in order to be able to do it.  I believe it is important and divine to change what we are at our very core.

I am sorry that many think that they cannot alter their core self - I believe it important to believe such to be a learned mistake and sin.  I believe humans are intelligent beings - capable of learning and changing their behaviors.  And I believe we should all help each other to be better to our very core.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Phineas said:

IHe leaves judgement to God who is both just and merciful.  So that’s the approach I try to take.

I don't see how this answers my question?

Nevertheless, I am not sure you are understanding Mormon correctly.  The fact that Mormon leaves the ultimate condemnation (judgement) to God, doesn't take away from the fact that the preceding verses, if not also chapters and books, were filled with his recognition (judgement) that the "fair ones" had "departed from the ways of the Lord."

In other words, being able to discern (judge)  what constitutes sin or not, and whether people, including ourselves, are sinning, is quite different than condemning (judging) people to hell . The former is requisite to grasping and properly operating within the gospel (how can people have faith unto repentance and be cleansed. justified, and sanctified, if they are unable to say what is sin or no?). Whereas, the later is the domain of the Father through the  intercession of the Son.

The Savior came into the world not to condemn (judge) but to redeem the world. He wishes all men to become their very best selves, even as he is.

But, to redeem the world necessitates recognizing (judging) right from wrong, sin from righteousness, good from evil., etc. One cannot activate the redemptive powers in their lives except they recognize and acknowledge those things from which they need redeeming.

Sadly, some of us have foolishly bought into the world's nefarious  illusion that not considering certain sins as sins is the merciful and tolerant thing to do.  

However, this ignores the physical and spiritual consequences of those sins (I mentioned earlier in the thread how disease and mental illness and death have skyrocketed among homosexuals since their movement began. I can provide ample documentation. The same is manifesting itself among transgenders and the like.)

Whereas, in truth, it is the gospel that is merciful, not only in helping people to avoid the ravages of sin (after first acknowledging their sins), but also to overcome them.

But, we live in an upside-down world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2019 by wenglund

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Phineas said:

I had a striking insight reading the Book of Mormon a while back.  In Mormon 6 it talks about the final days of the Nephites and all the horrible things that were going on.  At the very end of the chapter in verse 22,  Mormon says something that really hit me.  I was expecting him to condemn everyone to Hell but instead he says, 

“...and the Father, yea, the Eternal Father of heaven, knoweth your state

and he doeth with you according to his justice and mercy.”

He leaves judgement to God who is both just and merciful.  So that’s the approach I try to take.

And I think this is at the core of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" philosophy.  We aren't able to judge each other because we can't possibly know all the factors.  It may be that some people truly deserve scorn while others who have committed similar acts deserve mercy... but it isn't for us to know which is which, so our default position should always be one of compassion.  We can show compassion for each other without excusing sinful acts. 

[Phineas]

44 minutes ago, wenglund said:

 

However, this ignores the physical and spiritual consequences of those sins (I mentioned earlier in the thread how disease and mental illness and death have skyrocketed among homosexuals since their movement began. I can provide ample documentation. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting.  Are you arguing that the cultural movement is doing the real harm rather than the Church?

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Phineas

[wenglund]

13 minutes ago, Phineas said:

Interesting.  Are you arguing that the cultural movement is doing the real harm rather than the Church?

 

Yes. Very much so. To get a sense for how bad the harm has been not only to homosexuals but to others in society, see my articles on Spike in Social Ills,  Destructive Compassion,  Degraded Traditional Marriage,  Marriage in Crises,  and especially Hurting the Children. Granted, these articles were written in the context of the Same Sex "Marriage" debate, but they also relate to harm stemming from the movement as a whole.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Fifthziff]

On 3/6/2019 at 8:51 AM, Phineas said:

The whole LGBT issue seems to be a major stumbling block for a lot of members.  I know of two high profile members who have recently become disaffected over this issue.  Many see the Church as being harmful and intolerant towards LGBT people.  I am curious to hear how other faithful Later-day Saints reconcile the Church’s teachings concerning this topic with Christ’s teachings on love and compassion.   

We show the same compassion as we would with anyone who has become overwhelmed by the passions of the body.  There was only one who overcame the passions of the body, that was Christ.  All of us fall short of not letting the passions of the body drive our lives to some degree.  The topic is a little easier to discuss when it comes to things like fame, love of money, pornography or alcohol or drug addiction but these are all passions of the body still the same, that can be contradictory to the spirit's influence.  The problem is when the person receiving the "love and compassion" is in a state of despair over the idea that we should try to resist or bridle the passions of the body. This is the test of this life, to show what we desire the most, carnal things or spiritual things. The test is not easy and nobody passes on their own effort alone, except Christ.  There is a point where one can be totally closed off from the influences of the spirit, that is a state of despair, a lack of hope. To be the recipient of love and compassion requires a small amount of hope or faith. 

You would have to be more specific about what the stumbling block is for those members. I don't see it as a major stumbling block for any faithful members I know.   

[pwrfrk]

I saw a couple times that Pheneas touched on the problem, and it seems that's about it.

The problem is not about being gay.  IMO gay is mental illness and could be/should be treated as such.  There are exceptions, of course. 

The issue is not IF someone is attracted to another of the same gender/sex, but as the LGBT community has a problem with is if they are compliant with the church commandments it means they cannot go around having sex with anyone they want.  THAT is the problem.  Hey, there's a lot of hot babes out there that totally break my heart.  The guys here know what else is on my mind that I have to repent for.  But I don't act on them.  I repent for my sinful thoughts and try to keep it from happening again.  The LGBT community doesn't like that. 

IMO God brought us VD, and that failed.  Then He brought us AIDS and HIV, and that failed too.  Yes a lot of innocent people were hurt.  Innocent people tend to get in harm's way.  But God is trying to teach us a lesson.  Some of us learned it, and here we are.  Then there are those that either didn't learn or simply don't care.

I don't think the church has any problem with the LGBT crowd.  Instead, the LGBT crowd cannot honor chastity.

 

[Phineas]

5 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

We show the same compassion as we would with anyone who has become overwhelmed by the passions of the body.  There was only one who overcame the passions of the body, that was Christ.  All of us fall short of not letting the passions of the body drive our lives to some degree.  The topic is a little easier to discuss when it comes to things like fame, love of money, pornography or alcohol or drug addiction but these are all passions of the body still the same, that can be contradictory to the spirit's influence.  The problem is when the person receiving the "love and compassion" is in a state of despair over the idea that we should try to resist or bridle the passions of the body. This is the test of this life, to show what we desire the most, carnal things or spiritual things. The test is not easy and nobody passes on their own effort alone, except Christ.  There is a point where one can be totally closed off from the influences of the spirit, that is a state of despair, a lack of hope. To be the recipient of love and compassion requires a small amount of hope or faith. 

You would have to be more specific about what the stumbling block is for those members. I don't see it as a major stumbling block for any faithful members I know.   

It can be a stumbling block if you put yourself in the shoes of gay and lesbian people.  Many of them have to choose a life of celibacy if they want to remain members in good standing.  It’s an unfair thing in the minds of many people.  

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Phineas

[Midwest LDS]

You know I think the answer as to why God commands us to do hard things, and being commanded to suppress a basic human instinct, as those with Same Gender Attraction must do, is a hard thing, is because of the consequences. God tells us this in D and C section 19:15-20

"15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
            16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
            17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
            18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
            19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
            20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit."

If we do not follow the commandments we will suffer even as Christ did. An agony that caused Christ, the greatest of all of us with powers beyond anyone who has ever lived, to bleed at every pore and beg God to take away the bitter cup. These scriptures right here explain why God asks us to do hard things. He does not want us to suffer as he did. Listen to the pleading in his voice as he begs us to repent in these verses.

Whenever I hear someone talk about how unfair it is that homosexuals can't marry I understand where they are coming from, but I think of these verses. Is it truly compassionate to encourage our brothers and sisters to take part in acts that, if they don't repent of them, will cause them to suffer as Christ did? I think too often we think only of this life and it's consequences.

There are many unfair things that happen in this life. My stepfather died on my mission, and my younger siblings had to grow up without a father. It seriously screwed up my mom's life and my brother and sisters lives. Several of them are only now recovering from the trauma. It's not fair that they had to go through that. It's not fair that some children have to grow up in abusive households, or when a life is cut tragically short in an accident, or that some develop Leukemia at the age of 9, or that some are attracted to members of their own sex and cannot act on those feelings if they wish to remain righteous. The question is, will we allow the Grace of Christ to make up for the inherent unfairness of life or will we rail against the unfairness and turn away from the very light that could get us through these troubled times? Anyways, that's how I've always seen it.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[Anddenex]

On 3/6/2019 at 8:51 AM, Phineas said:

The whole LGBT issue seems to be a major stumbling block for a lot of members.  I know of two high profile members who have recently become disaffected over this issue.  Many see the Church as being harmful and intolerant towards LGBT people.  I am curious to hear how other faithful Later-day Saints reconcile the Church’s teachings concerning this topic with Christ’s teachings on love and compassion.   

First - The Parable of Sower (Stony and Thorns come to my mind with your second sentence)

Second - The two great commandments are not to be inverted.

Third - Life is a test.

EDIT: I am not able to find anything to reconcile between the Church and Christ's teachings. I understand there are many who wrest Christ's teaching to make it appear as such. If we understand Christ's kingdom, and understand when all 15 brethren are unified they are moving forward according to Christ's modern teachings in relation to his previous teachings. I don't believe Christ needs to reconcile anything regarding his Church's teachings, past or present.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Anddenex