Nonbeliever's questions about your faith


Madam_Mim
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Vort said:
  • Eternal sealings, for eternity but not for time (i.e. not for this mortal life): This would include any sealing Joseph participated in with a woman who was not also married to him for time. I believe that the "marriages" Joseph contracted with already-married women all fall into this category; Joseph and the woman to whom we was sealed did not live as man and wife, but she was to be Joseph's wife in the hereafter.

Ooooh ok - I didn't know about this one. Thanks again for your explanations! 

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am no historian, nor am I an expert in these matters. The above represents my own understanding of Joseph's marital and sealing relationships with various women. I know of no convincing evidence that Joseph ever lived in a marital (sexual) relationship with another man's wife, which seems to be the subtext of your question. Forgive me if I have misunderstood.

I've read that he probably didn't have children with any of these women, so I guess he didn't have sexual relationships with them. I was more looking at it from the married woman's view: Joseph Smith "receiveth a wife" and she "be with another man" (her first husband). And I admit... I just assumed they're not virgins anymore since they were married.

But of course that's irrelevant anyway if the marriages to Josef Smith were Eternal sealings. 

 

You guys have to admit that this topic can get kind of confusing! First I get asked if I don't know how babies are made and then I'm told this wasn't about sex at all 😏  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

You guys have to admit that this topic can get kind of confusing! First I get asked if I don't know how babies are made and then I'm told this wasn't about sex at all 😏  

...the lady's got a point...

But yeah, it gets confusing.   Part of it is that a lot of this stuff was going on when the early Church leaders (including Joseph) were still figuring things out.  The Lord didn't reveal everything all at once.  It's why guys were coming to him with their daughters wanting him to be sealed to them "just in case" they never found husbands...  they'd be taken care of in the hereafter.  We know better now, of course, but it is what it is.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
43 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

You guys have to admit that this topic can get kind of confusing! First I get asked if I don't know how babies are made and then I'm told this wasn't about sex at all 😏  

It seemed you didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

I guess these parts would be a problem?

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

 

 

Ironically, what you are asking is not exactly what I normally get in these questions, but something very pertinent is found in verse 41 in regards to specifically what you might be asking as well.

Quote

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

The kicker then is whether the other wives were already SEALED to their husbands or not.  In a majority of the instances, they were not sealed already, thus even if it was not just merely a sealing, but a full on normal polygamous marriage with marital relations, it would still fall under that she was in the right if the first marriage was not under the new and everlasting covenant but the other one was.

What normally the questions would pertain to was being married under the authority of the Priesthood/God vs. being married without authority.  In this, the only eternal and recognized marriage would be that done under the proper authority.

A similar way to view it would be if you were to receive a speeding ticket.  If you received a speeding ticket from a Police Officer authorized to do so by the Law of the Land and the Department of which he served as well as the jurisdiction, that would hold a LOT more validity than a 12 year old kid on a bike giving a slip of paper that he said was a speeding ticket.  one would hold up a lot better in court than the other.

In the same way, the sealings and eternal marriage in the Temple is seen as being recognized by Heaven for eternity more than one that is a temporal license and marriage performed in accordance with the laws of man and men.

In that same light, in verse 42 it addresses that even with that, an individual who breaks that covenant still commits adultery.  However, in the LDS tradition (and one could call it culture, tradition, etc) the marriage performed by authority of the Lord takes precedence over that which is done by the authority of men.  Hence, the higher authority takes precedence in deciding these matters.

Some more thoughts on this matter which have not been brought up but which may arise and is sort of pertinent...

As talked about openly by Brigham Young

In this manner also, the higher authority takes precedence over that which is a lower authority.  Hence, a rarely mentioned item which occurred, but is not normally noted in today's church history.  An individual of a Higher Authority (for example, an Apostle vs. and Elder) in the Priesthood could actually be married to the spouse of one who was lower in the Priesthood and the wife would then be married to him who was in the Higher Priesthood.  Thus, the higher Priesthood office could take precedence over that of the lower office.  The Caveat is that in order for this to occur the original husband HAD TO AGREE to this.  Without their agreement there was no power on earth or heaven that could take the wife of a husband who did not agree to this who had been sealed together under the new and everlasting covenant.  However, if they were in agreement, then this supposedly could be done.

My thoughts...

We see this in Brigham Young's time where he would marry someone who was already married to another, but they had a lower Priesthood authority than he did.  We also see it today in various instances where a husband and wife have gotten divorced.  It is taken that the husband would have remained married to the spouse if he had desired to remain married rather than divorce the individual.  If he is no longer in the church or is of a lower office at times it may be possible that, even if he disagrees with a temple divorce, it will be granted as he has already shown his thoughts on the matter. This STILL requires church approval and without it, it will not happen.  However, I feel that when this is the situation a temple divorce is granted much more quickly and rapidly and more easily than in instances where it is not the situation.

That does not mean a temple divorce is something that is easy or that people should try to get, merely that there are rules and regulations in that regards as well as in regards to sealings and marriages which are spelled out either directly and blatantly, or more discreetly and less obvious in section 132 that the Church adheres today to that don't necessarily require any polygamy or polygamous marriages to still be in effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A similar way to view it would be if you were to receive a speeding ticket.  If you received a speeding ticket from a Police Officer authorized to do so by the Law of the Land and the Department of which he served as well as the jurisdiction, that would hold a LOT more validity than a 12 year old kid on a bike giving a slip of paper that he said was a speeding ticket.  one would hold up a lot better in court than the other.

Haha,  I love this example!

 

22 hours ago, MormonGator said:

No worries @Madam_Mim! These topics can get a little confusing, you are absolutely right! 

Thank you! I can live with the fact that I sound like a dope to most of you on here - but I still appreciate comments like yours very much :D

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Madam_Mim said:

Thank you! I can live with the fact that I sound like a dope to most of you on here - but I still appreciate comments like yours very much :D

You are very welcome and no, you do NOT sound like a "dope" at all! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A similar way to view it would be if you were to receive a speeding ticket.  If you received a speeding ticket from a Police Officer authorized to do so by the Law of the Land and the Department of which he served as well as the jurisdiction, that would hold a LOT more validity than a 12 year old kid on a bike giving a slip of paper that he said was a speeding ticket.  one would hold up a lot better in court than the other.

In the same way, the sealings and eternal marriage in the Temple is seen as being recognized by Heaven for eternity more than one that is a temporal license and marriage performed in accordance with the laws of man and men.

Not so, if I understand your point correctly. "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." A marriage in a court of law (or in a Catholic cathedral, or in a Las Vegas quickie chapel) is exactly as valid in the eyes of God as a marriage by a bishop or in a temple. The difference is duration; only a temple sealing can transcend death. As far as our lives in mortality are concerned, marriage is marriage, so a "temple marriage" is no more valid than any other way of getting married.

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In this manner also, the higher authority takes precedence over that which is a lower authority.  Hence, a rarely mentioned item which occurred, but is not normally noted in today's church history.  An individual of a Higher Authority (for example, an Apostle vs. and Elder) in the Priesthood could actually be married to the spouse of one who was lower in the Priesthood and the wife would then be married to him who was in the Higher Priesthood.  Thus, the higher Priesthood office could take precedence over that of the lower office.  The Caveat is that in order for this to occur the original husband HAD TO AGREE to this.  Without their agreement there was no power on earth or heaven that could take the wife of a husband who did not agree to this who had been sealed together under the new and everlasting covenant.  However, if they were in agreement, then this supposedly could be done.

My thoughts...

We see this in Brigham Young's time where he would marry someone who was already married to another, but they had a lower Priesthood authority than he did.

Elders Packer and Christofferson appear to disagree with your take.

Quote

Years ago, President Boyd K. Packer observed that “the priesthood is greater than any of its offices. … The priesthood is not divisible. An elder holds as much priesthood as an Apostle. When a man [has the priesthood conferred upon him], he receives all of it. However, there are offices within the priesthood—divisions of authority and responsibility. … Sometimes one office is spoken of as being ‘higher than’ or ‘lower than’ another office. Rather than ‘higher’ or ‘lower,’ offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood represent different areas of service.

Brethren, I devoutly hope that we will no longer speak in terms of being “advanced” to another office in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If he is no longer in the church or is of a lower office at times it may be possible that, even if he disagrees with a temple divorce, it will be granted as he has already shown his thoughts on the matter.

There is no such thing as a "temple divorce". Temples do not divorce people, ever. This is more than a semantic nit; the essence of sealing is unity, not division.

Sealings can be dissolved, but that is not a temple rite, and it is not a "divorce" in any normal sense. Two people sealed together can be divorced and yet remain sealed to each other. Two people married and sealed to each other might lose that sealing because one or the other (or both) lose the privilege of their covenants through transgression or excommunication, yet remain married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Thank you! I can live with the fact that I sound like a dope to most of you on here - but I still appreciate comments like yours very much :D

The only stupid questions in this world are ones the asker don't bother to listen to the answers.

Someone who asks questions and honestly listens to the answers has the seeds of wisdom.  And you do ask very good questions, clarify subjects that admittedly can be totally confusing as first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Thank you! I can live with the fact that I sound like a dope to most of you on here - but I still appreciate comments like yours very much :D

 

47 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are very welcome and no, you do NOT sound like a "dope" at all! 

@Madam_Mim - Nope, I concur with MG you don't sound like a dope, but @MormonGator does - 99.999% of the time. Every now and then (that .1%) he goes from dope to dopey.

:banana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!
Oh and just to make that clear: Whenever I don't react to your answers or stop talking about a certain topic it's not because I didn't read or care about the answers. When people explain their view or how they make sense of certain things, I sometimes don't see any use in asking more questions. Because often your view or a general explanation of something I didn't know enough about is all I'm interested in. If this was about ME trying to get convinced, I obviously would ask more. 

Something completely else:
I've read that everyone is welcome to join a Sunday meeting (not sure if that's what it's called... but I guess you know that I mean). I would be very interested to visit, just because I'm curious to see what's happening there - but I feel like it's maybe inappropriate to go there when I'm so completely unconvinced by (any - not just "your") religious teachings. What's your view on this? Do you think someone who doesn't even believe there's a god shouldn't visit or is it ok as long as you behave in a respectful manner? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Thanks!
Oh and just to make that clear: Whenever I don't react to your answers or stop talking about a certain topic it's not because I didn't read or care about the answers. When people explain their view or how they make sense of certain things, I sometimes don't see any use in asking more questions. Because often your view or a general explanation of something I didn't know enough about is all I'm interested in. If this was about ME trying to get convinced, I obviously would ask more. 

Something completely else:
I've read that everyone is welcome to join a Sunday meeting (not sure if that's what it's called... but I guess you know that I mean). I would be very interested to visit, just because I'm curious to see what's happening there - but I feel like it's maybe inappropriate to go there when I'm so completely unconvinced by (any - not just "your") religious teachings. What's your view on this? Do you think someone who doesn't even believe there's a god shouldn't visit or is it ok as long as you behave in a respectful manner? 

As long as you are respectful and keep the peace, no one will mind you coming and sitting down with us.

One thing we ask as a courtesy beyond that is that our Sacrament (the Lord's Supper in other faiths) is considered closed to non-members.  You may sit and remain reverent.  Simply pass along the tray as it comes to you, do not partake.

Apart from that, just take your cues from others as to when to sing, when to stay quiet, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Thanks!
Oh and just to make that clear: Whenever I don't react to your answers or stop talking about a certain topic it's not because I didn't read or care about the answers. When people explain their view or how they make sense of certain things, I sometimes don't see any use in asking more questions. Because often your view or a general explanation of something I didn't know enough about is all I'm interested in. If this was about ME trying to get convinced, I obviously would ask more. 

Something completely else:
I've read that everyone is welcome to join a Sunday meeting (not sure if that's what it's called... but I guess you know that I mean). I would be very interested to visit, just because I'm curious to see what's happening there - but I feel like it's maybe inappropriate to go there when I'm so completely unconvinced by (any - not just "your") religious teachings. What's your view on this? Do you think someone who doesn't even believe there's a god shouldn't visit or is it ok as long as you behave in a respectful manner? 

What @Mores said.  When we say "all are welcome" we mean it at face value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice! Good to know

 

I know this is a controversial topic, but I just have to ask:

Do any of you struggle with the way the church views homosexual behavior? It's so hard for me to grasp why this is considered to be one of the worst sins. 

What's wrong about two adults of the same sex, falling in love and being in a consensual sexual relationship? Is it because it conflicts with god's plan for us to have a family/babies? I guess that's not the only reason because otherwise it would also be sinful if a straight married couple decides not to have children.

Making someone feel guilty for falling in love with a person of the same sex and not allowing them to ever experience what it's like to fall in love and be loved in return is cruel. And masturbation is forbidden for them too? I mean come on... that's just torture :D That can't be healthy. 

 

Edited by Madam_Mim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
6 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Do any of you struggle with the way the church views homosexual behavior? It's so hard for me to grasp why this is considered to be one of the worst sins. 

Most don't.  Some do.

6 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

What's wrong about two adults of the same sex, falling in love and being in a consensual sexual relationship? Is it because it conflicts with god's plan for us to have a family/babies? I guess that's not the only reason because otherwise it would also be sinful if a straight married couple decides not to have children.

Making someone feel guilty for falling in love with a person of the same sex and not allowing them to ever experience what it's like to fall in love and be loved in return is cruel. And masturbation is forbidden for them too? I mean come on... that's just torture :D That can't be healthy. 

I believe I read a recent thread that addressed this.  You may want to go looking for it.  I'll try to sum up some bullet points.

  • Marriage needs love.  But love does not necessitate marriage.  Just because you fall in love with someone, does not mean you must marry them.  There is much more to it than that.
  • Sex with love is certainly a blessing and gift from God.  But loving someone does not mean you must have sex with that person.
  • Denying the above two items is the basis of all pro-gay marriage arguments.

If there is nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, then what is wrong with a man marrying his adult daughter?

What is wrong with an adult having sex with an animal?

What is wrong with... you could make a huge list. 

All the arguments you make pro-gay marriage are all based on the idea that man knows better than God OR that man can discern the mind of God by simply asking "what's the harm?"  This is a fallacious argument and comes from the pride of man deciding that we don't need God.

The bottom line is that we do not "inform God" what is right and wrong.  He tells us.  No matter how you cut it, He knows better than we do.

And, yes, we frown on masturbation as well for hetero- or homosexual individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Nice! Good to know

 

I know this is a controversial topic, but I just have to ask:

Do any of you struggle with the way the church views homosexual behavior? It's so hard for me to grasp why this is considered to be one of the worst sins. 

What's wrong about two adults of the same sex, falling in love and being in a consensual sexual relationship? Is it because it conflicts with god's plan for us to have a family/babies? I guess that's not the only reason because otherwise it would also be sinful if a straight married couple decides not to have children.

Making someone feel guilty for falling in love with a person of the same sex and not allowing them to ever experience what it's like to fall in love and be loved in return is cruel. And masturbation is forbidden for them too? I mean come on... that's just torture :D That can't be healthy. 

 

I don't struggle with it.  

God tells us plainly in Scripture what He thinks of it.  Speaking purely from a standpoint of faith, that answer is enough.

That said, of course we seek to understand what the reasons may be.  God made us to be inquisitive so it's only natural to try and understand it.

The only arguments that defend homosexual behavior are entirely emotion based, but emotion is not a particularly reliable way to understand the world or make decisions.  Homosexual behavior is a far more complex issue than just a couple of consenting adults sleeping together.  As a society, we already define certain such pairings that are either illegal, morally taboo, or both.  As @Mores mentioned, and I also mentioned in the other thread, our culture looks dimly on consenting adults sleeping together who are within the same family unit, married to someone else, etc.  

The data tells a different story from the emotionalism.  Studies show that problems in the gay community like depression, drug use, STDs, etc. are far higher than the average, but our culture makes it taboo to discuss that openly.  That's a red flag right there.  When it does get talked about, the blame is always laid at discrimination, but those numbers haven't gotten any better with modern culture shifting to be more accepting and encouraging of homosexuality.

There are plenty of other arguments, but I don't want to derail the topic :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mores said:

One thing we ask as a courtesy beyond that is that our Sacrament (the Lord's Supper in other faiths) is considered closed to non-members.  

Actually, this is not true.  Non-members are welcome to partake of the Sacrament and regularly do (like all the little kids).  A visitor is also welcome to partake or pass, whichever they would like.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Actually, this is not true.  Non-members are welcome to partake of the Sacrament and regularly do (like all the little kids).  A visitor is also welcome to partake or pass, whichever they would like.  

Seriously? I never knew that.

Not a challenge, I was just surprised! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

I know this is a controversial topic, but I just have to ask:

Do any of you struggle with the way the church views homosexual behavior? It's so hard for me to grasp why this is considered to be one of the worst sins. 

What's wrong about two adults of the same sex, falling in love and being in a consensual sexual relationship? Is it because it conflicts with god's plan for us to have a family/babies? I guess that's not the only reason because otherwise it would also be sinful if a straight married couple decides not to have children.

Let me clarify the Lord's stance on this: 

Sexual activities are a tremendous gift from God.  It is the power to create life and bond lives together.  It is specifically reserved for a married man and woman, as men and women are designed compliments of each other.  Used properly, these powers binds lives and create lives.    ANY other use of this gift from God is a perversion of His gift and spitting in His eyes.  That includes self-abuse, pornography, sexual relations between non-married persons, etc.  EVERY SINGLE person is commanded to not abuse God's gifts, and want until they have an appropriate married spouse.  For some people this is an entire lifetime, yes, and that is hard, which is why God gives us each strength.  

And yes, I fullheartedly agree with the Lord's stance here.  I know other people who do struggle with it-- every one of God's commands has people who struggle with it.  I do actually have compassion for that, fully acknowledging struggle and hardship there.  Hence once again asking the Lord for strength.  

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

Making someone feel guilty for falling in love with a person of the same sex and not allowing them to ever experience what it's like to fall in love and be loved in return is cruel. And masturbation is forbidden for them too? I mean come on... that's just torture :D That can't be healthy. 

I have a friend who fell in love with a married woman.  Is God cruel for tell him not to pursue her?

I know a girl who have a condition which keeps her mental age around 4.    Is God cruel for her to never marry?

My great aunt never found love in this mortal life and died single at 97.  Is God cruel for her to have married?

There are MANY struggles in this life, for many people.  Not just folks attracted to the same gender.  Sex is not a requirement for this life or happiness.  Mis-use of God's gift brings misery, whether seen immediately or not.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Actually, this is not true.  Non-members are welcome to partake of the Sacrament and regularly do (like all the little kids).  A visitor is also welcome to partake or pass, whichever they would like.  

I disagree.

While there is no actual earthly "penalty", it is considered a sacred ordinance and the means of making a covenant.  If someone "partakes unworthily" they eateth damnation to their soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

Nice! Good to know

 

I know this is a controversial topic, but I just have to ask:

Do any of you struggle with the way the church views homosexual behavior? It's so hard for me to grasp why this is considered to be one of the worst sins. 

What's wrong about two adults of the same sex, falling in love and being in a consensual sexual relationship? Is it because it conflicts with god's plan for us to have a family/babies? I guess that's not the only reason because otherwise it would also be sinful if a straight married couple decides not to have children.

Making someone feel guilty for falling in love with a person of the same sex and not allowing them to ever experience what it's like to fall in love and be loved in return is cruel. And masturbation is forbidden for them too? I mean come on... that's just torture :D That can't be healthy. 

 

The entire reason the Church (and many Christian religions) are against those practicing Homosexuality is due to what is taught in the Bible.  It teaches in the New Testament that Homosexuality is a sin and should not be practiced.

This is primarily pushed by Paul and Christian religions that try to do away with the laws against Homosexuality tend to ignore all of Paul's epistles (tossing much of the New Testament away) and instead focus on the words specifically stated by the Lord (which is normally only found in the portions of the Four Gospels, or Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).  As he does not really address the idea of homosexuality directly, they try to make the argument that he never talked against Homosexuality itself. 

They also tend to twist some other things he stated (for example, one should not look upon a woman to lust after her...in theory it should be anyone looking on anyone else in lust...which would do away with a LOT of the Homosexual ideas they present, ironically...however sometimes they will interpret it specifically in one certain way as those of the opposite genders and NOT those of the same genders).

For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in my opinion, it is simply because the Bible says that people should not be participating in Homosexual acts.  This is where the entire idea stems from.

Others may have personal feelings or thoughts beyond that which influence them, but for the most part the slant of the church is due to the commandments as taught in the Bible itself (and updated from the Old Testament to the New Testament, as the condemnation is found in both).

Personally I supported the SS Marriage for various reasons.  I find it ironic that Mormons (collectively as a group as it is identified by classification, not just those who are Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) who suffered greatly due to their own marriage practices in the past (and some which suffer today...though not the main church itself) took such a hardline against it.  BECAUSE of the background of the Mormons I felt that letting people practice how they felt was a better path than dictating how they must do in regards to a religious ceremony.  In otherwords, let people practice as they desire as long as it does not impede on others practice of religion.  As a free nation I do not think we should dictate those matters of personal or religious actions...which to me also includes Marriage.

I do not feel it is right for a Member of the Church to participate in SS marriage, as it is expressly forbidden by the Church (and the actions are forbidden by the Bible if they were to consummate it).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The entire reason the Church (and many Christian religions) are against those practicing the practice of Homosexuality is due to what is taught in the Bible.  It teaches in the New Testament that Homosexuality is a sin and should not be practiced.

Not to nitpick, but this is an important distinction.  It isn't the people, it's the sin that's the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Seriously? I never knew that.

Not a challenge, I was just surprised! 

Yep, the basic deal is you can't renew covenants you haven't made, so a non-member partaking isn't really binding themselves to anything.  But if partaking of the sacrament helps some visitor feel closer to God, good on 'em.  Kind of like how we are ok offering the sacrament to our unbaptized kiddos.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The entire reason the Church (and many Christian religions) are against those practicing Homosexuality is due to what is taught in the Bible.  It teaches in the New Testament that Homosexuality is a sin and should not be practiced.

I have a close and beloved relative who has not been a practicing Latter-day Saint for many years. He occasionally interacts with women (mothers) who are LDS. In talking with them about some gospel topic or other, he was less than impressed by their insistence that the ultimate reason that we should obey some commandment is because God (or the prophet) said so.

Personally, I believe that "because God said so" is a valid reason, but I also recognize that it begs the question of, "Why should we obey a commandment?" God is not capricious, and he does not give commandments on a whim. True, he does give commandments so that they will be obeyed; and true, he often does not explain fully (or at all) why a commandment is being given. We are normally expected to obey first, and find out why later. That is the divine order. But even so, God's commandments are perfectly logical and rational to those who understand all of the whys and wherefores—which we do not.

God commanded us not to fornicate. We don't understand why. After all, sex feels good, right? And it results in good things, like babies, right? And God MADE us to want sex, right? So why would a loving God command us NOT to fulfill that craving? Why, that would be like God creating in us a desire for food, and then commanding us to FAST sometimes!

Exactly.

I don't know why some people experience homosexual attraction. I don't know why God allows it. And I cannot give all the reasons why God has prohibited any and all expression of homosexual desire. But he has done so, and I am 100% sure there are valid reasons for it, reasons that sweep away the ignorant, foolish mortal reasoning of "But it feels good! And I want to!" If we are too benighted to understand that reasoning or too spiritually immature to perceive it, let's at least be wise enough to say, "God gave that commandment, and until I understand why it was given, the mere fact that it was given is good enough for me to obey it."

(P.S. My relative was also entertained by the encouragement offered him to "come back" to Church. "It's ONLY two hours now!" Uh-huh. In other words: "Going to Church is a huge pain in the neck and seemingly a waste of time, but NOW you only have to suffer through it for a mere TWO hours instead of THREE!" His comment to me: "Don't these people even think through the implications of what they're saying?" The sad answer is that, no, people normally don't think through what they're saying. They just blurt out whatever comes to mind.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share