Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Why I Don't Care If You're Gay

Previously: Year End Odds & Ends

I'm frequently asked why I haven't yet posted anything on this blog about this business of gay marriage. I suppose that's because I'm concerned here primarily with topics that have something to do with my religion, and since my religion hasn't had anything to say about homosexuality one way or the other, I don't have much to say about it either.

To be sure, plenty of my fellow Saints have strong feelings against homosexuality, and gay marriage in particular. Some of these outspoken members even hold positions of authority within the Church hierarchy. But the opinions of members, regardless of rank, are not the same as a revelation from God himself, so none of them are doctrinal or binding on the church. We are not supposed to be guided by the opinions of men, but rather by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

As a believing latter-day Saint, I see no reason to become overly exercised regarding something the Lord has not yet seen fit to weigh in on.  God has expressed himself on many things that should be of concern to us in these latter days, but on this particular topic He has been conspicuously silent.

Since our founding in 1830, what has made us unique among all other Christian denominations has been the claim that our doctrines are obtained solely through revelations. That is the salient point I taught as a missionary in the first discussion: "Ever since that time, Mr. Brown," I testified, "The Lord has had a prophet on the earth to guide us and teach us his will regarding the important issues of our day."

If we are to take seriously our claim of a religion based on divine revelation, then we ought to stop parroting the tired objections of the sectarian churches on this matter and look to what God himself has revealed in the latter-days.  The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, but for some reason, the Book of Mormon does not address either homosexuality or same sex marriage. Neither is there anything about it in the Doctrine and Covenants, nor in any of the prolific speeches and writings of the prophet Joseph Smith

I haven't been able to find one single revelation from any of the latter-day prophets that would instruct us on the position we should take concerning the joining of one man to another in matrimony. There doesn't seem to be anything at all regarding same sex attraction. Is it possible this isn't one of the issues that concerns God as much as it seems to consume us? Given God's relative silence on the matter, we should at least consider that possibility.

We have no shortage of statements on the subject delivered in talks by general authorities, but none that I can find that claim to be revelations from God. Some members point to The Proclamation on the Family as an example of a latter-day revelation, but that is not a revelation. It's a position paper.

There are indeed a couple of instances where homosexuality is condemned in the old testament, but since when did we Mormons start taking our marching orders from a book which the prophet Nephi warned us would be a stumbling block in our day? A primary purpose for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, according to Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, and others, was as a corrective to the errors and misinterpretations which are present throughout the bible.

Many bible verses often used to prove God's condemnation of homosexuality do not hold up upon closer inspection. The King James Version of the bible is particularly rife with translations of words to which many have pegged inaccurate definitions.  What should be of utmost concern, however, is that in none of these oft cited verses is the Lord himself being quoted. Since when did latter-day Saints start believing in the inerrancy of the bible? Others may declare that every word of the bible is the literal word of God, but we're expected to know better.

In many areas where the bible is in harmony with God's will, the Book of Mormon confirms those teachings. But it is an article of our faith that much of what has come down to us in the bible has been  mistranslated and corrupted. A simple reading of Leviticus and Deuteronomy should convince anyone that much of what is contained therein is of no more value than the Code of Hammurabi. Why then are so many good latter-day Saints hung up on obscure bible verses, placing them front and center as though to define our creed?

For all I know, Gay marriage may be an egregious sin. But that's just the problem. I don't know. I have no way of knowing God's mind on this matter because God has not seen fit to reveal anything about it. So until he does, I think my wisest course is to continue to treat others the way I would wish to be treated. And that means abiding by the golden rule. Live and let live.

Recently on Facebook I shared a simple article by a writer who had decided his attitude toward homosexuals was less than Christlike, and wrote about his decision to stop being so condescending toward them. I was surprised by the firestorm of responses that resulted from my sharing that simple piece which I thought was fairly uncontroversial.

That thread triggered a lively discussion regarding what the bible actually has to say on the subject, and since most of the comments on both sides of the issue were intelligent, civil, and very informative, I would recommend those wanting a clearer understanding of what the bible has to say to check out that conversation here .

Of particular interest, I should think, are the bible verses that have become a stumbling block to us in our day, including the actual meanings of the words translated as "fornication," "effeminate," and the nearly indecipherable Greek phrase translated into English by the King James translators as "abusers of themselves with mankind." I still marvel that so many people who claim to revere the bible continue to believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the sin of homosexuality. Hasn't anyone read Ezekiel? He tells us plainly that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were the cruel way they treated their poor. Nephi reiterates the warning of Ezekiel concerning Sodom, and it is a warning many Mormons tend to ignore these days. We'd rather be searching around finding fault with others than looking to our own sins.

I Agree With The Duck Dynasty Guy
I don't know much about this guy Phil Robertson, also known as the Duck Commander, and I have not followed everything he has said. So I'm not endorsing everything he said recently that has caused such a row, but I do identify with this statement:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That's just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” 
That pretty much sums up my own point of view. Same sex attraction does not strike me as logical. You can mark me down as favoring the vagina.

In the words of the Duck Commander, that's just me.

But that's not everybody. As it happens, some men don't share my appreciation for lady parts. As difficult as it may be for people like me and the Duck Commander to grasp, to some men the vagina is a repulsive thing with no more appeal than the mouth of a squid. I know, because that's how I've had it described to me by a gay friend who was permanently scarred after looking at one up close. He reported it as being as horrifying to him as the creature from Alien.

By the way, if there are any children present, you might want to have them leave the room. At the very least, you should probably stop reading this to your children out loud.

How I Learned To Stop Hatin' On Homos  
I certainly do not think all gays and lesbians are angels. Some of the most obnoxious and self-absorbed people I've known happen to have been homosexuals. But also some of the kindest, most accepting people I've known have been homosexuals, so go figure. A sizable number of obnoxious and self-absorbed people in my life happened to be heterosexuals, so it would appear that sexual orientation doesn't seem to have much to do with whether or not a person is a jerk. Acting like a jerk is what makes a person a jerk.
 
Connie and I have a handful of gay friends who we love in a way that would have seemed inconceivable to either of us just a few short years ago. One of them lives in Salt Lake City and we love her deeply. And when I say we love her, I mean either one of us would literally take a bullet for this girl.  It would be impossible for us to find fault with her because the three of us have bonded spiritually. It would never occur to me to define our friend by her sexual orientation any more than she defines me by mine.

I was dismayed to hear how angrily some in the LGBT community demanded A&E cancel the Duck Dynasty show just because some guy said something they don't agree with. I'm just as opposed to that kind of bullying as I am when I see my fellow Saints invoking God's name as justification for treating others with disdain. Since when did we decide that when someone says something we don't like, that person should be forced to go away? Why not engage them in dialogue? That way if you can't persuade them, at least you'll better understand where they're coming from.

The biggest problem we now have between some Mormons and their gay nemeses is that neither side wants to recognize the divine in the other. Wouldn't it be better if we could have our differences and still respect the other person's right to their feelings? The Lord said to his people through Isaiah, "Come, and let us reason together." We don't have to adopt the other person's view, but we should respect his right to express it.

Like a great majority of Mormons, I used to believe wholeheartedly that homosexuality was a choice. That was the official position of my Church, and that's what I accepted as truth. (Note: this was the position of the Church, not the expressly revealed position of the Lord.)

I'll admit this business of same sex attraction is a mystery to me. I don't understand it; I can't fathom what makes some people "that way."  But I'll tell you what I am now absolutely convinced of: homosexuality is not a choice. Those who are attracted to members of their own sex did not "choose" to have those awkward desires. Many would rather be dead than queer, and sadly too many young people have been so desperate to escape their own natures that they have unnecessarily taken their own lives. A gay man or woman can no more choose to turn heterosexual than you and I can suddenly "choose" to become gay, and only a fool would believe same sex attraction can be "cured" at will.

The way I came around to understanding, accepting, and respecting those with same sex attraction is the same way a lot of others have. I got to know a young man who was gay, and I learned to love and accept him in spite of his "difference."

Actually, I've known this kid for quite some time. I was present when my wife gave birth to him.

I'm not going to go into how agonizing it was for my son to come to terms with his own nature. Suffice to say that throughout his teen years he despised himself for what he was. He tried to change who and what he was, and desperately fought an internal battle to become "normal." Goodness knows girls found him attractive, so he would have had no trouble being straight if it were only possible to wish it so. Eventually Michael came to terms with who he is, and learned at long last that God did not hate him. God loves him. I'm convinced there is nothing "wrong" with my son. Not one thing. 

That's why I am dismayed when I hear of otherwise good latter-day Saint parents turning their gay children out into the street to forage and starve. This is happening way too often. It's estimated that 40 percent of the five thousand homeless teenagers on the street in Utah are gay, and most of them are there only because their parents kicked them out for being gay. Somehow these parents allowed their perceived religious conditioning to convince them that abandoning their own children was what God would have them do.

If there is an opposite to being Christlike, that would define it, in my opinion. This is a tragedy. It is callowness of the worst kind. I fear for such people at the judgment.

The Right To Contract
Back when the LDS Church was actively encouraging its members to support California's Proposition 8 -the proposal to define marriage as between one man and one woman- I opened up my Sunday paper, the Sacramento Bee, and saw a prominent feature story about an LDS family that lived about 11 miles from me over in Folsom. What I read made my heart sink. The story told of the Patterson family's response to the call from their church to donate money to help pass prop 8, and how they had obediently turned over their entire life savings of $50,000 to the cause.

The Patterson family was not particularly well-off. They had a modest home and drove a 10 year old Honda. But by living frugally, they had managed to save enough money for their children's future missions and college educations.  Now they heard the call from their Church to contribute regarding what they obviously thought was a call from the Lord, and just like that, their money was gone. Evaporated into nothing for a cause that anyone with a modicum of foresight could see would never succeed.

I sat there reading that article knowing that no amount of money would ever make a difference because ultimately the question of gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with obtaining permission from the government, from a church, or from anywhere else.  It is about the right to contract, and no government has the right to impair a contract willingly entered into by any two competent adults. Proposition 8 could very well pass (and it did), but the rights of any two people to contract to cohabit would not be affected by its passage.

The Pattersons weren't thinking about this, of course. They had confused the opinions of some at Church headquarters with the immutable will of God, and firmly believed their life savings was going to have something to do with building up the kingdom and putting evil underfoot. Because the Church had asked this sacrifice of them, God was surely behind it. Their money would contribute to a victory for the powers of Heaven.

What the Pattersons failed to realize was that God had issued no revelation to the president of the Church instructing him on support for proposition 8 or predicting a political victory. There had been no revelation given to anyone commanding him to mobilize the Saints. This project was initiated by mere mortal men, the same men who set out without any instructions from God to use Church money to construct a multi-billion dollar shopping center in the heart of Salt Lake City during a time when most potential customers were experiencing financial hardship.

I wonder when the Saints will start asking the pertinent questions that should be asked of the Brethren every time something like this is proposed: "Where is the accompanying revelation? When did God authorize you to take this action or require this sacrifice from us?"

How will the Pattersons survive without that nest egg they so carefully accumulated if Brother Patterson loses his job? What means will they use now to finance their children's missions? They, along with countless other faithful members, were goaded into throwing away their inheritance by men who had received no instructions from God asking them to do so.

And now I read how many members of the Church in Utah are up in arms about the federal ruling which requires Utah to recognize same-sex marriages. They are in a revolutionary fervor, convinced that God will reward their efforts and lead them to victory. But I ask again: where is the revelation? How do they know God wants this battle fought?

Nullification Is To Be Used Against Tyranny
Doubtless you've heard of Trestin Meacham, the Utah man in the middle of a hunger strike until the state of Utah overturns the ruling recognizing gay marriage. He points to the doctrine of nullification as reason why Utah can stop gay marriages from being recognized in Utah.

But Trestin does not understand the doctrine. I am all for seeing states nullify federal law. I've been a vocal part of the nullification movement myself for some years. But the doctrine of nullification does not apply here. If the federal government had decreed that Trestin Meacham must marry another man, or even that he must marry a particular woman; if the federal government had stepped in and declared that gay marriages -or any marriages- would be prohibited, or that the LDS Church is hereafter required to perform gay marriages, then the people of Utah would have standing to rise up and nullify those laws, as they do any time the government oversteps its bounds.

But the government is not attempting to impose a law on Trestin Meacham or on anyone else. It is not restricting anyone's rights. It is merely declaring that the same right to contract which Trestin Meacham enjoys with his wife cannot be withheld from others. This ruling should be of no concern to Trestin Meacham because it does not affect Trestin Meacham. To quote Thomas Jefferson, such a law "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

That particular federal ruling represented an expansion of rights, not a restriction of rights. If you want to see the proper and effective use of nullification, look no further than Colorado, Utah's next door neighbor. The federal government has declared the use and possession of marijuana to be a criminal offense. The people of Colorado passed a law that said, in effect, "We don't care what laws you pass. Our bodies belong to us. We nullify your silly decree and will do with our own bodies as we wish."

Some folks are concerned about Trestin Meacham's hunger strike and are worried that he could do permanent damage to himself if he continues. But I say Brother Meacham has every right to do with his body whatever he wants. Perhaps one day he'll learn that right belongs to everyone.

Update: As I write this I have just learned that the Supreme Court has issued a stay regarding issuing licenses for same sex marriages in Utah, and Trestin Meacham is now further abusing his body by gorging on pizza.

What Charity Means
Charity means much more than simply giving money to the poor. What it means is having a heart pure enough to recognize that every one of us is on our own perfect path. Charity means we allow others to find their own way. The Lord does not permit us to interfere with choices anyone else makes. No matter how repugnant and off-putting another's lifestyle may appear to us, we are required by the laws of heaven to let them be. Charity means we all get to live and let live.

Some of us Mormons tend to be overly concerned about the morality of others. If God had wanted us to get worked up about what other people are doing with their genitals, I think He would have given us those orders by now. In the entire bible, the few verses purporting to do with homosexuality don't even claim to be quoting God. So why are we hanging on them?

How To Take A Stand Against Gay Marriage
This may offend some people, but I'll say it anyway. I don't care for Homosexuality. It is not for me.  So here's what I've decided to do about it: I make it a point to refrain from participating in homosexual acts. Every chance I get.

This is the method I have chosen that I feel would best protect the sanctity of my marriage. I'm happy to announce that my courageous stand has met with the approval of a grateful and relieved wife.

That is the limit to what God allows me to do. He does not permit me to interfere in the lives of others, regardless of how unsavory I might find their behavior. I am permitted to choose only what I will do with my own genitals. I am not charged with jurisdiction over yours.

Since the Restoration of the gospel began in 1820, God has had 194 years to tell us his thoughts about gay marriage. The fact that he hasn't said anything about it suggests to me this is not quite the issue with Him that some of us think it should be.


January 2014 Announcements! 
Come Let Us Reason Together
I suspect this post will engender some vigorous discussion on both sides of this issue, so I ask only that you remain civil and try to keep your emotions in check.  And please try to avoid posting as "Anonymous" because in no time the comment page will be crawling with people named Anonymous and it becomes impossible to know who is responding to who. Please use the drop-down box labeled "Name/Url" but if you must use Anonymous, please sign off with a user name in the body of the post to differentiate yourself from all the other people arguing under the same name.

And on the subject of arguments, Duke University is offering a free 12 week

course entitled "Think Again! How To Reason and Argue" beginning January 13th. I think a lot of latter-day Saints could benefit from learning to articulate their point of view. Getting a firm foundation in reason, logic, and common sense will also help protect you from government, media, and yes even religious figures who would try to manipulate your emotions for their own ends. Learn to spot the weaknesses and fallacies in your own arguments and become more persuasive when presenting your point of view. You can even earn a verified certificate from Duke University, and none of it will cost you a cent.

TED Talk
"The Ally Within"  is a short talk presented at TED by John Dehlin, telling his story of conversion from a typical latter-day Saint with typical Mormon attitudes toward homosexuals, to one who came to understand Christ's lessons of charity toward all mankind. John Dehlin is the quintessential Mormon. If all latter-day Saints were like him, most of the problems the modern church is currently facing would disappear.


The Passing of a Favorite Scholar
I just learned of the death of Richard Price on New Years Day. Brother Price was the co-author with his wife of  the two volume work, "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy,"a book that has had a profound impact on my own personal quest for truth.  In spite of having suffered a stroke two years back, Brother Price continued to post additional chapters free online under volume II. Richard's wife will continue to post additional research which you can obtain for free online here.

Rock On The Radio
Last week I was the guest on K-Talk Radio's Paul Duane Show in Salt Lake City. You can access and download a podcast of that show by clicking here. 


429 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 429 of 429
Oldtimer said...

LDSDPer said,

"marriage is not the foundation of society in Babylon"

As you directed this comment to me, I can only assume you are referencing from my comment "we know that the natural right of marriage and family is the foundation of society" correct me, if I am mistaken.
If this is, in fact the case, I would say that as you reference "Babylon" you are speaking of a "community."

I am speaking of human society, the whole race or family of man, the true and natural foundation of human society is indeed family/marriage.

Babylon is a choice. We have been counseled to come out of Babylon, stand in Holy Places, come to Zion, we have been called upon to "promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
which it indeed is.

LDSDPer also said "If you have been focusing on homosexual "marriage"

I am at a complete loss as to your assumption here.
I have stated prior 'I don't care if you're gay either...'

How you make the leap that I am unaware or unconcerned regarding the CIA/Federal Reserve is...? :)

I was merely pointing out that the attack on Family and Marriage is as much a tyrannical weapon against against all Liberty as the Federal Reserve, borne out in the communist manifesto...all of these are means to an end.

Likewise i suppose I could say to you, if you have been focusing on what the members of your ward think... and not on the stated goals of the Gadiantons to "abolish the family" to "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy" in concert with the wars, rumors of wars, theft of labor we have already mentioned via the Federal Reserve, infiltration of our schools, courts, churches, arts, and the fallacious notion that "civil rights" somehow trump natural rights... then you might give a pass to the redefining of marriage by the community of Babylon, rather than engaging in the Hope of Israel, Zion's army...rising in might with the sword of truth and right, whose warcry is to watch and pray.

My former stake president came to my home to discuss a political difference of opinion as he then held public office and I and some in my family are vocal in our beliefs...He told me it is his firm belief that it is better to be kind than to be right.

This seems to be rampant in our culture, this political correctness mentality which flies in the face of all the Gospel - Pure Mormonism - teaches us.

LDSDPer said...

@Oldtimer,

You are correct when you state that I jumped to conclusions. I was wrong to assume you didn't know about the Federal Reserve.

*I* believe that "communists" are only a small part of the modern-day Gadiantons, so I don't, perhaps, take them as seriously as some others might.

I was wrong to state, as though I am an authority, that money is the basis of our current society.

It is my belief that it is, based upon the things I have witnessed and the things I have studied about the perplexities of the nations. And the scriptures I have read and re-read and then read again. :)

It is true that you don't understand me.


The family is the basis of the ideal community, but no such community exists in this world, and I tried to make it obvious to you in the things I presented to our discussion that it does not exist, even in the church, when I pointed out that wealthier church members judge those who don't have 'enough' as being incompetent, when needy families are discussed in early morning meetings on Sunday. My husband witnessed it, and at one point he spoke out. Some realized what was happening and showed shame; others didn't even understand why he was upset. I was using that to make a point that only those with money can have families (really; it is so hard to have a family without money that many who attempt it end in divorce; others just become discouraged)--
but here I have to disagree with your saying that:

Babylon equals community.

I don't agree with that at all.

No, Babylon is definitely not a choice. Not a choice at all. We're stuck in it to see what we're going to do and if we're going to learn to feed His sheep.

Yes, we are to flee Babylon, but how can we flee Babylon if we don't know what Babylon is?

I've said enough, and I apologize in advance if I have been offensive.

LDSDPer said...

@Oldtimer--

I didn't respond to one of your comments, if you can find it in all the words below:

:)

I don't understand why you think that I should not care about what my fellow ward members think; I believe it is important that we know what those with whom we worship believe--

if we are any kind of community. Even a sad excuse for a community.

And if it's not the same thing we believe within a ward, then that is a deep concern, especially if the 'lines' are drawn between those who have and those who do not have . . . money.

As Inspire is so good at saying, we are not told to go to battle.

*We* LDS, Americans of Northern European extraction, most of *us*, have been weaned on war. *We* think that there is a righteous war somewhere--

because of the "war in heaven".

The "war in heaven" is found only vaguely in Revelations and nowhere in the Book of Mormon.

The idea of Christian soldiers and battlecries and Christ heading up an army--

is all from hymns, not from scriptures.

Yes, we love Captain Moroni. But if all wars were waged as he waged them or, more particularly, as the people of Ammon did--

there would be few wars, if any.

The term "Zion's Army" is also not found in the scriptures, anywhere.

As you directed this comment to me, I can only assume you are referencing from my comment "we know that the natural right of marriage and family is the foundation of society" correct me, if I am mistaken.
If this is, in fact the case, I would say that as you reference "Babylon" you are speaking of a "community."

Oldtimer's words above

No, I don't think of Babylon as a community, not at all. But I already said that. Since we don't agree that Babylon is any kind of community, other than a community that is based I don't use Babylon as my yardstick--
upon money—
I don't use Babylon as my yardstick—but I am not saying that you do.


It would be SO wonderful if the family WERE the basis of society. Such a society is what there will be in Zion, I believe. But it does not exist in this world. If it were, there would not be all this heartache we are presently experiencing.

Somehow I think that Zion means a different thing to you than it means to me.

To me it means

3 And they had aall things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly bgift.

That is Zion.



When I am talking to LDS, and I think we are not communicately effectively, I tend to try to use scriptures to get my point(s) across; that's the main reason I do it; all of *us* should have the scriptures in common.

LDSDPer said...

and I made a lot of typos in that post--

I apologize; I was in a hurry; running off to do something--

I hope I answered all your concerns and was kind when I did it.

:)

Oldtimer said...

LDSDPer, I am not one to take offense and you have surely not said anything offensive :)

You have however made another assumption as you state,"wealthier church members judge those who don't have 'enough' as being incompetent" based on a small sample in one of your husband's meetings.
There are un-Christlike qualities found on all points of the financial spectrum.
How has your husband deeming these wealthy members 'incompetent' at serving the needy any different?

Once more to be clear, my statement was very simply,
"we know that the natural right of marriage and family is the foundation of society"

which you then responded with "marriage is not the foundation of society in Babylon."

I then clarified, and will try once more...
"I am speaking of human society, the whole race or family of man, the true and natural foundation of human society is indeed family/marriage."

Again, Babylon and Zion are smaller communities within the enlarged human society which foundation IS marriage/family.

And yes, Babylon worships mammon, is rejecting family/marriage but contrary to your feelings all of human society does not.
There are those who reject mammon and worship a different Master, Our Lord and Saviour.

You truly cannot serve two masters and yes it is our choice which we serve.

LDSDPer said...

anonymous @5:46

I never said that men could mate with men, not now or in the eternities.

The person with whom I discussed this said that the reason men should not 'mate' with men in this world is that they would not 'start' an eternal posterity.

There are many people who cannot 'start' an eternal posterity.

I know about resurrection. I am not sure what sorts of 'babies' will be born in the eternities; there are no scriptures on it, and many of the words of early (and later) apostles on it are confusing.

I simply made the point that using homosexuals as an argument in favor of 'starting' an 'eternal posterity' is flawed, because many people cannot 'start' an 'eternal posterity'.

I don't find those things in the scriptures, but I do find resurrection. I am VERY familiar with the concept of revelation; I don't need to be taught about it; it is a wonderful thing. I'm probably looking forward to it as much as you are.

I know that I am often guilty of the same thing, but when it happens I try to point it out for the sake of a lucid discussion.


LDSDPer said...

resurrection, not revelation.

I need to stop while I'm ahead, IF I am ahead.

:)

Oldtimer said...

LDSDPer,
Zion=The Pure in Heart
D&C 97:21

LDSDPer said...

@Oldtimer,

We aren't going to agree. Or even understand each other.

Ireally want you to have the last word, but I have this personal weakness; I hate being misunderstood. LOL! And, yet, it is just going to happen, and there is nothing I can do about it. I could refute everything you say, but that could possibly begin contention.

I still believe what I believe. I don't think either one of us has inspired the other to look at anything differently or find a new scripture that brings us greater understanding. I had decades of fearmongering from people who blamed all the troubles in the world on communism; whether or not that is true, I've already been 'around that block'.

What you said about my husband and his implying that the wealthier members of the ward on occasion were incompetent isn't true. He was making observatons; he expressed his concerns; he was noting their attitudes, just as you noted the attitude of your stake president. I didn't judge you for noting your stake president's attitude, yet you imply that my husband found the members who did that "incompetent". Why did you bring up your stake president? Don't tell me you don't observe behavior in other human beings. Obviously you have observed the behavior of people you call "communists"; you have suggested I read what they have to say, so that I can be duly spurred to action against them.

One interesting thing, however. The way you state things (and I probably do this myself) is so definitive as to show that you really don't want to discuss; you want to teach. Believe it or not, I learn things on this blog from others, even those who are younger than myself, and I am grateful for those who have differing opinions. You obviously look at life differently than I do. But you imply that only someone who agrees with what you say believes in and desires to follow (or attempts to follow) Jesus Christ. I said you imply; I don't know for sure. Perhaps that is just how you come across.

I probably do the same, so bringing it up is pointless.

It might be hard for you to understand that someone who believes that the family is "meant" to be the basic unit of and foundation of human society but is not, really, when the rose-colored glasses are removed, the basic unit, even of human society, but that money is, since it is required to form and maintain families, and many who want families do not have access to it--

that such a person is striving for Zion, yes, even to be pure in heart--

and believes deeply in Jesus Christ above all else.

But I do, Oldtimer.

My experiences in life have been different enough from yours that we truly don't see the world the same way at all--or interpret the things we see the same way. Even our words don't meet successfully.

I have come to understand that the confounding of languages is very real in our world, even among LDS. We don't all understand each other, because we all have such varying beliefs. Our only hope truly is in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. But in the meantime, we don't understand each other. This is happening more and more in the church, and it can be seen on Mormon blogs, as people with different understandings struggle to communicate.

You didn't respond when I mentioned that there is no "Zion's Army" in the scriptures--
and that "Hope of Israel" is not found in the Book of Mormon and that in Acts its meaning is not connected with militance--

and in Jeremiah "Hope of Israel" is "the Lord" or Jesus Christ.

But when I have urged others to respond to scriptures I have quoted, I have been told that I am not being kind (one PM commenter used the word "goad")--

or reasonable. Please say something else so you can have the last word. :)

I really mean that. I didn't intend to respond, and I probably will regret it.

Oldtimer said...

LDSDPer,
Once more, you have made an assumption... that my desire would be to "have the last word"
all while labeling your part in this discussion as desiring "to be understood."

Further you state unequivocally,
"We aren't going to agree. Or even understand each other" yet continue to discuss even as you mention that you are concerned about "contention."

These appear to be conflicting both in your own purpose and in the standard you hold for yourself as opposed to the standard you hold for others.

I truly would appreciate your taking the effort to actually understand rather than incorrectly assume and then "refute" what it is I am saying.

If that is your intent than by all means I will continue this discussion in order to likewise understand you and first begin clarify per your stated concern, my not responding

"when I mentioned that there is no "Zion's Army" in the scriptures--
and that "Hope of Israel" is not found in the Book of Mormon and that in Acts its meaning is not connected with militance"

I did not see a need to respond as it appeared obvious that we are on the same page which may be evidenced by the direct sharing of the words in the song which speak quite clearly to the fact that the "warcry" is to "watch and pray" and that the "weapons" are indeed "truth and right" not AK47s or atomic bombs :)

Next, you ask, why I brought up my stake president, which I will clarify as well, but if you have further questions, feel free...
I brought him up to illustrate that the political correctness culture we live in has drawn us away from "choosing the right" when a choice is placed before us and letting the Holy Spirit guide so that His light may be forever shining over us....or wielding the sword of truth and right as evidenced by the statement he made, "It is better to be kind, than right" and as evidenced by the rejection of the charge to "promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Oldtimer said...

Then to speak to your feeling that
"It might be hard for you to understand that someone who believes that the family is "meant" to be the basic unit of and foundation of human society but is not, really, when the rose-colored glasses are removed, the basic unit, even of human society, but that money is, since it is required to form and maintain families, and many who want families do not have access to it--"

I will try once more to clarify for you what it is I am saying.
I have asked that you look to the definition of society as it is a stumbling block in our communication. Let's look in the dictionary once more or even to the Family Proclamation or you may choose your own source...

Proclamation: "family as the fundamental unit of society"

Webster: "the whole race or family of man"

As we have undergone perversions of our language we have been taught that a community within society such as a Babylon community (consumed with mammon) or a Zion community (consumed with the Lord) would somehow constitute the whole of "society."

I speak to the truth that family IS the foundation and cornerstone of society.

I would like to clarify too, your mistaking me having some obsession with communists...if you care to understand, if not just let me know.

There are "save two churches only."

This does not constitute a worldly corporation or building with a cross on top.
Adherents of both of these two churches are found within every, single organization, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

It is whom we serve and what consumes us that determines which church we belong to, either the church of the Lamb of God, in the recognition that the family IS the foundation and cornerstone of society, the maintaining and strengthening of the family and the pursuit (for purposes of this discussion)or the church of the devil, in adhering to the stated goals of the Communist manifesto to abolish the family, choosing money/mammon as a foundation and cornerstone (for purposes of this discussion.)

Oldtimer said...

It is a choice.
Two scriptures remind us of this fact as we consider the lilies.

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 6:28-34

LDSDPer said...

@Oldtimer,

On another one of Rock's essays "Inspire" says something about the labels we put on things and on people and how problematic that makes any kind of discussion.

And yet, sometimes if we don't label ourselves or 'things' we become confused. Sometimes labels are just a building block to understanding. It would be better if they weren't done in concrete.

I hesitate to respond, because I don't want to argue. I'm not accusing you of arguing, and I hope you will feel that you won't need to be defensive. I'm not attacking you or your system of beliefs. I am familiar with the things you say.

But I thought I ought to try to explain, for the sake of anyone else who might have read or may continue to read the discussion we began to have--

(which began with Rock's essay on "why I don't care if you're gay")

and just in case you might be interested.

I think there are some very wise things in the proclamation (to the world) on the family, but there are also things in it that are not (without going into detail about my own family unit, which is not a traditional family unit) happy for some people, not just people who struggle with gender issues, but people who would be, in every possible way, considered 'innocent' by the most scrupulous of Christians/Mormons of any violation of familial or moral ideal.

For that reason and for the fact that it is not even purported to be revelation, I won't use it as a backup source for anything, even though parts of it I agree heartily with (or fit into my personal religious philosophy)--

as for Noah Webster, I have his 1828 dictionary, and I think he was a very learned man; he was, eventually, certainly a product of 1800s era protestantism, though in the beginning he was independent. I think he was a very good person, and I know he was anti-slavery.

I am not going to say what I think you are; it's not my place to label you, but you are discussing this matter (the family and its definition) with someone who considers herself to be:

an anti-establishmentarian/pro-life (unborn and beyond)/paleo Mormon/born again Christian/non-interventionist/anti-Nephi Lehite/anti-socioeconomic Darwinist*/non-violent eco-neo-Luddite/anti-Babylonian/anti-corporatist


*Social Darwinism


noun Sociology .
a 19th-century theory, inspired by Darwinism, by which the social order is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions and in accord with which a position of laissez-faire is advocated.

In other words, I am not a social(economic) darwinist; Alma is my hero, because he refuted Korihor, who was definitely a social Darwinist; many modern Mormons are social Darwinists, but either don't realize it or would argue that they could not possibly be.

I refute the standard definitions of both "family" and "society" as being polluted by Babylonian context.

I believe the basic unit of God's system of organizing His children is a Spirit Child of God. I believe He sees us as individuals.

But Babylon uses Spirit Children of God to feed its machinery and throws them away. And yet Babylon requires that humans pay money to exist, even while they are being devoured.

(I find myself wondering what the golden wedge of Ophir was, but God promised to make man more valuable than that wedge, which is not happening in today's 'society')

So, that is why, with no insult intended towards you (please) I have stated that I don't think we're going to be able to discuss anything.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

You wrote me saying "
we will be held accountable for all laws made on our watch which facilitate the destruction of Liberty/natural rights."

I agree, but perceive by the context that you suppose I am in favor of making laws regarding Same sex marriage. I am not. I must not have made my position clear in my original post.

My position is that government does not have the power to abrogate private contracts. If I understood the recent brouhaha in Utah correctly, there was no lawmaking involved, but a recognition by a judge that the right to contract cannot be reserved to some people and denied to others.

It's my opinion that most lawmaking is detrimental to the country, and I can't think of any instance where I feel the state should be in the business of regulating something as private and personal as the marriage contract.

Dale B said...

As always, I seem to have reached the point where there are no easy answers. I think that although there are few, if any, specific references to homosexuality in the scriptures, that the intent is pretty clear that all extra-marital activity is sinful. Even looking at someone with lust is sinful, so I think he draws a pretty tough standard.

That said, there is plenty about marriage in the scriptures that I don't understand. Polygamy is supported at some places/times but denounced in other places/times. Moses allowed divorce but the Lord disparaged the practice. I've been married multiple times, so I'm probably too deep in sin to be objective about it, but I think the greater point is trying to do the best you can in this life, even if you make mistakes.

I think that the scientific understanding of homosexual activity is pretty limited. There is evidence for nurture. There is evidence for nature. My own guess is that we have polluted our world with chemicals which can, even in very small doses, cause tendencies to occur. It is observed that some animals tend to homosexual behavior in the presence of low levels of certain chemicals. If so, perhaps one way to think of this is as a condition or disease, with components of experience thrown in to muddy the waters. Clearly, it is aberrant behavior if survival of the species is the only relevant goal, but as eternal beings, that may not be the real point.

My younger brother has downs syndrome, but I don't think of that as a trial for him, I think of it as a trial for me and those around him. Perhaps we should look at this issue in the same light.

On the other hand, I am tired of having the gay agenda shoved down my throat at every turn. I think it is clear that Satan is using the political dimensions of the movement to advance his cause which is the destruction of liberty and agency. I am bothered by the fact that I am no longer allowed to express an opinion in polite society that recognizes that both parental roles are healthiest for raising children is important. At the same time I recognize that a SSM couple can have a healthier relationship than I did in my own marriage, so I don't feel that sexuality is the right standard to judge someone by.

I would love to go to the moral high ground on this issue, if only I knew which direction it was. For myself, I'm not attracted to the same sex. Thank God! But that doesn't mean I should deny others the opportunity to find their own path. I've had several gay friends in my life, but that doesn't mean that I support their lifestyle or their politics. I'm lucky enough to know what I should be doing or believing to spend a lot of time worrying about what my neighbor is doing. At the same time, it doesn't mean that I have to wholeheartedly support their ideas, which I think are largely collectivist in nature. At this point, I think the gay agenda is pretty well established as a fait accompli, but I worry that it will be elevated in schools and the media as something to admire and aspire to, which I think is going too far.

I think there is a lack of clear, articulate and inspired teachings on the subject from the LDS or any other church, which is why the Church seems to be ineffective at providing coherent leadership. Perhaps a prophet will come one day with obvious authority, who will call all of us to repentance and set the record straight. I would welcome that, but I don't believe we live in that time. I'm not convinced that our relationships will remain the same as those we establish here on Earth in the hereafter. I'm just going to have to trust that the resolution will be better than I can currently imagine and leave it in Christ's hands.

Anonymous said...

I just came across this blog today and thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm not going to state whether same gender relations are right or wrong although I believe them to be unnatural. I do believe the more important issue is the question of whether marriage is a RIGHT that should not be subject to a license requirement by civil government or a PRIVILEGE granted by government license. If we consider it a right and government did not grant a license to perform what is already a right than the marriage issue would be between the individual and the organization recognizing or choosing not to recognize the marriage. If it is a privilege with associated "benefits" that's where society unnecessarily gets involved in a battle over the right and wrong of the issue. Lets just all be friends and take back our right to marriage without requirement of government approval/disapproval.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I couldn't agree with you more. There is no reason to seek permission from the state to marry, as marriage is instituted of God.

A license is permission. Didn't God already command it? Then why seek approval from the State?

BK said...

Or why seek approval from a/the Church even. God has never given any special authority to church leaders either to marry people, nor is it a requirement of God to be married by anyone or even Priests or Prophets, etc.

Marriage has always been just a mutual vow between a man & a woman to unconditionally love, serve & stay faithful to the other forevermore, no matter what.

They don't need anyone to witness their vows or preside over their vows in order to make it official with God, though it is nice when family and friends do watch them make their vows and celebrate it all with them.

But a couple could marry all alone up in the mountains and still be as married as anyone.

I don't know when this idea started that church or state leaders had to be in charge of it all or preside over it.

We have the same natural right to choose & 'marry' someone forever as we do to live, work or have children. No man on earth has the right to give or take that right away, though many think they do.

Religions have been like governments, always wanting to get control over the people. Taking charge of marriage is just one way churches have tried to control people.

And on the flip side, no prophet, priest or king on earth has the right or power to dissolve a marriage either, even if both may want it.

Marriage is forever and is impossible to dissolve or end once the couple both mutually agree to make those vows and consummate them. Promises used to be taken much more serious then they are today.

I believe 'forced' marriages would not be valid with God though and a person forced to marry someone would be allowed to marry someone else of their own choice one day.

For God does not believe in force, especially in the most important decision in life, that of marriage.

But Christ commanded us and leaders that no one is to try to ever dissolve a mutually consented marriage, ours or anyone elses.

John said...

I'm disappointed in you, Alan. Most of your discussions are pretty good and spot on with what the Spirit tells me, but you missed the mark on this one. Not sure why.

First, D&C makes it very clear that any marriage that has even the slightest hope of being recognized by God must be between a man and a woman. Do the verses use the word "homosexuality"? No. There's a lot of things NOT mentioned, just as there are basically infinite ways to sin. So what? All that matters is the one way to get it right: a man and his wife sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. The verses are very clear, and were declared as revelation received by Joseph Smith.

Second, you said there was no way for you to know for yourself on the issue since God hasn't revealed it to anyone. This is incorrect for two reasons, the first having been already stated and the second being that of course you have the potential to receive revelations from God on any subject that matters to you. It's James 1:5, dude.

Come on man, you know better than this. Why are you being such a lawyer about it?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

John, I'm not sure what it it you are taking issue with here. You appear to be hung up on gay marriage, a topic which I did not address in my piece.

Whether two people of the same sex "should" or should not marry each other is a subject outside of my authority either to support or condemn. It is a topic I intend to address at a future time, but I did not address it in this post, so I hope you'll respond and explain just what it is you disagree with me about.

Do you object to my belief that we are to love one another and accept them for who they are? I'm pretty sure my position was clear on that count. I think I made it clear that I am satisfied that a heterosexual union is the right decision for my life, but I refuse to take sides in a controversy in which I have no stake.

As far as others are concerned, in the absence of further instruction from the Lord, I believe my responsibility is to observe the Great Commandment, and love my neighbor as I love myself.

Are you of the opinion that I favor temple sealing of same sex unions? The title of the piece is "I don't Care if You're Gay," it was not "I Believe the Church Should Sanction and Perform Gay Marriages."

I have been critical of the corporate Church when the leaders have acted contrary to scripture and doctrine, but in areas where they have not acted contrary to scripture and doctrine I do not take issue. Meanwhile, I prefer not to meddle in the affairs of private individuals.

Because we have not received latter-day revelation about a particular topic does not mean anything goes. It merely means we have not received revelation on that topic. So I leave it be.

Perhaps you have received personal revelation that you are to speak out against other individuals, but I have not, and I cannot find any scriptural justification for getting involved, either. You can, of course, hold an opinion contrary to mine if that is what motivates you, but if you are rebuking me for not agreeing with you, that is a different matter.

Some are of the opinion that we have an obligation to oppose same sex attraction in others because they believe that is what God wants of them. I have been unable to find such a commandment; neither have I been inspired in that direction, so I leave other people's lives to be lived as they see fit.

I have made clear that same sex attraction does not appeal to me personally. If such was my lot, I would have to figure out for myself how to deal with it. But since that dilemma is not mine to deal with, I get to leave it alone.

I have my own set of challenges for my life. Taking on someone else's challenges and insisting they behave as I see fit strikes me as as a violation of other's free agency. I will not insist that others live as I prefer to live. Each man is free to choose his own path in life; as long as he does not not infringe on the rights of others, what another man does with his life is none of my affair.

In absence of a revelation that would require me to take a certain position, I think it best to sit this one out.

John said...

Sorry, I guess I misread your first three opening paragraphs, two of which specifically mentioned gay marriage and all three of which mentioned that God hasn't revealed anything about it. So yeah, not only did you address it, you kinda made it your entire premise.

I agree that as far as federal law is concerned, there should be no laws about marriage at all. Even at the state level it is questionable. So long as people are not abusing the rights of others, they should pretty much be legally allowed to do whatever they want. Basically live and let live. I'm with you on that. I don't believe God had anything to do with us getting involved in Prop 8.

I also agree that we should do our best to love people, period. Doesn't matter who they are or where they've been, what they've done or said. We should follow Christ's example and love unconditionally.

But I feel that you do your readers a great disservice when you pretend like God hasn't revealed ANYTHING about gay marriage, especially after opening your article with such an emphasis on it. The truth is that God has revealed a lot about marriage, and he makes it clear that any marriage that has the potential to extend beyond this mortal life must be between a man and a wife. That is a very powerful and clear revelation, and is very relevant to the topics you discussed in this article.

Does that mean we should condemn people who do not want that kind of marriage? Of course not. We each have our own marriages to worry about, and we are generally not within our rights when we try to tell others how to live, one way or the other.

Like I said, I agree with almost everything you have had to say, on this article as well as the others I have read so far. But to claim God hasn't revealed anything on the topic of gay marriage is a flat out lie. You should have at least mentioned the revelations on marriage that are in D&C, instead of claiming there were none and then pointing only to non-revelations like the Proclamation.

Homosexual behavior is wrong, in the same way that cancer is wrong. They are symptoms of imbalance, and they are harmful. With either one, people feel like they didn't choose it for themselves, and that there is little that they can do about it. But that doesn't make it a viable alternative to good health, and that doesn't mean that faith is powerless to work miracles in our lives.

We don't need a revelation from God saying, "cancer is bad, you should try to stop cancer from occurring. Please remember to love and not judge those who have cancer, they need your support!" It is the same with homosexuality. We can pretend that it's fine, that there's nothing wrong with it, maybe God thinks it's okay...but when we do, we only blind ourselves from the truth and prevent ourselves from dealing with the real issues. It is our lifestyle that creates both cancer and homosexuality, and it is through our lifestyle and faith that we can overcome them as a society.

A book you may be interested in is Health and Survival in the 21st Century, by Dr. Ross Horne. There's a lot of good stuff in there that I wish everyone in our time knew about.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

John, you must forgive me for misreading your intent. Because of your wording, "any marriage that has even the slightest hope of being recognized by God must be between a man and a woman," I assumed you were referring to the question of legitimacy of gay marriage within the LDS church.

I have been bombarded with private communications from members who misunderstood my reasoning on this issue, and had assumed I was in favor of same sex couples being sealed in the temple. Because of the frequency of these objections, and because I had just finished responding to one via email, I assumed that was your objection, too. If I was wrong in that assumption,I apologize.

Others have insisted that if gay marriage were "permitted" within this church, It logically follows that gay temple sealings must also be inevitable. I don't think so. I neither favor nor promote same sex church weddings nor same sex sealings in the LDS community for the simple reason that it violates our religious tenet that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

I don't personally believe that marriage between two people of the same gender is on an equal footing as marriage between a man and a woman. A religious community certainly has the right to define marriage as their scriptures and traditions dictate.

Exceptions to traditional marriage in the secular world are permitted because some people have sought license to do so, and have received such license from the state. That does not mean same sex marriage is "normal," nor must it be adopted by any religious society. Religious communities have standards which are expected to be upheld.

I had thought I was clear in my piece that my indifference to the brouhaha surrounding CIVIL same sex unions is that latter-day scripture does not address the issue nor command we actively oppose the choices others make as to how they will live their lives or who they choose to live with.

However, the doctrine regarding how marriages are to be performed within our religious society certainly does, as codified in the original D&C 101 which affirms that all marriages IN THIS CHURCH are to be between one man and one woman.

It would appear that the impetus for recognition of same sex unions as "marriages" stemmed from the unfair prohibitions that governments have enacted in the lives of unmarried people, such as not permitting an unmarried loved one to be present in a hospital as their partner was dying, or prohibiting inheritance after death of a lifetime partner. Had the State not interfered in people's private lives in the first place, I'm not sure this would have become the issue it has. It has been state interference in people's lives that has made this an issue.

It was the State that enacted lopsided rules that recognized married people as having certain rights which the State deprived unmarried couples from enjoying, and now the State is in the position of having to correct that inequality in a way that would not have been necessary had the State not improperly intervened in the lives of private individuals in the first place.

I still maintain I don't care how outside individuals define their relationship, but a religious community certainly cannot be forced to embrace it. We can define our own standards. No member of the LDS clergy can be coerced into performing any marriage he does not wish to perform, and if some bishop did happen to conduct a wedding between two persons of the same sex, the church would not be required to recognize it.

Why do you think gay couples rush down to City Hall to obtain a marriage license? A License is defined as "permission to engage in an activity that would otherwise be illegal and unlawful." A man and a woman who desire to marry do not need permission from the state. Same sex couples do.

I'll have more to say about all this in a future post.

John said...

Thanks for taking the time to clear that up; I apologize if I came across as aggressive or overly critical. You haven't offended me, and I believe we are on the same page with this issue. Truly, we have one helluva legal hydra to contend with in America, and We the People will need all the help we can get in dealing with it. Keep on fighting the good fight, Alan!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

BK,
I agree with your assertion on April 8 that neither the state NOR the church is really necessary for a marriage between a man and a woman. In Genesis 38 we find Judah chose a woman and "went in unto her," and that was pretty much the wedding ceremony. There is no mention of clergy present any more than there was clergy present to join Adam and Eve in the bonds of holy matrimony.

It's always a pretty good idea to have witness who can vouch for the fact that you and your spouse have vowed yourselves to each other, and it certainly helps to document it with a Certificate of Marriage. But as I'm sure you know, BK, a Marriage Certificate is a completely different thing from a marriage license.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

John, thank you for that kind response.

Minerals Liberia said...

Pres. Ezra Taft Benson once wrote (and I paraphrase because I do not have his writing at hand) “God gives us guidelines by which to live, and leaves it up to us to fill in the dots”. To fill in the dots requires us to make choices based upon our agency. Whatever the choice, we are stuck with the consequence. Agency and consequences are natural, or eternal laws, as eternal as God. Humans make the choices, essentially, founded upon knowledge and understanding of the circumstances surrounding the choice. We are guided by our conscience, by wiser beings, by experience, etc. Choices made in same gender attraction situations are based (as I understand it) upon very strong feelings. Who in all humanity can judge another person’s feelings? Not I!

Therefore, I embrace the stand of the LDS Church. Some actions are condemned by God, but He still loves each individual, as should we all. The actions are forbidden, but the feelings are not condemned, and as long as ANY member is faithful to the commandments of God, he or she is worthy to participate fully in ALL the ordinances and sacraments.To ACT upon feelings contrary to Gospel principles leads to negative consequences.

We all have strong feelings and desires: tobacco, drugs, alcohol, lust, envy and coveting, and many more. They are extremely difficult to ignore. So, when we freely make the connection of the dots (choices) we know there will be consequences. And we have to live with them. God's word should be shouted from the mountain tops...doesn't mean I am better than anyone else. We, individually, are the judges of ourselves. I can truthfully say, from my personal experiences, that God lives, He loves each one of us, and desires only our happiness.

Anonymous said...

I'm a sixteen year old girl, relatively active in the church, though I'm considering leaving for several reasons, including this particular issue. I absolutely do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. I spend every Thursday in my school's GSA club (Gender Sexuality Alliance, previously Gay Straight Alliance) and and almost all of my friends identify as something other than straight. I have gay friends, pan friends, demisexual friends, asexual friends, trans friends. You name it, I've got it. In fact my boyfriend is trans. I can tell from knowing such a wide range of people that this is not a choice. Sometimes it's something that they've always known, and sometimes it's a realization over time, but it isn't a choice. Who would choose to live such a hard life? Going back to the very basics of any type of Christianity, "God doesn't make mistakes", right? Whatever "imperfections" you have is meant to be. So if you think about that, obviously being gay, or trans, or asexual, or whatever you are, isn't a sin. It is just who you are. When homosexuals come out, many people chastise them, saying that it's a choice. But I never consciously chose to be straight. The fact of the matter is, as I started to grow up, I was naturally attracted to boys. That's not wrong. So why is it wrong that my gay friend is attracted to boys too? It was only natural. He never said, "Gosh, I've liked girls for a while, but it seems so much more interesting to date boys." I don't care what the church says, and I know that's controversial, and I do get lectured in Young Women's, but the church's view is wrong to me. The best way I know how to put their view is "you can have blue eyes, but you can't use them". Sure, it's cool if your gay, but you can't act on it. You can't grow up to have a happy marriage. You can find someone of the opposite sex to marry and have kids with, even if that's not how you swing. In my opinion, forcing that on someone is the real sin.

Kuudere-Kun said...

http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

aplikasi gacor said...



Great website and I look forward to seeing it improve over time.






PREDIKSI TOGEL 2019 Virdsam Bocoran Final angka TOGEL hari ini 2d 3d 4d BULLSEYE Sgp line HONGKONG 6d SD China Camboja Taiwan, ikuti lomba hk 6d line BE 4d dan sydney 2d berhadiah, bbfs generator akurat paito warna buku mimpi bergambar 2d 3d 4d dan hasil result keluaran juga tersedia untuk Bocoran harian kamu semua.



agen Togel

daftar sbobet

prediksi Togel Hongkong HK 6d

prediksi Togel Hongkong HK 6d

prediksi Togel Hongkong HK 6d

prediksi Togel SINGAPURA sgp 6d


Hot Promo Angkerbet.org

Bonus New Member 5000

Bonus 1000 Setiap Melakukan Deposit Berlaku Kelipatan Deposit 30.000

Contoh : Jika Member Melakukan Deposit 90.000 Maka Bonus Yang Di Dapatkan 3000, Maxx Bonus 50.000 Dalam Sehari.




«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 429 of 429   Newer› Newest»