Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

[_3sheets2thewind]

I found it quite difficult to follow your argument here. Could you restate it as a succinct, logical argument so I can understand where you see the defects in the "inborn" analysis?

To take Elder Oak statement and say's "hands down rejection of "born that way", is to dismiss the second crucial part of Elder Oaks statement.

The defect in your statement is claiming Elders Oaks has stated something that he has not stated.

You can not take half of Elder Oaks which is dependent on the second half of the claim and say "hands down rejection of "born that way". Most importantly that is not what Elder Oaks or Elder Packer have stated...infact Elder Oaks and President Hinckley have stated that inborn or not, is not a question they can answer. Secondly, even the Book of Mormon (Ether 12:27) suggests that persons may be "born that way". Your interpretation of Elder Oaks statement without merit and possibly is not in sync with LDS Scripture.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

Larry King w/ GBH

KING: A problem they caused, or they were born with?

HINCKLEY: I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things. I don't pretend to be an expert on these things. The fact is, they have a problem.


(perhaps I have misunderstood your interpretation)

[_CSA]

Droopy,

You hit the nail right on the head. Lust in one's heart based on sexual desire is clearly against what is considered proper in terms of church standards. Now within a marriage between a man and a woman there can be all types of sexual desire and it really does not matter. Isn't SSA simply unbridled lust, and isn't lust wrong in the eyes of the church?

This is not congruent with LDS doctrine.

While you did discount thoughts as less of a sin than actual acting upon a SSA lust, it is still something that I think most Bishops would deny a temple recommend for. I was only speaking of SSA lust in this matter, for what lust happens within the confines of legal marriage, I don't believe a Bishop has a right to refuse a temple recommend for.

[_Joseph]

roopy wrote: "Any deviation from "the use of procreative powers" are "grave sins."
********************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, a couple has intercourse and waits a couple months to see if the woman is pregnant?

On being gay, a percentage of the Animal Kingdom exhibits gay behavior just as a percentage of mankind does. Are you sure it is 'abberant behavior' or maybe just a variation that should be acceptable as normal?

[_Droopy]

I found it quite difficult to follow your argument here. Could you restate it as a succinct, logical argument so I can understand where you see the defects in the "inborn" analysis?

To take Elder Oak statement and say's "hands down rejection of "born that way", is to dismiss the second crucial part of Elder Oaks statement.

The defect in your statement is claiming Elders Oaks has stated something that he has not stated.

You can not take half of Elder Oaks which is dependent on the second half of the claim and say "hands down rejection of "born that way". Most importantly that is not what Elder Oaks or Elder Packer have stated...infact Elder Oaks and President Hinckley have stated that inborn or not, is not a question they can answer. Secondly, even the Book of Mormon (Ether 12:27) suggests that persons may be "born that way". Your interpretation of Elder Oaks statement without merit and possibly is not in sync with LDS Scripture.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

Larry King w/ GBH

KING: A problem they caused, or they were born with?

HINCKLEY: I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things. I don't pretend to be an expert on these things. The fact is, they have a problem.


(perhaps I have misunderstood your interpretation)

Below is the statement by Elder Oaks that I said indicated a "hands down" rejection of the standard homosexual rights movement ideology:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

The statement speaks for itself, as do supporting statements Oaks made in the same essay.

The fact that the Church takes no official stand on the origin of homosexuality in no way modifies Oak's statements. Oaks, in point of fact, has taken a stand on the complexity, variability, and uncertainty of homosexuality's origins, and implied in that position is the incompatibility of any concept of homosexuality as deterministically innate in the way hair texture, eye color, height, body shape, or genetic susceptibility to certain diseases is deterministically innate. That is what I was responding to.

Secondly, even the Book of Mormon (Ether 12:27) suggests that persons may be "born that way".

This verse appears utterly irrelevant to your claim regarding it. I'll leave it at that because your interpretation of the text here seems to be stretching the rubber band to the snapping point.

[_Droopy]

roopy wrote: "Any deviation from "the use of procreative powers" are "grave sins."
********************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, a couple has intercourse and waits a couple months to see if the woman is pregnant?

Huh?

On being gay, a percentage of the Animal Kingdom exhibits gay behavior just as a percentage of mankind does. Are you sure it is 'abberant behavior' or maybe just a variation that should be acceptable as normal?

There is no such thing as "Gay" behavior in the animal kingdom. One male dog simulating sexual intercourse on another male dog is not homosexual behavior; its masturbation driven by the intense chemical stimulation of a nearby female dog presently in heat. A human leg will do just as well.

Certain other animals in which males pair off for extended periods of time is a mechanism (one of many) in nature to prohibit overpopulation of a specific habitat.

By your logic, animals that mate for life, which is quite rare in the animal world, are exhibiting "monogamous marriage."

Using animals as proxies for human conduct is a very slippery slope in the first instance, but the Gay rights lobby propaganda from which you are drawing your claims must slip into the anthropomorphization of animal life to make its point, and attempt what would appear to be impossible: the psychological analysis of animal life in an attempt to determine what an animal's motives and self perception are when engaging in homosexual or, perhaps more properly, homosexual-like activity.

Calling a penguin that pairs off with another male penguin for a time in which breeding does not occure "Gay" is a gross misuse of language. "Gay," as pointed out many times before, is not just "homosexual behavior," but a plethora of social, cultural, and psychological attributes, including a sense of core self identity.

I'll have my eyes open for a penguin gay bar next time I'm up near Baffin Bay, but I'm doubtful of ever seeing one. Nor do I consider lemmings as "suicidal" when they stampede over cliffs and kill themselves so as to prevent overbreeding. They are not suicidal; they are animals responding to inherent genetically based instinctual drives. Human beings "commit suicide." Animals do not. Human beings come to see themselves as "Gay." Animals sometimes engage in homosexual-like behavior as a matter of instinctual programming and in response to intense stimulation in their environment. This is not "homosexuality" in the human sense, however. At least, there is no evidence that it is.

Fully developed homosexual desires and its various ritualized behaviors and mannerisms (among certain subgroups of, particularly, homosexual males) are neither instinctual nor innate, save in the sense of predispositions, biases, and sensitivities, and much of it is culturally learned and practiced in the adoption of a certain identity or role within certain kinds of homosexual relationships.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

In regards to SSA, I can honestly see President Oaks in 5 years from now state, "Forget everything that I have said relating to SSA. I spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

You'll have to try something beyond a snarky apples/oranges throwaway line, Wang.

I brought this topic here because this is the place for "upper-crust...scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only."

So perhaps you could enter the arena of ideas here instead of standing outside of it making faces.

Now, now, Loran. Is calling my post "snarky" and saying that I am "standing outside of it making faces" scholary, polite and respectful?

The truth is Loran, the Church's position has evolved on SSA over the years as new scientific information has become available. I see no reason why this wouldn't be the case 5 years from now as more scientific evidence on SSA becomes available.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Secondly, even the Book of Mormon (Ether 12:27) suggests that persons may be "born that way".

This verse appears utterly irrelevant to your claim regarding it. I'll leave it at that because your interpretation of the text here seems to be stretching the rubber band to the snapping point.

Ether, is explicit that weakness is given to man by God, to help man turn to God. Thus, for some, it is quite relevant that any homosexual desire they may have is their weakness given of God.

What Elders Oaks, Elder Packer, and the Book of Ether are saying is that even if something is inborn, that does not mean you can not overcome it. I think you suggest the same. So the verse in Ether is entirely relevant.

[_LDSToronto]

Droopy,

Oaks essentially says that all sexual feelings can be overcome outside of marriage. He further states that sex is only for those married. If a man is married to a man, legally, in Canada, there seems to be an implication that the church must recognize that those two men have a divine right to engage in sexual activity.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this interesting loophole.

H.

[_LDSToronto]

Elder Oaks continues:

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Droopy,

Please elaborate on the bold point above: Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. Where is this doctrine stated? Is it found in the standard works?

H.

[_LDSToronto]

Droopy,

What do you feel the purpose of this talk is? I imagine that homosexuals occupy a very small proportion of the LDS population. LGBT occupy a very small proportion of the general population. So, I wonder what it is that drives a focus on the LGBT population.

Do you have some insight?

H.