What are the rules for gay Mormons?

[_subgenius]

Please advise which statements are false and correct accordingly.

my error...your assumptions were valid...your conclusions were not (as noted)

Fantastic, this is exactly what I'm looking for. Please show me where I can read about gay marriage being "not equivalent to, nor a form of, "marriage" within church doctrine", because I don't think that it exists; and typically, if the church doesn't have an official stance on something, the member uses his discretion.

This link should clarify the issue without question
then season that with the following:
"But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, " (emphasis mine)

Absolutely true, however; like I said. I'm not interested in "frowned upon". I'm only interested in explicitly forbidden.
The references above are explicit. But here is something more to the point for you:
"Sexual union is lawful in wedlock, and if participated in with right intent is honorable and sanctifying. But without the bonds of marriage, sexual indulgence is a debasing sin, abominable in the sight of Deity.” - Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939), p. 309.

Chastity

“there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” -Letter of the First Presidency, 14 Nov. 1991.
note the grammar in that sentence as "immoral heterosexual" is equated with "any homosexual", and then re-read chastity

Although immoral thoughts are less serious than immoral behavior....Immoral thoughts (and the less serious feelings that lead to them) can bring about behavior that is sinful. - Elder Oaks (emphasis mine)

hmm...you cast a wide net with this one. You went "all in". I like your style. However, I'm not really looking for justification for homosexuality. I'm looking for something concrete that a Bishop can use to council a married gay Mormon when he pulls him into his office and has the following conversation.
Bishop: You can't do what you're doing. It's immoral.
Gay: It is? I thought only sex outside of marriage was a sin?
Bishop: That obviously only applies to heterosexual marriage.
Gay: Can you please show me in Church literature where it says that sex inside marriage is only pure and sacred for heterosexual couples?
Bishop: Huh? But you will never have a temple marriage! Your civil union is only until death!
Gay: Maybe. Do you think any black people in the 70s had faith that a temple marriage might happen for them? I might wait for the "revelation" pin to drop. Never say "never" eh?
Bishop: ...

I have provided ample fodder above.
As for your feeble attempt to equate the civil rights movement in America with a Gay parade, you have serious flaws in your logic. The first and most glaring is that homosexuality is not an immutable condition, whereas being white or black is, would you suppose continuing revelation will eventually allow for child molestation? for shoplifting?.......and the the list of problems with that tired 'like-back-in-the-60s' claim goes on and on....see this link for comparison and if you still "think" they are similar, then you need more information than i can possibly provide for you here

[_GoForBroke]

This link should clarify the issue without question

hmmm... should. And yet, here we are. The link provided teaches us that inside current LDS theology, the entity that ordains marriage between a man and woman - is God.

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God

Awesome. So, who ordains a marriage between same sexes? don't know. Does God ordain marriage between same sexes? Doesn't say. Is marriage between same sexes wrong? Doesn't say. Further to this, if it could be proven that God doesn't ordain marriage between same sexes, does that mean sex inside a same sex marriage-not-ordained-of-God is sinful? Doesn't say.

then season that with the following:
"But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, " (emphasis mine)

Love the cooking metaphor. This is a good quote. Hinckley implies that a same sex marriage makes a mockery of "the family" (assuming the traditional nuclear family) where its purpose is for the rearing of families. Do you think he's saying that if you can't have children naturally with your partner, then you make light of sacred marriage and God is mocked? I've never heard of heterosexual couples that were disciplined for getting married when they have zero chance to naturally have a baby. Or is possible that marriage from an LDS perspective is actually a little more complicated and acceptable than just rearing children?

Chastity

I see that you've drawn a parallel between "immoral heterosexual" and "any homosexual" behavior as mentioned below. Interesting that the LDS chastity page didn't link them - or mention "homosexual" at all. Do you think they deliberately left it out, or forgot to put in it?

“there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” -Letter of the First Presidency, 14 Nov. 1991.
note the grammar in that sentence as "immoral heterosexual" is equated with "any homosexual", and then re-read chastity

The part about "any homosexual behavior" is your best quote yet. It seems pretty iron clad. I struggled to find the original quote though. The best I could find was a "premarital resource" compiled by Dallin H. Oaks where the quote starts "The First Presidency declared that...something something homosexual". I'm not sure exactly who he is quoting.... the entire quorum of the 12? Hinckley? I was worried that Mr Oaks might be paraphrasing words of the first presidency declaration with an unfortunate loss of precision. Well, perhaps I'll just take the words at face value to keep things simple and that he meant exactly what he said and didn't misquote at all. So, in a premarital resource, Oaks stated that "any homosexual" behavior needs to be resisted. That's cool, because I'm talking about post-marriage.

I have provided ample fodder above.
As for your feeble attempt to equate the civil rights movement in America with a Gay parade, you have serious flaws in your logic. The first and most glaring is that homosexuality is not an immutable condition, whereas being white or black is, would you suppose continuing revelation will eventually allow for child molestation? for shoplifting?.......and the the list of problems with that tired 'like-back-in-the-60s' claim goes on and on....see this link for comparison and if you still "think" they are similar, then you need more information than i can possibly provide for you here

Feeble attempt? heh. What's a discussion without a personal attack? You love-a de spice eh? Unfortunately, I failed to make my comparison motivation clear between blacks and gays. I'll fix that now. What I was doing was pointing out that at one point in time (pre-1978), blacks were denied temple ordinances considered necessary for salvation. Now they aren't. Then there was a revelation that said "not denied anymore". Just like the blacks pre-1978, homosexuals are denied temple ordinances considered necessary for salvation; and if LDS history has taught me anything (or anyone else with a fundamental level of pattern recognition) - it's that political pressure is a catalyst for LDS revelation. Black people weren't denied the priesthood because their "condition" (nice one) wasn't immutable. They weren't given the priesthood back because their "condition" is immutable. I'll tell you what, convince me that LDS doesn't care about politics, and I'll believe you that gays will never gaze at eternity mirrors.

[_PrickKicker]

What is the church's view on Man and wife having Anal sex?

[_just me]

What is the church's view on Man and wife having Anal sex?

Unholy and impure practices are sinful. How you interpret that is up to you.

[_subgenius]

This link should clarify the issue without question

hmmm... should. And yet, here we are. The link provided teaches us that inside current LDS theology, the entity that ordains marriage between a man and woman - is God.

redundant por que?
(reminder: you asked for information pertaining to church's position on marriage and same-sex marriage...information provided)

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God

Awesome. So, who ordains a marriage between same sexes? don't know.[/quote]
it is not ordained of God or it would be mentioned as such as opposed to the countless statements where it is not supported. The church, as do most reasonable people, do not often release statements that deny things in the wake of a clear affirmation.

Does God ordain marriage between same sexes? Doesn't say.

yes, it does say...and what it says is "no".

Is marriage between same sexes wrong? Doesn't say.

it does say...and what it says is yes, it is wrong. Same sex marriage is obviously a homosexual activity...a list of homosexual activities has not been specifically given by the church because they recognize that only literate people with the maturity to understand the obvious would be able to read it.

Further to this, if it could be proven that God doesn't ordain marriage between same sexes, does that mean sex inside a same sex marriage-not-ordained-of-God is sinful? Doesn't say.

absurd and lacking in basic reasoning. Your post is trying to be facetious, maybe even clever, but what is coming across is a post that is rather immature, uninformed, and ridiculous.

Love the cooking metaphor. This is a good quote. Hinckley implies that a same sex marriage makes a mockery of "the family" (assuming the traditional nuclear family) where its purpose is for the rearing of families. Do you think he's saying that if you can't have children naturally with your partner, then you make light of sacred marriage and God is mocked? I've never heard of heterosexual couples that were disciplined for getting married when they have zero chance to naturally have a baby. Or is possible that marriage from an LDS perspective is actually a little more complicated and acceptable than just rearing children?

another example that your post may be reaching beyond its grasp.
The idea that "rules", "laws", "doctrine", or even "guidelines" have no merit because of exceptions is ridiculous and not in accordance with reality. Some may say you are trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.
So, while you focus on the exception rather than the rule, you negate what Hinckley stated: "...its very purpose, the rearing of families”
"rearing" = as in To care for (children or a child) during the early stages of life; bring up. Countless studies, tradition, and common sense have always maintained the clear meaning for this Doctrine. It is so simple, in fact that the American tax code rewards you for it.

Chastity

I see that you've drawn a parallel between "immoral heterosexual" and "any homosexual" behavior as mentioned below. Interesting that the LDS chastity page didn't link them - or mention "homosexual" at all. Do you think they deliberately left it out, or forgot to put in it?

i believe the consideration was that if a person was capable of accessing the internet that they would have the capacity to understand simple concepts.

“there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” -Letter of the First Presidency, 14 Nov. 1991.
note the grammar in that sentence as "immoral heterosexual" is equated with "any homosexual", and then re-read chastity

The part about "any homosexual behavior" is your best quote yet. It seems pretty iron clad. I struggled to find the original quote though. The best I could find was a "premarital resource" compiled by Dallin H. Oaks where the quote starts "The First Presidency declared that...something something homosexual". I'm not sure exactly who he is quoting.... the entire quorum of the 12? Hinckley? I was worried that Mr Oaks might be paraphrasing words of the first presidency declaration with an unfortunate loss of precision. Well, perhaps I'll just take the words at face value to keep things simple and that he meant exactly what he said and didn't misquote at all. So, in a premarital resource, Oaks stated that "any homosexual" behavior needs to be resisted. That's cool, because I'm talking about post-marriage.

your post is a little incoherent.
Here is the link to the quote you "had a little trouble" finding.

Feeble attempt? heh. What's a discussion without a personal attack?

it was not personal, it was simply a characterization of your post, not of you.

You love-a de spice eh? Unfortunately, I failed to make my comparison motivation clear between blacks and gays. I'll fix that now. What I was doing was pointing out that at one point in time (pre-1978), blacks were denied temple ordinances considered necessary for salvation. Now they aren't. Then there was a revelation that said "not denied anymore". Just like the blacks pre-1978, homosexuals are denied temple ordinances considered necessary for salvation; and if LDS history has taught me anything (or anyone else with a fundamental level of pattern recognition) - it's that political pressure is a catalyst for LDS revelation. Black people weren't denied the priesthood because their "condition" (nice one) wasn't immutable. They weren't given the priesthood back because their "condition" is immutable.

Again, your "comparison motivation" is clear..clearly flawed. You are proposing that since apples make juice and oranges make juice that both juices must surely taste the same.
I believe living Temple ordinances are also denied to convicted child molesters serving life in prison, and i see no logical reason to associate their "plight" with blacks being denied the priesthood.
You have provided no justification that gays are "in a similar" situation as blacks or anyone else with regards to the church...or society for that matter.
Since you mention "fundamental pattern recognition" - exactly what pattern do you "recognize"...considering that you have but one example, i am curious how you figure "pattern". Patterns are usually based on "repetition"...and the only repetition that i recognize is that the church has consistently "denied" activities that are immoral...so, on that point the pattern would support the conclusion that same sex marriages will not sealed in the Temple.
If your claim is that the "pattern" is "blacks were once denied living temple ordinances"....then....well... you really have no valid argument.

I'll tell you what, convince me that LDS doesn't care about politics, and I'll believe you that gays will never gaze at eternity mirrors.

why would i need to convince you that LDS does not care about politics?, i have never proposed that argument.
However, the amount of "faith" you have for same sex marriage based on the LGBT current political power is admirable but misplaced...increased political power does not always equate to "righteousness" or even a favorable the Supreme Court ruling.
Currently, you ain't got a prayer!

[_GoForBroke]

it does say...and what it says is yes, it is wrong. Same sex marriage is obviously a homosexual activity...a list of homosexual activities has not been specifically given by the church

Yeah, I agree with this.

because they recognize that only literate people with the maturity to understand the obvious would be able to read it.

I'm intrigued that you keep attacking my maturity. I'm not sure exactly why I'm triggering this epithet from you, but I assure you this is as mature as I get. For your reference, If I was acting immature, I would have said "Homosexuality isn't immutable? how many homosexuals do you know of that changed teams? You say the black "condition" is immutable? You should have explained that to Michael Jackson while he was still alive. But he's dead now. And it's your fault."

The part about "any homosexual behavior" is your best quote yet. It seems pretty iron clad. I struggled to find the original quote though. The best I could find was a "premarital resource" compiled by Dallin H. Oaks where the quote starts "The First Presidency declared that...something something homosexual". I'm not sure exactly who he is quoting.... the entire quorum of the 12? Hinckley? I was worried that Mr Oaks might be paraphrasing words of the first presidency declaration with an unfortunate loss of precision. Well, perhaps I'll just take the words at face value to keep things simple and that he meant exactly what he said and didn't misquote at all. So, in a premarital resource, Oaks stated that "any homosexual" behavior needs to be resisted. That's cool, because I'm talking about post-marriage.

your post is a little incoherent.

That was a little dismissive.

Again, your "comparison motivation" is clear..clearly flawed.

You keep saying that, but your subsequent wacks at the piñata never yield candy.

You are proposing that since apples make juice and oranges make juice that both juices must surely taste the same.

Is that how I sound to you? Did you write this while eating breakfast?

I believe living Temple ordinances are also denied to convicted child molesters serving life in prison, and i see no logical reason to associate their "plight" with blacks being denied the priesthood.
You have provided no justification that gays are "in a similar" situation as blacks or anyone else with regards to the church...or society for that matter.

Actually I did provide justification that gays are in a similar situation. Unfortunately it was my entire point and it missed your head by a mile. I'll reload and try again. The similar situation that blacks were in and gays are now in (and increasingly so) is living in a society where the majority believe that the minority group should not be discriminated against. What this does is create political pressure.

Since you mention "fundamental pattern recognition" - exactly what pattern do you "recognize"

The pattern I am recognizing is the correlation between political pressure and the predictable LDS revelation that ensues. I'm talking about overwhelming public opinion and the Church's habit of receiving convenient revelation in the heat of that pressure. I'm talking about official "everlasting", unchangable doctrine getting reversed, nulled, back-flipped, back-peddled, altered or just erased completely.

...considering that you have but one example,

Allow me to indulge you.

Blood atonement
Blacks vs priesthood
Poligamy
Polyandry
Racist comments in the Book of Mormon
Adam-God theory
Temple ordinances.
As Man Is, God Once Was
Speaking in tongues (in the middle of an LDS meeting in an unknown language)
The law of consecration
The name of the Church (especially taking Jesus Christ out of it)

How long until we add gays to the list? Seriously, when the US government threatens to take away the LDS churches tax exempt status as it did when blacks were denied the priesthood before that doctrine was reversed, do you think God will be forthcoming with his game changing revelation once again?

why would i need to convince you that LDS does not care about politics?, i have never proposed that argument.

It was me that proposed the argument. The reason why you should convince me that LDS does not care about politics is because if I believed that the Church doesn't respect political pressure, then the status quo would remain unchanged now and forever. Unless of course God decides to do it on his own accord - He apparently works in mysterious ways.

However, the amount of "faith" you have for same sex marriage based on the LGBT current political power is admirable but misplaced...increased political power does not always equate to "righteousness" or even a favorable the Supreme Court ruling.
Currently, you ain't got a prayer!

Currently? I agree. But when all other churches have accepted gays into their clergy and once again, the LDS Church is the only mainstream christian Church to hold out....what then? How long? tick tock tick tock.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Universal Rule #2 states, in part: "[D]o not use red-colored font." Red-colored font is reserved for moderators only so that others' words aren't mistaken for theirs and vice-versa (it's happened before).

Therefore, Prickkicker (and everyone else), please do not use red-colored font anymore. Thank you.]

[_PrickKicker]

Sorry SHADES: Fixed it...Hot Pink!

goforbroke, has got you sussed subgenius.

[_LittleNipper]

People and "churches" must realize, that it isn't what they want that matters, it is what GOD expects and demands. So if gays and the government are upset with what a church believes is true, it is of no eternal consequence where God is concerned. Man's laws will not ultimately effect the laws of God and His nature.

[_subgenius]

Sorry SHADES: Fixed it...Hot Pink!

goforbroke, has got you sussed subgenius.

1. Grammar Nazi says your comma is misplaced.
2. The sentiment is your fantasy alone.