What are the rules for gay Mormons?

[_subgenius]

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.

again, your premise is clear, it is also clearly flawed in at least two way
this way
or this way
and even this one

simply stating that every situation which has a real, or perceived, "political pressure" is going to revise church doctrine is absurd. For example, surely the "political pressure" of women's suffrage would have made a significant change in the Priesthood?
You also assume that it was "political pressure" that was the catalyst for the "blacks/priesthood" in the church...a point not proven and given the complexity of that issue in the context of society-at-large a hard sell as being the sole cause.
In fact, when the "political pressure" regarding blacks was at its most intense (circa 1968), the church changed nothing and maintained. However, a decade later when no one was really pushing the matter, in the church or in society, with as much fervor (a.k.a. - decreased political pressure) the church revealed the new position...a more reasonable and informed premise would attribute this to the administrative conundrum the church was experiencing with its growth in Brazil.
So, a cursory exploration into the actual time periods and circumstances of "political pressure" versus the actual time periods and circumstances of "revelation" with regard to the church's stance on blacks holding the priesthood conclude that your premise is flawed and is providing your theoretical homosexual with false hope.
For your perceived association is an illusion. While you claim "justification" for your associating "blacks" and "gays", you actually have no facts to support it.

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.

as i stated above...the "pattern" you are proposing is as such..."when political pressure is at its pinnacle, the church is non-responsive, then about a decade later when the church has an administrative problem they will reform" - which leads us to believe, via the "pattern", that whenever the church needs married members in such LDS hotbeds as the Village or the Castro then they will reform their stance on same-sex marriage....hmmm...i am comfortable with that time line.

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)

Please, clarify this list, by stating, clearly, the associated "political pressure" which brought about their "reformation".

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?

No.
there has been no threat from the US to take away tax status of the church over same-sex anything....but please fell free to CFR.

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.[/quote]
again, the burden is on you to prove your assertion...you have yet to prove that the church succumbed to political pressure in a "patterned" manner which would cause the conclusion you propose. Actually you have yet to prove that the church has ever succumbed to any political pressure on any matter.

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.

Currently, yes...which is what the facts conclude. Your premise is otherwise fantasy and/or wishful thinking...which is fine for you and not fine for others...either of which make for a less than convincing argument...let alone an influence.....your assumptions are unfounded and just a sort of fantastic speculation, because it must somehow surely "make sense" to you...surely every church will have gays in their clergy, and surely the world will come to embrace gays as being such grand and glorious members of society that just "being gay" will be a badge of honor, and a standard tax deduction!
"tick tock tick tock"? - my dear friend i fear you may not actually know what time it is...

[Guest]

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.

as i stated above...the "pattern" you are proposing is as such..."when political pressure is at its pinnacle, the church is non-responsive, then about a decade later when the church has an administrative problem they will reform" - which leads us to believe, via the "pattern", that whenever the church needs married members in such LDS hotbeds as the Village or the Castro then they will reform their stance on same-sex marriage....hmmm...i am comfortable with that time line.

Please, clarify this list, by stating, clearly, the associated "political pressure" which brought about their "reformation".

No.
there has been no threat from the US to take away tax status of the church over same-sex anything....but please fell free to CFR.

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.
again, the burden is on you to prove your assertion...you have yet to prove that the church succumbed to political pressure in a "patterned" manner which would cause the conclusion you propose. Actually you have yet to prove that the church has ever succumbed to any political pressure on any matter.

Currently, yes...which is what the facts conclude. Your premise is otherwise fantasy and/or wishful thinking...which is fine for you and not fine for others...either of which make for a less than convincing argument...let alone an influence.....your assumptions are unfounded and just a sort of fantastic speculation, because it must somehow surely "make sense" to you...surely every church will have gays in their clergy, and surely the world will come to embrace gays as being such grand and glorious members of society that just "being gay" will be a badge of honor, and a standard tax deduction!
"tick tock tick tock"? - my dear friend i fear you may not actually know what time it is...

Who's a clever boy then???
Patronising Fool.

[_subgenius]

Who's a clever boy then???
Patronising Fool.

The correct answer is:
1. Your post is proof that one should not post while incoherent
2. Your post is proof that one should actually read the thread of discussion
3. Your post is proof that one should often choose "not to post"
4. Your post is proof of all of the above

(spoiler alert...its #4)

[_PrickKicker]

What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attitude regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage?

In the Bible Paul preached to the Romans that homosexual behavior was sinful (see Romans 1:24-32). In Old Testament times Moses included in his law that homosexual relations were against God’s law (see Leviticus 20:13)

Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued the following statement about homosexuality: “We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” which was written by twelve modern Apostles through inspiration from the Lord).

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. 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” (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

http://Mormon.org/faq/topic/homosexuality

There you have it folks... Sterile people should not marry... People who do not want to bring children into the world should not marry... But Polygamy and Polyandry and concubines? are Ok by God.

[_subgenius]

There you have it folks... Sterile people should not marry... People who do not want to bring children into the world should not marry... But Polygamy and Polyandry and concubines? are Ok by God.

Wow, you really got Fonzie to jump the shark on that conclusion.
Your post seems devoid of reasoning.
While you have eloquently summarized the church's position on homosexuality, you have misdirected the church's teachings on heterosexuality.
No one has ever claimed that the church's doctrine is that heterosexual activity is absolutely for procreation, and for procreation alone!
And why? Because the church does not teach that....for example:
Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage. (emphasis mine)

Once again, your posts would carry more intellectual weight, as criticism or accolade, if they were steeped a little more in actual fact and perhaps just slightly seasoned with conjecture....much more pleasing to the palate, and less likely to be the cause of such flatulence, as the are now.

[_PrickKicker]

Wow, you really got Fonzie to jump the shark on that conclusion.
Your post seems devoid of reasoning.
While you have eloquently summarized the church's position on homosexuality, Actually if you bothered to go to the link, it is completely copied.you have misdirected the church's teachings on heterosexuality.
No one has ever claimed that the church's doctrine is that heterosexual activity is absolutely for procreation, and for procreation alone!

You have changed your tune.

Sexual activity is not JUST for procreation, there is more to it than depositing DNA in order to reproduce, as you would have us believe God did to Mary.
it is a bonding ritual, a display of loyalty, devotion, love and affection.

Prove it!....you know CFR?

Otherwise you are just trying to promote myth as fact (like that irony)

A dog humping your leg is because of the instinct to procreate, it is not intended to be a cerebral exercise wherein one thinks "hmm i need to make a baby", but there is no other truly scientifically supported cause for sexual activity other than procreation.

But your theory of "wow! this feels good, and as a bonus it can make babies" is funny.by subgenius » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:12 pm

And why? Because the church does not teach that....for example:
Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage. (emphasis mine)

Once again, your posts would carry more intellectual weight, as criticism or accolade, if they were steeped a little more in actual fact and perhaps just slightly seasoned with conjecture....much more pleasing to the palate, and less likely to be the cause of such flatulence, as the are now.

You and I have something in common with this pin.

[_subgenius]

[color=#FF00FF]You have changed your tune.

well, at least you avoided the entire post, as it accentuated your errors.
But my tune has not changed at all...the context was regarding the "scientific" view of sex...with regards to science, what can be "proven", sex is only for procreation.
Once again we see your posts cherry pick through an argument...but all you have to show for it is pits.

(the misdirection was noted for your conclusion about sterile heterosexual couples...not for the accurate information you posted about homosexuality)

[Guest]

...

[_Drifting]

I seem to remember the church inferring that blacks could change their color.

Wasn't it President Kimball that said something along the lines of them changeing to the white and delightsome side... err something similar.

Spencer W Kimball, October 1960 Conference talk:

"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngIos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents-on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

[_subgenius]

One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

An obvious notation of the jest.
Nevertheless, this has to to do with the non-immutable position of LGBT how?
or are you just making a proclamation of your FAITH on the subject?