I'm sure this was discussed before ...

http://www.movinghorizon.com/2011/03/elder-bednar-on-homosexuality.html

This guy's arrogance never fails to amaze me. He often seems to be shooting from the hip.

I have a son, and my son is gay. Am I to tell him he can never experience young love, unrequited love, attachment and heartbreak, and reconciliation and growth?

I like to turn it around and imagine a gay leader telling me that I cannot act upon my heterosexual desires. Let me tell you, I ain't no Romeo, but I had some killer relationships. I had some great sexual encounters with really great young women. To my pleasure, the memories haunt me even now.

How am I to deny my beloved son the experience because he's gay?
I won't do it. I refuse.

Bednar, f you want others to live a lifetime in chastity, they I think you should show that it is possible and never have sex.

Why can't gay Mormons get married in Canada or where it is legal and then have intimate relationships without it being considered as being unchaste? Straight Mormons don't have to be married by the Mormon Church or in a temple in order to not be considered as being unchaste when in an intimate relationship. This really shows the lie of saying this is about chastity.

(like Massachusetts) that recognizes gay marriage?

Should THEY have to be celibate too, even though legally married?

I would SO love to ask Bednar about that.

Yes! This is an excellent point. Maybe this is the reason that the morg is so busy with things like prop 8. If it becomes the norm to have legal marriages for gays as well as straights, then they can't say anything.

Perhaps we should start expecting new "revelation" about the temple ceremony. I see a wording change in the works.

Yes and they are all obsessed with sex.

Temple wording:
You and each of you shall have no sexual relations except to whom you are legally married.

That is the problem right there!
If you are legally married, then technically you are temple worthy.

Does the Temple reccommend interview have a question that would rule out a faithful married gay person from passing?

Then they spend all that tithing money and fundamentalist fruitcake life savings to ban gay marriage. You want gays to be chaste? LEGALIZE THEIR MARRIAGES!

It's just more of the same. "We're all born with different challenges. We don't know why. But we know our eternal salvation comes from overcoming those challenges."

I think, when it comes to homosexuality, this is the cruelest belief ever. And what I believe lies behind it is mere jealousy. Gay sex can only be recreational sex. Is there any other biological need that is more controlled in Mormonism than sexual desire? No. There isn't. Is there any doctrine held more reverently than having children? Not really. Gay sex cannot produce future tithe payers. Gay sex is for connection, and fun. Can't have that! Not when hetero couples are continually teetering one the edge of financial and emotional ruin over the strains of "living up" to the doctrine of multiplying and replenishing the earth! What kind of example would that be?!

It's really very disgusting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 08:39AM by fallenangela.

JoD - interesting thought. If you are legally and lawfully married, as per the temple requirement, which is possible in certain countries and states, then by definition, you are chaste and worthy. On the other hand, anyone who lived plural marriage was not, since bigamy was never legal anywhere it was lived. So, Briggy, John T, et al, were never worthy of a temple recommend. I wonder if any LDS church leader has ever considered the irony and hypocrisy of their position.

Does this Bednar prick realize that it was Mitt Romney who legalized gay marriage when he was govenor of Massachusets????

He's such a fucking jerk and a Doyd Hacker wanna be!

ban holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. from heterosexual couples who aren't married? NO. But not only are homosexual couples supposed to abstain from sex, they can't touch. Period. We all remember the Main Street Plaza incident.

So don't tell me that it's just simply a matter of the rules applying equally to everyone. And don't tell me gays are accepted as long as they keep the law of chastity. The mormon church HATES gays, the thought of gays, the sight of gays. Just see what happens if a gay couple sits in church and one puts his arm around the back of the other.

And I fully expect, as the laws start to change, almightygod will change the wording of the holy masonic temple ceremony. It will be "you swear that you will not have sexual relations except with your spouse of the opposite sex to whom you are legally and lawfully wed."

Mormon doctrine changes when it becomes fiscally expediant to have a 'revelation'.

Polygamy...?
Blacks...?

So TSCC now teaches that having gay attraction isn't a sin but it is acting on this desire that is sinful. This raises some questions in my mind:

* Is this a u-turn on previous prophetic remarks? I.e were we told before that even the gay inclination is unnatural and of the devil?
* Where exactly do you draw the line between what is now described as a non sinful 'inclination' and a sin? Is it sinful for a gay person to look admiringly at someone of the same sex? Is it wrong to hold hands? To kiss? A straight person can be chaste doing all of this things so what's different with gays?
* If TSCC are now admitting (as they seem to be) that having a gay tendency isn't necessarily just a perverse personal choice, then surely it follows that it is massively unfair for God to create/allow this person to be born with a) an inclination to 'commit a sin' that TSCC believes is so disgusting that it is second only to murder b) practically condemns the individual to not be able to experience an intimate loving/sexual relationship in their lifetime. How fair is that?
* Do GAs really genuinely believe that having a gay tendency isn't a sin? Do they hate having to say this now?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 11:36AM by sherlock.

Thank you for asking. This is another example of where it is important to be doctrinally grounded so that you’re not tossed to and fro by every doctrine of men.

Right-
Polygamy essential -oops, never mind you'll get exed.

Blacks cannot have the Priesthood until AFTER the millenium- 1978 and millenium is ummm, wellllll...

Monogamy is a sin- oopsy...

Blood Atonement, oops never mind...

McConkie as spokesman, now has writings being purged.

Journal of Discourses contains sermons delivered under the direction of the Holy Ghost, oops, we mean they are forbidden.

As God is Now, Man once was-I don't know that we teach that/remove from current curriculum.

Temple ceremony is unchangeable - uhhh, for how long bewteen each change is it unchangeable...

God is a spirit, no wait-

Jesus is the Glory of God made manifest, no wait-

After much arguing, 1921 is the year the Holy Ghost becomes a third personage

Crap, how many winds of doctrine do we need to be tossed on anyway?