On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:28:13 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It'll be interesting to observe how this plays out and at what point we
>> start hearing "well, Gays are equal, but it hadn't been revealed to us
>> when that would happen".  From the outside looking in, there seems to
>> be a fair amount of revisionist history in the Church.  As you've
>> studied it and are apparently a former member, I wonder what your
>> perspective on that is?
> 
> I can see how you view it as revisionist, and it certainly can appear to
> be that way.  However, there are some subtle distinctions between
> allowing black men to hold the Priesthood, and allowing homosexuals to.

Well, note that I didn't say "gays in the Priesthood", I was just talking 
about equality.

> First of all, Blacks weren't excluded because of anything they
> themselves did, but because they happened to be born in a certain
> family.  As such, they weren't considered responsible for their
> condition, and weren't considered sinners because of their skin color.
> It was always understood that, at some future point, they would be
> allowed to hold the Priesthood.

Given the relatively short history of the Church, I'm wondering when that 
"always" began.  Is it something that was "revealed" to Joseph Smith, for 
example?  Or did that revelation come later?

> Homosexuals, on the other hand, are called sinners solely because of
> their actions.  Whatever physical urges you might feel or experience,
> the Church teaches that you are in control of your body, and not the
> other way around.

That's pretty consistent with what other Christian sects teach as well.

> As such, I have a hard time believing that the Church will ever condone
> homosexual activity.

Well, I would tend to agree with it, but at the same time, if that were 
to come forth in a revelation of some sort (in the same way that the 
Church's views on polygamy changed - isn't it now considered a sin, but 
it didn't used to be?).

> IMNSHO, however, I would be seriously annoyed if someone tried to tell
> me to stop being attracted to women, and to go have sex with men
> instead.  In light of that, I think it would be highly hypocritical of
> me to suggest that homosexuals change their orientation.

Yeah, same here.  It's a shame that more people don't adopt that attitude 
and try to understand what it is that those who are saying "no, dude, you 
can't get married to that dude over there because YOU'RE DUDES AND THAT'S 
JUST ICK ICK ICK!" are being put through as a result.

I've said it many times before, but the fact that my BIL married his 
partner of many, many years doesn't affect MY marriage or MY feelings 
towards my wife one iota.  Of course I'm happy for them, but it doesn't 
cheapen my marriage at all, and I completely fail to understand how it is 
that some people can say that it does (or should) - for me or for them.  
I feel sorry for those whom it does make their relationship with their 
spouse "less special" - but it shows that their relationship isn't as 
strong as perhaps they want, so they're looking for an excuse.

Jim

Post a reply to this message