BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

[Moksha]

MG, what acts of vengeance would you suggest that could help garner BYU international attention from this rainbow lighting of the hillside Y?

[Morley]

It's my belief that within 50 years, the Church will not only accept gay marriage, but Mormonism will be a distinctively gay religion. It will be the default religion for same-sex families. It will be a concentration of gay political and financial power.

I think you've hit on the gymnast's most delicious terror, Dean.

[mentalgymnast]

It's my belief that within 50 years, the Church will not only accept gay marriage, but Mormonism will be a distinctively gay religion. It will be the default religion for same-sex families. It will be a concentration of gay political and financial power.

I’m assuming that you, like Gadianton, are atheistic in your views. If so, I can see why you might agree with his prognosis.

And, why you might be supportive of BYU students who might be pushing for a change in BYU policy which would allow them to have intimate homosexual relations with others on and off campus. No God? Why should it matter, right? We make up our own rules and morality...or so says the non believer.

But the fact is, changing policy would go against the established doctrine which disciples of Christ/Latter Day Saints believe came from Heavenly Father. A higher authority than either you or Gadianton.

So those students who say “we are still waiting” may find themselves frustrated waiting for BYU administration to become more permissive and allow practices and behaviors that run counter to the doctrinal underpinnings of the gospel.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

But the fact is, changing policy would go against the established doctrine which disciples of Christ/Latter Day Saints believe came from Heavenly Father. A higher authority than either you or Gadianton.

Regards,
MG

Indeed, the changing policies that are yet to come will go against established doctrine which disciples/Latter Day Saints BELIEVED came from Heavenly Father only to learn that past leaders of the Church did not have a full understanding of Heavenly Father's doctrines and future plans for his Church.

The Church will move with the times. Gay love will prevail. Love is greater and more stronger than anything on this earth and that includes GAY LOVE.

The inception of gay love in Mormonism is imminent. Love is the most powerful and wonderful thing in all the universe.

[Shulem]

So those students who say “we are still waiting” may find themselves frustrated waiting for BYU administration to become more permissive and allow practices and behaviors that run counter to the doctrinal underpinnings of the gospel.

Regards,
MG

Society is evolving and moving away from the old prejudices that are based on supremacy and religious oppression. The world is changing. Gay love will prevail. Gay love is beautiful. The world needs gay love and the more the merrier.

The Church will conform and adjust. Members of the Church will learn to embrace the exciting changes that lie before them. The miraculous reforms that are yet to take place in Mormonism will be an improvement.

[Gadianton]

But the fact is, changing policy would go against the established doctrine which disciples of Christ/Latter Day Saints believe came from Heavenly Father. A higher authority than either you or Gadianton.

That's just it, MG, when that time comes, nobody is going to believe that they are changing established doctrine. They will believe this was the true doctrine all along. Generations farther down the road might say, "that's an anti-Mormon lie" to the claim that the Church once barred same-sex relations.

No fundamentalist (such as you) from any religious heritage has ever believed that the distinct non-negotiable beliefs that they have in that moment had ever been anything other than they are. You think you're the only one who believes your doctrines come straight from God, and have never changed?

The most obvious example of a change such as this one is blacks and the priesthood. No honest person could argue that the Church didn't change fundamental doctrine. Of course, many dishonest persons have argued all kinds of things to get out of it. But here's the thing, MG, between the two "doctrines", one doctrine, the priesthood ban, is explicit doctrine, and affirmed in heavy-handed ways throughout the scriptures. In fact, the core of Judeo-Christian scripture is a message about racial favor. The Book of Mormon takes that and runs with it, affirming the specific circumstances of the 19th Century.

In contrast, while I will agree with you that it's assumed that same-sex relations aren't permitted by "doctrine", there's really nothing in the scriptures that says one way or another. While probably assumed by Joseph Smith, no firm revelations had ever been received about it. The point is, there is far more doctrinal baggage to work through to justify racial equity than there is to justify same-sex relationships. I, for one, believe that same-sex marriage will be permitted in Mormonism before women will get the priesthood.

You'll likely point to eternal progression as prohibitive. Think again. It's a decreasingly common belief that husbands and wives will be exalted and create an infinite number of spirit children via physical sex. The apologists have worked hard to sweep this one under the rug. DCP has said more than once that we don't know the mechanics of Mary's pregnancy, nor of spiritual births. He's pointed to artificial insemination to show that physical sex isn't mandatory for reproduction. So really, eternal progression doesn't depend on heterosexual physical relations.

[mentalgymnast]

But the fact is, changing policy would go against the established doctrine which disciples of Christ/Latter Day Saints believe came from Heavenly Father. A higher authority than either you or Gadianton.

That's just it, MG, when that time comes, nobody is going to believe that they are changing established doctrine. They will believe this was the true doctrine all along. Generations farther down the road might say, "that's an anti-Mormon lie" to the claim that the Church once barred same-sex relations.

No fundamentalist (such as you) from any religious heritage has ever believed that the distinct non-negotiable beliefs that they have in that moment had ever been anything other than they are. You think you're the only one who believes your doctrines come straight from God, and have never changed?

The most obvious example of a change such as this one is blacks and the priesthood. No honest person could argue that the Church didn't change fundamental doctrine. Of course, many dishonest persons have argued all kinds of things to get out of it. But here's the thing, MG, between the two "doctrines", one doctrine, the priesthood ban, is explicit doctrine, and affirmed in heavy-handed ways throughout the scriptures. In fact, the core of Judeo-Christian scripture is a message about racial favor. The Book of Mormon takes that and runs with it, affirming the specific circumstances of the 19th Century.

In contrast, while I will agree with you that it's assumed that same-sex relations aren't permitted by "doctrine", there's really nothing in the scriptures that says one way or another. While probably assumed by Joseph Smith, no firm revelations had ever been received about it. The point is, there is far more doctrinal baggage to work through to justify racial equity than there is to justify same-sex relationships. I, for one, believe that same-sex marriage will be permitted in Mormonism before women will get the priesthood.

You'll likely point to eternal progression as prohibitive. Think again. It's a decreasingly common belief that husbands and wives will be exalted and create an infinite number of spirit children via physical sex. The apologists have worked hard to sweep this one under the rug. DCP has said more than once that we don't know the mechanics of Mary's pregnancy, nor of spiritual births. He's pointed to artificial insemination to show that physical sex isn't mandatory for reproduction. So really, eternal progression doesn't depend on heterosexual physical relations.

OK, so that was an interesting series of thoughts there Gadianton. I’m not going to take issue with or quibble much with what you’ve said. After having read Charlie Harrell’s book years ago I would have to agree that doctrine can mutate/change over time. Still, I think that this particular issue which at its core involves reproduction and the continuation of not only the species but the ‘one man, one woman’ marriage arrangement which has been the absolute gold standard of ‘purity’ over the time span/chronology of our Westernized memories makes it seem unlikely that this doctrinal position of the church will change.

But, knowing that there is a biological/hormonal/chemical basis lying at the roots of gender and that males/females...embryos/fetuses...can be ‘flooded’ and wired in the womb with the precursors for their inherent sexuality, I’d have to think that God may possibly have views that we at this point don’t fully realize/understand in regards to sexuality and gender. If evolutionary factors can result in non binary sexual preferences/characteristics we might find that believers may slowly come to a realization that binary views of sexuality are unwarranted/unreasonable.

I’ve had personal experience/observation within my own family which seem to confirm this.

Anyway, some good food for thought which spurs further reflection and thinking. You are one of the few here that I take seriously, even though I believe your views in regards to taking an absolute atheistic stance are mistaken. But, that’s neither here nor there. I personally don’t ‘have it in’ for those that struggle with belief in the existence of God. It is a reasonable position to take.

The one thing I would quibble with is your view that I am a fundamentalist. I won’t argue about that here and now except to say that I’m pretty sure that’s not me.

I appreciate your response.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

.....

.... You are one of the few here that I take seriously.....

Really? Your inconsistency is weird.

....

Arrogant SOB. Intellectual snobbishness. It’s a pain in the ass for the rest of us to live with....

It’s almost as though you don’t mean what you are saying but just say whatever you think will advance your disruptions.

[Lem]

But the fact is, changing policy would go against the established doctrine which disciples of Christ/Latter Day Saints believe came from Heavenly Father. A higher authority than either you or Gadianton.

That's just it, MG, when that time comes, nobody is going to believe that they are changing established doctrine. They will believe this was the true doctrine all along. Generations farther down the road might say, "that's an anti-Mormon lie" to the claim that the Church once barred same-sex relations.

No fundamentalist (such as you) from any religious heritage has ever believed that the distinct non-negotiable beliefs that they have in that moment had ever been anything other than they are. You think you're the only one who believes your doctrines come straight from God, and have never changed?

That’s a great point. One of the weirdest conversations I’ve ever had online was with someone who objected when I commented that my non-member in-laws weren’t allowed at my temple wedding. They insisted that this was simply NOT true, and that their religion would never exclude people from a wedding ceremony! NEVER!!!! Finally we untangled the conversation far enough that I realized this was a very young person who had taken out their endowments and gotten married after the change that allowed civil marriages as distinct from temple sealings, without the year-long wait in between.

Either they were really, really naïve and simply couldn’t fathom a church that would exclude in that manner, or they knew but decided this was one of those “ we’ve always been at war with EastAsia” moments where they could protect their religion by pretending that the changes justified stating that the past injustices never happened. In other words, lying for the lord.

[Moksha]

Love is the most powerful and wonderful thing in all the universe.

A noble sentiment, but what makes you believe that the Saints will not trample that under their high-top black leather boots as they march to Mar-a-Lago to follow their one mighty and strong?