Mormonism still hasn't got a handle on whether it's better to be natural or unnatural.
Sure it has. "Natural" in LDS parlance is a condition of giving in to our every desire where such conflicts with God's commands. We are to control our appetites to within the bounds the Lord has set.
In other words, the LDS take on it is inconsistent and meaningless. They condemn homosexuality exactly because they say it's unnatural. But so is having sex only after getting married.
Then again, the natural man is an enemy to god. Which means gay men are the friends of god.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Sure it has. "Natural" in LDS parlance is a condition of giving in to our every desire where such conflicts with God's commands. We are to control our appetites to within the bounds the Lord has set.
In other words, the LDS take on it is inconsistent and meaningless.
How so?
They condemn homosexuality exactly because they say it's unnatural.
It is. Couldn't have come about by evolution certainly.
But so is having sex only after getting married.
Within the bounds the Lord has set.
Then again, the natural man is an enemy to god. Which means gay men are the friends of god.
They can be, especially if they repent.
Anything published in LDS doctrine?
Oral sex and sodomy are condemned as unnatural acts to be avoided. Although really they're quite natural.
As to homosexuality in nature it occurs all over the map. As does hermaphroditism, as well as species that change gender. In primates it may be a reproductive dead end, but in some populations of monkeys, and baboons homosexual congress encounters outnumber heterosexual by a fair margin, yet the population is maintained. So sex in primates must not be solely for reproductive purposes.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Does the average member see them or teachings like them?
Does the average member have unfettered access to Vol. 1 of the General Handbook? If not does that not make it official?
The members have access to the list of moral positions the Church takes in vol 2 which was the big issue. But as for vol 1, it is consistently published and the leadership leads based on what it says, so yes it's official and the average member does have access to it in that sense.
What Bishop or Stake Pres has ready access to (or has even heard of) the 1982 statement and when and where are the members counseled as per the 1982 statement?
bcspace wrote: What Bishop or Stake Pres has ready access to (or has even heard of) the 1982 statement and when and where are the members counseled as per the 1982 statement?
Apparently enough of them that it is still regularly taught. I have heard it from 3 bishops and 1 stake president in the last 5 years.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
