183 Semiannual General Conference Thread

[UVACoug]

Sorry, the opinion that a male/female couple has any inherent moral superiority to a male/male or female/female is ridiculous. It's wrong and arrogant and it's an idea that is dying off and will be completely extinguished in modern society in a few decades, thank goodness.

The principles of chastity and fidelity wouldn't have to be changed at all in order to include gay people and gay couples: abstain before marriage and stay faithful in marriage. Why on earth would that need to apply any differently to straight or gay people? That's a bizarre argument.

Tex, you and your ilk just have your head in the sand. You're totally out of touch. There are so many people out there who are homosexual of course, but also a whole lot of people who are ambivalent and/or conflicted about their gender. You would seem to tell these people: God's Church doesn't believe you or understand you. It has nothing to offer you because you're not hetero and totally secure/confident in your gender like most of the rest of us. Really?

Not sure why you and so many like you feel it's so important to exclude anybody who doesn't fit the mold when it comes to sexual orientation and/or gender. How about the Church just includes everybody who is dumb enough to want to participate? Seems like the obviously correct thing to do.

It always makes me chuckle to see YOU call someone else arrogant.

[UVACoug]

Who's trying to force beliefs on anybody else? I respect your right and anybody's right to disagree with me

I'm just saying what I think. The issue of equal rights for gays is in fact a recapitulation of equal rights for all races. Gender equality is in fact a recapitulation of racial equality, both within society and within the Church. That's what I believe. The tempo of progress on these other issues is different but history will repeat itself.

Feel free to disagree. It's all good.

You are saying what you think ... and then claiming that anyone that disagrees with you is a complete moron that is too dumb to realize your moral superiority. How does that constitute respect?

[TripletDaddy]

It always makes me chuckle to see YOU call someone else arrogant.

It is even worse in person, believe me!

[Jacob]

Sorry, the opinion that a male/female couple has any inherent moral superiority to a male/male or female/female is ridiculous. It's wrong and arrogant and it's an idea that is dying off and will be completely extinguished in modern society in a few decades, thank goodness.

You are talking about couples while he was, I think, talking about families. Male/Female couples are inherently superior breeders and thus, family creators, so they at least have that going for them. I'm afraid that is unlikely to be completely extinguished from future society.

[Tex]

If we go ahead and accept this statement as truth, the only logical conclusion is that "every teaching about the family" must be wrong.

Which would essentially destroy the church. This is the thing Milquetoasters are unwilling to accept. (see: CardiacCoug)

[Tex]

It is just hard for me to understand why some of you have to force your belief's on someone else.

You are remarkably consistent, 71. I could disappear for millennia (you guys could only hope), and upon my return I'd still find the bulk of your posts consist of you worrying about someone else telling you what to do.

[Donuthole]

You are remarkably consistent, 71. I could disappear for millennia (you guys could only hope), and upon my return I'd still find the bulk of your posts consist of you worrying about someone else telling you what to do.

I'll milquetoast to that!

[Jeff Lebowski]

On a related note: The POF states that gender is eternal, but is there any scriptural basis for that statement? I can't think of any. Given that there is almost zero scriptural basis for doctrine of pre-existence (which had a very interesting evolution, btw), I suspect it is one of those things that has been inferred. I wonder if the POF is the first time that was explicitly stated or if there were earlier references to the idea. Would be interesting to trace it back.

[creekster]

On a related note: The POF states that gender is eternal, but is there any scriptural basis for that statement? I can't think of any. Given that there is almost zero scriptural basis for doctrine of pre-existence (which had a very interesting evolution, btw), I suspect it is one of those things that has been inferred. I wonder if the POF is the first time that was explicitly stated or if there were earlier references to the idea. Would be interesting to trace it back.

This is proabably why we dont talk about heavenly mother; to prevent you and your ilk (apologies to CC and Tex) from speculating about reassignment surgery.

[Tex]

On a related note: The POF states that gender is eternal, but is there any scriptural basis for that statement? I can't think of any. Given that there is almost zero scriptural basis for doctrine of pre-existence (which had a very interesting evolution, btw), I suspect it is one of those things that has been inferred. I wonder if the POF is the first time that was explicitly stated or if there were earlier references to the idea. Would be interesting to trace it back.

Don't forget, it could also have been revealed. I know that possibility gets glossed over around here.

But let's say you're right and it's inferred. I'm curious what you think the alternatives could possibly be. Could it be were were androgynous pre-mortal spirits who were assigned gender in mortality? What about the after-life ... do we go back to androgyny, or maybe do resurrected and glorified beings switch hit? And what does that mean for all this interest in a Heavenly Mother?

I'm very curious to hear your conception of Mormon doctrine without eternal gender.

[Jacob]

On a related note: The POF states that gender is eternal, but is there any scriptural basis for that statement? I can't think of any. Given that there is almost zero scriptural basis for doctrine of pre-existence (which had a very interesting evolution, btw), I suspect it is one of those things that has been inferred. I wonder if the POF is the first time that was explicitly stated or if there were earlier references to the idea. Would be interesting to trace it back.

Isn't the POF the closest thing to scripture issued in the past 100 years? Has it been officially canonized in conference? If not, I don't know why. It doesn't state on its face that it's a revelation from God, but neither do most of the writings in ancient scripture. Do all statements in ancient scripture have scriptural basis? No, maybe they were inferred. If there isn't modern revelation of the scriptural type, what reason is there to believe in Mormonism?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Isn't the POF the closest thing to scripture issued in the past 100 years? Has it been officially canonized in conference? If not, I don't know why. It doesn't state on its face that it's a revelation from God, but neither do most of the writings in ancient scripture. Do all statements in ancient scripture have scriptural basis? No, maybe they were inferred. If there isn't modern revelation of the scriptural type, what reason is there to believe in Mormonism?

The POF was written by a committee. In a recent conference BKP referred to it as a revelation but when the written version of this talk came out, it was changed to "a guide".

http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2010/10/...oted-from.html

But you can call it whatever you like I suppose.

[CardiacCoug]

It always makes me chuckle to see YOU call someone else arrogant.

You don't get it. I'm saying that a straight person telling a gay person "MY marriage is better than YOURS!" is arrogant. I think a gay person saying the same thing to a straight person would also be arrogant. You disagree?

[CardiacCoug]

So you think that all the church really needs to do is a find/replace on male/female and the doctrine is all the same?

Unfortunately you continue to gloss over the fact that men and women are neither the same nor interchangeable, and LDS doctrine on the family is foundationally based on this truth. It's not just about whether a gay person can love a child. A man cannot simulate being a mother, and vice versa. More importantly, procreation--a core scriptural reason for marriage--is totally out of the question.

You're basically just saying: "Straight people are better parents than gay people." Just like earlier you said "Straight marriages are better than gay marriages." This basically sums up the Church position and again I just don't get it.

It's arrogant and I just don't think it's right. The gay people I know who have kids are awesome parents.

I'm not sure what it even means for a man to "simulate being a mother." I took care of a couple of little kids (1 and 2) all day today so my wife could do some things. I pretty much did exactly what my wife does with the kids during the day. Somehow the fact that I have a penis didn't seem to matter at all -- the kids had a great time and didn't seem to care or notice.

[clackamascoug]

As a sidebar to this almost interesting line, I don't think the eternal family ("families can be together forever") concept can hold up under the weight of eternity.

First when we all die we end up as adults of the same age. Second, if we live in the millenium and continue to have children, they will become the priority of the moment, and those kids will grow up and have kids as well. Thirdly, the millennium is over and now we're in the CK, where we're having more kids, (albeit spiritual ones) and those kids will be our main concern at any given time. 10,000 years pass away, and we've got 3,000 spirit children who are pushing us to get bodies, and we're busy as hell.

What part of Families are forever comes into play when our kids are the same ages as us and our parents, and we have hundreds if not thousands or new kids that have come behind our original earth kids. I think we'll be friends and all, but I don't see us getting together and playing UNO on Monday nights. Any thoughts?