Conference tecrus::mormonism

    I think there is a difficult balance to maintain. On one hand we want
    to avoid even the appearance of evil, and to stand up for Christ where-
    eve we may be. Yet we want to be respectful and understanding of others
    and their beliefs.
    
    I saw an article in the paper about the KKK putting up a cross. It
    seemed so innocent what could it hurt. Then I learned that it was set
    up directly accross from a Jewish temple and it's lighted Menora.
    
    I would hope that we all can appreciate and understand as children of
    our Father all people including homosexuals. In that context some 
    teaching may be appropriate. Yet on the other hand we do not want to
    have schools "prosetlyzing" our children to "alternative lifestyles"
    
    My 2 cents, is "it all depends" one must look deeper.
    
    Len
    

    Several things come to mind.  The current newspeak equates "freedom of 
    choice" with the right of every potential mother to have an abortion
    sponsored by the taxpayers.  "Freedom of speech" equates with the right
    of every citizen to distribute pornography.  "Gay" equates with ...
    
    Our society has become accustomed to taking the unaccepted and placing a
    favorable tag on it so that it can be accepted.  In my opinion, it is
    usually a designed form of deception.  Taking an accepted term and
    applying it to an unacceptable situation usually results in accepted
    arguments applying to the unaccepted issue.  ("Nobody has the right to
    tell me what to do with my body." "Who are you to deny my Constitutional 
    rights to freedom of speech?" "Don't I have the right to be happy?")  
    Eventually, the term is accepted enough that its very definition is 
    altered:
    
    	gay (ga) adj. -er, -est. 1. Merry; lighthearted.  2. Bright or
    lively, esp. in color.  3. Homosexual.  [< OFr. gai.] --gayness n.
    
    (p. 292 of "The American Heritage Dictionary", copyright 1983 by
    Houghton Mifflin Company)
    
    This same reference has another definition that, by today's standards, is
    out of date as the meaning of the word is now accepted to differ from
    practice.  As with the other terms mentioned, it was a label probably used 
    in a deceptive fashion to make an unacceptable practice acceptable:
    
    lay-off (la of) n. 1. A temporary dismissal of employees.  2.  A period
    of temporary inactivity or rest.
    
    This is not simply the evolution of terms.  This is the intentional
    redesign of popular terms in order to change how people think.  The
    term "mormon" for a member of the LDS Church is another such term. 
    From what I understand, it was chosen as a derogatory term.  The
    implication was that a "mormon" worships somebody named "Mormon."
    I think this is why Church leaders sometimes object to the term.  It is 
    that the term can be damagingly deceptive by the implication that we 
    do not worship God.
    
    Still, I often will tell someone that I'm "a mormon," knowing that the
    accepted definition has lost the implication and that they probably
    have heard favorable things about "the mormons":
    
    Mormon (mor men) n. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
    Latter-day Saints. -Mormon adj. -Mormonism n. 
    
    Steve

    RE: Homosexuality
    
    The conflict in NY State over teaching kids in schools about tolerating
    homosexuality centered around the fact that it was being sponsored
    under the banner of Valuing Diversity. Gayness is just another form of
    difference.  The Valuing Differences Groups were somewhat outraged at
    this use of their cause.
    
    The trend seems to be to divest homosexuality of its "sinfulness",
    which it has received from religious/Biblical origins. Society seems to
    have arrived at that point.  The next goal seems to be to have it
    "accepted" as merely another/alternate lifestyle. 
    
    In my mind, as a Mormon,  I have the following opinions:
    
    1. Born that way or a Conscious Choice:
    
    	If born that way, then God has predetermined gays for
    "damnation" since he has already spoken about the "sinfulness" of it.
    It would seem that God is cruel, if indeed Gays are born that way. 
    Other humans with genetic problems (Downs Syndrome, retardation, etc.)
    are not at condemned for being born that way. A "born that way"
    explanation seems incongruent with either God's plan or his own
    teachings on the matter.
    
    	A psychologist friend of mine told me that all human beings are
    born with no sexual orientation, but that each person somewhere along
    the line makes a conscious choice as to sexual orientation.  Yes, there
    are environment, psychological influences that will impact the
    decision, but ultimately the person chooses.  This explanation makes
    more sense to me given my understanding of the Gospel, free will and
    cause and effect of choices.
    
    	Since sex is a matter of desire not need, said he, then furthermore
    is sexual orientation chosen.  For physical needs (ie food and water)
    you have no choice, but for human desires, you are free to choose one
    alternative or another, example, people choose to love or not to love
    someone, something.
    
    2. Gays and their rights. Gays are first and foremost human beings, and
    citizens, who should be accorded the same rights as all, which are
    life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    
    I believe that the LDS Church is somewhat consistent in its teachings
    on sexuality, which are that celibacy for both heterosexuals and
    homosexuals outside of marriage is strictly held to.  
    
      

>    I will start it off with a HOT topic.  I heard on the news today that
>    NY State had proposed a new curriculum for elementary school children,
>    under the banner of Valuing Diversity, to teach children starting with
>    the first grade to understand/tolerate/accept homosexuality just as
>    they would any other difference such as race, religion, etc.
    
I don't know the details of the NY program, but I agree with the basic idea
that homosexuality is another difference that we should
understand/tolerate/accept.  We may not agree with people who are different,
and and we may conduct our lives differently than they, but I think we should
accept them as they are and not be judgmental of them.  Christ taught us to
not judge anyone; this doesn't mean that we become like them, it means that
we accept them as they are and let God do the judging.

I also think that we should teach ourselves and our children that homosexuality
is a sin.  Arguments about this are found in another note.  

How do I bring the two opinions I have expressed into a standard for my
attitudes and conduct?  An example from last summer.  My daughter Tova
participated in the 1992 Massachusetts Advanced Studies Program at Milton
Academy.  One of the interns who was very active with the kids was gay.  My
daughter knew he was gay.  I knew he was gay.  Did his being gay make any
difference in our relationship with him.  No!  My daughter enjoyed her
relationship with him.  I spent several evenings there videotaping concerts,
and I interacted with him during those evenings.  I enjoyed my relationship
with him.  To me he was just another person who was making an important
contribution to the program.  It's likely that other interns were guilty of
fornication (considering the lifestyles of many (most?) Americans).  If I
know which ones were guilty of that, would it make any difference to me?  No!
I would still appreciate their contributions to the program.

My daughter knows that a practicing gay is sinning in the eyes of God. She
has no desire to participate in that, but she welcomes friendship from gays
who are part of her life.  She and I have our standards and our lifestyles.
We recognize that others have different lifestyles, and that is their choice.
We value their being free to be different, and they value our being free to
be different.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't care if my friends or co-workers are
gay, fornicators, or what else, as long as they and I have enjoyable
relationships with each other.  If they choose to be sinful, that is their
decision, but I'm happy to be friends with them.

Getting back to the NY program.  Again, I don't know the details, but as a
general statement, I would welcome a valuing differences program that taught
us to value and be tolerant of all people regardless of their lifestyles.  As
a parent, I would balance that program in my home by teaching my children to
understand the commandments of God and to make wise decisions about the type
of lifestyles they choose.  We can be close friends with people who are
different and we can enjoy those friendships, without fear of having to
adopt their lifestyles.

My .02

Allen

>    The trend seems to be to divest homosexuality of its "sinfulness",
>    which it has received from religious/Biblical origins. Society seems to
>    have arrived at that point.  The next goal seems to be to have it
>    "accepted" as merely another/alternate lifestyle. 

As long as we do not have a theocratic government, then I think that there
should be a trend in government to divest any lifestyle of being "sinful".
Government has no business telling any group that they are sinning.  The
concept of sin belongs to individual choice and to churches not to government.

We parents, and our churches, have a critical responsibility to teach our
children (and ourselves) about God's commandments so we can choose lifestyles
that are acceptable to Him.

I think that as far as government is concerned, homosexuality should be
accepted as another/alternate lifestyle.  As far as our families are concerned,
homosexuality should be accepted as a sinful way of life.  I get very
concerned when people, whether they be Mormon leaders or whoever, want
government to define moral conduct.

Allen

    Allen:
    
    Your comments are the essence of what our stake president talked about.
    As a society, we are abandoning the very moral principles upon which
    this country was founded.  And yes, our way of government and the
    Founding Fathers did indeed legislate moral values, mostly considered
    Judaic-Christian ones.  
    
    To expect our government not to enact and enforce laws based upon moral 
    values (such as those in the 10 Commandments) seems to me the very
    condition the Book of Mormon has prophesized would happen to the
    residents of this nation.
    
    On another point: You mention that the New Testament tells us not to
    judge.  There are several references to judging.  Most people remember
    the not judging part, but in reality we are counselled to not judge
    appearances, but to "judge righteous judgment".  I cannot remember the
    references.  I will enter them later.  The point is that we are
    counselled to judge, not upon appearance, but upon righteous/moral
    foundations.
    
    Allen, at what point do you draw the line between "difference" and 
    sinful/criminal behavior?  Is pedophilia, necrophilia  for instance 
    simply difference or immoral?
    

    Paul
    
    

Hi Paul,

>    And yes, our way of government and the
>    Founding Fathers did indeed legislate moral values, mostly considered
>    Judaic-Christian ones.  
    
You're right, they did legislate moral values, but they came from a
background in which the government controlled the church.
Early New Englanders also paid taxes to support their church...
I don't think that was a good situation.

I think we should expect our government to enact and enforce laws based
on the basic rights given to individuals via the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights, but to allow our government to take responsibility for
enacting moral laws in general is dangerous.  

>    To expect our government not to enact and enforce laws based upon moral 
>    values (such as those in the 10 Commandments) seems to me the very
>    condition the Book of Mormon has prophesized would happen to the
>    residents of this nation.
    
To me, the problem isn't because our government doesn't enact moral
laws beyond the scope of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the
problem is that we as families and churches do not follow the commandments
of God.  I do not want my government to tell me what is a sin and what
isn't.  That happened when the government outlawed polygamy.  I don't want
it to happen for other things.  I don't want a state sponsored or approved
religion.  I don't want the government to tell my neighbor that he is less
of a citizen of my country because he is gay.  I want the government to
give freedom to my church to do those things!

>    Allen, at what point do you draw the line between "difference" and 
>    sinful/criminal behavior?  Is pedophilia, necrophilia  for instance 
>    simply difference or immoral?
    
As far as government is concerned, I draw the line when conduct endangers
others.  I support laws against drunk driving.  I support laws against
child abuse.  I do not support laws against a persons being gay, because
that lifestyle does not endanger others.  I believe the law is to protect
the basic rights of others as defined by the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights.  I believe religion is to define other moral issues.  I hope
the two will never merge into one until Christ comes and sets up a
government that is capable of being a theocracy.

Sorry that I can't discuss this more.  This is my last notes reply, and
I'm outta here right now.  

Allen
    
    

    Paul I disagree with your conclusion that, if homosexuals are born that
    way, then God has predestined them for damnation.  I think that if
    homosexuals are born that way they still, like all, are enjoined to live
    the law of chastity.  They may have more difficulty in doing so, but
    then so may the alcoholic have more difficulty in living the Word of 
    Wisdom, and the abused child may have more difficulty in feeling and 
    showing charity (the pure love of Christ), etc.
    
    We are not all tempted in the same ways, nor do we all have the same 
    blessings or challenges.  We do, however, all have the same promise:
    that obedience to the commandments brings everlasting life.
    
    aq
    
    
    aq
    
    
    
    

    Ann,
    
    I am glad to see that you are still with us.  I agree with your last
    commment. Choosing homosexuality/heterosexuality is not at at all a
    sin.  Rather, acting out either of these behaviours outside of marriage
    is when the moral judgment enters.  And in the case of acting out
    either homosexual behaviours or fornicating, the Church is most clear
    on its stand.  It is sin that must be repented of, and the practice
    must be discontinued.
    
    So, Ann, I do agree that the mere conscious choice of sexual
    orientation is not sinful. Rather it is practicing that choice that
    brings the judgment.  For this reason I believe one is not "born that
    way".  If so, then, according to our belief in pre-existence and
    fore-ordination, God made a judgment to send someone to earth "born this
    way" and then gave commandments and judgments (Sodom and Gomorrah)
    about the very condition he fore-ordained him/her to, if they participate
    in that behaviour.
    
    Jesus Christ raised the standard when he said you were guilty of the
    deed if you committed the lust in your heart.  
    
    There is one more wrinkle in this discussion of homosexuality's just
    being another form of difference. Homosexaulity thwarts God's plan for
    the exaltation of humanity. According to our understanding, Celestial
    Marriage is a condition for exaltation. The procreation of the race
    (having children) is not only a commandment, but also the very essence
    of the Eternal Progression of God's Plan and also of the individual's
    progression and development. "Neither is the man without the woman, nor
    the woman without the man, in the Lord".  Given these ideas, I can
    understand God's strong condemnation of homosexuality.  It does not
    simply and innocently ignore his plan for humanity, but rather works 
    directly against it.
    
    Lastly, I also agree with Allen's statements regarding the rights of
    individuals. As in all matters, we are counselled "to love the sinner
    and hate the sin".  We are also counselled "to warn our neighbors".  
     
    Thanks for listening.  I welcome your comments and ideas.  
    
    Paul
    
    
    
    

    I remember reading a report that infuriated the homosexual community.
    The report (as I recall) concerned a study of the size of some part of
    the brain in homosexuals versus heterosexuals and cited evidence of
    a physical relationship between these differences and sexual orientation.  
    The reason for the uproar was something along the idea that sexual
    orientation could now be detected before a child was born.  The child 
    could then be aborted because of a rejection of the sexual orientation.
    Traditionally, the homosexual community is in favor of abortion rights,
    hence the conflict.
    
    On the face of it, the homosexual community seems to be in a situation 
    where they want their condition to be accepted as natural, but do not 
    want it to be physically detectable as are other natural attributes.
    
    I am in the camp that believes that sexual orientation is innate.  But, 
    what we do with our orientation is completely up to us, as are any
    physical challenges.  Having sexual desire is a physical challenge.
    It can be a force for good.  It can be destructive.  We each have to
    make choices on how to use it.  Unfortunately, it seems the rule in 
    our society that many choose to use it destructively.  Using it in
    a homosexual or promiscuous fashion, contrary to the dogma of the '60s, 
    is proving to be a tremendous financial, psychological and medical 
    burden on our society.  Nations have perished before under such 
    burdens.
    
    I do not reject homosexuals.  I reject homosexuality.  There's a big
    difference.  Similarly, I feel it within the rights of a person to
    reject heterosexuality.  But, it is inapporpriate for them to reject
    heterosexuals.  It is part of the agency that we all have to choose
    between what we feel is right and wrong.  My personal opinion is that a
    person is choosing wrong when they choose homosexuality.  But, it is
    not my place to deny someone the privilege of choosing.  
    
    Rather, it is my place to protect someone's rights to choose so long as 
    it only minimally and reasonably impinges on someone else's right to 
    choose.  And, yes, I feel that the rights of an unborn to choose life, 
    for example, are often more important than the rights of a prospective 
    mother to have an abortion because she doesn't want the inconvenience of 
    having, for example, a heterosexual baby girl.
    
    I am somewhat angered after hearing from several sources that the key
    to the AIDS problem is education -- even though it is now agreed that
    previous "education" efforts from a few years ago about how "safe" sex
    was with condoms was misleading.  As is usual with the wisdom of man,
    the message is, "We were wrong then, but we are right now and ever so
    much wiser.  There is no sin.  There are only consequences that need to
    be avoided.  Let us educate you that you may be skilled in avoiding the
    consequences."
    
    Steve   

    I just read a very interesting note in MENNOTES (to add it is is
    QUARK::MENNOTES) which gives an indepth (over 1000 lines long)
    explanation of the usual Biblical references used to "prove"
    homosexuality is "sinful".  It wakes for very interesting reading.
    
    The note is 851.230. 
    
    Paul
    

    OK, OK , so we have discussed homosexuality enough.
    
    How about another discussion regarding the confusion between good and
    evil, meaning some thing that has been evil, but is now being cast
    as either no longer evil, or possibly good.  Got any examples?
    
    How about co-habitation, couples living together outside of marriage?
    
    My mother always called this practice "living in sin". It is a very
    prevalent practice. I have talked to several persons who co-habit and
    they do not consider the arrangement at all wrong/sinful/evil/etc. 
    
    Paul

    Or how about Condoms in school.
    
    Or Teenage morals.
    
    Or Movies.
    
    Or Popular Music.
    
    Just to name a few other topics.
    
    Lee