Same format. Mr. Bigelow's initial statements first in italics. Then my questions, then his response again in italics.
4. "At some point we Mormons will have to withdraw from society when society becomes wicked enough to try to shove homosexuality down our throats, which I'm sure will eventually happen with even more gusto than when society pressured us to end polygamy."
Please explain what you think will be the tipping point at which this will happen, and how you think the Mormons will--or could--"withdraw from society" thereafter. Gay marriage is the law of the land already in numerous countries where the Church has many members and temples (Canada, Spain, and others), and I don't hear of any mass exodus of the Mormons from there.
I think eventually society will try to force the Mormons to fully accept gay marriage, perform them in Mormon temples, etc. I think as the world keeps getting more godless and wicked on this issue, temples will be bombed, Mormons will be persecuted, government sanctions will be put into place, etc. even worse than when society tried to force us away from polygamy. This will take several more decades (hopefully) for civilization to ripen enough in evil to start persecuting the Saints this way; right now, the seeds are just being planted, and they will take a while to grow, and I'm sure the Mormons can continue to function reasonably well in society for at least 20-30 more years. It's not like God immediately sends down lightning bolts when someone sins, and bad consequences don't happen RIGHT after a state or nation legalizes gay marriage. But just as the slave issue evolved over several hundred years until finally things came into open conflict between the two sides, so will it happen with gay rights, but this time it will be decades, not centuries. With gay marriage legal and gayness celebrated, many more of our children will choose that lifestyle, and contention and wickedness will increase.
At the same time that this growing gay evil is going on, I expect other bad things to be happening to civilization as prophesied, such as natural disasters, economic trouble, wars, etc. I'm talking about more of these kinds of things than we've ever experienced in America, as God withdraws his blessing and protection because the voice of the people chooses against his will. So I think society will already be more in shambles than not by the time the Mormons have to withdraw from it in order to preserve their own safety, and it won't just be only because of the gay issue but also because things have gone to hell in a hand basket in general. By withdraw, I mean back to the kind of situation that prevailed in Utah during the 1800s.
30 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Dear Mr. Bigelow:
I know I'm, via the "Mormon Perspective" you hold, a pitiable lost soul who has been wiled away by Satan toward his tsunami of vomit and sputum that is homosexuality; nonetheless, I "exercise faith in the redemption of him who created [me. I] look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body[.]"
I can, indeed, "imagine to [myself] that [I] hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto [me], in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth[.]"
I can imagine it because I have already heard this voice testifying to me of these very words as a calming hand upon my shoulder held me firm in a radius of peace and light.
I, indeed, look forward to the day that my works are judged, the good, the bad, the blunders, the blessings. I have no fear but joy as I imagine myself standing before Christ again and bear the testimony of my life.
I have the utmost confidence in who I am and in who I am becoming as my single greatest desire is to live a life guided by His charity, a life dedicated to His name and His work, acting as a tool in His hand to bring to pass the eternal joy and salvation of His children.
It is in the name of Jesus Christ that I live. It is in His name that I will die. And it will be in His name that I will kneel to worship come judgment day.
I make no assumptions of where I will end up save that I will be at peace and filled with joy when I look into His eyes again.
While I understand you most likely cannot believe what I have written, I still leave this testimony here so that it may be included in my final judgment... as well as yours.
Sincerely,
Andrew M. Pankratz
You know, at first, I couldn't help but think that Mr. Bigelow was engaging in a parody of anti-gay rhetoric, so I didn't really take offense in much of his comments and found them rather funny. That was until I saw the post on gays in his blog. My laughing stopped.
Mr. Bigelow
I suppose the measure of ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder because that is the exact adjective that I would have used to describe your musings on homosexuality, of which you have no personal experience and no authority, God given or otherwise, to speak on.
The gist of my comment was to point out that you, with your baseless rhetoric, give intellectual and societal refuge to those who drive the impressionable and vulnerable away from Christ and the church. You speak of enabling homosexuality, I say that you are guilty of enabling something far worse.
Your words are not comforting to anyone who, through no fault of their own, finds themselves in a situation that they did not ask for, and for the most part are unable to change. Your words are belittling, and condescending. We don't need your pity, just your compassion and respect.
It is unfair when someone generalizes, stereotypes, and judges others. I will certainly apologize. I do not know you or your experiences and I'm sorry if I judged you unfairly, but please Mr. Bigelow, can't you see that you are doing the same?
Chedner, that's a great testimony. I don't dispute it. Obviously you won't be held accountable for your mortal nature, and obviously all of us will need to repent of our sinful choices and behaviors before we can feel that peace and acceptance of which you speak.
I don't think same-sex-attracted people will have any more problem with this process than any other human beings. Even those who are deceived by the modern-day movement for people to elevate their same-sex temptations into a willfully gay lifestyle can still repent.
Good to Be Free: I don't judge any individual who feels same-sex attraction. Tell you the truth, I actively try not to judge individual people who've chosen to live gay. For all I know, they're doing the best they possibly can, and it's between them and God.
What I judge is today's organized, politicized gay movement that is deceiving people and enabling them to follow temptations and to, in effect, equate gayness with God's plan of salvation. This movement is inspired by Satan and will help bring down our civilization, eventually.
To me, it's comparable to hating the fast-food/junk-food industry and calling it a conspiracy and an unhealthy, diabolical thing while simultaneously feeling bad for those who have become fat because of it. Who knows all the reasons why a person gets fat, and yes, people got fat before today's industry, but living in a time when the fast-food industry is so organized and powerful and tempting must make it very, very difficult.
I probably better stop there...
I'm not even going to try and talk with Mr. Bigelow about any of this. We would just end up talking past each other so I'm just going to briefly talk about Mr. Bigelow.
I don't believe Mr. Bigelow has any ability to comprehend that there are other living, breathing, thinking, loving human beings who have their own minds, their own experiences and their own lives. This incomprehension of empathy, as part of his own self awareness, forces his mind to only frame the world in terms of "us vs. them". I'm sure he can intellectualize the concept of empathy to great lengths and he may think he has empathy but true understanding will always be lost to him.
Mr. Bigelow's identity is rooted in the religion of which he subscribes and professes to understand. His true and perfect nature has been compromised in order to conform to what he believes to be from a higher power. I can't blame him for that. I used to be that way myself.
However, it's clear that he has taken it well beyond that of a Christian religion and has in many ways rejected Christianity all together. That's what happens when empathy is not rooted in the process of religious indoctrination.
This type of lack of empathy and attunement is, sadly, why there is so much hatred, bigotry, prejudice and downright fear in the world.
But, I'm willing to give Mr. Bigelow a break as I'm of the opinion that he actually may suffer from Asperger syndrome.
Wow, TGD, you may as well have just admitted that you have no logical, direct rebuttals for my points.
If I have Asperger's syndrome, I think some people might have something called dumb-ass-perger's syndrome...
LOL!
I see no reason to try and argue logically with illogic.
Dumb-ass-perger's syndrome? Really? I think you are proving my point the more you talk.
@ Mr. Bigelow: You compare the Gay political movement to the marketing of the Fast Food Industry. Do you honestly believe that the political movement in this country and on this planet is trying to "lure" people into homosexuality? that we are gay because we have succumbed to the illustrious and glorious "gay lifestyle"?
If that is what you honestly believe then I can't discuss the intricacies of that fallacy over blog comments.
If not, then answer me another question. You state that "With gay marriage legal and gayness celebrated, many more of our children will choose that lifestyle, and contention and wickedness will increase."
Which would you rather have,your child choose to live a life where she comes out of the closet at 13 and then remains celibate but happy until she finds the woman that is right for her, goes and gets married with her and lives a happy life raising children who love God. Or would you rather have a child who realizes he is gay at 13 and lives a life of self-hate. A life where he is told by his family, friends and church that he is less-than others. Where he faces a life with three "righteous" choices. 1. Be Celibate and alone, without an help-meet. Going against the Nature that God defined in Genesis. 2. Marrying a wife and after a hell of a marriage and 3 kids it begins to fall apart because of the additional wedge of his SSA, thus destroying a family. or 3. Realizing that the best way to not sin is to not be tempted and then remove temptation from the equation by committing suicide.
In which of those two options would you rather your child grow up in? A situation where that child can have a stable family or one where, odds are, there is going to be no family or a broken family?
I honestly want to know because I want to engage in conversation, not in an argument.
Well, I admit I stole the "dumb-ass-perger" line from a guy at work and have been waiting for my own chance to use it...
David Baker: My logical problem with your first question is that you assume that everyone is either gay or not gay. This is false. Orientation is a spectrum, and people's orientation can evolve over time, especially comparing teens and 20s with age 40+. So while a few people may be pure 6's on the 0-6 Kinsey scale, there are many 1-5's who can choose which part of their orientation to pursue. When you have a gay movement spouting propaganda like we do today, more 1-5's will choose to give in to their gay temptations and run with it.
Untold numbers of people are able to keep a lid on their gay attractions, but the world's permissiveness makes it more likely that more will choose not to. Personally, I believe the carnal "natural man" is omni-sexual (beyond mere bi), and, if exposed to powerful-enough circumstances and influences, almost anyone can be seduced into almost any form of sexual behavior, if they don't resist and avoid. And remember, there's a difference between being same-sex attracted and being gay. The first feels the temptation, the second has chosen to embrace it and act on it. And yes, there's such a thing as gay seduction: A gay can purposefully awaken and activate another person's latent same-sex attraction, which may have lain dormant or way on the back burner without such a seductive approach.
Continuing with David Baker: As far as options for a child of mine who faced same-sex attraction, I would choose hetero marriage for him first, followed by celibacy if he can't swing marriage. (I would hope suicide would not be an option, and frankly I'm getting sick of gay activists bringing it up so often, as if only or mostly conflicted gay kids are the ones committing suicide. I see it as a form of implied threat or tantrum: "If you don't say it's OK for me to have gay sex, I'm gonna kill myself." Just because someone really, really wants to have gay sex doesn't make it acceptable or right.)
As far as marriage, I personally know at least four couples who are making it work despite the husband's same-sex attraction--in fact, I've been e-mailing back and forth with one of them all day--and three of these couples are well into middle age with kids on missions. Just because some or even many such marriages don't work out doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried, with both partners' eyes wide open. I agree with LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks, who stated that heterosexual marriage may be appropriate for same-gender attracted individuals who “have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction” for someone of the opposite sex. But gay activists like you paint hetero marriage as well nigh impossible and extremely miserable for anyone who feels any same-sex attraction; and plus, even if such a marriage really is quite hard, there are always the very real eternal considerations and blessings to keep in mind. That's something called faith, which you may have heard of.
As far as celibacy, I don't think that sounds fun, but I know that God can give people who take this route some great compensatory blessings, even in this mortal life. All things are possible with God, and he will lighten burdens for those who exercise faith to live as he commands, including avoiding sin. If someone who is a 6 on the Kinsey scale (pure homo) can't ever get it up emotionally or physically for a female, earthly celibacy is a valid option, just as it is for someone who isn't same-sex attracted but hasn't married for some other reason. It is not good for man to be alone, but it is far worse for a man to be taken in sodomy.
Mr. Bigelow, I don't want to sound terse, but I have done my homework and I know the Kinsey quite well. Thank you though for the refresher. The difficulty I see here is our difference in thought about the Kinsey scale. You believe that only the, lets say ~1% of the population is a pure homosxual and same for pure heterosexual and then it appears that you lump the rest into one category when they are clearly defined for a reason. There are those who are predominantly homosexual with only minor traces of heterosexuality,a s there are similar on the other side of the spectrum. I do truly understand the spectrum, but it does have a fulcrum at 3. That means that those on one side of 3 are more homosexual than hetero, and vice a versa as you well know.
The difference between our views and understanding is that while your's may have more categories (3), mine does reflect the overall current understanding. Namely 1. Sexuality is a core characteristic of who we are. Thus those who are predominantly homosexual are, at our very core, gay. I admit that there can be some sliding over time, but it is largely a very slight shift over an entire lifetime and seeing that the Kinsey scale isn't something that can be tested and marked it is a lot about personal belief of where a person is on the scale rather than actual change on said scale.
Hopefully that clears up the logic behind my question.
Yeah, David, 4's and 5's on the Kinsey have it harder than 1's and 2's, but they still have some heterosexuality to work with and can choose. And of course, one's choices can affect one's perception: a 4 who chooses to give in to gay temptation may come to see himself as a 6, but it's self-deception and the consequences of sin. If a person doesn't control their fantasies and related behaviors (masturbation, pornography, etc.), the gay sex vice can overtake their righteous hetero potential and leave them feeling like they're a 6. I believe true biological 6's who don't have any choice in the matter are extremely rare; I personally believe most gays are 4's or 5's who have failed to resist temptation enough and to direct their desires within the hetero boundaries the Lord has set, which they should know if they're LDS but should also sense through conscience even if they're not.
Your use of the term "gay" in the way that you have applied it in your last comment shows that you have bought into the modern-day deception of the gay identity. "If you feel same-sex attraction, YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY." That simply isn't true.
Again, not appear to be kicking against your pricks, but in your first response to me, 2nd paragraph you state ”Untold numbers of people are able to keep a lid on their gay attractions, but the world's permissiveness makes it more likely that more will choose not to. “
Putting aside the issue of homosexuality for a moment, are you telling me that you advocate for removing the choices that people have if they are not in accordance with the Lord? Or even that you support limiting the flow of information that would allow people to exercise agency with full knowledge? I can only imagine that in the council in heaven we knew the full extent of both plans. We understood fully both Satan’s and Heavenly Father’s plan and we were left with the agency to choose whichever we would with full knowledge of the plans. Again I am not touching upon homosexuality here, but ideology on a whole. It will help me understand you better so we can both see each other’s view for a time.
Now back to homosexuality, I completely agree with you that pansexuality as it has often been referred to is the carnal man. The impulse to have sex outside of marriage is our carnal nature. I do not dispute that sexual seduction can happen, but that is something that is dependent upon the allure of sex, not upon the orientation of the individual, nor does a simple seduction have the power to have someone “change teams”. I fully recognize the difference between attraction and behavior (even if I disagree with your definitions, I am sure @Chednar agrees that he is Gay even though he isn’t/hasn’t acted on his attractions), however, I do not believe that a seduction is able to pull someone down along the Kinsey scale.
Mr Bigelow,
Lets start with another detour away from sexuality and into ideology for a moment. The purpose of my question and it’s wording was designed to demonstrate the probable choices and give you an (albeit simplified) choice between a solid family or a destroyed and non-existent one. My question is as follows: How do you, as a member of the Church which focuses so much energy and whose very purpose revolves around the family, justify to yourself the destruction, or possible non-creation of a family? Especially when D&C 132 informs us that those who choose to remain single are destined to be the servants of the exalted.
Now we are back on track to sexuality. In regards to your dislike of suicide brought up by me (a gay activist?) I would like you to know that I did it not as a planned line to win an argument, but as an honest attempt to lay out the options as I saw them. I know it because I tried to take my own life. It wasn’t because I was giving anyone an ultimatum saying, “Tell me it’s okay for me to have gay sex or I’m going to kill myself.” I was struggling to understand how I could have these attractions, such a deep emotional, spiritual, mental, and yes, physical desire to be with another man and yet be told that I was defunct, possessed, or flat out going to hell. (not hyperbole, actual statements). After struggling with everything and pleading with Heavenly Father to guide me where I should go each night for so long I realized that one of the ways I could know the answer AND stay clean would be to kill myself. Not as an attempt to get a green light for Gay Sex, but to have the mists of darkness cleared, or at least be handed an Iron Rod. So I am getting sick of people who think that people try to commit suicide as an attempt to legitimize Gay Sex.
Continued from before
While you know 4 successful MOMs (mixed orientation marriages), I know 30+ people who have had their marriages fall apart because of this. I do not doubt that there are those that make it work, I know a couple (5 in fact) but the odds are definitely not in the favor of a young homosexual. Doesn’t the striking number of broken families open your eyes wide in search of a solution that secures stronger families? I (again as a gay activist?) do paint MOMs as nigh impossible because they ARE nigh impossible. They are not impossible, but being the child of a broken family I strongly advocate for starting a marriage with every strength clearly defined and as little weaknesses as possible. I see that in Same-Sex marriages more than in MOM’s. I take it that you do not? I encourage you to take a look at some of the other blogs on Alan’s feed (if you haven’t already), there are a few MOM’s that may give you more insight into the unique struggles facing those members.
Again with the comments designed to attack me as a person. You come at me as if I haven’t studied this issue and don’t know basic concepts like faith. It is rather insulting and I politely ask you to refrain from such biting remarks.
I do not doubt that there are eternal consequences for our actions, that is the very purpose of this life. We disagree on what those consequences are and that comes from a difference of interpretation of the Scriptures. But even with your interpretation of the scriptures, what are the consequences for those who purposely choose not to get married? According to D&C 132, that individual becomes a servant to the exalted. Now we also know from D&C 18 that there is immense reward and joy from bringing one soul unto the truth, given that one person’s actions have a ripple effect throughout generations isn’t the eternal consequences of brining a child into the world in a loving same sex marriage who teaches that child to love God and live righteously more than the eternal consequences of not brining that soul into the world? How about when you consider that that one child can touch the lives of thousands within 2 generations and the celibate individual has brought how many souls unto the truth of the gospel? Isn’t that exercising faith and looking at the eternal consequences?
Given your interpretation of scripture celibacy is truly a win for Satan. It is a compromise of the essential need for marriage in this life. Satan’s goal is to stop and destroy the family; isn’t celibacy just that? The only option that makes sense from an LDS perspective is marriage; Marriage for all. I think that is true, but I disagree on the type. You state that, “It is not good for man to be alone, but it is far worse for a man to be taken in sodomy.” I ask you this, is it better for a man to be taken in sin and sodomy if he saves the life and soul of one man? 10 men? 20? A generation? A nation? Before you answer I ask you to look at the story of Esther. The Mosaic Law forbade her marriage to the king. She was committing a grievous sin in the eyes of the people and, I assume, God. And yet we celebrate Esther as a righteous woman. Why? We celebrate her because her marriage provided the key position for her to save her nation. You might say that Esther saved a nation and same sex marriage can’t do that. I wouldn’t doubt if people said similar things of Esther in her time, however, Heavenly father has stated in Genesis 18:32 that for 10 righteous souls he would not destroy the cities of the plain. So I ask again, Is it truly better for a man to be alone, with a much more difficult time of bringing souls unto Christ, than it is for him to be “taken in sodomy” and yet bring, peradventure, 10 souls unto the truth of the gospel?
As I have read over your comments I can’t help but notice one particular theme. SEX. You seem to be obsessed with it. I assume you have heard this before but I think it deserves to be stated so that the point might be driven home. Being gay isn’t about sex. Equal marriage isn’t about sex. Equal marriage is about creation. It is about creating a life together with the person that you are attracted to emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and yes physically. But as the years pass and the sex fades, those who are married do not look back and think of the sex, they focus on the love that they have shared. They focus on holding each other’s hands as they watch their kids grow. What is temporally and eternally wrong with that?
This is in regards to your comment three above.
I am about a 4.5 and I have "given into my temptations" and yet I still know that I am a 4.5. The cognitive dissonance isn't that strong on this side of the closet door. The difficulty with this topic of discussion is that 1 you assume that our consciences direct us towards heteronormative relationships. This is incorrect. and 2, that you know what the Lord's boundaries are. How do you know the mind of God? On this issue of same-sex marriages, revelation had been silent and the scriptures carry no evidence against it.Please, I would like to know how you believe to know the will of God in this issue given a study of the relevant material.
Again, you misunderstand me. I do not believe that if you are homosexually attracted that "YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY". If you read what I wrote I believe that if you are on this side of a pure bi, if you are 51% homosexually attracted then that classifies you as "gay" but that is with an understanding that there are various shades of gay.
I believe I have shown you respect in reading your words and trying to understand them as written and when in doubt I ask, please show me the same courtesy.
David Baker: I'm an advocate of freedom of speech and action. I'm fairly libertarian: I don't really think there should be laws against drugs, porn, sodomy, prostitution, etc. except to protect minors from these vices; at the same time, I don't think there should be a law FOR gay marriage. Yet, I think laws and government should reflect the will of the people. What's sad is when the will of the people chooses wrong, and thus I exercise my freedom of speech in hopes of persuading a few against it.
I hear gay activists say that Mormons have no right to impose their religious morality on others with Prop 8, but that's not at all what we did: in the free marketplace of ideas, we promoted our side and urged people to vote their consciences, and they freely chose our side (barely, this time). I think my freedoms of choice and speech are actually in far greater danger than yours, because I think society will make my views illegal as hate speech, and also society will increasingly persecute those who hold my views. You'll win in the short term, but that's OK, because the second coming will eventually make everything right again.
I think there's also something to be said for society retaining its purity and innocence as long as possible. I think there's far less chance that kids would masturbate if they didn't hear about it from their peers and in certain sex-ed classes, for instance. I think no one would live gay if others didn't show them an example and give them a community. So when a society gives up its purity and innocence and allows things to degrade, it takes down many people who might have done just fine in a purer society. But this has to be the choice of the people, like in Enoch's city, not something imposed on them like Satan wanted to do. So you gay activists, I see you making the world a more decadent, confusing place for my kids to grow up in. Thanks for that.
David wrote: "Nor does a simple seduction have the power to have someone 'change teams'."
Sure it does. Someone can be living hetero, have a gay encounter, and then change to living gay.
"I am sure @Chednar agrees that he is Gay even though he isn’t/hasn’t acted on his attractions."
Then Chednar has bought into the modern-day gay deception. The correct thing, from an LDS perspective, is to acknowledge same-sex attraction but express intention NOT to be gay. Saying one is gay is a step toward fully embracing the identity with accompanying sexual behavior. This is if one is still trying to do the Mormon thing, of course... And if not, then there's no point in this discussion, really.
"I do not believe that a seduction is able to pull someone down along the Kinsey scale."
I wouldn't say that either. But one gay seduction can cause someone to lose focus on the hetero part of their orientation and start focusing on the homo part, which then starts metastisizing and taking over, as all vices do.
David wrote: "How do you, as a member of the Church which focuses so much energy and whose very purpose revolves around the family, justify to yourself the destruction, or possible non-creation of a family?"
Sorry, I've lost track of what this question refers to...
I'm sobered my your comments on suicide; thanks for that, and I will be more careful next time I bring that up. But it does get bandied about a lot in ways less careful and meaningful than how you just expressed it.
Sorry, I don't really follow all that Esther talk. How does someone who's opted for gay identity/behavior save the lives and souls of others?
Yes, I know I tend to talk about this issue in terms of sex. That's just an easier way to handle it for me, and most bishops would agree that a "gay" person isn't really in serious enough trouble to trigger disciplinary action unless and until they've had sex. All the romance and emotion that goes with gayness leads up to the sex, I acknowledge. So when I talk about it in sexual terms, I really mean the whole package.
You ask what is temporally and eternally wrong with same-sex marriage. I'm astounded. Same-sex marriage doesn't produce children. Some gay couples may find ways to bring in children, but they haven't created those children within the marriage, and they cannot raise them with the proper example of double-gender parenthood. I know some hetero couples can't create children on earth, but they will be able to in the resurrection. But same-sex couples will not, unless you want to really go science-fiction-y with your theology, which I don't. Mormon theology has total internal logic to it, and same-sex marriage doesn't even begin to fit in. Also, I do not buy all this romanticizing of gay marriage I hear. I've seen statistics that most "gay marriages" are open to other sex partners, and I doubt many last as long as you say. I can imagine a gay relationship lasting past the highly sexual years, yes, if the people are really good friends and really compatible as roommates. But that doesn't make it right.
David wrote: "You assume that our consciences direct us towards heteronormative relationships. This is incorrect."
No, it's not. We must have a different understanding of what a "conscience" is and means. Whatever drives a person to homo acting out (or any other kind of giving in to temptation) is not the Light of Christ, also known as conscience.
"How do you know the mind of God? On this issue of same-sex marriages, revelation had been silent and the scriptures carry no evidence against it. Please, I would like to know how you believe to know the will of God in this issue given a study of the relevant material."
Revelation has been silent on it because no other society covered in scripture has ever had the audacity to actually propose the idea of gay marriage like our society now is, as an equally valid alternative to hetero marriage, etc. This is a new height of confusion that has come forth in the last days. Satan, laughing, spreads his wings. Now is the great day of his power. He is confusing not only gays but also, perhaps even more dangerously in some ways, the secular people who champion gay rights, even if they're not gay themselves.
The plan of salvation is clear and simple and makes total logical sense. It is universal to all humans. Forty years after the diabolical sexual revolution began, we now suddenly have a special class of people calling for their own gender-neutral plan of salvation that doesn't even make biological sense. All humans are expected to follow the real gender-based plan, even those who experience temptations as strong as gay ones. Sorry, God is not going to save someone in gayness, but he'll work with you to grow past it.
"If you are 51% homosexually attracted then that classifies you as 'gay' but that is with an understanding that there are various shades of gay."
"Gay" is a worldly term that means you accept the worldly definition of the gay identity, which is a deception of Satan and his followers (both spirits and humans). I have never heard anyone else talk about "various shades of gay" before. You may not be saying this, but the world says gay or not gay, and if you have any gay attraction, you are gay and may as well start living that way. This is the deceitful message of the world and is the message that evil spirits are whispering into people's spiritual ears all over the world right now: YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY.
As a fairly libertarian person who isn’t FOR gay marriage are you FOR straight marriage? Because if you aren’t then why aren’t you advocating for the fall of marriage? If you are FOR straight marriage then I am calling you out on this double standard. You have all the right to claim yourself as an advocate of freedom of speech and action and I have no doubt that you are. However, given the disparity between gay and straight marriage, if you are advocating for one as a libertarian, you should be arguing for the other as well, and if not then in the repeal of both. I too believe that the law should reflect the will of the people, however in certain cases, the people are fed misinformation and manipulated into believing something that is contrary to natural Law.
I am certain that you have read it, but I urge you to go back and reread Dr. Martin Luther King’s letter from a Birmingham jail and put yourself in my shoes. I believe that an unjust law needs to be fought against, as I am certain you do as well. We simply differ in the opinion of what an unjust law is.
I believe that the evidence behind the humble campaign of conscience, as you describe it, illustrates a different picture about Prop 8. I am not saying that morality was legislated, but the belief system of the Church did play a heavy hand in California.
I think that my freedoms of choice and speech are in far more danger than yours but rather than get out the ruler and start measuring I will say this. In the United States of America where we have 24-hour news networks, Live streaming of video events and everyone watching, your freedoms of choice and speech are not going to be touched. If you doubt this ask yourself how many members of the communist party are in America? The KKK? Neo Nazi’s? This nation is grounded on the notion of free speech and even those who want the Westboro Baptist Church to shut up cheered when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor regarding their 1st Amendment rights.
”You'll win in the short term, but that's OK, because the second coming will eventually make everything right again.” Wow, Mr. Bigelow, you may as well have just admitted that you have no logical, direct rebuttals for my points.
Masturbation has been happening since before the Dark Ages. It is not a product of Sex-ed classes. Would you restrict their freedom of speech? This is yet another Straw Man fallacy.
”I think no one would live gay if others didn't show them an example and give them a community.” You preface this one with “I think” so I wont be too harsh but logically, how did gays start if there wasn’t anyone to show them? Society isn’t pure Chris. And even if it were, just as life (both temporal and spiritual) goes through a process of impurity, so too must society.
Again you accuse me of being a Gay Activist. I have asked twice what is up with that, here it is more explicitly. What’s up with that?
Wow! Why are heterosexual sexual encounters so weak at influencing a person's sexuality, but homosexual encounters are so strong? I've had sex multiple times a week with my wife for the past nearly 6 years (never having had sex with a man) and I'm still a Kinsey 5!?!?!? Gay sex must be SO MUCH BETTER if a single taste is going to stop the entire population of the world from reproducing and end the human race in a SINGLE GENERATION!
WOW! Why is a heterosexual encounter so much weaker at influencing a person's sexuality than a homosexual encounter? I've had sex multiple times a week for the past nearly 6 years (without ever having had a homosexual encounter) and I'm still a Kinsey 5?!?!??! Homosexual sex must be SO MUCH BETTER if a single taste is going to recruit the entire population of the world to be gay, thus ending the propogation of the human species in a SINGLE GENERATION!
Change behavior models perhaps, but not change orientation. Again please read my comments fully.
“The correct thing, from an LDS perspective, is to acknowledge same-sex attraction but express intention NOT to be gay.”
Which is admittedly a big step for the Church these past few years. However, calling myself Gay doesn’t make me start having oral sex. This sounds very much like the line of thought from Miracle of Forgiveness that states that Masturbation leads to Homosexuality leads to Bestiality. It is a logical error.
If a gay seduction can cause someone to lose focus on the hetero part then a straight seduction can cause him or her to lose focus on the homo part. How is that working out for your 4 MOM’s? How about the rest of Gay America? Sex is a vice, homosexuality isn’t, it is a core characteristic.
David wrote: "How do you, as a member of the Church which focuses so much energy and whose very purpose revolves around the family, justify to yourself the destruction, or possible non-creation of a family?"
This question refers to the example I gave previously about your theoretical child.
The reason it gets bandied about less carefully and meaningful is because those who are telling that story have heard it all too often, not because it isn’t as serious as my story but after a time when you hear about, help talk someone down from and even attend the funerals of those for whom suicide was an option time and time again you begin to think that everyone understands where you are coming from already.
Sorry, I don't really follow all that Esther talk. How does someone who's opted for gay identity/behavior save the lives and souls of others?
If you had read the above comments you would have seen how I weaved in the concept of a strong family helping save lives throughout generations simply by being a solid family. Again, please actually read what I have written and don’t just skim.
Once more with fealing.
Given: A Celibate man who doesn’t raise kids vs. a Same Sex couple who raises just one child who learns to love God and live righteously. Who has the stronger impact to save lives across generations?
That was the basis of the “Esther talk” which I encourage you to go back through and re-read.
”Same-sex marriage doesn't produce children.”
Did the remarriages of 3 of the Quorum of the 12 produce children? We do not stop people from getting married simply because they are infertile.
”proper example of double-gender parenthood”
You mention this but do not (yet I am sure) support it with facts. If you believe that children need a double-gender parenthood are you pro abortion and anti-Divorce? Because if you truly care about a child being raised with 2 parents of the opposite gender then you would be pro Abortion to cut down on all the pregnancies of unwed mothers. You would also be anti-divorce. And should be both of these things with as much force as you are Anti Gay Marriage.
”I know some hetero couples can't create children on earth, but they will be able to in the resurrection”
So you believe that Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father had Celestial Sex in order to create us?
”and I doubt many last as long as you say”
I recommend you take a look at the top political statistician who aggregates his polling data and refines everything fully before publishing. Look at the Divorce rat in Massachusetts since Gay Marriage. It has dropped. There are your stats.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html
”I can imagine a gay relationship lasting past the highly sexual years, yes, if the people are really good friends and really compatible as roommates”
It happens more than you think and imagine how much more often it will happen When people in this world are trained to focus on marriage rather than being told they can’t have one.
Again you are focusing on the sex. ”Whatever drives a person to homo acting out” whereas I focus on the relationship as a whole entity. How do you know that our (I admittedly should have been clearer here. The antecedent of this pronoun is “Us the Gays”) consciences are not pointing us to homonormative relationships?
”no other society covered in scripture has ever had the audacity to actually propose the idea of gay marriage”
No other society in the history of scripture offered the priesthood to all worthy males either. There is a time and a place for all things and I believe that the time for more revelation concerning the eternal state of Gay relationships is forthcoming.
”He is confusing not only gays but also, perhaps even more dangerously in some ways, the secular people who champion gay rights, even if they're not gay themselves”
So those who Love the sinner and champion their rights even if they don’t agree with the sin are being confused by Satan. This is his master plan? Then you shouldn’t be worrying and instead should be fast preparing for the day the LORD cometh.
”Satan, laughing, spreads his wings. “
Satan has Wings? Sorry couldn’t help but make some comic relief here.
”"Gay" is a worldly term that means you accept the worldly definition of the gay identity”
Gay is a word. And while words have power, they only have power over us when we allow them to. Saying I AM Gay doesn’t mean I am in the back room of the bar on my hands and knees like you seem to think it means. Being Gay means that I am attracted to men more than women. If anyone else is still following our discussion here I ask you fellow Gay Mormon Bloggers, Am I right or is Mr. Bigelow?
”the world says gay or not gay, and if you have any gay attraction, you are gay and may as well start living that way.”
The Media might, but the world does not. It might tell you that you need to explore and understand that PART of your character, but it doesn’t tell you that “YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY, YOU ARE GAY.” If so, then all those who identify as Bi are really just Gay and the world keeps telling them that.
@Mister Curie,
Looks like you beat me to my point. Good on ya mate!
PS, Alan, my word verification is "Comment"
I think you misunderstood my implication, Mr. Bigelow.
The testimony I have received is not in spite of my decision to pursue a husband and raise a family with him but in good part due to my decision.
And my acceptance of my homosexuality, of my being gay, did not come from anyone or anything except my experiences on my knees in earnest and sincere supplication to the Lord, desiring nothing more than to know His will for me.
Again, I understand that, most likely, you cannot believe such.
--
Also, I wonder if those commenting really believe that their words are doing anything but breeding contention.
Nobody is--or frankly will--convince the other party.
Granted, I do understand that Mr. Bigelow is merely explaining his views as per Alan's request, and such is as I am taking the motivation behind his comments.
However, nothing being said is drawing anyone closer to Christ and His charity, to the oneness of heart and mind that is Zion.
I know nothing I say, or even the life that I live, will ever convince Mr. Bigelow of who I know myself to be as a child of God or shed him of his arrogance that prompts him to dictate another's motivations, purposes, and intents, basing his judgments not on the works of the individual but on his beliefs of what it means to be exalted and share the glory of God.
However, if there is one thing I wish you, Mr. Bigelow, could understand it is that those who are commenting, who are bickering, who oppose what you are saying do so because they have seen the evil works such words, beliefs, and stances cause--most of us have experienced it first hand--and you have absolutely no right to say that our experiences are anything but what we say they are.
In fact, such is going to be the topic of my next blog post (which will published later on the 31st).
Chedner wrote: "Also, I wonder if those commenting really believe that their words are doing anything but breeding contention."
Thanks Chedner.
Although I wasn't offended by most things Mr. Bigelow said, (his dismissal of suicide was offensive) I found myself with a desire to comment in a heavy handed, passive aggressive way.
I know exactly how Mr. Bigelow thinks. I understand his motivations and how he sees the world. 15 years ago, the exact same words you see from Mr. Bigelow used to come out of my mouth. Granted, I wasn't as much of an "activist" as Mr. Bigelow is but I did believe and at times say the things he has said.
What caused me to change had nothing at all to do with any conversation I had with anyone. Those conversations only fed my ego. I was only to change on my own when I was in a space to be honest with myself and take a serious look at the realities of the world in all aspects not just the ones that agreed with Mormon theology.
We could engage Mr. Bigelow in conversion but I think at this point it would only serve to feed his, and our egos. In fact I'm feeding mine right now as I type this because I'm jumping on the "high-road" bandwangon.
LOL! I'm such a selfish little homo some times. Satan has really deceived me, I'm now totally his servant and forever will be. HAHAHAH! OK, now I'm being a snarky twit.
The danger in Mr. Bigelow's attitude and comments comes from his absolute certainty that his point of view is the correct one, and that his views represent the pinnacle of knowledge and truth on the subject.
That certainty is the same thing that makes it pointless to attempt to sway him. He'll only dig his heels in all the harder.
Mr. Bigelow: If you ever hope to have any influence with people like us (that is, actual gay Mormons who have dealt with this issue personally and struggled to find answers and paid for our current views with countless hours of angst and contemplation and earnest prayer), drop the grandstanding and the absolute statements and try to be a bit more humble.
I think it's clear to nearly everyone who's paying any attention to this thread that you have made your conclusions regarding homosexuality based on a smattering of biblical verses and statements from church leaders, peppered with your own thoughts and interpretations, and determined that those conclusions are concrete and absolute. What pride! What hubris!
The church and its leaders are changing and evolving in their policies and positions on homosexuality, and there is no reason to believe that they have suddenly, ca. early 2000s, reached "the answer"--the ultimate truth--especially when the current "answer" seems so contradictory to what we know of the Plan of Salvation (celibacy is clearly wrong, as D&C 132 plainly states that without marriage--which is to be performed in this life--we can't reach the highest kingdom). We can be sure that further refinement and clarification is coming, and I don't doubt that you'll be surprised (and perhaps disappointed) by some of what is revealed.
Similarly, it is the height of arrogance to assume that we know all there is to know about the Plan itself. You have insisted several times that the Plan is inherently gender-based, and that therefore same-sex couples cannot be included. It wasn't long ago that members were insisting with equal fervor that skin color was a vital element in the Plan of Salvation--it was believed that Celestial beings would be "white and delightsome", and that black members (and perhaps others) would experience an actual change in skin color as they received their Celestial glory. New revelation disabused us of a notion that now seems terribly dated and outright racist, and provided clear evidence that our knowledge of the Plan is incomplete. Anyone who makes absolute statements of what will or will not happen in the next life immediately loses credibility in my eyes.
More than once you've outlined Satan's plan for the destruction of our society and indicated how prominently the Gay Agenda is to feature in that plan. Again, you've made these statements so confidently and so assuredly that those who are not absolutely confident in themselves might believe that you actually know what you are talking about. And as I said, that is where the real danger lies.
Because those people are going to hear your words, but they won't necessarily hear exactly what you're trying to say. Instead they'll hear that they (as a same-sex-attracted individual) are a part of Satan's plan--one of his minions--and that will reinforce what they've heard from others, and what they've wondered about themselves, and their confidence and their love for self and their ability to believe that God loves them will take yet another blow... And instead of accomplishing anything in your Crusade for Christ you will have delivered another blow for the adversary.
Please, Mr. Bigelow, humble yourself; realize that your knowledge is incomplete, and that our experiences are our own, and that they might actually give us some authority to testify in how the Spirit is guiding us in our lives, and in what homosexuality means to us. If you listen, you might even be able to learn something from us.
Thanks for a most stimulating conversation. I must now respectfully disengage, not because I don't find the discussion extremely interesting and provocative but because, in fact, I do, and it is taking far too much of my time, of which I do not have much to spare at the moment.
If ten people are reading this series, I hope maybe one of them who is lurking is affected by our debate in a way that nudges them back toward the Mormon side. The purpose of life is to become more like God, and God isn't gay, so gayness is part of the ungodliness that we must deny ourselves, if we want to meet our full potential. That is the key to this whole thing. Anything else is wishful thinking and self-deceit; yeah, verily, even the very elect of God can be deceived in these last days.
In my opinion, I predict the LDS Church will largely keep silent on this issue over the next several years, as a matter of social survival, and perhaps I too will learn to keep quieter and just be content to let people cook their own gooses however they please. Good luck to you, and may the force be with you, and if you are resurrected without genitals in the telestial kingdom, don't blame me.
WOW! Words fail . . .
I feel like Mr. Bigelow has let us down. He was doing so well. I was feeling the spirit. My conscious was pricked and I was beginning to see the err of my ways.
But it was just a tease I suppose. And now that he's gone, all these questions will go unanswered. Without his righteous, snarky comments, I feel myself falling back into my old gay ways again.
We have truly lost our savior.
OK... I'll stop.
The purpose of life is to become more like God, and God isn't gay
... That's the same argument used to prove the "white and delightsome" version of the Celestial Kingdom, I think.
yeah, verily, even the very elect of God can be deceived in these last days.
Do you consider yourself "the very elect", Mr. Bigelow?
...and if you are resurrected without genitals in the telestial kingdom, don't blame me.
This is the first I've ever heard that androgyny is a characteristic of telestial beings. If this "doctrine" comes from the same source as some of your other definitive, absolute statements, then I'm beginning to understand your position a little bit better.
The Spanish Fork 401st ward is all over this doctrine about no genitalia:
[url]http://spanishfork401stward.blogspot.com/2009/04/tk-smoothie.html[/url]
(This is a joke blog site, in case it wasn't obvious).
Scott,
Mr. Bigelow's androgyny doctrine, in my opinion, seems to be a natural and logical conclusion to the gender issue. Many years ago I actually entertained that as a belief for awhile. If the only place in heaven where spirit children are created is the upper echelons of the Celestial kingdom, then there was no need for gender in any other kingdom of heaven.
My beliefs evolved a lot since than. I don't pay tribute to there even being an existence of an afterlife anymore.
I look back and see how silly it is to even try and make sense of things that just don't need to be explored. To me it was a severe distraction to what was really important in life, what I'm doing right NOW!
I really don't want to make fun of Mr. Bigelow, but he as become a parody of himself. And it just makes me laugh at him. I'm glad that he has a thick-skin about all of this but It's sad that he is in love with his own dogma.
Thanks again to you, Mr. Bigelow. I appreciate your time and efforts.
Post a Comment