Well, I guess since nobody is putting a gun to your head, you’re safe birdgirl.
King James version of the Bible - Lev.18
(bolding by me to set off the specific verses, but I posted the entire chapter so as not to take anything out of context. “Punctuation changed on v.27 to avoid smilies” )
For those of you saying:
and
I am pointing out that the majority of churches take this position on homosexual behavior as it’s stated in the Bible.
Let me also refer you to something I said regarding this issue on this same page above:
and further up on the page, another post of mine, I went into great detail explaining both the LDS church’s position, posted quotes from two churches who have more liberal views on the subject, AND, I posted my personal view on the subject.
I think it would be a waste of bandwidth to repost my large post and if you are so included to read it, it’s right there for you to look at.
I for one, am not trying to convert anyone to the LDS church or:
I don’t think anyone else in this thread is asking anyone to follow the LDS teachings if they don’t fit for you.
What we are doing is answering your questions as to what the LDS official teachings/beliefs are.
I’ve already stated that every member of the LDS church are taught to think, ponder, pray and develop a testimony about everything that is taught within the Church… NOT to blindly accept and follow, however there are members that do take, IMO, the easy route and don’t go to the trouble of figuring out what they belief for themselves.
It’s old…it’s the same old thing…but that’s because many churches follow the Bible and say the same old thing.
Some of the Protestant religions have come out and accepted active homosexuals into their fold and even allowed then to become ordained ministers (as I pointed out earlier).
The LDS Church HAS changed their position about a LOT of things, but their position on active homosexual behavior is not one of the areas.
They do warmly accept homosexuals as active members of the church who are not acting in an “immoral” way. Meaning the same thing as if a heterosexual would and that is to not engage in sexual behavior outside of marriage.
I don’t have a cite, other then my memory, and that’s always fallible, but IIRC, there was a time the LDS Church did not warmly accept homosexuals “into the fold” even if they were not acting on the urge to engage in same sex sexual behavior. So to that extent there has been more acceptance.
There is no more “official” condemnation, however, I feel the necessity to point out so that when you observe behavior from Church members that does not agree with what I’ve just said is the official position. And that is not every member has become more accepting. There is still prejudice by members within the Church in many areas. Not just homosexuals.
I remember a HUGE exodus by members of the Church, and in some cases life long or members who came from generations in the church, when President Kimball made the announcement about the official position on members of the church of African heritage.
Yes, I do know I just opened a can of worms by using that analogy, but it is the closest experience we have got to draw from. If we can’t be open and honest and address things that way, what have we got?
Kathy
Since Rico and I were not sure we were going to stay in this house long when we moved in here (more accurately, he liked the house; I didn’t so was trying to talk him into moving), I’ve never unpacked my BOXES and BOXES of books.
Let me go rummage through them to find my Church History information.
BB ASAP with as much of the info I have you would like to see. (Translation: I don’t remember if all the stats are there but I remember some is.)
Kathy
From the 1890 US census (the first year Utah is available at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/ ):
Utah 1890
Total Males: 110, 463
Total Females: 97,442
11.79% more males than females.
United States 1890
Total Males: 31,803,937
Total Females: 30,312,874
4.69% more males than females
Hmmmmm…so the assertion that there were more women than men apparently is not true, according to the 1890 Utah census data? Any other viable explanations?
Wow. Those numbers pretty much refute that popular answer regarding the necessity of polygamy in the early Church. The answer I gave is one I have heard several times including at Institute. Fascinating.
Here’s an interesting cite: "The exact percentage of Latter-day Saints who participated in the practice is not known, but studies suggest a maximum of from 20% to 25% of LDS adults were members of polygamous households. "
this is from the LDSFAQ at BYU Plural Marriage
Which is a very interesting read but as usual doesn’t really go into the why’s of it. Why did the Lord make this call? I don’t actually care, I’m just glad I wasn’t one of the people who had to practice it.
birdgirl, I did not intend to start a debate on this. This is not the forum for any debates. j.c. asked a question, and I answered it.
This thread is, to quote cadolphin:
Please keep arguments, witnessing, converting, etc. where they belong, in Great Debates or The Pit. This is nothing more than an informative thread.
And, ask anyone, I will gladly debate the merits of Mormonism anywhere else. I am one of the better-known post-Mormons on the board. In this thread I simply post facts.
Dude, did you completely ignore my post? 1 woman with 3 husbands will still only have 1 child a year. 1 man with 3 wives can have 3 children a year.
Hmmm, and three husbands each with one wife can still have three children a year. If the census data states that the number of men/women were comparable, where is the benefit of one man getting to have three children while two men get none?
Sorry, I have always felt that polygamy smacks too much of male fantasy. If women were allowed the equal privilege of multiple husbands (polyandry) it would be a lot more fair and less distasteful.
tongue in cheek female fantasy Okay, husband number 1 mow the lawn, husband number 2 go to the grocery store, husband number 3 watch the kids!
To add:
When you create a new Church, the best way to get converts is to have children born into it. The best way to do that is to make sure as many women are married and having babies as quickly as possible. There’s a verse in the Book of Mormon—either 2 Nephi or Jacob. Ahh, here it is. Jacob 2: 27-30
There ya go.
How is it unfair, you ask? Men get to have multiple wives. Women do not. That is how it is unfair. Very simple. When one group of people are allowed to have something/do something based one their sex/gender, and the other group is NOT allowed to to do something because of their sex/gender, that is patently unfair. The same would hold for discrimination based on race, etc.
About the polygamy in heaven: in your scenario, these women who get to heaven and don’t have a spouse because there are more women than men, sure they should have a worthy spouse. BUT what self-respecting woman would consider a man who is married to/sleeping with another woman to be a good and worthy spouse??? In heaven or on earth? What god would think it is OK to for a man to be married to/sleeping with multiple women and what god would think it’s OK for a woman to have to accept sharing her husband? Wow.
Apparently one you don’t worship. Why are you so worried about it?
The important thing is to remember Birdgirl is that the women who practiced polygamy did so willingly and only after much soul searching. Please take time to read the article I cited… it speaks volumes about how these women felt and it is very clear that they didn’t feel that it was unfair.
You don’t agree, that’s fine. I think this is a hard doctrine even for the faithful and re-state that I doubt I could ever practice it. I’ve had enough of a struggle just making a relationship with one wonderful woman work.
Ok folks…listen up!
Just talked with the dolphin, and she told me to tell you to stop the debating. Whether polygamy is wrong or right has no place here. It was a part of the LDS past. It is not a part of the LDS presently.
Any debates shall be taken to Great Debates. Start your own thread. Keep it out of here. If you have a question about a particular part of the LDS religion, please, ask your question and a friendly Mormon will be along to answer it shortly.
Or, in my case, an ex-mormon who refuses to argue in this thread.
Last chance. This thread has received kudos from lots of Dopers about it’s no-nonsense way of handling questions. Please don’t make the mods lock or move this thread.
One more time: This is NOT a debate forum! cadolphin will request the thread be locked if there is any more debating.
While I was away from the computer doing the research to answer a question with all the information required to put it in perspective, a few people choose to ignore one of my rules when I began this thread.
When Rico told me what was going on, I asked him to relay a post to y’all from me. He did.
I’m now in a position, I had hoped would not happen.
Up until now, it has remained a QaA thread which is what I specified it would have to be.
Although, I’ve gone to quite a bit of trouble this afternoon to do research so that I could answer the question I said I would come back with the facts on, since the GD started here, I’m not going to address it at this time. As I stated if that happened, I’d stop responding. So, that’s what I’m going to do for now.
I AM NOT going to ask that the thread be locked immediately ONLY because this thread has been very population. Several people have made positive comments throughout the forums about this thread and their appreciation for it.
What I am going to do is to sit back and see if the GD continues or if it stops. I’m also going to be watching to see if there are other sincere questions regarding the Church.
If the GD moves to the correct forum and no one else posts any “opinions” vs facts AND people continue to show a sincere interest in this thread, then I will resume providing the information requested.
If anyone continues to post their personal opinions, I will ask this thread be locked.
The ball is in your court now.
Kathy
Now look who needs to chill! 
This has been an interseting thread, and there hasn’t been that much debating. This is IMHO, after all. One must expect a little discussion about answers given here, I would think. Otherwise the forumwould be GQ, and would have been over many pages ago. In my opinion, anyway.
Ok. To clarify my responses, I didn’t mean to belittle anyone’s replies. Many (most?) of the answers here rely on faith. I’ve studied the concept of faith, and to me it means you have to accept “God is because God say’s He is. If you want to know, it’s right there in the Book. His book.”
No proof, or even common sense needed.
I asked why God would make homosexuals, then condemn them. You all answered me. Thank you, but I have heard these answers before. They’re the same in tone, that’s all I mean.
There’s no insult in that.
I am wasting your time, though, and not really being convinced, so I’ll back out of this thread.
And I’ll see you on the other side. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Rico, can I ask the post-mormon? What’s a post-mormon.
I’ve never hard this term. (FYI - the two former but no longer Mormons I know hope to one day return to the church.)
j.c., good question.
In its most basic terms, I suppose you can intersperse the term with “ex-mormon.”
I was raised LDS, served a mission for the church, but left the LDS church in my 20s. Reasons for my leaving will not be discussed here.
The term “post-mormon” was coined because of the negative connotation that the prefix “ex-” has. I look at it this way, I’m in my “post-mormon” stage of my life, i.e. after Mormonism.
Just a nicer way of saying it, I believe.
I never heard the term either Rico. Maybe I’ll start using it, because I’m not comfortable with “ex” either.
FWIW, I happened to see a sign on the freeway the other day. This was one of the “Adopt-a-highway” signs that indicates the litter along the highway is being picked up by a specific group.
In the south end of the Salt Lake valley (about 9500 S. for any Utahns reading this) there is a sign that says “Litter Control provided by Exmormons Foundation.”