"you will [be resurrected] with normal attractions for the opposite sex"
 

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13377659?IA...www.sltrib.com

oh no he didn't.

wow. I'd be fascinated to know the authority for this little gem.

So you are gay on earth, have gay sex, die, get resurrected, go to hell.

And there you are in hell, with a hard on for women, knowing you are in hell for doing something that you now find absolutely disgusting.

:)

Or to put it another way, now you are in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdom, all revved up, and nowhere to go.

These guys just can't win!

This guy is a joke. I'm not Mormon or even a conservative Christian and I think this guy is lame.

Just out of curiosity...how does your church choose its leadership? Is there a anti-idiot test that can be taken?

Valentinus

sort of like a test that weeds out idiots who register for two gmail accounts and two usernames on this site?

Here's why I don't get: why can't the GA promise that faithful gay men will have their same sex attraction removed in THIS life, if they draw close to the Lord and repent?

If it's non-biological, why do they have to wait until the next life? Seems like a mixed message to me. On the one hand, it's non-biological, but on the other hand, it takes an act of God in the afterlife to remove it.

Some Mormons believe that all children born in the covenant will eventually return to the fold, whether in this life or the next. It's been said by GAs. It doesn't really make sense, per our doctrine, but it is a comforting idea. In some ways, this promise to gays fits the same category. Everything will be ok and normal in the next life. Do your best in this life.

I don't have a problem with this GA. At least he's getting in the ring and dealing with the topic. Do I think, at this time, that what he is saying is thus saith the Lord? No. Might we hear something different from someone else later? Yes. And that's ok. These are men, which are imperfect creatures, trying to make sense of a complicated world.

I want to add one more thing:

Removing homosexuality from the list of "mental illnesses" definitely had a political element to it. A psychiatrist I know, that was around at that time, told me about it, briefly. That particular convention was apparently in Dallas, and he talked about the demonstrations and such. Usually in science, we don't have demonstrations. It wasn't simply a matter of crunching numbers and presenting results and everyone voted "aye."

Now having said that, I think time has demonstrated that it was the correct decision. And you would be hard-pressed to find any psychiatrist who feels like it should be considered a mental illness.

Not that I give a one-post drive-by much credence, but just in case someone else here actually thinks Hafen is a "joke", here are a few of his professional accomplishments:

JD from the U
President of Ricks College
Dean of the BYU Law School
BYU Provost

I've met him and his wife Marie on a few occasions (though they wouldn't know me from Adam) and whatever one thinks of his position on homosexuality, he certainly is not an idiot.

He is no idiot though I don't understand the approach he's taking. I know him a little better than that as he was at BYU law school during my tenure. Nonetheless, Mike has done a fair job of reviewing his approach. He's generally softs-spoken and given to thoughtful contemplation. It must have been a difficult assignment to fulfill.

My substantive comment though, is addressed first to the selection of the messenger, a person whom I like. Why send a lawyer to debate what has been framed as a scientific argument?

It is interesting that most LDS psychologists, neuropsychologists and physicians stall quiet most of the time in these debates. And we as LDS are left to hear non-scientists make fluffy statements about the orientation.

Why has the Church organization chosen this battle before others? It seems like a losing battle, but what do we gain? (If you accept for arguments sake, that we are saving souls, consider my following ruminations).

Let's say the German stats are accurate that its true incidence rate is about 1 to 2 percent of the male population. If that is so, and divorce, children born out of wedlock and substance addictions are much more frequent, why not devote more substantial energies to those incidents?

OTOH, at least they have the courage to weigh into the debate, even if it seems weird the positions they are taking. To me, the efforts seem unlikely to be productive or fruitful, as most persons now seem to have their minds made up on the matter.

This comment by the APA seems very value-laden and not scientific: