If “chemical castration” had existed in the 1800s, and people hadn’t been as skiddish about the thought as they apparently are currently, perhaps we wouldn’t have had a problem with polygamy or polyandry in the first place!

#VitaminVrules

I think there is a difference between apology and empathy. I think the Church has repeatedly sought to show empathy. I sense that Elder Oaks is responding to those who demand that the Church apologize in whole-cloth ways for things that are causing individuals pain. I agree with whoever said above that trying to engage in that kind of cycle can make things worse, not better.

Sure. And I hope that we’re all willing to recognize our own particular infidelity. Otherwise, there’s no rational way of bearing one another’s burden.

Blake, the distance from polyandry to chemical castration is so vast as to make the head spin. We’re not even talking about the same church! I hope my Catholic friends don’t get wind of this or I’ll lose the clear & convenient advantage I’ve enjoyed for years

Yep, it would not surprise me if a similar path lie before the church on this issue as well.

Asking for people to obey God’s commands, is not callous nor irrational. Assume for one moment, that there is a God and that he has given the law of chastity as it pertains to sex. If that were the case, would you not do what you could to support and encourage those around you, gay or otherwise, to live that law?

And let’s say that there is a Savior and He promises peace and joy as you come unto Him. Wouldn’t you encourage and teach others to do whatever they needed to in order to come close to that Savior?

The struggle the church, and believers, have now is that the wider culture has dropped these assumptions in favor of the idea that religious sacrifice is nonsense.

Far out? Maybe. Or maybe not. Here are a few passages spoken by Jesus to think about:

Matthew 19:12: “12. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Matthew 18:8: “8. Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”

Matthew 5:27-30: “27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Old Man and ABM, if ever you have LGBT children, I wish you luck in trying to square your theological positions with your children’s life horizons. Holding out the carrot of eschatological cleansing of all gayness, should they live a life worthy of such reward, might work for some people, for most I think it won’t. I find your demand of celibacy (physical and emotional) on others to be callous and irrational, but I can only speak for myself.

It will be something of a historical oddity if Catholicism abandons celibacy from its priestly class while Mormonism creates a celibate class but with none of the cache, advantages, and opportunities once afforded our counterparts.