So far, I know of only ONE comment on this entire thread that has addressed its actual topic.

No, we’re not more than likely born with marriage. Marriage is something we choose to do, not something we are. Same-sex marriage is something one does, not something one is.

“I do not see gay marriage in the same catagory as child abuse.”

Neither do I. It’s a different kind of sin.

“There is no place in the scriptures where it talks about meaningful gay relationships. The few places where gay activities are mentioned is when there is sex for lust.”

I’m in agreement there.

Dean, I think living with a condition—whether inborn or not—that causes a chronic, persistent temptation to do that which God commands not to do is very burdensome. But it doesn’t excuse one from the commands of God. He doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not steal unless thou hast a deep, natural, persistent desire to do so.” He doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not commit adultery unless thine inborn desire to commit adultery and thy natural attraction to other women is very strong.” Christ says that sometimes we need to take up our crosses. Sometimes the very difficult is required of us. Why this burden is placed on many people, I don’t know. But I do know what Prophets of God have said they are to do.

In the case of gay marriage….. we are talking about a condition that even Dallen Oaks referrs to as one that we are more than likely born with. He mentions that it is quite possible that we are born with the tendancy to be gay. He then goes on to say that even though we are born with that tendancy….. we are responcible to keep that in control, and encourages us to be celibate. No fast fix marriages.

In addition to totally changing the churches policy on this …. for when I was young the church was encourageing “fast fix” marriages, which is why I got married, I do not see gay marriage in the same catagory as child abuse. Although often those who abuse their children may themselves come from abusive families, it is not something one is born with. In addition, we are talking about commitment to ONE other person. This is also because of a condition that most, not all, but all of the reputable pshycological organizaions would agree is NOT changeable. For me it is something that I either had from birth…… or from an extreamly young age. I find that the other items you mentioned have a certain amount of choice involved. I can choose if I teach the gospel or not to my children. I can choose if I want to be chaste or not. I have no choice as to if I can feel atraction to women or men. I tried for most of my life to change that….. it just never did happen. The only choice I have left then is to remain alone, unloved …or celibate, or find that one special person who adds joy to my life.

The scriptures say men are not to be alone….and men are that they might have joy. There is no place in the scriptures where it talks about meaningful gay relationships. The few places where gay activities are mentioned is when there is sex for lust. Sex for lust would be against any hetero sexual relationship as well. In deed there is at present no mention of homosexual relationships in any of the modern scriptures and only a few in the old and new testiment which refer to sex with other men in a none committed relationship. I find that the other things you mentioned that are discriminated in have a choice involved….. There is little choice when one is gay…. the only choice involved is that of being alone and depressed, or being able to have a partner to share ones life with. This is true discrimination….. for it sets a line against a person for the way they ARE….. the others you mentioned clearly are a matter of choice… or in the case of an abusive parent….. one that came because they may in deed come from an abusive family and it was a “learned behaviour.”

1. Receiving the words of God without any contribution by the recipient–just words given straight from Heaven. (I’m not sure this has ever happened. I think even the first-person revelations of the Doctrine & Covenants required some effort on Joseph’s part–both while receiving and after, while editing–to put into the proper words.)

2. Receiving thoughts and impressions that the recipient must put into his own words. (I suppose most of the D&C is like this. So are most Priesthood blessings.)

3. Receiving an impression that doesn’t call for expression in words but simply affirms to the recipient what he must do.

4. Receiving a feeling or impression that a considered course of action is right (or not right)

5. Receiving a feeling or impression that a teaching is true (or false)

6. Hearing a literal voice speaking in words that are directed only to the recipient

7. Speaking face-to-face with divine beings in physical proximity

I’m sure I could go on, but this makes a good list for present purposes. One problem is that these are not necessarily discrete; there’s a lot of overlap.

Why?

The Proclamation WAS given through the President of the Church. It was also signed by his counselors and by the entire Quorum of the Twelve. If (and that still remains an “if” until someone produces a shred of evidence to support Dean’s version of events) there was also help from others in composing the wording of the Proclamation, that really doesn’t matter. President Hinckley gave it to the Church (along with all the other Apostles).

I don’t know that there’s a name for each “rung” on the “ladder” of revelation.”

Okay, then don’t provide the names. Feel free to simply describe the different forms of revelation.

“My point is that when someone receives inspiration from the Holy Ghost, that person is receiving knowledge.”

I’m not sure I would go so far as to equate inspiration as receiving knowledge. For example, from time to time, I have received inspiration to not do something. Instruction was given, but the amount of knowledge I had at that time (aside from knowing I was prompted to make a choice) did not increase.

“But if the people who wrote and prepared the Proclamation were inspired, or even if only the people who approved it for publication were inspired, it’s reasonable to refer to it as revelation.”

Unless the person who wrote, prepared and/or approved it was the president of the Church. Or at least according to D&C 28:2,6-7 which states that revelation for the Church is given through the president.

I don’t know that there’s a name for each “rung” on the “ladder” of revelation. My point is that when someone receives inspiration from the Holy Ghost, that person is receiving knowledge. Knowledge is being revealed to him by the Holy Ghost. Hence, inspiration is a form of revelation. Whenever someone receives any kind of information from the Father, Son or Holy Ghost, that’s revelation. There are contexts in which the word revelation takes on more specific meaning, as, for example, when we ask who has the right to receive revelation regarding the whole Church (or more accurately, who has the authority to announce revelation regarding the whole Church). But if the people who wrote and prepared the Proclamation were inspired, or even if only the people who approved it for publication were inspired, it’s reasonable to refer to it as revelation.

The example I gave was to show that when a group of leaders are united in declaring/proclaiming/revealing something, their words don’t deserve less credence for that reason.

I’m still looking for you to explain what is the “effect on whether it is revealed or inspired,” when a lot of people help to prepare a document for publication.

(This all begs the question of whether the committee process that Dean describes ever happened, of course. As near as I can tell, he has only rumor to support it.)