Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

No, I quoted the Law of Chastity.  I did not state anything about SSM.   How is quoting the Law of Chastity taking it out of context?

I was just correcting another poster who did not post it correctly.  I quoted lds.org for what they list as the "Law of Chastity".  A bit of an over reaction here from the crowed, I'd say :P

I took that quote from the link you provided. Here is the full context:

 

Quote

 

The Law of Chastity

  • What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

To the Israelites the Lord said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). Those Israelites who broke this commandment were subject to severe penalties. The Lord has repeated this commandment in the latter days (see D&C 42:24).

We have been taught that the law of chastity encompasses more than sexual intercourse. The First Presidency warned young people of other sexual sins:

“Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body” (For the Strength of Youth [pamphlet, 2001], 27).

Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

 

 

You seem to have only counted the red portion as the law of chastity.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Again I am NOT saying we don't  have a ways to go in this department. I've had the privilege to work with several people who fall somewhere in the LGBT/SSA spectrum who are LDS in some way. With different generations you can see things gently and slowly improving. I heard the concern of either/or camps between their sexual and spiritual identity/expression. This includes both sides. Where if a gay person decides "I want to go back to my faith" it breeds confusion and judgment on the LGBT side of things. And if a person enters or contemplates entering a same sex relationship or ID's more strongly/publically as LGBT, it can be confusing and lead to judgments. Neither of these helps the individual. So I'm glad and proud of both organizations finding a way to make a bridge to make it just a little less hairy and problematic for the youth and at-risk individuals.

BD, thanks for your comments they are thoughtful and wrestling with the issues and I always appreciate your perspective.  

To me, all of the angst over the LGBT conundrum is self inflicted based on current church teachings.  There really isn't anything core to the gospel message that excludes LGBT from the gospel.  All church leaders really have to do to solve all these back and forth problems would be to cut out all the discrimination, and fully embrace the idea that they've already softly embraced and that is that these kinds of identity issues are not evil, but are core to who these people are.  Also if they could embrace that sexuality and gender are all located on a spectrum, and ditch the old binary thinking, then we'd be 90% there.  

After that, the largest hurdle would be temple sealings for these relationships, which I see a lot of people having a hard time with.  So I think that may take a longer time to implement.  But if the church could get rid of the stigma around these things being a choice and an evil choice at that, then we would be most of the way there, and the confusion that you talk about that leads to judgments on both sides would disappear overnight.  All of that confusion is caused by antiquated policies and theories about LGBT individuals due to naivete on the subject.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, cacheman said:

CFR - I thought the policy was different.  I thought that children in polygamous families weren't required to wait until 18. I can't remember if they are allowed to be blessed and named as babies. 

They are required to wait, don't know about naming blessing for sure, though it appears they can't from the second quote.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

"Just as has been Church policy regarding polygamist families, children of parents in a same-sex relationship will need to assent to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service, he said. They are “not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice,” he emphasized."

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=37258228&nid=1284

"Thursday's clarification also is parallel to the LDS policy that a man or a woman who joins a polygamous marriage is subject to church discipline, Elder Christofferson said. Children of polygamist families cannot receive church ordinances until they are 18 and disavow polygamy."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am willing to consider anything.  What evidence do you have?

Perhaps historical precedent for other "doctrines" that have been disavowed or considered as heretical today, that should be the starting place for understanding our history and how many ideas that were once orthodox have become heretical and back and forth on some throughout Christianity and Mormonism.  Next an evaluation of core gospel principles, love, acceptance of the marginalized, and the overarching core messages of Jesus about how to treat others who society considers flawed.  

What evidence would anyone have against this concept?  Maybe a few culturally biased scriptures that have been proof texted to condemn "unnatural" behavior.  Nothing core to the gospel that I can think of.  

Link to comment
7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Human nature is to rationalize all kinds of mistreatment.  

What "mistreatment" are you referencing here?

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm skeptical about this being sincere. Maybe just a PR move. I'm sure this is a few in the PR dept. and not the whole leadership backing it. Or maybe I'm in a terrible mood because of what is happening all around us.

And your response to "what is happening all around us" is to resort to cynicism and faultfinding and animosity toward people with whom you disagree.  I don't think that's much of a recipe for improving "what is happening all around us."

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

For one thing there is a big elephant in the room. The church's first and second statements about Charlottesville and racism was fantastic but something is lingering around it and that is the church has yet to apologise publicly for the policy of keeping blacks from getting the PH or even entrance into the temple until 1978. So affecting men and their families.

Why is something which was rectified 40 years ago "a big elephant in the room?"

Part of the problem with "what is happening all around us" is the continual stoking of resentments and hatreds for past wrongs.  

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And then this statement about LGBTQ's getting support and this concert having their backing.

You are surprised that the LDS Church is concerned about the welfare of gay youths?

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The elephant that anyone who is gay and acting on it and married, cannot be members nor their children.

So the LDS Church is not going to be allowed to maintain its teachings about the Law of Chastity and express concern for the welfare of gay youths?  To support the latter necessarily requires the Church to abandon the former?

What is the reasoning behind such an idea?  Is there any?

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It contradicts, and only seems like a move to not get a bad rep. 

There is no contradiction.

The Church prohibits adultery.  That does not mean it cannot express concern about the welfare of those who engage in such behavior and their loved ones.

The Church prohibits the recreational use of harmful/addictive substances.  That does not mean it cannot express concern about the welfare of those who engage in such behavior and their loved ones.

The Church condemns all forms of sin.  That does not mean it cannot express concern about the welfare of those who engage in such behavior and their loved ones.

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm going to the Love Loud concert and glad I talked my husband into it.

I am glad to hear it.  I hope you have a good time.

I also hope you get past your hostility against the LDS Church.  Your words here are full of resentment and anger and judgmentalism against us.  There are ways for improving "what is happening all around us."  Publicly denigrating and insulting Latter-day Saints to their virtual faces is perhaps not conducive to those ends.

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Mainly to support Encircle and their ability to keep gay children off the street and keep at bay any of them from wanting to take their lives. 

I am glad to hear it.

Perhaps some day you can conceive of the possibility that the LDS Church and its leaders and members might have similar desires to help.

Instead of . . . what you are saying in this post.

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm quite surprised that the church is backing this concert in light of Neon Tree's Tyler Glenn and his music video pretty much slamming the church's November policy, temple signs, and Joseph Smith.

Perhaps the Church is prioritizing the concert's influence and potential for beneficial results over the horrible things Tyler Glenn has said about it.  

If the Church were a person, I think we would be commending it for "rising above" its mistreatment at the hands of Mr. Glenn.  But instead, we have you coming here and publicly insulting and demeaning our faith despite it backing a concern you support.

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

They are required to wait, don't know about naming blessing for sure, though it appears they can't from the second quote.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

"Just as has been Church policy regarding polygamist families, children of parents in a same-sex relationship will need to assent to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service, he said. They are “not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice,” he emphasized."

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=37258228&nid=1284

"Thursday's clarification also is parallel to the LDS policy that a man or a woman who joins a polygamous marriage is subject to church discipline, Elder Christofferson said. Children of polygamist families cannot receive church ordinances until they are 18 and disavow polygamy."

Thanks.  I must have been remembering one of the previous iterations of the policy. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am not sure what you are trying to say here since I basically agreed with your conclusions. Am I missing something?

As far as the prophecy of Paul concerning the latter days, I just quoted his own words.  I did not interrupt any meaning at all.  That is up to the reader of the scripture.  I do however find it odd that a church that focuses and values family and marriage so much excludes someone from that experience just because they are gay and somehow manage to be convinced that it is all God's will.

Sometimes, you and others seem to think that opposition to Gay Marriage is a Mormon thing, when it is not. It is a universal belief, backed by scripture, real and practical history; mankind's history. Mormons are just one of the late comers to the issue in every way. It is just like those who wish to lay the entire sin of racism at the feet of The Church, due to the Priesthood Ban. They hopethat by so doing it will draw attention away from their own sins. Now we have this movement to attack all things South, that other parts of the Nation, might purge themselves of their own sins. Who cares if in so doing by tainting the South, and all her Gernerations, as long as their hands are clean. But, it all these issues, we as Latter-day Saints are the ultimate "Johnny-come-latelys". However, when you added the scripture that you did, without any cometary...you know the message you were sending. My question is; why? Would you not have a greater sense of peace, to just let it all go? I know you were agreeing with me, I just don't know what the implication was to me personally, or to the Church collectively quoting that particular scripture? Which by the way, those passages were probably added to the KJV Bible as a means to reinforce the Church of England and to cast doubt upon the Catholic Church. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I have been engaged with those in the LGBT community for quite some time. I am aware that members in that community have experienced many cases of actual mistreatment over the years (even within my lifetime). And I know that many continue to feel mistreated for various reasons - some of which are more justified than others. But just because someone feels mistreated doesn't mean that they actually have been mistreated. 

Sounds like rationalization.  I'm 100% confident that the current policy and practices on their face are completely mistreatment.  I'm sure individuals are also mistreated by individual members as well as your experience has shown. 

Is it possible that sometimes a person feels mistreated, but that their perception isn't reality, yes that is possible.  For this issue its just sad to me that you can't see the clear mistreatment that the church is perpetuating towards this community.  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The church created punitive policies to treat the children of LGBT individuals differently than other children.  

CFR, if you please, that the policy was enacted as a "punitive" measure.

What is the basis for this claim?

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I call that mistreatment.  You are arguing the same position over and over in your responses.  You're saying its not mistreatment, because its God's law.  You're essentially just justifying the mistreatment.  

And you are assuming, without demonstrating, that any "mistreatment" exists.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You can't change the meaning of the word mistreatment.  

No, but you can't throw it around willy nilly either.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You can say that God sanctioned or authorized or commanded it if you want.  Its still mistreatment.  

This is an a priori assumption.  It is a highly debateable one.  It is far from proven.  It is not self-evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR

In your dialogue with ksfisher, you quoted a portion of the Gospel Principles manual as if the quoted portion implied there was room for gay marriage. Ksfisher said you're setting up a false dilemma because the Law of Chastity pertains only to marriage between a man and woman. Your response was to say NO, that you weren't setting up a false dilemma because the Gospel Principles manual's definition of the Law of Chastity is as follows...

(you) What is the law of chastity?

"We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse." (Bolded portion yours)

Two questions:

Did you not quote this isolated section from the Gospel Principles manual because it seems to be somewhat ambiguous since it doesn't specifically refer to either men or women but only to spouses? 

Is it not true that because of its seeming ambiguity you used the above quote in isolation to bolster your idea that gay marriage fits the Church definition of the Law of Chastity, and you did this even though immediately after the above seemingly ambiguous definition the following all-important words of clarification instantly remove all of the seeming ambiguity found in the definition?

"Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

 

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment
6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its so clearly mistreatment that I'm going to start with that as the baseline for a discussion.  

Nope.  Not going to go along with that.  The Church's policy is not "mistreatment," let alone "clearly mistreatment."

The Church's policy is very similar to its longstanding policy applied to children of marital relationships that are also manifestly incompatible with membership in the Church: polygamist marriages.  Do you acknowledge that?

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Now, someone can claim that the mistreatment is justified by God,

Before we get there we would need to have some sort of understanding of the purported "mistreatment."  I don't see it.  And you are just trying to railroad us into accepting that highly debateable proposition.

Not gonna go along with that.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

that is one angle of argument and I believe that is the one Amulek was proposing.  Another angle is denial that the mistreatment is even mistreatment, that is a form of gaslighting in my mind, and I'm not really very tolerant of that kind of thing as I don't find it "dialoguing in good faith".  

One side (you) unilaterally declaring their highly debateable opinion as "clearly" established is also not "dialoguing in good faith."

Just sayin'...

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Another angle that we could discuss is whether this mistreatment has some higher purpose, perhaps God wants to mistreat this segment of society because God knows they will learn something from that mistreatment that will be of value to them at some point in the future.  I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I'm open to discussing it.  

You are insisting that your because-I-say-so opinion, which you have not even attempted to explain or rationalize, is "clearly" established.  You are attempting to railroad us.

Not gonna go on that ride.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

BD, thanks for your comments they are thoughtful and wrestling with the issues and I always appreciate your perspective.  

To me, all of the angst over the LGBT conundrum is self inflicted based on current church teachings.  There really isn't anything core to the gospel message that excludes LGBT from the gospel.  All church leaders really have to do to solve all these back and forth problems would be to cut out all the discrimination, and fully embrace the idea that they've already softly embraced and that is that these kinds of identity issues are not evil, but are core to who these people are.  Also if they could embrace that sexuality and gender are all located on a spectrum, and ditch the old binary thinking, then we'd be 90% there.  

After that, the largest hurdle would be temple sealings for these relationships, which I see a lot of people having a hard time with.  So I think that may take a longer time to implement.  But if the church could get rid of the stigma around these things being a choice and an evil choice at that, then we would be most of the way there, and the confusion that you talk about that leads to judgments on both sides would disappear overnight.  All of that confusion is caused by antiquated policies and theories about LGBT individuals due to naivete on the subject.  

Dream on. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would argue that the church has been more inconsistent on this subject than just about any other.  

It has?  When has the Church endorsed same-sex behavior or same-sex marriage?  That would be . . . never.

The Church has improved, in tone and content, its treatment of this subject.  But its substantive position, that same-sex behavior violates the Law of Chastity, has been profoundly consistent.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a wonderful example of inconsistency.  

It is nothing of the sort.  You are again assuming that which has not been proven.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If you can't see that, I'm not sure we have a lot of common ground to build on.  

Well, you could start by explaining your position rather than insisting we reflexively capitulate to it.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Even many defenders of the church's LGBT policies and positions that I've spoken with are able to see the inconsistencies over the past few decades, its been all over the map.  If you can't see that, and the evidence is so clear in my mind, I'm not sure we can have a constructive dialogue as you asked for earlier.  

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

But what you are proposing here is not "constructive dialogue."  You are proposing utter capitulation to your say-so, based on nothing but your say-so.  That's not constructive at all.

What "inconsistencies" do you see in the Church's teachings regarding same-sex behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "mistreatment" are you referencing here?

And your response to "what is happening all around us" is to resort to cynicism and faultfinding and animosity toward people with whom you disagree.  I don't think that's much of a recipe for improving "what is happening all around us."

Why is something which was rectified 40 years ago "a big elephant in the room?"

Part of the problem with "what is happening all around us" is the continual stoking of resentments and hatreds for past wrongs.  

You are surprised that the LDS Church is concerned about the welfare of gay youths?

So the LDS Church is not going to be allowed to maintain its teachings about the Law of Chastity and express concern for the welfare of gay youths?  To support the latter necessarily requires the Church to abandon the former?

What is the reasoning behind such an idea?  Is there any?

There is no contradiction.

The Church prohibits adultery.  That does not mean it cannot express concern about the welfare of those who engage in such behavior and their loved ones.

The Church prohibits the recreational use of harmful/addictive substances.  That does not mean it cannot express concern about the welfare of those who engage in such behavior and their loved ones.

The Church condemns all forms of sin.  That does not mean it cannot express concern about the welfare of those who engage in such behavior and their loved ones.

I am glad to hear it.  I hope you have a good time.

I also hope you get past your hostility against the LDS Church.  Your words here are full of resentment and anger and judgmentalism against us.  There are ways for improving "what is happening all around us."  Publicly denigrating and insulting Latter-day Saints to their virtual faces is perhaps not conducive to those ends.

I am glad to hear it.

Perhaps some day you can conceive of the possibility that the LDS Church and its leaders and members might have similar desires to help.

Instead of . . . what you are saying in this post.

Perhaps the Church is prioritizing the concert's influence and potential for beneficial results over the horrible things Tyler Glenn has said about it.  

If the Church were a person, I think we would be commending it for "rising above" its mistreatment at the hands of Mr. Glenn.  But instead, we have you coming here and publicly insulting and demeaning our faith despite it backing a concern you support.

-Smac

Amazing temerity. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Good example, the church is also mistreating the children of polygamists.  The situations are somewhat different, but its still mistreatment. 

How so?  Please explain.  Your because-I-say-so declarations are not really helpful in terms of fostering dialogue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

One way to find out would be for you to dialogue with the people that are being mistreated and to ask them if they have experienced mistreatment.  

Really?  So if a person is charged with a crime, and lawfully convicted and imprisoned, and then says that he is being "mistreated" because he disagrees with the law that he violated, has actual "mistreatment" occurred?  Simply because of this person's say-so?

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The evidence is clear to me, but if you want to really learn about the experiences of people in the LGBT community, then finding out from them first hand is a good way to do that.  

Yes, we know what is "clear" to you, so much so that you are making virtually no effort to explain or substantiate most of the things you are saying.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 hours ago, ALarson said:
Quote

Not when same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed by anyone, god or mortal, at any time.

Are you seriously claiming that any marriage that takes place outside the temple is not holy and sacred (especially for those involved)?  That includes most marriages, you know....

I think he is claiming that "same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed."  In the LDS paradigm, he is completely correct.  As for whether it is "holy and sacred," that's a bit more in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, pogi said:

I took that quote from the link you provided. Here is the full context:

 

 

You seem to have only counted the red portion as the law of chastity.  

That's because the red portion is the "Law of Chastity" (similarly worded as the actual law given in the temple if you've attended).  You can add interpretation or analysis, etc., but my intent was to quote the actual law (which is what I did).

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:
Quote

Not when same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed by anyone, god or mortal, at any time.

This kind of a comment can be very hurtful.  

Says the person whose participation in this thread is endlessly critical of and insulting to the LDS Church and its teachings.  On a message board peopled by tons of members of the LDS Church.  Mote, meet beam.

In any event, what on earth is "hurtful" about the above statement?  It is clearly a statement of religious belief, and a correct statement as to what the LDS Church teaches.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

California boy knows the church's current policy very well.  

So what?  How does that make a correct recitation of the Church's teachings about marriage "hurtful."

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Unless you are God, please don't speak in such absolutely condemning terms.  

What nonsense is this?  He said nothing of the sort.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You don't know what the future holds and you don't speak for God, please don't act like it.  

The hypocrisy.  It burns.

-Smac

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course you don’t see bad faith on your part, but “Wow!” I didn’t ask you to pontificate your argument nor what you would do in arguing your position, but how you, on this issue and right now at this time prioritize and scrutinize your motives, biases and preconceived notions – your words -- on this issue. You avoided answering that completely. Is that good really faith?

I originally suggested that you can act in good faith despite your rationalizing Posted 4 hours ago . My subsequent assumption that you are not acting in good faith is based on observations about your attitude, and not on a critique your critique – bad faith and critique are not the same things Posted 2 hours ago , which observation is now confirmed by your not holding yourself accountable for the same principles of good faith you articulated earlier, by dodging my question. I’m not assuming anything!

Fine, you accuse me of bad faith, I disagree.  You want me to "prioritize and scrutinize my motives, biases, and preconceived notions" on this issue.  Not trying to dodge that, but I'm still unclear how I haven't articulated well enough my perspective throughout this thread to give you a flavor of my prioritization, motives, biases etc.

I've talked about how I think our treatment of the LGBT community is a core ethic that is think the gospel is calling us towards loving treatment, that is priority for me.  My motives are to have a discussion on a message board, nothing else, I don't have any campaigns, or vested interests.   My bias is newly formed, so I can't say that its just following the leaders, or hasn't been examined.  I might have a little guilt though from my prior support of Prop 8 and my own homophobia in years past prior to my faith reconstruction, so if I'm self-reflectively honest, I'm probably biases towards repairing some of the damage that I did through my own personal beliefs in years past.  

Please tell me if this meets the bar of your approval.  

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be using "progressive" here in its political sense.  Is that so?

You seem to be treating the Church as being a political entity with political motivations.  Is that so?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm more talking about progressive on social issues, I guess those are political.  The church has put themselves in this arena, and is acting as a player politically.  

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In your dialogue with ksfisher, you quoted a portion of the Gospel Principles manual as if the quoted portion implied there was room for gay marriage. Ksfisher said you're setting up a false dilemma ...

Kfisher was directing that comment at Hope_For_Things, not to me (regarding the false dilemma).

28 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Your response was to say NO, that you weren't setting up a false dilemma because the Gospel Principles manual's definition of the Law of Chastity is as follows...

Where did I state that ksfisher was "setting up a false dilemma"?

(I didn't.)

Now who's twisting words and getting confused? :lol:

Read over what I posted again or let's move on.  You've gotten me confused with another poster and then accused me of posting things I did not post. 

I also release you from the CFR because I know you can't provide a reference for what you've accused me of doing here. 

And... I am going to move on now...

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What kind of "singling out" are you referencing here?  What "special kind of mistreatment" are you referencing?

I don't follow.  Your comparison is not very coherent.

You are presuming that which has yet to be demonstrated.  Again, what "mistreatment" are you referencing here?

What is "God's fault?"  What "blame" is being allocated?  For what?

Thanks,

-Smac

The other poster that I was having the back and forth with, seemed to follow the dialogue just fine.  I suggest you read those responses as I don't want to repeat myself.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think he is claiming that "same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed."  In the LDS paradigm, he is completely correct.  As for whether it is "holy and sacred," that's a bit more in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree and his clarification helped.  Thanks for yours too!

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...