No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda

[Jason]

Then tell me those reason and how you know that god endorses those reasons.

H.

If you've been reading the forum enough you can probably guess at a few of them.

But what's the point in my reiterating them? It's not like you're going to change your mind.

[Jaybear]

If you've been reading the forum enough you can probably guess at a few of them.

But what's the point in my reiterating them? It's not like you're going to change your mind.

It was a two part question. I am sure he was more interested in latter part.

[Jason]

It was a two part question. I am sure he was more interested in latter part.

Well then the answer would be "through confirmation by the Spirit" - the same way we know anything that God endorses.

[LDSToronto]

If you've been reading the forum enough you can probably guess at a few of them.

But what's the point in my reiterating them? It's not like you're going to change your mind.

You can't get off that easy, Jason. I've read this forum, and participated in debate, and while many reasons have been given against homosexual behaviour, none of those seem to be a) officially endorsed by the LDS church or b) officially endorsed by God.

So, I ask again, what are the reasons you feel God gives for being against homosexual behaviour, and how do you know that God endorses those reasons?

H.

[LDSToronto]

It was a two part question. I am sure he was more interested in latter part.

Yes, that certainly is the more interesting part.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Well then the answer would be "through confirmation by the Spirit" - the same way we know anything that God endorses.

The Spirit has confirmed that reasons given on this message board are the very reasons God endorses? How, then, is it that I do not receive the same confirmation, but rather, a stupor of thought concerning those very same reasons?

And, since this homosexuality seems to be a broad social issue crossing many cultures, wouldn't the scope of revelation for a social issue fall to those with broader revelatory stewardship (ie. the prophet)? Thus, isn't it true that your confirmation would simply affirm that homosexuality is wrong for you, and not for all of society? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for a prophet of God to tell the world why homosexuality is an abomination?

H.

[blackstrap]

I suppose that the prophet could quote scripture ,but then that never convinced anyone with a mind already made up.

[USU78]

LDS ought to oppose homosexuality *because* God is against homosexuality, and state that very reason, regardless of what society wants.

Let me see if I understand. LDS folks, amongst all people, should only express their primary and not their secondary or tertiary reasons for taking public policy positions, is that what you mean? Individual LDS may only express their religious and not their political views on matters of public interest.

To what end does LT assert such an interesting proposal, one wonders?

Could it be in order to have all LDS defined only by their religious motivations in the public square. The public square being decidedly ir- or antireligious, this would necessarily tend to marginalize them, effectively neutering them as a political force to be reckoned with something in excess of their actual numbers.

Why would this be of interest to LT, one wonders? Why neuter LDS? Why marginalize them? Why make them look ridiculous in the eyes of the ignorant and the bigoted?

[LDSToronto]

Let me see if I understand. LDS folks, amongst all people, should only express their primary and not their secondary or tertiary reasons for taking public policy positions, is that what you mean? Individual LDS may only express their religious and not their political views on matters of public interest.

To what end does LT assert such an interesting proposal, one wonders?

Could it be in order to have all LDS defined only by their religious motivations in the public square. The public square being decidedly ir- or antireligious, this would necessarily tend to marginalize them, effectively neutering them as a political force to be reckoned with something in excess of their actual numbers.

Why would this be of interest to LT, one wonders? Why neuter LDS? Why marginalize them? Why make them look ridiculous in the eyes of the ignorant and the bigoted?

I find this response surprising because of it's anti-religious tone. LDS, as all citizens, should get involved in the public debate. However, using secular arguments to defend a religious perspective doesn't work, as secular arguments crumble.

If Christ truly said that he is the rock, and you are not ashamed of him, the I don't understand the phrase, "Why make them look ridiculous in the eyes of the ignorant and the bigoted?"

Unless, of course, you feel that stating, "God told us that homosexuality is wrong, through a living prophet", is a ridiculous notion.

H.

[Jeff K.]

He is simply baiting. He doesn't like the church as is obvious in his posts. So he baits its members. To him the question of morality is one that should only exist within the home, you may not endorse morality outside the home. To his group it is the equivalent of hate speech.

One of the reasons people go that route is they attempt to define and isolate based on religion alone, creating an alienation. If one may only use religious reasons it works, because being religious is like being black in the 1930's. It is easier to form a lynch mob if you do it for religious reasons. Studies regarding the need for complete families are dismissed as political but such politics are difficult to counter because it tends to make sense.

But religion? Religion is something of the spirit, it is a quest and a questing of proper morality before God, the existence of a being that Mormons and many Christians believed left us with a code of conduct that makes us better than we can become alone. A code with oridnances that help us return to Him. Such people can then cry fanatic. Such people can fan the flames. Can call the mobs. Because you can take any spiritually based belief system and tell everyone else who does not know it, that they are evil, crazy, dangerous, define it and fill their ignorance of the belief with the hatred in their heart. I have seen them form such lynch mobs here in nice liberal California, putting graffitti on temples, tearing crosses off of elderly women, getting people fired from work based upon their religion. Articulate faith and reason and those who disdain and left the church for their own reasons will be the first to supply the rope and tell you to ignore the reason. They are usually the angriest because men do not like to dwell in misery alone.

[USU78]

Unless, of course, you feel that stating, "God told us that homosexuality is wrong, through a living prophet", is a ridiculous notion.

Yup. That's right. I spend so much of my life in service to a Being I find utterly ridiculous, and an organization I've covenanted to give my all to laughable, and its earthly head a straw-footed, feckless fool. Yessiree.

LT's views thus become quite clear: Make us appear ridiculous in the eyes of the ignorant and bigoted; Make us defanged and pitiable margin-dwellers.

We are perfectly entitled to express our public views in any way other than as mandated by LT, thenkyewverymuch. We can speak the language of the recipient using idioms he can best comprehend. To suggest our good manners and wisdom are a mask of cowardice is a pretty silly joke there, LT.

[Mordecai]

If you're looking for a scripture that suggests at least a partial reason for homosexuality being an abomination, the OT refers to homosexuality as "confusion." We also find in 1 Cor.: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." Confusion is contrary to peace, as it turns out and homosexuality is a type of confusion. As I've argued before, homosexuality is a neurosis, like cleptomania, obsessive hand-washing or pedophilia.

[LDSToronto]

He is simply baiting. He doesn't like the church as is obvious in his posts. So he baits its members. To him the question of morality is one that should only exist within the home, you may not endorse morality outside the home. To his group it is the equivalent of hate speech.

Here are some things that are false:

1."you may not endorse morality outside the home" Not my view at all. In fact, I would have more respect for LDS if they *did* endorse morality based on the source of their religious beliefs - God, through a living prophet, has deemed homosexuality immoral. However, most LDS hide behind secular reasons.

2. "He doesn't like the church as is obvious in his posts" Not true. I believe that some of what the church teaches is false. I won't get into the specifics here. I feel no animosity towards the church, but I do feel a strong need to ask questions.

And finally, I am not baiting members, I'm trying to get an answer. So far, two questions have been side-stepped and avoided:

1. For what reasons are you opposed to homosexuality and how do you know that god endorses those reasons? No straight answer given.

2. If LDS believe that God, through a living prophet, has declared homosexuality immoral, why don't more LDS espouse this view in public, instead of reverting to secular arguments? No straight answer given.

H.

[frankenstein]

If you're looking for a scripture that suggests at least a partial reason for homosexuality being an abomination, the OT refers to homosexuality as "confusion." We also find in 1 Cor.: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." Confusion is contrary to peace, as it turns out and homosexuality is a type of confusion. As I've argued before, homosexuality is a neurosis, like cleptomania, obsessive hand-washing or pedophilia.

Does "knew" always mean carnal knowledge in the scriptures?

And since we know that weakness is given to man to be humble, it is quite reasonable that the weakness of homosexual desire could be given to someone by God.

[LDS Guy 1986]

And here I thought the "Hollywood elite" was supposed to be Enemy #1.

Your slippery slope assertion is utter nonsense. First, Northwestern is a private university. Second, the professor who arranged for the woman and her self-stimulating demonstration is in trouble with the university and has apologized.

Get a grip on reality and try again.

If they accept any federal student loan money thought they are subject to federal regulation, plus it still doesn't set a terrible president for sex shows being allowed into the classroom.

[Mordecai]

And since we know that weakness is given to man to be humble, it is quite reasonable that the weakness of homosexual desire could be given to someone by God.

If we know that God gave man weaknesses, then we also know that homosexuality is an abomination. Both are said in the scriptures, which is the only way we would "know."

[TAO]

If we know that God gave man weaknesses, then we also know that homosexuality is an abomination. Both are said in the scriptures, which is the only way we would "know."

Mordecai. We know that homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, in God's eyes.

However, we also know that God gave us weakness, the capability to be sinners, to make us humble. And that God expects us to not take advantage of other's weaknesses, but instead to help them, that with the support of God, it may become a strength.

Harsh words do not always help, and we should be ensuring that our words and deeds perform good, rather than harm in the world.

God gave us each our own weaknesses for us to overcome, let us help others in overcoming theirs, so that we too, can overcome ours.

[krose]

If they accept any federal student loan money thought they are subject to federal regulation,

Okay, if you look at it that way, Northwestern is as much a public school as BYU. They both have to adhere to any federal requirements that are attached to funding, such as Title IX and anti-discrimination laws. But how does that make it likely that high schools will somehow start showing live sex acts?

plus it still doesn't set a terrible president for sex shows being allowed into the classroom.

Now you've lost me. Who is the terrible president here? Obama? Bush? The president of NU?

[Jeff K.]

Here are some things that are false:

1."you may not endorse morality outside the home" Not my view at all. In fact, I would have more respect for LDS if they *did* endorse morality based on the source of their religious beliefs - God, through a living prophet, has deemed homosexuality immoral. However, most LDS hide behind secular reasons.

2. "He doesn't like the church as is obvious in his posts" Not true. I believe that some of what the church teaches is false. I won't get into the specifics here. I feel no animosity towards the church, but I do feel a strong need to ask questions.

And finally, I am not baiting members, I'm trying to get an answer. So far, two questions have been side-stepped and avoided:

1. For what reasons are you opposed to homosexuality and how do you know that god endorses those reasons? No straight answer given.

2. If LDS believe that God, through a living prophet, has declared homosexuality immoral, why don't more LDS espouse this view in public, instead of reverting to secular arguments? No straight answer given.

H.

You are baiting, various reasons have been given ad nauseum including beint better for families and young people. You foollishly overlook those portion and then claim some kind of neutrality on the issue. I think it more than a bit disengenuous when people also speak of the family, and what is best and you claim they cannot speak of those thing, they MUST speak only because God tells them these things. In other words a somewhat amatursih attempt at marginalization. I suggest you go back and read not only this thread but many threads that discuss this in greater detail before you start baiting again.

Logic does not work well when one is deceptive. Your "belief" that some of what the church teachers is false, but you won't "get into specifics" on an apologist's board. Amazing. You claim you "like" the church, just not some of its "false teachings". Teachings you refuse to bring up on any specific level on an apologists board where it can be fullly investigated discussed and reflected upon. I find that to be completely disengeuous and reflective of someone who has some real issues, either being honest with himself and certainly honest with others. I would go so far to say what is driving your swtich and bait tactics is this issue that you refer to as presumed LDS falsehoods. It motivates you to say outrageous things such as arguing only morality. And calling those who use the first amendment as a right to raise issues "cowards".

LDS Toronto you remind me of Iago in Othello. Claiming friendship and membership in Othellos group while secretly hating him and what he stood for.

I find the entire demand incredible. The church speaks of morality, always has, but it also speaks to the benefits that families have.\

"There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define the family out of existence."

President Spencer W. Kimball 1980

He saw you guys coming a long time ago.

[TAO]

Now you've lost me. Who is the terrible president here? Obama? Bush? The president of NU?

He meant precedent.

[LDSToronto]

Logic does not work well when one is deceptive. Your "belief" that some of what the church teachers is false, but you won't "get into specifics" on an apologist's board. Amazing. You claim you "like" the church, just not some of its "false teachings". Teachings you refuse to bring up on any specific level on an apologists board where it can be fullly investigated discussed and reflected upon.

I said I wouldn't get into it in this thread (so as not to derail), but I'm pretty sure I've brought up my concerns in the past.

I find that to be completely disengeuous and reflective of someone who has some real issues, either being honest with himself and certainly honest with others. I would go so far to say what is driving your swtich and bait tactics is this issue that you refer to as presumed LDS falsehoods. It motivates you to say outrageous things such as arguing only morality. And calling those who use the first amendment as a right to raise issues "cowards".

You clearly don't appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of faith, belief, and humanity.

I find the entire demand incredible. The church speaks of morality, always has, but it also speaks to the benefits that families have.

"There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define the family out of existence."

President Spencer W. Kimball 1980

I haven't made any attempt to redefine the family. I've asked two questions, both of which remain unanswered. Reading John Shelby Spong helped me to understand the angry/passive-aggressive reactions that you and others display. I'm challenging religious authority claims, and entering into a rational discussion may reveal things with which you are uncomfortable. Anger never rises out of genuine commitment; it is always a product of threatened security.

H.

[Daniel2]

If you've been reading the forum enough you can probably guess at a few of them.

But what's the point in my reiterating them? It's not like you're going to change your mind.

That you acknowledge that "guessing" is even involved about trying ascertain reasons God would be against same-sex behavior speaks directly to the point that there isn't a clear, concise, or explicit statement of such.

The point in asking you to list the specific citations of why God is against same-sex behavior, even if they wouldn't change everyone's minds, is to attempt to demonstrate that there isn't likely to be anything specific you'd even be able to "reiterate."

You declining to do so simply confirms that is the case.

Darin

[Daniel2]

I suppose that the prophet could quote scripture ,but then that never convinced anyone with a mind already made up.

I'm fairly familiar with scripture, and I don't believe it says much about why God would be against same-sex behaviors--and even less about why God would be against same-sex relationships.

Darin

[Daniel2]

If you're looking for a scripture that suggests at least a partial reason for homosexuality being an abomination, the OT refers to homosexuality as "confusion." We also find in 1 Cor.: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." Confusion is contrary to peace, as it turns out and homosexuality is a type of confusion. As I've argued before, homosexuality is a neurosis, like cleptomania, obsessive hand-washing or pedophilia.

I appreciate your attempt at trying to piece together an answer, Mordecai. Unfortunately, I think an obvious weakness in the attempt stems from the fact that it relies on exactly that: piecing together a string of scattered, unrelated scriptures to try to support your hypothesis instead of quoting on a simple, clear-cut explanation from God about why He would condemn same-sex behaviors/relationships.

The starting point of your explanation rests on your assertion that "the OT refers to homosexuality as 'confusion'." I don't believe homosexuality is "confusion" (I'm certainly not confused about whom and how I love and form romantic and intimate relationships). It's also been emphasized countless times that no professional medical, psychological, or psychiatric organization views homosexuality as a neurosis, as you assert. But even if we momentarily overlook these views of mine or other major health-based organizations, your comment is still problematic:

I missed the OT scripture you're referring to that identifies homosexuality as "confusion." Specifically, what is the Old Testament scriptural citation are you refering to...?

If God truly isn't "the author of confusion," one would think he could do a better job of inlcuding a simple, straight-forward (pun intended) explanation about His prohibitions and approach to same-sex relationships--especially given that there is nothing in LDS-specific scripture (which, presumably, is designed to add further clarification to the incompleteness and error that have crept into Biblical scripture, over the centuries) that even mentions same-sex prohibitions.

Darin

[frankenstein]

If we know that God gave man weaknesses, then we also know that homosexuality is an abomination.

does not follow.