Gay Church Employee loses Temple Recommend and Job

[Jeff K.]

If the truth of the matter is that homosexuality has/is/will destroy civilization, regardless of the how you or I classify it, then it bears some investigation.

I acknowledge that, if we were all gay, we'd probably have little hope of sustaining a society, unless some agreement between gay men and gay women was entered into to procreate.

Now, let's explore society today.

H.

There is a difference between contributing factors to the destruction of a society and attempting to create a strawman by stating that only thing destroys a society. You have attempted (rather poorly) to create a strawman. Homosexuality need not "destroy" society, but it certain can and has damaged it. If you don't believe me, ask the hundreds of thousands of deaths due to the irresponsibility of those who decided that adultry, unbridled fornication of the late 1970's and 1980's and unsafe fornication in the 1980's and 1990's how they fell about it now. What they wish they hadn't done. It certainly wasn't faithful Mormons who spread AIDS, spread Herpes, spread all sorts of diseases. I would say much more damage was done to society by the unbridled greed of self than has been foisted upon society by Mormons whom you consider immoral for their beliefs.

[sjdawg]

I would suggest that your observations are rather limited, but that is understandable. Better to be blind to faults than see the pain of truth.

We can't all have open minds like you.

[MorningStar]

I compare homosexual dating to extramarital dating. Let's say a married man goes on a date with a woman and doesn't have sex with her. He just holds her hand and kisses her. That would be frowned upon in a major way. Both situations can only lead to trouble.

[bookofmormontruth]

I live in the Toronto area, and I am LDS. I can understand your confusion.

H.

That wasn't sarcastic of course.

I admit, I am confused. It is very rare to find someone who claims to be LDS while believing that homosexuality is not a sin. It would mean a person doesn't believe in the scriptures or modern day prophets.

I am learning very quick, that just because a person says they are a member or has a screen-name that would make you think they were a member - doesn't mean they are a true LDS member. True LDS member = active with a testimony and sustains their Church leaders. Of course there are numerous kinds of members, but that is my definition of a true member, not someone who picks and chooses what to believe for their own comfort.

Then to make it even more confusing which I have learned long ago. There are those who pretend to be true LDS members, but they usually expose who they really are very quickly.

[bookofmormontruth]

If the truth of the matter is that homosexuality has/is/will destroy civilization, regardless of the how you or I classify it, then it bears some investigation.

I acknowledge that, if we were all gay, we'd probably have little hope of sustaining a society, unless some agreement between gay men and gay women was entered into to procreate.

Now, let's explore society today.

H.

Sounds like a very complicated agreement and scenario. How about we just follow God's eternal plan with man and woman marrying and procreating.

[Jeff K.]

We can't all have open minds like you.

Observation and understanding. I am sure many have open minds. They let just about any sin, justification for sin, or relativism take root there.

[Duncan]

Sounds like a very complicated agreement and scenario. How about we just follow God's eternal plan with man and woman marrying and procreating.

I am all about following God's plan and so to that end I follow the Royal Law (James 2:8)of loving our neighbours, we can't and shouldn't ignore our neighbours with homosexual tendencies, are we here to help or hinder?

[bookofmormontruth]

I am all about following God's plan and so to that end I follow the Royal Law (James 2:8)of loving our neighbours, we can't and shouldn't ignore our neighbours with homosexual tendencies, are we here to help or hinder?

Hopefully help. Besides, my wonderful gay sister and gay friends are impossible to ignore for they talk way too much and always have to be the loudest in the room.

Even if it is imperfect, we can still have strong beliefs and stances on homosexuality and still help our brothers and sisters no?

[Pahoran]

Hopefully help. Besides, my wonderful gay sister and gay friends are impossible to ignore for they talk way too much and always have to be the loudest in the room.

What? You have a "gay" sister and "gay" friends? You actually associate with them? You don't ritually shun them, as every single Conference talk for the last 20 years commands you to?

Excommunicate that man at once! At once, I say!

Even if it is imperfect, we can still have strong beliefs and stances on homosexuality and still help our brothers and sisters no?

Of course not! Don't you know that the only way to help "gay" people is to agree with them about everything, and give them whatever they want?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

Hopefully help. Besides, my wonderful gay sister and gay friends are impossible to ignore for they talk way too much and always have to be the loudest in the room.

Even if it is imperfect, we can still have strong beliefs and stances on homosexuality and still help our brothers and sisters no?

I am not sureI see a place, very sadly, for our Gay neighbours in our Church and that is a lot of spiritual gifts the Church is missing out on. I just wish we could come to some kind of agreement somewhere and welcome everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. My brother is about as asexual as you can get and he is welcome but not someone who wants love and affection? it seems nuts

[Jeff K.]

Hopefully help. Besides, my wonderful gay sister and gay friends are impossible to ignore for they talk way too much and always have to be the loudest in the room.

Even if it is imperfect, we can still have strong beliefs and stances on homosexuality and still help our brothers and sisters no?

I heartily agree.

[Mordecai]

...I admit, I am confused...

I have been quite confused by this guy myself. He seems to think he should be running the Church, that he is more qualified than the G.A.'s to determine what God's will is, what is right and wrong and what our stances should be on social policies.

[LDSToronto]

Some Canadians are friendly, some are smart, some, well some are so self centered they can be a catalyst for pandemic. and some are not, not friendly, not smart, and not self centered. Takes all kinds of people to make a nation. You might do well to know that, even as you hold disdain for the church and its morality.

I don't feel contempt for the church, as I explained in a previous thread, I disagree with the moral stance the church takes on certain issues. Jeff, I know you can get it straight if you just try.

Also, I don't get how, "Takes all kinds of people to make a nation." is related to, "You might do well to know that, even as you hold disdain for the church and its morality." I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere, but I fail to see it.

I would suggest that your observations are rather limited, but that is understandable. Better to be blind to faults than see the pain of truth.

Are you suggesting that one's perspective dictates the degree to which it can be observed that society is crumbling?

H.

[Jeff K.]

That wasn't sarcastic of course.

I admit, I am confused. It is very rare to find someone who claims to be LDS while believing that homosexuality is not a sin. It would mean a person doesn't believe in the scriptures or modern day prophets.

I am learning very quick, that just because a person says they are a member or has a screen-name that would make you think they were a member - doesn't mean they are a true LDS member. True LDS member = active with a testimony and sustains their Church leaders. Of course there are numerous kinds of members, but that is my definition of a true member, not someone who picks and chooses what to believe for their own comfort.

Then to make it even more confusing which I have learned long ago. There are those who pretend to be true LDS members, but they usually expose who they really are very quickly.

I am reminded of the commercials in times past when soap opera doctors would advertise for medicine.

"I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

Perhaps his is......

"I am not a Mormon, but I play one with apologetics...."

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 24 March 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

Some Canadians are friendly, some are smart, some, well some are so self centered they can be a catalyst for pandemic. and some are not, not friendly, not smart, and not self centered. Takes all kinds of people to make a nation. You might do well to know that, even as you hold disdain for the church and its morality.

I don't feel contempt for the church, as I explained in a previous thread, I disagree with the moral stance the church takes on certain issues. Jeff, I know you can get it straight if you just try.

Also, I don't get how, "Takes all kinds of people to make a nation." is related to, "You might do well to know that, even as you hold disdain for the church and its morality." I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere, but I fail to see it.

Your posts overwhelm your denial like a Japanese Tsunami. You find the morality of the church inferior, and yet you don't feel disdain for morally inferior organizations. It certainly isn't admiration we feel when you post.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 24 March 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

I would suggest that your observations are rather limited, but that is understandable. Better to be blind to faults than see the pain of truth.

Are you suggesting that one's perspective dictates the degree to which it can be observed that society is crumbling?

I suggest you have the observation power of Helen Keller in a sensory deprivation chamber.

[LDSToronto]

There is a difference between contributing factors to the destruction of a society and attempting to create a strawman by stating that only thing destroys a society. You have attempted (rather poorly) to create a strawman. Homosexuality need not "destroy" society, but it certain can and has damaged it. If you don't believe me, ask the hundreds of thousands of deaths due to the irresponsibility of those who decided that adultry, unbridled fornication of the late 1970's and 1980's and unsafe fornication in the 1980's and 1990's how they fell about it now. What they wish they hadn't done. It certainly wasn't faithful Mormons who spread AIDS, spread Herpes, spread all sorts of diseases. I would say much more damage was done to society by the unbridled greed of self than has been foisted upon society by Mormons whom you consider immoral for their beliefs.

I don't consider Mormon's immoral for their beliefs, but, no matter. I believe it was you that said sin destroys civilizations in this very thread, in reference to homosexuality.

Many have fallen to AIDS, but AIDS did not destroy civilization. I would suggest, if one took a natural point of view, that AIDS didn't damage society any more than any other fatal disease, such as cancer. And, like cancer, society has learned to combat AIDS, prevent it, and treat it. By some perspectives, AIDS has made society more aware, more cautious, and perhaps, more immune to such easily preventable diseases.

But then, you aren't talking about one specific sin, are you? You are talking about a multitude of sins combining to take down societies. I guess with a broad enough definition of sin, one could justify your claim. For instance, all of human nature could be considered sinful, and thus, any failing of society is a consequence of failed human nature, and therefore, a consequence of sin. Personally, I feel like that is cheating.

So, let's dispense with strawmen: get specific about your claims that sin destroys society - what kind of sin, what kind of destruction, etc.

H.

[LDSToronto]

I suggest you have the observation power of Helen Keller in a sensory deprivation chamber.

Wasn't there another thread where you accused me of being an "expert in morality"? I suppose that I could rightfully say that you feel you are an "expert in observation", no?

H.

[LDSToronto]

Your posts overwhelm your denial like a Japanese Tsunami. You find the morality of the church inferior, and yet you don't feel disdain for morally inferior organizations. It certainly isn't admiration we feel when you post.

Stop twisting words, Jeff. I said I find the church's stance on certain issues to be morally wrong. Not morally inferior. No, I don't feel disdain. My son, for instance, agrees that capital punishment is morally right; I feel his stance is morally wrong. I do not feel contempt or disdain for my son.

People are complex.

H.

[LDSToronto]

That wasn't sarcastic of course.

No, it wasn't. You expressed confusion because of my moniker. I explained that I am LDS, and that I understood how you could be confused.

I admit, I am confused. It is very rare to find someone who claims to be LDS while believing that homosexuality is not a sin. It would mean a person doesn't believe in the scriptures or modern day prophets.

I am learning very quick, that just because a person says they are a member or has a screen-name that would make you think they were a member - doesn't mean they are a true LDS member. True LDS member = active with a testimony and sustains their Church leaders. Of course there are numerous kinds of members, but that is my definition of a true member, not someone who picks and chooses what to believe for their own comfort.

I am LDS. I do not believe homosexuality is a sin. I am active, I hold callings, I attend church every Sunday. I do not believe some of the truth claims of the church. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ and God the Father. I sustain all leader, though I do not agree with all they say.

You are entitled to your own definition of what a true member is, but I am entitled to reject it. A member of the CoJCoLDS is simple someone who wants to be a member, has been baptized, and is on the rolls of the church. However they want to define their mormonism is not up to you or I to decide or to dictate.

Then to make it even more confusing which I have learned long ago. There are those who pretend to be true LDS members, but they usually expose who they really are very quickly.

Well, I am who I claim to be, nothing more, nothing less.

H.

[Jeff K.]

I don't consider Mormon's immoral for their beliefs, but, no matter. I believe it was you that said sin destroys civilizations in this very thread, in reference to homosexuality.

Many have fallen to AIDS, but AIDS did not destroy civilization. I would suggest, if one took a natural point of view, that AIDS didn't damage society any more than any other fatal disease, such as cancer. And, like cancer, society has learned to combat AIDS, prevent it, and treat it. By some perspectives, AIDS has made society more aware, more cautious, and perhaps, more immune to such easily preventable diseases.

But then, you aren't talking about one specific sin, are you? You are talking about a multitude of sins combining to take down societies. I guess with a broad enough definition of sin, one could justify your claim. For instance, all of human nature could be considered sinful, and thus, any failing of society is a consequence of failed human nature, and therefore, a consequence of sin. Personally, I feel like that is cheating.

So, let's dispense with strawmen: get specific about your claims that sin destroys society - what kind of sin, what kind of destruction, etc.

H.

You consider the church immoral. Don't cherry pick, we are our beliefs. You are not our beliefs. Think on that.

I believe it was you that said sin destroys civilizations in this very thread, in reference to homosexuality.

Sin does destroy civilization, homosexuality being one of the sins that undermine it. Already the family means less than it did at one time, and one day, thanks to people like you and your endorsement, the word family will be meaningless.

Again, you present a strawman, which is rejected.

So lets dispense with your strawman, you consider homosexuality good, and the church and its views immoral. I think that is your position in an accurate nutshell.

[Jeff K.]

Stop twisting words, Jeff. I said I find the church's stance on certain issues to be morally wrong. Not morally inferior. No, I don't feel disdain. My son, for instance, agrees that capital punishment is morally right; I feel his stance is morally wrong. I do not feel contempt or disdain for my son.

People are complex.

H.

Just his beliefs.

[LDSToronto]

You consider the church immoral. Don't cherry pick, we are our beliefs. You are not our beliefs. Think on that.

Sin does destroy civilization, homosexuality being one of the sins that undermine it. Already the family means less than it did at one time, and one day, thanks to people like you and your endorsement, the word family will be meaningless.

Again, you present a strawman, which is rejected.

So lets dispense with your strawman, you consider homosexuality good, and the church and its views immoral. I think that is your position in an accurate nutshell.

Jeff, this exchange has made one thing abundantly clear. You are stupid.

Good night.

H.

[Skylla]

Jeff, this exchange has made one thing abundantly clear. You are stupid.

Good night.

H.

Take a break from the board, Toronto.

Skylla

[bookofmormontruth]

I am not sureI see a place, very sadly, for our Gay neighbours in our Church and that is a lot of spiritual gifts the Church is missing out on. I just wish we could come to some kind of agreement somewhere and welcome everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. My brother is about as asexual as you can get and he is welcome but not someone who wants love and affection? it seems nuts

I totally agree, we are missing out on their spiritual gifts. My sister is the nicest person on the planet - we miss out on that and how she blesses those around her.

But more importantly, our gay neighbors, my sister and friends are missing out on the blessings that the Lord's Church offers. Yes, it is hard and requires sacrifice. Sacrifices to give up the natural man and tendencies to sin, but all worth it in the end. To me, that is sadder than anything else because there are eternal consequences.

And I hate to break the news, but there will never be an "acceptance" or "agreement" of sin in any of its forms. And yes, the world will hate us for it. And you know full well, anyone is welcome to attend Church.

In addition, my fiance thinks I am nuts because I am not a "hugger". I fake hugs and I don't like giving hugs to every flippin person in the room, but I am okay with that because I am not defined by my hugs and revolve my life around them. Unfortunately, sexual orientation becomes the center of someone's life in everything they do and they miss the eternal picture.