Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[checkerman]

In other words, just throw out the scriptures and create your own gods, and your own commandments, that fit your societal values at the time, eh. Forget the commandments because they are outdated in terms of the modern society. God must reflect human beings as opposed to us reflecting God. Does that sum it up?

I disagree that adherence to standards of morality makes the Church socially irrelevant. If anything, it becomes more socially relevant as moral standards at large slide downward, due to the contrast it offers.

In the past 50 years of my lifetime, I have observed a dramatically growing and widespread acceptance of extra-marital sex in society. Throughout that time period the Church has resolutely continued to condemn it as an abhorrent sin. Despite doomsday prophecies about slowing growth trends and such, the Church shows no signs of withering on the vine and, in fact, does continue to grow. It will continue to do so even if the SSA pressure groups get their way.

[Bob Crockett]

The suggestion that homosexuals should practice celibacy (assuming they don't marry someone of the opposite sex) presumes inequality and displays a limited understanding of the importance of sexual relationships and committed relationships.

They don't have to practice celibacy. But if they want to join the heteros-only religion, they can't have homosexual relations and they shouldn't use avatars of gay pedophiles to provoke the faithful.

My buddy down the street is a Jehovah's Witness. Can't be one if one commits fornication. Its a rule of the club. Will you berate them for that rule, or would you just leave them alone?

My Muslim law partner's wife wears a hajib as she works for a women's magazine. Would you berate her for doing that, or would you respect their hajib club?

My next-door neighbors are Sikhs. Their turbans stand out. Would you berate them for their turbans?

So, back to you and your berating and taunting. Why? Can't the Church have its own little rules and those who don't want to follow them can do whatever they want?

Edited April 9, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[checkerman]

Aren't you twisting it a bit here? Sin is anti-God. Homosexuality is sinful behavior, something we are commanded against in the Bible, and condemned in both the Old and New Testament. To think otherwise would be to disregard the scriptures, the prophets. Now, THAT would be true ignorance.

Likewise, it is also disingenuous to label those who see no problem with homosexuality as anti-family, anti-Mormon or anti-God. Therein lies ungodly ignorance.

[David T]

Aren't you twisting it a bit here? Sin is anti-God. Homosexuality is sinful behavior, something we are commanded against in the Bible, and condemned in both the Old and New Testament. To think otherwise would be to disregard the scriptures, the prophets. Now, THAT would be true ignorance.

The problem being, the Bible references are contextually problematic when being used to bolster the position.

The OT references are within a great code of things called abominations we wouldn't even consider to enforce today, with views and treatment/property views of women completely out of the question by our moral standards today. The NT reference is given by an individual who in the same breath says that (hetero) marriage in general is actually only second class in holiness to lifelong Celibacy in general, and that you should only get married if you're not suited to a life of holy celibacy, and would end up fornicating if you tried. Better to marry than to burn, he said.

Neither contexts are all that supportive of the foundational principles of the Family Proclamation, or the doctrines found in Modern Revelation.

Edited April 10, 2012 by David T

[LDSToronto]

They don't have to practice celibacy. But if they want to join the heteros-only religion, they can't have homosexual relations and they shouldn't use avatars of gay pedophiles to provoke the faithful.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a heterosexual-only religion? And homosexuals shouldn't stay in the church if they have the wrong avatar on MD&D? I guess the baptismal interview has been re-vamped since I left the church!

My buddy down the street is a Jehovah's Witness. Can't be one if one commits fornication. Its a rule of the club. Will you berate them for that rule, or would you just leave them alone?

The JW's practice of shunning is over-the-top. But since JW practices are off-topic here, I'll save my rants for their apologetics board.

My Muslim law partner's wife wears a hajib as she works for a women's magazine. Would you berate her for doing that, or would you respect their hajib club?

Calling Islam a "hajib club" seems like a disrespectful way to talk about your partner's religion.

My next-door neighbors are Sikhs. Their turbans stand out. Would you berate them for their turbans?

Nope.

So, back to you and your berating and taunting. Why? Can't the Church have its own little rules and those who don't want to follow them can do whatever they want?

That's really neat, the way you made up a bunch of "what-if" scenarios where one who enters that scenario is berating and taunting the subject of your scenario, then made the move to make me the antagonist in each of those scenarios, and finished off with a really smooth, "and now, since I, Bob Crockett, have shown a bunch of scenarios where LDSToronto could potentially berate and taunt other religions should he choose to, it follows that he is berating and taunting the LDS religion."

You almost had me, Bob, I gotta admit! Have to stay sharp and on my toes with a smart fella like you hanging around. Now why not drop the trickery and stick to the discussion, huh?

H.

Edited April 10, 2012 by LDSToronto

[Bob Crockett]

I've done no such thing. Rather, I am modestly berating your point of view.

Don't bust into the private club to change the rules if you left the club because you can't abide the rules.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[LDSToronto]

I've done no such thing. Rather, I am modestly berating your point of view.

Don't bust into the private club to change the rules if you left the club because you can't abide the rules.

Mr. Crockett,

So far, I have determined the following from your posts:

1. The LDS Church is for heterosexuals only

2. To be in the LDS Church, a homosexual should only use an approved avatar on MormonDialogue.org

3. The LDS Church is a private club

4. Islam is a "hajib club"

5. If you can't follow the rules of the private, heterosexual-only LDS Church Club, then you must leave the club as opposed to trying to change the rules of the club.

This is what you said in the past two posts. It's a strange view, I admit, but maybe you are right....

H.

[Bob Crockett]

I am not Muslim. I would never think it appropriate as a human being or a Christian to log in to a Muslim forum anonymously to mock them for their beliefs about homosexuality. Nor would I log onto a gay board and anonymously mock them for not being hetero. Live and let live. With yer own name of course.

[Messenger]

5. If you can't follow the rules of the private, heterosexual-only LDS Church Club, then you must leave the club as opposed to trying to change the rules of the club.

....... It's a strange view .............

.

I would say not quite, you can be homosexual, just not act on it. So, I guess that goes to the core of what a homosexual is ...... One who acts and believes that the spirit and the body are exactly the same. But I think you'll find that those that have same sex attraction will separate the two, and that its their body, not their spirit, that is homosexual. Again, this takes some spiritual effort to understand this, and its not an understanding that is easily gained. A.D.H.D. is a pattern that influences the way I act, my Spirit does not have A.D.H.D. .Having this knowledge is a gift, it allows me to forgive myself for the things I cant change, and it gives me the courage to keep trying to change. But, when you think about it, this is no different than anything else in the LDS church. I think they call that enduring to the end. Throughout our lives, all LDS people will be left with things, eventually, that are difficult to change. From scripture, we know that we are all not perfect, and its Jesus Christ through the atonement helps us endure in this life, but also gives us hope that we will become perfect in the life after.

You're not fighting homophobic Mormons, you're fighting our theology. You want to change the LDS church and its core theology about how to gain eventual perfection, and the work we do to get there. What you are saying is that your homosexual acts are not wrong, and don't require the work that we are all doing to overcome our various imperfections. Essentially, you want to skip to the end. So, if you can't accept our theology, why would you want to be in our membership? I would think you would be miserable under those circumstances.

People that have a testimony of the church realize that it is us that are imperfect, and there is a better way, the Lords way, to help us live with him again. He told us to repent in this life. I submit that repentance is nothing more than change. For without it, we can never be with him again.

And yes, it is a strange view..... Probably the only theology like it in the world.

[Messenger]

The church can keep it's standards, absolutely. It just has to learn to deal with the obscurity and social irrelevance in a few years when it still espouses a definition of marriage that looks completely different from anything it's potential converts understand.

H.

There you go again ...... This is where you are missing the boat. This isnt an info-mercial. We aren't trying to gain converts by having a product that suits everyone. "BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!" LOL hahaha! Think about it, if you were the Lord, and you knew all truth - and I mean KNEW IT, would you change it for popularity?

[LDSToronto]

I am not Muslim. I would never think it appropriate as a human being or a Christian to log in to a Muslim forum anonymously to mock them for their beliefs about homosexuality. Nor would I log onto a gay board and anonymously mock them for not being hetero. Live and let live. With yer own name of course.

Of course you would not; such would be inappropriate. But, you seem to have little difficulty logging into an LDS discussion board and calling Islam a "hijab club". And you have no problem calling the LDS church a "heteros-only club". I guess it's just a matter of perspective and context....

H.

[LDSToronto]

There you go again ...... This is where you are missing the boat. This isnt an info-mercial. We aren't trying to gain converts by having a product that suits everyone. "BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!" LOL hahaha! Think about it, if you were the Lord, and you knew all truth - and I mean KNEW IT, would you change it for popularity?

No, but if I were the Lord, I'd welcome anyone regardless of their habits, lifestyle, and behaviour. And if you search lds.org, you'll find there are prophets and apostles who agree.

H.

[LDSToronto]

You're not fighting homophobic Mormons, you're fighting our theology. You want to change the LDS church and its core theology about how to gain eventual perfection, and the work we do to get there. What you are saying is that your homosexual acts are not wrong, and don't require the work that we are all doing to overcome our various imperfections. Essentially, you want to skip to the end. So, if you can't accept our theology, why would you want to be in our membership? I would think you would be miserable under those circumstances.

First, I think it's important to point out that I am not gay. If I were gay, I'd tell you, but I am not. And the reason I think it's important for you to know that is because, while I am not gay, I also feel that being gay is normal.

As for your statement, "if you can't accept our theology, why would you want to be in our membership?", I think there are many dimensions to religion; theology is but one. Family tradition, social connections, comfort, belief in God, and many other reasons lead one to want to be part of the LDS church even when they can't live by the rules.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Bob Crockett, on 10 April 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

I am not Muslim. I would never think it appropriate as a human being or a Christian to log in to a Muslim forum anonymously to mock them for their beliefs about homosexuality. Nor would I log onto a gay board and anonymously mock them for not being hetero. Live and let live. With yer own name of course.

It is indeed a question of honesty and integrity. Something woefully lacking in those who do such a thing. They simply suspend ethics in order to carry out what they want. They are morally questionable peole with little honesty and should be approached in the same way.

[Jeff K.]

No, but if I were the Lord, I'd welcome anyone regardless of their habits, lifestyle, and behaviour. And if you search lds.org, you'll find there are prophets and apostles who agree.

H.

The Lord has a great deal more integrity and honesty. We are thankful that the Lord is not reflected in Toronto's comments. Perhaps Toronto isn't aware that God does welcome everyone, one must merely accept the atonement which allows us into His presence. He has even provided places for those who have chosen not to accept the Atonement.

[LDSToronto]

The Lord has a great deal more integrity and honesty. We are thankful that the Lord is not reflected in Toronto's comments. Perhaps Toronto isn't aware that God does welcome everyone, one must merely accept the atonement which allows us into His presence. He has even provided places for those who have chosen not to accept the Atonement.

Who said I was unaware? If anything, this whole notion that the LDS church is a private club with rules that must be followed - you know, the kind of club that Log, Messenger, Bob Crockett are saying the LDS church is - implies that it's hardly I who misunderstands....

H.

[Jeff K.]

You are great at changing context. It is you who are projecting that God has a private club with certain rules. In fact there are rules to follow, in fact you won't see some people in the presence of the Lord (creating some exclusivity). You may consider that elitist when in fact it is merely truth that those rules (like not playing on the edge of a balcony) exist for our own benefit. The "rules", which you have misinterpreted, are beneficial to us in both this life and the next one. I am sure when you see God you will have a mouthful for Him about His "rules". You will tell him that you want no part of His elitist "private club", you will I am sure berate God for his lack of sympathy for others (forgetting the Atonement), and you will imply that He really isn't much better than Satan. It is what you do and imply here.

The difference of course is that as much as you may want to, you won't be able to uses anyone else's identity. You will be left to your own devices.

Of course after that, Christ will reveal you to yourself.... after that the only thing left will be the self pity.

[Messenger]

No, but if I were the Lord, I'd welcome anyone regardless of their habits, lifestyle, and behaviour. And if you search lds.org, you'll find there are prophets and apostles who agree.

H.

Unfortunately, you don't understand it and our theology. But, I think that you are getting closer. We do indeed welcome everyone. But there are plenty of acts that the Lord did not approve of even in ancient times as outlined in the New Testament. The law is simple ....

---------------------------------------

Mathew 22: 36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---------------------------------------------

You are not going to see members agree with self-destructive acts, or acts that destroy others. We welcome people, but not their acts that go against the law. Would you welcome in thieves in your home, and then leave them there while you took off on vacation?

I understand the law perfectly. This is why I am comfortable in the church and why you are not.

First, I think it's important to point out that I am not gay. If I were gay, I'd tell you, but I am not. And the reason I think it's important for you to know that is because, while I am not gay, I also feel that being gay is normal.

As for your statement, "if you can't accept our theology, why would you want to be in our membership?", I think there are many dimensions to religion; theology is but one. Family tradition, social connections, comfort, belief in God, and many other reasons lead one to want to be part of the LDS church even when they can't live by the rules.

H.

Thanks for letting me know, but to be honest it doesn't matter to me if you are gay or not. I have friends that are, and they know I am not - that doesn't mean we are not friends. I'm sure we have plenty of visitors that are gay when we have sacrament meeting. We also have people that are smokers, that are trying to quit. We also have lots of others with hang ups that are trying to get un-hung. We all have a million hang ups, member or not. Again, you misunderstand our theology. You are equating standards to membership as a not being loved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

-------------------------------

Ether 12:27

And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

-------------------------------

Ephesians Chapter 2

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

-------------------------------

Exodus 20

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have ano other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the diniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and challowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be Long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

------------------------------

There are standards to join, but that doesn't mean everyone isn't welcome to join our Sacrament, Sunday School, and Priesthood/Relief society. I know plenty of families in the church where there are brothers or sisters that are not members, that doesn't mean they are not loved. Again, when people take on membership, you are agreeing to follow the Lord. It seems to me that you should gain a testimony of the standards of the church. Perhaps that's what you are trying to do.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

Double

Edited April 10, 2012 by Messenger

[Senator]

You are great at changing context. It is you who are projecting that God has a private club with certain rules. In fact there are rules to follow, in fact you won't see some people in the presence of the Lord (creating some exclusivity). You may consider that elitist when in fact it is merely truth that those rules (like not playing on the edge of a balcony) exist for our own benefit. The "rules", which you have misinterpreted, are beneficial to us in both this life and the next one. I am sure when you see God you will have a mouthful for Him about His "rules". You will tell him that you want no part of His elitist "private club", you will I am sure berate God for his lack of sympathy for others (forgetting the Atonement), and you will imply that He really isn't much better than Satan. It is what you do and imply here.

The difference of course is that as much as you may want to, you won't be able to uses anyone else's identity. You will be left to your own devices.

Of course after that, Christ will reveal you to yourself.... after that the only thing left will be the self pity.

Holy Crap, Jeff!

Here's what you need to do. Take yourself where you now stand. Now rotate 180 degrees, THERE, yes, right there, that's the topic of discussion.

[Jeff K.]

Holy Crap, Jeff!

Here's what you need to do. Take yourself where you now stand. Now rotate 180 degrees, THERE, yes, right there, that's the topic of discussion.

Senator isn't quite there yet. The response was to a declaration that Mormons are an exclusive hetero club by Toronto. Showing that rules apply, and that berating the commandments or God's laws is merely a reflection or projection that one believes such rules (ie commandments hold no value).

So the response was within the parameters of the discussion.

I appreciate the "Holy Crap" comment, like Robin in the 60's kitch comedy, you are clueless and often in need of help in order to extricate yourself when you speak of things you do not understand. So Robin, I give you my batterang of understanding and hope you don't hurt yourself with it.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mr. Crockett,

So far, I have determined the following from your posts:

1. The LDS Church is for heterosexuals only

2. To be in the LDS Church, a homosexual should only use an approved avatar on MormonDialogue.org

3. The LDS Church is a private club

4. Islam is a "hajib club"

5. If you can't follow the rules of the private, heterosexual-only LDS Church Club, then you must leave the club as opposed to trying to change the rules of the club.

This is what you said in the past two posts. It's a strange view, I admit, but maybe you are right....

H.

Church is not a "club", it is a religious institution that must by definition have standards as set forth in scripture.

[Messenger]

Senator isn't quite there yet. The response was to a declaration that Mormons are an exclusive hetero club by Toronto. Showing that rules apply, and that berating the commandments or God's laws is merely a reflection or projection that one believes such rules (ie commandments hold no value).

So the response was within the parameters of the discussion.

I appreciate the "Holy Crap" comment, like Robin in the 60's kitch comedy, you are clueless and often in need of help in order to extricate yourself when you speak of things you do not understand. So Robin, I give you my batterang of understanding and hope you don't hurt yourself with it.

Jeff I agree with you.

But I would also add that there is also a question of love. So, I would add this ...

a) If we love the lord we keep his commandments. If we love him, do we show that by keeping the commandments?

or

b) If we keep the commandments, we love the Lord. Do we just do them, BECAUSE we love him without a thought of which number we are keeping?

One of the above implies true understanding of the commandments, the other does not.

[Senator]

Senator isn't quite there yet. The response was to a declaration that Mormons are an exclusive hetero club by Toronto. Showing that rules apply, and that berating the commandments or God's laws is merely a reflection or projection that one believes such rules (ie commandments hold no value).

So the response was within the parameters of the discussion.

I appreciate the "Holy Crap" comment, like Robin in the 60's kitch comedy, you are clueless and often in need of help in order to extricate yourself when you speak of things you do not understand. So Robin, I give you my batterang of understanding and hope you don't hurt yourself with it.

No Jeff.

The cluelessness is perfectly exlempified by your utter inability to to dialogue without turning to personal invective.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff I agree with you.

But I would also add that there is also a question of love. So, I would add this ...

a) If we love the lord we keep his commandments. If we love him, do we show that by keeping the commandments?

or

b) If we keep the commandments, we love the Lord. Do we just do them, BECAUSE we love him without a thought of which number we are keeping?

One of the above implies true understanding of the commandments, the other does not.

I agree, that is the much deeper and more pure truth in the matter