happy Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Having faithful gay members should not be a trigger to change the LDS doctrine to match human ideals. One would hope revelation is not a product of popularity. Their are faithful members who have committed adultery and feel justified because of some reason or another. Does that mean the Church should change its views on infidelity?
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 It seems to be the bulk of posts as of late. Why does everyone want to lay this issue at our feet...enough is enough.Oh G--!Do we really need another thread on why "Mormons are wrong about homosexuality"!?!Is there anything in this propoganda link that hasn't been said at least a hundred times before!?!?!?Unfortunately, the discussion isn't over. What the article by Bishop Fletcher does not speak of, and rightly so, is marriage. The article spoke of understanding why a person is gay and the evidences that could be provided on the subject. If I read the article correctly, the stance that the Bishop has taken is that of a faith promoting one. He did not condone sexual sin in the article. The article in its entirety is in fact and explicitly siding with the church's position to be compassionate, merciful, tolerant of differences and bridging the gap that has divided many members.I see nothing wrong with the Bishop's article. IMO, I believe that President Monson would agree with him whole-heartedly.
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 It is fairly disgusting that members of this board are DERAILING the thread to be that of sexual ethics. The article does NOT imply nor explicitly condone sexual sin. Nor does it claim that Jesus would be 'okay' with homosexual sexual sin. I see how ignorantly easy it is to conflate two separate issues under a specific subject banner but come on!For those who are in favor of homosexuality...nowhere in the article did Bishop Fletcher condone any sexual sin that is NOT in harmony with the teachings of the church.For those who oppose homosexual behavior...nowhere in the article did Bishop Fletcher condone any sexual sin that is NOT in harmony with the teachings of the church.Fortunately, for the true intent of the article, no lobbying in either direction was done. We need to stop trying to see what we want to see in the article and take it exactly for what the Bishop OBVIOUSLY intended its purpose to be.Not to be a nanny...but knock it off! Everyone! The Bishop said nor did anything wrong in his article.
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=allI see Bishop Fletcher's article as in keeping with the church's increased emphasis "to show sensitivity in this area so people don't feel rejected, especially by their families." The Deseret News editorial decrying harassment of LGBT youth is another example of this sensitivity, as is the Church's inviting representatives of the LGBT community as special guests to the Tabernacle Choir's Christmas program. As is the Church official endorsement of legislation prohibiting discrimination in housing or employment based on sexual orientation (whether or not celibate).As members, we need more outreach and sensitivity and less judgment. We should be glad when our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, celibate or not, decide to attend church and as members we should fully welcome them and not judge. Judgment is in the hands of the common judges in Israel, not us members at large. If certain membership rights need to be restricted, that is up to the presiding priesthood leaders. Not to us. And it is not our job as members to tell them that they are sinning; our job is to love. Further, I believe we should not speak of or consider the LGBT community as the enemy. Our LGBT brothers and sisters are not our enemy, they are our brothers and sisters.http://www.byuicomm....der-attraction/YES! YES! YES! Hallelujah! Amen! Thank you God for a reasonable response to this thread!
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 More like this.Becuase of my beliefs I reject Homosexual marriage.ToI now accept Homosexual marriage in spite of my beliefs.All it boils down to is :how can we get mormons to accept the gay agenda.My emphasis added.My response:THEY CAN'T! They shouldn't even be trying. But once again, this thread is NOT about sexual ethics.
happy Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 @Valentinus, I am not sure why the need for anger. I think people are justified in the frustration that many observers seem to feel that acceptance of gay behaviors and gay weddings is the only option. Anything else seems toequate to bigotry, harassment, and unChristlike behavior. I personally have not seen any poor treatment or harassment of gays, yet it seems we are all constantly being scolded. A person that is gay and has gay feelings wants absolute acceptance before they feel comfortable. So where does that comfort start and stop?
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) If the New Testament were the only place Christ spoke, you might have a point.It was not.You do not.But thank you for the ehhhxcellent example of prooftexting. (said in my best Jeremy Brett impersonation).In my opinion (heresy, perhaps) Brett was the quintessential ACD Holmes, the rest- mere pretenders.Why are we still discussing sexual ethics? Edited June 27, 2012 by Valentinus
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 @Valentinus, I am not sure why the need for anger. I think people are justified in the frustration that many observers seem to feel that acceptance of gay behaviors and gay weddings is the only option. Anything else seems toequate to bigotry, harassment, and unChristlike behavior. I personally have not seen any poor treatment or harassment of gays, yet it seems we are all constantly being scolded. A person that is gay and has gay feelings wants absolute acceptance before they feel comfortable. So where does that comfort start and stop?What you fail to understand according to the OP is that this thread is NOT about sexual ethics. If you are suggesting that the article or the OP in any way promote the 'homosexual agenda' then that is the mistake YOU must own up to.
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I do not like your implication that either person has a poor grasp on reality. it is rather insulting.I agree. If anyone 'decides' that bullying isn't real...shows a poor grasp on reality. If anyone suggests that bullying happens to such an extreme without proper documentation or sources...shows a poor grasp on reality. Both are insulting. Both are part of opposing agendas and I whole-heartedly disagree with both. 1
happy Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 What you fail to understand according to the OP is that this thread is NOT about sexual ethics. If you are suggesting that the article or the OP in any way promote the 'homosexual agenda' then that is the mistake YOU must own up to.What I am concerned about is you are not understanding the subjects are intertwined and inseparable. The reason they feel segregated is the LDS theology is they are violating sexual ethics. What I am saying is that they might always feel bullied or abused as long as that theology remains. I do not think any amount of coddling of homosexuals will end their beliefs that they are being harassed.
Jaybear Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 What I am concerned about is you are not understanding the subjects are intertwined and inseparable. The reason they feel segregated is the LDS theology is they are violating sexual ethics. What I am saying is that they might always feel bullied or abused as long as that theology remains. I do not think any amount of coddling of homosexuals will end their beliefs that they are being harassed.Maybe you could start by not excommunicating members for sexual "sins" where the parties are adults, and no deception (infidelity) is involved.Treat them like you do other sinners like sabbath breakers, swearers, coffee drinkers, gamblers, beer drinkers, masturbaters, non tithe payers, those who don't do their home teaching, or wear garments, and democrats.
Tacenda Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Whether there is asterix next to someone's name is probably irrelevant. The fact is, if someone is in a homosexual relationship they will be excommunicated unless they decide to leave the person they love and become celibate. There really isn't any wiggle room for the stake president.In the end, most gays leave the church either by excommunication or just walk away from it. Those that are straight can not understand why someone who is gay wouldn't choose celibacy. Those that are gay can't understand how someone could choose a life of loneliness and never have love in their lives. This bishop sees the tragedy in that because he presides in an area of the country where there is a lot of faithful gay members. He is trying to find some kind of common ground. But the reality is, there is no common ground. The church can teach tolerance, respect and equality in everything but marriage, but that is about it. Until there is a revelation, the churches hands are tied.I agree with you! Except for the asterisk sign thing. Because even if they get ex'ed, if they were ever to come back they might still have that sign, probably for life. Edited June 27, 2012 by Tacenda 1
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 What I am concerned about is you are not understanding the subjects are intertwined and inseparable. The reason they feel segregated is the LDS theology is they are violating sexual ethics. What I am saying is that they might always feel bullied or abused as long as that theology remains. I do not think any amount of coddling of homosexuals will end their beliefs that they are being harassed.Give this post of yours out to every faithful gay member of the church who has not committed a sexual sin nor have they been subject to church discipline for any actions they themselves performed.The fact that you seem to demand that the two subjects be intertwined is telling of how little you really understand that they are very different.If homosexuals believe that they are being bullied because of LDS theology then that is their problem and not the Church's problem. If I were to encounter such a case then I would refer the person to Elder Bednar's inspirational talk from October 2006 General Conference on not being offended.I'm going to side with Selek, Pahoran and several others on part of this issue. It does seem that vicitimization, not in all cases mind you, is in the eye of the beholder. Because the Church has a position on a certain ethic does not imply directly nor indirectly ANY kind of bullying. If one claims such then that is their responsibility.By confusing or intertwining the issue we fall prey to such heated debates.Read the article again. There is no evidence in the article to suggest a discussion on sexual ethics. 1
happy Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Ok, Valentinus. Since you believe they are not intertwined, how are these people being bullied?
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Ok, Valentinus. Since you believe they are not intertwined, how are these people being bullied?Read this part of my last post AGAIN:If homosexuals believe that they are being bullied because of LDS theology then that is their problem and not the Church's problem. If I were to encounter such a case then I would refer the person to Elder Bednar's inspirational talk from October 2006 General Conference on not being offended.I'm going to side with Selek, Pahoran and several others on part of this issue. It does seem that vicitimization, not in all cases mind you, is in the eye of the beholder. Because the Church has a position on a certain ethic does not imply directly nor indirectly ANY kind of bullying. If one claims such then that is their responsibility.Where did I suggest that anyone was being bullied? Re-read what I have emphasized.Perhaps it is more logical to give both sides the benefit of the doubt. But the bullying must be bullying and not merely perceived victimization. Edited June 27, 2012 by Valentinus
Tacenda Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Maybe you could start by not excommunicating members for sexual "sins" where the parties are adults, and no deception (infidelity) is involved.Treat them like you do other sinners like sabbath breakers, swearers, coffee drinkers, gamblers, beer drinkers, masturbaters, non tithe payers, those who don't do their home teaching, or wear garments, and democrats.You almost sound as if you're talking about the non LDS Christian religions out there. They do basically the same thing, in their thought process all sin, is sin. Therefore the stupendous need for a Savior. And I know this post is probably meant to be funny but a truer statement has never been made, IMHO! Edited June 27, 2012 by Tacenda
Buzzard Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Maybe you could start by not excommunicating members for sexual "sins" where the parties are adults, and no deception (infidelity) is involved.Treat them like you do other sinners like sabbath breakers, swearers, coffee drinkers, gamblers, beer drinkers, masturbaters, non tithe payers, those who don't do their home teaching, or wear garments, and democrats.You know the answer, but are, I suspect, trolling just a wee bit. The LDS church has always maintained a hierachy of sins. Murder is not the same thing as sleeping in and missing church. Some of those sinse on your list will result in no action by the church, others will result in no temple reccommend being issued, and still others will result in church discipline. And the BOM has made it clear that sexual sins are next to murder in seriousness. But I think you already knew that.
Weston Krogstadt Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZMaybe you could give us a little more insight than this ever so inspired post?
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) You know the answer, but are, I suspect, trolling just a wee bit. The LDS church has always maintained a hierachy of sins. Murder is not the same thing as sleeping in and missing church. Some of those sinse on your list will result in no action by the church, others will result in no temple reccommend being issued, and still others will result in church discipline. And the BOM has made it clear that sexual sins are next to murder in seriousness. But I think you already knew that.Nevermind. Edited June 27, 2012 by Valentinus
Jaybear Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 You know the answer, but are, I suspect, trolling just a wee bit. The LDS church has always maintained a hierachy of sins. Murder is not the same thing as sleeping in and missing church. Some of those sinse on your list will result in no action by the church, others will result in no temple reccommend being issued, and still others will result in church discipline. And the BOM has made it clear that sexual sins are next to murder in seriousness. But I think you already knew that.Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that at one time the first presidency of the LDS Church sent out a letter reiterating that certain sexual acts in the marital bed were "impure, unnatural and unholy" and would make a couple unworthy to attend the temple. The policy pertaining to these "sexual sins" NOW seems to be don't ask, don't tell.Reading between the lines, its evident to me that the good bishop is implementing the same policy with respect to the active gay LDS members under his charge. We will have to see where that goes. It would not, however, surprise if at some point the LDS Church .... without a revelation ... stopped asking and therefore stopped excommunicating gay members for sexual sins.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZDidn't anyone tell you? You don't have to click and read thread, if you find it so boring.
Damien the Leper Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Stop talking about a moot point?You have yet to make a valid point. Why are you trolling?
Hestia Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 The American Liberal Establishment ....No politics. Read Board Guidelines before posting again.
Weston Krogstadt Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 "Oh G--!Do we really need another thread on why "Mormons are wrong about homosexuality"!?!Is there anything in this propoganda link that hasn't been said at least a hundred times before!?!?!?" I thought this person summed it up pretty good yesterday?
Recommended Posts