Changing The Mormon Conversation On Homosexuality

[selek1]

Now that we've dispensed with what passes for CAB's and CAS's witticism, I want to move onto something substantive.

As CAS has pointed out, the Church cannot neither endorse nor tolerate sin.

As Christ's Church, we must champion (and ideally, embody) the Gospel covenants and commandments of God.

That having been said, it is equally incumbent that we embody, personify, and demonstrate true Christian charity- unfeigned Christ-like love.

Those who suffer from sex-sex attractions- whether the penitent and earnest (such as Josh Reed) or impenitent and offensive (I'm not going to name a specific example) are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Each one is a son or daughter of God.

Prodigal or not, we can and must be prepared to differentiate between the person and their conduct, and to welcome them as precious in the sight of the Lord.

While we cannot embrace their agenda, their sinful conduct, or their disobedience- we can and must be prepared to suffer with them in their afflictions, dance with them in their joy, and mourn with them in their grief.

It is neither our right nor responsibility to "cut them off" so to speak. The door must always be open to them and the lamp always lit to guide their return home.

Anything less betrays our stewardship, our commission, and our own hopes of salvation and redemption.

Edited June 28, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Now that we've dispensed with what passes for CAB's and CAS's witticism, I want to move onto something substantive.

As CAS has pointed out, the Church cannot neither endorse nor tolerate sin.

Where are those substantive alternative paths for these people that you have insisted that I must discuss and recognize... but which you refuse to denote?

Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[cwald]

Where are those substantive alternative paths for these people that you have insisted that I must discuss and recognize... but which you refuse to denote?

I'm still waiting to hear them as well. Please do educate me.

[SamIam]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Weston...Quick!!!! wake-up!!!! there is some way strange looking dude in shades hanging out at your place. ...and he ain't got no clothes on....eeeek!!!

[selek1]

Weston...Quick!!!! wake-up!!!! there is some way strange looking dude in shades hanging out at your place. ...and he ain't got no clothes on....eeeek!!!

Zombie!!!!!

[cwald]

Well shucks. Looks like Selek1 went to bed.

[Calm]

Weston...Quick!!!! wake-up!!!! there is some way strange looking dude in shades hanging out at your place. ...and he ain't got no clothes on....eeeek!!!

It is comedy night at MD&DB....and I am loving it, . I can even see the little ape clapping his hands to wake Weston up. Edited June 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

It is comedy night at MD&DB....and I am loving it, . I can even see the little ape clapping his hands to wake Weston up.

This ape?

Or this one?

[Libs]

No- that was one of the two options CAB and CAS have offered.

As other options exist, they are presenting a false dichotomy.

The situation is not the "either/or" they insist upon.

Oops, sorry...didn't read far enough back.

I assume you must be talking about a marriage to the opposite sex? That's an option, but probably not a very good one, for most SS attracted people.

[Calm]

The little ape in the avatar, silly. Much cuter than the ones you posted (it looks like a monkey to me, are my eyes deceiving me?)

[selek1]

Oops, sorry...didn't read far enough back.

I assume you must be talking about a marriage to the opposite sex? That's an option, but probably not a very good one, for most SS attracted people.

That's is indeed one of the possible options (but by no means the only one).

As a general rule (and as I've outlined earlier in the thread), I object to characterizations of the issue that attempt to define people by what is (ultimately) only a single aspect of their personality.

To my mind, that's like judging a diamond based solely on a single facet of its cut. It is neither logical nor fair.

Worse, to my mind, is trying to drive people towards one solution or another for one's own polemical advantage or political profit.

In my estimation, those who tell people they must choose between "Door Number One" or "Door Number Two" are almost inevitably more interested in advancing an agenda than in doing what is best for the person upon whom they're forcing the decision.

Our brethren and sisters in Christ are neither pawns in a political game nor brutes to be driven. As thinking, rationale human beings, they have the means both to reason and to choose for themselves.

Moreso, as sons and daughters of God, they have the inalienable right to choose.

To impose the artifical choice -that they can only choose from either "A" or "B" is to interfere with their agency, and practice a form of unrighteous dominion.

Virtue imposed is virtue denied.

I believe you were involved in the earlier Josh Weed threads (as of this moment, found on page 7 of the General Discussions forum).

Brother Weed has chosen a third way- and in doing so, managed to be both true to what he is, true to the laws and principles of the Gospel, and to establish what we all hope will be an eternal partnership.

He has also side-stepped the dishonest polemics of those who would try to exploit his troubles for their own gain.

Is the Weed's solution for everyone?

Of course not- but I can hope that whatever solution a person chooses, it is as honest, as well-reasoned, and as motivated toward the glory of God as was theirs.

[selek1]

The little ape in the avatar, silly. Much cuter than the ones you posted (it looks like a monkey to me, are my eyes deceiving me?)

Huh. Hadn't noticed that till now.

[Calm]

Looks like Weston hasn't been the only one sleeping.

[Libs]

That's is indeed one of the possible options (but by no means the only one).

As a general rule (and as I've outlined earlier in the thread), I object to characterizations of the issue that attempt to define people by what is (ultimately) only a single aspect of their personality.

To my mind, that's like judging a diamond based solely on a single facet of its cut. It is neither logical nor fair.

Worse, to my mind, is trying to drive people towards one solution or another for one's own polemical advantage or political profit.

In my estimation, those who tell people they must choose between "Door Number One" or "Door Number Two" are almost inevitably more interested in advancing an agenda than in doing what is best for the person upon whom they're forcing the decision.

Our brethren and sisters in Christ are neither pawns in a political game nor brutes to be driven. As thinking, rationale human beings, they have the means both to reason and to choose for themselves.

Moreso, as sons and daughters of God, they have the inalienable right to choose.

To impose the artifical choice -that they can only choose from either "A" or "B" is to interfere with their agency, and practice a form of unrighteous dominion.

Virtue imposed is virtue denied.

I believe you were involved in the earlier Josh Weed threads (as of this moment, found on page 7 of the General Discussions forum).

Brother Weed has chosen a third way- and in doing so, managed to be both true to what he is, true to the laws and principles of the Gospel, and to establish what we all hope will be an eternal partnership.

He has also side-stepped the dishonest polemics of those who would try to exploit his troubles for their own gain.

Is the Weed's solution for everyone?

Of course not- but I can hope that whatever solution a person chooses, it is as honest, as well-reasoned, and as motivated toward the glory of God as was theirs.

I agree with most of what you've said here, selek (*cringe* ) except, I am not going to be judging someone's motivation and whether or not it is "toward the glory of God". I'll leave that for God to decide.

[california boy]

Well we have seen serial posts, one right after another claiming that what I have posted was dishonest and agenda driven. Yet in all of those statements you posted trying to justify your position that there are other alternatives out there other than what I have outlined, the ONLY other alternative you have offered is for a gay man to marry a straight woman. This option is one that the church cautions strongly against and has spoken against often. Marriage is not therapy. The success rate is so small that the wrecked homes that have resulted in this option far outweigh the benefits of suggesting it as a solution for a gay man to follow. So the only other option you are offering is one that is against the counsel of the Brethren. As a bishop would you really offer counsel that goes against what the general authorities have advised?

selek, you think you are pretty good at yelling and screaming at others that ask you simply to offer 5 other options, yet you remain silent on listing those solutions. What do you think the conclusion most of us draw from that silence on the actual question?

This is all quite simple. If you were the bishop in the Bay ward, and a gay member of your congregation came in and told you he was gay, what options would you give him to remain active in the church other than being celibate? I am all ears. I certainly would like to know if there are other options for me to follow then the one my bishop offered me.

[CASteinman]

To impose the artifical choice -that they can only choose from either "A" or "B" is to interfere with their agency, and practice a form of unrighteous dominion.

No one has even come close to imposing such a choice. This is again a misrepresentation.

But if there are other substantial options why is it that you have now been asked 6 times to denote a few of them and you have never done it?

You snipe at others for their posts but when asked to support your position you refuse.

Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[Hestia]

This thread has run its course and is going downhill.