Mormonsandgays

[Erin15]

Your error is to focus on perceived motives and intentions rather than the arguments themselves.

I find that motives are extremely important in any discussion, because knowing the motives of the person you are communicating with helps you understand what they are trying to accomplish with the arguments they present.

[DavidB]

The Church has promoted a certain message for a long time, to me the website represents The Church has grown weary of the membership not getting the message and not living the message. I see the website as just one more subtle method of sifting out chaff, so that the membership of the Church can collectively progress.

[DavidB]

I find that motives are extremely important in any discussion, because knowing the motives of the person you are communicating with helps you understand what they are trying to accomplish with the arguments they present.

And unless that person tells you their motives you are just making things up to suit your personal agenda.

[Erin15]

Surely you can see the damage of telling someone with same sex attraction that they are no different from a paedophile is counter-productive and sets a negative tone to the dialogue?

I think it is an important distinction to make that having same-sex attraction does not make you a homosexual. Acting on those impulses makes you a homosexual.

[Scott Lloyd]

Only if we ignore the fundamental difference between them, which has to do with consent between legal adults.

I don't concede that consent necessarily makes a thing right. And not everything that is legally permissible is morally acceptable.

(And, uh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith married a 14-year-old.)

This is blowing smoke. But this historical issue is too complicated to get into here without derailing the discussion.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Erin15]

And unless that person tells you their motives you are just making things up to suit your personal agenda.

Which is why I asked him if I was correctly reading his intentions.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church has promoted a certain message for a long time, to me the website represents The Church has grown weary of the membership not getting the message and not living the message. I see the website as just one more subtle method of sifting out chaff, so that the membership of the Church can collectively progress.

Please explain. What "chaff" is the Church endeavoring to sift out here?

[canard78]

You are trying to shame me into backing down, which is a common tactic, but not a valid one, because it is not a real argument. It is basically saying "be quiet."

The fact is that breaking the law of chastity is the third most serious sin in the Gospel, so your protests about my example are demonstrably false.

The fact that you do not like it is irrelivant. The Gospel is not yours or mine to change. It is there for us to accept or reject.

As I mentioned to Scott, this website is clearly inviting a more welcoming, loving, accepting attitude to gay people.

Grouping them with paedophiles sets a negative tone. Jesus taught that those who would harm a child should have a millstone around their neck and chucked to the depths of the ocean. He doesn't say the same of two consenting adults. I'm not saying I condone or encourage acting on same sex attraction, but I would not group them with paedophiles and I don't think the Lord does.

[Buzzard]

It's the view that those "tendencies" are "unwholesome" in the first place that is being questioned. We could just as easily frame heterosexual sex as an "unwholesome" example of "self-gratification".

You are right. An awful lot of the trouble in the world is caused by sexual expression outside the bounds the Lord has set. Unwed parents, deadbeat dads, broken homes, the dire circumstances children of single parent families often experience and a myriad of other problems are caused by immorality.

Homosexual immorality does not get a pass. It's just as bad as heterosexual immorality. The only difference is that no homosexual expression is allowed within God's plan. Only within a heterosexual marriage is it allowed, since that is the stepping stone for all humanity to inherit all that God has to offer.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I mentioned to Scott, this website is clearly inviting a more welcoming, loving, accepting attitude to gay people.

Grouping them with paedophiles sets a negative tone. Jesus taught that those who would harm a child should have a millstone around their neck and chucked to the depths of the ocean. He doesn't say the same of two consenting adults. I'm not saying I condone or encourage acting on same sex attraction, but I would not group them with paedophiles and I don't think the Lord does.

And as I responded to canard78, a person with pedophilic tendencies who does not act on those unrighteous inclinations is just as acceptable to God and worthy of acceptance by others as a person with homosexual tendencies who does not act on those inclinations.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

That's where we differ. I do not claim to know that homosexuals could produce spirit children, but I also do not believe there is any scripture on the subject. In fact, the scriptures seem open to the possibility of creating bodies without male-female intercourse (Adam; Christ). God simply has not spoken on the issue of how spirit children are made. It's an error therefore to assume we know.

God has, through multiple prophets ancient and modern. Especially modern. Perhaps some of us just don't want to listen.

[Erin15]

As I mentioned to Scott, this website is clearly inviting a more welcoming, loving, accepting attitude to gay people.

Grouping them with paedophiles sets a negative tone. Jesus taught that those who would harm a child should have a millstone around their neck and chucked to the depths of the ocean. He doesn't say the same of two consenting adults. I'm not saying I condone or encourage acting on same sex attraction, but I would not group them with paedophiles and I don't think the Lord does.

So, let's go back to my post you over-reacted to, which was an attempt to illustrate that having a desire to ___ does not make you a ____ in a gospel sense, to refute the worldly assertion that simply having the desire to do something makes you defined by it.

What examples would you prefer I used instead?

[Buckeye]

God has, through multiple prophets ancient and modern. Especially modern. Perhaps some of us just don't want to listen.

I'd love to listen. Go ahead and point me to any scripture - cannonized or otherwise - that discusses the process by which spirit children are birthed.

[canard78]

I think it is an important distinction to make that having same-sex attraction does not make you a homosexual. Acting on those impulses makes you a homosexual.

Really?

ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/

Adjective:

(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex

Noun:

A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex

I was sexually attracted to females all through my teens but didn't act on it. Did I only become heterosexual on my wedding night?

Read every definition of homosexual and you will discover you are wrong and should go back and edit your posts.

Homosexual and homosexual activity are two different things.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Ahomosexual&hl=en&oq=define%3Ahomosexual&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-hp.3...192.3379.0.3932.10.9.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.1.U0EledgxwH4

[Walden]

Having a desire to steal does not make you a theif, the choice to steal does. Having a desire to haxe sex with children does not make you a pedophile, the choice to act on those desires does. Having the desire to lie does not make you a liar, choosing to lie does. And, in this case, being attracted to the same sex does not make you homosexual, the choice to act on that attraction does.

If the above is true, how does one explain Matthew 5:27 & 28, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

[peteolcott]

I know that God opposes homosexual behavior because I have heard and read the words of modern prophets speak on this subject, and when I have prayed and fasted God confirmed to me that their words were indeed his will.

JeremyOrbe-Smith, do you have any compelling reason why I should listen to a presbyterian with no divine authority like Matthew Vines instead?

http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-15.htm

That law of God has been abolished long ago, at the same time that the law forbidding shaving one's sideburns has been abolished.

This is now the entire law, and it says nothing at all against gay marriage:

http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htm

[DavidB]

Please explain. What "chaff" is the Church endeavoring to sift out here?

The answer you seek is self evident in what I posted.

[Buckeye]

If the above is true, how does one explain Matthew 5:27 & 28, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

I read this as saying that consciously dwelling on an improper thought is itself a chosen action and can therefore be a sin. A simple thought coming into one's mind is not something consciously chosen and so is not itself sin.

[Scott Lloyd]

The answer you seek is self evident in what I posted.

Not to me. Please identify it.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Erin15]

I'm open to the possibilty that the plan of salvation can accomodate homosexuality.

According to President Hinkley, that is impossible. Here's a quote from October 1996:

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.

So, I will ask you straight out: Do you sustain President Hinkley and his statements, or do you not?

Edited December 6, 2012 by Erin15

[Erin15]

Read every definition of homosexual and you will discover you are wrong and should go back and edit your posts.

Homosexual and homosexual activity are two different things.

In a Gospel sense, the distinction is important. I understand that the world uses its own definitions, which is why I have been trying to explain the difference to you.

[DavidB]

Not to me. Please identify it.

I can not make it any more clear than it already is.

[Erin15]

This is now the entire law, and it says nothing at all against gay marriage:

http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htm

The Law of Chastity does.

[halconero]

If the above is true, how does one explain Matthew 5:27 & 28, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

By going to the dictionary and looking up the word lust. God says in other places that a man should desire after his wife. Huzzah!

1.

intense sexual desire or appetite.

2.

uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

3.

a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followedby for ): a lust for power.

4.

ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

Edited December 6, 2012 by halconero

[pogi]

That's where we differ. I do not claim to know that homosexuals could produce spirit children, but I also do not believe there is any scripture on the subject. In fact, the scriptures seem open to the possibility of creating bodies without male-female intercourse (Adam; Christ). God simply has not spoken on the issue of how spirit children are made. It's an error therefore to assume we know.

Fair enough. We don't exactly know how spirit bodies are created, but we do know that the entire first presidency and apostles of the Church are agreed and declare that "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother."

I don't see them turning their backs on such a recent proclamation. "Marriage between a man and woman is essential to His eternal plan." Pretty clear language that homosexuality is not a part of His eternal plan.

Edited December 6, 2012 by pogi