Mormonsandgays

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, it does, to a degree. Such an individual will always be "accepted" with a measured acceptance.

I suppose it depends on how you define acceptance, but being careful not to place someone in a setting of overwhelming temptation is neither uncharitable nor unjust.

I know no analogy is perfect, but this one is incredibly strained.

There is a huge chasm that separates the ability to "liken" ones inapptitudes to that of vile and even criminal tendencies.

Not strained at all. Both have to do with aptitude or fitness for a particular calling or role.

No one is fit for or capable of everything. We struggle through mortality as best we can with the hope and expectation that all good things will come to us eventually if we remain faithful and valiant.

Edited to add:

I expect that part of those good things for some will be the removal of sexual proclivities that can never be righteously expressed.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The website is a good thing. It centralizes the message and practically "bill boards" the message. Many a Saint needed an adjustment, and I think the Church has provided the beginnings of that adjustment.

This looks like a restatement of your "chaff" comment. What sort of "Saint" and what's the nature of the needed "adjustment"?

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to me to be self-evident that the requirement of a public acknowledgement of one's own mistakes would tend to increase rather than decrease one's own awareness of one's own mistakes. The reason that it would increase one's own awareness would be that much more time and effort would be focused on this single aspect.

Its not at all self-evident to me.

One can be acutely aware of his own failings and faults without the necessity of publicizing them.

And I reject your premise that such public confession by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young was either frequent or essential to their prophetic role.

[Kemara]

The website is a good thing. It centralizes the message and practically "bill boards" the message. Many a Saint needed an adjustment, and I think the Church has provided the beginnings of that adjustment.

What in your view is the message? What in your view is the adjustment that many Saints need to make?

[DavidB]

This looks like a restatement of your "chaff" comment. What sort of "Saint" and what's the nature of the needed "adjustment"?

Some do take the truth to be hard.

[DavidB]

What in your view is the message? What in your view is the adjustment that many Saints need to make?

It does not matter what my view of the message is, it matters what the Church view of the message is. All are invited to the go the website and read what the Church message is.

[peteolcott]

That's great, I have had the same confirmation, but what does that have to do with the proclamation to the world? Are you saying it is not based in love?

If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the opposition to Gay marriage ceases to have any basis what-so-ever. If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the only things that are forbidden are things that are to some degree hateful. Gay marriage is not hateful in the slightest degree.

Notice the book that these words come from: Galatians (gay latians). I do not think that this is a coincidence.

Edited December 6, 2012 by peteolcott

[Scott Lloyd]

Some do take the truth to be hard.

I'm just asking a question.

What do you mean by "take the truth to be hard"?

What in your view is the message? What in your view is the adjustment that many Saints need to make?

Good luck trying to elicit a straight answer. He's been very coy with me thus far.

[Scott Lloyd]

If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the opposition to Gay marriage ceases to have any basis what-so-ever. If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the only things that are forbidden are things that are to some degree hateful. Gay marriage is not hateful in the slightest degree.

Notice the book that these words come from: Galatians (gay latians). I do not think that this is a coincidence.

?

[Senator]

I suppose it depends on how you define acceptance.

Yes

but being careful not to place someone in a setting of overwhelming temptation is neither uncharitable nor unjust.

not suggesting otherwise.

Not strained at all. Both have to do with aptitude or fitness for a particular calling or role.

I'll vote for strained..

Or, are you suggesting that when Bishop Goodbrother is deliberating on whom to call as scoutmaster,(his options include brother Whosiebob, who's not a very outdoorsy type, or brother Whatshisname which has expressed pedophilial tendencies) that the two are weighed on an 1 to 1 bases?

Come on Scott, you're reaching here.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes

not suggesting otherwise.

I wondered about it from your "measured acceptance" remark.

I'll vote for strained..

You're repeating yourself.

Or, are you suggesting that when Bishop Goodbrother is deliberating on whom to call as scoutmaster,(his options include brother Whosiebob, who's not a very outdoorsy type, or brother Whatshisname which has expressed pedophilial tendencies) that the two are weighed on an 1 to 1 bases?

I'm suggesting that each might be passed over for very different reasons.

One of the functions of a bishop is to determine how those in his flock may serve in a way that's best for all concerned.

Come on Scott, you're reaching here.

Odd, I was thinking the same about you.

[Senator]

I wondered about it from your "measured acceptance" remark.

You're repeating yourself.

I'm suggesting that each might be passed over for very different reasons.

One of the functions of a bishop is to determine how those in his flock may serve in a way that's best for all concerned.

Odd, I was thinking the same about you.

Good, then we've come to agreement!!

[peteolcott]

Its not at all self-evident to me.

One can be acutely aware of his own failings and faults without the necessity of publicizing them.

And I reject your premise that such public confession by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young was either frequent or essential to their prophetic role.

If one specifically sets time aside to count one's blessings one is more aware of one's blessings.

If one is required to make a public acknowledgement of one's mistakes, then one would tend to spend more time and energy on identifying and recognizing these mistakes.

If one is already acutely aware of one's mistakes, then public acknowledgement of these mistakes would tend to provide a more accurate perspective of the degree to which statements can be relied upon.

Ultimately it boils down to something like this: More honesty and openess tends to be better.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good, then we've come to agreement!!

Sorry, this makes no sense.

But then, from what I recall, you hold a rather quirky understanding of the expressing "agree to disagree".

[canard78]

I must admit, your ability to twist words is really impressive, but when I read your posts I feel The Spirit clearly tell me that what you conclude is false, and I would be foolish to ignore such a strong spiritual warning.

One of the tiresome aspects of a board like this is reverting to 'you're wrong because the spirit told me so.' If I simply retort with 'well the spirit tells me you're wrong too' then it just invalidates any attempt to discuss this and have 'dialogue,' which is, after all, the name of the board.

If a couple have a conversation where one says 'the spirit tells me should marry' and the other replies 'the spirit tells me we should not,' who is right?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm gone for the day.

Bye-bye.

[peteolcott]

That's because typing does not convey tone. If you were in the same room as me you would have seen no unkindness, only honesty. When you use scriptural language to argue that we should use our own reason to determine truth and that we cannot and should not appeal to God's authority, that IS twisting.

There is no more accurate term to descrtibe it, so that is the term I used.

I do not think that there is any possible way to say:

"your ability to twist words is really impressive"

that is not unkind.

[Senator]

Sorry, this makes no sense.

But then, from what I recall, you hold a rather quirky understanding of the expressing "agree to disagree".

I was joking.

[Kemara]

It does not matter what my view of the message is, it matters what the Church view of the message is. All are invited to the go the website and read what the Church message is.

It was less than an hour ago that you believed your views mattered enough to share them with us. What has happened between then and now? Was it the request for clarification that suddenly reduced the value of your views?

[Erin15]

One of the tiresome aspects of a board like this is reverting to 'you're wrong because the spirit told me so.' If I simply retort with 'well the spirit tells me you're wrong too' then it just invalidates any attempt to discuss this and have 'dialogue,' which is, after all, the name of the board.

If a couple have a conversation where one says 'the spirit tells me should marry' and the other replies 'the spirit tells me we should not,' who is right?

That is just your personal preference. The reality is that rational debate methodology is only of limited use when it comes to spiritual topics. We could debate these things forever with little to no gain, because ultimately the core of real religion is a relationship built between an individual and their Heavenly Father.

Why do we instruct missionaries to bear their testimonies and invite people to pray? Because that is ultimately far more useful then debating and discussing things with people who have already decided what their priorities are. All we can really do is hope that at some future point in their lives the soil in their hearts will become fertile and the seed will take root.

I do not think that there is any possible way to say:

"your ability to twist words is really impressive"

that is not unkind.

In that case, you've learned something new today.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Erin15

[peteolcott]

In that case, you've learned something new today.

I have always known that people can be unkind.

[Senator]

But then, from what I recall, you hold a rather quirky understanding of the expressing "agree to disagree".

Scott, you must have quite the memory, for I have no recollection of what you're talking about.

[pogi]

Gay marriage is not hateful in the slightest degree.

Neither is there any hate whatsoever in the proclamation to the world. So, if you are discrediting the proclamation on grounds of hate, you better think again.

[CV75]

If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the opposition to Gay marriage ceases to have any basis what-so-ever. If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the only things that are forbidden are things that are to some degree hateful. Gay marriage is not hateful in the slightest degree.

Now wait a minute—any sin is “hateful” in that it is designed to prevent one from fulfilling the measure of his own creation.

Gay "marriage" facilitates and even encourages the acceptance of sin within a society on two levels: 1) acting on homosexual behavior and 2) changing the nature of marriage, which God instituted. Is assenting to sin a sin?

...regardless, gay "marriage" itself is a sin when it is practiced.

Edited December 7, 2012 by CV75

[Erin15]

CV75 brings up a very good point. Barring a child of God from reaching their full potential and having a fullness of joy is a very serious thigs to do. Viewed in that light, homosexual behavior is far from neutral, it is damaging in a very real way an eternal soul. Telling someone that gay marriage is "Not hateful in the slightest degree" would be akin to telling someone in the path of a tsunami that they won't experience moisture.

I have always known that people can be unkind.

Hehe I see what you did there.

Anyway, I know there was no unkindness in my heart, and my beliefs do not require you to agree.

Moving on.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Erin15