Mormonsandgays

[peteolcott]

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.

If this verse:

a) means precisely what it says

b) says precisely what it means

c) applies to right now, the present time

d) is the true will of God

then anything at all that that conflicts with it is necessarily in error.

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

[pogi]

Then the only things that are forbidden are things that are to some degree hateful.

I see, so you are a proponent of children sleeping with each other so long as both parties are consenting?

Unwed adults cohabitating and making babies?

You are a proponent of pornography and masterbation?

I could go on and on.

There is no hate in any of these things. Perhaps you misapprehend what God means by love your brother as yourself.

[DavidB]

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?

Given that I have not edited Post 52 in this thread, nor have I edited post 124, it is clear your post here is without merit and in my opinion made solely for you to antagonize me.

You are welcome to go back to post 52 and post 124 to see my opinion. I have no need nor desire to play your games. No clarification is needed for what is self evident.

You are also welcome to go to the Church website discussed in this thread and read for yourself what the message from the Church is.

Edited December 7, 2012 by DavidB

[Erin15]

If this verse:

a) means precisely what it says

b) says precisely what it means

c) applies to right now, the present time

d) is the true will of God

then anything at all that that conflicts with it is necessarily in error.

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

The verse says: "For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.""

peteolcott, how is it possible that you have not yet realized that...

If you love someone as yourself, you will warn them when they are doing things which will hurt them.

If you love someone as yourself, you will not strip away their virture by doing immoral things with them.

If you love someone as yourself, you will want them to reach their potential, which requires obedience to God's laws.

If you love someone as yourself, you will respect their status as a child of God, and protect their virtue.

If you love someone as yourself, you will not lie to them about the consequences of sin.

If you love someone as yourself, you will desire that they make righteous choices.

If you love someone as yourself, you will encourage them to follow The Gospel.

How can you not see that encouraging people to live The Gospel and follow the commandments like the Law of Chastity is a deep and sincere expression of love?

If we didn't love them as ourselves, we would not care what they did, we would simply allow them to continue sinning. We warn them because we care.

[peteolcott]

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

Sin is only breaking the law of God, and now the law is precisely specified to be completely fullfilled by this single statement: http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htm

Thus anything at all that is not specifically at least slightly hateful is not a sin.

Edited December 7, 2012 by peteolcott

[peteolcott]

I see, so you are a proponent of children sleeping with each other so long as both parties are consenting?

Unwed adults cohabitating and making babies?

You are a proponent of pornography and masterbation?

I could go on and on.

There is no hate in any of these things. Perhaps you misapprehend what God means by love your brother as yourself.

You provided some excellent examples. I will see if I can answer from the spirit. What I will say may come from the spirit, or it may come from me. I need to ponder a thing for a very long time before I am confident that it is from the spirit.

There is a difference between wrong and less than ideal. Wrong requires a detrimental consequence. Less than ideal may not cause harm, yet, may reduce benefit.

If we take it as a premise that the ultimate purpose of God's master plan is to maximize joy, then we are in a better position to distinguish beneficial from harmful effects.

So in the examples that you cited, only the example of making babies could be construed as hateful if it is the case that the baby will not be sufficiently loved or provided for. The other examples would reduce the amount of joy when compared to the ideal, thus are less than ideal, but, not wrong.

[peteolcott]

The verse says: "For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself.""

If you love someone as yourself, you will want them to reach their potential, which requires obedience to God's laws.

If you love someone as yourself, you will not lie to them about the consequences of sin.

If you love someone as yourself, the law is completely fulfilled, and thus sin is not possible.

Edited December 7, 2012 by peteolcott

[pogi]

I need to ponder a thing for a very long time before I am confident that it is from the spirit.

Yes, perhaps you should ponder on it some more if you think that children sleeping with each other is not wrong but only less than ideal, or that pornography is not evil. Please tell me you are not a father!

If we take it as a premise that the ultimate purpose of God's master plan is to maximize joy, then we are in a better position to distinguish beneficial from harmful effects.

Yes, joy is the ultimate purpose. Eternal joy, not temporary joy based on temporal desires.

[peteolcott]

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.

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.

I found the first paragraph very hurtful.

Homosexuality is an intrinsic, inherent, and fundamental aspect of a person's essential nature.

It has been shown to have a genetic basis. It has been shown to be common in many animal species.

Sarcasm is at least slightly unkind, and your statement was at the very least sarcastic.

[Kemara]

Given that I have not edited Post 52 in this thread, nor have I edited post 124

This is what you said in post 52:

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.

What is not clear is what you think that “certain message” is. I know what I think that “certain message” is. I know what other people on this thread think that “certain message” because they have been quite willing to explain and offer clarification. You have gone to rather extraordinary lengths to not offer clarification when asked for it.

This is what you said in post 124:

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 is not clear is what you think the message of the website is. What is not clear is what type of adjustment you think that many Saints need to make.

it is clear your post here is without merit and in my opinion made solely for you to antagonize me.

I am glad it is clear to you because if you hadn’t told me that my motive was to antagonize you I would never have known. Thanks for the solid.

You are welcome to go back to post 52 and post 124 to see my opinion. I have no need nor desire to play your games.

Referring me to these posts for clarification on the views expressed in those very posts is ridiculous. Likewise, referring me to the website gives me no insight into what you think the message of the website is and what type of adjustment many Saints need to make.

No clarification is needed for what is self evident.

What is self-evident to you is not self-evident to everyone else, hence my request for clarification.

Your refusal to answer requests for clarification is nothing more than simple game playing on your part - you know it, I know it, Scott Lloyd knows it and I am fairly confident that everyone else knows it.

[Kemara]

I found the first paragraph very hurtful.

Homosexuality is an intrinsic, inherent, and fundamental aspect of a person's essential nature.

It has been shown to have a genetic basis. It has been shown to be common in many animal species.

The debate on "intrinsic" is far from over, the debate on "inherent" is far from over, the debate on "genetic basis" is far from over despite what the homosexual propagandists and liberal media would like us to believe. That homosexuality is a "fundamental aspect of a persons essential nature" is ridiculous. Many animals species also eat their young.

[peteolcott]

Yes, perhaps you should ponder on it some more if you think that children sleeping with each other is not wrong but only less than ideal, or that pornography is not evil. Please tell me you are not a father!

Yes, joy is the ultimate purpose. Eternal joy, not temporary joy based on temporal desires.

There is no wrong without a harmful effect. To the exact same extent that there is not a harmful effect, then the above are not wrong. If you can find a harmful effect, then the above could be construed as at least slightly hateful of self or others.

Edited December 7, 2012 by peteolcott

[TAO]

Homosexuality is an intrinsic, inherent, and fundamental aspect of a person's essential nature.

Only if one wants it to be. One decides what is important to oneself, and one decides what is not. If you believe it is essential, it will be to you, but for those who do not believe it is essential, it will not be for them. In other words, mind controls the matter.

It has been shown to have a genetic basis. It has been shown to be common in many animal species.

I'm sorry to say this, but this doesn't change a thing. Cannibalism is common among black widows. That doesn't change how we look at it as humans. We shouldn't be worried about what animals do, or even what is genetic, in this case. All that matters is the choice.

[TAO]

There is no wrong without a harmful effect.

Isn't sin a harmful effect?

To the exact same extent that there is not a harmful effect, then the above are not wrong.

That's too simplistic of a moral law in my opinion. Everything can be both harmful and helpful in certain scenarios.

If you can find a harmful effect, then the above could be construed as at least slightly hateful of self or others.

Sarcastic, yes... hateful... I don't really see how =/.

[peteolcott]

The debate on "intrinsic" is far from over, the debate on "inherent" is far from over, the debate on "genetic basis" is far from over despite what the homosexual propagandists and liberal media would like us to believe. That homosexuality is a "fundamental aspect of a persons essential nature" is ridiculous. Many animals species also eat their young.

I am pretty sure that the genetic basis aspect has been sufficiently established by a sufficiently high value of the coefficient of correlation in the regression analysis of the scientific studies. The other aspects would seem to be logically entailed by this genetic basis aspect.

[peteolcott]

Only if one wants it to be. One decides what is important to oneself, and one decides what is not. If you believe it is essential, it will be to you, but for those who do not believe it is essential, it will not be for them. In other words, mind controls the matter.

I'm sorry to say this, but this doesn't change a thing. Cannibalism is common among black widows. That doesn't change how we look at it as humans. We shouldn't be worried about what animals do, or even what is genetic, in this case. All that matters is the choice.

That statement is an extremely hurtful misconception. It is easy to disprove. If preferences are choices then take your most favorite food and your least favorite food, and then CHOOSE to swap them. Do this right now. If you are not now disgusted by your most favorite food, then preferences are not a choice.

[Erin15]

Homosexuality is an intrinsic, inherent, and fundamental aspect of a person's essential nature.

It has been shown to have a genetic basis. It has been shown to be common in many animal species.

We are all born with appetites and desires, both good and bad, but they do not define us, they are not who we are.

We are who we choose to be, and we are defined by our choices.

I found the first paragraph very hurtful.

Sarcasm is at least slightly unkind, and your statement was at the very least sarcastic.

Well, you shouldn't, because The Gospel is designed for the benefit, instruction, and ultimate happiness of all His children. One of the purposes of this life is to teach us how to keep our appetites and desires within the boundaries The Lord has set. The Lord sets these boundaries based on eternal laws and principals which are eternal. The things that bring us joy and misery are unchanging, we can chose what to do, we cannot choose what the consequences will be.

The Lord gives us commandments as warnings against the things which can destroy us spiritually, and to encourage us to do the things that will bring us joy. By following the commandments we not only avoid many consequences, but we also make ourselves worthy to enjoy a greater portion of his spirit on our life's journey.

When people point out spiritual dangers and issue a warning, they do so out of a concern for your well being as a fellow human, so do not be hurt by admonitions. Instead, be grateful that someone cared enough to say something.

[Kemara]

I am pretty sure that the genetic basis aspect has been sufficiently established by a sufficiently high value of the coefficient of correlation in the regression analysis of the scientific studies. The other aspects would seem to be logically entailed by this genetic basis aspect.

I agree that these points have been established by some scientific studies, do you dispute that these points have been questioned by other scientific studies? If not, then, as I said, the debate is far from over and the logical extension you made on these debated points is dubious.

[DavidB]

Kemara you have done nothing but jump on scott's band wagon against me. My post are clear to their meaning. I support the Church message given on the website....have you yet gone to website to figure out what that message is?

Edited December 7, 2012 by DavidB

[TAO]

That statement is an extremely hurtful misconception.

How so?

It is easy to disprove. If preferences are choices then take your most favorite food and your least favorite food, and then CHOOSE to swap them. Do this right now. If you are not now disgusted by your most favorite food, then preferences are not a choice.

Hmmm... have you ever heard the story of Stonewall Jackson? It actually didn't really happen, yes, but it draws a certain moral conclusion which is useful in other things.

Basically, the story goes he ate lemons every day, because he hated them. Eventually he grew to the point where he actually liked eating them, and so he had to switch to another food. (of course, as I mentioned, it's just a story)

Moral of the story; you can get to like anything if you want to. It's not easy no, but definately possible. Those who say it isn't just haven't been able to suceed in doing it, I would guess.

Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO

[Erin15]

If preferences are choices then take your most favorite food and your least favorite food, and then CHOOSE to swap them. Do this right now. If you are not now disgusted by your most favorite food, then preferences are not a choice.

You may not choose your preference in food, but you do choose what you put into your body, and the consequences come.

Let's say two people prefer junk food. One chooses to wallow in that preference, and ruins his health, while the other chooses to eat a healthy diet, and is rewarded with physical health.

Like I said, it is what you choose to do that matters. What you prefer is largely irrelivant.

[peteolcott]

That's too simplistic of a moral law in my opinion. Everything can be both harmful and helpful in certain scenarios.

Harmful effect and wrong mutually define each other.

[TAO]

Harmful effect and wrong mutually define each other.

Well then you must be in a dilemma when taking steps on the grass, considering that each time, thousands of slime molds die. And that's harmful. What about using insecticide, or rat poison? What about parody or constructive criticism taken wrong? Capital Punishment, or jail, or other political issues? The list goes on. Harming people doesn't necessarily make something immoral. We justify harmful things all the time.

Indeed, morally wrong is a much more complex issue than just harm.

Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO

[pogi]

There is no wrong without a harmful effect. To the exact same extent that there is not a harmful effect, then the above are not wrong. If you can find a harmful effect, then the above could be construed as at least slightly hateful of self or others.

You must perceive things from an eternal perspective if you want to understand an eternal truth. Breaking any commandment is hurtful and to some extent hateful (enmity with God). If sleeping with someone out of wedlock in a committed relationship prevents them from eternal progression, would you consider that love? Or, would you advise them to be married as the Church demands of anyone who wants to be baptized into the Church.

[peteolcott]

We are all born with appetites and desires, both good and bad, but they do not define us, they are not who we are.

We are who we choose to be, and we are defined by our choices.

Well, you shouldn't, because The Gospel is designed for the benefit, instruction, and ultimate happiness of all His children. One of the purposes of this life is to teach us how to keep our appetites and desires within the boundaries The Lord has set. The Lord sets these boundaries based on eternal laws and principals which are eternal. The things that bring us joy and misery are unchanging, we can chose what to do, we cannot choose what the consequences will be.

The Lord gives us commandments as warnings against the things which can destroy us spiritually, and to encourage us to do the things that will bring us joy. By following the commandments we not only avoid many consequences, but we also make ourselves worthy to enjoy a greater portion of his spirit on our life's journey.

When people point out spiritual dangers and issue a warning, they do so out of a concern for your well being as a fellow human, so do not be hurt by admonitions. Instead, be grateful that someone cared enough to say something.

Homosexuality is inherent, intrinsic and a fundamental immutable aspect of one's nature.

Saying that it is a choice is hateful, judgmental and untrue. Since science has shown that it has a genetic basis, and it is known that genetics are not a matter of choice, the view that it is a choice is sufficiently disproven.

If this bible verse is correct and says what it means and means what it says

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

then the only possible sin is hatefulness to some degree, everything else has been superseded.