Mormonsandgays

[TAO]

It makes no sense to me. From my point of view it seems irrational.

Well, that's perhaps why they are capable of not listening to their impulses then. They see things differently than you do. That's probably why indeed.

Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

Yet choosing to not fullfull it would cease to provide sufficient reason for me to continue to exist in this world or the next.

That is one's choice. I understand the feeling to a degree; alas, I know many who don't feel this way.

[TAO]

Where does this eventually lead? Seriously, what is the end game for all of this?

The game will never end as long as people disagree with each other, I am sorry to say =(. It's just the way life works and all; disagreeing people will oftentimes argue.

[peteolcott]

If we are not free to make choices, then why does God give us rules?

If we are not free to make choices, then why does God reward good choices?

If we are not free to make choices, then why does God punish bad choices?

If we are not free to make choices, then why do we have scriptures and prophets to explain right and wrong to us?

If we are not free to make choices, then why does God tell us that we are?

We are not free to choose are preferences, especially if there is a genetic predisposition.

[Kemara]

DavidB you really do brighten my day, I appreciate it. Your continued obfuscation is tremendously entertaining, I dont mind at all if you keep on doing it, I have no problem in pointing it out over and over again.

I support the message the Church presents on the website...

Which in your view is what?

...which I have previously stated is, in my opinion the centralization of what the Church has taught for a long time...

Which in your view is what?

...as Elders Oaks states what is on the website is no change in doctrine.

Which in your view is what?

Also, you failed to respond at all, even in an obfuscating manner, to my question of what in your view is the adjustment that many Saints need to make?

[peteolcott]

Where does this eventually lead? Seriously, what is the end game for all of this?

It seems to me that it eventually leads to paradise on Earth, as soon as people get righteousness right.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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

A conceit which is both culturally bound (it originated in the West and remains dominant there, though Hollywood and others have recently done a very good job of exporting it around the planet) and historically bound (with its genealogy traceable to an origin at the end of the 19th century).

[peteolcott]

Well, that's perhaps why they are capable of not listening to their impulses then. They see things differently than you do. That's probably why indeed.

You denigrate love to impulses that must be controlled?

In any case if this is the true will of God:

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

Then it supersedes all other requirements, thus your basis against my view ceases to exist.

[Erin15]

Is it me, or is there a certain irony that a thread to discuss how we as Mormons can be more supportive and considerate towards gay people has reached the point where homosexual people (who "do not choose" their preference), are being compared to people who prefer junk food and "told to eat lemons for a year" in the hope it will change them. Have you not even read the website?

And as for the implied comparison of comparing gay people to a carnivorous Black Widow which 'humans' find disgusting is, again, insensitive.

Believe it or not, I kind of agree with you. The fact is that I am not good at using soft politically correct bubble-gum language. There, I admitted it. What you can expect out of me though, is that I care enough about every last one of you to speak up and try and save you even if you don't want to be saved.

If we are going to be completely honest, however, you have to admit that your initial post in this thread where you tried to tie the subject into your political activism, was, at the very least, just as inappropriate.

As has been said in other posts, I hope this is paving the way for a change in my lifetime to married gays being welcomed into the church.

[slamarwi]

We are not free to choose are preferences, especially if there is a genetic predisposition.

Many heterosexuals would enjoy sleeping around, but choose not to because they want to be obedient. How is this any different.

het beste -l wiscombe

[TAO]

You denigrate love to impulses that must be controlled?

I degenirate homosexuaity to impulses that must be controlled.

In any case if this is the true will of God:

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

Then it supersedes all other requirements, thus your basis against my view ceases to exist.

And yet, as I pointed out, to love my neighbors, I must warn them against homosexuality.

Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO

[peteolcott]

I degenirate homosexuaity to impulses that must be controlled.

And yet, as I pointed out, to love my neighbors, I must warn them against homosexuality.

If this verse is the will of God

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

Then homosexuality is not a sin, and is not breaking God law.

Only those specific things that are inherently hateful break this law.

So what other basis do you have to warn others against it?

[TAO]

If this verse is the will of God

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

Then homosexuality is not a sin, and is not breaking God law.

Except that this verse never mentions homosexuality.

Only those specific things that are inherently hateful break this law.

You can believe that if you would like. I know different however; the law is more complex than simply hate.

So what other basis do you have to warn others against it?

The Holy Ghost. And several scriptures as well.

Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO

[peteolcott]

I degenirate homosexuaity to impulses that must be controlled.

OK fine, I denigrate heterosexuality to nothing more than mere impulses that must be controlled, especially when the world is (as it is now) 700% overpopulated.

[peteolcott]

Except that this verse never mentions homosexuality.

You can believe that if you would like. I know different however; the law is more complex than simply hate.

The Holy Ghost. And several scriptures as well.

If this verse is the true will of God

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

Then it is self-evident (completely proven entirely by the meaning of the words) that the only way to break this law is by a hateful act.

Furthermore (proven entirely by the meaning of the words) there are no other requirements for obedience than to this law. (It says its the whole law).

Edited December 7, 2012 by peteolcott

[halconero]

I don't like to use this phrase very much but....Holy crap...you leave for a temple session and this topic is at three comments. You come back and it's the Book of Ether.

[TAO]

OK fine, I denigrate heterosexuality to nothing more than mere impulses that must be controlled, especially when the world is (as it is now) 700% overpopulated.

That's your choice. I'll agree to disagree.

[TAO]

If this verse is the true will of God

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

Then it is self-evident (completely proven entirely by the meaning of the words) that the only way to break this law is by a hateful act.

Furthermore (proven entirely by the meaning of the words) there are no other requirements for obedience than to this law. (It says its the whole law).

The Holy Spirit supercedes any single verse in the Bible, which is not inerrant. Even more than that though, there are several verses in the Bible (and also in the Book of Mormon) which contradict your interepreation of that verse. That's problematic for your point of view.

And as I pointed out, loving another person means I warn them against sin, which homosexaulity is.

Apparently, we are agreeing to disagree.

Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO

[peteolcott]

That's your choice. I'll agree to disagree.

That the world is 700% overpopulated has a scientific basis.

If the world is truly 700% overpopulated, then encouraging procreation would tend worsen this problem.

The depth of love that two people can have for each other does not depend upon their relative gender, hence denigrating these feelings to impulses was both hurtful and untrue.

[peteolcott]

The Holy Spirit supercedes any single verse in the Bible, which is not inerrant. Even more than that though, there are several verses in the Bible (and also in the Book of Mormon) which contradict your interepreation of that verse. That's problematic for your point of view.

And as I pointed out, loving another person means I warn them against sin, which homosexaulity is.

Apparently, we are agreeing to disagree.

There are two aspects to my analysis that must be taken separately:

(1) Whether or not that verse is exactly God's will.

(2) The logical entailments derived from the meaning of the words in that verse.

I have been focusing on part (2). It is better that we do not proceed to part (1) until part (2) is complete.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is required for correct scriptural understanding.

If we simply take (1) as a premise, then we can conclude on the basis of the meaning of the words that since

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

This is the whole law, then no other law must be obeyed, and since sin is only breaking God's law, therefore homosexuality is not a sin.

Edited December 7, 2012 by peteolcott

[Nathair/|\]

To interfere with someone's exaltation causes them harm.

What God says now supersedes what he said 2000 years ago.

[Kemara]

That the world is 700% overpopulated has a scientific basis.

If the world is truly 700% overpopulated, then encouraging procreation would tend worsen this problem.

You are trotting out science in support of your position after earlier discarding it, it simply boggles the mind.

The world being 700% over populated is as debatable as is your claim that homosexuality is intrinsic, inherent, has a genetic basis and is a fundamental aspect fo a persons essential nature. There are scientific studies that question both of your scientifically proposed positions.

[peteolcott]

To interfere with someone's exaltation causes them harm.

What God says now supersedes what he said 2000 years ago.

I don't know ** about the first part, I totally agree with the second part.

** I do not think that I share the exact same meaning of exaltation.

The kind that I know about might not be able to be interferred with.

[peteolcott]

You are trotting out science in support of your position after earlier discarding it, it simply boggles the mind.

The world being 700% over populated is as debatable as is your claim that homosexuality is intrinsic, inherent, has a genetic basis and is a fundamental aspect fo a persons essential nature. There are scientific studies that question both of your scientifically proposed positions.

You are being unkind.

[TAO]

That the world is 700% overpopulated has a scientific basis.

No it does't, actually, once you look at their methods... let me tell you why. First off, what is the word 'adequate', exactly. Well, it's a non-scientific word. Scientists pick an arbitrary number, which enough of them agree to, and define that as adequate. That's how they determine what 100% population is... by dividing the world's area and resources by what is deemed adequate. Thus, 700% overpopulation isn't really a scientific concept.

If the world is truly 700% overpopulated, then encouraging procreation would tend worsen this problem.

And yet, the world isn't 700% overpopulated, if adequate is definded differently.

The depth of love that two people can have for each other does not depend upon their relative gender, hence denigrating these feelings to impulses was both hurtful and untrue.

I'd disagree.