Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[wenglund]

I too think there needs to be a well thought out overriding secular justification for imposing faith based legislation on the American people. I'm for an near absolute separation of Church and State.

 

Perhaps we should change the official motto of the U.S. from "In God We Trust" to "We Don't Trust God"?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps we should change the official motto of the U.S. from "In God We Trust" to "We Don't Trust God"?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

In God we trust all others pay cash.

[jkwilliams]

Are you implying that before God there is nothing that is a perversion of his teachings or laws? Just curious.

 

I can't speak for him, but I'd say that if the church wants to have a civil discussion about this in the public arena, it might do well to choose its words carefully.  You can be emphatic, even harshly critical, and still be civil. Here's an example, IMO:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5WVecNdhk

[Stone holm]

Perhaps we should change the official motto of the U.S. from "In God We Trust" to "We Don't Trust God"?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Just curious, not sure on this but wasn't the orginal motto E. Pluribus Unum -- which seems more consistent with the feelings of the Founding Fathers -- Madison once expressed his regrets for having appointed a Congressional Chaplain which he felt violated the Constitution, but who is Madison to say, he just drafted it...

[wenglund]

Just curious, not sure on this but wasn't the orginal motto E. Pluribus Unum-

 

It was written on the official seal of the U.S. along with "Annuit cœptis (Latin for "He approves (has approved) of the undertaking)". (See HERE) Who do you suppose the "He" is in reference to? (Hint: when you combine E Pluribus Unum with Annuit cceptis, you get something along the lines of "One nation under God" )

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

It was written on the official seal of the U.S. along with "Annuit cœptis (Latin for "He approves (has approved) of the undertaking)". (See HERE) Who do you suppose the "He" is in reference to? (Hint: when you combine E Pluribus Unum with Annuit cceptis, you get something along the lines of "One nation under God" )

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Interesting E. Pluribus Unum means out of many one -- referring to the colonies becoming one.

[thesometimesaint]

It was written on the official seal of the U.S. along with "Annuit cœptis (Latin for "He approves (has approved) of the undertaking)". (See HERE) Who do you suppose the "He" is in reference to? (Hint: when you combine E Pluribus Unum with Annuit cceptis, you get something along the lines of "One nation under God" )

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Not as much as you are positing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States

[Stone holm]

It was written on the official seal of the U.S. along with "Annuit cœptis (Latin for "He approves (has approved) of the undertaking)". (See HERE) Who do you suppose the "He" is in reference to? (Hint: when you combine E Pluribus Unum with Annuit cceptis, you get something along the lines of "One nation under God" )

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Okay, I don't think so -- Annuit coeptis does not appear connected to E Pluribus Unum,  while Annuit coeptis does appear on the obverse of the seal -- it is a reference to "Providence" which was something that was used by people involved in the Enlightenment as something akin to "fate".  E Pluribus Unum has specifically to do with the union of the thirteen colonies -- don't see the evidence that the two Latin phrases were ever intended to be combined.

 

http://greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html

[Scott Lloyd]

Would you consider condemning someone playing football a good thing? It does in the OT. That old touching pig skin thing. How how about selling your daughter/son into slavery? The OT says it's OK. How about putting to death your teenage son because he argues with you. That too is right in the OT. If you plant two different crops side by side in your garden. Do we get to stone you to death? Must you get the whole city, or can it be a private ceremony, to stone your mother to death when she wears different materials in the same outfit? I can provide more if you want.

I'll repeat here the post you were responding to so you can consider it more carefully:

 

Do you regard condemnation of what one regards as sinful behavior as "acting against others"?

 

Note the part I put in bold. I was referring to the behavior, not the person.

[Stone holm]

I'll repeat here the post you were responding to so you can consider it more carefully:

 

Do you regard condemnation of what one regards as sinful behavior as "acting against others"?

 

Note the part I put in bold. I was referring to the behavior, not the person.

 

So we going down the road of hate the sin, but love the sinner platitude?  Let's be honest -- I agree with the concept since I think homosexual activity is personally disgusting, but you know there is this lingering revulsion towards those who are obviously gay, and I am a person who opposes legislation that discriminates against gays, so what is really the likelihood that the people who are all amped up to "defend marriage" from the evils of homosexuality are going to honor this distinction?

[thesometimesaint]

I'll repeat here the post you were responding to so you can consider it more carefully:

 

Do you regard condemnation of what one regards as sinful behavior as "acting against others"?

 

Note the part I put in bold. I was referring to the behavior, not the person.

 

You might be surprized at what I consider sinful behavior. "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart". Clearly all of us can have any opinion of any action we want. As long as we don't give voice to that opinion no one, but God, is the wiser.

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to give voice and remove all doubt. This old world is brim full of people doing foolish things.

[Scott Lloyd]

So we going down the road of hate the sin, but love the sinner platitude?

I strongly disagree that it's just a platitude. It is, in fact, the only workable attitude for one who desires to have a merciful and charitable heart while justly abhorring sin.

 

Let's be honest -- I agree with the concept since I think homosexual activity is personally disgusting, but you know there is this lingering revulsion towards those who are obviously gay, and I am a person who opposes legislation that discriminates against gays, so what is really the likelihood that the people who are all amped up to "defend marriage" from the evils of homosexuality are going to honor this distinction?

 

The Brethren seem to be honoring it just fine. We can follow their example.

 

I, for one, am willing to make a go of it.

[Stone holm]

I strongly disagree that it's just a platitude. It is, in fact, the only workable attitude for one who desires to have a merciful and charitable heart while justly abhorring sin.

 

The Brethren seem to be honoring it just fine. We can follow their example.

 

I, for one, am willing to make a go of it.

 

Yeah, I hear it all the time, and I think it can work with certain types of sin...I am very skeptical that it is working as well as we like to pretend in the case of homosexuality...sorry I am just very skeptical about that.  Its a phrase that I avoid using because the people I know personally that use it aren't very convincing in my estimation.

[mormonnewb]

Are you implying that before God there is nothing that is a perversion of his teachings or laws? Just curious.

 

Not at all.  I'd even go so far as to say that much of Western civilization over the last 2,000 years has been a perversion of God's laws (e.g., the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, imperialism, slavery, etc.).  In fact, if I'm not mistaken, a large part of the underpinning of our claim to a restored gospel is that the original church became apostate through a perversion of God's sacred ordinances.  I'm simply saying that the term "perversion" is not helpful in any discussion about homosexuality because it's modern-day connotations are simply too pejorative, which is probably why we didn't refer to the leaders of other churches as "perverts" or being involved in "perversion" of God's teachings.  We simply state that we have a different view of scripture and then base our arguments on logic (or revelation).

[Scott Lloyd]

You might be surprized at what I consider sinful behavior. "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart". Clearly all of us can have any opinion of any action we want. As long as we don't give voice to that opinion no one, but God, is the wiser.

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to give voice and remove all doubt. This old world is brim full of people doing foolish things.

To this, I would respond with one of my favorite quotations from Spencer W. Kimball:

 

We would not have much motivation to righteousness if all speakers and writers postponed discussing and warning until they themselves were perfected.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I hear it all the time, and I think it can work with certain types of sin...I am very skeptical that it is working as well as we like to pretend in the case of homosexuality...sorry I am just very skeptical about that.  Its a phrase that I avoid using because the people I know personally that use it aren't very convincing in my estimation.

How sad to be beset with such cynicism.

[thesometimesaint]

To this, I would respond with one of my favorite quotations from Spencer W. Kimball:

 

Don't worry I'm far from perfect, and can only claim to be a some time Saint.

[mormonnewb]

You seem stuck in the tar pit of confused bifurcation, For the last time, I used the term "perversion," like "carcinogen" in an emotionally neutral way. It was neither Christ-like nor un-Christ-like, neither loving or un-loving. It was matter-of-fact, a practical categorization.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Some words have social connotations that go far beyond their technical meanings.  As a result, we usually restrict the use of those words to the contexts appropriate to that common, everyday understanding of the word.  For example, the technical definition of the word "molest" is "to pester or harass (someone), typically in an aggressive or persistent manner."  However, we don't "practically categorize" everyone who makes inappropriate advances in the workplace as a "sexual molester."  That term has connotations that are far too heinous to impose upon the poor sap who merely asks a co-worker out on a date.

 

As a result, I contend that it is, at best, misleading to use a term normally reserved for people engaged in pedophilia or public indecency to describe a consensual intimate relationship between two adults and conducted behind close doors.  And that doing so suggests either that one is ignorant of the common meaning of the term being used or that one is using the term in an effort to unduly malign another.  And in this case, I think we can rule out ignorance.

[Storm Rider]

I can't speak for him, but I'd say that if the church wants to have a civil discussion about this in the public arena, it might do well to choose its words carefully.  You can be emphatic, even harshly critical, and still be civil. Here's an example, IMO:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5WVecNdhk

 

Come on JK, you are avoiding the question. Do you think that God thinks there is a perversion of his laws and teachings or that we as his children can exhibit a perversion of same? 

 

Your answer is a dodge; "I cannot speak for God....and no one else can either so let's just sing cum-ba-ya, love one another....and eat, drink and be merry."  This denies the need for having prophets and apostles that actually do speak for God and actually encourages others to not listen.

 

Would you counsel all prophets to never offend the people at large?  If not, do we also cast off the need for repentance of any kind because the real purpose of this life is to just get along?  I can understand the appeal of such logic, but I fear for what happens in the next life and the judgment. There is a huge disconnect. 

[teddyaware]

Come on JK, you are avoiding the question. Do you think that God thinks there is a perversion of his laws and teachings or that we as his children can exhibit a perversion of same? 

 

Your answer is a dodge; "I cannot speak for God....and no one else can either so let's just sing cum-ba-ya, love one another....and eat, drink and be merry."  This denies the need for having prophets and apostles that actually do speak for God and actually encourages others to not listen.

 

Would you counsel all prophets to never offend the people at large?  If not, do we also cast off the need for repentance of any kind because the real purpose of this life is to just get along?  I can understand the appeal of such logic, but I fear for what happens in the next life and the judgment. There is a huge disconnect. 

 

It was President James E. Faust who in 1994 spoke of the futility of trying to serve God while not offending the devil. True prophets are always going to rub against the grain of societies that are ripening in iniquity. There is no preaching the gospel truth to the wicked without angering some of he wicked. I suppose the only way it might be possible to preach to the wicked without offending them would be to water down the Lord's standards so much that none would ever feel any urgent need to repent. 

 

P.S. For some unknown reason, my responses are being included in the space reserved for the previous posts of others to which I'm responding. Don't know why this is happening nor how to fix it.

Edited October 31, 2013 by teddyaware

[jkwilliams]

Come on JK, you are avoiding the question. Do you think that God thinks there is a perversion of his laws and teachings or that we as his children can exhibit a perversion of same?

I'm not talking about that at all. I'm saying that it's not particularly smart or civil to choose harsh pejoratives when you're trying to explain that you love gay people but not the sin.

 

Your answer is a dodge; "I cannot speak for God....and no one else can either so let's just sing cum-ba-ya, love one another....and eat, drink and be merry."  This denies the need for having prophets and apostles that actually do speak for God and actually encourages others to not listen.

No, that's not what I said. I said I couldn't answer for the poster who was asked the question, but I do believe you can express disagreement and disapproval emphatically and passionately without being needlessly offensive. From what I've seen, the prophets and apostles have expressed compassion and love for gay people while standing firm on their beliefs. What I was commenting on is this mistaken notion among some posters here that unless you use words like "pervert" you are somehow coddling gays.

 

Would you counsel all prophets to never offend the people at large?  If not, do we also cast off the need for repentance of any kind because the real purpose of this life is to just get along?  I can understand the appeal of such logic, but I fear for what happens in the next life and the judgment. There is a huge disconnect.

People can and should, when possible, be civil and respectful in expressing disagreement. I don't know how to say it any clearer. I don't believe in the church, for example, and I've been pretty clear why, but I try very hard to be civil. Do I regret trying to be respectful? Not in the least. I don't have to be a jerk to express my opinions (though I'm a jerk more often than I like to admit).

[Stone holm]

I'm not talking about that at all. I'm saying that it's not particularly smart or civil to choose harsh pejoratives when you're trying to explain that you love gay people but not the sin. No, that's not what I said. I said I couldn't answer for the poster who was asked the question, but I do believe you can express disagreement and disapproval emphatically and passionately without being needlessly offensive. From what I've seen, the prophets and apostles have expressed compassion and love for gay people while standing firm on their beliefs. What I was commenting on is this mistaken notion among some posters here that unless you use words like "pervert" you are somehow coddling gays. People can and should, when possible, be civil and respectful in expressing disagreement. I don't know how to say it any clearer. I don't believe in the church, for example, and I've been pretty clear why, but I try very hard to be civil. Do I regret trying to be respectful? Not in the least. I don't have to be a jerk to express my opinions (though I'm a jerk more often than I like to admit).

My concern is not with the condemnation of homosexual behavior, it was the timing and context. It is patently obvious that whether something is lawful has no bearing on whether it is sinful, as a result the only reason for emphasizing such a point at last conference was to once again stir the pot on the political controversies swirling around SSM. If they wish to condemn homosexual behavior, fine do so they are here to call everyone to repentance and warn against sin, but give the politics a rest.

[jkwilliams]

My concern is not with the condemnation of homosexual behavior, it was the timing and context. It is patently obvious that whether something is lawful has no bearing on whether it is sinful, as a result the only reason for emphasizing such a point at last conference was to once again stir the pot on the political controversies swirling around SSM. If they wish to condemn homosexual behavior, fine do so they are here to call everyone to repentance and warn against sin, but give the politics a rest.

 

Completely agree. I've never quite understood why people think that the legality of same-sex marriage is a moral issue. If anything, it encourages committed relationships, which by definition are beneficial to society. And yes, it is kind of weird to stir that particular pot again now.

[Stone holm]

Completely agree. I've never quite understood why people think that the legality of same-sex marriage is a moral issue. If anything, it encourages committed relationships, which by definition are beneficial to society. And yes, it is kind of weird to stir that particular pot again now.

Well, while the legality is not a moral issue...actually entering into such a relationship would be. I agree for purely secular reasons the legality makes sense since it encourages committed one on one relationships which reduces the risk of spreading STD and provides economic stability. From a religious perspective, however, it commits people to a long term sinful relationship. From a legal standpoint, however, proscribing relationships based on a one segment of society's definition of sin doesn't work unless there is a strong alternative secular argument. So far, the secular arguments have tended to fail in the legal arenas.

[jkwilliams]

From a religious perspective, however, it commits people to a long term sinful relationship. From a legal standpoint, however, proscribing relationships based on a one segment of society's definition of sin doesn't work unless there is a strong alternative secular argument. So far, the secular arguments have tended to fail in the legal arenas.

Yep. If we passed laws based on what we think is sinful behavior, we'd have a lot of weird laws. Where I live there are a lot of Muslims, so a large number of women wear a head scarf or more in observance of their beliefs. I have no issue with them living their religion, but those of other religious beliefs should not be constrained to follow that practice. In the same way, gay people should not be denied the opportunity to marry just because someone else's religion forbids it.