Rick Warren On Homosexuality

[rockpond]

"THE FAMILY is ordained of God. 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 who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

The church does not recognize a gay couple as a family. Read the above- that is how a family is defined. There are instances where divorce, loss of spose, etc happen and we still refer to them as family. But, the church never has, never will recognize a gay couple as a family. Get over it already

 

A.  That is not a definition.  It's a statement of what God ordains but the text does not, in any way, imply exclusivity.

 

B.  You are in good company in making such absolute statements like "the church never will..." (see below) but fortunately, we are part of a church that believes in ongoing revelation.

 

“But, for the information of those who may be assailed by these foolish tales about two wives, we would say that no such principle ever existed among the Latter-day Saints, and never will... the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants; and also all our periodicals are very strict on that subject, indeed for more so than the Bible.” --Millennial Star, v. 3, p. 74

 

Brigham Young:  “’Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?’ If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.” --Deseret News, October 10, 1866

 

Brigham Young:  " Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood." --JoD, Vol.7, Pg.290-291

 

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible." --Improvement Era

 

Brigham Young:  "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."  --JoD, 10:110

 

And just for fun, this "famous" one...

 

Joseph Fielding Smith:  "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." --May 14, 1961 Stake Conf in Honolulu

[wenglund]

I know what the Church teaches. What I'm not convinced of is why the laws of this country need to comply with the religious dictates of just my conscience.

 

Why do the laws need to comply with the dictates of anyone's conscience? Shouldn't voting and obedience to the laws be conscience free?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 9, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

In my experience the law seldom has anything to with being moral.

 

So, we live in an amoral society? Is that a good thing?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't get the argument, particularly when worded like Warren does, that gay marriage is some offensive effort to change the definition of a word.  Words are applied differently all the time.  No one seems to make a big fuss about it.  Is this now a new crusade to say words can't evolve?  Words can't be used to apply a different twist to things?  This happens all the time.

 

So true.  The word "good" has now "evolved" to mean "evil", and vice verse. No problem there.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

So true.  The word "good" has now "evolved" to mean "evil", and vice verse. No problem there.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Great.  So in terms of argument what are we left with?  It doesn't appear to be much.  There really is no logical way to oppose gay marriage.  Might as well accept that at this point and stop making up poor arguments.  Such argumentation is more indicative of fear than it is of anything else. 

[thesometimesaint]

Why do the laws need to comply with the dictates of anyone's conscience? Shouldn't voting and obedience to the laws be conscience free?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ideally our laws should comply with the dictates of everyone's conscience. In terms of practically that isn't likely happen anytime soon.

See Article of Faith #11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

In this country we don't get to vote on your conscientious beliefs.

[wenglund]

Great.  So in terms of argument what are we left with?  It doesn't appear to be much.  There really is no logical way to oppose gay marriage.  Might as well accept that at this point and stop making up poor arguments.  Such argumentation is more indicative of fear than it is of anything else. 

 

Evidently, what some people are left with is this kind of laughably capitulative drivel. Such is why good has become evil, and vice verse. God help us.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Ideally our laws should comply with the dictates of everyone's conscience. In terms of practically that isn't likely happen anytime soon.

See Article of Faith #11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

In this country we don't get to vote on your conscientious beliefs.

 

This doesn't answer my questions. It simply rephrases what you said before--which prompted the questions. Care to try again?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

It is the only answer I can give. While may disagree with any/all of your beliefs. I don't get to vote on your beliefs.

[stemelbow]

Evidently, what some people are left with is this kind of laughably capitulative drivel. Such is why good has become evil, and vice verse. God help us.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

What good has become evil and what evil has become good?

[thesometimesaint]

What good has become evil and what evil has become good?

 

Not much is intrinsically good or evil. Just the purposes to which we put it.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't get the argument, particularly when worded like Warren does, that gay marriage is some offensive effort to change the definition of a word.  Words are applied differently all the time.  No one seems to make a big fuss about it.  Is this now a new crusade to say words can't evolve?  Words can't be used to apply a different twist to things?  This happens all the time. 

 

I don't see it.  He's asked why be opposed to equal rights, essentially.  And he answers by saying he's really just about words not changing meaning over time.  Sorry, but that's just stupid, the more I think about it.

 

Opposition will die out soon enough.  Gay marriage will be.  Might as well get used to it.  Believe what you want about gay sexual activity (it's an abomination or whatever), but fighting gay marriage is getting you nowhere. 

 

You simply can't force the nation to accept that marriage must only be what you want it to be.  That attempted argument is useless. 

We must fight against immorality in all forms. If we stand by and do nothing it won't be long before a man can marry his son and legally be able to sodomize him. Marriage is biblical, it started with Adam and eve on this world as a sacred institution. Its not our right to destroy moral principle and enforce in its place immorality.

[Rob Osborn]

 

A.  That is not a definition.  It's a statement of what God ordains but the text does not, in any way, imply exclusivity.

 

B.  You are in good company in making such absolute statements like "the church never will..." (see below) but fortunately, we are part of a church that believes in ongoing revelation.

 

“But, for the information of those who may be assailed by these foolish tales about two wives, we would say that no such principle ever existed among the Latter-day Saints, and never will... the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants; and also all our periodicals are very strict on that subject, indeed for more so than the Bible.” --Millennial Star, v. 3, p. 74

 

Brigham Young:  “’Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?’ If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.” --Deseret News, October 10, 1866

 

Brigham Young:  " Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood." --JoD, Vol.7, Pg.290-291

 

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible." --Improvement Era

 

Brigham Young:  "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."  --JoD, 10:110

 

And just for fun, this "famous" one...

 

Joseph Fielding Smith:  "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." --May 14, 1961 Stake Conf in Honolulu

 

Tell you what, find any one place in all of the Church official documents, talks, manuals, statements, etc, that calls a gay couple a "family" and perhaps i will believe you. (Hint- There is no such thing).

[stemelbow]

We must fight against immorality in all forms. If we stand by and do nothing it won't be long before a man can marry his son and legally be able to sodomize him. Marriage is biblical, it started with Adam and eve on this world as a sacred institution. Its not our right to destroy moral principle and enforce in its place immorality.

 

huh?  It won't be legal for a man to marry his son, particularly if the son is under-age.  All sorts of incest laws are in place.  The problem you face is, gay sex is going to occur whether gay marriage is legal or not.  Indeed, Gay marriage can perhaps help fidelity in some cases.  Gay sex, I'm assuming based on the idea that more and more people are in this world and more and more people therefore are gay, will increase in activity whether gay marriage is legal or not. 

 

In this, you're not posing any fight against the immoral act, as you call it, you are fighting against something else--people's rights. 

 

The definition of the word, then, doesn't even factor into it.

[Rob Osborn]

huh?  It won't be legal for a man to marry his son, particularly if the son is under-age.  All sorts of incest laws are in place.  The problem you face is, gay sex is going to occur whether gay marriage is legal or not.  Indeed, Gay marriage can perhaps help fidelity in some cases.  Gay sex, I'm assuming based on the idea that more and more people are in this world and more and more people therefore are gay, will increase in activity whether gay marriage is legal or not. 

 

In this, you're not posing any fight against the immoral act, as you call it, you are fighting against something else--people's rights. 

 

The definition of the word, then, doesn't even factor into it.

This is the attitude that probably led to Sodom and Gomorrah. People do not have the right to destroy morality and believe that all will be fine. More and more gay people in the world is entirely because of loose moral standards. Its also the reason why there are more rapes, more cases of incest and child sexual abuse, more divorces, more cheating on spouses, more cases of indecent exposure, etc. We should really look at this as a gross sick darkness that covers the world- its called the church of Satan and I for one am contending against it in all its dark and evil forms. Get it out of our society!

[thesometimesaint]

According to Scripture S&G were destroyed for their mistreatment of the poor. While the actual numbers of homosexuals has gone up that is just a reflection of an increasing number of people. The RATE of homosexuality has remained pretty constant over the last 6000 years or so. IE; If two cars collide that is tragic. If they are the only two cars in the country the number remains the same but the rate is now 100%.

 

We get our marriage laws from the ancient Romans by way of the English. While those Romans were far more accepting of homosexuality than the English neither one considered SSM as legal.

 

Not one of those social ills are the sole responsibility of homosexuals.

 

So now you want to get rid of those whom you disagree with. That goes by a lot of things but righteousness isn't one of them.

[Calm]

"THE FAMILY is ordained of God. 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 who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

The church does not recognize a gay couple as a family. Read the above- that is how a family is defined. There are instances where divorce, loss of spose, etc happen and we still refer to them as family. But, the church never has, never will recognize a gay couple as a family. Get over it already

 

Supply the requested references that directly address your claim or leave the thread.

 

In case you missed the mod's instruction, Rob.

 

I personally think it is foolish to waste energy and goodwill on such an extreme position (that is not supported by Church leadership as far as I've been able to find having done extensive searching last night on any language that might lead one to conclude that they exclude a group of adults caring for children as a family because both adults are of the same sex) that will only alienate pretty much all concerned who we want to encourage to change, shutting down the conversation before one can even get to the point of talking about what is the best situation for children and why we should put more of our efforts into promoting that rather than in creating situations where the less than ideal situations easily flourish and it is better financially, etc. for them to maintain status quo rather than work toward having and maintaining a more ideal family.

Edited December 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

This is the attitude that probably led to Sodom and Gomorrah. People do not have the right to destroy morality and believe that all will be fine. More and more gay people in the world is entirely because of loose moral standards. Its also the reason why there are more rapes, more cases of incest and child sexual abuse, more divorces, more cheating on spouses, more cases of indecent exposure, etc. We should really look at this as a gross sick darkness that covers the world- its called the church of Satan and I for one am contending against it in all its dark and evil forms. Get it out of our society!

 

Other than saying I find the above completely backwards I don't have anything to say.

[rockpond]

Tell you what, find any one place in all of the Church official documents, talks, manuals, statements, etc, that calls a gay couple a "family" and perhaps i will believe you. (Hint- There is no such thing).

 

You're right.  The church, to my knowledge, has never said that a "gay couple" constitutes a family.

 

Now, find a revelation from God in which He provides us guidance on His will regarding marriage for his gay children.  (Hint - There isn't one.)

 

Not that I expect a topical response from you since you seem to be more of a hit-and-run poster with no desire to actually dialogue or provide references for your statements.

[california boy]

Herein lies the problem though. A gay couple with children is not a "family". The Church nor God will ever recognize a gay couple as a "family". Many recent studies have shown that a gay couple raising children creates more problems than the traditional family. he traditional family is the only thing that will keep society together- it is the very fabric of freedom and a free society. I'm not sorry to anyone for holding this view. I was taught what the traditional family was, now as a father and teacher I teach my family and those in my stewardship about the traditional family. Hopefully they grow up and keep moral principle in place and do the same. I will defend the family at all cost. Anything that seeks to destroy the family unit I will defend with my life if needed. This philosophy of "the new normal" (Thanks for nothin Hollywood) is a gross abomination and am sad to see so many Americans embrace such blasphemy.

 

 

Christ spent 3 years on this earth teaching us carefully how we are to live our lives and how to follow His example.  When one studies the scriptures, there are certain messages from Christ that appear over and over again.  One of these messages is His complete distain for the Pharisees that thought they were more righteous than everyone else.  They judged their righteousness by how much better they were than "other people".  The bragged that they were "not like those who they judged to be sinners."  Having distain for those that may be different or may not have as much faith was often condemned by the Savior.  When we start to judge who is a family and who is not a family we are no longer in keeping with the Saviors message.  When you start to twist facts and make up statements that you can't support to enhance your position of superiority because your family is not like gay families, then you are no longer following the message of Christ.  Christ clearly taught that those who judge others harshly will be judged by Him in a like manner.  Please revisit your post and reconsider your position.  You can still be a valiant follower of Christ without having distain for those that are not like you.

 

There are two CFR's that have been issued to you.  The rules of this discussion board is to provide the proof to those statements or withdraw them.  The moderators have specifically asked you to follow the board guidelines on this matter.  

 

Here are the two CFR's

CFR where the church does not recognize gay families as being families.

CFR that gay couple raising children creates more problems than the traditional family.

 

The churches very public view on gay marriage in no way means that the church does not consider anyone's family to not be a family.  They are two completely different issues.  Review your post #45 which the moderators did not consider a fulfillment of the CFR.  Also review this link http://www.lds.org/l...a____&hideNav=1 that Calmoriah gave you.  We wait for your reply.

[Rob Osborn]

In case you missed the mod's instruction, Rob.

 

I personally think it is foolish to waste energy and goodwill on such an extreme position (that is not supported by Church leadership as far as I've been able to find having done extensive searching last night on any language that might lead one to conclude that they exclude a group of adults caring for children as a family because both adults are of the same sex) that will only alienate pretty much all concerned who we want to encourage to change, shutting down the conversation before one can even get to the point of talking about what is the best situation for children and why we should put more of our efforts into promoting that rather than in creating situations where the less than ideal situations easily flourish and it is better financially, etc. for them to maintain status quo rather than work toward having and maintaining a more ideal family.

My CFR linked to the Prolamation which does in fact define what a family is. If one cant get that out of it thenwrite the church. For cryin out loud, the LDS church supports the family and a gay coupke IS NOT what the church defines as a family

 

You are out of the thread for refusing to respond to repeated CFRs.

[BCSpace]

Absolutely.  I really mean it.  The rest of your implicative argument on the scale of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement merely rises to the level of Contradiction in a small way but mostly resides at the level of Ad Hominem.

 

So what is your plan?  Will you be the first to offer your daughter or your sister, or your niece to a marriage with someone who is gay?  And just how do you think this will turn out?

 

 

 

What makes you think I would do that?  Your statement is akin making the standard homosexual activist argument that anyone who opposes the gay agenda must themselves be a closet homosexual.

[BCSpace]

My take:

 

Warren is absolutely right on tolerance.

Morgan doesn't seem to realize that homosexuals have always had the same right to marry the opposite sex that everyone else has.

Morgan obviously doesn't understand what the Bible actually says.  Hopefully Warren is just giving him a pass on that.

I disagree with the direction Warren takes on the issue about redefining the word marriage.  SSM is a question of welfare and we don't give (or shouldn't give) welfare to anyone just because they want a piece of the pie too.

That Warren fears the disapproval of God over the disapproval of Morgan or society and is willing to state it in such a public venue, thus putting his money where his mouth is, is admirable.  Hopefully when push comes to shove, he'll be able to stick to it.

 

Rick Warren became a media darling when a guy escaped from jail and killed four or five fellow officers here in Atlanta where I was serving. The lady whom he broke in one and planned to kill also, used aspects of his book to talking him down, and thankfully saved her life and got him to surrender...since his media attention he has become more PC in views. Seems like a nice guy...but scripture is clear on this issue and our hearts break for the intolerant. But if we are God's Church and not man made, we must reflect his ideals, no matter how difficult for those within my own family ache for one of our own. Those who hate gay people, don't love any...as in between my unconditional love for one of my children. God help any who hate others...for in us would lie the greater sin.

 

 

 

The issue of SSM?  Are you claiming that those opposed to SSM hate gay people?

[california boy]

What makes you think I would do that?  Your statement is akin making the standard homosexual activist argument that anyone who opposes the gay agenda must themselves be a closet homosexual.

This is what you wrote that I was responding to.

 

Morgan doesn't seem to realize that homosexuals have always had the same right to marry the opposite sex that everyone else has.

 

 

 

So if you are unwilling to let gay couples marry each other because they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. then I am simply asking what your plan is.  Do you want gays to start marrying the opposite sex even though they are not attracted to them or want a relationship with them?  Do you think that telling gays to marry someone of the opposite sex is a wonderful idea for those poor women that end up in that kind of marriage?  Would you encourage your daughter to marry a man that is gay?  And what happens when these marriages don't work out which is the majority of the time.  Is this a good option for any children that may come from such marriages? I want to know how you envision only allowing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex is all going to work out.

[EllenMaksoud]

After reading some other articles on this whole diversity struggle, it is pretty clear to me that those wanting their "rights" will pursue these things in the US Courts and the freedom of religion be damned.  In thinking about it, should the battle go the way I fear it will go, I will likely leave the church out of disgust for the GBLT political action pac.  It is clear to me that since the birth of the church certain groups have systematically conspired to deprive the church of religious freedom, and I can not bear to watch it.