First The Nfl, Now Disney...

[Buzzard]

Nice. Okay. So you think it will take longer than 30 years?

I think that it would make a lie of the Plan of Happiness, because it would bring eternal misery to those who give in to this temptation, and thus will not happen in this world or the world to come. And that's nothing I have not said before, as have the brethren. I know you feel you are more enlightened than them or I.

[Daniel2]

I think that it would make a lie of the Plan of Happiness, because it would bring eternal misery to those who give in to this temptation, and thus will not happen in this world or the world to come. And that's nothing I have not said before, as have the brethren. I know you feel you are more enlightened than them or I.

Of course, it's also true that you and the brethren also feel you are more enlightened than those of us who support same-sex relationships. There's a notable difference, though--I don't claim to know what will make others feel a sense of happiness or peace, while reserving the right to know myself better than "the brethren" or you ever could.

Which is kind of ironic. I was married to a woman, and the eight years felt like "eternal misery," and were definitely a Great Plan of Un-happiness, in our case. Since coming out, I have known a greater sense of peace and assurance than anything I ever found from following the teachings of my LDS leaders, which resulted in tragedy and heartbreak for all concerned.

[rockpond]

I think that it would make a lie of the Plan of Happiness, because it would bring eternal misery to those who give in to this temptation, and thus will not happen in this world or the world to come. And that's nothing I have not said before, as have the brethren. I know you feel you are more enlightened than them or I.

Not a matter of enlightenment. I'm sure I have more faults than the average person. But prejudice against our homosexual brothers and sisters doesn't happen to be one of my personal struggles anymore. I do, however, have an appreciation of how difficult it is to overcome having been through the process.

The OP demonstrates a society that is shedding its prejudice against homosexuals. Speaking generally, as members of the church shed this particular prejudice, which they are already showing a trend toward doing, they'll become increasingly uncomfortable with the church's position. This will likely prompt the brethren to seek further revelation on the matter. Then we'll just have to see what happens.

I don't think we can continue to abide the current decline in membership growth rates for too much longer. If the recent survey by the PRRI is accurate with respect to young LDS and attitudes toward homosexuals, we'll need guidance from the Lord. IMO.

And just to be clear... I'm not suggesting that our attitudes or prejudices have any effect on God's truth. They only effect how and when we seek revelation.

[rockpond]

Other than my notes from a recent Stake/Area Leadership Training meeting, I don't. I've heard it stated twice now in Stake/Area level meetings but I have not see it published for the general membership. It's likely the information was meant to assuage the damage caused by the Scout's decision in time for the Friends of Scouting donation drives.

Yeah, I've heard those kinds of statements as well but none that could be confirmed as official from SLC. I also heard that this "backup plan" would kick in if the BSA allowed openly gay scouts. Which they did but there was no change on our end.

I have a hard time believing that the Pres. Monson led church would ever even think of abandoning the BSA. Gays or not.

[california boy]

The church has had gay scout leaders before.  I know because I was one of them.  For most of my adult life I worked with the youth of the church, teaching seminary, young mens president and probably mostly as the Teachers Quorum advisor.  No Armageddon occurred while I was a BSA leader in my ward except for the fact that I really did not do much to support the membership drive.  Members were free to donate to BSA, but I was not going to try and make them feel guilty by not donating.  It was however, not because of their stand on gays, but rather their complete lack of response and support to our ward troop, except when they wanted our money.

[BCSpace]

I also heard that this "backup plan" would kick in if the BSA allowed openly gay scouts. Which they did but there was no change on our end.

 

I have never heard that one.

[Deborah]

For a look from a conservative gay perspective, there is this from Tammy Bruce. Title is

Why the veto of Arizona’s religious freedom bill is alarming

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/brucethe-veto-of-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill-i/#.UxCnEY3II8o.twitter

[california boy]

For a look from a conservative gay perspective, there is this from Tammy Bruce. Title is

Why the veto of Arizona’s religious freedom bill is alarming

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/brucethe-veto-of-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill-i/#.UxCnEY3II8o.twitter

 

Actually the biggest problem I have with her comment and others like hers is, i my opinion, they are so distorting the message and life of Christ that it becomes only a manifestation of their own prejudice and has nothing to do with the example Christ left us on how to treat others.  

 

I too completely support the right of someone to worship how, who and what they may.  But serving someone who is not of your faith or does not share your faith beliefs is not an infringement on anyone's ability to worship their God.  I don't know of any religion that says it is a sin to bake a cake or take a photo of a sinner.  I do unfortunately know of religions that teach its followers how to be unkind to those not of their faith.  But that behavior is not of Christ.  

 

I am mostly disappointed that the organized Christian religions did not condemn this bill.  Maybe Christ should have let the good church members of His day follow their religious beliefs and stoned the woman condemned of adultery.  It seems like a lot more Christians would rejoice over that kind of behavior rather than what Christ actually did.  After all Christ was interfering with the Jews religious beliefs.  There were probably religious followers in His day that wanted to pass laws preventing anyone from doing anything to stop a stoning.  But Christ certainly was not one of them.  In every instance He reached out to those in sin and blessed them as best He could.  

[thesometimesaint]

Actually the biggest problem I have with her comment and others like hers is, i my opinion, they are so distorting the message and life of Christ that it becomes only a manifestation of their own prejudice and has nothing to do with the example Christ left us on how to treat others.  

 

I too completely support the right of someone to worship how, who and what they may.  But serving someone who is not of your faith or does not share your faith beliefs is not an infringement on anyone's ability to worship their God.  I don't know of any religion that says it is a sin to bake a cake or take a photo of a sinner.  I do unfortunately know of religions that teach its followers how to be unkind to those not of their faith.  But that behavior is not of Christ.  

 

I am mostly disappointed that the organized Christian religions did not condemn this bill.  Maybe Christ should have let the good church members of His day follow their religious beliefs and stoned the woman condemned of adultery.  It seems like a lot more Christians would rejoice over that kind of behavior rather than what Christ actually did.  After all Christ was interfering with the Jews religious beliefs.  There were probably religious followers in His day that wanted to pass laws preventing anyone from doing anything to stop a stoning.  But Christ certainly was not one of them.  In every instance He reached out to those in sin and blessed them as best He could.  

Agreed: The Saints, because of the Reed Smoot Hearings, should be especially troubled about codifying religious beliefs.

[Storm Rider]

I don' think there was any intent or language that codified religious beliefs. What the intent of the proposed law was to strengthen not the ability to worship, but the ability to exercise religion, which is supposed to already be a right of US citizens, but has been under attack for some time. We are not simply allowed to worship, but we are entitled to practice/exercise our personal religion.

 

There is a huge difference between going into a store and buying a cake and then asking someone to be involved in a rite that is in conflict with one's religious beliefs. The same applies to someone who enters a store and buys flowers, which this law would not have prevented or addressed. However, if someone wanted to you to be directly involved in a religious rite this proposed law assured the individual he could say no if it conflicted with their religious convictions. 

 

The culture has worshiped at the alter of the individual for the last fifty years.....except when it comes to those individuals with religious convictions. There is a significant group of individuals who now only want to allow individuals to go to whatever church they choose on Sunday and worship, but at all other times they must bow down and behave in ways that conflict directly with their beliefs; all dressed up in perverted rags called the robes of tolerance and love.

 

No where in this proposed law was there any mention of homosexuality or gay behavior. No where did it empower citizens from selling goods to others. What it did empower is that should an individual's religious beliefs feel threatened (s)he could have used this law to prove that their religious beliefs had an equal priority to the rights of others. 

 

One critic I read was concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. A desire to foresee how it could be abused or misapplied. Somehow allowing a religious person to right to exercise his religion was so threatening that the entire nation screamed for the end of the bill; not refine it or clarify it, but to kill it. What was so laughable it is this same critique that others have brought against the SSM proposals and laws. How do you change societal norms that have existed for thousands of years and not pause to try and understand the consequences intended and unintended? What is the impact on society at large, on children, on young adults? What impact does it have on sexual mores within the community?  

 

There is no wisdom in cherry-picking from the words of Christ and then attempt to dress your position up in a piece of cloth and then condemn others for not living the teachings of Christ. You take it whole or not at all. No where does Christ condone disobedience to the God's laws; what Jesus does teach is, "Go, and sin no more", "If ye love me keep my commandments".  How are these to be balanced with "Love one another".  

 

To love does not mean condone all the actions of another. To love another is to care enough about them and prevent their physical harm, but not to remove the guard at the gate and allow the rape and pillage of others.  It is to allow the son free reign AWAY from home and when he has learned the error of his ways to welcome his return. 

 

No, I reject any attempt to parse the message of Christ so as to position yourself on the moral high ground. If you will stand with Christ you don't get to listen to part of his words and then close your heart to all else he taught. Obedience remains the first law of the Gospel. 

[strappinglad]

I wonder what said cake baker would have said and done had he been asked by a hetero couple to make their wedding cake, and during the conversation it came out that the couple were going to have an open marriage and were agreed to set aside one night a week to have relations with others , strangers at a bar or whatever? Would the baker have refused to participate in this ceremony because it was against his ' religious' beliefs concerning adultery? If so, I applaud his consistency at least. If not, then his beliefs are quite compartmentalized.

[Daniel2]

I wonder what said cake baker would have said and done had he been asked by a hetero couple to make their wedding cake, and during the conversation it came out that the couple were going to have an open marriage and were agreed to set aside one night a week to have relations with others , strangers at a bar or whatever? Would the baker have refused to participate in this ceremony because it was against his ' religious' beliefs concerning adultery? If so, I applaud his consistency at least. If not, then his beliefs are quite compartmentalized.

It's a great question. An experiment along the same likes was already tried. The results revealed it wasn't occasions that violated the baker's religious beliefs--just GAY weddings...

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado Bakery, Agrees To 'Dog Wedding' Cake Despite Turning Away Gays

06/05/13 04:33 PM ET

A Colorado bakery that refused to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple is once again in the headlines after being exposed in another same-sex pair's experiment.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reports that Stephanie Schmalz opted to conduct the experiment when she was told that Masterpiece Cakeshop had a strict policy against selling cakes for same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies. Schmalz had been seeking cupcakes for her forthcoming commitment ceremony to her partner Jeanine.

After being turned away, Schmalz called the bakery and told owner Jack Phillips that she was planning to host a wedding celebration for two dogs. She told him that the "dog wedding" cake should be decorated with the names "Roscoe" and "Buffy." Phillips then quoted her a price and asked how soon she needed it,according to the ACLU report.

Schmalz's experiment is similar to that conducted by an alternative weekly paper in Oregon at Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a Gresham, Ore. bakery whose owner Aaron Klein cited religious principles in his refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding. When a Willamette Week reporter requested cakes for a "pagan solstice party," as well as a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple children out of wedlock, a Sweet Cakes employeereportedly agreed to take the orders.

In 2012, Phillips told local CBS affilate KCNC-TV that he has no problem with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) customers or staff members, but nonetheless does not support gay marriage, when he refused to bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

Arguing that he who rather "close down the bakery" than "compromise our beliefs," Phillips said at the time, "If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It's just the wedding cake -- not the people, not their lifestyle."

The ACLU also points out that Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop broke the law by discriminating against Mullins and Craig, which prompted the Attorney General's office to file a formal complaint against the bakery this week.

[rockpond]

I don' think there was any intent or language that codified religious beliefs. What the intent of the proposed law was to strengthen not the ability to worship, but the ability to exercise religion, which is supposed to already be a right of US citizens, but has been under attack for some time. We are not simply allowed to worship, but we are entitled to practice/exercise our personal religion.

There is a huge difference between going into a store and buying a cake and then asking someone to be involved in a rite that is in conflict with one's religious beliefs. The same applies to someone who enters a store and buys flowers, which this law would not have prevented or addressed. However, if someone wanted to you to be directly involved in a religious rite this proposed law assured the individual he could say no if it conflicted with their religious convictions.

The culture has worshiped at the alter of the individual for the last fifty years.....except when it comes to those individuals with religious convictions. There is a significant group of individuals who now only want to allow individuals to go to whatever church they choose on Sunday and worship, but at all other times they must bow down and behave in ways that conflict directly with their beliefs; all dressed up in perverted rags called the robes of tolerance and love.

No where in this proposed law was there any mention of homosexuality or gay behavior. No where did it empower citizens from selling goods to others. What it did empower is that should an individual's religious beliefs feel threatened (s)he could have used this law to prove that their religious beliefs had an equal priority to the rights of others.

One critic I read was concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. A desire to foresee how it could be abused or misapplied. Somehow allowing a religious person to right to exercise his religion was so threatening that the entire nation screamed for the end of the bill; not refine it or clarify it, but to kill it. What was so laughable it is this same critique that others have brought against the SSM proposals and laws. How do you change societal norms that have existed for thousands of years and not pause to try and understand the consequences intended and unintended? What is the impact on society at large, on children, on young adults? What impact does it have on sexual mores within the community?

There is no wisdom in cherry-picking from the words of Christ and then attempt to dress your position up in a piece of cloth and then condemn others for not living the teachings of Christ. You take it whole or not at all. No where does Christ condone disobedience to the God's laws; what Jesus does teach is, "Go, and sin no more", "If ye love me keep my commandments". How are these to be balanced with "Love one another".

To love does not mean condone all the actions of another. To love another is to care enough about them and prevent their physical harm, but not to remove the guard at the gate and allow the rape and pillage of others. It is to allow the son free reign AWAY from home and when he has learned the error of his ways to welcome his return.

No, I reject any attempt to parse the message of Christ so as to position yourself on the moral high ground. If you will stand with Christ you don't get to listen to part of his words and then close your heart to all else he taught. Obedience remains the first law of the Gospel.

I thought Christ taught that love was the first law of the gospel, not obedience.

[Buzzard]

I thought Christ taught that love was the first law of the gospel, not obedience.

"If you love me, keep my commandments"

[Storm Rider]

I thought Christ taught that love was the first law of the gospel, not obedience.

 

I suspect you are confusing the first commandment with first law of heaven.  Obedience is impossible to avoid if one is to follow Christ. To follow Christ demands self-sacrifice; to be obedient will always require that we sacrifice our wants and desires in a desire to align ourselves with his plan for us.

 

There are so many that have been caught in this web of confusion and misunderstanding.  In fact, to propagate this confusion is a cornerstone of the plan of the evil one because at its heart it directs the individual to pass through life without any effort to obey or to deny the self.  This is a common fallacy among those who try to manipulate the words of Christ. Their objective is to turn Christ's teachings into a cotton-candy, fluffy, depthless concept of love. They ignore all that is written and only want to focus on a narrow concept that uses the word "love", which is anything but love and more like "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die". 

 

When we look at the two great commandments in Matthew we find the following in Matt 22:40, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets".  Some will read this and think it is an invitation to throw out all of the commandments and the prophets. It is the exact opposite, we learn to love God and our neighbor by obedience to the laws of God and using his teachings to express that love.  Love and obedience are daily companions and are dependent upon one another for holiness and righteousness to exist and to honor God. 

[rockpond]

"If you love me, keep my commandments"

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

[rockpond]

I suspect you are confusing the first commandment with first law of heaven. Obedience is impossible to avoid if one is to follow Christ. To follow Christ demands self-sacrifice; to be obedient will always require that we sacrifice our wants and desires in a desire to align ourselves with his plan for us.

There are so many that have been caught in this web of confusion and misunderstanding. In fact, to propagate this confusion is a cornerstone of the plan of the evil one because at its heart it directs the individual to pass through life without any effort to obey or to deny the self. This is a common fallacy among those who try to manipulate the words of Christ. Their objective is to turn Christ's teachings into a cotton-candy, fluffy, depthless concept of love. They ignore all that is written and only want to focus on a narrow concept that uses the word "love", which is anything but love and more like "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die".

When we look at the two great commandments in Matthew we find the following in Matt 22:40, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". Some will read this and think it is an invitation to throw out all of the commandments and the prophets. It is the exact opposite, we learn to love God and our neighbor by obedience to the laws of God and using his teachings to express that love. Love and obedience are daily companions and are dependent upon one another for holiness and righteousness to exist and to honor God.

I didn't say that obedience wasn't, just that it wasn't what Christ said was "first".

[rockpond]

Church HR Department: "Well, thanks for your application to be Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Brother Rockpond, but there appears to be a misunderstanding: you applied for a position that isn't open at this time. We'll keep your application on file in the event that a vacancy occurs which matches your qualifications. We thank you for your interest, and we wish you the best of luck in your future occupational endeavors."

We're on an Internet discussion board, not standing at the pulpit of the conference center. Let's keep my comments in perspective.

[Storm Rider]

I didn't say that obedience wasn't, just that it wasn't what Christ said was "first".

 

First what?

[Sleeper Cell]

I appreciate your comment, which allows me to elaborate to hopefully further increase understanding on this issue.

My desire for the LDS faith to step aside from being a stumbling block for families and fathers (whether mortal or divine) to fully accept the inherent dignity and worth of the personhood, spiritual standing, and relationships of their gay and lesbians sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters should not be misconstrued as a lack of respect or desire to burn anyone's sacred alters.

 

 

[emphasis added]

 

Are you saying that God doesn’t’ fully accept the inherent dignity and worth of His gay and lesbian sons and daughters?  

[Storm Rider]

There is not a single creature and certainly no son or daughter of God that is not changed and perfected through Jesus Christ. To begin to assume that SSA is somehow an eternal end without any possibility for change or perfection flies in the face of all that God has created.  The dignity of the individual is not contingent upon one's gender or one's mortal sexual preference. The worth of a soul is valued irrespective of those things; the soul's existence supersedes these mortal perceptions.

 

Where is it said in scripture that if you are born that way, any way, you are condemned to never change, never progress, or never become perfected in Christ?  The man that was blind from birth in scripture, was he worthy of being healed?  Who says he is unworthy or should not be healed?  Does being born in any condition automatically dictate that there will never be any healing?  Why?  Where does this concept originate?  Who teaches that a mortal man will not be healed and will not be perfected in Christ? 

 

I believe this lie is told by the evil one.  Everyone of us will be changed and perfected. Not a single one of us will be as we are in mortality.  Where there was imperfection will be found perfection. Where there is pain there will be joy.  A gay brother or sister is no different than any other child of God; each of us, including our gay brothers and sisters, will be perfected.  If you are so bold as to claim an individual cannot be changed then I tell you flatly that you are deceived by Satan and only he is served by taking such a position. It is contrary to scripture and teaching of any Christian church.  Show me one that states that through Christ there is no sanctification.  Who is greater than God and will prevent any child of God to know of the complete sanctification and perfection that is offered to us through Christ?

 

There is a reason why even the very elect will be deceived; anyone that denies Christ will fall.  Anyone that believes they will not be changed through Christ is deceived and does not understand Christ, his atonement, or the gifts he freely gives to us.  

[Sleeper Cell]

If you think marginalizing gay people represents good Chrisitian living, I'd ask whether or not you've ever read the teachings of Christ.

 

Do you think it is OK to marginalize posters for disagreeing with you?

[rockpond]

First what?

The first and great commandment on which hangs all the law and the prophets.

[rockpond]

There is not a single creature and certainly no son or daughter of God that is not changed and perfected through Jesus Christ. To begin to assume that SSA is somehow an eternal end without any possibility for change or perfection flies in the face of all that God has created. The dignity of the individual is not contingent upon one's gender or one's mortal sexual preference. The worth of a soul is valued irrespective of those things; the soul's existence supersedes these mortal perceptions.

Where is it said in scripture that if you are born that way, any way, you are condemned to never change, never progress, or never become perfected in Christ? The man blind from birth in the scripture, was he worthy of being healed? Who says he is unworthy or should not be healed? Does being born this any condition dictate that there should be no healing? Why? Where does this concept originate?

I believe this lie is told by the evil one. Everyone of us will be changed and perfected. Not a single one of us will be as were were in mortality. Where there was imperfection will be found perfection. Where there is pain there will be joy. A gay brother or sister is no different than any other child of God and they also will be perfected. If you are so bold as to claim you cannot be changed then I tell you flatly that you are deceived by Satan and only he is served by preventing any child of God to believe and know of the completely sanctification and perfection that is offered to us through Christ.

There is a reason why the even the very elect will be deceived; anyone that denies Christ will fall.

Yes, even the very elect will be deceived.

Your conclusions above seem to rest on the assumption that a homosexual orientation is an imperfection. I believe that assumption to be incorrect.

But I do agree with your comments on the worth and dignity of each soul.

[Storm Rider]

The first and great commandment on which hangs all the law and the prophets.

 

Did you read the link I gave?  Are you saying that there are no other laws given by God?  Please explain the statement, "If ye love me keep my commandments".  How does love play a role in keeping commandments?  Can we love God and not keep his commandments?