Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[CV75]

I did mean non-accepting, thank you.

 

I think we both know we're talking about romantic relationships, not friendships. Let's not waste anyone's time with equivocation.

I'm talking about both. And if you want to stop wasting time with "equivocating" address the actual polcies as I requested in #82 and #101, and again now.

In fact, since this is my 3rd request, why not CFR the policy / policies that informs a Church environment that is interpersonally non-accepting of same-sex romantic relationships.

[wenglund]

The Church has come out in favor of legislation respecting the financial obligations, and hospital visitation...

 

CFR

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[wenglund]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Stop the gay bashing.  One more report and you will be suspended.

[california boy]

I know at least one of the brethren has said that same-sex attraction won't exist after the resurrection, but I don't know of any official pronouncement from the Prophet or from the Fifteen on the subject.  I don't know what will happen then.  I don't know whether I'll meet the future "Mrs. Go1969" on this side of the veil or on the other side of the veil.  I do know that whatever happens, we will retain our agency: as important as I believe the commandments to husband and wife to "become one flesh" and to "multiply and replenish the earth" are, God isn't going to fulfill them or to allow others to attempt to fulfill them by abridging anybody's agency.  Perhaps the one lesson my long and tortured (sick and twisted? ) social life has taught me that perhaps I'll take with me to my grave is that you can't manufacture chemistry: if it ain't there, it ain't there.  I could obsess about what's gonna happen in the afterlife: will there be "slim pickings"?  Given how hard it has been to persuade anybody on this side of the veil to explore the possibility of an "LTR" with me, how much "convincing" will it take on the other side of the veil?  Is the whole thing simply gonna be one loooong stake singles dance, where almost everybody else brought a date, and the rest of us are simply desperate?  That doesn't sound like my ideal version of Eternity (or at least, of Eternity's beginning) either.  I don't know how God's gonna work it out, but I don't think He's gonna have to apologize to any of us: "Sorry ... I know you were hoping for better, but this is the best I could do."  And I don't think we're going to say to Him, "You know what?  If this is the best you can do, thanks, but no thanks: eternal 'ministering angelhood' will be fine."

So do you think there may be gay eternal ministrating angelhood? Or are all the gays headed straight to the Telestial Kingdom. Maybe you can come visit me.  I hear there is a lot if fire in hell, which works because I am a pretty good cook if you don't mind the heat. 

[Gray]

I don't know who TSS is (perhaps you meant TSM), but you clearly haven't a clue about the fact-based causes of mental and emotional illness and suicide or effective treatment of the same. Here is a fact for you to summarily ignore: as intolerance for homosexuality has drastically declined, homosexual suicides have gone up. Indulging sexual perversion hasn't improved matters, but made things worse. While very well intended, the supposed cure of pop culture indulgence has inadvertently spreed the disease. Please, for the love of God, stop killing the children with your asinine kindness.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Problem - even assuming you have your data correct, you haven't provided any sort of connection between "increased tolerance" (where exactly) and increased suicides, while researches have found a direct connection between lack of acceptance from family and suicide.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Attendance isn't the issue. It is society not only relaxing its morals, but formally and inanely encouraging perverse sexual behaviors like sodomy.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes, I agree. Acts of sodomy like being inhospitable and uncharitable (the true meaning of "sodomy") should be discouraged, not encouraged.

[Gray]

I'm talking about both. And if you want to stop wasting time with "equivocating" address the actual polcies as I requested in #82 and #101, and again now.

In fact, since this is my 3rd request, why not CFR the policy / policies that informs a Church environment that is interpersonally non-accepting of same-sex romantic relationships.

 

Is this a nuisance request? The policy is that romantic relationships between those of the same sex are interpreted as violating the law of chastity and as causing those in those relationships to be branded as "unworthy"

 

Again, something we both know

Edited March 7, 2014 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

So do you think there may be gay eternal ministrating angelhood? Or are all the gays headed straight to the Telestial Kingdom. Maybe you can come visit me.  I hear there is a lot if fire in hell, which works because I am a pretty good cook if you don't mind the heat. 

 

I think well be happy in whatever Kingdom of Glory we are assigned to.

 

Personally I believe hell is dark and cold.

[wenglund]

Stop the gay bashing.  One more report and you will be suspended.

 

Since I have no idea what you are talking about, and can't exactly stop doing what I don't think I have yet done, could you point me to what I have said that has been reported, and explain why it is considered by you as "gay bashing"? Feel free to do so via PM if you don't feel comfortable doing so here, though it may be instructive to do it in the open so that others can also get a sense for what you view as "bashing" so as avoid running afoul.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 7, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Yes, I agree. Acts of sodomy like being inhospitable and uncharitable (the true meaning of "sodomy") should be discouraged, not encouraged.

 

People are entitled to their idiosyncratic definitions, even for the purpose of completely missing the obvious point.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[teddyaware]

So do you think there may be gay eternal ministrating angelhood? Or are all the gays headed straight to the Telestial Kingdom. Maybe you can come visit me.  I hear there is a lot if fire in hell, which works because I am a pretty good cook if you don't mind the heat.

Pardon the intrusion, but the telestial kingdom is one of the many mansions of heavenly glory of which Christ testified, and as such it's glory is far beyond the capacity of earthbound mortals to understand and even imagine. It will be as much of heaven as many could ever conceive or hope for -- and surely the weather and temperature there is just fine.

89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;

90 And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it. (D&C 76)

[CV75]

Is this a nuisance request? The policy is that romantic relationships between those of the same sex are interpreted as violating the law of chastity and as causing those in those relationships to be branded as "unworthy"

 

Again, something we both know

No, this is not a nuisance request. You referred to policy. I want you to cite the actual policy that adresses your claim. That way we can discuss this from the same page--are you resisting that reasonable request?

 

I think we both know the single standard of chastity, the commandments in scripture and so forth. It's discussed in this month's Ensign. I want you to show me the policy or policies that create a personally non-accepting environment and alludes to "branding" people as unworthy.

Edited March 7, 2014 by CV75

[teddyaware]

No, this is not a nuisance request. You referred to policy. I want you to cite the actual policy that adresses your claim. That way we can discuss this from the same page--are you resisting that reasonable request?

 

I think we both know the single standard of chastity, the commandments in scripture and so forth. It's discussed in this month's Ensign. I want you to show me the policy or policies that create a personally non-accepting environment and alludes to "branding" people as unworthy.

 

Unfortunately, in this day and age all one has to do is take a gentle stand for traditional Judeo-Christian morality and family life and you're instantly branded as a knuckle-dragging hater of mankind; take even a mild-mannered stand for the traditional family and you're branded as antigay; take a non-confrontational stand for the sanctity of human life and you're waging a war on women; take a soft spoken stand for personal responsibility and you're anti-poor; kindly state that the demands of both mercy and justice must be satisfied and now you're a judgmental religious fanatic. There's no winning a debate in which you're not even allowed to participate.. 

Edited March 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Kenngo1969]

So do you think there may be gay eternal ministrating angelhood? Or are all the gays headed straight to the Telestial Kingdom. Maybe you can come visit me.  I hear there is a lot if fire in hell, which works because I am a pretty good cook if you don't mind the heat. 

It's not my job to decide where you'll end up.  I don't work for the Acme Judgment Company.  You know pretty well what the doctrine of the Church is; you've made it pretty clear how you feel about that.  That's fine.  I can't say, if I were in your shoes, that I would feel any different than you do.  I don't know, at the judgment, that either one of us will have the same attitudes and propensities that we do now.  The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that we'll both have our agency.  Sooner or later, we'll both have to decide whether we're willing to do what's necessary to get what we (say we) want. (Which is pretty much the way life is right now.  The only difference is that perhaps the choices will be quite a bit more stark then than they are now, and we'll probably have more information than we do now.)

Edited March 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[halconero]

CFR

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/705343621/Mormon-church-supports-Salt-Lake-Citys-protections-for-gay-rights.html?pg=all?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

[california boy]

It's not my job to decide where you'll end up.  I don't work for the Acme Judgment Company.  You know pretty well what the doctrine of the Church is; you've made it pretty clear how you feel about that.  That's fine.  I can't say, if I were in your shoes, that I would feel any different than you do.  I don't know, at the judgment, that either one of us will have the same attitudes and propensities that we do now.  The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that we'll both have our agency.  Sooner or later, we'll both have to decide whether we're willing to do what's necessary to get what we (say we) want. (Which is pretty much the way life is right now.  The only difference is that perhaps the choices will be quite a bit more stark then than they are now, and we'll probably have more information than we do now.)

Thanks for your answer.  As most have responded to my post, I also have no idea how I will be judged.  As far as doing what is necessary to get what I want, (which for me is spending eternity with the one I love) I guess I will just have to wait to find out what that entails.  Right now, it is pretty unclear.

[Daniel2]

CFR

Thanks, -Wade Englund

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/705343621/Mormon-church-supports-Salt-Lake-Citys-protections-for-gay-rights.html?pg=all?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

Oh, snap....!

Its unfortunate that Wade doesn't understand or represent his own church's approach to gay issues.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Daniel2

[rpn]

The science can only be about the mortal body.  The mortal body is by definition corrupt.  It will be perfectly resurrected.   Even if the biology of ssa is proven in every case (now it appears to be related to hormones, for at least 1/3 of ssattracted men, notably those who are the youngest with multiple brothers --- a scenario more likely in LDS families and Catholic families than in the population at large), it doesn't change the eternal nature of the human soul (which includes the perfected body).

[Sleeper Cell]

While SSM is somewhat different from Civil Unions, both constitute a formal endorsement of homosexual relationships. I wonder if the Pope understands this, and if so, I wonder how Catholics may think about the Pope indirectly endorsing homosexuality?

 

I think the Pope is far more concerned about preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage than in whether or not some may interpret his remarks as any sort of endorsement of homosexual relations.  

 

Suppose we took sexual relations completely out of the equation by allowing any group of adults to enter into a civil union, regardless of what type of relationship they have.  For example, why not allow an adult caring for his aged parents in his home to enter into a civil union with them?  Or allow two unrelated friends to form a non-sex based civil union? (Sort of like a business partnership, except with greater rights and obligations).  Gay relationships would be included, but such civil unions would not constitute a formal endorsement of homosexual relations, as they would be open to any two (or more) adults. Such civil unions would extend all the legal benefits and obligations of marriage to any group of adults, regardless of the nature of their personal relationship. 

 

BTW, such civil unions would better achieve “marriage equality” than  “gay marriage.”  After all, even states that allow “gay marriage” in the name of “marriage equality” do not allow any two adults to marry.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[CV75]

There's no winning a debate in which you're not even allowed to participate.. 

...or not even having a fact-based conversation about policy, apparently!

[saemo]

While SSM is somewhat different from Civil Unions, both constitute a formal endorsement of homosexual relationships. I wonder if the Pope understands this, and if so, I wonder how Catholics may think about the Pope indirectly endorsing homosexuality?

I realize that there is a sizable Hispanic population within the Catholic church, and that Hispanics tend to be accepting of homosexuality, and so the Popes mulling may not be off-putting to all Catholics, or even most of them. But, I am curious how the Catholics posting to this board think about it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First, there is skepticism that what the Pope has been reported to say is actually what he said. Pope Francis has been Pope for a year, and at first I thought perhaps journalists are unable to understand what he is saying. But after a year of seeing everything he says in relationship to moral topics, being spun to what people would like to hear, rather than what has actually been said, I don't believe the journalist spin and wait for the English translation to read it for myself. Here is the English translation of the interview:"

"Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

As a Cathokic, I hear marriage is between a man and woman. There are civil/legal matters that the state regulates in regards to non-marital cohabitation, which would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

CNN reports, the Pope is in favor of civil unions for same sex couples!

He never said any thing of the sort.

 

(late edit to fix spelling)

Edited March 10, 2014 by saemo

[Gray]

I don't know who TSS is (perhaps you meant TSM), but you clearly haven't a clue about the fact-based causes of mental and emotional illness and suicide or effective treatment of the same. Here is a fact for you to summarily ignore: as intolerance for homosexuality has drastically declined, homosexual suicides have gone up. Indulging sexual perversion hasn't improved matters, but made things worse. While very well intended, the supposed cure of pop culture indulgence has inadvertently spreed the disease. Please, for the love of God, stop killing the children with your asinine kindness.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

If you think the two claims I bolded have some correlation, please support with direct evidence.

[Gray]

No, this is not a nuisance request. You referred to policy. I want you to cite the actual policy that adresses your claim. That way we can discuss this from the same page--are you resisting that reasonable request?

 

I think we both know the single standard of chastity, the commandments in scripture and so forth. It's discussed in this month's Ensign. I want you to show me the policy or policies that create a personally non-accepting environment and alludes to "branding" people as unworthy.

 

I stated the policy in the post you quoted. Thanks!

[Gray]

duplicate 

Edited March 10, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Inadvertently answered the same question twice 

Edited March 10, 2014 by Gray