Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 So you are of the school of thought which holds that the Bible contains every word ever uttered by Christ? That doesn't seem very reasonable.Thanks,-Smac It's also interesting that homosexuality is not brought up at any time in the Book of Mormon, D&C or POGP
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 ...which is why the Church is lovingly opposed to homosexual behavior and relationships. Thanks, -Wade Englund- The best way for most gay folks to find fulfillment and happiness in this life is to seek out a committed relationship with someone they are attracted to. It turns out they're not so different from us straight folks. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Homosexuality has always been a sin and will always continue to be a sin. The Church does have an official position on the matter. Why must we debate this issue- the Church is not changing this doctrine. Get over it. 1
ERayR Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 It's also interesting that homosexuality is not brought up at any time in the Book of Mormon, D&C or POGP There are a lot of things that are not specifically addressed in those publications.
canard78 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I think that mormon cultural assumptions about gay marriage is shared by most of the world which deems marriage between between a woman and a man to be correct. Most of the world has not be affected by the new cultural assumption that marriage should be permitted between people of the same sex. Of course postmodernism and its influence is catching on. The point is that the mormon cultural assumption is no different than the catholic, the anglican, the muslim etc. Not to mention various protestant groupings. s Just because a cultural majority believe something, doesn't make it right. If you go back through history there are many attitudes that were popular among the majority that today we reject. At the risk of hyperbole I won't list any examples.
Rob Osborn Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 It's also interesting that homosexuality is not brought up at any time in the Book of Mormon, D&C or POGP Maybe because it was never a problem back when society was more morally mature.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 There are a lot of things that are not specifically addressed in those publications. But nothing about homosexuality
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Maybe because it was never a problem back when society was more morally mature. I'm pretty sure homosexuality isn't a recent invention, Rob.
canard78 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 We disagree on this one but I certainly respect you and your arguments and your right to stand up for what you find to be right, and also be my brother. Thanks friend. I don't expect the church or the general membership to agree with me. I also respect the position and policy of the church such that I won't actively campaign against it. I personally value my temple recommend and love the experience of the endowment. As such I avoid active association with groups in opposition to the church. It's an interesting position that we are actively encouraged to pray about the messages taught by living prophets but if I, prayerfully, reach a different conclusion there are some members that would assume that I didn't ask properly. 1
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Consider this: what would be the state of the church today if it hadn't rescinded the ban on priesthood for blacks in 1978? In 2014 it would be viewed as an organization comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church, and its membership would probably be not much bigger than that group. Now fast forward 30 years from now. If the church keeps the same position 30 years from now, what will be the result? In 2014 we've just barely tipped over the point where most people's hearts have softened on the issue of gays and gay marriage. 30 years from now it will only be a very tiny minority who think treating gay relationships differently from straight ones is acceptable or right. How would the church survive in such an environment? It doesn't do much good to preach the restored gospel to empty pews. Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray
Rob Osborn Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I'm pretty sure homosexuality isn't a recent invention, Rob. No but it has always been an abomination.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 No but it has always been an abomination. They used to think everything was an abomination. The bronze age was a melodramatic time in human history. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Consider this: what would be the state of the church today if it hadn't rescinded the ban on priesthood for blacks in 1978? In 2014 it would be viewed as an organization comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church, and its membership would probably be not much bigger than that group. Now fast forward 30 years from now. If the church keeps the same position 30 years from now, what will be the result? In 2014 we've just barely tipped over the point where most people's hearts have softened on the issue of gays and gay marriage. 30 years from now it will only be a very tiny minority who think treating gay relationships differently from straight ones is acceptable or right. How would the church survive in such an environment? It doesn't do much good to preach the restored gospel to empty pews. There wont be empty pews. Perhaps more gays will feel offended and leave the church, who knows. The Church will never budge on this. 1
bluebell Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I don't think God intends for anyone to suffer specifically. It just happens. We as moral agents realize that one of our principle duties is to reduce suffering wherever we can. That's like saying that when i choose to get my children vaccinated, i don't intend for them to suffer, it just happens. Suffering isn't the goal of this life, but it is a part of it that God knew we would encounter and which God, specifically and with purpose and foreknowledge, allows us to encounter for the greater good. He allows people to suffer every day for things that they did not choose to happen to them, and He expects people to keep His commandments even when doing so is very very very difficult and even painful. Why should we believe that this is true for everyone but gay people?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 No, it's not my role. Nor do I seek it. You pointed out that they are "ours" because you/the members embrace the doctrines. I don't embrace them.You also stated you believe the policy is divine. I don't believe it is. That's probably as mch as can be said.Because my views are in harmony with the orthodox and formal position of the Church and its governing councils on this subject, I feel at liberty to use the personal collective pronoun ours.
Rob Osborn Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 They used to think everything was an abomination. The bronze age was a melodramatic time in human history. I can understand why 1/3 the hosts of heaven sided with Lucifer. All one has to do is get peopl on board to the idea we should all just be laws unto our own selves and thus whatever we decide goes. God has always condemned homosexuality. Its only Satan who champions for homosexuality. Who's side are you on?
smac97 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 It's also interesting that homosexuality is not brought up at any time in the Book of Mormon, D&C or POGP Not by name, no. But neither is pornography. Or cocaine. Or meth. Or any number of specific modern problems. And it is addressed specifically in the Bible. Does not Bible not count these days? Thanks, -Smac 1
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Not by name, no. But neither is pornography. Or cocaine. Or meth. Or any number of specific modern problems. And it is addressed specifically in the Bible. Does not Bible not count these days? Thanks, -Smac Homosexuality is modern only?
smac97 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 The best way for most gay folks to find fulfillment and happiness in this life is to seek out a committed relationship with someone they are attracted to. It turns out they're not so different from us straight folks. This doesn't work in the LDS paradigm. By your reasoning, a man who is in an unhappy marriage is at liberty to commit adultery so as "to seek out a committed relationship with someone they are attracted to." You're right about people with SSA being "not so different from" straight folks. We are all commanded to adhere to the same standards of sexual behavior under the Law of Chastity. Thanks, -Smac 1
Teancum Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I presume you are not saying you no longer know how old you are. No, I am not certain about anything and I never said I was. Indeed, I would wonder why you post here at all considering you know all the answers and find them unsatisfactory. Why ARE you here? Your complaints are all typical of anyone who cannot deal with evil in the world being compatible with a loving God.In short your complaints are about problems with Christianity as a whole and have been discussed probably on every religious board ever invented.If you look at the title of the thread, the thread is about very specific policies of the LDS church, and your complaints have nothing to do with those policies.If you have anything RELEVANT to discuss I will be glad to do so and do it civilly, but your complaints are not relevant to the thread. I will be very willing to stop talking to you since your points are irrelevant to the discussion I will pass on discussions with you further. You are far to arrogant and strident for my taste.
mfbukowski Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Thanks friend. I don't expect the church or the general membership to agree with me. I also respect the position and policy of the church such that I won't actively campaign against it. I personally value my temple recommend and love the experience of the endowment. As such I avoid active association with groups in opposition to the church. It's an interesting position that we are actively encouraged to pray about the messages taught by living prophets but if I, prayerfully, reach a different conclusion there are some members that would assume that I didn't ask properly.Yeah, I know. The Perry Scheme and all. Some are not comfortable with ambiguity- that is a fact of life But the bottom line is that we all need to honor each person's right to follow their own consciences and understand that diversity is no poison- it is to be valued. That is precisely why we have recommends- as long as we fit in those very loose parameters, we are members in good standing and cannot get in "better" standing. As one of our colonials, that rebel Ben Franklin said, "Let us hang together, or we surely shall hang separately".
mfbukowski Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I will pass on discussions with you further.Thank you thank you thank you. 1
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 This doesn't work in the LDS paradigm. By your reasoning, a man who is in an unhappy marriage is at liberty to commit adultery so as "to seek out a committed relationship with someone they are attracted to." You're right about people with SSA being "not so different from" straight folks. We are all commanded to adhere to the same standards of sexual behavior under the Law of Chastity. Thanks, -Smac I'd say you missed the point of his post. It seems to me he is advocating committed relationships, not relationships wherein one partner can commit adultery.
smac97 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Homosexuality is modern only? No. My point is that the absence of a specific treatise on SSA in The Book of Mormon is not evidence against the Church's doctrinal position on SSA, any more than the absence of a specific treatise on pornography or meth, etc. The implication here, I think, is that The Book of Mormon was written for our day, and that it "should" therefore specifically address modern issues like SSA. I do not agree with that argument. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Homosexuality is modern only? No. My point is that the absence of a specific treatise on SSA in The Book of Mormon is not evidence against the Church's doctrinal position on SSA, any more than the absence of a specific treatise on pornography or meth, etc. The implication here, I think, is that The Book of Mormon was written for our day, and that it "should" therefore specifically address modern issues like SSA. I do not agree with that argument. Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts