Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[Ahab]

stemelbow,

There were 2 groups of people, generally, in relation to the priesthood ban. One group was okay with the idea of removing the ban against delegating priesthood authority to blacks as long as blacks were judged to be worthy when using the same standards as for white people, and the other group was still against or felt uncomfortable with the idea of delegating priesthood authority to blacks because they still felt blacks were generally inferior to whites and not worthy of the priesthood, or at least not at that time.

And in the midst of both groups were our priesthood leaders with the keys to the kingdom, with most if not all of them wanting to remove the restrictions but not sure if the general membership would be okay with that. They didn't want to stir up trouble among the members, or from outside the Church either, so they were waiting for a very strong assurance from God to let them know when to lift the restriction.

Blacks in the Church handled it all really well, generally. Sure they wanted the power of God but most were content to wait for God to say when to ordain them through his servants. The whites were generally the ones who were opposed to giving them the same power of God that they had, so it was generally the racist tendencies of white people that kept it from happening until it did, with God waiting until then to tell his white leaders that most of the other whites were ready. There were still a lot of good white people in the Church back then, though, at least as far as not being racist, and our general Church leaders generally consisted of those good white people, with some exceptions.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Ahab

[cdowis]

The thing is, for a lot of us it's a choice between believing what we feel to be right in our hearts vs current church policy on gay marriage. Mormonism is a religion of the heart, above all else. A religion where something can trump love is not a religion of the heart. 

 

It's not so much about trying to create enmity as about trying to be true to what we feel is right and good. 

 

You are in the wrong place.  This is not the "love and happiness" forum -- that is Social Hall.

 

This is the apologetic forum.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cdowis

[pogi]

The thing is, for a lot of us it's a choice between believing what we feel to be right in our hearts vs current church policy on gay marriage. Mormonism is a religion of the heart, above all else. A religion where something can trump love is not a religion of the heart. 

 

It's not so much about trying to create enmity as about trying to be true to what we feel is right and good. 

 

I agree that Mormonism is a religion of the heart, but sometimes our hearts need changing - a mighty change of heart as a matter of fact and a circumcision of heart, that we might be pure in heart and love the Lord with all our heart before our own understanding     

Edited May 22, 2014 by pogi

[Calm]

A religion where something can trump love is not a religion of the heart.

And how does something trump love?

If acting a certain way is believe to e bad for someone (say getting drunk and driving) is it love to attempt to stop a person from doing so because he is harming himself and may tragically harm others or is it love to step aside and let the person continue to act in such a way because he feels good when he does for some reason and he gets angry when you try and stop him?

Edited May 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[ksfisher]

And how does something trump love?

If acting a certain way is believe to e bad for someone (say getting drunk and driving) is it love to attempt to stop a person from doing so because he is harming himself and may tragically harm others or is it love to step aside and let the person continue to act in such a way because he feels good when he does for some reason and he gets angry when you try and stop him?

I have a friend who loves beer. But, when he returned to activity in the church, gave it up because he loves the Savior and obeying his commandments more than he loves beer.

When we are able to look past our own will and our own desires we will truly be able to say, "not my will, but thy will be done." And that is love.

[Calm]

Well said.

Add-on: all of us have to put desirables on the altar to come to God and sometimes they are good, even great things that are to be replaced by the greatest wonders and gifts of God.

Edited May 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

The thing is, for a lot of us it's a choice between believing what we feel to be right in our hearts vs current church policy on gay marriage. Mormonism is a religion of the heart, above all else. A religion where something can trump love is not a religion of the heart. 

 

It's not so much about trying to create enmity as about trying to be true to what we feel is right and good. 

 

Wait, what? Religion of the heart? Seriously? Who said that?

 

And no, it is not about being true to what we feel is good and right. It is about humbling yourself to accept a better good and right beyond our full understanding. We certainly wouldn't need revelations if "Follow your heart" was what the faith was about. According to people I know in Wicca that sounds more like their creed.

[california boy]

What is it that leads you to believe that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a "good" thing as long as those people of the same sex are "married".

Seriously consider your reasoning about that and then try your best to explain it to us.

As someone who once indulged in sexual relations with people of the same sex that I am there isn't one thing I can think of that made it a good thing when I did that, even though I and the men I had sex with enjoyed it. Enjoying something doesn't make what people enjoy a good thing.

So think about it and let us all know what makes it a good thing, if you can think of anything about it that is good.

 

For the same reasons sexual relations within the bounds of marriage are good for straight couples even if they can not have children.  You list your multiple relations with men and found them unfulfilling.  I got news for you.  Straight men that have multiple sexual relations with the opposite sex also find those kinds of relationships unfulfilling.  The only thing you are supporting is the importance of committed married relationships between ALL of God's children.

[california boy]

It is a falsehood that revelation is absolutely silent on gay “marriage” in light of all that has been revealed about the authentic marriage covenant in the Church. Demand for SS"M" in the Church only came about as a perversion of the real thing 9and as you pointed out, fairly recently), and arguably as a perversion (alteration) of / alternative for the civil practice of marriage.

Go ahead and use the word perversion.  It is obviously one of the many tools you use to convince yourself that not allowing gay couples to participate in this important key to the plan of salvation is ok.  Like you said, you could use less inflammatory language, but you choose not to.  People who want to keep a minority "in their proper place" have always used inflammatory language.  It makes them feel superior in their relationships.  It helps them justify their belief that only their relationships are worthy.  A same sex couple could not possibly want an eternal marriage with the person they love.  A gay couple could not possible have the same kind of sexual relationship that "I" have.  Their relationships are perversions, mine are holy.  They don't really deserve to have fulfilling relationships.  Let them only live together, don't allow them to marry.  Don't allow them to form families like mine.  

 

so continue to use inflamatory language.  Call their relationships perversions rather than some of the language you suggested.  Without it, you might have to start realizing that gay couples are not really that different than straight couples.

[CV75]

Go ahead and use the word perversion.  It is obviously one of the many tools you use to convince yourself that not allowing gay couples to participate in this important key to the plan of salvation is ok.  Like you said, you could use less inflammatory language, but you choose not to.  People who want to keep a minority "in their proper place" have always used inflammatory language.  It makes them feel superior in their relationships.  It helps them justify their belief that only their relationships are worthy.  A same sex couple could not possibly want an eternal marriage with the person they love.  A gay couple could not possible have the same kind of sexual relationship that "I" have.  Their relationships are perversions, mine are holy.  They don't really deserve to have fulfilling relationships.  Let them only live together, don't allow them to marry.  Don't allow them to form families like mine.  

 

so continue to use inflamatory language.  Call their relationships perversions rather than some of the language you suggested.  Without it, you might have to start realizing that gay couples are not really that different than straight couples.

When folks resort to arguing over the purported offensiveness of a word--despite it having been shown to be properly used in a scriptural context--and impute the wrong motives to its user (shall I say, pervert the motives of its user?), they have lost the real argument on content. You still haven’t a valid argument that worthy people with SSA are denied temple marriage whereas I have shown that they are not, in theory and in practice.

 

I never said I was using “inflammatory” (intended to arouse angry or violent feelings) language, but that my use of what was called a “charged” (filled with excitement or emotion) word was proper, because that is how the verb “pervert” (and its related forms) is used in scripture.

[CV75]

a)

Straight men that have multiple sexual relations with the opposite sex also find those kinds of relationships unfulfilling.

b)

gay couples are not really that different than straight couples.

 

These observations, which I agree with, have nothing to do with the proper covenant of marriage where the difference is manifest a) in the fidelity of the spouses and b) in the difference between the spouses' genders.

[Ahab]

For the same reasons sexual relations within the bounds of marriage are good for straight couples even if they can not have children.

My question (or challenge) to you was intended to get an understanding from you of what you think is good about sexual relations between people of the same sex even if they are married. And I was also saying that enjoying something doesn't necessarily mean what you are enjoying is good, so you can't say enjoying it is what makes it good. I suppose I also should have said, for your benefit, that something isn't necessarily good if it is what other people are doing too, so you wouldn't come back with an answer as you did that it's good because other people are also having sexual relations with each other when they are married. So so far you haven't explained to me about what is good about people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other even when they are married. Would you like to try again to give me a good answer?

You list your multiple relations with men and found them unfulfilling. I got news for you. Straight men that have multiple sexual relations with the opposite sex also find those kinds of relationships unfulfilling. The only thing you are supporting is the importance of committed married relationships between ALL of God's children.

I've got news for you now. A committed married relationship isn't necessarily good. For some reason gays and lesbians think having sexual relations with people of the same sex is all good when they get married, but that isn't the case. And yes as you pointed out even "straight" people who are married don't have a good marriage, so the fact that they are married and haing sexual relations with each other doesn't mean what they have is good, either. So what is it that makes sexual relations between any 2 people a good thing? Marriage itself isn't enough to make it good, and enjoying sexual relations with a married person's spouse isn't either.

Commitment is at best only a partial answer. Commitment to what, or in what way?

Hint: it's usually referred to with a 4-letter word, but since that word is often used to refer to a perversion of what true love actually is it would help if you explained what you think love is and what it prompts people to do for those they love.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Ahab

[cdowis]

Why do you respond to these phony arguments?  It's pointless when talking to someone who argues that SSM is not forbidden in the scriptures, although homosexual sex is forbidden.

 

How can you have a reasoned discussion with such an individual.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cdowis

[Ahab]

Why do you respond to these phony arguments? It's pointless when talking to someone who argues that SSM is not forbidden in the scriptures, although homosexual sex is forbidden.

How can you have a reasoned discussion with such an individual.

Heh, I have discussions with people who don't see and understand things the way that I do all the time. It's just something I do, usually with the hope that maybe something I say will sink in.

In this case this guy thinks homosexual relations is good as long as the homos are married, and I'm trying to get him to explain to me what it is that makes it good, if indeed it is good. And I've eliminated the idea that marriage itself is what makes it good, so I'm waiting to see if he can explain it with some other reason.

I know that you and I both know that it isn't a good thing but he seems to think it is and I'm trying to get him to explain why.

Sometimes if you can get people to rxamine their own ideas they will eventually figure out where their reasoning is flawed on an issue and I think it's a bit too soon to totally give up on the boy.

[Tacenda]

Tsk, tsk...Ahab, using "homos" as a way to describe, unbelievable.

[Ahab]

Tsk, tsk...Ahab, using "homos" as a way to describe, unbelievable.

Just an abbreviation for homosexuals

Do you generally oppose abbreviations?

[Guest]

Am I the only who remembers growing up with the church teaching how false it was to believe that forbidding to marry was Satans plan and that the Bible clearly taught that "it is not good for man to be alone? And a sign in the latter days where false men would forbid marriage?

1 Timothy 4:3

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It is so easy to claim that the other guy is following Satans plan and a sign of the false church isn't it.

He was speaking about Priest's not marrying and teaching others to do the same. But it also an affirmation of marriage between man and wife. It was God's first institution upon the earth and the first command to "multiply and replenish the earth". You will have to look elsewhere than what you find in scripture. I do understand that it may be a disappoint, but we (any of us) be able to discuss this outside of scripture...if the Bible or any scripture is used in the debate, it can only be used to reinforce the doctrine of marriage be "a man" and "a woman".

[teddyaware]

Just an abbreviation for homosexuals

Do you generally oppose abbreviations?

I know for sure you're a good guy, Ahab. But you must know the use of that slang is considered disrespectful and very unkind.

[Tacenda]

Just an abbreviation for homosexuals

Do you generally oppose abbreviations?

It seems like a slur to me.

[canard78]

Just an abbreviation for homosexuals

Do you generally oppose abbreviations?

 

There's an edit function. Some take offense to that version of the word.

[california boy]

My question (or challenge) to you was intended to get an understanding from you of what you think is good about sexual relations between people of the same sex even if they are married. And I was also saying that enjoying something doesn't necessarily mean what you are enjoying is good, so you can't say enjoying it is what makes it good. I suppose I also should have said, for your benefit, that something isn't necessarily good if it is what other people are doing too, so you wouldn't come back with an answer as you did that it's good because other people are also having sexual relations with each other when they are married. So so far you haven't explained to me about what is good about people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other even when they are married. Would you like to try again to give me a good answer?

I've got news for you now. A committed married relationship isn't necessarily good. For some reason gays and lesbians think having sexual relations with people of the same sex is all good when they get married, but that isn't the case. And yes as you pointed out even "straight" people who are married don't have a good marriage, so the fact that they are married and haing sexual relations with each other doesn't mean what they have is good, either. So what is it that makes sexual relations between any 2 people a good thing? Marriage itself isn't enough to make it good, and enjoying sexual relations with a married person's spouse isn't either.

Commitment is at best only a partial answer. Commitment to what, or in what way?

Hint: it's usually referred to with a 4-letter word, but since that word is often used to refer to a perversion of what true love actually is it would help if you explained what you think love is and what it prompts people to do for those they love.

 

I believe I clearly answered your question.  Sex between a gay couple within the bonds of marriage serves the EXACT same function as sex between a straight couple that is infertal.  No I don't think that the sole reason someone has sex is because it feels good.  That is a very shallow view of sex.  If it was just about "feeling good" I could be married to a woman.  If it was just about having sex, then finding someone to marry would be something anyone could probably do in an afternoon on Craigslist.

 

And I completely disagree with you.  A commited married relationship is much prefered over people just shacking up.  Quite frankly, I have no idea why you can make such a statement and still believe in the Law of Chastity.  Maybe you can tell me why a gay relationship is much better if they are just shacking up rather than committing to that relationship by marrying?  And why would it be better for a gay couple to shack up when they have adopted children?  Why do you think that a gay couple is any different other their orientation from a straight couple?  Because right now I just don't get your thinking.

 

While sexual relations are a part of marriage, it is not the most important part.  It is not even necessary in a marriage.  Sex is not what makes that marriage important.  I think it was Gray that asked if you or anyone else would be ok with gay marriage if the couple did not have any sexual relations at all in that marriage relationship.  You did not respond to the question.  You seem to want to make gay marriage about sex.  While that is usually a part of that marriage, it is not the reason people get married.  If this was only about sex, then why bother to get married at all?  Do you view your marriage that way?  Is the only reason why you got married is because then you could have sex?  Like I said, just because someone is gay does not mean that his reasons for marrying are any different than anyone else.  

 

All of this has no bearing at all on the discussion we are having anyway.  If you believe in the gospel, you also beieve that marriage is a very key part of the Plan of Salvation whether someone can have children or not.  The current church policy excludes gay couples from participating in that plan.  The church policy in the past excluded blacks and interracial couples from engaging in that plan.  THAT is the issue.  You believe the church should continue this policy even though there has been no revelation from God to institute that plan.  I disagree with you.  I think God wants all of his children to be able to have the blessings of eternal marriage.  I think that God has declared that marriage is an important part of our experience while here on earth.  I think that the scriptures condemn celibacy over marriage.  You use the few scriptures in the Bible that condemn homosexuality even though all of those scriptures are talking about homosexual relationships outside of marriage since no gay marriage was being performed when those scriptures were written.  Yet you also know that straight sexual relationships outside of marriage are also condemned in all of the scriptures.  You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it certainly does not have scriptural support nor does it have a revelation from God to support it.  And just like the priesthood ban, people have to distort the scriptures to make them try and support their view.

Edited May 23, 2014 by california boy

[cdowis]

There's an edit function. Some take offense to that version of the word.

 

I fail to find "insensitivity" in the forum rules. This is apologetics, not Social Hall, so I suggest that we move on.

[Ahab]

There's an edit function. Some take offense to that version of the word.

Let them learn how to deal with what offends them. I can't use words that everybody will like.

I'm offended by the fact that people choose to have sexual relations with people of the same sex, as well as when they do anything else that isn't good for them, especially when they don't seem to realize how much they are debasing themselves and society in general by mucking up what would otherwise be a planet filled with people who did only what was good for them and other people.

So how about instead of just getting rid or not using an abbreviation of the word "homosexuals" we instead go ahead and get rid of homosexual behavior entirely. I've already eliminated that behavior in my personal life and all that's left to do now is to help other people get rid of it. And no I do not go so far as to advocate for violence against such moral offenders, but to try through reasoning and compassion to help save them from doing more harm through those actions.

And yes I have noticed that you have not told me anything that is good about sexual relations between people of the same sex, either.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Ahab

[Gray]

You are in the wrong place.  This is not the "love and happiness" forum -- that is Social Hall.

 

This is the apologetic forum.

 

I don't think Jesus ever said there was anything greater than love. Or any other great religious leader, for that matter. 

[Gray]

I agree that Mormonism is a religion of the heart, but sometimes our hearts need changing - a mighty change of heart as a matter of fact and a circumcision of heart, that we might be pure in heart and love the Lord with all our heart before our own understanding     

 

I think part of the point of religion is to develop to the point where you are confident in your own moral compass. If your moral compass amounts to, "whatever I'm told is right is good enough for me" then I think there has been no moral development at all.