Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 So, in your view, "getting accused of gay-bashing" is you "getting hammered by pro-gays"? But calling gays' and lebians' relationships and families "abominations," "sinful," "Satanic," "selfish," spreading debunked junk science from groups like the FRC, working to prevent equal civil rights and recognition, and analogizing gay relationships to pedophilia and causing the destruction of children and society isn't "hammering, it's "just telling the truth"....? I think you may need to see your eye doctor about a potentially serious case of beam-itis. See what I mean.
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 Gee... why would you ever be accused of gay bashing? Kind of makes you wonder.
rockpond Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Kind of makes you wonder. I'm sure you'll figure it out.
rockpond Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 See what I mean. No. Not at all. It seems that your idea of "suffering" is that you can't say mean things about people without them being upset at you. I think the LGBT population has had it much worse than you.
california boy Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Nonsense. That is your assumption, not doctrine.You believe you will have the exact same physical, hormonal and emotional state once you are resurrected. Assuming you were to overcome any sinful behaviors through self discipline in this life there is no doctrine that makes me believe you would retain them in the next once your body is purified of its physical challenges. If you are purified and celestialized you will only want pure celestial things. You obviously did not read the post I was responding to. And I didn't say anything about doctrine because there is NO revelation on gay marriage or what happens to gay members after they die. If you believe in the abracadabra you are now straight scenario when we die, then fine. But that is not doctrine either. The "Plan of Happiness" is a plan of happiness only if you are straight. I am sure you are thrilled that you can choose a partner in this life and have an eternal marriage that will bring you kingdoms. No one is telling you that when you die, you are going to have to abhor your wife and hook up with some guy for eternity. There is no "Plan of Happiness for Gays."
wenglund Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 I'm suggesting that we don't know. Because we don't. Not exactly. We may not know with surety, but we have been given a very strong sense, which is far more than what you have to offer in support of your position. There is precisely no indication that eternal increase will occur between two men as well as between a man and a woman. So, your implicitly looking forward to the prospect of eternal increase between two men (which is what you would need to assume in order for gay eternal marriage to make sense), and passively advocating therefor, goes beyond simply not knowing, and mistaken presumes that for which there is currently every indication to the contrary. But, that is to be expected from purveyors of an upside-down world? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
JLHPROF Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 The "Plan of Happiness" is a plan of happiness only if you are straight. I am sure you are thrilled that you can choose a partner in this life and have an eternal marriage that will bring you kingdoms. No one is telling you that when you die, you are going to have to abhor your wife and hook up with some guy for eternity. There is no "Plan of Happiness for Gays." And I believe there is.
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 No. Not at all. It seems that your idea of "suffering" is that you can't say mean things about people without them being upset at you. I think the LGBT population has had it much worse than you. Clarifying sin is not being mean. If that were true then everyone of the prophets and apostles are being mean most of the time.
california boy Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 See what I mean.See what I mean what? Do you really feel like you are following Christ's clear example? When Christ talked to the adulteress, did he go on a rant calling her an "abominations," "sinful," "Satanic," "selfish," spreading debunked junk science from groups like the FRC, working to prevent her equal civil rights and recognition, and analogizing her relationships to pedophilia and causing the destruction of children and society? I seem to recall Christ teaching on multiple occasions that we should worry about our own sins and not the sins of others. but perhaps that doctrine has changes as well to allow gay bashing. If you don't think you have been engaging in gay bashing, what do you think the definition of gay bashing would be??
rockpond Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 We may not know with surety, but we have been given a very strong sense... Exactly. I also have a strong sense about my beliefs regarding gay marriage.
rockpond Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Clarifying sin is not being mean. If that were true then everyone of the prophets and apostles are being mean most of the time. That's what you feel you've been doing here? Clarifying sin? And by so doing you've been made to "suffer"?
wenglund Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) See what I mean what? Do you really feel like you are following Christ's clear example? When Christ talked to the adulteress, did he go on a rant calling her an "abominations," "sinful," "Satanic," "selfish," spreading debunked junk science from groups like the FRC, working to prevent her equal civil rights and recognition, and analogizing her relationships to pedophilia and causing the destruction of children and society? I seem to recall Christ teaching on multiple occasions that we should worry about our own sins and not the sins of others. but perhaps that doctrine has changes as well to allow gay bashing. If you don't think you have been engaging in gay bashing, what do you think the definition of gay bashing would be?? The statements from Christ that "he that is without sin" and "go and sin no more" within the context of your example, is implicitly, if not implicitly, calling the adulterer or adultery sinful. As such, your example demonstrates the exact opposite from what you may have intended. Way to go. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited September 23, 2014 by wenglund
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 See what I mean what? Do you really feel like you are following Christ's clear example? When Christ talked to the adulteress, did he go on a rant calling her an "abominations," "sinful," "Satanic," "selfish," spreading debunked junk science from groups like the FRC, working to prevent her equal civil rights and recognition, and analogizing her relationships to pedophilia and causing the destruction of children and society? I seem to recall Christ teaching on multiple occasions that we should worry about our own sins and not the sins of others. but perhaps that doctrine has changes as well to allow gay bashing. If you don't think you have been engaging in gay bashing, what do you think the definition of gay bashing would be??Defining and condemning sin is not "bashing".
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 That's what you feel you've been doing here? Clarifying sin? And by so doing you've been made to "suffer"? Sure, look at California boy, he goes off every few pages about it.
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 Satan has influenced the Mormon church to teach that marriage is ordained by God causing many to believe that only those that are religious should marry. Statistics show that more and more people are choosing not to marry as a result of this satanic Mormon agenda. It is the single greatest threat to the institution of marriage in the world today. and since you moved the goal post once again: This satanic control of the Mormon church has convinced many that unless they are without sin, they should not attend church. They teach against other churches allowing gays from participating in organized religion because gays are living in sin. Statistics also show that less and less people are inclined to have anything to do with organized religion because they all realize that they are sinners. The satanic Mormon agenda to convince the world that you have to be without sin in order to participate in religion is the single greatest threat to religion today. See, two people can play the satan is behind the other side. You love the hyperbole, but you never seem to answer the hard questions. How does gay marriage influence you or anyone else to not want to be married in the temple? How does what other religions believe effect your own personal beliefs? Other religions believe that sex outside of marriage is the law of chastity. They don't believe that every word in the Bible came from God , but like Brigham Young, prophets in the Bible were a product of their time. Heck, they even believe that women can pray in church even though the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. Now Mormons want to dictate what other religions believe???? Do you know that they let their members drink alcohol as well? Or that other churches believe that they too have the priesthood?? Or that it is ok for women to wear make up?? Maybe God wants us to be more concerned with our own salvation rather than the salvation of others. Maybe those that rage against loving gay couples choosing to marry should be more concerned with making sure their families are loved and embrace the gospel. There will always be sin in the world. Trying to control other peoples sins was never part of the plan of salvation. Maybe members of God's church should be more concerned with loving all who seek to follow Christ rather than being concerned with the sins of those that sit next to them in church. A wise bishop once said, you are cant control the salvation of others. You are only responsible for your own salvation. The actions of others does not cause you to act differently or sin more. Mormons have always lived in a world of sin. Nothing has changed. Fewer people joining the church has not been because of gay marriage, but rather from problems within the church itself. Perhaps your focus should be on your own relationship with God. Just a though, Tell me- is this not Mormon bashing?
wenglund Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Exactly. I also have a strong sense about my beliefs regarding gay marriage. My "strong sense" that eternal increase will be a product of man and woman rather than man and man, comes externally (outside myself) from a myriad of revelations received by God's chosen Seers and Revelators and leaders as well as through recognizing abundant "types" manifest throughout the scriptures and in human life. Whereas your "strong sense" for eternal increase between two men (which is required for gay eternal marriage to make sense) comes externally from an upside-down world/pop culture, and this in contravention to the wealth of evidence that has given me for my "strong sense." To each their own. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sexual-immorality?lang=eng# Is that gay bashing?
california boy Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Tell me- is this not Mormon bashing?LOL. Are you serious? This is in response to your own post where you said Gay marriage is blasphemous. Satan has blurred the lines of marriage to where many think its okay for gays to have the same religious rights as the faithful. Satan has many lies and has many blurred lines. Most homosexual men do not want gay marriage with complete fidelity. Most male homosexuals are very promiscuous and do not want to be tied down to one mate. For many its all about the sex. So when I repeat your exact same words back to you substituting Mormon instead of gay, you think it is Mormon bashing. But when you do it, then it is ?????????? 1
rockpond Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 Sure, look at California boy, he goes off every few pages about it.I don't even understand how that answers my questions. You were asked to back up your statement that you and church members have been made to suffer because of our stand on homosexuality. You can't do it.
rockpond Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 My "strong sense" that eternal increase will be a product of man and woman rather than man and man, comes externally (outside myself) from a myriad of revelations received by God's chosen Seers and Revelators and leaders as well as through recognizing abundant "types" manifest throughout the scriptures and in human life. Whereas your "strong sense" for eternal increase between two men (which is required for gay eternal marriage to make sense) comes externally from an upside-down world/pop culture, and this in contravention to the wealth of evidence that has given me for my "strong sense." To each their own. Thanks, -Wade Englund-Wade -- You don't get to speak as to where my belief comes from. You are wrong.
rockpond Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sexual-immorality?lang=eng#Is that gay bashing?That web page is a far different thing than what you've done here. Church apostle Elder Quentin L. Cook stated, “As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”(I can also quote from LDS.org)You may think that what you have done here is following in the example of the apostles. But, I don't see the connection.
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 Is this line gay bashing- "Homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions are an abomination:"
Rodeo Posted September 23, 2014 Author Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) LOL. Are you serious? This is in response to your own post where you said So when I repeat your exact same words back to you substituting Mormon instead of gay, you think it is Mormon bashing. But when you do it, then it is ?????????? The difference is that I am defining bad as bad and good as good. You are taking bad and trying to make it good and that which is good to be bad. You can't condemn righteousnous. Edited September 23, 2014 by Rodeo
Daniel2 Posted September 23, 2014 Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) That's what you feel you've been doing here? Clarifying sin?And by so doing you've been made to "suffer"?Sure, look at California boy, he goes off every few pages about it.Is this a joke? Are you for real, or are we being punk'd? Edited September 23, 2014 by Daniel2
Recommended Posts