Exalting Gays (Thought Experiment)

[Rob Osborn]

We do need to distinguish between LDS Church law and civil law.  What is currently forbidden in one may be lawful in the other, and we should all be tolerant of free choice for those who prefer non-traditional forms of marriage, just as we once demanded that our practice of polygyny be allowed by civil authorities in the USA.

 

We are free to preach against any non-traditional form of marriage, but we should not arrogate to ourselves the right to actually prevent others from their preferred civil  or religious practices.  Neither should they be able to coerce us into some practice of which we do not approve.  Some mutual respect is in order.  Too many voices preaching, but not tolerating.

Gays have nore rights than I do. They push their agenda on us and society thinks we should tolerate them to the point of acceptance and even so far as to call me a bigot and intolerable just because I preach homosexuality is an abomination and sinful in every aspect.

[thesometimesaint]

Gays have nore rights than I do. They push their agenda on us and society thinks we should tolerate them to the point of acceptance and even so far as to call me a bigot and intolerable just because I preach homosexuality is an abomination and sinful in every aspect.

 

You'd be surprised at what the Bible calls an abomination, and what is morally acceptable according to it.

Edited December 31, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

You'd be surprised at what the Bible calls an abomination, and what is morally acceptable according to it.

So do you think homosexuality is an abomination? Or are you just gonna side with the atheists?

[thesometimesaint]

So do you think homosexuality is an abomination? Or are you just gonna side with the atheists?

 

What I think is an abomination is beside the point. Unless you are claiming  that the people who wrote the Bible are Atheists what does Atheism have to with the Bible?

SEE

[Rob Osborn]

What I think is an abomination is beside the point. Unless you are claiming  that the people who wrote the Bible are Atheists what does Atheism have to with the Bible?

SEE

Are you even LDS? LDS believe homosexuality is a sin and abomination. So its not me you confront- its the prophets.

[thesometimesaint]

Are you even LDS? LDS believe homosexuality is a sin and abomination. So its not me you confront- its the prophets.

 

I've been a LDS for over 43 years. Yes I believe that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. What I have never believed is that us mortals killing, maiming, or otherwise inflicting physical or emotional harm on sinners is within my religion.That to me is the greatest of abominations. My religion teaches faith in God, and repentance for my own actions not the actions of others.

[california boy]

Because for some reason the government felt it had to limit the number of marriages a person can have.

Marriage never included one man and multiple women.  The women are not married to each other.  The man has multiple marriages, not a marriage with multiple partners.

 

Husband has one marriage with wife #1

Husband has a second marriage with wife #2

Each wife has her own marriage with her husband.

Husband does not have one marriage with wives 1&2

 

Ok this is hilarious.  So one man married to multiple wives is really only married to one wife.  

 

Currently the church teaches that marriage is only allowe to be one man and one woman.  But you claim that means a man can have multiple wives.  So can a member today have multiple wives, because he is only married to one at a time even if they are still alive?  

 

Or could a woman marry multiple men and still be ok with the church because each marriage is between one man and one woman????  Do you see ANY problem at all with your "logic"?????  Sounds like polygamy can still be practiced in the church according to you, since each marriage is one man and one woman.  

[california boy]

I've been a LDS for over 43 years. Yes I believe that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. What I have never believed is that us mortals killing, maiming, or otherwise inflicting physical or emotional harm on sinners is within my religion.That to me is the greatest of abominations. My religion teaches faith in God, and repentance for my own actions not the actions of others.

In Rob Osborn's world, eating shellfish is an abomination, but murdering innocent women and chlidren is ok because the Bible says it is.

[Rob Osborn]

I've been a LDS for over 43 years. Yes I believe that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. What I have never believed is that us mortals killing, maiming, or otherwise inflicting physical or emotional harm on sinners is within my religion.That to me is the greatest of abominations. My religion teaches faith in God, and repentance for my own actions not the actions of others.

Im not doing any of those things so I am nt sure what your beef is. If you think me calling homosexual acts as being an abomination "emotional harm", well then, join the world.

[Rob Osborn]

In Rob Osborn's world, eating shellfish is an abomination, but murdering innocent women and chlidren is ok because the Bible says it is.

Hardly. Homosexuality as a lifestyle will bring you to hell, not heaven.

[Daniel2]

Gays have nore rights than I do.

Biggest CFR I've ever asked for on this board.

What rights do gays have that you don't?

Edited January 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Hamba Tuhan]

Are you willing to be celibate in order to put off the natural man?  

 

I am.

 

It is easy for you to say gays in loving relationships should put off the natural man and be required to live their lives without a loving partner.

 

Actually, I find it agonising to say this to anyone, and yet I have said it on a number of occasions. In one case, my missionary companion and I were teaching a woman who had been with her partner for seven years. Because the relationship was intimate, we explained that in order for her to obey the law of chastity, they would either need to marry or transition to a completely celibate relationship. When asked, the man refused to marry her. She didn't feel that she could maintain the relationship without running the risk of its resuming its sexual aspects, so she made the very difficult decision to completely terminate the friendship, leaving her utterly alone. I found it acutely painful to watch this good woman go through this. At the same time, I understood how sanctifying her choice would prove to be in her life, and it has been.

 

Going from being in a loving relationship to living her life without her loving partner is precisely what God asked of this woman. Some months later, she received her patriarchal blessing, and in it she was promised that someday she would enjoy an eternal marriage. Satisfied, she shared this information with one of her friends in the Relief Society. The response: 'Sure, but probably not till the next life'. G------'s response: 'Why does it matter when the promised blessing will be fulfilled? I can wait upon the Lord'.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

I never said that others in the church do not choose celibate lives.  I am only pointing out (once again) that ONLY gay members have been TOLD they MUST be celibate throughout their lives.  If you were making the argument that gays, like straight members must be celibate unless married, then you would have a point.  But as you know, that is not the case.

 

You are comparing completely different expectations and requirements.  This kind of comparison is disingenuous at best and pretends that gays are treated the SAME as all other members.  As you well know, they are not.  No other group is told they should not marry.

 

If the person is gay, then not getting married is "overcome the natural man"  If you are straight, then getting married is following God's plan.  Straight members are not told to be celibate to "overcome the natural man".  They are told to get married.  How can you disagree with this?

This is like saying that we are forcing smokers to not smoke.

 

The standards for membership include not smoking, and no homosexual activity, and living the law of chastity.  Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

 

It is like wanting to be a Republican member of the Democrat party.  If you don't believe in Mormonism, why would you want to be a Mormon?  We have already been over this and over it again.

 

 

Straight members are not told to be celibate to "overcome the natural man".  They are told to get married.  How can you disagree with this?

Seriously?

No, they are told to observe the law of chastity, married or not.  Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.  If they don't like the definitions, they leave the church, as you already have done.

 

One is free to live the standards or leave, as you have decided to do.

 

As a convert I have never understood why one would want to stay in a church one disagreed with.  It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

There is a reason I am not a Baptist- I didn't join that church and try to turn it into Catholicism.  It just boggles my mind.

[mfbukowski]

I am a Baptist, because I believe in baptism, but I also believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is scripture.  I also don't accept the trinity, or the Nicene Creed, and I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.   I think that the Baptist church must accept all these principles or I will threaten leaving the Baptist church.   They better accept my terms, or boy, they will be sorry to lose me!   

[california boy]

I am.

 

 

Actually, I find it agonising to say this to anyone, and yet I have said it on a number of occasions. In one case, my missionary companion and I were teaching a woman who had been with her partner for seven years. Because the relationship was intimate, we explained that in order for her to obey the law of chastity, they would either need to marry or transition to a completely celibate relationship. When asked, the man refused to marry her. She didn't feel that she could maintain the relationship without running the risk of its resuming its sexual aspects, so she made the very difficult decision to completely terminate the friendship, leaving her utterly alone. I found it acutely painful to watch this good woman go through this. At the same time, I understood how sanctifying her choice would prove to be in her life, and it has been.

 

Going from being in a loving relationship to living her life without her loving partner is precisely what God asked of this woman. Some months later, she received her patriarchal blessing, and in it she was promised that someday she would enjoy an eternal marriage. Satisfied, she shared this information with one of her friends in the Relief Society. The response: 'Sure, but probably not till the next life'. G------'s response: 'Why does it matter when the promised blessing will be fulfilled? I can wait upon the Lord'.

 

Well if you yourself are willing to live a celibate life, then I have no problem with you telling others they too should be celibate in order to put off the natural man.  We usually hear this advice from those who they themselves are unwilling to live a celibate life.

 

The example you gave is very touching, but not quite like what is asked of gay couples.  They are told they will never be able to marry someone in this life or in the life to come.  None the less, quite a moving story.

[Garden Girl]

You have no clue.

Missionaries are "celibate".

Single people who are active are "celibate"

I have had vast portions of my life unmarried AND "celibate" because I believed God wanted me to be so.  VAST portions.  Decades.

 

Vast numbers of sisters in the church are single through no choice of their own and are celibate.

 

Young women and men who do not engage in premarital sex are celibate, all because they believe they should be.

Do you think these people have no sex drives?  Do you think these people want to spend their lives alone?

Get a clue.  You are not the only person in the universe.

 

I am one of the vast number of sisters in the Church that are single through no choice of my own... widowed at age 58 ...  a youthful age 58... and I have been celebate ever since... and I'm now 74.  After my husband's death, I met a really terrific fellow and we started seeing each other... he was a confirmed bachelor... when we started caring about each other and I knew I could not have the type of relationship he would want, I had to walk away from him... what a shame... we are still in touch though he lives on the  east coast now... he is now 77 and we do remain as friends.  From his conversations in recent months, I can tell he has had misgivings that we did not marry... but it's too late now... years have passed.  I'm an old woman for the most part... but actually I've become so used to living alone and having my freedom that I don't think I could stand to be with someone 24/7, but it was not always so...  I'm doing okay with Bobby-cat in my little beach cottage... 

 

GG

[Coreyb]

Ahhh, the marriage would include one man and several women, all married at the same time...

 

If pural marriage is the same as marrying one man and one woman, then why did the government make it illegal??????????  The law of the land has always been one man and one woman in this country.  It is the Mormon Church that changed the definition of marriage to include one man and multiple women.

Maybe that's the answer, omnigamy. Gays and lesbians can get sealed, they just have to group together

[Hamba Tuhan]

The example you gave is very touching, but not quite like what is asked of gay couples.  They are told they will never be able to marry someone in this life or in the life to come.  None the less, quite a moving story.

 

Actually, Latter-day Saints who may identify as gay are never told by anyone that they 'will never be able to marry someone in this life or in the life to come'. They may, however, be told that they ought not (and will not) be in an intimate relationship with the persons they currently wish to be with ... which is exactly the situation my dear friend G------ found herself in. You appear to feel driven to separate out the requirement for chaste behaviour on the part of those who may desire same-gender intimacy as a special kind of horrible, but there really is no difference for any of us. On this the Church and its teachings are perfectly consistent.

[california boy]

Actually, Latter-day Saints who may identify as gay are never told by anyone that they 'will never be able to marry someone in this life or in the life to come'. They may, however, be told that they ought not (and will not) be in an intimate relationship with the persons they currently wish to be with ... which is exactly the situation my dear friend G------ found herself in. You appear to feel driven to separate out the requirement for chaste behavior on the part of those who may desire same-gender intimacy as a special kind of horrible, but there really is no difference for any of us. On this the Church and its teachings are perfectly consistent.

 

Not very comforting to the many thousands of gay members who leave the church because they want to make a life with someone they are actually attracted to.  But hey, that is just the same as straight members except the church allows them to marry in the temple.

 

To pretend it is the same thing is really not true.  There are two different standards.  I get it.  The church does not allow gays to marry in the temple.  It means that gay members have a clear choice to make.  Stay in the church and be celibate, or leave the church.  I am ok with that.  I have made my choice.  I just don't like church members pretending it is anything less than that.

 

Single unmarried women have a choice as well.  Stay celibate and stay in the church.  Get married and stay in the church.  Or leave the church.  That second option is huge.  Those that discount it, are usually comfortably married and would not dream of having to choose between their spouse and membership in the church.  That is all I am saying.   

[california boy]

Maybe that's the answer, omnigamy. Gays and lesbians can get sealed, they just have to group together

lol.  evidently we have stumbled on a loophole. 

[mfbukowski]

Not very comforting to the many thousands of gay members who leave the church because they want to make a life with someone they are actually attracted to. 

Yes we know.  You have told us repeatedly, in virtually every single post.  You have said practically nothing else.

 

I don't think the Church's objective is to enable behaviors of people who disagree with its moral standards.    I don't think it should be.  Sorry about that.  Can't please everyone.

 

So I don't think I will reply to your same points repeated over and again.  Hope to hear something new if you have it

Edited January 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just don't like church members pretending it is anything less than that.

 

And I don't like it when people pretend that their self-imposed limitations are universal. The simple fact is that each person has an infinite number of choices that s/he can make. That one doesn't currently like or prefer certain choices doesn't mean they don't exist. One of the things that I most dislike about the straitjacket of ready-made identities is how much they impose an artificial set of limitations on the choices people think they can make. We are all equally endowed with agency, and every single man or woman has equal access to the same infinite pool of choices that I have access to.

 

I understand that you do not wish to make some of the choices that are open to you -- and I fought in the preexistence for you to have that right -- but my 100% commitment to the agency of Man means that I also feel obligated to speak out when certain historical movements seek to create and impose a discourse designed specifically to convince people that they possess less agency than they actually do.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

And I don't like it when people pretend that their self-imposed limitations are universal. The simple fact is that each person has an infinite number of choices that s/he can make. That one doesn't currently like or prefer certain choices doesn't mean they don't exist. One of the things that I most dislike about the straitjacket of ready-made identities is how much they impose an artificial set of limitations on the choices people think they can make. We are all equally endowed with agency, and every single man or woman has equal access to the same infinite pool of choices that I have access to.

 

I understand that you do not wish to make some of the choices that are open to you -- and I fought in the preexistence for you to have that right -- but my 100% commitment to the agency of Man means that I also feel obligated to speak out when certain historical movements seek to create and impose a discourse designed specifically to convince people that they possess less agency than they actually do.

 

So you are claiming that gay members have the same choices as straight members.  hummm.  I hope you aren't offended if I don't see it that way.

[Calm]

Biggest CFR I've ever asked for on this board.

What rights do gays have that you don't?

They can marry another gay…nope, Rob can do that too.  I am interested as well.

[3DOP]

Biggest CFR I've ever asked for on this board.

What rights do gays have that you don't?

 

Daniel...I have stopped myself a dozen times from asking if you are interested in anything except homosexual stuff...I am not pretending to be on your side...except for this post, and your biggest CFR. Happy New Year.

 

3DOP