rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 We have already received light and knowledge on the subject. All that we need?
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whatever the "cause" of one's single state, whether it's because he's gay or because he doesn't happen to find someone who chooses to use her agency to determine their mutual eternal suitability together, no one IS a dreg/second-class citizen/[insert-pejorative-of-choice-here].Doctrine and Covenants 137 disagrees.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whatever the "cause" of one's single state, whether it's because he's gay or because he doesn't happen to find someone who chooses to use her agency to determine their mutual eternal suitability together, no one IS a dreg/second-class citizen/[insert-pejorative-of-choice-here]. Well I agree with that. No need for the insane font size. All I'm saying that is being gay doesn't, in and of itself, need to be a "cause" of singleness.
Daniel2 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 There is no part of a homosexual relationship that could be considered holy.That may be true for you, but it's not true for me.
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 That may be true for you, but it's not true for me.This is the thing I see as a problem with being inclusive to homosexuals in the church. They want acceptance, but dont want to really change and instead insist the church or Lords standards change to accept their behavior. Not going to happen and why its a dangerous game.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 On the subject? Yes. When did we arrive at that point?
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 When did we arrive at that point?We have been there a very long time. Its just been repeated from decade to decade to decade. The church position of homosexual behavior hasnt changed one bit- its still the same as it has always been. They have stated that it will never change.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 We have been there a very long time. Its just been repeated from decade to decade to decade. The church position of homosexual behavior hasnt changed one bit- its still the same as it has always been. They have stated that it will never change. So for decades we've had a consistent, revealed position on homosexuality? Is that your belief? Or only with respect to homosexual behavior? And, if that's the case, how do you define homosexual behavior?
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 So for decades we've had a consistent, revealed position on homosexuality? Is that your belief? Or only with respect to homosexual behavior? And, if that's the case, how do you define homosexual behavior?Yes, its only those who wish it were not so that question it. Homosexual behavior is "actions" that one pursues that lead one to act on an ttraction of homosexuality. It can be everything from holding hand and kissing and other intimate realtions to all the hardcore stuff such as pornography, sex, and other impure acts of homosexual behavior.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Yes, its only those who wish it were not so that question it. Homosexual behavior is "actions" that one pursues that lead one to act on an ttraction of homosexuality. It can be everything from holding hand and kissing and other intimate realtions to all the hardcore stuff such as pornography, sex, and other impure acts of homosexual behavior. Well, I agree that we've had a consistent position on "homosexual behavior" being a sin thought I am not aware of "homosexual behavior" ever being clearly defined (certainly not in the way you define it). But we have not had a consistent position with respect to homosexuality (in general) over the decades that I've been alive. Edited January 7, 2015 by rockpond
HappyJackWagon Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I know!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could I POSSIBLY be such an OGRE??????????!!!!!!!!!! Yessssss! The Church is asking our gay brothers and sisters to ... BE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!!!!!! [Cue Thunder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] And apparently, God is consigning single, heterosexual folks such as myself to go to the Afterlife Equivalent of A Giant Stake Singles Dance featuring the dregs (albeit the Resurrected Dregs) of Unattached Humanity! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! God loves MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE more than He loves gay folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!!!! (See? Both of us can speculate as to the fate of anyone's eternal soul!!! Isn't it FUN???!!!!!!!!!!) P.S.: Like almost everyone else who has responded to me so far, you, too, are conveniently silent on my #3.Kenngo, the first step in addressing a problem is recognizing you have a problem. Brother, you have a serious issue with exclamation points. Seriously. Ogre is your word, not mine...but... Again, I think you're trying to be funny but I hate to break it to you--you're not. Admit you have a problem and then recovery is possible. Your #3 was simply uninteresting. That is why I didn't comment on it.Apparently you have no compassion for our gay brothers and sisters. That's on you.
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Well, I agree that we've had a consistent position on "homosexual behavior" being a sin thought I am not aware of "homosexual behavior" ever being clearly defined (certainly not in the way you define it). But we have not had a consistent position with respect to homosexuality (in general) over the decades that I've been alive.And this attitude why inclusion is unhealthy.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 And this attitude why inclusion is unhealthy. I don't understand what you're saying here.
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I don't understand what you're saying here.Its not good for the church to open up church worship to homosexuals who do not wish to change their lifestyle behaviors. The active homosexuals who say they are members do not want to change their behavior but instead insist over and over that the church will change- anything to justify their sinful behavior. Its not healthy for the church to be inclusive to a group that seeks to justify their sin before God.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Its not good for the church to open up church worship to homosexuals who do not wish to change their lifestyle behaviors. The active homosexuals who say they are members do not want to change their behavior but instead insist over and over that the church will change- anything to justify their sinful behavior. Its not healthy for the church to be inclusive to a group that seeks to justify their sin before God. So you disagree with what the Bishop & ward described in the OP are doing? p.s. The church will change.
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 So you disagree with what the Bishop & ward described in the OP are doing? p.s. The church will change. Invite them to church- of course. Embrace them and their behaviors as acceptable? NO. The church will never change o this issue- it cant.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Those aren't the youth I'm referring to... these are youth who are faithful, believing, active, serving youth. Faithful ... and yet willing to 'walk' should God refuse to indulge their preferences? I think you and I may have slightly different definitions of faithfulness. 2
Daniel2 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Invite them to church- of course. Embrace them and their behaviors as acceptable? NO. The church will never change o this issue- it cant.With God all things are possible. Edited January 8, 2015 by Daniel2
Rob Osborn Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 With God all things are possible.Yes, except for actually changing His laws- that is not possible. God is unchanging in this area
Daniel2 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Yes, except for actually changing His laws- that is not possible. God is unchanging in this areaLaws like:Don't eat shellfish--it's an abomination?Don't eat pork--it's an abomination?Don't touch a menstruating woman--it's an abomination?Don't wear clothes thst mix wool and cotton--it's an abomination?Don't intermarry between races--it's an abomination?Don't lie--it's an abomination?Don't marry and have sex with more than one woman and lie to your first wife about it--it's an abomin.... oh, wait... never mind... this one's ok, as long as I tell you to.Don't kill--it's an abomin.... oh, wait... never mind... this one's ok, too... even for innocent suckling babies and cattle and drunk passed out men, if I command it....Could gay sex actually be worse than murdering babies...?Come to think of it, everything's subject to change, if God says so.Rob, do you even read your Scriptures? Do you know your history...?! Edited January 8, 2015 by Daniel2
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Laws like:Don't eat shellfish--it's an abomination?Don't eat pork--it's an abomination?Don't touch a menstruating woman--it's an abomination?Don't wear clothes thst mix wool and cotton--it's an abomination?Don't intermarry between races--it's an abomination?Don't lie--it's an abomination?Don't marry and have sex with more than one woman and lie to your first wife about it--it's an abomin.... oh, wait... never mind... this one's ok, as long as I tell you to.Don't kill--it's an abomin.... oh, wait... never mind... this one's ok, too... even for innocent suckling babies and cattle, if I command it....Come to think of it, everything's subject to change, if God says so.Rob, do you even read your Scriptures? Do you know your history...?!Many of those things are law of Moses items that were specific to that. The Law of Chastity has been around since day 1 and will be present on the last day.
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 With God all things are possible.Perhaps God will allow me to keep my favorite sins.
Daniel2 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Many of those things are law of Moses items that were specific to that. The Law of Chastity has been around since day 1 and will be present on the last day.Nice try. But:Lying.Murder.Polygamy.The greatest offenses on that list, according to Mormonism, were NOT merely part of the Law of Moses. They are all intrinsic to Latter-day Saint practice and belief, if Joseph was truly a prophet, and God truly commanded those things as part of the Restoration. Edited January 8, 2015 by Daniel2
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or just plain rude. What is "speshul" about wanting the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple? What is "speshul" about wanting to have a loving companion? It only redefines your idea of marriage. Many types of marriages have existed through out time that do not fit our current claim that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The early church polygamists sure were trying to "redefine" marriage for their needs and resisted the persecution of others. The law of chastity is that an individual will not have any sexual relationship except with their spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully married. So why would it be changing the law of chastity to allow married gay couples to act as a married couple? Also, the only change to the law of chastity is the stricter rules gays must follow. Not only are they not to have any sexual relations but they must also not do anything that would provoke feellings toward such. ie kissing, hand holding etc. Does the heterosexual law of chastity restrict these behaviors? No. Have a little compassion for what the church is really asking of our gay brothers and sisters. They are asked to BE ALONE...FOREVER. It's a tall order asking someone to never have a loving companion or even be able to hope for one.Nobody will be alone alone forever. I am sure those who are in outer darkness will not be alone. The law chastity is that no sexual relations except between a husband wife who is lawfully married. To change to allow gays makes as much sense allowing sexual relations between man and animals. I love my dog very much. I am not asking however to be sealed or married to my dog even though I treat her as a member of my family. I just hope the Lord sees how much I love her and treat her and she will be allowed to stay with me for eternity. My reading of the scriptures is that we came to earth to be tested to see if we would submit our will to what the Lord commands. It is not a test to see how far we can get Lord to bend to our will. The natural man is an enemy to God. We are to master the flesh. Not let the flesh be our master. A gay man who follows God, puts off what is natural to him will overcome the flesh. He will lose his same sex orientation at some point perhaps in the spirit world. He will find a spouse of the opposite gender and be with them for eternity. There simple is nothing to suggest that there has ever been a gay married couple in the celestial kingdom. There is nothing to suggest that one will be found in the next 100 trillion years.
Recommended Posts