Daniel2 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Also, we should always teach that families are man, woman, childrenDoes the church actually endorse teaching that to be recognized as a "family," any given grouping of people must consist of "man, woman, children"?The church does not recognize families comprised of other groupings...? 1
Daniel2 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 And (saying this without the slightest desire to give offense) only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64743-do-our-ward-and-stake-leaders-recognize-the-room-they-have-to-include/?p=1209453279 Where is this bolded portion specified in LDS cannon, scripture, revelation, or even proclamation...?If, for example, The Bible is "ordained of God," and "central to his plan," does thst mean that God would not ordain or support any other books....? 1
Stone holm Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Okay, so we label them as "broken" in need of being "fixed" and we see ourselves as God's appointed "fixers" .... does anybody have a sense that most gays and lesbians might see this as a bit patronizing? I mean, I have seen plenty of singles arch up when they are basically treated as someone that needs to be fixed. So I have never been comfortable with this hate the sin, but love the sinner stuff -- seems pretty patronizing to me. It would seem a lot more straight forward to just say, well sorry we just don't find you or your behavior up to our standards, and move on.
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Yes, and at the time it was so defined marriage had a clear meaning. Changing the meaning does not change the law. If we redefine "sexual relations" to mean only incest is God then forced to allow all other kinds of fornication because that is what he said? No, I don't think that God bases morality on the laws of the land.
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Okay, so we label them as "broken" in need of being "fixed" and we see ourselves as God's appointed "fixers" .... does anybody have a sense that most gays and lesbians might see this as a bit patronizing? I mean, I have seen plenty of singles arch up when they are basically treated as someone that needs to be fixed. So I have never been comfortable with this hate the sin, but love the sinner stuff -- seems pretty patronizing to me. It would seem a lot more straight forward to just say, well sorry we just don't find you or your behavior up to our standards, and move on.The gospel is kind of patronizing. Since our dad is in charge it kind of makes sense for it to be.I am single and need fixing. Probably a frontal lobotomy or full personality transplant. 1
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Okay, so we label them as "broken" in need of being "fixed" and we see ourselves as God's appointed "fixers" .... does anybody have a sense that most gays and lesbians might see this as a bit patronizing? I mean, I have seen plenty of singles arch up when they are basically treated as someone that needs to be fixed. So I have never been comfortable with this hate the sin, but love the sinner stuff -- seems pretty patronizing to me. It would seem a lot more straight forward to just say, well sorry we just don't find you or your behavior up to our standards, and move on. I agree... most gay people I know find the concept of loving the homosexual ("sinner") but hating homosexuality ("the sin") to be a rather incomprehensible concept.
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I agree... most gay people I know find the concept of loving the homosexual ("sinner") but hating homosexuality ("the sin") to be a rather incomprehensible concept.The whole concept is incredibly difficult even in the general sense though I think this tends to be how most people view themselves. If we could just get the second great commandment down I think we could do it right.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Okay, so we label them as "broken" in need of being "fixed" and we see ourselves as God's appointed "fixers" .... I personally label myself as broken and sorely in need of fixing. The whole point of sacrament meeting sermons, lessons, hymns, prayers, etc. is, in my opinion, to offer fixes to the broken. If for some reason that doesn't happen for me some Sunday, I feel robbed. Edited January 15, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan
Kenngo1969 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Where is this bolded portion specified in LDS cannon, scripture, revelation, or even proclamation...?If, for example, The Bible is "ordained of God," and "central to his plan," does thst mean that God would not ordain or support any other books....?You're welcome to interpret The Family: A Proclamation to the World how you wish. I think you're wresting its clear meaning; to each, his own. In my case, we're back to, "Why hasn't anyone seen fit to exercise her agency to determine our mutual eternal suitability? Surely, if God loved me, He would grant me at least that blessing." And I don't know why He hasn't, just as I don't know why He would ask anyone to go through life celibate. The only thing I know for sure is, whatever similarities or differences exist between our respective circumstances, and whatever blessing He might (for His own reasons) deny either of us in this life, such a denial doesn't mean God loves either of us any less. This is only the Second Act. How can God possibly rectify all of the unbelievably messy stuff from Act II in Act III? Search me. I only have faith that He can and will. Any disagreement notwithstanding, I wish you well. Edited January 15, 2015 by Kenngo1969
DJBrown Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I agree... most gay people I know find the concept of loving the homosexual ("sinner") but hating homosexuality ("the sin") to be a rather incomprehensible concept. How is this any different with alcoholics, sex addicts, porn addicts, etc.? How do we love people and accept who they are while not condoning their sins? Is there any sin that needs to be condemned? Should the church teach anything regarding sin? Is there any sin that warrant a person lose his or her fellowship in the church (meaning the permission to actively participate in ordinances, etc.)?
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 How is this any different with alcoholics, sex addicts, porn addicts, etc.? Or simply with me? Lord, is it I? 1
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Okay, so we label them as "broken" in need of being "fixed" and we see ourselves as God's appointed "fixers" .... does anybody have a sense that most gays and lesbians might see this as a bit patronizing? I mean, I have seen plenty of singles arch up when they are basically treated as someone that needs to be fixed. So I have never been comfortable with this hate the sin, but love the sinner stuff -- seems pretty patronizing to me. It would seem a lot more straight forward to just say, well sorry we just don't find you or your behavior up to our standards, and move on. interesting I was with ya till the last sentence. My conclusion would the exact opposite--be straight forward and say "well we ain't no Gods, not yet anyway, so come on. Join us. Hopefully we can all be enlightened together". Interesting you say it this way. I've been some visiting member for years, as we all have. Going out visiting people who have suffered loss or pain, bringing well wishes from the ward. Finding those that don't show up to Church, asking them to come back. Normally those that we get to work with, you know beyond occasional visits, are those that seem to enjoy the patronizing tenor of loving them but hating their actions. Many times as these folks get back to activity, they kinda lose what they see as the patronizing from others and tend to fall back away. Seen it many times. Reminds me of my mission. We kind prey on those who are needy, saying they are the ones who are prepared and humble.
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 How is this any different with alcoholics, sex addicts, porn addicts, etc.? Because we'd never say that we should love the heterosexual but hate heterosexuality.
DJBrown Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Because we'd never say that we should love the heterosexual but hate heterosexuality. If a man is an adulterer, sure we would. Edited January 15, 2015 by DJBrown 2
Rob Osborn Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Does the church actually endorse teaching that to be recognized as a "family," any given grouping of people must consist of "man, woman, children"?The church does not recognize families comprised of other groupings...?The church does not recognize SSM as a family.
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 If a man is an adulterer, sure we would. And any adulterer we ought to toss right out the building on their caboose?
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 If a man is an adulterer, sure we would. But that is hating adultery, not heterosexuality. Can you see the difference in the eyes of a homosexual person?
DJBrown Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 And any adulterer we ought to toss right out the building on their caboose? Actually, we wouldn't. I have never seen that happen. And I have known several members who were guilty of that offense. We minister to them and love them. And hope they will repent and come back into full fellowship. The very same things as a person engaging in homosexual behavior. 2
DJBrown Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 But that is hating adultery, not heterosexuality. Can you see the difference in the eyes of a homosexual person? It comes down to the definition of sin. Has God set the boundaries of appropriate expression of sexual desire or not? Anything outside of those boundaries is sin and is to be condemned. It doesn't matter if it is considered homosexual or heterosexual. God has ordained the only appropriate place for sexual activity as being between a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage. If we cannot accept that, than there is nothing in the gospel that is not "free game." Maybe we should open up to adultery or threesomes or pornography.
rockpond Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It comes down to the definition of sin. Has God set the boundaries of appropriate expression of sexual desire or not? Anything outside of those boundaries is sin and is to be condemned. It doesn't matter if it is considered homosexual or heterosexual. God has ordained the only appropriate place for sexual activity as being between a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage. If we cannot accept that, than there is nothing in the gospel that is not "free game." Maybe we should open up to adultery or threesomes or pornography. I was just trying to help you understand why the "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't make a lot of sense to many gay people. Clearly it makes sense to you, just trying to share another perspective.
The Nehor Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I was just trying to help you understand why the "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't make a lot of sense to many gay people. Clearly it makes sense to you, just trying to share another perspective.I think a part of the reason for that is that they consider it an inextricable part of their identity. Most adulterers do not consider adultery to be "who they are". 1
california boy Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 You are twisting things a bit here. Jesus was willing to work with and associate with repentant sinners. Of course the Pharisees saw his as consorting with sinners. We are to invite people out of the mud pit and help them out but the idea that Jesus hung out with unrepentant philanderers and other sinners is a myth. Jesus was almost intolerably severe on sin. He took the sins of others more seriously then the Pharisees. He just had the added bonus of seeing their sins as well. If the Pharisees were sinners why did he not also associate and dine with them? Was it because they were not repentant? I never said that Christ didn't take sin seriously. I only said He did not make it a requirement for a person to be repenting of their sins before He would associate with them. It was the Pharisees that Christ had contempt for because they would not sit with the sinners. And there is no record that as soon as He sat to eat with those that society felt were sinners that should be shunned did he ever launch into a sermon before He would sit down with them. People love the phrase "Love the sinner hate the sin" as if it is something that is actually found in the words of Christ. It is not. Christ's message was to love the sinner despite their sins. Leave the judging of their sins up to God. No one is in a position to judge another and their sins except God himself. The question remains, do we follow the example of the Savior or the example of the Pharisees.
Daniel2 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 The church does not recognize SSM as a family.References, please.
The Nehor Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I never said that Christ didn't take sin seriously. I only said He did not make it a requirement for a person to be repenting of their sins before He would associate with them. It was the Pharisees that Christ had contempt for because they would not sit with the sinners. And there is no record that as soon as He sat to eat with those that society felt were sinners that should be shunned did he ever launch into a sermon before He would sit down with them. People love the phrase "Love the sinner hate the sin" as if it is something that is actually found in the words of Christ. It is not. Christ's message was to love the sinner despite their sins. Leave the judging of their sins up to God. No one is in a position to judge another and their sins except God himself. The question remains, do we follow the example of the Savior or the example of the Pharisees. While the idea of "love the sinner and hate the sin" is not found in the gospels the idea that Christ associated with unrepentant sinners is not there either. He would preach to them but that seems to be about it. I don't know. He might have associated with them but the scriptures say nothing about it. In any case I doubt he had a lot of people who did not believe in his divinity following him. People wanted him gone because they were sinners and they knew it. I disagree about your interpretation of Christ's message as well. His message was that he was the messiah and no man could come unto the father except through him. While he taught love his love was of a kind many would consider almost cruel. The Savior did not invite the rich man to come with him without giving up his wealth first. He did not accept the man who wished to bury his father first either. He expects devotion to his Father's cause. When the people were following him after he miraculously provided a free lunch he rebuked them for wanting to be around him just because they wanted free bread. I would add that while the Savior nudges sinners towards repentance the Holy Ghost (and by extension the Savior's grace) does not extend to unrepentant sinners. At least that is how it works in my life. The second I am willing to repent he rushes in. When I am arrogant and angry and rebellious he does not stop by to hang out. I see no reason to believe he did otherwise in life. There are times I prefer the more "feel good love and associate with everyone unconditionally" Jesus that you see but I have not found him either in scripture or in prayer. He loves. He loves us all. He wants us to come to him. He can fix the most debased reprobate but he does not seem to have much patience with mild approval of him and his father. In life he seemed to inspire three emotions from those he interacted with: adoration, fear, and hatred. There were not a lot of moderates. I imagine if he were on earth again today he would drive those who agree with him on moral grounds (not saying that is you or anyone else here) to one of the extremes. In LDS theology one of the mercies of the next life is that some people will not have to endure his presence and have a place further away. 2
Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2015 Author Posted January 16, 2015 References, please. "As used in the scriptures, a family consists of a husband and wife, children, and sometimes other relatives living in the same house or under one family head. A family can also be a single parent with children, a husband and wife without children, or even a single person living alone." (Guide to the Scriptures)
Recommended Posts