Towards Inclusion Of Gays Or Exclusion?

[Kenngo1969]

 

An Eternal Perspective

We live in an imperfect world. Not all the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit. But having an eternal perspective and believing in a just and merciful God gives us hope that all will work out in the end.

 

With Him, each of us can walk the path, and chart the destiny of our spiritual lives.

We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.

 

 

 

Mormonsandgays.com, accessed January 15, 2015.

[california boy]

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.

 

You are probably right.  Christ had nothing but distain for sinners, and flet the first thing he needed to do is to tell them they were going to hell if they didn't repent.  He only associated with those without sin.  I guess I just missed all of that. Sorry.

[The Nehor]

You are probably right.  Christ had nothing but distain for sinners, and flet the first thing he needed to do is to tell them they were going to hell if they didn't repent.  He only associated with those without sin.  I guess I just missed all of that. Sorry.

No, that would not be what I said but I will gladly join you in beating that strawman if you like. He has it coming.

[Kenngo1969]

You are probably right.  Christ had nothing but distain for sinners, and flet the first thing he needed to do is to tell them they were going to hell if they didn't repent.  He only associated with those without sin.  I guess I just missed all of that. Sorry.

Personally, I'm rather disdainful of folks who cannot spell disdain correctly.

 

 Oh.  Sorry.

 

Couldn't resist!  Carry on!

[Buzzard]

If a man is an adulterer, sure we would.

Or even a garden variety fornicator.

[Kenngo1969]

Or even a garden variety fornicator.

I resent that!  I'm not just a garden variety fornicator!  I'm an exceptional for—

 

Oh, wait; forget I said anything ...

 

Sorry. 

[rockpond]

"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)

Yeah, there's a quote we can be proud of... Here in our church we'll apply the term family to a single person living alone but by all means let's make sure we don't use it to describe my two aunts who are legally married and have loved and taken care of each other for the past 20 years.

[DBMormon]

In another thread, from which I was banned for some unknown reason.

Let's be clear.  You were banned for breaking rules and making personal attacks.  It seems weird that you were able to get a copy of what I wrote from a thread you were banned from but not what the Moderator wrote on your post on why they banned you.   Strange.  Anyway good luck, I won't be visiting this thread after clicking post. 

[Rob Osborn]

Let's be clear.  You were banned for breaking rules and making personal attacks.  It seems weird that you were able to get a copy of what I wrote from a thread you were banned from but not what the Moderator wrote on your post on why they banned you.   Strange.  Anyway good luck, I won't be visiting this thread after clicking post.

Anyone can sign out and re-enter as a guest. I just asked why dont you start your own church. It seems you have more not in common with basic principles relating to the family than with in relevence to the gospel. Its kind of like Dehlin- why did he continue to remain in the church when he disagrees with so many basic principles?

[rockpond]

Anyone can sign out and re-enter as a guest. I just asked why dont you start your own church. It seems you have more not in common with basic principles relating to the family than with in relevence to the gospel. Its kind of like Dehlin- why did he continue to remain in the church when he disagrees with so many basic principles?

 

It's all about what you consider to be the basic principles.  There is much that Dehlin loves about the church.

[rockpond]

Anyone can sign out and re-enter as a guest. I just asked why dont you start your own church. It seems you have more not in common with basic principles relating to the family than with in relevence to the gospel. Its kind of like Dehlin- why did he continue to remain in the church when he disagrees with so many basic principles?

 

You might consider listening to Dehlin himself answer that question:  http://mormonstories.org/john-dehlin-why-i-stay/

Edited January 16, 2015 by rockpond

[Rob Osborn]

You might consider listening to Dehlin himself answer that question: http://mormonstories.org/john-dehlin-why-i-stay/

He is an apostate. He is not good for the church. Some people just cant leave the church on their own.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Rob Osborn

[rockpond]

He is an apostate. He is not good for the church. Some people just cant leave the church on their own.

 

Nice.

[Daniel2]

"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)

What you quoted doesn't satisfy the CFR for multiple reasons.

First, it doesn't support the claim you made, which is that the church (not "the scriptures") doesn't recognize gay couples as families. The church recognizes many things that aren't mentioned in the scriptures.

Additionally, your quote shows that the scriptures actually do recognize family configurations other than "man, woman, children" configurations. Specifically, it says families sometimes consist of "other relatives living in the same house or under one family head." That supports my point that gays can at least temporaly be recognized as families, not your assertion that the church would not recognize them as such.

Finally, the "Guide to the Scriptures" isn't part of official cannon.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Daniel2

[Rob Osborn]

What you quoted doesn't satisfy the CFR for multiple reasons.

First, it doesn't support the claim you made, which is that the church (not "the scriptures") doesn't recognize gay couples as families. The church recognizes many things that aren't mentioned in the scriptures.

Additionally, your quote shows that the scriptures actually do recognize family configurations other than "man, woman, children" configurations. Specifically, it says families sometimes consist of "other relatives living in the same house or under one family head." That supports my point that gays can at least temporaly be recognized as families, not your assertion that the church would not recognize them as such.

Finally, the "Guide to the Scriptures" isn't part of official cannon.

Whatever floats your boat...but you are still wrong. The church does not recognize a gay couple as "family". Thats a fact Jack!

[Daniel2]

Whatever floats your boat...but you are still wrong. The church does not recognize a gay couple as "family". Thats a fact Jack!

I understand you believe that, but you haven't shared any evidence that the church doesn't recognize and/or encourages it's members to refuse to recognize that gay couples can appropriately be called "families."

In my experience, the strictness I perceive from your very black and white worldview usually proves brittle, geberally unconvincing, and ultimately unsustainable in the long run. But you keep beating that drum and asserting your truth... more power to ya. ;-)

Edited January 16, 2015 by Daniel2

[Rob Osborn]

I understand you believe that, but you haven't shared any evidence that the church doesn't recognize and/or encourages it's members to refuse to recognize that gay couples can appropriately be called "families."

In my experience, the strictness I perceive from your very black and white worldview usually proves brittle, geberally unconvincing, and ultimately unsustainable in the long run. But you keep beating that drum and asserting your truth... more power to ya. ;-)

You obviously walk to the beat of your own drum. The church has firmly established what a family is and consists of. A gay couple is not a family.

[Stone holm]

I understand you believe that, but you haven't shared any evidence that the church doesn't recognize and/or encourages it's members to refuse to recognize that gay couples can appropriately be called "families."

In my experience, the strictness I perceive from your very black and white worldview usually proves brittle, geberally unconvincing, and ultimately unsustainable in the long run. But you keep beating that drum and asserting your truth... more power to ya. ;-)

Trying to understand this. Of course the Church by its political stances casts into doubt whether gay couples can be considered a family. Do you really doubt that?