Lds Church Backs Lgbt Rights

[Calm]

Also keep in mind that the third that was kicked out of heaven wanted to take away agency and force everyone to follow what they thought was God's laws.

Or they wanted to remove agency by removing law itself and thus nothing would be a sin and anything goes (which is a more common human tendency, to want to live without responsibility or consequences for one's actions or to be turned into a programmed human robot, so much a slave even one's thoughts are not one's own?)

Edited January 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It makes ya wonder if principle is important, rather than the law. If God can command to go against the law (Nephi's murdering Laban may come to mind).

That may not be the best example. There are some strong arguments IMO that under the law of his day, Nephi's actions would not have been considered murder.

[stemelbow]

That may not be the best example. There are some strong arguments IMO that under the law of his day, Nephi's actions would not have been considered murder.

I mean law of God--thou shalt not murder, type of stuff. But even still, it might not be the best example because it advocates for killing someone, which I detest. But on the spot, it's what I came up with.

[Calm]

Law of God IMO judges as much by the heart as the hand....since God knew both the thoughts of Nephi and Laban, I see no reason to assume by the Law of God it was murder and not something else such as self defense or righteous execution.

Killing another human being is detestable....save when it isn't, such as when it is to prevent death or significant injury to innocents (I am assuming if you had the choice of seeing a man die or watching him torture and kill someone else for the fun of it, you would choose the first (if there was no option at the time to restrain and imprison him).

Edited January 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

That may not be the best example. There are some strong arguments IMO that under the law of his day, Nephi's actions would not have been considered murder.

 

Even in today's context I think a reasonable argument could be made for justifiable homicide, but I agree it would be a much harder argument to make. Laban had already stolen their property, chased them out of town, and threatened to kill them.

[Calm]

There was no immediate harm however, I think that would make it problematic.

[stemelbow]

No one could do what Nephi did by today's standards, get caught and not be subject to a murder charge and most likely conviction. If there was a Laban laying passed out on the side of the road and all this had happened to someone, the appropriate action would be to call the police, not murder him.

Even in Nephi's day you would have to seriously question it. If he could take his sword and kill him without him waking, why kill him at all? Just take his armor and go. Seems at least possible. Anywa, this took me way off my point.

[Rob Osborn]

No one could do what Nephi did by today's standards, get caught and not be subject to a murder charge and most likely conviction. If there was a Laban laying passed out on the side of the road and all this had happened to someone, the appropriate action would be to call the police, not murder him.Even in Nephi's day you would have to seriously question it. If he could take his sword and kill him without him waking, why kill him at all? Just take his armor and go. Seems at least possible. Anywa, this took me way off my point.

And yet we still assassinate people in todays military, even when they are sleeping...

It is better that one man should perish than a whole nation dwindle in disbelief.

[why me]

find me a quote where they herald gay right prior to 1994/early 95?

What are gay rights? Are gay rights just limited to gay marriage? The idea that gayness is a separate identity is rather new. In postmodern society, groups struggle for their own rights to be heard and their struggle is limited to that group identity only. Would gays support the right for men to have more than one women in marriage? And can we put the legalization of polygamy as a human right? And what about people rights? The right to have a secure job? The right to have a roof over one's head? The right to have public health care? All of these can be classified as a human right. But where does gay rights fit in to the other rights just mentioned?

 

As various groups struggle for their own rights, the society still remains divided by age, color, sex etc. Gay rights took a public turn in hollywood with ellen coming out on her comedy series. And then hollywood went all out in bringing gays into the living rooms of america. Very few people were speaking of gay rights before hollywood enter the fight. What is the percentage of gays in the United States? I would venture a guess that it is not as many as the elderly or the children that live in the US. And yet, many elderly can't afford nursing care and many children live in poverty. But we still spend countless years advancing gay rights when the rights of others go unnoticed. Such is how society drifts apart into fragmented identities.

Edited January 28, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

yep, i am positive that is what the Brethern had in mind when they instructed and called for respectfull dialogue.

Well, I don't have a whole lot of respect for that group (Human Rights Campaign), which is the one that very disrespectfully harassed and harangued President Packer with daily "news" releases for a solid week and a publicity-seeking dog-and-pony show of presenting a "petition," all of which demanded apologies from him because they didn't like something he said in general conference. In fact, it would suit me just fine if this group would dry up and blow away.

 

But if you don't like my discourse, you are free to use the "Report" function and take it up with the moderating team. In fact, I think they would prefer you do that rather than engage in board nannying, which is expressly forbidden in the board guidelines.

 

By the way, how did it go with your complaint to them about my linking to Dan Peterson's blog? Or did you decide not to do that?

Edited January 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Rob Osborn]

Also keep in mind that the third that was kicked out of heaven wanted to take away agency and force everyone to follow what they thought was God's laws.

Agency is destroyed when one becomes a sinner (chains of hell). Satans plan was that of practicing wickedness and justification for that wickedness. That same war rages in the hearts of men today.

[USU78]

Also keep in mind that the third that was kicked out of heaven wanted to take away agency and force everyone to follow what they thought was God's laws.

 

Did they?  Or did they lie?

[tonie]

Well, I don't have a whole lot of respect for that group (Human Rights Campaign), which is the one that very disrespectfully harassed and harangued President Packer with daily "news" releases for a solid week and a publicity-seeking dog-and-pony show of presenting a "petition," all of which demanded apologies from him because they didn't like something he said in general conference. In fact, it would suit me just fine if this group would dry up and blow away.

But if you don't like my discourse, you are free to use the "Report" function and take it up with the moderating team. In fact, I think they would prefer you do that rather than engage in board nannying, which is expressly forbidden in the board guidelines.

By the way, how did it go with your complaint to them about my linking to Dan Peterson's blog? Or did you decide not to do that?

Scott please accept my apology for quoting the Prophets and Apostles, I dis not realize that you would be so offended by their guidance. I also did not realize that quoting the LDS Prophets and Apostles on a LDS themed board would be offensive. I truely am sorry for my mistake.

[Scott Lloyd]

Press conferences like this only serve as a reminder that Mormonism remains a highly American-centric church.

And I think this remark is yet another example of reverse-provincialism.

 

Here's a quote from a story that will be appearing in the Church News this weekend:

 

While the Church leaders addressed the American public, they also spoke to the 15 million Church members worldwide -- many of whom wrestle "with the same issues we face here in the United States."

 

Edited January 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott please accept my apology for quoting the Prophets and Apostles, I dis not realize that you would be so offended by their guidance. I also did not realize that quoting the LDS Prophets and Apostles on a LDS themed board would be offensive. I truely am sorry for my mistake.

Is passive-aggressive sarcasm an example of "respectful dialogue"?

[Nofear]

Your response is within the recommended parameters, Scott Lloyd. Nicely done.

 

The Secret To Dealing With Passive-Aggressive People

[Scott Lloyd]

Your response is within the recommended parameters, Scott Lloyd. Nicely done.

 

The Secret To Dealing With Passive-Aggressive People

Hmm. And I did it intuitively without having studied up on it first.

 

I love when that happens.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Mormon church backs LGBT rights — with one condition

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/27/mormon-church-backs-lgbt-rights-with-one-condition/

POSTED 10:08 AM, JANUARY 27, 2015, BY CNN WIRE.........................

..............................................................

TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT 2015 CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., A TIME WARNER COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

 

Another take on the press conference:

.........................................................................

Nothing new here except a negotiating position by the Church's top lawyer, and the Mormons have always sought accommodation of one sort or another in order to avoid damaging crises.

 

CNN got the story surprisingly right, AP much less so.  Avoiding glaring errors is difficult for the Gentiles, and even long-time Mormons often get it wrong.  Nice to see that at least one agency got it right.

[Robert F. Smith]

Agency is destroyed when one becomes a sinner (chains of hell). Satans plan was that of practicing wickedness and justification for that wickedness. That same war rages in the hearts of men today.

The road to Hell is lined with "good" intentions . . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah, except Utah is behind the curve on this one and most states already have nondiscrimination laws protecting the rights of Gays the same way race and gender are protected, and have had them for years. They made no statement when this came up in other states. Clearly the church has a large presence in Utah, and I'm cool with that. While the overall statement that the church supports protection of basic human rights is great, but it only came up because of Utah politics.

False.

Had you read the CNN article, Boanerges, you would realize that the LDS Church has been formally urging gay rights in Utah for years -- and much to the chagrin of right-wing Utah politicians.  You ignored the positive comparison of the Mormon and Methodist Churches in that article, along with the very negative comparison with some other churches -- likely including the one you are a member of.

 

Moreover, unlike citizens of most other states, Utahns treat their neighbors with kindness and warmth.  People who live here in Utah (gay or straight, Mormon and non-Mormon) enjoy a much lower crime rate, and a much lower unemployment rate than elsewhere.  We just don't have the hate-mongering here which the Gentiles seem to prefer elsewhere.

[tonie]

Is passive-aggressive sarcasm an example of "respectful dialogue"?

 

There was no sarcasm on my part.

 

I do have a question for you though, as you have often bandied about the "board nanny" label, wouldn't that make you "board nanny". 

 

I am sorry if quoting the Prophets and Apostles offended you.

Edited January 29, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

False.

Had you read the CNN article, Boanerges, you would realize that the LDS Church has been formally urging gay rights in Utah for years -- and much to the chagrin of right-wing Utah politicians.  You ignored the positive comparison of the Mormon and Methodist Churches in that article, along with the very negative comparison with some other churches -- likely including the one you are a member of.

 

Moreover, unlike citizens of most other states, Utahns treat their neighbors with kindness and warmth.  People who live here in Utah (gay or straight, Mormon and non-Mormon) enjoy a much lower crime rate, and a much lower unemployment rate than elsewhere.  We just don't have the hate-mongering here which the Gentiles seem to prefer elsewhere.

 

It is a difficult pill to swallow that the Church has "been formally urging for gay rights in Utah for years". 

 

The Church formally supported the non-discrimination law in Salt Lake City. 

 

The Church did not support a similar stat-wide law.

 

Now the Church seems to support a non-discrimination statewide law.

 

Incidentally, the Church called for maintaining the exemption of 15 employees or less, which happens to be the same number under Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - which the Church publically stated it took no position on. see mormonnewsroom.org

[Boanerges]

False.

Had you read the CNN article, Boanerges, you would realize that the LDS Church has been formally urging gay rights in Utah for years -- and much to the chagrin of right-wing Utah politicians.  You ignored the positive comparison of the Mormon and Methodist Churches in that article, along with the very negative comparison with some other churches -- likely including the one you are a member of.

 

Moreover, unlike citizens of most other states, Utahns treat their neighbors with kindness and warmth.  People who live here in Utah (gay or straight, Mormon and non-Mormon) enjoy a much lower crime rate, and a much lower unemployment rate than elsewhere.  We just don't have the hate-mongering here which the Gentiles seem to prefer elsewhere.

 

I wasn't saying the church was behind, nor the people of Utah for that matter. The STATE of Utah (i.e. government) is behind. Most states already have non-discrimination laws similar to the protections provided for race and gender already on the books and many have had them for many years. And I would argue that most people (including members) are unaware of the church's efforts in support of specifically gay rights. Most are even unaware of the Mormons and Gays site, which itself leaves a bit to be desired (although I was happy to hear that it is being revamped and improved).

[Boanerges]

Here's a quote from a story that will be appearing in the Church News this weekend:

 

While the Church leaders addressed the American public, they also spoke to the 15 million Church members worldwide -- many of whom wrestle "with the same issues we face here in the United States."

 

 

Well, if it's in Church News then it's obviously scripture and the debate is over.

[california boy]

The Church has not sought to force gays to do what the Church wanted or put them in prison or kill them.  It simply stood up for a standard that has been true throughout the world for thousands of years.  There are other issues that this would apply like prostitution, legalization of all drugs ect.  One can make good arguments of why those things should be legal but that does not mean one should accept them to be good or right.  The Church has a responsibility to stand for Christ at all times and all places.  Society may change and accept things that they have never accepted before but the Church can't do that.  Right and wrong is not determined by the decade or century one lives it or how popular something is.  Right and wrong as determined by the Church can only come from one source and that is God who neither cares about public opinion polls or that it is the year 2015.

No.  I am pretty sure supporting Prop 8 met that gays could no longer marry in the state of California.   The courts have ruled14 times that marriage is a fundamental right.  They have not ever ruled that prostitution and drug abuse is a fundamental right.  Prop 8 took away a fundamental right.  Big difference.  

 

There are more prisons than just the ones with bars.  When you take away the freedom of others to do what not only their conscious tells them to do, but their legal rights guaranteed them to do, then you are forcing them to conform to your own personal religious beliefs.  Read the court cases against Prop 8.  It is very clear that in this country you can not take away someone's Constitutional protected rights just because of what you think is wicked or immoral. 

 

So let the church stand with Christ.  Let the church preach a gospel of love and inclusiveness.  Let the church preach a gospel where all are welcome, the saint and the sinner to come unto Christ.  Let those that sin find Christ through their own repentance and not through forcing them to live how you want them to live.  Send a message to all the world what you think Christ would have them do.  But let's not line people up, take away their rights and force them along a narrow path that you determine for them.  Let's not take away their agency.

Edited January 29, 2015 by california boy