carbon dioxide Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Wow.Is that the fruits of your Faith..? A hope that those of us who believe differently will be "burned from the face of the earth."But it's not "hate," it's love ... riiiiiiight...Religious fanaticism at its worst.One can believe differently. The Church says one can believe differently. But I would rather see the wicked destroyed to protect the Church than see the Church go down in flames to appease the wicked or join them on the race to the bottom. My view of the future is different. Most of the changes that we see in society is because people have too much time on their hands. I believe in time that will change as things get harder. Look at California for example. They are in a major drought. Some places only have about 1 year worth of water left. Some are saying that California may return to how California was before it was settled. That means droughts far more severe than they Californians have ever experienced. If all of this is correct, there will be less pressure on the Church to accept SSM or other wicked practices in say California or other places as the those that would advocate and try to persuade members to such things will have their time occupied for more important things like trying to find enough water.
Daniel2 Posted March 18, 2015 Author Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) I would rather see the wicked destroyed to protect the Church than see the Church go down in flames... So, if the church changes, you're convinced it would be the wicked's fault, and you still hope they'd burn before it happens...This only clarifies and reinforces my earlier response. Edited March 18, 2015 by Daniel2
Ahab Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 One can believe differently. The Church says one can believe differently. But I would rather see the wicked destroyed to protect the Church than see the Church go down in flames to appease the wicked or join them on the race to the bottom. My view of the future is different. Most of the changes that we see in society is because people have too much time on their hands. I believe in time that will change as things get harder. Look at California for example. They are in a major drought. Some places only have about 1 year worth of water left. Some are saying that California may return to how California was before it was settled. That means droughts far more severe than they Californians have ever experienced. If all of this is correct, there will be less pressure on the Church to accept SSM or other wicked practices in say California or other places as the those that would advocate and try to persuade members to such things will have their time occupied for more important things like trying to find enough water....yeah but if people refuse to sell water to homosexuals, even if they say it's because they don't have enough water to go around, you can bet the homosexuals will be filing lawsuits against those who are refusing to sell water to them.
Daniel2 Posted March 18, 2015 Author Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) ...yeah but if people refuse to sell water to homosexuals, even if they say it's because they don't have enough water to go around, you can bet the homosexuals will be filing lawsuits against those who are refusing to sell water to them.Seriously, Ahab?Can you imagine a society which, in time of drought, that would allow businesses to refuse to sell water to gays and lesbians...?! Your church says it opposes discrimination against gays and lesbians when it comes to them having a home and a job...Do you believe your church would support a right for businesses to discriminate against gays by refusing to sell them water during a drought?!? Edited March 18, 2015 by Daniel2 1
Ahab Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Seriously, Ahab?Can you imagine a society which, in time of drought, that would allow businesses to refuse to sell water to gays and lesbians...?! Your church says it opposes discrimination against gays and lesbians when it comes to them having a home and a job...Do you believe your church would support a right for businesses to discriminate against gays by refusing to sell them water during a drought?!?I was thinking more about homosexuals filing lawsuits against those who would refuse to sell them water even if the reason given was because there wasn't enough water to go around.I see homosexuals as wanting to get whatever they want, regardless of what others want, and filing lawsuits when they don't get whatever they want. The fact that serving them could violate someone's conscience doesn't matter much if any at all to a homosexual.
Calm Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I see homosexuals as wanting to get whatever they want, regardless of what others want, and filing lawsuits when they don't get whatever they want. The fact that serving them could violate someone's conscience doesn't matter much if any at all to a homosexual. I don't buy it. Population of the US is at least 1-2% homosexual which means a total of about 3 million or more gays. If every one of them or even most gays were suing anytime they didn't get what they want, there would be a ton more lawsuits going on instead of the dozen or so that one hears about.
Ahab Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I don't buy it. Population of the US is at least 1-2% homosexual which means a total of about 3 million or more gays.If every one of them or even most gays were suing anytime they didn't get what they want, there would be a ton more lawsuits going on instead of the dozen or so that one hears about.True, not all of them are filing lawsuits, but I see all of them, generally, as approving of it when others of them do. I know there are exceptions, like me, but that's the overall general view I have of their mindset.How many have you ever heard from who agree with me that it's better to refuse to support a homosexual act or ceremony if it violates a person's conscience to support that act?
pogi Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I was thinking more about homosexuals filing lawsuits against those who would refuse to sell them water even if the reason given was because there wasn't enough water to go around.I see homosexuals as wanting to get whatever they want, regardless of what others want, and filing lawsuits when they don't get whatever they want. The fact that serving them could violate someone's conscience doesn't matter much if any at all to a homosexual. Are you going to give temple recommend interviews before you will sell someone water, or do you discriminate solely against gays? Gays are somehow less deserving of life? 1
Ahab Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Are you going to give temple recommend interviews before you will sell someone water, or do you discriminate solely against gays? Gays are somehow less deserving of life?If I was selling water and I had a limited supply to sell you're darn well tootin I would be very selective about who I would sell it to and the fact that someone is a homosexual, in and of itself, would not place them up near the top of my list. Edited March 18, 2015 by Ahab
CV75 Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Revelation for the entire church needs to flow through the Prophet. I think I am safe in saying that you and I agree on that. Regardless of what the revelation is, do you think that the Lord would reveal something to the Prophet (for the church) if the prevailing sentiment among church members, leaders, and apostles is that we already have the answer/knowledge? Certainly the Lord has the authority and power to push an "undesired" revelation on us but would He? Would that be consistent with what we understand of Him?Of course: the Lord can be very proactive, and has been. Often the "prevailing sentiment" calls for a revelation to preach repentance! This can be done very gently with inviting people to Christ, and with constant reminders of what the Lord stands for when challenged. I think this is being done on the current subject, both in terms of how to treat our neighbor and how to keep or preserve in our society (or not be coerced to not keep or preserve in our society) the commandments relating to marriage, religious freedom and other subjects. Some of the general membership are receptive to the revelations that flow through the Prophet and some are not, no matter how many times the revelation is referred to. Some are very persistent in resisting it, and some look for confirmation of something else they've constructed that is more in line with their heartfelt desires, which go hand in hand with their admittedly incomplete knowledge on the subject (huh?). Now you haven't answered the second part my question: How do propose the general church membership acknowledge a common and incomplete understanding on the matter to meet your suggested prerequisie for the Prophet to receive a revelation or further light and knowledge?
Daniel2 Posted March 19, 2015 Author Posted March 19, 2015 If I was selling water and I had a limited supply to sell you're darn well tootin I would be very selective about who I would sell it to and the fact that someone is a homosexual, in and of itself, would not place them up near the top of my list.How very Good Samaritan-ish of you. I'm sure Christ would approve. 1
Ahab Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 How very Good Samaritan-ish of you. I'm sure Christ would approve.I'm sure he would too.
california boy Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) If I was selling water and I had a limited supply to sell you're darn well tootin I would be very selective about who I would sell it to and the fact that someone is a homosexual, in and of itself, would not place them up near the top of my list. Just another reason why I think Mormons have left the teachings of Christ to the dust bin. Statements like this make it easy to just leave the church to it's own demise. Go ahead, let it be known that Mormons feel justified in treating others with discrimination and reputation. You are just following the direction church leaders are pointing the church to head. I think you are right in line with current church teaching. Matthew 25 is evidently no longer doctrine in the church. Ahab, would you mind if I used this quote on my facebook page as the prevailing example of current doctrine and attitudes towards gays by the Mormon church? Or at least use your post as an example of a commonly held belief of active members of the Mormon church?? Just let me know how you would like me to handle this quote of yours. And any others that might want to support your Mormon beliefs, please speak up. Edited March 19, 2015 by california boy 1
rockpond Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Of course: the Lord can be very proactive, and has been. Often the "prevailing sentiment" calls for a revelation to preach repentance! This can be done very gently with inviting people to Christ, and with constant reminders of what the Lord stands for when challenged. I think this is being done on the current subject, both in terms of how to treat our neighbor and how to keep or preserve in our society (or not be coerced to not keep or preserve in our society) the commandments relating to marriage, religious freedom and other subjects.Some of the general membership are receptive to the revelations that flow through the Prophet and some are not, no matter how many times the revelation is referred to. Some are very persistent in resisting it, and some look for confirmation of something else they've constructed that is more in line with their heartfelt desires, which go hand in hand with their admittedly incomplete knowledge on the subject (huh?).Now you haven't answered the second part my question: How do propose the general church membership acknowledge a common and incomplete understanding on the matter to meet your suggested prerequisie for the Prophet to receive a revelation or further light and knowledge?You didn't answer my questions.And your last question answers itself. It just takes an acknowledgment that we don't have a fullness of God's will with respect to his homosexual children. And as I talk and work with the youth of the church, it seems that they don't share in the certainty of the older generation on this matter. They can't understand a God who would deny his gay children that aspect of their souls and lives. It's not coming from a lack of knowledge or testimony. It comes from a place of faithful questioning which is fertile ground for revelation.
carbon dioxide Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) If I was selling water and I had a limited supply to sell you're darn well tootin I would be very selective about who I would sell it to and the fact that someone is a homosexual, in and of itself, would not place them up near the top of my list.If water is in short supply, I am not selling my water. So after my needs of my family are meet, the rest on the block can have access to my water whether gay or not though most of my neighbors are LDS and I can't think of one gay person in my area so it would not even be an issue anyway. Edited March 19, 2015 by carbon dioxide
california boy Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 If water is in short supply, I am not selling my water. What are you doing with it? Keeping it to yourself and family or giving it freely to all who are in need until it runs out?
Pahoran Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I don't think anyone is predicting that our Church will be the FIRST to see the light with regards to homosexuality.Actually we've already seen the light with regards to homosexuality. If our "track record" is any indication, we will be amongst the last to reach the point. But we will get there because as Dr. King once said: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it eventually gets to Salt Lake City." Of course, I am paraphrasing a bit. But it is the arc of the immoral universe that leads to surrender of moral standards.Vice is a monster of so frightful mienAs to be hated needs but to be seen;Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,We first endure, then pity, then embrace. -- Alexander Pope We are not going to be embracing any vices, however fashionable the world may think them. Regards,Pahoran 1
Pahoran Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Just another reason why I think Mormons have left the teachings of Christ to the dust bin. Statements like this make it easy to just leave the church to it's own demise. Go ahead, let it be known that Mormons feel justified in treating others with discrimination and reputation. You are just following the direction church leaders are pointing the church to head. I think you are right in line with current church teaching. Matthew 25 is evidently no longer doctrine in the church. Ahab, would you mind if I used this quote on my facebook page as the prevailing example of current doctrine and attitudes towards gays by the Mormon church? Or at least use your post as an example of a commonly held belief of active members of the Mormon church?? Just let me know how you would like me to handle this quote of yours. And any others that might want to support your Mormon beliefs, please speak up.California Boy, would you mind if I use this quote as an example of how immoralists cherry-pick isolated and non-representative tidbits and then knowingly and intentionally misrepresent them as "the prevailing example of current doctrine and attitudes towards gays by the Mormon church" in order to deceive and manipulate others?Because, as you perfectly well know, that's exactly what you would be doing.Regards,Pahoran 1
Pahoran Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I'm sure he would too. No. He would not. Sorry. Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Really....?Was interracial procreation truly a sin in Brigham's day?Did the Lord truly mandate death on the spot for anyone who so-married?Was it "always to be so"?Did the Lord change His law?Or was Brigham wrong?Or is the church now calling something right that used to be wrong?You are abusing that statement in the same way most anti-Mormons do.Not only did the Lord not "mandate death on the spot for anyone who so-married," neither did Brigham.What he was talking about wasn't even intermarriage; it was slave-holders taking advantage of their slaves. The imaginary "death" sentence was pronounced upon white men, and no-one else.And it remained imaginary. When Brigham, as governor of Utah, had the opportunity to enact his views into law, he abandoned the hyperbole, and only required that any slaves so abused be confiscated and freed.Just so you know.Regards,Pahoran Edited March 19, 2015 by Pahoran 1
california boy Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 California Boy, would you mind if I use this quote as an example of how immoralists cherry-pick isolated and non-representative tidbits and then knowingly and intentionally misrepresent them as "the prevailing example of current doctrine and attitudes towards gays by the Mormon church" in order to deceive and manipulate others?Because, as you perfectly well know, that's exactly what you would be doing.Regards,Pahoran Nope Not at all. You can quote anything I have ever posted on this board anywhere you want. And you can label me as an exMormon who left the church because I am gay. And yes you can also label me as an immoralists. Just tell them that you are Mormon and this is what Mormons think of gays. As you can tell, I have turned over a new leaf. Ahab was just following the direction of church leaders in teaching it's members how to discriminate. I am going to broadcast the churches efforts and its members to discriminate against gays. Like the church leadership, I think this is an important issue of our time. Let all the world know how church leaders and its members fully and justly support discrimination against gays. If you want to comment on this doctrine, I would be more than happy to quote you as well. Say how you feel about making a cake for a gay wedding, and I will post it.
Bobbieaware Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Nope Not at all. You can quote anything I have ever posted on this board anywhere you want. And you can label me as an exMormon who left the church because I am gay. And yes you can also label me as an immoralists. Just tell them that you are Mormon and this is what Mormons think of gays.As you can tell, I have turned over a new leaf. Ahab was just following the direction of church leaders in teaching it's members how to discriminate. I am going to broadcast the churches efforts and its members to discriminate against gays. Like the church leadership, I think this is an important issue of our time. Let all the world know how church leaders and its members fully and justly support discrimination against gays. If you want to comment on this doctrine, I would be more than happy to quote you as well. Say how you feel about making a cake for a gay wedding, and I will post it.From exMormon to antiMormon? Or are you just in a temporary huff? Edited March 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Just another reason why I think Mormons have left the teachings of Christ to the dust bin. Statements like this make it easy to just leave the church to it's own demise. Go ahead, let it be known that Mormons feel justified in treating others with discrimination and reputation. You are just following the direction church leaders are pointing the church to head. I think you are right in line with current church teaching. Matthew 25 is evidently no longer doctrine in the church. Ahab, would you mind if I used this quote on my facebook page as the prevailing example of current doctrine and attitudes towards gays by the Mormon church? Or at least use your post as an example of a commonly held belief of active members of the Mormon church?? Just let me know how you would like me to handle this quote of yours. And any others that might want to support your Mormon beliefs, please speak up.This reeks of emotional blackmail. 2
california boy Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 From exMormon to antiMormon? Or are you just in a temporary huff?How can you possibly say I am antiMormon. I am only letting the world know that the church is now codifying into law that discrimination against gays is church policy. And reporting how faithful members like Ahab are implementing that policy. Would you say my actions is someone who is against the church? Did not the press release state that the church was proud if it's campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples to marry? Did not the church state that both the church and it's members have a right to discriminate against gays based on their beliefs? Tell me ONE statement that I have made that is anti Mormon. Do you not support the church leaders in its recent legislative efforts to legalize discrimination against gays?? 1
california boy Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 This reeks of emotional blackmail. Your current favorite phrase. How the heck is anything I am wanting to broadcast to the world emotional blackmail? Have you also not always supported everything that Ahab has stated against gays? I certainly have never heard you call him out on any of his beliefs and statements. Certainly you agree that Mormons have a right, or even a religious duty to discriminate against gays. You have been preaching that sermon for months. Now you have general authorities supporting you on this position. You have even posted their statements as support for your positions. Am I not suppose to support you in these positions by sharing your own beliefs with the world?? Emotional blackmail? You are going to have to explain that comment.
Recommended Posts