General Conference: Moving Away From Traditional Marriage Definition?

[Tacenda]

Great rationalization. But still false.

Do you have the opinion that leaders just made mistakes? Or do you really continue to believe that they are "beyond hate"?

Battering the witness!

My language is not your language. I said what I thought about the comments, that is me, you're you.

Why must you make what I said a vendetta against the church? You don't know me.

Some past and maybe current leaders, I don't read minds, might think that gays are the scourge of the earth. Beyond hate, can mean so many things to so many people. Like I hate certain tasks that I must do, but still do them. Or I hate bigotry, but don't want bigots killed. Or don't think they're incapable of "natural affection" for God, their spouse and their children, see Pres. Kimball's remark. I've always felt close to Pres. Kimball since he was the prophet in my growing up years and since reading books by him. Plus my husband has photos on his mission with him while celebrating the prophet's wife Camilla's birthday. Pres. Kimball specifically sought out my husband and his companion because they converted a Baptist Minister in the south with a huge congregation. I don't hate him, always loved him. But was sad to read the quotes.

But glad the leaders are doing something in their own way to combat this way of thinking today. Such as the new anti LGBT discrimination law that they backed, here in Utah.

[jwhitlock]

Battering the witness!

My language is not your language. I said what I thought about the comments, that is me, you're you.

Why must you make what I said a vendetta against the church? You don't know me.

Some past and maybe current leaders, I don't read minds, might think that gays are the scourge of the earth. Beyond hate, can mean so many things to so many people. Like I hate certain tasks that I must do, but still do them. Or I hate bigotry, but don't want bigots killed. Or don't think they're incapable of "natural affection" for God, their spouse and their children, see Pres. Kimball's remark. I've always felt close to Pres. Kimball since he was the prophet in my growing up years and since reading books by him. Plus my husband has photos on his mission with him while celebrating the prophet's wife Camilla's birthday. Pres. Kimball specifically sought out my husband and his companion because they converted a Baptist Minister in the south with a huge congregation. I don't hate him, always loved him. But was sad to read the quotes.

But glad the leaders are doing something in their own way to combat this way of thinking today. Such as the new anti LGBT discrimination law that they backed, here in Utah.

 

"Beyond hate" must in some way mean that it's worse than regular "hate". Claiming that it somehow "can mean so many things to so many people" is just trying to sidestep the question.

 

It's very clear from your posting on this board that whenever something negative comes up about the church, you jump right on the bandwagon. I know that much about you.

 

So, I have to ask again - what does "beyond hate" really mean in the context of your attack on leaders of the church?

[Daniel2]

You need to read what actually happened, instead of hate-mongering sites.

They weren't "proactive". A South Bend station sent a reporter out trolling for someone to demonize as part of the Indiana law uproar and found an obviously Christian pizza shop owner. She asked them a number of leading questions, including:

"Would you serve gays?" The owner answered that they wouldn't have any problem serving gays that came into the shop. Your sites indicating otherwise are lying.

"Would you cater a gay wedding?" The owner answered that they wouldn't due to their beliefs. It's worth wondering who in the first place would ask a pizza shop to cater a wedding, but that really didn't matter.

That was about the sum of it. The reporter and station editors ran that, sensationalized it a bit, and when the hate started hitting the fan, also reported a biased, one-sided list of hate comments. Nothing sells like sensational stories, doesn't it.

I've read some of the bigoted hate sites you're referring to. They've claimed that the pizza shop owner was proactive and boasted about it. Those things are false.

A high school coach who was part of the pro-gay hate team Tweeted about going down to the small town and burning the pizza shop to the ground. That coach has been suspended (good for someone having some sense to reign the hate in a bit.) Where have we heard about burning things to the ground before? Wasn't it against the church in Prop 8?

Pro-gay bigots have tried to destroy Memories Pizza under false pretenses. It's part of the clear ugliness that gay rights supporters engage in. The "other side" does nothing even remotely comparable to what gay rights supporters do. If someone yells anti-gay slogans, it's treated as hate speech and they're prosecuted. If gay rights supporters slander Christians or seek to destroy people like the owners of Memories Pizza an false pretenses, most of them get away with it.

I'm grateful for people who have seen through the pro-gay hate and donated in support of Memories Pizza. I'm troubled that you would allow yourself to get sucked in to the fabricated perspective you've posted on this thread.

Haha. That was a funny read.

No time for a serious response right now, but your hand-wringing response is exactly what the Right was hoping for.

The pizza owners didn't have to do thr interview, or admit on TV that they wouldn't serve gays, other than trying to become martyrs for a silly cause that is entirely made-up.... who EVER heard of a pizza-catered wedding reception?!?!

Dumb. Silly. And your over-reaction is EXACTLY what this fake news story crew was hoping for, and got in spades.

[Bobbieaware]

"Beyond hate" must in some way mean that it's worse than regular "hate". Claiming that it somehow "can mean so many things to so many people" is just trying to sidestep the question.

 

It's very clear from your posting on this board that whenever something negative comes up about the church, you jump right on the bandwagon. I know that much about you.

 

So, I have to ask again - what does "beyond hate" really mean in the context of your attack on leaders of the church?

Perhaps the critic would have been better off if he had used the expression "turbo-charged hate" instead of the childishly hyperbolic "beyond hate?"

[Bobbieaware]

Haha. That was a funny read.

No time for a serious response right now, but your hand-wringing response is exactly what the Right was hoping for.

The pizza owners didn't have to do thr interview, or admit on TV that they wouldn't serve gays, other than trying to become martyrs for a silly cause that is entirely made-up.... who EVER heard of a pizza-catered wedding reception?!?!

Dumb. Silly. And your over-reaction is EXACTLY what this fake news story crew was hoping for, and got in spades.

Just the other day I heard that it's quite common to have pizza served at pre-wedding and wedding rehearsal parties, as well as at bachelor and bachelorette parties.

[jwhitlock]

Haha. That was a funny read.

No time for a serious response right now, but your hand-wringing response is exactly what the Right was hoping for.

The pizza owners didn't have to do thr interview, or admit on TV that they wouldn't serve gays, other than trying to become martyrs for a silly cause that is entirely made-up.... who EVER heard of a pizza-catered wedding reception?!?!

Dumb. Silly. And your over-reaction is EXACTLY what this fake news story crew was hoping for, and got in spades.

 

You're right. It wasn't a serious response.

 

But the absolutely vile, hate-filled postings, tweets and threats from pro-gay supporters can't be ignored.

 

The fact that you're justifying that kind of reaction and attacking the pizza shop owners yourself indicates that you support that methodology.

 

Interesting that the real over-reaction came from pro-gay hate mongers in this situation. And what was the over-reaction of those who find your methodology reprehensible? They quietly contributed money to repair the damage done by those who you side with and justify.

 

While there can be discussion about whether Indiana's law was well crafted or not, it is rather clear that religion is subject to vicious, contrived attacks from anti-religious groups - including gay privileges supporters. Indiana's experience has been valuable in that gay rights supporters have publicly demonstrated what kind of people they really are - again. And as long as no one from the pro-gay side (like you) has a problem with such behavior, people are going to start wondering what is really being foisted upon them when they are demanded to "tolerate" the gay agenda.

[ttribe]

Just the other day I heard that it's quite common to have pizza served at pre-wedding and wedding rehearsal parties, as well as at bachelor and bachelorette parties.

 

Because, of course, there's a shortage of pizza places.

[Scott Lloyd]

Haha. That was a funny read.

No time for a serious response right now, but your hand-wringing response is exactly what the Right was hoping for.

The pizza owners didn't have to do thr interview, or admit on TV that they wouldn't serve gays, other than trying to become martyrs for a silly cause that is entirely made-up.... who EVER heard of a pizza-catered wedding reception?!?!

Dumb. Silly. And your over-reaction is EXACTLY what this fake news story crew was hoping for, and got in spades.

In other words, shut up, don't exercise your First Amendment rights, cower behind a "no comment" when questioned by news media, and you have nothing to worry about.

 

Yessirree, sounds like the America I grew up loving.

[Scott Lloyd]

There has been a lot of chatter on this thread, but so far nothing by way of the express purpose for which it was opened.

 

Therefore, as a reminder, I will repeat the opening post:

 

This is a counterpart thread to the one I just started in which I will be presenting quotes from general conference that support and sustain the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

 

In this thread, you are invited to post quotes from general conference that indicate the Church is moving away from that definition and moving toward the predicted day when the Church will accept and embrace homosexual behavior, allow same-sex "marriage," and solemnize it in the temples.

 

I don't expect there will be anything to contribute to this thread, but who knows? We'll have it as a placeholder just in case.

 

[Calm]

You might want to lock this thread and start over. Anyone reading it for the original purpose will likely lose interest before hitting quotes.

[Scott Lloyd]

You might want to lock this thread and start over. Anyone reading it for the original purpose will likely lose interest before hitting quotes.

I don't have high expectations there will be any quotes in any event.

[Pahoran]

I am also not suggesting that we accept immorality.  Never have.  I think attitudes certainly have changed which is great.  Our understanding and teachings regarding homosexuality have also evolved.  But you don't see that, and it's fine.

But then: 

 

I'm not "pushing" for same-sex marriage in the temple... that would need to come through revelation to the Prophet.  Though I would like to see it happen.

 

I think that same-sex marriages and sealings will likely happen someday in the temple though I'm not sure it will be as soon as 40 years (or 39 and change according to Scott's clock).

But that would be accepting immorality.

You denied that you are "suggesting that we accept immorality" or ever have done so. But your denial is clearly based upon a kind of Dehlinesque prevarication. You have your own private definition of immorality which contradicts a settled point of LDS doctrine, and you refer to that definition when you make your denial.

But if any believing Latter-day Saint becomes aware of your private definition, their rejection thereof will take less than a heartbeat.

You are not only "suggesting" but confidently predicting that the Church will accept gross immorality and perversion.

You are wrong in doctrine. You are wrong in morality.

And the future will prove you to be wrong in fact.

And thus it is.

Those who share your filthy fantasy imagine that a future generation of Latter-day Saints will become "enlightened" enough to surrender the sanctity of the Temple. They ignore the inconvenient fact that, after half a century of the so-called "sexual revolution," the rising generation of the Church remain largely aloof from even the much lesser vice of fornication.

To anyone who respects the sanctity of the House of the Lord, your filthy fantasy is simply unthinkable. There is not one believing Latter-day Saint anywhere who shares your expectation.

And it doesn't surprise me in the least that the person who claims to be such remains an anonymous internet cipher.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

You denied that you are "suggesting that we accept immorality" or ever have done so. But your denial is clearly based upon a kind of Dehlinesque prevarication.

 

I love that those who dislike or oppose Dehlin are the ones who seem give him the most power.  (I have no idea what a "Dehlinesque prevarication" is.)

 

 

You have your own private definition of immorality which contradicts a settled point of LDS doctrine, and you refer to that definition when you make your denial.

 

By "immorality" in the context of this discussion, I assume we are speaking of the law of chastity.  That law prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage.  The Church's current definition of marriage defines it as the union of one man & one woman.  Should the Prophet receive a revelation directing a change to that definition which would allow gay marriage, then under our law of chastity, sexual relations between a marriage gay couple would no longer be immoral.

 

 

But if any believing Latter-day Saint becomes aware of your private definition, their rejection thereof will take less than a heartbeat.

 

Incorrect.  I am a believing Latter-day Saint.  And I know many other believing Latter-day Saints who feel similarly.

 

 

You are not only "suggesting" but confidently predicting that the Church will accept gross immorality and perversion.

 

Absolutely not.... as explained above.

 

 

And the future will prove you to be wrong in fact.

 

Time will tell.  I'm comfortable with what I've said.

 

 

Those who share your filthy fantasy...

 

And thus we see why this conversation is pointless.

 

You are wrong with your "not one believing Latter-day Saint" claim.  I am here.  Others are here.  You may not like it but to insist on your claim is fallacious and dishonest.

[Pahoran]

You are wrong with your "not one believing Latter-day Saint" claim.  I am here.  Others are here.  You may not like it but to insist on your claim is fallacious and dishonest.

No. It is not.

I have lost count of the phonies who have come and gone here, posing as Mormons on the internet, but having only the dimmest ideas of what Latter-day Saints believe and do.

If some anonymous poster calls himself a Mormon, but does not believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ atoned for our sins, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, or that God restored the Priesthood to the earth by sending Peter, James and John to confer it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, then it's not me who's being dishonest when I identify that particular poseur as not a believing Latter-day Saint.

And if some other anonymous poster calls himself a Mormon, but then shows by both the things that he says and the way that he says them that he despises the House of the Lord and its ordinances, so much so that he fantasises about seeing vile and filthy perversions solemnised therein, then it's likewise not me who's being dishonest when I identify that particular poseur as not a believing Latter-day Saint.

Homosexual acts are malum in se -- immoral in and of themselves -- and cannot be sanctified by any ceremony. This is a settled point of LDS doctrine that is not open to debate. To claim otherwise is to preach openly apostate doctrine.

There will never be "same sex Temple Marriage."

And thus it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I love that those who dislike or oppose Dehlin are the ones who seem give him the most power.  (I have no idea what a "Dehlinesque prevarication" is.)

 

It's the sort of prevarication Mister Dehlin advocated when he advised people to rationalise lying in Temple Recommend interviews.

 

By "immorality" in the context of this discussion, I assume we are speaking of the law of chastity.  That law prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage.  The Church's current definition of marriage defines it as the union of one man & one woman.  Should the Prophet receive a revelation directing a change to that definition which would allow gay marriage, then under our law of chastity, sexual relations between a marriage gay couple would no longer be immoral.

That's false.

As already mentioned, homosexual acts are malum in se. That means they are morally wrong in and of themselves. Pre-marital sex (authentic, heterosexual sex that is) is malum prohibitum, i.e. wrong because forbidden. Marriage sanctifies the sexual act, but only the authentic sexual act. It cannot sanctify perverted acts that are inherently wrong.

 

So now you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[teddyaware]

No. It is not.

I have lost count of the phonies who have come and gone here, posing as Mormons on the internet, but having only the dimmest ideas of what Latter-day Saints believe and do.

If some anonymous poster calls himself a Mormon, but does not believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ atoned for our sins, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, or that God restored the Priesthood to the earth by sending Peter, James and John to confer it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, then it's not me who's being dishonest when I identify that particular poseur as not a believing Latter-day Saint.

And if some other anonymous poster calls himself a Mormon, but then shows by both the things that he says and the way that he says them that he despises the House of the Lord and its ordinances, so much so that he fantasises about seeing vile and filthy perversions solemnised therein, then it's likewise not me who's being dishonest when I identify that particular poseur as not a believing Latter-day Saint.

Homosexual acts are malum in se -- immoral in and of themselves -- and cannot be sanctified by any ceremony. This is a settled point of LDS doctrine that is not open to debate. To claim otherwise is to preach openly apostate doctrine.

There will never be "same sex Temple Marriage."

And thus it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

There is only one possible scenario where your assertion could prove to be untrue, and that would be if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the true restored Church of Christ. But since I know it is the true Church of Christ, I also know same sex temple marriages will never take place. I believe one possible reason why some are holding out for the eventual possibility of gay temple marriages is because in their heart of hearts they believe the LDS Church is only a human institution with no genuine priesthood authority and no real revelatory guidance from heaven.

Edited April 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll be unlocking the counterpart thread to this one to add new content, but as pertaining to this thread, let me point out that as of yet there has been nothing posted here by way of answering the invitation for which the thread was created: that is, to post any quotations from the just-concluded general conference that lend credence to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day accept homosexual behavior or same-sex "marriage" as being moral.

[teddyaware]

I'll be unlocking the counterpart thread to this one to add new content, but as pertaining to this thread, let me point out that as of yet there has been nothing posted here by way of answering the invitation for which the thread was created: that is, to post any quotations from the just-concluded general conference that lend credence to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day accept homosexual behavior or same-sex "marriage" as being moral.

 

 I appreciate your wry sense of humor, Scott.

[rockpond]

I'll be unlocking the counterpart thread to this one to add new content, but as pertaining to this thread, let me point out that as of yet there has been nothing posted here by way of answering the invitation for which the thread was created: that is, to post any quotations from the just-concluded general conference that lend credence to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day accept homosexual behavior or same-sex "marriage" as being moral.

 

Of course, nobody here expected or claimed that there would be.

[rockpond]

No. It is not.

I have lost count of the phonies who have come and gone here, posing as Mormons on the internet, but having only the dimmest ideas of what Latter-day Saints believe and do.

If some anonymous poster calls himself a Mormon, but does not believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ atoned for our sins, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, or that God restored the Priesthood to the earth by sending Peter, James and John to confer it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, then it's not me who's being dishonest when I identify that particular poseur as not a believing Latter-day Saint.

And if some other anonymous poster calls himself a Mormon, but then shows by both the things that he says and the way that he says them that he despises the House of the Lord and its ordinances, so much so that he fantasises about seeing vile and filthy perversions solemnised therein, then it's likewise not me who's being dishonest when I identify that particular poseur as not a believing Latter-day Saint.

Homosexual acts are malum in se -- immoral in and of themselves -- and cannot be sanctified by any ceremony. This is a settled point of LDS doctrine that is not open to debate. To claim otherwise is to preach openly apostate doctrine.

There will never be "same sex Temple Marriage."

And thus it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Well what you have written here certainly doesn't describe me.  Nor does it describe many other believing LDS who feel as I do.

 

But I understand that it is easier for you if you conclude that all faithful church members think just like you.

Edited April 8, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

It's the sort of prevarication Mister Dehlin advocated when he advised people to rationalise lying in Temple Recommend interviews.

 

Of course he didn't suggest that anyone lie in TR interviews but I understand that you interpret it that way.

[rockpond]

There is only one possible scenario where your assertion could prove to be untrue, and that would be if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the true restored Church of Christ. But since I know it is the true Church of Christ, I also know same sex temple marriages will never take place. I believe one possible reason why some are holding out for the eventual possibility of gay temple marriages is because in their heart of hearts they believe the LDS Church is only a human institution with no genuine priesthood authority and no real revelatory guidance from heaven.

 

I believe that the Church will one day accept gay temple marriages BECAUSE we are led by revelatory guidance from heaven.

[Bernard Gui]

I believe that the Church will one day accept gay temple marriages BECAUSE we are led by revelatory guidance from heaven.

This doesn't make any sense. There will be ssm because we are led by revelation?

[Bernard Gui]

Hold on, Scott. I think I have a quote...I need to find the source when the complete texts are published. The key word is "composition."

Edited April 8, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Pahoran]

I believe that the Church will one day accept gay temple marriages BECAUSE we are led by revelatory guidance from heaven.

And being led by revelatory guidance from heaven is precisely why we will NEVER desecrate the House of the Lord by solemnising abominations therein.

The notion that we will, or that such an evil would be a good thing, is a filthy fantasy.

And nothing else.

Regards,

Pahoran