Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Your "hope" is understandably offensive when you couch it in ways like this / this (you lauding and celebrating a website designed specifically to help and encourage Latter-day Saints to violate the Law of Chastity) and this / this (you accusing the Church and its members of causing gay suicides) and this (you mocking non-gay Latter-day Saints who struggle with adhering to the Law of Chastity) and this (you advocating a double standard in the Law of Chastity, namely, one which effectively exempts people with SSA from it). What you advocate is not innocuous. Thanks, -SmacI knew there was more to it than just "I hope for a revelation".
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 HappyJackWagon, on 12 May 2015 - 3:15 PM, said:Revelation is needed for this,SMAC- You speak as if we have not receive "revelation ... for this." We have.HappyJackWagon, on 12 May 2015 - 3:15 PM, said:yet you seem content to accuse and condemn people of having a malady or you will require them to be alone for eternity. Very charitable.SMAC- Again, you are bearing false witness. This is a troubling defect in your writing.Please point me to the revelation on this.False witness? Get serious. I was responding to Scott and that is what he said.I think Smac recognizes this. And he was right: I have not condemned anyone with SSA. That is a false accusation on your part.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) no, I am saying if you are gay when you die why won't you be gay when in the next life? death won't change anything just as if you are unrepentant her,e like we learn from the Lazarus and the rich dude in Luke 16, death won't change anythingYeah that is specific to acting on impulses and letting the natural man win. Again, you are making the case against acting on ssa you just don't know it. Why is acting ssa any different then acting on the impulse to lie or steal or covet or fornicate? Did you read Scotts article? The doctrine contained in there is that there is no orientation in the heavens. Those with ssa will not have it after this life. Were do you get the idea that they will have it in the next? Edited May 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) That does not conflict with the PotF which says nothing about homosexuality or gay marriage. CFR that I have advocated against the PotF or please retract your statement.Really? You cannot say that in all seriousness. "Marriage is between a man and a women" means to you that they left out Gays and gay marriage out. Really? Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? Edited May 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Your "hope" is understandably offensive when you couch it in ways like this / this (you lauding and celebrating a website designed specifically to help and encourage Latter-day Saints to violate the Law of Chastity) and this / this (you accusing the Church and its members of causing gay suicides) and this (you mocking non-gay Latter-day Saints who struggle with adhering to the Law of Chastity) and this (you advocating a double standard in the Law of Chastity, namely, one which effectively exempts people with SSA from it). What you advocate is not innocuous. Thanks, -Smac I knew there was more to it than just "I hope for a revelation". I logged out and was able to view the thread and, as I suspected, you completely misrepresented my statements: I did reference gay suicides but retracted that comment and apologized for it. I did NOT celebrate violating the law of chastity nor did I encourage violating the law of chastity. Nor did I advocate for a double standard with the law of chastity. Your claims that I did are false.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I believe you are misrepresenting my comments (as is commonly the case on these boards). I cannot view that thread so if you want to discuss what I said you'll have to provide actual quotes.Funny that, I don't seem to have this problem with anyone but you rock pond. Everyone seems to mis represent what you are saying. And you are saying it in light of not even knowing what you said.
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Really? You cannot say that in all seriousness. "Marriage is between a man and a women" means to you that they left out Gays and gay marriage out. Really? Are you being intentionally obtuse here or what? You might want to re-read the PotF. The phrase "Marriage is between a man and a woman" does not appear in it. The PotF says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The only statement I am aware of in the Proclamation is that "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." So that could be one statement somehow referring to homosexuality. But, as you've noted time and time again, gay couples don't have any powers of procreation. More relevant to what I asked, however, is that it is not a revelation from God telling us his desires/plans for his homosexual children. And I'm not being obtuse.
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Funny that, I don't seem to have this problem with anyone but you rock pond. Everyone seems to mis represent what you are saying. And you are saying it in light of not even knowing what you said. See my post #480. Smac did grossly misrepresent my comments (with the exception of the one that I apologized for and which he linked to my apology). If you disagree, go ahead and find something I said that proves me wrong.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) I see same-sex attraction as a malady, perhaps a congenital one like any birth defect. Ergo, being "made whole" in the resurrection ("not so much as a hair of their heads shall be lost," according to the Book of Mormon) would entail the removal of this along with all other maladies. Wow. Malady = "a disease or ailment"Congenital = "(especially of a disease or physical abnormality) present from birth" Is that really how you define someone who is gay?I define it as a condition that is neither normal nor wholesome. Elder Wickman called it an "affliction." I'm good with that appellation. I only suggested that it might be congenital because many have insisted that it is "inborn." I don't know that science has made any definitive determination on that one way or the other. Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 You might want to re-read the PotF. The phrase "Marriage is between a man and a woman" does not appear in it. The PotF says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The only statement I am aware of in the Proclamation is that "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." So that could be one statement somehow referring to homosexuality. But, as you've noted time and time again, gay couples don't have any powers of procreation. More relevant to what I asked, however, is that it is not a revelation from God telling us his desires/plans for his homosexual children. And I'm not being obtuse.It is self-evident from context that they mean "the sacred powers of procreation" to include the associated sex drive. I see that as obvious from the many statements that have been made on the subject from the Brethren since then that universally reject the redefinition of marriage.
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) It is self-evident from context that they mean "the sacred powers of procreation" to include the associated sex drive. I see that as obvious from the many statements that have been made on the subject from the Brethren since then that universally reject the redefinition of marriage. It's cool how whenever you need something to support your point of view it happens to be "self-evident". I find it to be self-evident that we haven't yet arrived at the point where we have a complete, revelation-based understanding of God's plan for his homosexual children. Edited May 12, 2015 by rockpond
smac97 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) DELETE I'm being combative. I apologize to RockPond. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 12, 2015 by smac97 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 It's cool how whenever you need something to support your point of view it happens to be "self-evident". self-ev·i·dentadjectiveadjective: self-evident not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious. "self-evident truths" synonyms: obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, manifest, patent, axiomatic; More distinct, transparent, overt, conspicuous, palpable, unmistakable, undeniable "the reasons he left are self-evident" antonyms: unclear
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 There is no way to square the above statement with your celebratory comments about a website designed to facilitate Latter-day Saints in breaking the Law of Chastity. As I said in that other thread: "Markle, a member of the LDS Church, is creating a money-making business venture with a stated purpose of facilitating behavior amongst Latter-day Saints which is expressly prohibited by their religion, and which behavior constitutes a grave and profound sin described as 'most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost' (Alma 39:5). And your response to this, incredibly, is ... 'That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed.' The mind reels." (Emphases added.) Yes, readers can make their own decision. I think that most will see that what I actually said in the quote above (bold added) is hardly a celebration of violating the law of chastity.
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I find it to be self-evident that we haven't yet arrived at the point where we have a complete, revelation-based understanding of God's plan for his homosexual children. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 No, I didn't. Luckily, I provided links so readers can make up their own minds. As for me, however, your celebration of a website designed specifically to help and encourage Latter-day Saints to violate the Law of Chastity, praising it as - in your own words - "something that is needed" in the LDS Church, makes my head spin. I cherish the latitude that Church members have in interpreting doctrine and governing ourselves by striving to live according to the "correct principles" referenced by Joseph Smith. But celebrating a mechanism designed to facilitate wholesale violation of the Law of Chastity is a horrible, horrible thing. Rockpond's quote in context was "I'm not pretending to have the answer and I realize that Markle's stated goal of marriage goes against the counsel of church leadership. That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed." He didn't say Markle's site was the one that might be needed. Merely a social network sight for gay individuals who want to stay in the church might be needed. You twisting this to : "your celebration of a website designed specifically to help and encourage Latter-day Saints to violate the Law of Chastity, praising it as - in your own words - 'something that is needed' in the LDS Church" is unbelievable.
smac97 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Rockpond's quote in context was "I'm not pretending to have the answer and I realize that Markle's stated goal of marriage goes against the counsel of church leadership. That said, maybe a social network of like minded individuals wanting to stay in the church while being open about their sexual orientation, is something that is needed." He didn't say Markle's site was the one that might be needed. Merely a social network sight for gay individuals who want to stay in the church might be needed. You twisting this to : "your celebration of a website designed specifically to help and encourage Latter-day Saints to violate the Law of Chastity, praising it as - in your own words - 'something that is needed' in the LDS Church" is unbelievable. There were several posts before and after the one I linked to that probably would deserve review. But I am retracting my position and apologizing to RockPond. Thanks, -Smac
Gray Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) A member of the First Presidency was present when she said it. So far as I know, her words remain in the official record of the conference proceedings. Was she off base in making that declaration? Prove it. No single person can declare doctrine for the church. Doctrine is declared by "many" among the 15- that's the standard you need to meet, at least according to how the church has recently tried to define doctrine Edited May 12, 2015 by Gray 1
Gray Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 No it is because they are keeping the law of chastity. It seems to be applied much less strictly if you're straight
Gray Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 No they are not. What a totally ignorant thing to say. I'm fairly sure gay marriage is still restricted as a matter of policy
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 You might want to re-read the PotF. The phrase "Marriage is between a man and a woman" does not appear in it. The PotF says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The only statement I am aware of in the Proclamation is that "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." So that could be one statement somehow referring to homosexuality. But, as you've noted time and time again, gay couples don't have any powers of procreation. More relevant to what I asked, however, is that it is not a revelation from God telling us his desires/plans for his homosexual children. And I'm not being obtuse."marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" Means that they left out gay marriage? really Rock pond. So that to you means that "We don't know that gay marriage is not ordained"? Furthermore, that some how "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God", means something entirely different than "Marriage is between a man and a woman"? It does not need to be address is because the only marriage that is ordained of God is that of a man and a woman. Nothing else is or it would have specified it. Obtuse indeed.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I only suggested that it might be congenital because many have insisted that it is "inborn." I don't know that science has made any definitive determination on that one way or the other.It can't because it is not so. The identical twin cases proves that being gay is not inborn.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) No single person can declare doctrine for the church. Doctrine is declared by "many" among the 15- that's the standard you need to meet, at least according to how the church has recently tried to define doctrineShe's not declaring doctrine. She is saying what is clear to most believing members of the Church: that the Brethren were inspired to draft and issue "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I've already explained that their having been so inspired is why I agree that it is a revelatory document. Edited May 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I find it to be self-evident that we haven't yet arrived at the point where we have a complete, revelation-based understanding of God's plan for his homosexual children. You keep saying this. Why does it need to be different than that of heterosexuals? I have yet to see a valid reason for it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I'm fairly sure gay marriage is still restricted as a matter of policy Yeah and they can chose other wise to marry as the Lord has out lined. They still have a choice. Do you deny that? Desire is quite irrelevant.
Recommended Posts