Honesty And Ssa

[Gray]

Now we are getting to the truth of how gays are viewed by church members. You forgot that all gays want to have sex with children, and their mission is to recruit as many straight boys as possible to join them in their heathenistis lifestyle. Gays are out to destroy families and do the bidding of satan. The only way gays can take part in the plan of salvation is to become straight. And if they wanted to enough, they could become straight. And just for Scott, the gay juggernaut won't be happy until Christianity is destroyed. Those who think differently are apostates and going down a path to apostasy.

But we will allow gays to attend church if they don't participate because the church leaders tell us we should treat them with love. Did we miss anything?

If you think I exagerate, just read through the thread on the BSA.

 

This really does seem to be the concern of many anti-gay activists. And if their concerns were real, you could understand their strident and sustained opposition to anything that seems to give aid and comfort to their perceived enemy. They really think there is some dark conspiracy at work. 

 

In the end the fuel for all bigotry is misinformation and fear, whether it's anti-Semitic, anti-black or anti-gay. The targets change but the rhetoric is largely the same. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[california boy]

My, you certainly have got that sanctimonious act down pat!  You must have been practicing it for some time and enjoy the feelings you get from shaking your finger at the simple bigots down below your elevated sphere of enlightenment. 

 

I on the other hand, get a kick out of raining on parades.

 

For thousands of years human society has almost never valued the effeminate male for any extended length of time.  They served little purpose because women were so much better at being feminine than those males that sought to emulate a woman's example.  Society encouraged males to be strong; to work hard, and to develop both physically and mentally resulting in the ideal of manhood.  Homosexuality was the act unspoken and vile beyond description in the vast majority of human societies. 

 

In today's more enlightened society, we don't encourage physical strength and almost all other qualities that were once considered masculine are derided and rejected.  It is now thought that if it feels good then each individual should just enjoy it without any questions or expectations from others.  There is no need for morals or ideals; if you have a weakness, expand upon it, become even weaker because you cannot possibly be anything more than what you are.   Don't try so hard; just relax and enjoy all the passions that the body has.  No need for responsibility of families and offspring; just do what feels good. 

 

Now let's talk about honesty for us bigots.  Silly rabbit, the Church is ADJUSTING to the speed that homosexuality has been crammed down the throats of our media driven society.  We do not talk about the health problems of the gay lifestyle; that is not appropriate because it would make the gay lifestyle look bad.  We don't talk about the social norms of the gay lifestyle, which is promiscuity on steroids.  This is not the creation of heterosexuals, rather it is gays describing their own lifestyle and research on this same lifestyle supports it.  No, all the bad stuff has been hidden from civil discourse because....not being honest, promoting a gay agenda was more important than honesty.  I love when those who lie belittle others for what, wait for it, that's right, mendacity.  Sweet irony.

 

While the Church adjusts there is little evidence of "the way it is done" or "the way the Church handles it"; silly honest person.  The Church hasn't finished adjusting and come out with any definitive policies.  What is clear is that the Church calls people to fill roles for a range of reasons, spiritual guidance being one of them.  Not all gay people are the same just as not all Mormons are the same or heterosexuals are the same.  That broad brush stroke you use to accuse the Church and all of its members is just plain wrong and anyone with a ounce of common sense knows it.

 

Some gay males could work with youth whereas others should not be allowed to be within 100 yards of any male under the age of 25.  Why you ask?  Well, gosh Mr. Naïve, it is because they actually are predatory.  The point is that gay men are individuals and if a man with SSA strives to follow a godly path, you know that path that all rest of the men of the Church have to demonstrate to be called to a position,  then he should be able to serve wherever the Lord wants them to serve.  However, if a man with SSA is living a gay lifestyle he will not receive a calling the Church just as a heterosexual single male that is openly living in sin does not receive a calling.  Shocking when it is so fair and even handed, but what can I say, it is the Lord's Church. 

 

The degree of nonsense yammered about is degrading to the entire conversation.  No common sense, no openness, just the same old spinning and mindless condemnation of any idea that threatens their concept of tolerance.  I see this consistently out of the same people that condemn me and those like me for being "intolerant".  Do you ever just stop talking, look in the mirror, and just look at who you are and what you are saying? 

 

Lord have mercy, it makes me shake my head.  And some will actually be surprised when they hear the Lord say, "depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Good points to add to the truth about gays. No society has ever valued anything gays have contributed. Those that have like Michelangelo, Davinci, and countless others we pretend they are straight. Gays cram homosexuality down our throats ( what ever that means). I can't tell you how many straight men have been forced to be gay against their will. And unlike straight men gays are promiscuous and catch STD's. We already covered the predatory nature of gays. So that is just a repeat

Thanks for your contribution to the truth about gays.

[KevinG]

Because we all know gays are a monolithic group with identical standards and agendas...

 

 

You know positive stereotypes are still stereotyping.

 

Gays come in all sizes and shapes and with all sorts of intentions.  Most gays don't give a flying fig about becoming Scout leaders.  There are some activists who don't believe the BSA should include sexuality in their leadership selection criteria, and have threatened to continue suing until religious organizations relent to do so.

 

I'm one of the first to try to combat negative stereotypes of gays, but there are bad assumptions and bad behavior on both sides of the debate.

 

Trying to claim superior victim hood status is folly.

[Gray]

Because we all know gays are a monolithic group with identical standards and agendas...

 

 

You know positive stereotypes are still stereotyping.

 

Gays come in all sizes and shapes and with all sorts of intentions.  Most gays don't give a flying fig about becoming Scout leaders.  There are some activists who don't believe the BSA should include sexuality in their leadership selection criteria, and have threatened to continue suing until religious organizations relent to do so.

 

I'm one of the first to try to combat negative stereotypes of gays, but there are bad assumptions and bad behavior on both sides of the debate.

 

Trying to claim superior victim hood status is folly.

 

Yes, positive stereotypes are still stereotypes. Not every gay guy has good relationship advice for his female friends, for instance.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

Yes, positive stereotypes are still stereotypes. Not every gay guy has good relationship advise for his female friends, for instance.

 

I have a video I want to post so badly.  Heck I'm gonna do it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=56&v=jnvgq8STMGM

[Danzo]

No.

 

You said:  " I never heard of Scouts kicking out a non practicing person with same sex attractions."

 

So I was giving you some names.  I imagine there are others but these are a few who made the headlines.

 

So you don't think it was a problem in LDS troops?

 

Good to know

[california boy]

Interesting. I really don't have a problem with us discriminating against gays. And, I tend to think they can get over it. That tends to get me classified as a bigot. But I think it is better to be honest about it. I supported SSM, not because I like or condone homosexuality, but because it was the legally right thing to do if we expect our own liberties to be protected. I felt that had the Church stood up in favor of the original compromise which is what has now become the fact, the whole BSA controversy would have died down. Had they reacted to the recent change like the Catholic Church did they could have maintained their position without becoming the media whipping boy. However, whenever anyone points out the irony of the Church's current public relations stance, they tend to get personally attacked and called names...but no one gives a satisfactory answer to the conundrum.

Good points. Unlike a lot of posters on this site you knew that preventing gays from equal protection under the laws of this country was legally impossible. But that doesn't mean church members can't discriminate against gays. That you are legally entitled to do in the church. We discriminate in what we eat, we should discriminate against gays.

Many may view these responses I have made as sarcastic attacks. They are not. They are my contribution to the truth on how gays are looked upon by a lot of members. I certainly have had many of these views leveled against me. So I am only confirming the truth of these views within church membership.

Seriously, thanks for bringing up this issue. It needed to be discussed. I hope the moderators see the value in this discussion.

[Gray]

I have a video I want to post so badly.  Heck I'm gonna do it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=56&v=jnvgq8STMGM

 

I can't watch it from this computer, but the title is funny, so rep point!

[Danzo]

Now we are getting to the truth of how gays are viewed by church members. You forgot that all gays want to have sex with children, and their mission is to recruit as many straight boys as possible to join them in their heathenistis lifestyle. Gays are out to destroy families and do the bidding of satan. The only way gays can take part in the plan of salvation is to become straight. And if they wanted to enough, they could become straight. And just for Scott, the gay juggernaut won't be happy until Christianity is destroyed. Those who think differently are apostates and going down a path to apostasy.

But we will allow gays to attend church if they don't participate because the church leaders tell us we should treat them with love. Did we miss anything?

If you think I exagerate, just read through the thread on the BSA.

 

Actually,  I think the biggest problem we have has always been the idea that a group of people can disregard the law of chastity just because they feel they were not born to be able to.

[california boy]

Actually,  I think the biggest problem we have has always been the idea that a group of people can disregard the law of chastity just because they feel they were not born to be able to.

Good point. But doesn't the majority of the single population as a group in the U.S. Ignore the law of chastity?

[KevinG]

I can't watch it from this computer, but the title is funny, so rep point!

 

Let's just say when Ophelia goes to commit suicide he pops up and says"

 

"Ophelia-so-sorry for yourself!  Step away from the cliff!"

 

and when she laments the loss of Hamlet's love he reminds her that he did stab her father through a curtain.

 

The whole series is hilarious.

[KevinG]

Good point. But doesn't the majority of the single population as a group in the U.S. Ignore the law of chastity?

 

If your friends jumped off a ...  

 

Oh nevermind!

 

[rockpond]

So you don't think it was a problem in LDS troops?

 

Good to know

 

So I don't think *what* was a problem in LDS troops?

 

Openly Gay Leaders?  No.  I don't think many bishops would place an openly gay man into our YM program.  And if they did, it would be someone very committed to celibacy.

 

Openly Gay Scouts?  No.  Our ward registered all our YM for scouts each year -- including those who were openly gay.  We basically ignored the policy from the BSA before it was changed.

[Danzo]

Good point. But doesn't the majority of the single population as a group in the U.S. Ignore the law of chastity?

 

You are right, it is a problem with most of the world.  That is why we need to help all people receive the joy and happiness that come from following the law of chastity.

 

The idea that the law of chastity is some sort of punishment that god inflicts on people feels wrong to me.  

[Danzo]

So I don't think *what* was a problem in LDS troops?

 

Openly Gay Leaders?  No.  I don't think many bishops would place an openly gay man into our YM program.  And if they did, it would be someone very committed to celibacy.

 

Openly Gay Scouts?  No.  Our ward registered all our YM for scouts each year -- including those who were openly gay.  We basically ignored the policy from the BSA before it was changed.

 

Good to know you don't think it was a problem

[rockpond]

Good to know you don't think it was a problem

 

Yep, I don't see Monday's vote as a problem and I didn't see the 2014 policy change (allowing gay scouts) as a problem.  I don't think the Church has ever shown much regard for BSA policies -- we run our programs the way we feel is best.

[savedbygrace]

Sin has always been about behavior, not temptations.

 

Some people want to define homosexuality as a temptation, not a sin (which is isn't) then pull a bait and switch and say if the temptation isn't a sin, the behavior isn't.  

 

The want to create the myth of the suffering, chaste, openly homosexual person, make us feel sorry for him and rejoice when he succumbs to the temptation.

 

When I hear the word "openly homosexual person" I cannot imagine it being referred to anyone other than someone who unrepentantly is or is planning to break the law of chastity.

 

I personally would never want to be known as "openly (some sin or other)" even if I am tempted to engage in the sin.  

 

I can't see where a repentant person, who is trying to follo)w the savior would broadcast his temptations to the world.

 I agree that homosexuality is not a sin, but sexual temptation exists in us all. Lusting after our neighbour is not acceptable and may present the luster (homosexual or heterosexual) with certain challenges. However, if we feed that temptation, even without following through with action, then couldn't that be seen as sinful?

[Danzo]

 I agree that homosexuality is not a sin, but sexual temptation exists in us all. Lusting after our neighbour is not acceptable and may present the luster (homosexual or heterosexual) with certain challenges. However, if we feed that temptation, even without following through with action, then couldn't that be seen as sinful?

 

obviously, encouraging sinfull thoughts would be a sin (although not to the extent of acting upon them).  We aren't going to go through life without needing repentance and forgiveness.

 

I think that those who practice repentance often for even the small sins, often avoid the need to repent of the big ones.

[Danzo]

 I agree that homosexuality is not a sin, but sexual temptation exists in us all. Lusting after our neighbour is not acceptable and may present the luster (homosexual or heterosexual) with certain challenges. However, if we feed that temptation, even without following through with action, then couldn't that be seen as sinful?

 

I remember on my mission, in Italy, we would often come upon advertising that used nude women to sell products.  They would be upon billboards, in magazine shops and on television.  There was no way to avoid them.

 

Upon seeing them me and my companion could have said:

1. We were born that we, to be attracted to those pictures

2. They were everywhere, we couldn't help but see them

3. Everyone was looking at them

4.  Looking at them wasn't harming anyone

5. Those posing for the pictures were consenting adults (I hope) anyway

 

But there was A problem, any time our eyes would linger on the pictures we would lose the spirit.  Instead of justifying ourselves, we decided the best course of action was to say a pray (usually silently) and ask for the forgiveness for any thought or temptation that we may have entertained, and for atonement of Christ to cover any sin we may have committed.  It was all done silently without any display that anyone could have noticed, but it brought the spirit back into our hearts.

 

I don't think temptations are sin.  We all have temptations.  Even when we sin in thought or in action, the big problem comes when we try to justify ourselves instead of turning to Christ and repenting of our sins.  

In Alma 13 it talks about the great high priests being great because of their repentance, not because they never did anything wrong.

[Meadowchik]

I don't think the Church is against people who openly admit to ssa.  The Church has shown appreciation for groups like Affirmation, for instance, which do not hide their members from public view. 

 

It does seem that this is also a matter of vocabulary. In the Church, openly gay may merely mean a person is open about ssa. Outside of the Church, it is more likely to mean a person is out with no intention of remaining celibate in order to obey the law of chastity.

 

So, without further research, I'd say that the church is against having leaders in the BSA who do not live the LDS law of chastity, and this policy change with the BSA may complicate that.

[rockpond]

So, without further research, I'd say that the church is against having leaders in the BSA who do not live the LDS law of chastity, and this policy change with the BSA may complicate that.

 

I'm sure you are correct.  But there has never been a requirement in the BSA that leaders live the LDS Law of Chastity.  This policy change gives all chartering organizations the ability to choose leaders they believe are best.

[CV75]

I'm sure you are correct.  But there has never been a requirement in the BSA that leaders live the LDS Law of Chastity.  This policy change gives all chartering organizations the ability to choose leaders they believe are best.

It seems the Church does not want to support a change in policy that, in this context, highlights a departure from its own standard for marriage and chastity.

 

The Church has certainly and reasonably "expected" a policy not to admit openly* gay leaders, because according to the recent news item, it is inconsistent with its doctrine (e.g. on marriage and chastity) and the BSA tradition (to strive for good male role models).

 

*blatantly, flagrantly, brazenly, boldly, overtly, in full view; shamelessly, immodestly, wantonly…

 

As I said, "it seems the Church does not want to support a change in policy that, in this context, highlights a departure from its own standard for marriage and chastity." While it did not expect the BSA to teach its temple doctrine, it did have a reasonable expectation that it maintain a national policy and general environment supportive of her standards. The former BSA policy was sufficiently aligned with the Church's standard for marriage (man and woman) and chastity, and it no longer is.

[rockpond]

It seems the Church does not want to support a change in policy that, in this context, highlights a departure from its own standard for marriage and chastity.

 

The Church has certainly and reasonably "expected" a policy not to admit openly* gay leaders, because according to the recent news item, it is inconsistent with its doctrine (e.g. on marriage and chastity) and the BSA tradition (to strive for good male role models).

 

*blatantly, flagrantly, brazenly, boldly, overtly, in full view; shamelessly, immodestly, wantonly…

 

As I said, "it seems the Church does not want to support a change in policy that, in this context, highlights a departure from its own standard for marriage and chastity." While it did not expect the BSA to teach its temple doctrine, it did have a reasonable expectation that it maintain a national policy and general environment supportive of her standards. The former BSA policy was sufficiently aligned with the Church's standard for marriage (man and woman) and chastity, and it no longer is.

 

And the Church is free to not support the change in policy.  I'm certainly not disagreeing with that.  But I will be surprised if they cut ties.

 

What is your source for your definition of "openly"?  Merriam-Webster seems to disagree.

[Stone holm]

Yep, I don't see Monday's vote as a problem and I didn't see the 2014 policy change (allowing gay scouts) as a problem.  I don't think the Church has ever shown much regard for BSA policies -- we run our programs the way we feel is best.

BSA has always granted special accomodations to the Church to make things line up with their programs: Varsity Scouts was introduced for the LDS, our special 11 year old program for Scouts (which by the way really is a lousy program), our not having Tiger Cubs, etc. etc.

[KevinG]

BSA has always granted special accomodations to the Church to make things line up with their programs: Varsity Scouts was introduced for the LDS, our special 11 year old program for Scouts (which by the way really is a lousy program), our not having Tiger Cubs, etc. etc.

 

My 11 year old scout program was kick a--!  I got about 90% of my scouts to First class by the time they were Deacons, and we invited the Dad's on camp outs so we could have more than 2 a year.

 

The awkward attempt to wedge priesthood advancement into scout patrols was a reason they didn't run well at times, but never a good excuse.  I think the problem of Bishops calling uninterested, untrained people to Scouts was a greater cause of issues than the program itself.

Edited July 29, 2015 by KevinG