Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[Kemara]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

In this case, "repentance" involves trying to break up their families. Inviting them to divorce, never mind the fallout with their children.

If you want to take a very short term and selfish view that denies reality - sure, knock yourself out. However, the fact of the matter is that the church's invitation to repent is an invitation to get one's life aligned with God and the eternities. How exactly is that a bad thing?  Or are gay marrieds totally okay with death being the end? How important are these families and children? Not very important it seems.

6 hours ago, Gray said:

This is of course not applied equally. Only gay people are singled out for this treatment.

Yes of course. Why shouldn't it?

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am not much of a scientist but it seems fairly obvious that even us lowly humans will someday be able to create other humans out of a test tube like we have been able to do for almost 20 years with animals like sheep.

Dolly

So obviously there is potential for eternal increase for those two individuals. You may not be comfortable with the process but it is there nonetheless.

Maybe someday. But right now the clones we have been able to make are genetically just as old as the host. If applied as is to humans it would a 20+ year clone in what looks like a  baby's body with all the knowledge of a baby.

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Science has not yet been able to create children without a sperm and an egg. Two eggs or two sperm are not capable of doing it. 

Knowing that, which process (that is "there nonetheless") are you talking about?  I'm not sure I'm understanding you right. 

As I said,we have been able to do it with sheep. The cloning process, in my limited understanding does not require sperm.

For example Dolly was created using Nuclear Transfer which from what I can understand did not involve sperm.

I hardly think it is unreasonable to see a time when we can do this with humans. I am not saying we should do it, just that we will be capable of it.

Some might consider the creation of Adam as an example of a single parent creating offspring in a manner unlike how children are made today.

[mtomm]

We've tightened up the meaning of family so much in this discussion that it's pretty much down to only sealed couples and their biological children are the only non-counterfeit families.

Edited February 26, 2016 by mtomm

[thesometimesaint]

I thought Adam got together with Eve to create a little Cain.

[ERMD]

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

We've tightened up the meaning of family so much in this discussion that it's pretty much down to only sealed couples and their biological children are the only non-counterfeit families.

That's only been done by misrepresentation and a failure to comprehend words on a screen, then others picking up that ball and running with it.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think you need to reread what Jesus said then. There were exceptions. If the man committed adultery, then the woman did not sin in divorce and remarriage.

 

Here's the thing though - we don't treat ANY divorce and remarriage as adultery. 

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  I'll be sure to tell my neighbors who have been together for over 30 years and have adopted 4 children (3 with handicaps), that they are not a "real"  family. However, most people I know would consider them to be one of the best families on the block  

.

Your reading comprehension skills appear to be severely lacking.

My point in the what you quoted from me was that biological and legal associations are what determine whether people are in what I and others would call a real family.  That even though people can be very good friends to each other and be close to each other they are only friends,  technically, unless there is a biological or legal association that binds them together as part of the same family.  And that it is a husband and his wife, together, who are the principal members of that family.

So if those neighbors you're talking about are a husband and his wife and their children, either biologically or through adoption,  then I would also like you consider them to be a family. But if not they are not even though they could still be fairly decent neighbors. 

[thesometimesaint]

Assuming that is true. Telling us to reread your comments isn't helping. Please explain your comments so we can understand.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, ERMD said:

That's only been done by misrepresentation and a failure to comprehend words on a screen, then others picking up that ball and running with it.

Not true at all.  We've used your words and tried to discuss them with you.  You are the one who brought up the disclaimer that a "unit" needs to be eternal in order to be considered a family.  If you meant something different, you've had ample time to change what you stated and clear up what many (most) believed you were stating.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your reading comprehension skills appear to be severely lacking.

My point in the what you quoted from me was that biological and legal associations are what determine whether people are in what I and others would call a real family.  That even though people can be very good friends to each other and be close to each other they are only friends,  technically, unless there is a biological or legal association that binds them together as part of the same family.  And that it is a husband and his wife, together, who are the principal members of that family.

So if those neighbors you're talking about are a husband and his wife and their children, either biologically or through adoption,  then I would also like you consider them to be a family. But if not they are not even though they could still be fairly decent neighbors. 

But you see, my neighbors are not legal husband and wife.  So, they exactly fit your description in your earlier post when you stated: 

Quote

 "There are also some people who believe that any group of people who live in the same home is also a family, regardless of their biological or legal associations, and while a sweet idea in some sense that isn't what I and most people I know would call a real family."

 So, no reading comprehension problems here on my end.  Maybe you need to reword or express your thoughts differently?  You very clearly and accurately described my neighbors who are very much a real family.

[ERMD]

As this thread progresses (or degenerates, as the case may be), some things keep echoing in my head:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none--and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. (Verbal, from "The Usual Suspects"; had to throw that in there.)

This day has been foreseen, and I think we have seen an increase in the urgency of warnings from the First Presidency and the Twelve over the past couple of decades. Examples of this are The Family: A Proclamation to the World and the most recent clarification in November regarding SSM and apostasy.

We are seeing the lines drawn on each side.

 

 "The future of the world has long been declared; the final outcome between good and evil is already known.  There is absolutely no question as to who wins because the victory has already been posted on the scoreboard.  The only really strange thing is all of this that we are still down here on the field trying to decide which team's jersey we want to wear."    Jeffrey R. Holland

 

 

[ERMD]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

... you've had ample time to change what you stated and clear up what many (most) believed you were stating.

Most who are looking to misconstrue and trying to make something what it is not.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ERMD

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, Kemara said:

If you want to take a very short term and selfish view that denies reality - sure, knock yourself out. However, the fact of the matter is that the church's invitation to repent is an invitation to get one's life aligned with God and the eternities. How exactly is that a bad thing?  Or are gay marrieds totally okay with death being the end? How important are these families and children? Not very important it seems.

Yes of course. Why shouldn't it?

I can't think of anything more selfish than trying to break up a happy family because of some dogmatic objection to them. 

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, ERMD said:

As this thread progresses (or degenerates, as the case may be), some things keep echoing in my head:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none--and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. (Verbal, from "The Usual Suspects"; had to throw that in there.)

This day has been foreseen, and I think we have seen an increase in the urgency of warnings from the First Presidency and the Twelve over the past couple of decades. Examples of this are The Family: A Proclamation to the World and the most recent clarification in November regarding SSM and apostasy.

We are seeing the lines drawn on each side.

 

 "The future of the world has long been declared; the final outcome between good and evil is already known.  There is absolutely no question as to who wins because the victory has already been posted on the scoreboard.  The only really strange thing is all of this that we are still down here on the field trying to decide which team's jersey we want to wear."    Jeffrey R. Holland

Telling me I've been deceived isn't helping me understand what you are saying. Please use your own words to clarify.

Edited February 26, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Jeanne]

53 minutes ago, mtomm said:

We've tightened up the meaning of family so much in this discussion that it's pretty much down to only sealed couples and their biological children are the only non-counterfeit families.

That was my take too.

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Telling me I've been deceived isn't helping me understand what you are saying. Please use your own words to clarify.

Because it is his own words that several disagreed with.  So now he using other's words to call us all to repentance.

That is always so persuasive, right?

From what I just saw reading through the thread, ERMD has been pretty clear about what he believes and I disagree with his definition of what "family" is.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

I can't think of anything more selfish than trying to break up a happy family because of some dogmatic objection to them. 

Selfish implies we have something to gain from it. What is this gain?

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, ERMD said:

"The future of the world has long been declared; the final outcome between good and evil is already known.  There is absolutely no question as to who wins because the victory has already been posted on the scoreboard.  The only really strange thing is all of this that we are still down here on the field trying to decide which team's jersey we want to wear."    Jeffrey R. Holland

I think that the mistake often made among LDS is in thinking that fealty to LDS leadership is what determines one's jersey.

[rockpond]

More awesome publicity coming from implementation of the policy.  Go Team LDS!

http://fox13now.com/2016/02/25/same-sex-couple-claims-lds-church-congregation-harassing-them-over-disciplinary-council/

 

[Kemara]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

I can't think of anything more selfish than trying to break up a happy family because of some dogmatic objection to them. 

So you are an eternity denier then? You believe that gay marrieds should be totally okay with death being the end? You don't believe that gay marrieds should place any importance on an eternal relationship with their children? Do you even know what the word selfish means? 

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that the mistake often made among LDS is in thinking that fealty to LDS leadership is what determines one's jersey.

It almost always does. They are, after all, watchmen upon the tower (see Ezekiel 33:1-7).

That's why ancient prophecy warns against "calling evil good and good evil."

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

More awesome publicity coming from implementation of the policy.  Go Team LDS!

http://fox13now.com/2016/02/25/same-sex-couple-claims-lds-church-congregation-harassing-them-over-disciplinary-council/

 

Hasn't this already been linked to here?

 

[Ahab]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But you see, my neighbors are not legal husband and wife.  So, they exactly fit your description in your earlier post when you stated: 

 So, no reading comprehension problems here on my end.  Maybe you need to reword or express your thoughts differently?  You very clearly and accurately described my neighbors who are very much a real family.

Just one more thing to clarify my position:

In my view the legal/ legislative process is necessary to confer approval to those who accept and value that approval.  To others it doesn't mean much if anything,  like how sealings in our temples don't mean much if anything to those who don't accept and value that sealing power. And like your approval of your neighbors as a family doesn't mean much to me as a good reason to accept that they are a real family. 

People can think whatever they like but it takes something legal backed up with binding power to make it real.

 

[Ahab]

54 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Telling me I've been deceived isn't helping me understand what you are saying. Please use your own words to clarify.

My take was that he was making a distinction between what many in this world consider a family vs what we consider a family that will remain a family in eternity. 

There are many ideas of what a family is in this world but there is only one way for a family to be and remain a family forever.