Why would any straight person want to be a member of the COJCOLDS?

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Gray said:

There has been no official word on that.

Yes, there has.  

Quote

Anecdotally we've been told that the senior leadership felt good about the newest policy and so ratified it.  

You substantially mischaracterize Elder Nelson's remarks.  Substantially.  Heavily.  Shame-on-you-edly.

Here's what he said:

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

• "Filled with compassion..."
• "We wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will..."
• "Ever mindful of God's plan of salvation of and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children..."
• "We considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios..."
• "We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration..."
• "The Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord..."
• "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation..."
• "It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson..."

These remarks, you suggest, can be reduced to something as trite and facile and dismissive and inaccurate as "the senior leadership felt good about the newest policy."  No thanks.

Quote

But all of it is based on a supposition that the ideas about homosexuality that we've inherited from other Christian groups are true. It certainly doesn't feel like a revelation to me.

Right.  Elder Nelson and the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidency, all got it wrong.  Fifteen men with literally hundreds of year of experience in the Church and with the Spirit cannot discern whether their first-hand experience was revelatory.  We should instead rely on your assessment as a non-witness that it "doesn't feel like a revelation to {you}," the acceptance of which necessarily requires us to conclude that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were collectively deluded, deceived or lying.  I do not accept that proposition.  As between believing them and believing you, I'll go with the former.

Also, I reject the notion that historic Christianity is categorically wrong the issue of homosexual attraction and conduct.  We have erred in some material respects in how we have addressed the issue, but the identification and condemnation of the underlying conduct as sin is, I think, scriptural and in accordance with the will of God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2016 by smac97

[USU78]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Some Catholic priest and nuns keep their vows, but there has also been a lot of sexual abuse (just as stemmelbow stated above):

Here's another example:

https://answeringchristian.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/vatican-confirms-report-of-sexual-abuse-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries/

That's a deflection.  The issue had been the reality and laudability of finding fulfillment inside the covenant with G-d, but without marriage/conjugal relations.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's a deflection. 

No, it's the truth.  This is a problem within the Catholic church (and elsewhere too, of course).  I have close family members (on my wife's side) who are staunch Catholics and they also believe it's a problem. They wish and hope that Priests and nuns will be allowed to marry in the future because this has brought a lot of heartache and scandal.  They also feel that it narrows down and limits the number of those who would be willing to agree to a vow of celibacy.  Many more good men and women would become Priests and nuns if this were changed.  I'm not saying the Catholic church is alone in having this issue, but it's been a huge problem.  I also am not naive enough to believe that all abuse is caused by or would stop if these men and women were not asked to remain celibate for all their lives.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

But...as a consequence a terribly high percentage of Catholic Priests have been child molesters.  Terrible is the best word I could come up with. 

CFR regarding this "terribly high percentage."

Quote

It's claimed then, that the life they chose to live has caused them, often, to be sexual deviants because of their lack of sexual maturity and development. 

Wow.  Do we really want to get into a discussion of lifestyle choices which appear to have a substantial pedophilic subculture?

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, it's the truth.  This is a problem within the Catholic church.  I have close family members (on my wife's side) who are staunch Catholics and they also believe it's a problem. They wish and hope that Priests and nuns will be allowed to marry in the future because this has brought a lot of heartache and scandal.  They also feel that it narrows down and limits the number of those who would be willing to agree to a vow of celibacy.  Many more good men and women would become Priests and nuns if this were changed.  I'm not saying the Catholic church is alone in having this issue, but it's been a huge problem.  I also am not naive enough to believe that all abuse is caused by or would stop if these men and women were not asked to remain celibate for all their lives.

It's a human problem, but my view is that the RC has been getting a bad rap on this.  When you've got ca 1.2 billion RCs and 400K+ priests worldwide, even a small percentage (and, assuming it's 10% of general population and 4% of priests abusing children, that would be classified as a small percentage) looks awfully big (as we see from looking at the percentage of radical Muslims vs the gross numbers and the mischief they cause).

It's still a deflection and a trip down a rabbithole when we're talking about Mormon homosexuals and G-d's law and the Church's policies.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Wow.  I disagree.  It is hardly a worthless point.  they made a movie about it that won best picture this year--mostly because the point was so compelling.  It's a sad and disgusting situation, for sure. 

What about the statistics cited here?  Is this also a "sad and disgusting situation, for sure?"

Or would it only become such when Hollywood makes a movie about it (which will happen . . . never).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's a human problem, but my view is that the RC has been getting a bad rap on this.  When you've got ca 1.2 billion RCs and 400K+ priests worldwide, even a small percentage (and, assuming it's 10% of general population and 4% of priests abusing children, that would be classified as a small percentage) looks awfully big (as we see from looking at the percentage of radical Muslims vs the gross numbers and the mischief they cause).

If you believe all the sexual abuse that has been exposed regarding the Catholic church and that all of the innocent victims whose lives have been ruined = "a bad rap", shame on you.  But continue, being dismissive regarding what took place and is most likely still taking place.  (And yes, I know it's not just happening there... )

[Calm]

The problem with the Catholic Church is not that it has a higher rate of abusers, but rather the coverup and thus the continuation of abuse by those priests.  As I posted before, the percentages of abuses in the Catholic Church is parallel to the general male population.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Calm

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The problem with the Catholic Church is not that it has a higher rate of abusers, but rather the coverup and thus the continuation of abuse by those priests.  As I posted before, the percentages of abuses in the Catholic Church is parallel to the general male population.

Making It A Human problem

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you believe all the sexual abuse that has been exposed regarding the Catholic church and that all of the innocent victims whose lives have been ruined = "a bad rap", shame on you.  But continue, being dismissive regarding what took place and is most likely still taking place.  (And yes, I know it's not just happening there... )

Perhaps we should say they've been, in my view, disproportionately singled out and excoriated by a 4th estate that is anti religion and anti papist. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Making It A Human problem

Yes.  Unfortunately so.  We need to be vigilant in all areas of our lives, including religious no matter what faith we are.

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

He is relating what his own experience was.  He did try it and it did not work for him.  So no, it will not work for anybody.  That it works for you, is great though.

It did work for him and as proof he had children with her.

He just decided to switch sexes leaving his wife who he had been married to for 25 years.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Perhaps we should say they've been, in my view, disproportionately singled out and excoriated by a 4th estate that is anti religion and anti papist. 

Meanwhile, a separate, markedly privileged group appears to have a profoundly disturbing and problematic pedophilic subculture, but which is essentially given a free pass by that same 4th estate, which appears bound and determined to avoid any substantive coverage of the subculture in this privileged group and the damage inflicted on its victims.

Funny, that.  It's almost as if the 4th estate is . . .  selective in its outrage, or something.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Not ridiculous at all.  Nor dismissive.  Calling something by its rightful name is far more charitable than hemming and hawing and using wishywashy language.  Me?  I wish such folks nothing but happiness, but believe they'll never truly be happy choosing to cut themselves off from G-d.

They haven't chosen to cut themselves off by God. 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Perhaps we should say they've been, in my view, disproportionately singled out and excoriated by a 4th estate that is anti religion and anti papist. 

It is wonderful when any sexual child abuse is exposed, when the victims are acknowledged and helped, and when the perpetrators are caught and punished.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about the statistics cited here?  Is this also a "sad and disgusting situation, for sure?"

Or would it only become such when Hollywood makes a movie about it (which will happen . . . never).

Thanks,

-Smac

Just like it'd be unfair to characterize Catholic Priests as pedophiles it is also unfair to characterize homosexual adults as pedophiles.  I wouldn't doubt that in both cases there is a higher occurrence of pedophilia among the population.  But as homosexuality becomes more understood and acceptable the secret efforts by many homosexuals might go down. I mean put it all on an even playing field and perhaps these terrible stats would change and even out. 

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR regarding this "terribly high percentage."

Wow.  Do we really want to get into a discussion of lifestyle choices which appear to have a substantial pedophilic subculture?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm happy to Smac, although I would like to back off my terribly high percentage comment.  As I suggested to Calm, this is a difficult arena to gauge definitively. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there has.  

You substantially mischaracterize Elder Nelson's remarks.  Substantially.  Heavily.  Shame-on-you-edly.

Here's what he said:

• "Filled with compassion..."
• "We wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will..."
• "Ever mindful of God's plan of salvation of and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children..."
• "We considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios..."
• "We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration..."
• "The Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord..."
• "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation..."
• "It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson..."

These remarks, you suggest, can be reduced to something as trite and facile and dismissive and inaccurate as "the senior leadership felt good about the newest policy."  No thanks.

Right.  Elder Nelson and the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidency, all got it wrong.  Fifteen men with literally hundreds of year of experience in the Church and with the Spirit cannot discern whether their first-hand experience was revelatory.  We should instead rely on your assessment as a non-witness that it "doesn't feel like a revelation to {you}," the acceptance of which necessarily requires us to conclude that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were collectively deluded, deceived or lying.  I do not accept that proposition.  As between believing them and believing you, I'll go with the former.

Also, I reject the notion that historic Christianity is categorically wrong the issue of homosexual attraction and conduct.  We have erred in some material respects in how we have addressed the issue, but the identification and condemnation of the underlying conduct as sin is, I think, scriptural and in accordance with the will of God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

My summary was brief but accurate. We're not talking about God appearing and delivering His word on gay marriage. And of course none of those details you mention were communicated by the church officially, but rather from one apostle in one relatively obscure venue. 

What makes you think 15 men can't make a mistake when they make a decision together? Dozens of apostles and 10 presidents of the church all got it wrong regarding the priesthood ban, after all. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Gray

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Just like it'd be unfair to characterize Catholic Priests as pedophiles it is also unfair to characterize homosexual adults as pedophiles. 

I agree.  That's why I have previously stated: "I reject an across-the-board allegation that all homosexuals are pedophiles. That's simply not the case. Such a calumny has no more merit than when feminists accuse all men of being rapists."

Quote

I wouldn't doubt that in both cases there is a higher occurrence of pedophilia among the population. 

Why do you think there is "a higher occurrence of pedophilia" amongst homosexuals?  I get the general reasoning underlying the claim against Catholic priests, who take a vow of celibacy, and are therefore presumably "sexually frustrated" or something like that.

But how do you explain the "higher occurrence of pedophilia" amongst homosexuals?  "Sexual frustration" would not seem to be applicable.

Quote

But as homosexuality becomes more understood and acceptable the secret efforts by many homosexuals might go down. I mean put it all on an even playing field and perhaps these terrible stats would change and even out. 

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the pedophilic subculture within the homosexual community is attributable to . . . social opprobrium?  Where did you get such a notion?  Do you have any evidence to support it?  Do you have any evidence suggesting that increase in people understanding and accepting "homosexuality" leads to a reduction in homosexual abuse of children?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2016 by smac97

[ERMD]

You people crack me up.  Rather than applying the example to the issue being discussed, you deflect and try to milk something out of the example to change the course of the discussion.  Same tactic was used by the peanut gallery in a different thread.  I will not justify the effort with a response.  Deal with the topic.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  That's why I have previously stated: "I reject an across-the-board allegation that all homosexuals are pedophiles. That's simply not the case. Such a calumny has no more merit than when feminists accuse all men of being rapists."

Why do you think there is "a higher occurrence of pedophilia" amongst homosexuals?  I get the general reasoning underlying the claim against Catholic priests, who take a vow of celibacy, and are therefore presumably "sexually frustrated" or something like that.

But how do you explain the "higher occurrence of pedophilia" amongst homosexuals?  "Sexual frustration" would not seem to be applicable.

 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the pedophilic subculture within the homosexual community is attributable to . . . social opprobrium?  Where did you get such a notion?  Do you have any evidence to support it?  Do you have any evidence suggesting that increase in people understanding and accepting "homosexuality" leads to a reduction in homosexual abuse of children?

Thanks,

-Smac

I would say, Smac.  that something causes it.  There could be many factors to consider and it's quite possible social opprobrium plays a factor.  Until it's more socially acceptable I don't know how we would gauge and measure this.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

My summary was brief but accurate.

Brief, yes.  Accurate?  Nope.

Quote

We're not talking about God appearing and delivering His word on gay marriage.

"God appearing and delivering His word" appears to be very much the exception rather than the rule.  

And there is no basis for rejecting revelation that comes in the form of something other than "God appearing and delivering His word."  None at all.  There is, in fact, a substantial reason to reject that reasoning.  We are, after all, speaking about fifteen men all reaching the same conclusion about the revelatory nature of the policy change.  These are men of substantial experience, intelligence, and character.  Fourteen subordinates to the Presiding High Priest have all sustained as revelation the policy change as given to the Presiding High Priest.  Their unified voice matters.  A lot.  Their course of conduct is also congruent with the scriptures on this issue.  That also matters.  A lot.

In contrast, your unsubstantiated and contrary say-so is not persuasive.  You are some anonymous person, the character of whom I do not know.  I see no reason to defer to your judgment or opinion.  You are not a percipient witness to what Elder Nelson described.  And your position appears to contravene the position taken by the Church and its leaders.  And the scriptures (as I understand them).  And the Spirit (as I understand it).  I therefore have many reasons to trust the Brethren and their assessment of what has transpired relative to the policy change, and very little reason to trust you on these issues.

Quote

And of course none of those details you mention were communicated by the church officially, but rather from one apostle in one relatively obscure venue. 

Again, you substantially mischaracterize Elder Nelson's remarks.  Substantially.  Heavily.  Shame-on-you-edly.  Let's do a quick review:

• Elder Nelson was speaking at a Church-sponsored event.  
• That event, which you described as "one relatively obscure venue," was a "Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults." 
• That event was broadcast.  To the entirety of the Church.  And recorded.  And his remarks were subsequently published on the Church's website.  
• Elder Nelson was speaking in his official capacity as the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

You are not dealing squarely with the evidence.

Quote

What makes you think 15 men can't make a mistake when they make a decision together?

I haven't said that they can't.  But I think the chances of a mistake in these circumstances are, as a matter of probabilities, very low.  Much, much, much lower than the chance that you, as a contrary and non-percipient declarant, are mistaken.

Again, let's take a look at the process described by Elder Nelson which yielded the policy change:

• "Filled with compassion..."
• "We wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will..."
• "Ever mindful of God's plan of salvation of and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children..."
• "We considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios..."
• "We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration..."
• "The Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord..."
• "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation..."
• "It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson..."

Meanwhile, what sort of process did you utilize to reach your contrary conclusion?  You haven't explained it.  You haven't even suggested that you did anything in terms of study, thought, prayer, fasting, temple attendance, etc., to discern the will of God regarding this issue.  Plus, you are some anonymous dude who is apparently so sure of his position that you only declare it while hiding behind an online pseudonym.  And you aren't a percipient witness to the process described by Elder Nelson, and are therefore in no position to say diddly about that process.  And you are not the Presiding High Priest, nor are you apparently in any position of stewardship over the Church.  And your online remarks are hostile and contrary to the Lord's anointed.

Again, I therefore have many reasons to trust the Brethren and their assessment of what has transpired relative to the policy change, and very little reason to trust you on these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Brief, yes.  Accurate?  Nope.

I disagree, of course

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"God appearing and delivering His word" appears to be very much the exception rather than the rule.  

What I mean of course is that no one is claiming that God said exactly "x"

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And there is no basis for rejecting revelation that comes in the form of something other than "God appearing and delivering His word."  None at all.  There is, in fact, a substantial reason to reject that reasoning.  We are, after all, speaking about fifteen men all reaching the same conclusion about the revelatory nature of the policy change.  These are men of substantial experience, intelligence, and character.  Fourteen subordinates to the Presiding High Priest have all sustained as revelation the policy change as given to the Presiding High Priest.  Their unified voice matters.  A lot.  Their course of conduct is also congruent with the scriptures on this issue.  That also matters.  A lot.

The real basis for rejecting any revelation (whether claimed as such officially or unofficially) is whether or not the revelation is in accordance with good principles. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In contrast, your unsubstantiated and contrary say-so is not persuasive.  You are some anonymous person, the character of whom I do not know.

I don't pretend to try to persuade you, smac97, just stating my view. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I see no reason to defer to your judgment or opinion.  You are not a percipient witness to what Elder Nelson described.  And your position appears to contravene the position taken by the Church and its leaders.  And the scriptures (as I understand them).  And the Spirit (as I understand it).  I therefore have many reasons to trust the Brethren and their assessment of what has transpired relative to the policy change, and very little reason to trust you on these issues.

I have seen too many bad decisions based on a good feeling to conclude that any such experience is definitive or objective. All such experiences must be weighed against other principles. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, you substantially mischaracterize Elder Nelson's remarks.  Substantially.  Heavily.  Shame-on-you-edly.  Let's do a quick review:

• Elder Nelson was speaking at a Church-sponsored event.  
• That event, which you described as "one relatively obscure venue," was a "Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults." 
• That event was broadcast.  To the entirety of the Church.  And recorded.  And his remarks were subsequently published on the Church's website.  
• Elder Nelson was speaking in his official capacity as the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

You are not dealing squarely with the evidence.

Again, I disagree. Youth devotionals, worldwide or not, are not venues for announcing new revelations or proclaiming doctrine for the church. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't said that they can't.  But I think the chances of a mistake in these circumstances are, as a matter of probabilities, very low.  Much, much, much lower than the chance than you, as a contrary and non-percipient declarant, are mistaken.

How would you even begin to calculate such a probability? 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, let's take a look at the process described by Elder Nelson which yielded the policy change:

• "Filled with compassion..."
• "We wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will..."
• "Ever mindful of God's plan of salvation of and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children..."
• "We considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios..."
• "We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration..."
• "The Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord..."
• "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation..."
• "It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson..."

 

Right. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, what sort of process did you reach your contrary conclusion?  You haven't explained it.  You haven't even suggested that you did anything in terms of study, thought, prayer, fasting, temple attendance, etc., to discern the will of God regarding this issue.

Immediately after learning of the policy, I felt a dark feeling. Most members of the church attribute such experiences as a warning from the spirit against something that is wrong. 

But I don't just go by a discrete event like that. I look at larger spiritual principles. And I see the church's increasingly draconian measures against gay marriage bearing very bad fruit. I measure everything by that - a principle that has been attributed to Jesus. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Plus, you are some anonymous dude who is apparently so sure of his position that you hide behind an online pseudonym.  And you aren't a percipient witness to the process described by Elder Nelson, and are therefore in no position to say diddly about that process.  And you are not the Presiding High Priest, nor are you apparently in any position of stewardship over the Church.  And your online remarks are hostile and contrary to the Lord's anointed.

Again, I therefore have many reasons to trust the Brethren and their assessment of what has transpired relative to the policy change, and very little reason to trust you on these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

You must of course come to your own conclusions. 

[california boy]

Quote

Storm Rider

I believe all sinners can have a relationship with Jesus Christ - there is no one else but sinners on this earth.  If not us, then who could?  

The issue is not that we are sinners, but that we strive to follow the Savior.  It has to do with personal priorities.  Does someone who places Jesus first still sin or do they remain a sinner?  Of course!  A sinner feels that sin separates them from Christ; (s)he has sorrow for their sins remains a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Conversely, someone that purposely chooses to embrace their sins and feels no guilt and senses no sorrow has ceased following the Savior and is not, cannot be a disciple of the Savior.  Do you see the distinction?  

You may be tired of the argument that some remain celibate, but that does not diminish how completely it destroys your argument.  You tire of it because you obviously have no counter argument and each of these individuals will stand as a testimony of the worth of choosing the Savior.  Be honest with yourself and with others.  You know your choice and you know what you put first in your life.  

God declared that we should replenish the earth.  God will never rescind that directive.  We are to marry a person of the opposite sex in order to have children.  I cannot see God unmaking this directive in favor of....what else?  What else is there that he could have said that would not have destroyed the entire plan of creation and his plan of salvation?  Nothing.  He actually did what he wanted to do and created us for his purposes.  

One of the most in-depth discussions on the importance of marriage I have ever read was written by John Paul II commonly called his Theology of the Body.  He was both an excellent philosopher and a theologian.  LDS will have to read his text and overlook some of the language, but the vast majority is outstanding.  Though you can read John Paul II's actual text, Christopher West has put it into layman's terms and may be appreciated by others.  

 

You bring up some interesting points.  I think this discussion forum is at it's best when it makes us think about our positions. So think about this.  Let's say a member has a problem with ponography.  He tells himself he is never going to look at it again.  A week passes and he fails again.  This happens for months, maybe years, maybe never overcoming his addiction.  Should the church kick him out?  Is he choosing to follow the Savior?  Do you beiieve it would be more helpful to call this person an apostate and kick them out of the church?  

Yes God told us to multiply and replenish the earth.  So are you saying that those who don't have biological children are sinning?  Does someone who is celibate multiply and replenish the earth?  Do you think a gay person should be encouraged by the church to marry someone of the opposite sex to multiply and replenish the earth?  Should a spouse who is fertile divorce his wife and find someone who can have children?  Or perhaps, like others, gay members are through no fault of their own are just not able to do that.  Kinda like a lot of other people who not fault of their own can not.

Hope that gives you something to think about.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

You'll please excuse my disbelief in that bit of propaganda. If homosexual are so happy and content, whence their agitation?  Whence their rage?

We do get cranky when people take away our civil rights.  I know you would prefer that we remain quiet and just disappear.  Didn't happen with women.  Didn't happen with blacks.  Probably not going to happen with gays.  

Have you noticed how quiet things have been from the gay community about gay marriage since it became legal?  Only time you now hear from the gay community is when some legislature is trying to pass laws allowing "christians" to legally discriminate against them.  And they aren't the only ones screaming.