Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ask all you want. I've already made clear what I think of your legalistic distortion. 

I understand you have none.  You are pretty good at dodging a request for references, but we've learned if anyone doesn't reply to your CFR, you hunt them down for weeks 

I'll let you off the hook here.  No worries.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Civilly, where the jurisdictions permit, they are spouses in a civil sense, and in those faith communities that accept that kind of civil marriage.

So, do you believe as JLHPROF does regarding marriages outside of the temple (that they are not "real" marriages...or whatever terminology he uses)?  If so, that explains a lot.  

No need to continue either.  

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

By having a policy that punishes SSM more harshly than other "gay sin", the church is showing preference to a more dangerous and promiscuous lifestyle.

Is this the policy about same-sex marriage being apostasy and/or not baptizing children of ssm couples?

The first (by members) openly and formally opposes at least two key doctrines, and the second is actually merciful because they are not parents in Zion and held to that standard (D&C 68) and it respects their role that children have claim upon them until they are of age (D&C 83).

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yup.  Try to pin anyone down on what is "official doctrine" (read this thread  ) and yet they continue to use that word to defend their beliefs.

There is no theory of doctrine that doesn't break down at some point. No matter what your theory is, you'll find something somewhere in the church that contradicts it

Edited October 31, 2016 by Gray

[Daniel2]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When you publicly accuse the leaders of your own Church of horrible things, that comes across as a "must agree with my position" / "my way or the highway" kind of thing.

I don't see a lot of tolerance for diversity of viewpoints.  I think people can act in good faith and upon their own principles and ethics and end up in very different places on a given issue.  But when it comes to the leaders of the LDS Church (and any other member of the Church who does not agree with you on this subject), you are publicly accusing such persons of being "ugly and hurtful," of "not being honest," and so on.

So I guess you're "tolerant" of opposing viewpoints, but that tolerance does not include the possibility of those opposing viewpoints being held in good faith.  That just does not seem very "tolerant" to me.

Got it.  There is no room for principled disagreement on this issue.  It's your way or the highway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting.  Your words above about being "intolerant of a diversity or opposing viewpoints" and "taking the stance of 'it's my way or the highway'" and accusations against others of "not acting in good faith" are EXACTLY how I would characterize your previous words and approach in this thread to the posts of other Latter-day Saints who hold a more inclusive belief that same-sex couples are living the law of chastity, which could someday be sanctioned by the church. 

For example, the following two (separate) posts earlier in this thread:

Quote

I think a modicum of good faith would be nice.  There is no good faith claim to be made that same-sex behavior is compatible with the Law of Chastity in the LDS paradigm.  None.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

There is no good faith claim to be made that same-sex behavior is compatible with the Law of Chastity in the LDS paradigm.  None.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

A lack of tolerance for a diversity of or opposing viewpoints?  Check.

"None.  At All."  My way or the highway?  Check.

"There is no good faith claim to be made..."  Accusations of not acting in good faith?  Check-check.

Pot.... Kettle...?

Edited October 31, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

So, do you believe as JLHPROF does regarding marriages outside of the temple (that they are not "real" marriages...or whatever terminology he uses)?  If so, that explains a lot.  

No need to continue either.  

No; legally and lawfully wedded spouses in the context of the Church's definition of marriage and chastity are real marriages. Civil marriages can be made eternal marriages per D&C 132. What yet needs to be explained about the correlation between the Church's doctrines on marriage and chastity (I think you may benefit from continuing this conversation if you can keep an open mind)?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

belief that same-sex couples are living the law of chastity

This is only a misinformed belief when it is understood what "chastity" and "spouse" mean in light of the Church's definition of marriage.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No; legally and lawfully wedded spouses in the context of the Church's definition of marriage and chastity are real marriages. Civil marriages can be made eternal marriages per D&C 132. What yet needs to be explained about the correlation between the Church's doctrines on marriage and chastity (I think you may benefit from continuing this conversation if you can keep an open mind)?

 

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is only a misinformed belief when it is understood what "chastity" and "spouse" mean in light of the Church's definition of marriage.

 

I fail to see why the "Church's definition of marriage" that you keep quoting is the deciding factor as to violations of the Law of Chastity instead of the actual law that is administered by the Church itself.

Edited October 31, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Daniel2]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is only a misinformed belief when it is understood what "chastity" and "spouse" mean in light of the Church's definition of marriage.

That's an interesting thing to say.

While I think your words above certainly reflect your thoughts on the matter, is there anyone among us who wouldn't claim that those who disagree with us only hold "misinformed" beliefs to some degree or another....?

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I understand you have none.  You are pretty good at dodging a request for references, but we've learned if anyone doesn't reply to your CFR, you hunt them down for weeks 

I'll let you off the hook here.  No worries.

You're doing some pretty good dodging of your own with regard to my question as to whether you teach at Church in an official capacity or calling your legalistic distortion that people can engage in homosexual behavior and if they are legally married, it does not amount violation of the law of chastity. You never answered the question, so I'm going to guess that you don't, indicating that you know fully well that such a thing would be unacceptable.

Review the first two quotations in my sig line below. As the world slips away from the laws of God, we do not, and sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God. He is not subject to the edicts of a mortal lawmaking body or judiciary. 

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

JLHPROF does regarding marriages outside of the temple (that they are not "real" marriages...or whatever terminology he uses

"Real" is a subjective term.
All I have said is that civil marriage joined by the state has nothing to do with God.
And that God has nothing to do with civil marriages since his authority is not being used to join anyone.
Bringing civil law into the temple covenant of chastity just opened up this mess.
 

• Eleanor J. McLean married Parley P. Pratt in polygamy while still married to Hector McLean, although she was separated from him. When asked if she had divorced McLean before she married Pratt, she answered: “No, the sectarian priests have no power from God to marry; and a so called marriage ceremony performed by them is no marriage at all; no divorce was needed… . Stephen Pratt, “The Last Days of Parley P. Pratt,” Brigham Young University Studies (1975): 20.
• Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsibility for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees.
• Pg 46-47 - quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married."

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I have heard you use this story before on this board.  Is it ok if I ask you a few questions about your story?  If your grandmothers grandson was gay, (which is what we are talking about on this thread) what would be her reaction?  

I think she would be fine with that generally.  But if he came over and started talking about his sexual exploits, or if he brought over his boyfriend and started making out with him on the couch, or if he came over with a bottle of booze in his hand, or a joint hanging from his mouth, I would assume she would have taken exception to such things.

We are not talking about states of being, but about behaviors.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Would she say come back when you are not gay?  How does that work?  How do you think your grandmother should handle a gay grandson?

In all honesty, I don't know.  She died many years ago, and she was a bit old-fashioned in some ways.  I would hope that she would be as welcoming as possible.  The Church's teachings on this sort of thing would call for that.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

As far as the other half of your post, I would ask you the same question I asked Marmon boy.  Where do you get this attitude about not being seen with someone you consider to be a sinner?  

I do not have such an attitude.  I reject the charge outright.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Why would you have a problem with that?  Especially if the person you consider is a sinner to be a friend?

I wouldn't.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Is it how others will view you if they see you at a gay wedding?  

That's part of it, yes.  But more to the point, I do not agree with same-sex marriage.  The whole point of inviting people to a wedding is to ask them to join you in celebrating the union.  There are times when a person, acting sincerely and on principle and in good faith, may not feel inclined to participate in such an event.  I think such people should be at liberty to attend or not attend without having strangers publicly smear and belittle their character (as, for example, HappyJackWagon as done in this thread).

Tolerance and diversity of viewpoints and respect.  These, I am told, are good things.  But they seem to be lacking in some quarters when it comes to disagreeing with same-sex marriage. 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Is it that you think your friend will think you are ok with him being gay and doing something that is quite normal for a gay person to do?  

Nope.  Let me illustrate a bit . . . 

When I was in the Army I had a friend who repeatedly invited me to go to Sunday morning beach parties with her and a group of friends.  She and I were close friends (we were at a language school in Monterey, California learning Russian together, and we sat right next to each other in class).  She knew I was LDS and that I attended church on Sundays.  She nevertheless asked me to go with her several times, reasoning that I could "worship God on the beach just as well as in a church building."  She eventually became a bit irritated at me.  I understood.  She thought I was a bit too introverted and needed to loosen up.  She was my friend and wanted to help me make more friends.  She was acting in good faith.  With sincerity.  With good intentions.

And I, also acting with sincerity and with good intentions, quietly and kindly thanked her and declined her requests.

My friend was asking me to go party on a Sunday morning with her and her friends rather than attend church meetings, partake of the Sacrament, attend Sunday School and Priesthood meetings, and in general do what I had been taught about keeping the Sabbath day holy.  I recognized that she and her friends were not terrible people because they wanted to go to the beach and wanted me to go with them.  Quite the contrary, I was grateful for their overtures of friendship.  But I still had to say no because I could not square the proposed activity with my faith and my principles.

Fortunately, my friend did not hold a grudge.  She did not publicly accuse me of being deplorable and dishonest and ugly and hurtful and simplistic and childish and so on.  Nope.  She allowed me to choose for myself which activities I find compatible with my faith and which are not.  She allowed for reasonable minds to disagree.

Tolerance and diversity of viewpoints and respect.  These, I am told, are good things.  My friend was able to accommodate my viewpoint without publicly attaching my character and ethics.  That was a nice experience.  It sure would be nice to have such an experience when it comes to disagreeing with same-sex marriage.  Alas . . . 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I hope you don't find these questions offensive.  I am just trying to figure out where Mormons in general are getting this attitude.  Because you certainly are not the only Mormon who feels this way.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I fail to see why the "Church's definition of marriage" that you keep quoting is the deciding factor as to violations of the Law of Chastity instead of the actual law that is administered by the Church itself.

It isn't THE deciding factor, since the law can be broken by both married and unmarried persons. It comes in handy when trying to understand what "legally married" and "spouse" mean when understanding those relevant applications of the law of chastity.

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

That's an interesting thing to say.

While I think your words above certainly reflect your thoughts on the matter, is there anyone among us who wouldn't claim that those who disagree with us only hold "misinformed" beliefs to some degree or another....?

But I claim that some that disagree with me have misinformed beliefs they are open to changing with explanation and references; some have misinformed beliefs they are not open to changing; some only interested in pushing their position regardless how well-informed they may be; and some not interested in getting informed at all.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm curious: if an individual's doctor has prescribed cannabis for legitimate medical reasons, can they remain an active member in good standing in the LDS church?  Or is marijuana an automatic WOW infraction?

That's a fair question.  I think the Church is opposed to "medical marijuana," but I'm not sure about the particulars.

In any event, my hypothetical pertains to recreational MJ use by a Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  I just now read this.  What a horrible comparison

What is horrible about it?  Plenty of people think that consuming mind-altering substances is socially/morally acceptable, while others disagree.  

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

and I would recommend you stop using this in relation to having a son (or grandson) who is gay.  

Why?  Analogies are, after all, comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things.  Reasonable minds disagree about the use of marijuana, right?  It's not a foregone conclusion that dating Mary Jane is an innately terrible thing.  Reasonable minds can disagree about that (to some extent, anyway).

The same goes for same-sex marriage.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

How on earth do you believe that is the same as someone showing up to your house drunk and stoned?  Good grief.  

Not "the same."

Again, this is an analogy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  Interesting you seem to do this if a discussion is not going as you want it to go.  

No, that's not it.  I am find with discussing and debating the merits of LDS doctrines, practices, etc.  But flagrant misrepresentation of those things is a serious impediment to reasoned discussion.  That is why I am dropping out of discussing such things with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're doing some pretty good dodging of your own with regard to my question as to whether you teach at Church in an official capacity or calling your legalistic distortion that people can engage in homosexual behavior and if they are legally married, it does not amount violation of the law of chastity. 

No dodge, I definitely answered your question (although you've added to it above  ).

You originally asked:  " I hope you are not teaching this at church. It would strike me as extremely problematical if you were"

Here's my response again in case you missed it:

Quote

Those I've discussed it with, agree with my beliefs on this topic and they also disagree with the new policy.  I'm finding that very few members are very proud or supportive of this policy and actually find it quite embarrassing.

I also said that I've never claimed to be "teaching" this at church.  So I'm not sure where you even got that impression.  However, I'm entitled to my views and opinions as well as choosing to discuss  them.

I've actually not ever seen anything officially taught at church on the topic of SSM or homosexuality, so your question is a bit odd to begin with.  Maybe this has been officially discussed in your ward? If so, it would be interesting to hear how it went. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is not what I asked.  But as you like.

You asked for my thoughts. I gave them. Not sure what your beef is about that.

When you publicly accuse the leaders of your own Church of horrible things, that comes across as a "must agree with my position" / "my way or the highway" kind of thing.

You are welcome to your interpretation just as I can refute your interpretation. But it is logically untenable to claim that anyone who makes a statement is requiring that all others "must agree with [their] position". It's a statement of opinion. You are not being rational or logical about this.

I don't see a lot of tolerance for diversity of viewpoints.  I think people can act in good faith and upon their own principles and ethics and end up in very different places on a given issue.  But when it comes to the leaders of the LDS Church (and any other member of the Church who does not agree with you on this subject), you are publicly accusing such persons of being "ugly and hurtful," of "not being honest," and so on.

Yes. I see certain behaviors as ugly and hurtful so I share my opinion.

So I guess you're "tolerant" of opposing viewpoints, but that tolerance does not include the possibility of those opposing viewpoints being held in good faith.  That just does not seem very "tolerant" to me.

The difference is there is a long track record with the church and their rhetoric on this topic. I do not see that they are acting in good faith. Not because they disagree with me, but because time and again they say and do hurtful things all while smiling and saying they love gays.

Right.  Deplorable.  Dishonest.  Hurtful.  Ugly.  

I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down.

Good. I'm glad I was clear.

That's fine.  But as soon as she dares to come to a conclusion about such a thing that differs from yours, we'll necessarily expect to see you publicly maligning her character (as you have done with Elder Oaks, with me, etc.), right?  Will you publicly accuse her of being "deplorable?"  Dishonest?  Ugly?  Hurtful?  All because she made a decision that differs from your personal opinion?

Not true. While I would be disappointed in her choice, should she choose not to attend her son's wedding, I would not call her out publicly. Why? Because we have a relationship in which I recognize that she is acting in good faith and doing her best. She could skip her son's wedding and I'd still give her a hug and even introduce her to my friends  

This is "tolerance?"

Right.  Your way or the highway.  There is no principled basis for any opinion divergent from yours.  To differ from your say-so is to "rub salt in the wound."  To be "deplorable" and dishonest and "ugly" and "hurtful."

That's not true. I don't value the church's opinion on this topic because I don't see that they've acted in good faith. Therefore I don't give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives. They have broken my trust too often with their rhetoric. If they choose to be good faith partners with the LGBT community I would be very happy. But as for now, I see their rhetoric and behavior as incompatible and hypocritical. It is not communication born out of good faith.

This is "tolerance?"

Um, you just finished publicly "judging" Elder Oaks as being deplorable and dishonest and ugly and hurtful.  Because his opinion on this issue is different from yours.

Actually, I judged his words as deplorable, dishonest, ugly, and hurtful because I find his statements deplorable, dishonest, ugly and hurtful.

Wow.  Even more judgmentalism.  So it really is your way or the highway?

Chill with the hyperbole. I've never said that. Apparently I can't have a different opinion than you. Must I take your way or the highway?

Again, are you willing to let Latter-day Saints make principled distinctions when faced with painful and difficult circumstances like those described by Elder Oaks?  You don't really answer this question, you just presume to judge the scope and breadth of my affections.  It's almost as if to disagree with you is to be a bad person.

People make principled distinctions with or without my allowance. So your statement is absurd. My hope would be that a mother would think carefully about what she risks when she decides whether or not to attend her son's wedding. I hope she will decide that showing love is more important than casting public judgment. Just as I would hope the same thing for you in attending your friend's wedding. I hope anyone in this situation would ask themselves if they would feel love if the positions were reversed.

So you are the arbiter of how and when love is to be expressed?  And to differ from you on such matters is to not love?

For myself. Of course. All I can do is try to influence others to see my point of view. Hopefully they'll agree.

IOW, it's your way or the highway.

Broken record.

Got it.  There is no room for principled disagreement on this issue.  It's your way or the highway.  Either I agree with you or I am "ugly" (and, presumably, "deplorable" and dishonest and "hurtful" and shallow and unloving . . . man, I'm losing track of the number of epithets you are throwing out here).

I can't speak to this situation.  But that's a rather separate scenario from someone who has powerful and principled and deeply-felt and sincere feelings about participating in an wedding where such participation is, in many respects, going to be construed as a celebration and endorsement of the wedding.

But none of that matters.  There is no room for principled disagreement on this issue.  It's your way or the highway.  Either we agree with your or we are "ugly" and "deplorable" and dishonest and "hurtful" and shallow and unloving and "petty" and "juvenile."

This is "tolerance?"

I know that.  My questions pertain to your capacity to allow other people, acting in good faith and on principle and with sincerity, to come to a different conclusion about whether to attend.  As you have made abundantly clear, you cannot tolerate any decision which deviates from your own.  Or, at least, you can "tolerate" it in a very, very abstract sense, but you will not hesitate to publicly denounce anyone who reaches such a different decision of being "ugly" and "deplorable" and dishonest and "hurtful" and shallow and unloving and "petty" and "juvenile."

This, in your view, is "tolerance?"

Got it.  So anyone who disagrees with you, who comes to a different decision about such things, is 1) "ugly" and 2) "deplorable" and 3) dishonest and 4) "hurtful" and 5) shallow and 6) unloving and 7) "petty" and 8 ) "juvenile" and 9) "narrow" and 10) "simplistic" and 11) "sad" and 12) "childish."

This, in your view, is "tolerance?"

Your brand of "tolerance" is different from mine, I guess.

This is all just rehash.

I was sort of thinking of the "I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things, such that people who on principle and with sincerity disagree with me can nevertheless retain my generalized respect" kind of "tolerance" instead of the kind of "tolerance" where Party A disagrees with Party B, such that Party A proceeds to publicly slur Party B as being 1) "ugly" and 2) "deplorable" and 3) dishonest and 4) "hurtful" and 5) shallow and 6) unloving and 7) "petty" and 8 ) "juvenile" and 9) "narrow" and 10) "simplistic" and 11) "sad" and 12) "childish."

One of the things you're missing is that the church has been publicly slurring Party A for decades. The church teaches they are deviant and counterfeit etc. etc. The church calls them apostate. The church excommunicates them for getting married. The church excludes their children from participation in saving ordinances. The church has spewed the first slurs, repeatedly, with the loudest microphone. Now they try to pretend like it's love. They may fool many who are church broke, but I'm not falling for it any more. Is that okay with you, or do I need to take your way or the highway?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is this the policy about same-sex marriage being apostasy and/or not baptizing children of ssm couples?

The first (by members) openly and formally opposes at least two key doctrines, and the second is actually merciful because they are not parents in Zion and held to that standard (D&C 68) and it respects their role that children have claim upon them until they are of age (D&C 83).

There is NOTHING respectful about the exclusion policy. It's shameful hypocrisy.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Interesting.  Your words above about being "intolerant of a diversity or opposing viewpoints" and "taking the stance of 'it's my way or the highway'" and accusations against others of "not acting in good faith" are EXACTLY how I would characterize your previous words and approach in this thread to the posts of other Latter-day Saints who hold a more inclusive belief that same-sex couples are living the law of chastity, which could someday be sanctioned by the church. 

For example, the following two (separate) posts earlier in this thread:

A lack of tolerance for a diversity of or opposing viewpoints?  Check.

"None.  At All."  My way or the highway?  Check.

"There is no good faith claim to be made..."  Accusations of not acting in good faith?  Check-check.

Pot.... Kettle...?

Nope.  No pot/kettle problem here.  I am fine with differences of opinion about LDS doctrines and practices.  I am far less patient with flagrant misrepresentations of LDS doctrines and practices.  

Opposing viewpoints?  I'm fine with that.  

Flagrantly misrepresenting the teachings of the LDS Church . . . not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is horrible about it?  Plenty of people think that consuming mind-altering substances is socially/morally acceptable, while others disagree.  

Why?  Analogies are, after all, comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things.  Reasonable minds disagree about the use of marijuana, right?  It's not a foregone conclusion that dating Mary Jane is an innately terrible thing.  Reasonable minds can disagree about that (to some extent, anyway).

The same goes for same-sex marriage.

Not "the same."

Again, this is an analogy.

And again, it's a horrible one.  Comparing a drunk and stoned grandson showing up at his grandmother's house (who ends up yelling at her) to a grandson who is gay coming to her home is a horrible comparison.  It's hard to believe anyone would seriously use this analogy.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It isn't THE deciding factor, since the law can be broken by both married and unmarried persons. It comes in handy when trying to understand what "legally married" and "spouse" mean when understanding those relevant applications of the law of chastity.

Again, should have left the wording of the law alone.

Now it requires interpretation by the Church.
The law we covenant to follow says what it says.  It used to be clearer/stricter.  Now it is less so.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And again, it's a horrible one.  

No, it's not.  But if you don't like it, feel free to ignore it.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Comparing a drunk and stoned grandson showing up at his grandmother's house (who ends up yelling at her) to a grandson who is gay coming to her home is a horrible comparison.  

That wasn't the comparison.  The comparison pertained to whether my grandmother was obligated to accept his behaviors and embrace/endorse them by allowing them in her home.  I don't think she was so obligated.  The other part of the comparison is whether Latter-day Saints are obligated to accept same-sex marriage and embrace/endorse them by attending.  I don't think we are so obligated.  I think individuals should be at liberty to make up their own minds about such things, perhaps without having their character and integrity publicly excoriated (HJW, call your office).

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's hard to believe anyone would seriously use this analogy.

Then feel free to ignore it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not.  But if you don't like it, feel free to ignore it.

In case you didn't notice, I was not the only one here who didn't "like it".  It's insulting to all those who are gay (or who have family members or friends who are gay) to compare them to drunks or drug addicts.  

Period.

And no, I will not ignore these types of analogies and will continue to speak out against them when I see them.  (But feel free to ignore the objections  )

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a fair question.  I think the Church is opposed to "medical marijuana," but I'm not sure about the particulars.

In any event, my hypothetical pertains to recreational MJ use by a Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac

At the moment it is opposed to medical marijuana until more research can be done on the drug (also it is still a federally illegal drug), but not opposed to other cannabis based drugs for relieving pain.