Alleged Mormon rudeness about homosexuality

[poptart]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

guys  ...  goys  ...  little wordplay  ... not worth much, but I crack myself up 

oi vey

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

Or replace "marriage" with "church" or "religion" or "faith".... No matter what side of an LDS-themed argument I've found myself on I really dislike when some members of the Post-Mo crowd use the acronym - TSCC (That So Called Church).  IMO, the use of scare quotes around *marriage* in the SSM debate is the functional equivalent of TSCC, just from the other side of the aisle.  There are no clean hands in any of these debates.  It's rather discouraging, really.

Sometimes I use "" around "gay marriage" because I am talking about the phrase, the words, not what they stand for, as I am doing here in order to identify exactly what words I am talking about. I put quotes if the debate is the usage of the phrase.  I apologize if anyone thinks .I am using scare quotes to question the authenticity of the phrase (I tend to be profluidity in language on most occasions except turning words into vulgarities, which I definitely don't view the phrase "gay marriage" to be doing).  My scare quotes are the single quotes (like 'a'), I never use the double quotes for that purpose.

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

After Calm identified it as one word that might be deemed a rude expression if one applies it to gay marriage, I got curious about how frequently Mormons thus apply the term. So I used  the only quick metric I could think of at the moment, which was to do a Google search.

 

I singled "abomination" and "perverse" out because there are a very few (two current ones, I believe, but there might be three or four, would need to search) posters on this board who consistently use the two terms for that particular rite.  I had just read it in another thread and it was fresh in my mind.

It has been a long time since I have seen or heard the word "abomination" elsewhere in Church arenas in regards to homosexuality (current usage).  I am not sure I have ever heard it in regards to gay marriage at church, I used to hear the term in comments among members outside of Church meetings in regards to homosexuality in general, but that is probably over 35 years ago and maybe 40 (my youth and teen years, it was fading from use in my memory by my early twenties, which was when homosexuality as a life choice began to be seriously discussed in my Church environment; growing up in the San Francisco area, that had been accepted in my secular environment as a legitimate topic as long as I can remember it being discussed...though I remember some ridicule according back in Illinois when I was there in  junior high).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've not found the board search software to be very good.

 

I use google site search unless I am looking at a specific poster and trying to find a comment I think I remember them saying.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Try this one, pre-political correctness:  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/352-abomination

In my own offerings, I limit the usage to compulsory participation in homosexual marriage rites.  I do so in reliance on the Book of Daniel and its echoes in the Greek New Testament.

The Abomination of Desolation, the perversion of the use of G-d's Temple and the rites performed therein, is, in my view, the scriptural usage most applicable to homosexual marriage rites.

What of those who choose to participate?  Is it the rite itself as well or only the experience of being forced to participate?  Just want to clarify.

If you have answered this already, ignore.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I know what they're taught in a round about way in the church and what they read in the Bible, and I've read the words on this board from some LDS members, very few, luckily. 

You're right, I assume too much, but since it is a teaching that gays aren't suppose to marry and act on their homosexuality in the church, I figured LDS would believe what they're taught and that it is it's an abomination.

Something can be a sin or immoral without being an abomination.  I don't think I have ever spoken to a Mormon before who has equated the two, seen them as interchangeable.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

So how would you feel if someone thought you were a sinner because you are married to your wife? See how insane that would feel? The Bible says many things that we don't have a clue are coming from God. I would steer clear of calling anyone a sinner unless you are that God (not that you were exactly). And whenever we use God's name in error, then we take His name in vain. 

Tacenda, you have become afraid of the reality.  Think about it for just a few moments; throughout history this was a condemned behavior by all major civilizations.  Why?  Please do not think they were stupid; before doing that pick up some of the books written by these people from thousands of years ago.  

It is anathema to take the position that we cannot know what sin is because in the knowing we condemn sinful behavior.  Who would want you to be confused about what is and what is not sin?  Please answer this.

Definitions can change with anyone; they moment an individual wants to create a definition, boom, we have a new use for a word that has had only one meaning for THOUSANDS of years.  Not last week; not fifty years ago, but thousands of years ago.  A marriage has been the union of a man and woman for the creation of posterity.  Full stop.  It has never meant - two people love each other so they are married regardless of their sex/gender.  

Today we use the word marriage for any relationship between anyone that wants to be together for longer than it takes to go to the courthouse.  Shazam, you are now married.  Just because society today is using this term more loosely does not mean that it is okay or that somehow it has become acceptable to God.

Understand, I support civil unions for everyone that wants one.  I don't care for your sex, your preference, etc.  To me a civil union grants some beneficial rights in our tax system and social system that I feel should be given to all.  Marriage just is not a word that fits (and yet I use the term gay marriage often).  

No, Tacenda, I do not buy into the argument that the marriage between a man and woman is a sin or has ever been considered a sin.  I will not put my head in the sand; I will not equivocate in my understanding and knowledge of scripture or the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I will not call white black or black white.  I will not call good evil or evil good.  Why do you?

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What of those who choose to participate?  Is it the rite itself as well or only the experience of being forced to participate?  Just want to clarify.

If you have answered this already, ignore.

My fear is government compelling the Church to open up both local meeting houses and temples to homosexual marriages.

This has been the stated goal of many, so I'm not making this up.  And every time I see homosexual groups storm the fences or, in their rage, make threatening noises against the Church, I hear those words and remember Reynolds and my great grandfathers going to jail.

Compulsory participation in those rites by private citizens is a very small step away.  I am the baker.  I am the florist.  I am the owner of the wedding chapel.  I am the wedding planner.

And I am the Mormon boy who sees the homosexual Abomination of Desolation in the sealing rooms of LDS Temples, over my dead body.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My fear is government compelling the Church to open up both local meeting houses and temples to homosexual marriages.

This has been the stated goal of many, so I'm not making this up.  And every time I see homosexual groups storm the fences or, in their rage, make threatening noises against the Church, I hear those words and remember Reynolds and my great grandfathers going to jail.

Compulsory participation in those rites by private citizens is a very small step away.  I am the baker.  I am the florist.  I am the owner of the wedding chapel.  I am the wedding planner.

And I am the Mormon boy who sees the homosexual Abomination of Desolation in the sealing rooms of LDS Temples, over my dead body.

I highly doubt it, but maybe...

A year or so ago I would have totally disagreed, now not so much, because I've seen talk of it. Although, take that back, just because a gay couple might want to marry in the temple doesn't mean that the government will force the church to marry them, or do anything to hurt freedom of religion. It's the backbone of our country's existance, IMO.  

Edited July 14, 2017 by Tacenda

[Calm]

 

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

This confuses me. It begs the question:

"So just because you no longer believe the LDS church is a "so-called church"?"

That would be like an active member telling a Post-Mo they're a "so-called good person". 

It is usually used by critics who are fond of promoting the idea that the Church is more corporation than Church or it exists primarily to make money.  

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that seems to be the word of choice when one wants to express unmitigated disapproval of homosexuality -- at least that's what I gather from my Google search. So Mormons would in theory be just as apt to use it as anyone else -- if they were indeed wont to be rude.

It comes across to me in its usage usually coupled more with disgust than even just simple extreme disapproval (not just wrong, but repulsively wrong).  I don't claim everyone uses it that way these days, but enough do, that is my first impression usually.

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily rude to use useful terms, having agreed-upon definitions, in conversation even about topics that can generate emotional responses in people.

What is being debated though is if "abomination" is an agreed upon definition, it seems to me.  If it is not actually agreed upon, just saying it is seems hardly enough to justify its use as "not rude".

If your usage is limited solely to forced participation in a religiously rejected rite that desecrates a sacred rite, place, or a person in their religious view, then all other usages of abomination with homosexuality in the past would be incorrect since perception that there exists the chance or occurrence of forced participation in homosexual marriages has only existed in the past few years.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My fear is government compelling the Church to open up both local meeting houses and temples to homosexual marriages.

This has been the stated goal of many, so I'm not making this up.  And every time I see homosexual groups storm the fences or, in their rage, make threatening noises against the Church, I hear those words and remember Reynolds and my great grandfathers going to jail.

Compulsory participation in those rites by private citizens is a very small step away.  I am the baker.  I am the florist.  I am the owner of the wedding chapel.  I am the wedding planner.

And I am the Mormon boy who sees the homosexual Abomination of Desolation in the sealing rooms of LDS Temples, over my dead body.

So no other homosexual activity is labeled in this fashion by you?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

So no other homosexual activity is labeled in this fashion by you?

Not that I recall

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I highly doubt it, but maybe...

A year or so ago I would have totally disagreed, now not so much, because I've seen talk of it. Although, take that back, just because a gay couple might want to marry in the temple doesn't mean that the government will force the church to marry them, or do anything to hurt freedom of religion. It's the backbone of our country's existance, IMO.  

It has come up in the context of pulling tax treatment of donations. Using IRS as one possible tool to attack. The second tool is compulsory participation in the rites on Church ground

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not that I recall

A search on your name confirms it (there have been others using it in other ways, but not you)  Thanks for the clarification.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I knew you would bring this up because it's the only possible defense.

 

I wouldn't say that. I would say your argument raises this objection by its very nature.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

But the fact is that since eternal marriage between men and women, and bringing forth children within that everlasting marriage covenant, is the one essential commandment that, beyond all the others, guarantees the fulness of exaltation in the celestial kingdom and a concurrent fulness of eternal joy, the time for the Lord to have made a commandment for men and men and women and women to enter barren same sex unions would have been at the same time that he gave the FIRST commandment. But he didn't. And he couldn't. Why? Because the first commandment has two parts. The first part being for men and women to leave their fathers and mothers and to marry after coming of age. The second part of the first commandment is for these married men and women to have children.

 

What makes you think it was the first commandment? And if eternal marriage comes to us pretty late, not until the 19th century.

It's a mistake to think the story of Adam and Eve is a history of two living people. Adam and Eve are symbols.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the above immutable facts necessitate the following all-important question be answered: How could the sons and daughters of God keep and fulfill His commandment to have children if they marry individuals of the same sex, thereby making it impossible to keep and fulfill the commandment to bear children? 

It's a big mistake for gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex. So having natural children is off the table regardless. So why not get married to someone of the same gender and have a happier and fuller life? They're also in a great position to adopt.

 

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

It's not of little significance to note that even before Eden, when the spirit sons and daughters of God lived in his immediate presence, there was a plain and unambiguous commandment given to bring forth children. By marrying individuals of the same sex, the purposes and the commandments of God are frustrated and his word returns unfulfilled and void. The time to have made an exception for gay marriage should have at the time when the first commandment was given, But because such a clarifying commandment wasn't given, we are all under the solemn obligation to enter marriage covenants where bringing forth children is possible -- either in this world or the world to come.

How do the sons and daughter of God keep the commandment to leave their fathers and mothers, enter the covenant of marriage, and bring forth children if they covenant to remain in unions that are barren by very nature? 

As usual, the meaning of the scriptures is completely destroyed by literalism.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Bad argument, though I loves me some treyf as much as the next goy.

Point me to the tablecloth vision that removes the to'ebah designation for homosexual relations, lest I accuse you of arguing from silence.

I guess abominations are only bad when someone other than you partakes. That's typical - prejudice is about demonizing people who are different. Jesus said that people who get divorced and remarry are adulterers, But it's easier for a lot of people to put themselves in the place of a divorcee than put themselves in the place of a gay person. It's hard to empathize with something you can't understand. So adultery is cool, but gay relationships aren't. At least in some circles. 

Point me to a tablecloth vision that removes lobster from the abomination list. There isn't one.

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I guess abominations are only bad when someone other than you partakes. That's typical - prejudice is about demonizing people who are different. Jesus said that people who get divorced and remarry are adulterers, But it's easier for a lot of people to put themselves in the place of a divorcee than put themselves in the place of a gay person. It's hard to empathize with something you can't understand. So adultery is cool, but gay relationships aren't. At least in some circles. 

Point me to a tablecloth vision that removes lobster from the abomination list. There isn't one.

At the Jerusalem conference regarding goyische converts and the treyf food rules, what restriction remained in place?

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

At the Jerusalem conference regarding goyische converts and the treyf food rules, what restriction remained in place?

The tablecloth had nothing to do with food. It was about people. Food was the symbol.

[USU78]

Just now, Gray said:

The tablecloth had nothing to do with food. It was about people. Food was the symbol.

Come on. Say it with me: "This is our sentence, that ...

[USU78]

Acts 15:20. Shellfish would run you covered under the "not in the prohibited category."

Let's do a harder one.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Something can be a sin or immoral without being an abomination.  I don't think I have ever spoken to a Mormon before who has equated the two, seen them as interchangeable.

Sin, immoral, wickedness, abomination, or any other word really all speaks to the same thing.  Finding nicer words to say perhaps makes for more civil conversations but they don't really change the result.  If it perverts the right way of the Lord, it leads to one destination

3 Nephi 28:14-15 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since the Hebrew ritual term to'ebah comes from an Egyptian word meaning "pure," it is likely that the Israelites meant it to mean "impure" and any synonyms you care to apply it to.  The 19th century Mormon practice of polygyny was described by many Americans as "barbaric."  People tend to use emotive terms for things they don't like or approve of.

I agree.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

The second tool is compulsory participation in the rites on Church ground

This would not happen. The ACLU would come to your defense (if you'd let them, of course  )

[Damien the Leper]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Geesh! Got some thin skin there, Scott!

I reject your invitation to withdraw from this conversation.  

I will leave the conversation when I decide, not because you rudely ask me to leave. Channeling your inner Julianne?

Your question at the end of this rather rude.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Valentinus said:

It's rather juvenile and petulant.

 

9 hours ago, ttribe said:

I might add that, IMO, the rhetorical use of scare quotes around the word *marriage* falls under that description as well.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I see it instead as an assertion of subaltern defiance, a bit like Winston Smith writing, 'two and two make "five"'.

 

'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words'. -- Orwell, 1984.