Alleged Mormon rudeness about homosexuality

[Damien the Leper]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

Its discussion of to'ebah is, in my view, an anti-Christian polemic specifically because the term as applied by Jews and Christians to homosexual relations is expressly included in Leviticus and elsewhere, including the Greek New Testament, yet is not so applied by the smaller liberal Christian and Jewish minorities.  From this, the author(s) conclude that only those whom the author(s) can call names accept the plain language of Leviticus and the Greek New Testament, and those who don't accept that plain language don't get called those names.

That's what's different.  In the pre-PC days when my link was created.

That's all.

Anti-christian? That's a big stretch.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Your question at the end of this rather rude.

For what it's worth, it doesn't bother me to be compared with Juliann. So if HJW meant it as an insult, it was wasted on me. 

[Yirgacheffe]

11 hours ago, Valentinus said:

It is. It's condescending. Personally, when one uses such scare quotes it makes it difficult to consider taking them seriously. I tend to laugh at people like that.

I always read them as sarcasm quotes not scare quotes.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Mormons accept the Bible. We have evolved in reference as to what we want our secular government to do about it.

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:

• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22^.
• "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13.

Using the old testament to support modern beliefs is fraught with problems. God and his prophets do not emerge from the OT on high ground.  Genocide, rape, Murder of innocents, including women and children, turning a women into salt, killing Egyptian babies, screwing over Job, drowning innocent children and animals,  God was a moral monster in the Old Testament.  

Is god a monster?  No, I don't believe so.  I don't believe god exists.  What I believe is that the old testament was written by a ancient, nomadic tribe of goat hearers who used their version of god to justify their despicable actions and wars. 

If you quote the OT in support of anything: polygamy, infallibility of prophets, blood lines, chosen people or whatever, I will give back to you 10x verses of how god is a jerk and shouldn't be worshiped.

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

nomadic tribe of goat hearers

Is this basically the reverse of a goat whisperer?

[Thinking]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So my conclusion from this is that, though homosexuality is often referred to by religionists as an "abomination," it does not occur nearly as much from Mormons as it does from other sources and not nearly as often from Mormons as one might be led to believe.

I'm not sure what your point is. The way I see it, these are the possibilities.

• If calling homosexuality an abomination is a good thing, then Mormons need to speak out more because their fellow religionists are rendering the Mormons insignificant. Just ask Google.
• If calling homosexuality an abomination is a bad thing, then Mormons are OK because they are not as bad as those other religionists who show up ahead of Mormons on Google. After all, we all know that a Google search trumps all. We also know that it's OK to be bad as long as somebody else is badder.
• If calling homosexuality an abomination is a neutral thing, then where the Mormons show up on a Google search is irrelevant.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Plus ca change ... If it's happened before, it'll happen again, and for the same reasons.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My Google search indicates it is used a great deal in relation to homosexuality, just not by Mormons, who tend to be more civil than average in their discourse. 

I don't think it's a good evaluation to say "Mormons tend to be more civil than average" because Mormons use the term abomination less than others.  What other terms or ideas did you consider in your evaluation?  How would you know whose being more civil?  I will bring up the point I raised earlier though--the Church has officially adopted a position regarding gay marriage that is essentially calling gay marriage an abomination.  So I think, if I were in a gay marriage and an LDS person tells me that my marriage "represents a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline", while my Baptist neighbor says me being gay, or practicing or however they wish to say it, "is an abomination", I'm not sure which would be more rude-sounding. 

I say if your position is that "same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline" then you should just accept that you are essentially saying gay marriage is an abomination and that both phrases can come off as equally rude--depending on context of course.  But, again, if that's your position, don't shy away from it and think you aren't really being rude because you don't use an archaic sounding word.  That's just silly semantics, as some have pointed out, I believe. 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

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

Let's do a harder one.

Yes, eventually Christians abandoned the traditional dietary restrictions (not to mention Sabbath observance). But that's not what Peter's vision was about.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

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.

Yes, just like anti-Mormons in describing the 'Mormon "church"'. They have their justifications too.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Yes, eventually Christians abandoned the traditional dietary restrictions (not to mention Sabbath observance). But that's not what Peter's vision was about.

"Eventually" implies a long time and an organic development.

This occurred in the ca. 30 years between assassination and the Temple's destruction.

And you still haven't come up with the tablecloth vision wrt homosexuality being removed from the list.

Care to?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"Eventually" implies a long time and an organic development.

This occurred in the ca. 30 years between assassination and the Temple's destruction.

And you still haven't come up with the tablecloth vision wrt homosexuality being removed from the list.

Care to?

You still haven't come up with a tablecloth vision of lobster being removed from the list.

And yes, we're talking about a long time and organic development when it comes to dietary restrictions and Christianity.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think it's a good evaluation to say "Mormons tend to be more civil than average" because Mormons use the term abomination less than others.  What other terms or ideas did you consider in your evaluation?  How would you know whose being more civil?  I will bring up the point I raised earlier though--the Church has officially adopted a position regarding gay marriage that is essentially calling gay marriage an abomination.  So I think, if I were in a gay marriage and an LDS person tells me that my marriage "represents a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline", while my Baptist neighbor says me being gay, or practicing or however they wish to say it, "is an abomination", I'm not sure which would be more rude-sounding. 

I say if your position is that "same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline" then you should just accept that you are essentially saying gay marriage is an abomination and that both phrases can come off as equally rude--depending on context of course.  But, again, if that's your position, don't shy away from it and think you aren't really being rude because you don't use an archaic sounding word.  That's just silly semantics, as some have pointed out, I believe. 

I completely agree with what you wrote and I really find this thread nothing short of unbelievable.  I have had gay marriage compared to marrying barnyard animals, robots, computers, you name it.   I have heard gay marriage referred to as the work of Satan.  Gay marriage is a sure sign that Satan has taken over the earth and wickedness is so bad that Christ will be arriving sometime very soon.  I have heard gay families referred to as not really a family, Satans counterfeit, or some distortion of what real families are.  You name it, gay marriage is almost always treated with disrespect and belittlement.  People like Scott rarely can write gay marriage without the scare gay "marriage" because after all, it is not a real marriage. He is certainly not the only one.

If any gay person referred to the Mormon "church" and it's "prophet" and "12 apostles" with the constant scare quotes, Scott and others would be right there condemning the person for being "disrespectful at best, if not mocking and sacrilegious."  

I can't think of a major church that has shown so much disrespect for gay couples.  The litnus test certainly  is not limited to just how many times someone uses the word abomination.  Honestly, I can't even see how so many Mormons can pretend that the church and some people on this board have shown nothing but disrespect for gay couples and their marriages.

Calm was absolutely right to call you out Scott.  You have shown nothing but contempt and disrespect for gays wanting loving relationship within the bounds of a civil marriage.  You don't just keep it as a religious belief, you believe that the church was right to go after those gay couples and work to take away the civil rights of gays to marry.  Nothing short of obliterating gay marriage and the civil rights of gays is going to be enough for you.

I rarely get this personal, but since Scott opened this thread, I think it is one time that his behavior towards the subject that he opened the thread about be addressed.

I have said my piece.  Carry on.

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, just like anti-Mormons in describing the 'Mormon "church"'. They have their justifications too.

Exactly. Am I supposed to be offended by such, the way that your mob seem to fly to pieces when simple speech marks interrupt the triumphalism of your ascendant hegemony?

[USU78]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

You still haven't come up with a tablecloth vision of lobster being removed from the list.

And yes, we're talking about a long time and organic development when it comes to dietary restrictions and Christianity.

Implicit in James' "sentence."

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly. Am I supposed to be offended by such, the way that your mob seem to fly to pieces when simple speech marks interrupt the triumphalism of your ascendant hegemony?

It's meant to be offensive, just like your use of the term "mob." I won't tell you how to feel, though.

[Damien the Leper]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For what it's worth, it doesn't bother me to be compared with Juliann. So if HJW meant it as an insult, it was wasted on me. 

And you're a better man for it. I have no problem with Juliann. She's always been kind to me. I don't appreciate dragging a person through the mud who I have yet to see post in this thread.

[ttribe]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

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.

Umm, okay.  So, do I take that to mean that the tactical use of an emotional barb to score rhetorical points is more important to you than reaching any kind of respectful understanding with the person you are debating?

[Damien the Leper]

15 hours 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 don't want to ever see the church compelled to embrace something that goes against it's deeply held doctrine. I can empathize with this post.

[Meerkat]

22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, we'll find many inflammatory words about SSM amongst church members. IMO- this board illustrates this truth on multiple threads; I seem to recall words like abomination, disgusting, perversion, unnatural, etc  have been used. It is clear that there are some on this board who view SSM & h0mosxuality this way and are not shy about using inflammatory language to describe it. I doubt those individuals would even argue the case because they feel morally superior and righteous in calling out this extreme wickedness.

If this kind of language can be found on this board is it unreasonable to think it is used by other Mormons not on this board? That doesn't mean that Mormons are worse than other fundamentalists who might also describe it that way, but do Mormons want to be like fundamentalist evangelicals?

So yes, many Mormons are rude about SSM. Some even seem to revel in calling out the wickedness with sharp language. It's hard to imagine how it could be defended that there isn't rudeness amongst Mormons. Not all...obviously...but some. IMO, too many.

So we are only talking about rudeness on one side of the discussion, right? It wouldn't hurt for both sides to take a chill pill, IMO.

Here's a scripture that perhaps all can agree on: "17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." Rom. 14:17-19

I would like to learn how to discuss dicey issues using the language of diplomacy, in the Spirit of Roberts Rules of Order. Diplomacy is the "art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way."  I do not have that skill, but would like to work toward it.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Meerkat

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Your question at the end of this rather rude.

I agree it was snarky, but Scott's posts were as well (to both HJW and then to Julie).  He reacted and treated both of them in a rude manner for just pointing out who it was using semantics in this thread (Scott).  He should have just owned up to it and moved on, IMO.  

Edited July 14, 2017 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

On 7/13/2017 at 1:00 PM, snowflake said:

Would it be fair to call in "sinful", as described by the Bible?

Yes, or forbidden. to'evot is forbidden. I don't know that gays will find that much kindlier. It is not something God will ever promote or condone, despite efforts to make it so. 

There are/were many hunter/gatherer societies where homosexuality was essentially non-existent. There are some where it was part of the rite of passage such as head-hunter societies - not good promotional material for the practice. Some will take this comment as rudeness I'm sure, but it is just anthropology.

Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

del, sorry software wasn't working right

Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

On 7/13/2017 at 1:00 PM, snowflake said:

 

del, sorry software wasn't working right

Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

del, sorry software wasn't working right

Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament