Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality

rockpond

By rockpond
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course SSM, which is now legalized, is neither adultery nor fornication. Adultery is an extramarital relationship, so that doesn't apply. Fornication is a relationship when one is unmarried, so that doesn't apply.

I find it interesting that he seems to be blaming the Obama administration, but IIRC even Obama was against SSM at the beginning of his term. So the Elder Perry seems to be more accurate in claiming that the Supreme Court is listening to the voice of the people...ie the citizenship. Of course that's not really true either since the courts aren't democratic in that way. There seems to be an inability for church leaders to recognize that their desire to discriminate against SSM couples ise simply on the wrong side of the law.

Judiciary edicts don't change God's laws. Homosexual behavior is still violating the law of chastity. 

4
Link to comment
Honorentheos Proficient

Honorentheos

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Supreme Court doesn't get to change Gid's definition of marriage. Neither do you. 

You said it violated the law of chastity. It isn't about the definition of marriage or what you think God thinks because a church that has a bad track record on this sort of thing claims it can speak for God. But even then, given the specific language used if legally married, how does it violate the law of chastity?

1
Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

You said it violated the law of chastity. It isn't about the definition of marriage or what you think God thinks because a church that has a bad track record on this sort of thing claims it can speak for God. But even then, given the specific language used if legally married, how does it violate the law of chastity?

The context of this discussion is the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In that context, no unauthorized or outside entity is entitled to redefine marriage or what constitutes the law of chastity. Not the Supreme Court. Not the Congress. Not the individual state legislatures. Certainly not you. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
2
Link to comment
Honorentheos Proficient

Honorentheos

Posted
Posted
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The context of this discussion is the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In that context, no unauthorized or outside entity is entitled to redefine marriage or what constitutes the las of chastity. Not the Supreme Court. Not the Congress. Not the individual state legislatures. Certainly not you. 

Again, you're missing the point. There is one place I know of where the law of chastity is spelled out. You know what I mean. And if legally married, what makes it a violation of the law of chastity?

Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

Again, you're missing the point. There is one place I know of where the law of chastity is spelled out. You know what I mean. And if legally married, what makes it a violation of the law of chastity?

Oh, I get your point all right. I'm saying it's totally bogus. 

By the way, I hope you're not using lame rationalizations like this to lie to get a temple recommend or advising others to do so. 

2
Link to comment
Honorentheos Proficient

Honorentheos

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I get your point all right. I'm saying it's totally bogus. 

By the way, I hope you're not using lame rationalizations like this to lie to get a temple recommend or advising others to do so. 

lol.

I'm not a member anymore, more or less. I wouldn't take a recommend if it came with a hundred dollar bill attached if I had to also use it.

But I'll bet you this - there will be a day when an apologist will point to the fact the law of chastity does not speak about homosexuality and will be throwing the thinking you are sharing here under the bus using the exact same logic I am applying. It will be something about God not actually saying it but the times and culture unfortunately causing leaders to insert their own biased beliefs so God had to work with what he had. Refer to the essay on the priesthood ban if still unsure about this.

If legally married, there is no reason to say they are violating the law of chastity. You can complain about the fact it is now considered legal I guess. But you can't change the fact they are not unchaste if they are legally married and faithful.

Edited by Honorentheos
2
Link to comment
ksfisher Grand Master

ksfisher

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Again, you're missing the point. There is one place I know of where the law of chastity is spelled out. You know what I mean. And if legally married, what makes it a violation of the law of chastity?

+100 rep points for completely wresting the word of god out of this galaxy.

2
Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

lol.

I'm not a member anymore, more or less. I wouldn't take a recommend if it came with a hundred dollar bill attached if I had to also use it.

But I'll bet you this - there will be a day when an apologist will point to the fact the law of chastity does not speak about homosexuality and will be throwing the thinking you are sharing here under the bus using the exact same logic I am applying. It will be something about God not actually saying it but the times and culture unfortunately causing leaders to insert their own biased beliefs so God had to work with what he had. Refer to the essay on the priesthood ban if still unsure about this.

If legally married, there is no reason to say they are violating the law of chastity. You can complain about the fact it is now considered legal I guess. But you can't change the fact they are not unchaste if they are legally married and faithful.

Dream on. 

Link to comment
Honorentheos Proficient

Honorentheos

Posted
Posted
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You're talking jibberish. 

That for me to be wrong the Mormon church can't change it's stance on marriage equality FOR EVER while to be right I have an infinite amount of time going forward in which the LDS church is almost guaranteed to move on the subject even if it will be way behind the times is jibberish? It's really just math.

1
Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

That for me to be wrong the Mormon church can't change it's stance on marriage equality FOR EVER while to be right I have an infinite amount of time going forward in which the LDS church is almost guaranteed to move on the subject even if it will be way behind the times is jibberish? It's really just math.

As though the opinion of a covenant breaker even matters in such things. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Honorentheos Proficient

Honorentheos

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As though the opinion of a covenant breaker even matters in such things. 

I asked you to explain a comment you made that seems to ignore the simple language of the law of chastity and you turn to ad hominals as a response? You do realize that is essentially conceding the argument I suppose.

Edited by Honorentheos
1
Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I asked you to explain a comment you made that seems to ignore the simple language of the law of chastity and you turn to ad hominals as a response? You do realize that is essentially conceding the argument I suppose.

No, in effect it's calling the argument what it is: a load of dross. And that's being polite. 

Link to comment
Honorentheos Proficient

Honorentheos

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I asked you to explain a comment you made that seems to ignore the simple language of the law of chastity and you turn to ad hominals as a response? You do realize that is essentially conceding the argument I suppose.

 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, in effect it's calling the argument what it is: a load of dross. And that's being polite. 

If true that would make it all the more embarrassing you had to resort so quickly with an ad hom. 

Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Grand Master

Hamba Tuhan

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

But I'll bet you this - there will be a day when an apologist will point to the fact the law of chastity does not speak about homosexuality and will be throwing the thinking you are sharing here under the bus using the exact same logic I am applying.

I'm happy to be party to this bet!

1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...