MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality

[Hamba Tuhan]

By the way, I really enjoyed reading the advice from this meeting and feel motivated by it. Good stuff! I'm so grateful for inspired priesthood leaders!

[Scott Lloyd]

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. 

[Scott Lloyd]

How I miss Elder Perry!

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Judiciary edicts don't change God's laws.

For that matter, neither do legislative votes or citizen plebiscites. 

[Honorentheos]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Homosexual behavior is still violating the law of chastity. 

How so? If one is married what makes it unchaste?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

How so? If one is married what makes it unchaste?

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

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Honorentheos]

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?

[Scott Lloyd]

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 August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Honorentheos]

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?

[Scott Lloyd]

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. 

[Honorentheos]

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 August 9, 2017 by Honorentheos

[ksfisher]

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.

[Johnnie Cake]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How I miss Elder Perry!

Haha...he interviewed me to be Stake President 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Haha...he interviewed me to be Stake President 

you used to be a stake president? I didn't know that! He came here in 1978 and created the stake

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you used to be a stake president? I didn't know that! He came here in 1978 and created the stake

And I once saw him at Maddox Restaurant in Perry, Utah, known for its steaks! 

[Honorentheos]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

Just putting on my future LDS apologist hat.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Scott Lloyd]

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. 

[Honorentheos]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Dream on. 

It's happened before. The conditions are the same. I'm taking the safest bet possible in this scenario, my friend.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

It's happened before. The conditions are the same. I'm taking the safest bet possible in this scenario, my friend.

You're talking jibberish. 

[Honorentheos]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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 August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Honorentheos]

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 August 9, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Scott Lloyd]

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. 

[Honorentheos]

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. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

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!