Treat gay people as a race.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

Mathew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb...

Just as some are born as eunuchs, others are born gay - I have someone in my family that really and truly was born that way.  

 

Yes, but MG isn't talking about being born gay, because that wouldn't make any sense.  I don't think the church's stance on being born gay is what he is talking about the church being wrong about in 35/40 years.  He's talking about the church's stance on living a gay lifestyle, of having gay relationships, and SSM.

Being born gay could easily be compared to being born a specific race, but choosing to live a gay lifestyle (the stance he wants to see changed) isn't obviously similar.  He needs to make a case for it with evidence to support his assertions.  

 

[changed]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but MG isn't talking about being born gay, because that wouldn't make any sense.  I don't think the church's stance on being born gay is what he is talking about the church being wrong about in 35/40 years.  He's talking about the church's stance on living a gay lifestyle, of having gay relationships, and SSM.

Being born gay could easily be compared to being born a specific race, but choosing to live a gay lifestyle (the stance he wants to see changed) isn't obviously similar.  He needs to make a case for it with evidence to support his assertions.  

 

Temple marriage is a required part of salvation in the LDS faith - would you want to marry someone who was gay?  would you allow your children to marry someone who was gay?  Would you spend your entire life single?  With no family - because of how you were born?  LDS culture would like to deny LGBT people from having a family and being exalted... that is wrong.  

[Marginal Gains]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but MG isn't talking about being born gay, because that wouldn't make any sense.  I don't think the church's stance on being born gay is what he is talking about the church being wrong about in 35/40 years.  He's talking about the church's stance on living a gay lifestyle, of having gay relationships, and SSM.

Being born gay could easily be compared to being born a specific race, but choosing to live a gay lifestyle (the stance he wants to see changed) isn't obviously similar.  He needs to make a case for it with evidence to support his assertions.  

 

I’m talking about people born gay who live authentically.

Your analogy turns into equating it to be like the Church penalising black people for living a black lifestyle. Which sounds pretty lame, right?

Edited April 24, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

But they aren't a race.  A homosexual lifestyle isn't something you are born with or as, it's a choice.  I think first you have to be able to show that 'treating gay people like a race' is a valid thing to do, before you can ask us to do it.

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is.

Bluebell is speaking of a "homosexual lifestyle."  "Lifestyle" means "the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group."

"Homosexuality" can refer to  "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."

I think Bluebell distinguishes a latent, not-acted-upon, it's-just-there "sexual desire" ("homosexuality") from behavior (sexual activity with someone of the same sex).  The former is generally construed as not being a "choice," but the latter plainly and unequivocally is a "choice."

Thanks,

-Sac

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

LDS culture would like to deny LGBT people from having a family and being exalted... that is wrong.

No, that's what God wants and whatever He wants is what LDS people want.  LDS culture does not "like" to deny it, but it's what God says so they follow it.
It's a difficult thing to understand and accept but I do know a few faithful gay members who are able to choose to remain celibate.  Such people will eventually get all they want and deserve. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

Yes, but MG isn't talking about being born gay, because that wouldn't make any sense.  I don't think the church's stance on being born gay is what he is talking about the church being wrong about in 35/40 years.  He's talking about the church's stance on living a gay lifestyle, of having gay relationships, and SSM.

Being born gay could easily be compared to being born a specific race, but choosing to live a gay lifestyle (the stance he wants to see changed) isn't obviously similar.  He needs to make a case for it with evidence to support his assertions.  

I’m talking about people born gay who live authentically.

What does "live authentically" mean?

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Your analogy turns into equating it to be like the Church penalising black people for living a black lifestyle.

Not at all.  The Priesthood Ban operated to deny the priesthood and entry to the temple based solely on ancestry.  A black person could not, through behavior and choices in life, gain entry to the temple or receive the priesthood.  So "black lifestyle" (whatever that means) did not factor in at all.

In contrast, someone who has same-sex attraction, but who chooses to not act upon it, and instead obeys and keeps the Law of Chastity, is fully able, through behavior and choices in life, to gain entry to the temple and receive the priesthood.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which sounds pretty lame, right?

I have no idea what you mean by "black lifestyle."  I didn't know there as such a thing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Your analogy turns into equating it to be like the Church penalising black people for living a black lifestyle.

What is a black lifestyle?  Whatever that is it does not violate any commandments of God. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by JAHS

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No, that's what God wants and whatever He wants is what LDS people want.  LDS culture does not "like" to deny it, but it's what God says so they follow it.
It's a difficult thing to understand and accept but I do know a few faithful gay members who are able to choose to remain celibate.  Such people will eventually get all they want and deserve. 

Well I think you’re painting all LDS as obedient sheep, which is probably unfair. I think it’s pretty clear that not all LDS want what “God” wants with regards to the barring of same sex couples and their children. Not all LDS think it’s even what God wants. The Church of all groups should recognise that when leaders proclaim “what God wants”, they aren’t always right. 

What’s actually difficult is standing up for your own moral conscience, even when doing so means openly disagreeing with Church leadership. I don’t believe God gave people a brain and a conscience only to have them seconded to the opinion of someone else.

Members need to stop hiding behind Church Leaders and start expressing their own opinions for themselves.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

What is a black lifestyle?  Whatever that is it does not violate any commandments of God. 

Which of the Ten Commandments does being gay violate?

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, changed said:

Temple marriage is a required part of salvation in the LDS faith

Yes.  And that mandate, we believe, comes from God.  So we are not at liberty to deviate from it whenever we choose.

22 minutes ago, changed said:

- would you want to marry someone who was gay? 

Certainly not.  We are all brothers and sisters, after all.  I want them to be saved.  But salvation is based on obedience to God.  We don't get to re-define what God wants us to do.  We don't get to pick and choose.  Romans 10 seems very appropriate here:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

I, too, hope that our gay brothers and sisters "might be saved."  But salvation does not happen when people are "ignorant of God’s righteousness," and instead are "going about to establish their own righteousness, hav[ing] not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The Law of Chastity is a fairly important part of "the righteousness of God."  We are not at liberty to go about and establish our own version of it.

22 minutes ago, changed said:

would you allow your children to marry someone who was gay? 

My child, being an adult, would not need my permission.  So it's not a matter of what I would or would not "allow."

22 minutes ago, changed said:

Would you spend your entire life single? 

I would obey the Law of Chastity.  That means no sex except as between a husband and wife.

I know many, many people in the Church who are single.  Widowed.  Divorced.  Never married.  They can and do lead lives with much richness and value.

22 minutes ago, changed said:

LDS culture would like to deny LGBT people from having a family and being exalted... that is wrong.  

No.  This is not a matter of "culture."  It's a matter of revealed doctrine.

And "LGBT people" have the same access to salvation as the rest of us.  To suggest otherwise . . . is wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m talking about people born gay who live authentically.

Your analogy turns into equating it to be like the Church penalising black people for living a black lifestyle. Which sounds pretty lame, right?

So, people like kindley (who posts on here) who are gay but not living a gay lifestyle are not living authentically?  

To your 'black lifestyle' comment, the church has often taught that all cultural traditions that do not agree with gospel teachings should not be followed (the prophet just spoke in Ghana in Africa a couple of weeks ago about how dowries are against the gospel and members should not be following that tradition).  So while I don't think there is such a thing as a 'black lifestyle' there are lifestyles associated with different cultures that, if followed, will result in a loss of blessings.  I don't consider that lame at all.  

 

[The Mean Farmer]

In scriptures there is a VERY common starting point when society crumbles to a point where the Lord won't protect/help them any longer.

It starts with pride, then the love of riches,  which leads to dividing people by class, which leads to persecution, which leads to strife and war.

 

We don't need another race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, or class.   We need to segregate ourselves into FAR LESS categories.

[changed]

16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well I think you’re painting all LDS as obedient sheep, which is probably unfair. I think it’s pretty clear that not all LDS want what “God” wants with regards to the barring of same sex couples and their children. Not all LDS think it’s even what God wants. The Church of all groups should recognise that when leaders proclaim “what God wants”, they aren’t always right. 

What’s actually difficult is standing up for your own moral conscience, even when doing so means openly disagreeing with Church leadership. I don’t believe God gave people a brain and a conscience only to have them seconded to the opinion of someone else.

Members need to stop hiding behind Church Leaders and start expressing their own opinions for themselves.

 

I think there are a few people who hold a devotion to church leaders and the church, above their devotion to morals, and even to G-d.  Judas was an apostle - does that mean we should follow his example? 

After a painful experience involving a bishopric member (who is now in jail) I have drastically redefined my loyalties.  I now believe that part of the test on this earth is thinking for our self, and having our own personal testimony.  I will not follow any practices - no matter who they come from - that are not loving, kind, charitable, etc.  Not only will I not follow it - I will stand up against it.  

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well I think you’re painting all LDS as obedient sheep, which is probably unfair.

I think it is significant that you think obedience to God as an LDS characteristic is "unfair."

Actually, "obedient sheep" vis-à-vis our relationship to God is not "unfair."  It is what we aspire to achieve, actually.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I think it’s pretty clear that not all LDS want what “God” wants with regards to the barring of same sex couples and their children.

So . . . mindreading.  You are faulting Mormons for things you can't possibly know.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Not all LDS think it’s even what God wants.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church of all groups should recognise that when leaders proclaim “what God wants”, they aren’t always right. 

Okay.  So how do you propose that we discern "what God wants?"

I think we should read the scriptures, listen to living prophets and apostles, and otherwise give the matter real study and effort and prayer.

Are you open to the possiblity that the leaders of the Church are substantively "right" in their understanding and implementation of doctrines and policies regarding homosexual behavior and gay people?

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What’s actually difficult is standing up for your own moral conscience, even when doing so means openly disagreeing with Church leadership.

Yes, that can be difficult.  But then, it is also "actually difficult is standing up for your own moral conscience, even when doing so means openly disagreeing with" popular notions, including when doing so runs the risk of being maligned and insulted and slandered by people like you.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t believe God gave people a brain and a conscience only to have them seconded to the opinion of someone else.

I believe the same thing.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Members need to stop hiding behind Church Leaders and start expressing their own opinions for themselves.

Really?  And if members' opinions embrace what is being taught by the Church rather than what is being taught by people like you, you'd be okay with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...

... This is not a matter of "culture."  It's a matter of revealed doctrine.

And "LGBT people" have the same access to salvation as the rest of us.  To suggest otherwise . . . is wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Revealed by who?  I have not personally had any spiritual confirmations on the doctrine, so I do not buy it.  

The doctrines of men vs. principles of love.  I hold to only one doctrine, which is love.  

[Daniel2]

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, just as race is not "the same" as the other protected classes (such as religious affiliation, gender, age, able-ness, veteran status, national origin, etc).

There are similarities between sexual orientation and race, as there are similarities with and between the other protected classes.

There are differences between sexual orientation and race, as there are differences with and between the other protected classes..

There are elements of un-chosen innateness in all the protected classes.

There are trends around choices and behaviors in all the protected classes.

Sexual orientation, race, and the other protected classes may not all be exactly the same, but there are similarities between them.

Our government recognizes such classifications and has deemed each class worthy of protection from discrimination based on the level of legal scrutiny applied to thereto.

My view,

D

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Daniel2

[changed]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  So how do you propose that we discern "what God wants?"

It is not complicated - if it is just, loving, merciful - then I'm all for it.

We all follow our conscience - the light of Christ.  We follow the spirit.

G-d is the father of all mankind - not just the little %1 who are LDS.  G-d directs everyone through their conscience... 

 

Would you go against your conscience - to follow some guy - some guy you had no spiritual confirmation of?  or would you follow your own conscience?  and the simple common-sense morality?  Do you condemn those who follow their conscience?  

 

I'm reminded that it was religious zealots who killed the Savior... not atheists, not secularists... religious people killed Jesus.  That is one of the biggest lessons in the scriptures for me.

Edited April 24, 2018 by changed

[Calm]

 

1 minute ago, changed said:

 

Revealed by who?  I have not personally had any spiritual confirmations on the doctrine, so I do not buy it.  

The doctrines of men vs. principles of love.  I hold to only one doctrine, which is love.  

But Love is not some concrete or measurable matter like gold, for example, that can be isolated and held independently of how one acts with it.  It is still gold whether used to buy food for the hungry, jewels forthe rich, or just sits in a bank or under the bed.

What Love is defined as varies from person to person.  I assume you believe love is expressed when you prevent your toddlers from running into the street or encourage your teens not to smoke or eat too many sweets, when you take your kids for vaccines and to the dentist.

Whether or not a behaviour expresses and increases the experience of love in the long run can be debated for many behaviours, especially for those in the short run that may seem less than loving and may seem trivial when in the long run they may have life altering effects.

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which of the Ten Commandments does being gay violate?

The 10 commandments aren't the only commandments God gave us. Have you read the New Testament?

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  (D&C 59: 6)
"Anything like unto it" includes homosexual activity.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

Okay.  So how do you propose that we discern "what God wants?"

It is not complicated - if it is just, loving, merciful - then I'm all for it.

So am I.

The Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church is, in my view, "just, loving [and] merciful."  It restricts sexual behavior to the parameters set by God.  If followed, there would be no rape or other forms of sexual abuse, no STIs, no unwanted pregnancies, much fewer elective abortions, no adultery, and on and on and on.  

So does that settle the matter?  Or are things about to become . . . "complicated?"

4 minutes ago, changed said:

We all follow our conscience - the light of Christ.

Indeed.  But there's more than that, right?  It's not like there is a spiritual free-for-all, where we are all at liberty to craft doctrines to our personal likings and preferences.  That would be a doctrinal cacophany.  Anarchy.  Confusion.  

This is why Joseph Smith had the First Vision in 1820, and the subsequent events which led to the restoration of priesthood authority, access to revelation, and so on.  So we have scriptures.  And prophetic authority and revelation.  And personal revelation, to be sure.  

It is possible that we as individuals can become confused or misguided, hence the tremendous value of the "reality check" that come from assessing our personal opinions to see if they are in accordance with the scriptures and with the teachings of modern prophets and apostles.  I am grateful for that, particularly in the era of you-must-either-endorse-and-embrace-homosexual-behavior-and-relationships-without-exception-or-else-we-will-brand-you-a-bigot-and-a-hater-and-ridicule-and-profane-things-you-hold-sacred.

I've had the following quote in my sig line for some years now: "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing."

I invite you to look at our society and see "what everybody else is doing."

I also invite you to consider the possibility that the leaders of the Church are correct in teaching the Law of Chastity, such that obeying it is "right, regardless of whate everybody else is doing."

4 minutes ago, changed said:

G-d is the father of all mankind - not just the little %1 who are LDS. 

I quite agree.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

G-d directs everyone through their conscience... 

And through prophets and apostles.  That's what we believe, anyway.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

Would you go against your conscience - to follow some guy - some guy you had no spiritual confirmation of? 

Probably not.  Hence the importance of discerning if the Church's truth claims are what they claim to be.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

or would you follow your own conscience? 

I follow my own conscience, but I also recognize that it is not a perfect barometer of right and wrong.  Sometimes my biases and prejudices get in the way.  Sometimes the teachings of men get in the way.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

and the simple common-sense morality?

What is "common-sense morality?"  To me, it is the Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

I'm reminded that it was religious zealots who killed the Savior... not atheists, not secularists... religious people killed Jesus.  That is one of the biggest lessons in the scriptures for me.

Indeed.  Romans 10 comes to mind (again):

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

I think substituting "God's righteousness" with something else is something we call are at risk of doing.  Hence the value of having living prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

... This is not a matter of "culture."  It's a matter of revealed doctrine.

And "LGBT people" have the same access to salvation as the rest of us.  To suggest otherwise . . . is wrong.

Revealed by who? 

By Jesus Christ, to His servants.

28 minutes ago, changed said:

I have not personally had any spiritual confirmations on the doctrine, so I do not buy it.  

I wish you the best as you seek out how to proceed.

28 minutes ago, changed said:

The doctrines of men vs. principles of love. 

I disagree that the Law of Chastity is a doctrine of men, or that it is juxtaposed against "principles of love."  Doctrines of men would be more along the lines of if-it-feels-good-do-it.  The Law of Chastity teaches us to resist sin, to constrain our behaviors to the parameters set by God.

We don't do ourselves any favors by ignoring the Law of Chastity.  That's not a "principle of love" at all.

28 minutes ago, changed said:

I hold to only one doctrine, which is love.  

So do I.  Hence we have the Savior's exhortation in John 14:15: "If ye love me, keep my commandments."  And more:

Quote

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
...
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
...
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

Sexual licentiousness is, in my fiew, not compatible with obedience to God's commandments, and is instead a demonstration of disobedience to God.

It was Jesus Himself who connects love of God to objedience to God's commandments.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well then convince God to get that revelation onto the presses. Why are you trying to convince us?

Because he has no belief in God.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Temple marriage is a required part of salvation in the LDS faith - would you want to marry someone who was gay?  would you allow your children to marry someone who was gay?  Would you spend your entire life single?  With no family - because of how you were born?  LDS culture would like to deny LGBT people from having a family and being exalted... that is wrong.  

That depends on whether you view same-gender attraction as a condition that will transcend death. I do not.

Furthermore, I believe that all who, for whatever reason, will not have the opportunity to marry in mortality as God has ordained it but who remain faithful to the commandments of God will enjoy all the blessings of exaltation in the hereafter, including eternal marriage and endless posterity.

I thus reject your allegation that "LDS culture would like to deny LGBT people from having a family and being exalted."

[Avatar4321]

Oh and no I refuse to lie and pretend choosing a sexual life style is equivalent to a race 

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well I think you’re painting all LDS as obedient sheep, which is probably unfair. I think it’s pretty clear that not all LDS want what “God” wants with regards to the barring of same sex couples and their children. Not all LDS think it’s even what God wants. The Church of all groups should recognise that when leaders proclaim “what God wants”, they aren’t always right. 

What’s actually difficult is standing up for your own moral conscience, even when doing so means openly disagreeing with Church leadership. I don’t believe God gave people a brain and a conscience only to have them seconded to the opinion of someone else.

Members need to stop hiding behind Church Leaders and start expressing their own opinions for themselves.

What makes you think you know what each member needs? Why should any of them do what you want them to do if what they are doing now makes them happy? 
If I only want what "God" wants makes me a sheep then, Baaaaaaa  Baaaaaaaaaaa.  
Sure there are a few unhappy ones, but that's because they don't want to live certain principles of the Gospel. 
How confusing and chaotic this religion would be if everyone started living only the commandments and principles they think are right.  Leadership is needed to keep it orderly and true.