Treat gay people as a race.

[Avatar4321]

59 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which of the Ten Commandments does being gay violate?

Sexual immorality falls under the umbrella of the seventh commandment

i find it unlikely that you don’t know this

[Avatar4321]

44 minutes 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.  

You’ve never had any doctrines reveled to you by the Spirit? Never?

[bluebell]

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.  

As far as I can tell, no one wants to have to deal with the trails that they are asked to deal with.  Asking whether or not we 'want' to do something has no bearing on whether or not God would ask us to do it.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Sexual immorality falls under the umbrella of the seventh commandment

"Being gay" is not committing adultery.

Also, a gay person who has entered into a legal marriage, is also not committing adultery (as long as they are faithful to their spouses just as those in a heterosexual marriage).

Quote

 

a·dul·ter·y

noun

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Being gay" is not committing adultery.

Also, a gay person who has entered into a legal marriage, is also not committing adultery (as long as they are faithful to their spouses just as those in a heterosexual marriage).

 

I said sexual immorality.

[cinepro]

14 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Sexual immorality falls under the umbrella of the seventh commandment

i find it unlikely that you don’t know this

"umbrella" = it's not actually in there.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The lifestyle is not monogamous; it is not about procreation; it is completely based on instant gratification; it is not about fulfilling God's purpose.  

 

Except for the gay couples that live monogamously and raise children.

I can understand forming an opinion about homosexuality based on doctrine.  That's fair and reasonable in an LDS-themed forum.

But let's not form it based on stereotypes.  

I lived in West Hollywood for a year when my wife and I managed an apartment complex there.  Then we managed one near UCLA.  And stereotyping the "gay lifestyle" based on what you see a subset of them doing makes as much sense as framing heterosexuality based on what the UCLA fraternities were doing on Friday nights.

If promiscuity bothers you, then simply say "I object to homosexual promiscuity but support stable, monogamous relationships."  If you don't support either one, then don't pretend like it makes a difference.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I said sexual immorality.

You stated that "being gay" falls under the umbrella of breaking the "seventh commandment" regarding it being sexual immorality. 

The seventh commandment is:  "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

Edited April 24, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Also, a gay person who has entered into a legal marriage, is also not committing adultery (as long as they are faithful to their spouses just as those in a heterosexual marriage).

 

In the eyes of God and the Church it is is violating the law of chastity, since neither recognize the validity of same-sex marriage.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you have no authority to change the laws of God or the doctrines of the Church.

 

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You stated that "being gay" falls under the umbrella of breaking the "seventh commandment" regarding it being sexual immorality. 

The seventh commandment is:  "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

No I’m pretty sure I said sexual immorality.

but hey feel free to make things up 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the eyes of God and the Church it is is violating the law of chastity, since neither recognize the validity of same-sex marriage.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you have no authority to change the laws of God or the doctrines of the Church.

 

The definition of adultery (once again) is:

Quote

 

a·dul·ter·y

noun

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

 

Someone in a SSM is not committing adultery if they remain faithful to their spouse (unless you change the definition of what adultery is).

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

The definition of adultery (once again) is:

Someone in a SSM is not committing adultery if they remain faithful to their spouse (unless you change the definition of what adultery is).

This is according to your own definition. Again, you are entitled to your own definition, but don't impose it on God, and don't pretend that the rest of us are bound by it.

 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

No I’m pretty sure I said sexual immorality.

but hey feel free to make things up 

You responded to someone asking:

Quote

Which of the Ten Commandments does being gay violate?

With:

29 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Sexual immorality falls under the umbrella of the seventh commandment

The seventh commandment is "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is according to your own definition. 

No, that's not my own definition.  It's the commonly accepted definition.  What does it mean to you when hear that a person in a heterosexual marriage has committed adultery?

I'll bet you use this same definition as well:

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adultery

Edited April 24, 2018 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

While technically correct that it is not usually adultery it is fornication which is forbidden in other scripture.

[Daniel2]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as I can tell, no one wants to have to deal with the trails that they are asked to deal with. 

I wouldn't change my sexual orientation if I could.

It's not something I view as having "to deal" with. 

It's something that is a blessing. 

It informs my potential and the goodness it brings to my life and the life of my husband and our extended family and friends.

Understanding it's beauty and the inherent worthiness allows me to find joy as I fulfill the measure of my creation.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I wouldn't change my sexual orientation if I could.

It's not something I view as having "to deal" with. 

It's something that is a blessing. 

It informs my potential and the goodness it brings to my life and the life of my husband and our extended family and friends.

Understanding it's beauty and the inherent worthiness allows me to find joy as I fulfill the measure of my creation.

So you don't view it as a trial, right?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While technically correct that it is not usually adultery it is fornication which is forbidden in other scripture.

No, that's not correct.  Fornication is:  "sexual intercourse between people not married to each other."    Do you believe that those who enter into a legal SSM are "not married to each other"?

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which of the Ten Commandments does being gay violate?

You really thought there were only ten? Jews count 613, and that's only in what we call the Old Testament.  It violates the commandment that a male not do the activity of male-female sexual behavior with a male.  At least that is what the Hebrew says.  If you count the New Testament it includes both active and passive male partners (even denying the kingdom of heaven to them) as well as lesbians.  Sorry to bring it up but that is what it all says.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I wouldn't change my sexual orientation if I could.

It's not something I view as having "to deal" with. 

It's something that is a blessing. 

It informs my potential and the goodness it brings to my life and the life of my husband and our extended family and friends.

Understanding it's beauty and the inherent worthiness allows me to find joy as I fulfill the measure of my creation.

I respect that.  I wasn't talking about being gay though, I was talking specifically about Change's questions (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?).

What I meant was that there are some trials that people go through that they would not volunteer for (such as staying single for a gay person who is a believing member of the church, for example) but which people still accept because they believe it is what God has asked of them.

[MormonMason]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, that's not correct.  Fornication is:  "sexual intercourse between people not married to each other."    Do you believe that those who enter into a legal SSM are "not married to each other"?

And Jesus himself reiterated the OT teaching that God recognizes marriage of male and female.  That is what Jesus taught and the Church seems to think sticking with Jesus is the right thing to do.  It is his Church, after all.

Edited April 24, 2018 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Read the following article through the lens that gay people are a “race”.

Except that they aren't a race.  They are found among all races.

[changed]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 

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.

Yes, we all define love through our own experiences - those who have no experience with homosexuality should not judge it, and should not pretend to know what is best for it.

There is also justice... is it just to condemn and cage someone due to a condition they cannot choose?  To take away their family - tell them not to get married, not to adopt children - not to be close to anyone?  .... Do you know what happens to prison inmates in solitary confinement?  That is what this is akin to - it is similar to putting someone in solitary confinement for their life.

"Social isolation housing, can reduce environmental stimulation, and causes a feeling of loss of control over all aspects of a prisoner’s daily life. These environmental stimulations include but aren't limited to hypersensitivity to stimuli, distortions and hallucinations, increased anxiety and nervousness, diminished impulse control, severe and chronic depression, appetite loss and weight loss, heart palpitations, talking to oneself, problems sleeping, nightmares, self-mutilation, difficulties with thinking, concentration, and memory, and lower levels of brain function.^[44] " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement#Effects

We are all social creatures, we need relationships - how may LGBT youth have killed themselves due to church policies?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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?"

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."

I quite agree.

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

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

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.

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

Indeed.  Romans 10 comes to mind (again):

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

 

This is not about conformity for everyone - there are those who were born that way.

This is not about chastity - I agree with chastity, I do not agree with denying someone the ability to marry and have a committed relationship with someone they love.  

I do not seek a testimony in a church, I seek a testimony in G-d.  That there are so many different denominations indicates that G-d does not want all of us in the same church.  It is good to gather together, it is not good to become a puppet to any earthly organization.  In the end, there is no borrowed light, only your own personal testimony - we all have to stand on our own two feet, and think for ourselves.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

By Jesus Christ, to His servants.

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

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.

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

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

 

Again, I agree with the law of chastity - with self-control, with monogamous relationships - I agree with making and keeping covenants with one single partner, and being loyal and honest with them.   All of the LGBT friends that I have are in committed, loyal, relationships with one another.  They are married - even if LDS do not think they are - they are.  I have seen many homosexual marriages that are more committed and loving than heterosexual ones.  

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

That character we have attained in this life - our personality, our education ad all that we have learned and are - if this does not go with us to the after-life, then what actually does go?  If it is not us - then it is not us.  Are you saying that our gender does not go with us to the afterlife?  There are more than 2 genders... 

 

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

You’ve never had any doctrines reveled to you by the Spirit? Never?

 

I have had confirmation on personal life choices and directions, know G-d is real but not His character, I know there is more than this life - but I have not had any confirmation telling me to trust any fallen human beings... 

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

As far as I can tell, no one wants to have to deal with the trails that they are asked to deal with.  Asking whether or not we 'want' to do something has no bearing on whether or not God would ask us to do it.

"not my will but thine be done..."  so, what are gay people supposed to learn from their trial do you think?  So much of LDS culture and doctrine revolve around marriage and having a family - what is the point for someone who is not allowed a family?  

Edited April 25, 2018 by changed

[MormonMason]

Quote

That character we have attained in this life - our personality, our education ad all that we have learned and are - if this does not go with us to the after-life, then what actually does go?  If it is not us - then it is not us.  Are you saying that our gender does not go with us to the afterlife?  There are more than 2 genders... 

There are only two biological genders, male and female.  Intersex is a biological anomaly caused by genetic copying errors.  In Hebrew there are only two genders.  In Greek there are only three.

And Jesus himself stated that marriage as ordained of God is male and female.  We either follow the teachings of Jesus or we do not.  It comes down only to that.

Edited April 25, 2018 by MormonMason

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, changed said:

"not my will but thine be done..."  so, what are gay people supposed to learn from their trial do you think?  So much of LDS culture and doctrine revolve around marriage and having a family - what is the point for someone who is not allowed a family?  

I couldn't say.  

What do you think all the heterosexual members who desperately want to get married (such as Sheri Dew) but aren't able to and remain single for their whole lives are supposed to learn?  There has been a heterosexual member on this board who has talked about being in a great and loving relationship with a nonmember but ultimately had to break off that relationship and choose to be single because the nonmember did not ever want to get married but wanted to have a physical relationship.  What were they supposed to learn?