Treat gay people as a race.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

Certainly not. 

Thanks,

-Smac

↑ the above was in response to "- would you want to marry someone who was gay? "

Yes.  I am heterosexual.  I would not want to be married to a woman who was not sexually attracted to me, and was instead sexually attracted to other women.  Is this problematic, in your view?

38 minutes ago, changed said:

Many LDS advise against LGBT community getting married, which is a very sad thing.

Unless, of course, what is being counseled reflects God's plan for us (which, despite much noise to the contrary, does not include same-sex marriage).  Then that's not "sad."  Difficult?  Yes.  But obedience to God is never "sad," particularly in light of promises such as is found in 1 Corinthian 2:9:

Quote

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

This, of course, should be taken in tandem with scriptures such as John 14:15:

Quote

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And D&C 121:

Quote

7 My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment;
8 And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high...

And Matthew 25:21:

Quote

His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

The Latter-day Saints profess to be playing the long game.  This life is "but a small moment."  Difficult, to be sure, but we need to endure.  If we do, "eye hat not seen, nor ear heard..."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

Everyone has things we were not educated on in this life - we all have incomplete knowledge in some areas, and more complete understanding in other areas.  I think the best approach is to honor everyone's personal decision, to not tell anyone what to do or not to do - that is between them and G-d, only they can answer what their life experiences have taught them.  

 

That’s fine if that’s what you think. According to scripture though, God doesn’t agree with you. He sent prophets to tell us what to do and not do. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

What a shame it took until 1978 for God to let Mormonism in on that little secret...

I answered this in another post, but now I wish to give you a different take. The Priesthood ban was based of those of African Descent, it was not based solely on color, as it did not apply to others persons with Black skin color (if memory serves), or dark skin color. It applied to those who were descended from Ham, one of the three Sons of Noah. Other condition were based on the sins or actions of the individual. But (as the Church has already stated, in short) were and are based upon not, historical and cultural norms of early America, and early Church History. Both of which are very interwoven, and are one in the same. Both of which were once denied, on the simple fact that Racism is, having forgotten, that "Good is no respector persons". It ignored that the Gospel in the Book of Acts, that when forth to all, and on it went to the African man. It was history being rewritten that gave rise to many Nations, including America, that gave rise to slavery, and anti-black history, anti-Irish, anti- Scotish desrimination, allowing each of the cultures and people to be enslaved here in America. The difference is that many cultures, other than English who enslaved each, allowed all to work off their servitude after just seven years. 

Of course it was almost iimpossible to purchase good land, fertile land, or any other land from, the rich, who became rich of the backs of other cultures, that they wanted. It was not impossible, but very difficult. Some many who were political enemies of th English Crown. So for those who wanted land, like myself and my ancestors had to become "Mountian People", which gave us all, and unique and wonderful heritage. For many who were Black, had little to look to, and little to dream off. However some did rise and establish lands, and business, which we almost always agricultural, and became "slave owners" themselves, slave owners, and fought for th South. Had they known, that they to would face, "Jm Crowe" laws, they would have rethought many decisions they made. Secessions that effected every walk in life, in education, segregation, and religious life. By the times they realized, it was too late. 

Having said all of this, even the congress while debating the 13th amendment, to abolish silvery, used the Bible, and the understanding of that day in an  attempt to block ratification. Of cours it was the Democratic Party who was trying to block it. Every Republican made no such attempts, and everyone in the party voting in favor of the 13th amendment stood first, with no decanting votes, meaning not a single Republican voted against it, and 99% of the Democratic Party who voted for it, did so by being offered new jobs in the Federal Gov't as none (I believe) were up for reelection. 

It was these social morays, that sadly, made their imprint on our new, new Church also a few other events that caused this policy to become, "policy", not revelation. One such event, so I have been told, or read is the story is found in Church history, of a Black Priesthood holders who in "Winter Quaters", I believe, declared himself a Prophet and took a number of wives, most of who were white. Even still, it still could account for a reason, not an excuse to withhold thePriesthood to others whom Joseph ordained as Priests and Elders, maybe ever High Priests. Sadly that, even most who are ordained, be they Elders, or General Authorities, can still be weak men, and make common mistakes. The greatness in our Faith, is not because of our warts, or our inability see them, and rid ourselves of them, by these same warts, or weakness. Doing this, is when our beauty shines through, when we trade "our ashes for beauty". This is why I remain, our skill and "righting the ship", or "righting the Ark of the Covenant". It is in these moments when we see the "bride of Christ", adorned in her beautiful robes", making use all ready for the coming of the Lord.        

Lot of typing on my iPad, so be kind, as such much is not easy using my IPad. 

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I believe it a SSM is every bit as valid as any other earthly marriage.

Do you believe that a same-sex marriage will be eternal? 

I honestly don’t know of course (none of us knows).   I don’t believe that there will be SSM in the temple (sealings), but I really believe that God will allow those who love each other to be together (He won’t force them to stay away from each other or be permanently separated).

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I honestly don’t know of course (none of us knows).   I don’t believe that there will be SSM in the temple (sealings), but I really believe that God will allow those who love each other to be together (He won’t force them to stay away from each other or be permanently separated).

And I absolutely respect that position. I don't really think that he will force them apart either. But I don't believe that two male or two female spirits are capable of the full measure of divinity available through Exaltation. That is the only sense in which I don't think such a marriage is "valid."

[smac97]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I think that we are questioning the illogical assumption that Christian sexual morality has suddenly been overwritten by the Supreme Court. Now that two men or two women can legally be married, they aren't breaking the Law of Chastity. Changing definitions doesn't change the Law. 

I am reminded of this riddle attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Quote

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

Thanks,

-Smac