Jump to content

Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.

You are materially misrepresenting me and mine.  I will not let such false characterizations go unopposed.

"Insulting" you by asking you to stop misrepresenting my religion?

You know the answer to it.  So do I.  So why ask it?

You aren't the only one misrepresenting us.  Duncan was doing it too by cribbing from an anonymous FB post that falsely attributes statements to Pres. Oaks.

And you are upset because I am pushing back against such calumnies.  Oh, well.

-Smac

FYI it wasn't falsely attributing statements to Pres. Oaks, it was using statements he said against gay people but against the Church. It was turning his logic against himself to make it sound crazy. For example, how would you like it if I said ABC that you said against homosexuality but this time against the Church? quite easily done

Link to post
19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, a faithful Catholic couple wants to do their best to help lessen abortions. They work with an organizations that helps young unwed mothers carry the child to term and then place the child for adoption. This couple has adopted 4 children from 4 different mothers.

When you meet this family and they tell you their story, you would say to them, "those aren't your children because they are not biologically yours and you are not sealed to them."

What a terrible hateful thing to say to people who are doing a wonderfully good thing. I suggest you reevaluate your thinking on this one, Ahab.

Good grief! Don't be ridiculous! I would have no need to tell those adults that I could recognize the fact that those children weren't their biological children or to say they are not theirs.  As the adults who adopted them I would presume they already knew that.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

we clearly attend different churches and have a different mindset and that's fine.

I don't know what Church you attend, or your religious affiliation.  I'm totally fine with religious pluralism.  However, I take serious exception to you materially mispresenting my faith.

You are imputing words to President Oaks.  You put these words in quotation marks.  You are characterizing them as something President Oaks has "said" about how "we should treat gay people."  

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.  You cannot falsely attribute statements to Pres. Oaks.  You also should not be plagiarizing from Facebook posts.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

only gay people would engage in gay behaviour, which is what makes them gay in the first place

So do people who are "bisexual" or heterosexuals who are "dabbling."

In any event, the point remains.  The same standard of sexual behavior applies to all of us.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

we do have polices against gay people,

We do not.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

can a gay person kiss another gay person without visiting the Bishop? 

Homosexual behavior is not allowed by anyone.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

You can't say we don't have policies against gay people and also say we have the law of chastity, either we do or we don't.

We don't have policies against gay people.

The Law of Chastity is not a policy, and it's not "against" anyone.  It applies to everyone.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I did get that from facebook, is that wrong?

Plagiarism?  Yes, that's wrong.

Plagiarizing quotes falsely attributing statements to Pres. Oaks is also wrong.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think it's conglomeration of statements he's made, but I don't know

So you're not only plagiarizing, you also don't even know if the statements are real?

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Jesus didn't deliberately alienate people in John 6.

And the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity don't "deliberately alienate people," either.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Do we actually believe Isaiah 55:1?

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Everyone is invited to come unto Christ, including gay people I think. All means all.

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don' think we should put caveats on the gospel,

I don't know what this means.  The Gospel is replete with exhortations to repent, to abstain from sin.  Are you characterizing such exhortations as "caveats?"

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

like we don't have policies against gay people but then they join the church and find out there is, it's bait and switch.

Piffle.  There are no such policies.  There is no bait and switch.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Jesus was finding out who among the group was only following him for free bread, he wanted to see who was really into following him, but people had to decide that for themselves, not Jesus.

The elements of the Bread of Life sermon that gave offense were not about literal bread.  I invite you to re-read John 6.

But otherwise, yes, "people had to decide {} for themselves" whether to accept what Jesus was teaching, or to take offense, reject it and "walk{} no more with him."

The same thing is happening today, only with the Law of Chastity as the focal point instead of the Bread of Life sermon.  We each of us have to decide for ourselves what discipleship really means.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't think he gave them reason not to follow but he was offering them free bread plus something more.

So they took offense because "he was offering them free bread plus something more?"

Are you sure?

Take a look at verses 35-43:

Quote

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

Why were these folks murmuring?

Quote

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

"The Jews ... strong among themselves..."  Why?

Quote

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Many of the disciples of Jesus called his teachings "an hard saying."  What was "hard" about it?

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't think we should be barring people, when Jesus didn't as per the scripture you provided.

We don't. 

From the Book of Mormon: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw call men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.  Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price."

And yet the Bible also mandates obedience to the commandments of God.  Mandates.  Obedience as a necessity, not an option.  "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15) is a very big deal for me.  And for God too, I think.  "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven"  (John 7:21).

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Your interpretation of John 6 is tospy turvy

I don't think so.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'll wait to make judgements on others when I or the Church has the whole picture and I wonder why we don't?

I don't understand this statement.

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Why doesn't God reveal it? Are we open to it? or are we closed minded? That's a decision we need to make.

Reveal what?

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I personally am not gay but I wouldn't presume to tell someone who is how to live their life, just like I wouldn't presume to tell a straight person how to live their life.

But Jesus would.  And so would His servants, acting in His name.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

FYI it wasn't falsely attributing statements to Pres. Oaks,

Yes, it was.  

36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it was using statements he said against gay people but against the Church.

It was falsely attributing statements to Pres. Oaks.

Again, CFR as the sources showing where Pres. Oaks made these "statements."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it was.  

It was falsely attributing statements to Pres. Oaks.

Again, CFR as the sources showing where Pres. Oaks made these "statements."

Thanks,

-Smac

the 3 points, the first and third statements come from this interview

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

and here

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/10/the-plan-and-the-proclamation?lang=eng

but I don't think we really need a CFR on the church being opposed to SSM

 

Edited by Duncan
  • Like 1
Link to post

let me ask you this Smac97 , what counsel would you give a grieving family if their gay youth committed suicide? or got beat up a  girls camp because they got found out? would you reach out to a less active gay member of the church? 

Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess you didn't want to answer the question on how you would feel if you had to be changed to female to enter the Celestial Kingdom.  I would like your thoughts on that question if you feel like sharing.

I hope you don't really expect me to answer this question.  I didn't even know there was such a thing as a fear of small planets.  And certainly have no idea what that has to do with what we are talking about.

You didn't pose a question to me, you made a statement which I feel dismissive about. Reframed as a simple thought experiment (since it runs contrary to my stronger belief that biological sex is eternal), I would feel obliged to be more empathetic to women. It's all about love and caring.

I suggest you look up the definitions and then you might be able to see that mine was a rhetorical question, and "get" it.

ETA: in the spirit of thought experiments, which is easier for you to feel comfortable about: The Church now teaching that you had to change your biological sex to enter heaven, or that you had to change your sexual orientation to enter heaven?

Edited by CV75
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what Church you attend, or your religious affiliation.  I'm totally fine with religious pluralism.  However, I take serious exception to you materially mispresenting my faith.

 

After all these years of having conversations with him and reading his posts, do you really not know that Duncan is an active member of the church?

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

After all these years of having conversations with him and reading his posts, do you really not know that Duncan is an active member of the church?

not only am I an active member, I am 3 years into being EQP and am currently helping to write the temple history book of our temple that is almost done, of which book I am onto something big, BIG!!!!!! 💥💥💥

  • Like 3
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Duncan said:

not only am I an active member, I am 3 years into being EQP and am currently helping to write the temple history book of our temple that is almost done, of which book I am onto something big, BIG!!!!!! 💥💥💥

Let me guess. When doing your family history research you found out that a LOT of us are related to each other!  And in fact, ALL of us are!  Some thing some people still don't seem to realize!

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Let me guess. When doing your family history research you found out that a LOT of us are related to each other!  And in fact, ALL of us are!  Some thing some people still don't seem to realize!

hahhahha! no not family history related!

Link to post
5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

There has been some discussion within some Catholic (I think it was a bishop or archbishop) that think that Pope Francis was invalidly voted in as pope. It was rather involved and I did not dwell on the article long enough to try and grasp all that was stated. Have you heard of this?  

I read Crises almost every day. I find the vast majority of the articles to be excellent. The one I read today was entitled, "Where Francis Leads, We Can't Follow".   The comment section gives me a window into how some of the Traditional Catholics feel, but I recognize that this is a small subset of the Body.  

Pope Francis does seem to create a lot of confusion for the Church. He appears to speak off the cuff so often and conflicts with Catholic doctrine just as often that he keeps many Catholics feel less stable.  

What I found most strange is why he chose now to talk about this subject?  Even as I write this I have to remember this was the result of a documentary rather than a planned event where Francis was talking to the world. 

God's continued blessing upon you.

Hey Storm Rider. You are thinking of Abp. Vigano. I believe we are committed to believing in the "perpetuity of the Petrine office" according to the Vatican Council I, which was abbreviated because of the social situation in Italy in 1870. I will leave it to a future competent authority to determine what that perpetuity requires of a faithful Catholic. I believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. But I do not have a moral certainty that Francis is pope. Sedevacantists claim a moral certainty that Francis is not pope. I am in a middle ground between Miserere Nobis who holds that the faithful Catholic cannot doubt that Francis is pope. I do not say I doubt. I behave as though he is. But neither can I say that I believe he is pope. I believe that under the current confusion, the Catholic Church gives me the liberty to not know if Francis is pope.

Hey Miserere, as always I follow your comments with interest. St. Vincent Ferrer associated himself with an antipope. He made a mistake in identifying the true pope. I pray that many of us will be pardoned for making those kinds of mistake in these times. I am not making any positive mistake. I do not want to be forced into taking a position at this time. To be clear, I do not know if Francis is the pope. I think it is reasonable to declare oneself incompetent to decide. If the Lord tarries His coming, the Catholic Church will decide someday, and if I am here, I will submit. I don't think you will say I am a Protestant for this. In any event, thanks for your consideration of my "agnosticism".      

From the article:

"Francis embraces the worst Protestant caricature of his office. He sees himself as a man with universal competence, one given to him directly by God Himself. That competence allows him to opine authoritatively on any matter, sacred or secular, that happens to tickle his fancy. That’s not what a pope is, by any stretch of the Catholic imagination."

Being pope doesn't qualify one as an authority on everything. The competence of a pope is limited to things Francis does not care about at all, the preservation of Catholic doctrine and morals. Sometimes there is a collision between those and his worldly opinions, and that causes a lot of confusion. He will never offend communists, atheists, anarchists, or non-Catholic religions. No wonder he is beloved by so many who have found it hard to have any sympathy for his immediate predecessors. People who now tout Jorge Bergoglio could not name one pope before John XXIII that they like.     

"A good Catholic wants nothing more than to respect, trust, and obey the Successor of Saint Peter. Francis has made that impossible for so many. If he were really as wise and compassionate as he believes himself to be, he would recognise how many of his poor children he’s leading into scandal and disbelief." 

His poor children? Who are those? If Francis could make faithful Catholics disbelieve in the papacy, so much the better for him! It would make us into non-Catholics who have no respect for the papal office like him. Maybe that is this shepherd's way of loving his "poor children"? I believe in the successors of Peter. Because of that, whoever this man is, and whatever office he happens to hold, "Where Francis leads, I will not follow." It is impossible that one pope could overturn the teaching of all of his predecessors. Dead popes count for Catholics. Especially if 264 of them are undoubtedly in unanimous opposition to one dissenting pope who happens to be alive. 

Rory 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Storm Rider. You are thinking of Abp. Vigano. I believe we are committed to believing in the "perpetuity of the Petrine office" according to the Vatican Council I, which was abbreviated because of the social situation in Italy in 1870. I will leave it to a future competent authority to determine what that perpetuity requires of a faithful Catholic. I believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. But I do not have a moral certainty that Francis is pope. Sedevacantists claim a moral certainty that Francis is not pope. I am in a middle ground between Miserere Nobis who holds that the faithful Catholic cannot doubt that Francis is pope. I do not say I doubt. I behave as though he is. But neither can I say that I believe he is pope. I believe that under the current confusion, the Catholic Church gives me the liberty to not know if Francis is pope.

Hey Miserere, as always I follow your comments with interest. St. Vincent Ferrer associated himself with an antipope. He made a mistake in identifying the true pope. I pray that many of us will be pardoned for making those kinds of mistake in these times. I am not making any positive mistake. I do not want to be forced into taking a position at this time. To be clear, I do not know if Francis is the pope. I think it is reasonable to declare oneself incompetent to decide. If the Lord tarries His coming, the Catholic Church will decide someday, and if I am here, I will submit. I don't think you will say I am a Protestant for this. In any event, thanks for your consideration of my "agnosticism".      

From the article:

"Francis embraces the worst Protestant caricature of his office. He sees himself as a man with universal competence, one given to him directly by God Himself. That competence allows him to opine authoritatively on any matter, sacred or secular, that happens to tickle his fancy. That’s not what a pope is, by any stretch of the Catholic imagination."

Being pope doesn't qualify one as an authority on everything. The competence of a pope is limited to things Francis does not care about at all, the preservation of Catholic doctrine and morals. Sometimes there is a collision between those and his worldly opinions, and that causes a lot of confusion. He will never offend communists, atheists, anarchists, or non-Catholic religions. No wonder he is beloved by so many who have found it hard to have any sympathy for his immediate predecessors. People who now tout Jorge Bergoglio could not name one pope before John XXIII that they like.     

"A good Catholic wants nothing more than to respect, trust, and obey the Successor of Saint Peter. Francis has made that impossible for so many. If he were really as wise and compassionate as he believes himself to be, he would recognise how many of his poor children he’s leading into scandal and disbelief." 

His poor children? Who are those? If Francis could make faithful Catholics disbelieve in the papacy, so much the better for him! It would make us into non-Catholics who have no respect for the papal office like him. Maybe that is this shepherd's way of loving his "poor children"? I believe in the successors of Peter. Because of that, whoever this man is, and whatever office he happens to hold, "Where Francis leads, I will not follow." It is impossible that one pope could overturn the teaching of all of his predecessors. Dead popes count for Catholics. Especially if 264 of them are undoubtedly in unanimous opposition to one dissenting pope who happens to be alive. 

Rory 

Great comments and it is always good to hear from you. I enjoy hearing from both you and Miserere. It is disheartening to observe so much confusion generated by this single pope. I find that I agree with those contributors to Crises in how they perceive what is going on in the world. As an outside observer, I learn a great deal from Traditionalists. There is a deep humility they show when hearing the comments from Francis and yet pray for him and never doubt in the sanctity of their beliefs in Tradition. They abide his consistent actions that conflict with so much that the Catholic Church has represented and taught for generations upon generations. His actions in China, his continued reticence to release the report on the archbishop from D.C. - who also was intimately involved in the China negotiations - Pachamama in the Vatican, and the list goes on and on. He appears to have no boundaries and no shame or humility. What is so odd is his namesake of Francis and his initial actions made some of us think that here was a pope that would be dedicated to pastoral care of the church. He has been anything but concerned for the members. 

Thank you again for your comments and my continued prayers are with you and your family.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

not only am I an active member, I am 3 years into being EQP and am currently helping to write the temple history book of our temple that is almost done, of which book I am onto something big, BIG!!!!!! 💥💥💥

And I'm FB friends with you, and you have come through loud and clear that you are an active true blue member of this church. Most of your posts on FB are about the temples and excitement over the new one in Canada or the histories of members in the church that are praiseworthy. Hopefully you don't mind me saying this. :)

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I'm FB friends with you, and you have come through loud and clear that you are an active true blue member of this church. Most of your posts on FB are about the temples and excitement over the new one in Canada or the histories of members in the church that are praiseworthy. Hopefully you don't mind me saying this. :)

no, not at all!

Link to post
14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Tacenda, you are very seldom, if ever, offensive. I agree that the Church puts a great emphasis on the family; however, church leaders have been pretty clear that our first priority is a relationship with God. I have heard this consistently for as long as I have been a member.  The link I provided is just a quick summary of a number of talks that give evidence of this relationship.

 

That was a nice comment Storm, thanks. :) 

I tried a little experiment and did what I do best, I googled the words: relationship with god LDS. And then I googled: family LDS

I was surprised to see just as many LDS talks and lessons with the heading "relationship with God". 

I'm actually glad to be proven wrong, again, thank you. 

 

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That was a nice comment Storm, thanks. :) 

I tried a little experiment and did what I do best, I googled the words: relationship with god LDS. And then I googled: family LDS

I was surprised to see just as many LDS talks and lessons with the heading "relationship with God". 

I'm actually glad to be proven wrong, again, thank you. 

I think that trials can sometime narrow our vision. We become hypersensitive in a specific area and from that point forward we may tend to only see what reinforces our position. It is not so much an issue of right or wrong, but more a difference in perspective. You have proved that you have the ability to gain a new perspective repeatedly. The challenge is not to fall back into old positions.

Be well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Storm Rider. You are thinking of Abp. Vigano. I believe we are committed to believing in the "perpetuity of the Petrine office" according to the Vatican Council I, which was abbreviated because of the social situation in Italy in 1870. I will leave it to a future competent authority to determine what that perpetuity requires of a faithful Catholic. I believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. But I do not have a moral certainty that Francis is pope. Sedevacantists claim a moral certainty that Francis is not pope. I am in a middle ground between Miserere Nobis who holds that the faithful Catholic cannot doubt that Francis is pope. I do not say I doubt. I behave as though he is. But neither can I say that I believe he is pope. I believe that under the current confusion, the Catholic Church gives me the liberty to not know if Francis is pope.

Hey Miserere, as always I follow your comments with interest. St. Vincent Ferrer associated himself with an antipope. He made a mistake in identifying the true pope. I pray that many of us will be pardoned for making those kinds of mistake in these times. I am not making any positive mistake. I do not want to be forced into taking a position at this time. To be clear, I do not know if Francis is the pope. I think it is reasonable to declare oneself incompetent to decide. If the Lord tarries His coming, the Catholic Church will decide someday, and if I am here, I will submit. I don't think you will say I am a Protestant for this. In any event, thanks for your consideration of my "agnosticism".  

Hi Rory,

Thanks for your responses, as always. I think in these difficult times the Lord will forgive us, as you say, for agnosticism. I think the key is what you say -- to behave as if he were pope, and I'll add to revere the office. I visited the Fisheaters forum to see what was going on there with this latest twist and was deeply saddened to see many ostensibly faithful and traditional Catholics wishing for the death of Francis, and others saying they no longer pray for him. It was surreal, honestly, and shows the problematic relationship that traditional Catholicism has with the papacy, when the papacy is so foundational to Catholicism. Without the papacy what are we? High church Anglicans? I also find it problematic that Catholics are using private judgement to determine questions involving the papacy. That is so... protestant.

I want to be clear that I am speaking in general principles here. I am not judging you or anyone personally for agnosticism on the issue. You may well be right and I may well be wrong. I just have a hard time feeling like God will pass judgement on those who stay with the papacy.

I bet this whole discussion is surprising to our LDS friends here. Catholics questioning the papacy?? Well, that's one of the things that makes this board unique -- two traditional Catholics on an LDS forum, ha.

Speaking of Fisheaters, I have a lovely grilled salmon dinner planned for today :)

+ PAX +

Jesse

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, bluebell said:

After all these years of having conversations with him and reading his posts, do you really not know that Duncan is an active member of the church?

Duncan said: "We clearly attend different churches..."  I took that literally.  I guess he meant figuratively.

I've interacted with hundreds of people on this board.  Some have online handles, some don't.  Some names/handles more easily evoke a recollection about the individual than others.  I don't recall having many discussions with Duncan.  I've never met him in person.  

I did not mean to offend.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Duncan said: "We clearly attend different churches..."  I took that literally.  I guess he meant figuratively.

I've interacted with hundreds of people on this board.  Some have online handles, some don't.  Some names/handles more easily evoke a recollection about the individual than others.  I don't recall having many discussions with Duncan.  I've never met him in person.  

I did not mean to offend.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I was watching Seinfeld when you wrote that so I wasn't offended! My mind was occupied elsewhere, like Kramer's hair being on fire🔥

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post

I feel like some people are scared of married, gay couples having the same rights in our church that heterosexual couples have.  What is the underlying fear? How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if gay families were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 
 

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

I feel like some people are scared of married, gay couples having the same rights in our church that heterosexual couples have.  

I think some (many?  most?) people are, or were, opposed to the radical re-definition of marriage, and are not "scared" of gay couples "having the same rights."

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

What is the underlying fear?

First establish that there is such an "underlying fear," then we can address it.

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if gay families were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if unmarried cohabiting couples were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if adulterous couples were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if polygamouse couples were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

It "would hurt" because the conduct, which violates the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage, is incompatible with the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if gay families were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 

We would have to redefine the law of chastity.  The revealed will of the Lord states that sexual relations are appropriate only within the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
46 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I feel like some people are scared of married, gay couples having the same rights in our church that heterosexual couples have.  What is the underlying fear? How would it hurt our mission of bringing people to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ if gay families were allowed full fellowship including callings and temple recommends? 
 

 

I feel like too many people don't understand that it has nothing to do with fear and that it is actually about a disgust of sinful behavior... any sinful behavior, including the disgusting act of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

I don't know much about you but I don't like it much when I see people do disgusting things, whether by their self or with some other person.  And you ask how would it hurt to allow full fellowship with families or individuals who do disgusting things when bringing them to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ?  It would hurt by knowing they are doing those disgusting things with each other.  And the restored gospel demands that people stop doing disgusting things even if nobody else knows they are doing those disgusting things. And some people act as if they don't even know that what they do is disgusting.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...