My gay best friend wants me to attend his wedding

[Leah]

Uh yeah it's against the law

No, I never gay marriage was not morally wrong.

 

Your  half hearted attempt at pinning me down using a poor example of teenage marriage is what I find objectionable.

 

So it's okay to not support something when it is against an earthly law but it is okay to support something when it goes against God's laws?

[Leah]

Old Testament Jesus would bring down fire and brimstone and burn them all. New Testament Jesus would love and forgive.

 

Loving and forgiving doesn't mean condoning or supporting.

[bytebear]

Jesus said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

 

This statement fits both the Old Testament God and the commandments of Jesus in the New Testament. Same Jesus.

[The Folk Prophet]

Jesus said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

 

This statement fits both the Old Testament God and the commandments of Jesus in the New Testament. Same Jesus.

 

This, of course, is entirely outside of any point in the thread.

[The Folk Prophet]

Old Testament Jesus would bring down fire and brimstone and burn them all. New Testament Jesus would love and forgive.

 

Apparently you don't believe that God is unchanging then.

[The Folk Prophet]

New Testament Jesus would [clip] forgive.

 

And, incidentally, this ^^ is blatant false doctrine.

[David13]

You are born amongst your relatives.

You choose your friends.

dc

[omegaseamaster75]

And, incidentally, this ^^ is blatant false doctrine.

You don't know that or are you the arbitrator of doctrine for the church? 

[Magus]

I think we're kind of picking sides here, when really there isn't a side to pick.

 

Yes, Jesus will forgive the repentant, while the unrepentant are not forgiven, though all are loved.

 

What's the debate?

[The Folk Prophet]

You don't know that or are you the arbitrator of doctrine for the church? 

 

I do know that because I actually read the scriptures. God cannot save (forgive) anyone in their sins. The standard to be forgiven is clearly set forth in the scriptures again and again. Christ cannot and will not forgive unrepentant sinners, and to say that He would just forgive them because he loves them is false doctrine. Despite your churlish phrasing, I "arbitrate" nothing. The scriptures are clear.

 

Alma 11:34

And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.

 

And then, of course, D&C 1:31

For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

 

and vs. 32

Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

 

And here's D&C 64:7

but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death.

 

And Alma 12:34

Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest.

 

Ezek 18:20-22

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

 

22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

 

Mosiah 26:30

Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.

 

D&C 58:42

Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

 

Etc., etc., etc... (emphases mine)

[The Folk Prophet]

I think we're kind of picking sides here, when really there isn't a side to pick.

 

Yes, Jesus will forgive the repentant, while the unrepentant are not forgiven, though all are loved.

 

What's the debate?

 

The debate is that he's trying to imply that God somehow changed, was wrathful in ye olden days and then in the NT changed and became all about hugs and forgiveness.

 

God has always been about forgiveness (according to our repentance) and has always been about wrath (according to our disobedience). And that is the same now as it was in the OT as it was in the NT.

 

Those blatantly and openly involved in a ceremony that flouts the commandments of God are certainly not repenting, certainly not humbling themselves, certainly not obeying, certainly not seeking God's forgiveness, nor anything like unto it.

 

The claim he is trying to make is that God would forgive unrepentant sinners. He would not. To claim He would is false doctrine -- scriptural false doctrine, repeated again and again throughout the standard works.

[omegaseamaster75]

Loving and forgiving doesn't mean condoning or supporting.

I never said that it did

[omegaseamaster75]

The debate is that he's trying to imply that God somehow changed, was wrathful in ye olden days and then in the NT changed and became all about hugs and forgiveness.

 

God has always been about forgiveness (according to our repentance) and has always been about wrath (according to our disobedience). And that is the same now as it was in the OT as it was in the NT.

 

Those blatantly and openly involved in a ceremony that flouts the commandments of God are certainly not repenting, certainly not humbling themselves, certainly not obeying, certainly not seeking God's forgiveness, nor anything like unto it.

 

The claim he is trying to make is that God would forgive unrepentant sinners. He would not. To claim He would is false doctrine -- scriptural false doctrine, repeated again and again throughout the standard works.

Please quote where I said God would forgive unrepentant sinners? I never said that and while I appreciate your ability to google your scriptural references they are not necessary because you are reading to much into what I have posted....

[The Folk Prophet]

Please quote where I said God would forgive unrepentant sinners? I never said that and while I appreciate your ability to google your scriptural references they are not necessary because you are reading to much into what I have posted....

 

If you are claiming now that you did not say that Jesus would go to a gay wedding and merely love and forgive them, then I do believe that is what one might call backpedaling.

 

Let's follow the conversation:

 

TFP: Sometimes I think people forget that Christ is the very same being who utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah...and yet some seem so confident He would happily attend a gay wedding?

 

omega...: Depends on which Jesus your talking about.......

 

TFP: There's more than one?

 

omega...: Sure Old Testament Jesus or New Testament Jesus 

 

Pam: Old or new.  It is the same Jesus.

 

omega...: Old Testament Jesus would bring down fire and brimstone and burn them all. New Testament Jesus would love and forgive.

 

Now...let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you didn't mean (as you now claim) that contrary to my point that Jesus being the same being as He who rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom for sodomy, would instead merely forgive, and this is why Jesus would obviously (according to some) attend a gay wedding.

 

If this was not your meaning, then what, exactly, was your point in arguing that there are two different Jesus's and that New Testament Jesus would "love and forgive"? What was your point in saying NT Jesus would love and forgive if it wasn't to imply that this forgiveness and love is what would lead Jesus to attend the wedding? Wasn't that the whole argument you were making? And if not, then what, exactly, is your point?

[JayGlad]

Wasn't that the whole argument you were making? And if not, then what, exactly, is your point?

 

 

There appears to be a fair of amount of this going on over the past few days in a couple of threads.

[omegaseamaster75]

Here is my point and you can agree or disagree as you like, without a lot of detail.

 

In the old testament the Law was the law of Moses the Jews could make no distinction between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, to them they were one in the same. The Iseralites were constantly messing up and as such we read about the judgement and chastisement that God administered to them. Now was the God of the old testament kind and forgiving sure he was.

 

However

 

In the new testament we see the SAME Jesus, but the rhetoric has changed some what. The Law of Moses was the lesser law, under Christ the law was expanded, an inclusive law for Jew and Gentile. 

 

Through the atonement of Christ we can all be forgiven. He said "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

 

 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

 

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

 

Who did Christ administer to? who is the gospel for? We do not need to accept the sin, but Christ would look towards forgiveness first that they may be participants in his atoning sacrifice.

 

If you want to drive a wedge between you and someone who may one day hopefully see the error of their ways then cold hard old testament justice is what you want.

 

In the end the unrepentant sinner will have to answer for his sins. However why should we go out of our way to harden their hearts, why would we not be Christlike and show love and compassion? 

 

My overriding point with the 2 Jesus statement was that the Law has changed/been expanded on. We have an obligation to help the sinner overcome their sins.

[Just_A_Guy]

Omegaseamaster, you make some good points; but I would ask in return:

 

1.  Are you suggesting that repentance was not available prior to Christ's mortal ministry?  If so, how do we explain the great conversion tales in the books of Mosiah and Alma?

2.  Are you suggesting that the way individuals (not nation-states or theocracies, but individuals) treat unrepentant sinners, has substantially changed between OT and NT times?

3.  What are the contours of the division between "not further hardening sinners" and "not condoning sin"?

4.  Is repentance easier for a gay person who is single, or a gay person who is in a committed gay sexual relationship?

5.  Do you believe, when Jesus dined with sinners and publicans, that He neglected to tell them--as he told the woman taken in adultery--to "go, and sin no more"?

[The Folk Prophet]

Here is my point and you can agree or disagree as you like, without a lot of detail.

 

In the old testament the Law was the law of Moses the Jews could make no distinction between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, to them they were one in the same. The Iseralites were constantly messing up and as such we read about the judgement and chastisement that God administered to them. Now was the God of the old testament kind and forgiving sure he was.

 

However

 

In the new testament we see the SAME Jesus, but the rhetoric has changed some what. The Law of Moses was the lesser law, under Christ the law was expanded, an inclusive law for Jew and Gentile. 

 

Through the atonement of Christ we can all be forgiven. He said "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

 

 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

 

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

 

Who did Christ administer to? who is the gospel for? We do not need to accept the sin, but Christ would look towards forgiveness first that they may be participants in his atoning sacrifice.

 

If you want to drive a wedge between you and someone who may one day hopefully see the error of their ways then cold hard old testament justice is what you want.

 

In the end the unrepentant sinner will have to answer for his sins. However why should we go out of our way to harden their hearts, why would we not be Christlike and show love and compassion? 

 

My overriding point with the 2 Jesus statement was that the Law has changed/been expanded on. We have an obligation to help the sinner overcome their sins.

 

I would disagree with a few things. 1. The Jews in the OT were incapable of making the distinctions between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and that we're somehow smarter than they were. 2. The implication that he OT people had no obligation to help the sinner overcome their sins. 3. That the OT law was any more unforgiving as the current law. The application of the law was different. The consequence for disobedience (eternally speaking) was and is the same.

 

But none of this has anything to do with my point (speaking of reading things into others statements), which is that God cannot tolerate sin, and that He will destroy the sinner, not condone them. Any implication that we should or shouldn't attend a gay wedding ourselves based on this is you reading things into my comment. I am merely saying that it is not, in any way, a foregone conclusion that Jesus would attend like some seem to be implying. Not in the least.

 

As to the "driving a wedge" thing, you say potato... I say the wedge between me and another may well be a significantly lesser thing than the wedge driven between them and their potential salvation created by the "support" of those who supposedly love them but then act in complacency when it comes to actually standing up for the truth.

[Just_A_Guy]

Mmmmmm . . . . potato wedges . . .

[omegaseamaster75]

 

As to the "driving a wedge" thing, you say potato... I say the wedge between me and another may well be a significantly lesser thing than the wedge driven between them and their potential salvation created by the "support" of those who supposedly love them but then act in complacency when it comes to actually standing up for the truth.

We view it differently, I want to build a bridge so that when they are ready for repentance they have an outlet. I do'n't want to create a further divide. 

 

We are reading things into each others posts that we may or may not mean...I read them into yours and you read them into mine...such are the limitations of the interweb

[The Folk Prophet]

We view it differently, I want to build a bridge so that when they are ready for repentance they have an outlet. I do'n't want to create a further divide. 

 

I think we all agree on this. And, frankly, the implication that those who would choose not to attend must not want to build bridges and must want to create further divides is typical of the liberal-Mormon acumen, but it doesn't really hold water.

 

The question and debate is not about the value of souls or the need to reach out and save them. The question and debate is concerning the method of doing so.

[pkstpaul]

I re-read Elder Oaks talk from Oct 2014 General Confernece on loving others with differences:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng

 

99% of the talk was about tolerance (tolerance does NOT mean acceptance, by definition). I thought it was backing up my arguments for tolerance in attending or even participating in a gay wedding. Regarding "participating", I felt that, if the ceremony wasn't legitimate, participation didn't make it any more legitimate (i.e. it isn't recognized as holy or un-holy, if not recognized by God).

 

Then I found Elder Oaks one line "Following the Savior’s example, we can show loving-kindness and still be firm in the truth by forgoing actions that facilitate or seem to condone what we know to be wrong."

 

That made it more black and white. I have argued for the person to do what he feels is supportive of his friends. Fact is, I don't have a dog in the fight. I haven't been invited to a gay wedding. I have no expectaion of being invited to a gay wedding. Until and unless I would be in such a position and see personal revelation on the matter, I concede my argument was not doctrine based.

[pam]

Personally I can't see it as black and white.  That is just me mind you.  I think each situation is unique.  Each has its own variables to it.  If it came down to me having to make a decision to attend my own son's gay wedding and the choice to stay away would completely alienate him from my life, I would go to the wedding. Plain and simple.

 

He and I have had long conversations over this.  We both know where each of us stands.  He understands my beliefs.  He knows that I don't approve.  But I also love my son.

[pkstpaul]

Personally I can't see it as black and white.  That is just me mind you.  I think each situation is unique.  Each has its own variables to it.  If it came down to me having to make a decision to attend my own son's gay wedding and the choice to stay away would completely alienate him from my life, I would go to the wedding. Plain and simple.

 

He and I have had long conversations over this.  We both know where each of us stands.  He understands my beliefs.  He knows that I don't approve.  But I also love my son.

Agreed. 

 

Funny...semantically, I said "more black and white", meaning not black and white at all. :)  Just one of those commincation challenges being discussed on other threads. No offense intented. I tried to cover the "gray" with "Until and unless I would be in such a position and seek personal revelation on the matter...."  We all have the blessing of personal revelation in such matters.

[omegaseamaster75]

Omegaseamaster, you make some good points; but I would ask in return:

 

1.  Are you suggesting that repentance was not available prior to Christ's mortal ministry?  If so, how do we explain the great conversion tales in the books of Mosiah and Alma?

 

Repentance was available, and I am sure many people repented of their sins and were welcomed back into the fold, however those are not the stories that we are told in the old testament in general...

Omegaseamaster, you make some good points; but I would ask in return:

 

2.  Are you suggesting that the way individuals (not nation-states or theocracies, but individuals) treat unrepentant sinners, has substantially changed between OT and NT times?

 

No an unrepentant sinner is an unrepentant sinner. How the sinner is treat is what changed

Omegaseamaster, you make some good points; but I would ask in return:

 

4.  Is repentance easier for a gay person who is single, or a gay person who is in a committed gay sexual relationship?

 

I am not sure I understand, a gay person who chooses to remain single and does not act on his homosexual tendencies has not sinned.

 

5.  Do you believe, when Jesus dined with sinners and publicans, that He neglected to tell them--as he told the woman taken in adultery--to "go, and sin no more"?

Who knows I wasn't there....maybe he did.... maybe he didn't.