The next logical step


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Now your conflating two things that will disprove your own point.  There is love and there is sex.  You can LOVE anyone of any sex.  No one says anything against that.  But when you talk of "romantic" love, then you're saying that sex = love.  And that isn't the case. That's a "snuck assumption".  Sex is something that two people who love each other CAN do to strengthen their bond.  But do to so is a choice.

And to answer your question, if the Lord told me that I couldn't marry a woman, then I'd obey the Lord.  End of story.  You think that I haven't thought about this.  I have.  There are all sorts of sob stories we can invoke.  But the bottom line is:  Do we obey the Lord?  That's all.

You believe we will have surrogates in eternity.  And what scripture did you get that from?

You believe gays won’t be married in eternity. And what scripture is that from?

if you’re going to pull from modern day prophets make sure you pull all the times prophets in the past have said blacks can’t have the Priesthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Timothy 8-11

Quote

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Romans 1:21-32

Quote

23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Jude 1:5-10

Quote

 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[d] 10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-20

Quote

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

This is just the New Testament and those that specifically note about homosexuality (there are others that are not as blatant or forward as these).  It gets far worse in the Old Testament.

However, as some believe the New Testament did away with the Old Testament law and replaced it with a New Testament, thus I turn to the New Testament for it's statements on such.  Mainly it's Paul (as noted above in a prior post) who makes statements against it.

This is overall taken from the KJV translation (or I tried to do this, it was via bible gateway and tried to get the KJV each time), the NIV is far more forward typically in labeling it as homosexuality rather than how the KJV states it.

This is a partial list, but hopefully that gives you an idea of how hard it is to reconcile the Bible with the idea of acting upon homosexuality.  There are those who try to utilize the idea that this is only speaking about prostitutes (male prostitutes at the time) but in doing so they ignore the context of the words and the popular meaning (or how the word was used against how they erroneously feel it was used...sort of how we use the word Gay to denote those who are practicing homosexuality at times, but in theory it actually meant happy or something similar to that meaning in the past).

As I said, others may read it differently (KJV is one of the versions where it is probably easier to read differently than some other versions which are far more straight forward in their condemnation), and we may have different opinions on the matter.  I think currently it is hard for a reconciliation between the Bible and those who are involved with homosexual acts, but I also know there are those that try to do so.  The LDS church is not currently one of those that try to reconcile these things with homosexual actions and currently in modern times condemn it (and if anything, side more with a literal interpretation of the Bible and the verses above).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tyme said:

You believe gays won’t be married in eternity. And what scripture is that from?

That was kind of my point.  You're choosing to believe something that you can't prove by your own standards of proof.  And you're using that to call those who believe otherwise to be "heartless."  Is that really charitable?

Quote

if you’re going to pull from modern day prophets make sure you pull all the times prophets in the past have said blacks can’t have the Priesthood.

Yes, I pull from official declarations and proclamations that are solemnly proclaimed by signatures of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12.  Where do you see that for any statements that Blacks will NEVER have the priesthood?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tyme said:

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Yes, we will. To let you know where I'm coming from here, I'll tell you a story about the priesthood ban.

When I first heard about the priesthood ban, I really wondered about it.  I asked many people about why it was.  And truly no answers made any sense.  When I pointed out the flaws in their logic, they just answered with: "Well, that's what the prophets say."  I also pointed out that it was NOT what the prophets said.

But at the same time, I did not find this to be cause to consider all members of the Church as "racist" (which I think is better than calling someone heartless).  I didn't consider the Church to be "racist".  I had faith in Christ.  I had a testimony of the restored gospel.  I had a testimony that the Church is true. But I simply couldn't explain why the ban was there.

AT NO TIME, did I try to tell everyone that the ban was wrong.  I simply asked the question and looked at their explanations for the why.  The individual explanations seemed weak to me.  Yet, I still did not call any of them "wrong".  Nor did I call anyone racist for believing so.

When OD #2 came out, everyone simply said,"Wow, what a wonderful change."  I personally did not know anyone who didn't like the idea.  Even those who believed the most racists explanations for "why the ban" also did a 180 and said,"OK." and went about their day.  I've HEARD of others who did have a problem with it.  But I didn't know any of them.

To this say I don't know why the ban.  But I do know it was God's will to do so and even if I were an adult back then, I wouldn't have gone marching in the streets to get it lifted.  This is known as a "top-down" Church.  There are always going to be things we disagree with.  We'll have our own opinions.  But this is what the Lord has given us at the present.

The future will show us two possibilities:

1) The Lord reveals to you without equivocation that you are wrong and homosexuality is a sin.  What do you do?  Rand and rave?  Or accept it?

2) The Lord reveals to everyone else without equivocation that same-sex marriages are to be solemnized in the temple.  What do yo think I'd do?

We obey the Lord above all our own personal musings and pet theories and mortal experience.  Regardless of whatever logic, reason, emotion, etc. that we can muster to support our own ideas, I will always choose to follow the commandments of the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tyme said:

It will be a joyful day when I can talk to my gay brother about the gospel. 

By the way, I have a gay brother as well.  He left the Church while he was in his late 30s.  My whole family thinks the world of him.  We love him, and he knows we love him.  But all our love for him won't change the fact that we choose to obey the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed at length, numerous times.  My thoughts can be found here (explaining the irrationality of same-sex union in eternity) and I don't have time to track down the other post I previously made - it was most emphatic.  Simply put, the ban was not outside the historic norms for Priesthood and always included the understanding that it was temporary, it also never denied the reality of our species.  Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, has always been flatly condemned with no mention of that condemnation being temporary, and it does indeed deny the reality of our species.  Meanwhile, man + woman (+children) has always been taught, commanded even, as an eternal principle, with no deviation, variation, exception, or temporariness to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

There are so many children that need to be adopted. A gay couple can provide a family for many of those children. Those children could then be sealed to their parents. That is how they have children in eternity.

There was a time when the LGBTQ+ lobbied for gay marriage because "it doesn't hurt anybody".  Now we're talking about LGBTQ+ adopting children.  

According to our faith, the ideal family is a marriage between 2 genders each with their own gender roles in the raising and nurture of their children into spiritual beings.  Divorce breaks this ideal.  Single parenting breaks this ideal.  Death of a parent breaks this ideal.  We don't normally take a non-ideal situation and transfer it to another non-ideal situation.  But then nobody ever goes into a marriage saying, "I'm getting married so I can be divorced" or "I'm getting married so my spouse or I will die" or "When I grow up, I'm going to be a single parent.".

We believe that same sex marriages is not a good environment for the raising and nurturing of children.  This is because we don't believe that the divine calling of a MOTHER can be equally fulfilled by any gender in the same token that the divine calling of a FATHER can be equally fulfilled by any gender.  The difference between same sex marriage and divorced/widowed/single parenting is that people CHOOSE to go into a same sex marriage whereas being divorced/widowed/single parent is a circumstance that comes despite our best efforts to avoid it.

Bible verses: 

Mark 10:6-9
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Proverbs 1:8-9
8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
9 For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.

 

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

just imagine for a second you’re told you can’t marry who you love. How would you feel? Would you want to be a member of the church? I think you should become abstinent and not be married since you believe that’s possibe..

This is another fundamental disagreement between the LGBTQ+ community and Christianity. 

LGBTQ+:  Love grows out of sexual attraction. 

Religious faiths have been trying to teach their faithful members since the beginning of time that LOVE  is not the same as wanting to have sex.  

 

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

im looking for scriptures from the cannon — bible, boom d&c etc. there were many leaders proclaiming that blacks shouldn’t have the Priesthood. Yet, it still eventually happened. Can you explain to me how that is different from what’s going on today with gays? I’m all eyes.

In LDS teaching, Gender is an eternal and fundamental design of the Plan of Salvation through the organization of Families.  The color of one's skin is not. 

Therefore, policies based on skin color/culture/nationality/etc. will always be temporary.  Families and Gender will never be.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh another weaponized compassion thread...  When people make the statement,  'I want them to be happy so I....'  It implies that anyone that disagrees with them do not want others to be happy...  And that is fundamentally dishonest...

For example I want Gays to be happy too...  But I am also a Christian that believes true happiness comes from following God.  I Believe that God has declared Marriage to be between a Man and a Woman.  (See The Family Proclamation). I Believe that God has commanded that Sexual Relations to only happen between people who are married to each other (See all kinds of scriptures).  And that disobeying God is the surest way to be miserable. 

Therefore it is because I want them to be happy that I must hold the line.  Now they can ignore me, they can attack me, they can slander me.  But the only reason I put up with that, and maintain my position is because I want them to be happy and I seek their eternal welfare.  Any one who implies or states otherwise is either ignorant or flat out lying.

Now for those who think "well God has changed things before so I will get out ahead of this one and wait for God to catch up."  The very rephrasing that I just did should show the dangers of that.  Yes God ended the Law of Moses, and Yes God ended the Priesthood Ban, so yes God might, maybe, possibly make another change.  But if he does it will be according to his time and his wisdom, using his judgement, attempting to preempt that is clear hubris and pride. (Aka SIN)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tyme said:

*cringes*

Read the rest of the comment.  If that makes you cringe, you might want to research the fundamental teachings of the Church before you make a baptismal commitment.  You might not have to quit that cigarette (although you still should do it to save your lungs.  And your furniture.).

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Read the rest of the comment.  If that makes you cringe, you might want to research the fundamental teachings of the Church before you make a baptismal commitment.  You might not have to quit that cigarette (although you still should do it to save your lungs.  And your furniture.).

* face palm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

Just imagine for a second you’re told you can’t marry who you love. How would you feel?

I love my daughter. But I can't marry her! How EVIL!

The whole line of reasoning is weak-minded. Marriage is the basis of a family, the union of the sexes. I am commanded to love my brother, but not to marry him or have sex with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

You believe gays won’t be married in eternity. And what scripture is that from?

if you’re going to pull from modern day prophets make sure you pull all the times prophets in the past have said blacks can’t have the Priesthood.

  • You don't believe that we will torture small dogs in eternity. What scripture is that from?
  • You don't believe that we will stand on our heads on a concrete surface for all eternity. What scripture is that from?
  • You don't believe that we will be 89 feet tall and have three heads in eternity. What scripture is that from?

When the prophets said that those of black African ancestry were not permitted to hold the Priesthood, it was true. And has already been pointed out to you more than once, the teaching was always that, at some future date, that restriction would be lifted. Such has never been the case with homosexual relations, which from the beginning have been recognized as a perversion of the true order God has ordained.

My impulse is to classify anyone who uses "homosexuality-is-just-like-blacks-not-having-the-Priesthood" as a liar. But as Carb pointed out in another thread, we can't know that. It would be tragic to dismiss an honest but deceived person as just another liar. But allow me to observe that in such a case, it is incumbent upon the sincere-but-ignorant person to actually understand the arguments against his position (whether or not he agrees with them) and to quit using the same false comparisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

if you’re going to pull from modern day prophets make sure you pull all the times prophets in the past have said blacks can’t have the Priesthood.

In the days of Moses, the priesthood was restricted to the Levites - thus, blacks could not have the priesthood.  In the book of Abraham (esp 1:26), we learn that the descendants of Ham were restricted from the priesthood (whether this restricted blacks or not is irrelevant - it restricted someone - the fact is that the priesthood has always been restricted from someone - or, more accurately, limited by very specific criteria to only those meeting said criteria).  Oh, and by the way, from the beginning, at the very least, the priesthood has been limited to males - that's a pretty large and clear delineation, and the only one that has ever had the appearance of permanent / eternal (I don't know that we're certain that it is, but it seems pretty certain).  All the other limitations have had a more temporary appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tyme said:

Im still waiting on those scriptures.

I'm not fond of games, I'm fairly sure you know full well what the scriptures say.

The priesthood has a long history of being restricted by lineage.

The commandment to not have sex with your own gender has a long history of absolute "thou shalt not" statements. 

Totally the same you are right. I can see how you might get confused on that. I'd invite you to give both of these topic a read.

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

Quote

President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members

 

Now can you find anything that words the commandment to not have sex with your own gender as a temporary thing? How then is the priesthood restrictions by lineage the same as doctrine regarding marriage and chastity? 

Edited by jerome1232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the next logical step:

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2018/11/emu_group_ends_the_vagina_mono.html

Apparently, "The Vagina Monologues" was cancelled because not all women have vaginas.

How on earth does this movement keep from imploding on itself?  It doesn't even support their own agenda.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

It's great to have living prophets who speak for God in our day.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/truth-and-the-plan?lang=eng

Excerpt that seems applicable to this thread.

Quote

Opposition is part of the plan, and Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to God’s plan. He seeks to destroy God’s work.

His prime methods are:

  • to discredit the Savior and His divine authority,
  • to erase the effects of the Atonement of Jesus Christ,
  • to discourage repentance,
  • to counterfeit revelation,
  • and to contradict individual accountability.

He also seeks:

  • to confuse gender,
  • to distort marriage,
  • and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth.

So, apparently, Pres. Oaks is just heartless and ignorant.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Speaking of the next logical step:

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2018/11/emu_group_ends_the_vagina_mono.html

Apparently, "The Vagina Monologues" was cancelled because not all women have vaginas.

How on earth does this movement keep from imploding on itself?  It doesn't even support their own agenda.

And here's Feminist vs Feminist... GQ's latest cover earned the wrath of some feminists because Woman is in quotes.  They got on a debate with other feminists defending GQ's wokeness because they featured a woman of the year instead of a man of the year in a Men's Magazine.  Grievance Olympics is tough, man!  Er, people!

serena-williams-gq.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tyme said:

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. It will be a joyful day when I can talk to my gay brother about the gospel. 

What's preventing you from talking to your brother about the gospel? The fear that because he is living in sin he won't accept it? Why should this particular sin be given special concession that other sins are not afforded? A kleptomaniac is apparently much more likely to steal than a mentally sound well-adapted person, does this mean they should be allowed to steal without consequence? As @Vort already pointed out, what about other sexual perversions, shall we also just start being okay with incest and pedophilia? How long until the definition of amily is so distorted that incest is irrelevant and we already have people deciding to be whatever age they want apparently, so why not let kids decide to be adults while we're at it. This may all seem absurd at the moment, but 50 years ago the idea of same-sex families was equally so. Are you going to be equally excited about the "progress" that parents can have sex with children because we've raised such a society of "I can't help myself, it's a natural impulse" people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

What's preventing you from talking to your brother about the gospel? The fear that because he is living in sin he won't accept it? Why should this particular sin be given special concession that other sins are not afforded? A kleptomaniac is apparently much more likely to steal than a mentally sound well-adapted person, does this mean they should be allowed to steal without consequence? As @Vort already pointed out, what about other sexual perversions, shall we also just start being okay with incest and pedophilia? How long until the definition of amily is so distorted that incest is irrelevant and we already have people deciding to be whatever age they want apparently, so why not let kids decide to be adults while we're at it. This may all seem absurd at the moment, but 50 years ago the idea of same-sex families was equally so. Are you going to be equally excited about the "progress" that parents can have sex with children because we've raised such a society of "I can't help myself, it's a natural impulse" people.

It’s because I don’t want him to live the hell that is being gay in the church. Why should I subject my brother to hell on earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tyme said:

It’s because I don’t want him to live the hell that is being gay in the church. Why should I subject my brother to hell on earth?

Inability to act on one’s sexual predilections with the partner of one’s choice = hell?

Hell?

I suggest you think about that, and then consider whether you’d care to amend that statement.  

Because on its face, your statement suggests that as a society we condemn many, many people to “hell” every day.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share