Church policy change on same sex marriage


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

Saying that they have a difficult challenge and being sympathetic to it is not the same as encouraging their behavior. I quoted you not to encourage their behavior,  but to point out the challenges they face.  

You mentioned marrying someone that you weren't sexual attracted to, which would certainly be a challenge, but I can't even imagine the challenge of marrying someone of a different sex than you were attracted to.  The two challenges don't seem equal.  

That's what happened to my cousin.  His ex-wife (they were both LDS) both tried to make it work, but it didn't and neither could deal with the challenge.     I don't think I could either.

Could you?  Please answer honestly.  Could you deal with the challenge of marrying someone of a different sex than you were attracted to?   I don't think I could, but then again, I'm weak.  

Honest answer.  Without conversion (spiritually born again) no fallen man can keep the commandments of G-d on their own - but with G-d all things are possible.  The question I have for you - do you honestly believe that with G-d all things are possible?  That no commandment is given to men except that G-d has prepared a way to accomplish his commandments.  I understand that the "opportunity" may not be in this life - but our challenge as Saints of G-d is to prepare ourselves to receive the ordinances and covenants of G-d.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, there it is... define LOVE in your phrase "Marriage for Love".

Yes, marrying for love is not unique to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam - the believers of the book of Genesis.  After all, the light of Christ is in all of us.  But we can't talk apples to apples unless we all have the same understanding of what Love is.  Even among Christians, the word Love is used in very vague terms a lot times replacing Love for Lust when the good book is very clear on the matter.

To say that "marriage for love" is non-existent until fathers quit arranging marriages for their daughters is not accurate.  Marriage for love existed all the way to the time of Adam.  You can say, "Marriage of female choice" or "Marriage of classless choice" was not common but you can't say those marriages are deprived of Love.  That's the same argument as saying, "Marriage restricted by gender" - a restriction on choice - are deprived of Love.

 

My opinion - to be trusted is greater than to be loved.  Trust is far more important in marriage than love.  I believe we can learn to love anyone that we can trust but we cannot say that we can learn to trust anyone we can love.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Scott said:

Because a lot of are.  So are a lot of other non-Trump supporters.  

Then what's the relevance?

38 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

With some truth to it. Many conservatives threw Bill Clinton under the bus for his sexual indiscretions but are quick to give Trump a pass. And many liberals were quick to worship Bill Clinton back in the 90's while demanding Trump be burned at the stake.  The only time both parties sacrifice one of their own when it comes to sexual matters is in cases like Mark Foley or Anthony Weiner.

Sure, but haven't you noticed how often a group of conservatives discuss immoral behavior, and somebody trots out Trump's antics as if somehow they're always relevant?

30 minutes ago, Scott said:

While that may be true,  among some forum members, I see a lot less condemnation (in forum posts) towards Trump than I do towards those with same gender attraction. 

Has there been a new development in Trump's personal life that merits discussing it again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

My opinion - to be trusted is greater than to be loved.  Trust is far more important in marriage than love.  I believe we can learn to love anyone that we can trust but we cannot say that we can learn to trust anyone we can love.

 

The Traveler

There it is again.  Trust is greater than "to be Loved".  Makes me think again... the definition here used for Love is vague.   There is NOTHING greater than Love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Scott said:

Could you?  Please answer honestly.  Could you deal with the challenge of marrying someone of a different sex than you were attracted to?   I don't think I could, but then again, I'm weak.  

If God commands it, then of course I can!  God promised he won't give me more than I can bear.  So if he gave it to me, I must be strong enough to bear it.  Unless you're going to suggest that God was mistaken?

But see... I don't believe that "sexually attracted to" is solely a biological attraction.  I believe that sex is an expression of one's OVERALL attraction to the other person - that's not just his physical attributes as those are temporary - but his SPIRITUAL ATTRIBUTES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Sure, but haven't you noticed how often a group of conservatives discuss immoral behavior, and somebody trots out Trump's antics as if somehow they're always relevant?

 

No doubt. Liberals like doing this because they think all conservatives are moralistic church ladies. Which is, of course, nonsense.  

However, I see many conservatives giving lip service to Trumps personal failures and then demanding someone like Al Franken be crucified. And, if a personal friend of theirs did what Trump did (no doubt cheat on their first two wives, probably cheat on their third) they'd throw them under the bus. So it does bother me. 

People would say "Hey, you've never sinned? Trump is a good guy!" but if I was caught cheating on my wife they'd demand my immediate excommunication and they would never say I was a "good guy."

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If God commands it, then of course I can!  God promised he won't give me more than I can bear.  So if he gave it to me, I must be strong enough to bear it.  Unless you're going to suggest that God was mistaken?

Did God command that those with same gender attraction have to get married?   

Recent church leaders have said the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why is it that we conservatives allow that progressives on the board have good intentions but are simply misguided on the solutions, but the progressives paint conservatives as willfully evil?

That's laughable.   It is the usually exact opposite on this forum.   Here are exact quotes.  I won't say who said them, but here are some quick quotes about democrats, liberals, progressives, the left, etc. from this forum:

That is, you would think so if you were utterly clueless and believed that the Democratic Party was filled with rational Americans of good sense and good will.

The political Left in the United States is the spearhead of the great and abominable Church. It is antithetical to the Kingdom of God at every point. It is obviously Satanic.

Intolerance of pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-chastity, anti-Christ, indolent, hedonistic, violent man-children Intolerance of pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-chastity, anti-Christ, indolent, hedonistic, violent man-children is actually a virtue by my estimation.

They are pro-abortion, they see family and marriage as old fashioned and/or oppressive/restrictive, they believe there's nothing wrong with sexual promiscuity, they are anti-religion (unless its Islam,) and they hate the principle of work. This is what they believe. 

We know how to identify Satanic influence.

 When you read the Family Proclamation and realize that it is contrary to the Leftist orthodoxy at every point, one must conclude the Devil is intimately at work in the Left. 

This is just a very small sample provided from a random search.   There are (literally) thousands of such posts on this forum.  

How many can you show against conservatives?  

(PS, mine was mostly a joke, but go ahead and use it).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2019 at 12:27 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

How can "the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships [...] be treated in the same way" when living in a heterosexual married relationship is wholesome and living in a homosexual married relationship is "serious transgression"?

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

"WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God..."  It's not the living in a marriage/relationship, it's the "immoral conduct" of intimate relations outside of ordained marriage that is the issue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If God commands it, then of course I can! 

The only answer any faithful Latter-day Saint should give!

Kicking against the pricks helps no one.

There are those who humbly submit to the will of The Father, and there are those who don't.

58 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But see... I don't believe that "sexually attracted to" is solely a biological attraction.  I believe that sex is an expression of one's OVERALL attraction to the other person - that's not just his physical attributes as those are temporary - but his SPIRITUAL ATTRIBUTES.

I very well recall what it was like when my libido was in full swing starting in my teenage years and going through my late 30s. I know very well that I was capable of getting aroused by a tree if I so chose.

I don't buy or believe for one second that most mid-libido men are incapable of being sexually aroused by pretty much anything.

*Moreover, when I was 18 I was entirely "turned off" by women over a certain weight. My wife and I, being in my late 40s, both struggle to keep weight off now. And yet I have learned to find my wife's "curves" very attractive. At 18 I would have NEVER pursued someone with "curves" like that because I was, immaturely, not "sexually attracted" to that.

I can understand how an immature teenage brain thinks "I only like blondes/brunettes with such-n-such measurements between this and this height. I'm sexually uninterested in anyone else". I thought that way. Yeah...teenagers are typically immature and self-centered -- especially when they start thinking with their private parts. Most people who've been married long enough realize that sexual attraction develops, changes, matures, grows, and is less important in the overall scheme of things.

How anyone who no longer has a flat belly, has wrinkles, scars, hair-loss, etc... but believes their spouse, who married them when they were young and trim, still finds them attractive, but then believes that one cannot possibly be happy unless married to someone who fits some perfect model of sexual attraction -- is either not thinking about it or lying for an agenda.

According to that agenda, a man whose wife puts on weight, develops cellulite and varicose veins, gets wrinkles, has stretch marks or scars from child-birth or the like or, worst-case, gets disfigured in an accident, must immediately leave her to be with someone who is more of a turn on.

I am entirely convinced that pretty much everything about the homosexual agenda is a lie. It is entirely based on the most immature, sexually perverse, teen-aged non-thinking "me, me, me", brain-power-centered-in-the-loins. And so many -- even many who are faithful to their overweight, balding, wrinkled spouses, and believe their spouses faithful to their overweight, wrinkled, stretch-marked cellulite, selves -- have somehow bought into the bullcrap.

Satan's got a great hold on the world's thinking.

*edit: You'll note by the previous paragraph that my being "turned off", I realize now, was based on immaturity and not by some status I could not help.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2019 at 5:44 PM, wenglund said:

The Church has frowned significantly on the notion of coed housing, and even went to court over the matter in relation to BYU, though I don't know what disciplinary issues there are absent immoral activity. 

While at BYU, I lived on one side of a duplex with men, and on the other side there were women.  The duplex was disqualified as approved BYU housing because of males and females "living under the same roof," though my Bishop didn't have a problem with it. I don't know if the same would hold were men and women living on the same side of the duplex.

It would be interesting to find out. Either way, it is a move away from simplicity and order and towards chaos. The Jews attempted to avoid the potential chaotic  forces of immorality creep by "building a wall around the Torah."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I had a friend who ended up marrying her roommate from a time when they were both Washington DC interns. There were other men and women living in the house with them.  I don't recall that they had to "repent" of anything before being married in the temple. They got married a week before I did so we compared notes on everything. 

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No doubt. Liberals like doing this because they think all conservatives are moralistic church ladies. Which is, of course, nonsense.  

However, I see many conservatives giving lip service to Trumps personal failures and then demanding someone like Al Franken be crucified. And, if a personal friend of theirs did what Trump did (no doubt cheat on their first two wives, probably cheat on their third) they'd throw them under the bus. So it does bother me. 

People would say "Hey, you've never sinned? Trump is a good guy!" but if I was caught cheating on my wife they'd demand my immediate excommunication and they would never say I was a "good guy."

I don't know too many conservatives who sing the praises of Trump as a "good guy."  Good President, yes.  Would I want to leave him alone with my 19-year-old daughter?  No.  

The reason you'll see conservatives wanting to go after Al Franken is because we too see a double standard.  What Trump has done is really prettymuch par for the course when it comes to powerful people in general, but people who hate Trump (whether liberal or neverTrump conservatives) make a huge deal out of his behavior but Al Franken (or whoever else in politics with a (D) after their name) gets a solid "meh."

Why did Anthony Weiner get nailed to the wall?  Because you can make a solid argument that he cost Clinton the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, unixknight said:

Why did Anthony Weiner get nailed to the wall? 

I think it's because his crimes were against minors. That changes everything. No one wants to defend a scumbag like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's because his crimes were against minors. That changes everything. No one wants to defend a scumbag like that. 

Well yeah that too, but IIRC that was the second of the 3 incidents.  I might be remembering wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Well yeah that too, but IIRC that was the second of the 3 incidents.  I might be remembering wrong though.

 Eh, so could I. Who cares in the end? It's not like these conversations will mean anything in three days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's laughable.   It is the usually exact opposite on this forum.   Here are exact quotes.  I won't say who said them, but here are some quick quotes about democrats, liberals, progressives, the left, etc. from this forum:

That is, you would think so if you were utterly clueless and believed that the Democratic Party was filled with rational Americans of good sense and good will.

The political Left in the United States is the spearhead of the great and abominable Church. It is antithetical to the Kingdom of God at every point. It is obviously Satanic.

Intolerance of pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-chastity, anti-Christ, indolent, hedonistic, violent man-children Intolerance of pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-chastity, anti-Christ, indolent, hedonistic, violent man-children is actually a virtue by my estimation.

They are pro-abortion, they see family and marriage as old fashioned and/or oppressive/restrictive, they believe there's nothing wrong with sexual promiscuity, they are anti-religion (unless its Islam,) and they hate the principle of work. This is what they believe. 

We know how to identify Satanic influence.

 When you read the Family Proclamation and realize that it is contrary to the Leftist orthodoxy at every point, one must conclude the Devil is intimately at work in the Left. 

This is just a very small sample provided from a random search.   There are (literally) thousands of such posts on this forum.  

How many can you show against conservatives?  

(PS, mine was mostly a joke, but go ahead and use it).  

Are you capable of seeing the difference between criticism of ideology and criticism of individual motive?

"The philosophy you're espousing is evil and of the devil." vs. "You hate people and want them to die."

???

Do you understand the difference? Or are you too blinded by your narrative to step back and see what is and is not actually a personal attack on character?

With a few rare exceptions, the conservatives on this board understand that the a progressive's embrace of socialist ideas is based on that progressive's good intent -- that their underlying motivation is compassion and a desire to see good.

The same should be obvious in these homosexuality discussions. I know full well that @LiterateParakeet, for example, has goodness, compassion, love, and mercy underlying her views.

But you're so blinded by your views that you aren't even willing to admit that just maybe the views conservatives have are also based in goodness, compassion, love, and mercy -- and that our implications that change is necessary is based in our concern and love for God's children, and our firm understanding that mankind cannot be saved in his sins. No though -- according to you we're just condemning people out of hatred, meanwhile sustaining adultery and evil where it suits our political agenda.

Do you believe that we are going to be convinced that our love and concern for people who are engaged in serious transgression which drives us to sue for humility and change is actually nothing but hate by posting a bunch of our quotes? Do you think that by posting what was written we'll decide our concern with leftist ideologies is based in hate? Do you think we don't know what we actually believe, and aren't fully aware of what we said and why we said it?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BonnieSites.solutions said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

"WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God..."  It's not the living in a marriage/relationship, it's the "immoral conduct" of intimate relations outside of ordained marriage that is the issue. 

 

Just FWIW, the question I posed was somewhat rhetorical. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm not calling The Folk Prophet out specifically, but it is amazing to me how many conservatives on this forum (which shall remain name-less) condemn those with same gender attraction while refusing to even criticize the president (who should be a role model) for far greater sins including having sex with other people's wife's; cheating on his own wives (several times of course), committing marital rape, brag about grabbing women's "intimate parts" without consent, etc. 

I honestly do not recall anyone on this forum, conservative or otherwise, "condemn[ing] those with same gender attraction". As far as I have seen, the condemnation has always been toward (1) the sin of homosexual activity and (2) the possibly greater sin of justifying the sin of homosexual activity.

Can you provide some examples of this condemnation you mention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But you're so blinded by your views that you aren't even willing to admit that just maybe the views conservatives have are also based in goodness, compassion, love, and mercy --

I already admit all  of that.  There are good people on both sides.

Quote

No though -- according to you we're just condemning people out of hatred, meanwhile sustaining adultery and evil where it suits our political agenda.

No, the ones I was referring to are just holding people that they "like" to a different standard, whether they admit to doing so or not. Also, I said some conservatives, not all of them.   I didn't even mention specific names.  

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Do you really want me to create a tally sheet with numbers?   

 

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Yes! 

I strongly encourage this as well.

However, since you, Scott,  and perhaps 3 others, including Mormongator,  seem vulnerable to false equivalencies,  let me kindly offer two critical suggestions so that you don't end up make egregious rookie analytical mistakes.

  • First, compare apples to apples rather than apples to an orange (deprecating pun intended). In other words, as @The Folk Prophet intimated a logical comparative  analysis should be sexual behavior to sexual behavior, and not sexual behavior to the full gamete of behaviors. And, it should be group to group rather than group to individual. In other words, tally all the positive and negative comments about the immoral behaviors (as the Church views it) of both homosexuals and heterosexuals, as made by the Right and the Left respectively pm this board.Then maybe create a subsection on Trump alone compared with one homosexual, to merely provide perspective
  • Since the immoral behaviors of heterosexuals tends not to generate as much discussion as the immoral behavior of homosexuals (likely because of the stark difference in controversy), the analysis needs to be proportional.

I would caution you, though, because these kinds of rational comparative analysis tend to work heavily against Leftist and pop-culture thinking, particularly as it relates to homosexuality. But, you may find the experience beneficial nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I had a friend who ended up marrying her roommate from a time when they were both Washington DC interns. there were other men and wome living in the house with them.  I don't recall that they had to "repent" of anything before being married in the temple. They got married a week before I did so we compared notes on everything. 

In a sense, the marriage made moot the need for repentance. That which was wrong (at least in terms of appearances) was made right by the marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, the ones I was referring to are just holding people that they "like" to a different standard, whether they admit to doing so or not. Also, I said some conservatives, not all of them.   I didn't even mention specific names.  

You mentioned me specifically, though not by name. But mine was your first quote. I think your claim is mistaken. I don't believe I hold people that I like to a different standard. Can you give some evidence of this charge of hypocrisy on my part?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's because his crimes were against minors. That changes everything. No one wants to defend a scumbag like that. 

 

29 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Well yeah that too, but IIRC that was the second of the 3 incidents.  I might be remembering wrong though.

Unixknight has the right on this one - Weiner cost Clinton the election and Huma couldn't protect him.  Meanwhile, infanticide promoter, black-face wearing Northam is still sitting in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
18 minutes ago, Vort said:

I honestly do not recall anyone on this forum, conservative or otherwise, "condemn[ing] those with same gender attraction". As far as I have seen, the condemnation has always been toward (1) the sin of homosexual activity and (2) the possibly greater sin of justifying the sin of homosexual activity.

Can you provide some examples of this condemnation you mention?

Dictionary.com defines the word condemn as follows:

verb (used with object)

to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
 
There is a difference between condemning a person and an act.  I will provide a random quote from this forum that show a difference between the two.  I will intentionally choose statements that I don't consider to be inflammatory, just so I can answer your question sincerely without starting an argument.  
 
Whether right or wrong, this quote meets the definition of condemning one with same gender attraction:

throughout the United States, the rate of homosexual-related social ills (including suicides) have markedly increased with acceptance of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage in particular. (See HERE)

It appears that people are intent on learning the hard way that "wickedness never was happiness.

Do you agree or disagree that the above randomly chosen statement condemns (even if part or all of it might be true-I won't go there) those with same gender attraction?  It does by definition.   Do you agree?  

Now, moving on, my comment wasn't a beef against statements such as the above (and I intentionally chose one that was civil), it was against the double standard.   Don't tell me that double standards don't show up on this forum.   It isn't only about this particular topic either.   

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Scott said:

I already admit all  of that.  There are good people on both sides.  

That's individuals.  Do you also admit that condemning homosexual sex is GOOD?  Because, right now, I'm not sure if you believe this.

 

Quote

No, the ones I was referring to are just holding people that they "like" to a different standard, whether they admit to doing so or not. Also, I said some conservatives, not all of them.   I didn't even mention specific names.   

 

We don't hold people to standards - homosexual or otherwise.  We hold ACTIONS to standards. 

I find it mind-boggling that you talk about homosexuals like homosexuality is the sum total of their character and that to condemn homosexuality is a condemnation of the entire person.  Mind.  Boggling.

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

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