What LGBTQ+ hath wrot


cat123
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Nissan said:

Actually it does have everything to do with the bigger discussion.  You just don't see it. . . b/c sadly you don't have children (I wish you did).

perhaps I see it far more in depth than you think I do-just that we disagree your opinion is clouded. If I was agreeing with you than my lack of having children wouldn't be in the discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fether said:

You know... of everything I have read, I’ve actually really appreciated this. This actually helped me connect some beliefs I have about homosexuality. 

Literally... something just clicked in my brain and I’m beginning to see you points. By providing a stage with the Tabernacle at Temple Square, we are providing learning opportunities for others to learn to be homosexual... particularly saints.

I’m ganna munch in this for a bit, but that comment actually... changed my mind..? I’ve never felt this online before.

I don't think, I've ever had someone say that to me on an online format.  Thank you-really thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Translation: People justify their selfish actions so as to avoid taking responsibility for them.

Hardly world-shaking news.

"My children would be unhappy in a home with such tension. My children are happier when I'm happier. So therefore, I must do whatever I think will make me happier. It's for the children." Oh, yes, we see exactly this sort of lying justification every single day of our lives, throughout society all around us. People are petty and selfish, and freely sacrifice the well-being of their children so that they can follow their gonads. Happens all the freaking time. My father-in-law was a survivor of exactly such enlightened self-interest. It's a miracle he made it out in one peace, to say nothing of managing to establish a reasonably successful marriage with a woman who was herself badly damaged by Nazi atrocities (another instance of enlightened self-interest).

People are far more complex than you think they are. We place them in boxes because it makes it easier for us to understand them. We'll act like we know exactly why they did this or that when in reality, you don't have a clue. Neither do I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

People are far more complex than you think they are. We place them in boxes because it makes it easier for us to understand them. We'll act like we know exactly why they did this or that when in reality, you don't have a clue. Neither do I.

MG, I have seen people abandon their children in order to "find themselves". Seen it with my own eyes. I have watched it happen, close up. This is not theoretical. It's factual, and it happens all the time, all around us. These people willingly sacrifice the well-being that their children derive from their presence in the home so that they, the parents, can go do something else that doesn't involve child-rearing. In almost all cases, that "something else" is related to their sexual urges. I don't know what sort of complexity you think could explain away that behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Vort said:

MG, I have seen people abandon their children in order to "find themselves". Seen it with my own eyes. I have watched it happen, close up. This is not theoretical. It's factual, and it happens all the time, all around us. These people willingly sacrifice the well-being that their children derive from their presence in the home so that they, the parents, can go do something else that doesn't involve child-rearing. In almost all cases, that "something else" is related to their sexual urges. I don't know what sort of complexity you think could explain away that behavior.

Can you read their minds? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

perhaps I see it far more in depth than you think I do-just that we disagree your opinion is clouded. If I was agreeing with you than my lack of having children wouldn't be in the discussion.

No, you don't see it far more in depth, but far more short-sighted.

There is something about raising children (especially more than one) that provides quite a different perspective.  You can easily see how much we really are molded.  Christ's words are very true when he speaks about us becoming as little children.  Little children not in childishness-but in the ability of children to be so easily molded and shaped to His will. Most certainly ever child has a personality (shy, bold, spunky, reserved), but as as their belief system, who they believe they are and what they believe about themselves-it is absolutely molded.

You understand at how easy it is to really change their opinions.  I've played this game with my kids, multiple times, even as old as 11.  Where do you want to go for ice cream? Chick-fil-A or Dairy Queen.  Well Dairy Queen has the great wonderful, awesome special for this special ice cream.  "Oh dad, let's go to Dairy Queen".  But Chick-fil-A has great cookies-and-cream! "Oh dad let's go to Chick-fil-A". I can easily go back and forth multiple times, causing them to change their mind.  What that really means is that kids don't really know what to think or how to think and they are carried about by every whim. Kids have to be taught how to think.

Because a child doesn't know what to think or how to think, if you decide that you really care about what they think-then you are saying that their thinking supercedes or is more important than your own thinking. If a child learns or is taught that the parent really cares about his thoughts and feelings, then it means that the child will learn to discard anything or everything which is by the parent. They will become egotistical and self-centered as they are taught that what is in their own mind is more important than anyone else's-even the mind of God.

It flips on it's head, the God-ordained order.  Which is that parents are instructed to train their children, to teach them, to raise them up righteously, which can only be done from someone who is an authority figure in their life.  I care that my child learns how to think, not their actual thoughts; b/c as the Good Book states, "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child".

Edited by Nissan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Oh we agree on that one, that's for sure. 

Good.

So the teaching of homosexuality and all things LGBTQ+ is going to have a significant impact on what children believe about themselves in regard to homosexuality, correct.

Which means, if one believes homosexuality is a sin-then we should teach children not so associate with it in any form. If one believes it is not a sin, well we should keep doing what we are doing, well actually if we want to confuse people we should continue doing what we are doing until everyone is utterly confounded and have no idea which way to point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

People are far more complex than you think they are. We place them in boxes because it makes it easier for us to understand them. We'll act like we know exactly why they did this or that when in reality, you don't have a clue. Neither do I.

The thing is, everyone’s complex.  Hitler was complex.  Stalin was complex.  Mao was complex. Pol Pot was complex.  But we still unhesitatingly call them “evil”—not because of (or in spite of) the mental gymnastics that they used to justify their actions; but because we recognize the suffering that their actions caused and their ultimate indifference to said suffering.  Even scripturally, a lot of people we characterize as “evil” or “wicked” may have had (or sincerely thought they had) noble intentions to some degree—Laman and Lemuel, Amalickiah, Martin Harris, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pilate.

God can judge intentions.  We mere mortals can only judge consequences—which in this case include broken covenants (with both God and community), broken homes, broken faiths, and broken hearts.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The thing is, everyone’s complex.  Hitler was complex.  Stalin was complex.  Mao was complex. Pol Pot was complex.  But we still unhesitatingly call them “evil”—not because of (or in spite of) the mental gymnastics that they used to justify their actions; but because we recognize the suffering that their actions caused and their ultimate indifference to said suffering.  Even scripturally, a lot of people we characterize as “evil” or “wicked” may have had (or sincerely thought they had) noble intentions to some degree—Laman and Lemuel, Amalickiah, Martin Harris, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pilate.

God can judge intentions.  We mere mortals can only judge consequences—which in this case include broken covenants (with both God and community), broken homes, broken faiths, and broken hearts.

Well said.  I don't know why people argue to justify bad behavior. It always seems to be people who have fallen away themselves and see to be convincing others to join them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Well said.  I don't know why people argue to justify bad behavior. It always seems to be people who have fallen away themselves and see to be convincing others to join them.

There is a huge difference between justifying bad behavior... and attacking the church because it extended the hand of friendship to the sinner.  Such extensions are exactly what the church is mandated to do.  Yet too many members are up in arms because they think certain classes of sinners should be shunned.

If the Church was able to pull together a choir of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Laman, Lemuel, Amalickiah, Martain Harris, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pilate, and a bunch of Pedophiles, I would be supportive. Not because I am ignorant or embracing of their wickedness... But rather because I can't think of a group that needs to feel the Spirit unto repentance more.  And it is not my place to judge them irredeemable.  That is solely God's call. His command to us to try to reach them.

Like the story of Ammon one of son of Mosiah.  They too were told that the Lamanites were too evil.  They did it anyways.  And Ammon did not start off by preaching to the King about how evil he was. He started off by serving him, in spite of the King's wickedness.  It was only after such service that the Lord prepared a way.

The very nature of missionary work requires us to dine with the publicans and sinners.  Don't be like the Pharisees, to the Lord when the Lord's church follows his example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

There is a huge difference between justifying bad behavior... and attacking the church because it extended the hand of friendship to the sinner.  Such extensions are exactly what the church is mandated to do.  Yet too many members are up in arms because they think certain classes of sinners should be shunned.

If the Church was able to pull together a choir of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Laman, Lemuel, Amalickiah, Martain Harris, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pilate, and a bunch of Pedophiles, I would be supportive. Not because I am ignorant or embracing of their wickedness... But rather because I can't think of a group that needs to feel the Spirit unto repentance more.  And it is not my place to judge them irredeemable.  That is solely God's call. His command to us to try to reach them.

Like the story of Ammon one of son of Mosiah.  They too were told that the Lamanites were too evil.  They did it anyways.  And Ammon did not start off by preaching to the King about how evil he was. He started off by serving him, in spite of the King's wickedness.  It was only after such service that the Lord prepared a way.

The very nature of missionary work requires us to dine with the publicans and sinners.  Don't be like the Pharisees, to the Lord when the Lord's church follows his example.

Sure.  That's why I very specifically said "justifying bad behavior".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

There is a huge difference between justifying bad behavior... and attacking the church because it extended the hand of friendship to the sinner.  Such extensions are exactly what the church is mandated to do.  Yet too many members are up in arms because they think certain classes of sinners should be shunned.

If the Church was able to pull together a choir of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Laman, Lemuel, Amalickiah, Martain Harris, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pilate, and a bunch of Pedophiles, I would be supportive. Not because I am ignorant or embracing of their wickedness... But rather because I can't think of a group that needs to feel the Spirit unto repentance more.  And it is not my place to judge them irredeemable.  That is solely God's call. His command to us to try to reach them.

Like the story of Ammon one of son of Mosiah.  They too were told that the Lamanites were too evil.  They did it anyways.  And Ammon did not start off by preaching to the King about how evil he was. He started off by serving him, in spite of the King's wickedness.  It was only after such service that the Lord prepared a way.

The very nature of missionary work requires us to dine with the publicans and sinners.  Don't be like the Pharisees, to the Lord when the Lord's church follows his example.

This isn't a hand of friendship. This is inviting them into your home, paying them to come into your home and then praising them for being so wonderful.

No repentance is going to happen from this. It's cozying up to them. Why?

What happens when a child is confused about what they are feeling and needs a steady hand?

When you preach homosexuality is a sin and then you invite them into your home when their pictures on their public page are not something I want my kids seeing.... What message are you sending?

What we going to now have special musical numbers in sacrament meeting by them too?

At what point does my desire and need for a safe space and a refugee from the world overcome the desire to be seen as not hateful?

What ever happened to the teaching in my youth to avoid the appearance of evil?

What happens when I take my kids to this and they Google the website and see men dressed up as women parading around or men half naked as reindeers for their Christmas program, knowing that just the day before they were dressed in nice suits singing Christ praises at the temple.

There is a word that comes to mind and it isn't love.

Edited by Nissan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

If the Church was able to pull together a choir of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Laman, Lemuel, Amalickiah, Martain Harris, Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pilate, and a bunch of Pedophiles, I would be supportive. Not because I am ignorant or embracing of their wickedness... But rather because I can't think of a group that needs to feel the Spirit unto repentance more.  And it is not my place to judge them irredeemable.  That is solely God's call. His command to us to try to reach them.

[...]

The very nature of missionary work requires us to dine with the publicans and sinners.  Don't be like the Pharisees, to the Lord when the Lord's church follows his example.

Indeed, Christ ate with publicans and sinners, and perhaps talked with prostitutes. But I bet he didn't invite the prostitutes to come to the temple grounds with him while they were advertising their availability.

This is not a question of hating or shunning homsoexuals. It is a recognition of the obvious imprudence of inviting a group that proudly self-identifies by its preferred sexual perversion to come sing on temple grounds. Homosexuals are welcome to come onto the temple grounds, and even to perform. They are children of God, just as, say, the antiMormon protestors are children of God and are welcome to come onto the temple grounds. But we don't let those protestors parade around on the temple grounds holding their antiMormon signs or wearing their t-shirts that proclaim "Mormonism" to be a "cult".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Like the story of Ammon one of son of Mosiah.  They too were told that the Lamanites were too evil.  They did it anyways.  And Ammon did not start off by preaching to the King about how evil he was. He started off by serving him, in spite of the King's wickedness.  It was only after such service that the Lord prepared a way.

Here’s the interesting thing about that story, though:

It starts with Lamoni making a direct attempt to co-opt Ammon’s open-mindedness and compassion, for his own ends (“marry my daughter, become heir to my throne and I can spread the story of the Nephite princeling’s dissension from his own nation far and wide and use my alliance with you to goose my own standing amongst my peer lesser-kings in front of my father the high-king”).  And Ammon refuses to take the bait.  He insists on being nothing more than a servant.  He’s very sensitive to the PR ramifications of his choices.  (By the way, Lamoni’s inherent wiliness and political savvy is one of the things that makes me respect his conversion all the more.)

Exposing sinners to the Spirit is nice and all; and we may want to think we’re using the Hitlers and Amalickiahs and Judases of the world—but they are also planning to use us, and sometimes they succeed.  That is why Christ warned His followers to be “wise as serpents”; and why He made provision for the excommunication of the impenitent.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we believe that "A man must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of Hands"?  Because that is the pattern for leadership in the church all the way down.  The only thing that is sometimes omitted is the laying of on hands to more personal responsibility (like parenthood or self).  God's house is a house of order and has appointed stewardship.  We need to respect the stewardship God has entrusted to other.  If we do not we are choosing to disobey the Lord.

None of us have the stewardship to invite the Genocidal, Pedophile, Nazi Choir to the Temple Square.  However there is someone that God as called to that stewardship who can.  The Charitable position is that said steward obtained the mind and will of the Lord in the matter.  Something none of us are entitled to. The Uncharitable position is that they screwed up.  This is a possibility because God works through very flawed and sinful human.

Those two possibilities mean either the Lord approves... In which case we are murmuring against him if we complain about it.  Or the Lord does not approve.  In which case we are ark steadying.  The Lord has means and methods of correcting the wayward members and leaders of his church.  And said correction does not come from the peanut gallery. 

The only call we have is "Do we want to go see (and take those we have stewardship over) the Genocidal, Pedophile, Nazi Choir?" and that is between you and the Lord.  And the Lord might tell you that you should not go, even though he might have approved it at a higher level.  Such personal revelation does not empower us to try to impose it on the rest of the church. we do not have that stewardship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, estradling75 said:

Do we believe that "A man must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of Hands"?  Because that is the pattern for leadership in the church all the way down.  The only thing that is sometimes omitted is the laying of on hands to more personal responsibility (like parenthood or self).  God's house is a house of order and has appointed stewardship.  We need to respect the stewardship God has entrusted to other.  If we do not we are choosing to disobey the Lord.

None of us have the stewardship to invite the Genocidal, Pedophile, Nazi Choir to the Temple Square.  However there is someone that God as called to that stewardship who can.  The Charitable position is that said steward obtained the mind and will of the Lord in the matter.  Something none of us are entitled to. The Uncharitable position is that they screwed up.  This is a possibility because God works through very flawed and sinful human.

Those two possibilities mean either the Lord approves... In which case we are murmuring against him if we complain about it.  Or the Lord does not approve.  In which case we are ark steadying.  The Lord has means and methods of correcting the wayward members and leaders of his church.  And said correction does not come from the peanut gallery. 

The only call we have is "Do we want to go see (and take those we have stewardship over) the Genocidal, Pedophile, Nazi Choir?" and that is between you and the Lord.  And the Lord might tell you that you should not go, even though he might have approved it at a higher level.  Such personal revelation does not empower us to try to impose it on the rest of the church. we do not have that stewardship.

Do we believe in common consent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nissan said:

Do we believe in common consent?

Did you sustain the Leadership of the Church at the last General Conference?  Because that is when I gave my Consent to this action and all the others the Church might take in the next 6 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nissan said:
13 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m ganna munch in this for a bit, but that comment actually... changed my mind..? I’ve never felt this online before.

I don't think, I've ever had someone say that to me on an online format.  Thank you-really thank you.

I'm thinking this whole thing deserves to be framed and hung in a gallery somewhere.  It is indeed a very rare thing to be happily arguing away online, and go away with a new outlook on things.  

SmilesBrighamYoungMormonHub.thumb.jpg.d956006fefc8af80af1b3cf969e41fe0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Do we believe that "A man must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of Hands"?  Because that is the pattern for leadership in the church all the way down.  The only thing that is sometimes omitted is the laying of on hands to more personal responsibility (like parenthood or self).  God's house is a house of order and has appointed stewardship.  We need to respect the stewardship God has entrusted to other.  If we do not we are choosing to disobey the Lord.

None of us have the stewardship to invite the Genocidal, Pedophile, Nazi Choir to the Temple Square.  However there is someone that God as called to that stewardship who can.  The Charitable position is that said steward obtained the mind and will of the Lord in the matter.  Something none of us are entitled to. The Uncharitable position is that they screwed up.  This is a possibility because God works through very flawed and sinful human.

Those two possibilities mean either the Lord approves... In which case we are murmuring against him if we complain about it.  Or the Lord does not approve.  In which case we are ark steadying.  The Lord has means and methods of correcting the wayward members and leaders of his church.  And said correction does not come from the peanut gallery. 

The only call we have is "Do we want to go see (and take those we have stewardship over) the Genocidal, Pedophile, Nazi Choir?" and that is between you and the Lord.  And the Lord might tell you that you should not go, even though he might have approved it at a higher level.  Such personal revelation does not empower us to try to impose it on the rest of the church. we do not have that stewardship.

As Vort said, if the FP explicitly endorses this, then we’ll have to reconsider.

But in the interim, all we know is that some  nameless DC Temple events coordinator arranged the booking, and neither the Temple Presidency nor the First Presidency have publicly endorsed or condemned the act.  

I did not vote to sustain that events coordinator.  I did not even vote to sustain the DC Temple Presidency.  As for “stewardship”, a temple presidency’s stewardship is to administer the temple and the ordinances therein; not to undermine Church doctrine or create embarrassing situations for the First Presidency, or to make it publicly harder for me to sustain and defend the principles and people and institutions that I AM bound to sustain and defend.  If they don’t have to stay in their stewardship, then why on earth should I stay silent in the face of their actions that undermine my stewardship? 

Unless or until the FP explicitly weighs in, I have no more obligation to sustain the DC temple presidency in its errors, than I do to sustain that weaselly Joseph Bishop; or the pedophile Relief Society second counselor in the Hottentot Eleventy-First Ward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about to post something that may make sense to me, but to some who do not understand, will seem contradictory in its statements.  This means my post may be loved by none, and hated by all.

Despite what many try to say, the Church HAS changed greatly in the past few years.  There are many that would disagree, but in some ways the Church is trying to change it's own doctrines and look approvingly (as in this example of the choir) upon those transgressing the law (the Lord's laws), changed it's ordinances (decided to withhold exact ways this has occurred as to not detract from the topic, but there are multiple occasions of this in the past), and some wonder how long until it breaks the everlasting covenant.

It can be a scary time, but I find that if we hold to the gospel truths, hold to the gospel, no matter how dark the outlook, our testimonies can hold true.  The Prophet if we hold true cannot lead the church astray, but the church seems more than willing to go astray with or without the Prophet or anyone else at times.

One of those areas is that the Church (or not all in the church, but many of the church members) are trying to excuse the sin of homosexuality.  Now, I support Gay Marriage, but NOT because I am against my religion, but because I believe that the Constitution allows all men to be free and act upon their religion without the government dictating what they must do.  If their religion or belief says Gay Marriage is part of it, then I believe they should be protected under the Constitution JUST AS MUCH as the LDS pioneers who practiced Polygamy SHOULD HAVE ALSO HAD THEIR RELIGIOUS rights protected.

On the otherhand, I do NOT believe someone should be able to force others to accept their religious beliefs, especially with the force of government behind them.  Thus, while I may support one's right to be in a Gay Marriage, I do not feel we should be forced to accept it personally in our religion, beliefs, or otherwise.

That said, in regards to the Gay Choir, I feel this is directly against the morality of the Church, or would have been a few decades ago.  Most who openly state they are Gay and participate in Gay organizations are not merely just homosexual in their attractions.  Almost everytime they are practicing homosexual acts flagrantly and blatantly, announcing it to the world, and proudly proclaiming this as part of their central tenet of existence. 

So...why is this a sin?

Because, as the Church understands it currently (though with how the Church is 'progressing' many predict this will change in the next few decades despite a few members believing it will never change, there are other New Testament Biblical beliefs we've changed already so it's not out of the realm that we will not change this one) it is not practicing chastity within the confines which the Lord has stated, which is only to be done between a husband and wife within the confines of marriage.

One of the more acceptable practices today is to fornicate with others before marriage.  This is against the Laws of the Lord.  It is reported to be practiced by over 90% of the singles in the Western World currently, INCLUDING those who claim to be Christian.  It was estimated over 12 years ago that even in the Churchamong students going to Seminary and institute that over 25% of them had been involved with this practice.  This is a very depressing thing to see for me.

Fornication seems to be acceptable to our society.  It is a sin.

Adultery likewise is also unacceptable.  It is not as accepted in today's society, but it is still somewhat prevalent (though, as far as I know, not as prevalent as fornication before marriage or by single adults).

All intimacy of that type outside of the prescribed bounds that the Lord has set (marriage between a Man and women, or husband and wife) is sin.

If one created a choir where they proudly stated they were part of a group that promoted fornication and adultery and that the members of it were all proudly proclaimed promoters of such a life choice...would this be an acceptable group to have on Temple Grounds as a singing group?

If you believe so...then you should have no problem with a Gay Men's Choir. 

If you feel such is NOT compatible with the Church's stance and teachings...then you would  probably also think similarly as I do that this may not be an appropriate representation of the Church.  Yes, we should love all our fellow human beings, but that does not mean we should approve sin nor their promotion of it.

As I said, I am not against others having the freedom to express their own beliefs which is why I have supported the idea of Gay Marriage.  I feel we should be sympathetic to others and their problems and difficulties.  I think we should allow them to do as they will.  I have no problem with them in Church itself.  We are all sinners and need to repent.  However, them proclaiming their sin and being proud of it may disturb me if done in church meetings or on Church property.  Currently I may see it as an intrusion of their beliefs in my own sanctuary.

In this way, I lean towards more agreeing with those that this choir singing on Church grounds does not seem appropriate, at least at an initial glance of it (if I knew the deeper contracts and reasons behind it I may see it differently, especially if the First Presidency had a hand in it or some other action that would have some deeper explanation behind this).

Edited by JohnsonJones
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