Apostacy big winner at oscars

[_Jersey Girl]

I get what you're saying, though, about the issue in churches re homosexuality. For those who think it is inborn, it is not a sin and of course you cannot separate "it" from the person as that is who they are. For those who think it is chosen behaviour and sinful, the "love the sinner, hate the sin" dictum works better as to them it is just a matter of changing one's behaviour. If you come up with a different comparison that relates to behaviour or presumed behaviour I think it would work better than using skin colour as an example.

I think that we need to separate this out into two pieces. One being that of sexual identity (how one self identifies their sexuality) and the other being the behavior attached to that identity.

This is what makes it possible for folks to love homosexual's while rejecting the sexual behavior.

I thought the alcoholic was a good analogy. Alcoholism is believed to be genetically linked, that is to say that some folks are predisposed to alcoholism. There was a time when homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder, it has since been removed due to speculation that it too, is genetically linked.

So...we can love the alcoholic while not accepting or enabling their behaviors, likewise we can love a gay person while not accepting or enabling their behaviors.

I'm trying to make sense here, how'd I do?

[_Seven]

"Jason Bourne"
Is it not fairly accepted that alcoholism is a disease and even that some are more genetically inclined towards it? If so this pushes it into a similar realm that your argue for homosexuals.

Alcoholism is harmful to the user and those around him so it's not a great comparison.

I haven't seen any evidence that homosexuality harms people anymore than heterosexuality does. There is no evidence that a homosexual marriage would be more harmful to society than a heterosexual marriage. (I'm not directing that comment at you)

I'm not sure how the LDS church can accept a civil marriage between man and woman as legitimate and reject gays who are legally married. See D & C 132:

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise,.........are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

If two homosexuals bridle their passions until marriage, would that legitimatize their physical intimacy the way it does for heterosexuals that are not married in the temple? Why not?

One of the fundamental doctrines of the LDS Church is we are all born into a world with flaws and weaknesses that we must learn to either overcome, or if we cannot overcome, due to perhaps it being nature (someone born with some sort of physical handicap cannot change it but must live with it) we must live with it while conforming our lives to God's commands.

Then we should all be aiming for celibacy, as that would be the higher law. Or at minimum only having intercourse to produce a child. Heterosexual intercourse is a carnal act of the natural man unless you've figured out how to procreate without having any pleasure or orgasm. (I know there are women who have mastered it but not men) That burning in your loins is the natural man. How is your pleasure in sex more holy and Godly than two men or women who are bonding with their carnal desire?

So I think LDS leaders would say even if Homosexuals are such by nature God has still commanded that they obey his command of sexual activity.

(not directing this comment at you Jason)
This isn't the same as telling a hetero to abstain from sex before marriage. You are telling a person who is born with same sex attraction that they will never be allowed to experience the two things in this life that most people live and breathe for, a family of their own and physical intimacy. I was very moved by his speech at the Oscars because his loving mother gave this kid hope. She knew that her son was born that way.
There are many kids who become suicidal because of their church's position on this.

I have a gay relative whose father will not speak to her. The mother has finally come around, but believes her daughter is going to hell unless she repents and stops living with her partner. I went to school with gay people who were no doubt born that way. They have since come out of the closet, and our only shock was how long it took them to finally admit it. Some even went on church missions.

I'm not saying all people who engage in homosexual activity are born that way. There are obviously people who experiment with all kinds of sexual behavior out of lust. I know people who turned gay after a major hormone change in their body. But that is not the same thing as a person who falls in love and desires to be with the same sex for the rest of their life.

I really don't get why two gay people who want to commit and vow to each other for life in the bonds of matrimony are such a threat to the community. Oh the horror!

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

You think Mormons here disbelieve this speech by King Benjamin?

Sure seems this way to me. (Notice I didn't say all, I said many).

Thanks for supplying the scripture regarding the spokesperson for Christ, Jason. Yeah, I don't think many apologists believe this at all. In fact, they clearly believe a prophet, even speaking as a prophet in an official capacity, is only sharing his opinions which may or may not be true, which may or may not be in accord with the divine, which may or may not even be decent or moral or kind.

I'll have to see if there are any scriptures in the Book of Mormon that discuss a prophet as a mouthpiece for Jesus. (It has been a while... smile).

[_Jason Bourne]

Thanks for supplying the scripture regarding the spokesperson for Christ, Jason. Yeah, I don't think many apologists believe this at all. In fact, they clearly believe a prophet, even speaking as a prophet in an official capacity, is only sharing his opinions which may or may not be true, which may or may not be in accord with the divine, which may or may not even be decent or moral or kind.

Well I am sure some apologists will not agree with what I say next. But, my problems with apologetics stems to this very issue somewhat. It seems the so many of the times that the defense of "it was his opinion" or "it is not official doctrine" or "Not published by the Church" is when the prophet or leader has said something difficult to defend. Sure, prophets have opinions. Sure they are not always right. But so much of the strange stuff they said that we wish they never had is panned off. But often leaders said is in a context, way or setting that would certainly imply that their words meant something.

Then the defense is "we do not claim that prophets are infallible." But that is not the argument. But when they say something like "This is the law of the lord..." one thinks it might mean more than opinion.

[_marg]

Well that's a problem here isn't it. By what right does anyone else have to not accept what a homosexual does in their private sexual lives? And what right does the church have to promote a teaching that homosexuals should not have sexual relationships.

What right do you have to judge the LDS Church and LDS and other believers for their religious expressions?

And all the LDS Church says is if you want to be a member then there are rules you follow. Don't follow then you don't have to be a member.

Ok so what you are saying is that organizations can discriminate and you don't have a problem with that. I believe you also see the LDS church as providing a moral compass for people and you think Gaz's attitude is not a reflection of the Church's position. I see a problem with that. I see the LDS Church as being largely responsible for Gaz's attitude of open honesty with his rejection of homosexuals who speak out in favor of acceptance of their lifestyle, as the screen writer did. For this particular issue homosexuality, I don't see the Church being a moral compass which is grounded in good ethics. If a person is born a particular way, and they aren't harming others, I don't see it as ethically right to discriminate against them on the basis of how they were born, such that ultimately it is likely to cause them to suffer. I think the phrase "love the sinner hate the sin" is hollow. "Love" is a fickle emotion, "respect" is what is important when it come to good ethics. The Church teaches homosexuality is a sin, that in turn teaches disrespect towards the right of anyone who defends homosexuality as that screen writer did which Gaz objected to, and it teaches disrespect for a fundamental aspect of an individual. Of course if one thinks that homosexuality is simply a choice and harmful to society, then the argument which rests on it being inate, doesn't apply. But since homosexuality is found in nature and animals don't make choices based on reasoning and since homosexuals themselves say they are born that way and since there is little to be gained by being homosexual and generally hardship I don't think the argument that it is a choice, a self indulgent one at that, is justified. So in my opinion rather than being critical of Gaz I think you should consider that the Church is responsible and the church is ultimately all those people who support it, yourself being one.

[_marg]

I thought the alcoholic was a good analogy. Alcoholism is believed to be genetically linked, that is to say that some folks are predisposed to alcoholism. There was a time when homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder, it has since been removed due to speculation that it too, is genetically linked.

So...we can love the alcoholic while not accepting or enabling their behaviors, likewise we can love a gay person while not accepting or enabling their behaviors.

I'm trying to make sense here, how'd I do?

I think the difference is a matter of whether or not the behaviors are harmful to oneself, to others? Alcoholism negatively impacts individuals, they can't function well, socially, in the work place. Does homosexuality negatively cause harm to the individuals, to others?

[_harmony]

I think the difference is a matter of whether or not the behaviors are harmful to oneself, to others? Alcoholism negatively impacts individuals, they can't function well, socially, in the work place. Does homosexuality negatively cause harm to the individuals, to others?

Depends on if you consider a hugely increased risk of AIDS/HIV harmful, I guess. Or Kaposi's Sarcoma. Or chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus (HPV) or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C and syphilis.

(source: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0088.html)

You, of course, will not agree, since the source of this quote is the Catholic church.

[_Jersey Girl]

I thought the alcoholic was a good analogy. Alcoholism is believed to be genetically linked, that is to say that some folks are predisposed to alcoholism. There was a time when homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder, it has since been removed due to speculation that it too, is genetically linked.

So...we can love the alcoholic while not accepting or enabling their behaviors, likewise we can love a gay person while not accepting or enabling their behaviors.

I'm trying to make sense here, how'd I do?

I think the difference is a matter of whether or not the behaviors are harmful to oneself, to others? Alcoholism negatively impacts individuals, they can't function well, socially, in the work place. Does homosexuality negatively cause harm to the individuals, to others?

Certainly we could consider whether or not a behavior contains risk. I tried to find an analogy to demonstrate genetically linked "sin", not whether or not the behavior attached to the sin produces physical risk, but in the Christian mind, is spiritually or eternally hazardous.

Still trying to make sense...not doing such a bang up job, I guess.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's try some analogies that aren't necessarily linked but still have to do with "loving the sinner/hating the sin". These are based on my own upbringing.

How about gambling and dancing?

Back then you could love the person who gambled or danced, yet still consider those actions/behaviors to be sin.

Thank goodness people loved my family who attended church each Sunday and regulary danced their hearts out!

Still dances,
Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Consider these behaviors/actions. Many Christians believe that all sin is sin and do not engage in "ranking" sin.

Shopping on Sunday

Working/doing business on Sunday
(This is why Chick Fil A is closed today)

In the case of those Christians who do not ascribe rank to sin, shopping on Sunday, working or doing business on Sunday, abusing alcohol, dancing, gambling and homosexual sex are all equal.

wiki on Chick Fil A:

[edit] Religious connections
Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy is a devout Southern Baptist who has taught Sunday School for over 51 years and whose religious beliefs permeate the company to this day. The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." The chain invests heavily in community services (especially for children and teenagers) and scholarships. Cathy's beliefs are also responsible for one of the chain's distinctive features: All Chick-fil-A locations (company-owned and franchised, whether in a mall or freestanding) are closed on Sundays.

“ Our decision to close on Sunday was our way of honoring God and directing our attention to things more important than our business. If it took seven days to make a living with a restaurant, then we needed to be in some other line of work. Through the years, I have never wavered from that position. „
—S. Truett Cathy