Sethbag wrote:So, really, with Gaz and the other Mormonazis who hate fags and want them killed, the ultimate fear is that if they soften up a little on the issue, they'll eventually start boinking other guys too? Are we seeing a response here from guys with some latent homosexual tendencies who are deathly afraid they might rise to the surface?
I cannot fathom the motives behind irrational hatred so I will not attempt it. What I do know is this: I do not intend to sympathize with the homosexual position on gay marriage because to do so invites me to defend evil. I very much doubt I could be tempted to actually partake in homosexuality directly.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Thama wrote:I'm getting a stronger and stronger impression, every time that I hear something Monson has said or a FP decision to come out in the last few months, that the Mormon Church is going through a similar leadership crisis that the Catholic Church is. Both JP3 and Hinckley were superb leaders who generally emphasized tolerance and earned respect from leaders and people not of their faiths. Ratzinger and Monson both seem much more fundamentalist in their tendencies, and don't appear to be as concerned with promoting good Christian behavior (in the best sense of the word) than in maintaining doctrinal purity and asserting their claims of authority.
I had all the respect in the world for GBH, even after I stopped believing he was a prophet. I'm totally unimpressed with Monson, and only hope he lives a little longer because Packer would be 10x worse. They intend to keep youth away from sin by making them afraid of those who live "sinful" lifestyles, but fear inevitably breeds hatred.
What is it you are saying? Should the church take the position that practicing homosexuals should be admitted to full faith and fellowship within the Church?
Thama wrote:I'm getting a stronger and stronger impression, every time that I hear something Monson has said or a FP decision to come out in the last few months, that the Mormon Church is going through a similar leadership crisis that the Catholic Church is. Both JP3 and Hinckley were superb leaders who generally emphasized tolerance and earned respect from leaders and people not of their faiths. Ratzinger and Monson both seem much more fundamentalist in their tendencies, and don't appear to be as concerned with promoting good Christian behavior (in the best sense of the word) than in maintaining doctrinal purity and asserting their claims of authority.
I had all the respect in the world for GBH, even after I stopped believing he was a prophet. I'm totally unimpressed with Monson, and only hope he lives a little longer because Packer would be 10x worse. They intend to keep youth away from sin by making them afraid of those who live "sinful" lifestyles, but fear inevitably breeds hatred.
What is it you are saying? Should the church take the position that practicing homosexuals should be admitted to full faith and fellowship within the Church?
While I'd personally be in support of that sort of move, it's not going to happen, and if it did then there would be an awful lot of redneck splinter groups which would form at the drop of that hat.
No, I'm just lamenting the loss of the relatively progressive, tolerant direction the Church seemed to be moving in at the end of GBH's time. The Ensign article on the subject by Holland several months ago was a real step forward in that it admitted that homosexual tendencies may be largely biological in cause, and that the correct course of action in dealing with homosexual members is not condemnation.
I try to love the sinner, not the sin. I will not support the sinner in his attempts to sin nor to have his sin accepted as normal. I expect no less of my own sins although I suppose greed, envy, and pride are very much accepted by society at large.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
While I'd personally be in support of that sort of move, it's not going to happen, and if it did then there would be an awful lot of redneck splinter groups which would form at the drop of that hat.
No, I'm just lamenting the loss of the relatively progressive, tolerant direction the Church seemed to be moving in at the end of GBH's time. The Ensign article on the subject by Holland several months ago was a real step forward in that it admitted that homosexual tendencies may be largely biological in cause, and that the correct course of action in dealing with homosexual members is not condemnation.
Aren't you equivocating? I'm not asking you whether the Church would take such a step. I'm not asking about moves in that direction.
No, my specific question is this:
Do you think the Church should admit practicing homosexuals to full faith and fellowship in the Church?
If the proper response to homosexuality is not condemnation, but it also should not be tolerated, then it seems that the only proper course is "don't ask don't tell". Kind of like oral/anal sex between married couples.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
I think the church should hold out as hardline bigots for as long as possible. The longer the better. The best result would be for the LDS church to be the very last institution on the face of the earth to change their ways and accept homosexuals and their relationships as normal human behavior.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
The Dude wrote:I think the church should hold out as hardline bigots for as long as possible. The longer the better. The best result would be for the LDS church to be the very last institution on the face of the earth to change their ways and accept homosexuals and their relationships as normal human behavior.
Well, you really haven't answered my question directly. My question must be a hard one to answer, no? Should the Church admit practicing homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?
My young friends, be strong. The philosophies of men surround us. The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived; behind that facade is heartache, unhappiness, and pain. You know what is right and what is wrong, and no disguise, however appealing, can change that. The character of transgression remains the same. If your so-called friends urge you to do anything you know to be wrong, you be the one to make a stand for right, even if you stand alone. Have the moral courage to be a light for others to follow. There is no friendship more valuable than your own clear conscience, your own moral cleanliness—and what a glorious feeling it is to know that you stand in your appointed place clean and with the confidence that you are worthy to do so.
I understood him to be saying that some young men may engage in sin out of a desire to project "tolerance" for someone else's sin, with the fear that declining to participate may be seen as intolerant or judgmental.
If that's what he meant, I don't' see what's wrong with it. If that's not what he meant, I think he should have been more clear.
The Dude wrote:I think the church should hold out as hardline bigots for as long as possible. The longer the better. The best result would be for the LDS church to be the very last institution on the face of the earth to change their ways and accept homosexuals and their relationships as normal human behavior.
Well, you really haven't answered my question directly. My question must be a hard one to answer, no? Should the Church admit practicing homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?
Are you stupid? I clearly answered "no" they should not admit practicing homosexuals.
Now, if I loved the church then my answer would have been "yes".
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond