Analytics wrote:In 20 years after that, a Prophet will officially change the church's position, and the church will celebrate. Just as they now say, "it's only skin color, what really matters is what's on the inside", in 40 years they'll say, "it's only plumbing, what really matters is what's on the inside."
I just started another thread on the redefinition of religious freedom, because a Catholic Archbishop said at BYU that Mormons and Catholics (and others) are fighting for the sake of conscience on issues like gay marriage. In 20 years do you think the Catholics will have changed? If they don't change, do you think the Mormons will stand by them?
On racism and polygamy, the Mormons were loners and they crumbled. I guess the Mormons will stick to their guns as long as the Catholics back them up on gay marriage.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
The church will also point to the fact that, during most of their homophobic period, homosexual marriage was not legal, so the church was simply opposing extra-marital sex.
As far as actively fighting against legalizing homosexual marriage, they will do the same thing they do now with past church racism: insist it was never doctrine, and homophobia on the part of their leaders was simply an effect of culture.
Oh, and I forgot. Critics who, in the future, use the church's past homophobia as evidence of lack of inspiration and revelation on the part of church leaders will be called fundamentalist pot-stirrers.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
As the Church seems to have no problem with anti-discrimination laws and some kind of civil statute granting homosexual couples some kind of rights I don't think they'll get us on the "BIGOTS!!!" line except by those obsessed with attributing hatred where there is disagreement.
I see the entire gay marriage fight as some kind of weird attempt to redefine a word that has never meant what they want it to in order to be like everyone else.
Defining sexual homosexual relations as sin is unlikely to go anywhere. Legitimizing their marriage as a condition given by God is very, very unlikely. It is of course possible that God may have some purpose in such a relationship but I cannot see it.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:As the Church seems to have no problem with anti-discrimination laws and some kind of civil statute granting homosexual couples some kind of rights I don't think they'll get us on the "BIGOTS!!!" line except by those obsessed with attributing hatred where there is disagreement.
I see the entire gay marriage fight as some kind of weird attempt to redefine a word that has never meant what they want it to in order to be like everyone else.
Defining sexual homosexual relations as sin is unlikely to go anywhere. Legitimizing their marriage as a condition given by God is very, very unlikely. It is of course possible that God may have some purpose in such a relationship but I cannot see it.
To Mormons, marriage outside of the temple is useless, so why should they care who participates in these time-only marriages?
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
Some Schmo wrote:I remember saying around 6 years ago (on another forum) that the church would have another "revelation" and change their stance on homosexuality and SSM as soon as 10 years have passed beyond it becoming politically incorrect for the vast majority to discriminate against gay marriage.
People where responding with "it'll never happen" but I'm willing to bet people thought the same about blacks too.
SSM and the ban of the priesthood are not comparable. Pre-ban the church still taught that eventually blacks would receive the priesthood. There are numerous scriptures used to point to this prophesying the universal priesthood and blessings of the priesthood. There are NO teachings or scriptures ever used by the church and its leaders to imply or suggest in any way that sexually active homosexuals will eventually be in full fellowship with the church. I just don't buy the comparison and there is no evidence that suggests otherwise.
I do admit that the possibility remains in the future that perhaps the church's stance will change given the change in attitude towards gay members. With that very slight chance I should also point out that the change in attitude has never changed towards homosexual activity, just the individual struggling with the "sin". I hate to agree with BC, but hes right on this one. There have never been any sings, teachings, scriptures etc that can point to a change in the acceptance of homosexual behavior. In this the church has actually been consistent. I just don't see any legitimate comparison that can be made with homosexuality and polygamy/priesthood ban. I think the leaders of the church view homosexual behavior as an absolute moral, a sin that will always remain a sin. Polygamy was a practice as well as the priesthood ban and there were justifications pointed to in scripture that could at least show that the practice could be changed. Homosexual behavior is not viewed as a practice by the church, but a sin. A sin that has always been viewed as absolute and likely will remain that way.
Polygamy-Porter wrote:To Mormons, marriage outside of the temple is useless, so why should they care who participates in these time-only marriages?
It probably boils down to this. If SSM is accepted, soon the attitude will spread through the states that it is okay. Homosexual behavior will be tolerated and more accepted by society and many will no longer view homosexuals as sinful or even odd/weird. It will become normal and natural. The church teaches that it is not normal and natural, but sinful and immoral. The more people that accept the behavior as normal and natural, the less influence the church has, the few converts it receives and the more likely members will fall away because they feel the church is bigoted and outdated. In the end the consequences are viewed as follows: Less members, less influence, less money, more "persecution", more pressure to change.
Many Mormons view the acceptance as SSM as a threat because soon the government will enforce the church to provide SSM weddings in the temple and if the church resists it will lose its tax exemption and assets like it was threatened to lose during its practice of polygamy. I think that's a load of bull and the reality of it all boils down to the idea of the church losing members, money, influence and less converts. I think this is one area the church won't change its stance on and they know that its headed for hard times if societies attitudes and stances change toward homosexuals.
The Nehor wrote:I see the entire gay marriage fight as some kind of weird attempt to redefine a word that has never meant what they want it to in order to be like everyone else.
The term gay was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.
The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637 and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations." This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints." A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel.
Ultimate origin disputed;.....Gey cats also were said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women...The word gay in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1630s.
The Nehor wrote: Legitimizing their marriage as a condition given by God is very, very unlikely. It is of course possible that God may have some purpose in such a relationship but I cannot see it.
Maybe he had a purpose in creating red back spiders too, but I cannot see it.
The Redback spider is one of only two animals to date where the male has been found to actively assist the female in sexual cannibalism. In the process of mating, the much smaller male somersaults to place his abdomen over the female's mouthparts. In about 2 out of 3 cases, the female consumes the male while mating continues. Males who are not eaten die soon after mating.
Homosexual behavior is not viewed as a practice by the church, but a sin. A sin that has always been viewed as absolute and likely will remain that way.
Bible and the Book of Mormon says divorce is a sin and yet the church blithely ignores that. That’s why momons have no credibility projecting its beliefs on others ..
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
The Nehor wrote:I see the entire gay marriage fight as some kind of weird attempt to redefine a word that has never meant what they want it to in order to be like everyone else.
You don't know much about the history of marriage, do you?
It's only in the last couple hundred years that marriage has been "religious". Prior to that, marriage was reserved for those with property and titles... and a need to legally establish lines of progeny. None of us here would have had a need for marriage at all... well, unless Packer is here under a pseudonym...
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
The Nehor wrote:I see the entire gay marriage fight as some kind of weird attempt to redefine a word that has never meant what they want it to in order to be like everyone else.
You don't know much about the history of marriage, do you?
It's only in the last couple hundred years that marriage has been "religious". Prior to that, marriage was reserved for those with property and titles... and a need to legally establish lines of progeny. None of us here would have had a need for marriage at all... well, unless Packer is here under a pseudonym...
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
