Well, "where we are headed" is towards godhood, and, doctrinally speaking, after godhood, all bets are off. LDS doctrine clearly allows for homosexual gods. There is nothing in the Gospel which says otherwise. There is no scriptural passage which says, "Once you are a God, you're still expected to abide by such-and-such."
What, laws change after Godhood? All those years of becoming a God by application of eternal laws was for nothing?
I really do hope you were joking with this little post. I know your smarter than this.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Well, "where we are headed" is towards godhood, and, doctrinally speaking, after godhood, all bets are off. LDS doctrine clearly allows for homosexual gods. There is nothing in the Gospel which says otherwise. There is no scriptural passage which says, "Once you are a God, you're still expected to abide by such-and-such."
What, laws change after Godhood? All those years of becoming a God by application of eternal laws was for nothing?
I really do hope you were joking with this little post. I know your smarter than this.
What?? Are you kidding??
I can't murder now, but I sure can when I'm a god.
I can't practice polygamy now, but I will when I'm a god.
In fact, there is nothing so morally reprehensible that I won't be able to do it.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Well, "where we are headed" is towards godhood, and, doctrinally speaking, after godhood, all bets are off. LDS doctrine clearly allows for homosexual gods. There is nothing in the Gospel which says otherwise. There is no scriptural passage which says, "Once you are a God, you're still expected to abide by such-and-such."
What, laws change after Godhood? All those years of becoming a God by application of eternal laws was for nothing?
I really do hope you were joking with this little post. I know your smarter than this.
Gaz, where is the doctrine stating that Gods will be limited in what they are permitted to do? I find your suggestion that it's all "for nothing" to be rather disquieting, as it implies that somebody---you? other TBMs? the Brethren?---get to dictate what people may or may not do even in the afterlife! To my mind, *THAT* kind of suggestion defeats the whole purpose of achieving Godhood in the first place.
I mean, would YOU have to hubris to tell Heavenly Father that he is forbidden from practicing Celestial Polygamy, or Celestial Homosexuality? I don't think so.
Well, "where we are headed" is towards godhood, and, doctrinally speaking, after godhood, all bets are off. LDS doctrine clearly allows for homosexual gods. There is nothing in the Gospel which says otherwise. There is no scriptural passage which says, "Once you are a God, you're still expected to abide by such-and-such."
What, laws change after Godhood? All those years of becoming a God by application of eternal laws was for nothing?
I really do hope you were joking with this little post. I know your smarter than this.
If God is subject to eternal laws, where do they come from? If this is the case, God is just as much of a cog as we are, and we are worshiping the wrong thing.
Homosexual couples can't eternally increase. So goes one of the common LDS rationales against gay marriage. Could the development of the male womb remove this all-important barrier? Or, alternatively, will it just intensify the bigotry due to how "unnatural" it is?
No to both. Believing that a certain behavior is sin is not bigotry.
Homosexual couples can't eternally increase. So goes one of the common LDS rationales against gay marriage. Could the development of the male womb remove this all-important barrier? Or, alternatively, will it just intensify the bigotry due to how "unnatural" it is?
No to both. Believing that a certain behavior is sin is not bigotry.
The concept of "sin" is baggage you choose to carry. What about those to don't choose to carry the baggage you do?
I say, if you believe that "certain behavior" is sin, the correct thing to do is to refrain from engaging in it. I say the incorrect thing to do is to try and have your religious view imposed on everyone, even those who don't share it.
No to both. Believing that a certain behavior is sin is not bigotry.
The concept of "sin" is baggage you choose to carry. What about those to don't choose to carry the baggage you do?
Preaching the definition of sinful behavior to others is not bigotry or imposing.
I say, if you believe that "certain behavior" is sin, the correct thing to do is to refrain from engaging in it. I say the incorrect thing to do is to try and have your religious view imposed on everyone, even those who don't share it.
Legislation or lack thereof is imposing but not necessarily unwarranted. I would sat the pro-homosexual side is just as imposing as it's opposite.
Homosexual couples can't eternally increase. So goes one of the common LDS rationales against gay marriage. Could the development of the male womb remove this all-important barrier? Or, alternatively, will it just intensify the bigotry due to how "unnatural" it is?
No to both. Believing that a certain behavior is sin is not bigotry.
Homosexuals are NOT a behavior. They are people. The LDS church believes that being a homosexual is a sin. This is bigotry.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
bcspace wrote:Legislation or lack thereof is imposing but not necessarily unwarranted. I would sat the pro-homosexual side is just as imposing as it's opposite.
[/quote]Homosexuals are NOT a behavior. They are people. The LDS church believes that being a homosexual is a sin. This is bigotry.[/quote]
Scottie,
Faithful LDS are going to come after you on this one.
Great care is being taken now in the LDS leadership statements to make a distinction between merely having same-sex thoughts, attractions and feelings and acting on those thoughts, etc. This represents an actual bit of progress on their part.
On the other hand, there are statements out there from LDS leadership indicating the word homosexual is not to be used as a noun. So in that way of thinking, people who have sex with others of their same gender are, in fact, heterosexuals who perversely insist on having sex with their same gender. Go figure.