Mormon posters grasp at straws to discredit dissenter
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
It's a pretty despicable display. "Well of course he must not have been a good member if he'd quit over something as meaningless as disagreeing with the leadership about the treatment of gays."
"Gays" (Skippy here means "homosexuals") are treated no differently than any others who's practices and lifestyle obviate their presence within the Kingdom of God. Homosexuality is gross, Telestial wickedness; it is an abomination. It is completely outside the Gospel and general Judeo/Christian framework.
And yes, if one wishes to exit the Church because the Church will not bend to the popular will (and especially elite opinion) regarding a practice that, by definition, defines the demarcation line between Christian and Pagan/modernist secular concepts of morality, then one should, perhaps, make his bed on the Babylonian side of the tracks.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
So then you are saying this is one thing that members are not allowed to find their own personal revelation? Especially if it falls outside of the expected supporting norm?
I know of no doctrine in the Church saying that any member, upon any subject, can receive revelation for the Church, whether that be Branch, Ward, Stake, or especially for the Church as a whole. Indeed, official Church doctrine has always been precisely the opposite. Nor is a faithful member going to receive revelation for him or herself, that is in contradiction to settled doctrines and standards of the Church, not, at least, if those doctrines and standards have come by the same principle of revelation. Truth, being one (except to liberals, each of which has his own), cannot, quite obviously, be inconsistent with truth. One may take a purely sociological, reductive view of the Church of course, as to its true nature, and that will, of course, take your assumptions, and hence your conclusions about its teachings, in another direction.
You two are getting very close to forcing me to ask you whether you've ever really been members. This kind of doctrinal ignorance--of basic Church teachings--begs some explanation. The Teachings regarding homosexual conduct have been set since Adam; since the beginning of human civilization of which we have record and which is relevant to the plan of salvation. It's never changed, and will not, no matter how loud and shrill the wails of the modern compassion fascists become.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
Jersey Girl wrote:LoranHomosexuality is gross
Why?
You're picking up Scratch's clever editing techniques Jersey. Shame on you. I didn't say "homosexuality is gross". I said, "Homosexuality is gross, Telestial wickedness", a completely different statement. Homosexuality is a serious, weighty violation of God's commandments and standards of human sexual conduct. Though to me, on a psychological and emotional level, homosexual conduct is, indeed, gross, that was hardly the thrust of my comment.
Since when have you started editing other's posts to make straw man points such as this?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Coggins7 wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:LoranHomosexuality is gross
Why?
You're picking up Scratch's clever editing techniques Jersey. Shame on you. I didn't say "homosexuality is gross". I said, "Homosexuality is gross, Telestial wickedness", a completely different statement. Homosexuality is a serious, weighty violation of God's commandments and standards of human sexual conduct. Though to me, on a psychological and emotional level, homosexual conduct is, indeed, gross, that was hardly the thrust of my comment.
Since when have you started editing other's posts to make straw man points such as this?
Oh knock it off. I wasn't "editing" a thing for any purpose as you suggest. I don't think you punctuated that correctly however, my apologies for misreading you.
Jersey the innocent
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm
I have to admit, Cogs, I read it the same way Jersey Girl did.
After you explained it, I see how it was meant.
After you explained it, I see how it was meant.
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
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am