Gazelam wrote:Is there some way possible to take this group of "gay Mormons", who already understand that they are damned, to commit some type of group suicide and stop embarassing us?
Gaz, by making this comment, YOU are the one who is an embarrassment to decent LDS people. Suggesting that ANYONE commit group suicide is sick and wrong. Get help.
Gazelam wrote:Is there some way possible to take this group of "gay Mormons", who already understand that they are damned, to commit some type of group suicide and stop embarassing us?
What is it Gaz? Every so many months you come up with something that really sounds sick (and truly embarrassing). This time it is group suicide for those damned gay Mormons. You really are sickening sometimes!
Really!
(Oh, and you are one swell representative for the Lord's One True Church. Who needs anti-mormons when Gaz can do their work for them?)
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Gazelam wrote:Is there some way possible to take this group of "gay Mormons", who already understand that they are damned, to commit some type of group suicide and stop embarassing us?
Sethbag wrote:ROFL. Damned. Damned? DAMNED!? They know they are damned? What is this, the Dark Ages? What is this "damned" of which you speak, Gaz?
There is no such thing as damnation. That's an antiquated and obsolete, false notion left over from a time when we didn't know any better. Now we do.
While there may not be such a thing as actual damnation, there is such a thing as acting like a prick to another human being. That's real, and it happens all the time. I vote we all agree to stop acting like pricks towards gay people (insert joke about how they might actually like that here).
That's damned nonsense in the sense that that kind of nonsense gets you damned.
"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:Prophecy: LDS Church will ignore said Gay LDS group.
You're probably right. But it will give them something more to talk about during their Aug. 11th meeting.
As with the "request", the Aug 11 meeting will likely be a one way affair. I'm still not even sure why the church agreed to the meeting (although the scheduling of it months away was quite telling on its import to the leadership).
Skip, by putting the word –request- in scare quotes, are you meaning to suggest the church was strong-armed into responding? Shamed into responding? A victim of its own weak spot re: public relations? What?
The Nehor wrote:Prophecy: LDS Church will ignore said Gay LDS group.
You're probably right. But it will give them something more to talk about during their Aug. 11th meeting.
As with the "request", the Aug 11 meeting will likely be a one way affair. I'm still not even sure why the church agreed to the meeting (although the scheduling of it months away was quite telling on its import to the leadership).
Skip, by putting the word –request- in scare quotes, are you meaning to suggest the church was strong-armed into responding? Shamed into responding? A victim of its own weak spot re: public relations? What?
Scare quotes? Totally not what those are.
Nonetheless, the scare-quoted request refers to the statement from the group to the church urging them to stay on the sidelines (not for the meeting). My impression is that the group can't really believe that the church is amenable to seriously entertaining the idea, therefore their request for the church to do so was intended more to be a general statement on its face, rather than an actual entreaty to the church itself. The quotes were shorthand.
If you're asking why I think the church agreed to meet with the group, I don't know. I don't think they were strong-armed or shamed, or weak because of PR. But I don't know what the intent is. I suppose we'll have to wait to see who is sent to the meeting and what is discussed.
But thanks for reading so much into my punctuation!
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Gazelam wrote:Is there some way possible to take this group of "gay Mormons", who already understand that they are damned, to commit some type of group suicide and stop embarassing us?
You know Gaz, it is suspected that an elder on my mission did that very thing because he was gay. My close friend from grade school also made such an attempt on his mission but was unsuccessful.
Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin. Would anyone ever suggest that a Mormon who battles an addiction to drugs or alcohol should commit suicide because he should know better? How about a Mormon who can't seem to overcome pornography? How about a Mormon doesn't pay tithing or doesn't keep the Lord's Day holy (and maybe says that the church shouldn't oppose efforts to remove blue laws)?
I don't recommend suicide to anyone, even child molestors (although it would be preferable to them molesting another child). If someone is guilty of something serious, he should turn himself in. If a gay Mormon has done something worthy of excommunication, he should turn himself in, not commit suicide which only makes things worse for everyone.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
The Nehor wrote:Prophecy: LDS Church will ignore said Gay LDS group.
You're probably right. But it will give them something more to talk about during their Aug. 11th meeting.
As with the "request", the Aug 11 meeting will likely be a one way affair. I'm still not even sure why the church agreed to the meeting (although the scheduling of it months away was quite telling on its import to the leadership).
Skip, by putting the word –request- in scare quotes, are you meaning to suggest the church was strong-armed into responding? Shamed into responding? A victim of its own weak spot re: public relations? What?
Scare quotes? Totally not what those are.
Nonetheless, the scare-quoted request refers to the statement from the group to the church urging them to stay on the sidelines (not for the meeting). My impression is that the group can't really believe that the church is amenable to seriously entertaining the idea, therefore their request for the church to do so was intended more to be a general statement on its face, rather than an actual entreaty to the church itself. The quotes were shorthand.
If you're asking why I think the church agreed to meet with the group, I don't know. I don't think they were strong-armed or shamed, or weak because of PR. But I don't know what the intent is. I suppose we'll have to wait to see who is sent to the meeting and what is discussed.
But thanks for reading so much into my punctuation!
Ahhhh! Skip, I see I did misread your punctuation.
I'm tempted to do my best Emily Litella and say "never mind" but you're right, until the meeting occurs, its just speculation.
RAJ wrote:Ahhhh! Skip, I see I did misread your punctuation.
I'm tempted to do my best Emily Litella and say "never mind" but you're right, until the meeting occurs, its just speculation.
Heh heh.
I am frankly quite surprised that the church even agreed to a meeting. I thought that they would poo-poo the suggestion and just go about their business. It's not a terribly gay-friendly organization (understatement). So I suppose that is progress in one sense. But unfortunately I don't think it will have any real impact in the church's viewpoints towards gays. I hope to be proven wrong (but doubt it).
Cheers!
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
I truly doubt that the church will change until it's politically pushed to change. Right now they can preach of how sinful gay people are as much as they want, as long as they say to "like the person, hate the sin" at the end.
Oh and just to put it out there: I don't think being gay is just something somebody chooses, I mean seriously there's a lot of challenges that society forces gay people to go through. I don't think people choose it for the hell of it or because it's some trial that somebody needs to overcome. I also think that gay behavior is not an addiction.
