bcspace wrote:and I accept gays marrying each other in a non state-sanctioned way.
This is the hypocrisy I don't understand. Would you accept bestiality and pedophillia in a "non-state sanctioned way"? What is the appeal of accepting SSM in a "non state-sanctioned" way? Perhaps because it's far more reasonable? But that piece of paper called a "marriage certificate" offends you?
collegeterrace wrote:Dunno how accurate this is, but a poster on the sfgate.com blog just posted this about Barbara's brother being gay:
Barbs brother is gay..she donated the money. Steve will have to choose church or wife.
She converted to the church and perhaps doesn't have a strong enough testimony.
Steve has a mess on his hands.
Why should she have to choose between the church and her family (if what this post says is true?) And why should Steve have to choose between the church and his wife?
This is not a doctrinal debate; this is politics.
How can the church hold California members to a standard they don't hold other members to?
(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.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Many TBMs love to see other TBMs screw over family for the cause of "righteousness". It affirms the testimony (brainwashing) in ways nothing else can. How many pats on the back from colleagues do you think Grosskreutz's dad got for "doing the right thing" with the ranch?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote:Many TBMs love to see other TBMs screw over family for the cause of "righteousness". It affirms the testimony (brainwashing) in ways nothing else can. How many pats on the back from colleagues do you think Grosskreutz's dad got for "doing the right thing" with the ranch?
They aren't listening to our modern prophets then: family first, church second.
(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.
Did the first Presidency ever state the effort to pass prop 8 was direction they received from the Lord? Without that caveat there is ample room to interpret their words and actions as there own personal political opinion.
Would a member be out of harmony with the gospel if she opposed institutional racism in 1977? Or how about Bishop in the 1860's who couldn't accept the Adam God teachings? Opinions are just opinions. If yes on 8 is more than an opinion then the brothren should step up and let us know. Until then, I believe that Steve and Barbara are on safe ground
I'd have to say that my respect for both of the Young's has increased immensely. Most of my educated LDS friends in CA completely disagree with Prop 8 but don't have the balls to speak out.
Notice in the news report on the LDS owned KSL-TV, the TBM reporter, Carol Makita, bold announced that Barbara's brother is GAY.
Nice sidestep there Carol. Go back to kissing Monson's ass, you seem to enjoy that.
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan