Apostacy big winner at oscars

[_Jason Bourne]

What lacks in this discussion is an acknowledgement that the church teaches disrespect toward homosexuals in particular describing them as sinners and teaching they are not allowed to have sexual relationships.

perhaps you missed my acknowledgment of this above since I am on your ignore list.

It is nonsense to teach that homosexuals are sinners yet one should love them.

No marg. A Christian believer can love someone who sins. A Christian believer is commanded to do good to those who mistreat you, to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek. One can disapprove of a behavior but still recognize that the person committing the behavior is a child of God, a fellow human and still have love for them. This can further be understood by the fact that we all understand our need before God for forgiveness of some sin or another.

[_harmony]

So Marg, please provide me comments by LDS leaders where behavior such as Gaz's is taught and approved.

I didn't say Gaz's behavior is approved by the church, maybe some Bishops would approve his attitude I don't know, it's possible. But going by what I've read on this thread, by you , you have said the Church does not accept homosexual relationships. That's not being loving nor accepting and in fact it is disrespecting their rights.

by the way out of curiosity how does that work in Canada where homosexuals can legally marry?

Not accepting homosexual relationships does not equate not being loving or accepting. The church does not instruct Gaz or anyone else who reacts as he does to homosexual relationships to react in that way. The church instructs us all to love our neighbors, no matter what their sexual orientation. It also instructs us to be kind, longsuffering, and charitable. Just because Gaz isn't any of those things doens't mean the church tells him to behave the way he's behaving.

Accepting? We accept gay people as God's own children, and if they are members, we accept them as members, but we are not required to accept their behavior. We're not supposed to condemn them (as Gaz does), judge them (that's up to their bishop), or shun them (we don't do that... except maybe extremists like Gaz, but he's definitely in the minority).

And there is no right that the church disrespects. What right are you talking about?

And just for the record, I think the church will have to change it's stance as soon as gay marriage becomes a normal part of society. It's the black thing all over again.

As to your last line, love is meaningless if respect is not there.

That is true, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. It's possible to love someone and not respect their behaviors. Happens all the time. We aren't required to accept or respect behaviors that we feel are destructive to self, the family, or society as a whole. We are required to love the individual and respect that the behavior is their choice. We don't have to respect the behavior itself.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well that's a problem here isn't it. By what right does anyone else have to not accept what a homosexual does in their private sexual lives? And what right does the church have to promote a teaching that homosexuals should not have sexual relationships.

What right do you have to judge the LDS Church and LDS and other believers for their religious expressions?

And all the LDS Church says is if you want to be a member then there are rules you follow. Don't follow then you don't have to be a member.

As to your last line, love is meaningless if respect is not there.

That is simply your own narrow definition.

[_truth dancer]

Since Marg probably won't have SWKs pamphlet or teachings regarding homosexuality it may be difficult for her to know what has been officially stated. (I doubt the "Letter to a Friend" is on LDS.org).

While I have not heard anything like Gaz's opinions from LDS leaders, it is clear they taught homosexuality is of Satan, a choice to follow "him" and a horrible sin.

That said, I do think the church is backing away from this and of course while they never, ever, in a million years would admit they were wrong, they no longer seem to teach this in the same way they did.

In fact, I am pretty certain none of the LDS leaders would suggest homosexuality is a choice.

So, while the LDS church is intolerant of homosexuality, and does teach homosexuality is a horrible sin, I think Gaz has taken this to the extreme. Not surprising at all and actually it should be expected that the LDS church has some of these types of adherents.

~td~

[_Jason Bourne]

Since Marg probably won't have SWKs pamphlet or teachings regarding homosexuality it may be difficult for her to know what has been officially stated. (I doubt the "Letter to a Friend" is on LDS.org).

While I have not heard anything like Gaz's opinions from LDS leaders, it is clear they taught homosexuality is of Satan, a choice to follow "him" and a horrible sin.

That said, I do think the church is backing away from this and of course while they never, ever, in a million years would admit they were wrong, they no longer seem to teach this in the same way they did.

In fact, I am pretty certain none of the LDS leaders would suggest homosexuality is a choice.

So, while the LDS church is intolerant of homosexuality, and does teach homosexuality is a horrible sin, I think Gaz has taken this to the extreme. Not surprising at all and actually it should be expected that the LDS church has some of these types of adherents.

~td~

I do not think SWKs pamphlet or some of the older teachings are the way the Church approaches it now.

For current views and policy by the LDS Church on this see:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... attraction

[_Jersey Girl]

Homosexuality is a choice. No one is born that way.

How do you know that? How do you know it's a choice?

[_truth dancer]

I do not think SWKs pamphlet or some of the older teachings are the way the Church approaches it now.

Yeah, but Jason, lots of LDS folk don't realize the apologetic view that if something isn't taught in the last ten years it is no longer true, or that prophets just share their opinions.



Seems there are still members who believe it all... evidence Gaz!

[_Jason Bourne]

Yeah, but Jason, lots of LDS folk don't realize the apologetic view that if something isn't taught in the last ten years it is no longer true, or that prophets just share their opinions.



Seems there are still members who believe it all... evidence Gaz!

Fair enough.

[_marg]

Gaz, I don't blame you one bit. You've been taught to disrespect and not accept gays, and yet everyone it seems, is mad at you for doing so. This is not about "love". People don't love strangers, they either respect or they disrepect, and you are just following the church teachings.

No Marg. Gaz has not been taught to disrespect gays the way he is by the LDS Church. Yes he has been taught that homosexuality is sinful. He has been taught a variety of other things are sinful as well. One actually can disapprove of choices and activities one engages in and not radically condemn them. I explained that up above. The idea comes from realizing we all sin, all need salvation through our redeemer and thus are not to condemn anyone. That is not our place. You know, that he who is without sin casting the first stone thing.

Jason can a religious person respect homosexuals who act upon their homosexuality?

Looking at the webster dictionary for the word "respect" it says:

1: a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation <remarks having respect to an earlier plan>2: an act of giving particular attention : consideration3 a: high or special regard : esteem b: the quality or state of being esteemed cplural : expressions of respect or deference <paid our respects>4: particular , detail <a good plan in some respects>

So the opposite of respect is disrespect. When the church teaches that homosexuality is a sin it is expressing in religious terms a low regard as opposed to a high regard for .. homosexuality...in other words a disrespect for homosexuality. .see definition 3

I'll address the concept of love in another post.

[_marg]

It is nonsense to teach that homosexuals are sinners yet one should love them.

No marg. A Christian believer can love someone who sins. A Christian believer is commanded to do good to those who mistreat you, to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek. One can disapprove of a behavior but still recognize that the person committing the behavior is a child of God, a fellow human and still have love for them. This can further be understood by the fact that we all understand our need before God for forgiveness of some sin or another.

In what way does a Christian believer love a sinner?

Here are some definitions of love:

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>3 a: the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love> b (1): a beloved person : darling —often used as a term of endearment (2)British —used as an informal term of address4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1): the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2): brotherly concern for others b: a person's adoration of God5: a god or personification of love6: an amorous episode : love affair7: the sexual embrace : copulation8: a score of zero (as in tennis)

Which one is applicable? "Brotherly concern for others"? Is it showing concern to tell a homosexual that they can't have legal equal rights to heterosexual couples? Is it showing concern to tell a homosexual that they must not have sexual relationships? Rather than concern it seems the Church is negatively judgmental and interfering in affairs of others in such a way as to cause hardship, guilt, and promote poor self esteem. I don't consider that love Jason.