Droopy bo boopy...
Is that a new Star Wars character?
http://www.mormonsandgays.org/
Where the Church stands:
The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
You lose Droopy. This is an official site of the Church. Doctrine now according to you bud BC out in outer Space.
Yes, it is, and as I agree with each and every statement therein, and always have, and have made that clear in this forum and others many times, I'm not at all sure I see how I "lose."
Now I will sit back and watch you spin this one to fit into your world view.
There's no need. I'm already across the finish line while you're still getting up after falling down right outside the gate.
Droopy I keep telling you that the Church will either modify many of its stands or it will bleed members.
Then the Church doesn't need those members in any ultimate sense. The restored Kingdom of God will go forward toward the great and terrible day of the Lord with or without me, you, or anyone else who so chooses to distance themselves from or leave that kingdom. Bleeding members into the Great and Spacious building is a major aspect of the prophecies concerning the last days as it was in the Meridian church. This is all taken account of in modern and ancient revelation. Its always tragic, of course, but if only one, single, solitary human being reaches the Celestial Kingdom because of the Restoration, the Restoration will have been well worth all the bleeding.
This site shows at least in this area the Church is much more accommodating than it has ever been. It still draws the line in the sand but it is also attempting to be more accommodating to gay persons.
We had a homosexual man in our ward in San Diego in the late seventies, who came to church and participated. So long as he did not participate in homosexual behavior or in the gay subculture, the church was just as accommodating then as it is now. The doctrine hasn't changed. What's changed is the hyperextension of gay culture into the mainstream of American political and cultural life, far beyond its actual prevalence in the surrounding society and the overheated politics now surrounding the issue.
(however, while "having" such desires and feelings may not itself be a sin, indulging and encouraging fantasies and ideations of that kind, as with heterosexual fantasizing of activities outside the boundaries of the Lord's laws of human sexuality, would very well be so).
Yea will I never said any differently now did I? So maybe you do agree with the new Church site.
I've never said I didn't.
The website Mormons and gays seems not to mind using the term gay.
The Church also uses the term "African American." I refuse to use any such terms (especially hyphenated Americans) as a matter of principle and conscience. The Church as an institution is doing this, I'm sure, in an attempt to be conciliatory to common usage and not nitpick. I'm under no such obligation.
Ah you cannot resist it can you Droopyu ole boy. The personal attack on my horrible apostasy. Blah, blah, blah.
I always consider apostasy horrible. Always have.
Even his comment above the doctrine trumps scripture disagrees with LDS prophets teaching on such things as well as his fellow apologists who mostly argue, like other LDS leaders, that we judge doctrine someone teaches by the standard works.
Which is why the members of the Church still live the Law of Moses, right Jason (notice all those verses in the Old Testament in which numerous aspects of Mosaic law are said to be eternal in nature?)? Which is why Jesus revealed all that new doctrine and told the Jews that in him, the law was fulfilled and the Mosaic ordinances and observances superseded.
Straw man dude. I never argues new revelation cannot be canonized and this part of the measureing tool to determine doctrine. But hey don't argue with me. Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee and B H Roberts all said if something disagrees with scripture you can set it aside. No matter who says it.
You're definition of "scripture," is, unfortunately, a rather fundamentalist Protestant one in nature.
