Does the church believe people are "born gay?" - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

non sequitur · 06-17-2006, 06:06 AM

The Church will always be hesitant to answer questions that can eventually be countered by science -- it learned its lesson from Joseph Smith and his "men in the moon" proclamation. The bread and butter of religion is its reliance on people having faith in things that are unknowable.

RockyBalboa · 06-18-2006, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homeboy

What the hey?

Where did this come from? Did you mean Hoya? I haven't fully engaged in one of these debates for quite a while.

My bad. I meant Hoya

Archaea · 06-18-2006, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

there is NOTHING WRONG with those initial feelings. You admitted they say that just a few posts ago (though then oddly spun it as the church just being pc).

Having those feelings is wrong and disabling.

What the Church is trying to say, is we shouldn't automatically ostracize those with those feelings.

I challenge you to quote, "NOTHING MORALLY WRONG."

That's not what the pronouncements say. You prevaricate for purposes of winning an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Given that there is nothing wrong with the initial feelings, does that mean they accept that people are born gay?

This point is irrelevant because it's based upon untrue premises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I find this question to be very straightforward. Anyone care to answer THIS question which is my sole purpose of starting this thread?

Quote:

We realize that people have feelings and thoughts for which they may not be responsible and all we’re asking is that they control them and not let those feelings and thoughts bring them to behaviors that would bring them to violate the church’s law of chastity.--Elder Marlin K. Jensen speaking on behalf of the church on a segment on Nightline.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3202

Speaking publicly instead of metaphysically is not a statement of causality or correlation.

And notice the waffle room, "for which they MAY not be responsible."

The Church didn't say, they AREN'T responsible, the Church is saying, "We don't know."

Can you ever be intellectually honest?

06-17-2006, 06:06 AM	#21
non sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,964	The Church will always be hesitant to answer questions that can eventually be countered by science -- it learned its lesson from Joseph Smith and his "men in the moon" proclamation. The bread and butter of religion is its reliance on people having faith in things that are unknowable. __________________ ...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan