How many LDS members in here

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Because gay sex is against the doctrine of the church. For the church to do a 180 on this particular doctrine would shake my faith.

In other words, I don't believe God approves of a Ted & Bill marriage, and would certainly not honor an eternal sealing of such.

I honestly don't understand this. Some of you are very strong stalwarts in supporting whatever the brethern say.

How about women getting the Priesthood would that be a shake. What if we went back to the WOW as just advice, not Temple Recommend requirement.

Perhaps we are all a lot more alike then we think. None of us will take what the brethern say as being directly from God without thinking it over.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Are you saying the church doesn't have any stands that you don't agree with. Is that your point.

Back in the sixties they had a stand against using birth control. The question could have been asked about the hard stand on birth control back then. It went the opposite direction.

I think the bigger worry would be for someone like you if the church in 20 years comes out and allows Bill and Ted to marry in the Temple. What will you do then.

For me, it doesn't matter either way. As far as how God wants to handle it, it goes way above my pay grade.

I gotta beleive this one is a wee bit bigger than some one making a comment about LDS families utilizing a new form of birth control, and I'd seriously doubt that it was written as a declaration to the Chruch as an official policy.

I am not afraid of my testimony being shaken about allowing Gays membership in the church, having full access to temple rights, well........ I guess if God wants Bill and Ted as a family unit thru eternity, OK with me if that is Gods will, but my suspicions are otherwise.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Tex

There are those who felt that that denial of the priesthood to blacks was rooted in scripture, an eternal principle, and never would change. That kind of reticence is cited by pro-gay Mormons, when pro-marriage Mormons cite those same reasons for why homosexuality will never be normalized by the church.

It's a wholly specious argument, by the way.

Right. And when society accepts the serial killer, because his psychosis is in-born, the Dahmer's of the world will be allowed to receive their endowments as well.

It's a fallacy of logic, that, assuming that because one thing proved not to be eternal doctrine that something else will also prove to be likewise.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by T Blue

I gotta beleive this one is a wee bit bigger than some one making a comment about LDS families utilizing a new form of birth control, and I'd seriously doubt that it was written as a declaration to the Chruch as an official policy.

I am not afraid of my testimony being shaken about allowing Gays membership in the church, having full access to temple rights, well........ I guess if God wants Bill and Ted as a family unit thru eternity, OK with me if that is Gods will, but my suspicions are otherwise.

I obviously missed the sarcasm in your posts - I thought you were seriously promoting the church allowing gay temple marriages...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I honestly don't understand this. Some of you are very strong stalwarts in supporting whatever the brethern say.

How about women getting the Priesthood would that be a shake. What if we went back to the WOW as just advice, not Temple Recommend requirement.

Perhaps we are all a lot more alike then we think. None of us will take what the brethern say as being directly from God without thinking it over.

I think I could handle either of those much easier than the wholesale normalization of homosexuality. You're talking about a behavior that strikes at the heart of the very idea of the gospel.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by T Blue

I gotta beleive this one is a wee bit bigger than some one making a comment about LDS families utilizing a new form of birth control, and I'd seriously doubt that it was written as a declaration to the Chruch as an official policy.

I am not afraid of my testimony being shaken about allowing Gays membership in the church, having full access to temple rights, well........ I guess if God wants Bill and Ted as a family unit thru eternity, OK with me if that is Gods will, but my suspicions are otherwise.

I agree and would go as far as to say, my strong suspicions are as otherwise.

However, as one who grew up in the church in the 50's and 60's a few things are different I had suspicions otherwise. Nothing as significant as gays in the Temple, but some pretty big changes.

I often get, oh we never really believed that.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I honestly don't understand this. Some of you are very strong stalwarts in supporting whatever the brethern say.

How about women getting the Priesthood would that be a shake. What if we went back to the WOW as just advice, not Temple Recommend requirement.

Perhaps we are all a lot more alike then we think. None of us will take what the brethern say as being directly from God without thinking it over.

Women getting the priesthood: No shake of faith involved. Women currently have limited priesthood roles in temple ordinances.

WOW as just advice: No shake of faith involved.



I understand the question involved here - what is different about homosexuality compared with these other things that makes it so earth-shattering for a contrary revelation to come about...

I suppose that the sin of homosexuality is more ingrained in me due to it's historical prominence in the bible. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in light of the concept of latter-day revelation. Or maybe it's because of it's relation to the law of chastity, which becomes confused if gay marriage becomes lawful.

Perhaps that's why the church is so public about opposition towards gay marriage...


Something to consider, I suppose.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think I could handle either of those much easier than the wholesale normalization of homosexuality. You're talking about a behavior that strikes at the heart of the very idea of the gospel.

Tex, are you in anyway an official spokesman for the church? I am serious. You speak so often as if you really know the churches position on things.

Since both Jesus and Paul never married, I guess I didn't realize marriage was at the very heart of the gospel. If the heart of the gospel is producing kids, then I guess sexual drive is the heart of the gospel.

I will remind some chick of that in the future when she suggests she might feel guilty.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Women getting the priesthood: No shake of faith involved. Women currently have limited priesthood roles in temple ordinances.

WOW as just advice: No shake of faith involved.



I understand the question involved here - what is different about homosexuality compared with these other things that makes it so earth-shattering for a contrary revelation to come about...

I suppose that the sin of homosexuality is more ingrained in me due to it's historical prominence in the bible. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in light of the concept of latter-day revelation. Or maybe it's because of it's relation to the law of chastity, which becomes confused if gay marriage becomes lawful.

Perhaps that's why the church is so public about opposition towards gay marriage...


Something to consider, I suppose.

For me it is just so dang repulsive. I consider that biological though not spiritual.

As far as prominance in the Bible. I have to admit this color skinned thing and a curse as interpreted in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon has me squeemish about believing anyones interpretation of things from those books again.

I can assure you in the 50's and 60's it was drilled into us the blacks and the lamanites had dark skins due to curses being put on them. To hear we no longer believe that still shocks me because of how it was drilled into us.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Tex, are you in anyway an official spokesman for the church? I am serious. You speak so often as if you really know the churches position on things.

You can't be serious.

Originally Posted by BYU71

Since both Jesus and Paul never married, I guess I didn't realize marriage was at the very heart of the gospel. If the heart of the gospel is producing kids, then I guess sexual drive is the heart of the gospel.

I will remind some chick of that in the future when she suggests she might feel guilty.

Oh my. Do you really not understand my meaning, or are you just being argumentative?

I think I liked it better when you didn't give a **** about what I think.