Mormons and Gays

[Bravus]

Just makes me laugh. I think it was Jon Stewart who said "Mormons are strong supporters of Proposition 8, because they have always defined marriage as between one man and... um...."

[John317]

Of course as far as the Mormons and their polygamy is concerned, I agree with you. I see it as very inconsistent.

But according to Scripture, from the viewpoint of God, polygamy is not the same as homosexuality.

In other words, it is obvious to me from the Bible that God considers the practice of homosexual relations to be an abomination, and He never said the same thing about polygamy per se.

Take Abraham as an example. God "winked" at Abraham's polygamous relations with women, but there can be no doubt that if Abraham had become involved in a homosexual relationship, God would have viewed the situation quite differently.

The problem with the Mormon position, as I see it, is that they have taken the fact that God permitted polygamy to mean that it's God's ideal for mankind, and something that God will reinstate in His eternal kingdom.

Do you agree? What are your thoughts?

[carolaa]

Just makes me laugh. I think it was Jon Stewart who said "Mormons are strong supporters of Proposition 8, because they have always defined marriage as between one man and... um...."

ROFLOL. I saw that too.

[carolaa]

The problem with the Mormon position, as I see it, is that they have taken the fact that God permitted polygamy to mean that it's God's ideal for mankind, and something that God will reinstate in His eternal kingdom.

I'm not sure Mormons care a lot about what God has to say. As God once was, so we are, and as God is, so we will be. (Or something like that.) So why would it matter to them what God thinks, if they are going to be gods themselves? They are just using God to promote their man-made fantasy doctrine.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The problem with the Mormon position, as I see it, is that they have taken the fact that God permitted polygamy to mean that it's God's ideal for mankind, and something that God will reinstate in His eternal kingdom.

I'm not sure Mormons care a lot about what God has to say. As God once was, so we are, and as God is, so we will be. (Or something like that.) So why would it matter to them what God thinks, if they are going to be gods themselves? They are just using God to promote their man-made fantasy doctrine.

Yes, they say they care very much what God says, but of course, that is God as they view Him on the basis of many sources outside the Bible as we know it. Their view of God is more informed by the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and Smith's so-called Translation, or Inspired Version, of the Bible. Mormons see these writings as correcting the errors in the Bible as it is regularly printed. (The so-called corrections made by Smith have no support in the manuscript evidence, but they are not bothered by this fact since they believe the Holy Spirit revealed the corrections.)

They believe that they will only become gods if they obey the laws of the God of this universe, which gives them reason to pay close attention to what they understand their God to be saying.

I think that most Mormons are sincere and honest at heart, but terribly deluded and wrong.

[Bravus]

Yeah, I wasn't making the polygamy=homosexuality parallel that someone earlier in the thread made. I was basically making a cheap joke.

In the final analysis, the constitutional changes from Prop 8 either won't be made, or will be reversed within a generation, so it's all moot.

I believe the God of the Bible abominates homosexual activity - which is but one of the reasons I'm very much struggling with that God right now. I still absolutely believe in God, I'm just very unsure of how perfectly the Bible manages to portray Him. I know that perspective is anathema to most here, but it is what it is.

[John317]

In the final analysis, the constitutional changes from Prop 8 either won't be made, or will be reversed within a generation, so it's all moot.

Wholeheartedly agree there.

But is that an improvement or not?

There are different ways of viewing this. It is giving people freedom to practice homosexuality, and that may actually be God's will. That is, I believe that it may be God's plan in these last years of earth's history to allow all people freedom to practice their favorite sins if they want to.

Why would God want this? Because it shows the whole universe that the distinction between His faithful, commandment-keeping people and the world is not due to exterior pressures but is due to people's free choices.

So we can expect the difference between the people of God and the world to be clearer. The line of demarcation between the popular churches and the world will be fuzzier, but there will be a clearer distinction between the world and those who are prepared for Christ's return.

What do you think?

Quote:

I believe the God of the Bible abominates homosexual activity - which is but one of the reasons I'm very much struggling with that God right now. I still absolutely believe in God, I'm just very unsure of how perfectly the Bible manages to portray Him. I know that perspective is anathema to most here, but it is what it is.

Good points. There's no doubt that we will be amazed at how much greater and more wonderful and awesome God is compared to the Bible's view of Him, but we have to believe that the Bible did not mislead us when it comes to moral issues. That doesn't mean that people always understood the Bible, but it does mean that the prophets and apostles did not teach that something was right when it was actually wrong or that something was wrong when it was really right.

I went through years of wondering about God, the Bible, and homosexuality. Not too long ago, I would have loved to know that God was OK with what I was doing and the way I was living. So I had every reason to want to believe God doesn't condemn homosexual relations. But when I look back on how God has led me the last 4 years, I'm convinced more than ever that God is the answer for gay people. It is not always what I chose to do, but I have faith that God's way (as the Scriptures describe it) is the best way. I truly have to walk by faith and not by sight. I'm like a pilot flying by instruments when my body tells me I'm upside down but my instrument panel tells me that I'm flying right. I'm going strictly by the Bible on the issue of homosexuality, not by my reasoning or my feelings.

Would I want to live with a man now or have a homosexual relationship? If I allowed my body and what I call my flesh to lead me, I am sure I would do those things, but I am very happy and fulfilled living as I know God wants me to live. I wouldn't be happy at all doing things that I believe God doesn't want me to do. There was a time when that didn't bother me, but not any more.

[John317]

I believe the God of the Bible abominates homosexual activity - which is but one of the reasons I'm very much struggling with that God right now. I still absolutely believe in God, I'm just very unsure of how perfectly the Bible manages to portray Him. I know that perspective is anathema to most here, but it is what it is.

What is your main problem with the Bible's apparent condemnation of the practice of homosexuality? I have a feeling that your objection is primarily due to your sympathy with gays and to your thinking that they can't be fulfilled emotionally and sexuality unless they "sin."

That brings up a very important point. If I felt that my satisfaction and "fulfillment" required me to go against God's will, would I do it? What is most important to me-- my "happiness" or God's will? If those two are in conflict, which one wins out in our experience?

I had to decide that doing God's will in the matter of homosexuality was more important to me than my personal happiness or fulfillment.

I went 30 years making my happiness and fulfillment the most important issue and God's will secondary. I wasn't able to gain the victory until I decided that God's will was everything and my personal happiness was unimportant.

The irony is that it was only by first surrendering my happiness that I found it.

[delta]

By the way, how about this: THE ADVENTISTS SAME-SEX COUPLEX,,,,???

When our Sabbath-School leaders calling for "COMPROMISING" as a mandatory.....and then start teaching: "Come as you are and live as you are" rather than: "Come as you are and Go! and sin no more."

Another mandatory DOGMA is totally to refuse Revelation 3:15,"I could wish you were cold or hot! (One of the top 10 of Bible verses which the Progressive Adventists need to be rejected then attacked, believe it or not!)

Rationale--->"But, we're sorry dear Jesus, we're really hate the Rev 3:15 and as Sabbath-school theologians that are much wiser than you Jesus, compromise has been proven to be the "best". Foundations of Adventists faith as a solid Biblical-principal is proved to be a sarcastic and toxic to win souls, right Jesus? Just talk about love and grace and our church shall be full and crowded each sabbath. More tithe and more offerings will come, of course.

“Making disciples might require us to do strange things: eat or drink strange mixtures and be all things to all people so we can win some. This is the call and challenge of discipleship, especially as the gospel goes around the world and into cultures sometimes radically different from our own.”

http://sabbath-school.blogspot.com/2008/02/ethnicity-and-discipleship-lesson-6.html

Traditionally, Adventists have been straight. But they do have a call to go into all the world, and make disciples, as we see above.

Mr. Alexander Carpenter is an Adventist. He takes this mission seriously.

The Adventists have now targeted the Bay Area gay community for discipleship. Church members are ready, willing, and able to do strange things to win some members. In particular, the ministry team is geared up to “eat or drink strange mixtures”.

http://powerofpride.wordpress.com/2008/0...ventist-gospel/

[Bravus]

Quote:

What is your main problem with the Bible's apparent condemnation of the practice of homosexuality? I have a feeling that your objection is primarily due to your sympathy with gays and to your thinking that they can't be fulfilled emotionally and sexuality unless they "sin."

That brings up a very important point. If I felt that my satisfaction and "fulfillment" required me to go against God's will, would I do it? What is most important to me-- my "happiness" or God's will? If those two are in conflict, which one wins out in our experience?

I had to decide that doing God's will in the matter of homosexuality was more important to me than my personal happiness or fulfillment.

I went 30 years making my happiness and fulfillment the most important issue and God's will secondary. I wasn't able to gain the victory until I decided that God's will was everything and my personal happiness was unimportant.

The irony is that it was only by first surrendering my happiness that I found it.

John, you know that I respect you and your walk, and I particularly do not want in any way to undermine the hard work - so hard I can't even imagine it - that you have done in accordance with what you believe and understand to be God's will.

You're correct - my strong feelings in relation to this issue are a result of compassion for gay friends of mine and gay people in general. I am straight, married to the same woman for almost 21 years, and although I am tempted in many ways homosexuality has never been a temptation for me. I think this obviates the 'people struggle with the Bible because of their own cherished sins' argument (which you're not making but which is frequently made here).

I believe the Bible teaches against homosexuality, but I find it all too plausible that the Bible writers chose to use God as a supernatural guarantor for their own fears and prejudices (and desires?) in this area. I see what you're saying about the importance of following God's will in all things, even if it means celibacy for life and the absence of a loving partnership, but I just worry about whether it truly *is* God's will, or a terrible human mistake. (Your personal testimony is powerful in relation to this issue.)

I have also been very close to a couple where the husband's desires were gay but he forced himself to marry a woman who he didn't and couldn't desire, because he felt God required it of him, and without telling her of his situation, and know the agony that was caused in that situation.

It's not something on which I'm settled, but it is something where everything I know and understand of God's character and nature is contradicted by the shrivelled and fearful prejudice of humans in the way the texts are used to harm others, and it's all too easy to imagine the same issues driving the Bible writers.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not gay and never have been. Throughout college I was very involved with gay people. Before I returned to the church I had many gay friends. One two different occasions I had gay roommates. I was a child victim of sexual abuse and as a teenager went though much counseling due to that. I became so accepting of gays as a result of the counseling that while eating lunch at my high school I defended another student that others were picking on and calling gay. Because of my defending him the staff at the school thought I was gay and sent the high school counselor to talk to be about it. I cannot say there was ever a time in my life that I was anti-gay.

After becoming a Christian I was watching the 700 Club and saw some folks from Exodus International. I got in contact with them and started an outreach ministry on my college campus. One of my former roommates actually ended up leaving the lifestyle. I came to know gays on the other side of the issue. I have never met more loving and committed Christians than gay people that have chosen to escape the gay lifestyle and follow Christ.

The more I learned about the gay lifestyle the more I became convicted of the divine inspiration of the Bible. God bans homosexuality not because He wants to rain on some people's parade but because the lifestyle does not bring about happiness and purpose. A gay man once explained it to me like this. The gay getting into the gay lifestyle is like a man in the dessert dying of thirst coming upon a tall clear beverage on ice and upon drinking it discovers it to be urine. It fails to alleviate thirst. I have often compared a person looking for happiness in the gay lifestyle to the Irishman searching for his pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The trouble is that as he gets closer to the end of the rainbow it moves. No matter how hard he tries or how fast he moves he can never get to the end of the rainbow.

[Bravus]

I understand that, I think, but want to quibble with the term '*the* gay lifestyle'. There are obviously very many different gay lifestyles. And those wanting to marry (which is what Proposition 8 is about) are the people least likely to be spending a lot of time at clubs and beats and having multiple partners, although some might be like that. Some are monogamous and committed to one another, and general comments about 'the gay lifestyle' don't apply.

I think God's original ideal was heterosexuality. I also think some small proportion of people are now born homosexual. That makes their lives very difficult, and Christian efforts to assuage that difficulty rather than to enhance it cut a lot more ice with me. I applaud the work you've done, Shane - but do think that the full picture may involve more than reparative/conversion therapy type solutions. Just as the full straight solution to sex education needs to involve more than abstinence-only solutions.

[John317]

I understand that, I think, but want to quibble with the term '*the* gay lifestyle'. There are obviously very many different gay lifestyles. And those wanting to marry (which is what Proposition 8 is about) are the people least likely to be spending a lot of time at clubs and beats and having multiple partners, although some might be like that. Some are monogamous and committed to one another, and general comments about 'the gay lifestyle' don't apply.

The gay lifestyle does not necessarily include going to bars, of course. There are gays who no longer go to them. The gay bar scene, like much in the gay life style, focuses on youth and good looks, so as gay people age, they often stop going to the bars. However, a far greater number of gays than heterosexuals do go to the bars because that is a primary way of meeting people, socializing, and finding out what's going on in the gay community. Gays who go to the gay churches often also go out together to the bars, many times on Sunday nights after church. (Most hold their church services Sunday evening.)

Even those who are "married" generally go to the bars from time to time, because it is the way you stay in contact and the way you learn the latest news about people. Straights don't do this because they have many other outlets. Gays are more limited. They have their bars, the Internet, a few newspapers, the gay church, etc.

A very high percentage of the "married" or "committed" homosexual couples have arrangements that allow them certain liberties on occasion. I'm not going to say all of them do this, but over the years, it would be a rare couple among the men who never have any "tricks." "Tricks" are contacts that are not considered serious but are just for recreation and fun. Being in a committed, or long-term, relationship doesn't mean for gay men the same as it means for a heterosexual husband and wife. Gay men's understanding of commitment doesn't usually include a prohibition against all other sexual activity. They view commitment as being far deeper than just sex.

Gay women are completely different this way. Their relationships are usually much more stable and lasting, and are also far more monogamous.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

Allow me to pin your ears back with a salient fact...

And according to the Word of the Lord, God isn't really pleased with arrogance either...

Correct. Pride doesn't get high marks in the Word. Since pride was the sin that caused the fall of Lucifer, each of us struggle with it in our carnal nature. The singular solution according to the Word of God that I quoted above, is the surrender of our carnal nature which will result in humility and moral purity -- contrasted with arrogance & homosexual abomination (gay pride).

go do the right thing,

oG

[Amelia]

Mormon church blames powder hoax on gays

Leaders say opponents of marriage ban are behind the mailings

Nov. 14, 2008

The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY - The Mormon church on Friday blamed opponents of California's gay marriage ban for sending hoax mailings containing white powder to temples, while a group that also supported the measure condemned "acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

Investigators have not publicly cited any evidence that the mailings were linked to the Mormon church's support of the measure, and a gay rights group in Utah disputed that gay protesters were involved.

The letters were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the church, where powder spilled on a mail clerk's hand, and to a temple in Los Angeles. Both packages tested nontoxic, the FBI said Friday.

The two temples were sites of recent protests against the church's support for a California ballot initiative that superseded a court decision allowing gay marriage. The Mormon church, whose official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said it is stepping up security.

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few," church President Thomas S. Monson said in a statement.

Gay rights group condemns hoaxes

The Utah Pride Center, a gay rights group, put out its own statement calling the powder hoaxes and acts of vandalism "deplorable."

However, the group said, "It is false to conclude that yesterday's suspicious package came from gay protesters. Overwhelmingly, gay and allied Utahns have expressed their pain, frustration and commitment to securing rights through peaceful demonstrations and marches."

The coalition that ran the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 also issued a condemnation Friday.

"The NO on 8 campaign was about civil rights and seeking equality for all Californians. We have said time and again that the Mormon church deserves the same respect as any other religion," said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group.

The FBI is still investigating both cases, spokesman Juan T. Becerra said, noting that it's a crime to release a substance to threaten harm and stoke public fear.

"Even if you send a hoax threat, you're still in violation of federal law," Becerra said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to lawmakers and media members killed five people and sickened 17 in 2001. Since then, hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up but usually turn out to be harmless.

Religious coalition denounces protests

Separately, the coalition of religious groups behind the successful measure held a news conference to denounce protests carried out since Election Day.

The backlash has included calls for a boycott of Utah ski resorts and California businesses whose owners donated to the cause.

"Our opponents do not like the outcome and that is to be respected. They fought hard and they feel defeated and that is understandable," said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign. "What they do not have the right to do, however, is to harass and intimidate people. And they do not have the right to commit acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

Meanwhile, five civil rights groups asked California's highest court Friday to annul the ban on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups, not just gays.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the state Supreme Court to prevent the change from taking effect.

The petition is the fourth seeking to have the measure invalidated. But it's the first to argue that the court should step in because the gay marriage ban, which overturned the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay unions, sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities.

Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.

"The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality," Paterson said. "Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?"

[Dr. Shane]

A few points:

• The gay lifestyle refers to people that are actively having sex with other members of the same sex or would like to be.
• Gays that leave the lifestyle often continue to consider themselves gay just like an alcoholic that quits drinking often continues to consider himself alcoholic.
• Many that leave the lifestyle do not "covert" to being a heterosexual. Many simply never marry but find happiness and purpose in other aspects in life. Many heterosexuals do not marry either and likewise find happiness and purpose in other aspects of life.
• We need to be accepting of gays but such acceptance will never provide them with happiness and purpose. Like anyone else, happiness and purpose come from a surrendered life to God. So if all we offer them is acceptance, we are not offering them much more than they had before.
• Many, if not most, that leave the lifestyle have "slips" where they relapse into old behavior. That does not mean they cannot escape. Like most obsessive/compulsive disorders, people usually do relapse a few times, especially when they are first trying to break free.

[CyberGuy]

ON the News tonight ... I won't admit what news ...

They were talking about how the Mormans are being targeted by the gays because of their support of prop. 8 . The gays are furious that the Mormans put in millions of dollars and at each Morman church ... they asked the members to do all they could do to defeat Prop. 8

This may be a good reason for our church to avoid getting into politics. I think it is counter productive. I wouldn't want thousands of protesters at the GC .

What say you?

It is more than that. The opponets of Proposition 8 are using intimidation and outright violence or threat of violence. Evidently if you donated to Prop 8 it is on a public list. One person who was a daughter of a big resturant donated $100 to Yes on Prop 8. Gays targeted the resturant owned by her father for protests and boycotting. The resturant owner said this was not fair as he has hired gays and did not donate money to Prop 8. Why should they punish the workers at the resturant for this. One couple was beat up in their driveway for donating to Yes on Prop 8. Vandelism to cars and property are becoming common as these people are on the public list. The Mayor of San Francisco says this is a Revolution to get Gay rights constitional rights back. He practically defended the violence.

I am sure some SDA's donated to Prop 8 which is a persons freedom to do so. Yes the church did become involved with the editor of Liberty Magazine supported Proposition 8 and urged members to vote for it. It is the same as voting for biblical morality. The bible does not support the Gay lifestyle. In fact is has a harsher viewpoint than even Prop 8 supports.

[phkrause]

Good Post Shane.

pk

[Bravus]

And the fact that the vast majority of American Christians also believe that the Bible mandates and requires Sunday worship doesn't give any of you pause at all when it comes to legislating?

[CyberGuy]

Proposition 8 was a reaction to the courts trying to undo what the people voted on over a decade ago that Marriage is between a man and a woman. So California voted to put that in the consitution. Now the Gays from San Francisco are trying to go to the courts to invalidate that vote on the consitituion on the grounds it is trying to put decrimination into the constitution. This is nonsence. A year ago a proposition banning giving Gays the same rights to property and other rights as married couples was defeated. This prop only gives recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. It does not take away the rights of same sex unions under the law. In other words Gays still have all the rights under the law as married couples. Just that their union is not recognized a a marriage.

[Dr. Shane]

And the fact that the vast majority of American Christians also believe that the Bible mandates and requires Sunday worship doesn't give any of you pause at all when it comes to legislating?

What else do the vast majority of American Christians believe?

• Prostitution is wrong.
• Murder is wrong.
• Stealing is wrong.
• Fraud is wrong.
• statutory rape is wrong.

Yet this really isn't about what the vast majority of American Christians believe because no one is banning any behavior. Gays can still be gay and have all the gay sex they want.

[Bravus]

What other basis is there for denying homosexual marriage than the beliefs of Christians? There is none. Therefore this law is about legislating the beliefs of Christians on everyone else. All of the other issues you name above are beliefs shared by all members of society, so it's a false argument.

[Dr. Shane]

Homosexual marriage does not exist. That is the point. Marriage is defined as the union of one man with one woman. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. That is like me going down to City Hall and insisting they sell me a dog tag to put on my cat's collar. When they refuse I cry discrimination. They tell me they have cat tags for my cat but I insist that I don't want a cat tag, I want a dog tag. I want to expand the definition of a dog to include cats so that cats will not be discriminated against.

[John317]

What other basis is there for denying homosexual marriage than the beliefs of Christians? There is none. Therefore this law is about legislating the beliefs of Christians on everyone else. All of the other issues you name above are beliefs shared by all members of society, so it's a false argument.

Yet there are non-Christian, and even atheistic, governments, cultures and civilizations that are opposed to same-sex marriage:

Wikipedia:

Quote:

Same-sex marriage in China

During the evaluation of the amendment of the marriage law in the Chinese mainland in 2003, there was the first discussion about same-sex marriage. Though this issue was rejected, this was the first time that an item of gay rights was discussed in China. However, just not long before the new marriage law went into effect, an officer stated in a press conference that same-sex marriage is still forbidden in China, on August 19, 2003.

Li Yinhe , a well-known sexology scholar among the mainland Chinese gay community, has tried to legalize same-sex marriage during the National People's Congress in 2000 and 2004 (Legalization for the Chinese Same-Sex Marriage, in 2000 and the Chinese Same-Sex Marriage Bill, in 2004). According to Chinese law, 35 delegates' signatures are needed to make an issue a bill to be discussed in the Congress. Her efforts failed due to lack of support from the delegates. Many scholars as well as gay and lesbians believe it will be difficult to pass such a law in China in the near future.

For the 2006 National People's Congress, Li proposed the same-sex marriage bill again. Some gay web sites called for their members to sign petitions in support of this bill. But as expected, this bill was dismissed again.

[Dr. Shane]

Which religions believe homosexuality is wrong?

Christianity

Catholicism

Islam

Judaism

Hiduism, Buddhism, and Taoism tend to look down on homosexuality as being unnatural but stop short of condemning it.

Confucianism seems to allow for it. So I guess that would be the world's "gayest" religion.