Supposedly, God once ruled that blacks were not worthy of the priesthood (or
temple ordinances). Apparently things change. According to LDS.org (Gospel
Topics > Blacks and the Priesthood), the men who taught that may have just
been a product of their times. Who's to say the same isn't true for
the current leadership of The Church, and subjects like this one?
@ A Quaker Perhaps, but when centuries of Christianity has taught that
homosexuality is a sin, I would question the most recent interpretation.
Where have any of the Christian "Father's" said that it was ok,
wholesome, or acceptable to God? I think I can safely say that yes, I may be
speaking for "my" denomination but I am on safe ground in asserting that
I am also speaking for 2 centuries of basic Christian teaching. The Ten
Commandments are pretty basic. The inference in the Ten Commandments dealing
with adultery is that of a union of Husband/Wife. There was never any other
kind of interpretation in the old world. Even when homosexuality was accepted
culturally it was NEVER entered into as marriage in ANY ancient culture that I
am aware of and I have studied many. This is a modern invention. Children
are the losers. The most important "diversity" is in marriage and in
parenting children. A child is best served by having both a mother and a
father. Or would you dispute that too?
@Lilalips: With their consent and permission, you may possibly be able to speak
for your own denomination, but I can recognize instantly that you don't
speak for mine, and hence you can't speak for all of Christendom.When Quakers sit in worship in Meeting, we frequently are covered by the
Light. There, we reach discernment in the presence and with the guidance of the
Lord, who as promised (Matthew 18:20), sits with us in Meeting. He guides us
with His love and wisdom and teaches us.Gay people are neither
sinful nor "disordered," any more so than left-handers, pygmies, or
"gingers." God loves all His children and enjoys variety in His
creation. The love of one gay person for another is no different or less pure
than the love of one straight person for another. God knows this and soon the
rest of us will learn this too.
@ A Quaker and Baccus, Any close reading of the New Testament would confirm that
Jesus did not intend to embrace all beliefs and behaviors. His admonition was
always, "Keep the Commandments"... and in Matthew we find: Think not
that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.37 He that
loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son
or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. There was plenty of
homosexuality around during the time of Christ. The Greeks were notorious for
it in the ancient world. In fact, the Jews tried to guard against it seeping
into their own culture. In Christianity,loving homosexuals does not mean loving
homosexuality OR embracing it. It has always been a sin and will always be so
regardless of what popular culture says. However, we need to support and
embrace those who struggle with this sin the same way we embrace those who
struggle with any other sin or vice. The struggle is what makes us familiar
It's my belief, arrived at from my faith and testimony that speeches like
Elder Nelson's are the instruments that propagate discrimination and
inequalityin the world today. My faith teaches children that in order to create
a society that is fair and equal and to truly love others they must to grow up
and be the polar opposite of people like Elder Nelson. That is how my faith
practices freedom of religion.
I disagree I think acknowledging the fact that you choose to question others
faith because they pck and choose which counsel from your leaders they follow
when you are clearly doing the same is pertinent to the coversation.
@interventionIf only those free of inconsistencies could point them
out, no one’s neighbor would ever be warned.Assume I
questioned the faith of others, thus acting contrary to prophetic counsel. That
has nothing to do with whether my point is valid. You are attacking me, not my
argument.The fifteen signatories to the Proclamation signed in their
official capacities as members of the two presiding quorums of the LDS Church.
In other words, they signed as prophets, seers, and revelators. They held
themselves out as speaking for God. A fair reading of the Proclamation yields
no other interpretation.If they spoke for God when they signed the
Proclamation, then support of same-sex marriage is contrary to God’s will.
It’s that simple.
@bengelYet you seem to have no problem ignoring these same leaders counsel
to not call other members faith into question. "You cannot eat your
cake and have it too."
@LostInDC: I speak not from liberalism, but from a 350+ year-old Religious
Society of Friends doctrine based in Equality. Equality of men and women in the
Meeting, in the secular world, in governance, and in the home -- in rights, in
property, and in responsibility. Equality of blacks and whites in the right to
liberty and justice. If you call Emancipation, desegregation, or Women's
Suffrage "liberalism," then you don't understand simple Christian
principles or Genesis 1:27 the way we do.Your slippery slope
argument ignores the essential definition of marriage: two unrelated adults,
joining as next-of-kin for their lifetime. Our religious view that the genders
of such couple are inconsequential to God, our Meeting, or the community
doesn't change anything about individual eligibility for marriage, nor the
number therein.@LongFellow: Hyperbole much? Since when does an
obstetrician have to participate in abortion? As for marriage, ministers cannot
be compelled to officiate rites. Others, engaged in providing services to the
public must obey their state laws. Not all states include sexual orientation in
their nondiscrimination statutes, so you're free move somewhere you can
Though the view of the LDS Church may differ from others, it is important for
those who claim membership to heed Elder Nelson's call. If you believe God
has taken a position on this issue, it is important to engage in civic, civil
dialogue and the political process. You must accord others with differing views
the same right.For members of the LDS Church whose views are in
opposition to what Elder Nelson said, I suggest you are being intellectually
inconsistent and doctrinally disingenuous. The fifteen men who collectively, in
their official capacities as members of their respective quorums, the Quorum of
the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, signed "The
Family - A Proclamation to the World," as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Their signatures witness that words of the Proclamation are God's words.They either speak for God, or they do not. LDS members claiming they
sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators, while saying they got this one
wrong, engage in double think beyond the capacity of the ordinary mortal. You
cannot eat your cake and have it too.
@lost in DC"Of whom do you speak?"So the article is about an
LDS leaders speech, who do you think Buccas is talking about?
@ LostinDCLost, I have no problem with Elder Nelson stating his
opinion and beliefs. As an LDS (or former) who still cares deeply for the
church, I find contradictory and damaging to the gospel teachings that separate
and divide people. But that is just my opinion, as an ld_lib open minded I feel
entitled to express.The LDS church is very controversial in the U.S.
and around the world. If the church goal is to preach the gospel to
"all". Then don't make your work harder. If you are going to tell
me that the gospel shouldn't compromise, i would ask you to review the
history of the church.Also, how do you know that SSM is against
God's will? Tradition? scriptures? revelation ?I venture to say that
is mostly tradition and tradition should have no bearing in accepting or
rejecting principles or customs that are good for the people.
A Quaker, it is a bit more complex than you represent. 20 years ago the subject
of gay marriage was not even discussed in public and individuals who believed as
Russell Nelson could chose pretty much any profession. Today, gay marriage is
gaining public acceptance and legal status (at least until, and if the SCOTUS
rules differently). However, any profession associated with marriage and
obstetrics is now, in a number of states,closed to anyone who wishes to remain
true to the tenants of a religion that believes as Russell Nelson. Indeed,
these people are forced to obey secular dictates and abandon their religion if
they wish to pursue these professions.
Quaker,At what point will the courts invalidate marriages performed in our
temples and meeting houses because we do not call homosexual unions
"marriages"? Don't say that won't happen, Barry and the demo,
through Obama care have already shown liberal ideas trump 1st amendment
religious freedom, and the court narrowly agreed with the constitution. It may
not happen again, and our history has shown the feds will disenfranchise the
church and confiscate it's property if it doesn't like us. Google
edmunds-tucker acts. The Feds HAVE dictated to us. Learn more history before
campaigning around on your high horse.Would you see polygamy and
incest between consenting adults as fairer and more ethical? How about lowering
the age of consent? It's 14 in some parts of South America? At what point
do YOU draw the line? Where does it stop being fair and start being decay? Or is
ANYTHING decay for liberals?
@heGreaterTruth: I'm curious. Who's dictating what to you? No one
has the right to tell you who to permit in your Meetinghouses and Temples or
which rites to perform or for whom. By the way, that being the case, what makes
you think you have the right to force others to obey your religious dictates?From the point of view of my religion, I see society becoming fairer and
more ethical with the recent developments. If you see it as decay, well... I
feel quite free to disagree with you.
Baccus, Of whom do you speak?Where are ld_ lib and open
minded, who usually argue so vociferously in defense of gay marriage?
I wonder about a sect that claims to speak in the name of God and yet spends
resources in excluding instead of embracing his children.
I'm glad Elder Nelson chose to speak out about this. I don't think
Latter-day Saints (myself included) have done nearly enough to defend the true
order of marriage in the public square. Instead, we have allowed the much more
vocal proponents of gay marriage to push us into being silent. Now is the time
to speak out in defense of the truth, and not fear retribution, no matter what
that retribution may be.
@A QuakerRegardless, we can and should speak up publically and
profess our beliefs and views on what is right and wrong, and what is best for
society, and influence the making and creating of law.That is how
our system works.We should not sit idly by while others, destroy our
communities, society, and country.They equally have no right to
dictate to us and our communities.
Unless you're planning on raising your own army, seceding from the U.S.,
and declaring sectarian warfare on the rest of us, you may just have to learn to
accept that there are other faiths, as equally entitled to our own
interpretation of Scripture as you are to yours. While we don't ask you to
adopt our beliefs, or even respect them, as long as you're part of this
country, you do need to respect that we have a right to have them, as others do
to reject both of ours.My religion, like yours, also believes that
marriage is sacred, a gift of God. However, we differ diametrically from yours
on the subject of marriage equality. You can "declare your truth to the
world" until the cows come home. It's still false in our doctrine.
you're right, it doesn't get any plainer than this.
no equivocating on this issue.