I would like to speak out against those members who are leaving the LDS church and criticize them for their complete disregard for their former faith's positions and the knowledge that they should have possessed if they had previously even considered themselves members. The LDS church -to my understanding- has always opposed gay marriages and homosexuality in all of its forms. It has been on record about describing such actions as, "contrary to God's plan" and as, " an abomination." So, why, first, would any member leave his or her church for the reason that their church decided not to change its mind in accordance with that particular member's view?
I think that any one person who feel that some religious institution, especially one that propounds the view that they are the true church - as the Mormon church does- should never have become member as per their faith was vain. Moreover, if such an institution is true and of God, then should it change? Should God change his views on gay marriage? Perhaps, those mormon members of whom felt that they could not associate themselves with such a church should take a long walk and think about themselves and maybe read the Bible and see what will be the inevitable end to such supporters of evil.
It is ridiculous that any member would leave their faith for such a trivial and stupid thing. Don't they know that since the beginning of the Bible and most organized religion, for that matter, have opposed Gay activities of all sorts? Don't they know that in the end, the Bible holds that such people will be burned as stubble?
I admire the valor and strength of the LDS chruch to keep true to their word and doctrine. This shows that they are not another wishy-washy and fly-by-night non-denominational church that feels that they can adapt their doctrine to allow for they gay community to be accepted - or should I say, that they adapt to keep the offering basket full...
Anyway, shame on those ex-members, and I hope that some of them read this, shame on your lack of investigative capabilities, and I think that the LDS church is better off without your weakness; especially, since the purpose of the gospel is to cleanse the earth from all evil though the blood of the lamb, and getting rid of those week links is part of that.
Best,
J.R.P
Posts
Amen! Well said. Thanks for the comment on ours!
ReplyDeleteI always find it comical the people who seem of above average intelligence believe in God. People being burned as stubble? Cleansed in the blood of lamb? Really?! Does your God also exchange dollar bills for childrens teeth, hidden beneath their pillows? Or leave presents under a tree after sliding down a chimney? The Tooth Fairy and Santa make just as much sense as the piddle that passes for Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThe dangerous part of all of this is you use this nonsensical and seemingly random set of beliefs to support your campaign against gay marriage. Even your ridiculous scriptures don't mention gay marriage. Jesus never once mentioned it. Not once. If it were such a huge issue, don't you think he would have hinted at it? If you want to use Old Testament verse to back up your argument that you had best be prepared to start stoning adulterers again.
You do make one valid point. "if such an institution is true and of God, then should it change?" God has changed his mind a number of times in your religion. Why not gay marriage? Polygamy met it's end as a result of "revelation" as did the ban on black members holding the priesthood. Who are you to presume what your fictional God will or will not do in the future?
I would like to point something out. The "blood of the lamb" is a symbolic statement. I don't know if you need explaining about what it means, but I will indulge. Such statement as "burned as stubble" and "Blood of lamb" refer to the cleansing sacrifice of Christ. That all men must be cleansed of their moral impurities. So, maybe now you don't have to hold such a mocking tone in your comments.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, there are a number of scriptures in the New Testament that actually support that fact that homosexual marriages are not morally permissible of theological views.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 1:18, 24-28, 32 The WRATH OF GOD is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.... [24] Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the DEGRADING of their bodies with one another. [25] They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen. [26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for UNNATURAL ones. [27] In the same way the MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their PERVERSION. [28] Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.... [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
AND CRIST SAID:
Matthew 19:4-5 “Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the CREATOR ‘made them MALE AND FEMALE,’ [5] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
So, you have obviously failed in showing that scriptures don't refer to gay acts. And, I will restrain from using the Mormon relative scriptures such as: the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Convents There is just too much there that reprimands it!
Let me, however, show you why the church wont be changing something this fundamental. The church takes a very fundamental stance on marriage Polygamy still appeals to the fundamental position that the church adheres to, so that is not a problem if that has to change. However, homosexuality violates that principle upon which the doctrine of the church rests.
So, the church holds that marriage consist of a male and female, and that there is no limit to how many females unite with one male, but female and female doesn't work nor does male and male.
Why, would the church hold this view? Well, lets see... if it is God's church, it must have a good reason why -right? Take a homosexual act and universalize it! What would be the implications for the perpetuation of the human race? Well... as nature holds (and Darwin felt the same about gay acts among species) it would cause the downfall and deregulation of the progression of evolution and overall teleological functioning.
First of all. Your church can tell you to live by whatever moral code they want. Secret underwear. Plural Marriage. I don't care. But why should they tell people not of their faith how they should live. It's simply not right.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, we don't want everyone to be gay and marry someone of the same sex. You for instance. We don't want you to be gay at all. Your little club can keep you. And you can procreate and have an extra baby for me. In an overpopulated world where we are going through natural resources faster than they can be replenished, I find the "if gays get married then we can't perpetuate the human race" argument to be utterly ridiculous.
Third, I'm not sure what bible you are using but I checked on the Mormon website and searched all books of scripture for the word homosexual, and here's what I got: There were no occurrences of the word HOMOSEXUAL found in the Text of the Scriptures." Is this a secret copy of the Mormon Scriptures? Ps. Effeminate is not the same as gay.
I found a good quote too that backs up my argument. It's a section of Grimm's Fairy Tales. As we are using fictional works of literature I thought the opening paragraphs of Rapunzel would carry as much weight as any scripture you can throw my way.
"There were once a man and a woman who had long in vain wished for a child. At length the woman hoped that God was about to grant her desire. These people had a little window at the back of their house from which a splendid garden could be seen, which was full of the most beautiful flowers and herbs. It was, however, surrounded by a high wall, and no one dared to go into it because it belonged to an enchantress, who had great power and was dreaded by all the world.
One day the woman was standing by this window and looking down into the garden, when she saw a bed which was planted with the most beautiful rampion - rapunzel, and it looked so fresh and green that she longed for it, and had the greatest desire to eat some. This desire increased every day, and as she knew that she could not get any of it, she quite pined away, and began to look pale and miserable. Then her husband was alarmed, and asked, what ails you, dear wife. Ah, she replied, if I can't eat some of the rampion, which is in the garden behind our house, I shall die."
What happens next? Stay tuned!
One more thing. All the scriptures you quoted were epistles from Christ's disciples. Not the written down words of Christ. AND they were transcribed over 200 years after Christ's death. That is like playing the telephone game over a 200 year period. Your own prophet acknowledged this and that is where the Pearl of Great Price comes from. The scriptures Smith corrected. And they don't ever use the word Homosexual!
ReplyDeleteWell... If you want the actual words of Christ, there are none... All the books that we have are actually older as you have pointed out, but Matthew is considered by many scholars to be the most precise and actual. In that book he does condemn anything beside male and female unions -as I have pointed out.
ReplyDeleteWell, to address your desire to have some specific utterance of the word "homosexual" in the scriptures, there is no specific instance. However, it is important to note that the word homosexual is derived from 18th century English (and latin roots), but the scriptures both the Book of Mormon and the Bible would not have used that word. Rather the words that they would have used would have dealt with things like, deceit, sodomy, immorality, perversions, gross, lasciviousness, and sexual evils. So, we can substitute homosexuality for any of the prior or any similar statement. The ancient apostles of Christ did hold that to "lay down mankind with itself as one is a perversion and is merely confusion."
Also, the LDS Church holds that: "It may be regarded as insignificant in the eyes of evil men, but the act of one man laying with another is in the eyes of God an abomination, and we forbid that one should practice anything as such" - Joseph smith.
It should also be understood -which you are failing at- perpetuation does not denote -always- increase in number. It also can mean several similar things, like: passing on of genes, which don't require large populations just breading -which naturally you cant do in your state. So, I was not referring to "population increase."
Moreover, on theological grounds, it is contrary to the correct functioning of nature and the mechanistic values of the natural world. I think that argument is much more sophisticated that some fairy tale. (did I just say fairy? -oops no offense intended).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletethe term sexual evils was used as an open ended statement in the bible. An organization can state what they hate, but its up to a free thinking individual to choose what in their own mind is a sexual evil. Following a large group of people without looking into your own self is also an abomination, Jesus wanted everyone to be themselves and think for themselves, not jump on the bandwagon. I think that was in Mark.
ReplyDeleteChasingmetaphors, The ad hominem feeling of your post was such that it was utterly inconclusive and, for lack of more sophisticated words, pathetic - which resulted in its deletion. Please respond with something more substantive.
ReplyDeleteBetter [than] you said,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you want to go that far. If Christ really left that kind of stuff up to a group or a person to choose as evil or not is dangerous. If that is true then we could do just about anything just so long as I determine it not to be evil.