LDS Church Under Fire Again by Gay and Lesbian Groups . . .

[zerinus]

Umm, no. I skimmed the article and this quote popped out

Now, if that doesnt sound identical to the Catholic position then I will be a monkeys uncle.

I absolutely care. And I am glad that the LDS is under fire for this. The CC gets the same heat. Our two churches seem to be the last bastions of truth on this issue and the fact that we come under fire for this issue is a good thing. Its kind of like the Celebutants of today: any time you are in the news is good news. If we can get the word out more often that this is immoral and cannot be tolerated “as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature” then that is a good thing. Even if we are despised by the immoral and the “pushers” of immorality (moral relativists).

FSC

Thank you; I agree.

 

[zerinus]

What I do care about are the abusive attempts by Mormons to change peoples’ sexual orientation. If the LDS church were to officially say that these attempts are ordained by God, then it would become subject to lawsuits, which, when combined with lawsuits for other problems, would eventually bankrupt it.

The very fact that the LDS church is obsessed with sexual sin is evidence that it is obsessed with sexuality. It is difficult to maintain celibacy in such an environment. This is abusive to all. Not everyone is suited for (one man one woman) marriage. And Mormon teachings urge ALL to marry in order to reap the full benefits of heaven.

So, yes, I do care, even though I believe that same-sex “marriage” is a contradiction to the meaning of marriage, and that homosexual BEHAVIOR is sin.

Your agenda is clear; your opposition understandable.

 

[zerinus]

LDS are not unique in these abusive attempts. Some of the elder’s comments may well have been made by one of our own bishops. Similar groups have made similar accusations on the Catholic message.

Perhaps LDS teaching on marriage increases the perceived severity of the message.

Can OP or another Mormon can instruct us on the role of celibacy among Mormons?

We believe marriage is ordained of God (Genesis 2:18); celibacy is not. Celibacy, however, is preferable to immorality. Celibacy is not a sin; immorality is.

 

[zerinus]

I think you need to actually listen to his statement. broadcast2.lds.org/general-conference/2010-october/2010-10-4020-president-boyd-k-packer-64k-eng.mp3 About half-way through, he expresses the belief that the homosexual tendency can be changed. This then leads to the belief that people can be “converted” from SSA. That those feelings can be changed through repentance.

In post #20 I explained what he meant. See above.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the Catholic Church came under fire for the same thing I would care.

Christology need be together to ensure a victory. Without that the battle is great for all. And the gravity of the problem deepens when, family, children, abortion, innocents enter the equation.

 

[LongJourney]

Christology need be together to ensure a victory. Without that the battle is great for all. And the gravity of the problem deepens when, family, children, abortion, innocents enter the equation.

That is for sure. I encourage the LDS church to reconsider its position on celibacy, and compassion for those who struggle with SSA. I do know that liberal Mormons are in line with us on that, but often they are shut out from the debate and decision-making.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We debate differences and avoid to work together with what are common goals. Then we ask, why is there a problem with evil?

 

[dianaiad]

Well, it rarely does, because our attitude is more forgiving and tolerant.

LJ, both Catholics and Mormons came under fire for their joint opposition to gay marriage in California–though Mormons got the brunt of the criticism, I think.

As to celibacy–We do believe that all should be celibate outside of marriage, but given our basic focus on the family, celibacy INSTEAD of marriage is not ever supposed to be the first choice.

However, if one cannot–for whatever reason–enter into marriage, then celibacy is how we believe one should live one’s life.

 

[Pahoran]

That is for sure. I encourage the LDS church to reconsider its position on celibacy,

In what way?

and compassion for those who struggle with SSA.

What evidence do you have that the Church of Jesus Christ does not show compassion for those who struggle with SSA?

I do know that liberal Mormons are in line with us on that,

Who’s “us?”

Those who self-identify as “liberal Mormons” frequently are found agitating for same-sex “marriage.” Is that where you stand too?

Incidentally, I’ve been ploughing through your dreadful screed. The more I read, the worse it is. As a piece of hate propaganda, I know of few parallels. Comparing it to a Chick tract may have overestimated it.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

Generally speaking, Diana’s post immediately before yours is an exemplar of the liberal Mormon attitude that I am writing about. Except for

celibacy INSTEAD of marriage is not ever supposed to be the first choice.

They should both be respected as just different callings, because all people are unique.

Now, are you going to contradict Diana?

 

[dianaiad]

Generally speaking, Diana’s post immediately before yours is an exemplar of the liberal Mormon attitude that I am writing about. Except for They should both be respected as just different callings, because all people are unique.

Now, are you going to contradict Diana?

this is the first time I have ever been described as a ‘liberal’ Mormon…and I am now a tad bit confused.

I certainly don’t see how Zerenius or I contradicted each other in any way.

LJ, the foundation of our belief involves the family. Man and wife together, sealed to their ancestors and their children. Family is *everything. * “Celibacy” is never just a 'different calling."

it is expected of all those who are not married, period.

We do not believe that a deliberate choice to eschew marriage in order to live a celebate life is a good one. Ever. it is always, ALWAYS, simply the expected way to live if marriage is not possible, for whatever reason.

I get the impression that Catholics (and others) consider a life of celibacy to be an honorable thing; above and beyond the call of ordinary living. Someone who chooses to be celibate is considered to have given up something–or made some special sacrifice or effort that makes him or her special in the eyes of God and the church. Celibacy as a calling, as you have put it.

but it’s not a calling, any more than refraining from bashing people over the head on one’s daily walk is a calling. It is an expectation for all of us. We are EXPECTED to be chaste–and that means celibacy outside marriage bonds. It is a basic expectation.

…and it is always a second choice. Marriage is always the first one. There are, however, many reasons that one might not get a chance to marry here–including simply that one doesn’t meet someone who is 'right." Or…one could be homosexual and realize that it would be incredibly unfair to a spouse. (Though very, very, VERY few homosexuals are so far on the homosexual end of the spectrum that they cannot desire/fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.) OR…any number of other reasons. then, of course, one is expected to be celibate.

Not because being celibate is a good first choice.

…but because it is expected of those who cannot marry. Period.

 

[Dale_M]

Elder Packer was referring to the supernatural powers that he believes is contained within the priesthood authority of the LDS Church to change people’s lives. He was referring to the possibility of a miracle. Such a miracle, if there is one, would only be relevant or applicable to members of the LDS Church who possess and believe in that priesthood. He was not referring to a “conversion therapy” in general.

Oh, okay. HRC apparently didn’t get that part. Thank you for clarifying Elder Packer’s statement.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Natural law can’t be compared to gravity, because yes Elder Packer, we’ll shoot you into space and you can experience the absence of gravity. Hello space man.

“Natural law” is more of a philosophical term, meaning, laws that are universal and unchanging. Something that does not exist in LDS thought as the Mormon god can change law anytime, ie such has already been brought up in regards to polygamy vs monogamy.

 

[Pahoran]

Generally speaking, Diana’s post immediately before yours is an exemplar of the liberal Mormon attitude that I am writing about.

Really? I thought it was an exemplar of thoroughly orthodox, mainstream LDS thought.

But then – what would I know? I’m just a lifelong Latter-day Saint.

But this isn’t the first time you’ve praised Diana for refusing to resemble your absurd caricature of Mormonism. Actually I’ve never met a Latter-day Saint who does, so I hope you’re prepared to spread the praise around.

Now, are you going to contradict Diana?

Given that Diana agrees with me, that would seem rather churlish, wouldn’t it?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

this is the first time I have ever been described as a ‘liberal’ Mormon…and I am now a tad bit confused.

I certainly don’t see how Zerenius or I contradicted each other in any way.

LJ, the foundation of our belief involves the family. Man and wife together, sealed to their ancestors and their children. Family is *everything. * “Celibacy” is never just a 'different calling."

it is expected of all those who are not married, period.

We do not believe that a deliberate choice to eschew marriage in order to live a celebate life is a good one. Ever. it is always, ALWAYS, simply the expected way to live if marriage is not possible, for whatever reason.

I get the impression that Catholics (and others) consider a life of celibacy to be an honorable thing; above and beyond the call of ordinary living. Someone who chooses to be celibate is considered to have given up something–or made some special sacrifice or effort that makes him or her special in the eyes of God and the church. Celibacy as a calling, as you have put it.

but it’s not a calling, any more than refraining from bashing people over the head on one’s daily walk is a calling. It is an expectation for all of us. We are EXPECTED to be chaste–and that means celibacy outside marriage bonds. It is a basic expectation.

…and it is always a second choice. Marriage is always the first one. There are, however, many reasons that one might not get a chance to marry here–including simply that one doesn’t meet someone who is 'right." Or…one could be homosexual and realize that it would be incredibly unfair to a spouse. (Though very, very, VERY few homosexuals are so far on the homosexual end of the spectrum that they cannot desire/fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.) OR…any number of other reasons. then, of course, one is expected to be celibate.

Not because being celibate is a good first choice.

…but because it is expected of those who cannot marry. Period.

OK then, let’s clarify terms. Celibacy means a renunciation of marriage. Continence means you don’t have sex. When we say celibacy is a sacrifice we aren’t talking about sex, we’re talking about marriage. A priest sacrifices marriage and family to live a life solely for God.

 

[Pahoran]

Natural law can’t be compared to gravity, because yes Elder Packer, we’ll shoot you into space and you can experience the absence of gravity. Hello space man.

What on earth brought that on?

“Natural law” is more of a philosophical term, meaning, laws that are universal and unchanging. Something that does not exist in LDS thought as the Mormon god can change law anytime, ie such has already been brought up in regards to polygamy vs monogamy.

A straw man and deliberate misrepresentation.

Is it at all possible for you to see the word “Mormon” on your screen without getting nasty about it, or are your reactions that close to being pavlovian?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

OK then, let’s clarify terms. Celibacy means a renunciation of marriage. Continence means you don’t have sex. When we say celibacy is a sacrifice we aren’t talking about sex, we’re talking about marriage. A priest sacrifices marriage and family to live a life solely for God.

Actually Diana, she’s right. The common assumption that celibacy means chastity is not correct; it simply means being unmarried. Some liberal Catholic thinkers have argued that it is better to have chaste priests than celibate ones. So far, their arguments have had little impact.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

What on earth brought that on?

What I saw as illogical, it stuck out to my mind.

A straw man and deliberate misrepresentation.

Is it at all possible for you to see the word “Mormon” on your screen without getting nasty about it, or are your reactions that close to being pavlovian?

Regards,
Pahoran

No more than your pavlovian repsonse to anyone who has had the audacity to leave Mormonism.

So care to address what I wrote?

I didn’t think so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually Diana, she’s right. The common assumption that celibacy means chastity is not correct; it simply means being unmarried. Some liberal Catholic thinkers have argued that it is better to have chaste priests than celibate ones. So far, their arguments have had little impact.

Regards,
Pahoran

So says the Mormon about Catholic teaching and practice. “Catholic thinkers”. Pretty funny stuff.

 

[zaffiroborant]

this is the first time I have ever been described as a ‘liberal’ Mormon…and I am now a tad bit confused.

I certainly don’t see how Zerenius or I contradicted each other in any way.

LJ, the foundation of our belief involves the family. Man and wife together, sealed to their ancestors and their children. Family is *everything. * “Celibacy” is never just a 'different calling."

it is expected of all those who are not married, period.

We do not believe that a deliberate choice to eschew marriage in order to live a celebate life is a good one. Ever. it is always, ALWAYS, simply the expected way to live if marriage is not possible, for whatever reason.

I get the impression that Catholics (and others) consider a life of celibacy to be an honorable thing; above and beyond the call of ordinary living. Someone who chooses to be celibate is considered to have given up something–or made some special sacrifice or effort that makes him or her special in the eyes of God and the church. Celibacy as a calling, as you have put it.

but it’s not a calling, any more than refraining from bashing people over the head on one’s daily walk is a calling. It is an expectation for all of us. We are EXPECTED to be chaste–and that means celibacy outside marriage bonds. It is a basic expectation.

…and it is always a second choice. Marriage is always the first one. There are, however, many reasons that one might not get a chance to marry here–including simply that one doesn’t meet someone who is 'right." Or…one could be homosexual and realize that it would be incredibly unfair to a spouse. (Though very, very, VERY few homosexuals are so far on the homosexual end of the spectrum that they cannot desire/fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.) OR…any number of other reasons. then, of course, one is expected to be celibate.

Not because being celibate is a good first choice.

…but because it is expected of those who cannot marry. Period.

Yes celibacy is a calling and as such is a good and honorable first choice, your and your church’s opinion of, and beliefs about it don’t change that.