Homosexuals Honour Spong...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Nehor...

Moving Eternal Marriage out of place and denying the attached principles will make me walk unless an angel comes down and confirms this and explains a lot of things. Even then I will stick out my hand and say, "Put her there pal."


Ahhh listen to some folks on the MAD board. There are those who suggest we don't really know how things will play out in the next life, how eternal families may be different than what they are now, how everyone will be sealed to each other... you know, one big happy family. :-)

There were men being sealed to men in the early days of the church. Homosexuality was not absent in the early days of the church.

There is plenty of room to open the doors when the time comes... as it most surely will.

I'm not saying it will happen soon but as soon as the majority of our society is comfortable with homosexuality, and the church is viewed by most of society as being cruel because of their homophobia, then the church will get a new revelation.

Another century or so... you just wait!

:-)

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Nehor...I'm not sure what you're refering to. Please tell me more.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Blixa wrote:Nehor...I'm not sure what you're refering to. Please tell me more.


When the 1978 Revelation came he had to eat a lot of crow and publicly admitted that he was wrong all along.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

I don't remember this from the time. I followed the fallout from the change pretty closely from ground zero (SLC), too. But I could have missed this. Lil' help?
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

The Nehor wrote:
harmony wrote:It will never happen. And the reason why it will never happen is, Nehor notwithstanding, the Brethren would never admit that they were wrong.


McKonkie did.


McKonkie was never the prophet.

I didn't say I wouldn't like it to happen. I just don't think the Brethren are able to admit that they've been perpetuating a mistake.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

I still think harmony, that there are plenty of ways such a change could be spun so as not to look like a "mistake." However, where you are right is in the fact that there are limits to this spin. For example, I think confronting the legacy of Brigham Young would be a harder sell than "changing" "policy" on homosexuality. Which is kind of insane, I know.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

The Nehor wrote:
Blixa wrote:Nehor...I'm not sure what you're refering to. Please tell me more.


When the 1978 Revelation came he had to eat a lot of crow and publicly admitted that he was wrong all along.


Great example. Also, according to Steve Benson, McConkie also said that BY was "wrong" about the Adam-God doctrine.
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

The Nehor wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Or, you could take Jesus at his word when he says "the kingdom of God is within you" and not need fear-based beliefs at all.

If there was an LDS at that concert, I'll bet he/she was a renegade and didn't have the consent of leadership.


What?

Where did I imply I was afraid?


You didn't. I was talking about fear-based beliefs, i.e., obviously, Satan (implicated in the shaking hands with angels thing), but eternal marriage as well when you peel off the warm fuzzy layers.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

McConkie wasn't wrong when he said what he did about Blacks. At the time he wrote it in the first edition, he was right. It wasn't a matter of eating crow, it was a matter of updating the doctrine to match new revelation.

Homosexuality is in direct confrontation with the entire plan of salvation. Should the church also honor those who break the law of chastity? Should common law marriages be honored? The entire premise is ludicrous, and I take insult at the very notion of homosexuals beign equal in any way to the negro race, homosexuals are not a race, and the two issues are completely different.

Roger, would you please give me a doctrinal commentary on how you would interpret Romans 1:21-32.

thanks

Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

Gazelam wrote:McConkie wasn't wrong when he said what he did about Blacks. At the time he wrote it in the first edition, he was right. It wasn't a matter of eating crow, it was a matter of updating the doctrine to match new revelation.

Homosexuality is in direct confrontation with the entire plan of salvation. Should the church also honor those who break the law of chastity? Should common law marriages be honored? The entire premise is ludicrous, and I take insult at the very notion of homosexuals beign equal in any way to the negro race, homosexuals are not a race, and the two issues are completely different.

Roger, would you please give me a doctrinal commentary on how you would interpret Romans 1:21-32.

thanks

Gaz

How about this: "Romans 1:21-32 is wrong".
Post Reply