Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[Green Monstah]

Wait... So the revelation that President Kimball received (aka. Official Declaration 2) was just a BS statement to cover up racist leadership of the church? I Knew it! This explains why blacks did actually receive the priesthood before OD2 was issued.

Maybe the church could announce that it received a revelation that it was wrong about supporting prop 8. We could then all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. No one would have to admit they were wrong.

I think so. I understand that it's not a cut-and-dried issue. When you have David O. McKay calling it a "policy" rather than a doctrine, I think that takes it from a black-white issue to a gray issue.

However, that particular point wasn't central to my argument, though I apprceciate the critique.

[Green Monstah]

I've read convincing arguments that the NT practice Paul was referring to was homosexuality in the Greek/Roman world where older gay men had relationships with young adolescent boys. Further, the OT references are bunched in with dietary laws and other practices that are no longer followed.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other but don't think this is as much of a "slam dunk" scripturally as is being stated. IMO, the LDS churches stance against homosexuality has more to do with current pronouncements than on historic scripture.

So, you think Paul would be okay with consensual gay sex among comparably aged men/women?

[Flystripper]

So, you think Paul would be okay with consensual gay sex among comparably aged men/women?

Have you heard the rumors about Paul?

[Green Monstah]

Have you heard the rumors about Paul?

I have not. Is it on TMZ.com?

[Indy Coug]

Have you heard the rumors about Paul?

I have. Just about every historical figure at one point or another has been alleged to have been gay. Even Christ.

[Flystripper]

I have. Just about every historical figure at one point or another has been alleged to have been gay. Even Christ.

Rome just needed a guy like Perez Hilton to out everyone. It also could have solved a lot of problems for Rome if TMZ were used to take care of the christian problem through compromising photos rather than death by lions. If only, if only....

[Jeff Lebowski]

So, you think Paul would be okay with consensual gay sex among comparably aged men/women?

This is the guy that thought women should keep their mouths shut in church.

[Indy Coug]

This is the guy that thought women should keep their mouths shut in church.

He was also a Jew that was stone in love with Christians.

[wuapinmon]

The church's defined age of accountability (consent) is 8 years old

:stirthepot:

Accountability "begins" at 8. It's not like you're suddenly accountable for everything.

Yes. People who want to have sex with kids can suck it.

Perhaps there's a better way to phrase this sentiment.

Also, this is how you respond when you don't have a real response.

Masterfully done, sir.

[Green Monstah]

This is the guy that thought women should keep their mouths shut in church.

That's a good point. I still see sexual relations, and chastity as far more central to the LDS tenet than determinations of who can speak in church (in addition, that particular issue, I'd venture to guess, is hopelessly entangled in the cultural norms of Paul's time). My point is not whether the Church should or shouldn't, but whether the Church will or will not. If BKP's speech is indicative of attitudes in the COB, I think I'm probably right. When dealing with the Church, astepping stone approach, rather than a revolutionary one, is probably the best way to effect significant change on the issue.

[Green Monstah]

Have you heard the rumors about Paul?

I did a google search, and it seems like Paul may have been literal when referring to the "thorn in [his] flesh".

[Paperback Writer]

That's a good point. I still see sexual relations, and chastity as far more central to the LDS tenet than determinations of who can speak in church (in addition, that particular issue, I'd venture to guess, is hopelessly entangled in the cultural norms of Paul's time). My point is not whether the Church should or shouldn't, but whether the Church will or will not. If BKP's speech is indicative of attitudes in the COB, I think I'm probably right. When dealing with the Church, astepping stone approach, rather than a revolutionary one, is probably the best way to effect significant change on the issue.

One must be careful in predicting what the LDS church will or will not do in the future. If memory serves correctly, Bruce R. McConkie once stated that blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium. I was surprised that Mark E. Peterson seemed to change his view on the matter as well. However, I agree that BKP won't be hopping on board gay marriage rights anytime soon. Although one thing to consider is what will occur when gays have the right to marry in the US like they do currently in Canada. I could see the LDS church softening its stance on homosexulity to allowing sexual relations within the confines of marriage just like heterosexuals. However, a line will probably be drawn at Temple marriage. But that would give gays full fellowship in the LDS church and be governed by the same rules as everyone else.

But I think your stepping stone view is an accurate one. So I look for the legalization of gay marriage in the US to occur first. And I already see the LDS church softening its stance on homosexuality.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One must be careful in predicting what the LDS church will or will not do in the future. If memory serves correctly, Bruce R. McConkie once stated that blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium. I was surprised that Mark E. Peterson seemed to change his view on the matter as well. However, I agree that BKP won't be hopping on board gay marriage rights anytime soon. Although one thing to consider is what will occur when gays have the right to marry in the US like they do currently in Canada. I could see the LDS church softening its stance on homosexulity to allowing sexual relations within the confines of marriage just like heterosexuals. However, a line will probably be drawn at Temple marriage. But that would give gays full fellowship in the LDS church and be governed by the same rules as everyone else.

But I think your stepping stone view is an accurate one. So I look for the legalization of gay marriage in the US to occur first. And I already see the LDS church softening its stance on homosexuality.

Right up to the manifesto, church leaders were adamant that the church would never abandon polygamy. Never say never.

[ERCougar]

I could see the LDS church softening its stance on homosexulity to allowing sexual relations within the confines of marriage just like heterosexuals.

Wow...do you guys really see this happening?

I can see the membership gradually moving towards recognizing civil marriages among non-members, but that next step is huge. I just don't see it.

[ERCougar]

Right up to the manifesto, church leaders were adamant that the church would never abandon polygamy. Never say never.

We haven't.