You're right, it doesn't have a bearing on the discussion. I meant that your judgement seems clouded and lacking in a biased fashion. I'm sorry for the cheeky part of that post.
And I did address what you said.
General Conference - Fall 2010
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
You're right, it doesn't have a bearing on the discussion. I meant that your judgement seems clouded and lacking in a biased fashion. I'm sorry for the cheeky part of that post.
And I did address what you said.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
ghey.
KatieMCR
Well-Known Member
Hnm I wonder why they did that? I'm glad ABC 4 has requested a statement on why it was changed. I can't wait to hear their reasoning.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Isn't that what you want? More than likely something was changed so it wasn't so offensive to the gay and scientific community. To me, it's showing that the church does care and does want to learn and educate themselves while still maintaining their stance. It boggles my mind that people ask the LDS church to change what they said, they do, then people ask "why" did you change instead of something like, props for making yourself aware of something that was found offensive. Thanks!
KatieMCR
Well-Known Member
To me it looks like they are trying to hide something. If they are publishing it as a transcript of the talk, then it should be verbatim. If they want to change something, or say they don't agree with it, they should issue as separate retraction/statement.
G-O-A-T
Member
I find it ironic that you give "props" to the church for educating itself and altering their statements, but when Katie did so, you continued to bash her for her original message of hate mongering...
Part of the problem is understanding (or the lack thereof) why the church doesn't approve of gay marriage.
Is it because they hate gay people, and want them to suffer for their "choices"? That's a popular one, and it gives everyone who has an ax to grind a nice foothold, but I don't believe that it's the core of the issue. The church has stated that they don't oppose civil unions (or domestic partnerships) with all the same rights as a marriage. So why are they so hung up over a word?
IMO, it has less to do with the marriage itself, and more with the definitions of elements of LDS doctrine. Allow me to explain:
A major doctrinal cog is the Law of Chastity. This specifies that each person is to have no sexual relations outside the bounds of a legal and lawful marriage. They don't even have to be married within the church. Just legally recognized. Say you're homosexual and LDS (it happens). You and your partner get married, live every other facet of the mormon lifestyle, and go in and request a temple recommend from your bishop.
Here's the tricky part: At the letter of the law, you are obeying the LoC, right? But the church always has (and always will) considered homosexuality immoral and improper. Of course, the leadership is going to deny your request.
Bring on the litigation. So you see, there could be a bit of a slippery slope.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
The original talk was not a message of "hate" like Katie and gay community made it out to be. I don't understand how people don't get that.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
They do. They just don't want to admit it.
G-O-A-T
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the church doesn't HAVE to sanction the marriage of anyone. If the church isn't receiving state funding, I don't understand why it would be required to perform the role of the state in sanctioning particular marriages. In other words, if the church doesn't want to perform homosexual marriages in its privately owned, privately funded temples, it doesn't have too.
What I saw happening (in prop 8) was the church trying to mesh its own religious views into state sanctioned law... which is wrong, wrong, WRONG. I'm pretty sure if it was the other way around - state officials trying to cram state law into your religious beliefs - you would be screaming bloody murder too!
G-O-A-T
Member
It wasn't a message of direct hate... it wasn't a message inciting hate... it was a message that has a tendency to lead to hate.
Example: How do you feel about pedophiles? Society doesn't tell us to "hate" them, but considering the stigma that comes from acting in such impure and unnatural ways, what ends up happening to our views about pedophiles?
Sure, maybe you don't hate them, but a lot of people do... and what Packer did was promote the same sort of feelings, albeit on a much lesser scale. Now, if Packer had said the same thing about pedophiles, no one would complain - because pedophiles HURT others. Being homosexual, in itself, hurts no one. So my question: Why did he have to go there in his speech?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
This isn't even worth responding to. Comparing gays with pedophiles is a joke.
Please, feel free to explain how Packer's words "incited hate". It didn't.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Most gays are pedophiles. It's science.
G-O-A-T
Member
First off, I explicitly said that his message didn't incite hate.
Next, since you don't want to take the time to consider my analogy at all, consider this example. Lets say the pope, while addressing the world's catholic community, puts your picture up, your name and address, and tells the catholic world that you are impure and unnatural... but that he still loves you, even though you aren't going to heaven. How are YOU going to feel? How do you think your catholic neighbors are going to treat you? With love? Really? Yeah... it would suck to be on the other end of the speech then, wouldn't it.
Feel free to quote one personal attack, if you can.
Classifying a point is not a personal attack. I never described you, only your words.
By the way, when you use arguments that amount to fear-mongering, no logical response is possible, because the argument itself is not logical. Present a logical argument, you'll get a logical response. Present emotion-driven nonesnese, you'll get called out on it.
Refute the idea that the US government will force the LDS church o recognize gay marriages? Easy. It's called "the First amendment". QED.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
You did, but then you wrote:
Which to me, pretty much means "incite". Incite: To move to action; to stir up.
No one was individually called out during Packer's speech. Immoral acts of impurity were.
Packer also talked about looking at porno is a sin and is bad. How does that make people feel that look at porn? Probably bad, unless they don't believe in the church and its teachings. Does knowing that people may feel bad keep Packer from delivering his message? No. Does it mean it was a speech that was going to lead to hate towards those that look at porn? No.
Jesus Christ taught us to be "perfect" even as to him. Since no one in the world is perfect, do you think Jesus was teaching something that's going to lead to hate? I mean, he pretty much called everyone out on something that can't be accomplished, right? People feel bad all the time because they "sin" or aren't "perfect", but Jesus wasn't a hateful speaker. Same thing with Packer and his speech.
Nope. In that respect you are 100% completely correct.
But I'm not talking about gays being married by the church. I'm talking about a specific element of LDS doctrine that requires a chaste life. The church definition of chastity, to my understanding, is; complete fidelity to one's lawful spouse, and no sexual relations outside of such a legal marital relationship. Adherence to this and other principles is required to fully participate in the ordinances of LDS gospel.
So... if you have a gay couple who is abiding by every other church guideline, why should they be denied these ordinances? Therein lies the paradox. I've always understood (and I am completely open to the possibility that I am way off) that to the church homosexuality was, more or less, a subset of the Law of Chastity (see above).
I understand that to 99.9% of gay people, this is irrelevant and unimportant. But there is a handful who want to be full-on mormons, and be gay too. This is a potential loophole that leaves the possibility of legal action.
Undoubtedly the church had specific interest in seeing prop 8 passed. And they did what they could, within their legal rights, to help it along. But you are up in the night if you think the mormons pushed prop 8 through. If the entire mormon population of CA voted for prop 8, which they didn't, it wouldn't even be on the radar. But I don't see anyone lambasting the minority voters who actually drove the referendum through.
unluckyseventeen
Well-Known Member
Why are you still here?