General Conference - Fall 2010

[chemdude1232]

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

So why would God, who created Adam and Eve, think it ok for us pitiful mortals to deny His word and outlaw the acts of sex slavery, child abuse, and bashing babies?

We must be beyond the point of saving.

Why don't we all just let homosexuals be themselves and not make such an issue out of it. Let them engage in marriage, adopt kids, etc. There is a severe lack of equality if we don't.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

If you are looking for an argument I have nothing to say, if you are actually trying to reconcile the Bible being "the word of God", and yet having stories like this in them I can help give some perspective.
First of all when reading the Bible, listening to a Prophet, or reading the Book of Mormon... the impetus is on you to verify the truth of it through your own prayers to God. He does not speak for the world through each person, but he can definitely speak to you through you. This is all based on your own sincerity, humility, and true seeking of an answer.
Many things in the Bible are historical stories of what happenned. Does it mean God wanted those things to happen, or that people chose to do those things and we can learn something from it?
Instead of narrowly looking at a small part of something quoted, it helps to take a look at the big picture to understand what is going on.

Does God stop you every time you are about to do something stupid? Does that mean he allows it? I believe there is a difference between allowing something to happen because people are given the chance to live their lives and prove themselves..... and supporting those actions.

 

[chemdude1232]

I'm not looking for an argument, JazzSpazz, so I want to start by thanking you for not interpreting my initial statement thusly.

My point is that just because the Bible does not condone homosexuality (either implicitly or explicitly) does not necessarily make it God's word verbatim. The Bible, after all, is (if I remember my Catholic middle school teaching correctly) merely the words of God transcribed through man. Man is imperfect. His interpretation of God's word will likewise be imperfect, making the Bible open to interpretation. Hopefully we agree on this point. If not, no biggie. (Let's not even touch the concept that the Bible has been translated beau coup times and has very likely lost some language in between translations...). Ergo, I don't see how the Bible can claim homosexuality is a sin as being from God's mouth. It may be a sin from our interpretation, but I fail to see why God Himself may or may not believe so.

I think we agree on the Bible not being entirely historical. Sure, some of the stories are rooted in actual goings-on of the time, but my personal belief is that not all of the stories therein are verbatim history. I do not, for example, believe that Adam and Eve literally existed. I see it as a creation myth and not something literal. Going off of that premise, I fail to see how that implies heterosexuality is the only option as a basis for our love for one another. Yes, heterosexual actions ensures the continuance of humanity, but that does not make homosexual love any less meaningful in an emotional/mental sense.

As a final note, taking the often-cited premise that God is all-loving, all-forgiving, all-[insert adjective here], I frankly don't see how He could be upset at two homosexuals being together.

 

[Scat]

As a final note, taking the often-cited premise that God is all-loving, all-forgiving, all-[insert adjective here], I frankly don't see how He could be upset at two homosexuals being together.

First and foremost I'm not a terribly religious person. This is just how I perceive the idea of god.

I think people take these perceptions of God out of concept. He is of course all-loving but that does not mean he condones all that his children do. I love my children without a doubt but I still get upset when they do certain things. Sometimes they even get punished.

God is of course all-forgiving provided that one is willing to repent and show that they are sorry for their behaviour/actions. If my child starts playing basketball in the living room (something that they know they should not be doing in the first place) and knocks over and breaks a lamp my initial reaction will be anger. If that child shows remorse and says they are sorry I can forgive them pretty quick. On the other hand, if they just look at me and shrug their shoulders as if to say. "Oh well. Crap happens" and then continue to play ball in the house there is not going to be much forgiveness forthcoming.

Yes God may be all-knowing, all-forgiving, all-loving but you have to work with him, not thumb your nose at him because he is not all-stupid. If God thinks homosexuality is a sin I absolutely can see him being upset at two homosexuals. The problem at this point is, does anyone really know god's mind on this particular matter?

 

[chemdude1232]

Not to be argumentative, Marcus, but since when did man have the moral or theological authority to conclusively determine what God thinks about us (in reference to your "God is of course all-forgiving provided that one is willing to repent")? I don't think of our relationship with God as parent/child, because it is most likely far more complex than that. I'm not saying this is equivalent to the nature of our relationship with God, but do we get mad when an ant bites us? No...it's just their nature to do so (ignoring the advent of insect repellents and pesticides of course...I'm just talking about an ant's innate nature).

And I doubt - out of all possible sins to commit - that the make-it-or-break-it sin with respect to His infinite well of patience would be homosexuality.

 

[Scat]

Not to be argumentative, Marcus, but since when did man have the moral or theological authority to conclusively determine what God thinks about us (in reference to your "God is of course all-forgiving provided that one is willing to repent")? I don't think of our relationship with God as parent/child, because it is most likely far more complex than that. I'm not saying this is equivalent to the nature of our relationship with God, but do we get mad when an ant bites us? No...it's just their nature to do so (ignoring the advent of insect repellents and pesticides of course...I'm just talking about an ant's innate nature).

And I doubt - out of all possible sins to commit - that the make-it-or-break-it sin with respect to His infinite well of patience would be homosexuality.

I'm not going to argue with anything you have just said. You may be right. I admitted in my post that nobody truly knows god's mind. I guess I'm basing a lot of my perceptions on the fact that I've been taught that man was created in god's image and I don't think that this means just physically.

Regarding ants, hell yes it pisses me off when I get bitten by a red ant. It hurts! I don't care if it is its nature to do so. I'll likely squish the little sucker.

 

[One Brow]

But it does make risky behaviour that much more risky.

Hence the reason I specified intercourse and not just sexual pleasure.

I get teh feeling you are disagreeing with me even though you actually agree with me. My point was that there is no behavior between homosexuals that is more risky than the same behavior when engaged in by heterosexuals. Do you disagree?

I think we should skip what our own agenda is and really ask ourselves, "What does God want".

Some of the problems in the world arise from the fact that every person decides this question just a little bit differently, depending on their own conception of God.

God is of course all-forgiving provided that one is willing to repent and show that they are sorry for their behaviour/actions.

As an example. Some Christian denominations do not teach God is all-forgiving, others that he doesn't require repentance in this life.

 

[franklin]

I don't see how the rate of AIDS in gay men vs. straight men has anything to do with the discussion.

This is how I see America's current state of thinking:

We need to pass seatbelt laws because drivers and passengers more severely hurt in automobile accidents cause a greater burden on all of us financially because of our insurance underwriting practices. Thus, it stands to reason that we need to pass anti-homosexuality laws because their greater rates of AIDS burdens all o us financially because of our insurance underwriting practices.

This society screws itself, then complains about it.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Some of the problems in the world arise from the fact that every person decides this question just a little bit differently, depending on their own conception of God.

True, and that is why people need to start on square one and find some common ground before jumping to step 10 and having disagreements.
Step 1, does God exist.
Step 2, What is the nature, character, etc... of God.
Step 3, Is Christ truly the son of God.
Step 4, Does God and or Christ speak to people still today?
Step 5, Did, and does Christ speak to and/or through men today....who and how.
Step 6, Do we listen to these Prophets, and if not what will happen?

This is just off the top of my head, I am sure I missed a few steps, but you get the point.
Start at the beginning, and work your way towards the middle to effectively discuss, understand, and/or solve issues or differing points of view.

2 people will never agree or understand each other if they continue to pursue things from different places.

I have my thoughts and opinions, and of course I think they are right just like everyone else. Its just pointless to pick at subjects down the road unless we find somewhere common to begin.

If you want my opinion I will give it, but I am just as happy saying.... ask God in the name of Christ in sincerity and he will answer you. Just start with a bit of faith that God exists, and that Christ is his Son.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Correlation is not causation.

Who the **** said gays cause AIDS?

 

[Beantown]

If homosexuality was a naturally occuring biological process then it would show physically in their anatomy. Just as the body of a women and a mans is obviously physically developed for eachother to engange is sexual intercourse . When natural selection happens through evolution the changes are seen physically. Homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse. They can only mimic the heterosexual process.

 

[NUMBERICA]

If homosexuality was a naturally occuring biological process then it would show physically in their anatomy. Just as the body of a women and a mans is obviously physically developed for eachother to engange is sexual intercourse . When natural selection happens through evolution the changes are seen physically. Homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse. They can only mimic the heterosexual process.

The only thing more pathetic than invoking "science" only when it is convenient for your argument is when your "science" is completely pulled out of your ***.

 

[NUMBERICA]

You're not very good at reading, are you?

I miss things from time to time, sure, but I don't know to what you are referring.

 

[One Brow]

I don't see how the rate of AIDS in gay men vs. straight men has anything to do with the discussion.

Agreed.

This is how I see America's current state of thinking:

We need to pass seatbelt laws because drivers and passengers more severely hurt in automobile accidents cause a greater burden on all of us financially because of our insurance underwriting practices. Thus, it stands to reason that we need to pass anti-homosexuality laws because their greater rates of AIDS burdens all o us financially because of our insurance underwriting practices.

This society screws itself, then complains about it.

Assuming you were serious (and I may have misread that), driving is a privledge, sexual intercourse is a right. Different legal standards apply.

Who the **** said gays cause AIDS?

I may have misunderstood colton's argument, but it read to me that being gay was a cause of getting AIDS.

If homosexuality was a naturally occuring biological process then it would show physically in their anatomy.

It does show up in their anatomy.

 

[bordelais7]

Sweet, another homosexuality thread! I'm betting THIS time we'll come to an agreement.

 

[The Thriller]

Sweet, another homosexuality thread! I'm betting THIS time we'll come to an agreement.

LOL. Seriously. And they usually follow the general format:

LDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONS! LDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONS SARCASTIC COMMENT ABOUT BEANTOWN.... LDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONS... SARCASTIC COMMENT ABOUT BEANTOWN... LDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONSLDS CHURCH SUCKS. HATE MORMONS

What's sad is that it was originally made to discuss the church's General Conference. Then of course Katie comes out of the woodwork to hijack the thread with her rantings about how the LDS church is responsible for sin, tsunamis, and Kobe's championship rings.

 

[colton]

...sexual intercourse is a right.

That is something I've never heard before. Since when?

I may have misunderstood colton's argument, but it read to me that being gay was a cause of getting AIDS.

Not quite. I was pointing out that homosexual activity (of the sexual variety, not just holding hands) is high risk behavior. That was in response to your claim that (if I understood you correctly) that there were no negative consequences of homosexual behavior as opposed to heterosexual behavior.

 

[moevillini]

Sweet, another homosexuality thread! I'm betting THIS time we'll come to an agreement.

the ODDS are probably in your favor too!

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I also liked the talk by Elder Patrick Kearon, yes about the shoes and the scorpion. To me it was more about us giving our full heart to the Lord, and not being lukewarm, or sitting on the fence.

I liked the talk by David McConkie about Teaching. I especially liked the part about the teacher's attitude being caught, not taught.

I liked the talk by Elder Scott about Faith and Character. I thought it was fitting, in that when most people sin, and deep down they did not want to do that thing.... it comes down to a weakness in character.

Thats my take, I think it was a great conference and anyone who wants to be a better person can find something in there to help.

 

[One Brow]

That is something I've never heard before. Since when?

It was probably an imprecise statement, but that's basically the ideas behind Griswold vs. Conneticut and Lawrence vs. Texas, from my amatuer understanding.

Not quite. I was pointing out that homosexual activity (of the sexual variety, not just holding hands) is high risk behavior. That was in response to your claim that (if I understood you correctly) that there were no negative consequences of homosexual behavior as opposed to heterosexual behavior.

To which, I made an attempt to distinguish between young men engaging in risky behaviors (and having a greater opportunity to do so with each other than they often do with young women), and that he activity is homosexual in nature. After all, by the same reasoning used to make your statement, homosexual behavior is the least-risky sexual behavior. Lesbian STD rates are far below the rates of straight women.