posted
OK, not sure if any of my fellow GA hatrackers have seen these guys around, but they were on campus at KSU and also at Georgia Tech. It's basically a rally with banners and what not and a guy with a PA arguing that the Bible gives proof that God hates gay people. One of the banners read, "Homo Sex Is A Bio Hazard." Im not gay, or very religous, but i found this rally pretty offensive. I was glad to see lots of protesters with signs reading, "God loves all of His children," and other similar signs. So here are my questions for the more knowledgeable. If gay people accept Jesus as their savior, what's to stop them from getting into heaven? Are rallies like this common? And, what is the general consensus, if any, from the religous world on this matter? I just found this rally really strange. I have a lot of very, umm, Christian friends here at KSU and they are all the nicest and most kind-natured people i've met here. It's just tough for me to group them together with the guy running this rally. anyway, sound off people.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being gay, according to most christians, is a sin--just like any other sin--like lying, coveting, pride. According to my baptist upbringing, there is nothing to keep you from heaven once you're saved. Rallies like that aren't uncommon, but they're not very popular.
I'm very religious, and believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. I find the idea that God hates homosexuals to be precisely the opposite of how He truly believes.
Here's the most recent, official Mormon stance on the subject:
quote: A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.
“I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church,” he said. “I don’t think I’m worthy.”
“Why wouldn’t you be worthy?” I asked.
“I’m gay.”
I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. “And … ?” I inquired.
A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. “I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …”
He sighed. “Why am I this way? The feelings are very real.”
I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”
He shook his head. “No, I don’t.”
This time I was relieved. “Thank you for wanting to deal with this,” I said. “It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.
“As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement.”
He sat up a little straighter. I continued, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.
“What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ ” Jeffrey R. Holland, Ensign, Oct. 2007
posted
Scott, I think this thread is beginning to verge on breaking the terms of service. I'm whistling- Sorry.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, as a straight apathist Georgia resident, I think those rallies only prove the attendees to blinkered and deliberately ignorant of their own religion.
It makes me feel... not sad, really, just very, very tired.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Olivet, I feel very tired when I see stuff like this.
Thing is, people are always protesting something on college campuses. I was accosted by a young woman on my way to class one day at a pro-choice rally. She practically knocked me down wanting to get me to take a flyer, and I told her no thanks, I was pro-life and while I appreciated her passion for her position, and respected her right to be heard, I did not agree with her message.
She called me a very nasty name. I didn't appreciate it, but honestly, it didn't ruin my day. Don't let these people ruin yours. I kind of think they only have power if we pay attention to them, in a way. I'm not going to let that woman's nastiness affect me, because it's not worth it. If you don't agree with what these people were saying (and neither do I, even though I'm Christian I don't agree with these type of rallies), then let it wash over you and go on your way.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I agree with Olivet. There's nothing in the TOS that says you can't talk about your own religion. Did it seem like Scott was trying to convert anyone?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I don't agree with them, I can understand people who, either because they are obeying their leadership or are following their own interpretation of Scripture, believe that homosexual acts are sinful.
I get really angry, though, when people pretend that giving up the possibility of romantic love - that closeness, that partnership - is just like giving up any other "sin". It makes it even worse when they think that this stance is compassionate because they look kindly upon the condemned.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If gay people accept Jesus as their savior, what's to stop them from getting into heaven?
Absolutely nothing. All sins are created equal in the Protestant tradition, right? No difference between gossip, premarital sex or murder in terms of the spiritual consequences (Although certainly very different real-world consequences)
posted
Clearly there's something wrong with the picture when your natural loving tendencies are considered wicked. If anyone told me that to be a part of their club, I had to live my life alone, I'd find a better club.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I get really angry, though, when people pretend that giving up the possibility of romantic love - that closeness, that partnership - is just like giving up any other "sin".
But who said giving up any other "sin" is supposed to be easy? Or even just difficult? I'm a Christian, and I believe that giving up any sin isn't just difficult, it's impossible without God's intervention. God doesn't expect us to give up sinning on our own power; if he did, we wouldn't have needed atonement through Christ. I don't think most Protestants really believe that a gay person can just stop being gay.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The consequences of giving up sins is to make one's life and the lives of others better.- sins keep us from living abundantly. How is that true for giving up romantic love?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a Catholic man whose wife left him. She has since remarried and moved to a different country (so, no way he will ever get her back). He has been unable to obtain an anullment. He believes that being with another woman would be adultry, therefore he lives alone, with no hope of romantic love. While I am not sure about modern days, at one point, Buddhist monks and priests were celibate. So, historically and throughout many cultures, people have been expected to give up romantic love for their religion.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not necessarily. It really depends on what you mean by "abundantly."
quote:How is that true for giving up romantic love?
In terms of Mormon doctrine, the greatest blessing that God is able to provide us is to be married and continue bearing and raising children in the next life. Currently, we believe that's only possible between men and women.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people are called to celibacy; they have a choice.
Yes, Scott, I get that your religion considers those of us who don't marry and raise children to be "less than" - goodness know, you have made that abundantly clear. Again, we have a choice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Catholic friend whose wife left him didn't feel called. He chose marriage, not celibacy. But despite everything he was willing to do (this divorce was very one-sided), his wife left and so, according to his beliefs, he can either sin or be celibate.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The consequences of giving up sins is to make one's life and the lives of others better.- sins keep us from living abundantly. How is that true for giving up romantic love?
Romantic love has led to negative consequences all throughout history, maybe even more often than it has led to positive ones.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, Scott, I get that your religion considers those of us who don't marry and raise children to be "less than" - goodness know, you have made that abundantly clear. Again, we have a choice.
I don't think that is fair. It isn't that people who don't marry are "less than" others. That makes it seem like a worthiness thing. It is more that if you take the happiness level of all possible life choices, the one with the greatest happiness would include children.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is more that if you take the happiness level of all possible life choices, the one with the greatest happiness would include children. "
For whom? Certainly not for everybody, and I'm not even talking also about those who would be celibate.
As for the Catholic friend... even when I was Catholic, I found such teachings to be an evil.
To make a man who has done nothing wrong, and who has no choice in such a matter miserable because the only thing that would make him happy you turned into a sin, and to make him think he is sinning or would sin (which he desperately wants not to do)... how perverse! That was my opinion even when I believed in God, and it has not changed a whit since then.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bottom line is, if I'm to achieve what I want to achieve in life, being miserable isn't going to help.
I'd rather be happy, "sinful", and in a position to do large amounts of good in the world, than miserable, "good", and be in a position to do tiny amounts of good.
Older cultures dealt with this "issue" in a much more constructive fashion, but that doesn't matter because "they're wrong, we're right", and thus, we continue to separate ourselves into "cliques", and the human race plods along, still scared of itself.
quote: The consequences of giving up sins is to make one's life and the lives of others better.- sins keep us from living abundantly. How is that true for giving up romantic love?
Romantic love has led to negative consequences all throughout history, maybe even more often than it has led to positive ones.
I'm not sure if this is totally 100% true... Prehaps if jealousy and bitterness is involved. I can think of things that have a worse consequence that took forever to deal with.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Romantic love has led to negative consequences all throughout history, maybe even more often than it has led to positive ones. "
Even if that's so, it is still no excuse to try to force a person to keep from doing so by making it a sin. That's evil, even if romantic love isn't always positive.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Romantic love has led to negative consequences all throughout history, maybe even more often than it has led to positive ones.
The exact same thing can be said about religious/social ideas.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get that your religion considers those of us who don't marry and raise children to be "less than" - goodness know, you have made that abundantly clear.
Hmm...
I can see how you would interpret my comments in this fashion. I'm sorry that I've come across this way. That's not the case at all within Mormonism.
There are no "lesser thans" among the obedient and faithful. Single, married, homosexual, heterosexual, whatever-- we are all, if we are obedient, part of the body of Christ. We all edify, we all seek to unite and bring each other closer to God.
That's what Holland meant when he said, "If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement."
So...no. I don't think less of my single friends. I don't think God does either.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I do believe, however, that at some point in everyone's eternal existence, that if they want to have the full blessings that God has prepared for them, they will have to marry a righteous person of the opposite sex. I'm not particular (and there's evidence within recent statements by church leaders for my position) about whether that happens here and now, or later, in the next life.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I do believe, however, that at some point in everyone's eternal existence, that if they want to have the full blessings that God has prepared for them, they will have to marry a righteous person of the opposite sex. I'm not particular (and there's evidence within recent statements by church leaders for my position) about whether that happens here and now, or later, in the next life.
That bugs me a bit. I hate the notion of marrying simply because of social expectations. I think it's almost as bad as marrying a person for being good in bed or because of lust. Really it would be nice if there was a healthy fusion between love and lust, lust is useful when it comes to the species after all and is a good thing in a controlled way. It would be nice to be married, but not until I find the right person on every single level.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a Latter-day Saint and I don't believe being gay is a sin. I pray for and expect a day when we get new revelation about gays, similar to the way we got new revelation about blacks and the priesthood in 1978.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
The New Testament asks its believers to do many things, but high amongst those life choices is one simple request, live a Christ Like life.
That is a hard thing to do--caring, self-sacrifice, modesty, poverty. It is also something done with very little ego-enrichment or chance at Celebrity status.
However, defeating Satan, driving out the devils and demons, is something Christ did, so those who can perform similar miracles can not only be doing something obviously "Christ" like, but get the fame and glory that goes with it.
The secret is to define Satan as someone you can find to fight.
Some define Satan as Sunni or Shi'ite. Some define Satan as Communists or Scientists who espouse Evolution. To many in the most fanatically conservative Christian (and Islamic) cults, Homosexuality is Satan.
So instead of living a quite caring life of self-sacrifice and worship, these people try to prove their piety by attacking Gays. What they see as their proof of faith most other Christians see as an embarrassing lack of faith.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That bugs me a bit. I hate the notion of marrying simply because of social expectations.
Wow, I'm just not doing well at expressing myself tonight at all, hmm?
We don't expect people to marry just to satisfy social expectations. If you marry just because everyone else is doing it, or because it's the next checkbox on the Divinity List, then you're probably going about it the wrong way.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I'm a Latter-day Saint and I don't believe being gay is a sin. I pray for and expect a day when we get new revelation about gays, similar to the way we got new revelation about blacks and the priesthood in 1978.
Yeah, the being gay is a sin thing causes so much suffering.
I imagine there might be a handful of people who marry that way, it would be depressing. (I kind of tend to get that vibe from most OSC books, but not the Alvin Maker series)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a Latter-day Saint and I don't believe being gay is a sin.
If you mean by "being gay", having feelings of same gender attraction, then you are correct. Holland says so explicitly:
quote:same-gender attraction is not a sin
On the other hand, if what you mean is that acting on homosexual feelings is not sinful, then I'm afraid that the weight of doctrine-- and the General Authorities' many recent talks about the subject- doesn't support your views.
The difference between the situation between blacks and the priesthood and homosexual relationships within Mormonism is the richness of the internal, authoritative dialog on the subject. As I've pointed out, LOTS of the general authorities have spoken out against the idea that homosexual behavior is permissible in God's sight. At least one of the General Authorities says something about it in each session of conference, and the Ensign covers the topic quite often. There's actual written policy on counselling homosexual members now-- there never was, as far as I know, about blacks in the priesthood, largely because at the time, there was not a great need for the question to be addressed. When Africa opened up-- I'm actually inclined to give more of the credit to Brazil because of the mix of races-- David O. McKay was the one who set the ball rolling to get the question addressed.
The question about homosexuality has been on the GA's mind for quite some time, and there are acres of declarations about it.
If it changes, I'll rejoice. It will change the whole way I personally think about divine cosmology, but I'm okay with that.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, would you be willing in that situation to change the whole way you personally think about divine cosmology?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Scott R. I do believe there will be more revelation on this, and bring about as profound a change in our church as we saw after the 1978 revelation. I'm looking forward to it.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, if what you mean is that acting on homosexual feelings is not sinful, then I'm afraid that the weight of doctrine-- and the General Authorities' many recent talks about the subject- doesn't support your views.
Some of the general authorities said some pretty horrifying things about black people before the revelation and the doctrine *seemed* clear enough on that point at the time.
I believe that when society's view of homosexuality has reached the appropriate point, the church will bend just as they did with polygamy and with blacks in the priesthood.
I mean, think about it - how could the church possibly survive and gain membership with a position that black men are cursed by God for the sins of their ancestors and that they are therefore not worthy to be priests in the church? Sure, that would fly up until the middle of the 20th century, but very few people today would nod sagely and said, "yes, I can see God doing that."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er..."whole way" is a little bit of hyperbole.
I think so, Tom. I don't know how they'd arrange it-- Heaven knows there STILL isn't much of an explanation about blacks and the priesthood. I don't know how they'd synch up or repair the statements made to the contrary.
But maybe they'd just say, "Look. The Lord says we were being goofy. We were wrong. We're going to start holding sealing ceremonies for any couple that loves one another. We ask that you pray and receive the same confirmation we have."
So, if that happens, I'll ponder, fast, and pray. And I expect that I'll get the answer I've always gotten when I've asked-- that it's right.
Baa. It's not so bad being a sheep when you've got the Good Shepherd. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:how could the church possibly survive and gain membership with a position that black men are cursed by God for the sins of their ancestors and that they are therefore not worthy to be priests in the church?
Of course, there was no such official Church position. The position, despite conjecture, was that blacks could not receive the priesthood. No official stance on the why was rendered. I know about Brigham Young and John Taylor's (IMO) personal feelings on the issue; I know that McConkie said that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the Millenium (and was censured for it, I believe).
That's not the case with homosexual behavior, or homosexual marriage. There is an enormous wealth of information on both the what (prohibited) and the why. Consider a section from the article above:
quote:let’s be absolutely clear on what God wants for each of us. He wants us to have all of the blessings of eternal life. He wants us to become like Him. To help us do that, He has given us a plan. This plan is based on eternal truths and is not altered according to the social trends of the day.
At the heart of this plan is the begetting of children, one of the crucial reasons Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (see 2 Nephi 2:19–25; Moses 5:10–12). They were commanded to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28), and they chose to keep that commandment. We are to follow them in marrying and providing physical bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children. Obviously, a same-gender relationship is inconsistent with this plan.
For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender. Whatever the reason, God’s richest blessings will eventually be available to all of His children if they are clean and faithful.
quote:Of course, there was no such official Church position. The position, despite conjecture, was that blacks could not receive the priesthood.
The official position is, unfortunately, not necessarily relevant when it comes to building and maintaining membership.
And even if we ignore all of the unofficial conjecture and accept that the church leaders were speaking authoritatively, yet incorrectly and without actual authority, on matter for which they had no actual knowledge, having no good reason for a controversial position is not a big step up from having a bad reason.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Romantic love has led to negative consequences all throughout history, maybe even more often than it has led to positive ones.
O_O
Dang. That's one of the saddest posts I've ever read.
FWIW, I disagree with the conjecture at the end of that sentence.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I do believe, however, that at some point in everyone's eternal existence, that if they want to have the full blessings that God has prepared for them, they will have to marry a righteous person of the opposite sex. I'm not particular (and there's evidence within recent statements by church leaders for my position) about whether that happens here and now, or later, in the next life.
I have a very difficult time believing in a God who will only fully bless a person if they are married. I guess I feel like God is more open and loving than to bestow only the most special blessing on people who are able to make certain choices.
No, that's not even the best way to express what I believe. I believe that God has a special call for each of us and we are each called to a different way of life. I feel very called by God to be where I am today (and for those of you who don't know, I'm a Catholic nun). I don't believe that I'll receive any less (or any more) blessings than my siblings who happen to be married with several children each. Of course, in the Mormon view, my being Catholic, I guess, automatically keeps me from entering fully into God's kingdom (or whatever it's called, please forgive my ignorance on Mormon doctrine).
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:in the Mormon view, my being Catholic, I guess, automatically keeps me from entering fully into God's kingdom (or whatever it's called, please forgive my ignorance on Mormon doctrine).
Nothing's automatic. It's all...manual.
Meaning that while Mormons believe that we have exclusive rights to the Full Truth of the gospel, we don't believe in an Mormon-exclusive Heaven. Everyone ever born will get a fair opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The point being, MattP, is that there was a dearth of actual literature. So members and others had to invent their own reasons.
We don't see that situation here.
I still think that is arguable. It's not too hard to sweep away previous doctrine when God's got a new idea about how things should run. We're not supposed to stone adulterers anymore, right?
Regardless of that, my point is that churches tend to move where society moves and those that don't eventually become marginalized. If the public morality accepts homosexuality, it becomes much more difficult to recruit people into a religion that does not.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I would not be surprised to see the numbers of Church members dwindle. But that may be my martyr complex talking.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just remember that the hoop's smaller than it looks, and that the basketball is also smaller than regulation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly there's something wrong with the picture when your natural loving tendencies are considered wicked. If anyone told me that to be a part of their club, I had to live my life alone, I'd find a better club.
Happens all the time. Imagine being desperately in love with someone who does not love you. Or someone might care for you, but is already committed to someone else. Your feelings are natural and loving, but acting on them will more than likely bring pain.
Note: I am in favor of romantic and lasting love wherever it occurs, whatever the gender. I just hate that particular argument for it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
