PathrosI stated right off the bat that I am not speaking in any official capacity for the church. I am sharing my understand as an actively participating member in good standing.
I’m not sure “what you said earlier” refers to really don’t care that you believe what I say. What matters to me is that the people who see this thread do not interpret your (now explained and renounced as misunderstood) earlier highly inflammatory, prejudiced and bigoted remarks as teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints.
Stop Pathros and think about it. I have said NOTHING contrary to the the doctrine of the church, nor did I claim my comments to be more accurate than Dallin Oaks as you have so neatly implied by saying, “but I also believe that article that emarkp posted to be more correct.” I did not post anything contrary the doctrine of the church.
In fact, I am the one that posted links to scripture, which is doctrine and to The Proclamation on the Family, which is doctrine. The other links are “teachings”. Until Dallin Oaks becomes the president of the church and he specifies that article as doctrine it is “teaching” except for those places where he is teaching doctrine taught by the current or previous prophets of God. As much as you seem to want to prove a point, any point, you are not going to find anything that goes contrary to “LDS doctrine” posted by me in this thread. Don’t apologize, don’t explain, just stop trying to depreciate or disparage my comments regarding the teachings of the church by implying they are less than correct.
I said you were correct, that means that I didnt think you were contrary to church teachings. Dallin Oaks, however, is mroe of a representative of the church than you or I, and therefore more correct in the sense that his teachings can be looked as official LDS views. Did you even mention Dallin Oaks article? No, so how can you be saying that you are more correct than he? You didnt, and I didnt say you did.
I never said you did in the first place. I said if you advocated for gay marriage, then you would not be in sync with LDS teachings, but you havent done that. I just took offense to someone calling me a bigot, when they were quoting comments I made which I already pointed out were generalizations, not viewpoints of the church not personal beliefs. Duh, If that were true I contradicted myself in nearly every thread.
I said you were correct, how is that confusing? The site I posted can count for official church viewpoints, not what we say on here. I thought we both agreed on this already, seeing as we both said that neither of us are official representatives of the church? (You posted sites as well, and those are doctrine as you said. I got this thread confused with another one that resulted because of this one. sorry)
I would venture to say that some of the things being said here, were not said there.
Theres one other thing Id like to comment on, and is NOT a reflection of personal opinion, but rather what someone else said to me after reading this thread. (i’ve shown this thread to several other people to get outside opinions on the matter.) I only offer it to ponder on, not really for debate, but then again this is the pit and its somewhat relevant to the thread.
This is in reference to how you say society’s morals are always changing, and perhaps evolving. She said a whole lot more than this, but I’m paraphrasing:
“If by accepting homosexuality are we progessing into a new era of moral awareness, or are we really regressing to the times of sodom when all immoral activity was tolerated? Do we sacrifice morality in the name of tolerance? Do we accept immorality because we perceive those who advocate those morals as being self righteous - bigots?”
No, she really didnt do much to help me answer your posts, but this is just to give you an example of the mindset of some people, and perhaps offer a reason why they oppose homosexuality. Perhaps its enforcing their morals onto you, but this is how they think, and doubtful that will change. Interesting to note though that you may see this fading away in the next generation to pave way for what you call moral progression, but only time will tell. America is not today what it was 50 years ago, and I can say the same for 50 years from now. Unlike many of the old school ideas of 50 years ago, however, in order to change the ideas towards homosexuality you will have to change the institutions which promote those ideas, and that is religion. Faith is an interesting power.
Actually, it’s a very thorough discussion of the issues. Highly recommended reading.
I’m glad some of the sources you’re asking are getting back to you. I have to admit I’m a bit disappointed in the one quote you posted. You sort of seem disappointed as well. I’m going to take it as a given that you understand the very fundamental flaws in the quote you posted, and recognize that the thinking behind it has been discussed here already.
I hope that all the answers you get from your sources aren’t as weak as the one you quoted in your post. I honestly hope that you are given some rationale that makes sense to you as to why your church should participate in the continuing effort to keep the homosexual population from enjoying the same rights as the rest of this country’s citizens. Because it’s tough to find out that your viewpoint is more mature, more thoughtful, than those from whom you expect wisdom and guidance.
I’m well aware of the fact that it’s going to be a long, hard fight. I believe that the cause is just, though. I believe that the rewards are worth the struggle. I believe that people can change, and can see the error of their ways, and can become better human beings. I have faith in the inherent goodness of human nature. Faith is an interesting power.