Homosexuality: Disorder

[jo1952]

CARMEL, N.Y. — The duo voted "cutest couple" in the senior class at a suburban New York high school say they're getting teased about it - but not because they're both boys. "Yeah, our friends are giving it to us about being Internet famous," said 18-year-old Dylan Meehan, a senior at Carmel High School. "We've never had any problems at all," added 17-year-old senior Brad Taylor. "As a matter of fact, before the results, people were telling us ahead of time, 'You guys are going to win hands down.'" The gay couple's selection - a first at Carmel High - has become an online sensation, driven by a yearbook photo of the smiling boys in a close embrace. A friend's blog with the photo had more than 110,000 hits Monday, and it was cited in stories on several major news sites. They received so much attention that they released a statement saying "the whole thing has been a bit surreal." They said that when they first started dating a year ago, "the thought of a photo of us traveling throughout the world would be a bit frightening, but now we are proud to be part of the LGBT community."

http://www.kansas.com/2013/06/04/283131 ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sarah,

Are you without sin under the Law?

jo

[SouthernMormon]

I do not think anyone here is implying to judge the SALVATION or lackthereof, of persons who engage in same-sex relations. I have merely been pointing out that the Law is good for civil governments. In any case, the Church leaders have repeatedly condemned same-sex relations in the strongest possible terms. This is not out of hate, but out of serious love, not New Age "love".

[Elizabeth]

It is believed by some that the woman was Mary Magdelene, and that Jesus later married her. Isaiah was commanded to marry a harlot. The sins of both woman are punishable by death under the Law. Jesus did not condemn Mary. Isaiah did not condemn the harlot he married. Jesus did not judge Mary; Isaiah did not judge the woman he married...

Much which is incorrect is believed by "some" and taught by Lucifer and his followers.

James E Talmage on the other hand is a man of God who vehemently opposes such blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the virtuous and righteous Mary, a woman worthy of His companionship.

[SouthernMormon]

The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is surely the most idiotic claim I have seen as regards the bible. I do not understand how any Christians could ever have taken this seriously.

[Fiannan]

The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is surely the most idiotic claim I have seen as regards the bible. I do not understand how any Christians could ever have taken this seriously.

The Catholic institution also banned the Bible: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-s ... 03545.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think we know why they were scared of people studying it for themselves.

[jo1952]

It is believed by some that the woman was Mary Magdelene, and that Jesus later married her. Isaiah was commanded to marry a harlot. The sins of both woman are punishable by death under the Law. Jesus did not condemn Mary. Isaiah did not condemn the harlot he married. Jesus did not judge Mary; Isaiah did not judge the woman he married...

Much which is incorrect is believed by "some" and taught by Lucifer and his followers.

James E Talmage on the other hand is a man of God who vehemently opposes such blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the virtuous and righteous Mary, a woman worthy of His companionship.

The strength of satan's power to deceive is given to him by those who do not know they are giving him power.

I see voices being raised as a trump of warning, and the masses do not want to hear them. There is nothing new under the sun. We are not here to destroy people's faith in God. We are here to try to help them to recognize deceit which perpetuates both physical and spiritual bondage. That is what Christ's disciples do. Our message is on Christ's side.

I cannot help but wonder how it is that thinking Jesus may have married a prostitute is blasphemous. What about Isaiah's being COMMANDED to marry a harlot? Any thoughts on that? I would really like to see personal thoughts being expressed, if possible.

Mosiah 13:27-31

27 And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.

jo

[Benjamin_LK]

Jo,
The greatest of all commandments are to love God (Truth/Light) and love others as ourselves...
..."on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Jesus didn't kiss peoples' behinds, trying to win a popularity contest & call that love.
Jesus spoke boldly about what was of God and what wasn't - and was even killed for speaking truth that others took to be hard.

It appears you have not understood what I shared.

Yes, Jesus spoke boldly and was killed for it. Yet, He forgave those who were killing Him. He loved with a divine love; and it was completely unconditional.

Many participants on this thread are loving with a conditional, worldly love. They think that by judging others and pointing to these others the errors of their ways that they are manifesting love which saves. Through the act of judging, they are binding themselves to the world; and with what judgment they mete, the same will be meted to them. That is worldly love; it is conditional.

Peace,

jo

If a person was convinced poison was good it would not be loving to let them drink the poison. You can love a person and warn them of danger.

That's a great way of summing it up.

Now where's that thumbs up emoticon when you need it!

[Benjamin_LK]

It is believed by some that the woman was Mary Magdelene, and that Jesus later married her. Isaiah was commanded to marry a harlot. The sins of both woman are punishable by death under the Law. Jesus did not condemn Mary. Isaiah did not condemn the harlot he married. Jesus did not judge Mary; Isaiah did not judge the woman he married...

Much which is incorrect is believed by "some" and taught by Lucifer and his followers.

James E Talmage on the other hand is a man of God who vehemently opposes such blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the virtuous and righteous Mary, a woman worthy of His companionship.

The strength of satan's power to deceive is given to him by those who do not know they are giving him power.

I see voices being raised as a trump of warning, and the masses do not want to hear them. There is nothing new under the sun. We are not here to destroy people's faith in God. We are here to try to help them to recognize deceit which perpetuates both physical and spiritual bondage. That is what Christ's disciples do. Our message is on Christ's side.

I cannot help but wonder how it is that thinking Jesus may have married a prostitute is blasphemous. What about Isaiah's being COMMANDED to marry a harlot? Any thoughts on that? I would really like to see personal thoughts being expressed, if possible.

jo

I presume you meant Hosea. I feel that Hosea didn't have much of a choice about it in his time, as many of the women of Israel in the context of Hosea, likely participated in actual prostitution as part of the worship for the heathen Gods. It was a widespread issue. It would be similar to me as a church member going out to marry a wayward, less active LDS woman who did some wayward things. My best interpretation is that he moves Gomer, the name of his wife at the time, to repent of being a prostitute and turn back to God, which also symbolizes God calling Judah to repentance. Again, like Esther, it's not something that is generally recommended by members of the church to do, but it's also important to think of the historical context of Hosea's time: When you realize the widespread idolatry of Hosea's time, it was pretty much likely that a woman, even among the Israelites, was a harlot for the worship of idols such as Ashtoreth.

[Benjamin_LK]

It is believed by some that the woman was Mary Magdelene, and that Jesus later married her. Isaiah was commanded to marry a harlot. The sins of both woman are punishable by death under the Law. Jesus did not condemn Mary. Isaiah did not condemn the harlot he married. Jesus did not judge Mary; Isaiah did not judge the woman he married...

Much which is incorrect is believed by "some" and taught by Lucifer and his followers.

James E Talmage on the other hand is a man of God who vehemently opposes such blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the virtuous and righteous Mary, a woman worthy of His companionship.

The strength of satan's power to deceive is given to him by those who do not know they are giving him power.

I see voices being raised as a trump of warning, and the masses do not want to hear them. There is nothing new under the sun. We are not here to destroy people's faith in God. We are here to try to help them to recognize deceit which perpetuates both physical and spiritual bondage. That is what Christ's disciples do. Our message is on Christ's side.

I cannot help but wonder how it is that thinking Jesus may have married a prostitute is blasphemous. What about Isaiah's being COMMANDED to marry a harlot? Any thoughts on that? I would really like to see personal thoughts being expressed, if possible.

jo

Satan's strongest weapon against the church, which is also, not coincidentally, the anti-mormon's primary weapon, is irrational fear of the Lord's church. The church, without a doubt, is plenty dedicated to rendering service to people who might fear and hate them, and when one understands the radical ideologies people try to project into the church, a little service goes a long way into making those big weapons or ideas of the church being the ultimate all-powerful enemy out to get them seem a lot less credible.

IMHO, one big statement that actually is part of the church's message is that of not having to fear them, both to the detractors outside of the church, as well as letting the members themselves know that putting off the fear of the church is the first step toward some people joining, or even if they never join the church, at least coming to a respectful disagreement with it.

My personal experience of joining the church wasn't the best one. I remember from both the religious and secular sides well, people finding out somehow that I had become an investigator to the church, which I believe likely came from someone in my family who admitted it without second thought, led to people saying all sorts of bad-mouthing to me as to why I should not join it. To sum it up, they made it look like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints(my words, not theirs) was the most wretched, vile, bigoted, radical, group on the Earth since the nazis. At the time, it was irritable, if not depressing, sometimes to hear such things. But, a few years later, and with my willingness not to be so reviling to those I knew back in High School that felt that way, I don't see that level of radical projection as much anymore. That isn't to say that people I know are interested in joining, but at least after those 12 years since my high school graduation, well, at least people for the most part can at least respectfully disagree and the paranoia factor isn't so prevalent anymore.

You might ask, why do I bring this up in light of said topic. Well, it has a great deal to do with how we deal with this topic of Homosexuality in today's world. There is an antimormon faction to be found in many a place, but it's important that we do not let the other side dictate our level here. We're not going to suddenly have some revelation to seal same-sex couples, but we are going to see the importance of not letting ourselves adopt their same mindset, or let ourselves become radicalized in response to the sentiment. At day's end, even an exmember, or a same-sex couple, etc. have far more pressing reasonable concerns out there than the remote possibility of some new Mormon Regime taking over the country and locking them all up, like some argued to me 12 years ago that the church was going to do, and BTW, I am still waiting for that most obscure day to happen.

[Benjamin_LK]

I have often wondered if there is any connection between urbanization and homosexuality. It seems that homosexuality flourishes in urban areas more so then rural. Currently, ~2 to 3% of the populace identify as homosexual. I do not think it would have been possible to suppress homosexuality as effectively as it was in medieval and early modern Europe (including support for the death penalty) if 2 to 3% of the populace were homosexual. The number of prosecutions for homosexuality was vastly higher in the 1950s then in the 1590s (on a per capita basis as well). Could it be that far more people consider themselves to be homosexual today or feel same-sex sexual attraction then in earlier times?

There was also extensive anti-communist, anti-freedom paranoia in the 1950s as well. A lot of people who were found to be a variety of things considered un-American, or undemocratic, fell into that paranoia scope. I will admit, some people were both, but then again, that's likely part of the reason for some of the rise in prosecution in the 1950s.

Your environmental correlation idea may have some merit, however. I have thought of the kinds of environments people grow up in now as opposed to, say medieval times or 19th century America, where urban life was far less prevalent. It does seem to me however, that the cause of SSA can vary from person to person, and I also feel that it's spectral in how people experience it.

[Thomas]

Nobody is saying homosexuality is not a sin. We all recognize that it is a sin. The point some are trying to make is that we are guilty of sin. We are all fallen. When we commit the smallest of sins, we are just a guilty as the homosexual. That is what the scriptures say.

Calling for the killing of another for their sin ignores the fact that we are just as guilty. It makes us just like the Pharisees and not like Christ.

[jo1952]

Bump for Sarah,

Are you without sin under the Law?

jo

[Benjamin_LK]

The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is surely the most idiotic claim I have seen as regards the bible. I do not understand how any Christians could ever have taken this seriously.

IIRC, it's an interpretation of the Bible made based on the idea that the woman who was a harlot, who washed the feet of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, are one and the same. However, the text does not concretely state this, so the idea really comes down to speculation that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, rather than solid fact. IMHO, even if she was, I am pretty sure that she repented and moved on from such a lifestyle in becoming a follower of Jesus Christ. For those who think she was his wife, I would be proud to address the fact that if she really, out of heart, decided to leave her life of prostitution behind, I am sure that Jesus would accept that sincere repentance to heart, perhaps better than some members of the church would to a girlfriend if she admitted to them about her previous lifestyle that she repented of to be temple worthy.

[jo1952]

Nobody is saying homosexuality is not a sin. We all recognize that it is a sin. The point some are trying to make is that we are guilty of sin. We are all fallen. When we commit the smallest of sins, we are just a guilty as the homosexual. That is what the scriptures say.

Calling for the killing of another for their sin ignores the fact that we are just as guilty. It makes us just like the Pharisees and not like Christ.

Thomas! Thank you!!! And let us not forget the warnings! With what judgment we mete, the same is meted against us; if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven; etc. Not only are we like the Pharisees, we are reaping like-punishments upon on our own heads which we cast upon others.

jo

[SouthernMormon]

jo1952, do you support ANY punishment for ANY crimes? I think we are deluding ourselves when we get the idea that Christianity is against ALL civil punishment. Should someone like Bernie Madoff be executed for his enormous financial crimes? Should mass murderers be executed? Joseph Smith supported the death penalty and opposed prisons, except as holding cells.

I do not favor, in our current society, the application of death penalty for sodomy. If we are in violation of the Law (and to some extent we all are) we need to take seriously the admonitions of the First Presidency and Apostles on the need for repentance and repeated condemnation of sodomy. Seriously, it is for the own good of persons with SSA that they not engage in these activities. It is certainly more loving to deter this activity by the threat of criminal punishment then to encourage it.

[SmallFarm]

Nobody is saying homosexuality is not a sin. We all recognize that it is a sin. The point some are trying to make is that we are guilty of sin. We are all fallen. When we commit the smallest of sins, we are just a guilty as the homosexual. That is what the scriptures say.

Calling for the killing of another for their sin ignores the fact that we are just as guilty. It makes us just like the Pharisees and not like Christ.

If you read the posts, some (not you) are saying there is no sin (or at least no consequence for sin, which is the same thing).

[SouthernMormon]

R.J. Rushdoony "The Politics of Guilt and Pity"

“[G]odly man must recognize that he has the obligation to be without pity and without charity in dealing with some, that this attitude, however harsh it may seem in terms of modern sentimentality, constitutes moral strength and spiritual integrity. He must recognize that he cannot rob himself or others in order to feed the undeserving of the world, or the improvident who demand as their right a portion of our wealth. . . . [T]rue stewardship means a humility whereby man avoids a fundamental sin common to false charity, that of trying to be God.” (page 72)

[Thomas]

Nobody is saying homosexuality is not a sin. We all recognize that it is a sin. The point some are trying to make is that we are guilty of sin. We are all fallen. When we commit the smallest of sins, we are just a guilty as the homosexual. That is what the scriptures say.

Calling for the killing of another for their sin ignores the fact that we are just as guilty. It makes us just like the Pharisees and not like Christ.

If you read the posts, some (not you) are saying there is no sin (or at least no consequence for sin, which is the same thing).

I guess I have not recognized that anyone was saying that.

2 Nephi 2:

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

If you continue on in sin, knowing you are sinning, do you have a broken heart and contrite spirit? No one has said there is a free pass to sin.
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

I don't think anyone has been saying there is no consequence for sin. I think what they are saying is you cannot save yourself by not sinning. You can only save yourself by recognizing you are a sinner. That you need Christ to save you and that you must turn to Christ with a broken heart and contrite spirit. That is what the scripture above is saying. No man will be saved by not sinning. It is impossible. The scripture in James tells us, it is not a comparison between your sins and someone else's. It is a comparison against perfection. When we think we are more righteous than others, we keep ourselves from the atonement because we do not have a broken heart and contrite spirit. We have pride.

This doesn't equate to a free pass to sin. If you truly have a broken heart, you will try to obey the commandments.

[SmallFarm]

I guess I have not recognized that anyone was saying that.

Those who are able to accept that Christ fulfilled the Law are no longer bound to it. They are no longer required to live under the Law.

(emphasis mine)

[Thomas]

I guess I have not recognized that anyone was saying that.

Those who are able to accept that Christ fulfilled the Law are no longer bound to it. They are no longer required to live under the Law.

(emphasis mine)

I cannot speak for Jo but I think she has a good grasp on the subject, probably better than me.

Galatians 5:

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

The way to be freed from the is to walk in the spirit. To do so you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. You do what the spirit guides you to do. This is the purpose of the law. To point you in the direction the spirit would have you go. Those who think the law saves miss out on what saves and what saves is guidance from the spirit, meekness, humility, love. Pride, self righteousness, judgment of others lead us off the path to salvation.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

[skmo]

The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is surely the most idiotic claim I have seen as regards the bible. I do not understand how any Christians could ever have taken this seriously.

↑ This. In spades.

[jo1952]

The strength of satan's power to deceive is given to him by those who do not know they are giving him power.

I see voices being raised as a trump of warning, and the masses do not want to hear them. There is nothing new under the sun. We are not here to destroy people's faith in God. We are here to try to help them to recognize deceit which perpetuates both physical and spiritual bondage. That is what Christ's disciples do. Our message is on Christ's side.

I cannot help but wonder how it is that thinking Jesus may have married a prostitute is blasphemous. What about Isaiah's being COMMANDED to marry a harlot? Any thoughts on that? I would really like to see personal thoughts being expressed, if possible.

jo

I presume you meant Hosea. I feel that Hosea didn't have much of a choice about it in his time, as many of the women of Israel in the context of Hosea, likely participated in actual prostitution as part of the worship for the heathen Gods. It was a widespread issue. It would be similar to me as a church member going out to marry a wayward, less active LDS woman who did some wayward things. My best interpretation is that he moves Gomer, the name of his wife at the time, to repent of being a prostitute and turn back to God, which also symbolizes God calling Judah to repentance. Again, like Esther, it's not something that is generally recommended by members of the church to do, but it's also important to think of the historical context of Hosea's time: When you realize the widespread idolatry of Hosea's time, it was pretty much likely that a woman, even among the Israelites, was a harlot for the worship of idols such as Ashtoreth.

Thank you, Benjamin. It was Hosea...not Isaiah....who was commanded to marry the harlot. This was done for symbolic meaning. The same meaning wherein Jesus married the prostitute, Mary of Magdala.

jo

[Elizabeth]

... The same meaning wherein Jesus married the prostitute, Mary of Magdala. jo

That is a lie Jo, and it is not a teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor of any genuine Christian. So what religion are you?

[skmo]

Modern scripture experts have agreed that the faulty idea of Mary Magdalene as a whore is wrong, one that started with Catholics (but never espoused by the Eastern Orthodox) and used to create some of their doctrine. My sense tells me that she was the wife of Jesus, and that is one of the reasons that He first appeared to her after His return.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

... The same meaning wherein Jesus married the prostitute, Mary of Magdala. jo

That is a lie Jo, and it is not a teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor of any genuine Christian. So what religion are you?

Why? Because the Savoir would never stoop so low as to marry someone imperfect? Or someone who had used the atonement? Or who was a "convert"? Skmo may be right about the scriptures being botched, but who are you to judge so harshly and determine what a "genuine Christian" is? I tend to believe that a "genuine Christian" actually believes in the atonement - where your statement implies that you do not.