LDS Freedom Forum

Steve Clark wrote:

Obrien wrote:

Steve Clark wrote:
Except that it is. Interracial marriage was once taught to be a moral sin in the LDS church.

Guess who said: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

Brigham Lorenzo Grant?

So close! It was Brigham C. Lorenzo Grant.

Could you please use the proper title of President when referring to him? Thanks.

SteveClark,
It's likely the church could change in various ways in the future.
I happen to think as some have suggested that they may change differently in principle and action.
Since only about 10 years ago, they boldly proclaimed to the world the significance of marriage between a man and a woman and gender, they'd seem silly to go back on that.
I hope they don't but I can't say for sure.

Sin is incorrect thought and subsequent emotion and action.
Homosexual "actions" show to have harmful consequences according to US national health reports gathered.
It is what it is, no matter what law-makers or religious leaders say.

Moreover, in any discussion, it is illogical to compare ethnicity with sexual preference.

BTW- Several reasons I feel so passionate about marriage between a man & a woman and standing for less popular truths of homosexual practices...
1) I value BOTH mothers and fathers.
2). Two friends of mine died of AIDS and I had a spiritual experience that encouraged me to stand for such ugly but often ignored truths of homosexual practices.
3) I have seen many people bullied in the name of homosexuality. I myself was personally threatened and harrassed for a while.
I and many others have had our freedom of speech taken away due to ironic fear of "homophobia"/fear of inconvenient truths.

Thinker wrote:

jbalm wrote:Because you never engage in ad hominem?

Your inane posts have received precisely the responses they warrant.

You have as much difficulty with the truth as anyone. You just lack the self-awareness to realize it.

If you are not just trying to put me down, then why havn't you cited specific examples of your accusations toward me?

All you're doing is engaging in not only logical fallacy but also cognitive distortions - like jumping to conclusions about my personal self-awareness when you don't even know me.

And why are you pointing fingers at me?
Maybe you learned from homosexual bullies to shoot the messenger when you don't like inconvenient truths.

Nice persecution complex you got there.

If you can't handle disagreement, get another hobby.

You're accusing me of a persecusion complex while you've supported persecusion complexes based on homosexual preferances???

Rich irony - or hypocrisy - whichever word is less venimous for you.

There you go lying again.

Please tell me what I've written that was a lie and prove it was a lie.
Thanks.

I don't support the persecution complexes of gays.

You keep saying (or insinuating) that I am pro-gay. I am neither pro or anti gay. I've said so explicitly. Just because I don't have an unhealthy obsession with other people's sex stuff doesn't mean I support them.

Ipso facto, your pants are on fire.

Jbalm,
Your comments in previous discussions suggest otherwise.
Still, I apolize if I misinterpreted your words.

I mean no bad intent, I just feel strongly the need to defend marriage between a man and a woman and to make known the ugly truths of homosexuality that are often glossed over.

shadow wrote:

Steve Clark wrote:

Thinker wrote:No, Jbalm, You don't have a clue about me.

This is a discussion about the church changing its stance on the law of chastity - specifically homosexual practices.

Interracial (hetero) marriage is not comparable to homosexual practices.

Except that it is. Interracial marriage was once taught to be a moral sin in the LDS church.

Guess who said: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

Oh, I know! It was Brigham Young.
And technically, he's right.
Back then, it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person. So the only way to mix seed was to do it as an unmarried couple. President Kimball said this, and I suspect it's true today- "Fornication leads to death."

Shadow - technically he's right??? How so? Using your logic, Thomas Jefferson should never have been President of the US because he should have been struck dead on the spot (several times) on his plantation. If Brigham was right, I know several people of mixed races that should be dead on the spot for mingling the seed absent the state of holy matrimony. Why do TBMs feel the need to reflexively justify every racist crazy statement made by a church president from 1850-1978? Wouldn't it make more sense (and be more in line with the concept that God is no respecter of persons) to just admit that BY's racism is probably the root cause of the LDS race problem?

shadow wrote: Oh, I know! It was Brigham Young.
And technically, he's right.
Back then, it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person. So the only way to mix seed was to do it as an unmarried couple. President Kimball said this, and I suspect it's true today- "Fornication leads to death."

Are you saying that in God's eyes, it is a more severe sin for interracial pre-marital sex than same race pre-marital sex?
Brigham specifically called out "the seed of Cain", not just any willy (pun intended) nilly person.



Edit: Oh, I see O'brien kind of asked the same thing. But my question still stands