LDS Freedom Forum

jbalm wrote:The church would have condemned my marriage just 36 1/2 years ago. They still advise against it.

Mine, too.

ETA - Jbalm and I are NOT married, BTW (just heading you off at the pass, Pink Death...)

jbalm wrote:The church would have condemned my marriage just 36 1/2 years ago. They still advise against it.

?

boo wrote:

jbalm wrote:The church would have condemned my marriage just 36 1/2 years ago. They still advise against it.

?

Me white. Wife black.

I was talking to a member a few weeks ago about the ways I felt the church was changing, of course this man thought I was apostate, when I reminded him that mixed marriages of different color, ethnicity, and religion were once taught as not desirable he absolutely did not believe me, but when I found it in a copy of Aaronic priesthood lessons he stuttered and could no longer hold the conversation.
Things are changing, the young men in our Ward show no signs of responsibility or sense of duty. They will haul butt t the parking lot while their fathers take care of tables/chairs etc. We only have two young men who show up early to take care of the sacrament.
Yes, I believe the Church is changing. We have an openly gay young woman in our Ward and since she has come out, morality lessons have been non existent within young women's unless she is not present. To the youths credit, she feels right at home. We are a kinder, gentler Church some might say................

Bringing up interracial marriage in a discussion about same-sex marriage is not only illogical but offensive to some.

They are totally different issues.
One based on race.
The other based on sexual substitutes.
The only distinguishing factor between 2 friends of the same sex and a homosexual pair are sexual substitutes.

And a black person cannot "come out of the closet" for being black.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with sexual behavior.
Interracial hetero-couples are not statistically known to have high rates of STDs, HIV/AIDS, mental illness and anal cancer risks like homosexual couples are known for by the US CDC.

Sad I have to point this out.

jbalm wrote:

boo wrote:

jbalm wrote:The church would have condemned my marriage just 36 1/2 years ago. They still advise against it.

?

Me white. Wife black.

Statistically the least likely combination to divorce. Ironically black husband white wife most likely. Asian woman, white man slightly more likely to divorce than white man white woman. Not sure how Hispanics fit in all this or Asian man and white woman.

White woman married to white woman has a very high divorce rate.

Thinker wrote:Bringing up interracial marriage in a discussion about same-sex marriage is not only illogical but offensive to some.

They are totally different issues.
One based on race.
The other based on sexual substitutes.
The only distinguishing factor between 2 friends of the same sex and a homosexual pair are sexual substitutes.

And a black person cannot "come out of the closet" for being black.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with sexual behavior.
Interracial hetero-couples are not statistically known to have high rates of STDs, HIV/AIDS, mental illness and anal cancer risks like homosexual couples are known for by the US CDC.

Sad I have to point this out.

Your non sequitur notwithstanding, my point is the gross irony of the church claiming the moral high ground on this issue.

But thank you for refraining from the dildo talk.

idahommie wrote:I was talking to a member a few weeks ago about the ways I felt the church was changing, of course this man thought I was apostate, when I reminded him that mixed marriages of different color, ethnicity, and religion were once taught as not desirable he absolutely did not believe me, but when I found it in a copy of Aaronic priesthood lessons he stuttered and could no longer hold the conversation.
Things are changing, the young men in our Ward show no signs of responsibility or sense of duty. They will haul butt t the parking lot while their fathers take care of tables/chairs etc. We only have two young men who show up early to take care of the sacrament.
Yes, I believe the Church is changing. We have an openly gay young woman in our Ward and since she has come out, morality lessons have been non existent within young women's unless she is not present. To the youths credit, she feels right at home. We are a kinder, gentler Church some might say................

Yes, the Church discouraged mixed race marriages even after 1978 but also discouraged people from radically different socio-economic groups from marrying. It is still taught that people should marry only within their own faith.

As for young people, every generation complains about the young generation being lazy. This has gone on since the days of Plato.

However, I do expect a trend to shy away of lessons on sexuality. In the early 80s there were plenty of discussions about the evils of divorce but once it went mainstream I would say I have very, very, very rarely heard anyone discuss how evil it is. In fact, in many circles it is considered A-okay to divorce a man who looks at a Playboy. So times really have changed and may continue until everything falls apart both in the society and within the LDS community.

Jbalm,
The only reason why I pointed out the illogical comparison between race and sexual substitutes is because you brought it up.

Also, is it better to pretend homosexual behavior is all "happy rainbows" when it statistically proves to be unhealthy and even fatal at times?

Thinker wrote:Jbalm,
The only reason why I pointed out the illogical comparison between race and sexual substitutes is because you brought it up.

Also, is it better to pretend homosexual behavior is all "happy rainbows" when it statistically proves to be unhealthy and even fatal at times?

This thread is about possible changes to the church, including, but not limited to, gay marriage. I, as others on this thread have done, pointed out one of the church's many changes.

You made the comparison to blacks and gays. Not I. I already explained my point to you.

And I have never been pro-gay marriage, despite your insinuation otherwise. I'm indifferent about it actually. But you seem to take offense when people opt to be less venomous than you are about gays.

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.

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."

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."

Brigham Lorenzo Grant?

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.

You are so predictable.

Say what you like. It doesn't change the nature of the thread. Nor does it make you any less venomous.

Obrien 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."

Brigham Lorenzo Grant?

So close! It was Brigham C. Lorenzo Grant.

I knew that...I've just sworn off middle initials.

jbalm 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.

You are so predictable.

Say what you like. It doesn't change the nature of the thread. Nor does it make you any less venomous.

Ad hominem attacks generally imply nothing better to contribute.

Some called Jesus names and worse when he pointed out inconvenient truths.
Some take the truth to be hard - or "venemous."

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.

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.

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."

EVERYTHING eventually leads to death. I always remembered SK being more logical than that comment. of course, I was younger and more impressionable then...

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."

Oh, thanks for clarifying! I guess BY could have said fornication was the real reason, but he probably wanted to try the faith of others years after saying this by throwing in the useless race-mixing bits.

SteveClark,
Just because they WERE (one is not anymore) both deemed sin, doesn't make them comparable.

IE: It's a sin to lie and a sin to kill - but obviously one has more negative consequences than the other.

Also, the OP doesn't ask about the past changes, but specifically asks about FUTURE changes.

Thinker wrote:SteveClark,
Just because they were both deemed sin, doesn't make them comparable.

IE: It's a sin to lie and a sin to kill - but obviously one has more negative consequences than the other.

Also, the OP doesn't ask about the past changes, but specifically asks about FUTURE changes.

Explain to me why they are not comparable, then. It was serious enough at one point that BY thought death was appropriate which seems rather serious to me.

So, even though the church has demonstrable evidence of changing things in the past, ie. stance on interracial marriage (which I think is very comparable but welcome the chance to be persuaded otherwise), requirement of polygamous marriage for exaltation, etc. you don't think those things are possible indicators of that the future changes of the church might be. Is that correct?

Thinker wrote:SteveClark,
Just because they WERE (one is not anymore) both deemed sin, doesn't make them comparable.

IE: It's a sin to lie and a sin to kill - but obviously one has more negative consequences than the other.

Also, the OP doesn't ask about the past changes, but specifically asks about FUTURE changes.

Your edit just furthers my point. Once sin, now not. You say homosexual relationships are sin but there is no way they won't be taught as such in the future.