Openly Gay Man Called To Serve in Key LDS Position

[Gyp Rosetti]

seriously whats wrong with promitng violence.

violence is OKAY

as expected, doing both in the same nine word post. good job. moran.

 

[DutchJazzer]

as expected, doing both in the same nine word post. good job. moran.

Senseless violence is wrong and not okay. but violence is needed on occasion. that is just common sense.
i mean if you dont want to use violence. but dont tell me its wrong

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Senseless violence is wrong and not okay. but violence is needed on occasion. that is just common sense.
i mean if you dont want to use violence. but dont tell me its wrong

I agree.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

1) Homosexuality didn't exist as a concept in Biblical days at all. There were men who had sex with other men or boys, but they weren't considered "gay." It simply never occurred to anyone that there was such a thing as a fundamental homosexual orientation/identity rather than just isolated homosexual acts.

2) Some of the words translated as "homosexuality" in fact are referring to anal intercourse, which need not be with a man.

3) For something that is supposed to be such a terrible sin, there is very little in the Bible that could even *possibly* be construed as condemning homosexuality... six or seven passages at most, and many of these are suspect, and all but the Sodom story are very brief one-line or two-line sort of things. Don't you think there would have been more material on this if it's such an important issue? By way of comparison, look at all the Biblical material on adultery and divorce.

4) Most significant of all, I think, for those wishing to construe the Sodom story as one which preaches against homosexuality, is that homosexuality is never identified as Sodom's sin. Sodom does, in fact, become a constant symbol of sinfulness in the OT, one which various prophets refer back to as an example of how not to be. But the sin of Sodom is identified explicitly in several places, most notably Ezekiel 16, as being morally and ethically lax, ignoring the poor and practicing the worst inhospitality. Further, none of the other passages traditionally understood as condemning homosexuality made any reference to the Sodom story... which at the very least would be very unusual, since the Biblical authors liked to tie their teachings back to well-known stories.

Isn't "thou shalt not murder" one of the 10 Commandments, and therefore "so obvious" that, as referenced, no other guidance was needed? But unless I'm mistaken, "no man shalt bang another dude" isn't one of those ten. Again, unless I'm mistaken. I mean, I didn't go to Sunday School or anything.

Horribly flawed logic.

Romans 1:18-32 (read the whole chapter though)
18-"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"
24-"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"
26-"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"
27-"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Genesis 19
5-"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (Know in this and many other bible instances is referring to "sexual intercourse", look it up if you don't believe me)
7-"And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."
13-"For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it." (The Lord did not send the Angels to destroy Sodom because they were inhospitable, there would have to be much more to it)

@AthiestPreacher - As to Ezekiel 16, I think you missed the "abomination" part of the explaination as to why Sodom was destroyed.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Deuteronomy 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (why is whore connected to women and sodomite connected with men? I think I know the answer.)

1 Timothy 1:9-10 "...that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

1 Corinthins 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Basically the Old and New Testament do in my understanding of these verses state very clearly that sexual intercourse with another man is not right in God's eyes. It also clearly states that it was a specific issue with Sodom, which is why it is referred to as Sodomy in many cases. Romans also uses the words of men "burned in their lust one towards another", which I feel covers the difference someone was trying to make between "homosexuality, and the act of having homosexual sex". I don't think it is as unclear as some of you say it is, but I would like to hear more of your angle and take on the subject.


Ok, this part is a joke, but it made me laugh.

@SalmonHobo - Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

See how the 10 commandments cover this issue? Ok, not really, but it made me chuckle.

 

[Xsy]

As a gay ex-Mormon, this whole concept doesn't sit well with me.

It's like mixing oil with water and saying "See, it works." when it clearly doesn't. Cute publicity stunt, but it's not going to change anything.




Mormons also believe in a latter-day prophet who speaks directly to god. What they say goes-- they've openly said that homosexuality is not accepted in the church. Quoting scripture doesn't mean anything.

 

[kwb]

Link?

Why do people continue to post garbage stuff that's not true.

No link necessary. Just go to a fast Sunday and listen to all the people say they know the book of Mormon is true. Not once have I ever heard some one say they know the Bible is true. I guess its been around long enough that that's proof enough. And yea, I'm lds.

 

[Archie Moses]

No link necessary. Just go to a fast Sunday and listen to all the people say they know the book of Mormon is true. Not once have I ever heard some one say they know the Bible is true. I guess its been around long enough that that's proof enough. And yea, I'm lds.

Because if the Book of Mormon isn't true, then the whole LDS religion crumbles.

 

[Archie Moses]

As a gay ex-Mormon, this whole concept doesn't sit well with me.

It's like mixing oil with water and saying "See, it works." when it clearly doesn't. Cute publicity stunt, but it's not going to change anything.




Mormons also believe in a latter-day prophet who speaks directly to god. What they say goes-- they've openly said that homosexuality is not accepted in the church. Quoting scripture doesn't mean anything.

Wait, it doesn't sit well with you because? The LDS church called a man to a calling and he's gay?

So should the LDS church not extend other callings to members that do things that are considered sinful?

 

[Scat]

As a gay ex-Mormon...

Identifying yourself as such already tells me that your perspective is going to be heavily biased.

That being said, would you rather that the LDS religion and gays remain at odds rather than finding any common ground?

 

[Scat]

No link necessary. Just go to a fast Sunday and listen to all the people say they know the book of Mormon is true. Not once have I ever heard some one say they know the Bible is true. I guess its been around long enough that that's proof enough. And yea, I'm lds.

I once heard a young man bear his testimony by saying, "I believe that the church is true... At least I hope it is."

 

[NUMBERICA]

Cool. I guess this is the first step towards another modern-day revelation blooper and subsequent "JK" from some prophet down the line. Very cool.

And despite the snarkiness (it's kind of a thing I do), I do mean that. The less bigotry there is in the world, the better.

 

[Xsy]

Wait, it doesn't sit well with you because? The LDS church called a man to a calling and he's gay?

So should the LDS church not extend other callings to members that do things that are considered sinful?

Well, the guy openly admits that he's not going to remain celibate. He's in the bishopric with full intent to sin once again, which if I were a member of that congregation, I would be a little... well, pissed. I wouldn't feel he's worthy.

Edit: His official website has been edited since I last read it. Its original version was copied and pasted on this forum: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55419-church-calls-openly-gay-bishopric-member/

As a result, my current circumstances provide me with a unique opportunity to serve in a Priesthood leadership role within my community. Will that always be the case? Perhaps not. I will likely not be single forever, but I am now by choice—given where I am in my own personal healing process.

I am open to a relationship if fate brings that my way. I am not committing to a lifetime of celibacy; I am committing to adhere to the same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position. And, I am committed to being completely forthcoming and transparent about my relationship status with my leadership.

Identifying yourself as such already tells me that your perspective is going to be heavily biased.

That being said, would you rather that the LDS religion and gays remain at odds rather than finding any common ground?

First of all, no. I've lived both sides, so I think my perspective is going to be far more balanced than anyone else's. I went to church every Sunday for 19 years. I had to choose between going on a mission, living the celibate life, and hoping for celestial glory-- or coming out of the closet. I came out. I know what it's like to be Mormon, and I know what it's like to not be Mormon. I wasn't some floozy jack Mormon either, I was a great kid, and great member of the church.

I would love it if the LDS religion and gays could find common ground. The prophet makes it pretty dang hard, though. What he says is literally the word of god. It leaves a bit of a chip on my shoulder, but whatever. For the most part, Mormons have been nothing but loving towards me. We have our political differences, but every group of people have their political opinions.

Assigning a gay member to the bishopric isn't a bad thing, it's just something that doesn't make sense. Gay Mormon is basically an oxymoron. The most gay you can be in the LDS church is "gay feelings", which cannot be sought after and acted upon. This guy broke up with his boyfriend because of non-religious reasons, and will have another boyfriend as soon as he finds another. I feel as if he's not repentant in his 'sins' at all.

The LDS religion is not a Catholic religion. You don't just confess your sins, and all is forgiven. You work hard to overcome your problems, and if you keep falling back, you aren't working hard enough. This is not the case with this guy.