LDS and Prop 8

[Mr Cheese]

One posterchild doesn't make a former racial church freee from racism. Or did you forget this:

Cain slew his brother ... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.... How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp.290-91).


When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity ... he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.143).

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning (The Way To Perfection, 1935, p.101).

The obvious question is, "When will Abel's seed be redeemed?" It will first of all be necessary that Abel marry, and then be resurrected, and ultimately exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom so that he can have a continuation of his seed. It will then be necessary for Abel to create an earth for his spirit children to come to and experience mortality. These children will have to be "redeemed" or resurrected. After the resurrection or redemption of Abel's seed, Cain's descendants, the Negroes, will then be allowed to possess the Priesthood (The Church and the Negro, 1967, pp.45-49).

Sounds not good in my ears

to be fair

mormons changed their stance in the 1970's

people can change

 

[Orontes]

Yet, where does Jesus condemn homosexuality?

With the inherant bigotr of the bible, supposedly...how do you deal with the fact that David loved a man "above all women" (to quote the bible)?

Nowhere does Jesus speak on homosexuality.

Is your second comment that King David was gay and this is endorsed by the Bible?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Nowhere does Jesus speak on homosexuality.

Is your second comment that King David was gay and this is endorsed by the Bible?

If Jesus does not speak about homosexuality, why are you so concerned about it?
:sarcastic I thought Christianity was based around Jesus....?

I guess not....
Why do Christians follow ideas that are not born of Jesus Christ?
Why do Christians feel the need to get all excited about homosexuality, but hardly ever get excited about the miriad of other laws and prohibitions in the bible?

.....

David states he loved Johnathon above all women....
that is what the bible says.......

Seems to me David wasn't a homophobe....and was beloved of God
Maybe he was bi-sexual, maybe he wasn't... this statement is problematic to your idea of the bible being inherantly anti homosexual though...

Like most bigots, do you consider homosexuals to not be humans?

 

[LittleNipper]

Gay rights: Oakland LDS Stake tries to heal post-Prop 8 rifts - Salt Lake Tribune

This is also the church, and I`m glad to read this!
It gives me hope that one day even the LDS could change their mind.
What do you think about it?

I believe that if it is possible for a heterosexual to remain celebate, it should not be any harder for someone who feels he has homosexual tendenceies to do so as well. I mean, heterosexual urges are not any less than those of the homosexual, are they?

 

[Orontes]

If Jesus does not speak about homosexuality, why are you so concerned about it?
:sarcastic I thought Christianity was based around Jesus....?

I guess not....
Why do Christians follow ideas that are not born of Jesus Christ?
Why do Christians feel the need to get all excited about homosexuality, but hardly ever get excited about the miriad of other laws and prohibitions in the bible?

Christianity has not typically considered the Four Gospels as the totality of the faith. Given the Gospels were written by men other than Christ, in recognizing the Gospels as authoritative at all, necessarily entails recognizing men other than Christ as having authority to address matters of the faith.

Christianity's condemnation of homosexuality is not unique or revolutionary. Regarding "myriad other laws": one shouldn't confuse the Law of Moses as the only proscription.

David states he loved Johnathon above all women....
that is what the bible says.......

If you wish to argue David's love of Jonathan was a gay one, you may make the case. It isn't a stance ever taken by Jewish Tradition.

Like most bigots, do you consider homosexuals to not be humans?

If you wish to engage me, you will need to tone down the hyperbolic language, otherwise I can't take you seriously.

As to my personal views on gays: of coarse gays are human. Being human does not mean anything a human does is thereby justified. I hold homosexuality to be a sexual fetish. I do not think the state need or should endorse sexual fetishes.

 

[McBell]

I believe that if it is possible for a heterosexual to remain celebate, it should not be any harder for someone who feels he has homosexual tendenceies to do so as well. I mean, heterosexual urges are not any less than those of the homosexual, are they?

Why should they become celibate in the first place?

 

[Valjean]

How do you "become celibate" if you're not already married?
Celibacy = divorce??

 

[zomg]

ok, I'm wrong, I'll never assert this again

It does not however change the fact that the LDS church is homophic

Wrong about many things? like Joseph smith being a free mason
like Mormons effectively seeing God as an alien?..re: kolob
or the whole God is actually 3 beings thing
You know, instead of just saying, all this is wrong

why don't mormons respond and reply why people think mormons believe in venusians
or why people think mormons believe they will inherit their own universe
or why the denial of masonic connections....

Instead we are just greeted with closed lips

I'm sure if you asked those questions to Katz and other LDS members on this forum you would be given answers. Katz repsonds to every question unless they are posted by trolls or by those who will not listen.

 

[Katzpur]

ok, I'm wrong, I'll never assert this again

Thank you.

As for the rest of your post, I'd tell you that it's off the topic of the OP, except that Witch of Hope doesn't seem to care whether we stay on topic or not and it's his thread. So...

It does not however change the fact that the LDS church is homophic

1. Homophic is not a word.
2. A church is an institution. An institution does not have human feelings such as fear; consequently, the LDS Church could not be homophobic. If what you are really implying is that the leadship of the LDS Church does not approve of same-sex marriages, you are correct. We all know that to be the case. Not approving of something is not necessarily the same thing as fearing it.
3. There are currently just under 14 million members of the Church. We do not all think alike about this issue.

Wrong about many things? like Joseph smith being a free mason

Who told you you were wrong about this? Of course, Joseph Smith was a freemason.

like Mormons effectively seeing God as an alien?..re: kolob

If God is an alien, so are we. We believe that we were literally created in the physical image of God. Do you look like an alien? I don't. Here's what we believe:

1. There is a God.
2. He lives in Heaven.
3. Heaven is a real place.
4. There are stars in the heavens and one of them is closer to where God is than the rest.
5. That star has a name by which God refers to it.

I'm afraid I don't see how you are getting "God is an alien" out of that.

or the whole God is actually 3 beings thing

The Godhead is comprised of three divine beings: God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. They are one in will and purpose. It makes more sense to me than believing in the Platonic mysticism that states that "three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one."

You know, instead of just saying, all this is wrong why don't mormons respond and reply why people think mormons believe in venusians

I don't know what you mean. Who thinks Mormons "believe in venusians" (whatever they are)?

or why people think mormons believe they will inherit their own universe

Maybe people think this because they have only a superficial understanding of our doctrines and feel better about knocking those doctrines when they begin by misrepresenting them. Being sarcastic is easy; being earnest is hard.

or why the denial of masonic connections....

Again, I don't know any Latter-day Saints on RF (except possibly FFH, and I'm not even sure about him) who have denied Joseph Smith's masonic connections.

Instead we are just greeted with closed lips

Really? And I'd say, we're just greeted with closed ears.

 

[Katzpur]

One posterchild doesn't make a former racial church freee from racism.

One "posterchild"? That is undoubtedly the single stupidest remark I can remember hearing on RF in the nearly five years I've been posting. Every time I hear one of these pea-brained comments, I think it's got to be the all-time winner. Still, you continue to outdo yourself.

 

[Thought Criminal]

The saints have a history of modifying their theology when the need arises, don't they?

Yep. Continuous revelation is handy.

TC

 

[Autodidact]

Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic. Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will. The overturn of the earlier Proposition 22 (that led to the Proposition 8 campaign) was an affront to the democratic process.
.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Autodidact]

The LDS Church certainly did when it came to polygamy: at least in regards to the practice though not a repudiation of the principle.

And that whole black priesthood thing.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that if it is possible for a heterosexual to remain celebate, it should not be any harder for someone who feels he has homosexual tendenceies to do so as well. I mean, heterosexual urges are not any less than those of the homosexual, are they?

Why on earth should we, just to make you more comfortable?

I'll make a deal with you. You go first.

 

[Autodidact]

As to my personal views on gays: of coarse gays are human. Being human does not mean anything a human does is thereby justified. I hold homosexuality to be a sexual fetish. I do not think the state need or should endorse sexual fetishes.

On the other hand, why should the state adopt your bizarre idiosyncratic diagnosis of other people's marriages?

 

[Katzpur]

Yep. Continuous revelation is handy.

If there really is a God, it's not only "handy" but essential. If there is not a God, it's a moot point.

 

[Thought Criminal]

If there really is a God, it's not only "handy" but essential. If there is not a God, it's a moot point.

Moot, then.

TC

 

[Orontes]

Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic. Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will. The overturn of the earlier Proposition 22 (that led to the Proposition 8 campaign) was an affront to the democratic process.

Why do you hate America?

Minus one point for the use of a non sequitur.

The LDS Church certainly did when it came to polygamy: at least in regards to the practice though not a repudiation of the principle.

And that whole black priesthood thing.

You are confused: the whole Black Priesthood thing was not a theological shift. There was never a doctrinal basis for the prohibition.

As to my personal views on gays: of course gays are human. Being human does not mean anything a human does is thereby justified. I hold homosexuality to be a sexual fetish. I do not think the state need or should endorse sexual fetishes.

On the other hand, why should the state adopt your bizarre idiosyncratic diagnosis of other people's marriages?

You are confused. I gave no diagnosis of marriage.

 

[Witch of Hope]

There was no legal pressure on the Church to change its position on Blacks and the priesthood in 1978. The only thing I can think of would be some college schools refused to play against BYU (a Church affiliated university). There certainly was the issue of trying to maintain some loyalty to a stance while dealing with Church expansion in South American that has large amounts of people of mixed decent: but that is an issue of internal coherence, not outside pressure.

As a result tangled the NAACP (a civil right organization for non-whites as well as the organization of the boy scouts of America with the Mormon leadership.
In addition Salt Lake tribunes from the 3rd of August, 1974:

„Briefly before boy scout's officials appeared on the Friday morning because of the accusation of the discrimination before the federal court, the church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints brought out a change of the politics, the black youngsters will permit to become Senior-scout leader, a position which was left up to now for white LDS youngsters in boy scout's groups which were promoted by the church... A church speaker said Friday that on the 'directives which are demonstrated in the statement also other young men, the not president of a deacon's quorum can become a senior scout leader if they are suitable better in addition.'“

A temple in Brazil was built, and it was impossible for the church leaders to think leader without BLACK BLOOD how the Deseret news reported about the 10th of June, 1978.
In addition Lester E. Bush jun. in Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought, spring, 1973, page 41 said:

„The decision, to everybody with black's forefathers 'to refuse the priesthood (no matter as remotely') had solved the theoretical problem of the suitability for the priesthood, but it didn't help in the practical problem to identify the 'blood of Cain' in those which aren't known yet for the fact that they have black's forefathers...
The growth of the international church brought quite clearly new problems. Brazil was especially difficult... J. Reuben Clark, the first counsellor to George Albert Smith reported that the church 'in the mission work in a new situation' entered... with is very difficult to say if not impossibly, who has black's blood and who not. He said that we if we baptized Brazilians we almost certainly baptize people with black's blood, and that we if the priesthood transfers to them what happens without doubt to a very serious problem face.“ Citation source: <http://www.negerundpriestertum.de.tl/BESSER-SP-Ae-T-ALS-NIE.htm>

And LeGrand Richards, an apostle (deceased in the meantime) meant about it:

„And I could say them what it caused as it were. There below in Brazil the population has so much black's blood that it is difficult to approach leader in which is no black's blood, and we have built there just a temple. He is initiated in October. Many people who have black's blood in themselves have got together the money for the temple construction. And if we don't change something, they can't use him, after he is built.“ (From an interview taken up on tape recorder, that LeGrand Richards gave at 16th of August, 1978 to Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos , cited in thee broschure of of DonaldS. Tingle, The Mormons, p. 23)

I mention two Propositions in what you quote from me. I don't know which you mean with the "This proposition started as a lie". The verbiage of the two is nearly identical, if not identical, where the language is the state recognizes the marriage of one man and one women. What is the lie?

I mean th second one:

And with lies I maqn all this false Information which wre made from church members, from NOM (which is suspect to be a hidden group build by the church as it was in Hawaii (see several church documents about this at the Internet, e.g. )

There is nowhere in the Bible where the text states: "homosexuality is not a sin". There are some gay advocates who attempt to reread some of the sexual stances of the text. These aren't particularly compelling or interesting. Moreover, they fail to take account of the larger traditions who produced the text and their long history of sexual ethics. Even so, the LDS Church on the subject is clear: homosexuality is a sin, even a gross sin.

No, it is proved by bible scientists (some of them are maybe gay or bisexual, but most of them are straight). Here you can found some answers to it:

White, Mel: What the Bible says and doesn’t say – about Homosexuality​

(PDF-File to download: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf) He is a Pastor which wrot for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell)​

​

Harrison, R K: Leviticus : an introduction and commentary.-​

Noth, Martin: Leviticus : a commentary​

​

Scroggs, Robin: The New Testament and homosexuality : contextual background for contemporary debate​

Skinner, John: A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis​

The New Layman's Bible Commentary in one volume​

Van Solms, A: Genesis. Deel 1.​

Von Rad, Gerhard: Genesis : a commentary.​

Westermann, Claus: Genesis 12-36 : a commentary.​

​

ALL of this books proof my statement!

 

[Witch of Hope]

I don't understand how your post above relates to my statement that the Church agrees with the larger notion the state (a political body) can regulate sexual relations. Both marriage and domestic partnerships are examples of state regulations. Regulation of sexual relations is within the state's purview. Such regulations should occur via the democratic process.

A question: Does a religion stand within or beyond national laws? Must a religion also keep the laws, or does the religion stands above or beyond the law? If a state permits the marriage for homosexuasl, may a religion go then, and people excommunicate who have entered such a marriage? Mormons and other "Christian" churches do nothing else in the USA! The State/Country determines who may marry, not a religion!

I'm not aware of any Official statements from the Church that the ban on Blacks would never change. I have read statements by various General Authorities from during the prohibition who said it would change during the Millennium (after Christ's return) or that the policy would one day change etc. Even so, polygamy is likely the better choice to go with if one wants to find precedent for dramatic changes. If one reads the rhetoric of the Church on the subject, the change was very much tied to a practical concession given the U.S. Government's moves against the Church's holdings and possible very existence as an organization. If the government opted for a stance where the Church must recognize gay marriages and then began seizing Church holdings and imprisoning those who refused to comply, that would move in the direction of what was happening during the late 19th Century with the Church. Of coarse, such would impact far more churches than just the LDS.

Here some quotes:

Bruce R. McConkie:

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned ... (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.477).

Mark E. Peterson:

"When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation" (Race Problems as They Affect the Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen, August 27, 1954).

Evning & Morning Star (July, 16, 1833):

"Having learned with extreme regret, that an article entitled, 'Free People of Color,' in the last number of the Star, has been misunderstood, we feel in duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church" (Reprinted in History of the Church, vol. 1, pp.378-79).

Brigham Young:

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham..." (New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue, Spring 1973, p.56).

John Lund, writer, LDS:

Brigham Young made a very strong statement on this matter when he 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." God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be to sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death.... It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same.... To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders" (The Church and the Negro, 1967, pp.54-55).

These words are louder than your try to support your church in this case.