If God does exist, then why is hiding from us?

Originally posted by Regret
No, I do not believe it to be discrimination as many use the term. Women choose to follow these guidelines, discrimination would be the Church actively acting against women that do not or women being punished for not living these guidelines, such is not the case.

I do disagree with the use of the term, for the exact reason I describe.

So if people don't follow the guidelines recommended is there any form of social weight put on them as they act against the advised norms?

Obviously here in Australia there was a relatively recent case where gay men were refused the whole communion because they were gay (they were identified as gay by the minister in question as they were wearing the gay pride sashes.)

While I know the Mormon Church differs a lot form many of the other Christian Church's out there do they differ here to? That is lack the "social punishment" avenue where individuals risk being ostracised socially/religiously due to their choices (being openly gay or leaving the family, or putting work/education before the family etc?)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So if people don't follow the guidelines recommended is there any form of social weight put on them as they act against the advised norms?

If you are asking if the LDS Church prescribes social weight being placed on individuals for acting outside the advice of the Church, no there is not.

If you are asking if people in the Church behave in a similar manner to people outside of the Church, and treat people in the Church differently when those people do not behave in the manner that is viewed as proper, yes, such does occur. People are people. I am sure that there is a curve that fits the level of behaviors, I am not sure where it lies, but I would assume that it is similar to any other culture.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Obviously here in Australia there was a relatively recent case where gay men were refused the whole communion because they were gay (they were identified as gay by the minister in question as they were wearing the gay pride sashes.)

The LDS Church is against the practice of homosexuality. Although, if a person does not practice or condone such behavior, that person is allowed to maintain membership. The Church does not advise negative behavior towards such an individual. If a person practices homosexuality, that individual will most likely be excommunicated, and all activities within the Church will be restricted.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
While I know the Mormon Church differs a lot form many of the other Christian Church's out there do they differ here to? That is lack the "social punishment" avenue where individuals risk being ostracised socially/religiously due to their choices (being openly gay or leaving the family, or putting work/education before the family etc?)

Religion is a choice, as are the behaviors accepted to be a part of that religion. Any social group has behaviors that one would risk being ostracized for violating. Some groups ostracize you if you "rat" on another, some groups ostracize you if you speak out of turn, some groups ostracize you because you state a disagreement with an aspect of its philosophy.

Homosexuality is another topic and is stretching your argument beyond the relatively simple subject of family. It delves into sexual morality.

A homosexual should still be accepted as an individual, as a part of a family, as a friend, as whatever he/she was prior to "coming out." But, as far as religious activity, that individual will not be allowed to participate in religious activities where the individual plays a role. A homosexual could go to our meetings, but they would not be given responsibility, and would be counseled to not partake of the sacrament. A practicing homosexual is stating that he/she does not want to behave as the Church is teaching to behave, that person is choosing not to be a part of that religious group.

Our belief on the sacrament is that it is a renewing of baptismal covenants. As such, homosexual activity does not comply with those covenants, to partake of the sacrament would be a lie for that person.

No one would stop that individual though, unless the individual was overtly interrupting the activities, or speaking against the activities at times that are improper and disrespecting the experience for others.

Now, people are people. You cannot expect people to be something else. I would hope that the LDS people would stand above the norm, but I am realistic and know that there are those who do not. People, by nature pressure others to conform. A professor of mine, an atheist by theological bent, asserted that if you wanted to be like a specific type of person you should spend time with them. They will shape you through various overt and covert reinforcement of proper behaviors and punish your improper behaviors, within that groups behavior schema. This is a fact. You cannot separate religion from other cultural/societal groups and say that it must not follow the same patterns as the rest of these groups, religion is merely a group of people that want and strive to behave a certain way, it is not a group of people that behave that way.

I will not get into a debate on homosexuality. I believe such is a waste of my time. I have stated my views on it.

Originally posted by The Disagreer
His faith wavered even when he was in the presence of the Lord. He looked straight at Jesus and then at the water and fell. It just goes to show that he live by faith not by sight.

Yes.... 😐

Originally posted by Regret
You cannot separate religion from other cultural/societal groups and say that it must not follow the same patterns as the rest of these groups, religion is merely a group of people that want and strive to behave a certain way, it is not a group of people that behave that way.

Excluding the useless diatribe, So you would then approve of the FLDS and their continued practice of polygamy? You would think this practice should be protected as a religious institution?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

If God is defined as something which created us, then it is not hiding, its everywhere around us. Mother earth, Universe - it created us, so it is, by deffinition a God...unless you have a different deffinition of what God is.

Originally posted by Regret
The LDS Church is against the practice of homosexuality. Although, if a person does not practice or condone such behavior, that person is allowed to maintain membership. The Church does not advise negative behavior towards such an individual. If a person practices homosexuality, that individual will most likely be excommunicated, and all activities within the Church will be restricted.

You see Regret....you can be so logical at times, and then you make a statement like this.... ❌

How can you think the Church excommunicating a homosexual is a just act? The homosexual is just as much a sinner as any of the heterosexuals that are members of the Church.

Do you mean to tell me that homosexuality is SO sinful that it outweighs any of the sins of all the other heterosexual members ?

Or are you going to argue that the heterosexual members of the LDS Church are NOT sinners in some way....?

If homosexuality is a sin, then obviously the homosexual is a sinner...if a sinner cannot practice in the Church, then ALL SINNERS should not be allowed to participate..not just homosexual sinners.

Originally posted by Regret
Religion is a choice, as are the behaviors accepted to be a part of that religion. Any social group has behaviors that one would risk being ostracized for violating. Some groups ostracize you if you "rat" on another, some groups ostracize you if you speak out of turn, some groups ostracize you because you state a disagreement with an aspect of its philosophy.

I think it would be revolutionary when we have a religion that does not aim to judge anyone that way...oh wait...we already have Buddhism 😉

Originally posted by Regret
Homosexuality is another topic and is stretching your argument beyond the relatively simple subject of family. It delves into sexual morality.

Yes, yes we heard this a million times....what's your point? There are more "sins" than just homosexuality, why would you only target homosexuality and ignore the other sins that exist within the members of the church ?

Since when is a heterosexual automatically more moral than a homosexual ?

Originally posted by Regret
A homosexual should still be accepted as an individual, as a part of a family, as a friend, as whatever he/she was prior to "coming out." But, as far as religious activity, that individual will not be allowed to participate in religious activities where the individual plays a role. A homosexual could go to our meetings, but they would not be given responsibility, and would be counseled to not partake of the sacrament. A practicing homosexual is stating that he/she does not want to behave as the Church is teaching to behave, that person is choosing not to be a part of that religious group.

If a homosexual stops having gay sex, he or she is STILL homosexual...the same way you would STILL be heterosexual even if you stopped having sex all together....

According to the logic of your wording, homosexuals can never participate in your Church.

And at the same time, how do you know that all the heterosexuals are living exactly the way your Church is teaching? You don't...the Church is just simply making guesses and discriminating based on sexual orientation, using that as the example.

Originally posted by Regret
Our belief on the sacrament is that it is a renewing of baptismal covenants. As such, homosexual activity does not comply with those covenants, to partake of the sacrament would be a lie for that person.

I understand, and i am not going to argue that homosexuality is "okay" because we are never going to agree...i get it already.

However....this statement is implying that all heterosexual members are not only good people, but that they're NOT sinners...is that even possible?

Do you really beleive that alll the heterosexual members of the Church are THAT committed to living a non sinful life, that they will never commit a sin ?

Originally posted by Regret
No one would stop that individual though, unless the individual was overtly interrupting the activities, or speaking against the activities at times that are improper and disrespecting the experience for others.

But do you really think that all homosexuals are going to be disrespectful and not commit ? I dont understand how you can want to ban homosexuals from Church activity, YET at the same time you want them to be SAVED ?????

Originally posted by Regret
Now, people are people. You cannot expect people to be something else. I would hope that the LDS people would stand above the norm, but I am realistic and know that there are those who do not. People, by nature pressure others to conform. A professor of mine, an atheist by theological bent, asserted that if you wanted to be like a specific type of person you should spend time with them. They will shape you through various overt and covert reinforcement of proper behaviors and punish your improper behaviors, within that groups behavior schema. This is a fact. You cannot separate religion from other cultural/societal groups and say that it must not follow the same patterns as the rest of these groups, religion is merely a group of people that want and strive to behave a certain way, it is not a group of people that behave that way.

Ofcourse bro, i totally agree. Religion is a human construct just like every other cultural deal.

Originally posted by Regret
I will not get into a debate on homosexuality. I believe such is a waste of my time. I have stated my views on it.

Why is it a waste of your time?

Women are encouraged to pursue their careers and marriage

Originally posted by Alliance
Excluding the useless diatribe, So you would then approve of the FLDS and their continued practice of polygamy? You would think this practice should be protected as a religious institution?

I am unsure of how much of their beliefs have changed from the LDS beliefs. Joseph Smith stated the Articles of Faith, and they hold him as a prophet. The 12th Article of Faith is:

Articles of Faith

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Polygamy is against the law. This is the central reason for the LDS Church having eventually ending the practice of polygamy. We ended the practice through revelation, but, the central reason for the end was that the two beliefs came into conflict. I do not approve of the FLDS and their continued practice of polygamy, their continued practice conflicts with the Articles of Faith and thus the Articles of Faith must be held invalid by them, as well as any need to live within the law.

I believe that polygamy should be allowed by law, especially if other relationships are tolerated by the law. I believe there are many behaviors that should not be covered by protection of religious freedom.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You see Regret....you can be so logical at times, and then you make a statement like this.... ❌

How can you think the Church excommunicating a homosexual is a just act? The homosexual is just as much a sinner as any of the heterosexuals that are members of the Church.

Do you mean to tell me that homosexuality is SO sinful that it outweighs any of the sins of all the other heterosexual members ?

Or are you going to argue that the heterosexual members of the LDS Church are NOT sinners in some way....?

If homosexuality is a sin, then obviously the homosexual is a sinner...if a sinner cannot practice in the Church, then ALL SINNERS should not be allowed to participate..not just homosexual sinners.

Sins that cause one to become excommunicated include breaking the sexual laws, as well as others. There are various sins we view as too strong to allow activity while committing. We want them to be good people, but influence within the Church by such people must be limited until they repent. We don't single out homosexuals. I have an uncle that was excommunicated for adultery, heterosexual activity outside of marriage is punished as heavily as homosexual activity. Sexual immorality is second only to the sin against the Holy Spirit in our beliefs. Sexual immorality is activity outside the bounds of marriage. Since we do not believe that one can marry another of the same gender, and do not recognize such, homosexuality falls into the category of sexual immorality.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Since when is a heterosexual automatically more moral than a homosexual ?

Sexual activity outside of marriage is less moral than sexual activity within marriage. My religion does not recognize homosexual marriage. It isn't the sexual orientation, it is where the activity occurs.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If a homosexual stops having gay sex, he or she is STILL homosexual...the same way you would STILL be heterosexual even if you stopped having sex all together....

If the homosexual stops having gay sex and does not condone homosexuality, what makes him a homosexual? And I don't care about the thoughts and such or your personal internal observation of yourself. Neither is something that can be held as valid evidence, both are subjective and assuming something that cannot be shown to exist.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think it would be revolutionary when we have a religion that does not aim to judge anyone that way...oh wait...we already have Buddhism 😉

Lol, that is amusing. Buddhists are not all judgemental, but there are judgemental Buddhists, people are people.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, yes we heard this a million times....what's your point? There are more "sins" than just homosexuality, why would you only target homosexuality and ignore the other sins that exist within the members of the church ?

We do not target homosexuality. Sexual immorality is merely a sin that we believes requires more extreme measures than many other sins.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
According to the logic of your wording, homosexuals can never participate in your Church.

Not in an active role, no.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And at the same time, how do you know that all the heterosexuals are living exactly the way your Church is teaching? You don't...the Church is just simply making guesses and discriminating based on sexual orientation, using that as the example.

Addressed above.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I understand, and i am not going to argue that homosexuality is "okay" because we are never going to agree...i get it already.

That is good.

[QUOTE=7426899]Originally posted by Lord Urizen
However....this statement is implying that all heterosexual members are not only good people, but that they're NOT sinners...is that even possible?

Addressed above. I spoke to the topic of homosexuality, I did not limit sins that are punished in this manner to only homosexual behavior, you inferred that due to homosexuality being the sin discussed.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you really beleive that alll the heterosexual members of the Church are THAT committed to living a non sinful life, that they will never commit a sin ?

I do not believe that the members of my Church are perfect individuals. If they are active in the Church, then yes they should be committed to trying to lead as sinless a life as possible. That is not saying that anyone is sinless or even nearly sinless, it is only saying that that is the goal being worked towards. They should be committed to trying to be good people, and good is defined here as following the teachings of the Church. Whether they are or not is not the point, they should be.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But do you really think that all homosexuals are going to be disrespectful and not commit ? I dont understand how you can want to ban homosexuals from Church activity, YET at the same time you want them to be SAVED ?????

I did not state that they would be. I merely stated that if they were disrespectful, they would not be welcome. There is a homosexual man that attends our Sacrament meeting weekly, he is quiet and sometimes attends the classes following. He does not speak out disrespectfully. He is accepted there, but he will never hold a position within the structure of the Church.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Ofcourse bro, i totally agree. Religion is a human construct just like every other cultural deal.

I believe that religion was instituted by God, I merely believe that the population of religion is composed of people. As such, you cannot separate those people from people not of their group and expect one to have dissimilar tendencies. The curves may shift as to their central tendency, but the curves will still exist.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
🙂

Why is it a waste of your time?

It is pointless to debate homosexuality because it is something my religion views as wrong. Regardless of philosophical discussion that will not change, and so I will remain within the same view on the subject as my religion. I will remain within it and not try to deviate because neither side of the debate impacts my life. There is no need for me to assess the validity of the stance because I don't care one way or the other about the topic, and don't plan to start caring about the topic. As such I will follow the stance of the religion.

My statements addressed homosexuality because that is what Imperial Samura directly asked about. My statements do not imply anything other than the fact that we strongly disagree with homosexuality, as I mentioned above.

Originally posted by debbiejo
OH, you mean subservient to their men.

My wife disagrees with your assessment.

Originally posted by Regret
My wife disagrees with your assessment.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh, maybe she tells you so, but according to your scriptures a man is ahead of the woman in every way...........she can only suggest, but you are the one that will lead the belief?.............I'm I wrong.???.........if so, let me know.

You are wrong. In Mormon family structure and authority, husband and wife are equal in all aspects.

What if your wife wanted to read books outside your faith?.................and the books were from the original source instead of the churches view of books that should be read .................and avoided...........would you permit her to bring them into the house?

Originally posted by debbiejo
What if your wife wanted to read books outside your faith?.................and the books were from the original source instead of the churches view of books that should be read .................and avoided...........would you permit her to bring them into the house?

Other than pornography, I am unaware of any books that the LDS Church believes should or should not be read.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:118

118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

As to would I permit her, why would I have a right to deny her? Your question does not make sense.

An intelligent person would study all views of any opinion that impacts their own life in some way. If she found error with our beliefs that would sway her, I should investigate it as well.

Your question assumes that I hold authority to tell her what she can or cannot do, such is not the case. Neither does she have that authority. Although, we do compromise with each other's views often, but I believe that is the key to success in marriage.

Originally posted by Regret
Sins that cause one to become excommunicated include breaking the sexual laws, as well as others. There are various sins we view as too strong to allow activity while committing. We want them to be good people, but influence within the Church by such people must be limited until they repent. We don't single out homosexuals. I have an uncle that was excommunicated for adultery, heterosexual activity outside of marriage is punished as heavily as homosexual activity. Sexual immorality is second only to the sin against the Holy Spirit in our beliefs. Sexual immorality is activity outside the bounds of marriage. Since we do not believe that one can marry another of the same gender, and do not recognize such, homosexuality falls into the category of sexual immorality.

We already established how homosexuality is defined as immorality in your religion....that's fine with me, because I am not part of your religion, so I am not bound by such restrictions.

For me it's no sin, because to me your religious perspective of "SIN" and "Heaven" is just mythology....as long as you understand that, then we can come to mutually agree to disagree...

Originally posted by Regret
If the homosexual stops having gay sex and does not condone homosexuality, what makes him a homosexual? And I don't care about the thoughts and such or your personal internal observation of yourself. Neither is something that can be held as valid evidence, both are subjective and assuming something that cannot be shown to exist.

HE is still a homosexual, the same way YOU Are still heterosexual regardless of whether or not you contine having sex.

Answer me seriously...if you chose to become celebate...no sex for the rest of your life....does that mean you would no longer be straight ?

I am telling you from personal experience, i knew what i was before i even became sexually active. I know myself...i know that regardless of what i do in the future, I am bisexual, and probably always will be.

I also couldn't change it, even if i WANTED TO....

Originally posted by Regret
It is pointless to debate homosexuality because it is something my religion views as wrong. Regardless of philosophical discussion that will not change, and so I will remain within the same view on the subject as my religion. I will remain within it and not try to deviate because neither side of the debate impacts my life. There is no need for me to assess the validity of the stance because I don't care one way or the other about the topic, and don't plan to start caring about the topic. As such I will follow the stance of the religion.

I am glad you admit that you couldn't care less. You don't have to bro, but im glad that you finally admit it, atleast to me, because that is the crux of the matter in my eyes.

You don't care...that simple. It means nothing to you, because it impacts your life in no way whatsoever...

meaning you lack true empathy, meaning you choose to remain narrow minded and beleive in something you ahve no evidense for, and you do it willingly....

that's your choice...fine.

But then.....since you admit that you do not care....you have no right to render any judgement or create any kind of restriction for someone who is homosexual or bisexual, since you do not even have thier best interests in your heart.

Originally posted by Regret
My statements addressed homosexuality because that is what Imperial Samura directly asked about. My statements do not imply anything other than the fact that we strongly disagree with homosexuality, as I mentioned above.

You disagree with it because your religion condemns it...that's fine. There's nothing I can do about it, and i couldnt' care less whether or not you approve, because likewise, your beleif it affects me in no way.

You can beleive whatever you want, and if any homosexual is stupid enough to WANT to have an active role in your Church, then let him or her enter thier own misery...its thier choice.

However....if you go beyond keeping your religion within your church, by publicly speaking out against homosexuality, and voting to ban gay marriage and limit gay rights...then you and i have a problem, because THEN it would effect me....just understand that.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Answer me seriously...if you chose to become celebate...no sex for the rest of your life....does that mean you would no longer be straight ?

It would make you A-sexual.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
We already established how homosexuality is defined as immorality in your religion....that's fine with me, because I am not part of your religion, so I am not bound by such restrictions.

For me it's no sin, because to me your religious perspective of "SIN" and "Heaven" is just mythology....as long as you understand that, then we can come to mutually agree to disagree...

Agreed

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
HE is still a homosexual, the same way YOU Are still heterosexual regardless of whether or not you contine having sex.

Answer me seriously...if you chose to become celebate...no sex for the rest of your life....does that mean you would no longer be straight ?

I would say yes, I would no longer be straight. Is a eunuch gay or straight? If you are celibate, you are not participating in sexuality, and thus are not within the realm at all. I believe that your actions define you to other people, your thoughts may be one thing, but no one else is capable of knowing what they are.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am glad you admit that you couldn't care less. You don't have to bro, but im glad that you finally admit it, atleast to me, because that is the crux of the matter in my eyes.

I have never stated that I cared about the matter.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You don't care...that simple. It means nothing to you, because it impacts your life in no way whatsoever...

meaning you lack true empathy, meaning you choose to remain narrow minded and beleive in something you ahve no evidense for, and you do it willingly....

that's your choice...fine.

But then.....since you admit that you do not care....you have no right to render any judgement or create any kind of restriction for someone who is homosexual or bisexual, since you do not even have thier best interests in your heart.

Yes, I lack empathy for the plight of the homosexual. This does not necessitate me not having their best interest in my heart, it only necessitates my view of their best interests not being in line with theirs.

I do not believe in judging others. I do not view their ability to participate in my religions activities a judgement. Participation in my religions activities is voluntary as is the individuals behavior, if one is in conflict with the other a choice must be made. Just because they don't like that does not mean the religion should change, they must decide where they stand. If they do not stop the behavior, religious aspects that conflict with their behaviors must be withheld. In the case of homosexuality, nearly all of the aspects of LDS doctrine are in conflict with such behavior.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You disagree with it because your religion condemns it...that's fine. There's nothing I can do about it, and i couldnt' care less whether or not you approve, because likewise, your beleif it affects me in no way.

You can beleive whatever you want, and if any homosexual is stupid enough to WANT to have an active role in your Church, then let him or her enter thier own misery...its thier choice.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
However....if you go beyond keeping your religion within your church, by publicly speaking out against homosexuality, and voting to ban gay marriage and limit gay rights...then you and i have a problem, because THEN it would effect me....just understand that.

I do have an issue with legalizing homosexual unions, in that I do not believe any union should be given special legal consideration unless there are benefits or rational reasons for doing so, including heterosexual unions, which I believe have both. But we have discussed this, and we disagree.

Now, I avoid the homosexuality threads for the most part. But if I am asked a question concerning the topic I will present my opinion/beliefs, as I have done here.

Other than pornography, I am unaware of any books that the LDS Church believes should or should not be read.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It would make you A-sexual.

No it doesn't. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

You are wrong. In Mormon family structure and authority, husband and wife are equal in all aspects

Thanks for answering the rest, as to this - it is believed that the family should come first? But theoretically it would be possible for a Mormon women to persue a career and leave home care to the husband, or even a nanny/etc?

While it is advised against, there is nothing stopping a family working like this?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Thanks for answering the rest, as to this - it is believed that the family should come first? But theoretically it would be possible for a Mormon women to persue a career and leave home care to the husband, or even a nanny/etc?

While it is advised against, there is nothing stopping a family working like this?

It is how my wife and I did things for a couple of years, it is advised against, but nothing says it cannot be like this. Although, women in the Church do not like this type of setup, they view it as the man's position to work. My wife received some negative comments from women due to this.