- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Same-sex attraction can be overcome and any type of union other than marriage between a man and a woman is morally wrong, an LDS apostle told millions of Mormons on Sunday.
“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,” Boyd K. Packer, president of the church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles, said in a strongly worded sermon about the dangers of pornography and same-sex marriage. “A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. Do you think a vote to repeal the law of gravity would do any good?”
Packer, speaking from his seat because of his frail health, addressed more than 20,000 members gathered in the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City and millions more watching the faith’s 180th Semiannual General Conference via satellite.
The senior apostle drew on the church’s 1995 declaration, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” to support his view that the power to create offspring “is not an incidental part of the plan of happiness. It is the key — the very key.”
Some argue that “they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural,” he said. “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”
To a certain extent, morality always has and always will be legislated, no matter how atheistic you get.Based on Utah state law, they support injecting their morality into legal action to a high degree. Have you ever tried to buy a drink in Utah?
To a certain extent, morality always has and always will be legislated, no matter how atheistic you get.
I wonder to what extent the mormon leadership supports legislating morality.
Why stop at gay marriage? Include adultery, blasphemy, pre-marital sex, tithing less than 10%, heresy, using caffeine (coffee, soda), etc.
Why is it not enough for them to preach their beliefs and morality to their followers? Simply excommunicate or reprimand offenders. Why do they insist on blatently injecting their religion into our secular gov't?
Did you have a point or are you merely trying to smear all homosexuals?Anybody tried convincing a Group of Gays on the reverse of the above theme anytime lately(??) You will be overwhelmed by the Understanding, compassionate, multileveled tolerance and Intellectual astuteness.
That's not the way to the devout religious are programmed. Go forward and be fruitful also includes spreading the faith. If you aren't doing it then you are failing.
"Spreading the faith" can only be done with a sword? People must be forced into belief and conformance to christian morality through laws?
I thought "the word" is what is to be spread, not "the word" by the tip of a sword. To render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is gods" apparently what is caesar's is God's and what is god's is god's.
There is a difference between laws based on objective facts and those which are based on unverifiable claims, opinion, speculation, or holy book tales.Laws, all laws, are nothing more than morals with clubs. What they're doing is no different than what I'm trying to do-- we're just on opposite sides of this one.
There is a difference between laws based on objective facts and those which are based on unverifiable claims, opinion, speculation, or holy book tales.
E.G., (1) requiring vaccinations for school children to prevent the spread of disease and (2) banning the eating of pork to prevent offending the god believed to exist by some portion of society.
There is a difference between laws based on objective facts and those which are based on unverifiable claims, opinion, speculation, or holy book tales.
E.G., (1) requiring vaccinations for school children to prevent the spread of disease and (2) banning the eating of pork to prevent offending the god believed to exist by some portion of society.
I agree. A claim to "right" and "wrong" is a normative statement.There is no qualitative difference between your morals and mine. There is no objective measure of "right" and "wrong".
There is only which one of us is strong enough to get their morals passed into law.
Are you claiming that atheists are unable to create personal well-being in such respects? Or are you claiming that all atheists have faith-based systems (in which case your argument is moot)?All of those things serve a human function though. Faith-based systems create personal well being.
Why not be grounded in beliefs that can be confirmed and verified to exist in reality?I read a study not long ago that said people who are grounded in whatever it is they believe tend to have stronger immune systems. There is also tradition, history, and social structure interwoven into these systems.
In day-to-day life, I don't care either. But on a public debate forum, when someone claims to know "the Truth", I often challenge them to explain or "show me" how they know.I frankly don't care if someone believes in God, as long as they don't try to take measures to force me to believe in the things they do.
You are missing the point.#2 actually has a basis in human health. Many diseases that pigs have are transmittable to humans. Pigs were seen as unclean animals in ancient time for a reason. You have to put yourself in the context of an older epoch. They knew nothing about the microscoping world, and God was the basis of knowledge and explanation for practically everything. (By "they" I tend to refer to the people in regions where the Abrahamic faiths all sprung up.) People probably observed things about pigs that were unhealthy and then attributed it to God's will; then that got written into scripture. Just because the explanation may be faulty, doesn't mean there is no underlying reason.
I have no knowledge of the validity of the "field of health" you are in beyond your testimony. If you claim to know effective treatments then there are hundreds of medical grad students desperately searching for new treatments to jettison them into the medical field. Often, such claims do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny but that does not stop believers from believing.Also, there was science before the modern version of science existed. Logical explanations take on different forms that don't necessarily correspond to modern structures. The field of health I'm in is a testament to that. One must be very careful to not write off systems that have inherently useful knowledge on the basis that they seem whimsical compared to your system. You could be tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
Considering how long the Mormons officially sanctioned racism against Blacks on theological grounds, it isn't exactly surprising that they would take a similar view against homosexuality. Eventually the social pressure will probably force them to change their stance just like they did with the "mark of Cain" but unfortunately the day is some time away.
Same Sex Marriage is a different thing because there was no deluge of Blacks into the Church right after the change - but militant Gays and their legal teams have had a Bulls Eye on the LDS Church for some time now - so eventually even if every State permis Gay Marriage - it will not rest there.
What are you trying to say? That gays are going to "invade" the Mormon religion some how?
The gays are coming! The gays are coming! Everyone, to the life rafts!! Throw them your wine coolers while we make good our escape!!What are you trying to say? That gays are going to "invade" the Mormon religion some how?
I know. Those missionary uniforms are so 1982! [/lisp]Lord knows the LDS need an invasion of fabulous style.
I know. Those missionary uniforms are so 1982! [/lisp]
That's because they're all purchased at Mr. Mac.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?