An open letter to Mormons going into apoplectic shock over the ruling about same sex marriage in Utah. First of all, Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it?

Okay, you’re spewing pious indignation, and a little spittle too. Now, before you make yourself look any more stupid, consider your remarks in the context of what Christian doctrine actually is. Oh, before I go on, you’re still claiming you’re Christian, right?

Christians, for the most part, believe the Old Testament is the ancient word of God given to Israel through prophets. Israel was given the Ten Commandments. Also, in the Torah, hundreds of other laws were given to them, including the one you are spouting about homosexuality. You don’t know what the Torah is? Not gonna explain it. If you’re quoting it, you should know. Look it up yourself.

Christians also believe that the Son of God came to fulfill the Old Law, to do away with it. During the time the Savior taught, he repeatedly emphasized this idea. The Old Law was done away with. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Light.

So, by his word, the Old Testament is no longer binding doctrine. It becomes a book of stories, both inspirational and terrifying. Some of its stories are historical.

So, I believe this leaves three different ways of looking Old Testament doctrine.
1. Christ specifically and intentionally contradicted doctrine. In the Old Testament, not honoring the Sabbath was grounds for a death sentence. In fact, a story is told of a man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath and was stoned to death (Numbers 15: 32-36). And yet, when accused of violating the Sabbath for gathering corn, Christ declared the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). The Old Testament law mandating death could be considered null and void. The Son of God intentionally violated it to prove a point.
2. The Savior reemphasized the doctrine. (Matthew 5:21-22) “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” He reiterates the importance of the commandment not to kill and then even goes a little bit further, recommending that loving our neighbor is a good idea here.
3. He completely ignores the doctrine. Did the Son of Man ever address the sins of eating shellfish or the sin of wearing multiple types of fabric? No, he did not. It is apparent he didn’t think these were important.

I think most Christians believe the Savior had power over death. He gave his message to the people and did not allow his life to be taken until he had delivered all the words he wanted to say. So, what were his thoughts regarding homosexuality? As near as I can tell, he did not ever address the subject. He did not do anything to contradict the Old Testament condemnations against homosexuality. He did not reemphasize it. He ignored it. This tells me he wasn’t terribly concerned about it.

The four gospels are silent on the subject. But the New Testament is not silent on the subject. Paul addresses it on more than one occasion and that is all the proof needed, right?
I would disagree. Let us consider Paul for a moment. After the death of Judas, Peter called for a vote to replace him. Matthias was chosen to become the new twelfth apostle.

And then, before any more of them dies, Paul becomes an apostle, outside the knowledge or influence of any of the others. His conversion story (of which there are multiple, contradictory accounts) is not independently verified. This 13th apostle takes over the New Testament, adding much strange doctrine, including the idea that women cannot teach men, women either must cover their hair in church or shave their heads, and if they have any gospel questions, they should ask their husbands. I have little confidence in the words of Paul.
Don’t believe that stuff I just said about Paul? Don’t be lazy and ask someone else about it, look it up yourself.

And so, we are back at the beginning. We have no New Testament quotes by the Son of God condemning homosexuality. And so...I say it is not possible to use the Bible to make an argument against homosexuality.

“Wait!”, the shrill voice of the Mormons cry, “we have the words of the modern prophets denouncing homosexuality.”
Nope. They got it wrong on Blacks and the priesthood; they got it wrong on polygamy (and everything else for that matter). The credibility of Mormon prophets is tanking like a Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme.

And lastly, if you go back to ransacking the New Testament for your proof, take a minute to read the story of the Good Samaritan. What was the answer to the question ‘who is my neighbor?’
Turns out EVERYONE is your neighbor, even people you’ve hated just because others told you to. Hmm...maybe the Son of God did have something to say about homosexuality.

I'm on it.
make it a petition, and I'll sign.

LDS, Inc. is 99% devoid of Christian values-principles.

This is one of the greatest and truest posts I've ever seen. I already knew of some of the verses and have long been an opponent to Paul and his teachings (both those in the Bible and those stories NOT in the Bible) but some of this is new information to me. I can't wait to get started researching a little more about some of this.

Thanks for posting, I've got some studying to do!

Bravo. My hat is off to you. I have to read it again.

The only flaw is that you are attempting to use logic and reason on the teflon coated Mormon mind, and that is like herding cats.
Well, actually herding cats is at least possible.

The Christians who decided how to put together and canonize the NT saw fit to keep Paul's epistles in the mix, so Christians who take the Church's canonization process as legit and NT as authoritative oughtn't be particularly persuaded by the Paul-bashing, however much I might agree with it (I'm not Christian).

Instead, Paul's condemnation of arsenokoitai and malakoi ("s___ites" and "catamites") can readily be looked at as condemnation of specific cultural phenomena of his day which don't have any important similarity to loving, consensual relationship between men of equal legal status. (Robin Scroggs, Pauline scholar, did benchmark research on this.) Consider the Presbyterian Affirmation of Conscience Regarding G-6.0106b written by Scott D. Anderson from some years back, in which he states, speaking of the Heidelberg Confession:

"it is clear that the aim of the confessions as a whole is to echo the biblical witness, which condemns the exploitative and idolatrous same-gender behaviors that were predominant in the ancient world. I fully support our church’s confessions as they give voice to this biblical teaching. But I do not believe the behaviors referenced by these condemnations are the same thing as the faithful, covenanted, life-long same-gender partnerships that we see in today’s world among gay and lesbian Christians."

Mr. Anderson's whole Affirmation of Conscience is worth Googling and reading.

Whether or not someone believes homosexuality is a sin, hating the sinner is contrary to what Jesus DID teach.

Also, judging is completely contrary to what Jesus taught, most famously in his mote/beam parable, which is taught in Mormon Sunday School and then summarily ignored.

Arguing that Mormons cannot condemn homosexuality based on the teachings of Jesus Christ implies that Mormons consider the teachings of Jesus Christ to have weight.

This is clearly not true. To my own shock, and to anyone who is reading this if you have never heard it, I was told by church authorities that Jesus Christ had it right FOR HIS TIME.

We (meaning the Mormon church and it's prophet) have it right for our time.

Based on widely accepted definitions, superseding the words of God is blasphemy.


Kathleen Waters

"This is clearly not true. To my own shock, and to anyone who is reading this if you have never heard it, I was told by church authorities that Jesus Christ had it right FOR HIS TIME.

We (meaning the Mormon church and it's prophet) have it right for our time.

Based on widely accepted definitions, superseding the words of God is blasphemy."

TBM's have no problem with this because they're biblical literalists. They believe that the jealous, vengeful, murderous god of the OT was the same Jesus that came to teach a higher law. They have no problem believing that god changes with the times, even though they would argue at the same time that god never changes.

Try telling a TBM that you have no desire to become a god in the next life, and that you couldn't condemn 1/3 of your spirit children from the start, kill all men/women/children for their wickedness, etc... I've brought this up to TBM's and only got back their thoughts on "justice", and how it would be hard, but it would be necessary, blah, blah, blah. Well, that sounds like hell to me. If you're right, good luck with that.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/25/Divided-Federal-Appeals-Court-Strikes-Down-Utah-s-Marriage-Law

Divided Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Utah's Marriage Law

FTA:
"Despite the fact that neither marriage nor homosexuality is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the appeals court majority concluded that the Constitution includes a fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.
The court added that there is no constitutional right to polygamy, but did so without explaining its rationale separating the two non-traditional types of marriage. One week before the district court struck down Utah’s man-woman marriage law, a different federal judge in Utah struck down that state’s law criminalizing marriage to more than one person."


So, there's the slippery slope, but as of this moment, it is not that slippery.
Maybe later, though.
I bet Utah takes this to the Supreme Court now.
Ir onic it might be Utah that nails the coffin shut on this issue.

What a great letter! Bravo...nice job.

Thank you for your letter, I will be showing it to DH hopefully it will open his eyes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 10:56PM by eldorado.

Love for God & neighbor are the central values of Christ-Like living, all the law & prophets.


with Love, people don't:

-violence against others, hate, steal, etc.

-be dishonest

-take advantage of others

-Live the golden rule & parable of Good Samaritan.

Mormonism, OTOH, lives 'the law of Exceptions', neatly crafted to explain breaking Anything they feel like living-doing; the word 'Expedient' is in their scriptures.


Besides: SSM isn't a threat to hetro marriages, Divorce (which is often church-sanctioned) is; Got That, LD$, Inc?

just sayin'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2014 01:18AM by GNPE.

What a perfectly written letter!!! Coming from a TBM family with 2 gay brothers these words are definitely welcome!! Lucky for me my family accepts my brothers (and their partners) and loves them as Christ taught. I wish every TBM family could read this AND have gay brothers or sisters to set them straight!

If you're actually going to show this to mormons, I recommend editing the first few paragraphs, since they might come off as loaded, and mormons are very sensitive with what they read (if the suspect "anti", they'll just refuse to read it). Something like this might be better:

"An open letter to members of the LDS church upset over the ruling about same sex marriage in Utah.

Now, considering the LDS church considers itself Christian, I invite you to consider your remarks in the context of what Christian doctrine actually is.

Christians, for the most part, believe the Old Testament is the ancient word of God given to Israel through prophets. Israel was given the Ten Commandments. Also, in the Torah, hundreds of other laws were given to them, including the one you are quoting about homosexuality. If you don't know what the Torah is, you should do some research about it."

NOBODY (mormon or non-mormon) will respond well to a letter that calls them stupid.

It's a good letter overall though. I agree with it.

Well done and even better if it has a "come let us reason together" tone.

Kathleen Waters

This is great. I'm saving this...maybe even going to memorize it.
Why did I not know, nor ever heard that Paul appointed HIMSELF an apostle? Very enlightening. Thank you, Keep writing!!!