The Mormon Church Makes A Huge Anti-LGBT Statement

I have to say, did you notice Kathleen only came back to attack me with innuendo. Not to admit what I said about what she said was totally accurate or to admit she was wrong. Was she wrong? Since she's gone and doesn't want to contribute (translation deceive) further let's take a closer look at her tactics for the sake of the lesson to be learned here.

Kathleen says to John's comment, "Restricting gay scout masters is not the definition of being careful. Look at statistics and find that most sexual predators are heterosexual."

What John said,"A number of scout masters have been convicted of sexual abuse of boys in their care." was totally correct, and what she said, "that most sexual predators are heterosexual" using it as some sort of significant statistic is pure deception and laughable. When the number of homosexuals is such a (tiny) minority of course most predators will be heterosexual. The significant statistic, which by the way she ignores, is that the "tiny percentage of the population [homosexual men], commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation." which shows her statement to be totally irrelevant. Yet she makes that her argument? A straw man if I ever saw one. But that's not all. She says,

"My Southern Baptist Church has abandoned their 75-year-old scout troop for fear of attracting homosexuals."

She finds "this action non-Christian at its core?" That's priceless, a so called "christian" who's ashamed of her church shepherding it's flock. If anyone's action is non christian it is hers. So what is her idea of Christianity? Giving homosexual pedophiles a free reign to prey upon innocent boy scouts?

She says, "How many young men will now not come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through this contact with our church."

There are hundreds of ways for youngsters to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and also through other contacts with her church. Her church? If she's a church member there they need to have a serious talk with her. Maybe invite her to an actual Bible study because it is obvious she has never done that. On top of that just how does an episode of pedophilia lead a child to Christ if it happens when it could have been easily avoided.

She says her church is acting "out of Fear and ignorance?" That's her attacking and labeling the messenger, no different than playing a race card. That church is actually being the good shepherd, protecting it's innocent sheep from unnecessary exposure to wolves. By her stated reasoning she would prefer to have "her" church provide a killing field for Satan!

Then she raises another straw man, comparing pedophiles to obese people! That is simply unbelievable, but knowing her as I do, totally not unexpected. Jesus said of anyone who would harm a child "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." He did not equate harming children with obesity! Proverbs says "Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags." A warning for your protection, not a torturous judgement! Does she not understand pedophilia is incurable and as evil an assault as there is on a child yet she compares it to a bad habit that harms no one but the person who is obese?

Kathleen always takes these loony stances on subjects, bashing Christians and conservatives and I wonder how she can do that with a conscience. But that is exactly what's to be expected of someone who supports abortion which says it all about HER "Christianity." A wolf in sheep's clothing if you ask me.

Given the state of the media today I am not surprised to find she was a newspaper reporter and editor - she fits in with that crowd of left wing self-deluded deceivers working for today's fake news media.

Well said Ralph.

Kathleen, yeah, you are right, but just as always with you, what you just said, implying it applies to your behavior, again is a lie, another straw man. That is all you how how to do, then you disappear or as in this instance try to change the subject. Describing to a tee your repeated behavior is not an insult, merely an observation meant to reveal a dishonest and deceiving nature.

Carolyn,

You seem to be arguing against a statement that I did not make. I merely said that one does not choose to be gay - although you might find a few people who say that they did. I did not venture any particular reason why this might be so - genetic, environmental, or anything else.

So are you denying the fact and are you saying that the majority of gay people have made a conscious choice to adopt a certain sexuality? That would be a very hard line to defend, surely!

John W.,

Let's get THIS straight once and for all . . . there is no consensus in the scientific community regarding genetic predisposition to homosexuality. From a 2016 John Hopkins report:

"The three-part, 143-page report, which appeared in the Fall 2016 edition of The New Atlantis, also investigated other commonly accepted ideas about homosexuality and transgenderism. The report found insufficient evidence to back up the idea that people are born with innate sexual attractions. Mayer and McHugh examined past studies which show a modest association between genetic factors and sexual orientation, but these studies have not been able to pinpoint particular genes responsible. Other hypothesized biological causes, such as prenatal development and hormones, have also been linked to sexual orientation, but that evidence is also limited. Studies of the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found some differences, but have not demonstrated that these differences are inborn rather than the result of environmental factors that influenced both psychological and neurobiological traits."

There is more here:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopk...

Okay, now you show me YOUR report that says the opposite. And on and on. I get it. My point is this: don't tell me that the debate is settled. It's not. So don't lecture me. It's far from the established fact you claim it to be. And you may choose to believe what you wish. Just don't claim it's conclusive and dismiss other peoples' perspectives.

Now, that said, I'm all for tolerance. I do not wish to demonize anyone. I also agree that NO PERSON should push a particular sexual orientation on another against their will. That's just wrong.

I'm also for religious freedom. As long as a church doesn't use "public" funding, they can promote or not promote as they see fit, as long as they are not advocating violence. And I don't see the LDS church doing that.

Stepping off my soapbox now.

tsadjatko Here's a reply. You can disagree with a person without being insulting. And I leave a conversation when there is no point in trying to contribute further to it.

Your statement that the Disney Corporation has been "promoting homosexuality" is an interesting one, as it suggests that gayness is a product like Coke that can be sold on the open market.

Let's get this straight once and for all. Being LGBT is not a matter of choice - you are either gay or you are not. It cannot therefore be a "sin" (whatever that means) to be gay. How you choose to express your sexuality is a different matter, as is how you choose to respect (or otherwise) the sexuality of other people. Disney may be keen to promote the toleration of homosexuality, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There is no such thing as a "sin" that does not harm other people - that is surely the whole definition of morality. If a gay person tries to force him/herself on another person in a sexual way, that is wrong, and the same is true if a straight person tries to do so.

What is also completely wrong is demonizing other people because of their sexuality, or pretending that they are in some way less worthy as human beings because they do not conform to the norms of the majority.

There is some question about whether the BSA is a secular or religious organization because it affirms a belief in God. However, it has a history of receiving federal funding, so which is it? There is no question that LDS is a religious organization and is free to exercise its own beliefs. I don't think we have the right to criticize the church from establishing its own "boy scout" type organization as long as it pays for it without public moneys. Unless or until the Boy Scouts give up using taxpayer dollars to fund some of their activities and projects, they have no choice but to have an anti-discrimination policy. Polarization is tearing this country apart. Even religious and quasi-religious groups have their own versions of polarization.

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't see this as "anti-gay" so much as it is "pro Church teachings." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as they prefer to be called), has every right to promote their beliefs and teachings, as they see them. That is the core of religious freedom. They are not required to promote the LGBT agenda. There is a lot of disagreement within the Christian community about what is and what is not the correct interpretation of biblical teachings on homosexuality. One completely valid interpretation is to disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle, yet embrace a homosexual person as a child of God. It's far more complicated than merely headlines, so I'll stop there. Except to say that I am not LDS, and therefore should refrain from further commentary.

My bottom line on this applies to any organized group and is not limited to just the boy scouts.

If you don't like the way the organization is headed, just quit and start your own group of like minded people. And that is what the Mormon church is doing.

When we look at all of the organizations that have been forced to change their polices due to the complaints of a few members, it makes me wonder what happened to the majority rule?

Nobody is forced to join or be a member of any organization.

As usual Kathleen, you state an irrelevant statistic then use it as a straw man argument.

Fact: A tiny percentage of the population [homosexual men], commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

Here are the pro and con arguments

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questio...

which prove at the very least you can not honestly say "Look at statistics and find that most sexual predators are heterosexual." and think that has anything to do with the issue.

Fact: A tiny percentage of the population [homosexual men], commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

Goodbye, cause it's been my experience that once your deceptive behavior has been revealed you disappear from the conversation. Sad because there is healing in admitting you are wrong.

I agree Ralph, I was just being snide. (LGBT BS)

"A number of scout masters have been convicted of sexual abuse of boys in their care. Though paedophilia and homosexuality are often too separate things. We need to be careful." Restricting gay scout masters is not the definition of being careful. Look at statistics and find that most sexual predators are heterosexual.

My Southern Baptist Church has abandoned their 75-year-old scout troop for fear of attracting homosexuals. I find this action non-Christian at its core. How many young men will now not come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through this contact with our church because of fear and ignorance? Are we also going to cancel Wednesday night suppers for fear obese people might come and overeat (also advised against in the Bible)? The day will come (soon I hope) when we will look back with shame on our attitudes just as we do looking back on slavery and bigotry.

But Jodah, gay boy scouts grow up to be what?

Answer: Gay Scout Masters.

This is all very interesting, Ralph. I wasn't aware that the Disney Corporation was such a supporter of gay rights. I can, however, understand the Church of LDS stance on the matter. I agree that boys of all sexual orientation should be allowed to join the scouts I am not sure that allowing gay scout masters is a good idea however. A number of scout masters have been convicted of sexual abuse of boys in their care. Though paedophilia and homosexuality are often too separate things. We need to be careful.