Is this reason for liberals to be against religion valid?

With the controversy over the state of Indiana and the law they are wanting to pass to defend religious freedom, I keep hearing liberals (even on Foxnews) use the reason that laws protecting religion are really laws bigoting homosexuals is that God only commanded once in the OT against homosexual acts.

Now, I know there is more than once in the OT. But, it seems that the criteria for rejecting marriage being between only a man and a woman is the number of times it’s stated in the Bible. And, it is stated in the NT a couple of times too. If God commands his children only one time in the Bible, does this mean that commandment must not be very important to God? It this good reasoning?

I say it’s lousy reasoning. How many times did God say thou shalt not kill as a commandment? One that I can think of. There are some sins that simply don’t have to be stated not to do over and over. An act against God such as homosexual acts simply only should have to be stated once.

I haven’t watched the talking heads I a while, but I agree that is a stupid argument. Some liberals are taking a new slant with the law. I laughed when I read this.

We need to be careful if we expect to use the bible as a literal reference to our day, as there are many things contained that should not be used today. The OT was fulfilled by the higher law, and today we have advanced into the last dispensation thus accompanied by current scripture and modern practices that treat mankind much kinder than how the law in biblical times taught.

Nice try. The NT also teaches homosexual acts are sin. The current day prophets have also taught the same thing.

I am with you SG. I don’t think KC understands the Standard Works nor the talks by the General Authorities. Hint: KC: Watch or listen to the General Conference this weekend. I bet you will an answer to your question about the commandments on homosexuality.

With the killing of 150 Christians in Kenya, I wonder of Obama will still go there for a visit? After all, the liberal dude at USC refuses to go to Indiana because some baker might not bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. I wonder which act is more disgusting to liberals, people not willing to bake a cake or the killing innocent men, women and children because they are Christian? What is being talked about in media the most?

I’ll put $1k on it that not one person mentions old testiment punishment for homosexuals, and if they even slip up again with the “why would a loving God do such a thing” it will be edited out of the video and ensign write up as well. It won’t happen, it’s not right and our prophet today has made sure to send that message to other GA’s. You guys love to hate on others for falling short of your ideals for them, when instead the beam in your own eye still exists.

The only message that should be taught on this is love your neighbor, and he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

1 Like

So, because I show love towards murderers, murder is now not a sin? You are pathetic with gospel doctrine.

Liberals say they have proven there is a God gene. Therefore, I was born that way to believe in God and his word. He told us over and over not to sin. All sins. But, he also to love the sinner but still hate the sin. Not to accept the sin. By your logic, adulterists are hardwired to commit and this it isn’t their fault and not even a sin. All the Prophet is saying is not to hate sinners including homosexuals. But, he’s not saying to accept sin either.
Since I am born this way not by choice, you are a bigot to those who shun and preach against sin.

The relationships we cultivate with our fellow man live on beyond this life, while the judgements of man die with them.

That’s not what section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants teach. The judgment of God relates specific to our testimony with our relationship with God. That will have direct consequences on whether our earthly relationships mattered or not.
Without a valiant testimony of all things God commands and all things of God including the Church, the prophets and apostles and following your local leaders as well, means our relationships will NOT continue as we want.

You continue to miss the mark with your Pharisee approach to the law.

1 Like

So, Joseph Smith is a Pharisee now. You are way out of it. I’ll stick with Joseph Smith and the current prophet and apostles. I’ll also stick with the Doctrine in the scriptures. Jesus never taught that it’s okay to break His commandments. He said “go and sin no more.”

tell us more about what others sins are?

1 Like

We are discussing homosexual sin. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to change it. An example was the prostitute. He didn’t say she was not sinning. He said don’t sin anymore. That’s what the Brethren today teach too with homosexuals. Where do you get off changing the law and denying the scriptures (section 76)? Our eternal relationships given by Christ himself says it’s dependent upon the valiance of our testimony. I’ll take Christ’s word on that.

Our world would be a much better place if people would instead of taking His word for it, would follow His example.

1 Like

You make no sense. The scriptures are his word and example. I even wrote about the example of how he handled the prostitute. He didn’t excuse her sin. He forgave her and commanded her to not do it again. A sexual sin based on one of his commandments, thou shall not commit adultery. He didn’t change the commandments. They are still required of us to keep. And, more so of those who have taken upon ourselves His name. We are under greater condemnation if we don’t keep the commandments.
I have no problem loving sinners. I do it daily with family, friends, inactive members and those in the general public. But, I have no problem defending the Kingdom of God on the Earth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That includes all scripture, especially those for us given by Christ to us in these latter days. That includes Section 76 which contradicts your original statement. a good sign of one who is valiant with their testimony is one who keeps the commandments. That includes missionary work and loving your neighbor. But, both of those don’t require covenant breaking.

KC: You are beyond my comprehension. I really don’t understand your logic.

Don’t follow me, only Him.

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Ephesians 4:11-13

“He” meaning the Christ. The “Him” of whom you speak. I will believe upon the words of His prophets and apostles. They are not pharacees nor Sadducees. These are the Latter Days and we have our oracles of God to lead and guide us inspired through direct revelation from our Lord. I’m sorry your testimony is not valiant in this. Perhaps as you age your heart will soften and you will grow in wisdom and true love.

What about his pastors and evangelists?