Sure sterance2 that's cool. I've addressed relevant biblical passages (including Leviticus 20:13) at some length in my book, "Homosexuality: A Straight BYU Student's Perspective." Specifically, you can see how my position fits into such verses (including that particular one) in chapter 5. You'll find both on my blog, bradcarmackdotblogspotdotcom.
@mistahdoom I'll definitely have to read your book then, sounds like it will be an interesting read. (PS, looking at it, Lev. 20:13, it seems it may be a faulty verse to use in arguing against gay marriage given that the second half of it is something neither Christians nor Jews indulge in, making it a rather in one. Though I would love to see how you would view the quotes in the NT (Paul's a rather ambiguous guy on this subject, if you really think about it)). Thanks for the reply.
I'm LDS, and I find your argument interesting. What I'm interested in is better understanding how your argument fits into verses such as Leviticus 20:13. Just let me clarify real quick, this isn't some sort of hot-headed challenge or anything, I would just like to have a better grasp of how your position fits into verses like these.
genitalia dysmorphia makes up a small percentage of the homosexual population. your number of 1:100 is misleading because of the number of common and minor issues like hypospadias which are very different than something like SRY gene translocations resulting in XX phenotypic males. these anomalies are rare enough that it makes little reason to make this an argument for policy/doctrinal changes any more than claiming the church should allow homicide because of rare "legitimate" cases
Ummm, this is a COMPLETELY moot point. The official leaders of the Church have released numerous statements defining marriage and the family unit - official statements from the Presidency (past, present, and future) are doctrine, as much as the Bible itself is (which is also a collection of official statements from past leader's of Christ's church), plain and simple. Including SPECIFICALLY stating that acting on homosexual tendencies is a sin. This is pure, concrete doctrine. It's so simple!
Brad your logical is nearly flawless. I see you as the future of the Mormon Church. Thank You for having the brains, vision and heart to post these videos. Lets hope the LDS moves ahead of the pack, as they have in the past, being led by the spirit to boldly speak on behave of people, just as Christ did in his day. Brad you are a walking example of what Christians should be about, bravely speaking with love and spirit. May God continue to bless you.
tdub, I think that's a good question. I think that pre-defined roles do have practical and moral implications as your question suggests.
The short answer is that it's difficult to predict. The longer, more speculative answer would be that perhaps relevant roles will persist and unsupported ones will diminish. For instance, a parent would still be responsible for educating and providing for their children, but governance and nurturing of children would no longer be relegated based on sex.
What would gay marriage do to male/female roles in the Church? Do pre-defined male/female roles in a marriage, and/or outside of marriage, have practical or moral implications on the simplicity of the Church culture and operation? If dynamics of the Church culture and operation are disturbed by diffused gender roles, then how? How does any added complexity, or diffused role definition effect heterosexual couples who fit into those roles, and succinctly IDed with their eternally relevant meaning?
Sure sterance2 that's cool. I've addressed relevant biblical passages (including Leviticus 20:13) at some length in my book, "Homosexuality: A Straight BYU Student's Perspective." Specifically, you can see how my position fits into such verses (including that particular one) in chapter 5. You'll find both on my blog, bradcarmackdotblogspotdotcom.
mistahdoom 1 month ago
@mistahdoom I'll definitely have to read your book then, sounds like it will be an interesting read. (PS, looking at it, Lev. 20:13, it seems it may be a faulty verse to use in arguing against gay marriage given that the second half of it is something neither Christians nor Jews indulge in, making it a rather in one. Though I would love to see how you would view the quotes in the NT (Paul's a rather ambiguous guy on this subject, if you really think about it)). Thanks for the reply.
sterance2 1 month ago
I'm LDS, and I find your argument interesting. What I'm interested in is better understanding how your argument fits into verses such as Leviticus 20:13. Just let me clarify real quick, this isn't some sort of hot-headed challenge or anything, I would just like to have a better grasp of how your position fits into verses like these.
sterance2 1 month ago
genitalia dysmorphia makes up a small percentage of the homosexual population. your number of 1:100 is misleading because of the number of common and minor issues like hypospadias which are very different than something like SRY gene translocations resulting in XX phenotypic males. these anomalies are rare enough that it makes little reason to make this an argument for policy/doctrinal changes any more than claiming the church should allow homicide because of rare "legitimate" cases
twofistsify 2 months ago
Ummm, this is a COMPLETELY moot point. The official leaders of the Church have released numerous statements defining marriage and the family unit - official statements from the Presidency (past, present, and future) are doctrine, as much as the Bible itself is (which is also a collection of official statements from past leader's of Christ's church), plain and simple. Including SPECIFICALLY stating that acting on homosexual tendencies is a sin. This is pure, concrete doctrine. It's so simple!
PaulusGrandis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Brad your logical is nearly flawless. I see you as the future of the Mormon Church. Thank You for having the brains, vision and heart to post these videos. Lets hope the LDS moves ahead of the pack, as they have in the past, being led by the spirit to boldly speak on behave of people, just as Christ did in his day. Brad you are a walking example of what Christians should be about, bravely speaking with love and spirit. May God continue to bless you.
jakeluv7 6 months ago
tdub, I think that's a good question. I think that pre-defined roles do have practical and moral implications as your question suggests.
The short answer is that it's difficult to predict. The longer, more speculative answer would be that perhaps relevant roles will persist and unsupported ones will diminish. For instance, a parent would still be responsible for educating and providing for their children, but governance and nurturing of children would no longer be relegated based on sex.
mistahdoom 6 months ago
What would gay marriage do to male/female roles in the Church? Do pre-defined male/female roles in a marriage, and/or outside of marriage, have practical or moral implications on the simplicity of the Church culture and operation? If dynamics of the Church culture and operation are disturbed by diffused gender roles, then how? How does any added complexity, or diffused role definition effect heterosexual couples who fit into those roles, and succinctly IDed with their eternally relevant meaning?
tdub385 6 months ago
I think this is awesome. I agree with it, and i feel it is right. I have prayed out this and I truly feel it is right.
idancealways 6 months ago
This is fantastic! Perfectly stated and scientifically and religiously supported.
Ladybuguboo 6 months ago