Jesus reveals ban on LGBTs to LDS elder apostle Russell M. Nelson

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

IMO, ignorant is synonymous with rude or boorish.

"Ignorance" is a state of "not knowing" and to be "ignorant" is to simply "not know".

All too often, there are communication breakdowns because the message sent is not the message received.

If I, for one. use the word "ignorant" towards you or another, it is intended to state specifically that "you do not know"; "you are lacking information and knowledge"; "you don't know any better".

In that sense, we are all "ignorant".

 

[Prestor John]

"Ignorance" is a state of "not knowing" and to be "ignorant" is to simply "not know".

All too often, there are communication breakdowns because the message sent is not the message received.

If I, for one. use the word "ignorant" towards you or another, it is intended to state specifically that "you do not know"; "you are lacking information and knowledge"; "you don't know any better".

In that sense, we are all "ignorant".

Exactly.

 

[JoStories]

"Ignorance" is a state of "not knowing" and to be "ignorant" is to simply "not know".

All too often, there are communication breakdowns because the message sent is not the message received.

If I, for one. use the word "ignorant" towards you or another, it is intended to state specifically that "you do not know"; "you are lacking information and knowledge"; "you don't know any better".

In that sense, we are all "ignorant".

I understand that is how you view this word, however, I was raised that we were to never use word that were considered derogatory toward another as it could and often did offend the person to whom we were talking. The same premise would relate to words such as stupid, etc. As my path on Buddhism as evolved, I am more firmly convinced that use of such provocative terms can be avoided in conversation as it is so much to the better to use words that are not ambiguous.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

I feel sorry for the LGBT members who still are trying are inside this temple of hate.
You believe in an omnipresent God but somehow you have to be a member of a church and visit it every Sunday to see this God?
LDS, SBC, RCC, etc... Will not accept human rights.
If you still wish to join the club where you are not wanted, you can't whine about it later.

 

[Prestor John]

I understand that is how you view this word, however, I was raised that we were to never use word that were considered derogatory toward another as it could and often did offend the person to whom we were talking. The same premise would relate to words such as stupid, etc. As my path on Buddhism as evolved, I am more firmly convinced that use of such provocative terms can be avoided in conversation as it is so much to the better to use words that are not ambiguous.

Ok. That sounds like you have set a definition or standard for that word that I have not and I am not responsible for your personal preferences.

I wanted to tell you that you did not know or comprehend the subject of discussion. Rather than spell it out in that way I used a single appropriate word.

Even though some people may relate the word "stupid" with ignorant, those words are not synonymous

Does Buddhism encourage its adherents to become easily offended? Perhaps you should grow a tougher skin..

 

[Prestor John]

Why should I ever support such a thing? You don't have to agree with or support everything to live in a functioning and healthy society. There is a saying, from Evelyn Beatrice Hall, that goes "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Now, with that said, it seems that in the not-too-distant future it seems very possible that such intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry towards homosexuals will seem so outlandish it can be turned into a punch line, much like how Blazing Saddles turned racial prejudice into an hour-and-a-half long joke. You may not like hearing that, but it's the direction society is heading, and it is for the best.

If you don't support the LDS Church leaders in their decision to excommunicate certain members of the Church who personally reject and publicly denounce the teachings of the Church then you do not support the First Amendment.

You have also yet to prove that any decision made by any leader of the LDS Church is based on "intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry" towards anyone.

You merely have a bias that causes you to block anything out that you disagree with.

 

[Prestor John]

I feel sorry for the LGBT members who still are trying are inside this temple of hate.

What "temple of hate"?

You believe in an omnipresent God but somehow you have to be a member of a church and visit it every Sunday to see this God?

Where did you get this idea from?

LDS, SBC, RCC, etc... Will not accept human rights.

And this statement is based on...?

If you still wish to join the club where you are not wanted, you can't whine about it later.

Did you even read Elder Nelson's talk? Where di he or anyone else say that anyone was not wanted in the Church?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

What "temple of hate"?

Where did you get this idea from?

And this statement is based on...?

Did you even read Elder Nelson's talk? Where di he or anyone else say that anyone was not wanted in the Church?

Temple of hate- lds church and other homophobic churches around the world.

Which specific idea are you asking about?

Based on the current policies of the churches that believe homosexual men will burn in HELL, the rhetoric of hate pastors in churches about electrocuting gay men, about their past position on African Americans and before you deny the last one, I hope you can use Google to look at the truth yourself.

I m.talking about the churches and it's governing board with such homophobic policies... Not a single person.

 

[Prestor John]

I know that some of these things have already been pointed out and discussed, but I prepared most of this post a few days ago.

First I think it would be beneficial for us to define the word “ignorant”.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “ignorant” can be defined as either,

• “destitute of knowledge or education” or,
  
  
• “lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified” or,
  
  
• “resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence”
  
  

  I have never called you or anything you have had to say 'ignorant'.

  
  Perhaps that is because I haven’t said anything in ignorance?
  
  I really don’t like it when people speak on a topic that they know little to nothing about, so I tend to read and study up on topics before I engage in discussing them.
  
  I don’t know everything, but I do have a couple topics that I know well and I like to discuss them.
  
  Now, let me direct your attention to the latter half of your first posting on this thread, #35, which was in response to Skwim’s “suspicion”,

“But like I said, speculation... However, as a group trying to put words in the mouth of God, I am appalled and disgusted that they even have [the] audacity to say anything at all. And these are allegedly people who follow the teachings of Christ? Bull snot.” [Bold, italics and underline added. Corrected “to” to “the” for clarity]

I understand that you were sharing your personal speculation up to this point, however I interpreted your use of the word “however” to be a break from expressing your opinion in order for you to make a “factual” statement.

I took your meaning to either be that 1.) the leaders of the LDS Church know and understand the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ yet do not follow them or you were saying that 2.) they do not know or understand the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You stated that they were either hypocrites or that they were ignoramuses.

This was not the only reason I was convinced that you were making such “factual” claims about the leaders of the LDS Church. You also said in post #36 in response to my thanking Kilgore Trout for sharing his opinion,

“Yes, it was his opinion but you have to admit that such a heinous statement such as this made by a person who has a great deal of influence in your church is in direct opposition to what Christ taught from the Sermon on the Mount.” (Bold, italics and underline added)

Now, I cannot possibly interpret what you said above as merely your opinion because you claimed that I myself “[had] to” agree with what you had claimed. If you were only sharing your opinion, then you could not claim that I had an imperative to agree with you.

You also said in post #36,

“To imply that God would deny children, and if you will recall, Christ did say to suffer the little children unto Him, from worshipping Christ based on the actions and I am appalled that your church would consider a sexual orientation to be a reason to deny children or the parents for that matter, of the parents is the height of lunacy.”

You saying this proved to me that you did not even read Elder Nelson’s address because he never claimed to “deny” anyone, let alone same-sex couples or their children, the right to worship the Lord Jesus Christ. He never said that. The LDS Church does not teach that. All are invited to join us every Sunday to worship.

You also said in post #40,

“What words of comfort could you offer to a gay person when out of the other side of your mouth you call them sinners or worse?”

This is even further evidence that you did not read Elder Nelson’s talk because he did not call anyone a “sinner” (even though all human beings sin). Not only did he not refer to anyone who identifies as a homosexual as a “sinner”, he also did not refer to anyone else as a “sinner”. He also did not call any homosexual person anything “worse” than “sinner” or even anything at all.

You are just making stuff up.

You also said in post #99,

“These men have an agenda. Have you never seen a group of men or women who got together and made some proclamation and then stated it was divine or some such? The KKK comes to mind as one easily thought of. These men had a reason for their proclamation. They wish to deny gay members rights to your Church and if that is what your Church wants, mores the power to you and them.”

If you actually read the talk you would know that no one is denied anything. Everyone can come to our Church services and worship with us.

However, the Church holds the authority to excommunicate those members who reject and live contrary to the teachings of the Church.

You then said, still in post #99,

“But for someone outside your Church, it seems contrived and punitive.”

This could also be interpreted as, “For someone who is ignorant of the beliefs and teachings of the Church, it seems contrived and punitive.”

Finally, the last thing you said in post #99 was,

“These men, who are not God, are condemning a group of people simply because they are born gay. What of those born with CP, or deformities, or maybe they got Hansen's Disease (leprosy) or something else you see as sinful. What then? Do you deny access to all of these people because they offend your view of what God is?”

Can you quote Elder Nelson “condemning” anyone? He did not. If you actually read the talk you’d know that.

You are assuming, because of your bias, that certain people are “born gay”. There is no support for that claim.

If you truly believe that people are born homosexual, then why are you comparing homosexuality with physical deformities, disorders and diseases?

Do you consider homosexuality to be some sort of illness?

What makes you think that the LDS Church considers any of the illnesses you described to be “sinful”?

Again, no one has been denied anything. Members of the Church are free to live contrary to the teachings of the Church and the Church is free to excommunicate those members. However, even excommunicated members are invited to worship with us each Sunday.

So, you have been making stuff up and you claimed that the authority of my Church’s leaders was “bull snot” and that they were hypocrites or ignoramuses, or both, so how was I in the wrong for claiming, based on what you had said, that you were ignorant of these things?

I have expressed my opinion on what Christ taught and what I find to be a misrepresentation of what Christ taught by your leaders. Again, this is MY opinion and nothing more. I am calling them wrong only in the respect that I don't see what they are saying as what I believe was taught. This is a debate forum and I am allowed to express my views on what I see as having been taught. Just as you are.

Yet, you based this opinion on untrue things. Never did Elder Nelson claim that anyone should be denied the privilege of worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ. Never did he call anyone a “sinner” or anything else.

You are making things up. You are basing your opinion on imagined offenses.

Also, since you do not seem to know or comprehend what we are talking about or about what Elder Nelson has said, you are by definition “ignorant”.

 

[Prestor John]

the word 'ignorant' is a very volatile.

Only to those who are guilty of ignorance.

Face it. You are just upset because I called you out on your ignorance.

When someone ever claims that I am ignorant, I see it as a call to action. I either confront the charge and prove that I am not ignorant, or I admit my ignorance and then strive to not be ignorant about that topic anymore.

It can and often does imply stupidity.

Only if you apply a different definition or standard to the word.

How is that not wrong headed? Instead, I would choose a different word with much less volatility. Perhaps unaware?

I would personally find the word “unaware” more insulting than “ignorant”.

Very much so.

IMO, ignorant is synonymous with rude or boorish.

That’s fine. You can believe what you want.

However, I have already told you what I meant when I used that word and I am not responsible for your personal opinion.

Calling anyone stupid here is against TOS.

I agree. That is why I did not call you “stupid”.

Hence, my views of the term with regard to what I had to say.

You cannot magically make “ignorant” and “stupid” mean the same thing.They don’t.

Your “view” on the definition of “ignorant” is wrong. Your “view” concerning this subject is ignorant.

When you call my views or me ignorant, you are misrepresenting my views. That is what I was trying to impart.

How does my claiming that you or your views were “ignorant” somehow misrepresent your views when I believe your views to be “ignorant”?

I wanted to make the claim that you did not know or comprehend what you were talking about.

This idea that you are somehow immune to being ignorant is absurd. You don’t know everything.

It is definitely that what the elders have to say is not congruent with what Christ taught.

Is this your opinion or are you stating a fact?

Christ taught love and acceptance.

He taught love and acceptance of what?

Did He teach us to love and accept sin?

We all know that when the woman who was taken in adultery was brought before Him and He was asked if she should be stoned, according to the Law, He said that those without sin cast the first stone. This dispersed the crowd.

The Lord Jesus Christ said to the woman that He did not condemn her, however He commissioned her to, “Go and sin no more.”

The Lord Jesus Christ does not condemn anyone. We condemn ourselves through sin. The Lord Jesus Christ does not love and accept our sins, He loves and accepts the sinner. His message to that woman is the same to us, “Sin no more”.

Show me where in Elder Nelson’s talk he said that we should not love and accept anyone?

The LDS Church claims that the Lord Jesus Christ finds homosexual behavior to be sinful, therefore, the message of the Church is to come and worship the Lord Jesus Christ with us and sin no more.

Do you now understand why I would consider you ignorant of these things?

These men are not teaching that, IMO.

Your opinion does not matter in this discussion since you have not yet read the talk that is the subject of this discussion.

You do not know or understand the stance of the LDS Church and its leaders on this issue.

I understand you disagree and that is fine. I would not call you ignorant of my views on Buddhism.

I did not call you ignorant because I disagree with you. I called you ignorant because you do not know or comprehend the topic of discussion.

If I were to engage in a discussion with you concerning Buddhism, you would definitely find grounds to call me ignorant because I only have common knowledge of that subject.

I am ignorant of Buddhist beliefs and teachings. I am willing to admit that.

Why is my saying that I strongly disagree with these men ignorant?

I never said that you “strongly disagree[ing]” with those men made you ignorant.

I claimed that you were ignorant because you did not know the teachings of the LDS Church and you did not understand the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ in their proper context.

He loves and accepts the sinner, but He definitely condemns our sins. The LDS Church considers homosexuality to be sinful and claims that the Lord Jesus Christ also claims that it is sinsul.

It is simply my opinion. No one opinion is either right nor wrong NOR ignorant.

That is simply not true.

People can be right or wrong.

People can be ignorant.

I am sorry if you don't understand where I am coming from here.

I understand what you are trying to say. I just don’t find your position to be very logical.

What of those Christian churches that disagree with what your prophets state? Are they, too, wrong or worse, 'ignorant' of the Teachings?

I don’t know why you consider ignorance to be worse than being wrong.

To be ignorant is simply to not know what you do not know.

I would claim that these “Christian” churches believe and teach many true things but they are ignorant of the work that the Lord Jesus Christ is currently doing through the Restoration of His Church.

Furthermore, many faiths today continue to have people who have revelations from God, or so they say.

Who?

Are they too, wrong? This is the slippery slope of which I was trying to speak of.

Everyone on Earth is entitled to receive personal revelation.

I cannot judge that the inspiration that someone receives is “wrong” unless I know what they received, so I can compare it to the scriptures, ancient and modern.

As another poster so aptly stated, the beliefs of your church, where it pertains to my rights and views, should stop at the doors of your church.

No one said otherwise.

However, since you are free to comment on what the LDS Church believes and teaches, then the LDS Church should be free to comment on what you believe and teach.

That is true equality.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I understand that is how you view this word, however, I was raised that we were to never use word that were considered derogatory toward another as it could and often did offend the person to whom we were talking. The same premise would relate to words such as stupid, etc. As my path on Buddhism as evolved, I am more firmly convinced that use of such provocative terms can be avoided in conversation as it is so much to the better to use words that are not ambiguous.

To be frank, I really don't care how you perceive this word. It is not left up to you and your family to define the word "ignorant" (or any other word for that matter). The educated world understands the definition of the word "ignorant". It is clearly laid out by every notable dictionary. Never is the word "ignorant" related to "stupid" as "stupid" refers to the inability to learn and obtain and retain information. If "ignorant" is considered derrogatory, it is simply because of misunderstanding of the meaning of that word; or it is due to ego; a total lack of humility. "What do you mean, telling me I don't know! Don't you know who I am!?" Uh ... isn't that ego talking?

Search Results
ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
adjective: ignorant
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted;More

 

[Prestor John]

Temple of hate- lds church and other homophobic churches around the world.

The LDS Church neither fears nor hates homosexuals.

They disagree with the lifestyle and consider homosexual practices to be sinful.

Does someone disagreeing with homosexuality make them a homophobe?

Which specific idea are you asking about?

The idea that someone has to be a member of the LDS Church in order to worship God or that anyone needs to come to a church to "see" God.

Based on the current policies of the churches that believe homosexual men will burn in HELL...

This is not a belief or teaching of the LDS Church.

...the rhetoric of hate pastors in churches about electrocuting gay men...

This is not a belief or teaching of the LDS Church.

...about their past position on African Americans...

Do you even know the LDS Church's "past position" on African Americans?

...and before you deny the last one, I hope you can use Google to look at the truth yourself...

I'd have to know what claim you are making before I could substantiate or deny it. I won't need Google to know my position on this or other issues.

I m.talking about the churches and it's governing board with such homophobic policies... Not a single person.

The original OP was about what a single person had said.

Would you mind sharing a "homophobic policy" of the LDS Church, please?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

The LDS Church neither fears nor hates homosexuals.

They disagree with the lifestyle and consider homosexual practices to be sinful.

Does someone disagreeing with homosexuality make them a homophobe?

The idea that someone has to be a member of the LDS Church in order to worship God or that anyone needs to come to a church to "see" God.

This is not a belief or teaching of the LDS Church.

This is not a belief or teaching of the LDS Church.

Do you even know the LDS Church's "past position" on African Americans?

I'd have to know what claim you are making before I could substantiate or deny it. I won't need Google to know my position on this or other issues.

The original OP was about what a single person had said.

Would you mind sharing a "homophobic policy" of the LDS Church, please?

They disagree with the lifestyle and consider homosexual practices to be sinful.- If someone disagrees with African American lifestyle and considers them not worthy to be around him, he wouldn't be a racist I guess in your view.
Look up the term "Homophobia".


The idea that someone has to be a member of the LDS Church in order to worship God or that anyone needs to come to a church to "see" God.- I refuted this idea. Check what I said originally.

Do you even know the LDS Church's "past position" on African Americans?- I m sure according to you, African Americans were accepted in the lds church ever since it was established?

Would you mind sharing a "homophobic policy" of the LDS Church, please?- you already did.

 

[Prestor John]

They disagree with the lifestyle and consider homosexual practices to be sinful.- If someone disagrees with African American lifestyle and considers them not worthy to be around him, he wouldn't be a racist I guess in your view.

What's a "African American lifestyle" and how does it differ from any other American's lifestyle?

Who said that I or any other Latter-Day Saint do not consider homosexuals worthy to be around us?

We invite everyone, despite their religious affiliation or sexual orientation, to come and worship the Lord Jesus Christ with us on the Sabbath Day.

Why are you making stuff up?

Look up the term "Homophobia.

I did. It boils do to either fearing or hating homosexuals.

The LDS Church neither fears nor hates homosexuals.

Let me ask you again. Disagreeing with homosexuals means you are a homophobe?

The idea that someone has to be a member of the LDS Church in order to worship God or that anyone needs to come to a church to "see" God.- I refuted this idea. Check what I said originally.

No. I was asking where you got that idea.

Where did you get the idea that the LDS Church believes that you cannot worship God unless you are a member of the Church?

Where did you get the idea that the LDS Church believes that a person needs to come to church in order to "see" God?

The LDS Church does not believe in either of these things.

Do you even know the LDS Church's "past position" on African Americans?- I m sure according to you, African Americans were accepted in the lds church ever since it was established?

I know you are trying to bring up the temporary Priesthood ban, but you are using the wrong terms to try to describe it.

African Americans and people of all other races were accepted into the LDS Church since its inception, yet there was a time when not all people could receive the Priesthood or take part in certain ordinances.

They were still invited to attend and worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

Would you mind sharing a "homophobic policy" of the LDS Church, please?- you already did.

No, I did not.

I mentioned no policy enacted out of fear or hate of homosexuals.

Would you mind sharing one?

 

[Scott C.]

And I am finding this discussion refreshing and surprisingly civil. I do thank you very much for that Scott.

I really do appreciate that comment. You too, are quite civil. This is as it should be.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

To be frank, I really don't care how you perceive this word. It is not left up to you and your family to define the word "ignorant" (or any other word for that matter). The educated world understands the definition of the word "ignorant". It is clearly laid out by every notable dictionary. Never is the word "ignorant" related to "stupid" as "stupid" refers to the inability to learn and obtain and retain information. If "ignorant" is considered derrogatory, it is simply because of misunderstanding of the meaning of that word; or it is due to ego; a total lack of humility. "What do you mean, telling me I don't know! Don't you know who I am!?" Uh ... isn't that ego talking?

Search Results
ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
adjective: ignorant
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted;More

Using a dictionary to tell people a word must mean something is more than a little foolish since the meaning of words is fluid and tends to change over time. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive (thanks for that, @Riverwolf ). You're ignoring the fact that 'ignorant' is colloquially used as a synonym for 'stupid' regardless of what the dictionary describes it as meaning.

 

[Prestor John]

Using a dictionary to tell people a word must mean something is more than a little foolish since the meaning of words is fluid and tends to change over time. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive (thanks for that, @Riverwolf ). You're ignoring the fact that 'ignorant' is colloquially used as a synonym for 'stupid' regardless of what the dictionary describes it as meaning.

Then wouldn't my admittance that I did not use that word to mean "stupid" settle the argument?

How many times does a person need to repeat themselves and their position before it is acknowledged?

 

[blue taylor]

I feel sorry for the LGBT members who still are trying are inside this temple of hate.
You believe in an omnipresent God but somehow you have to be a member of a church and visit it every Sunday to see this God?
LDS, SBC, RCC, etc... Will not accept human rights.
If you still wish to join the club where you are not wanted, you can't whine about it later.

Do what everybody else does. Go to another church. It's that simple.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

What's a "African American lifestyle" and how does it differ from any other American's lifestyle?

Who said that I or any other Latter-Day Saint do not consider homosexuals worthy to be around us?

We invite everyone, despite their religious affiliation or sexual orientation, to come and worship the Lord Jesus Christ with us on the Sabbath Day.

Why are you making stuff up?

I did. It boils do to either fearing or hating homosexuals.

The LDS Church neither fears nor hates homosexuals.

Let me ask you again. Disagreeing with homosexuals means you are a homophobe?

No. I was asking where you got that idea.

Where did you get the idea that the LDS Church believes that you cannot worship God unless you are a member of the Church?

Where did you get the idea that the LDS Church believes that a person needs to come to church in order to "see" God?

The LDS Church does not believe in either of these things.

I know you are trying to bring up the temporary Priesthood ban, but you are using the wrong terms to try to describe it.

African Americans and people of all other races were accepted into the LDS Church since its inception, yet there was a time when not all people could receive the Priesthood or take part in certain ordinances.

They were still invited to attend and worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

No, I did not.

I mentioned no policy enacted out of fear or hate of homosexuals.

Would you mind sharing one?

Disagreeing with homosexuals means you are a homophobe?- believing that homosexuals are lesser than or somehow not the same as heterosexuals in being treated equally is homophobia, though you'll disagree till the end of days.


Where did you get the idea that the LDS Church believes that you cannot worship God unless you are a member of the Church?- You either read what I said or stop accusing me of things I've never said.

I mentioned no policy enacted out of fear or hate of homosexuals.- sure they didn't. Nothing is as accepting as unacceptance.

 

[Shad]

If you don't support the LDS Church leaders in their decision to excommunicate certain members of the Church who personally reject and publicly denounce the teachings of the Church then you do not support the First Amendment.

You confuse tolerance of a religion with supporting a religion along with the choice made by it's leaders. We can tolerate the choices people make but this does not mean I must support their choice itself. One can support the principles of the First Amendment not the choice made by people practice the principle in their religion. IE It is their choice to make but I do not need to support it nor agree with it. You have interpreted the First Amendment to mean something different. Also at no point was the suggestion of government interference used at all which is what the First Amendment is about. All you have done is distort the First Amendment in order to render opposing views silent and your views immune to criticism.