Mormon Church Softens on Homosexuality

December 7th, 2012 Post by

or, Divine Revelation Evidently Done by Internal Polling and Focus Groups

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have launched a website and program to encourage LDS members to be compassionate when discussing homosexuality with homosexuals. From the website:

This website is a collection of conversations; conversations with Church leaders, conversations with Church members who are attracted to people of the same sex, and conversations with the loved ones of gay spouses, children, or grandchildren who are dealing with the effects of same-sex attraction in their own lives. These conversations are not always easy to have. They deal with love and acceptance, sin and morality, aspirations and despair. Those who speak from the heart on this website do not necessarily represent in every word or detail the policies or positions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but all of them speak with authenticity because they reflect what has happened in their own lives and the experiences of those they love. The Church leaders featured here reflect the sentiments and teachings of the highest Church authorities — the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

First, it is important to reiterate what LDS leaders consider to be “the highest Church authorities” — themselves. Lutherans might be tempted to ask the question: “What changed?” That would make sense; Lutheranism is defined by a set of beliefs rather than a common cultural heritage or being under one certain bishop or another. But for the LDS, who holds that their god continues promulgating new doctrine through LDS leadership, the answer must be that [their] god changed.

But setting the issue of continuous revelation aside, pay close attention to the language being used here. There a lot of “conversations,” for one. Next, the issue of the morality, the right-or-wrongness of homosexuality is downplayed in favor of “These conversations are not always easy to have.” This is really the language of psychotherapy, where morality is really not discussed so much as how an experience makes one feel. Interestingly enough, this has been the language of the pro-homosexuality side for decades. For example, one isn’t opposed to homosexuality on societal or moral grounds, he is “homophobic” — implying that a position against homosexuality is not merely unpopular or incorrect, but is a mental disease which is not to be tolerated and may be treated with medication.

To be fair, we Christians (and for the record, Mormons are not Christians — don’t ask me, ask Joseph Smith) ought to address these questions with homosexuals in a way that is not self-righteous, and does not make homosexuality the unforgiveable sin. However, it is important for Christians to know what Scripture clearly teaches and be able to present it in a clear way that leaves no room for interpretation where God has clearly spoken.

The LDS used to pride (no pun intended) itself on its staunch defense of family values, even branding itself as an organization which is about the promotion and defense of the family institution. So some questions linger: What did cause the change (I am rejecting out-of-hand the divine revelation which will no doubt be claimed)? Was it Mitt Romney’s loss as Presidential candidate? Why does the LDS all of a sudden care about being in step with culture? Or does it?  During the Civil Rights era, the LDS changed its teaching on race — specifically, in 1978 a “revelation” was given to LDS president Spencer Kimball that permitted black men to undergo ordination to the lay priesthood. So why right now?






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Jim Hamilton
    December 11th, 2012 at 11:17 | #1

    @Mark #49

    How are you not getting this, Mark? You’re obviously a bright guy. I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse. Yes, you are attracted to guys. You’ve made that very clear. That’s a sin. Resist it. Repent of it. Every Christian has sinful desires. Every Christian is expected, with God’s help, to resist them and repent of them. No one is saying you’re going to live a perfect sin-free life. You won’t. No one does. You’ll stumble and fail. But what do you want? Permission? For God to tell you that your sin is actually ok? It isn’t. Just like my lustful desires aren’t ok. Would my old Adam love to indulge every wicked desire that I have? Of course. But that’s what sanctification is all about: living a life of daily repentance and striving against sin. You’ll probably always struggle against your lustful desires for other men. I’m certain I’ll always struggle against my own lustful desires. But so what? Should we just quit and give ourselves over to the old Adam and the Devil? The Christian life, on this side of Heaven, is one of struggle and tribulation.

  2. Jim Hamilton
    December 11th, 2012 at 11:29 | #2

    @Paul of Alexandria #50

    “Yes, but I was thinking more in the Pauline sense. We are, by nature, sinners; what God expects us to do – as saved creatures – is to refrain from acting on that sinful nature.”

    But the nature itself is still corrupted with sin. Whether we successfully resist acting on our sinful impulses or not doesn’t remove the sinful quality of the impulse itself. A man who is totally upright and blameless in all of his speech, thought, and conduct (if such a man were possible) would still be a sinner because of his corrupt, sinful nature. So even something as benign as desiring food because of hunger is still tainted by sin. Everything that comes from the flesh is tainted. Of course, when we are saved we are declared righteous for the sake of Christ; our own desires, thoughts, actions, etc., are still corrupt because of our sinful natures. Our good works are precious in the sight of God not because of their objective value or merit (they have none), but because they are performed in faith for Christ’s sake.

  3. Mark
    December 11th, 2012 at 17:11 | #3

    @Jim Hamilton #2

    Jim, I’m glad you appreciate my befuddlement. Because I’m very befuddled!

    I’m not looking for permission to sin–but, being human, it would be nice to have permission to actually be human.

    It sounds like what you’re saying is this: being tempted is the same as committing the sin which one is tempted to do. Let’s say I’m in a store. I see a lovely sparkly thing. It attracts me to it. I think to myself, “That’s really lovely and attractive.” A moment later I think to myself, “I could steal that.” A moment later I think to myself, “Why would I steal that! Stealing is immoral. If I’ve enough money, I’ll buy it. If I don’t, I won’t.” According to what you’ve been telling me so far, whether or not I’ve actually stolen the item is beside the point–I’m actually guilty of having stolen it because I was tempted to steal it. Moreover, simply being attracted to the object may, according to what I’m hearing from you, constitute an act of sinful greed.

    Similarly, what you’re telling me is that when I recognize and am attracted to beauty in another man, I am sinning. It doesn’t matter if I desire to appropriate that beauty to myself (lust) or if I desire to appreciate that beauty for being beautiful, or if I desire to give thanks to God for making men beautiful generally. All of it is sin because they’re all forms of attraction. This is what I hear you saying.

    I hear you saying that before I repent, I will be in sin because I’m same-sex attracted and being attracted to the same sex is sin. While I’m repenting, I will be in sin because I will remain same-sex attracted and being attracted to the same sex is sin. After I repent, I will be in sin because I will remain same-sex attracted and being attracted to the same sex is sin. So what, really, is repentance supposed to do, Jim, if regardless of whether or not I repent I am in a perpetual state of sin and therefore doomed?

    If you’re saying what I hear you saying, then how is it possible to repent without hypocrisy? Or, if it’s impossible to do so, how is it possible to live with such hypocrisy? I mean, how do you work it all out? Presumably, a man would only have permission to be attracted to his wife, but until he marries her, she’s not his wife. How does courtship work, then, if the whole dating process is sin since it’s based on two people (who are not married) being attracted to each other? How can you consent to sin by going on a date?

    If I believed as you seem to, I think the only mode of life conducive to real repentance would be one in which I actively despised my humanity which necessarily includes my sexuality because that sexuality is an indefatigable source of sin in my life simply by being there and being a part of my humanity. I would need to find some way to completely cut myself off from all human contact and association and, along with rejecting my humanity, I would need to repudiate beauty in any form in order to avoid being attracted to anyone or anything inappropriate. I don’t know if in such a life a real distinction could be made between repentance and despair but, in the end, would it matter? I would still be same-sex attracted;still, therefore, sinning; still, therefore, doomed.

    Jim, if that’s what the Good News means, then it’s not really very good, is it. It sounds like a particularly dark form of Pietism to me. And I thought that wasn’t allowed here…

  4. Mark
    December 11th, 2012 at 17:23 | #4

    @Jim Hamilton #3

    As I wrote above, I’m not looking for permission to sin–but, being human, it would be nice to have permission to actually be human. It sounds like being human is synonymous with sin to you.

    Maybe that’s where our fundamental difference lies–in our estimation of the value of what it means to be human. Being attracted to stuff is part of being human. So is being tempted. But if both attraction and temptation are sin in themselves, perhaps Samuel Beckett was right: the greatest sin is being born, the greatest evil simply being human.

    An RC theologian I admire once wrote that Pelagius made human salvation unnecessary (teaching that we didn’t need grace to be righteous), while Luther made human salvation impossible (teaching that righteousness could only ever be imputed to us from a source outside of us). The alternative to both Pelagius and Luther is an actual human salvation in which God does not ignore, cover over or destroy human nature, but perfects it by grace making us really capable of real righteousness even as that righteousness remains possible only by grace. That latter alternative seems rather sane and realistic to me.

  5. Jim Hamilton
    December 11th, 2012 at 17:32 | #5

    @Mark #3

    Mark, the Christian life is one of daily repentance and striving against the sinful desires, words, and actions of our old Adam. Nobody will ever become free of sin this side of Heaven. You can choose to embrace your sinful sexual desires or with God’s help to struggle against them. Will you stumble? Of course. We all stumble. We’re saints and sinners at the same time. We drown the old Adam daily. We repent. We pray. We strive to avoid temptation and sinful conduct. We trust in the forgiveness and salvation won for us by the Son. That’s really all there is to it.

  6. Jim Hamilton
    December 11th, 2012 at 17:40 | #6

    @Mark #4

    I don’t admire Roman “theologians” and what you quoted about is complete crap. The Roman system is a Satanic lie designed to rob people of the objective assurance of forgiveness and salvation and condemn people to hell by trusting in their own works rather than the Gospel. Mark, you’re problem is you don’t believe anything. You pick and choose from various theologies to justify your desire to “be human,” or put another way, continue being homosexual without guilt or consequences. I’m done with this. As I said above, you have no interest in repentance. You just want to screw around and engage in semantic quibbling. Be gay if you want, man. If the papists give you permission to do that, be a papist. I truly hope you come to true repentance and faith. God luck, sir.

  7. Mark
    December 11th, 2012 at 18:43 | #7

    @Jim Hamilton #6

    Jim, I hear what you’re saying in this comment, and, incidentally and generally speaking, it sounds very similar to what I myself believe.

    I can agree with you, for instance, that sinful sexual desires are, in fact, sinful and should be repented of–in one way or another, they constitute the sin of lust. But the moment you start saying that an attraction or a temptation amounts to actual sin or a sinful sexual desire, even when such things are unbidden, unwilled, and arise without the will’s consent, that’s when I lose you. That’s when I start wondering if the words “attraction,” “desire,” “temptation” and “sin” are all being used in a particular way that I don’t understand–because they all wind up sounding like synonyms when you say them. And that doesn’t seem particularly rational or realistic to me. That’s when I start asking you (or someone!) to explain what all of this actually means by asking tons of questions and trying to come up with stories and metaphors which attempt to relate how I understand what you’re saying so that you can affirm, deny, or clarify. But affirmations, denials, or clarifications are not very forthcoming–what usually happens is a position is restated in slightly different words. Which makes me wonder: maybe I didn’t express myself clearly enough or ask the questions well enough. So I try again.

    Maybe we’re just doomed to be talking past each other. Because I feel like our interaction over a couple threads is running, more or less, like this:

    A: Homosexuality is sinful and you should repent.
    B: Okay. What does that mean? What does homosexuality mean to you–does it mean an attraction or an act?
    A: Yes. Homosexuality is sinful. Why do you not repent?
    B: Um…okay. Except. What do you mean by homosexuality? It means a lot of different things to different people.
    A: Why are you still sinning?
    B: The Bible says same-sex sexual acts are sinful. Do you think that being same-sex attracted is also sinful?
    A: Sinful desires are of course sinful.
    B: Are you saying that being attracted to someone the same sex as you is, in itself, a sin.
    A: Of course.
    B: Oh. Okay. So how do you suggest someone with same-sex attraction should live their life?
    A: Why don’t you repent?
    B: Look. I’m same-sex attracted. That’s part of who I am. I’m not going to stop being same-sex attracted. Sexuality doesn’t work that way. How is it possible to repent for something you are as if it’s something you’ve done? For instance, can you repent of having two eyes? Won’t you still have two eyes after you repent, necessitating more repentance for having two eyes? Can you ever repent enough if what you’re repenting of is what you are? Can you be guilty of who you are, as if being in itself were a sin? How is it possible to repent of such a sin? And anyway, wouldn’t it be the height of hypocrisy, to repent of something I know I will actually be before , during, and after I repent…I mean, what kind of a repentance is that?
    A: All you need to do is repent.
    B: Yeah. I hear you. But what does that mean when you say it??? What does that look like?? Should I try to get rid of my sexuality? That doesn’t seem to actually work for anyone–people can change the pattern of their behavior, but not generally the pattern of attraction. This is one of the reasons why conversion therapy is so controversial. Should I hate my humanity because it includes my sexuality which can only ever be an actual sin?
    A: Why aren’t you getting it? And repenting?
    B: Okay. Okay. Okay. Let’s do this. If all attraction is sin…how do you it. How do you live?
    A: Oh. Everyone sins. You can’t expect not to sin.
    B: Okay. I’m getting the picture that just being human is actually an act of sin.
    A: You just have to repent.
    B: But what does that mean?
    A: Resist and struggle against sin.
    B: But according to you, my sexuality, which is part of my humanity, is sin. If I experience an attraction to a man, then I’m sinning. If I’m conscious enough of that attraction to struggle against it I’ve already sinned so what am I struggling against if, whether or not I struggle, I’m still sinning because I’m still experiencing the attraction?
    A: Just repent of your sinful desires. Okay?
    B: What do you mean when you say that and what does a good and repentant life look like for someone whose sexuality is itself considered sin? Is life even possible for such a person without either hypocrisy or abject despair?
    A: You are so unrepentant. Why are you looking for excuses or permission to sin? I hope one day you repent.

    And on and on…That’s pretty much how I’ve been experiencing our interactions…

  8. Mark
    December 11th, 2012 at 18:47 | #8

    @Jim Hamilton #7

    Okay, Jim. Thanks. I appreciate your honesty. It helps to know where one stands.

    Sorry for troubling you.

  9. Jim Hamilton
    December 11th, 2012 at 19:20 | #9

    @Mark #8

    You’re not troubling me. You don’t want to accept that your homosexual desires are sinful. You want to find a way to justify them. According to God’s Word, that can’t be done. Again, I hope you come to true faith and repentance.

  10. December 11th, 2012 at 20:22 | #10

    Jim Hamilton :@Mark #42
    Good luck with your struggles, Mark. I’m not going to banter with you. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you have no interest in true repentance. I hope that changes.

    “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” (Titus 3:9-11)

  11. Paul of Alexandria
    December 12th, 2012 at 11:53 | #11

    @Jim Hamilton #2
    I’m not necessarily arguing with you, but you’re not getting where I’m coming from. As it says in James, it is the works – the deeds – that show the faith. All humans will have urgings, longings, and even perverse desires. Some of those are due to biology, some to our human nature; some are innocuous, some are not. They’re not important per se; what we do as a result of them is.

    Perhaps to put it another way: as we discussed in scripture study last Sunday, the only unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit – that is, to turn down His gift of grace and forgiveness. You do this not when you have the urging or desire, since you cannot control that. Heck, study the early life of Martin Luther to see where attempting to do that kind of thing leads you. Rather, the sin is when you fail to discipline yourself and give in to the desire. The sin becomes unforgivable when you repeat this to the point where you no longer seek forgiveness.

  12. Paul of Alexandria
    December 12th, 2012 at 12:02 | #12

    @Mark #3
    Mark. You cannot stop the temptation – the feelings and desires. Indeed we constantly are warned in Scripture and by the church fathers that the closer we are to Christ the more we will be attacked! God will not blame you for being attacked! What you must do is to see that this is an attack and stop acting on the temptation!

    Unfortunately, sometimes we must simply take God’s word that something is bad for us and stop doing it. For one person it may be the desire to wash away troubles with excessive amounts of alcohol; for another it may be seeking peace in heroin; for another the arms of a woman not his wife; for another the arms of another man. I struggle with a bad temper. There are days when my wife simply drives me bonkers! That doesn’t mean, however, that I can every lay a finger on her, no matter what the provocation! (Although I have punched a wall on occasion). I’m sure that the woman caught in adultery was tempted by men even after Jesus told her to “go and sin no more.” I’m also reasonably confident that she did not yield to that temptation! Repent, then go and sin no more; repeat as necessary.

  13. Paul of Alexandria
    December 12th, 2012 at 12:04 | #13

    @Mark #4
    it would be nice to have permission to actually be human. It sounds like being human is synonymous with sin to you. Mark, just to clarify: what precisely do you mean by “being human.”?

  14. Paul of Alexandria
    December 12th, 2012 at 12:10 | #14

    @Mark #7
    Okay. What does that mean? What does homosexuality mean to you–does it mean an attraction or an act? As was said: the sin is the action, including deliberate thought. You may not be able to control the initial impulse. That doesn’t mean it’s “natural” or “good”, simply because it’s ingrained – it means that you (like all of us, in different ways) is flawed. That’s fine, that’s one thing that Jesus came and died to fix. You can, however, and must control how you act on those impulses. To repeat what others said: you may no longer have sex with any human not your wife. Period, end of statement. If that means that you are celibate for the rest of your life, so be it. If you claim to be a Christian and follow His Way, then you need to accept that you must act accordingly. It’s hard, it requires continual repentance and prayer, but it can be done.

  15. Mark
    December 12th, 2012 at 12:32 | #15

    @Pastor Ted Crandall #10

    Pastor, it seems like folks are having a difficult time answering the questions I’ve asked or explaining to me what I would like explained. People like to make statements that allude to understandings that they share with other like-minded folks, but apparently, they don’t actually like to share that understanding with others.

    I want to know what you (plural) believe and why and what the practical consequences of such belief is–I want to understand the logic behind the belief because I want to know how you understand the world and the people in it. You (plural) tell me to repent. I ask what that means to you. You tell me to repent. I ask what a repentant sort of life would look like given what I understand you to have said so far. You don’t affirm that understanding, you don’t deny it, you don’t explain it, you tell me to repent. I ask you to tell me what that means. You (plural) say I’m stirring up division, or picking and choosing what to believe, or that I want to find an excuse to do or be something sinful, or I’m just messing around, and then you tell me I’ve chosen not to repentant and that my problem is that I don’t believe in anything.

    Whenever I persist in asking you to explain your faith, you refuse and attempt to dismiss or belittle what you know of mine. You wind up using Scripture to sarcastically insinuate I’m the devil or smugly suggest that I’m just warped and beyond help.

    All of this has been my general experience of the confessional Lutheran witness to me on this site. And no, I’m not accusing you of bullying, Pastor. I’m saying that I have asked for bread and you have given me a stone. I have asked for an egg and you have given me a scorpion.

    These interactions have been very eye-opening. Thank you for that.

    “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52

    Be well. Happy Advent.

  16. Mark
    December 12th, 2012 at 13:02 | #16

    @Paul of Alexandria #14

    Paul, thank you for your responses. I appreciate them more than you know. I wrote what I wrote above to the Pastor before reading your comments, and while I do not regret posting what I wrote because it’s an honest reflection of how I’ve experienced this site, I see my growing cynicism regarding these forums as shameful in light of your kindness and patience.

    What you write seems reasonable to me. You asked me what I meant by “being human”–I find it difficult to believe in a total corruption model of humanity–it doesn’t suggest that humanity is ill and needs healing, but that humanity is irreparably broken and something better must replace it. In the end, I don’t know that a distinction can really be made between sin and humanity if we believe in the total corruption model. I affirm that being human is a good, a precious and wonderful and a valuable gift. I could not affirm that if humanity were synonymous with corruption. So I affirm that nature is wounded but not destroyed and that nature is healed and perfected by grace. Being human, then, means, in part, the capacity to actually receive grace and flourish in virtue by grace, and to do by that grace the good that God has called us to do in such a way that we truly and actually cooperate with grace and by grace in the bringing about of the New Creation of God. Moreover, it should be possible to discern in humanity, in human endeavor, and in the world signs of the beauty, goodness and truth with which God fashioned us, however much those signs may be marred by the disease of sin; and it should be possible, by grace, to lift up the beautiful, good and true that we see in the world, encourage it, and help it to grow and spread. If humanity is totally corrupt, I don’t see how such things would be possible. But perhaps you do. And if you do, I hope you’ll tell me how you believe as you do!

    Thank you, Paul.

  17. Paul of Alexandria
    December 12th, 2012 at 14:50 | #17

    @Mark #16
    I find it difficult to believe in a total corruption model of humanity–it doesn’t suggest that humanity is ill and needs healing, but that humanity is irreparably broken and something better must replace it.

    Or that a total overhaul must be done. That’s the prime Mystery behind Christianity. Somehow, Christs death and Resurrection changes us, or will change us after our deaths, so that all of that corruption is left behind and no longer a cause for us to be judged by God as unworthy of heaven. This is never explained, but it is the sum and substance of the Gospel. I suspect that all of the emphasis in Christianity on “faith” (which is nothing more than trusting God to tell the truth) is precisely this: that this change cannot be explained to us, any more than – say – a vaccination can be explained to a 3-year old in terms more complicated than “it will keep you from getting sick”. We must simply accept that it is true and (see James) show that acceptance by daily fighting the corruption.

    I affirm that being human is a good, a precious and wonderful and a valuable gift. I could not affirm that if humanity were synonymous with corruption.
    Yes, but you need to look closely at your definitions. If I have a rusty wrench in my toolbox, the rust is part and parcel of that wrench, but not its “wrenchness”. Perhaps we might say that humanity as God created it was pure and uncorrupted, but all humans are corrupt, down to our DNA. I’m sorry, but this essential corruption is a basic tenet of Christianity, and where it differentiates from all other religions. There is nothing, absolutely no thing, that you can do to clear that corruption or be good enough so that God will accept you into his heaven.

    Being human, then, means, in part, the capacity to actually receive grace and flourish in virtue by grace, and to do by that grace the good that God has called us to do in such a way that we truly and actually cooperate with grace and by grace in the bringing about of the New Creation of God. Yes but…. You must recognize that it is through God’s grace that these things are possible; not ours. At that, we cannot really “cooperate” with grace at all. Luther phrased it much better, and I’m sure that the pastors on the list could provide appropriate citations, but once heard a good analogy: we’re in the position of a person who has had a heart attack is laying on the floor. God comes up with the AED and restarts the heart; we cannot restart it ourselves, although we are free to go thereafter and jump in front of a truck.

    If humanity is totally corrupt, I don’t see how such things would be possible. But perhaps you do. And if you do, I hope you’ll tell me how you believe as you do!
    “With God all things are possible.” It’s as simple as that. It’s nothing that I do. Admittedly I was brought up in the Lutheran Church, which helps.

  18. Paul of Alexandria
    December 12th, 2012 at 15:03 | #18

    @Mark #15
    want to know what you (plural) believe and why and what the practical consequences of such belief is–I want to understand the logic behind the belief because I want to know how you understand the world and the people in it.

    Just as a note: part of the problem here seems to be definitions. The pastors honestly think that they are answering your questions. It’s just they are coming from a Lutheran perspective, and possibly don’t appreciate where you are coming from. For instance, re @Mark #7 above, the Luther response to your question is “repent”. Just that, no more. The problem is that you and they have different assumptions as to what “repent” means, and to what a persons state before and after repentance is, exactly.

    I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that you believe that mankind is fundamentally good and can somehow demonstrate this to God. The core of Luther’s teaching, which was derived from the teachings of the early church fathers and Scripture, in an effort to correct errors that had crept into the Roman Catholic church, is that this is not, in fact, possible. (This is what Jim means in @Jim Hamilton #6 above.)

  19. Jim Hamilton
    December 12th, 2012 at 17:52 | #19

    @Mark #15

    “Whenever I persist in asking you to explain your faith, you refuse and attempt to dismiss or belittle what you know of mine. You wind up using Scripture to sarcastically insinuate I’m the devil or smugly suggest that I’m just warped and beyond help.
    All of this has been my general experience of the confessional Lutheran witness to me on this site. And no, I’m not accusing you of bullying, Pastor. I’m saying that I have asked for bread and you have given me a stone. I have asked for an egg and you have given me a scorpion.”

    There are times when I actually believe you’re sincere, Mark, and then you write a steaming load of nonsense like this. You’re completely full of crap and you know it. Over the course of two separate threads now numerous people have explained to you in explicit, pain-staking detail the confessional Lutheran (Scriptural) position on homosexuality, lustful desires, and the life of repentance. You don’t like the answers. You want to be a practicing homosexual and you want God to approve of it. No matter how many ways you ask the question, no faithful confessional Lutheran is going to tell you that it’s OK to give into your homosexual lusts. You can pretend that we’ve been cruel to you and mocked you but that’s simply false. There are many “Christian” denominations that will happily “celebrate” your gayness with you. The orthodox Lutheran church is not one of them, so stop asking.

  20. Jim Hamilton
    December 12th, 2012 at 18:03 | #20

    @Paul of Alexandria #11

    Ok, I see your point. I guess I was misunderstanding you. I agree with you.

Comment pages
1 2 25129
If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.