[T]here's no other reason for them to be doing this at this point in time, unless it is to help Romney."
There you have it.
Ping to the real reason Mormons are sucking up to the homos (pun intended).
Our first mistake is to assume that they are Christians. Everything else follows from that. They’re 19th Century Scientologists with a veneer of respectability due to their “born-on” date, the choir and the short memory of the public.
I would add forced tithing.
Homosexuals as a group have the largest disposable income.
Well, I think the Mormon Church has multiple motives at play; the Romney angle is one...and could be #1.
Just two months ago, the Mormon Church released an "essay" on Joseph Smith's polygamy, acknowledging that he may have had up to 40 wives...that a significant percentage of these wives were already wives to other men & remained married to two men simultaneously...and that Smith married a 14 yo and several other young teens.
Think about the timing of all of this:
2nd week of November: essay on Smith polygamous unions released
Less than 2 months later, Romney "seriousfies" 2016 POTUS intentions...
****************************************
Other potential secondary factors at play?
Now that the state of Utah has said it's not enforcing prosecution vs. polygamists, the Mormon leaders...who have LONG provided hidden cover to polygamists well after 1890...realize that if they're going to quietly sanction one alternative "sexual orientation"...polygamy...then all is "fair" in lust & war across the board!
This is all rooted in the Lds general authority knee-jerk reaction to the crit the church unfairly rec'd after supporting onemanonewoman marriage in 2008.
I guess they realized how political posturing in the name of "we're not polygamists anymore" made them a cultural target & effected their "comfort zone."
But then...
...(1) the media started running "Big LOVE" polygamous "reality" shows to get the culture to soften up on it...
...(2a) it's been cited on FR DOZENS of times since 2008's Prop 8 backing how Lds "apostles" (like Bruce McConkie) taught that polygamy would be reinstituted on earth when the Mormon Jesus returned...
...(2b) and how their teaching that marriage is eternal means ALL kinds of Mormons from EVERY century would then become eternal polygamists...
...THEREFORE, I think the Mormon Church has realized that since it's untenable for them to run away from their sanctioning of polygamy on the sly that they might as well carve a way to get EVERYBODY to accept EVERY "sexual orientation" under the sun...if not morally, then in every other way.
Mohler has spoken at Brigham Young University — a Mormon school in Provo, Utah — on two occasions, making clear both times “there is a great theological chasm between biblical Christianity and the LDS church,”
___________________________________
Oh noez..
an evil anti-Mormon..
a secret FI...
:)
The Mormons’ announcement could be an attempt to aid Mitt Romney in a 2016 presidential campaign,
____________________________________
Ah yeppers..
after all Willard is the father of homosexual marriage and has publically called for “gay rights” including homosexual boy scout leaders, as early as 1994..
got to cover the butt of the golden headed boy ...
I said essentially the same thing yesterday.
The mormons are pandering in hopes that the lgbt crowd will leave them alone...
As evidenced by another thread on FR posted earlier today, it didn’t take long for their hopes to be dashed by the lgbt crowd.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3251525/posts
If it’s an attempt to help Romney, well then, I can’t explain stupid.
God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as against His law, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.
While that is an ecclesiastical matter, that is to day, a matter in the realm of religious belief, for centuries we have had a legal concept of “moral turpitude”.
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.”[1] This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.[2]
The concept of “moral turpitude” might escape precise definition, but it has been described as an “act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”[3] (from wikipedia)
The left is continually pushing the envelope and at this very moment we are being told that man-boy love should be considered health and normal. In fact that is an association for people who share this view, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Should that view prevail, will an sexual relations with between an adult male and a minor be considered a matter of “moral turpitude” or not?
This would not be an issue except for two things, both of which involve government’s intrusion in our private lives:
1) for purposes of civil rights, the right of a business owner to exercise control over his private property by allowing or excluding who may enter his business has be abridged so that he cannot deny a person “accommodation” based on race. This civil right has now been stretched to include people who practice homosexuality.
2) that homosexuals not only demand the civil right to copulate with each other, many of them demand that the rest of us approve of their acts. This is the basis behind their demands to have the state allow them to “marry”, despite how that is physically impossible, not to mention what abomination that is to God.
If homosexuals just wanted the freedom to commit private acts in private, the libertarian in me says, “live and let live”. But I now know that the wrath of homosexuals will descend on anyone who voices disapproval of their acts in public. Recall how the CEO of Mozilla was run out of office. It not called the “gay mafia” for nothing.
I would also point out that God makes it very clear in many places that He will judge a society that has egregious sins, and we have the example of Sodom to look to.
The entire 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians is about a church that was proud of how it allowed an unspeakable sexual sin to continue out in the open. The Apostle Paul ends the chapter by saying that the church must put out the evil. Did the LDS church reiterate that these sexual sins are evil? Did they observe that is in an affront to our unalienable right of religious liberty to even have to claim an “exemption” from a law that should not be in effect at all?
Muslim community:
Ahmadiyya Times: USA: LDS Church backs LGBT nondiscrimination and religious freedom bills
Liberals?
The Washington Post sees this as an outright "endorsement" of transgender, gay, and lesbian lifestyles:
How much will the Mormon Church’s endorsement of LGBT protections sway Mormon lawmakers?
Out of a list of 41 different denominations, there were only 12 which said no to all of the following.
Allow gay membership, ordains, blesses unions, marries
Adventist
Assemblies of God
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Church of the Nazarene
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Traditionalist Catholic
Presbyterian Church in America
Southern Baptist Convention
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
United Pentecostal Church International
All of the others varied, so maybe there are more Churches with a big problem than with out one.