by Downtowner 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I find it ironic that JW.org publishes an article about homosexuality on the day I received July 2020 issue if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints magazine "Ensign" which also has an article on same-sex attraction.
Regardless, the LDS article comes across as more caring than the JW article although in the end members in good standing cannot act upon their same-sex attraction in either religion.
Not too surprising since June is LGBTQ+ awareness month.
Neither stand is acceptable. So what if people act on homosexual or bisexual drives? Or have sex around a marriage, either without being married at all or extramarital? (So long as all parties are aware of the situation and agree to it, and not lying about it.) Why does joke-hova have to intrude on something like this that is going to hurt no one? Not to mention, it is no one else's business outside the participants.
This is quite typical of these religious cancers. One is against something so stupid as Christmas celebrations, the other invades people's private areas so they can find what you are wearing for underwear. I know the jokehovians are quite intrusive on entertainment (such as listening to Barbra Scheißand instead of Led Zeppelin). But I do not know how intrusive the mor[m]ons are regarding music--I would imagine they are just as bad.
Downtowner - "... the LDS article comes across as more caring than the JW article..."
Unsurprising.
I've long thought of the LDS as the WT's weirder but nicer older cousin.
...
I actually suspect that (unlike the WTS) the Mormons will eventually come around as time goes by and they evolve to survive...
...other mainstream Christian denominations are, after all.
JWs often talk about homosexuality but have very little to say one-to-one to homosexuals. In the Sophie video, her mother talks in a roundabout way to Sophie about what homosexuals need to do to get into the kingdom. Similarly, in the video featuring a virtuous young sister who is angrily confronted by a worldly woman (naturally) because the sister will not wear an arm bracelet in support of alternate lifestyles: It is a message about homosexuals to JWs about maintaining their stand in non-JW environments.
This tells me JWs have very little positive they want to share with non-heterosexuals: it's as if they cannot bring themselves to talk to the very people whose lifestyles they condemn. A moist off-putting approach.
steve2 - "...It is a message about homosexuals to JWs..."
Let's be honest...
...has anything the WT put out ever really been for anyone but JWs?
steve2 - "...it's as if they cannot bring themselves to talk to the very people whose lifestyles they condemn..."
Yup, just like they don't really have the balls to condemn militant Islam.
Science can explain things where ignorance cant.
The ancients were not fully knowledgeable about huamn sexuality , they saw homosexuality as a detestable sin not something inherently biological.
Here is my first opportunity in decades to say something nice about the JW's.
Though they may never accept a homosexual marriage or relationship they would never knock on doors with a singular message to vote against Gay marriage.
The ancients were not fully knowledgeable about huamn sexuality , they saw homosexuality as a detestable sin not something inherently biological.
Mr. Finkelstein, I appreciate the sentiments you express, and agree with the exception of the generalisation implied with the term "the ancients."
Sexuality in most ancient cultures did not see same sex sexualty as a 'detestable sin,' Its true that in Graeco-Roman culture some individual writers may have condemned homosexuality, but in general it was not condemned.
Yes good clarification fulltimestudent
