I remember working with a gaggle of gay men in a kitchen preparing food for a charity event at an Episcopal church. While placing dollops of whipped crème on the desserts a thought occurred to me: the Mormons would never entertain the thought of having a group of gay men preparing food in their social hall. It just wouldn’t be done. It’s not because of the fear of AIDS. It would be because of the implied or the tacit approval of avowed sinners if they welcomed such a benign group to their house of worship. Despite the worthy cause, a gaggle/quiver/quorum/group of homosexuals would never be allowed in the door of the LDS ward house to prepare food.

And I doubt I will ever see the day when the Gay’s Men Choir will be invited to sing a Christmas carol in the infamous tabernacle (or the new mega-nacle) in Salt Lake City. But I hear of gay men choir recitals and concerts in other churches. Has a gay men’s choir ever sang in a Cathedral or a Synagogue?

I am only speculating in asking this question: Would these same virulent anti-gay churches welcome a group of ex-cons to help prepare food for a church event? If so, why would a group of homosexuals be so reviled?

I have to say, it was an enlightening experience I had with those Episcopals.

Kensington has been on here dozens of times calling Cecil a sinner. According to Christian theology, that is correct. Cecil was a sinner. So an I. So is Kensington. We all “fall short,” as they say.

But I did not establish this forum to allow Kensington and others to monopolize the discussion with the single-minded insistence that their theology is the only one that matters. And I’m grow quite tired of her splitting hairs, separating the “sin” of homosexuality as though it were worse than all the other sins presented in this forum. And I’ve grown especially tired of her pretending to know the mind of Cecil and his partner and passing judgment on them.

I think I’ve been more than indulgent, but I think we’ve reached the point where Kensington has nothing new to contribute to the discussion. Therefore, I am putting her on moderation for the time being.

It think we’ve all said what we can say, and I see that she’s now repeating herself. Since she is on moderation, I will also ask other commenters to please refrain from addressing her. Otherwise, in fairness, I must allow her the chance to respond.

Since this church is attempting to appear to “stand on principle” – I’d like to know exactly what principle they have about deliberate and intentional lying.

Signed, Compassion, A true child of God.

BTW.. Jesus ACTUALLY said.. that Who ever divorces and remarries “EXCEPT” for the reason of fornication (sex outside of the marriage) is adultery.

The man or woman who divorced a cheating spouse and then remarries, has not committed adultery. I do read my bible. Every day.

I think you missed the point. You may want to catch up on your Bible reading.

Jesus himself said that remarriage is adultery. Many churches that believe that this is cultural or that times are different or that Jesus was talking about abuse of power or whatever also tend to think that condemnations on homosexuality (unlike remarriage) are literal and for ever without exception amen.

We old fashioned Christians tend to think of that as a double standard and more than a little, well, like a whitewashed sepulchure (but to get that reference you’d also need to read the Bible).

No they would not, not if all three wives were sitting there as married to him, being listed as his surviors, and he had not repented of his adultery and stopped that behavior.

As to the glutton funeral, probably not, not if the insisted on having an “all you can eat buffet” laid out on the coffin.

This is where you all don’t get it. This man was not repentant of his sins, the family wanted pictures of men with men in the video. And when the service (which was not a funeral) actually happened, there were displays of affection and speaking in support of that lifestyle too.

Which is EXACTLY what the pastor said he could not have in his sanctuary. EXACTLY.

But, then if you don’t believe that particiapating in homsexual behaviors is sin in the sight of God, we aren’t going to agree.

And then there are those who believe that Christianity is about holding up standards of appropriateness and not condoning sin.

I guess it all depends on how you see God.

You keep repeating the phrase “I can’t do this” as though that were all that was the extent of the offense. I find your trivializing the pastor’s actions as though those four words were all he did deeply callous and outrageously offensive.

I don’t believe you read Paul Wagoner’s comment just above. If you did and you still feel that way, then there is still a Samaritan at the side of the road.

You’ve made it abundantly clear how you feel about the whole situation.