Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 142021222324
Results 691 to 698 of 698

Thread: The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

  1. #691
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I don't want to dive into this discussion but I'll just note that the same policy applies to children of polygamous parents. In fact, this one was modeled on that one. I have issues with how the new policy was rolled out, among other things, but I don't think it singles out any group. Ugh. I hate this.

    Polygamous parents promote/teach their children about the virtues, advantages and "correct doctrine" of polygamy beginning at a very young and impressionable age. Gay parents are not known to promote the advantages, virtues and correct doctrine of being gay to their children. There's little, if any, relationship between the two situations IMO.
    “Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman

    "You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb

    "Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.

  2. #692
    Quote Originally Posted by mUUser View Post
    Polygamous parents promote/teach their children about the virtues, advantages and "correct doctrine" of polygamy beginning at a very young and impressionable age. Gay parents are not known to promote the advantages, virtues and correct doctrine of being gay to their children. There's little, if any, relationship between the two situations IMO.
    The relationship between the two is that there is potential for family strife/pain/hurt.

    I agree with UTEopia that this was a solution without a problem. The hypothetital problem was that kids would be baptized and then be taught that their parents are living contrary to the commandments of the church. It's not hard to imagine how that could be bad for a family.

  3. #693
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    I was born and raised in Utah. I visit often. As an American and devout Mormon who currently lives outside the US, I can authoritatively state: the two cultures are inextricably linked. As well, it could be agued that one could not exist without the other. In fact, that is often what was taught in (LDS) church when I was growing up—that the restoration could only have happened in the United States of America, with a constitution guaranteeing certain inalienable rights. In particular the right to freedom of religion.

    Leo Tolstoy considers Mormonism the American Religion:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...-Religion.html

    Additionally, the articles I linked to above contradict your assertions concerning the [great] expansion of LGBT rights in the US. Utah and it's laws that were backed by the LDS church and passed by legislators, a majority of which are active LDS,* is an outlier among what can be considered conservative US states. What's more, the reality is, any rights afforded to LGBT individuals in any state in the US is a fairly recent phenomenon. In contrast, I live in a country where LGBT individuals have had such rights for more than ten years. Including the right to marry:
    American culture has existed and could easily exist without Mormon culture. It does almost everywhere in the U.S. Whether Mormon culture could have existed without American culture is a different question, and I don't really care what the answer is.

    Leo Tolstoy doesn't consider anything. He's dead.

    Um, in the last three years, gays have earned the right to marry nationwide, over the vociferous objection of the LDS Church. LBGT folks also obtained the right to serve openly in the military. While it is true some rearguard actions are attempting to move the clock back, the majority of Americans are far more accepting of LGBT than they were even a few years ago. Again, I applaud the Legislature's passing of that bill, but it doesn't remove the stain of the November, 2015 policy that continues to be a black mark on the church, and continues to treat LGBT as "less than."

  4. #694
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    Like many things, the policy was an answer seeking a problem. The policy of the LDS Church has always been that minors need parental permission to receive an LDS Church ordinance. This policy preventing such ordinances to the children of same sex marriages, even when the parents consent, is unnecessary. I guess that, instead of the parents saying no to Johnny's baptism, the parents can now say that the church you want to join won't let you join because of our marriage.
    File this for what it is worth, I personally don't put too much credence in it which is why I never mentioned it. I also agree with the "solution looking for a problem" analysis.

    However, BEFORE the policy a LDS church employee I know told me there was a group of gay parents in CA who were going to LDS churches and asking that their children be blessed. For you ward clerks out there you know you fill out a paper or online form that requires a mother and a father before a blessing. Uncertain what to do resulted in multiple calls to the COB that triggered issues.

    Later when this happened he said he believed it was a response to that.

    Like I said, I don't know and I said to him at the time it seemed a pretty dramatic response to a clerical issue.

    File it for what is worth, which is less than the pixels it is taking.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #695
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah View Post
    This is where I have a little bit of an issue. I get what you are saying. I understand the policy vs doctrine. BUT, wasn't the blacks and priesthood taught as doctrine?

    If not, then where do we draw the line when it comes to following the prophet? Do I HAVE to follow the prophet, even if his policies are wrong (according to McConkie, yes). If the answer is yes, then what about my free agency and my ability to receive inspiration from the holy ghost?

    BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith said in "The Way to Perfection", p. 110 that the Church's view on blacks and the priesthood was doctrine, not policy.

    What happens when the doctrine on gay marriage becomes policy after we change it?
    I have vague remembrances of the announcement of the change in policy in 1978, but I was 9 years old at the time. From experience, I cannot say what was and was not taught as doctrine regarding blacks and the priesthood.

    I believe that the president of the LDS Church is a prophet who can receive revelation direct from God for the entire church and even all of humankind. However, I also believe that I have a right to receive personal revelation from God regarding my own life. I do not believe in blind faith. If I have a question or concern about something the prophet said, or a decision or policy made by the church, I believe I can go to God himself -- as opposed to going to Google -- and getting my own revelation. I further believe that If I have a problem with church leadership, it is mine, not theirs, and that I should get on my knees and stay there until I no longer have a problem -- because God has given me the understanding I needed.

    This
    This is what we fail to remember. These are just men, who are doing their best to help us do their best. I'm not so sure they are anything other than that, just like every other church out there. That is why their stances on homosexuality are so hard to hear.

    Are they from god, or are they just an older man's prejudices and fears?

    My heart tells me this isn't from God.
    It seems we focus on one at the exclusion of the other sometimes. They are men. They are inspired. But it is both. They are men and they are inspired. Getting called to church leadership does not make one infallible, but getting called to leadership at least sometimes means that you are not just ordinary. I am a history guy. In addition to military and American history, I also study church history. In addition to reading biographies of generals, admirals and presidents, I read bios of LDS presidents. While these men are still human, they also have tended to be somewhat extraordinary.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  6. #696
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayes6 View Post
    American culture has existed and could easily exist without Mormon culture. It does almost everywhere in the U.S. Whether Mormon culture could have existed without American culture is a different question, and I don't really care what the answer is.

    Leo Tolstoy doesn't consider anything. He's dead.

    Um, in the last three years, gays have earned the right to marry nationwide, over the vociferous objection of the LDS Church. LBGT folks also obtained the right to serve openly in the military. While it is true some rearguard actions are attempting to move the clock back, the majority of Americans are far more accepting of LGBT than they were even a few years ago. Again, I applaud the Legislature's passing of that bill, but it doesn't remove the stain of the November, 2015 policy that continues to be a black mark on the church, and continues to treat LGBT as "less than."
    Are you purposely being obtuse? Mormon culture exists exclusively because American culture first existed. Mormon culture is born of American culture. In other words, American culture begat Mormon culture. There is no argument. That is a statement of fact, not supposition. Precisely because the Mormon church was founded in America by Americans and not someplace else.

    Um, three years ago? Wow, that's great but quite late as compared to other countries, which begs the question: what the hell is wrong with America ... why didn't Americans grant that right much earlier? And no, according to the links I posted above, a majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. But the LDS church did openly and vociferously support anti-discrimination laws protecting the rights of LGBT individuals. Resulting in the Landmark legislation. That too is a matter of fact.

  7. #697
    Handsome Boy Graduate mpfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Nobody around here seems to really like or understand the policy, but "we don't want to create conflict in families" is a million miles from "gays are worse than rapists!"
    This policy is not about not creating conflict in families. Not in the slightest.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    So I said to David Eckstein, "You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
    --fjm.com

  8. #698
    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    If it was about this, they would exclude them from attending church. If they show up, baptized or not, they are going to be taught their parents are evil.
    Don't like what I wrote, so I'm deleting it. Sorry.
    Last edited by sancho; 03-26-2017 at 10:02 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •