Page 22 of 31 FirstFirst ... 12181920212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 660 of 903

Thread: The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

  1. #631
    I've probably mentioned this a 1,000 times, but why is the Church, which is lead by Jesus Christ, so reactionary to everything. They are never proactive about anything other than tithing collection.

    This feels like they came out with their policy, a bunch of people left the Church, the 12 muttered "oh, shit" under their breath and hurried and came out with a website to show that normal people (including LGBT) ARE members of the Church, and even though all the policies are set up to drive you away and that you will never be able to fully give 100% to a relationship (because you cannot get married in the LDS Church to a same sex person and not be breaking the law of chastity) and you can't live with your partner and you can't be in a relationship with your partner, but other than that, look how normal we are!

    This is nothing more than damage control. This is so the few remaining members can tell themselves that the Church really does care.

  2. #632
    Quote Originally Posted by The Thrill View Post
    Unless you view their "stay with us" approach as being more of "stay with us and we can heal you from your sins." The SSA disease can be cured, just ask any shock therapy survivor.

    Here's the problem, being gay (I personally am not but have many gay friends) is a feeling of isolation. Many gay people feel "different" from early on and some feel the need to be "fixed" to be normal. The church is preying on them as an easy target. Just like all the get rich quick or lose weight fast scams that bilk billions of dollars out of desperate people. So why does the church want to save these lost souls? Easy, every individual voice attacking the church is a bad one. Save as many as you can. The entire argument of "it's not normal" is horseshit. Did anybody every think that God created gay people to control overpopulation? To say God wouldn't create gay people is blasphemy and to question an omnipotent being is arrogant beyond comprehension...that is of course if you believe there is a magic man living in the sky but that's a different thread.

    What will be the church's stand when genetic mapping recognizes a gay gene? With all the different genetic mutations in the 7 billion isn't it possible that a human could be born with female chromosomes in the brain and male chromosomes in the body? That makes more sense to me than somebody choosing a lifestyle of persecution and ridicule as well as risking personal harm to themselves physically and mentally. With all the horrible actions taken against the homosexual community why would anybody rightfully choose that? Baby, they were born this way.

    I see this outreach to the gay community from the church as nothing more than an arrogant attempt to play god. Sure they welcome homosexuals into their community, then slowly convince them that their lifestyle is wrong and unnatural. How terrible is that? Is it any wonder the gay community has such a high suicide rate? Thankfully through recent acceptance that rate is diminishing but not with the help of groups like the LDS church who continue to convince these people they are bad.

    Just leave them alone, they aren't hurting you in any way what-so-ever. I've asked many anti-gay people why they have a problem with homosexuals and the best and only answer I've come to accept is "it's gross." I can buy that argument over it's unnatural or it will hurt the sanctity of marriage. Bull shit, they don't like it so they want it to go away. Rant over.
    10 years ago this position was pretty much spot on, but I think we're seeing an organization in transition.

    Where previously the line was (more or less) "if you're experiencing SSA, it must be due to something *you* did", I think now the tacit understanding is "we don't know why some people have SSA, and it appears to be an innate trait, something they didn't 'choose', but the commandments are clear - homosexual affection is a sin".

    Younger generations are more and more shaking off the last part, and asking if these folks didn't choose this orientation, how can it be their fault, and why do they need to go though life feeling marginalized and wishing themselves dead?

    There's one of the LDS General Authorities, Todd Kristofferson (?) who has a brother who is gay, is now older and trying to "live the gospel" / get back into the fold. He's helping to inform Mormons that this isn't really an acquired orientation, but is also causing a lot of anger among gays because in eschewing his previous relationships, he's essentially admitting that being gay is a kind of affliction, an imperfection, an inferior variant of human being.

    There's certainly a damage control aspect to this, especially as young Mormons simply don't see why gays are viewed as damaged, and are prohibited from expressing romantic love, in this life. The growing understanding among Mormon leaders and Mormons in general that homosexuality isn't simply a result of bad choices is a big step forward, it lays the foundation for reconsidering their status in life.

    On the genetics part, I suspect that they'll find a number of genes that increase the predisposition to being homosexual, but there are other biological mechanisms that have a large impact. In the UK in the 60s and 70s, they gave pregnant women who were at risk of miscarriage some medicine that has resulted in 80%+ of the male offspring from those pregnancies being homosexuals. So, that's not a genetics cause, per se, but it's definitely a biological development issue. Similarly, women who are under high stress during their pregnancies are at higher risk of producing homosexual male offspring.

    I'm not defending the LDS / traditional Christian theological position on homosexuality. I'm just pointing out that understandings are changing, and in the case of the LDS religion, the potential exists for the theology to change. Making 90 degree, abrupt turns is highly unlikely and problematic in itself, but over the course of time what is commonly believed and taught can change quite dramatically.

  3. #633
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    10 years ago this position was pretty much spot on, but I think we're seeing an organization in transition.

    Where previously the line was (more or less) "if you're experiencing SSA, it must be due to something *you* did", I think now the tacit understanding is "we don't know why some people have SSA, and it appears to be an innate trait, something they didn't 'choose', but the commandments are clear - homosexual affection is a sin".

    Younger generations are more and more shaking off the last part, and asking if these folks didn't choose this orientation, how can it be their fault, and why do they need to go though life feeling marginalized and wishing themselves dead?

    There's one of the LDS General Authorities, Todd Kristofferson (?) who has a brother who is gay, is now older and trying to "live the gospel" / get back into the fold. He's helping to inform Mormons that this isn't really an acquired orientation, but is also causing a lot of anger among gays because in eschewing his previous relationships, he's essentially admitting that being gay is a kind of affliction, an imperfection, an inferior variant of human being.

    There's certainly a damage control aspect to this, especially as young Mormons simply don't see why gays are viewed as damaged, and are prohibited from expressing romantic love, in this life. The growing understanding among Mormon leaders and Mormons in general that homosexuality isn't simply a result of bad choices is a big step forward, it lays the foundation for reconsidering their status in life.

    On the genetics part, I suspect that they'll find a number of genes that increase the predisposition to being homosexual, but there are other biological mechanisms that have a large impact. In the UK in the 60s and 70s, they gave pregnant women who were at risk of miscarriage some medicine that has resulted in 80%+ of the male offspring from those pregnancies being homosexuals. So, that's not a genetics cause, per se, but it's definitely a biological development issue. Similarly, women who are under high stress during their pregnancies are at higher risk of producing homosexual male offspring.

    I'm not defending the LDS / traditional Christian theological position on homosexuality. I'm just pointing out that understandings are changing, and in the case of the LDS religion, the potential exists for the theology to change. Making 90 degree, abrupt turns is highly unlikely and problematic in itself, but over the course of time what is commonly believed and taught can change quite dramatically.
    Ma'ake, I always appreciate your insight and POV when it comes to this sort of stuff. It is rare I think to have what I think is a pretty fair and practical view of a religion you left long ago. Most people on either side (myself included) are pretty emotionally tied to their position and it is hard to step back and see the forest from the trees.

    I agree with what you have said and think it is all accurate. I also understand why saying, "You are who you are, but you can't act on it" is painful for people and offensive to others. My thought is though that the more I go through life the more I realized that everybody is damaged and there are a lot of rules that seem contrary to that damage, if that makes sense. For example my great aunt who never married and lived a celibate life. That was unfair. My disabled mother who has dealt with that her whole life was unfair. The people who grew up poor, the kid from abusive parents, me being bald, people suffering from depression, people who lost their dad when they were a child, etc. It is all pretty unfair. I have a very wealthy friend that someone said to me, "Oh I wish I could live his perfect little life with every luxury in the world." They didn't know he lost his wife to cancer and would trade all of his wealth to get her back. So life seems to be full of 'affliction' much of it seemingly unbearable.

    It seems to be a human construct to assign fault to affliction (and I do believe that people can create their own affliction). But we need to get over that.

    My point I guess is this: That is what the 'good news' is supposed to be all about though. Life is unjust, but mercy and justice will come in ways we don't understand right now. In the meantime, we humans need to break from poor reasoning and realize our job is simply to learn to love one another and treat everyone the best we can. I think the new church website does a better, albeit not perfect, job at encouraging that. My guess and hope is the hardcore Mormon parents who just had a child who came out will have read or will read that site and realize that their plan to shun their child is the wrong plan and doesn't have the backing of the church. If it fixes that issue alone I would call that site a huge success.

  4. #634
    I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand. If you are a male heterosexual, imagine you are born into a religion where they tell you that your attraction to women is sinful. Then they change it to say, it's not sinful per se, but acting on it is. So you need to go through life not showing any affection toward a women, not looking at suggestive pictures of them, and certainly not marrying one. In fact, you are encouraged to marry a man and have sex with him. And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you. And they don't call your "defect" heterosexuality, they call it opposite sex attraction "OSA". Your religion treats it like just another cross to bear like a disability or the tragedy of a deceased spouse.

  5. #635
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...s-leaders.html

    This is a very humane - and wise - move by the Church to embrace gay Mormons.

    - It's a speed bump for young Mormons heading to the exits over the gay issue.

    - It helps lays the seeds for sincere, faithful questioning among not just members and lower leaders, but the Big 15, and those who will be in that group, in the next 5-20 years, or so.

    Fascinating to watch wheels turn, even if you need time-lapse photography to do it.

    Good stuff.

    Any goodwill the church had built with those sympathetic to LGBT, went **poof** and vaporized overnight with its new policy. Inexplicably it went after innocent children. While a certain number of members understand the policy, there seems to be a sizable number of mostly younger members, plus those that aren't members, that see the move as unnecessarily mean-spirited.

    I think the church missteps in its outlook and treatment of LGBT will linger for generations.
    “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.

  6. #636
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayes6 View Post
    I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand. If you are a male heterosexual, imagine you are born into a religion where they tell you that your attraction to women is sinful. Then they change it to say, it's not sinful per se, but acting on it is. So you need to go through life not showing any affection toward a women, not looking at suggestive pictures of them, and certainly not marrying one. In fact, you are encouraged to marry a man and have sex with him. And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you. And they don't call your "defect" heterosexuality, they call it opposite sex attraction "OSA". Your religion treats it like just another cross to bear like a disability or the tragedy of a deceased spouse.
    Are you really being dismissive of disabilities or losing a spouse? Maybe put yourself in those shoes too?

  7. #637
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayes6 View Post
    I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand. If you are a male heterosexual, imagine you are born into a religion where they tell you that your attraction to women is sinful. Then they change it to say, it's not sinful per se, but acting on it is. So you need to go through life not showing any affection toward a women, not looking at suggestive pictures of them, and certainly not marrying one. In fact, you are encouraged to marry a man and have sex with him. And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you. And they don't call your "defect" heterosexuality, they call it opposite sex attraction "OSA". Your religion treats it like just another cross to bear like a disability or the tragedy of a deceased spouse.
    Beautifully put. I can't imagine being attracted to my wife without being able to act on it or being told I was bad for thinking it. I should preface this with my wife is black and 50 years ago it might have been a different story.

    What the LDS church really needs to do is make all homosexual males into priests, not the lame priests who hand out prison food but actually priests who take a life of celibacy. Maybe monks, they don't have a calling for celibate monks yet. Call them monks and make them lifetime missionaries for the church handing out pamphlets at the airport and social events, especially Pride Fest.

    For the lesbian women, meh does it matter? They don't really care what women do as long as they don't make any noise. Make them nuns if need be.

    I've still yet to receive an answer as to how homosexuality impacts somebody who isn't involved in that lifestyle.

  8. #638
    Once this generation of leaders dies off, the new prophet will change the doctrine.

    It's what happens. Find a social issue the church is on the wrong side of. 10 years after the gentiles get it right, the church follows course (which is about how long it takes for current leadership to die off).

    For those who say this will affect the church for generations...it won't. The AA/priesthood thing was much more egregious than the LGBT issue and everyone just moves on.

    I'd bet most members under 30 don't realize how racist the prophets/apostles were. When my dad served his mission, he was told not to teach black people because they couldn't be saved anyways and his time was better spent teaching the righteous white people.

  9. #639
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Are you really being dismissive of disabilities or losing a spouse? Maybe put yourself in those shoes too?
    No, I'm not. What I'm saying is a religion can't take away a disability or bring back a deceased spouse. But a religion can take away the pain of not living a full life because of the "defect" of homosexuality. Change the policy! They've changed far more fundamental policies. These baby steps may make the rank and file feel better, but again, put yourself in the shoes of who you are trying to understand. Do these minor changes actually make their lives fulfilled? Are they not still treated as lesser humans? Does the church treat the disabled that way or widows that way?

  10. #640
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayes6 View Post
    I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand.......

    Kudos to you. Empathy is a lost, but, wonderfully impactful art.
    “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.

  11. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayes6 View Post
    No, I'm not. What I'm saying is a religion can't take away a disability or bring back a deceased spouse. But a religion can take away the pain of not living a full life because of the "defect" of homosexuality. Change the policy! They've changed far more fundamental policies. These baby steps may make the rank and file feel better, but again, put yourself in the shoes of who you are trying to understand. Do these minor changes actually make their lives fulfilled? Are they not still treated as lesser humans? Does the church treat the disabled that way or widows that way?
    You might want to reread what I said originally. (And yes, people - and not just a church - do treat disabled and widowed people differently or without compassion). My point was similar to yours in that everybody has tough challenges and in light of that we should just try to be compassionate and love one another. As a believer I also find comfort in the belief that wrongs will be made right someday too.

  12. #642
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayes6 View Post
    I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand.
    Yep.

    And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you.
    Because the "rollout" of the new policy was handled so badly (and I am not 100% sure about the policy itself) this interpretation is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the aftermath. The policy treats children of married gay couples the same way the church treats children of polygamous marriages, and I don't think both situations are the same. Children in such families don't bear any responsibility for their parents' marital status. There's no "sin" attached to the children, and the children don't have to repudiate their parents. Rather, the church wants to (1) avoid causing family strife (which is why a child under age 18 needs parental consent to be baptized) and (2) make sure that newly baptized members of "apostate" parents don't share their parents' views. It's not the parents whom the child must disavow, it's the apostate beliefs and activities. That policy makes sense for polygamous families but I am not sure it does for families of married gay parents. I would like to see the policy modified.
    Last edited by LA Ute; 10-27-2016 at 11:22 AM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  13. #643
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Yep.



    Because the "rollout" of the new policy was handled so badly (and I am not 100% sure about the policy itself) this interpretation is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the aftermath. The policy treats children of married gay couples the same way the church treats children of polygamous marriages, and I don't think both situations are the same. Children in such families don't bear any responsibility for their parents' marital status. There's no "sin" attached to the children, and the children don't have to repudiate their parents. Rather, the church wants to (1) avoid causing family strife (which is why a child under age 18 needs parental consent to be baptized) and (2) make sure that newly baptized members of "apostate" parents don't share their parents' views. It's not the parents whom the child must disavow, it's the apostate beliefs and activities. That makes sense for polygamous families but I am not sure it does for families of married gay parents. I would like to see the policy modified.
    I've long felt that this policy was a solution looking for a problem as I don't think there are many if any gay couples who wish their children be raised in the church. Simply stating things like you've said would address the issue. Just like all other kids who are getting baptized, they are require to have consent from both parents. Perhaps in this instance of children of gay parents include another provision that they recognize that a child blessed and baptized will be taught doctrine contrary to their lifestyle and that they are okay with that. Even strongly discouraging baptism or making it something that requires a Stake President approval until they are 18 and can have the ability to make that decision while also being able to support themselves.

  14. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    ....what the LDS church asks of gay members is not very different than what it asks of my sister and my sister-in-law who are both single and will always be single. Many people over the generations have decided that their faith is worth a life of celibacy.

    The church encourages a path to consummate a relationship for a heterosexual single person, which includes a legal marriage. For a gay person, no acceptable path to consummate a relationship exists, and never will exist, even if it includes a legal marriage. So how does the LDS church ask the same of both? I'm not following this logic at all.
    “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.

  15. #645
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I've long felt that this policy was a solution looking for a problem as I don't think there are many if any gay couples who wish their children be raised in the church. Simply stating things like you've said would address the issue. Just like all other kids who are getting baptized, they are require to have consent from both parents. Perhaps in this instance of children of gay parents include another provision that they recognize that a child blessed and baptized will be taught doctrine contrary to their lifestyle and that they are okay with that. Even strongly discouraging baptism or making it something that requires a Stake President approval until they are 18 and can have the ability to make that decision while also being able to support themselves.
    Excellent point. I think "the policy" is mostly a byproduct of imperfect people bracing for a perceived assault / next chapter of the "gay agenda" to force equality for gays within the church via litigation. It's not an irrational fear.

    I take church leadership at their word that they're also trying to protect the children of married gay parents from them having to repudiate their parents' relationship. There's a good motivation here.

    But everything can be viewed from different angles, and the superficial "optics" on this policy are not good.

    This policy and all the associated turbulence are a result of Mormonism being a pretty cut-and-dried, rules based theology (like most other religions). If it was like the Unitarian church, there really wouldn't be an issue. "We don't have all the answers, we just think it's important to try and love each other, in all the different ways that can happen".

  16. #646
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    Excellent point. I think "the policy" is mostly a byproduct of imperfect people bracing for a perceived assault / next chapter of the "gay agenda" to force equality for gays within the church via litigation. It's not an irrational fear.

    I take church leadership at their word that they're also trying to protect the children of married gay parents from them having to repudiate their parents' relationship. There's a good motivation here.

    But everything can be viewed from different angles, and the superficial "optics" on this policy are not good.

    This policy and all the associated turbulence are a result of Mormonism being a pretty cut-and-dried, rules based theology (like most other religions). If it was like the Unitarian church, there really wouldn't be an issue. "We don't have all the answers, we just think it's important to try and love each other, in all the different ways that can happen".
    I think the bolded part is the problem. You've (not you personally) set up a religion that supposedly has a prophet at the top. You are taught that this man has direct communication with God and he knows all. He has access to all. He has access to God to find out God's will for the whole world.

    The problem is, whether there was revelation before or not, there doesn't seem to be much going on these days. You have a prophet on the verge of dementia who doesn't know all.

    That is a tough place to rule from.

    And I think the younger people, with their access to the internet and each other, are starting to realize that this man doesn't hold the answers they were told he holds.

    They are starting to realize that personal revelation trumps all, even what comes from the pulpit. That the pulpit has been wrong before, and there is a great chance the pulpit is wrong again.

    The younger generation are realizing that when you admit that being born gay is possible, then it makes no sense to keep one of the most important aspects of life out of a person's life, just because they were born gay.

    If you are born gay, and God made you gay, then why can't you be married? Why can't you adopt a child or have a child of your own? What about being gay prevents you from being Christlike?

  17. #647
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah View Post
    I think the bolded part is the problem. You've (not you personally) set up a religion that supposedly has a prophet at the top. You are taught that this man has direct communication with God and he knows all. He has access to all. He has access to God to find out God's will for the whole world.

    The problem is, whether there was revelation before or not, there doesn't seem to be much going on these days. You have a prophet on the verge of dementia who doesn't know all.

    That is a tough place to rule from.

    And I think the younger people, with their access to the internet and each other, are starting to realize that this man doesn't hold the answers they were told he holds.

    They are starting to realize that personal revelation trumps all, even what comes from the pulpit. That the pulpit has been wrong before, and there is a great chance the pulpit is wrong again.

    The younger generation are realizing that when you admit that being born gay is possible, then it makes no sense to keep one of the most important aspects of life out of a person's life, just because they were born gay.

    If you are born gay, and God made you gay, then why can't you be married? Why can't you adopt a child or have a child of your own? What about being gay prevents you from being Christlike?
    I don't think you understood this poster. He says the bolded phrase is a tenet of the Unitarian church , not the LDS Church. The LDS Church would say "We have an answer to this, and it is that having gay relations is a serious enough sin to warrant excommunication from the church".

    As a practicing member of the LDS Church, I believe TSM holds the keys to preside over the church. However, in the thousands of meetings I've attended over the years, I've not been taught, nor do I believe, that the Prophet is infallible (or in your words "knows all"), although I'll admit, in practice, most members treat his words as infallible and will occasionally engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain historical embarrassments.

    Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the church's political activities to limit marital freedoms for gays and lesbians. I was asked to contribute to Prop 8 by my church leadership, but politely declined. I'm also uncomfortable with the latest policy directed at children, just as I remember feeling uncomfortable, even at 14 years old, with the blacks/priesthood policy pre-1978. I couldn't shake the feeling that was wrong, and I can't shake the feeling today that the church's latest policy towards children of gay parents is wrong.

    Having said that, there's a lot more with the church I feel good about, than that which I don't feel good about. Should the day come when that is reversed, I'll leave. In the meantime, I'll stick around and try to live a Christlike life for my family and those around me.
    “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.

  18. #648
    I want to preface this by saying that I am an active member of the church. I attend probably 46-48 times a year. I hold callings. I've been in almost every level of leadership. I just baptized my son this last weekend. I served a mission, held all callings in a mission, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by mUUser View Post
    I don't think you understood this poster. He says the bolded phrase is a tenet of the Unitarian church , not the LDS Church. The LDS Church would say "We have an answer to this, and it is that having gay relations is a serious enough sin to warrant excommunication from the church".
    Where does that answer come from? We say from God, and maybe it does, but it comes from the first presidency and quorum of the 12. So, are we really any different than Unitarian Church? They have their ideas and we have ours. Maybe they are right, maybe we are right, maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe, we need to quit being so worried about the hoops to jump through and just focus on being better people to everyone and the rest will sort itself out.

    None of us will know until we stand in front of god. Or die and disappear. The simple truth is this: When the LDS Church says they have the answer, they think they have the answer. I spent a lot of time with Richard G. Scott, Holland and many other GA's. They haven't seen Jesus. They have faith just like you and I. They are men, trying their best to do what is right. Sometimes men are wrong. It's ok.

    SL Trib just had an article that covered a recent survey. More than 50% of Active LDS millennials feel that the Church's stance on gay marriage is incorrect. Someday, one of those millennials will be the prophet. Much like President Kimball, he (or maybe she at that point) will change the doctrine/policy (whoever you want to spin it) and we will catch up to society on this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by mUUser View Post
    As a practicing member of the LDS Church, I believe TSM holds the keys to preside over the church. However, in the thousands of meetings I've attended over the years, I've not been taught, nor do I believe, that the Prophet is infallible (or in your words "knows all"), although I'll admit, in practice, most members treat his words as infallible and will occasionally engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain historical embarrassments.
    Yes...and no. My kids sing a lot of songs that allude to the prophet being infallible. The Church sells a lot of books by McConkie, JFSmith, etc that allude to the prophet being infallible. So, is the prophet perfect? Nope. Is he sometimes wrong? Yup. Does the prophet sometimes hold grudges, intolerance, bigotry stances and does the prophet use his office as a way to spread his incorrect feelings? Yup.

    It's a fine line the Church walks. You are supposed to follow the prophet...unless we find out 30 years later he was wrong. Even the song, "We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet" strongly implies that we are to be obedient. The lyrics tell you there that if you don't follow the prophet, you will be forfeiting blessings and happiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by mUUser View Post
    Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the church's political activities to limit marital freedoms for gays and lesbians. I was asked to contribute to Prop 8 by my church leadership, but politely declined. I'm also uncomfortable with the latest policy directed at children, just as I remember feeling uncomfortable, even at 14 years old, with the blacks/priesthood policy pre-1978. I couldn't shake the feeling that was wrong, and I can't shake the feeling today that the church's latest policy towards children of gay parents is wrong.
    I feel the same way you do. I believe the current regime is incorrect and someday this will all change and we will once again catch up to the heathens...years later than we should have. We have the holy ghost for a reason. And that reason is sometimes the prophet is wrong. When you (and I) stand before God to be judged, we will be judged on our actions and intents...not judged on how obedient we were following a false teaching from a prophet.

    Quote Originally Posted by mUUser View Post
    Having said that, there's a lot more with the church I feel good about, than that which I don't feel good about. Should the day come when that is reversed, I'll leave. In the meantime, I'll stick around and try to live a Christlike life for my family and those around me.
    I feel the exact same way as you do. The Church has its flaws. It isn't perfect. Having an older leadership means having a hard time giving up the "good old days".

    But, there is a lot of good there. I don't think I will find more happiness in any other Church. So, I stay, I will participate, learn grow and hopefully be a little better every day. But the homosexual stances the Church has taken...It's too bad. It's wrong.

    Much like my dad was taught not to share the discussions with black people on his mission because they were disobedient in the pre-existence and weren't eligible for all covenants...the homosexual situation will right itself over time as well.
    Last edited by Utah; 11-01-2016 at 09:54 PM.

  19. #649
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    This seems to be a significant step by the church. The official church video (embedded in the article) came out yesterday or the day before.

    https://www.lds.org/blog/navigating-...prclt=Tw6EjpH7
    Last edited by LA Ute; 03-22-2017 at 10:43 AM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  20. #650
    I think this just shows that pretty much the only people that are anti-gay are the ones at the top.

    In 20 years, our new prophet will have the same revelation that Kimball had and realize that the Church's policies were not inspired by god, but by fear, they will change them, and we will move onto the next discriminated group in our church. Women? Probably. Someday we will catch up to the gentiles when it comes to treating people correctly.

  21. #651
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah View Post
    I think this just shows that pretty much the only people that are anti-gay are the ones at the top.

    In 20 years, our new prophet will have the same revelation that Kimball had and realize that the Church's policies were not inspired by god, but by fear, they will change them, and we will move onto the next discriminated group in our church. Women? Probably. Someday we will catch up to the gentiles when it comes to treating people correctly.
    let's open a window on this brave world you hope to catch up to:


  22. #652
    Handsome Boy Graduate mpfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    This seems to be a significant step by the church. The official church video (embedded in the article) came out yesterday or the day before.

    https://www.lds.org/blog/navigating-...prclt=Tw6EjpH7
    I would agree it was a significant step if the church hadn't at the same time put in the Ensign that homosexual marriages are counterfeit. While defining counterfeit as "worthless" and "twisted."

    Plus, how messed up is the teachings of the church if a significant step is to say that parents shouldn't ostracize their children if they are gay. It shows how messed up the culture is that this needs to be said in the first place.

    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

  23. #653
    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    I would agree it was a significant step if the church hadn't at the same time put in the Ensign that homosexual marriages are counterfeit. While defining counterfeit as "worthless" and "twisted."

    Plus, how messed up is the teachings of the church if a significant step is to say that parents shouldn't ostracize their children if they are gay. It shows how messed up the culture is that this needs to be said in the first place.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    You realize you are talking about American culture, and not purely LDS culture right? Please stop pretending it's isolated to Mormons. It makes you look stupid.

  24. #654
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    let's open a window on this brave world you hope to catch up to:
    In regards to the video above, to be clear: beyond biological factors, humans make sexual preference choices also based on societal constructs (i.e. what the environment within which they were raised and live teaches them).

    In principle, I don’t disagree. But the argument does raise an important point. If sexual preference is in part (large or small) due to societal constructs (i.e. what is learned), in conjunction with biological factors, then all sexual preference is learned. Including homosexuality.

    To be clearer: I am only summarizing an underlying argument the individual in the video is making. Which highlights how convoluted this discussion can and has become.
    Last edited by tooblue; 03-22-2017 at 06:46 PM.

  25. #655
    Handsome Boy Graduate mpfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    You realize you are talking about American culture, and not purely LDS culture right? Please stop pretending it's isolated to Mormons. It makes you look stupid.
    Where did I say that it was isolated to LDS culture? Don't pretend though this problem isnt huge it LDS culture. It makes you look stupid.

    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

  26. #656
    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    Where did I say that it was isolated to LDS culture? Don't pretend though this problem isnt huge it LDS culture. It makes you look stupid.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    Plus, how messed up is the teachings of the church if a significant step is to say that parents shouldn't ostracize their children if they are gay. It shows how messed up the culture is that this needs to be said in the first place.
    Nowhere in there do you mention this is a larger societal problem in the US or even elsewhere in the world. Those are your words, underlined for emphasis.

  27. #657
    Handsome Boy Graduate mpfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Nowhere in there do you mention this is a larger societal problem in the US or even elsewhere in the world. Those are your words, underlined for emphasis.
    We were specifically talking about the LDS Church not culture at large. The LDS Church claims to be led by revelation from God. If that was true, frankly they should be held to a higher standard.

    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

  28. #658
    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    We were specifically talking about the LDS Church not culture at large. The LDS Church claims to be led by revelation from God. If that was true, frankly they should be held to a higher standard.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    Well technically if they actually are led by revelation from God, then their opinion on the matter would be right and it wouldn't matter what yours was

    I'm just sayin'...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  29. #659
    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    We were specifically talking about the LDS Church not culture at large. The LDS Church claims to be led by revelation from God. If that was true, frankly they should be held to a higher standard.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    This argument about higher standards is an interesting one. In my experience interacting with you over several years, it is fair in my estimation to characterize your perspective on the world, specifically the LDS church and its teachings, as enlightened. At the very least, it is fair for me to assert that I discern you believe you are an enlightened person.

    What's more, if I remember correctly, you are a lawyer, or possess a law degree. Ergo, my expectation is that I should be able to hold you to a higher standard, specifically as it relates to your ability to write, and employ the English language—an imperfect, ancient human technology—in daily efforts to convey precise meaning, facilitate understanding and avoid confusion and potential conflict.

    Distressingly, your most recent post in this thread does not achieve those ends. Your comments are derisive and invite conflict. Therefore, I can only surmise that the school where you studied law can be at fault, for the inability of your words, as they have been written, to convey precise meaning and facilitate understanding.

    Unless, of course you alone as an individual can be blamed for your inadequate writing skills. Which of course calls into question the entire law educational system, if not the entire law profession ... I could go on. But I'll stop here out of respect for L.A. Holding others to higher standards is a dangerous game to play.

  30. #660
    Handsome Boy Graduate mpfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    1,505

    The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    This argument about higher standards is an interesting one. In my experience interacting with you over several years, it is fair in my estimation to characterize your perspective on the world, specifically the LDS church and its teachings, as enlightened. At the very least, it is fair for me to assert that I discern you believe you are an enlightened person.

    What's more, if I remember correctly, you are a lawyer, or possess a law degree. Ergo, my expectation is that I should be able to hold you to a higher standard, specifically as it relates to your ability to write, and employ the English language—an imperfect, ancient human technology—in daily efforts to convey precise meaning, facilitate understanding and avoid confusion and potential conflict.

    Distressingly, your most recent post in this thread does not achieve those ends. Your comments are derisive and invite conflict. Therefore, I can only surmise that the school where you studied law can be at fault, for the inability of your words, as they have been written, to convey precise meaning and facilitate understanding.

    Unless, of course you alone as an individual can be blamed for your inadequate writing skills. Which of course calls into question the entire law educational system, if not the entire law profession ... I could go on. But I'll stop here out of respect for L.A. Holding others to higher standards is a dangerous game to play.
    Congrats this may be one of the most condescending posts on this site.

    FYI, I don't put the same level of thought or editing into my message board posts as I do my legal writing.

    Oh and go **** yourself.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    Last edited by LA Ute; 03-22-2017 at 08:24 PM.
    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

Posting Permissions

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