I'm sincerely curious: What do you think the church's approach to gay relationships should be?Originally Posted by mUUser
I'm sincerely curious: What do you think the church's approach to gay relationships should be?
"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
Don't discriminate against LGBTQ people and treat them like human beings would be a good place to start.
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
Impossible to disagree with any of that. The details are the key.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"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
Teach the doctrine and leave it at that. No need to be involved funding campaigns to oppose gay marriage. However, even if they'd have left it alone after Prop 8, it would have probably been fine.
The huge error in judgment was with the latest policy. First it is an unnecessary policy. Everybody could get along fine without it. Second, it targets innocent children. Might as well torture puppies while we're at it. The policy comes across as mean-spirited -- no priesthood ordinances for innocent children of gay households, then once they are of age they have to declare their opposition to gay relationships (something I don't have to do to maintain a TR), but even that's not enough.....then they have to move out of the home. Simply treat children in gay households like other children, that is, require parental approval for priesthood ordinances. Once they become adults, treat them like other adults.
I'm sorry LA, but the new policy can be viewed as callous by even the most reasonable people. I can typically measure my judgment on church issues by gauging Mrs Muuser. She's a fairly hard-core believer, especially when decisions come from the FP, and, if she shakes her head in confusion over it, then I feel like my reservations on this policy are justified.
I understand we may never see eye to eye on this, and that's fine. I may never see eye to eye with the church on this, and that's fine too. I feel like I can disagree with this policy, try to influence for its betterment where I can, and continue to be a faithful church member. Others may disagree, but, that's how I feel.
“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.
The whole gay thing has to do with the family right? You allow gays to marry, then you destroy the family.
That is so stupid. Why? Well, because LDS women are allowed to go to college, get a job and work outside the home. Why is it ok for a man and woman to get married, have the man and woman work outside the home, but if two gay people were to marry and have/adopt a child, and one stays home, that is destroying the home?
Why is it, if two people love each other, and are willing to adopt a child and raise that child in a two parent, loving household, that they are suddenly destroying the family?
The Church did what they did to shelter people from "the gays". If you remove "those people" from the wards, then you take away the ability to see that they are normal people, just like you and me. While I may be a legs guy, and you may be a fat chick guy, some other guy may like twigs and berries instead. Who cares?
What matters is what is on the inside. What type of person are you? What do you do when the windows are shut and no one is looking?
Not who you sleep with.
And, it isn't a procreation thing, because there are a lot of good, loving, caring, man/woman LDS couples who can't have kids. Are they as damned as the LGBT couple?
I said it before, and I'll say it again:
When the current regime dies off, just like with the blacks and priesthood, the policies will change. The younger generation will feel differently about the LGBT fight and will realize how stupid these rules are. They can follow the law of chastity. They can get married. Hell, with science, they can have families now, and in many cases, children that carry their own DNA.
So, why discriminate against them?
There is no intelligent reason. It's a bunch of old men that are scared of the future, so they label it as bad.
Officially I think it is a lot simpler than that as far as the church is concerned. Church leadership is operating on the belief that homosexuality is a sin. You can disagree with whether you think it actually is or if that is an antiquated way of thinking, but that is the premise for what they've done.
You may have heard them make arguments about the degradation of the family, but that is an argument you make to a society that doesn't hold the same belief system as you.
I side with Utah and mUUser on this. Yes homosexuality is considered a sin. But so are mounds of other things that we preach from the pulpit. Factions of the church had spent so much effort in reaching out to the gay community, so much so that they created an official website to outreach with gay Mormons. And then they pull this new policy bs. Consuming alcohol is against the Word of Wisdom, yet we don't prevent kids of alcoholics the blessings of baptism. Hell, even kids who live in a household where the grown ups aren't living the law of chastity.
I'm currently watching D Todd Christofferson on mormonsandgays.org in a video explaining what the purpose of the website is and he's said multiple times "stay with us..." That invitation was so much more hopeful prior to the policy.
In an unrelated experience, I was socializing with a work associate who's daughter used to be in the same school class as my daughter before we moved at the end of last year. In this conversation, she organically referred to her nine year old daughter as a he, three or four times. It took me a couple passes before I caught the inference and despite knowing her daughter well enough not to be shocked by this change, the conversation has still stuck with me. This woman isn't LDS, but I think it's safe to assume that we're still in a place as a society that working through a situation like this with your young child must be an incredibly difficult and heartbreaking experience. I hope to have a more private conversation with her in the future under more appropriate circumstances to make sure I heard correctly and then figure out how to transfer that information to my daughter some how so that we all act in the preferred manner going forward.
Driving into the office this morning about 12 hours after the above incident, NPR had this story about a police officer in DC that is going through the transitioning process and the mental back and forth. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/06/496404...who-can-relate
I just have no hope that the one place where someone should be able to feel safe being true to themselves, has put too many institutional obstacles in the way to allow that to happen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I meant to respond to you here, muuser, but I forgot. We could talk about this for a long time and maybe someday we will. For now, be assured that I was not thrilled about the new policy, especially the way it was rolled out (but it does appear there was some leaking/mischief that exacerbated that problem). Still, I do understand it. The decision was made to treat children living with their same-sex parents just as children living with their polygamous parents are treated. Both types of marriages are considered so far "out there" in doctrinal terms that the church is treating them the same. It is undeniably a logical policy, viewed that way. In his defense of the policy Elder Christofferson emphasized the need for clarity. So that's how they got there.
Is the pre-existing policy cruel to children in polygamous families? I don't know. Those kids live in very difficult circumstances -- especially the boys who get kicked out of the community as teenagers because they are a threat to the older men.
I can articulate a distinction between polygamous families and gay parent-led families. The former are often apostates in the true sense, and often try to proselytize members of the church to their polygamous sects. So there's additional cause to keep the parents separate from the church and to draw a bright line -- and also to avoid pitting their children against them. Otherwise you'd have 10 year-olds hearing at church that their parents are apostates or enemies of the church, won't be together in the hereafter, won't ever be exalted, etc.
With gay parents it's trickier. They're not social outcasts anymore the way polygamists still are. One can easily imagine two proud gay dads or moms sitting in sacrament meeting, beaming as their son is ordained a deacon (without their participation), and as he passes the sacrament; or as their daughter receives her Young Women recognitions. Maybe the GAs are concerned about giving tacit approval to such situations? I'm sure they're also concerned about the the teachings young kids will hear about their parents' lifestyle, the parents' eternal prospects, and the like.
The church has long been very insistent on not causing conflict in families-- which is why no child is baptized without both parents' consent. I know lots of people who had to wait until age 18 to be baptized.
Anyway, with that all in mind I don't see "teach the doctrine as leave it at that" as a viable option. Maybe his will get worked out somehow in the future. In short, the policy makes me sad but I understand it.
Last edited by LA Ute; 10-06-2016 at 03:33 PM.
"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
I don't necessarily agree with this. Or I'm missing some huge piece of information here. We always talk about how one of the greatest commandments is to multiply and replenish the earth. Anyone can do that now. We talk about the Law of Chastity, and how sexual acts are one of the most god-like things we can do, and they are to be saved for a holy union: Marriage.
Well, everyone can get married now.
And, we even teach that sex isn't just for making babies...but it's a way for a married couple to connect on a deeper level and share in something special.
So, why are we so against LGBT unions?
It makes no sense. None at all.
Like I've said, this is the same thing as Mark E. Petersen getting up and bagging on African Americans. Packer, Oaks, etc are the new racists in our leadership. They will die off, and the younger prophet (Kimball) will take over, and he will change these things.
Hell, what comes first: Women getting the priesthood or LGBT groups being allowed to become full members?
What church do you go to? I swear after 40 years of church attendance I have never heard that until today. Certainly not phrased that way. Which sexual acts are the most God-like? I'm hoping this doesn't send me to urban dictionary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just went to LDS.org, and looked up the bible, then homosexuality in the topical guide. That word is not used at all in our Bible.
Isaiah talks about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. I know we like to say that S&G was destroyed because of homosexuality, but that's not true. They were waaaaaayyy past that.
I find the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing interesting. God tells Abraham that S&G is so wicked, he needs to destroy it. No mention of specific sins, but just general wickedness. Abraham pleads with God, and God decides (so, God can be bargained with, right?) that if Abraham can find 10 righteous people, he will not destroy it.
So, two angels go into S&G to find these 10 righteous men. They run into Lot. Lot asks them to come into his house at night, the angels resist, but Lot gets them to finally come in (probably because Lot knows what will happen at night). Then, the mob shows up, demand the angels. Lot instead offers his virgin daughters up (and we think homosexuality was the reason why S&G was about to be destroyed?). The mob is smote down, Lot goes to his sons in law and tells them to run, they mock Lot, so Lot takes his daughters and wife and leaves, the wife looks back and dies.
And then what happens? Lot's two daughters rape Lot.
Yikes. I'm not so sure that homosexuality was the sole reason why S&G was destroyed. That place was messed up on every level (hence, the reason why God wanted to destroy it).
What's my point? This is the TL/DR for those that can't comprehend more than a sentence or two:
Why do we single out this sin? Why over so many other sins?
I can think of two reasons:
1 - The Church is losing members and this is a topic that stirs up feelings and gets the base to rally around itself and strengthen it's beliefs
or
2 - The Church leaders have some ideas and feelings that are just wrong.
These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God’s will, our spirit with His spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge His divinity but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves. One aspect of that divinity given to virtually all men and women is the use of His power to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never before seen in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity. A child, your child—with eyes and ears and fingers and toes and a future of unspeakable grandeur.
https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...?lang=eng&_r=1
That was one example in general conference.
Wait, so you are unable to find any biblical references to homosexuality but then you produce from that that sex acts are the most God-like? Maybe we need to work out a definition of sex acts first - although I'd rather not.
To me, I read that to mean the creation of life, not the sexual act itself. My children being born, witnessing new life come into this world, I count among some of my most spiritual moments. Being a father and loving a child no matter what has also helped me unlike anything else understand the nature of and eternally loving God.
I don't really care to debate this further because I think we are just in completely different places doctrinally and I don't believe we'll come together on that. I'll just say you are free to disagree with doctrine as many reading this do, I just absolutely don't agree with how you are interpreting things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Rocker Ute; 10-07-2016 at 08:13 AM.
You are the Fox News of this board. Did you read the talk given in conference? Holland spends 15 minutes talking about why it IS the sex act itself. If it was just creating life, then having sex outside of marriage wouldn't be of big of a deal. Having children outside of marriage would be a HUGE deal. Yet, it's ok to have kids out of wedlock, but not to have kids in wedlock, if it is a homosexual marriage.
Another snippet from the talk:
What Holland is talking about is not having kids. It is having sex. It is the reason why having sex is so sacred in the church and why you should wait to have sex until you are married.If you persist in pursuing physical satisfaction without the sanction of heaven, you run the terrible risk of such spiritual, psychic damage that you may undermine both your longing for physical intimacy and your ability to give wholehearted devotion to a later, truer love. You may come to that truer moment of ordained love, of real union, only to discover to your horror that what you should have saved you have spent, and that only God’s grace can recover the piecemeal dissipation of the virtue you so casually gave away. On your wedding day the very best gift you can give your eternal companion is your very best self—clean and pure and worthy of such purity in return.
Another quote:
Sex is godlike:Thirdly, may I say that physical intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a husband and a wife—the very uniting of their souls—
we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves.You and I have been given something of that godliness, but under the most serious and sacred of restrictions.My beloved friends, especially my young friends, can you see why personal purity is such a serious matter?
I like that, The Fox News of this board, but I'll stick with 'After -the-Fact Genius".
Kind of a younger composite of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity?
"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
That's kind of how I picture myself but with better hair than Sean Hannity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My 4 year-old told me that I am not yet a man, because I still have too much hair.
That doesn't explain all the balding in Provo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, but it might explain all the chest thumping self-adulation.
As someone who's pretty friends with a pretty famous polygamous family here in Vegas, I might have some insight to this topic.
One of the daughter went to USU after graduating from high school. While there, she started dating a member of the church and also took the missionary discussions.
This particular daughter had never been too keen on the idea of polygamy for her but obviously loved her family for what it was.
Upon making the decision that she wanted to get baptized, she had to meet with local and regional leadership to petition to be baptized. She was asked in each of these meetings to denounce polygamy, which she was happy to do-for herself but repeatedly told them that she couldn't denounce it overall, since that would be denouncing her family. Such an admission would make her mother's (second wife) marriage illegitimate.
Her petition went all the way to Salt Lake. She was 19. Did not live at home and by this point was engaged, so likely would not ever live at home again. She was eventually told that her request was denied and that she can repetition the request for baptism at a future date when her family is no longer in the spot light. As things currently stand, that request won't be made.
Silly, silly stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting stuff because I believe that Christofferson said that when it came to homosexuality an 18yo would have to renounce the practice for themselves but not their family.
This argument would make sense if the church prohibited children of homosexuals from attending church, reading church materials, watching conference, etc.
I think the GAs want these children to hear awful things about their parents, so they grow up to hate homosexuals just like they do.
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
Funk, you know I love you, but come on, man.
"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
You mean, by artificial means, right? I'm reasonably certain that same-sex sex cannot cause a pregnancy.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
Every time I see this thread title, I wonder if it is code for an underground gay LDS hookup site. Posters type what they type, and those in the know can pick up on the hidden meanings in unrelated words or arrangements of words, and then arrange to meet later.
By the way, the orangutan from the Cairo zoo will be visiting Nicaragua this summer. Charles Bronson had dirty shoes in The Great Escape. Maria is the least appreciated of the Bronte sisters. I am only on page 75, but I hope to be finished by next weekend.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
If there is a code, I'm pretty sure that I don't know what it is.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
That's pretty kinky stuff. I'll doubt you have many takers here.
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.
Last edited by Ma'ake; 10-26-2016 at 07:48 AM.
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.
Last edited by The Thrill; 10-26-2016 at 09:55 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote