Jump to content

Anonymous Mormon

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

109 Excellent

About Anonymous Mormon

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Tacenda - I am curious if this comment is aimed at the questions I asked: In your view, is the above an example of the tons of hurt he has caused?: Are there worse examples or is this as bad as it gets? Also, I'd still love your thoughts on my other questions below (this is kind of answering ii in the first list, but I am curious on your thoughts on the others:
  2. There have been a fair number of comments about how Elder Oaks has an extreme focus on the 'same-sex sin.' However, I wonder if you study Elder Oaks' talks, I would suspect that he discusses the law of chastity in other areas just as much or more so than same-sex sins. For example, he discusses pornography quite a bit. Also, he discusses pre-marital (opposite-gender) sex issues frequently, such as "co-habitation" (just writing the word co-habitation makes me think of Elder Oaks). I really wonder if there is just a less vocal lobby against the church's stance on pornography and pre-marital sex, compared to same-sex issues. Also, people are less 'offended' and 'hurt' when the apostles discuss these other things, even though many of the same people argue that the church is out-dated on these issues as well and are opposed to pretty much all aspects of the law of chastity. Does anyone want to do a count of Elder Oaks' discussion of other aspects of Law of Chastity versus Same-sex issues? Or even better, maybe we should do a survey of how many instances per conference pornography is brought up v. same-sex issues, to see just how much more that is discussed.
  3. @Tacenda - The news article you quoted doesn't really say exactly what Elder Oaks said that was so hurtful. It mostly only gave quotes from people who said they were hurt by Elder Oaks' talk. The only quote it gave from Elder Oaks is this very mild: You have now in this thread said that Elder Oaks "has caused tons of hurt by being the point man for the church." You have also said about his recent conference talk:"Just when I thought he was going to give it a rest, he starts it right off the bat. I read on other boards and have saw that this indeed hurt the LGBTQ crowd that are believing members or parents/family that are. Please read through the talk and see why." You have also made similar comments about Elder Oaks in past threads. I really want to know what Elder Oaks has said that caused a ton of hurt? Can you please site actual statements Elder Oaks makes that are offensive and hurtful to you? Specifically, can you back your claim and say: i) What statements in his recent conference talk did you find hurtful? ii) Can you compile a top 10 list of statements that he has made overall in the last 40 years that are hurtful? Lastly, I am curious if you believe the following statements are hurtful to the LGBT community as well: A) "Marriage as ordained by God is and should only ever be between a man and a woman" B) "ALL HUMAN BEINGS were made by God as either male and female. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
  4. I think we are talking past each other. If you TRULY can't see why what I posted is relevant and you TRULY are just trying to understand Elder Oaks, then I invite you to re-read my past comments. Or you can ready Maestrophil's great summary: I don't really have more to say that I haven't already said on the topic. I am assuming you understood my point of view and I certainly feel I now understand your point of view better. As such, I'll bow out of the conversation for now. But I do appreciate you explaining your point of view further.
  5. The fact that it would take you a lot of time to dig up any additional quotes from Elder Oaks in response to my question above says volumes about how offensive Elder Oaks truly is.
  6. Sure . . . maybe he could give a conference talk and say something like: If he would only give a talk like this then everyone who has been bad mouthing him for the last decade would realize what he actually believes and stop. Or not.
  7. I did indeed re-read the talk with that in mind and honestly I didn't see any of what you are referring to. Instead, I read statements like this: I wonder if this talk was his effort to show that he doesn't have the attitude that you and other ascribe to him. You mentioned appending a footnote to his 2006 interview - I would love to see the footnote contain a reference to a statement like this saying that since Same-Sex Marriage is now the law of the land, we should ensure we do not persecute those with different beliefs and should strive to be as kind and civil as possible to our families and friends who are in these relationships. @SeekingUnderstanding - What did you find in this talk that makes you feel that "when he says “love” he means don’t let them into your homes?" Also, I will ask you the same thing I asked @Tacenda - other than this single quote from the 2006 interview, can you point to anything that Elder Oaks has said that is deeply offensive or hurtful to the LGBT community? (that is 'worse than' the "Proclamation on the Family" as lots of LGBT people seem to feel that this is deeply offensive and hurtful)
  8. Please do indeed tell me what was offensive in this talk. I don't see anything offensive about this talk if you accept the tenets of the Gospel "that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" and "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." I really would love it if you laid out all of the awful things that Elder Oaks has said that has so hurt the LGBT community.
  9. OK. I see better why you think he is saying a blanket statement of don't visit. When I read this response, I was thinking he was referring to potential different use cases. I can better see what you mean. Let me ask you, if he updated his quote on the church website, wouldn't it maybe cause a stir from ex-LDS that the church is trying to white-wash their history? What do you think most anti-LDS and LGBT would say if he updated or changed this quote? Honestly, I am curious what your opinion would be if he edited out the visit aspect but kept the spend the night aspect? Would that make it better in your view? Or instead a better idea that might not be met with hostility from the LGBT community would probably be if Elder Oaks gave a talk in conference. Maybe he could give a talk on the importance of loving those who are different than us, specifically with the LGBT community in mind. He could even use the acronym LGBT during the talk. I bet that this would help those who were offended in the past to better understand what he meant. I'll have to start watching for a conference talk from Elder Oaks on the subject . . .
  10. I think you are extrapolating a lot of your opinion into this. I have quoted what Elder Oaks said above. He did not say, "don't allow someone into your home," but in fact said just the opposite, of come into our home but don't stay overnight. I agree that not letting a same-sex partner into your home is an extreme position. But I want to set the record straight that this is not what Elder Oaks said. Also, I still feel that the situation would change in how I react and the boundaries I have with my children and who they date, versus when they are married. I still feel it's important to remember that this quote was off the cuff and was pre-legalization of same-sex marriage. That said, I am still not a fan of Elder Oaks' boundary example of not introducing your relationship to our friends. I feel it sounds high-falutin to say that. It is kind of a poor boundary example and one that Elder Oaks probably wouldn't make if he were writing out examples instead of speaking impromptu. I am glad I don't have all of my words immortalized on the church website for everyone to critique.
  11. @Tacenda and others who are so offended by Elder Oaks, I too like Maestrophil would like to know why you and others feel that Oaks has 'caused so much hurt' and that it is worth vilifying him? From everything I have seen, his most offensive comment seems to be: see: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction It seems to me that Elder Oaks was saying it's okay for parents with children in same-sex relationships to have boundaries. I personally don't like his example of "introduce you to our friends," (and wonder if he were writing his responses instead of speaking if he would have used a different one) but to me the other examples are not terrible. It's okay for a parent to say I disagree with some of your decisions and have the following boundaries. It's okay for the child to like-wise say the same thing to the parent. Ideally those following Christ in this example are seeking God's will to know where/how to set boundaries and also erring on the side of love. Also, as a bit of context, this particular quote was made in 2006, 9 years before same-sex marriage was made legal. I have seen the church change its stance on how it interacts with those in same-sex relationships, and more specifically marriages, since the US made it legal. I don't think that Elder Oaks would suggest these same boundaries if he were asked today. This is because when someone is married, they are in a different relationship than when they are dating. For example, if my daughter was dating an absolute scumbag (drug addict, unemployed, lazy, never showered, verbally abusive, etc.) I would have act differently towards both this person and in how I expressed my opinion of daughter's relationship than if she were married to the same person. So again, I want to ask the question to all those who vilify Elder Oaks, is there more he has said about same-sex marriage that is so offensive or is the above as bad as it gets? And if this is the worst he said, his Elder Oaks worthy of this kind of comment: "Pres. Oaks has caused tons of hurt by being the point man for the church" and other such statements?
  12. Would you be open to sharing more of your story? Obviously, we don't need to know why you really stopped going, but I am very interested in the process you went through both to get this answer, accept the answer, and even before that to be in a position where you would be willing to go back to church and even try to get / accept an answer. If you don't feel comfortable sharing, that's fine as well. And either way, thanks!
  13. It's interesting that the day after this thread was started the US started to restrict travel to Cuba even more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuba-travel-ban-u-s-bans-flights-to-majority-of-cuban-cities/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/10/28/cuba-travel-ban-us-outlaws-flights-all-cities-except-havana/2483523001/ I am not sure how President Nelson's tweet actually relates the the real and current bans on travel and access to Cuba. Is it just a PR thing with no teeth? Does it mean that members there are now allowed to form churches? Will we be sending missionaries from other South and Central American countries over? Does anyone actually know what the real-world policy changes are / will be beyond just a good-will PR statement?
  14. I am not so certain. However, regardless my point remains that explaining all 7 of these verses away as only referring to what our culture views as bad homosexuality (i.e., with youth, for money, or as part of idol worship), as opposed to good homosexuality (being between two loving individuals) could also be applied to any other sexual practice (fornication, adultery, etc.). I think it's a stretch to apply this argument to all of these 7 verses. Do you believe that you can explain away all 7 of these verses with this kind of argument? Do you think that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality? Do you believe the same argument being applied here for homosexuality in the bible also applies to mentions of fornication and adultery in the Bible that these are not sins (as long as they are loving consensual adults, not exchanging money and not part of idol worship)?
  15. I feel like anyone trying to say that the Bible doesn't forbid homosexual relationships is really stretching it. Some of these verses certainly refer to practices specific to idol worshiping cults. But just because these cults did worse things than homosexuality as well, doesn't mean that homosexual relationships are approved. To put it another way, the verse 1 Corinthians 6:9 says: "9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," The author argues that this verse is condemning prostitution and child-abuse so even though it refers to homosexuality it is not referring to consensual adult homosexuality. This verse also mentions fornication and adultery; by this same logic I could say these verses only refer to fornication and adultery with children or for money and that otherwise these acts are never a sin as long as it is with two consensual adults who love each other. In fact, for most of these 7 verses the author argues that the context is specific to local practices and that those at the time would have recognized this. You could say the same for every mention of adultery or fornication in all of scriptures, that these are only condemned when it's in conjunction with pagan rituals, but never with two consenting adults with feelings for each other. So by that standard all homosexuality, adultery, and fornication are okay as long as love is involved (and there are no idols, children, or payments involved). I just don't think these arguments hold water. If you want to go with the view of some on this board that "I only choose to accept as valid scriptures that talk about love and ignore the scriptures with commandments I don't like" or "The Bible is just rules of men and they aren't God's law so man can change man's rules" then I can see this being a more valid argument. But to say, "I believe the Bible is given by God with his rules and commandments" and then try to twist and make the argument that God is in favor of Homosexual activity is just really, really, really too big of a stretch.
×
×
  • Create New...