141 replies to this topic

[bridget_night]

This is from a Mormon Bishop in San Francisco.  Very touching.  Bridget

http://www.washingto...1X2V_story.html

[selek1]

Oh G--!

Do we really need another thread on why "Mormons are wrong about homosexuality"!?!

Is there anything in this propoganda link that hasn't been said at least a hundred times before!?!?!?

Edited by selek1, 26 June 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Was not able to see the link.

On marriage they really need to change the talk to rights versus privileges.

[SamIam]

bridget_night, on 26 June 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

This is from a Mormon Bishop in San Francisco.  Very touching.  Bridget
http://www.washingto...1X2V_story.html

I think a common error in perception is simply that while true blues, such as myself, will maintain unequivocally that the lifestyle choices of those that choose in this fashion are wrong, abominable and seriously opposing Gods plan, that does not mean that I do not love in a charitable fashion them as individuals.  I love them just as I do others that sat across from me and shared their tears of sorrow for other transgressions that were against the teachings of scripture.  I will continue to shake their hand and welcome them to my home, our meetings, our worship.  I will encourage them in every positive way possible to continue along the same path that I am on, of curbing the carnal desires  and maintaining them in the bounds the Lord has set and that is the role of the LDS church.

I think the other error is reading an article such as the one in the OP of this thread and thinking he is saying anything differently than what I just said except that he chose to leave the first sentence off his observations in the article. Still there will be others who may equivocate into acceptance of wrong behaviors; we should not tolerate that anymore than the behaviors of sin around which this subject constantly swirls.

[HiJolly]

Excellent article!  (take it easy, selek1 -- you don't see me trashing the Navy)

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

SamIam, on 26 June 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

I think a common error in perception is simply that while true blues, such as myself, will maintain unequivocally that the lifestyle choices of those that choose in this fashion are wrong, abominable and seriously opposing Gods plan, that does not mean that I do not love in a charitable fashion them as individuals.  I love them just as I do others that sat across from me and shared their tears of sorrow for other transgressions that were against the teachings of scripture.  I will continue to shake their hand and welcome them to my home, our meetings, our worship.  I will encourage them in every positive way possible to continue along the same path that I am on, of curbing the carnal desires  and maintaining them in the bounds the Lord has set and that is the role of the LDS church.

I think the other error is reading an article such as the one in the OP of this thread and thinking he is saying anything differently than what I just said except that he chose to leave the first sentence off his observations in the article. Still there will be others who may equivocate into acceptance of wrong behaviors; we should not tolerate that anymore than the behaviors of sin around which this subject constantly swirls.

I think most of my fellow LDS members need open minds when it comes to the reasons why people are gay. Allow evidence and study to affect the opinions they hold on the subject. Made a big difference to me when I allowed new information to influence my previously dogmatic, blind beliefs.

HiJolly

[Pa Pa]

selek1, on 26 June 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Oh G--!

Do we really need another thread on why "Mormons are wrong about homosexuality"!?!

Is there anything in this propoganda link that hasn't been said at least a hundred times before!?!?!?

It seems to be the bulk of posts as of late. Why does everyone want to lay this issue at our feet...enough is enough.

[SamIam]

HiJolly, on 26 June 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

I think most of my fellow LDS members need open minds when it comes to the reasons why people are gay. Allow evidence and study to affect the opinions they hold on the subject. Made a big difference to me when I allowed new information to influence my previously dogmatic, blind beliefs.

HiJolly

...as stated...there is a time for decisions of character aside from sympathy. - Joseph Smith.  You are making the same mistake if you read any more in my use of direct language than you wrote in this quote above.  I just am not inclined to make the mistake of letting anyone think I might agree with transgression to the deference of obedience.

[Jaybear]

SamIam, on 26 June 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

I think the other error is reading an article such as the one in the OP of this thread and thinking he is saying anything differently than what I just said except that he chose to leave the first sentence off his observations in the article. Still there will be others who may equivocate into acceptance of wrong behaviors; we should not tolerate that anymore than the behaviors of sin around which this subject constantly swirls.

One important difference is that he refers to people who are gay as "gay" rather than the more condescending "struggles with same sex attraction".  I note you refer to gay people as "those that choose in this fashion" which I suppose is the long form of "those people."

[SamIam]

Jaybear, on 26 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

One important difference is that he refers to people who are gay as "gay" rather than the more condescending "struggles with same sex attraction".  I note you refer to gay people as "those that choose in this fashion" which I suppose is the long form of "those people."

Frankly, it is not that at all.  I grew up in the south during the time it went from appropriate to call my friends, Negros to when they had to be referred to as African Americans, to when I had to call them blacks. Finally I was so confused by what was appropriate that I just quit trying to figure out what the politically correct flavor of the month was.  This is my method of politely dancing around the fact that I don't really have a clue what "those people" as you call them prefer to be known by. I finally decided that if they are responsible human beings they will not seek offense where none is intended.

Edited by SamIam, 26 June 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[HiJolly]

SamIam, on 26 June 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

...as stated...there is a time for decisions of character aside from sympathy. - Joseph Smith.  You are making the same mistake if you read any more in my use of direct language than you wrote in this quote above.  I just am not inclined to make the mistake of letting anyone think I might agree with transgression to the deference of obedience.

I completely agree. I should have posted my comment sans your previous comment. It was not directed at you. Sorry.

HiJolly

[happy]

The article appears to be "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture". Today's society has decided homosexuality is ok, and to enforce this philosophy, many try to claim Christ would not have considered homosexuals sinning.

[HiJolly]

happy, on 26 June 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

The article appears to be "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture". Today's society has decided homosexuality is ok, and to enforce this philosophy, many try to claim Christ would not have considered homosexuals sinning.

Everything outside of direct revelation is "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture", per temple teachings.

The Bishop who wrote the article has not, nor have any who have contributed in this thread, said that "Christ would not have considered homosexuals sinning". Or did I miss something? Where did you get that?  

HiJolly

[BCSpace]

There has never been a need to change the "Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality"  All the correct doctrine has been in place.  It can handle whether or not homosexuality is discovered to be inborn.  It hasn't changed.  It is true that some members have had to get on board, but this includes many homosexuals and advocates for their lifestyle besides the few "bullies" if they ever existed.

Edited by BCSpace, 26 June 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[treehugger]

BCSpace, on 26 June 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

There has never been a need to change the "Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality"  All the correct doctrine has been in place.  It can handle whether or not homosexuality is discovered to be inborn.  It hasn't changed.  It is true that some members have had to get on board, ...

I agree.

I think the greatest struggle for the general membership is that it is not sinful for a person to realize and admit attraction to the same gender.
Just as it is not sin for a heterosexual to realize and attraction to the opposite gender.

The attraction has never been the sin for either.

[daz2]

Quote

“What you are seeing is increased emphasis by church leaders on the need for our members to show sensitivity in this area so people don’t feel rejected, especially by their families,” Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in an e-mail.

But Mr. Hawkins said there had been “no shift or change in doctrine” on the church’s stance on gay relationships or the role of openly gay Mormons in their congregations. Sunday services are open to gay congregants, but members who want to hold leadership posts “must be living their lives consistent with the Church’s teachings,” Mr. Hawkins said.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

I see Bishop Fletcher's article as in keeping with the church's increased emphasis "to show sensitivity in this area so people don't feel rejected, especially by their families."  The Deseret News editorial decrying harassment of LGBT youth is another example of this sensitivity, as is the Church's inviting representatives of the LGBT community as special guests to the Tabernacle Choir's Christmas program.  As is the Church official endorsement of legislation prohibiting discrimination in housing or employment based on sexual orientation (whether or not celibate).

As members, we need more outreach and sensitivity and less judgment.  We should be glad when our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, celibate or not, decide to attend church and as members we should fully welcome them and not judge. Judgment is in the hands of the common judges in Israel, not us members at large. If certain membership rights need to be restricted, that is up to the presiding priesthood leaders.  Not to us.  And it is not our job as members to tell them that they are sinning; our job is to love.  Further, I believe we should not speak of or consider the LGBT community as the enemy.  Our LGBT brothers and sisters are not our enemy, they are our brothers and sisters.

http://www.byuicomm....der-attraction/

[Pahoran]

"Changing The Mormon Conversation On Homosexuality"

Changing it to what?  So that we talk about it as incessantly as the homosexualist lobby do, instead of the "hardly ever" that we normally do?

Regards,
Pahoran

[SamIam]

Pahoran, on 26 June 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

"Changing The Mormon Conversation On Homosexuality"

Changing it to what?  So that we talk about it as incessantly as the homosexualist lobby do, instead of the "hardly ever" that we normally do?

Regards,
Pahoran

Here here laddy! ...now pass me a pint o that ale ye be drinkin....

[ERayR]

HiJolly, on 26 June 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

I think most of my fellow LDS members need open minds when it comes to the reasons why people are gay. Allow evidence and study to affect the opinions they hold on the subject. Made a big difference to me when I allowed new information to influence my previously dogmatic, blind beliefs.

HiJolly

Let me preface this with this:  I have close family members wh are homosexual.  I also have close family members who struggle with other types of sexual problems.

The reasons why they struggle with these problems in their lives is immaterial.  It is what the do about it.

[USU78]

HiJolly, on 26 June 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Allow evidence and study to affect the opinions they hold on the subject.

Problem:  People like Simon Levay present misleading "results" of research, whether subjectively intentionally or no, and even a later backpedaling is largely ignored.  The press reports politically correct tripe as though it were factually based, public policy is affected thereby, but it is, ultimately, all a lie.

So . . . how are we to judge when politics so drastically affects both the science and the reporting of the science?