Jump to content
Rivers

Anniversary of the “The Policy”

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure Jesus came across many same sex couples, and this was a politically-charged issue in His day.

Really?

Do you have any information about this? I'm not aware of any reason to think Jesus came across same sex couples or that it was a politically charged issue in his day.

BUT... lets pretend that you are right about both statements. If Jesus knew SS couples AND it was a big issue in his day, how should we view his silence on the matter? Should we view his silence as evidence that it is apostasy or should we conclude that it didn't matter much to him?

IF it was a big issue of the time and IF Jesus cared about it I would expect him to speak about it. Can you point me to statements attributed to Jesus about this issue?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really?

Do you have any information about this? I'm not aware of any reason to think Jesus came across same sex couples or that it was a politically charged issue in his day.

BUT... lets pretend that you are right about both statements. If Jesus knew SS couples AND it was a big issue in his day, how should we view his silence on the matter? Should we view his silence as evidence that it is apostasy or should we conclude that it didn't matter much to him?

IF it was a big issue of the time and IF Jesus cared about it I would expect him to speak about it. Can you point me to statements attributed to Jesus about this issue?

https://soundcloud.com/mormonland/mormon-land-episode-56

I listened to this podcast this morning, and it had the Mormon Building Bridges co-founder, Kendall Wilcox. He mentioned that a gay friend had recently committed suicide. And that several gays meet together and some discussed at a recent meeting, of being able to make it past the suicide date they had created for themselves. But not the case for this friend of Kendall's, who couldn't get past the words of the prophets in recent talks. His gay friend had married his partner etc. But he listened so well to what the leaders said that he couldn't live with himself any longer. I don't get how the leaders, Nelson and Oaks, can spew words like they do, it's so careless to speak for God and make God's love so conditional. So I hope the leaders, and specifically the current ones, would simply be silent, because their words can cause some to take their lives. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

One of the saddest thing that I saw and others too..when this unnecessary policy came through, was the great division...the divide and separation.  For when that "last straw" where members walked away  because of the policy. their member friends, neighbors and families said....good riddance. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really? ...  I'm not aware of any reason to think Jesus came across same sex couples or that it was a politically charged issue in his day.

Exactly. I think you may have missed the sarcasm in the observation ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think that that the only thing that the policy accomplished was to provide more ammunition for the critics.

That said, I'm having a hard time imagining the Christ of the New Testament worrying about the marital status of the parents of somebody who wanted to follow Him.

WWJD?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://soundcloud.com/mormonland/mormon-land-episode-56

I listened to this podcast this morning, and it had the Mormon Building Bridges co-founder, Kendall Wilcox. He mentioned that a gay friend had recently committed suicide. And that several gays meet together and some discussed at a recent meeting, of being able to make it past the suicide date they had created for themselves. But not the case for this friend of Kendall's, who couldn't get past the words of the prophets in recent talks. His gay friend had married his partner etc. But he listened so well to what the leaders said that he couldn't live with himself any longer. I don't get how the leaders, Nelson and Oaks, can spew words like they do, it's so careless to speak for God and make God's love so conditional. So I hope the leaders, and specifically the current ones, would simply be silent, because their words can cause some to take their lives. 

God's love is unconditional.  However, if we took a poll, what level of agreement would we get?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

..............Do you have any information about this? I'm not aware of any reason to think Jesus came across same sex couples or that it was a politically charged issue in his day.

BUT... lets pretend that you are right about both statements. If Jesus knew SS couples AND it was a big issue in his day, how should we view his silence on the matter? Should we view his silence as evidence that it is apostasy or should we conclude that it didn't matter much to him?

IF it was a big issue of the time and IF Jesus cared about it I would expect him to speak about it. Can you point me to statements attributed to Jesus about this issue?

It is probably not realistic to suggest that the Gospels contain every opinion expressed by Jesus on every possible subject.  In fact there were major issues among Jews in Jesus' day which don't directly appear  in the Gospels.  For example, there were a lot of Hellenizers among the Jews -- Jews who adopted Greek culture, and who were embarrassed by their more backward Jewish traditions, such as circumcision.  Since Greeks regularly engaged in wrestling and other sports nude, and uncircumcised, Jews who wanted to participate were embarrassed by their obvious circumcision.  So they underwent operations to reverse their circumcision (called epispasm).  Jesus could have commented, and perhaps did, but it is not recorded for us.

Also, Greeks commonly engaged in homosexual acts, and Paul does comment on that problem.  However, Jesus does not -- or at least the Gospel editors did not quote him on it.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is probably not realistic to suggest that the Gospels contain every opinion expressed by Jesus on every possible subject.  In fact there were major issues among Jews in Jesus' day which don't directly appear  in the Gospels.  For example, there were a lot of Hellenizers among the Jews -- Jews who adopted Greek culture, and who were embarrassed by their more backward Jewish traditions, such as circumcision.  Since Greeks regularly engaged in wrestling and other sports nude, and uncircumcised, Jews who wanted to participate were embarrassed by their obvious circumcision.  So they underwent operations to reverse their circumcision (called epispasm).  Jesus could have commented, and perhaps did, but it is not recorded for us.

Also, Greeks commonly engaged in homosexual acts, and Paul does comment on that problem.  However, Jesus does not -- or at least the Gospel editors did not quote him on it.

Oh yeah,  we have heard this explanation of silence before.   The gospel writers just forgot to write Christ's calling same sex couples apostates and kicking them out of His church.  The Book of Mormon writers also forgot to condemn those that are attracted to the same sex.  Joseph Smith forgot to record his vision from God that all gay couples should be branded, kicked out of the church and their young children not allowed baptism.  And then, of course, the writers of the Pearl of Great price also forgot.  

Is there any other important Church doctrine where so many writers of scripture just forgot to put down?

I get that members of the Church want to defend this policy as if it came from God.  But there is so little support to back this kind of policy up, it is hard for many inside the church and even fewer outside the church to try and go along with the idea that this discriminating policy came from God.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really?

Do you have any information about this? I'm not aware of any reason to think Jesus came across same sex couples or that it was a politically charged issue in his day.

BUT... lets pretend that you are right about both statements. If Jesus knew SS couples AND it was a big issue in his day, how should we view his silence on the matter? Should we view his silence as evidence that it is apostasy or should we conclude that it didn't matter much to him?

IF it was a big issue of the time and IF Jesus cared about it I would expect him to speak about it. Can you point me to statements attributed to Jesus about this issue?

No, not really.

RE: BUT…, I don’t think He would have been any more silent than the Church leaders have been today.

RE: If…, I think your expectations would have been met back then with His statements just as they are today with the Church leaders’ statements on the same subject. This does not mean I would be able to point you to statements made 2,000 years ago, but doctrinally it appears they would have been the same as today's.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Oh yeah,  we have heard this explanation of silence before.   The gospel writers just forgot to write Christ's calling same sex couples apostates and kicking them out of His church.  The Book of Mormon writers also forgot to condemn those that are attracted to the same sex.  Joseph Smith forgot to record his vision from God that all gay couples should be branded, kicked out of the church and their young children not allowed baptism.  And then, of course, the writers of the Pearl of Great price also forgot.  

Is there any other important Church doctrine where so many writers of scripture just forgot to put down?

I get that members of the Church want to defend this policy as if it came from God.  But there is so little support to back this kind of policy up, it is hard for many inside the church and even fewer outside the church to try and go along with the idea that this discriminating policy came from God.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea that imperfect people should not be in the pews, since all of us are imperfect, and we need to be in church in order to hear the Gospel preached.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really?

Do you have any information about this? I'm not aware of any reason to think Jesus came across same sex couples or that it was a politically charged issue in his day.

BUT... lets pretend that you are right about both statements. If Jesus knew SS couples AND it was a big issue in his day, how should we view his silence on the matter? Should we view his silence as evidence that it is apostasy or should we conclude that it didn't matter much to him?

IF it was a big issue of the time and IF Jesus cared about it I would expect him to speak about it. Can you point me to statements attributed to Jesus about this issue?

Um, I think CV was writing in an ironic vein to highlight the absurdity of saying how the mortal Jesus would have dealt with a political issue unique to modern day. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

But what Christ didn't say to the woman is "You Are An Apostate, and can not be a member of my church.  And your children can not be a member as well until they are 18". 

What Jesus in essence instructed the woman to do was to repent (i.e. to “go and sin no more”). What this might have entailed in that time and on that occasion neither you nor I can say, because we’ve not been given sufficient information. 

One thing is certain, though. He did not give the woman license to continue sinning with impunity. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure Jesus came across many same sex couples, and this was a politically-charged issue in His day.

Where would be the evidence of this.  I am sure that even the bad Jews in his day at least would not put up with this.  He may have run into a gay or two but I am sure they kept whatever relationships secret.  But perhaps I am wrong.  Perhaps rainbow flags were there as well.  Maybe archaeologists will find a few rainbow flags.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

One of the saddest thing that I saw and others too..when this unnecessary policy came through, was the great division...the divide and separation.  For when that "last straw" where members walked away  because of the policy. their member friends, neighbors and families said....good riddance. 

I don't say good riddance but if a person is at the point where they were going to leave over this, something else was going to come to cause them to leave.   They were just looking for a final excuse and they got it.  Nobody goes from a strong testimony to leaving over something like this policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Jesus in essence instructed the woman to do was to repent (i.e. to “go and sin no more”). What this might have entailed in that time and on that occasion neither you nor I can say, because we’ve not been given sufficient information. 

One thing is certain, though. He did not give the woman license to continue sinning with impunity. 

I agree.  But Christ could have told every single follower of His to repent. Why aren't all who follow Christ without sin?  Perhaps because repentance is a process not often achieved in a single meeting at the well.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am very uncomfortable with the idea that imperfect people should not be in the pews, since all of us are imperfect, and we need to be in church in order to hear the Gospel preached.

I completely agree.   It is just an odd way to bring people to Christ no matter what their situation.  Instead of exclusion, the example of Christ was to reach out to the woman at the well despite her sins.  THAT is the difference between Christ's actions and church leaders.  And THAT  is why so many in the Church have issues with this policy.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, california boy said:

I agree.  But Christ could have told every single follower of His to repent. Why aren't all who follow Christ without sin?  Perhaps because repentance is a process not often achieved in a single meeting at the well.  

I completely agree.   It is just an odd way to bring people to Christ no matter what their situation.  Instead of exclusion, the example of Christ was to reach out to the woman at the well despite her sins.  THAT is the difference between Christ's actions and church leaders.  And THAT  is why so many in the Church have issues with this policy.  

 

I feel like there is absolutely no room at the inn for the gay community. And if the church even wanted to, it can't get out of a "revelation" that Pres. Nelson stated came from God, and seeing how long it took the reversal of the "revelation" on blacks having the PH, it may take a long, long time before the "policy"will be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Where would be the evidence of this.  I am sure that even the bad Jews in his day at least would not put up with this.  He may have run into a gay or two but I am sure they kept whatever relationships secret.  But perhaps I am wrong.  Perhaps rainbow flags were there as well.  Maybe archaeologists will find a few rainbow flags.

Why would a same-sex relationship be kept secret?  It was not only accepted in ancient Rome, it was practiced by many well know leaders of the day.  From Wikipedia.  

 

Quote

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors are held to have been bisexual or exclusively homosexual.[19] The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy to replace his young teenage concubine whom he had killed [20] named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse. A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[21] The Child Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.[22] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[23]

 

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I feel like there is absolutely no room at the inn for the gay community. And if the church even wanted to, it can't get out of a "revelation" that Pres. Nelson stated came from God, and seeing how long it took the reversal of the "revelation" on blacks having the PH, it may take a long, long time before the "policy"will be removed.

If you feel like there is absolutely no room at the inn for the gay community, imagine how I and other former gay members feel.  The church has been pretty strident in doing all it can to marginalize the gay community, first publically and then when they eventually failed at that, internally.  That is what is at the core of this policy that we are commemorating.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you feel like there is absolutely no room at the inn for the gay community, imagine how I and other former gay members feel.  The church has been pretty strident in doing all it can to marginalize the gay community, first publically and then when they eventually failed at that, internally.  That is what is at the core of this policy that we are commemorating.

Wow, my post came off badly. I hope you don't think I think there shouldn't be room. I just see that the door has been closed since now they're an apostate if they marry in a SSM. 

Share this post


Link to post

I really struggle to understand and accept that people can't see the Church's reasoning for this policy. Perhaps see isn't the right word, but it's what comes to mind at this point.

If this policy were not in force then there would be greater division among the families of same-sex couples over the long term, in my opinion. Those that would have their children taken to Church, either by their own hand or that of relatives or friends, would see firsthand how awful it'd be for their little ones to have certain religious expectations set that they cannot uphold or witness upheld in their closest family relationships. The child will hear an affirmation from the Family Proclamation about the sanctity of marriage, of gender, and perhaps the different roles men and women fill as parents. This will confuse them because their situation can be vastly different. They might feel singled out because it's not like it'll be a secret that their parents are a same-sex couple (married or not). There will be an increase of anxiety and tension as the example of their parents and immediate family stands apart and in contrast to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Every single person on this earth, member or not, should be valued, respected, and treated with as much mercy and dignity as we can give, for that is how the Lord treats us. This policy, in my belief, is part of the Prophets looking forward with seership and prophecy and heading off a worse trial for members of the Church who are gay and their loved ones. All I ask is that if you have serious concerns about this policy then take this line of thought and continue it, and keep in mind that Satan will always try and tear families apart, ruin relationships, and tarnish the benefit of the doubt members of the Church give the Prophet. Make it a thought exercise: what might a family look like that shows, by example, one aspect of life, and then on Sunday at least some within the family will be taught and have it reinforced that romantic and sexual relationships between two people of the same gender will keep them from being like their Heavenly Parents and their Savior. They'll be taught it as an absolute because that's what we believe and what Prophets inspired of God have taught us (both by inspiration and revelation, as well as the Scriptures) while their parents don't see it as such.

I would feel awful for couples in such a situation as to have beliefs they don't agree with or support taught to their children at least once a week. If they can't, in their own good conscience, be members of the Church, then why on earth would they permit their children to be (I realize that culture and tradition are important concepts to some)? Church membership and same-sex marriage are fundamentally opposite and opposed because of the Father's end design for His children: eternal marriage and offspring as numerous as the stars. Many things on earth are patterned after things in Heaven, in my opinion. The creation of children, on earth, is only possible by certain means, and possibly by extension the same is true in eternity. This is about the Father's big picture for us. More than anything I think it (a same-sex relationship) nurtures ideas and seeds in the heart during a mortal life such that the person won't want anything to do with exaltation because of their long-term same-sex relationship or marriage (assuming for the sake of argument that progression between kingdoms is possible). Christ can't exalt those who don't choose and accept it as it really is (and not as they'd wish it to be). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

Is there any other important Church doctrine where so many writers of scripture just forgot to put down?

Abortion, p0rn, child trafficking, abuse of painkillers, amongst others? :unknw:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Instead of exclusion, the example of Christ was to reach out to the woman at the well despite her sins.  THAT is the difference between Christ's actions and church leaders.  And THAT  is why so many in the Church have issues with this policy.  

I feel reasonably confident that those who have issues with this policy are not upset because Church leaders are excluding same-sex couples from their efforts to reach out and preach repentance, as Jesus did with the woman at the well. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Why would a same-sex relationship be kept secret? 

Perhaps because unlike the pagan Romans, the Jews had been repeatedly taught by God that sexual relations outside of male/female marriage were so sinful that, under the Mosaic Law, they could be punished with death?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

I agree.  But Christ could have told every single follower of His to repent. Why aren't all who follow Christ without sin?  Perhaps because repentance is a process not often achieved in a single meeting at the well.  

What do you mean “at the well”? Are you conflating two New Testament stories? I’m referring to the woman taken in adultery, not the one whom Christ asked to draw water for Him at the well. 

And Christ did (and does) ask all his followers to repent. His is the gospel of repentance. We have record of this specific instance because Jesus has just rescued the woman from a mob intent on stoning her to death. He told her to go and repent, just as His authorized representatives enjoin sinners today, including those whose acts are egregious enough to warrant Church discipline. If and when they truly repent, they are welcomed back into full fellowship. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If and when they truly repent, they are welcomed back into full fellowship. 

And in the meantime, they are welcome to all the fellowship of the Saints minus only that which depends on not having positioned oneself outside the Covenant. This whole notion that not endorsing flagrant sin is tantamount to casting people out of the congregation is pure posturing. There’s always room in the pew next to me for anyone who wants. Pretending there isn’t is cheap political point scoring. 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...