Jaybear Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 The line is too vague to be substantiated as a policy.I disagree. Lines like this are drawn all the time in legislation. Its simply a matter of who has the burden of proof.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 No, not where religion is concerned. It is more than merely the burden of proof, if you allow a government to dictate who can and cannot work in an ecclesiastical setting (cleaning the temple for instance) you take away the right of the church to determine the manner in which it governs itself. Lobbying groups then begin making those decisions. It is too vague. The individual knew the rules and attempted to circumvent them. When caught he then cried foul. I find that there is much more room for legitimate discourse than paying attention to someone who is knowingly deceptive of the facts in the matter. There are plenty of gay men and women who may have isssues and dealt honestly with groups.
LDSToronto Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 No, not where religion is concerned. It is more than merely the burden of proof, if you allow a government to dictate who can and cannot work in an ecclesiastical setting (cleaning the temple for instance) you take away the right of the church to determine the manner in which it governs itself. Lobbying groups then begin making those decisions. Isn't it possible to enact a law that force churches to justify which positions require ecclesiastical endorsement, and which positions do not? For instance, a custodian at a temple is required to be temple worthy, but a custodian at the Church office building has no such requirement. Certainly the LDS church has positions which require a temple recommend, but other positions have no such requirement to perform the job effectively.H.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Isn't it possible to enact a law that force churches to justify which positions require ecclesiastical endorsementJustification is in the eye of the government and lobbyists or powerbrokers. I would not want any church to be placed in such a position.
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 but a custodian at the Church office building has no such requirement. Actually they do given the sensitivity that is sometimes involved, even by witnesses in the periphery. I would not want someone who is not a faithful member going through offices. As I stated earlier, I wouldn't want an anti Catholic to be a cook for a monastary. There must be a level of confidence involved which allows a church to decide that level, not the government.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Just so that we are clear, and the sky is firmly in place, I don't believe he did anything wrong, or that is less "worthy", because he associates with gays. But my opinion is besides the point, as he never ceded to me the authority to judge his worthiness.If you poke a dog, don't complain when the dogs bites you.Jaybear you are starting to make more sense in more of your posts. THis might be a scary thing .
sjdawg Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 Actually they do given the sensitivity that is sometimes involved, even by witnesses in the periphery. I would not want someone who is not a faithful member going through offices. As I stated earlier, I wouldn't want an anti Catholic to be a cook for a monastary. There must be a level of confidence involved which allows a church to decide that level, not the government.A few years ago in Canada a school teacher was fired by the Catholic School Board for being gay and won a fairly large settlement. I'm not sure how the labor laws compare between Alberta and Utah.
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 A few years ago in Canada a school teacher was fired by the Catholic School Board for being gay and won a fairly large settlement. I'm not sure how the labor laws compare between Alberta and Utah.The Catholic School Board is supported in part by taxes IIRC in Alberta.
Calm Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Am posting here ca's post from the other forum:Man Fired from LDS Church For Refusing to Give Up Gay FriendsHere is the linkThe Church often states that one can be a full member of the church and still be gay. I have posted in the past that my stake president and bishop both told me that I was not allowed to have a male room mate nor was I allowed to date. Many on this board challenged me on this statement.The current article is being posted on blogs that once again paint the church as being bigoted and intolerant of gays. When you read the article I feel there is a bit of a slant to it, but never the less, the guy seems to have lost his temple recommend not from having sex outside of marriage, but from having gay friends and being unwilling to give them up. Is there any hope for the church to not be viewed as bigoted when incidents like this occur? Should a member be fired from the church office building for being gay? Having gay friends? Joining a gay social club? I thought the sin was sex outside of marriage. Evidently being chase and being a gay member of the church is not enough. As far as most gay people believe, this guy is just another casualty that the church is willing to discard because of its attitudes against gays. It's never been solely about sex (or any other behaviour defined as sinful), it's also about what's in the heart.The man states he was not having sex because he was afraid of sexually transmitted diseases and he stated he was moving toward living a fully open gay life, implications of both statements was that he saw nothing inherently wrong with homosexual behaviour AND feelings and was intentionally participating in behaviour (such as dating other gay men) that would eventually involve him in actual sexual behaviour.Are there really people who challenged you on not being allowed to date other gay men? That is rather surprising, I think the Church's instructions are pretty clear in that they are not talking about only purely sexual behaviour, but include in homosexual behaviour anything that fosters those tendencies just as they don't allow married people to date others besides their spouses even if actual sex is not involved because that behaviour tends to foster adulterous feelings and thoughts.
bookofmormontruth Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 *yawn*The City Weekly? Does anyone take them seriously?In regards to the recording. The comment section of this already forgotten story has an individual claiming to have access/possession of the recording. bradleee: "where is the full transcript or audio of the recording?" Jesse Fruhwirth:"I'm working on that. There has been an unexpected delay"Jesse Fruhwirth: "After discussion and debate, we decided the transcript would require too much editing to adequately protect the privacy rights of private individuals who are discussed in the tape and therefore will not be releasing a transcript." How convenient! We will never hear the recording! And my favorite comment: "Drew you are not telling the entire story, and there is a lot of people that know this. I know you want to believe what you are saying, but there is a lot more to this, and you know it."That sums it all up.
MorningStar Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Translation: It would take too much editing for the recording to sound how they want it to sound.
rpn Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I think the stated standard is celibacy and not propounding a gay lifestyle. And given that the man's statements suggest he was trying to keep his job, not maintain his TR, one would wonder whether this is about the TR at all. Finally, don't church members all know that they can APPEAL church discipline (though of course taking a TR is NOT church disciipline at all, just not allowing entrance to a sacred place where minimum standards of worthiness are required). No one kicked him out of church or said he couldn't be a member, just that he wasn't prepared to have a TR.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 *yawn*The City Weekly? Does anyone take them seriously? ...The Shi
Kenngo1969 Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 The sky is falling. I once again agree with Jaybear. Doesn't happen often, but once in a while....I was channel-surfing and I happened upon the weather report from KHEL, Channel 666, in which the forecaster said that a cold front was about to move through, bringing snow and ice ...
california boy Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 *yawn*The City Weekly? Does anyone take them seriously?In regards to the recording. The comment section of this already forgotten story has an individual claiming to have access/possession of the recording. bradleee: "where is the full transcript or audio of the recording?" Jesse Fruhwirth:"I'm working on that. There has been an unexpected delay"Jesse Fruhwirth: "After discussion and debate, we decided the transcript would require too much editing to adequately protect the privacy rights of private individuals who are discussed in the tape and therefore will not be releasing a transcript." How convenient! We will never hear the recording! And my favorite comment: "Drew you are not telling the entire story, and there is a lot of people that know this. I know you want to believe what you are saying, but there is a lot more to this, and you know it."That sums it all up.This article is all over the blogs. It reinforces the bigoted image the church already has in the media. And yeah, I know there are a lot of members of this board that are more than happy to have the church portrayed that way. Personally, I think it is a shame.
frankenstein Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 wait wait wait....are some suggesting that only one side is being presented OR that issues are being distorted? or that Cityweekly can not be trusted. and that we need the full facts to be know before making an informed decision?not a few weeks someone posted an article, and it was pointed out by myself the the article posted was lopsided and infact shown to be wrong, yet none had much to say about lopsided reporting; very interesting - not to mention all the other lopsided deliberatly misleading things that have been pointed out, but I guess if the lopsidedness is against the "gay agenda" then no harm done, but once a person part of the "gay agenda" presents a story about a Church all the sudden the light don't make things scury and people are wanting all the facts and that the full situation be know.
Calm Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 not a few weeks someone posted an article, and it was pointed out by myself the the article posted was lopsided and infact shown to be wrong, yet none had much to say about lopsided reportingLink please
TAO Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Out of curiosity, what is the current church teaching regarding this issue? It seems that when I was a youth (mid 80's) the teachings from leaders seemed to indicate that being gay was something that people brought on themselves through excessive self-abuse and experimentation with others and was strongly condemned (ie the Miracle of Forgivness or "To Young Men Only"). Lately there seems to be more understanding about it, or at least confusion as to why some people, even church members are gay.Is being gay considered to be a temporal physical condition like blindness or baldness for example, which is expected to be cured in the next life when people are perfected? Are gays in the church expected to endure and overcome whatever temptations they face in this life with the expectation that things will be better once they enter the next life? If not officially taught, it at least seems to be implied based on the cases where gay people have been encouraged to marry and have children, or the BYU attempts to cure it in past years.Does the confusion warrant the leaders seeking direct revelation about it? Since the church has the advantage of modern day revelation, it seems that the confusion could be put to rest, even if the outside world doesn't like the answer...The general position of the church is that it is a weakness that can be overcome (Ether 12), from what I understand. We all are given trials, this happens to be the one given to them, and we will help them through it. For every trial given, it is possible to overcome, and we will help them that we will =).To be quite honest... I don't think that the tendency is both preborn and self-determined. I think the inclination may be preborn, but the ability to overcome it is self-determined. It has not been stated by the FP or apostles though, so yah... no official position, just my own opinion. But yah, it has been confirmed that they will not suffer from this weakness, this 'thorn in the flesh' (kudos to President Monson there for the phrase), in the next life.I do think there has been revelation on the subject... I just think we haven't heard about it directly from the FP. I do think they are guided in what they do, but I think many people outside of the FP and apostles take and use their words in ways they didn't intend (on both sides of the issue). I really like to think of the way they want to help as the same way the Lord did - firm on the laws, merciful in offering forgiveness, and serviceable in helping them achieve the needed result =).But yah, lots of thoughts on it, not necessarily correct, mostly my opinon.Best Wishes,TAO
frankenstein Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 frankenstein, on 23 March 2011 - 05:23 PM, said: not a few weeks someone posted an article, and it was pointed out by myself the the article posted was lopsided and infact shown to be wrong, yet none had much to say about lopsided reportingcalmoriah: Link pleaselook up the smac thread about the UN which was posted in the last few weeks.also, take the case out of NJ where a Church wanted to keep its Tax Exempt status but not have to follow the rules for tax exemption, almost never will you find those who point fingers at the "gay agenda" presenting that situation correct, it will almost always be some lopsided anti-gay agenda presentation.there is also the discussion several moons ago about the claim Canada banning the bible
Calm Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 frankenstein, on 23 March 2011 - 05:23 PM, said: not a few weeks someone posted an article, and it was pointed out by myself the the article posted was lopsided and infact shown to be wrong, yet none had much to say about lopsided reportingcalmoriah: Link pleaselook up the smac thread about the UN which was posted in the last few weeks.I get to feel all self-righteous now because looke what I said: And I can practically guarantee if someone was trashing Canada I was calling for evidence.
Duncan Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 I get to feel all self-righteous now because looke what I said: And I can practically guarantee if someone was trashing Canada I was calling for evidence. No kidding, eh!
bookofmormontruth Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 This article is all over the blogs. It reinforces the bigoted image the church already has in the media. And yeah, I know there are a lot of members of this board that are more than happy to have the church portrayed that way. Personally, I think it is a shame.Sorry you feel it is a shame and I apologize if my *yawn* offended you.My wonderful gay sister is fed up with the so called "gay agenda" speaking for herself and her partner which also portrays the Lord's Church as "bigoted". I guess from my conversations with her and my view that sexuality doesn't define a person or should be the absolute main focus of ones existence, I consider this story a non issue that is only an issue in the gay and anti-Mormon community.Besides, this story is based on complete hearsay with emotional appeal and I just can't take it serious at all.
Calm Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Besides, this story is based on complete hearsay with emotional appeal and I just can't take it serious at all.I wouldn't say complete hearsay because they did provide one quote and they'd be absolutely stupid if they had created that.The quote doesn't say exactly what they claim though, that it was only his association with gay friends that was a problem for the SP.
bookofmormontruth Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 I wouldn't say complete hearsay because they did provide one quote and they'd be absolutely stupid if they had created that.The quote doesn't say exactly what they claim though, that it was only his association with gay friends that was a problem for the SP.Which makes the story completely misleading.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.