Mormon Bishop Says Church Responsible For Gays’ Emotional Wounds

[Sky]

Well I am not sure if homosexuality was a stoning offense, but I do know that the modern day Prophets, Seers and Revelators have yet to say they have gotten a direct revelation from God about this. So far is all they are saying is that we feel it is a sin. Their evolving statements about homosexuality pretty much tells us they are guessing at what they think God would want them to do. I am not questioning their sincerity, I am just stating that God has yet to give theis men a direct revelation like he used to do with Joseph Smith on a regular basis. Haven't heard "thus sayeth the Lord" on this issue.

Well, that is only one way to look at it. To me, the leaders of the Church have been very clear about what constitutes an appropriate sexual relationship and what doesn’t. The Lord has set the boundaries. I believe the leaders of the Church are doing more than just guessing. At least they better be. There are a lot of people, including myself, relying on them.

And I don’t think you really accept these men as prophets, seers, and revelators anyway. So even if they did come out with a “thus sayeth the Lord” revelation, you would not accept it. You would only accept it if it already conformed with your currently held beliefs about the subject.

[Senator]

Indeed. Yet his flying out to speak to this group in my mind is suspect. I don't think we want anyone, especially Bishops, buying into the often embellished and insinuative stories of maltreatment whose object is to implicate and denigrate the Church and ultimately change it's doctrine through grassroots pressure.

By all means!..The last thing we want is our Bishops taking stories of maltreatment seriously. Especially since our Bishops can be so easily duped, being so far removed from the trenches of the front line and all.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Not just people in life saving occupations. I'm reminded of the LA earthquake we had a few years ago. Collapsed major freeways. The State of California hired construction companies to work 24/7 to repair the damage. Obviously some of the workers had to work on the Sabbath. They are still heroes in my book, even if no ones's life was literally on the line. Like Jesus said When your (donkey) is in the mire on the Sabbath. Pull it out.

I'm no fan of football(or any other sport), most years I do't even watch the Superbowl. As all football players have a very limited time in which to ply their trade. Far be it from me to tell them they shouldn't/can't provide for their families. My simple rule is go to the church of your own choosing whenever, and wherever you can.

Not convenient just the simple long established rule on how the Church determines its own doctrine.

Would it be better if people including some members didn't drink alcohol, view porn, gamble, or any number of other sins? Of course, and they will have to answer for their own sins. I just hope the Lord is as forgiving of my sins and he evidently is of theirs. Now when YOU are perfect I'll let you cast the first stone.

[Sky]

Given the Official Statements from the LDS Church concerning issues of involving homosexuals/person who identify as having homosexual desire, there are members of the Church on this board who need to repent.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that I was called out for “feeling the need to cry repentance to everyone I meet” and for “feeling like I am beyond sin and that it is my responsibility to worry about the sins of others.”

So I guess its okay to cry repentance as long as it’s directed towards Church members for not being sensitive enough towards gay people. But how dare you cry repentance if it’s directed towards detractors of the faith for criticizing the leaders of the Church.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

I'm no fan of football(or any other sport), most years I do't even watch the Superbowl. As all football players have a very limited time in which to ply their trade. Far be it from me to tell them they shouldn't/can't provide for their families. My simple rule is go to the church of your own choosing whenever, and wherever you can.

Non sequitor. This is not about you, or your rules. Its about God's rules. One of them is:"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work."

No ambiguity there.

Not convenient just the simple long established rule on how the Church determines its own doctrine.

Which is long established? I presented two inconsistent approaches to statements made from the pulpit.

Its not doctrinal unless its cannonized, or when the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done.

Would it be better if people including some members didn't drink alcohol, view porn, gamble, or any number of other sins? Of course, and they will have to answer for their own sins. I just hope the Lord is as forgiving of my sins and he evidently is of theirs. Now when YOU are perfect I'll let you cast the first stone.

Again, you did not address the point. Is profiting from the addiction of others, whether it be porn, alcohol or gambling less unrighteous that intimacy within a commited relationship? If so, why:

What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

[Pahoran]

Perhaps first you should articulate why a bishop should not speak out about how that bishop believes memebers of the church need to repent

Everyone needs to repent about something. Upholding the moral standards of the Church is not something for which anyone needs to repent.

Anyone who reads this board will quickly learn that members of the church are in need of repentance in how they speak to or about persons who identify as having homosexual desires. Of those person in need of repentance is a person who I have reason to believe is aasociated with the Maxwell institite though I am not certain if anyone from middle earth is associated with MI and posts on this board

It seems to me that backbiting is a sin that also needs to be repented of. I see it mentioned a number of times in scripture; not being "accepting" enough of unrepentant transgressors, OTOH, is not something I find anywhere mentioned as a sin.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

It was Jesus that said it is fine to do good works on the Sabbath. It was the self righteous pharaisees that condemned him for collecting grain(work) to eat on the Sabbath.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

It was Jesus that said it is fine to do good works on the Sabbath. It was the self righteous pharaisees that condemned him for collecting grain(work) to eat on the Sabbath.

Good for him. I like Jesus. But why is that at all relevant? Are you saying that Young, Ainge and Murphy NEEDED to work on Sunday to put food on their family's table. Seems obvious to me that they needed to work on Sunday if they wanted to put two Mercedes in the driveway and a yacht in the harbor.

Need I remind you that Jesus also said: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

BTW, you have refused to answer the question. Morally speaking what worse in your opinion, profiting from the drug, porn and gambling addiction of others, or gay intimacy within the confines of a loving committed relationship?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I like Jesus myself.

I can't speak to their motivations. Because of some of the jobs I've held not working on the Sabbath wasn't an option. So I attended when I could, and hope the Lord understands. Retirement does have some advantages.

Ps. That is a Sophie's Choice.

[Sky]

Morally speaking what worse in your opinion, profiting from the drug, porn and gambling addiction of others, or gay intimacy within the confines of a loving committed relationship?

How about we stop trying to excuse immoral behavior – regardless of what kind it is. Nobody is arguing that profiting from drugs, porn, and gambling is good. But that is not really what this discussion is about anyway. The Lord’s prophets teach that all sexual relationships outside the bonds of a heterosexual marriage are not right. We are to uphold that, no matter how unpopular it becomes and in spite of the sophistries or pleasing doctrines of men.

[Jaybear]

How about we stop trying to excuse immoral behavior – regardless of what kind it is. Nobody is arguing that profiting from drugs, porn, and gambling is good. But that is not really what this discussion is about anyway.

The discussion has led us to this point because it was said that homosexuality cannot be condoned because: The Church can no more excuse unrighteousness than it can deny the Christ.

My point is that if the LDS Church can embrace and even praise members who profit from selling porn, alcohol and gambling, and those that openly break God's commandment not to work on the Sabbath, BECAUSE they are otherwise good and praiseworthy people, then yes it is possible that the LDS Church can one day embrace and welcome homosexual members who are otherwise good and praiseworthy people.

Many other churches have come to realize that practicing homosexuals can be good and praiseworthy people.

Bear in mind, in your prophets' formative years, homosexuality was a mental illness, and sodomy was a criminal offense. It is not a surprise then that people over 80 have a much different perception of homosexuals that people under 30.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I'm 60 and have no desire to return to those bad old days where homosexuality was considered a mental illness let alone a stoning offense. Same with laws against sodomy. Which BTW included anything other than the Protestant "Missionary Position" which I wouldn't go into describing here.

My personal opinion is that any sexual relationship outside of male and female marriage is condemned of God and is a sin. But I leave it up to God to impose any and all penalties for its violation.

[Sky]

The discussion has led us to this point because it was said that homosexuality cannot be condoned because: The Church can no more excuse unrighteousness than it can deny the Christ.

My point is that if the LDS Church can embrace and even praise members who profit from selling porn, alcohol and gambling, and those that openly break God's commandment not to work on the Sabbath, BECAUSE they are otherwise good and praiseworthy people, then yes it is possible that the LDS Church can one day embrace and welcome homosexual members who are otherwise good and praiseworthy people.

Many other churches have come to realize that practicing homosexuals can be good and praiseworthy people.

Bear in mind, in your prophets' formative years, homosexuality was a mental illness, and sodomy was a criminal offense. It is not a surprise then that people over 80 have a much different perception of homosexuals that people under 30.

When has the LDS Church ever praised members for selling porn, alcohol and gambling? This strikes me as pure hyperbole on your part.

But you will never pass up an opportunity to make the LDS Church and its leaders look bad, will you?

And your subtle dig at the prophets’ ages is noted.

[ERayR]

The discussion has led us to this point because it was said that homosexuality cannot be condoned because: The Church can no more excuse unrighteousness than it can deny the Christ.

You know that this is an incorrect statement. To be accurate it should read homosexual acts not homosexuality. Ones sexual tendencies are not the problem. The problem is when they are put into action.

My point is that if the LDS Church can embrace and even praise members who profit from selling porn, alcohol and gambling, and those that openly break God's commandment not to work on the Sabbath, BECAUSE they are otherwise good and praiseworthy people, then yes it is possible that the LDS Church can one day embrace and welcome homosexual members who are otherwise good and praiseworthy people.

Homosexual members who DO NOT indulge in sexual activity are welcome and called to resposible positions in the LDS church.

Many other churches have come to realize that practicing homosexuals can be good and praiseworthy people.

See above.

Bear in mind, in your prophets' formative years, homosexuality was a mental illness, and sodomy was a criminal offense. It is not a surprise then that people over 80 have a much different perception of homosexuals that people under 30.

Sodomy would be a sin as it is putting the homosexuality into action. Fornication and adultry are also sins.

[Calm]

Never mind...

[frankenstein]

Everyone needs to repent about something. Upholding the moral standards of the Church is not something for which anyone needs to repent.

It seems to me that backbiting is a sin that also needs to be repented of. I see it mentioned a number of times in scripture; not being "accepting" enough of unrepentant transgressors, OTOH, is not something I find anywhere mentioned as a sin.

Regards,

Pahoran

Really Clever Monologue there pahoran, typical of your style i.e. make claims that are unrelated to what you quote and put words into another's mouth. It's a good thing that I never mention being "accepting", but it is your style of response to create diversions. I stated that there are members of the LDS faith on this board who need to repent of manner in which they speak to or about persons who identify as homosexual or persons who claim ssa. But I am sure that calling an entire group of people "immoralists"; suggesting they can not be trusted with children; or suggesting that every homosexual male is a pedophile is exactly what the LDS Church requests of its members and behaviour and language is an ensign to the world for upholding the moral standards of the Church; though, I could be wrong.

Perhaps your position/manner of upholding standards is supported by an Official statement from the LDS Church, but since it only comes from Micheal Otterson and not the Prophet then I guess we can dismiss the statement as merely a PR stunt which the membership of the Church can flatly ignore:

"We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations.

Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another."

but since Christ called other names, then that means real saints have the right/authority to call other people names, how silly of me to forget that we are to follow the example of Christ which includes name calling. so i guess you justified in your name calling and belittlement of others.

[ldsfaqs]

Bull malarkey..... I've known many gays in the Church, and other than kids doing what kids do dumb sometimes in their lives, the people of the Church itself and in general doesn't at all show any bigotry and intolerance toward gay members, or believed to be gay members.

Of course, if you openly live the lifestyle and/or are critical of the Church, then yes there might be some obvious fall out, but everyone in the Church is treated with general tolerance, gay or otherwise. It is after all a fundamental of the Church. We have never been bigots as others and other religions often are.

Thus, this Bishop is a liar and should be removed from his position.

[frankenstein]

Bull malarkey..... I've known many gays in the Church, and other than kids doing what kids do dumb sometimes in their lives, the people of the Church itself and in general doesn't at all show any bigotry and intolerance toward gay members, or believed to be gay members.

Of course, if you openly live the lifestyle and/or are critical of the Church, then yes there might be some obvious fall out, but everyone in the Church is treated with general tolerance, gay or otherwise. It is after all a fundamental of the Church. We have never been bigots as others and other religions often are.

Thus, this Bishop is a liar and should be removed from his position.

So a leader of the church espousing beating a homosexual is tolerance? And sending kids to shock therapy is tolerance.

[Libs]

Bull malarkey..... I've known many gays in the Church, and other than kids doing what kids do dumb sometimes in their lives, the people of the Church itself and in general doesn't at all show any bigotry and intolerance toward gay members, or believed to be gay members.

Of course, if you openly live the lifestyle and/or are critical of the Church, then yes there might be some obvious fall out, but everyone in the Church is treated with general tolerance, gay or otherwise. It is after all a fundamental of the Church. We have never been bigots as others and other religions often are.

Thus, this Bishop is a liar and should be removed from his position.

I don't think you can, reasonably, claim this, unless you know everything that has ever been said and done by every single member of the church...

[ldsfaqs]

So a leader of the church espousing beating a homosexual is tolerance?

And what leader did that? And if it did happen, how is that a "church wide" problem?

And sending kids to shock therapy is tolerance.

Are you going to condemn your ancestors for use "leeches" and thinking they also helped heal?

Shock Therapy at the time was considered one method used to help with mental problems. Obviously, science learned more sense, that it actually causes more problems, but the fact is it was legitimate medical treatment in the past.

The things you describe have NOTHING to do with the Church, it's stuff that just sometimes happens in life.

That Bishop made a claim about the Church AND it's people.... That is called lying. Gross misrepresentation is lying.

[ldsfaqs]

I don't think you can, reasonably, claim this, unless you know everything that has ever been said and done by every single member of the church...

See my post above..... The extremely rare individual sin does not translate into someone needed to say something against the Church and it's people as a whole or in general as that Bishop did. It's pandering and gross misrepresentation. It's perversion, liberal, and anti-mormon.

[Storm Rider]

The discussion has led us to this point because it was said that homosexuality cannot be condoned because: The Church can no more excuse unrighteousness than it can deny the Christ.

My point is that if the LDS Church can embrace and even praise members who profit from selling porn, alcohol and gambling, and those that openly break God's commandment not to work on the Sabbath, BECAUSE they are otherwise good and praiseworthy people, then yes it is possible that the LDS Church can one day embrace and welcome homosexual members who are otherwise good and praiseworthy people.

Many other churches have come to realize that practicing homosexuals can be good and praiseworthy people.

Bear in mind, in your prophets' formative years, homosexuality was a mental illness, and sodomy was a criminal offense. It is not a surprise then that people over 80 have a much different perception of homosexuals that people under 30.

I am sorry, when did the Church praise a member that sold porn? Homosexuality, since the time of Adam, has been viewed as perversion...not a mental illness. It is just a vile as those who murder, create and sell porn, abuse children, or any number of heinous, immoral actions. No where in the Church do we say, eat, drink, and be marry, lie a little, steal a little, and commit all manner of whoredoms, because Christ will forgive you. That is not the gospel of Christ or the way of God. He does not work that way and never has! He is explicit: that is light and that is dark; that is righteous and that is evil.

It does not matter if every other Christian church on the planet condoned every perversion; the Church will not because it cannot. It is impossible. It has no problem welcoming all sinners within its fold, but those who purposely ignore its teachings on morality choose not to be members. We have a choice to partake worthily of the Sacrament every Sunday or not. No one forces us, it is our choice.

[Storm Rider]

So a leader of the church espousing beating a homosexual is tolerance? And sending kids to shock therapy is tolerance.

No, a leader stated clearly that if a homosexual made a physical attack on you, then striking him is an acceptable reaction. Just like when a women is raped it is acceptable for her to do all in her power to resist the attacker. Are you suggesting that we teach our children to just stand there and let the abuser have his way with them? Get real!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mormon bishop says church responsible for gays’ emotional wounds

I wonder how much longer this man can expect to be the bishop of his ward? Anyway, reading this made me sad.

What are we to do...stop teaching or own doctrines to be PC?

[Jaybear]

I am sorry, when did the Church praise a member that sold porn?

Are you kidding? BYU named its basketball arena after a man that profited handsomely from selling pornography.

Mitt Romney was also on the Marriott Board.

Homosexuality, since the time of Adam, has been viewed as perversion...not a mental illness.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

It is just a vile as those who murder, create and sell porn, abuse children, or any number of heinous, immoral actions.

That you would consider intimacy between two consenting adults in a committed relationship to be just as vile as chlid abuse and murders, tells me quite about you.

No where in the Church do we say, eat, drink, and be marry, lie a little, steal a little, and commit all manner of whoredoms, because Christ will forgive you. That is not the gospel of Christ or the way of God. He does not work that way and never has! He is explicit: that is light and that is dark; that is righteous and that is evil.

Have you seen the laundry list of actions that were once verbotten, but now are apparantly accepted by God. Even in your Church, prophets once spoke out against birth control, masturbation and oral sex. Now, eh, not so much.

It does not matter if every other Christian church on the planet condoned every perversion; the Church will not because it cannot. It is impossible. It has no problem welcoming all sinners within its fold, but those who purposely ignore its teachings on morality choose not to be members. We have a choice to partake worthily of the Sacrament every Sunday or not. No one forces us, it is our choice.

The line between morality and immorality is not as clear and fixed as you pretend it to be.

When the LDS Church permits unrepentant gays to remain members in good standing, will you leaving, or just accept the change?