American Atheists Attack Church For Stance On Homosexuality

[swfarnsworth]

http://www.theblaze....s-mormon-faith/

I should have already left my house, but I wanted to bring this article to everyone's attention. The advertisement is not only inaccurate in stating that "No Blacks [were] Allowed (Until 1978)" for reasons that I don't need to point out, but also inaccurate in stating that gays are not allowed, either. In their defense, they make these things clear in tiny print at the bottom, but I find it all misleading nonetheless.

I'm not black, but I am gay (celibate, with a temple recommend, etc.), and I would find the whole "Shame on Mormonism!" thing offensive if it weren't so stupid.

A Church member, after correctly pointing out that there are faithful gay members of the Church, commented on the article saying this: "Homosexuality is NOT about love! It’s about SEX and LUST! I can love someone without having sex with them!" The first two sentences are actually more inaccurate than the advertisement if you add "only" to the second sentence, the "only" being implied by the context anyway.

[Damien the Leper]

While I agree with you about the inaccuracy of the ad...your church member friend is incorrect somewhat about their assertion that homosexuality is about lust. The same could be said for all sexual orientations. This is why we have illegitimate children born from one night stands. Sexuality as a whole can be very lustful but no greater weight of lust can be put on only one area and not others. That is a directly ignorant and presumptuous bias.

[Saints Alive]

I think it would be interesting to see numbers on gay members, both recommend holding and not. It is interesting how some "gay" members identify themselves. I knew a faithful member once who admitted that he was attracted to men, but didn't want to identify himself as gay. Perpetually single is the term I believe he used.

[Damien the Leper]

I would be interested to see those numbers as well.

Perpetually single? Huh...haven't heard that one before.

[swfarnsworth]

While I agree with you about the inaccuracy of the ad...your church member friend is incorrect somewhat about their assertion that homosexuality is about lust. The same could be said for all sexual orientations. This is why we have illegitimate children born from one night stands. Sexuality as a whole can be very lustful but no greater weight of lust can be put on only one area and not others. That is a directly ignorant and presumptuous bias.

The Church member in question is not my friend; I don't know him/her at all. I agree, though that homosexuality isn't only about lust. It certainly includes lust in the same way that heterosexuality includes lust, but I don't know any straight men who claim that they only love their wives because they find them attractive and for no other reason (their personality, talents, etc.). The same applies to those with SSA.

[california boy]

http://www.theblaze....s-mormon-faith/

I should have already left my house, but I wanted to bring this article to everyone's attention. The advertisement is not only inaccurate in stating that "No Blacks [were] Allowed (Until 1978)" for reasons that I don't need to point out, but also inaccurate in stating that gays are not allowed, either. In their defense, they make these things clear in tiny print at the bottom, but I find it all misleading nonetheless.

I'm not black, but I am gay (celibate, with a temple recommend, etc.), and I would find the whole "Shame on Mormonism!" thing offensive if it weren't so stupid.

A Church member, after correctly pointing out that there are faithful gay members of the Church, commented on the article saying this: "Homosexuality is NOT about love! It’s about SEX and LUST! I can love someone without having sex with them!" The first two sentences are actually more inaccurate than the advertisement if you add "only" to the second sentence, the "only" being implied by the context anyway.

I agree with you that the ad is misleading, but unfortunately there is a kernal of truth to both statements. Theyt didn't just pop out of thin air. The church became known as a racist church because of the ban on blacks holding the priesthood. Even though they now can hold the priesthood, there is still a very lingering memory of that discriminating doctrine.

And of course because of the churches actions in passing prop 8, rightly or wrongly, many view the church as homophobic. It is hard to read an article about the church without the churches positon on gay marriage being a part of it either in the article itself or certainly in the comment section. It is sad to me that the Church of Jesus Christ would have such an identity with a large population of both this country and throughout the world because of these two actions.

There was a recent editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune about President Oak's conference talk. I don't want to get into the position of the editorial, but the writer did make an interesting statement that I would like to get a response to. She asked the question in the article

So why the tall wall against gay marriage? What does the church gain by demonizing it?

There are many churches who view homosexuality as a sin. But it is the crusade that the Mormon church has taken on that makes it stand out so strongly. What does the church have to gain by politically trying to impose its religious views on this one issue? What is the upside for the church? I realize that the church stands against what it feels are sins. But why this "tall wall against gay marriage"? Is it worth the price the church takes for its activism?

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

It is always politically more popular to claim there is no such thing as sin.

[USU78]

[TAO]

There are many churches who view homosexuality as a sin. But it is the crusade that the Mormon church has taken on that makes it stand out so strongly. What does the church have to gain by politically trying to impose its religious views on this one issue? What is the upside for the church? I realize that the church stands against what it feels are sins. But why this "tall wall against gay marriage"? Is it worth the price the church takes for its activism?

California, I have a guess that they are worried about the far-off-results that other people think won't happen, but that they have further knowledge into. Then again, that's just my guess; it'd probably be better to talk to a GA about it.

[Mark Beesley]

There are many churches who view homosexuality as a sin. But it is the crusade that the Mormon church has taken on that makes it stand out so strongly. What does the church have to gain by politically trying to impose its religious views on this one issue? What is the upside for the church? I realize that the church stands against what it feels are sins. But why this "tall wall against gay marriage"? Is it worth the price the church takes for its activism?

It is rather extreme to call it a crusade. The Church's comments have been balanced and even-tempered.

As for why the Church takes the stand it does and what it has to gain, look at it this way. The Church's mission is to bring people to Christ and to make available the saving ordinances such as baptism. Baptism is available to all on condition of repentance. Homosexual behavior is sinful in LDS theology. That position is unlikely to change, ever. It is contrary to the Plan of Salvation. So, in order to offer the saving ordinance of baptism to a gay person, the following situations can be considered.

A person who is gay and celibate can be baptized.

A person who is gay and was not celibate but repents and becomes celibate can be baptized.

A person who is gay and married to a same sex partner is presumably not celibate and cannot be baptized.

Thus, there is no way that the Church can offer the saving ordinance of baptism to a person in a same sex marriage. The Church cannot succeed in its mission with regard to same sex married couples. That is why the Church takes an uncompromising stand against same sex marriage while at the same time welcoming celibate gays into its congregations. (Of course, non-celibate gays are welcome to attend meetings, but they remain without the covenant.)

[Walden]

California, I have a guess that they are worried about the far-off-results that other people think won't happen, but that they have further knowledge into. Then again, that's just my guess; it'd probably be better to talk to a GA about it.

I'm not sure of the "far-off-results" that they "have further knowledge into"....are you referring to the church leadership's ability to see into the future (not meant sarcastically, but in reference to their ability {as believed by LDS members} to receive revelation regarding future events)?

Personally, I think that this particular stand is taken as much with regard to the LDS view of sin as it is with the church's desire to set themselves apart from the mainstream Christian community, which itself seems rather split on the debate (Episcopalians, Unitarians, etc. and similar faiths seem to be neutral on the issue, while LDS, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc. fight against gay marriage). The LDS church has has a history of being a "peculiar" church/religion, and it is often a stance that they embrace, as it sets them apart (things like WoW, temple, etc.). Their hard stand and political activity against gay marriage is not surprising, given the emphasis on family in the LDS church, but their level of political activeness regarding this issue does make them stand out from other large, mainstream religions....and when considering their previous, peculiar stands on things such as blacks and the priesthood, women's roles, etc., I think that drawing this political line in the sand adds to that mystique of peculiarity.

[swfarnsworth]

Thus, there is no way that the Church can offer the saving ordinance of baptism to a person in a same sex marriage. The Church cannot succeed in its mission with regard to same sex married couples. That is why the Church takes an uncompromising stand against same sex marriage while at the same time welcoming celibate gays into its congregations. (Of course, non-celibate gays are welcome to attend meetings, but they remain without the covenant.)

My mother was very addicted to coffee before she joined the Church, and they still let her join because she was willing to go through three weeks of caffeine withdrawal to qualify for the baptismal covenant. Should we promote legislation to ban the sale and consumption of tea and coffee?

I have no intention of taking on a gay lifestyle or petitioning Salt Lake to alter the unchangeable doctrines that necessitate opposite-sex marriage, nor am I completely comfortable with same-sex couples adopting children. However, if you're using the above reasoning to justify the Church's participation in Prop 8, I don't see where you're going.

[webbles]

My mother was very addicted to coffee before she joined the Church, and they still let her join because she was willing to go through three weeks of caffeine withdrawal to qualify for the baptismal covenant. Should we promote legislation to ban the sale and consumption of tea and coffee?

I have no intention of taking on a gay lifestyle or petitioning Salt Lake to alter the unchangeable doctrines that necessitate opposite-sex marriage, nor am I completely comfortable with same-sex couples adopting children. However, if you're using the above reasoning to justify the Church's participation in Prop 8, I don't see where you're going.

Just a thought: requiring a married couple to get divorced before being baptized is a little bit harsher than caffeine withdrawal.

[swfarnsworth]

Just a thought: requiring a married couple to get divorced before being baptized is a little bit harsher than caffeine withdrawal.

It could also be said that requiring a gay couple to not get married is a little bit harsher than requiring everyone to not drink tea or coffee. If we are going to use the reasoning that SSM should not be permissible under law for non Mormons because it would make conversion too difficult for them, we would be guilty of having a double standard if we did not advocate prohibition against anything that violates the Word of Wisdom for all citizens of our respective countries.

I'm not saying that there aren't any valid reasons to oppose SSM, but this isn't one of them.

[Mark Beesley]

My mother was very addicted to coffee before she joined the Church, and they still let her join because she was willing to go through three weeks of caffeine withdrawal to qualify for the baptismal covenant. Should we promote legislation to ban the sale and consumption of tea and coffee?

I have no intention of taking on a gay lifestyle or petitioning Salt Lake to alter the unchangeable doctrines that necessitate opposite-sex marriage, nor am I completely comfortable with same-sex couples adopting children. However, if you're using the above reasoning to justify the Church's participation in Prop 8, I don't see where you're going.

The reasoning, more simply stated is: Homosexual behavior is sinful. The Church cannot perform saving ordinances for someone engaged in such sinful behavior. Same sex marriage is equivalent to homosexual behavior. If you cannot see that as a rational basis for the Church opposing same sex marriage I don't know what else to say.

[Damien the Leper]

The Church member in question is not my friend; I don't know him/her at all. I agree, though that homosexuality isn't only about lust. It certainly includes lust in the same way that heterosexuality includes lust, but I don't know any straight men who claim that they only love their wives because they find them attractive and for no other reason (their personality, talents, etc.). The same applies to those with SSA.

I'm in my first relationship ever and I'm 29 years old. Is there a certain level of lust? Of course. I'm human after all. But that isn't the source of my feelings for the guy. What is most appealing is his mind and his heart. Oddly enough, the guy also irritates me in certain ways but that just increases my attraction to him as well. Perhaps you'll experience something similar when you find a guy of your own.

[swfarnsworth]

The reasoning, more simply stated is: Homosexual behavior is sinful. The Church cannot perform saving ordinances for someone engaged in such sinful behavior. Same sex marriage is equivalent to homosexual behavior. If you cannot see that as a rational basis for the Church opposing same sex marriage I don't know what else to say.

That is rational basis for the Church opposing SSM. However, it is not rational basis for the Church supporting legislation such as Prop 8. I am not denying that there is rational basis for the Church opposing SSM for non Mormons, but I am not completely aware of what it is and the reason you have suggested is not it.

[swfarnsworth]

I'm in my first relationship ever and I'm 29 years old. Is there a certain level of lust? Of course. I'm human after all. But that isn't the source of my feelings for the guy. What is most appealing is his mind and his heart. Oddly enough, the guy also irritates me in certain ways but that just increases my attraction to him as well. Perhaps you'll experience something similar when you find a guy of your own.

With all due respect, are you paying any attention to what I am saying? I have already said that I agree that there are elements of lust in homosexuality. I have already said that I agree that there are elements of love (of the non-sexual type) in homosexuality. I have already said that I am never going to pursue a same-sex relationship. Reading everything I have said thus far on this thread should make that clear.

That, or you're paying perfect attention, actually reiterating all my points for me, and not arguing with me. In that case, I'm sorry for being responsible for the miscommunication.

[Damien the Leper]

With all due respect, are you paying any attention to what I am saying? I have already said that I agree that there are elements of lust in homosexuality. I have already said that I agree that there are elements of love (of the non-sexual type) in homosexuality. I have already said that I am never going to pursue a same-sex relationship. Reading everything I have said thus far on this thread should make that clear.

That, or you're paying perfect attention, actually reiterating all my points for me, and not arguing with me. In that case, I'm sorry for being responsible for the miscommunication.

Apologies. We are in agreement. Further apologies concerning your celibacy. I missed that in an earlier post of yours.

[Mark Beesley]

That is rational basis for the Church opposing SSM. However, it is not rational basis for the Church supporting legislation such as Prop 8. I am not denying that there is rational basis for the Church opposing SSM for non Mormons, but I am not completely aware of what it is and the reason you have suggested is not it.

We disagree.

[Walden]

It is rather extreme to call it a crusade. The Church's comments have been balanced and even-tempered.

As for why the Church takes the stand it does and what it has to gain, look at it this way. The Church's mission is to bring people to Christ and to make available the saving ordinances such as baptism. Baptism is available to all on condition of repentance. Homosexual behavior is sinful in LDS theology. That position is unlikely to change, ever. It is contrary to the Plan of Salvation. So, in order to offer the saving ordinance of baptism to a gay person, the following situations can be considered.

A person who is gay and celibate can be baptized.

A person who is gay and was not celibate but repents and becomes celibate can be baptized.

A person who is gay and married to a same sex partner is presumably not celibate and cannot be baptized.

Thus, there is no way that the Church can offer the saving ordinance of baptism to a person in a same sex marriage. The Church cannot succeed in its mission with regard to same sex married couples. That is why the Church takes an uncompromising stand against same sex marriage while at the same time welcoming celibate gays into its congregations. (Of course, non-celibate gays are welcome to attend meetings, but they remain without the covenant.)

By that logic, pornography is sinful in LDS theology. I have yet to see the LDS church take an active, political role in trying to enforce legislation against pornography for those who are not LDS. I mean, I realize that it might be harder to obtain in Utah (thus leading to the high internet pornography rates in Utah), but I have never seen the LDS church campaign here in California against laws that allow citizens to view such material.

If it simply about sinful behavior, then what makes homosexuality worth a political fight, but not pornography?

[thesometimesaint]

Waldon:

Many moons ago I was in a Stake in California where such was the case against porn.

[TAO]

I'm not sure of the "far-off-results" that they "have further knowledge into"....are you referring to the church leadership's ability to see into the future (not meant sarcastically, but in reference to their ability {as believed by LDS members} to receive revelation regarding future events)?

Perhaps. I'm not sure. But I'm quite sure they recieved some sort of inspiration for doing something; they wouldn't have done something that serious without asking the Lord. Whether or not they saw the results, I don't know, but I'm sure they asked about it, and recieved some instruction concerning the issue; though what instruction they recieved, I know not.

Personally, I think that this particular stand is taken as much with regard to the LDS view of sin as it is with the church's desire to set themselves apart from the mainstream Christian community, which itself seems rather split on the debate (Episcopalians, Unitarians, etc. and similar faiths seem to be neutral on the issue, while LDS, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc. fight against gay marriage). The LDS church has has a history of being a "peculiar" church/religion, and it is often a stance that they embrace, as it sets them apart (things like WoW, temple, etc.). Their hard stand and political activity against gay marriage is not surprising, given the emphasis on family in the LDS church, but their level of political activeness regarding this issue does make them stand out from other large, mainstream religions....and when considering their previous, peculiar stands on things such as blacks and the priesthood, women's roles, etc., I think that drawing this political line in the sand adds to that mystique of peculiarity.

Perhpas, perhaps not =).

[swfarnsworth]

We disagree.

Do you support legislation prohibiting alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, unnecessary drugs, premarital/nonmartial sex, pornography, swearing, and bikini bathing suits?

[california boy]

It is rather extreme to call it a crusade. The Church's comments have been balanced and even-tempered.

As for why the Church takes the stand it does and what it has to gain, look at it this way. The Church's mission is to bring people to Christ and to make available the saving ordinances such as baptism. Baptism is available to all on condition of repentance. Homosexual behavior is sinful in LDS theology. That position is unlikely to change, ever. It is contrary to the Plan of Salvation. So, in order to offer the saving ordinance of baptism to a gay person, the following situations can be considered.

A person who is gay and celibate can be baptized.

A person who is gay and was not celibate but repents and becomes celibate can be baptized.

A person who is gay and married to a same sex partner is presumably not celibate and cannot be baptized.

Thus, there is no way that the Church can offer the saving ordinance of baptism to a person in a same sex marriage. The Church cannot succeed in its mission with regard to same sex married couples. That is why the Church takes an uncompromising stand against same sex marriage while at the same time welcoming celibate gays into its congregations. (Of course, non-celibate gays are welcome to attend meetings, but they remain without the covenant.)

I clearly understand both the policy of including gay members if they are celebate as well as the belief that a person has to repent of sins to be baptized. And that actually is my question.

Why the tall wall against gay marriage? What does the church gain by demonizing it?

As far as I am aware homosexuality is not the only sin a person is required to repent from. Yet this is the one sin the church has decided to crusade about. Yes, it is a crusade when you do what the church did to take away the rights of gay couples to marry. Maybe if you could name just one sin that the church and its members have crusaded against in a similar way I would understand your position.