Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Dire prediction this is. The Church must embrace sin or it will fail. I have serious doubts this will happen. By the way which sins do you want on the absolution list. The church has already changed its mind on several issues once considered sinful. A lot of this is about defining what sin is and what sin isn't, and how we can reliably tell the difference.
Stone holm Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Sure, the Bible counts, but we have few examples within the Bible. Some of those are included in the Law of Moses, and the rest were written by Paul, who we don't always see eye to eye with as a people, anyway. In any case, what's changing people's hearts on this is not what prooftexts aren't or are in a certain scripture, but what we encounter in real life with our families and friends. We encounter gay people living in these committed relationships and we see ourselves reflected in the mirror. They're just like us. An evil tree can't bring forth good fruit. The good principles we learned in the scriptures (the universal principles that all holy books seem to teach) are the same ones that are telling us we've been wrong about this issue. Mormons as a people are accustomed to following the spirit and listening to our hearts. That's why I think eventually we'll all change on this issue. What is interesting is that gay marriage is changing the stereotypic gay culture, so that now you have gay parents going all "family values" -- which I am told is annoying to some of the older gay community, as it may cause them to lose their distinctiveness.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Pretty sure there was conditions for that divorce to be called adultery. It was not a blanket statement for all divorce. It's easy to find justifications, because it would negatively effect us or people we love Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray
Maestrophil Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I think most people of that type are of the older generation. People under 30 really don't get the church's opposition to SSM, but it makes perfect sense to baby boomers. I'm not under 30 (well, maybe mentally - according to my kids!) :-) I'm actually a gen-xer. the point I was making is that many of the 'under 30s' who are wanting the church to change SSM policies/doctrines are also pretty shaky on the entire law or chastity/sex before marriage thing and are HEAVILY media influenced and seem to have bought into the line preached in movies, tv, blogs etc that sex is ok between any consenting adults anytime. Not all my kids feel that way - but the ones who do are the ones with the most love and desire to be culturally 'with it' 1
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I agree... and that was the point I was making in my previous post. Unfortunately, my children who feel the church should change it's stance on SSM also really don't see non-married people having sex as a big deal either, because the argument is based on "any expression of 'love' is OK" Interesting. It used to be that parents in the Church were told that it'd be better for their child to die than to have sexual relations before marriage. No one seems to agree with that these days. And its moving to, sex ain't so bad. Maybe someday the Church will be teaching members it ain't so bad to have sex before marriage, just be careful about disease or producing kids. teaching changes over time.
Maestrophil Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 As I said... I do get called a heretic an liberal by some, because I am not opposed to finding some form of civil union option where government is concerned. As long as religion is not forced to acknowledge gay unions, then I don't lose much sleep over it. But from a church standpoint, I can not imagine how homosexuality could ever fit in based on the revealed laws of chastity.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I'm not under 30 (well, maybe mentally - according to my kids!) :-) I'm actually a gen-xer. the point I was making is that many of the 'under 30s' who are wanting the church to change SSM policies/doctrines are also pretty shaky on the entire law or chastity/sex before marriage thing and are HEAVILY media influenced and seem to have bought into the line preached in movies, tv, blogs etc that sex is ok between any consenting adults anytime. Not all my kids feel that way - but the ones who do are the ones with the most love and desire to be culturally 'with it' I don't think it's because they're gullible. It's actually (I think) because gay people are more comfortable being "out". It's much easier to form a negative picture in your head of gays when you grow up not knowing any. When you hear negative things about their relationships in church, there isn't anything in real life to contradict it. And it used to be enforced by culture, when being called gay was just about the worst pejorative ever (that was the case for me growing up). It's not like that now. It's like we're trying to tell them that their left handed friends aren't worthy when they choose to write left handed. They don't get it. That's where we're headed, like it or not.
Maestrophil Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Interesting. It used to be that parents in the Church were told that it'd be better for their child to die than to have sexual relations before marriage. No one seems to agree with that these days. And its moving to, sex ain't so bad. Maybe someday the Church will be teaching members it ain't so bad to have sex before marriage, just be careful about disease or producing kids. teaching changes over time. I pray not... I would hate that.
Maestrophil Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I don't think it's because they're gullible. I tend to think in a lot of cases it is because they are. I know my children, and I know that the two (of five) who feel that way are definitely the more gullible of my kids.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I tend to think in a lot of cases it is because they are. I know my children, and I know that the two (of five) who feel that way are definitely the more gullible of my kids. Well, if that's true, then wouldn't it also be the case that those from gen x and earlier who negatively view SS relationships are only doing so because they were gullible and bought hook line and sinker the anti-gay culture of their generation?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Interesting. It used to be that parents in the Church were told that it'd be better for their child to die than to have sexual relations before marriage. No one seems to agree with that these days. And its moving to, sex ain't so bad. Maybe someday the Church will be teaching members it ain't so bad to have sex before marriage, just be careful about disease or producing kids. teaching changes over time.This has been the mantra now for the 50 years that I have been old enough to be aware of such things. I have been a Church member all that time, and the Church has not budged one inch with reference to the law of chastity. Don't hold your breath. 1
ksfisher Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Interesting. It used to be that parents in the Church were told that it'd be better for their child to die than to have sexual relations before marriage. No one seems to agree with that these days. And its moving to, sex ain't so bad. Maybe someday the Church will be teaching members it ain't so bad to have sex before marriage, just be careful about disease or producing kids. teaching changes over time. I'm not sure we attend the same church. While it's true that I would rather have my children apply the atonement in their lives than die, I've never heard anyone teach that premarital sex "ain't so bad." That seems to be a complete mischaracterization of what the church teaches.
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 This has been the mantra now for the 50 years that I have been old enough to be aware of such things. I have been a Church member all that time, and the Church has not budged one inch with reference to the law of chastity. Don't hold your breath. Define not budging an inch? You are probably right but I'm not sure what you mean. The attempt to guilt people into refraining to have sex before marriage seems less so now than it used to be. That seems to be an inch, at least. The idea that inter-racial marriage is wrong to decent minded folks seems to be proclaimed as not so much an issue these days.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 This has been the mantra now for the 50 years that I have been old enough to be aware of such things. I have been a Church member all that time, and the Church has not budged one inch with reference to the law of chastity. Don't hold your breath. Well, there was the issue with oral sex. Granted that was a short blip. Family planning was once quite firmly looked down upon as well. Marriage with multiple partners is now considered a law of chastity issue as well, so I'd say there has been some significant change.
Maestrophil Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Well, if that's true, then wouldn't it also be the case that those from gen x and earlier who negatively view SS relationships are only doing so because they were gullible and bought hook line and sinker the anti-gay culture of their generation? Who knows. Are you inferring that those who follow the prophet are anti-gay? I am saying that there were people in the media that promoted gay culture in the 80s when I grew up big time - more than were anti-gay. But the prophets have ALWAYS preached that not being chaste, including homosexuality is a sin. Every generation can choose to follow that or not... My teens that are less influenced by the media and a desire to fit in have chosen to follow that line of thinking as well. And they also have many gay friends, as do I. also interesting to note - not that I know what conclusions to draw from it - that the two teens who are for SSM and media influenced are girls, the other two are not.
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I'm not sure we attend the same church. While it's true that I would rather have my children apply the atonement in their lives than die, I've never heard anyone teach that premarital sex "ain't so bad." That seems to be a complete mischaracterization of what the church teaches. Probably not the same ward. that'd be coincidental if we did though. I'm just saying it seems to be the message of the Church that its not as bad as the Church used to teach it. But we can easily disagree over that if ya like. I'm not too concerned. I wouldn't advocate sex before marriage anywho.
ksfisher Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Probably not the same ward. that'd be coincidental if we did though. I'm just saying it seems to be the message of the Church that its not as bad as the Church used to teach it. But we can easily disagree over that if ya like. I'm not too concerned. I wouldn't advocate sex before marriage anywho. We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
Gray Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Who knows. Are you inferring that those who follow the prophet are anti-gay? I am saying that there were people in the media that promoted gay culture in the 80s when I grew up big time - more than were anti-gay. But the prophets have ALWAYS preached that not being chaste, including homosexuality is a sin. Every generation can choose to follow that or not... My teens that are less influenced by the media and a desire to fit in have chosen to follow that line of thinking as well. And they also have many gay friends, as do I. also interesting to note - not that I know what conclusions to draw from it - that the two teens who are for SSM and media influenced are girls, the other two are not. I think most people who take the orthodox position have only the best intentions at heart. But most of them also grew up in a culture where being gay meant being a social pariah (if anyone found out). It's easier to accept teachings that reinforce what you pick up from culture. Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray
stemelbow Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. I agree. Just saying the overall focus and mantra seems less strident. These days kids seem more easily forgiven for such indiscretions. Forgiveness seems more emphasized than guilt
why me Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Define not budging an inch? You are probably right but I'm not sure what you mean. The attempt to guilt people into refraining to have sex before marriage seems less so now than it used to be. That seems to be an inch, at least. The idea that inter-racial marriage is wrong to decent minded folks seems to be proclaimed as not so much an issue these days. I don't think that it was an attempt to guilt people from refraining to have sex. However, the stress was on that it was wrong. But it was no different in the catholic church or in the protestant churches back in the day. However, morality has changed now. More people are doing it because of the pressure to do it is so strong. Not to mention the temptations from the media. When I was a kid, sitcoms would show married couples sleeping in separate beds. These days married couples are cheating all over the place in TV series, movies, etc. So I think that the church is more understanding of such sins and are less likely to excommunicate. But it is still an issue to stay away from sexual sins. . Edited April 7, 2014 by why me
Scott Lloyd Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) I agree. Just saying the overall focus and mantra seems less strident. These days kids seem more easily forgiven for such indiscretions. Forgiveness seems more emphasized than guiltForgiveness was always freely offered to those who were truly repentant. There is no allowance for those who refuse to repent -- no more so now than in earlier days. And I repeat: That's not going to change. Edited April 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
why me Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I agree. Just saying the overall focus and mantra seems less strident. These days kids seem more easily forgiven for such indiscretions. Forgiveness seems more emphasized than guiltAnd the reason is because of the moral decay of society and the place that lds youth and young adults have in it. It is not easy to say no when most are saying yes. The morality of the 50s are long gone. Too much sexuality and too much pornofication in society for youth to overcome.
why me Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Forgiveness was always freely offered to those who were truly repentant. There is no allowance for those who refuse to repent -- no more so now than in earlier days.But I do think that there is more understanding because of the time that we live in and as such, less likely for being excommunicated. But back in my day as a young adult, there would be an excommunication most likely for returned missionaries who succumbed. But the young ladies were not excommunicated. At least not the ones that I knew.
Mystery Meat Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Well that is great, he needs to stay in that Ward as it is treating him right -- but I don't think that would be the general situation in the Church. I am not concerned about "the rest of us", I am concerned about the impacts on the person who comes out. Still fail to see any upside. Sorry Stone buy you are awfully wrong. I have so many pieces of anecdotal evidence that goes against what you are arguing. I have have known many openly gay and active members of the church who were striving to live the gospel and were embraced and welcomed by their fellow saints. You don't get to castigate the membership at large with broad strokes and assumptions. Some of the most loving people I know (not to mention the most welcoming) are some of the more orthodox members. I am not sure why you are making them but I think it is worth thinking about.
why me Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Well, there was the issue with oral sex. Granted that was a short blip. Family planning was once quite firmly looked down upon as well. Marriage with multiple partners is now considered a law of chastity issue as well, so I'd say there has been some significant change. I don't know about this. I think that there were some recommendations but only recommendations. Back in the day the mantra was to multiply and replenish the earth. But many members were still on birth control and began to multiply when they felt the time was right. And marriage to multiple partners had to stop if the church wanted to continue to exist. Too much outside pressure from the federal government.
Recommended Posts