Lds Stake In Seattle: Gays And Lesbians Welcome Here

[sethpayne]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRchNRJ4Qhs

 

SWK suggested in 1979 we fortify our homes against many evil influences.

 

I don't think there's been any change either.

 

What does that have to do with the Church inviting gays to participate in worship with the Saints?  You have completely lost me.

 

are you suggesting that gays/lesbians be barred from Church buildings?  Is that the fortification you are speaking of?

[sethpayne]

So, you are saying that the children of a gay couple should not be welcomed into Primary?

 

Of course.  We must fortify against evil!!!

[JLHPROF]

So, you are saying that the children of a gay couple should not be welcomed into Primary?

 

Anyone is welcome to attend Church.  Nobody is welcome to promote sin at Church.

If these primary children think it's okay for two men to marry and tell the other children that then why would that sinful perspective be any more welcome than an adult promoting SSM in gospel doctrine class.

 

Anyone, sinner and saint is welcome at Church.

Nobody, sinner or saint, is allowed to promote evil as good at Church.

[stemelbow]

Anyone is welcome to attend Church.  Nobody is welcome to promote sin at Church.

If these primary children think it's okay for two men to marry and tell the other children that then why would that sinful perspective be any more welcome than an adult promoting SSM in gospel doctrine class.

 

Anyone, sinner and saint is welcome at Church.

Nobody, sinner or saint, is allowed to promote evil as good at Church.

People are allowed to promote evil as good at Church. It happens all the time.

[USU78]

What does that have to do with the Church inviting gays to participate in worship with the Saints?  You have completely lost me.

 

are you suggesting that gays/lesbians be barred from Church buildings?  Is that the fortification you are speaking of?

 

Some years ago I was privy to secret things in my then ward.  We were required, because of the demographic makeup of the ward, to have no primary class be taught by a single person, male or female, and to have particular individuals never at liberty to be unaccompanied at any place inside the Church.

 

It was a horrible burden to have to undertake, to be constantly babysitting those who could not and should not be trusted, both for risk amelioration and practical considerations.

 

The RCC has, no doubt, similar programs in place in this day of easily persuadable juries, wealth-redistributing judges, and predators wherever you look.

[sethpayne]

Some years ago I was privy to secret things in my then ward.  We were required, because of the demographic makeup of the ward, to have no primary class be taught by a single person, male or female, and to have particular individuals never at liberty to be unaccompanied at any place inside the Church.

 

It was a horrible burden to have to undertake, to be constantly babysitting those who could not and should not be trusted, both for risk amelioration and practical considerations.

 

The RCC has, no doubt, similar programs in place in this day of easily persuadable juries, wealth-redistributing judges, and predators wherever you look.

 

Ah.  So you are arguing that gays and lesbians are a danger to children and thus should not be invited to Church because of the potential for abuse.   

 

I certainly disagree with your premise, but I think I understand where you are coming from.

[Damien the Leper]

A ward missionary couple in a Phoenix ward petitioned the bishop about openly LGBT persons and couples attending the ward. He has agreed to allow it with the SP approval and they can attend without fear of any discipline. This is what makes the church a living, merciful and charitable church.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Anyone is welcome to attend Church.  Nobody is welcome to promote sin at Church.

If these primary children think it's okay for two men to marry and tell the other children that then why would that sinful perspective be any more welcome than an adult promoting SSM in gospel doctrine class.

 

Anyone, sinner and saint is welcome at Church.

Nobody, sinner or saint, is allowed to promote evil as good at Church.

 Who said anything about children promoting evil in Primary? You're reading words into my post that are not there.  Rob O said – “In primary they teach the roles of the mother and Father. That wouldnt bode to well with the gay couple that brought their children. I dont see it working.”  That sounds to me like Rob can’t see children of a gay couple in Primary as “working”.  In other words – they shouldn’t be there? 

Edited October 28, 2014 by Rock_N_Roll

[USU78]

Ah.  So you are arguing that gays and lesbians are a danger to children and thus should not be invited to Church because of the potential for abuse.   

 

I certainly disagree with your premise, but I think I understand where you are coming from.

 

No you most certainly do not.

 

I speak of liability and supervisory duties.

 

You do damage to your credibility by ignoring what I pretty plainly stated.

 

Courts don't care if they impose contradictory duties on people and institutions, depending upon who's doing the suing.  Thus the BSA could be forced to accept practicing homosexuals as scoutmasters, and, at the same time, impose steep liability for failing to have a "tail" on said scoutmasters to prevent mischief.

 

One plaintiff's liberty interests can be at odds with another's right to damages because the numbers can show a greater risk of diddling of tweens and teens by homosexual scoutmasters than morally straight ones.

[sethpayne]

No you most certainly do not.

 

I speak of liability and supervisory duties.

 

You do damage to your credibility by ignoring what I pretty plainly stated.

 

Courts don't care if they impose contradictory duties on people and institutions, depending upon who's doing the suing.  Thus the BSA could be forced to accept practicing homosexuals as scoutmasters, and, at the same time, impose steep liability for failing to have a "tail" on said scoutmasters to prevent mischief.

 

One plaintiff's liberty interests can be at odds with another's right to damages because the numbers can show a greater risk of diddling of tweens and teens by homosexual scoutmasters than morally straight ones.

 

No reason to get testy.  We're just having a conversation here.  I really am trying to understand your position.

 

So it's not about protecting children, it is about avoiding liability for failure to protect Children?  Having gays/lesbians at Church puts the Church at legal risk of getting sued because gays/lesbians "show a greater risk of diddling" young men in the ward.  Therefore, gays/lesbians should be barred from Church functions.  Have I understood you correctly?

Edited October 28, 2014 by sethpayne

[USU78]

No reason to get testy.  We're just having a conversation here.  I really am trying to understand your position.

 

So it's not about protecting children, it is about avoiding liability for failure to protect Children?

 

Yeah . . . that last sentence has all the warmth and tact of a Pelosi.

 

Never mind.

 

Have your conversation with somebody else.

[mormonnewb]

What I have seen is that gay people seem to were their sexuality on their sleeve. It seems to be the center of their whole being. As if there are no other identifying characteristics. I interpret being "authentic" as some one that is is openly gay and they flaunt it.

Otherwise if you are not practicing it you are not authentic. I have never even heard the term before.

Am I an authentic heterosexual? What is a non authentic heterosexual? It just doesn't work.

If you are like most Mormon men, you are a FLAMING heterosexual. You talk about your significant other incessantly. ("Why can't heterosexuals keep that stuff in the closet?")

You hold her hand and put your arm around her in sacrament meeting. Yuck!

And you can't wait to show people pictures of your children -- the products of your lurid encounters. Double yuck!

Why are you trying to force your heterosexuality on the rest of us?

[Traela]

A ward missionary couple in a Phoenix ward petitioned the bishop about openly LGBT persons and couples attending the ward. He has agreed to allow it with the SP approval and they can attend without fear of any discipline. This is what makes the church a living, merciful and charitable church.

So active homosexuals should be allowed to take the Sacrament? No.

[sethpayne]

Yeah . . . that last sentence has all the warmth and tact of a Pelosi.

 

Never mind.

 

Have your conversation with somebody else.

 

Um.... Ok.

 

I'm not trying to be warm nor tactful, USU.  I'm trying to understand your position.  You are making some claims with very serious implications and I want to understand your viewpoint.  I don't think it is too much to ask for clarification when you are suggesting that certain people not be allowed to participate in the LDS Church.  And the fact you are trying to bar people from participating in my local stake makes your claim particularly interesting to me.

Edited October 28, 2014 by sethpayne

[mormonnewb]

Um.... Ok.

I'm not trying to be warm nor tactful, USU. I'm trying to understand your position. You are making some claims with very serious implications and I want to understand your viewpoint. I don't think it is too much to ask for clarification when you are suggesting that certain people not be allowed to participate in the LDS Church. And the fact you are trying to bar people from participating in my local stake makes your claim particularly interesting to me.

I think you understand his position PERFECTLY. You're temerity in stating his position in clear and unmistakeable language is the problem.

However, it is my hope that USU is too offended to respond further because it's really much too early in the thread for that ridiculous accusation to surface.

[sethpayne]

I think you understand his position PERFECTLY. You're temerity in stating his position in clear and unmistakeable language is the problem.

However, it is my hope that USU is too offended to respond further because it's really much too early in the thread for that ridiculous accusation to surface.

 

LOL @ mormonewb.  

 

My hope is that I am misunderstanding the position because the thought of legal liability -- even assuming that the subtext here is correct and homosexuals are likely to abuse children and young adults -- influencing our fellowshipping efforts seems a bit misguided and incongruent with the Gospel.  The command is to "love one another" not "love one another except when such love may expose you to legal liability that threatens the assets of the Church." That the subtext is suggested is not surprising as it is a common claim made against gay men.  An unfortunate claim, IMO, but common nonetheless.

 

But as I say, even if we assume this accusation has merit, are there not ways to work around such potential problems?  In my experience men are not allowed to teach children alone, for example.  Bishops leave the door open when interviewing young men/women.  So if we really think that gays/lesbians present a danger to children I say let's 1)  be upfront about our accusation and 2) propose policies that would alleviate fear

[Boanerges]

So active homosexuals should be allowed to take the Sacrament? No.

I'm pretty sure Elder Chistofferson's brother does take the sacrament (and I am positive he holds a calling). It's up to the judges in Israel who does and doesn't take the sacrament, not us. We all sin, most of us work on repentance, none of us are yet perfect. What business is it of yours (or mine) who takes the sacrament? It's really between the individual and God (the only one that can see into our mortal hearts), with HIs appointed judges working as an intermediary.

[Calm]

What I have seen is that gay people seem to were their sexuality on their sleeve. It seems to be the center of their whole being. As if there are no other identifying characteristics. I

But you wouldn't know someone was gay for the most part if they didn't do this so I don't think one can make this judgment about all or even most gays.

[Damien the Leper]

So active homosexuals should be allowed to take the Sacrament? No.

Not my ward and not my problem. Don't you worry. All is well and getting better in Zion.

[canard78]

Well are we talking about open displays of sexuality at church? IF so then all of you who are in support of this are off your rocker.

If it just that all are welcome, that has always been the approach for our church.

I mean, I am not sure how the Savior would respond to to guy making out in the foyer but I doubt he would welcome that.

I don't think any displays of sexuality are welcome in a church foyer - straight or gay. What makes you assume that gay people would be more likely to have "displays of sexuality"

You're betraying your ignorance and false assumptions on the matter. But maybe I'm just off my rocker!

[omni]

Um.... Ok.

 

I'm not trying to be warm nor tactful, USU.  I'm trying to understand your position.  You are making some claims with very serious implications and I want to understand your viewpoint.  I don't think it is too much to ask for clarification when you are suggesting that certain people not be allowed to participate in the LDS Church.  And the fact you are trying to bar people from participating in my local stake makes your claim particularly interesting to me.

I agree. USU, please clarify - is Sethpayne's interpretation of your post correct?

[Skylla]

It didn't take long for this conversation to go downhill. Thread closed.

 

Skylla