california boy Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 What if we started to embrace youth who are sexually active and decided not to be married? What about if we started to embrace members who decided to have sex changes or decide they are happiest in jobs working in the porn industry? Should we embrace transvestites and hookers also?I see a trend in society, even in our church and it is sad. That trend is showing tolerance to the point of embracing alternative sexual and immoral lifestyles as normal. It will get to a point where we will even be afraid to speak of homosexuality as sinful in church in fear we might hurt someone's feelings. Oh the careful and cunning snare of the devil!
california boy Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 They would probably be drawing closer to Christ rather than leaving the church.
california boy Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 move to my ward and you can sit by me.Seriously?
california boy Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 move to my ward and you can sit by me.Seriously?
DBMormon Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Seriously?California Boy, if there was a gay member of my ward - I would make it clear publicly by my body language and behavior to be his/her ally and to make as much room for them at Church as one person could do. Edited January 3, 2015 by DBMormon
Bob Crockett Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) What did you think about members accepting inter-racial marriage in 1977? were they a tool of the adversary? When I did some research in connection with a presentation I made to the UCLA Law student group and the UCLA gay and lesbian organization in 2008, I learned that many leaders in the black community (and, I admit, many of the community's leaders are pastors) as well as the rank and file of the community took great offense to having their great struggle for racial equality compared to the fight for gay marriage. I discussed that with some of the leaders in the gay and lesbian student organization, and one of them agreed and none of the others disagreed. However, the leader, an Hispanic woman, to whom I was speaking declared that blacks can be just and discriminatory against gays as anybody else, and perhaps even more so. All anecdotal, true, but in a paper I published at Rutgers, I cited to statistical polling results (my paper discusses this in detail) that showed that the most single significant factor in determining whether you were opposed to gay marriage was not whether you were a church-going person, but if you were black. So, I realize it is fashionable for whites in the Midwest to compare the struggle for racial equality to the struggle for homosexual equality, but I don't think that is your particular fashion to pursue and it is likely wrong. And, as far as the opening post is concerned, it also seems quite fashionable to declare gays as loving and compassionate persons, better than the typical husband and father trying to raise his family in a Christian environment, but in reality there is no scientific support for such a view. Gays are ordinary people, intelligent, stupid, compassionate or venal as the next straight person. In or out of the church, really. Edited January 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
DBMormon Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 When I did some research in connection with a presentation I made to the UCLA Law student group and the UCLA gay and lesbian organization in 2008, I learned that many leaders in the black community (and, I admit, many of the community's leaders are pastors) as well as the rank and file of the community took great offense to having their great struggle for racial equality compared to the fight for gay marriage. I discussed that with some of the leaders in the gay and lesbian student organization, and one of them agreed and none of the others disagreed. However, the leader, an Hispanic woman, to whom I was speaking declared that blacks can be just and discriminatory against gays as anybody else, and perhaps even more so. All anecdotal, true, but in a paper I published at Rutgers, I cited to statistical polling results (my paper discusses this in detail) that showed that the most single significant factor in determining whether you were opposed to gay marriage was not whether you were a church-going person, but if you were black. So, I realize it is fashionable for whites in the Midwest to compare the struggle for racial equality to the struggle for homosexual equality, but I don't think that is your particular fashion to pursue and it is likely wrong. And, as far as the opening post is concerned, it also seems quite fashionable to declare gays as loving and compassionate persons, better than the typical husband and father trying to raise his family in a Christian environment, but in reality there is no scientific support for such a view. Gays are ordinary people, intelligent, stupid, compassionate or venal as the next straight person. In or out of the church, really. Your post has nothing to do with what I have said. The similarities I mentioned did not pertain to the struggle of equality within the world nor did I claim gays were better humans than straights..... what was your point? It seems you have your own agenda and care not to deal with the point of the post.
Bobbieaware Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) I didn't say that. Only that it is way more messy than we want to think when it comes to putting our foot down against sin only to discover what is sin today become a disavowed theory tomorrow. I try not to say absolutes on this issue because I recognize that the Church is different today on Gay then it was 20 years ago and hence it will likely be much different 20 years from now than it is today. I am aware of Elder Christofferson's love for his Brother and his desire to see us become more inclusive of gays. I see his influence having an impact and our policies changing. While Doctrine may or may not change (Doctrines have changed in the past - Adam God/polygamy/blacks cursed/interracial marriage/etc....) that policies often become more progressive (cremation/birth control/stay at home mom/women pray in conference/etc...) and this one has already become more progressive... I expect that to continue. hence I will not be caught eating my words on an issue that I have doubts about.The Saviour mingled with sinners -- much to the chagrin of his religionist enemies -- that he might bring them to repentance, forgive them, heal them of their physical and spiritual maladies, show them the light and show them an example of a better way to live. If the day ever comes that wards of the LDS Church begin to replace compassion for sinners, and a desire to help them repent, with a program, instead, of believing members should be forgiven IN THEIR SINS, then you can know for a surety that those wards are undermining the whole purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and are coming nigh unto apostasy. Edited January 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware
Guest Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 My point with this anecdotal story is that Tom Christofferson is not an exception to a rule... rather it is a viable way that we can treat our gay brothers and sisters. The problem (and yes I am guessing) is very few bishops and Stake presidents have ever heard more less consider such possibilities as viable options on the table. How much different would our leaders react is such options were taught to them as a viable option?I think that your story is listed to reinforce that you seem to think we are all bigoted and unloving of anyone different and have issues with the Church leadership as a whole. My experience is that members, Bishop's and Stake Presidents (since you single Bishop's and Stake Presidents out) are men who would do anything they could to keep any member involved in the Church. I am just disappointed how you view local leaders.
Bob Crockett Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Your post has nothing to do with what I have said. The similarities I mentioned did not pertain to the struggle of equality within the world nor did I claim gays were better humans than straights..... what was your point? It seems you have your own agenda and care not to deal with the point of the post. I'd say it is pretty easy to dispense with somebody's comment as having "your own agenda." That is, you're charging me with offering a manipulative or disingenuous post. What might that agenda be? Really I want to know. What do you think is my ulterior motive for making my post? You have mentioned many times that you have been a bishop in the Church. If a loving and compassionate gay moved into your ward and asked you for a calling in the Youth oganization, or for a temple recommend, would you tell him that as far as you're concerned you'll look the other way as to this person's sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage and here's your calling in the Young Men and here's your recommend? I realize that you hate being put into a corner and you usually don't answer my questions like this, so let's just treat it as a rhetorical question you don't have to answer? Edited January 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett
Rob Osborn Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 I didn't say that. Only that it is way more messy than we want to think when it comes to putting our foot down against sin only to discover what is sin today become a disavowed theory tomorrow. I try not to say absolutes on this issue because I recognize that the Church is different today on Gay then it was 20 years ago and hence it will likely be much different 20 years from now than it is today. I am aware of Elder Christofferson's love for his Brother and his desire to see us become more inclusive of gays. I see his influence having an impact and our policies changing. While Doctrine may or may not change (Doctrines have changed in the past - Adam God/polygamy/blacks cursed/interracial marriage/etc....) that policies often become more progressive (cremation/birth control/stay at home mom/women pray in conference/etc...) and this one has already become more progressive... I expect that to continue. hence I will not be caught eating my words on an issue that I have doubts about. Well, i am not gonna be wishy-washy on sin. It was a sin in Old Testament times, New Testament times, and in Latter Day times. This is not going to be a disavowed theory by the church.
canard78 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Well, i am not gonna be wishy-washy on sin. It was a sin in Old Testament times, New Testament times, and in Latter Day times. This is not going to be a disavowed theory by the church.Doctrines. They're disavowed doctrines.
Rob Osborn Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 In 1947 the first presidency called inter-racial marriage "repugnant" and against God's doctrine. Were they wrong to say that? You should really not compare inter-racial marriage to homosexuality.
Rob Osborn Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Doctrines. They're disavowed doctrines. Where do you stand? Do you believe homosexuality is an abomination? Yes or no please.
DBMormon Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 I think that your story is listed to reinforce that you seem to think we are all bigoted and unloving of anyone different and have issues with the Church leadership as a whole. My experience is that members, Bishop's and Stake Presidents (since you single Bishop's and Stake Presidents out) are men who would do anything they could to keep any member involved in the Church. I am just disappointed how you view local leaders.nope. Never said all nor thought all. I know of many good leaders in the Church. My issue is that if we do not see good interaction modeled we are left with sometimes acting different than we would if we knew. You make a lot of assumptions that are incorrect about me and what I am thinking. I have not said all, everyone, or any other term to denote all are covered by my words. But there are some. Bishops and SP's set a tone and have authority in these situations. Many Bishops and SP's are awesome, some are among my friends. This isn't black or white (all need to do better or all are fine) There are leaders who are unaware of such interactions being modeled.
DBMormon Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 I'd say it is pretty easy to dispense with somebody's comment as having "your own agenda." That is, you're charging me with offering a manipulative or disingenuous post. What might that agenda be? Really I want to know. What do you think is my ulterior motive for making my post? You have mentioned many times that you have been a bishop in the Church. If a loving and compassionate gay moved into your ward and asked you for a calling in the Youth oganization, or for a temple recommend, would you tell him that as far as you're concerned you'll look the other way as to this person's sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage and here's your calling in the Young Men and here's your recommend? I realize that you hate being put into a corner and you usually don't answer my questions like this, so let's just treat it as a rhetorical question you don't have to answer?I would find somewhere to utilize his/her talents and no, I would violate Church doctrine by giving him a recommend though I would share my hope that he can find peace and know he is loved as he serves side by side with me and others
Duncan Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 i had a gay companion in the mission field, he's still active and married with Kids and their is a guy in our stake who came out of the closet maybe 20 years now? gay and married to a woman at least 20 years younger then him and they have kids-i don't attend his ward but he's been on the High Council before and just different callings, etc seems fine to me
Bob Crockett Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) I would find somewhere to utilize his/her talents and no, I would violate Church doctrine by giving him a recommend though I would share my hope that he can find peace and know he is loved as he serves side by side with me and others You've said I have my own agenda when I responded to your post. Could you please clarify as to what you think that agenda might be? [if I were to characterize my agenda, it would be to comment upon interesting topics and poke holes in the arguments of the politically correct.] I laugh when I see politically correct (from the world's standpoint) posts urging the church to be more inclusive of gays, which is basically a condemnation of the church. I've been home teaching a gay inactive priesthood holder and his partner (they just married in 2014) for 15 years. For six of those years I was their bishop. The three of us were standing in a car wash waiting area last week chatting, when a general authority friend of mine came up to us. I introduced him to them, and the priesthood holder introduced his husband to my general authority friend. When the two partners left to retrieve their car, in response to a question I posed, my general authority pal said that the church has no interest in disciplining somebody like that. I know that this has been the policy for at least the 15 years I've been hometeaching them. I wonder when you post your passive-aggressive condemnatory posts of the church you've ever had any real-world direct ecclesiastical experience dealing with inactive gays and church discipline, or gays who want to become active, rather than just reading google responses or appearing at Sunstone symposia. The simple reality is that the church teaches that unrepentent sex outside of lawful heterosexual marriage will disentitle a member to full fellowship with the Saints. It will always be that way. I'd like to see you start a thread where you argue that adult unrepentent fornicators ought to have greater "room" in the church, as they are more compassionate than regular members. Edited January 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett 2
Rob Osborn Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 How can we be inclusive to a lifestyle that is in direct contradiction to our doctrine and deep beliefs on the family? Its kind of like allowing wolves to come in and eat supper with the sheep. We do need to be inclusive towards Gods children but we should be very careful how we circle our wagons to protect ourselves from danger. We have a duty to raise our children and teach them correct principles and provide a place of learning (at church and in the home) where we can build upon true and correct principles. Gay members should feel welcome to come but that doesnt mean that we should change our doctrine to include their lifestyles as being acceptable. Suppose for a minute that we had gay members coming out and the lesson is on marriage and morality. Is it going to be uncomfortable to teach against homosexuality if we know our gay couple is there in attendance? Yes. Does this mean we shouldnt teach it? Absolutely not! Sometimes our sins and lack of diligence should be the spark of change! Yes, sometimes it can be embarrassing or uncomfortable but we shouldnt shun away from teachings Gods laws. If our gay brothers and sisters are offended by it then so be it, perhaps it will be the spark for change. I just hate to see us "look the other way" in being absent from teaching against homosexuality just to please our gay members who dont wish to change or because we are afraid of being exclusive towards them. We are not the world, we are the kingdom of God on earth.
readstoomuch Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I think this is part of the question about gays and the Church. How do you show love and help them to be connected to the Church and Christ despite their behaviors? It would be my wish to make gay members feel loved and appreciated in the Church. I would not want them holding hands or kissing their partner at Church in front of the youth. There seems to be a limit to the interaction between the Church and gays. On the other hand, I think we are going to be going there. We better figure out what that in between place is, because it is staring us in the face.
rpn Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Having read just the first few points, I think that most wards have plenty of people attending who are not in full compliance with church standards or expectations. And I think that mostly that is known to priesthood leaders. What evidence would the OP have that leaders are less than fully exclusive?
DJBrown Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I didn't say that. Only that it is way more messy than we want to think when it comes to putting our foot down against sin only to discover what is sin today become a disavowed theory tomorrow. I try not to say absolutes on this issue because I recognize that the Church is different today on Gay then it was 20 years ago and hence it will likely be much different 20 years from now than it is today. I am aware of Elder Christofferson's love for his Brother and his desire to see us become more inclusive of gays. I see his influence having an impact and our policies changing. While Doctrine may or may not change (Doctrines have changed in the past - Adam God/polygamy/blacks cursed/interracial marriage/etc....) that policies often become more progressive (cremation/birth control/stay at home mom/women pray in conference/etc...) and this one has already become more progressive... I expect that to continue. hence I will not be caught eating my words on an issue that I have doubts about. How is the church different with homosexuality today than it was 20 years ago?
DBMormon Posted January 4, 2015 Author Posted January 4, 2015 You've said I have my own agenda when I responded to your post. Could you please clarify as to what you think that agenda might be? [if I were to characterize my agenda, it would be to comment upon interesting topics and poke holes in the arguments of the politically correct.] I laugh when I see politically correct (from the world's standpoint) posts urging the church to be more inclusive of gays, which is basically a condemnation of the church. I've been home teaching a gay inactive priesthood holder and his partner (they just married in 2014) for 15 years. For six of those years I was their bishop. The three of us were standing in a car wash waiting area last week chatting, when a general authority friend of mine came up to us. I introduced him to them, and the priesthood holder introduced his husband to my general authority friend. When the two partners left to retrieve their car, in response to a question I posed, my general authority pal said that the church has no interest in disciplining somebody like that. I know that this has been the policy for at least the 15 years I've been hometeaching them. I wonder when you post your passive-aggressive condemnatory posts of the church you've ever had any real-world direct ecclesiastical experience dealing with inactive gays and church discipline, or gays who want to become active, rather than just reading google responses or appearing at Sunstone symposia. The simple reality is that the church teaches that unrepentent sex outside of lawful heterosexual marriage will disentitle a member to full fellowship with the Saints. It will always be that way. I'd like to see you start a thread where you argue that adult unrepentent fornicators ought to have greater "room" in the church, as they are more compassionate than regular members. Bob - in regards to an separate agenda... I felt like I was asking one set of questions and you were sidetracking it down another path. In terms of working with gays - a little. Your setting up a strawman in terms of my arguing for full fellowship for gays... While I would be happy if it changed, I am happy to support the current Doctrine. Not once have I said anywhere that it has to change and that it is wrong (I welcome a reference of me doing so). I am simply arguing that our first reaction doesn't need to be having a church court and many leaders see that as the standard option because they are not aware of other possibilities because no one has shared any with them. Tom Christofferson's bishop models an excellent example of other ways to handle this issue. calling a gay to repentance with discipline more often than not leads to their leaving the faith where as this more inclusive approach sets the issue aside for now and focuses on bring them to Closer to Christ in other aspects of their life.
DBMormon Posted January 4, 2015 Author Posted January 4, 2015 How is the church different with homosexuality today than it was 20 years ago?hmm- rhetoric softer (love the sinner and find ways to include him) - aka: mormonandgays.org- Doctrine on it not being a choice is a recent development (I welcome a pre 1994 on it not being a choice)- no more Masturbation leads to being gay talk- handbook gives more leaway on discipline.(homosexuality is not a necessary reason to hold a court)
Duncan Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 hmm- rhetoric softer (love the sinner and find ways to include him) - aka: mormonandgays.org- Doctrine on it not being a choice is a recent development (I welcome a pre 1994 on it not being a choice)- no more Masturbation leads to being gay talk- handbook gives more leaway on discipline.(homosexuality is not a necessary reason to hold a court) I was a member 20 years ago and I never heard a word about it
Recommended Posts