Lds Church Backs Lgbt Rights

[Scott Lloyd]

There was no sarcasm on my part.

 

???

 

I do have a question for you though, as you have often bandied about the "board nanny" label, wouldn't that make you "board nanny". 

For reminding you of a board guideline prohibiting board nannying? I hardly think so, but if you do, feel free to take it up with the moderating team. That, after all, is the preferred procedure.

 

For reference, here's what is in the Board Guidelines, an element in a list of "behavior that won't be tolerated":

 

Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.

 

 

I am sorry if quoting the Prophets and Apostles offended you.

 

 

Yet more passive-aggressiveness. The most blatant and transparent I have seen, actually.

 

Have you appealed to the moderating team yet, either about the tone of my discourse here or about my linking to Daniel Peterson's blog?

 

What was their response? I've not heard from them.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Well, if it's in Church News then it's obviously scripture and the debate is over.

 

Not at all. It's just a report of what was said in the news conference that merits consideration in the context of the post to which I was responding. Do you deny this?

 

If I recall correctly, reports of the news conference from other news sources have been quoted and/or linked to, either on this thread or elsewhere. Does that bother you too, or do you only get upset when the source is the Church News?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Boanerges]

Not at all. It's just a report of what was said in the news conference that merits consideration in the context of the post to which I was responding. Do you deny this?

 

If I recall correctly, reports of the news conference from other news sources have been quoted and/or linked to, either on this thread or elsewhere. Does that bother you too, or do you only get upset when the source is the Church News?

No trouble with Church News at all, I am a regular reader. My problem is that simply repeating this statement in the Church News (or the press conference itself) makes it no more true. It's very much like Elder Ballard's repeated assertion that he doesn't live in a bubble - repeating it does not make it so. Basic human rights and non-discrimination are indeed issues faced around the world - and they have been for thousands of years. Basic human rights and non-discrimination in the US are far better than they are in many other places. Many states added non-discrimination clauses regarding LGBT over the past several years. Where were the apostles then? Why does it have to be a Utah issue before they say anything? And, please, it is obvious that the church is presently responding to proposed legislation in Utah. Apparently it was not necessary to give their blessing in California or New York. Is that because those who live in those states are able to take a legal moral stand without the blessing of the prophets?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Boanerges

[USU78]

 My problem is that simply repeating this statement in the Church News (or the press conference itself) makes it no more true. It's very much like Elder Ballard's repeated assertion that he doesn't live in a bubble - repeating it does not make it so.

 

Because the default position should always be:  "Those lying bastages at 50 East North Temple are inveterate liars."

 

Yes?

[Scott Lloyd]

No trouble with Church News at all, I am a regular reader. My problem is that simply repeating this statement in the Church News (or the press conference itself) makes it no more true.

I made my post in response to a remark from canard about the Church being U.S. centric, or some such nonsense. At the time I made the post, I had just read a report of the news conference on a Church News proof sheet and thought it relevant to what Canard had said, so I raised it here. I didn't know whether Canard was aware of the news conference's intended audience or, for that matter, how many other people might be unaware of it, because I didn't know whether or how extensively that bit of information had been included in other accounts. That's all.

 

I wasn't pulling a "thinking-has-been-done-and-the-debate-is-over" card, as you have not-so-subtly charged.

 

It's very much like Elder Ballard's repeated assertion that he doesn't live in a bubble - repeating it does not make it so.

 

Maybe not, but pointing it out does merit consideration.

 

And I'm not aware of Elder Ballard making a "repeated assertion" in that regard, although I do know he said it once and that when he did so, he gave very solid reasoning.

 

Basic human rights and non-discrimination are indeed issues faced around the world - and they have been for thousands of years. Basic human rights and non-discrimination in the US are far better than they are in many other places. Many states added non-discrimination clauses regarding LGBT over the past several years. Where were the apostles then? Why does it have to be a Utah issue before they say anything?

 

 

Does its being "a Utah issue" preclude it from having relevance elsewhere? We all respond to matters as they come to our attention. I imagine that the Brethren, for the most part, are no different than the rest of humanity in that respect.

 

And, please, it is obvious that the church is presently responding to proposed legislation in Utah. Apparently it was not necessary to give their blessing in California or New York. Is that because those who live in those states are able to take a legal moral stand without the blessing of the prophets?

 

The Brethren have a legitimate and vested interest in being good members of the community and trying, as they see fit, to safeguard the environment in and around the headquarters locale of the Church of Jesus Christ. Maybe you see something egregiously wrong with that. I don't.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

scott, to be clear, you are demonstrating you are not a board nanny by posting the board riles against board being a board nanny, under the auspices of accusing me of being a board nanny; surely you realize your house of cards has no foundatiom

Edited January 30, 2015 by tonie

[CV75]

find me a quote where they herald gay right prior to 1994/early 95?

If memory serves me correctly, before 1994, there wasn’t a surge of “attacks on religious freedom with increasing frequency” wherein some pro-LGBT rights tactics "try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals” (as Elder Oaks put it). That’s one huge difference between then and now.

[Robert F. Smith]

scott, to be clear, you are demonstrating you are not a board nanny by posting the board riles against board being a board nanny, under the auspices of accusing me of being a board nanny; surely you realize your house of cards has no foundatiom

Right on, tonie.  Turnabout is fair play.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Well, if it's in Church News then it's obviously scripture and the debate is over.

 

While there are undoubtedly yokels out there who think that way, I thought we were beyond such sarcasm on this board.

 

"Total War Against Mormons," The American Conservative, January 28, 2015, online at http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/total-war-against-mormons/ ,

So this move by the LDS Church is really just a sign of how deeply bigoted they really are. Got it.

You cannot win with these people. They want total victory. You will get no credit for anything. You will be punished for having thought wrongly in the past. There will be no meeting halfway, no recognition that religious liberty is an important liberal value too, and that we should all try to find some way to live together under pluralism.

 

[LOSTONE]

The terminology “Homosexual” or “Gay” or of similar wording needs not to be found in scripture to know that LGBT is wrong according to the Bible. Terminology has changed alot over the years and words have shifted their original meaning, but descriptions have not changed. The following 2 examples of scriptures clearly show the act of homosexuality in a way it was understood back then and still is today as being wrong.

- - -

Leviticus 18:22
“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. ( NIV )

Leviticus 20:13
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (NIV)

This does not mean we should reject those of same sex desires or relationships or cast them out. This means we should welcome them into our community with the desire to help them understand their ways of wrong behaviors and thinking and the correct way to behave and think when it comes to love and sex. We should help them, not hurt them.

[USU78]

The terminology “Homosexual” or “Gay” or of similar wording needs not to be found in scripture to know that LGBT is wrong according to the Bible. Terminology has changed alot over the years and words have shifted their original meaning, but descriptions have not changed. The following 2 examples of scriptures clearly show the act of homosexuality in a way it was understood back then and still is today as being wrong.

- - -

Leviticus 18:22

“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. ( NIV )

Leviticus 20:13

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (NIV)

This does not mean we should reject those of same sex desires or relationships or cast them out. This means we should welcome them into our community with the desire to help them understand their ways of wrong behaviors and thinking and the correct way to behave and think when it comes to love and sex. We should help them, not hurt them.

 

Is it helpful or hurtful to normalize and financially support the same sex desires' bodily expressions and relationships?

[LOSTONE]

Is it helpful or hurtful to normalize and financially support the same sex desires' bodily expressions and relationships?

 

Can you please clarify your question for me? I think I am not fully grasping what you are asking. Thanks.

[USU78]

Can you please clarify your question for me? I think I am not fully grasping what you are asking. Thanks.

 

Are liberal democracies which have now embraced, normalized and decided to support SSM financially doing any favors for those who suffer from same sex attraction disorders?

[LOSTONE]

Are liberal democracies which have now embraced, normalized and decided to support SSM financially doing any favors for those who suffer from same sex attraction disorders?

Thanks for the clarity. No, I don’t believe they are doing any favors, financial or other wise. It’s because their intent / motivation does not seem to be based on Biblical principles or to correct incorrect behaviors or thinking, but rather driven by a need to be apart of a growing acceptance of LGBT. “Lets go with the flow” mentality. To help someone, you must first have a true desire and intent to help them and not a motive to support them in their continuing incorrect behaviors / thinking. They are actually hurting them.

[Scott Lloyd]

scott, to be clear, you are demonstrating you are not a board nanny by posting the board riles against board being a board nanny, under the auspices of accusing me of being a board nanny; surely you realize your house of cards has no foundatiom

I understood you well enough. No need to go on and on about this.

 

I've already said I disagree that it is being a board nanny to remind someone about the proscribed procedure on this board for dealing with what one thinks is misconduct on the part of a board participant, that being to use the "Report" function and raise the matter with the moderating team instead of engaging either in direct accusation or de facto accusation through passive aggressive sarcasm and sanctimony, one or the other of which you have done with me on two separate matters now.

 

Have you taken your concerns to the moderating team yet? To date, I've not heard from them on either matter.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

If memory serves me correctly, before 1994, there wasn’t a surge of “attacks on religious freedom with increasing frequency” wherein some pro-LGBT rights tactics "try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals” (as Elder Oaks put it). That’s one huge difference between then and now.

That's not happening now. No religious freedom is being attacked. The closest to that, it seems to me in the examples he gave, was the attempt to subpoena sermons. But even that can't be considered an attempt to deny religion it's freedom. The big difference, of course, is before 1994 there wasn't public outcry against a religion who sought to take away rights from LGBT (like marriage).

[Scott Lloyd]

Right on, tonie.  Turnabout is fair play.

Please see my response to tonie above.

[california boy]

Thanks for the clarity. No, I don’t believe they are doing any favors, financial or other wise. It’s because their intent / motivation does not seem to be based on Biblical principles or to correct incorrect behaviors or thinking, but rather driven by a need to be apart of a growing acceptance of LGBT. “Lets go with the flow” mentality. To help someone, you must first have a true desire and intent to help them and not a motive to support them in their continuing incorrect behaviors / thinking. They are actually hurting them.

 

So do you expect everyone in the United States to be under biblical law?  Do you feel we as a nation should pass laws to follow everything that the Bible teaches or just the parts you personally support?  

[Ferdinand55]

No religious freedom is being attacked. The closest to that, it seems to me in the examples he gave, was the attempt to subpoena sermons. But even that can't be considered an attempt to deny religion it's freedom.

So your basically saying that telling a religion to sit down and shut up is not an attempt to deny them their freedoms?

 

Elder Oaks emphasized that part of religious freedom is being able to act, and voice our opinions in the public square. Are we truly free if every time we try to act or voice our opinions, we're labeled as bigots, and slammed with legislative or police action?

[USU78]

So do you expect everyone in the United States to be under biblical law?  Do you feel we as a nation should pass laws to follow everything that the Bible teaches or just the parts you personally support?  

 

Since the CA state and federal judiciary would exclude all religious-based enactments simply because they are religious-based . . .

 

It appears you may be correct, and those of us who believe in and serve G-d will be banned from the public square once and for all.

 

Will that make you happy?

[Guest]

BTW it is not just about LGBT rights but every one's rights must not be infringed.

Amen, as Martin Luther King, Jr (from my hometown) Too paraphrase, ;an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere". Also the Church has always supported equal right in civil matters...nothing new in that respect.

[california boy]

Since the CA state and federal judiciary would exclude all religious-based enactments simply because they are religious-based . . .

 

It appears you may be correct, and those of us who believe in and serve G-d will be banned from the public square once and for all.

 

Will that make you happy?

 

You can go through ever single post I have done on this board.  I have never said the church or it's members does not have a right to speak in the public square.  But religious belief can not be the sole reason for passing a law.  And there are certain civil rights guaranteed every citizen by the Constitution that can not be taken away simply because someone thinks they can supersede their religious belief over the Constitutional rights.  The courts will never allow a religion to write laws that infringes on the guaranteed rights of its citizens.  In the same vain, no organization has the right to impose their beliefs on a religious organization.

 

You know all of this.  Why do you keep bringing it up.  Why do you mischaracterize what I have stated in the past?  You have absolutely no grounds to claim I have ever said you or the church does not have a right to say whatever it wants in the public square.  Is being the victim your only card you can come up with because you know you have no legal grounds for your belief that you or the church can impose their beliefs over the rights of citizens.

[USU78]

You can go through ever single post I have done on this board.  I have never said the church or it's members does not have a right to speak in the public square.  But religious belief can not be the sole reason for passing a law.  And there are certain civil rights guaranteed every citizen by the Constitution that can not be taken away simply because someone thinks they can supersede their religious belief over the Constitutional rights.  The courts will never allow a religion to write laws that infringes on the guaranteed rights of its citizens.  In the same vain, no organization has the right to impose their beliefs on a religious organization.

 

You know all of this.  Why do you keep bringing it up.  Why do you mischaracterize what I have stated in the past?  You have absolutely no grounds to claim I have ever said you or the church does not have a right to say whatever it wants in the public square.  Is being the victim your only card you can come up with because you know you have no legal grounds for your belief that you or the church can impose their beliefs over the rights of citizens.

 

The CA District Court and the XIXth Circuit CofA said that . . . and you applaud that . . . and, therefore, I do not mischaracterize.

[california boy]

The CA District Court and the XIXth Circuit CofA said that . . . and you applaud that . . . and, therefore, I do not mischaracterize.

I have no idea what this is referring to.  I certainly am not on the XIXth Circuit CofA  Perhaps you could state what they said that you are referring to.  An actual quote rather than just your summation. And what I actually said in response to what you are referring to.   I deal much better in facts than any emotional slander that you want to attribute to me.

Edited February 3, 2015 by california boy

[Stone holm]

I don't think that does justice to his colleagues, all of whom are good and kind men. But this is all speculative anyway. There is no denying that they are unified in their position that homosexual behavior is wrong

 

Elder Christofferson is on record as saying that the Church's position on the only proper expression of sexuality being between a married man and woman is central to God's plan, that homosexual behavior is wrong and always will be. Some have supposed that Elder Christofferson did not believe that, due to his family circumstances, but in this, they are engaging in vain imaginings.

 

On the contrary, from a reporting I've read (some of which has not yet been published) the impression I get is that the news conference is very global and universal in its reach, extending not just to Utah or the United States, but the world in general in light of events happening everywhere.

 

The impression that this is just a Utah thing is, in itself, a provincial outlook.

I don't see any doctrinal or policy change, except it appears from Elder Oaks remarks that the Church is going to stay in the political fight, just spin it as a defense of religious liberty. So we go ahead and seek to arm people with the right to behave badly towards people who don't believe as we do in the name of religion. Oh joy, here come the old lunch counter sit ins and demonstrations so glad we chose to ally with the former Confederacy.