How "low" Will We Go?

[mormonnewb]

I'm guessing that the Church will go as far as allowing openly gay members in local leadership positions.  I don't ever expect a President Liberace in SLC, but I think that the Church will face increasing pressure to ordain gay members (as well as women).  Once so ordained, the Church probably won't have a good enough to prevent such members from serving in priesthood (and semi-priesthood) capacities.  However, I don't see the doctrine regarding eternal marriage changing because there will be no outside pressure to change it (for most non-Mormons, 'til death do you part' is plenty long enough).

 

Your predictions?

Edited June 27, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Duncan]

I'm guessing that the Church will go as far as allowing openly gay members in local leadership positions.  I don't ever expect a President Liberace in SLC, but I think that the Church will face increasing pressure to ordain gay members (as well as women).  Once so ordained, the Church probably won't have a good enough to prevent such members from serving in priesthood (and semi-priesthood) capacities.  However, I don't see the doctrine regarding eternal marriage changing because there will be no outside pressure to change it (for most non-Mormons, 'til death do you part' is plenty long enough).

 

Your predictions?

 

 

There is an openly gay man in my stake, married with some kids and he was on the High Council. I don't know much about him but he talked briefly about it once in a class I was in. He hasn't ever been under church discipline, according to him

[mormonnewb]

There is an openly gay man in my stake, married with some kids and he was on the High Council. I don't know much about him but he talked briefly about it once in a class I was in. He hasn't ever been under church discipline, according to him

 

By openly gay, do you mean "practicing gay" (i.e., dating another man)?

[mfbukowski]

I'm guessing that the Church will go as far as allowing openly gay members in local leadership positions.  I don't ever expect a President Liberace in SLC, but I think that the Church will face increasing pressure to ordain gay members (as well as women).  Once so ordained, the Church probably won't have a good enough to prevent such members from serving in priesthood (and semi-priesthood) capacities.  However, I don't see the doctrine regarding eternal marriage changing because there will be no outside pressure to change it (for most non-Mormons, 'til death do you part' is plenty long enough).

 

Your predictions?

My prediction is for a very repetitive and largely irrelevant thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm guessing that the Church will go as far as allowing openly gay members in local leadership positions.  I don't ever expect a President Liberace in SLC, but I think that the Church will face increasing pressure to ordain gay members (as well as women).  Once so ordained, the Church probably won't have a good enough to prevent such members from serving in priesthood (and semi-priesthood) capacities.  

.......................................................................   

Your tongue-in-cheek questionnaire aside (it is both outrageous and funny), there is no likelihood of any of the changes you suggest.  The RLDS faith already went there and they are dissolving as a church (Community of Christ).  A cautionary tale for everyone else.

 

An actively gay member is one who actually currently practices homosexual relations.  Such are subject to Church discipline up to and including excommunication.

[mormonnewb]

My prediction is for a very repetitive and largely irrelevant thread.

 

I will admit to doing a little end zone dance here (one of the perks of being on the right side of history), I'm not trying to rehash the same arguments of whether SSM should be legal or whether we should accept SSM as acceptable to HF.  I'm just trying to get a gauge as to how far others think that the ever-shifting legal landscape will affect Church policies (even if not doctrine).  We've already seen some modifications in the Church's stances regarding whether SSA is a choice and the legality of non-Church entities discriminating against gays and lesbians in housing and employment.

I can't imagine that these are the last changes that a Church of continuing revelation will have on the matter.  And even if there are no doctrinal changes, there should be a one or more policy changes.  I'm just curious as to how far others think the Church will go.

[mormonnewb]

Your tongue-in-cheek questionnaire aside (it is both outrageous and funny), there is no likelihood of any of the changes you suggest.  The RLDS faith already went there and they are dissolving as a church (Community of Christ).  A cautionary tale for everyone else.

 

An actively gay member is one who actually currently practices homosexual relations.  Such are subject to Church discipline up to and including excommunication.

 

And you see the Church standing up to increased scrutiny that might result from, say, expelling actively gay members from BYU?  You can't see the Church moderating that stance in some way; even if it just means to strip such a person's TR but not expelling them?  In the face of collegiate sports boycotts (something I can easily imagine), would the Church stand firm?

[Duncan]

By openly gay, do you mean "practicing gay" (i.e., dating another man)?

 

 

gay as in gay, if he has been with another man I have no idea, but he married this woman who is like 30 years younger than him and they have some kids. He flat out told us he is attracted to men, but how he married this lady woman and has kids, is not my monkey not my circus

Edited June 27, 2015 by Duncan

[Meadowchik]

gay as in gay, if he has been with another man I have no idea, but he married this woman who is like 30 years younger than him and they have some kids. He flat out told us he is attracted to men, but how he married this lady woman and has kids, is not my monkey not my circus

Being gay is not a sin in the Church.

[Meadowchik]

I will admit to doing a little end zone dance here (one of the perks of being on the right side of history), I'm not trying to rehash the same arguments of whether SSM should be legal or whether we should accept SSM as acceptable to HF. I'm just trying to get a gauge as to how far others think that the ever-shifting legal landscape will affect Church policies (even if not doctrine). We've already seen some modifications in the Church's stances regarding whether SSA is a choice and the legality of non-Church entities discriminating against gays and lesbians in housing and employment.

I can't imagine that these are the last changes that a Church of continuing revelation will have on the matter. And even if there are no doctrinal changes, there should be a one or more policy changes. I'm just curious as to how far others think the Church will go.

I'd say it's possible that the majority celebrating this decision now with unalloyed enthusiasm will be regretting it in their lifetimes.

I predict that even married gays will wish gay marriage passed legislatively and not created by the courts.

[mormonnewb]

gay as in gay, if he has been with another man I have no idea, but he married this woman who is like 30 years younger than him and they have some kids. He flat out told us he is attracted to men, but how he married this lady woman and has kids, is not my monkey not my circus

I respect the fact that you disclaim ownership of any livestock and traveling entertainment companies, but being attracted to men is obviously no more wrong in the Church than being attracted to women other than your wife. Nothing is a sin until you ACT on it.

At present, the Church has no problem with having gay feelings so long as they are not accompanied by actions. However, I'm not sure that is going to be a socially acceptable position going forward. At some point, I predict that mainstream society will begin to shun those churches that don't allow gay people to actually BE gay. At that point, if the Church still wants to consider itself a "normal" church, it's going to have some hard decisions to make. My suspicion is that it will find a way to split the baby (ie, we won't throw you out for living gay, but you won't get "most favored Mormon" status with the Church.

[Duncan]

Being gay is not a sin in the Church.

 

I didn't say it was. i was asked for more info and I provided what I know

[Duncan]

I respect the fact that you disclaim ownership of any livestock and traveling entertainment companies, but being attracted to men is obviously no more wrong in the Church than being attracted to women other than your wife. Nothing is a sin until you ACT on it.

At present, the Church has no problem with having gay feelings so long as they are not accompanied by actions. However, I'm not sure that is going to be a socially acceptable position going forward. At some point, I predict that mainstream society will begin to shun those churches that don't allow gay people to actually BE gay. At that point, if the Church still wants to consider itself a "normal" church, it's going to have some hard decisions to make. My suspicion is that it will find a way to split the baby (ie, we won't throw you out for living gay, but you won't get "most favored Mormon" status with the Church.

 

 

all I am doing is providing more info, I know already what you posted! 

[Bobbieaware]

I respect the fact that you disclaim ownership of any livestock and traveling entertainment companies, but being attracted to men is obviously no more wrong in the Church than being attracted to women other than your wife. Nothing is a sin until you ACT on it.

At present, the Church has no problem with having gay feelings so long as they are not accompanied by actions. However, I'm not sure that is going to be a socially acceptable position going forward. At some point, I predict that mainstream society will begin to shun those churches that don't allow gay people to actually BE gay. At that point, if the Church still wants to consider itself a "normal" church, it's going to have some hard decisions to make. My suspicion is that it will find a way to split the baby (ie, we won't throw you out for living gay, but you won't get "most favored Mormon" status with the Church.

"Normal church?" Does that mean normal as in 'just like every other church not led by living prophets of God?' Like I said before, the most important thing to progressives is that the Church be socially acceptable. It's way down the list of priorities whether or not the church is found acceptable by God. It seems that so long as the mockers who stand ready point, laugh and scorn from the windows of the great and spacious building find the Church "normal" and "socially acceptable" (I,e. accepting of a multitude of forms of wickedness in the name of "compassion") then all is well in Zion.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Meadowchik]

I didn't say it was. i was asked for more info and I provided what I know

The point is that the anecdote is pretty meaningless in relation to the OP topic.

[mfbukowski]

I can't imagine that these are the last changes that a Church of continuing revelation will have on the matter.

So you think God changed his mind on the matter?

 

Was that before or after the court decision?

[mormonnewb]

So you think God changed his mind on the matter?

 

Was that before or after the court decision?

 

Not at all.  I suspect that God has been waiting for His children to get to this point all along.  And now, sadly, if past history is any guide, He'll probably have to wait another 15 years for "His Church" to get the point.  Fortunately, as Dr. King probably would have said if he'd had more interaction with our church, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it eventually reaches Salt Lake City."

 

That being said, you're missing the point.  Regardless of how you think HF feels about the matter, the Church has already begun make slight shifts in its stance towards gays and lesbians.  Do you think there are any changes in the works with regards to Church policies or doctrines?

[Robert F. Smith]

And you see the Church standing up to increased scrutiny that might result from, say, expelling actively gay members from BYU?  You can't see the Church moderating that stance in some way; even if it just means to strip such a person's TR but not expelling them?  In the face of collegiate sports boycotts (something I can easily imagine), would the Church stand firm?

Can't say how BYU might moderate some stands that they take -- it is the largest religious university in America, but not the only one, so we may have to wait and see how all the religious schools respond.  However, Harvard has not been harmed for no longer being involved in big time sports, and I would think it great if BYU got out of big time sports as well.  Focus on things that really matter.

 

The Church might indeed moderate levels of punishment for homosexual activity, just as they have for heterosexual fornication.  Expelling members for either might be too extreme, if there is a chance of repentance.  But I see no change on the basic doctrine on illicit sexual activity.

[Avatar4321]

I think we should be preparing for a time of persecution.

The last time the adversary attacked us with full force it was over marriage laws.

And newb this isn't the right side of history.

[mormonnewb]

"Normal church?" Does that mean normal as in 'just like every other church not led by living prophets of God?' Like I said before, the most important thing to progressives is that the Church be socially acceptable. It's way down the list of priorities whether or not the church is found acceptable by God. It seems that so long as the mockers who stand ready point, laugh and scorn from the windows of the great and spacious building find the Church "normal" and "socially acceptable" (I,e. accepting of a multitude of forms of wickedness in the name of "compassion") then all is well in Zion.

 

To be clear, I am not the one who has been trying to paint this Church as "normal" for the last 30 years.  That honor goes to the architects of the "I'm a Mormon" and "Meet the Mormons" campaigns.  I certainly wasn't the one who plunged this Church into the embarrassment that was Prop 8 so that we could earn our "Christian Cred" with the Catholics and black churches.  Nor am I the one who has been consistently downplaying every unique Mormon doctrine in Larry King interviews and through the Mormon pressroom for the last couple of decades. ("Exaltation?  I don't know if we emphasize that."  "Heavenly Mother?  Who is she?"  "We issue a proclamation to the world that marriage is between one man and one woman, except in our temples.  Shhh!  Ix-nay on the olygamy-pay to the ine-sway."

 

It is our ophet-prays who have been directing this campaign towards normalcy.  And I know you are not questioning their judgment, are you?

[mormonnewb]

I think we should be preparing for a time of persecution.

The last time the adversary attacked us with full force it was over marriage laws.

And newb this isn't the right side of history.

 

And you make my point perfectly?  Because of the persecution over polygamy, the Church changed both its policies AND doctrines.  So what gives you such surety that today's leaders won't make similar adjustments?

[mormonnewb]

Can't say how BYU might moderate some stands that they take -- it is the largest religious university in America, but not the only one, so we may have to wait and see how all the religious schools respond.  However, Harvard has not been harmed for no longer being involved in big time sports, and I would think it great if BYU got out of big time sports as well.  Focus on things that really matter.

 

The Church might indeed moderate levels of punishment for homosexual activity, just as they have for heterosexual fornication.  Expelling members for either might be too extreme, if there is a chance of repentance.  But I see no change on the basic doctrine on illicit sexual activity.

 

You make an excellent point in noting that much will depend upon how other schools respond.  No one will likely bother the Church for following policies that are prevalent at most religious institutions.  And BYU's policy with regards to sex outside of the heterosexual marriage is no different than the policy at a hundred other schools, except that BYU actual seems to enforce its policy.  For instance, I can't remember a single athlete from Notre Dame, SMU, Baylor or Pepperdine being suspended or expelled for, say, getting their girlfriend pregnant.  Yet, that happens every couple of years at BYU.  And I really don't think it's because the kids at the other college aren't making the same kinds of mistakes.  It's simply that BYU actually takes it honor code seriously.

 

So while the other Christian colleges might provide some ostensibly cover in terms of similar honor codes, it is an open question whether those schools will follow through with enforcement.  If not, then BYU could be singled out as the only (one of the very few) universities to be actually expelling gay students.

[Russell C McGregor]

I will admit to doing a little end zone dance here (one of the perks of being on the right side of history),

History does not take "sides." There is no "right side of history." We are on the only right side that matters: the morally right side.

Long ago I heard a statement attributed to President David O. McKay, although I don't have a source for it.

"Right is right whether nobody does it; and wrong is wrong whether everybody does it."

We are on the Lord's side. That is the one and only "right side."

The side that currently has the upper hand is the side of wickedness.

Which is to be expected, in a fallen world.

[Duncan]

The point is that the anecdote is pretty meaningless in relation to the OP topic.

 

no it isn't, he said he didn't think there would be openly gay men serving in church callings, I said there already is. 

[Russell C McGregor]

Incidentally, it is defamatory to assume that a choir director is "gay" because he's a choir director.

It's a rather nasty stereotype.

Parallel to the kinds of stereotypes about black people that could get your blood boiling with righteous rage.