Mars Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 i strongly object to the characterization that we're fanatic or bigoted. i mildly object to the term 'anti-gay' we don't condone violence or shunning of gay people. we don't. there might be incidents of members who do it, but we all know they're in the wrong. general conference talks are replete with examples of leaders reaching out to gay people and not even in hopes of deconverting them from their icky gayness. it's tough to take someone seriously when they feel that my objection to gay marriage labels me a bigot. 2
Storm Rider Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Analytics... God told us why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorah and none of the reasons given were for Homosexuality and gay sex. Ezekiel 1649 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. It actually was for not having loving close relationships, and being greedy and prideful, not loving their neighbor as themselves. Perhaps, withholding blessings of the Lord from those who they looked down upon as sinners. Yeah, not so much. This is without foundation and reduces the scriptural foundation of condemnation to a single verse in the OT. That is incorrect. You might want to peruse Lesson 41 of the Gospel Doctrine manual for signs of the apostasy. Based on the postition you have presented above you will be amazed at the clarity. After reading it, let's talk about scripture and your favorite topic. If you are implying other's on this board are in danger of apostasy... DON'T! - Ares Edited November 16, 2015 by Ares
jaberwocky Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 i strongly object to the characterization that we're fanatic or bigoted. i mildly object to the term 'anti-gay' we don't condone violence or shunning of gay people. we don't. there might be incidents of members who do it, but we all know they're in the wrong. general conference talks are replete with examples of leaders reaching out to gay people and not even in hopes of deconverting them from their icky gayness. it's tough to take someone seriously when they feel that my objection to gay marriage labels me a bigot. RACIST!!!
Mystery Meat Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 These individuals are worthy of our respect. They have found a new path, I suspect most of them long ago found a new path, and they have now chosen to separate from the Body of Christ. I appreciate their action and wish them well. I hope they find happiness and are able to remain happy. Why Me, I remain opposed to all policies, this one included. I would have preferred that there would have been a caution given to the leadership; encouragement to seek out the guidance of the Holy Spirit with these complex situations. Baptize an individual as early as eight or at a later period when they have grasped and support the teachings, doctrines, and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ. Though I don't think many children living in a gay family would really want to join the Church as a young child, I don't want to deny the opportunity to those exceptions. If God reveals a new commandment, then let it be added to the canon of the Church. Until then, never make a policy, but provide counsel, teach correct doctrine, and instruct the membership. For me, that is more in keeping with pathway to Christ. That is my soapbox. Having said it again, the leadership never asked for my opinion or counsel and so you have to take my two bits at the value of what it cost, nothing. Sadly, the world and legal climate we live in would really make this impossible without constant litigation.
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Why do supporters of homosexual unions always assume that the doctrine is contained in that passage in Ezekiel? The Church does not rely on the Old Testament for modern doctrine. That's why we have prophets today. Nothing about homosexuality makes sense in the context of the purpose of being sent to earth. I think it is a reaction to too many people blaming Homosexuality for the destruction of Sodom when it was at best a contributing sin among many. In fact the word Sodomy was coined about 1300AD and it imputed that the sin of Sodomy to the city of Sodom. There are several verses that forbid or discourage homosexual relations in the Old and New Testament, and need no embellishment or inference like the story of Sodom and the crowd wanting to take the angels at Lot's house sexually: Leviticus 18:22Leviticus 20:13Judges 19:16-241 Kings 14:242 Kings 23:7 Romans 1:18-321 Corinthians 6:9-111 Timothy 1:8-10 1
Nofear Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 One of the paradigm shifting talks I've encountered is this one by Jonathan Haidt.https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en It's about politics, but it equally applies to religion and other subjects. Their thought has added a sixth category, but the basic premise remains.
Meadowchik Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 CB, While I do not think the LDS will inevitably change its stance on same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior, I do believe that the issue will continue to be a point of refinement and contention of the Church, hopefully more of the former rather than the latter. I see the Church continuing its message of welcoming and caring for all who come, emphasizing the importance of loving all people, regardless of Church standing or anything else. Active LDS are one of the most engaged in their religious activities, compared to those of other confessions, so imagine what it would be like if Mormons were as equally engaged in loving and reaching out to as many as they can in their circles of contact? The divisiveness of ssm and homosexuality, as seen from a global perspective, will continue. Yet hopefully more people will learn that it is possible to live harmoniously with this of different mindsets and experiences, and such divisiveness will be tempered and minimized. I believe that if we Latter-Day-Saints are true to our covenants to love God and our neighbor, we will be a big part of that peace. 2
Meadowchik Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 The tide of opinions, including among religious people, is rapidly changing. That's not something anyone can control or put the brakes on. Tides come and go. And there's more bodies and water where tides are affected than the ones we know personally
rpn Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 In Elder Christopherson's interview, he specifically noted that the new policy requires a disciplinary counsel for ssm or co-habitation, but that it did not proscribe the outcome. So in this case bishops do have leeway to do something other than excommunicate members for either thing, when moved upon by the spirit. The handbook articulation does not prevent a bishop from writing the First Presidency to ask for a waiver of the policy preventing baptism or ordination when the bishop has inspiration to ask for it. To StormRider: I do not think that all members need to be trained. I just don't see any downside at all of giving all members access to the training that leaders get if they want to spend the time to review the handbook or to watch videos, or to read First Presidency letters. Heck, it was the church that urged parents to train themselves in Preach My Gospel so they could help train their kids. Access to the Handbook 1 would serve the same purpose. And I see a lot of upside of getting the Handbook 1 lots of exposure so that members know what bishops know when they are counseling such members about their lives.
jaberwocky Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I live outside of Utah. If I want to get any news at all about gays vs religion I have to read newspapers like the Salt Lake Tribune. That publication, in particular, is on a mission to keep most any policy the Church has in its sights, but the policies towards gays is particularly near and dear to their hearts. I think the rest of the world cares very little about it, and adopts the correct stance - if you don't like it then don't attend. I think that the Church, on a worldwide basis, also doesn't see this as a very important issue. I don't know how you people can stand to live in a state that has such anti-Mormon tendencies.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Well, what kind of people would we convert into the church if we still banned black people from priesthood/temple attendance? Probably only people with some pretty awful opinions of black people. Unfortunately, Gray, you clearly don't understand how conversion works. At least, in the Church of Jesus Christ. People don't become converted because they've ticked off a laundry list of criteria they like, or concepts that comfortably fit their pre-existing world view. People become converted because they have some strong reason to accept the Church's core truth claims. Everything else is just part of the package. Perhaps you are too young to remember the mid 1970's, and how self-congratulatory people were about their state of enlightenment on racial issue. They were no less convinced of their superiority than the current generation is, and yet the Church continued to grow and attract converts. 2
jaberwocky Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Some of the bravest Church members over time were blacks who accepted the Gospel of Jesus even in the face of so-called racism. They understood that the Lord does things in His time, not ours. 4
Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Some of the bravest Church members over time were blacks who accepted the Gospel of Jesus even in the face of so-called racism. They understood that the Lord does things in His time, not ours. The Lord has no time. He is eternal. At all times he is simply waiting for us to use what we've been given and seek for more good. Thanks to the brave black members who participated in the church despite its racism, the Lord's "time" came earlier than it otherwise would. The same thing is currently happening with gay members who stay in the fold. 2
Jeanne Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 John Dehlin 10:51am Nov 16 "I received word of the apostasy policy change first from Reddit. Someone posted the text of the apostasy policy change there. I asked them to send me a screen shot of the policy change (from the http://l.facebook.com/l/bAQGU1r6dAQEB1Xe1tJ9l-GHrxBMBkZivaifsPS2G-HOhLA/lds.org web site where Handbook 1 is provided via password) and they did.Then I confirmed with a few other people who had access to the online manual. Several were able to confirm.Then a friend posted about the policy changes regarding children on Facebook. I asked him to send me what he had, and he sent me the PDF describing all the changes.To summarize, the policy changes were leaked on the internet before I shared them. My sharing was just picked up by the papers, since I have lots of followers on social media. But the information would have "gotten out there" regardless, as it was already on Reddit and Facebook before I shared." 1
Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I live outside of Utah. If I want to get any news at all about gays vs religion I have to read newspapers like the Salt Lake Tribune. That publication, in particular, is on a mission to keep most any policy the Church has in its sights, but the policies towards gays is particularly near and dear to their hearts. I think the rest of the world cares very little about it, and adopts the correct stance - if you don't like it then don't attend. I think that the Church, on a worldwide basis, also doesn't see this as a very important issue. I don't know how you people can stand to live in a state that has such anti-Mormon tendencies. Not to mention all the Ute fans and the constant threat of "inversion." Cal, Scott, and every other beehive - Get Out While You Can (and save my sister too).
Popular Post Darren10 Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 My take is that Dehlin still passed along information he should not have and mischaracterized it. 6
Popular Post KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 It wasn't the sharing as much as the mis-characterizations and assumptions about how it would be implemented that caused the dust up. 8
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) It wasn't the sharing as much as the mis-characterizations and assumptions about how it would be implemented that caused the dust up.Nevermind. Edited November 16, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
Popular Post Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) /sarcasm on/ That's what I was saying all along but no one believed me! Unfortunately, so many TBMs on this board and elsewhere jumped to unreasonable conclusions without waiting to hear clarification from Brother Dehlin on this issue (or better yet, reaching out to him for comment). So sad that so many people have already jumped ship and distanced themselves from our beloved Brother Dehlin before they ever gave him a chance. My guess is that most of these people were already highly cynical of John and hadn't listed to one of his podcasts in years. Don't let the door hit you on the way out! /sarcasm off/ Edited November 16, 2015 by Buckeye 6
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Post retracted - response retracted. Edited November 16, 2015 by KevinG
Popular Post Meadowchik Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 You mean Dehlin assumed it would be implemented as written? Edited to add: I didn't read anything from Dehlin until well after I had seen the policy. I came to all the same conclusions as Dehlin by just reading the text of the policy. Dehlin described the policy as deeming children of same-sex parents to be unworthy of baptism, which is absolutely not the position of the Church. Anyone who has matured in the Church or has the comparable experience knows that there can be many other reasons besides worthiness which can prevent baptism temporarily or make it unnecessary. To assume it is about worthiness is a caustic, derogatory presumption. 11
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Dehlin described the policy as deeming children of same-sex parents to be unworthy of baptism, which is absolutely not the position of the Church. Anyone who has matured in the Church or has the comparable experience knows that there can be many other reasons besides worthiness which can prevent baptism temporarily or make it unnecessary. To assume it is about worthiness is a caustic, derogatory presumption.That's fair. Dehlin is over the top. I'll retract. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 No. My interpretation vis a vis John Dehlin's is well documented on the other threads. Blue Dreams perhaps had the most eloquent and clear explanation. Please refer to the hundreds of pages already written about Dehlin's faulty assumptions. My apologies. Dehlin does go over the top with his rhetoric (similar to many on this board). While the original policy as written goes well beyond what many here will admit, John Dehlin was extreme in the other direction. I have retracted my post.
Recommended Posts