Popular Post Storm Rider Posted November 8, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 8, 2015 Several things bother me about this topic and those that have spent considerable time expressing their displeasure and complaining about the Church leaders and their actions. First and foremost, is the hypocrisy that exists. No one said a word of complain about the same policy being implement years ago against polygamists - they had no problems with it. Nor has there been any complaint about how the Church manages similar policies with Muslims - not a beep. However, touch a gay person and the world comes undone, gnashing of teeth, rolling on the floor in utter desolation because a protected, privileged class of people - certainly those who are much better than polygamists and Muslims - may not be favored by all governments, all peoples, organizations, and governments. I have made it clear in past conversations that I do not favor policies. If a revelation is given, bring it before the body and add it to our canon of scripture. If there is no revelation than I would prefer that no policies exist. That is my personal feelings and position. However, as a member of the Church I follow prophets and apostles because I believe they are called of God to lead all disciples of Christ in righteousness. There are too many things that I don't understand and will never understand while in this mortal existence. I rest on my faith and testimony of what I know to be true and leave the rest to God. Additionally, I try to use scripture. I have long heard of prophecies of the latter days, the apostasies, and troubles of the saints. Often I think of what would cause these types of problems within the body of Christ. Today I was reviewing some scripture and came with two that quickly came to mind: Mark 10: 28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. 31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. Matt 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. This seems current situation seems to apply - who will we follow? What do we risk when we begin to follow after our own itching ears? Who gets to declare that sin is of no concern and why should I follow after them? Will we follow the teachings of Christ or not? Is it of value to put Christ first in our lives? I believe the scriptures clearly dictate our proper choice and action. As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord. 8
Crypto Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 What part of handbook of instruction seems to equate with covenant?Even if it did equate to the Law of Moses, which it doesn't...The acts of the law is not what justifies us, for no one, not one has lived a perfect life except for the Christ. This is not to mean that living the law is not good. 1
Calm Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) I disagree completely with the gentleman's position that Tacenda mentioned. I think it is wrong and/or an incomplete thought process.Or possibly a misquote/misinterpretation.It can happen. Does to me all the time.I agree that if it is as reported it is an incomplete thought process. God's love is infinite after all. He does want us to obey his commandments for our own sakes though. I would assume this gives him joy when we do obey because it means we as individuals are becoming closer to him. Edited November 8, 2015 by Calm 2
The Grimace Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 It is quite the pickle, isn't it? If a faithful Latter-day Saint has friends or family who are in a same-sex marriage, and they partake in fun activities, like say, going out for dinner, having them over for dinner, watching movies, laughing and being cordial, babysitting their adopted kids... well, isn't that a form of affiliation and approval? Would those faithful Latter-day Saints have to disavow same-sex marriage the same way their friend's 18 year-old children would have to disavow same-sex marriage? It's all so confusing, no? 2
The Grimace Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 So as LDS we can support the desires of gay people to marry so long as we do not participate in the lifestyle ourselves and we do not try to persuade other church members to support it or publically attack the church or its leaders over it. If a faithful Latter-day Saint is friends with same-sex couple who are legally married, and they have a wonderful time with those gay friends, and they make those gay friends feel wonderful and actually strengthen the same-sex bond via true and loving friendships, then isn't that faithful Latter-day Saint participating in a same-sex union in a positive way? And if so, isn't that bad?
The Grimace Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 "Closet sympathizers" ? You make it sound like supporting ssm is like supporting a Nazi regime. What happened to love and tolerance? So you are suggesting that if you ""sympathize" you might expect to be "outed" in an interview and be withheld from the temple for "sympathizing"? Oh, I think supporting ssm is wonderful and I know lots of LDS support ssm quietly because they are afraid of the consequences of declaring public support. Now, don't blame me for using language like 'sympathize'. That very language is written into the temple recommend interview. And I don't think supporting SSM is like supporting the Nazis...no, I think a more suitable analogy is that supporting SSM is sort of like drinking near-beer or decaf coffee. You do it but you don't want anyone to know you do it. 2
Saint Sinner Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 I have not posted my thoughts or feelings on the subject. As I am not a member by faith, anything I have to say for or against the policy is meaningless. Also, don't misrepresent my OP. It is not my way of taking sides. I am attempting to objectively look at both sides. There will, it seems, be consequences for all sides of the issue. This is most unfortunate. 1
JAHS Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) If a faithful Latter-day Saint is friends with same-sex couple who are legally married, and they have a wonderful time with those gay friends, and they make those gay friends feel wonderful and actually strengthen the same-sex bond via true and loving friendships, then isn't that faithful Latter-day Saint participating in a same-sex union in a positive way? And if so, isn't that bad?Define "bad". I don't think they would lose their membership or even their temple recommend over it. So long as the member doesn't personally agree with the lifestyle and try to get other church members to agree with it.The propriety of their association with such people is something they could discuss with their Bishop. Edited November 9, 2015 by JAHS
Storm Rider Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Speculation is not helpful. Learning to live by the Spirit's guidance, learning to accept the will of Jesus Christ for our lives, learning to hold to faith even when we are confused, these are things that we should discuss. Trying to project what will or won't happen does not benefit. Again, if we do anything at this time let us follow the admonition of Paul. Read the 13th Article of Faith and seek after those things. 2
name Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Hi SS I have not posted my thoughts or feelings on the subject. As I am not a member by faith, anything I have to say for or against the policy is meaningless. Your personal opinions/thoughts/perspectives about the policy are quite meaningful - No matter if you are a LDS member or not. IMO This is most unfortunate. Careful, I think you just offered something meaningful.
ERayR Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Nope. I meant that this policy, I'm not knee jerking, and I'm not alone is disenfranchising and marginalizing. I don't think expressing feelings, concerns are "snarling". The GA are smart, they are not jerks, but the lonely clarification is not enough. Surely they saw the obvious disconnect between this policy and the 2nd article of faith. So given that in all likelihood they did, I'm feeling that the resulting pain and suffering of many members of the flock are indeed unnecessary and despicable. Although surely not the intention of the GA. It's very confusing. No disconnect with the 2nd article of faith. You can still believe whatever you want you just can't support some things.
Calm Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Someone mentioned their bishop is going to talk about the new policy for the fifth week lesson this month.So is ours, but it is going to be on the third Sunday next week. He debated doing it this week, but decided to wait to see if anything else pops up.You (as in everyone) might want to call your bishop and see if that can happen for your ward. Then don't forget to tell your bishop to email the leaders and teachers they can put off their lesson planning for a week.
name Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Hi Storm Rider Additionally, I try to use scripture. I have long heard of prophecies of the latter days, the apostasies, and troubles of the saints. Often I think of what would cause these types of problems within the body of Christ. Today I was reviewing some scripture and came with two that quickly came to mind: Mark 10: 28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. 31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.Matt 10: 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.This seems current situation seems to apply - who will we follow? What do we risk when we begin to follow after our own itching ears? Who gets to declare that sin is of no concern and why should I follow after them? Will we follow the teachings of Christ or not? Is it of value to put Christ first in our lives? I believe the scriptures clearly dictate our proper choice and action. As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord. Mathew 19:13-15 - Jesus blesses the children Mathew 13 - Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray - and the disciples rebuked them. Mathew 14 - But Jesus said - "Let the children alone - and do not hinder them from coming to ME - for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Mathew 15 - After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.
ERayR Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Several things bother me about this topic and those that have spent considerable time expressing their displeasure and complaining about the Church leaders and their actions. First and foremost, is the hypocrisy that exists. No one said a word of complain about the same policy being implement years ago against polygamists - they had no problems with it. Nor has there been any complaint about how the Church manages similar policies with Muslims - not a beep. However, touch a gay person and the world comes undone, gnashing of teeth, rolling on the floor in utter desolation because a protected, privileged class of people - certainly those who are much better than polygamists and Muslims - may not be favored by all governments, all peoples, organizations, and governments. I have made it clear in past conversations that I do not favor policies. If a revelation is given, bring it before the body and add it to our canon of scripture. If there is no revelation than I would prefer that no policies exist. That is my personal feelings and position. However, as a member of the Church I follow prophets and apostles because I believe they are called of God to lead all disciples of Christ in righteousness. There are too many things that I don't understand and will never understand while in this mortal existence. I rest on my faith and testimony of what I know to be true and leave the rest to God. Additionally, I try to use scripture. I have long heard of prophecies of the latter days, the apostasies, and troubles of the saints. Often I think of what would cause these types of problems within the body of Christ. Today I was reviewing some scripture and came with two that quickly came to mind: Mark 10: 28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. 31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. Matt 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. This seems current situation seems to apply - who will we follow? What do we risk when we begin to follow after our own itching ears? Who gets to declare that sin is of no concern and why should I follow after them? Will we follow the teachings of Christ or not? Is it of value to put Christ first in our lives? I believe the scriptures clearly dictate our proper choice and action. As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord. I agree with you completely.
Calm Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 The "leak" was some leader or leaders who are not as loyal to the Church as we might expect, who wanted to be the first to tell the world how the Church had screwed up THIS time.Or it could have been someone who found a printed copy on a desk or garbage. Or someone who uses the same computer as a bishop or other leader.
Kenngo1969 Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 With due respect, Grimmy, here is my response to your speculation. Ready?
Calm Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Don't forget, also according to Elder Oaks, if he were a county clerk, he could also perform a civil gay marriage and still be in good standing. Baffling.There are a lot of things we are allowed to support as appropriately legal while still being taught those who engage in such are committing a sin.
Teancum Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 As usual, those who want to find fault will find a reason to do so even if the explanations are excellent ones.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
cinepro Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I'd be curious what the effect of the new policy (regarding children with homosexual parents not being able to be baptized until 18 and out of the house) would have been in practical terms. Meaning, in the entire world, how many such children would there be living with homosexual parents that desire to get baptized? I can't imagine there would be more than 10. You're talking about a subset of gay Mormon couples who have children, who then raise the children in such a way that they want to get baptized. Sorry but that's a tiny number (and not at all like the situation with polygamous families that might want their children to be baptized into the LDS church). Maybe you'd have some teenagers that grow up in such a household and want to rebel and the only thing they can do to rebel against their homosexual parents is to become Mormon. So maybe 5 of those worldwide. Maybe it's worth it for the Church to have this policy so local authorities know what to do about those 15 children. But I'm not convinced. Edited November 9, 2015 by cinepro 2
ERayR Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 There was a time when the Church had a policy of not baptizing slaves without their master's consent. DC 134:12 Now, no doubt there may be some on this board who may be retroactively angry at the Church for not being more proactive with respect to slavery, but perhaps the Lord influenced Joseph Smith on this point (he just doesn't say so here).I can understand the unenlightened masses and the chorus of anti-Mormons getting hot under the collar with the Church for this new policy (especially inasmuch as some of them are even offended the Church exists). But I do not understand how there can be so many members who are so disturbed by it. We had a hundred year history of denying the Priesthood to an entire race, which the Church ultimately confessed it didn't have a reason for, and that's Okey Dokey, but this, which affects so very few, and is in response to an important societal issue that strikes at the foundation of society itself, is suddenly a potential dealbreaker?I would have thought that the Church' position on homosexuality alone was enough to drive certain members away. But this? So weird. Homosexual behavior has become the third rail. You don't cross them or they bite you. 2
CV75 Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 With the new policy requiring children of SSM couples to disavow ssmarriage, I think it's safe to say that a new temple recommend question will soon be instituted requiring the same from all members. Makes sense, given the number of closet sympathizers.Makes no sense at all: apples and oranges. It is quite the pickle, isn't it? If a faithful Latter-day Saint has friends or family who are in a same-sex marriage, and they partake in fun activities, like say, going out for dinner, having them over for dinner, watching movies, laughing and being cordial, babysitting their adopted kids... well, isn't that a form of affiliation and approval? Would those faithful Latter-day Saints have to disavow same-sex marriage the same way their friend's 18 year-old children would have to disavow same-sex marriage? It's all so confusing, no?Not a pickle at all. I find it interesting that an article about the intent and proper use of the Church Handbook came out in the September Ensign. Interpersonal and social associations and friendships are not the same as support, affiliation and agreement with a group or individual whose teachings or practices that run contrary to or oppose those of the Church… of however the question is worded. So no, the two are not the same. Not confusing at all for those who can see those are two very different circumstances. If a faithful Latter-day Saint is friends with same-sex couple who are legally married, and they have a wonderful time with those gay friends, and they make those gay friends feel wonderful and actually strengthen the same-sex bond via true and loving friendships, then isn't that faithful Latter-day Saint participating in a same-sex union in a positive way? And if so, isn't that bad?Christ taught to extend friendship and good will to everyone, and the recipients of good will are accountable for how they interpret or misinterpret it for illicit purposes. Of course, no one would know one way or the other unless they talk about it, and then people can assess the impact of their part in the relationship without a nosey voyeur kibitzing between them. Don't you have any friends that live life differently than you? LOL
Rivers Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 I'd be curious what the effect of the new policy (regarding children with homosexual parents not being able to be baptized until 18 and out of the house) would have been in practical terms.Meaning, in the entire world, how many such children would there be living with homosexual parents that desire to get baptized?I can't imagine there would be more than 10. You're talking about a subset of gay Mormon couples who have children, who then raise the children in such a way that they want to get baptized. Sorry but that's a tiny number (and not at all like the situation with polygamous families that might want their children to be baptized into the LDS church).Maybe you'd have some teenagers that grow up in such a household and want to rebel and the only thing they can do to rebel against their homosexual parents is to become Mormon. So maybe 5 of those worldwide.Maybe it's worth it for the Church to have this policy so local authorities know what to do about those 15 children. But I'm not convinced.This is what confuses me. Are there really that many gay couples banging on the church's door asking for their kids to be blessed and baptized? Seriously. It doesn't make any sense.
ERayR Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 I agree. I have a more distant family member who just put some separation between her and the LDS church that she was raised in. One of the things she quoted behind her reasoning was this issue of gay marriage, and how the church should be more inclusive, less judgmental, etc. ... however, she has also been living with her boyfriend and breaking the word of wisdom. I Translated it reads The Church should not remind me of my sins and tell me to repent.
Duncan Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 I'd be curious what the effect of the new policy (regarding children with homosexual parents not being able to be baptized until 18 and out of the house) would have been in practical terms. Meaning, in the entire world, how many such children would there be living with homosexual parents that desire to get baptized? I can't imagine there would be more than 10. You're talking about a subset of gay Mormon couples who have children, who then raise the children in such a way that they want to get baptized. Sorry but that's a tiny number (and not at all like the situation with polygamous families that might want their children to be baptized into the LDS church). Maybe you'd have some teenagers that grow up in such a household and want to rebel and the only thing they can do to rebel against their homosexual parents is to become Mormon. So maybe 5 of those worldwide. Maybe it's worth it for the Church to have this policy so local authorities know what to do about those 15 children. But I'm not convinced. that's what I am interested in too, how many people is this going to actually affect. Plus, and I am no lawyer but I don't totally understand it....like what about part member families with one LDS parent and then two other gay parents but share custody of a child or what about married people with kids but their parents are gay-obviously they don't need parental consent but do they need 1st Pres. approval? Plus, too recent talks by Elder Oaks and Pres. Uchtdorf and maybe some others but now they just seem to be whistling in the wind, because people can say anything but what people do is the rub
Saint Sinner Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 I'd be curious what the effect of the new policy (regarding children with homosexual parents not being able to be baptized until 18 and out of the house) would have been in practical terms. Meaning, in the entire world, how many such children would there be living with homosexual parents that desire to get baptized? I can't imagine there would be more than 10. You're talking about a subset of gay Mormon couples who have children, who then raise the children in such a way that they want to get baptized. Sorry but that's a tiny number (and not at all like the situation with polygamous families that might want their children to be baptized into the LDS church). Maybe you'd have some teenagers that grow up in such a household and want to rebel and the only thing they can do to rebel against their homosexual parents is to become Mormon. So maybe 5 of those worldwide. Maybe it's worth it for the Church to have this policy so local authorities know what to do about those 15 children. But I'm not convinced.Interesting insight. Thank you.
Recommended Posts