Ahab Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 21 hours ago, Meadowchik said: 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Isn't it already in context? An LGBT person is a person. Just like any other person, they may or may not be actively engaging in sinful activity. And just like with any other person, it may or may not be our job to say something about it. What do you have in mind, exactly? Say, I'm gay. You see me at the grocery store holding hands with my wife. I ask you about the location of the milk. What do you do? What I have in mind is the idea that when people love others and know the others they love are doing things they should not be doing, then they should say something to point out what they should not be doing. We are all brothers and sisters here and as brothers and sisters I feel we have that duty out of the love and concern we should have for each other. And it doesn't always have to be a long conversation, either. Just a little "you shouldn't do that!" should be enough to get their attention, and with enough people saying that to them they'll eventually get the message that at least maybe they shouldn't do that after all. In your example you know gay refers to a male with homosexual tendencies, don't you? So you're asking what would I do if you were a gay man holding hands with a woman, your wife, in a grocery store and you asked me for the location of milk? If I knew where it was I'd probably just point to the general location of the dair y section in that store, maybe not even realizing that you had homosexual tendencies.
Jeanne Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, california boy said: I have to say, I am a bit facinated by your posts on this matter. They seem to be pretty consistent. I am curious how this actually plays out. What exactly would you say if you met a gay couple? Do you wait to get to know them a little? Or do you start pointing out their sins right after they introduce themselves? What would you tell me if we were to meet knowing that I already completely understand that the church believes gays should not have sex. Knowing also that I have already had long talks both with my bishop and stake president? Knowing that my family doesn't invite me to family events because of my choice to not be celibate. And knowing also that I am very happy being in a relationship with someone I love and share my life with, I know I would love to invite you to a family dinner!! The title of this OP...should be so easy to answer. Our love for our families..our neighbors and fellowman should be contagious and easy. 1
Ahab Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 11 minutes ago, california boy said: I have to say, I am a bit facinated by your posts on this matter. They seem to be pretty consistent. I am curious how this actually plays out. What exactly would you say if you met a gay couple? Do you wait to get to know them a little? Or do you start pointing out their sins right after they introduce themselves? What would you tell me if we were to meet knowing that I already completely understand that the church believes gays should not have sex. Knowing also that I have already had long talks both with my bishop and stake president? Knowing that my family doesn't invite me to family events because of my choice to not be celibate. And knowing also that I am very happy being in a relationship with someone I love and share my life with, My main point has simply been to explain that I show an "increase of love" towards people by doing more and more of the things I associate with loving someone. And whether someone is a stranger to me or someone I know very well I am consistent and will continue to be consistent with how I show my love towards them. Pointing out problems. Encouraging self improvement. Praising or congratulating them on the good things they do too. You do remember that we have already met and talked about this issue before, right. My message to you is still the same. All the good that you do and enjoy with others does not negate the fact that you should not be having sexual relations with someone of the same sex. That's wrong and always will be. But kudos to you for all the good you have done and now do. You're not all bad. You just need to stop doing what you should not be doing.
consiglieri Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 On 2/6/2016 at 11:47 AM, Russell C McGregor said: "Draconian policies?" "Secret Handbook?" Is it hyperbole you love, or are you just of an overly melodramatic bent? Not true. Sorry. Yes, I realise that is the spin you anti-Mormons wish others to believe, Withholding saving ordinances from children because of their parents' sexual orientation is not "draconian"? A handbook not available to the public or even to the general membership is not "secret"? No spin. Just fact.
ALarson Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, Ahab said: My main point has simply been to explain that I show an "increase of love" towards people by doing more and more of the things I associate with loving someone. And whether someone is a stranger to me or someone I know very well I am consistent and will continue to be consistent with how I show my love towards them. Pointing out problems. Encouraging self improvement. Praising or congratulating them on the good things they do too. You do remember that we have already met and talked about this issue before, right. My message to you is still the same. All the good that you do and enjoy with others does not negate the fact that you should not be having sexual relations with someone of the same sex. That's wrong and always will be. But kudos to you for all the good you have done and now do. You're not all bad. You just need to stop doing what you should not be doing. How about you stop doing what you should not be doing (like telling a "stranger" that how they choose to live is "wrong" or pointing out their "problems")? (And of course, I should not be helping you like I just did either ) Edited February 9, 2016 by ALarson 1
Sleeper Cell Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Withholding saving ordinances from children because of their parents' sexual orientation is not "draconian"? CFR that saving ordinances are withheld because of anyone’s sexual orientation. Edited February 8, 2016 by Sleeper Cell
Tacenda Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said: CFR that saving ordinances are withheld because of anyone’s sexual orientation. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&title=lds-church-children-of-same-sex-couples-not-eligible-for-membership&fm=home_page
Calm Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 There are those members with same sex attraction who are married to a spouse of the opposite sex. Their children can be baptized.
consiglieri Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: CFR that saving ordinances are withheld because of anyone’s sexual orientation. Now you're just being silly.
Daniel2 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Respect is earned, in no other way can it be acquired. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, in the context of the phrase, "Require other family members to respect your child." For example, Good Citizenship is taught in our schools. Good Citizenship is required for a peaceful, productive, safe, and mutually-respectful society, both in school and in public life beyond. In public schools, there are students representing a variety of different beliefs, backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, cultures, sexual orientations, etc. Public schools put in place policies requiring that students respect all other students, regardless of whether or not any given student feels the other students are living a life of sin outside of school. It seems to me that in such situations, respect is a requirement. Of everyone. By everyone. It doesn't have to be earned. Much of what is being discussed in this thread is to treat one's family members with at LEAST as much respect as one would treat strangers at school, at work, or in any public sphere. Edited February 8, 2016 by Daniel2 2
Russell C McGregor Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&title=lds-church-children-of-same-sex-couples-not-eligible-for-membership&fm=home_page Not an example of saving ordinances being withheld because of anyone's sexual orientation. Care to try again?
Russell C McGregor Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: Withholding saving ordinances from children because of their parents' sexual orientation is not "draconian"? Since the Church doesn't do that, your question is moot. 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: A handbook not available to the public or even to the general membership is not "secret"? It's not secret. (1) Everyone knows it exists, and (2) any member who wants to know what is in it can find out via their bishop. 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: No spin. Just fact. Correction: No facts. Just spin.
Daniel2 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) On 02/08/2016 at 9:49 AM, Ahab said: What I have in mind is the idea that when people love others and know the others they love are doing things they should not be doing, then they should say something to point out what they should not be doing. We are all brothers and sisters here and as brothers and sisters I feel we have that duty out of the love and concern we should have for each other. And it doesn't always have to be a long conversation, either. Just a little "you shouldn't do that!" should be enough to get their attention, and with enough people saying that to them they'll eventually get the message that at least maybe they shouldn't do that after all. Depending on where you are engaging in the behaviors you describe above, it could be considered harassment. At my work, if employees were to engage in the type of behaviors you're describing, directed at co-workers who weren't living according to certain religious standards, ongoing unwelcome suggestions/reprimands/urging repentance about fellow employees' life choices could get someone in trouble with Human Resources, even if they used the most loving, kind, compassionate tone of voice. In the workplace, it would definitely be harassment based on religion (you can't harass others about their religious beliefs when they differ from you--this protects both non-believers and believers alike of any and all given religious affiliations/non-affiliations) as well as harassment based on sexual orientation (you can't harass others about their sexual orientation--straight, gay or bisexual--when their orientation or choice of spouse/partner differs from yours). Depending on the company's guidelines, it could even border on sexual harassment. All of these are covered in attempting to maintain a safe, harassment-free, non-hostile work environment for ALL employees, regardless of religious affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Or... take public schools. Can you imagine what would happen if a student in high school treated his gay male friend by having ongoing interactions with him along the lines of, 'Hey... great to see you today! Can I help you carry your backpack back to your locker? I'd love to stop by and help you rack those leaves in your yard... By the way, I really do care about you and hope you take this in the spirit it's intended, because when my love for others encourages me to help them and make sure they aren't engaging in behaviors that are actually harming them spiritually... I wanted to remind you that the way you're living is wrong, and I sincerely hope you'll reconsider by breaking up with your boyfriend. I know you may be tired of hearing that from me and my other LDS friends, but I love you, and I just want what's best for you. Would you like to come to church with me on Sunday...?" Can one imagine applying a similar approach to whatever sinful behaviors any given individual is engaging in..? Would that be perceived as "loving"? Are continual reminders urging someone to repentance perceived as being "loving" or "showing an increase in love"? Quote In your example you know gay refers to a male with homosexual tendencies, don't you? So you're asking what would I do if you were a gay man holding hands with a woman, your wife, in a grocery store and you asked me for the location of milk? If I knew where it was I'd probably just point to the general location of the dair y section in that store, maybe not even realizing that you had homosexual tendencies. Meadowchik is a woman, and she was using gay to say she'd be holding hands with her same-sex wife. She's also right in her use of the word "gay." When it's referring to sexual orientation, the term "gay" is actually gender neutral--although it often applies only to men (usually when used in conjunction with the term "gays and lesbians"), it can also accurately be used to apply to both men and women. The term "lesbian," however, applies only to women. Edited February 9, 2016 by Daniel2 1
Daniel2 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Dup Edited February 8, 2016 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Dup Edited February 8, 2016 by Daniel2
Sleeper Cell Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Now you're just being silly. Now you’re just being evasive. People are denied baptism on the basis of their actions. People are denied baptism on the basis of their beliefs. Minor children are denied baptism on the basis of the actions and beliefs of their custodial parents. Can you cite one example of a person being denied baptism merely because of “orientation?”
consiglieri Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Sleeper Cell said: Now you’re just being evasive. People are denied baptism on the basis of their actions. People are denied baptism on the basis of their beliefs. Minor children are denied baptism on the basis of the actions and beliefs of their custodial parents. Can you cite one example of a person being denied baptism merely because of “orientation?” It's called the new policy. Maybe you haven't heard of it?
Calm Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 8 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Respect is earned, in no other way can it be acquired. People use "respect" interchangeably with "civility" at times, the first (in the sense of admiration) is indeed earned; the second should be given to everyone when possible (probably not appropriate when engaging in physical selfdefense). 1
Calm Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: It's called the new policy. Maybe you haven't heard of it? There are parents who identify as gay, but are married to someone of the opposite sex. The new policy would not apply to their children. 1
Daniel2 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, Calm said: People use "respect" interchangeably with "civility" at times, the first (in the sense of admiration) is indeed earned; the second should be given to everyone when possible (probably not appropriate when engaging in physical self defense). A good clarification, Calm. In fact, civility is listed as a synonym for one of the definitions of "respect" (see: "due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others... synonyms: due regard, politeness, courtesy, civility, deference", below): re·spect rəˈspekt/ noun 1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. "the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor" synonyms: esteem, regard, high opinion, admiration, reverence, deference, honor "the respect due to a great artist" antonyms: contempt the state of being admired or respected. "his first chance in over fifteen years to regain respect in the business" due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others. plural noun: respects "respect for human rights" synonyms: due regard, politeness, courtesy, civility, deference "he spoke to her with respect"
Daniel2 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, Calm said: There are parents who identify as gay, but are married to someone of the opposite sex. The new policy would not apply to their children. I appreciate and acknowledge the precision and accuracy of what you say above, as well as Sleeper Cell's post which states that 19 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: People are denied baptism on the basis of their actions. People are denied baptism on the basis of their beliefs. Minor children are denied baptism on the basis of the actions and beliefs of their custodial parents. Can you cite one example of a person being denied baptism merely because of “orientation?” To be fair, I don't think Consiglieri (or others who mis-use the phrase "denied baptism based on the orientation of their parents") was/were intentionally being inaccurate or misleading... I think it's understandable that for many, the differences are a distinction without a difference and, in this thread at least, that difference was/is peripheral to the point they were actually intending to make. I think they could rephrase their earlier posts by saying, "baptism being denied to the children residing primarily with parents actively involved in a same-sex relationship or marriage" and their central point would not have changed. I would hope that both sides can acknowledge the above, strive to be more accurate in our verbiage, and move beyond that to other aspects of the discussion, especially since that entire tangent has been hashed to death in other threads and is really beyond the indented scope of this particular thread, at least. Edited February 9, 2016 by Daniel2
Sleeper Cell Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 33 minutes ago, consiglieri said: It's called the new policy. Maybe you haven't heard of it? And I thought that the “new policy” denies baptism to children whose custodial parent have taken the action of entering into a same gender relationship but does not deny baptism to the children of gay custodial parents who have not taken the action of entering into a same gender relationship. Perhaps there has been a new “new policy” that now denies baptism to children of all gay custodial parents, regardless of whether they have taken the action of entering into a same gender relationship. If so, you are right. I haven’t heard about it. Would you please provide a reference? 1
Sleeper Cell Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: I appreciate and acknowledge the precision and accuracy of what you say above, as well as Sleeper Cell's post which states that To be fair, I don't think Consiglieri (or others who mis-use the phrase "denied baptism based on the orientation of their parents") was/were intentionally being inaccurate or misleading... I think it's understandable that for many, the differences are a distinction without a difference and, in this thread at least, that difference was/is peripheral to the point they were actually intending to make. I think they could rephrase their earlier posts by saying, "baptism being denied to the children residing primarily with parents actively involved in a same-sex relationship or marriage" and their central point would not have changed. I would hope that both sides can acknowledge the above, strive to be more accurate in our verbiage, and move beyond that to other aspects of the discussion, especially since that entire tangent has been hashed to death in other threads and is really beyond the indented scope of this particular thread, at least. “I think it's understandable that for many, the differences are a distinction without a difference “ To me (and I believe to most of the policy’s supporters) it is a distinction that makes all the difference. I would not have supported the policy if it denied baptism because of one’s own orientation, let alone the orientation of one’s parents. Regardless of intent, misuse of the phrase is not merely misleading. It is prejudicial. And, as you have alluded, it undermines the intent of this thread. I regret I did not see your last post before my last response. In the spirit of your conciliatory remarks, I will withdraw from the thread for a few days to help the discussion get back on track. 1
california boy Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 9 hours ago, Jeanne said: I know I would love to invite you to a family dinner!! The title of this OP...should be so easy to answer. Our love for our families..our neighbors and fellowman should be contagious and easy. Jeanne, you are very kind. And I know full well that this is not a hollow platitude. I know I would be welcome at your family dinner. It means a lot to feel that kind of love from you. I have learned that sometimes "family" has little to do with the one we are born into. I have found a family outside of the ones of my birth. I seem to be able to count on them much better. Your invitation to a family dinner is something my own family has not had the inclination to do for the past 15 years. Fortunately my children feel differently. We frequently get together. 2
california boy Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 9 hours ago, Ahab said: My main point has simply been to explain that I show an "increase of love" towards people by doing more and more of the things I associate with loving someone. And whether someone is a stranger to me or someone I know very well I am consistent and will continue to be consistent with how I show my love towards them. Pointing out problems. Encouraging self improvement. Praising or congratulating them on the good things they do too. You do remember that we have already met and talked about this issue before, right. My message to you is still the same. All the good that you do and enjoy with others does not negate the fact that you should not be having sexual relations with someone of the same sex. That's wrong and always will be. But kudos to you for all the good you have done and now do. You're not all bad. You just need to stop doing what you should not be doing. Of course I remember our early conversation. That is why I asked the question and pointed out to you that I already are well aware that the church leaders feel that me having a relationship with my partner is wrong. And that is why I asked you the question. Would you still feel the need to tell me that having a relationship with my partner is wrong when you are fully aware that I already am quite aware how the church feels? Do you feel the need to tell everyone you come in contact with that they should correct their sins if you are aware of their sins? I know a lot of people that have sins. I have never felt it was my responsibility to tell them to quit sinning especially when I knew they were fully aware that what they were doing was against God's will. I am not trying to give you a bad time. I feel you are a good person. Like I said, I am just a bit curious how this all works out for you.
Recommended Posts