Scott Lloyd Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On July 7, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Tacenda said: Yours is too, since to me it's basically showing a break up between gays and the church. Before the policy there was some dating and maybe some welcoming back, but no longer. If by this you mean that the Church was beginning to view homosexual behavior as being in any way acceptable, that view is mistaken. It is and always will be seen as grievous sin that jeopardizes one's very standing in the Church. Those who thought the Church was changing in this respect were engaging in wishful thinking. On the other hand, those who have SSA but resist the urge to act on it always have been welcome in the Church. That hasn't changed either. 2
JLHPROF Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 3 hours ago, Teancum said: So why restrict it to children in home sexual homes? I grew up in an inactive LDS home. In many ways my parents were hostile towards the church. Yet for cultural reasons I was baptized and confirmed at 8 and received the various Aaronic priesthood offices at the appropriate age. Nobody thinks that was a good situation for you either. But we can't police every bad parental decision or know what goes on in every home. We CAN provide protection from contradiction when it is easily seen and manifested. If your parents were hostile toward the Church AND the local leaders new about it then perhaps allowing you to receive ordinances on a socially acceptable schedule was just as wrong as allowing minor children of SSM to be baptized. 2
Storm Rider Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was with you right up to the point where you started bashing "Mormon Utah culture." That has an element of "thank God I am not as other men" that mars an otherwise fine post. Scott, I don't think that is accurate of my thoughts or of my comment. There is no pride in it. Are you saying that you see no peculiarities among Mormon Utah culture? Be honest. I lived there for many years and married a sweet girl from West Valley City/Granger back in the day. It is not a criticism so much as just a simple statement of fact. 1
Teancum Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Nobody thinks that was a good situation for you either. But we can't police every bad parental decision or know what goes on in every home. We CAN provide protection from contradiction when it is easily seen and manifested. If your parents were hostile toward the Church AND the local leaders new about it then perhaps allowing you to receive ordinances on a socially acceptable schedule was just as wrong as allowing minor children of SSM to be baptized. You know what? Your response is utter BS. Sorry but it it. You have no answer good answer as to why children in homosexual homes have this special restriction. There are so many other situations that should require the church to place similar restrictions if they were really worried about pitting parent against child. It really is quite simple. For the church to tolerate homosexual marriage in any way is to over time have the rank and file become more tolerant of homosexual marriage. That's it. Own it.
Calm Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 The same restriction is on kids from plural marriages, so the two situations that can't change to church standards without destroying the family unit. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Scott, I don't think that is accurate of my thoughts or of my comment. There is no pride in it. Are you saying that you see no peculiarities among Mormon Utah culture? Be honest. I lived there for many years and married a sweet girl from West Valley City/Granger back in the day. It is not a criticism so much as just a simple statement of fact. As one who was born and reared in the heart of "UtahMormon culture," has lived virtually his whole life in it, has immediate and extended family and countless friends and acquaintances in it and lives and worships among them, as one whose ancestry on all sides extends back to pioneer era Utah, I am being honest. Edited July 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Rain Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) On Saturday, July 09, 2016 at 9:45 AM, ladyshanae said: Yikes! I wouldn't have had many friends if that had been a rule when I was growing up! I know my parents trusted the other LDS kids/families more quickly, but I was never forbidden from friendships with anyone. This was especially true after we moved to Ohio where there were only 11 LDS kids in my entire high school. I don't think this is the norm, but I only briefly lived in Utah to finish up schooling, so maybe it's a Utah thing? I just didn't know anyone growing up who had rules like that, regardless of religion. No. No, this is NOT a Utah thing. It is a thing of people all over the world just as it is a thing of people all over the world to make friends with people who are not LDS and to not feel better than thou. I really don't mean to be slamming you. Just don't like the idea and I get tired of it being blamed on Utah when I see it all over the place and vice versa. The biggest thing with Utah is that if you have 1000 LDS kids in your high school and 10% are better than thou it is going to seem like a lot more LDS are that way then if you only have 10% of 10 in a school outside of Utah - with one LDS jerk you just figure it is a problem with that person. With 100 you start seeing big red flags and yet percentage wise it is the same. I was raised in Utah. All through my school years I had member and non member friends. Never was I taught, nor did I feel I was better than them. Edited July 11, 2016 by Rain 2
ladyshanae Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 50 minutes ago, Rain said: No. No, this is NOT a Utah thing. It is a thing of people all over the world just as it is a thing of people all over the world to make friends with people who are not LDS and to not feel better than thou. I really don't mean to be slamming you. Just don't like the idea and I get tired of it being blamed on Utah when I see it all over the place and vice versa. The biggest thing with Utah is that if you have 1000 LDS kids in your high school and 10% are better than thou it is going to seem like a lot more LDS are that way then if you only have 10% of 10 in a school outside of Utah - with one LDS jerk you just figure it is a problem with that person. With 100 you start seeing big red flags and yet percentage wise it is the same. I was raised in Utah. All through my school years I had member and non member friends. Never was I taught, nor did I feel I was better than them. I was just saying I didn't have any experience growing up in Utah, so maybe it was common there and that's why I didn't see it. I certainly have had experience with many things that are more common in Utah LDS culture. My husband grew up there and most of his family is still there and we notice things all the time. I'm glad this doesn't seem to be one of them!
california boy Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 12 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Nobody thinks that was a good situation for you either. But we can't police every bad parental cision or know what goes on in every home. We CAN provide protection from contradiction when it is easily seen and manifested. If your parents were hostile toward the Church AND the local leaders new about it then perhaps allowing you to receive ordinances on a socially acceptable schedule was just as wrong as allowing minor children of SSM to be baptized. I think you have explained my problem with the policy/revelation perfectly. Parents hostile to the church can be found in ANY home whether they are gay or straight. That can cause conflict for any child. Each case should be considered carefully and with prayer to know the correct thing to do. But that goes for gay couples as well. I would certainly agree that many if not most gay couples raising a child would be hostile to the church, and for good reason. But you or the church can not assume that would be the case in ALL families with gay parents. I am a perfect example of that. My kids are straight. I have no problem having them be actively involved in the church. In fact I encourage and support them in all of their activities in the church. Daniel does the same. We are not the only gay parents that may have those kinds of attitudes towards the church. When you put out a blanket policy against ALL homosexual couples, you eliminate the option of church leaders to carefully and prayerfully seek the Lord and be guided by the Spirit on what would be best for THAT child. If the church would have come out with a policy stating that in the case of gay parents, part member families those practicing polygamy and those not living in a marriage, careful caution and restraint should be taken in seeking the Spirit on what is best for that child, I doubt very few would have a problem But to generalize and lump all gay parents together in a matter as important as baptism of a child is wrong and I believe against the teachings of the Gospel. 3
consiglieri Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 21 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Surely you jest. Ant. Meet boot.
RevTestament Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 22 hours ago, Rain said: No. No, this is NOT a Utah thing. It is a thing of people all over the world just as it is a thing of people all over the world to make friends with people who are not LDS and to not feel better than thou. I really don't mean to be slamming you. Just don't like the idea and I get tired of it being blamed on Utah when I see it all over the place and vice versa. The biggest thing with Utah is that if you have 1000 LDS kids in your high school and 10% are better than thou it is going to seem like a lot more LDS are that way then if you only have 10% of 10 in a school outside of Utah - with one LDS jerk you just figure it is a problem with that person. With 100 you start seeing big red flags and yet percentage wise it is the same. I was raised in Utah. All through my school years I had member and non member friends. Never was I taught, nor did I feel I was better than them. Growing up in the church in Florida I do not recall hearing I was special or that I was the best saved for the last days etc. Nor in Georgia. When I moved to Utah during Pres Hinkley's tenure this seemed a common theme for the "Great Communicator." However, under Pres Monson this no longer seems to be the case - just sayin.
Rain Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) I heard it in worldwide general conference. The strange thing to me is when I hear about it from people who think they are better than those who live in Utah. (And no that isn't everyone or maybe even anyone who posted about Utah on this thread). ETA: I've heard it several times and Utah was specifically pointed out one of those times, but not every time. Edited July 12, 2016 by Rain
Recommended Posts