california boy Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 3 hours ago, Calm said: Not quite, it is about using the governments to promote a lifestyle that is believed to be immoral in the LDS faith tradition and thus potentially damaging in the long term to society and to the individual, in part through preventing fulness of potential progress due to seeing other avenues of behaviour as preferable as well as removing preferences given to what is believed by church leadership a more 'beneficial for the child' mother/father family unit for adopted children. Giving SSM legal recognition gives adoption and other familial rights due to being required to remove any form of discrimination no matter the reason for it, gives financial promotion through tax incentives thus leading more to choose to expand their family where they may have chosen not to before because of a greater sense of security and help available, and there are other ways legal recognition contributes to greater social acceptance which means more will feel comfortable in choosing a gay lifestyle in general. If it is on the whole an immoral behaviour/relationships even if many attributes in themselves are admirable, it thus promotes harm in the understanding of church leadership as all things immoral do. First, I really want to thank you for your post. I think you presented your thoughts very clearly I hope that my response is as clear in presenting my views. I think this statement is the core of the problem for me. I totally get that gay marriage does not fit into the church's religious beliefs. While that is a very good reason for teaching that principle to members of the church, it is not a reason at all to try and force others to accept that belief through law. The gospel plan is not a plan about forcing anyone to live by what the church believes. I am at a loss where the church leadership thought it would be the responsibility of the church to force others to follow their beliefs especially when doing so took away their civil rights. That is just wrong on so many levels. 3 hours ago, Calm said: If people attempt to promote SSM by going around speaking about the positive values of SSM, the Church responses with teachings what they see as the negative consequences (whether or not they have sufficiently demonstrated their claims so they are more than assertions is being debated) while attempting imo to place those teachings solidly in the loving, merciful and just world of God's gospel. I think that is a fair position. And I believe that the church has every right to speak out about any of it's beliefs. I also think that they have a right to get involved politically. BUT, the question is still, should the church be doing this? Should the church be working politically to force people to follow it's beliefs? Or should that process come about through conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do you see the difference? I personally believe the church has slammed thousands of doors shut across the world because of this issue. No matter what the church does to try and coerce society to follow it's beliefs, it will never succeed. Change comes about through a change of heart. The church has hardened a lot of hearts towards even hearing the gospel message. In doing so, I don't see an upside for the church, society or individual's lives that might otherwise have been changed. This is also wrong on so many levels. 3 hours ago, Calm said: If people push for legislation that will promote gay marriage, the Church responds by trying to stop the approval of that legislation. Some claim they attempted to reverse the law, others see the law process as iCncomplete as long as there are legitimate challenges to the legal status of laws which have not been resoved by moving though all legitimate avenues of legal appeal and the Church was just involving itself in the process from almost the start to the finish. Once the final decision gets made, as far as I have seen, the Church has abided by that in the various countries where it has reached that point, but is still attempting to influence the process where it is in flux. Even to the point of condemning a clerk for doing too little and not fulfilling the requirements of her job, just as they had previously condemned those who stepped outside the boundaries of their job to do too much. This may be an incomplete thought that I hope I won't come back to tommorrow. It is easier to do no postings than few...few become some, some become many. and I just may have to go back to that for at least a week at a time (day on, day off doesn't work with interesting conversations). My apologies if I have left anyone confused or annoyed by the unfinished conversation. I think at one time the church could have possibly said that gay marriage may not be a civil rights issue. I say that with a lot of doubt given the California Supreme Court decision clearly stating that gay marriage in California was a civil rights issue. But NOW with virtually ever single federal and district court in the country as well as the Supreme Court of the United States CLEARLY laying out why gay marriage is a civil rights issue, the church continuing to work to deny those civil rights to others is unconsciencable to me. And that is the problem I have with the current activism of the church on gay marriage. It is shameful in my opinion that the church would work to deny anyone of their constitutional rights no matter what the church's religious beliefs are, especially given the history of the church being denied their civil rights in it's early history. The persecuted become the persecutors. 2
california boy Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 4 hours ago, Calm said: Quick answer...it was always presented in my memory as redundant in most needed areas, that it would take less money and time and attention if they used laws in place, act now on laws already passed rather than ignoring them in their campaign for the ERA which meant improvement would be delayed significantly, figure out how well the in place laws worked before declaring new ones were needed and finally it was too expansive (combatand unisex bathrooms are the things that stick out, I don't really get the bathroom obsession by either side of either ERA or LGBT gender debate). Thus the ERA was seen as mostly unneeded and where better laws might have been needed, it was overkill, it was seen as better to enforce current laws and then tweak them as needed once it was seen where they came up short rather than assuming such efforts weren't going to work before given a fair chance and instead use a massive law that would give too much power that would more than likely be used for things not originally intended to be fixed or even seen as needing to be fixed (given how government tends to function over time). Well I would say history has proven them right. The ERA amendment was not needed. So many of the things the church feared would happen if ERA got passed has already happened through the laws that were already in place. But this is where it gets so strange to me. Why was it important for the church to make a political fuss over a law that was not needed? What business was it of the church to protect America from having a duplicate law that already guaranteed equal rights to women??? How is that a religious moral issue??? This is probably derailing this thread. So feel free to ignore it if you want. But you are right. In some ways both of the HUGE political stands seems to be a not very wise position. The Church of Jesus Christ should not be known for it's political views. It should be inviting people to embrace it's doctrine, not casting votes. 3
CV75 Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 2 hours ago, california boy said: But this is where it gets so strange to me. Why was it important for the church to make a political fuss over a law that was not needed? What business was it of the church to protect America from having a duplicate law that already guaranteed equal rights to women??? How is that a religious moral issue??? While I would not characterize it as a “fuss,” it was important because beyond and more than anti-discrimination, the “legislative history of the ERA clearly indicates the intent of Congress to allow no distinctions on the basis of sex. When the ERA was considered, Congress rejected moderating amendments…” In that light, “Court and administrative interpretations of the ERA could endanger time-honored moral values by challenging laws that have safeguarded the family and afforded women necessary protections and exemptions.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue?lang=eng You can sure get strange! 1
mfbukowski Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 On 7/7/2016 at 11:09 AM, california boy said: The truth is, I believe the church has a lot of good values and teaching for many. I actually do encourage my children to attend and be active in the church. All of my children are straight. Most are active in the church. The church works very well if you are straight. For some reason, my children realize that they are responsible for their own salvation not mine. I have clearly explained to them that I am perfectly accepting of whatever judgement God wants to put upon me. Which is a completely different position that worrying about what judgement the church wants to put on me. They seem fine with that. We have a very good relationship and they love my partner and see that he is good for me. They see my life is enriched and fulfilled by having someone to share my life with. I don't know if they think the church is wrong about it's attitudes towards gays. I have never asked them. That does not change the fact that the church is toxic to someone like me who is gay. If I did have a gay child, I would definitely be CRAZY to encourage them to participate in the Mormon church where so much hostility exists. That being said. Do you think I am a bad parent to see the good in the church for my children that are straight??? You are welcome to call child protective services on me if you wish. PM me. I will give you my phone number. Rather odd that you want your straight kids to have LDS values while you spend so much time criticizing those values here. I see that as horribly inconsistent and conflicted. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. And you have never asked them about that contradiction??? It seems central to your whole position, and you don't know the answer? That is good parenting? There seems to be a lot missing here to make sense of this story This is not personal I am just trying to see the logic of your position, and all I see is conflict and contradiction. This is a microcosm of this whole issue of delayed baptism, I just cannot see how the church is wrong on it, and your rhetoric is conflicted and confused. I could never accept a position that makes no sense. Help me through this. 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/wickman-religious-freedom-requires-engaging-others-compomise
california boy Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Rather odd that you want your straight kids to have LDS values while you spend so much time criticizing those values here. I see that as horribly inconsistent and conflicted. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. And you have never asked them about that contradiction??? It seems central to your whole position, and you don't know the answer? That is good parenting? There seems to be a lot missing here to make sense of this story This is not personal I am just trying to see the logic of your position, and all I see is conflict and contradiction. This is a microcosm of this whole issue of delayed baptism, I just cannot see how the church is wrong on it, and your rhetoric is conflicted and confused. I could never accept a position that makes no sense. Help me through this. I posted this on the other thread about "By Their Fruits". Perhaps this will give you more insight to how I feel about the church and why I support my children being a part of it. Quote I too want to add my compliments to the church and it's members. I think the church is a wonderful organization and does a lot of good in this world. I have never regretted raising my children within the church. It brought strength and a faith to my family in a way that is a positive effect for their whole lives. I know of the goodness of the church members. I know the value of so much of the doctrine the church teaches. I know of the sacrifices that so many members make on a regular basis of their time and money to give service to others. And while there are good people in other religions and organizations, there are no finer people than active members of the church. While many on this board like to paint me as being anti-Mormon, I am not. Not even a little bit. What I am firmly and passionately against is the church's efforts to work to take away the civil rights of gays and the continued attack against gay families both within and without the church. I hold them accountable for their actions as they should be. I have been posting on this board since the passage of Prop 9. Not once have I said anything negative about the members of the church or it's leaders. But as you all know, I have said plenty about the actions of the church against the gay community. While this issue seems to be a hot issue for the past 10 years, I hope that someday the church can get past it and begin the healing process to be more welcoming to gay families. Most Christian churches have been able to do that while still firmly holding on to their religious beliefs and practices. Perhaps some day, the church will be able to do the same. I sincerely believe that is possible. Good parenting is putting your children's welfare above your own. I have always tried to do that. While the church's policies/revelation/doctrine, (whatever it is) is toxic to me and other gays, it has little effect on someone who is straight other than causing great sorrow. The church is wrong about denying or delaying baptism for the children of gay parents because no one should be denied the blessings of baptism and the Holy Ghost because of the sins of their parents. I doubt I am the only gay parent who sees value in membership in the church for their children. This one issue the church has against gays and their families does not cancel out all the good that the church does any more than the discrimination against blacks canceled out all the good the church did during that time. I supported the church then even though I was animately against that doctrine. Should I have not allowed my children to be baptized because of that one issue??? Good parenting is putting your childs welfare above your own. I have always tried to do that. While I find church policies to be quite toxic to gays and their families, it has little effect on you if you are straight other than causing great sorrow for those in the church that see the injustice of these policies/revelations/doctrines (or whatever they are) Edited July 9, 2016 by california boy
mfbukowski Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: I posted this on the other thread about "By Their Fruits". Perhaps this will give you more insight to how I feel about the church and why I support my children being a part of it. The church is wrong about denying or delaying baptism for the children of gay parents because no one should be denied the blessings of baptism and the Holy Ghost because of the sins of their parents. I doubt I am the only gay parent who sees value in membership in the church for their children. This one issue the church has against gays and their families does not cancel out all the good that the church does any more than the discrimination against blacks canceled out all the good the church did during that time. I supported the church then even though I was animately against that doctrine. Should I have not allowed my children to be baptized because of that one issue??? Good parenting is putting your childs welfare above your own. I have always tried to do that. While I find church policies to be quite toxic to gays and their families, it has little effect on you if you are straight other than causing great sorrow for those in the church that see the injustice of these policies/revelations/doctrines (or whatever they are) Thanks for that, and I am seriously trying to understand. But you DO say hateful things against the church, and I still see your position as highly conflicted. I have striven my whole life for consistency, and I still see a lot of saying one thing and doing another. We all do that to some extent, and try to avoid it but in your case it seems to go to the heart of what you voluntarily accept as a valid position. Though you affirm that the church is good for your children. you still passionately oppose central doctrines, thereby sending conflicting messages which you admit you have not discussed with them Perhaps I got it all.wrong, and ultimately it is none of my business anyway. The problem is that I still.so no problem with the church position which is designed specifically to avoid these issues until the children are old enough to decide for themselves Perhaps your children are old enough now. In that case I see that as a tacit admission that the church policy is a good one. 4
provoman Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/wickman-religious-freedom-requires-engaging-others-compomise Thanks for the link. "Every person—including people of faith and their religious communities—should have enough space to live according to their core beliefs," said Elder Wickman, an emeritus General Authority Seventy. "So long as they don’t harm the fundamental rights of others." Several Religious Leaders in Australia have spoken out in favor of same sex marriage. So people of faith who support same sex marraige should have enough space to live according to their beliefs concerning same sex marriage. Does the opposition of same sex marriage "harm the fundamental [religious] rights of others" who support same sex marriage?
Calm Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On July 6, 28 Heisei at 6:35 PM, california boy said: Do you think we can instill enough bigotry and prejudices against their gay friends into the youth through the seminary program? On July 6, 28 Heisei at 6:05 PM, california boy said: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints went from being known for their discrimination of blacks to the most anti-gay church in the world If I believed this about the Church, in no way would I allow my children to be involved for an extended period of time where this faith had the primary job of teaching about spiritual community for my children outside of the family. That level of bigotry (most anti-gay in the world, we are talking about a world where some faiths promote killing of gays) would never be linited to one group even if for some bizarre reason I felt I could provide enough balance at home to remove any impression the anti-gay bigotry gave. I don't understand the reason either...it is okay because they teach people to be good and loving people outside ot hating their gay brothers and sisters?
USU78 Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On 7/8/2016 at 6:32 PM, Atheist Mormon said: Sorry but dying for any cause does not help any cause. Nihilism is an opposite ideology, since I value my life and everybody else's. I'm sorry, but I honestly cannot find a coherent ideology in what you express here post after post, day after day, year after year. What I see is nihilism - motivated potshots. I find nothing of value in it. Perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong, if I'm wrong
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, Calm said: but is still attempting to influence the process where it is in flux. Why? I thought the kingdom of Jesus was not of this world. Why does our church get involved in politics so much? It is a tax-exempt church, it really shouldn't be doing that. Our Government and laws should be based on rational thinking, not on unproven religious beliefs. You believe gay marriage is harmful, where is the evidence? Edited July 10, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Atheist Mormon Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, USU78 said: I'm sorry, but I honestly cannot find a coherent ideology in what you express here post after post, day after day, year after year. What I see is nihilism - motivated potshots. I find nothing of value in it. Perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong, if I'm wrong You are who accused me of nihilism, (which I am not offended at all)...Just that you couldn't be more wrong about your diagnosis...that;s all...You see nihilism, I see realism. Perhaps you see nihilism because I do no believe in a fantastic afterlife. I'm perfectly comfortable not believing in an afterlife. Edited July 10, 2016 by Atheist Mormon comma 1
california boy Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks for that, and I am seriously trying to understand. But you DO say hateful things against the church, and I still see your position as highly conflicted. I have striven my whole life for consistency, and I still see a lot of saying one thing and doing another. We all do that to some extent, and try to avoid it but in your case it seems to go to the heart of what you voluntarily accept as a valid position. Though you affirm that the church is good for your children. you still passionately oppose central doctrines, thereby sending conflicting messages which you admit you have not discussed with them Perhaps I got it all.wrong, and ultimately it is none of my business anyway. The problem is that I still.so no problem with the church position which is designed specifically to avoid these issues until the children are old enough to decide for themselves Perhaps your children are old enough now. In that case I see that as a tacit admission that the church policy is a good one. I have been extremely hard on the church concerning their treatment of gays. There is no question of that. I have also written numerous posts praising the church, affirming my support of having my children actively involved in the church and acknowledging all the good the church does. So why do I hold the church so accountable for their actions towards the gay community? When I was growing up, the priesthood ban was in full force. But I grew up with no prejudice towards blacks. I never felt that the color of anyone's skin should determine how we treat them. If the plan of salvation was true, I could not understand why ALL should not be able to participate fully in the gospel plan. It just seemed wrong. I was told that they will be able to participate one day, just not now. But that didn't make any sense. If the gospel was designed to enrich our lives now, why could they not have that blessing in this life? Why do they have to wait. Why does a gay child have to wait. Why does a gay couple have to wait? But I was fully committed to the gospel in a large part BECAUSE I was gay. I hated being gay. Why couldn't I be attracted to girls just like all my other friends. Instead, I was attracted to all that was wrong. So I committed even stronger to the church. I promised to God that I would do every thing He asked of me if he would just make me straight. I was the kid that was the deacons president, teachers president and priest advisor to the bishop. Out of all of the boys that I grew up with me and one other boy were the only ones to go on a mission. And serve I did. I was a district leader after being out for only 4 months and a zone leader before I had been out a year. I worked hard and was one of the top baptizers in my mission. Throughout all of this I fasted and prayed to have this sexual attraction taken away from me. And after my mission I worked just as hard, just as faithful for God. I served in a bishopric, on the high council as young mens president and did all I was asked to do with faithfulness. I say this not to boast, but to affirm that I was a TBM just like many of you. While I was on my mission I picked up the banner of discrimination that the church was teaching. I too found scriptural support that God does discriminate. That the seed of Cain was inferior and that it was their own fault for what they did prior to coming to earth. I believed so strongly in all the other parts of the gospel that this HAD to be true as well. I pushed aside my own feelings and what the spirit was telling me because in order to be a good member of the church you had to believe all of the gospel. You can't pick and choose. And if I was going to become straight, I had to be all in and trust the church leaders. I was convinced that they speak with God about everything that the church teaches. There should be no question coming from me. And now, it was all a lie. It was based on bigotry and prejudice, not on what God told anyone. How the church of Jesus Christ treated blacks is the most condemning thing the church has ever done. We are known throughout the world as a church that discriminates. This one policy/revelation/doctrine was so destructive to the church. A part of that reputation will NEVER go away. It has slammed so many doors towards the gospel, and for what? And I did nothing. I never spoke out. I never questioned. I thought being a TBM was more important than seeing the ugliness the church was doing. As the church now goes through a similar time, teaching a policy/revelation/doctrine that gays can not fully participate in temple blessings and will have to wait until another time when their gayness will be turned into straightness. Then they will be delightsome The church may be willing to repeat that history, but I will never make that mistake again. God did keep His promise to me. All of that sacrifice and faithfulness was ultimately rewarded. No I didn't become straight. But my prayer was answered. There is a place in the plan of salvation even for me. For who I am. My skin does not have to turn white for me to be delightsome. I don't have to become straight to be worthy of the blessings of God in this life or the life to come. I testify of that true principle to you. For me to deny that truth, I would have to deny God Himself.
mfbukowski Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 14 hours ago, california boy said: I have been extremely hard on the church concerning their treatment of gays. There is no question of that. I have also written numerous posts praising the church, affirming my support of having my children actively involved in the church and acknowledging all the good the church does. So why do I hold the church so accountable for their actions towards the gay community? When I was growing up, the priesthood ban was in full force. But I grew up with no prejudice towards blacks. I never felt that the color of anyone's skin should determine how we treat them. If the plan of salvation was true, I could not understand why ALL should not be able to participate fully in the gospel plan. It just seemed wrong. I was told that they will be able to participate one day, just not now. But that didn't make any sense. If the gospel was designed to enrich our lives now, why could they not have that blessing in this life? Why do they have to wait. Why does a gay child have to wait. Why does a gay couple have to wait? But I was fully committed to the gospel in a large part BECAUSE I was gay. I hated being gay. Why couldn't I be attracted to girls just like all my other friends. Instead, I was attracted to all that was wrong. So I committed even stronger to the church. I promised to God that I would do every thing He asked of me if he would just make me straight. I was the kid that was the deacons president, teachers president and priest advisor to the bishop. Out of all of the boys that I grew up with me and one other boy were the only ones to go on a mission. And serve I did. I was a district leader after being out for only 4 months and a zone leader before I had been out a year. I worked hard and was one of the top baptizers in my mission. Throughout all of this I fasted and prayed to have this sexual attraction taken away from me. And after my mission I worked just as hard, just as faithful for God. I served in a bishopric, on the high council as young mens president and did all I was asked to do with faithfulness. I say this not to boast, but to affirm that I was a TBM just like many of you. While I was on my mission I picked up the banner of discrimination that the church was teaching. I too found scriptural support that God does discriminate. That the seed of Cain was inferior and that it was their own fault for what they did prior to coming to earth. I believed so strongly in all the other parts of the gospel that this HAD to be true as well. I pushed aside my own feelings and what the spirit was telling me because in order to be a good member of the church you had to believe all of the gospel. You can't pick and choose. And if I was going to become straight, I had to be all in and trust the church leaders. I was convinced that they speak with God about everything that the church teaches. There should be no question coming from me. And now, it was all a lie. It was based on bigotry and prejudice, not on what God told anyone. How the church of Jesus Christ treated blacks is the most condemning thing the church has ever done. We are known throughout the world as a church that discriminates. This one policy/revelation/doctrine was so destructive to the church. A part of that reputation will NEVER go away. It has slammed so many doors towards the gospel, and for what? And I did nothing. I never spoke out. I never questioned. I thought being a TBM was more important than seeing the ugliness the church was doing. As the church now goes through a similar time, teaching a policy/revelation/doctrine that gays can not fully participate in temple blessings and will have to wait until another time when their gayness will be turned into straightness. Then they will be delightsome The church may be willing to repeat that history, but I will never make that mistake again. God did keep His promise to me. All of that sacrifice and faithfulness was ultimately rewarded. No I didn't become straight. But my prayer was answered. There is a place in the plan of salvation even for me. For who I am. My skin does not have to turn white for me to be delightsome. I don't have to become straight to be worthy of the blessings of God in this life or the life to come. I testify of that true principle to you. For me to deny that truth, I would have to deny God Himself. Thanks for that wonderful post. I admire your frankness and am genuinely glad for your happiness. This is a horribly complex issue that I cannot pretend to fully understand, and that is why I am trying to understand it better. As a member of the church however I still do not understand why you would want your children to be raised in such a church, which is the central question. Nothing here helps explain that. To the contrary, you yourself say "it was all a lie" and that you wasted portions of your life in the church, that you should have questioned, that you did not see the "ugliness". I understand how you could feel that. So why on God's green earth would you WANT your children taught that??? I know that this is a deeply emotional issue for you, and that is totally understandable, but I am looking at the logic of the church's position in this area. There is nothing here to help me understand the logic behind your position on delayed baptisms for children living with gay parents, and why you would want them to join a church with these beliefs? What if one of the children you theoretically want to be baptized at the age 8 turns out to be gay and has to go through what you did? That is what is so disturbing, not only for you but for all who hold this opinion!! Why would you want that??? 2
Calm Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 I feel strongly (in a positive way) about the Church policy for chidren being raised by gay parents. The way above all other reasons is because of what I have seen in families where even just one parent has some conflict in beliefs with the Church's doctrine or practices. It is the rare child with both parents (or one if it is a single parent) that comes out with a decent relationship with the Church either as a youth or an adult and the few cases where this has happened, unfortunately the parent/parents have been abusive/neglectful and the Church essentially becomes the parents through the members 'adopting' the kid. (sorry if this is a repeat, I can't remember if I posted this awhile back because I got interrupted a couple of times...I think I gave up on that post, but perhaps not) I have no doubt that there are kids who manage in a functioning family, it just seems very unlikely that happens except in very rare cases. So I would very much like to understand how those who believe it can function see it functioning well, where even though they believe the Church is teaching significant bigotry and prejudice and even hatred, somehow they see experiencing this is a good thing. At this ppoint I see no reason to reconsider my position as it is could not be just the policy that could be the sole source of bigotry if there is this perceived bigotry in the Church. Certainly the accusations of bigotry started way before the policy or even Prop 8 as the gay community were saying much the same thing about the Church back in the 70s and 80s (and I was very aware of it due to my BIL as well as extensive discussion in the psych dept. at BYU). I see those in opposition to the policy as rational individuals so I assume they have good reasons for saying it is possible to have low or no conflict resulting with sending their children to a Church that teaches in their opinion that their parents are inferior and should be treated as such, but not one has verbalized why they think it is okay, they focus instead on how they believe the policy creates a stigma. I would really like to understand the reasoning so I could add it to my perception of the policy. 1
california boy Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks for that wonderful post. I admire your frankness and am genuinely glad for your happiness. This is a horribly complex issue that I cannot pretend to fully understand, and that is why I am trying to understand it better. As a member of the church however I still do not understand why you would want your children to be raised in such a church, which is the central question. Nothing here helps explain that. To the contrary, you yourself say "it was all a lie" and that you wasted portions of your life in the church, that you should have questioned, that you did not see the "ugliness". I understand how you could feel that. So why on God's green earth would you WANT your children taught that??? I know that this is a deeply emotional issue for you, and that is totally understandable, but I am looking at the logic of the church's position in this area. There is nothing here to help me understand the logic behind your position on delayed baptisms for children living with gay parents, and why you would want them to join a church with these beliefs? What if one of the children you theoretically want to be baptized at the age 8 turns out to be gay and has to go through what you did? That is what is so disturbing, not only for you but for all who hold this opinion!! Why would you want that??? I think that sometimes we form opinions on this board about people and then when we read their posts we think we understand them to the point that we don't actually listen to what they write. I am sure I am just a guilty of this as anyone. Your post reminds me to be more careful about the judgements I have made about others. I have NEVER said that the church was all a lie. What I have said, and where you probably got this idea from is that church leaders promised me that if I just got married to a woman then I would become straight. I would loose my attraction to men. THAT was all a lie. But that has nothing to do with all of the other teachings of the church. For a very long time after I left the church, I still had a very strong testimony. That was a long time ago. Since then, so much has come out about historical issues that quite honestly makes me think that many of the claims the church made are probably not true. Do I know if the church is true? No I don't. I also don't know if it is false. But like many members, perhaps that is less important than the belief in the fundamental teachings and goodness of the church. Isn't that more important than some of the historical accuracies that were once told? For that reason, I have never said that the church was a lie. If one of my children turned out to be gay, I would first and foremost leave their decision of church membership and involvement up to them. But I would strongly counsel them to not be involved in the church. I do think the church is a toxic place if you are gay. All of the good the church does is not enough to balance the policies they put in place against gays. My life certainly is so much more complete and fulfilling away from the church. I have a wonderful life with a man who I share this life with that literally makes life worth living for. The church has made that life impossible to live within the church requirements. People within the church can preach sacrifice and how wonderful the next life will be blah, blah, blah, but without someone to share any of it with, it is all pretty much worthless. You can have all the riches in the world, but if you don't have love, and someone you care about, it is all pretty worthless. There is no place for someone who is gay in the Mormon church. There is no plan of happiness. Promising a gay man that when they die they will be able to marry a woman is like offering a stone to someone who has given a mountain of gold to receive it.
california boy Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 6 hours ago, Calm said: I feel strongly (in a positive way) about the Church policy for chidren being raised by gay parents. The way above all other reasons is because of what I have seen in families where even just one parent has some conflict in beliefs with the Church's doctrine or practices. It is the rare child with both parents (or one if it is a single parent) that comes out with a decent relationship with the Church either as a youth or an adult and the few cases where this has happened, unfortunately the parent/parents have been abusive/neglectful and the Church essentially becomes the parents through the members 'adopting' the kid. (sorry if this is a repeat, I can't remember if I posted this awhile back because I got interrupted a couple of times...I think I gave up on that post, but perhaps not) I have no doubt that there are kids who manage in a functioning family, it just seems very unlikely that happens except in very rare cases. So I would very much like to understand how those who believe it can function see it functioning well, where even though they believe the Church is teaching significant bigotry and prejudice and even hatred, somehow they see experiencing this is a good thing. At this ppoint I see no reason to reconsider my position as it is could not be just the policy that could be the sole source of bigotry if there is this perceived bigotry in the Church. Certainly the accusations of bigotry started way before the policy or even Prop 8 as the gay community were saying much the same thing about the Church back in the 70s and 80s (and I was very aware of it due to my BIL as well as extensive discussion in the psych dept. at BYU). I see those in opposition to the policy as rational individuals so I assume they have good reasons for saying it is possible to have low or no conflict resulting with sending their children to a Church that teaches in their opinion that their parents are inferior and should be treated as such, but not one has verbalized why they think it is okay, they focus instead on how they believe the policy creates a stigma. I would really like to understand the reasoning so I could add it to my perception of the policy. The problem with this policy is that it leaves no room for though or prayer or counseling or discernment of the Spirit. It makes a blanket judgement on all gay parents that just might not be true. You know the feelings of both me and Daniel on this subject. Both of us would want our straight children raised in the church. If you sat down with the both of us, would you honestly walk away with the firm belief that our children should not be baptized into the church? Do you think we are the ONLY two gay guys that feel this way about the church? Of course I think a child being raised by two gay parents should be approached with caution and prudence and prayer and discernment. There should be strong support from BOTH parents. Now if THAT was the churches position, I would fully support such a policy. But this one? It is not of God. I don't believe for one minute God makes blanked judgements about everyone just because they are gay. I fully believe he judges the individual and not the group. This policy screamed against every belief I have of God and how He judges us. 1
Calm Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 You have explained that you would be okay with straight children in the Church, I get that. I just don't get why. You believe the Church is teaching bigotry and prejudice and apparently believe it is the worst anti-gay Church in the world. If I felt that way about it, as a straight parent with straight kids in no way would I want my children involved in that community as their primary spiritual family no matter how good it did other things. I wouldn't want it as a white parent if it taught racism of any sort. Or if it taught any sort of extreme prejudice as an official practice or doctrine (yes, I know people interpret the Priesthood ban that way; I don't because while it was significant discrimination, apparently significant prejudice or racism did not go hand in hand according to the data). For one thing, I would see the existence of teaching bigotry and hate (since the most anti-gay church must be teaching hate) as evidence it was not what it claimed. Some stuff it picked up from culture, some members that were and are racist, sure; a church is a hospital as much as a home and school...but if all the doctors are sick and instead of curing people, they are infecting them...I don't find that of enough value to risk my children's moral framework. So is there some reason you are okay for your kids to be taught hate at church because that is how it appears to me and it makes no sense. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Calm said: I see those in opposition to the policy as rational individuals so I assume they have good reasons for saying it is possible to have low or no conflict resulting with sending their children to a Church that teaches in their opinion that their parents are inferior and should be treated as such Children of cohabiting couples can be baptized in our LDS church. Children of couples living in adultery can also be baptized. Even cohabiting couples in some countries can also be baptized, it certainly was true in South America. Please tell me how is that fair? The gay parents that think our church is intolerant won't allow their children to join, but do all gay parents feel like that? I am sure there are plenty of gay parents that are religious, some even know their marriage contradicts their religion. Edited July 11, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
california boy Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: You have explained that you would be okay with straight children in the Church, I get that. I just don't get why. You believe the Church is teaching bigotry and prejudice and apparently believe it is the worst anti-gay Church in the world. If I felt that way about it, as a straight parent with straight kids in no way would I want my children involved in that community as their primary spiritual family no matter how good it did other things. I wouldn't want it as a white parent if it taught racism of any sort. Or if it taught any sort of extreme prejudice as an official practice or doctrine (yes, I know people interpret the Priesthood ban that way; I don't because while it was significant discrimination, apparently significant prejudice or racism did not go hand in hand according to the data). For one thing, I would see the existence of teaching bigotry and hate (since the most anti-gay church must be teaching hate) as evidence it was not what it claimed. Some stuff it picked up from culture, some members that were and are racist, sure; a church is a hospital as much as a home and school...but if all the doctors are sick and instead of curing people, they are infecting them...I don't find that of enough value to risk my children's moral framework. So is there some reason you are okay for your kids to be taught hate at church because that is how it appears to me and it makes no sense. Look at how many people on this board think that the church teaches bigotry and prejudice towards gays. Yet they are still members of the church. Do you think that every member who thinks the church treats gays horrible should quit the church? If not, why not. Yes I totally think the church is one of the worst christian churches in the way it treats gays. And in fact polls show that is an opinion shared by a lot of people. A big part of that is the way the church has worked to take away the civil rights of gay Americans. And the church is not succeeding. So I do put faith in things like guaranteed constitutional rights. So far, it has worked out. The church political opposition to marriage has hurt the church way more than it has hurt the gay community. It still doesn't make it right. And it should stop. I think it eventually will. As you know, I have a much less of a problem concerning the teachings of no sex for gays. While I don't agree with it, I don't find that a toxic belief. I think my children would probably come to the same conclusions about the church that I and many other members have. They would also see that this policy/doctrine/revelation/opinion that gays should be denied marriage is also probably wrong. But this part is more like the priesthood ban. Many thought that ban was probably wrong. Should they have all left the church? Should they have not allowed their children to be baptized. That is a way simplistic way at looking at the church. You have to ignore ALL the rest of it's teachings in order to arrive at that conclusion. Prejudice comes from a lot of different areas in society, including churches. It is a parents job to point out how wrong prejudice and bigotry is. I certainly worked on that with my children as I both lived and welcomed into my home those that others shun. My children would see the goodness in many gay couples. Do you think they would keep those attitudes the church has against gays? It is really hard for any member of the church to keep the the belief that gay couples don't deserve the blessings of temple marriage, when they see that their marriages are just as meaningful as any straight marriage.
california boy Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 5 hours ago, Calm said: You have explained that you would be okay with straight children in the Church, I get that. I just don't get why. You believe the Church is teaching bigotry and prejudice and apparently believe it is the worst anti-gay Church in the world. I wanted to comment on this line particularly. Yes I have said that the church is one of the worst if not the worst Christian religions in America towards the gay community. Can you think of any Christian religion that has done more to harm the gay community by actively working to take away the civil rights of gays? Can you think of a single other Christian religion that forbids the baptizing of children of gay couples? Can you name any other single Christian religion in America that you feel has done more harm to the gay community?? Because if I have misspoken or been unfair to the church, I would really like to have a discussion about that. 1
stemelbow Posted July 11, 2016 Author Posted July 11, 2016 14 hours ago, Calm said: I feel strongly (in a positive way) about the Church policy for chidren being raised by gay parents. The way above all other reasons is because of what I have seen in families where even just one parent has some conflict in beliefs with the Church's doctrine or practices. It is the rare child with both parents (or one if it is a single parent) that comes out with a decent relationship with the Church either as a youth or an adult and the few cases where this has happened, unfortunately the parent/parents have been abusive/neglectful and the Church essentially becomes the parents through the members 'adopting' the kid. (sorry if this is a repeat, I can't remember if I posted this awhile back because I got interrupted a couple of times...I think I gave up on that post, but perhaps not) I have no doubt that there are kids who manage in a functioning family, it just seems very unlikely that happens except in very rare cases. So I would very much like to understand how those who believe it can function see it functioning well, where even though they believe the Church is teaching significant bigotry and prejudice and even hatred, somehow they see experiencing this is a good thing. At this ppoint I see no reason to reconsider my position as it is could not be just the policy that could be the sole source of bigotry if there is this perceived bigotry in the Church. Certainly the accusations of bigotry started way before the policy or even Prop 8 as the gay community were saying much the same thing about the Church back in the 70s and 80s (and I was very aware of it due to my BIL as well as extensive discussion in the psych dept. at BYU). I see those in opposition to the policy as rational individuals so I assume they have good reasons for saying it is possible to have low or no conflict resulting with sending their children to a Church that teaches in their opinion that their parents are inferior and should be treated as such, but not one has verbalized why they think it is okay, they focus instead on how they believe the policy creates a stigma. I would really like to understand the reasoning so I could add it to my perception of the policy. Are you saying the policy is somehow about gay parents not sending their kids to the LDS Church? I thought the explanation of the policy was to say kids should still be welcome at Church but that they shouldn't be baptized. This certainly presents an inconsistency with the policy, of course. "All are welcome" would be the cry. But when ti comes down to it, it certainly isn't practiced that way. I have a difficult time with this policy because I support the loving relationships of my gay friends and want them to be able to benefit from marriage. But I realize now, children aren't as free as me when it comes to Church. My child, apparently, can support SSM and remain a member of the Church in good standing. ANother child cannot. 1
Gray Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 On 7/8/2016 at 4:49 PM, kllindley said: He can't take generalized data and apply it to a small sub-group, but you can, I guess. You quote suicide rates among ALL LGBT youth and then apply it to the small sub-group of LDS LGBT youth. It's not generalized data. It's data that applies to a very specific subset of the population - LGBT youth. It's that population that is under discussion, not Mormons generally.
Gray Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 On 7/8/2016 at 5:05 PM, kllindley said: Please don't put words in the mouths of LGBT LDS. Just because you can't or won't accept a distinction between sexual attraction, sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual identity doesn't mean we don't. I wasn't speaking for LGBT LDS. But to say the church is accepting of LGBT youth is laughable, like someone saying they accept Mormons so long as they don't go to church, don't pray, stop believing in Mormonism and finally resign from the church. In what sense would such a person be accepting of Mormons? On 7/8/2016 at 5:05 PM, kllindley said: Actually, the data is more convincing that increasing levels of societal approval and more vocal opposition/persecution from progressive/ally members lead to more suicide than LDS teachings which have been present for decades-with tone softening in the last decade. If we're actually looking at data, of course. I'm not aware of any data that says anything like that. CFR. 2
mfbukowski Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 8 hours ago, california boy said: The problem with this policy is that it leaves no room for though or prayer or counseling or discernment of the Spirit. It makes a blanket judgement on all gay parents that just might not be true. You know the feelings of both me and Daniel on this subject. Both of us would want our straight children raised in the church. If you sat down with the both of us, would you honestly walk away with the firm belief that our children should not be baptized into the church? Do you think we are the ONLY two gay guys that feel this way about the church? Of course I think a child being raised by two gay parents should be approached with caution and prudence and prayer and discernment. There should be strong support from BOTH parents. Now if THAT was the churches position, I would fully support such a policy. But this one? It is not of God. I don't believe for one minute God makes blanked judgements about everyone just because they are gay. I fully believe he judges the individual and not the group. This policy screamed against every belief I have of God and how He judges us. But doctrinally that's in your head. And there is another dynamic here as well. We're I your partner or spouse, there is no way I would allow my kids to be raised LDS. And I personally can see church doctrine as theistic humanism. For me, I could retain 99% of my theology outside the church, but the spirit constrains me from doing so, but I would never allow my kids to be raised in a church so far from my beliefs. So now I can see conflict between my spouse and me over this issue. It would just not be worth it, for truths I can teach at home about God being an exalted man, and taking scriptures figuratively. I would come up with my own church in a heartbeat. Conflict resolved. Really sorry but I would see the issue much differently, so it's hard to relate.
Recommended Posts