The Church speaks up on SSM again

[Guest]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

It is nearly impossible to put into "context" something, taken out of "context". But I will try, many members are already at odds with Church leaders who reject completely the "Procliamation on the Family". Since it is a document written and signed by the first Presidency and the 12 Apostles.. how does someone in a Temple recommend interview answer truthfully when asked, when they do not only sustain, but reject outright their teachings as it relates to SSM? 

[Rock_N_Roll]

3 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

It is nearly impossible to put into "context" something, taken out of "context". But I will try, many members are already at odds with Church leaders who reject completely the "Procliamation on the Family". Since it is a document written and signed by the first Presidency and the 12 Apostles.. how does someone in a Temple recommend interview answer truthfully when asked, when they do not only sustain, but reject outright their teachings as it relates to SSM? 

You don't believe it's possible to sustain someone in their calling, but reject one of their teachings?  

PS.  I don't necessarily reject the PoF. 

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

eh.....huh?  Do you produce for Mormonnewsroom? 

Just apply some "patience, collaboration and hard work" in understanding another paradigm! It really does make sense...

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Smaller human communities are impeded because other's don't want to listen?  or because the majority opinion disagrees? 

Laws don't listen, people do. When people substitute laws and habits for listening and go on autopilot, human connection and interaction suffers. We see this happening in couples all the time, and is also the practical trade-off when communities grow larger and into states and nations,. This needs to be kept in check (and balance).  In smaller communities, human connection and interaction serve as the stronger "glue." Religion, the expression of human spirituality, is one of those bases or kinds of "glue" of connection. Thus a common understanding is often translated into law for the sake of governing larger networks of smaller communities, and in the case of a constitution as in the US (on a very large scale, hence its revolutionary nature), also protects the minority while protecting everyone's overall special interests of intimate human contentedness (in this case, religious freedom, whether they opt to practice or not). The article is calling for the majority to not substitute their humanity and connections (which includes an interest in protecting the minority) for laws, and to not focus on the system above the people and families, which in an age of unparalleled information is easy to do, given the constraints of human capacity to handle both information and "heart."

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

You don't believe it's possible to sustain someone in their calling, but reject one of their teachings? 

That would depend on their calling.
Can you accept Christ in his calling as your Lord and Savior and reject one of his teachings?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

Newsroom.  Ambiguous and poorly written as usual.  Nearly as bad as the piece supposedly defining "doctrine".

Fergitaboutit.

Edited July 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

It is nearly impossible to put into "context" something, taken out of "context". But I will try, many members are already at odds with Church leaders who reject completely the "Procliamation on the Family". Since it is a document written and signed by the first Presidency and the 12 Apostles.. how does someone in a Temple recommend interview answer truthfully when asked, when they do not only sustain, but reject outright their teachings as it relates to SSM? 

I don't think you tried to answer the question, or respond to the OP.  But I'd encourage you to start a new thread if this is what you want to discuss. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, come on.

You know exactly what this means although I agree it is written in horribly vague PR speak.

The examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous.  The space for the wedding photographer to refuse to help memorialize a SSM is gone.  LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs.
There may come a time when the LDS Church no longer feels it has the space to perform legal marriages but only sealings.  Who knows?

There is no longer space to restrict public restrooms based on biology.  There is less and less space to restrict your children from being taught incorrect principles in our public schools.
Space to remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily.
 

So "space" now means "freedom" or "rights"?

Odd, but ok I suppose- I thought it meant elbow room.  A tad ambiguous for me, but heck I am over 50 so I actually speak Old English now I suppose.

The person who wrote it is 25 and just off her mission and getting her degree in journalism.  Awesome dude!  I'm down!

Now we don't fight for freedom, we fight for "space"!  Our soldiers die for space!  Got it!  That's sick dude!

Guess I didn't get the memo, spacey guy that I am.

Edited July 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, they get removed from the intimate society and band together with the forces of the larger virtual society (automatic, system-behaving society) and strengthen them at the expense of the more personally human-behaving societies. It is hyper-elevating the systematic checks-and-balances to the status of the actual humanity they are to protect.

Yes, that is possible, but there are a lot of positives to social media and new technological communications as well.  I can keep in contact with family and friends much easier than in the past, and people can organize efforts in ways never possible before.  I think its too early to accurately critique the impact of these things on society, pro and con, it has changed our ways of interacting in ways never before imagined.  

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

It's nonsense.  This is part of defending against blowback for their positions against the small LGBTQ minority. 

And now the Church is going to make sure that the seminary students learn the new anti-gay policy is a revelation from God.

You know the new Doctrinal Mastery program in seminary everybody is so excited about?

 

Guess what already made it into the manual?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

 

 

If you guessed President Nelson's proclamation that the November anti-gay marriage policy is revelation, you would be correct.

 

 

Quote

“This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation” (“Becoming True Millennials” [Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults, Jan. 10, 2016], broadcasts.lds.org).

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

My browser is messing up.  Trying to get this removed.  Just ignore this --carbon

Edited July 6, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

"Space" as a commodity Is NOT finite nor limited,  it is endless, abundant and inexhaustible...however the space for bigotry, discrimination, injustice and narrow mindedness is shrinking ground...and if this is where the church is standing they may very well feel constrained

Edited July 6, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, that is possible, but there are a lot of positives to social media and new technological communications as well.  I can keep in contact with family and friends much easier than in the past, and people can organize efforts in ways never possible before.  I think its too early to accurately critique the impact of these things on society, pro and con, it has changed our ways of interacting in ways never before imagined.  

My reference to the "virtual society (automatic, system-behaving society)" is not the information, media, social and other technology but that which is run on autopilot through laws and systems at the expense of interpersonal relationships. Technology will aid either type of society, and technology aside, any system that is availed by a series of non-human interfaces can both express and suppress the content and capacity of human-to-human interaction, depending on how it is used. The point at which people allow the law, governments, artificial substitutes and traditions do the speaking for them, they tend to lose the capacity to express as well as listen on a human basis (which is ultimately spiritual, "For man is spirit..."). LDS doctrine is totally dependent on these human-to-human relationships (however aided), whether with God, couples, families, Zion, etc.

I guess I'll edit to reiterate that the article and the "space" link advocate for a system, as the society it serves expands, that facilitates human connectedness, which is the hallmark of spirituality and the highest aim of religion with laws that take the protection of religious freedom into account.

Edited July 6, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

One thing to reconsider in all this: both articles are on Australian media, and the overall communication may be less confusing to Australians.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

You don't believe it's possible to sustain someone in their calling, but reject one of their teachings?  

PS.  I don't necessarily reject the PoF. 

I am not speaking of local local leaders whe seek to proclaim their own words as doctrine, without the approval of the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles. These individuals took the time to write it and sign it. By so doing it ithey declaring it doctrine, and these em are Prophets, Seers and Revealators . So when we raise our hands to sustain them as such, then accepting their knowing and proclaiming as doctrine. "is" doctrine. When we reject it, we no longer believe them and called of God, no longer view them aa, Prophets, Seers and Revealator, and elevate our wisdom superior to there's and to God's. So, no...they are no longer believers and must lie if they want a Temple Ricommend. Being a believer means believing that this Church, believing our Apostles are called by God and it is too them he reveals his word, his will and his wisdom. Also that we "do not become not teaches to ourselves". Rejecting the doctrine we teach, and the leaders whom He (God) calls to teach doctrine, is the first step to apostasy, where Jesus Christ Christ, teaches in 2 Nephi 29-30, warns us that if we reject his words, we will lose all that we had before".(Too Paraphrase) ..btw, not my words, but his. Also in D&C 1: 36-39, makes similar warnings. Also, the scriptures of old, do the same and condemn the same. I only seek to speak the truth, and do not seek to mislead anyone.

Your words..."I don't necessarily reject the PoF". You do or do not, either way you should not be embarrassed by telling the truth. I am not ashamed to tell the truth, without any ambiguity. I believe all of our scriptures, OT, NT, BoM, Pearl of Great Price, and all the doctrines that our Church has felt that it needed to be put into print and signed. I am not ashamed, nor embarssed...not at all. 

[Atheist Mormon]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

This is a horrible explanation/Essay with consequences of self-destruct for a Church which has lost the focus of tolerance......It blows mind that year after year, defeat after defeat of public arena what is going to be gained to pursue this kind of a intolerant path?

So far this ideology lost in every civil arena, starting from Joe vs Wade. abortion issue

Edited July 7, 2016 by Atheist Mormon

[Guest]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think you tried to answer the question, or respond to the OP.  But I'd encourage you to start a new thread if this is what you want to discuss. 

Very well, I will bow out, but no new thread either. But before I go, there is less "space" or "room" for those who practice their Faith. When we do so and express these, "freedom of Religion" becomes restricted as thos who have different views on the subject of SSM, as they are demonized for hold unpopular views on SoCal issues. This is toilet I was making with my comments, one of which asked the questions "can you sustain church leaders, but reject the doctrine taught by them". Niether post, was an attempt to derail or mislead...only to answer you question. So, the thread is yours. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And now the Church is going to make sure that the seminary students learn the new anti-gay policy is a revelation from God.

You know the new Doctrinal Mastery program in seminary everybody is so excited about?

 

Guess what already made it into the manual?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

 

 

If you guessed President Nelson's proclamation that the November anti-gay marriage policy is revelation, you would be correct.

 

 

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Well, I guess it is official. The new fourth mission and biggest obsession of the church is now for all members to give of their time and money to do all they can to take away the civil rights of gay citizens no matter where they are. Hallelujah!!!  We have seen the light.   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   Lets do all we can to deny gay couples their civil rights.  Let's refuse to baptize their children. Let's label all gay couples as apostates  Let's  kick them out of the church wherever we can find them. Let's start brainwashing the youth to think we are doing this all out of love  and compassion And let's tell the youth that all of this aggression towards gay families came from God   

Such a legacy  I am sure Christ is so pleased  

 

 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well, I guess it is official. The new fourth mission and biggest obsession of the church is now for all members to give of their time and money to do all they can to take away the civil rights of gay citizens no matter where they are. Hallelujah!!!  We have seen the light.   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   Lets do all we can to deny gay couples their civil rights.  Let's refuse to baptize their children. Let's label all gay couples as apostates  Let's  kick them out of the church wherever we can find them. Let's start brainwashing the youth to think we are doing this all out of love  and compassion And let's tell the youth that all of this aggression towards gay families came from God   

Such a legacy  I am sure Christ is so pleased  

 

 

Amen.  And now they will teach all this to their posterity.  I mean really..it hurts the LDS kids too.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Jeanne

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Amen.  And now they will teach all this to their posterity.  I mean really..it hurts the LDS kids too.

Oh and I forgot. While the church is busy taking away the civil rights of gay couples, let's claim that WE are under attack for being Christian.  Yeah!!!  We will play the victim.  Do you think anyone will buy into this stuff???  Do you think we can instill enough bigotry and prejudices against their gay friends into the youth through the seminary program?  I mean what will happen if the youth find out that just because you are gay does not mean that you don't want to find companionship and love to share this life with. Do you think we can convince them that their gay friends will be happier if they live a life alone and without love and any hope of companionship?  We have managed to convince many of their parents that the gays are better off alone and without the hope of someone to love or be loved.   You know that priesthood ban thing didn't work out all that well. Eventually people began to see it for what it was  Bigotry and prejudice  by an all white leadership. 

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well, I guess it is official. The new fourth mission and biggest obsession of the church is now for all members to give of their time and money to do all they can to take away the civil rights of gay citizens no matter where they are. Hallelujah!!!  We have seen the light.   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   Lets do all we can to deny gay couples their civil rights.  Let's refuse to baptize their children. Let's label all gay couples as apostates  Let's  kick them out of the church wherever we can find them. Let's start brainwashing the youth to think we are doing this all out of love  and compassion And let's tell the youth that all of this aggression towards gay families came from God   

Such a legacy  I am sure Christ is so pleased

Only to the obsessive and the obsessed is the preservation of freedom mis-characterized as an obsession.

The civil right for ssm is not being taken away; it is being evaluated, discussed and decided upon, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Religious freedoms, on the other hand, which have been constitutionally protected and granted in the USA for example for 200+ years, are being challenged and taken away, in some cases through the extreme and unbalanced imposition of newly defined rights, simply because they facilitate opposition to the granting of such rights in the public square. This approach is misguidedly vengeful, spiteful, and hypocritically destructive to the highest principles of human connectedness, which are spiritual and are expressed through freedom, not rights.

This kind of cartoonish, half-truth rhetoric of a post is exemplary of that.

[Danzo]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If you believe that remaining true to doctrine, is tied to the discriminatory practices you listed above, then yes, I agree.  

There's the rub.

All you have to do is define a religious doctrine as discriminatory, and you can justify any prohibition.

 

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh and I forgot. While the church is busy taking away the civil rights of gay couples, let's claim that WE are under attack for being Christian.  Yeah!!!  We will play the victim.  Do you think anyone will buy into this stuff???  Do you think we can instill enough bigotry and prejudices against their gay friends into the youth through the seminary program?  I mean what will happen if the youth find out that just because you are gay does not mean that you don't want to find companionship and love to share this life with. Do you think we can convince them that their gay friends will be happier if they live a life alone and without love and any hope of companionship?  We have managed to convince many of their parents that the gays are better off alone and without the hope of someone to love or be loved.   You know that priesthood ban thing didn't work out all that well. Eventually people began to see it for what it was  Bigotry and prejudice  by an all white leadership. 

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

I live in a country where same-sex marriage has been legal for over 10 years. On Sunday our prime minister marched in a Pride parade.

The sky hasn't fallen and overall I think it has been a good thing. Certainly I'm glad that my gay and lesbian family members and friends live in a largely tolerant, inclusive society.

But... I do think it's true that people who oppose gay marriage are being pushed to the margins. There is a private Christian university just up the road from me that has been trying to get a new law school started. The law societies of three Canadian provinces voted overwhelmingly to refuse to accredit the law school on the grounds that its "community covenant"—which requires students to pledge to abstain from sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage while attending the university—is discriminatory towards LGBTQ people. Several lawsuits have followed and the case appears to be headed for Canada's supreme court. But so far it doesn't look good for the school.

If a similar thing happened in the US, it would mean that graduates of BYU's J. Reuben Clark law school wouldn't be eligible to practice law in 15 states (including California). All because BYU upholds a religiously based "honor code." I can understand why the Church is worried.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Nevo

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And now the Church is going to make sure that the seminary students learn the new anti-gay policy is a revelation from God.

You know the new Doctrinal Mastery program in seminary everybody is so excited about?

 

Guess what already made it into the manual?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

 

 

If you guessed President Nelson's proclamation that the November anti-gay marriage policy is revelation, you would be correct.

 

 

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

I think you meant, or should have meant, it couldn't get more clear.

[James Tunney]

I think we now know when they are speaking as men. So at least there's that