Teancum Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: More like not allowing them to be taught to hate their parents, in my opinion. Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents were sinners is beyond me. I grew up in a home where my parents were not active. My parents broke the WoW. They sent me to church. I was taught they were sinners because of tobacco and alcohol use, that my father was not valiant because he did not hold the higher priesthood in the church. The fact that I went to church alone and that we never did anything I heard that active members did like pray as a family, have family scripture study, have FHE made me feel like I was in a family that was less than idea. We allow children of parents not wed to be baptized as well. Seems like we have all sorts of kids coming to church whose parents are sinners ( we are all sinners anyway are we not?). Additionally the child of gay parents can come to church. They just cannot be baptized, ordained to the priesthood or serve a mission. As an adult they have to repudiate their parents life style to advance in the church. This really is not about what you state above. It is for the active members. It is so the marriage of gay people does not become acceptable to Church members. Automatic discipline of gay couples who marry and prohibiting their children from baptism and advancing in the Church sends a strong message. 3
6EQUJ5 Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 6 hours ago, rockpond said: How do you think your story would have turned out had your bishop told you that you couldn't be baptized? Would you have kept attending? How about when you turned 12 and the bishop said that you couldn't receive the priesthood or pass the sacrament with the other boys your age? Would you have kept attending? Would your step-dad have been baptized? Rock -- good questions. Obviously I don't know if I would have kept attending. Probably given that the primary leaders were pretty good about making sure I could get to Church etc... Not sure how much it would have bothered me about priesthood ordination. I didn't develop a testimony until later in life so maybe I wouldn't have cared. My step dad? Who knows. He's inactive again and has returned to some old habits. I suspect he was baptized mostly to make my mom happy.
6EQUJ5 Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 6 hours ago, rockpond said: How do you think your story would have turned out had your bishop told you that you couldn't be baptized? Would you have kept attending? How about when you turned 12 and the bishop said that you couldn't receive the priesthood or pass the sacrament with the other boys your age? Would you have kept attending? Would your step-dad have been baptized? Rock -- good questions. Obviously I don't know if I would have kept attending. Probably given that the primary leaders were pretty good about making sure I could get to Church etc... Not sure how much it would have bothered me about priesthood ordination. I didn't develop a testimony until later in life so maybe I wouldn't have cared. My step dad? Who knows. He's inactive again and has returned to some old habits. I suspect he was baptized mostly to make my mom happy.
rockpond Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: This really is not about what you state above. It is for the active members. It is so the marriage of gay people does not become acceptable to Church members. I think the reason for the policy could be as you state here. Or... It could be simply to protect the Church from tort lawsuits. I tend to believe the latter because of the way the policy was written. I think the former may have been an incidental outcome that some of the Brethren agreed with but wasn't the goal given the way the policy was initially published. 3
cinepro Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 14 minutes ago, Teancum said: This really is not about what you state above. It is for the active members. It is so the marriage of gay people does not become acceptable to Church members. Automatic discipline of gay couples who marry and prohibiting their children from baptism and advancing in the Church sends a strong message. This is an interesting observation. It reminds me of the line in Ben-Hur (1959) "How do you fight an idea?" Perhaps that is what the Church is dealing with. It needs to fight the idea that maybe SSM is okay. 1
Popular Post california boy Posted September 8, 2016 Popular Post Posted September 8, 2016 I am a bit confused about what the church wants me to do with my children. I have always encouraged my children to attend the LDS church. Was that wrong of me??? While I think the church is a pretty toxic place for someone who is gay, I see many good things that the church offers to children that are not gay. My children are all straight. I always thought that the church would be a good place for my children to learn the gospel and become better people. Was I wrong in encouraging them to be involved with the church simply because of the toxic environment the church has created against gay couples? Since I am gay, does the church wish that I stop supporting my children's desire to attend the LDS church because they might hear that their father is gay and has a partner and is sinning? Was allowing my children to be baptized into the church something that I should have fought as hard against as the church now does and absolutely forbid it until they are 18 and are ready to confess that their father is an apostate and his relationship with his partner is evil? And what if they see the love and positive relationship I have with my partner even after they are 18? Should I start immediately in discouraging any of my children from attending the Mormon church even if they are over 18. After all, I am still their father and they still love, respect and listen to what I have to say. 6
ALarson Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 Just now, cinepro said: This is an interesting observation. It reminds me of the line in Ben-Hur (1959) "How do you fight an idea?" Perhaps that is what the Church is dealing with. It needs to fight the idea that maybe SSM is okay. I think they will loose that fight with this next generation. From what I've seen in our ward, the youth are much more accepting of their gay friends and of gay marriage too. I think this is why there was push back with the inclusion of a discussion on the new policy/revelation in the seminary manual. 1
california boy Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 32 minutes ago, Teancum said: I grew up in a home where my parents were not active. My parents broke the WoW. They sent me to church. I was taught they were sinners because of tobacco and alcohol use, that my father was not valiant because he did not hold the higher priesthood in the church. The fact that I went to church alone and that we never did anything I heard that active members did like pray as a family, have family scripture study, have FHE made me feel like I was in a family that was less than idea. We allow children of parents not wed to be baptized as well. Seems like we have all sorts of kids coming to church whose parents are sinners ( we are all sinners anyway are we not?). Additionally the child of gay parents can come to church. They just cannot be baptized, ordained to the priesthood or serve a mission. As an adult they have to repudiate their parents life style to advance in the church. This really is not about what you state above. It is for the active members. It is so the marriage of gay people does not become acceptable to Church members. Automatic discipline of gay couples who marry and prohibiting their children from baptism and advancing in the Church sends a strong message. You should have never been allowed to be baptized before you were 18 or until your parents repented and stopped sinning. That is now the church criteria on whose children they will allow to be baptized. The same rational for why this policy was put in place applies to any child who sees their parents breaking the commandments and not repenting. The church has taken that decision out of the hands of the parents and now makes that decision for them. Obviously some parents were making the wrong decision and leaving the desire to be baptized up to the individual. Oh wait, that only applies if the sin is your parents are gay. Never mind. It is only gay couples that are incapable of deciding what is best for their children. 4
rockpond Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 19 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think they will loose that fight with this next generation. From what I've seen in our ward, the youth are much more accepting of their gay friends and of gay marriage too. I think this is why there was push back with the inclusion of a discussion on the new policy/revelation in the seminary manual. Fortunately they are winning with the next generation in terms of teaching love, acceptance, and inclusion. 2
JLHPROF Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 21 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think they will loose that fight with this next generation. Just now, rockpond said: Fortunately they are winning with the next generation I think so too. And the repercussions will be fascinating to watch. God's judgment cannot be held back forever.
Jeanne Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 23 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think they will loose that fight with this next generation. From what I've seen in our ward, the youth are much more accepting of their gay friends and of gay marriage too. I think this is why there was push back with the inclusion of a discussion on the new policy/revelation in the seminary manual. I agree with this. The thing is..it seems like no matter what they do..something is going to backfire. These teens are not stupid...they have an internet and can read between the lines. IMO it would be good if they just get rid of the policy; but ..if they don't, don't try and pull the wool over these kid's eyes..they will lose them big time. How about just being uprfront, honest..and admit this thing was big mistake from start to finish. t is okay to be wrong..when you gain respect for telling the truth. 1
rockpond Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I think so too. And the repercussions will be fascinating to watch. God's judgment cannot be held back forever. I think God will give the church leaders time to correct things like the policy and past missteps with respect to teachings on homosexuality. That seems to be the way He operates. There will be revelations and official declarations, clarifications and disavowals and before you know it... that love and inclusion that the younger generation has more readily demonstrated will again become what we believed all along. 1
ALarson Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Fortunately they are winning with the next generation in terms of teaching love, acceptance, and inclusion. True. And, I also know of many adults who are not happy about this new policy. So, it's not just the next generation who are becoming more accepting. 1
SteveO Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 19 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think they will loose that fight with this next generation. From what I've seen in our ward, the youth are much more accepting of their gay friends and of gay marriage too. I think this is why there was push back with the inclusion of a discussion on the new policy/revelation in the seminary manual. I think you confuse "acceptance" with "tolerating". I tolerate people doing what they want in most situations I personally see as morally wrong. But, if you are correct, then the policy probably is more a way of shooting down any possibility of SSM being introduced into the church. And that's really what people are angry over.
ALarson Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, SteveO said: I think you confuse "acceptance" with "tolerating". I tolerate people doing what they want in most situations I personally see as morally wrong. No, I'm not confused. There is acceptance and love from most of the youth I've heard discuss this topic. Some of their best friends are gay.
SteveO Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: No, I'm not confused. There is acceptance and love from most of the youth I've heard discuss this topic. Some of their best friends are gay. Interesting. So if I don't accept homosexuality, I'm incapable of loving anyone with SSA?
JLHPROF Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, rockpond said: I think God will give the church leaders time to correct things like the policy and past missteps with respect to teachings on homosexuality. That seems to be the way He operates. There will be revelations and official declarations, clarifications and disavowals and before you know it... that love and inclusion that the younger generation has more readily demonstrated will again become what we believed all along. Almost. "I think God will allow the church members to influence doctrinal teachings on homosexuality. That seems to be the way He operates. There will be claims of inspiration and official declarations, clarifications and disavowals and before you know it... that socially liberal viewpoint the younger generation has more readily demonstrated will again become what we believed all along." And then cometh the judgment and setting in order back to God's standard.
ALarson Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, SteveO said: Interesting. So if I don't accept homosexuality, I'm incapable of loving anyone with SSA? That's not at all what I stated.
SteveO Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: That's not at all what I stated. Then you'll agree that the church and its membership can love someone with SSA and not accept homosexuality?
JLHPROF Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 Just now, SteveO said: Then you'll agree that the church and its membership can love someone with SSA and not accept homosexuality? It's that misapplication of the word "love" that gets us every time. 1
SteveO Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's that misapplication of the word "love" that gets us every time. Well apparently we're no better than the Westboro Baptist Church with regards to this issue.
rockpond Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Almost. "I think God will allow the church members to influence doctrinal teachings on homosexuality. That seems to be the way He operates. There will be claims of inspiration and official declarations, clarifications and disavowals and before you know it... that socially liberal viewpoint the younger generation has more readily demonstrated will again become what we believed all along." And then cometh the judgment and setting in order back to God's standard. Except that the history of the church aligns more with the way I wrote it than the way you modified it.
rockpond Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 20 minutes ago, SteveO said: Interesting. So if I don't accept homosexuality, I'm incapable of loving anyone with SSA? I'm curious... how likely is it that a gay person would feel loved by you when you told them that you "don't accept" a key part of who they are.
JLHPROF Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Except that the history of the church aligns more with the way I wrote it than the way you modified it. Not really. Maybe the "official history". Edited September 8, 2016 by JLHPROF
SteveO Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm curious... how likely is it that a gay person would feel loved by you when you told them that you "don't accept" a key part of who they are. See, one of the big annoyances I have with this issue is that people like you reduce people's identity--or a "key part of it"--to their sexual orientation. I have a cousin, who I've mentioned elsewhere has a sexual attraction to children. He's never married and will most likely never be. No, I am not equating homosexuality between two consenting adults to that of pedophillia. I am comparing the fact that acting out on either sexual attraction is prohibited by the church. I accept my cousin for who he is. Having that sexual attraction doesn't make him less of a person to me nor should it to anyone else. We are who we are. Were he to act on his sexual attraction--that would be something I would not accept, nor would I have any obligation to. I LOVE my cousin, because he is a Child of God. Because he is my brother in the church. Because those ARE key parts of who he is. I sincerely doubt my cousin would describe his sexuality as a key part of who he is. I reject that I am incapable of loving others with SSA because I do not accept the lifestyle. 1
Recommended Posts