When belief hurts others

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

This is an example, Tacenda, of why personalizing is a terrible idea. Can you see why?

What are we? Robots?

[stemelbow]

52 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I see where you are coming from, but was there any question as to the Church's position on homsexuality pre-2015?  I guess I view the policy as an expression of that belief that potentially resulted in harm, not the belief itself.  I'm generally not into slippery-slope arguments, but it seems a very slippery-slope to me to say that the mere belief is harmful; we seem to be headed toward attempting to exert a level of control over people and organizations that is quite inappropriate.  

Well aren't some beliefs harmful?  I'd say that's part of the question of this thread.  I'd say the Church's position on SSM is harmful.  Harmful to families and all that.  if so, is it a good idea to hold that position?  Should the Church change it?  If the harm caused is less than the harm that would result if the Church didn't hold a position then the Church might be justified.  If the Church is harming people and families against God's will, as it seems happened back in the pre-lifting the ban days, then what do we do as members?  Sit idly by and hope for change? 

[california boy]

I have never had  a problem having doctrine that states gay marriage is a sin or that acting on homosexuality is a sin.  I don't think that is a rude belief or doctrine.  It is what church leaders believe is right.  They guide the church.  It is their stewardship to declare whatever doctrine they want.

Here is what I do have a big problem with.  When the church attacks the civil rights of others to impose its dogma on others.  I have a problem when church members disrespect the marriage of gay couples.  I have a problem with constantly demeaning someone who is gay and not acknowledging that "gay marriage" is gay marriage.  I have a problem with comparing gays and their marriages with the work of Satan, evil, not authentic, demeaning their children and their families.  It is the constant judgmental attitude that members feel the need to express.  For heavens sake, worry about your own sins.  Let God deal with everyone else.  You are not responsible for my salvation, I am.  And so is every other gay person.  

Gay marriage is legal in this country and countries throughout this world.  (Malta and Germany just approved gay marriage this past week).  It is not your place to constantly harp on how that decision was arrived at.  It is the law.  Not the dissenting opinion.  If you want to change the law, then you have recourse.  Get a constitutional amendment passed.  But otherwise, respect the law as it is now written and allow gay couples their legal right to marry. 

Sometimes members forget that they have every right to have their belief on gay marriage.  The flip side of the coin is that other people have every right to have their belief on gay marriage as well.  Why does it have to be constantly challenged?  Why do Mormons constantly belittle those marriages and those relationships.  Can you imagine if your temple marriage, or should I say "temple marriage" was constantly under attack by those that do not believe in that type of marriage?  Believe me, it would get old  after a while.  

And that my friend is when belief hurts others.  

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Using the phrase, “digging in their heels”, in the Monday morning quarterbacking of 70-year old correspondence, is condemning LDS leadership’s supposed obstinacy against their being told the supposed right thing to do, which comes across as polemic (and in a notably rude way).

They were clearly wrong.  If that's rude, then so be it.  I'm not sure what your point is here. 

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

It is easy to say that the light and knowledge reflected in Church doctrine or policy on a subject translates to tradition and fear. But all we can live by is the light and knowledge we have. If someone feels he has more, all the more reason not to be as boorish (rude by eh way) about it as Brother Lowrey was in imposing his own (apparently heavily socioideologically-informed) doctrine at the expense of the faith of others. I do not think he serves as a good role model, and he may have been "right" in one parochial sense but incredibly wrong in the final analysis, and here is how:

Boorish?  I'd say Brother Lowry was anything but boorish.  It's too bad the leaders did not listen, though. 

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

In His communications to the prophets, the Lord seems to equate the right things to do with their expediency. Do a word search in the scriptures of “expedient” (especially in  D&C) for lots of examples of this, and consider how things might have played out had the “right thing to do” per a conflicting assessment that was made without the delegated keys had been done. Doctrine, strategy, the use of spiritual gifts, the fulfillment of prophecy and more are all covered.

Goodness, usefulness, purpose all play a real role here.  The ban and it's subsequent explanations and doctrines were not useful nor good.  The leaders were way off and it would have done good for them to defer to Bro. Nelson for one. 

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

Well, if you don't believe it, and/or don't dwell on it, the doctrine isn't hurting you even if someone else insists that it is. Doing something with only a casual acknowledgement of the doctrine is indicative that no harm is perceived as coming from the doctrine.

Not sure what you mean.  I've perceived hurt by those who are gay, by the church and it's position.  Families are hurt and people are distraught.  If the Church is wrong about it's position on homosexuality then it's hurting all of us. 

[rpn]

Things of God have rarely been accepted with unanimity by those who hear it.    And plenty of people have rejected or ignored things of God that are taught.  The scriptures even say that the wicked will take the word of God as hard.    The real harm is in stopping teaching the things of God when encountering those who wants them stopped, but without their Author's instructions to stop.   The real harm is in not preserving the plan as He wants it to be.

I suppose that the issue of racial exclusion and the letter the OP quotes should absolutely impress on church leaders the need to fully seek to know God's will and not to be consumed by attention to the way we regularly do things.  And to reconfirm from time to time with Him to assure they are still on the correct path.   But that doesn't mean that the result the OP seeks is inevitable.

The current official position is that we do not know what causes same sex attraction.   I presume most church members would even agree that the cause might not be the same for all.   And the doctrinal question isn't whether same gender attraction is inherent anyway: but rather whether it was part of spiritual identity and intended to be nurtured and encouraged and replicated in the mortal realm, whether or not it is inherent in the bodies of those who experience it.   

The only thing we now know is that for the first 2000 years of Christianity, it was not considered normal or encouraged, and neither was it in the previous 5K years of God's covenant people that preceded Christianity after Christ.  

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It depends on how he expresses himself and how he is heard, just like someone saying #1 to #2. Empathy for the human condition serves as an ideal baseline in sharing strongly-held beliefs, especially/even when they are in apparent opposition.

I think tone and empathy are really important elements in discussions like this and its part of our overarching social contract.  It is based on shared values at some level.  That many people find traditions about same sex relationships to be unfair is similar to other re-evaluations of all kinds of things throughout the history of society and culture.  One of the challenges of our modern western society is living in a multicultural world, where we don't always agree, and where debate and compromise are needed to determine shared values.  

What seems clear to me is that tide has turned on the same sex marriage debate, and the majority of our society here in the USA, are more tolerant and sensitive to the LGBT community.  While the church is on the conservative side of things, they are integrated into society so deeply that even being on the conservative side of this spectrum, they are moving towards more tolerance, just a few steps behind more progressive groups.  So its really only a matter of time and degree as the church is currently moderating its positions, in fits and starts (the Nov 2015 policy an example of a step back).  

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Stemmel, 

I just disagree on using the term "rude" to describe blunt, direct language.  Simply because a person gets their feelings hurt has nothing to do with being rude - it is only a terminology issue for me.  I don't have a problem accepting that someone gets their feelings hurt - but it is not due to rudeness in this instance.

Gotcha.  Fair.

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I agree with you on the racial issue.  I think the Brethren can be wrong and have been wrong in the past.  However, just because you, me, or the Brethren have been wrong in the past does not equate to being wrong all the time.  

Fair again. 

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you have to really, REALLY stretch to conclude the scriptures do not condemn gay behavior.  What makes you think our society is so much more enlightened simply because we have accepted it as normal?  By what standard does that indicate it is actually acceptable?  Why are they right and all of history be wrong?  What changed to make it right?

Well you have to really stretch to get much consistency or definition from scripture at all.  So....I'm not sure we need it to be our standard on these things. 

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, I am no savior and I have never claimed to be, but I do know sin.  I know the guilt one has from all sin.  Please, don't try and tell me that gay behavior or any other sinful behavior is not sin.  

 

If you know it, then you have nothing to worry about.  How you know it, I guess I'll never know.  "Gay Behavior" is many things.  It includes all the things any straight person does.  So I'm not sure I can ever say anyone does not sin.  We all do.  But that also does not mean I have to accept that gay marriage is a particularly grievous kind of sin, or an abomination, if you will.  Someday I think the Church will change it's tune.  until then, you know what you know, and what some of the rest of us will never know.  And, and when changes come you'll either have to renounce you knew or stick to your guns, I guess. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, rpn said:

Things of God have rarely been accepted with unanimity by those who hear it.    And plenty of people have rejected or ignored things of God that are taught.  The scriptures even say that the wicked will take the word of God as hard.    The real harm is in stopping teaching the things of God when encountering those who wants them stopped, but without their Author's instructions to stop.   The real harm is in not preserving the plan as He wants it to be.

I suppose that the issue of racial exclusion and the letter the OP quotes should absolutely impress on church leaders the need to fully seek to know God's will and not to be consumed by attention to the way we regularly do things.  And to reconfirm from time to time with Him to assure they are still on the correct path.   But that doesn't mean that the result the OP seeks is inevitable.

The current official position is that we do not know what causes same sex attraction.   I presume most church members would even agree that the cause might not be the same for all.   And the doctrinal question isn't whether same gender attraction is inherent anyway: but rather whether it was part of spiritual identity and intended to be nurtured and encouraged and replicated in the mortal realm, whether or not it is inherent in the bodies of those who experience it.   

The only thing we now know is that for the first 2000 years of Christianity, it was not considered normal or encouraged, and neither was it in the previous 5K years of God's covenant people that preceded Christianity after Christ.  

I think one point raised in the OP is that the explanation you offered is exactly the explanation offered pre-priesthood ban lifting by the Church regarding its policy then.  We need more than tradition and guesswork when it comes to this stuff.  We all see through a glass darkly.  We don't see clearly, in spite of what some here intent on telling me.  I just don't buy it.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Shall we tolerate hurtful doctrine in the name of digging in heels lest we come off as not knowing all?

If a doctrine is true, it does not matter whether it his hurtful.  The wicked take the truth to be hard and it cuts them to the center.  If we worry more about how people react than the truth, we will deceiving ourselves thinking we are helping people as regardless of the sin, the wicked will take correction to be hard and hurtful.   The scriptures declare that God can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and that no unclean thing can enter into God's presence.  We can and should allow people to have their agency to make choices but we can't endorse, support, sustain wickedness and we can't do it in the name of being kind to someone.  If our actions even give a remote hint that ones actions are ok, we will find out at judgement that they are not.  We will not want to stand and watch the Lord judge these people who we pacified.  Societies views and attitudes may change and think its wonderful and great.  None of them will think that way when the Lord acts on this.  He is going to be extremely serious on this stuff.  If we had even a small sample today we would even now shake at the seriousness of judgement. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

If a doctrine is true, it does not matter whether it his hurtful.  The wicked take the truth to be hard and it cuts them to the center.  If we worry more about how people react than the truth, we will deceiving ourselves thinking we are helping people as regardless of the sin, the wicked will take correction to be hard and hurtful.   The scriptures declare that God can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and that no unclean thing can enter into God's presence.  We can and should allow people to have their agency to make choices but we can't endorse, support, sustain wickedness and we can't do it in the name of being kind to someone.  If our actions even give a remote hint that ones actions are ok, we will find out at judgement that they are not.  We will not want to stand and watch the Lord judge these people who we pacified.  Societies views and attitudes may change and think its wonderful and great.  None of them will think that way when the Lord acts on this.  He is going to be extremely serious on this stuff.  If we had even a small sample today we would even now shake at the seriousness of judgement. 

The problem is, of course, if it's not true, and we think it's true, then I suppose we're the wicked who take the truth to be hard.  That's what happened in the case outlined in the OP regarding race.  Whose to say there's no room for the same on this issue? 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Males seem to have a genetic predisposition to inseminate as many females as possible. That is no excuse for human males doing so.

It is these kinds of statements that I am so tired of.  (not picking on you, these comments appear in every single gay thread.)

Has ANYONE ever said that they have no control over who they choose to have sex with?  Ever?  Why do we constantly harp on this.  How many threads do we start about straight people having sex.  Most gay people choose to have sex with those that they are attracted to.  In making that choice, most leave the church because they do not believe the church's position is in line with their own personal beliefs about the teachings of Christ.  

Some choose to live a life of celibacy because they believe that the church's teachings are in line with the teachings of Christ. It is not anyone's duty to make a judgement on the choices they have made.  You only have a right to judge your own life and the choices you have made concerning who you have sex with.  

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, rpn said:

Things of God have rarely been accepted with unanimity by those who hear it.    And plenty of people have rejected or ignored things of God that are taught.  The scriptures even say that the wicked will take the word of God as hard.    The real harm is in stopping teaching the things of God when encountering those who wants them stopped, but without their Author's instructions to stop.   The real harm is in not preserving the plan as He wants it to be.

I suppose that the issue of racial exclusion and the letter the OP quotes should absolutely impress on church leaders the need to fully seek to know God's will and not to be consumed by attention to the way we regularly do things.  And to reconfirm from time to time with Him to assure they are still on the correct path.   But that doesn't mean that the result the OP seeks is inevitable.

The current official position is that we do not know what causes same sex attraction.   I presume most church members would even agree that the cause might not be the same for all.   And the doctrinal question isn't whether same gender attraction is inherent anyway: but rather whether it was part of spiritual identity and intended to be nurtured and encouraged and replicated in the mortal realm, whether or not it is inherent in the bodies of those who experience it.   

The only thing we now know is that for the first 2000 years of Christianity, it was not considered normal or encouraged, and neither was it in the previous 5K years of God's covenant people that preceded Christianity after Christ.  

If all of the teachings in the Old Testament were correct, why was that law done away with?  If Christians had all of the teachings of Christ correct for the past 2000 years, what was the point of the restoration?  

You may hold your belief, but you can see why others might not.  Should you condemn them for their beliefs or should they condemn you for your beliefs?  Or one more option.  Believe what you want.  Respect the right of others to do the same.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

They were clearly wrong.  If that's rude, then so be it.  I'm not sure what your point is here. 

Boorish?  I'd say Brother Lowry was anything but boorish.  It's too bad the leaders did not listen, though. 

Goodness, usefulness, purpose all play a real role here.  The ban and it's subsequent explanations and doctrines were not useful nor good.  The leaders were way off and it would have done good for them to defer to Bro. Nelson for one. 

Not sure what you mean.  I've perceived hurt by those who are gay, by the church and it's position.  Families are hurt and people are distraught.  If the Church is wrong about it's position on homosexuality then it's hurting all of us. 

I've said (read: had!) enough about the Monday-morning quarterbacking, especially without any substantial justification.

When it comes to religious tenets, my attitude is, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me.” Being hurt by them is only a matter of perspective and emotional health, and only the offended and his closest associates can ameliorate that. Expecting a religion to change its tenets misses the bigger, healthier picture of what is best for oneself and society (I’m referring to the freedom of religious conscience and expression, which is the most fundamental of all other forms of expression).

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think tone and empathy are really important elements in discussions like this and its part of our overarching social contract.  It is based on shared values at some level.  That many people find traditions about same sex relationships to be unfair is similar to other re-evaluations of all kinds of things throughout the history of society and culture.  One of the challenges of our modern western society is living in a multicultural world, where we don't always agree, and where debate and compromise are needed to determine shared values.  

What seems clear to me is that tide has turned on the same sex marriage debate, and the majority of our society here in the USA, are more tolerant and sensitive to the LGBT community.  While the church is on the conservative side of things, they are integrated into society so deeply that even being on the conservative side of this spectrum, they are moving towards more tolerance, just a few steps behind more progressive groups.  So its really only a matter of time and degree as the church is currently moderating its positions, in fits and starts (the Nov 2015 policy an example of a step back).  

The LDS doctrines certainly aid individuals in developing empathy, appreciating and navigating societal and cultural change and diversity, and participating in debate and compromise without weakening faith in the fundamental covenants and standards, and in recognizing those elements and forces that undermine their religious expression.

On a community level, we see the conflation of the desirable attributes of tolerance and sensitivity with such motives as acceptance, compromise, espousal and championing. Leveraging this conflation to undermine individual and community religious expression reflects a gross miscomprehension at best and an equally gross unscrupulousness at worst. I see LDS doctrines helping people avoid this conflation.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well aren't some beliefs harmful?  I'd say that's part of the question of this thread.  I'd say the Church's position on SSM is harmful.  Harmful to families and all that.  if so, is it a good idea to hold that position?  Should the Church change it?  If the harm caused is less than the harm that would result if the Church didn't hold a position then the Church might be justified.  If the Church is harming people and families against God's will, as it seems happened back in the pre-lifting the ban days, then what do we do as members?  Sit idly by and hope for change? 

Well, that's a different thing altogether.  If you, as a member of the Church, believe there is an injustice in place and wish to agitate for change, that is certainly something you can do.  Don't be surprised, however, if the Church rejects that kind of conduct...strongly.  However, if an outsider to the Church (or any organization) is claiming a belief is harmful when there is no action directly harmful to that person (primarily because they aren't a member of the group), then I have a real problem with any effort by the outsider to force change by the organization.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If a doctrine is true, it does not matter whether it his hurtful.  The wicked take the truth to be hard and it cuts them to the center.

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The problem is, of course, if it's not true, and we think it's true, then I suppose we're the wicked who take the truth to be hard.  That's what happened in the case outlined in the OP regarding race.  Whose to say there's no room for the same on this issue?

 

And we are back to faith.
What do we believe to be true?
Expecting people to agree on matters of faith is foolish.  Those who are convinced God considers homosexuality to be a sin and not the natural order cannot and should not accept homosexuality.  Those who are convinced that homosexuality is natural and good and that God hasn't spoken on the issue have no reason to accept current Church teachings on the subject.

But telling each that they are wrong and you are right seems to achieve little.
In my opinion the doctrines are clear.  Others don't agree.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

You believe homosexuality is inborn and immutable. Otherwise this incessant appeal to the priesthood ban's lifting by G-d would be groundless.

..........................

Homosexual desire may be partly or hugely an inborn (genetic) or acquired trait (whether acquired in the womb or later as a result of molestation), and not really a matter of choice.  To that degree it is not a sin to have such a desire.  The LDS Church and Orthodox Judaism consider active homosexual behavior to be sinful, and one must refrain regardless of temptation.  However, in a pluralistic society such as ours, it is clearly an option to pursue active homosexual relations if one so desires.  And we should all respect those choices.  The same applies to active heterosexual activity with or without a wife or wives (plural marriage).  These should be legal choices.  That does not mean that any and every lifestyle one pursues should become approved by the LDS Church or other religious organizations -- that is their choice in a pluralistic society, and should be respected by those outside the pale.  Intolerant demands are often made without considering that we do have rights to be different, and to have our own opinions.  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as my Mother used to say.

If Joseph Smith and his Brethren had not already been ordaining Black men, someone might have a leg to stand on in claiming that the priesthood ban was of God, but we have no such indication that the ban was doctrinal.  It was a policy which became embedded among men who just didn't know any better, and something they began to believe (in their ignorance) was of God.  That they were historically mistaken was not immediately apparent to them (they were not historians and were poorly informed), and that mistake had to be repaired.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

On a community level, we see the conflation of the desirable attributes of tolerance and sensitivity with such motives as acceptance, compromise, espousal and championing. Leveraging this conflation to undermine individual and community religious expression reflects a gross miscomprehension at best and an equally gross unscrupulousness at worst. I see LDS doctrines helping people avoid this conflation.

I've heard this argument before, and i don't think LDS doctrine does a good job at all with respect to getting people to use the tools of critical thinking to examine values and balance the needs of others and be sensitive to those needs while holding true to an underlying principle.  I think LDS doctrine is very poor at this because of its emphasis on authoritarianism, and the concepts eternal and unchanging universal truths that it then defines as specific decrees that are interpreted at a particular time and place.  Also its lack of honest reflection of history is a major disadvantage to the cultural doctrines of Mormonism, although some of that is thankfully getting better, its still woefully behind where it could be.  

Also, I somewhat reject the premise that there is a conflation that needs to be avoided.  

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Homosexual desire may be partly or hugely an inborn (genetic) or acquired trait (whether acquired in the womb or later as a result of molestation), and not really a matter of choice.  To that degree it is not a sin to have such a desire.  The LDS Church and Orthodox Judaism consider active homosexual behavior to be sinful, and one must refrain regardless of temptation.  However, in a pluralistic society such as ours, it is clearly an option to pursue active homosexual relations if one so desires.  And we should all respect those choices.  The same applies to active heterosexual activity with or without a wife or wives (plural marriage).  These should be legal choices.  That does not mean that any and every lifestyle one pursues should become approved by the LDS Church or other religious organizations -- that is their choice in a pluralistic society, and should be respected by those outside the pale.  Intolerant demands are often made without considering that we do have rights to be different, and to have our own opinions.  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as my Mother used to say.

If Joseph Smith and his Brethren had not already been ordaining Black men, someone might have a leg to stand on in claiming that the priesthood ban was of God, but we have no such indication that the ban was doctrinal.  It was a policy which became embedded among men who just didn't know any better, and something they began to believe (in their ignorance) was of God.  That they were historically mistaken was not immediately apparent to them (they were not historians and were poorly informed), and that mistake had to be repaired.

That various forms of marriage should be legal choices is a matter of public debate, which in the USA has been decided with the participation of the religious voice that for generations enjoyed both constitutional (as in D&C 101) and popular support in influencing marriage codes.

Recent strategies and tactics on related fronts have betrayed a tendency to treat the notion of religious protection with contempt, and less formally among some LDS, to rail against marriage doctrine on the basis of viewing the lifting of the priesthood ban through a narrow social lens.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've heard this argument before, and i don't think LDS doctrine does a good job at all with respect to getting people to use the tools of critical thinking to examine values and balance the needs of others and be sensitive to those needs while holding true to an underlying principle.  I think LDS doctrine is very poor at this because of its emphasis on authoritarianism, and the concepts eternal and unchanging universal truths that it then defines as specific decrees that are interpreted at a particular time and place.  Also its lack of honest reflection of history is a major disadvantage to the cultural doctrines of Mormonism, although some of that is thankfully getting better, its still woefully behind where it could be.  

Also, I somewhat reject the premise that there is a conflation that needs to be avoided.  

Religion and other institutions introduce a number of valid tools in addition to critical thinking alone (and it's not all it's cracked up to be, being so dependent on the thinker and all) to successfully bring about the benefits I listed; you use them yourself in such subjective processes as determining what constitutes an "honest reflection" and in rejecting the premise that the conflation I described needs to be avoided.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

I guess I have to take some exception to the idea stated in the thread title.  I question the likelihood that the mere harboring of a belief is harmful to others.  However, the expression of that belief can be quite harmful.  So, the belief that acting on homosexual feelings is sinful is not, by itself, harmful to others because it can simply be ignored.  If I am a missionary teaching a genuinely interested investigator who is gay that this is the position of the Church, I would consider that appropriate (if properly presented, of course).  If, however, I am in the habit of seeking out every opportunity to declare to any and all that acting on homosexual feelings is an abomination, I've probably crossed the line into harmful territory.  Taken to its extreme, we get the Westboro Baptist Church.

This post seems reasonable, and I might have repped it save for the wariness that the devil might be in the details ( a time-worn figure of speech; please don't take it literally). 

I would never go on a gay-rights oriented message board to denounce the gay lifestyle. 

In fact this is the only message board I post on, and thus any comments from me on gay lifestyle have been by way of defending the Church or its teachings. Yet I have been sharply criticized for it as recently as today on two threads (that I know about). 

So my stance is defensive, not aggressive. Yet that doesn't make me exempt from the brickbats. 

Edited to add: The statement from Elder Christoffersen that stemelbow seems to think is so dastardly was by way of answering inquiries from external news media. So it wasn't aggressive either. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This post seems reasonable, and I might have repped it save for the wariness that the devil might be in the details ( a time-worn figure of speech; please don't take it literally). 

I would never go on a gay-rights oriented message board to denounce the gay lifestyle. 

In fact this is the only message board I post on, and thus any comments from me on gay lifestyle have been by way of defending the Church or its teachings. Yet I have been sharply criticized for it as recently as today on two threads (that I know about). 

So my stance is defensive, not aggressive. Yet that doesn't make me exempt from the brickbats. 

I hear you.  I guess my one comment would be that it's one thing to repeat the Church's official position.  It's another to intentionally use inflammatory language to denounce another's sin (not saying you're guilty of that; just clarifying my position).

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The problem is, of course, if it's not true, and we think it's true, then I suppose we're the wicked who take the truth to be hard.  That's what happened in the case outlined in the OP regarding race.  Whose to say there's no room for the same on this issue? 

There is a major difference between the priesthood ban and the SSM issue. The ban was correct until 1978 when it was rescinded by revelation. It was not a question of moral or immoral actions. Homosexual acts have been considered immoral because of the Biblical references and modern day revelation has reaffirmed it. Based upon that, as a member of the LDS church, believing and teaching that such is not the case is more harmful than the teachings against homosexual acts. Whatever the motivation, teaching false doctrine will only serve to keep many on a path that will not lead to exaltation.

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I hear you.  I guess my one comment would be that it's one thing to repeat the Church's official position.  It's another to intentionally use inflammatory language to denounce another's sin (not saying you're guilty of that; just clarifying my position).

Take a gander at the OP. I see inflammatory language as well as brickbats. Here on a Mormon discussion board.

What of that?

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Take a gander at the OP. I see inflammatory language as well as brickbats. Here on a Mormon discussion board.

What of that?

Have I not already, respectfully, expressed my disagreement?

[rpn]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

You may hold your belief, but you can see why others might not.  Should you condemn them for their beliefs or should they condemn you for your beliefs?  Or one more option.  Believe what you want.  Respect the right of others to do the same.

I have never done otherwise. 

Quote

I think one point raised in the OP is that the explanation you offered is exactly the explanation offered pre-priesthood ban lifting by the Church regarding its policy then.  We need more than tradition and guesswork when it comes to this stuff.  We all see through a glass darkly.  We don't see clearly, in spite of what some here intent on telling me.  I just don't buy it.

You don't have to buy it.  You are entitled to seek and obtain your own personal confirmation if you are willing to be open to it, and wait on the Lord for His timing.   FTR, in my view there is a huge difference in the racial issue and the same gender attraction one which implicates the way God has determined to make eternal families.