cinepro Posted March 20, 2019 Author Posted March 20, 2019 2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: I have a 25 year bet with an atheist anarchist facebook arguing buddy. He figures that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality will force the humans running the church to claim to have a revelation making it ok to do same-sex sealings in the temple. It is, from his perspective, the only way an evil religious institution such as ours will be able to maintain power. I, of course, figure the church is what it claims to be, led by my Lord and Savior via prophets who believe the stuff they say about how the family is central to God's plan, and other stuff in the Proclomation on the Family. So we have a bet. In 25 years, if the church does not allow same-sex sealings, he must put on a pink tutu and sing I'm a little Teapot. If that is a thing, then I have to wear the tutu. The bet is fixed, and I don't think it has dawned on him yet. If he's right, and I wake up in 25 years and find myself in a church that does same-sex sealings in the temple, me wearing a pink tutu won't be that big of a thing. Since not even non-LDS heterosexual couples can be sealed in the Temple, I suspect you both may have staked out territory on the far end of what is likely (or possible). I agree with you that it is extremely difficult to imagine a future where the Church doesn't view homosexual activities as a sin, or that a family with homosexual parents is viewed as acceptable. But I agree with your friend that the social pressure on this (including the pressure from within the Church) could become intense in the coming years. I don't see any way to resolve the problem, which is one of the reasons I find it so fascinating. 1
california boy Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 7 hours ago, Teancum said: I am so sorry that you had to endure this with your family. But I understand the other side as well. Had I been in this situation 10 years ago I may have been the same as your family. No not so much. Anyway I just want to acknowledge that this must have been horrible for you. sounds like you have reconciled now but the journey must have been incredibly hard. It was incredibly difficult. But, like you, I also understand the other side. I often thought about how difficult it was for me to accept being gay. I spent years praying to God to make me straight. So why would they easily understand what I was going through. I believe they thought they were doing what God wanted them to do. After my excommunication, one of the members of the high counsel contacted me and asked if I would be willing to meet with him. He was one of the few on the high counsel that I didn't know. We met for lunch. He told me that his brother was gay and had come out 25 prior to our lunch. His family also abandoned him until just recently. He regretted that his family hadn't handled the situation very well. So I guess I should be happy it was only 13 years. The importance of this conference talk is that members take their que from what church leaders tell them. 3
LoudmouthMormon Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, cinepro said: Since not even non-LDS heterosexual couples can be sealed in the Temple, I suspect you both may have staked out territory on the far end of what is likely (or possible). The bet is that LDS gay couples will be sealed in the temple. Quite a cultural shift. My anarchist/atheist buddy figures it's inevitable given cultural trends and an organization's need to grow. I figure if the Catholic church can be against birth control across the decades and cultures, we can keep our boundaries with the notion that God wants his children to engage in boy-girl marriage only. Edited March 20, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon
cinepro Posted March 20, 2019 Author Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said: The bet is that LDS gay couples will be sealed in the temple. Quite a cultural shift. My anarchist/atheist buddy figures it's inevitable given cultural trends and an organization's need to grow. I figure if the Catholic church can be against birth control across the decades and cultures, we can keep our boundaries with the notion that God wants his children to engage in boy-girl marriage only. I think the Catholic Church and birth control is more like Mormons and R-rated movies, not Mormons and homosexuality. 1
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: The bet is that LDS gay couples will be sealed in the temple. Quite a cultural shift. My anarchist/atheist buddy figures it's inevitable given cultural trends and an organization's need to grow. I figure if the Catholic church can be against birth control across the decades and cultures, we can keep our boundaries with the notion that God wants his children to engage in boy-girl marriage only. Look at the activity rates of the Catholics, it seems the members don't care to even attend. Will that happen to the LDS possibly? On the chart LDS are the most active.
carbon dioxide Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: The bet is that LDS gay couples will be sealed in the temple. Quite a cultural shift. My anarchist/atheist buddy figures it's inevitable given cultural trends and an organization's need to grow. I figure if the Catholic church can be against birth control across the decades and cultures, we can keep our boundaries with the notion that God wants his children to engage in boy-girl marriage only. Not only that but one can see with the Methodists how this has played out. If the Church wanted to cut its membership by over 50% in one year, having gay couples sealed in the temple would do it. 1
kllindley Posted March 21, 2019 Posted March 21, 2019 On 3/19/2019 at 9:30 AM, stemelbow said: As long as this temple worker clarifies to his son that he can't stay long, or expect to have his "friend" spend the night at their house. As long as the Temple worker clarifies that by allowing the son to attend family things with his "friend" it is in no way an endorsement of the son's actions, then I suppose he's right in line with what the inspired church leaders would tell him. Right? Or can this Temple worker be inspired to reject the leader's previous admonition on this? https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction So do you intentionally omit the context for that quote or genuinely not recognize how it changes the message? The following to quotes from that interview are at the beginning and end of Elder Oaks examples of possible responses to the situation. He doesn't say that a parent "should" respond in any way. He says "I could imagine in some circumstances. . ." specifically referring to the inspiration the Lord might give to a parent. "That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. . . . .There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all." Then Elder Wickman says: "It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin. That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate." And then Elder Oaks follows up with the following: "The First Presidency made a wonderful statement on this subject in a letter in 1991. Speaking of individuals and families that were struggling with this kind of problem, they said, “We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues.” Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues… even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."
kllindley Posted March 21, 2019 Posted March 21, 2019 On 3/19/2019 at 12:05 PM, hope_for_things said: This is exactly why the church has put in place policies to marginalize LGBT individuals. As people get to know them on a personal level the typical prejudices start to go away. Those who want to hold onto their prejudice see this process as a threat to the status quo, so they setup boundaries and specifically with the CoJCoLDS, different practices and rhetoric about the "other". Did you mean to state that this is just your opinion? Or do you have some sort of evidence to support your claim that this is why the Church has these policies?
hope_for_things Posted March 21, 2019 Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, kllindley said: Did you mean to state that this is just your opinion? Or do you have some sort of evidence to support your claim that this is why the Church has these policies? Clearly it is my opinion based on my observations. I wouldn't expect that the church is foolish enough to publicly pronounce a strategy as divisive as this in a straightforward way, that would be a PR nightmare. The evidence for discrimination is the Nov 2015 policy. The example in this OP and countless other interactions and observations where I've seen prejudice change as people associate with LGBT individuals shows that this process of interacting with LGBT individuals creates a conflict with the way those individuals view the overtly discriminatory policies of the church. Keeping people separated as much as possible allows the church to mitigate this phenomenon somewhat and that is the basic reasoning of my perspective. The church is certainly on the wrong side of the longer term trends here and discriminatory policies will increasingly look out of touch with our culture in the developed western world. Just like with sexism, the church will continue to need to update its policies, theology and rhetoric on this topic as the future rolls forward. Its only a matter of time and aging church leaders.
stemelbow Posted March 21, 2019 Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, kllindley said: So do you intentionally omit the context for that quote or genuinely not recognize how it changes the message? The following to quotes from that interview are at the beginning and end of Elder Oaks examples of possible responses to the situation. He doesn't say that a parent "should" respond in any way. He says "I could imagine in some circumstances. . ." specifically referring to the inspiration the Lord might give to a parent. "That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. . . . .There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all." Then Elder Wickman says: "It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin. That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate." And then Elder Oaks follows up with the following: "The First Presidency made a wonderful statement on this subject in a letter in 1991. Speaking of individuals and families that were struggling with this kind of problem, they said, “We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues.” Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues… even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues." Hey kllindley. I offered the link to provide context. That was nice of me, right? I didn’t omit. If there is a significant difference in saying should or he could imagine in Some circumstances to you then great . There isn’t for me. Indeed the quotes you offer support my point in my mind. I hope this finds you well. I’m sorry we are at such odds on this issue. Edited March 22, 2019 by stemelbow
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 5 hours ago, kllindley said: So do you intentionally omit the context for that quote or genuinely not recognize how it changes the message? The following to quotes from that interview are at the beginning and end of Elder Oaks examples of possible responses to the situation. He doesn't say that a parent "should" respond in any way. He says "I could imagine in some circumstances. . ." specifically referring to the inspiration the Lord might give to a parent. Just to be clear, Elder Oaks provides two example responses that would match his love the sinner hate the sin mantra. This was in response to a hypothetical request to bring ones partner into the home. The first he says would apply in “most circumstances”. So the majority of people responding to this would just answer no (“Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.”). In fact he goes on to say that “surely if there are children in the home” this would likely be the case. So in most cases loving the “sinner” means excluding their partner especially if kids are involved. Elder Oaks goes on to say He could also imagine “some circumstances” where a more liberal stance could be taken. This “liberal” stance excludes any public apperances: “Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”” So in the vast majority of circumstances, Elder Oaks does not envision any public role of appearing with their child’s partner. Now Elder Oaks could have shared an experience like the one in the OP, but did not. For me the OP marks a very distinct break from the type of advice give by Elder Oaks. 1
gopher Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 20 years ago who would have predicted that homosexuality would become such a testimony killer for some who claimed to be full believers? And now the church even includes discussions about SSM in the lesson manuals. Did everyone watch the video from Come follow me with the two attractive blond women arguing about SSM? Pretty entertaining. https://mediasrv.lds.org/media-services/CM/size/5366137675001/480/268/347506 I guess the video can't be embedded here?
Recommended Posts