Were Those Members Who Opposed The 2015 Policy Right To Do So?

[carbon dioxide]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Obviously, there is a lot to be said for keeping people in respectful fear - you defame Islam and we will kill you - to keep the Gay Activists muzzled. Is it really this threat of death that is required or does Islam get a pass for another reason?

I don't know but Islam does seem to get a pass

"A primary school in Birmingham, England, has halted LGBT lessons after 600 pupils were reportedly taken out of classes by furious Muslim parents upset at homosexuality being “aggressively” taught to their children,"

https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/03/school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-backlash-from-angry-muslim-parents/

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

No, not hyperbole at all.

An atom is composed of a proton (positive) and an electron (negative).

What happens if you say, “Oh, to hell with it, I’m going to put two protons together?"

What happens is the entire world, all of creation really ... it all comes apart. Literally.

The world, the universe . . . it is all composed of opposites.

Homosexuality is not treated much in the scriptures because, up until a few years ago, it was obvious to any thinking person that two men (or two women) don’t get married.

Such a relationship can never be productive. On gut level (apart from what your reason tells you), there is something deeply wrong about it.

In short, it is contrary to natural law.

“In the beginning, God created man, male and female created he them . . .”

Marriage, heterosexual marriage, is at the core of the Gospel. It is basic. If you dispense with it and say, “Male with male, female with female, or male and female . . . it’s all good, man! Love who you want!”

Once you say that, you are tinkering with something that ought not to be tinkered with.

On a moral level, it is no different that tinkering with a proton and electron, the most basic building block of nature.

Are you Catholic? "Natural law" isn't Mormon and it isn't science either.

[Gray]

59 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Male/female. It is basic. It is at the very heart of the Gospel.

The gospel is that Jesus died and was raised on the third day. If you think heterosexuality is the "heart" of the gospel you're following a false one.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You can misdirect to your heart's content.  I was just correcting @USU78's overstatement.

Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch about arguments. Gainsaying ain't outarguing. Neither is outshouting.

[bdouglas]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are you Catholic? "Natural law" isn't Mormon and it isn't science either.

No, I'm not Catholic. But my favorite British novelist is (or was). Graham Greene.

There is such a thing as "natural law". There are natural laws that govern morality just as much as there are natural laws that govern the natural world. Moral laws are as fixed as any natural law. God is bound by such laws, moral or physical, just as much as we are.

Edited April 7, 2019 by bdouglas

[USU78]

Weepy Hal just trumped this entire thread.

Brilliant.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Weepy Hal just trumped this entire thread.

Brilliant.

Care to elaborate?

[JulieM]

8 hours ago, why me said:

America is in a crisis of change. The country has become very political correct and full of identity politics. And this is why there was such a reaction to the policy when it was announced some years ago. If such a decision was made in 1984 or even in 1995 or in 2005, there would have been no reaction by church members. Even Obama was opposed to gay marriage just 10 years ago. America has changed and so has its value structure now. The debate should be on changing landscapes and changing values and how this will influence the church in the future.

I don't think that the policy had much impact in central and south america nor in asia and russia. I think that it was pretty much a western thing, excluding the new countries of europe that became independent after 1991. And it certainly created a shock in the USA. Thus, the reversal.

I think that members should prepare themselves for one of the biggest changes yet to come: same sex marriage in the temple. I have this feeling that this reversal is the first step in the process for preparation of such an happening. 

I like this post, why me!  Some great thoughts and I agree with them 👍

I’ll only add that I think when we will really start seeing much more change on this is when some of those who are even younger become our church leaders.  

I hope members will continue to support the leaders then just as they are now with this most recent change.  

Edited April 7, 2019 by JulieM

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

No, not hyperbole at all.

An atom is composed of a proton (positive) and an electron (negative).

What happens if you say, “Oh, to hell with it, I’m going to put two protons together?"

What happens is the entire world, all of creation really ... it all comes apart. Literally.

The world, the universe . . . it is all composed of opposites.

Homosexuality is not treated much in the scriptures because, up until a few years ago, it was obvious to any thinking person that two men (or two women) don’t get married.

Such a relationship can never be productive. On gut level (apart from what your reason tells you), there is something deeply wrong about it.

In short, it is contrary to natural law.

“In the beginning, God created man, male and female created he them . . .”

Marriage, heterosexual marriage, is at the core of the Gospel. It is basic. If you dispense with it and say, “Male with male, female with female, or male and female . . . it’s all good, man! Love who you want!”

Once you say that, you are tinkering with something that ought not to be tinkered with.

On a moral level, it is no different that tinkering with a proton and electron, the most basic building block of nature.

Graeco-Roman culture,  Japanese culture,  Hindu and Chinese culture,  various native cultures, could and did make provisions for homosexuality which were excluded as a possibility within cultures shaped by Abrahamic monotheism. Abrahamism is particularly obsessive about regulating sexuality and limiting it. 

Because of Abrahamism as it has normally been articulated in the United States and Europe,  monogamy probably "feels instinctual" to you. Yet your forebears in the aboriginal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were engaged in an endeavor to normalize polygyny, (an experiment which continues in some fundamentalist Mormon splinters). 

Much of what you are deeming "instinctual" is not the universal experience of the human race vis'a'vis human sexuality. But: same-sex relationships in many places involved indignities and exploitation 

What has emerged  largely in my lifetime,  is something very unique: the idea that people same-sex attractions can live together in an extended, hopefully lifelong, committed relationship,  akin to the established heterosexual relationships which you assume are "natural". 

Believing Abrahamists are having a tough time adapting to this. Wider secular culture is a bit more accommodating,  though most secular moderns are only one or two generations removed from devout Abrahamic faiths and therefore have some biases and concomitant squeamishness.  

But your sense that antipathy to homosexuality is natural or that same-sex marriage violates "natural law" is a value assumption. 

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Care to elaborate?

I’m following some summaries of the talks.  All I read was he said to sustain him, don’t criticize him.

But this thread is about not always agreeing with everything the leaders do or say.  Many disagreed with the policy but didn’t criticize the leaders.  I do think members can disagree at times but should stay away from making it personal or criticizing.  He’s right about that. However, I don’t see that what he said trumps this entire thread?

But maybe there’s more to what he said than what I read. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by JulieM

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch about arguments. Gainsaying ain't outarguing. Neither is outshouting.

I wasn’t intending any of the above.  Just helping to keep your facts straight. 

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m following some summaries of the talks.  All I read was he said to sustain him, don’t criticize him.

But this thread is about not always agreeing with everything the leaders do or say.  Many disagreed with the policy but didn’t criticize the leaders.  I do think members can disagree at times but should stay away from making it personal or criticizing.  He’s right about that. However, I don’t see that what he said trumps this entire thread?

But maybe there’s more to what he said than what I read. 

I was listening to President Eyring’s talk.  And yes, it was largely about sustaining our leaders. But I haven’t seen much in the way of criticism of our leaders on this thread and, on the other end of the spectrum, I hope nobody is arguing that sustaining them requires agreeing with them 100% of the time. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I’m following some summaries of the talks.  All I read was he said to sustain him, don’t criticize him.

But this thread is about not always agreeing with everything the leaders do or say.  Many disagreed with the policy but didn’t criticize the leaders.  I do think members can disagree at times but should stay away from making it personal or criticizing.  He’s right about that. However, I don’t see that what he said trumps this entire thread?

But maybe there’s more to what he said than what I read. 

A summary is not in any degree a heartfilled exposition on the subject of loyalty, mutual support, and seeking a Zion society.

[USU78]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn’t intending any of the above.  Just helping to keep your facts straight. 

Don't be shy. Call me a liar to my face.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Don't be shy. Call me a liar to my face.

I don't think you're a liar.  I think it's quite possible that you believe those evidences are there or you didn't intend to overstate them as I felt that you did.  This is why we dialogue here - I've made plenty of mistakes in my posts.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A summary is not in any degree a heartfilled exposition on the subject of loyalty, mutual support, and seeking a Zion society.

I never claimed it was.  I said it was a summary and that there may be more to it.

But that doesn’t change the fact that we can sustain our leaders and still disagree with them (and the original policy).  No one should personally attack them though, of course.

One can do all you list above and still disagree at times. Otherwise, you may be advocating blind obedience and I know they don’t want that from the members.

I was going to ask my husband more about the talk when he got home tonight (he watched the session at his brother’s house).  I’ll still do that!

Edited April 7, 2019 by JulieM

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think you're a liar.  I think it's quite possible that you believe those evidences are there or you didn't intend to overstate them as I felt that you did.  This is why we dialogue here - I've made plenty of mistakes in my posts.

Neither cast ye ...

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I never claimed it was.  I said it was a summary and that there may be more to it.

But that doesn’t change the fact that we can sustain our leaders and still disagree with them (and the original policy).  No one should personally attack them though, of course.

One can do all you list above and still disagree at times. Otherwise, you may be advocating blind obedience and I know they don’t want that from the members.

I was going to ask my husband more about the talk when he got home tonight (he watched the session at his brother’s house).  I’ll still do that!

Being judged uncharitably is painful. I find those judging, nay maljudging the Brethren with no apparent charity highly difficult to stomach.

A weakness, I confess. I get cranky. Those who couldn't carry their jockstraps snidely sneering sapping my patience.

Weepy Hal is a good guy. So are the bunch of em.

[Wade Englund]

Whether right or wrong, opposition to the original policy, if not also opposition to the change, must needs be. (2 Ne 2:11)

By extension, opposition about whether it was right or wrong, must needs be.

This thread and others demonstrates that what needs be, verily is.

Please forgive my whimsy. I am feeling particularly enriched today by General Conference and  the beloved company and activities I was blessed to keep.

Happy Easter Month!!!

Thanks -Wade Englund-

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Wade Englund

[let’s roll]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Hyperbole much?

Book of Mormon is silent on homosexuality.

D&C is silent on homosexuality.

Proclamation is silent on homosexuality.

Four gospels are silent on homosexuality.

Old Testament... do you really want to abide by all the "laws" in there?

You're left with a few passages in the New Testament and some random statements by modern day church leaders, many that we've tried to walk back from.

How do you understand the teachings in D&C 132?  

On its face it describes what is required for exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  A man and a woman must together enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

How do you understand the teachings in D&C 132?  

On its face it describes what is required for exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  A man and a woman must together enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

 

Yes.  It talks about marriage, polygamy, and exaltation. 

But as I said, it is silent on homosexuality.  

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Neither cast ye ...

 I’m not sure what you are saying with that. 

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 I’m not sure what you are saying with that. 

Your last two posts make clear there are some holes in your education. I'm stumped on what to do about that.

[Wade Englund]

10 hours ago, why me said:

I think that members should prepare themselves for one of the biggest changes yet to come: same sex marriage in the temple. I have this feeling that this reversal is the first step in the process for preparation of such an happening. 

Actually, recent social changes have made it entirely unnecessary, in the future, for the Church to allow same-sex temple marriages. Same-sex couples can now simply identify as temple married.

For that matter, given how things can be redefined in whichever way the social winds are blowing at the time, the word "heterosexual" can be redefined to include homosexuals. Same-sex can be redefined to mean opposite sex. And, it wouldn't take much to expand the laws requiring that people be called by their preferred gender identity, to include their preferred marital identity.

As you can see, many, if not all of the social ills can be solved by redefining them. So simple! Gender wage gap? No problem, just redefine "female" as "male" Age discrimination? No problem, just redefine everyone as having the same age. Etc. etc.

In fact, given the social belief that gender is a social construct, and given the trend in constructing a rapid proliferation of genders, it is conceivable that the notion of "gender," itself, will expand into oblivion and meaninglessness (not unlike how proliferation in the types of "marriages" and "families" have rendered these terms less meaningful), such that in the not too distant future, there will be no such thing as gender.

It has already occurred somewhat with the word "sex", which has been replaced with "gender," making the term "same-sex" entirely outdated, which puzzles me why those who are so sensitive and acquiescent to.social trends (pop culture) would continue to use the term "same-sex."  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

[rockpond]

56 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Your last two posts make clear there are some holes in your education. I'm stumped on what to do about that.

So you decided to go with a baseless insult.  Okay.  Actually, I'm going to put you on blocked status.  I've grown tired of wasting my time with people who cannot dialogue respectively.

Edited April 7, 2019 by rockpond