Jump to content

Mormon leader reaffirms church’s opposition to gay marriage


Stargazer

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I like it that Pres Nelson is responsive.  He admits that he can weep when others weep.  If God weeps (Moses 7), how appropriate for His Prophet to weep.

As I know they do, these were no hollow words. All Prophets, leaders, parents, friends, as do most, live the words in Mosiah 18: 8-9 “...are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they might be light; ....willing to mourn with those who mourn; yea and comfort those that stand in need of comfort,...”. 

But, also making clear (no matter their personal feelings, and changing social trends) that as God’s servants, they cannot “change the laws of God”. It is important to note, that even God is bound by his own laws, be it by design or choice, he too must abide by his law. Or as scripture states, “He would cease to be God”. As one who has a child, for whom I would sacrifice all, I too have “wept”, and do “weep”, for her, and her feelings. I would expect nothing less from those who feel and have a responsibility to all the members and parents who weep for their loved ones. In the scripture, the shortest of all scriptures, sates that “Jesus wept”, he did so because those he loved wept, even though he knew that in mere moments they would be rejoicing that their brother would once again live. But Jesus Christ, still felt their pain, as he does all, who are in pain. This is no surprise to me, but it was good to hear it being said by our Prophet and President. 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

As I know they do, these were no hollow words. All Prophets, leaders, parents, friends, as do most, live the words in Mosiah 18: 8-9 “...are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they might be light; ....willing to mourn with those who mourn; yea and comfort those that stand in need of comfort,...”. 

But, also making clear (no matter their personal feelings, and changing social trends) that as God’s servants, they cannot “change the laws of God”. It is important to note, that even God is bound by his own laws, be it by design or choice, he too must abide by his law. Or as scripture states, “He would cease to be God”. As one who has a child, for whom I would sacrifice all, I too have “wept”, and do “weep”, for her, and her feelings. I would expect nothing less from those who feel and have a responsibility to all the members and parents who weep for their loved ones. In the scripture, the shortest of all scriptures, sates that “Jesus wept”, he did so because those he loved wept, even though he knew that in mere moments they would be rejoicing that their brother would once again live. But Jesus Christ, still felt their pain, as he does all, who are in pain. This is no surprise to me, but it was good to hear it being said by our Prophet and President. 

I was speaking solely about How Pres Nelson "lifted a . . . ban on baptisms for children of gay parents because [he] felt the 'heartache' it caused."  That has nothing to do with changing the laws of God, or eternal law.  It was a rapid policy change in response to the hurt that it caused.  That is responsiveness.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was speaking solely about How Pres Nelson "lifted a . . . ban on baptisms for children of gay parents because [he] felt the 'heartache' it caused."  That has nothing to do with changing the laws of God, or eternal law.  It was a rapid policy change in response to the hurt that it caused.  That is responsiveness.

I am aware, but addressed more, so it seemed a good place to point out all that he did speak too, or about. Changes where he could, and why, and things that he cannot change, but still weeps with and for all affected. Sorry, if it seemed I overreached on my part. BTW, I did not think it was a good idea when the policy was announced, but I also had confidence they would change it, and do so because they are good men. I never had any doubt that they struggled with this policy concerning children, nor that they would “steady the ark” so to speak. 

Link to comment

You know, I believe that when the brethren brought the original policy to the Lord He okayed it, and also that when they reconsidered it He okayed that, too.  I understood the intent of the original policy, and that it was intended to respect the institution of family, even the same-sex led family, by not placing children in such families in the position of being required through their church membership to implicitly disavow the validity the union of their parents.  I know that many would not see it that way, and I respect their opinion, but that's how I saw it.  By reversing the policy those children are now placed in that position -- but if that causes less hurt, then I guess it's all right.  

I am pretty sure that the Lord allows His servants to administer the Church according to their best intents, within His law.  When I consider the recent policy change regarding temple sealing following civil marriage, I reflect that the previous policy had the intent of encouraging temple marriage. And I think it worked, even though my own feeling was that it was too restrictive.  But I believe that the Lord approved both policies. 

I also believe that the change in temple-after-civil marriage puts the Church into a better position with respect to a possible future suite of secular law that makes it hard to deny marriage to same-sex couples.  Not that I expect such to happen, but if you dare not refuse to decorate a gay-themed wedding cake for fear of legal persecution, it's only a few short steps further down the road to requiring churches that perform weddings to perform same-sex weddings against their will.  I know that some will say "That will never happen," but they used to say that same sex marriage was impossible, too. I make no prediction, just the observation.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/20/2019 at 1:36 AM, Stargazer said:

You know, I believe that when the brethren brought the original policy to the Lord He okayed it, and also that when they reconsidered it He okayed that, too.  I understood the intent of the original policy, and that it was intended to respect the institution of family, even the same-sex led family, by not placing children in such families in the position of being required through their church membership to implicitly disavow the validity the union of their parents.  I know that many would not see it that way, and I respect their opinion, but that's how I saw it.  By reversing the policy those children are now placed in that position -- but if that causes less hurt, then I guess it's all right.  ...

What was changed, though, other than who may give final approval to the baptism of a child in a gay household?  Under the policy, it was the First Presidency.  Since the change, now, it's Bishops.  Insofar as I know, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still considers: (1) marriage between a man and a woman to be ordained of God; and (2) sex outside of marriage to be wrong.  For members of the Church of Jesus Christ who live a gay lifestyle and/or who are in a gay marriage, insofar as I know, the Church of Jesus Christ still considers such a state to be a grievous sin and a form of apostasy.

Will the "new" policy, in which Bishops make the decision, cause less hurt and pain than the "old" policy, under which the First Presidency was responsible for the decision?  Color me doubtful, but perhaps it will cause less hurt.  Whether it does or not, I think the policy is simply a shift from centralization, where decisions such as whether to allow an eight-year-old in a gay household to be baptized were made by General leaders/The First Presidency, to decentralization, where the decision is made by a bishop who is familiar with local circumstances and with the people involved.

Link to comment
On 9/18/2019 at 1:29 AM, Stargazer said:

This is something that came across my news feed, and since it isn't already being reported (as far as I can see), here it is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/mormon-leader-reaffirms-churchs-opposition-to-gay-marriage/2019/09/17/69cfa434-d983-11e9-a1a5-162b8a9c9ca2_story.html

Now, since there is a copyright claim on this story, I'm not reproducing the whole thing here, so check the link.  

By Brady McCombs | APSeptember 17 at 6:53 PM
PROVO, Utah — The leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed the religion’s opposition to gay marriage Tuesday, while explaining that leaders lifted a short-lived ban on baptisms for children of gay parents because they felt the “heartache” it caused.

Church president Russell M. Nelson’s remarks in a speech to students at the church-owned Brigham Young University were the most detailed explanation to date of the faith’s surprising move in April to repeal 2015 policies that banned the baptisms and labeled people in same-sex marriages as sinners eligible for expulsion.

“We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others,” Nelson said. “That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep, for whatever reasons, we weep.”

Nelson claimed the original policy was motivated by love and a desire to prevent friction between the beliefs of gay parents and their children. Nelson became president last year but was a member of a top governing body called the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles when the policy took effect.

 

God has retracted directives (so why not policies?) when He saw the resulting "heartache" when His imperfect children take steps to follow but fail as happened in Missouri (D&C 124: 49-53), even when it can be said the failing was preventable and much in consequence of their own polluting behaviors and desires (D&C 101).

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...