Jump to content

Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I agree; loving and caring for others is a good way to follow the Lord in families and by extension, interpersonal fellowship. But these have their limitations in authorizing the Lord's fullest blessings.

I agree.

Link to post
44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the "given" is not there.  There are people in the Church who believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is compatible with the Law of Chastity.  This is a diversionary error that has a tendency to drive a wedge between the individual and his covenants, including the sustaining of the leaders of the Church.  It's not unlike the error recorded in John 6 pertaining to some (many, actually) taking offense to the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon.  It's also akin to the schism that occurred in relation to polygamy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course if someone does not believe in making and keeping sacred covenants as proffered by those they uphold as having authority from Jesus Christ to share them, then of course it is not "given" in their case. But for those who do, living authentically means making and keeping sacred covenants as proffered by those they uphold as having authority from Jesus Christ to share them, despite what they might contrariwise be inclined to seek and do. The authentic saint submits himself to God and receives all the covenants as structured, for which he is eligible and can enter in good faith. These have a place at the table.

Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Then I don't see how we can get to the wished-for "outcome," which involves "LGBTQ people" remaining in full fellowship in the Church while simultaneously living "authentically" ("engaging in homosexual activity" and "entering into a same-sex marriage").  

Thanks,

-Smac

Which is why I said that I think further revelation on the issue would be necessary.

Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure exactly.  I think we would need revelation on it, because it is so closely tied to doctrine and our cultural biases as Latter-day Saints.  

But I think the outcome would be where LGTBQ people don't feel like they have to leave the church to live authentically.  A place where they and their spouses are accepted and supported and are welcome to hold callings, etc., where their children could be raised.

I suppose we can broaden this out to polygamists.   Some men just don't want to be tied to one woman.  They authentically want to be with more than one.  Should the church make it easier for polygamists to have association and acceptance in the Church?  After all, unlike gay relationships, the practice of polygamy is scriptural.  One actually can make gospel case for that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Gay people are not special or exempt from the laws of God.  They have to follow the same rules as everyone else.  When one follows the gospel, they have a firm foundation.  Worthiness in the church is not what you are but what you do.  We don't need to find a solid place for them.  Gay people who live the gospel are already on a solid place.

I tend towards a more 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'charity never faileth' perspective than you espouse.   You and I need mercy just as much as a gay person does.  If I want it for myself then I must also seek it for others. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I suppose we can broaden this out to polygamists.   Some men just don't want to be tied to one woman.  They authentically want to be with more than one.  Should the church make it easier for polygamists to have association and acceptance in the Church?  After all, unlike gay relationships, the practice of polygamy is scriptural.  One actually can make gospel case for that. 

If God revealed to the prophet that yes, we should, would you argue against it?

Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I agree.

I know some who would have the Church recognize same-sex civil marriage -- since it is legal and lawful -- for the sake of baptizing one or both of the couple. But that would introduce a two-tiered "class" system. So I think loving and caring for them is still the better option, if they are willing to receive that. Non-member unit assignments would not be out of the question but would require a good deal of wisdom and understanding on the part of the leaders and the non-members.

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

on occasion you hear negative stuff about gay people at church. I wouldn't mind someone saying hey, maybe we shouldn't put gay people on islands and burning them or whatever. We had a Bishop here a few years ago (he wasn't the Bishop then) and his Mom was visiting and her brother is gay. Well, this  man gave a talk and launched into this thing about how gay people ruined his mexican vacation by just walking around (which i'm quite sure wasn't his assigned topic). Anyways, this Bishop was so embarrased! I think there was a letter about not talking about politics and sexuality over the pulpit, for good reason hahaha! I wouldn't mind that letter being read once in a while

Yeah, we can really stick our feet way down our throats on occasion!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I tend towards a more 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'charity never faileth' perspective than you espouse.   You and I need mercy just as much as a gay person does.  If I want it for myself then I must also seek it for others. 

I think this confuses the situation. We have a responsibility to be merciful with others if we want and enjoy mercy from our Father in Heaven. However, that has nothing to do with what the Law is. It seems too easily forgotten that Jesus' often declaration and invitation was "repent and come follow me". This simple directive was meant for all because we were all sinners and all needed to evolve into beings capable of forfeiting our own desires and accepting his will for our lives.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Pope Francis has befuddled, angered, and frustrated the traditional Catholic community.  Some call him an anti-pope and condemn his elevation as being invalid. Those who appreciate Tradition feel abandoned by the pope and cast into a world unknown where doctrines appear to be cast off and Tradition ignored.  

This current statement will just put more wood on the fire of those Catholics who hunger for the days of Benedict XVI and Jean Paul II.  

The problem is that Francis has spent his time elevating cardinals that think and feel like him while dismantling the works for both Benedict and John Paul. Our Catholic brothers and sisters are praying for God's intervention. They have  rough road ahead of them.

Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

To be clear, I'm not speaking about gays and lesbians being sealed in temples or anything like that.  I know that some would find peace with nothing less but I don't see it from that perspective.

Nor do I.

  • Like 1
Link to post
57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which is why I said that I think further revelation on the issue would be necessary.

Okay.  But the only way "further revelation on the issue" could lead to the wished-for "outcome" ("LGBTQ people" remaining in full fellowship in the Church while simultaneously living "authentically" ("engaging in homosexual activity" and "entering into a same-sex marriage")) would be for that revelation completely reverse and upend the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity (re: same-sex behavior), same-sex marriage, the Proclamation, and so on.  

I see that as having virtually no chance of happening.  Instead, if there were further revelation on the issue, I would expect it to ratify and affirm the Law of Chastity and the Church's teachings about marriage.

We'll see, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:
Quote

Gay people are not special or exempt from the laws of God.  They have to follow the same rules as everyone else.  When one follows the gospel, they have a firm foundation.  Worthiness in the church is not what you are but what you do.  We don't need to find a solid place for them.  Gay people who live the gospel are already on a solid place.

I tend towards a more 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'charity never faileth' perspective than you espouse.   You and I need mercy just as much as a gay person does.  If I want it for myself then I must also seek it for others. 

I don't think CD is casting stones at gay people, nor is he advocating the withholding of charity from them.  Instead, he seems to be putting our gay brothers and sisters on equal footing with the rest of us.

Consider these remarks by Elder Christofferson (emphases added):

Quote

“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”

Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between “what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, “but we know sin does not.”

There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,” he said.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
18 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Um, just treat them like regular people. I can't get a TR or patriarchal blessing or move up in my priesthood because of WoW problems but people just treat me like a regular member. No need to single me out and treat me different. I would never light up a cigarette at church, I suspect they can hold their Ps and Qs until they leave church.

This right here.  BTW, considering how millenials are just going secular and how nasty people are getting, Pope Francis is being smart, rest of the Christian world should learn from his example.  This is how you get to live with people different from you and how when something bad happens like your house gets robbed, that LGBT/person of color neighbor you were nice to calls the cops and checks on you after to see if you need anything.  White flight isn't a possibility for many nowadays, even those of you who can pull it off, with family obligations and costs associated with families, sure it's harder even for you.  Foreign to your beliefs but it still applies, Karma is a thing.  Translation to something in your own experience (I hope...) The Golden Rule. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
31 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Um, just treat them like regular people. I can't get a TR or patriarchal blessing or move up in my priesthood because of WoW problems but people just treat me like a regular member. No need to single me out and treat me different. I would never light up a cigarette at church, I suspect they can hold their Ps and Qs until they leave church.

Exactly. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think CD is casting stones at gay people, nor is he advocating the withholding of charity from them.  Instead, he seems to be putting our gay brothers and sisters on equal footing with the rest of us.

Consider these remarks by Elder Christofferson (emphases added):

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m sure that is his perspective. But I don’t feel like they are on equal footing with the rest of us. I think more is asked of them and that life in the church is much much harder for them, through no fault of their own. 

Link to post
56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But the only way "further revelation on the issue" could lead to the wished-for "outcome" ("LGBTQ people" remaining in full fellowship in the Church while simultaneously living "authentically" ("engaging in homosexual activity" and "entering into a same-sex marriage")) would be for that revelation completely reverse and upend the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity (re: same-sex behavior), same-sex marriage, the Proclamation, and so on.  

I see that as having virtually no chance of happening.  Instead, if there were further revelation on the issue, I would expect it to ratify and affirm the Law of Chastity and the Church's teachings about marriage.

We'll see, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t think any doctrine would need to be reversed. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you have in mind?  What do you think the Church could do to create "a solid place for LGTBQ people" that it is not now doing?

Not really looking to argue.  More to understand and learn....................

Civil unions for heterosexual couples have been normal in the USA for a long time, but were only made legal in Italy in 2016.  Civil unions are still not legal in Israel.  So now the Pope is addressing the matter.  He doesn't dare to propose Catholic weddings for homosexuals.  The real question will be, will those homosexual couples in civil unions be allowed access to the eucharist?  Similarly, the LDS Church no longer militates against civil unions for homosexuals, but does not approve of them either -- for access to the bread and water of the Sacrament, or membership in the Church.  Am I understanding this correctly?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But the only way "further revelation on the issue" could lead to the wished-for "outcome" ("LGBTQ people" remaining in full fellowship in the Church while simultaneously living "authentically" ("engaging in homosexual activity" and "entering into a same-sex marriage")) would be for that revelation completely reverse and upend the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity (re: same-sex behavior), same-sex marriage, the Proclamation, and so on.  

I think you are assuming it has to be major altering revelation rather than revelation that may just explain current positions better and presents better policies to guide.

You also may be defining full fellowship differently as in participating at all levels of ordinance rather than truly feeling like a member of the church family  

I don’t believe bluebell used “full fellowship” but instead phrased it was feeling welcomed at the gospel community table. This is very different than suggesting changes in ordinances.  

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am sure that conservative Catholics will see this as apostasy, if they don't already.

That's an interesting switcheroo.

Not apostasy, but heresy.

Traditional "Catholics" who declare that this is apostasy, that the chair of St. Peter is vacant (sedavacantists), that there is no pope, are no longer Catholic in my eyes. The papacy is absolutely fundamental to Roman Catholicism. There can be heretical popes. There can be popes who do terrible things. But there always was and always will be a pope. Deny the papacy and you are a protestant (or an Eastern Orthodox). They can try to twist themselves into whatever logical knots they want, but Francis is a duly and validly elected pope. Right or wrong, he is pope.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's easy to back in history and find popes who have taught and done things contrary to Catholic doctrine. The pope is not infallible, except for in very rare circumstances (ex cathedra pronouncements).

Do you see Storm Rider’s descriptions of the Catholic community as accurate or overstated or something else?

Link to post
54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think any doctrine would need to be reversed. 

Better explained, I am thinking. I would love to see more revelation on the celestial relationship of men and women and what roles are for exalted individuals and couples.  It is all rather vague now leading many to assume the men are off creating worlds and helping their posterity become adults while the women pretty much just do the celestial equivalent of being pregnant, changing diapers, feeding hungry mouths, and taking care of skinned knees until the children are ready to head off to mortality at which point Mom drops out of sight. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

that life in the church is much much harder for them

In the sense of finding roles, I would agree.  There is not anything defined for them that I can think of, even more so than a nonmember spouse because we are comfortable with those filling parental and spousal roles if not member ones.  Some members don’t even view the relationship as a family one, so they are more or less all just temporary roommates in theory, which teaching would amount to be kind to each other as you go on in your separate lives as opposed to families can be together forever  

I believe we don’t have a decent way of describing the family structure of a same sex marriage and a way to feel comfortable about teaching parenting and couple roles....especially couple roles once moving out of the friendship territory into the becoming one territory of male-female marriage (I don’t mean just physical interaction, but mental and spiritual as well).
 

I don’t think it is logical to talk of who has it harder or easier in the church in general because it depends on what comes easy or hard to people. Someone who is gay but outgoing and easy going might find it easier to be at church than someone who is straight, but very introverted and a perfectionist.  

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...