Jump to content

Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I guess to some extent the Church has room for all though full-fellowship requires certain standards be met. For many in the LGBT community, I would imagine the limitations to full-fellowship are not tolerable/acceptable and therefore they do not desire even minimal participation. 

There are those that identify with community but are not acting. And even for those that are, while there may be some limitations on participation, the door remains open for those that in good faith enter. The same scenario for an unmarried heterosexual couple living together.

I do not identify as an LGBT “advocate” by any means. I stand with the Brethren, or at least try to. Trying to follow their (current) example in how we speak and treat those whe don't identify as heterosexual.

 

Edit to add caveat. Californiaboy is the exception to the rule. He, of course, fully deserves the full measure of my vitriolic sarcasm, beligerence, and disdain. :)

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I guess to some extent the Church has room for all though full-fellowship requires certain standards be met. For many in the LGBT community, I would imagine the limitations to full-fellowship are not tolerable/acceptable and therefore they do not desire even minimal participation. 

Does full fellowship equate to membership?

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does full fellowship equate to membership?

I think I get where you're going? I guess if one is in a committed, intimate relationship with someone of the same sex then this individual is precluded from being baptized. They can come to church (and are in fact welcome) though they cannot become a member. Can you clarify whether you agree with this? I'm not sure. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Nofear said:

Edit to add caveat. Californiaboy is the exception to the rule. He, of course, fully deserves the full measure of my vitriolic sarcasm, beligerence, and disdain. :)

I am sorry you feel that way.  I try to present my thoughts from a different perspective, one that I understand is not shared by many on this board.  I don't do it out of malice, but in hopes that members will understand that not everyone sees things from their perspective. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I think I get where you're going? I guess if one is in a committed, intimate relationship with someone of the same sex then this individual is precluded from being baptized. They can come to church (and are in fact welcome) though they cannot become a member. Can you clarify whether you agree with this? I'm not sure. 

Correct.

We can provide fellowship but not membership according to the requirements.  So is it still correct to say there's a place "in the Church"?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see how we can say there's room for all of God's children in the Church and have it include those who openly choose not to meet these requirements.
We're all sinners and all working on repentance.   Not judging who is a sinner.  But a willingness to work on repentance remains a requirement doesn't it?

As a cafeteria Mormon myself, I frequently reflect on this. I don't think I have an answer.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we can say it.  Joining the Church is not compulsory.  Essentially anyone who wants to can join.  They know what the requirements are.  Whether they choose to meet those requirements or not is up to them, but it is incorrect to say that they have no choice,.

Yes, there is room for everyone.  The "if" opens up an endless array of alternatives to not joining the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

But if they refuse to meet the requirements, it can’t truly be said there’s a place for them, freedom of choice notwithstanding. Else whence the baptism interview? 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, california boy said:

I am sorry you feel that way.  I try to present my thoughts from a different perspective, one that I understand is not shared by many on this board.  I don't do it out of malice, but in hopes that members will understand that not everyone sees things from their perspective. 

Sarcasm isn't well expressed in text. I don't feel that way. Did the :) emoticon not give it away? Maybe a :P next time?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if they refuse to meet the requirements, it can’t truly be said there’s a place for them, freedom of choice notwithstanding. Else whence the baptism interview? 

Baptism is a covenant wherein we promise and voluntarily submit to do some things that others aren't necessarily bound too. The interview is to check that the individual understands. The condemnation for one who makes and fails to keep a covenant is greater than for one who doesn't make the covenant in the first place. Irrespective of covenant making or breaking, all are welcome to Sunday service so long as they don't actively entice others to break their covenants. But, of course, full participation in the Church does require some active desire to keep all the covenants we to the best of our ability and if one is willfully disregarding some major aspects of our covenants, that can result in "membership restriction". Homosexual acts don't have a special place in the category of "willfully disregarding some major aspects of our covenants" though it is one of the behaviors that would meet that criteria.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Sarcasm isn't well expressed in text. I don't feel that way. Did the :) emoticon not give it away? Maybe a :P next time?

Yeah I didn't get the sarcasm.  Emoji's sometimes confuse me on their intent.  But thanks for clarification. I do hope that I am helpful in presenting a point of view that only a gay former member can sometimes give.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is from our own board member, so exciting if it's what I'm thinking he'll say about it.

315296134_496480855759916_1723119978131690064_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8ae9d6&_nc_ohc=jNgxivMWb8gAX_27pu7&_nc_ht=scontent.cdninstagram.com&oh=00_AfB-aiym2LK9rUq-HotEO7gKciPpyAOkZ1XjKPTxhdpyoQ&oe=63752DAC

Interesting. I suspect he will allude Bible based Church's are in error for "anti-homosexuality" stance.

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
On 9/14/2022 at 3:34 PM, smac97 said:

I agree, but the education law has, I think, contributed to the "polarization."  It's the big news item.

What the law was written to address is the biggest contributor to the polarization.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What do you think he will "say about it?"

 

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why don’t we wait and find out?


So he has tons of videos on TikTok discussing this topic. Just as a warning, on TikTok he presents the consensus view of critical biblical scholarship. So when watching his videos it’s important to keep that in mind. (For example on the topic at hand, he engages scholarship to examine what the likely authors of the passages had in mind - according to critical scholarship). He sometimes will give a hint or tease about his own personal opinions, but does not tend to address his own faith or views. Here are just a couple:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxTqwsF/

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxTUgpC/

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment

Translation:  The church supports civil rights of LGBT not to be discriminated for housing, employment, and public accommodation as long as religions can still maintain the right to discriminate against them.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 


So he has tons of videos on TikTok discussing this topic. Just as a warning, on TikTok he presents the consensus view of critical biblical scholarship. So when watching his videos it’s important to keep that in mind. (For example on the topic at hand, he engages scholarship to examine what the likely authors of the passages had in mind - according to critical scholarship). He sometimes will give a hint or tease about his own personal opinions, but does not tend to address his own faith or views. Here are just a couple:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxTqwsF/

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxTUgpC/

 

I have watched a couple of his videos. He rails against conservatives for identity politics, and yet he seems to engage in the same.

 

In the first link he starts with "no one is sure", then proceeds to present his view as the authoritative view.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you think he will "say about it?"

About 5 years ago, right on this discussion board, Dan McClellan boasted with great pride that he is in favor of abortion and that the women who engage in the practice should be lauded as heroines for asserting the dignity of their autonomy. I was absolutely flabbergasted! If he is able to so boldly and easily turn against the Church teachings on the sanctity of human life, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we get more false doctrine coming from him in January.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

 

Here's a good preview I think:

 

 

My goodness this guy needs to be more careful.  I see some serious missteps, e.g., throwing out phrases like, "the Bibles' original authoritative intent" (I'd like to see some textual examples of that) and "younger men and boys and slaves and things like that." I also think there are better ways to discourage interpreting the Bible out of context for hurtful and discriminatory purposes than folding it into a political statement, and that using religious scholarship for political commentary is primarily a political maneuver. And of course, there are donations solicited for both; funny how that works.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

My goodness this guy needs to be more careful.  I see some serious missteps, e.g., throwing out phrases like, "the Bibles' original authoritative intent" (I'd like to see some textual examples of that) and "younger men and boys and slaves and things like that." I also think there are better ways to discourage interpreting the Bible out of context for hurtful and discriminatory purposes than folding it into a political statement, and that using religious scholarship for political commentary is primarily a political maneuver. And of course, there are donations solicited for both; funny how that works.

Makes one wonder who engages in identity politics.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Makes one wonder who engages in identity politics.

Ha-ha! I think, by definition, the point of those who so engage is to make the identity and the politics obvious and attention-getting. A subtle approach, I think, would be the exception.

Link to comment

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...