I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[Zulu]

I said something similar to Zulu via rep, but I figure I'll say it to more of you:



Choose the path that helps you become the greatest person. The greatest son of God. The kindest, most just representative of him. That is the priority of us as humans. Be kind, and loving, and resourceful. Improve the lives of others, as well as the lives of those that we love.


I hope it can still be done through the LDS faith for many of you, due to the other list of benefits the community has had on its followers. No matter where you end up after this controversy, it's important (imo) to remind ourselves of the responsibilities we carry as humans, whether pious or not.

Wishing you all the best.

Just awesome... You're a great man!!!!

 

[Ron Mexico]

I was going to write in here my experiences of leaving the lds faith and how much happier I am. I would go into further detail about how it took time to establish who I am and my beliefs and I am a better person because of it. This might not be the path for everyone but I thought this quote would be much better. From the mouth of Homer J Simpson:

I, on the other hand, have been having the best day of my life and I owe it all to not going to church.

Sent from my HTC0P4E1 using Tapatalk

 

[colton]

I had/have no problem with you questioning the claim, and I responded to your legitimate question respectfully. My issue was with the way you started your post, which seemed unnecessary and disrespectful to me. I responded in kind.

Too bad you've forgotten the Golden Rule then, and have started living by "an eye for an eye".

1. I'm not to blame for your presumptions.

No, but you ARE to blame for the language you use which causes those presumptions.

For example, in this case, if you had said, "Missionaries in Singapore operated under tourist visas because the other type of visas were hard to come by," I would have likely responded, "Oh, that seems a little odd, I didn't realize the church did that. Tell me more."

But what you ACTUALLY said was "most missionaries in Singapore were effectively there (in their capacity as missionaries) illegally." Very different word choice, with very different implications.

2. Singapore required missionaries to have the appropriate visa. Those were given to a select few missionaries. Everyone else was there officially as a tourist, and came into the country undercover. I fail to see the mischaracterization. The church decided to break the laws of Singapore because they thought (correctly) that they could get away with it.You can rationalize that however you like. I'd be very surprised if your dad doesn't know about this, unless those SE Asian countries weren't part of the Asia area (which seems highly unlikely).

I don't know what they'd be called, but presumably at the time they didn't exist because proselyting was illegal. We weren't knocking doors or preaching from street corners, but making contacts, teaching and baptizing is what we were instructed to do.

Was it actually illegal for people with tourist visas to make contacts, teach, and baptize? If not, then your earlier word choice seems highly questionable. I don't know about Singapore, but here in the US it's perfectly legal and 100% morally acceptable for someone to come with a tourist visa and do many many things that don't strictly involve tourism. Certain things are prohibited (work for pay I assume is one of them), but I doubt volunteer work such as helping a church for a few months would be one of them, as long as the individuals don't OVERSTAY their visa--which from your description it doesn't sound like the missionaries in Singapore ever did. But perhaps I'm mistaken and the situation is different there.

With one exception, all foreign missionaries were required to have an Indonesian companion to keep up appearances (i.e. better skirt the law). This was all made abundantly clear to me and my fellow foreign missionaries at the time.

This isn't just some ex-mormon axe to grind; I corrected people on this point repeatedly while I was still an active member, MTC teacher and BYU student.

edit: Any response for the missionaries who were sent to Indonesia between 1980/1981 and 2001 illegally? FWIW, I'm not sure of the details here, but Chad Emmett might be able to help. There actually was one Australian missionary in Indonesia in the early 90s (an Elder Tempany/Tympany/...not sure of the spelling). He had a hell of a time when things went south during the Asian crisis, and was forced to finish his mission elsewhere (where he wasn't in danger of getting killed in the streets).

No, I'm not familiar enough with that situation to comment. (All I know is what you wrote earlier.)

 

[colton]

Again, they are not required to disavow their parents. They are required to disavow their parents' *actions*. If you don't see a difference, then there's no hope for this conversation.

Ah yes Colton, the king of mental gymnastics.

Again, I must say, "What the heck??" How is that even slightly "mental gymnastics". They are two completely different things. Some people here are acting like the church is saying "You can no longer associate with your parents" when they are actually saying, "You must believe in the church teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful."

If you really can't see the difference between those two, and if that distinction seems like mental gymnastics to you, then I truly feel sorry for you.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What the heck? The statement you quoted says the person is asked to disavow the practice, i.e. say that they support church teachings on the matter. Not disavow their parents nor cease loving them. Or do you feel it's impossible to love someone while also believing some of their actions are not in harmony with God's will?

In all honesty, really? The statement asks the person to disavow the practice of same-sex marriage, which is, in essence, asking them to declare that the marriage of their parents is invalid. In other words, the union of the people who raised them, nutured them, loved them, etc, and thus the family union in which they were raised, lacks validity, is an abomination, unholy and so forth. You think that this will not be extremely painful to the parents and to the child? You think that the parents will not see this as a repudiation/disavowal of them personally? You think this will not cause stress and harm in the family relationship? You think it's really THAT simple of a matter?

Are you really that insensitive to the implications of this requirement? You're a decent person, but your rush to apologize for/rationalize this requirement, without demonstrating empathy for the pain it will cause, is not flattering.

By the way where have I said or implied that this is akin to requiring the child to renounce his/her love for the parents. Disavowal is not equivalent to renouncing love.

 

[colton]

I said something similar to Zulu via rep, but I figure I'll say it to more of you:

Choose the path that helps you become the greatest person. The greatest son of God. The kindest, most just representative of him. That is the priority of us as humans. Be kind, and loving, and resourceful. Improve the lives of others, as well as the lives of those that we love.

I hope it can still be done through the LDS faith for many of you, due to the other list of benefits the community has had on its followers. No matter where you end up after this controversy, it's important (imo) to remind ourselves of the responsibilities we carry as humans, whether pious or not.

Wishing you all the best.

Beautiful post, that's it exactly. And it matches something I said earlier in the thread, which is (paraphrasing) "In the end, you're going to stand before God and be responsible for you own actions. So make sure you become the most good* person you can be so that you can face Him with a clear conscience."

*I think this was the post where I said good-est but someone objected

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What the heck? The statement you quoted says the person is asked to disavow the practice, i.e. say that they support church teachings on the matter. Not disavow their parents nor cease loving them. Or do you feel it's impossible to love someone while also believing some of their actions are not in harmony with God's will?

In all honesty, really? The statement asks the person to disavow the practice of same-sex marriage, which is, in essence, asking them to declare that the marriage of their parents is invalid. In other words, the union of the people who raised them, nutured them, loved them, etc, and thus the family union in which they were raised, lacks validity, is an abomination, unholy and so forth. You think that this will not be extremely painful to the parents and to the child? You think that the parents will not see this as a repudiation/disavowal of them personally? You think this will not cause stress and harm in the family relationship? You think it's really THAT simple of a matter?

Are you really that insensitive to the implications of this requirement? You're a decent person, but your rush to apologize for/rationalize this requirement, without demonstrating empathy for the pain it will cause, is not flattering.

By the way where have I said or implied that this is akin to requiring the child to renounce his/her love for the parents. Disavowal is not equivalent to renouncing love. But, Yes, I am saying that disavowal of the validity of one's parents' union IS, in essense, also a disavowal of the parents themselves. It is a very formal statement telling them that a fundamental part of who they are is unholy. LDS apologists may not see this as a disavowal, but I guarantee you that the parents will, much like gay children see their parents/' disavowal of their homosexuality as a disavowal of them personally. Don't believe me, please go and talke to some gay LDS who have experienced this.

Why not try exercising a bit of empathy in this case instead of going into default apologist mode?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

https://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9

That's a good read regarding what you mentioned.

Here's a good take away from the link, which can/should be applied to most of what is in the Bible: Common sense, church custom, and good principles of biblical interpretation all say that we should not take these verses literally—and almost no one does.

Keep in mind also, the Paul was writing within a cultural tradition that was not only homophobic, but also, if not mysoginist, somewhat close to it. It was also a culture that was drenched in superstition and ignorance about science, lacked respect, or failed to even possess a notion, of human rights, civil liberties, or even concepts of basic human freedoms; and lacked any appreciation for the diversity and complexity of humans, human behavior, human sexuality, etc.

The time and cultural traditions in which Paul was writing are wholly unsuitable to use as a standard to render judgment, let alone understanding, of modern humanity, given all the advances in science and human understanding that have occured since then.

Here's another issue. Apologists for the behavior of historical religious figures inevitably invoke the argument that it is inappropriate to use 21st century standards to judge the behavior of people who lived in different times and places with different beliefs and norms.

If true, then doesn't the converse also hold? If 21st century mores are unsuitable to judge those of, say, Paul's times, why is it not also the case that the mores of, say, Paul's times are suitable to judge those of the 21st century?

Still, you haven't answered the qeustion. What is the decision rule for lay people (who constitute most believers and who don't invoke Biblical commentary to inform their beliefs) to determine which writings and teachings of Biblical times remain valid, and which can be ignored?

To me, the best decision rule is the one cited above: ". . . 2e should not take these verses literally."

 

[colton]

In all honesty, really? The statement asks the person to disavow the practice of same-sex marriage, which is, in essence, asking them to declare that the marriage of their parents is invalid. In other words, the union of the people who raised them, nutured them, loved them, etc, and thus the family union in which they were raised, lacks validity, is an abomination, unholy and so forth. You think that this will not be extremely painful to the parents and to the child? You think that the parents will not see this as a repudiation/disavowal of them personally? You think this will not cause stress and harm in the family relationship? You think it's really THAT simple of a matter?

Are you really that insensitive to the implications of this requirement? You're a decent person, but your rush to apologize for/rationalize this requirement, without demonstrating empathy for the pain it will cause, is not flattering.

Let me choose my words carefully. Yes, this will cause some familiar disharmony. As is ALWAYS the case when someone comes to believe that other family members are not living the way they should. There is nothing specific to gay marriage in that. I think that's exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said (from Matt 10)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.


Blame for the pain that is caused therefore rests in equal parts in the homosexual couple who have decided to marry or live together despite it being against God's laws, and with the gospel and the church that teaches that such actions are sinful.

I make no apologies for the gospel teachings themselves. Now, maybe there could be more humane ways of dealing with the situation than this particular policy, and that in my opinion should certainly be pondered and investigated by the church. But the doctrine itself is the doctrine, so to speak, and it makes perfect sense to me that as part of developing a belief in the LDS church which is required for baptism, etc., it should include a belief that the LDS gospel teachings on the subject of homosexual actions and homosexual marriage are in fact correct.

If the parents then see that as a rejection of them personally, rather than as a statement of belief that the parents' actions in this regard have been sinful, then that's *their* (the parents') fault, and not the church's nor the child's who has decided to join the church.

By the way where have I said or implied that this is akin to requiring the child to renounce his/her love for the parents. Disavowal is not equivalent to renouncing love.

Somebody certainly said that earlier in this thread, don't want to go back and take the time to figure out who it was.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Again, they are not required to disavow their parents. They are required to disavow their parents' *actions*. If you don't see a difference, then there's no hope for this conversation.

And if you can't see that this is not as simple as you claim it is, and you can't see that disavowing parents' actions has implications far beyond this simple act, then I agree, there is no hope for this conversation.

 

[colton]

Sorry, I had one more thought.

In all honesty, really? The statement asks the person to disavow the practice of same-sex marriage, which is, in essence, asking them to declare that the marriage of their parents is invalid.

Yes, exactly. The church teaches that homosexual marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. If someone wants to join the church, they must accept that doctrine. If the individual is not comfortable with that, they won't join the church.

What *should* the church do instead, in your opinion, short of changing the doctrine about homosexual marriages?

 

[colton]

And if you can't see that this is not as simple as you claim it is, and you can't see that disavowing parents' actions has implications far beyond this simple act, then I agree, there is no hope for this conversation.

Please see my last two posts (209 and 211 of the thread).

 

[b_line]

Sorry, I had one more thought.



Yes, exactly. The church teaches that homosexual marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. If someone wants to join the church, they must accept that doctrine. If the individual is not comfortable with that, they won't join the church.

What *should* the church do instead, in your opinion, short of changing the doctrine about homosexual marriages?

Well, the church also teaches that civil marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. So your point is invalid.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Why do you assume that if a married homosexual couple decided to no longer cohabitate or be a couple that any children would not be allowed to be baptized?
It's the same principle, change the things that are not in line with the teachings in order to be a member of the church, or don't be a member. Either way it's your call.
It's pretty much the same thing in both cases.
In addition, the policy does state that individuals would have to get special permission to be baptized, not that they would not be allowed to be baptized at all.

The added section (16.13) to the rules says as much:


2.The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage

 

[JAZZGASM]

I assume the Articles of Faith will have to be updated. I will go ahead and do a first draft.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression, unless your parents are gay and cohabitate at any point. Once you move out and disavow your parents actions you are golden. Also, that thing about honoring thy parents, well it still applies, even if your parents are murderers, abusers, criminals, etc., unless they are homosexual, as that is simply not forgivable (obviously).

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, including repressed homosexuals, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Although if you are under 18 and you have cohabitating gay parents, well, your just gonna have to wait. If you die before you can disavow your parents actions you just might be ****ed.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, which will be delayed until age 18 if your parents are sinners, and by sinners we mean cohabitating homos or polygamists. Wait, didnt we used to be polygamists and we gave it up for statehood? Let's ignore that.

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof, and they can also express their bigotry through policy, which is different from doctrine, so it is OK. Sure, they pray about policy decision, but it is just policy, so dont get bent out of shape, geez.





8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, if there is any ambiguity we will interpret to follow our sheltered views; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, and we will constantly revise it over the years like this one:2 Nephi 30:6“…their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”

We decided to change what Joseph Smith called “the most correct of any book on earth” by reverting to the wording of the lone 1840 edition. The word “white” was replaced with the word “pure.” Obviously we had to make that one, we aren't bigots (against blacks, at least not anymore)

 

[colton]

Well, the church also teaches that civil marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. So your point is invalid.

No, you are wrong. Civil marriages are not promised the same blessings as a temple sealing, but the church certainly does not teach that they are invalid in the eyes of God.

 

[♪alt13]

In my case, my oldest two kids are 11 and 8.

I've had conversations like that with my cousin, his wife (staunch Catholic from Poland/Germany), their kids. It was more of a curiosity thing, me answering questions, etc. As long as I was honest in my feelings and beliefs with them, it wasn't tacky or awkward. But yes, having a conversation with a kid whose parents are gay about why they couldn't be baptized would be incredibly awkward.

Your first post left me with the impression that you would have that conversation with just the child.

My eldest is 10 and most of her cousins are around that age. I think they are still so very impressionable that I try to avoid all that altogether. I had one of them ask me and my wife if we believe in god and the bible. I tried my best to not answer her question. I knew the next question would be "WHY?". We told her that that was a conversation she needed to have with her mom and dad and that she needn't worry about it for now. She wasn't satisfied with that answer and was not ready to let it go. I told her that what she thought was important. I told her that different people believe different things and that that's ok. I reiterated that she should ask her parents about it. We told the girls to go back to playing.

I'm assuming she had that conversation with her parents because she has not pressed it any further. I'm sure she still has many questions for us but those questions are probably more useful to her than any answers we could possibly give her.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Sorry, I had one more thought.



Yes, exactly. The church teaches that homosexual marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. If someone wants to join the church, they must accept that doctrine. If the individual is not comfortable with that, they won't join the church.

What *should* the church do instead, in your opinion, short of changing the doctrine about homosexual marriages?

Where is this rule? I know many members that question this doctrine, yet they are good standing members.

 

[GVC]

Too bad you've forgotten the Golden Rule then, and have started living by "an eye for an eye".

A bit ironic that you've invoked the Golden Rule in this thread, no?

 

[cowhide]

This. 100% this.

This is what bothers me. I stayed up last night pouring through the bible looking at the scriptures on homosexuality. There are some and the Bible is very clear on the matter: Homosexuality is wrong.

BUT, in EVERY case, listed right next to homosexuality is adultery and fornication. So, why are we singling out gay people?

Why is it a couple can commit fornication, get married, and their kids can get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions? According to this announcement, shouldn't the couple that fornicated be required to divorce, renounce their sins, and move on to other people before they can be cleaned of their sin? Shouldn't their kids not be allowed to get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions before renouncing their parents' sin? Shouldn't the people who committed the sin not be allowed to be Bishops, young men leaders, Primary leaders, etc?

Same for adultery? Why is it a person can commit adultery, marry the person they committed it with, have a child and that child can be baptized?

There would be few people in the church if actual sin was used as the measuring stick to enforcing such a rule. This is flat out bigotry and it is wrong and it goes against the churches own Article of faith. It isn't a surprise because the black issue went against the 2nd article of faith. PR-wise it makes the leaders seem petty and hypocritical especially after their "religious" freedom bill.