What's new
By:

I know there are a lot of LDS people here

Sirkickyass said:
It's not really the long-run anymore. The fight has already been lost.

This is now about the degree to which the church is willing to marginalize itself and make it clear that it is a niche as the decades go on.
Click to expand...

So, Kicky. . . you still have me on ignore because you want to be on the winning side, riding the wave, to the extent that you just don't want people in your view who disagree with you? I think that "in the long run" you are wrong, along with the whole kit and caboodle of trendy politicos today. You only marginalize yourself when you get picky, Kicky.

In the long term, the LGBT folks will become pariahs in the eyes of a rising generation. People with no kids have no future. It's the problem of how to transmit values to another generation. You have to be there, and be real, as in really involved in the lives of that generation. In the long run, we have historical examples of societies and cultures that went the way we are going, and things have always shifted back towards the successful model of family life. Heterosexual parents raising their own kids and teaching them by example and precept to do what they have done.

Dinner at the finest restaurant in town says, that in 2030, the LDS Church will be riding the wave of a return to traditional family models, and hugely successful in promoting that traditional family model.
 
nightmare3983 said:
Having not read through the thread to see others' responses, who said that God hates gay people?
Click to expand...

There's some background material on this as a thread running across about nine hundred years in a book called "The Bible". In the Bible, God is invoked as the source for a lot of human reason trotted out as "commandments of God". Sure, it professes to represent the views of people from Abraham to the Christian apostles, but the OT was compiled under the orders of Solomon in his campaign to render the Israelite lore into a state religion, so it represents potentially serious editing.

Abraham, however, is presented as pleading with God to not destroy the reputedly gay cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Israelites coming into the "Promised Land" were allegedly instructed by God to destroy the gay Amorites and other gay bands of inhabitants some one thousand years later. The Israelites grew weary of trying to do that genocide, however, and were still fighting the gay Philistines four hundred years later. . . . and in the days of Jezebel, practically the whole Israel nation was gay itself.

So no matter how some may make pariahs of the LGBT folks, you can bet they'll keep coming into fashion from time to time no matter what efforts can be made to marginalize them or drive them back into the closets. . . . and God will always be invoked as either being fer 'em or agin 'em.

Moe was being cute when she said it, but it does appear God has singled them out for the special punishment of being infertile couples. . . .others may invoke Darwin on the survival of the fittest if God is too obscure a character for rational expositions of nature.

The whole of human history is not linear, but cyclical, with successive generations or eras essentially rejecting their immediate past in favor of some "new" fashion of thought.

Welcome to the merry-go-round.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
LDS doctrine teaches that all people will have a fair opportunity to accept the gospel, in this life or the next. A child being raised by wonderful parents that don't share our views on same-sex marriage will obviously have a better opportunity at some point to choose to be baptized or not.
Click to expand...

I think this is the part that is often being left out - whether intentionally or not, who knows - as people express their outrage. But I still have faith in a Heavenly Father who is fair and just. I'm still working through all of my thoughts and feelings on this, but from an eternal perspective everyone will ultimately be treated fairly.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Question for the LDS folks:

I've grown up in Utah and have never been LDS. When I was young, I was invited to the LDS Church by my friends and neighbors. I went a few times and participated in church recitals and other activities, with my friends. The church part was not for me, but I know that is a way some kids are exposed to the LDS faith.

Would you encourage your kids to invite a kid with gay parents to church. Why or why not?
Click to expand...

On the one hand, I wouldn't want to discourage my kids from acting on a missionary opportunity. On the other hand, of course I'd be worried about the other kid having a bad experience. Dang it, stop asking tough questions!
 
dalamon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Best post of this thread.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
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."
Click to expand...

This is why a prophet would be so important and useful today.

The LDS Church claims to have one, yet he is silent on this issue but has his lawyers and publicists release statements instead.

It's too bad that money is the driving force behind the LDS Corp nowadays.
 
bigb said:
Honest question here (not trying to be a dick)
Are you pissed that Mormons don't baptize the kids of polygamists? What about Muslims?
Why or why not?
Click to expand...

This is such a loaded question. Do you realize that Mormons still practice polygamy? Many members of the Quorum of the 12 are married to more than one woman.

Another example of the Church picking and choosing rules to follow. They make the child of a polygamist go against their parent's marriage to join a church where many of the leaders are married to more than one woman.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
It's okay to disagree with "revealed" doctrine, so it's that much more okay (whatever that might mean) to disagree with policy that the church never even claimed was based on any revelation. I'm glad you stood up, Zulu and I would expect no less from a fellow Burks homer.
Click to expand...

This is my problem. They Church has not claimed revelation at all. Not with the family proclamation, not with the handbook, not with any of it.

Instead, they leave dots to connect to imply they have received revelation, when there is no proof they have received revelation.

Instead of connecting dots with scriptures taken out of context (whether by my voice or the voice of my servants...when we know this isn't true all the time because of all the racist policies Brother Brigham enacted), just come out and say, "God told me to write down the Proclamation".

It's because he didn't. It's because the leaders of this church either lost revelation or never had it from the beginning.
 
The more I think about this, the more I've come to the conclusion that this is what happened:

Some old guys in SLC became worried that if children of gay couples grew up around LDS kids, the LDS kids would discover that children of gay couples were A-OK.

And if those kids are A-OK, then the LDS kids will become more accepting of the gay kids. And who knows where that will lead to.

It's like drinking and the LDS church. They paint people who drink and smoke in such a negative light, that my first reaction STILL to people who drink is "they must be beating their wives or driving drunk, or some sort of irresponsible activity".

That's a horrible reaction, because it just isn't true at all. BUT, they indoctrinated me to the point with that baloney that I've never drank alcohol or even coffee in my life.

Now, I don't care if people drink. I'm to the point in my life where I'm just not up for change. I have a nice rut I'm in. Drinking is expensive. What's the point now?

BUT, the feelings are there and are incorrect. How could Joseph Smith and Brigham Young see God while drinking and smoking, yet if I do, I'll be damned to hell, or worse, beat my kids and wife in a drunken stupor?

Makes no sense.
 
green said:
This is my problem. They Church has not claimed revelation at all. Not with the family proclamation, not with the handbook, not with any of it.

Instead, they leave dots to connect to imply they have received revelation, when there is no proof they have received revelation.

Instead of connecting dots with scriptures taken out of context (whether by my voice or the voice of my servants...when we know this isn't true all the time because of all the racist policies Brother Brigham enacted), just come out and say, "God told me to write down the Proclamation".

It's because he didn't. It's because the leaders of this church either lost revelation or never had it from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Pretty clear to me there is a fundamental problem with a human speaking for GOD. Joseph Smith used the whole range of "options" in his time, and a lot of it was seriously questionable. For anyone seeking a clearly logical line of belief without contradictions like these, I'm pretty sure you'll just have to start from scratch as a thinking person building a conscience.

However, I don't blame GOD for what anyone says. That helps me a lot.
 
On my mission, I'd tract into people who would say, "no thanks, I'm Catholic. Or Orthodox. Or whatever." I'd try to talk to them and show them holes in their religion. They'd respond, "My parents are Orthodox, their parents are Orthodox. I go to Church on Easter and Christmas. I'm Orthodox." We'd part ways and I'd be amazed that they could feel like that.

I get it now.

All Church's have issues. All have problems and I'm not sure God is guiding any of them. Too much money involved.

That being said, I'm not going to change. I'm mormon. My family is. My friends are. My kids friends are. What's the point of changing now? I'll continue to do what I do. I'll read my scriptures every day, like I do. I'll attend Church often, like I do. I'll baptize my kids LDS, because if I don't, where do I baptize them? Catholic? Protestant? In my backyard pool? I'll also be open and frank with them in my discussions and if they choose to live a little lax...well, I won't think they are going to beat their wives if they drink a barley drink on a Friday night, as allowed by the Word of Wisdom.
 
babe said:
Pretty clear to me there is a fundamental problem with a human speaking for GOD. Joseph Smith used the whole range of "options" in his time, and a lot of it was seriously questionable. For anyone seeking a clearly logical line of belief without contradictions like these, I'm pretty sure you'll just have to start from scratch as a thinking person building a conscience.

However, I don't blame GOD for what anyone says. That helps me a lot.
Click to expand...


Can't those arguments be applied for any prophet, from Moses to Noah, to Muhammad, to Jesus, to Peter and Paul? The reality is, we have nothing of any sort of concrete evidence for God.

Like Dala said, just be a good person. Like Christ said, love your neighbor. That's what it comes down to.

There will be a lot of "jack" mormons in heaven in the next life and a lot of people that paid their 10% on gross that will be left out. As all the scriptures say, God will judge you on what is in your heart. If your heart is pure, your actions will be acceptable to God. If your heart is not pure, you actions may seem good, but the evil intent will not be rewarded.
 
babe said:
So, Kicky. . . you still have me on ignore because you want to be on the winning side, riding the wave, to the extent that you just don't want people in your view who disagree with you? I think that "in the long run" you are wrong, along with the whole kit and caboodle of trendy politicos today. You only marginalize yourself when you get picky, Kicky.

In the long term, the LGBT folks will become pariahs in the eyes of a rising generation. People with no kids have no future. It's the problem of how to transmit values to another generation. You have to be there, and be real, as in really involved in the lives of that generation. In the long run, we have historical examples of societies and cultures that went the way we are going, and things have always shifted back towards the successful model of family life. Heterosexual parents raising their own kids and teaching them by example and precept to do what they have done.

Dinner at the finest restaurant in town says, that in 2030, the LDS Church will be riding the wave of a return to traditional family models, and hugely successful in promoting that traditional family model.
Click to expand...

View attachment 4520
SCIENCE!
 
green said:
Can't those arguments be applied for any prophet, from Moses to Noah, to Muhammad, to Jesus, to Peter and Paul? The reality is, we have nothing of any sort of concrete evidence for God.

Like Dala said, just be a good person. Like Christ said, love your neighbor. That's what it comes down to.

There will be a lot of "jack" mormons in heaven in the next life and a lot of people that paid their 10% on gross that will be left out. As all the scriptures say, God will judge you on what is in your heart. If your heart is pure, your actions will be acceptable to God. If your heart is not pure, you actions may seem good, but the evil intent will not be rewarded.
Click to expand...

Well, of course. And the second part of that basic human problem is that folks get to pick and choose what they will respect or honor in terms of "scripture" or "prophets".

Can you imagine actually being GOD and trying to tell humans anything? How painful can it be to try, then watch what we will make of those efforts? That's what brings me back to the basic question of whether I could rightly represent my best beliefs as coming from "GOD". I'm sure I don't have it all put together just right, and I have to be patient with myself as I am while I work through stuff.

Then comes the realization that perhaps I should respect the rights of others, even organizations like Churches, do their own due diligence and process of seeking. Not sure where it will end up, but if I get to try to find a better way, so do others.
 
b_line said:
View attachment 4520
SCIENCE!
Click to expand...

well, like Trout might say about a proposal like mine above, NO HOMO. Just a principled view that human nature is what is, and will not be changed either by religious or ideological political ideals espoused by a few intellectuals. . . . and tolerance for the human nature in us that provokes us to different views sometimes.. . . and confidence that traditional values that have returned time and again after various societal experimental values will again return after this cycle.

And b_, do you know how much that SCIENCE costs. Well, maybe no object to Kicky, come to think of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top