What's new
By:

I know there are a lot of LDS people here

JFFR said:
Thanks for this thread. I have a few comments. I'm LDS, in 2008 I unfortunately was very vocal in supporting the church. After meeting some gay people and having friends come out, I realize I was wrong. I've sat down and talked with some of my LDS friends that are gay and now I hope and pray my church will repent and welcome them back. Unfortunately I think it is to late. My friends are incredible, but they'd be even more amazing in my eyes if they accepted an apology from the church.

Here are a couple of thoughts.

-A lot of my LDS friends are struggling with this. Lots of activity of Facebook in the Mormon community. 50% upset, 50% trying to help those that are upset.
-The way it was leaked in the media makes it look even worse. The church should have handled this better.
-There are tons of Mormon blogs offering various explanations. I'll post some links later. One point they make is that sometimes the church doesn't allow people to get baptized in order to protect them. For example, missionaries are not allowed to teach Muslim exchange students at BYU. There is a concern that if they converted and returned home they would be shunned or even killed by their family. Apparently there are situations where Muslims are not allowed to be baptized (I don't know all the details here, this was new to me.) The thought is that it would be psychologically damaging for a child of a homosexual couple to attend church and learn that their parents are sinners/not accepted by the church. For this reason they want to delay membership for these children. Let them be older and more capable of figuring these things out.

-There are lots of faithful LDS people struggling. They feel the church has brought a great deal of goodness in their lives. They feel they have grown closer to God because of what the church teaches. It is a part of who they are and they can't deny it. But they hate what the church announced yesterday. Lots of pain.

- https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/06/all-the-more-jarring/
Click to expand...

I am also seeing another trend on FB. Probably 10-15% of the LDS family and friends I have on FB.

They are incensed and going off about "How dare people question the prophet!" and what not. That to me is an extremely bad position and leads to unnecessary hard feelings and maybe even ostracizing of other members that disagree.

It is absolutely right and good to question and wonder why and want an explanation for better understanding (even when it doesn't lead to agreement).
 
Safetydan said:
Well, Me and four of my brothers for one. My mother came out when I was 11, I'm the oldest. We were all baptized (3 of us after my mom came out) and served missions. I don't know how common it is but with this policy in place I don't think we would have stuck around.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your perspective. So your mom was in a same-sex relationship, and you lived with the two of them? Or was it shared custody, or something like that?
 
JFFR said:
One point they make is that sometimes the church doesn't allow people to get baptized in order to protect them. For example, missionaries are not allowed to teach Muslim exchange students at BYU. There is a concern that if they converted and returned home they would be shunned or even killed by their family. Apparently there are situations where Muslims are not allowed to be baptized (I don't know all the details here, this was new to me.)
Click to expand...

That's true, or at least I know it has been at times in the past. When I was a missionary, 1989-1991, at least during part of that time we were prevented from baptizing Muslims for exactly that same reason. (I don't know what the current policy is.)
 
green said:
What about the Church changing the law of chastity?
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not going to get into a discussion of temple ceremony wording with you for obvious reasons (I hold the temple ceremony sacred). But the church has not changed the law of chastity during my lifetime.
 
green said:
...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?...
Click to expand...

ok, so I'm going to sound a bit like Beantown here, but the answer should be pretty obvious - - gay couples cannot, on their own, procreate.

I think that explains something.
 
I'd thought the Church has taken some solid steps on this issue...

https://www.religionnews.com/2015/0...k-gay-marriage-social-media-lds-apostle-says/

Any Mormon can have a belief "on either side of this issue," he said. "That's not uncommon." There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it, if that’s your belief and you think it’s right,”
Click to expand...

But from the new policy...

"The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"
Click to expand...

Definition of disavow: Deny any responsibility or support for.
 
green said:
I get this and have no qualms with this. My problem is the singling out homosexuals. God has made it clear that homosexuals (or paying for sex if what Sir says is true) is equal to fornication and adultery.

So, why do we let fornicators and adulterers get married and then their kids can have all the ordinances done but we don't allow homosexuals to do so?

Why are we singling out one group, when God did not single out one group. He mentioned all together.

Why is it ok to show bigotry to one group of people?

How is this any different than the priesthood issue?

I know the Church has thrown Young under the bus over the priesthood issue, but McConkie taught from the pulpit that black people were sinners and marked for their sin. When my father was on his mission, he was not allowed to teach black people. Why? Because they could not get the priesthood, so they could not get the full benefits of the gospel so why waste your time? They were sinners from before birth anyways.

The Church will do the same thing with this issue. The current leadership will die off, and when it does a less bigoted leadership will take over. It will probably take more protests, it will probably take more schools refusing to play BYU in sports, more demonstrations, etc. But it will happen. Then the new prophet will issue another statement throwing Monson under the bus and calling him a bigot and allowing the children of homosexuals to be named, baptized, etc.

My problem is that is not the actions of a church led by revelation from God.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but how could the church possibly suggest that the children of fornicators and adulterers cannot be baptized? Same sex couples with children are typically very open about their lifestyle and what goes on in their home. They are proud of their lifestyle. They promote equality and rights for all people. They are PROUD of who they are.

Adulterers are the opposite. They don't publicize what they are doing. I would imagine that they are typically ashamed of what they are doing. Adulterers don't promote what they are doing, nor are they proud of it.

Children living under homes with these circumstances are obviously experiencing different things, despite them being listed together in the Bible a few thousand years ago.
 
Last edited:
green said:
If homosexuals marry, why is it still a sin?

I'm sorry if I come off rude or crass, but I am really trying to find the correct answer to this.
Click to expand...

because marriage and religion is man woman, not man man! whether men fornicate or get married then have sex both are sins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top