I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[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.