- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Newsroom just came out with this article today: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage We knew it was coming. Bothers me on so many levels. Where is the call for compassion towards those who feel marginalized and shunned? Where is the outreach towards towards a demographic that is committing suicide in Utah more than in any other state? The church has accepted that this is not a choice, so where is the REVELATION? Where are our prophets?? Where is the guidance and love offered to a group of people that are literally KILLING THEMSELVES?? Can the prophets not appeal to the Lord for guidance in how this fits into his plan? How is reinforcing our opposition to this helping anybody? It’s not like there were a lot of TBM on the cusp of changing their mind over this. It’s only going to make prejudice stronger.
And on top of that, I fear we are re-living the priesthood ban all over again. The church will eventually accept gay marriage in some form or another. Just as the racism of the past from our perspective is both appalling and unthinkable, society will reach this point with its view on prejudice against the LGBT community, where it will no longer be socially acceptable. And then the paradigm shift on “prophetic authority” must take a sharp turn if the church is to survive. It will be difficult to spin this one as not really being “doctrine,” but just “policy,” what with how adamant they have been on this issue.
John, fwiw, I read the statement, and I thought it was as good as it could be right now – since I thought there was no way the Church could publish anything that supported gay marriage right now. Quote:Where is the call for compassion towards those who feel marginalized and shunned?
The statement says more than once that everyone on both sides of the issue deserves compassion and civility. It says that explicitly. All other things aside, I really liked that statement. I have no doubt that, as cwald says often, many members won’t follow their own prophets in this regard, but the leaders have said it.
Also, the our Article of Faith says that the Church supports the law of the land, so I actually think this is a statement that can be used once the issue is settled as nation-wide law for the Church to stop fighting it and move forward. I don’t expect to see gay marriages performed in our churches in my lifetime, but simply not fighting its legalization is enough for me in the near future.
Old-Timer wrote:The statement says more than once that everyone on both sides of the issue deserves compassion and civility. It says that explicitly.
The tone I got from this part left me with the feeling they were speaking more about political civility rather than compassion towards the actual people suffering through this. Sorry if I seemed colored by emotion, I just don’t see this as anything more than political posturing. I realize that this would not have been the venue for further revelation or insight into the issue of SSA. I’m still praying for the day when we hear a GC talk addressing this issue in a compassionate, sensible way that does not politicize the issue. I hold out hope that this will one day occur.
JohnLocke wrote:. I’m still praying for the day when we hear a GC talk addressing this issue in a compassionate, sensible way that does not politicize the issue. I hold out hope that this will one day occur.
Indeed.
The church is in a terrible position right now. They have spent so many years digging themselves into this hole…they cannot dig themselves out overnight.
I think they want to. I think they are trying. But, IMO, the people, the membership, simply will not listen to their own prophets.
Quote:I’m still praying for the day when we hear a GC talk addressing this issue in a compassionate, sensible way that does not politicize the issue.
I am, too.
There were a few specific mentions of being civil. The first:
Quote:Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it.
I read a bit of my own bias into that. I read more emphasis placed on the second half of the sentence… to explain myself, I’ve heard variants of this many times: everyone is accepting of the same-sex marriage message but they call me a bigot when I relate my views. It’s the persecution complex working against the faithful member.
I’d offer a slight rewording:
Quote:Just as those who oppose same-sex marriage enjoy civility within our ranks, the same should be true for those who promote it.
Edit: The difference? I feel like the wording in the official statement is aimed at justifying the church’s right to hold the positions it holds while my tweak gives leaders an action item to treat people with more kindness. Semantics and language. So hard to share a thought when people come away with different ideas from the same words.
The second:
Quote:The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.
No way to misinterpret that language. I do like it. If I
hadto find fault I’d say that this directs leaders to treat proponents of same-sex marriage with kindness and civility (it’s aimed at people who disagree with us) but I’d also like to see some direct language asking leaders to show a LGBT person more kindness and civility. IMO the last paragraph detracts from the message. These are the parting words and they are a reminder that there are “inevitable consequences,” no need to expound on that. “Wisdom,” meaning if you don’t make the decision the church makes you are unwise. “Hearts softened,” one group has a hard heart. Which one?
nibbler wrote:There were a few specific mentions of being civil.
I just hope President Packer and Elder Oaks got the same memo.
I don’t think it is very “civil” to call me a “moral coward” from the pulpit during general conference because I disagree with the church position on SSM.
cwald wrote:The church is in a terrible position right now. They have spent so many years digging themselves into this hole…they cannot dig themselves out overnight.
I think they want to. I think they are trying. But, IMO, the people, the membership, simply will not listen to their own prophets.
That might be the reason it took so long for the priesthood ban to be lifted and why the church appears to move slowly in general. They allow the world to do the heavy lifting when it comes to changing attitudes and then adopt afterwards.
I was watching an episode of Diff’rent Strokes a few weeks back and it hit me. Here we have a program that has children as the primary viewership. It features a white family that adopts black children and often tackles the issue of race head on. Older generations are often set in their ways, sometimes the only hope is to let the grownups fight it out until the day they die but provide a better way for the up and coming generation. Diff’rent Strokes did what they did for future generations.
Being charitable toward the church… perhaps they move so slowly to (again) allow the world to do the heavy lifting. That way by the time they make their policy change the world is already there so they don’t have 80% of the membership’s heads exploding and losing faith.
That goes back to the notion in some other thread that I read on this site that said something along the lines of god using the world to perfect the church as opposed to the other way around.
This really didn’t surprise me. I do hope for civility between both sides of the issue. I know of a few members that can take it too far and the same on the LGTB side. I also wish that it was kosher for those members that can marry and feel comfortable marrying LGTB couples to do so. I feel some members will still probably do it because the couple is a close friend. Also if you have spare time and want a laugh you should read the comment section. Boy it’s a dozy! I do believe this is the first step in a long road down to accepting LGTB people in our church. After all they didn’t ask members to write the Governor and take up arms in defense of the law (think prop 
.This is my first reply to any post. I hope I don’t embarrass myself 
I got into an argument with a really good (open minded) friend today. He has really been my sounding board as I have gone through my FC. We both support SSM (I support it, he simply doesn’t oppose it) but he made a comment today related to the churches publication today as well as the legal back and forth between state and fed that I couldn’t really respond to. He isn’t upset about SSM being allowed. He is more upset about the vote of the majority being overturned by an appeals judge in another state. I REALLY DON”T MEAN TO GET POLITICAL HERE but he made a valid point.
I believe in equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters but I also believe in democracy. In a state that clearly opposes it, should I be OK with the will of the majority being overturned by the will of the minority? I don’t live in Utah, but I’m sure that Idaho is just around the corner and I don’t really know how to respond to this rebuttal.
Who has any opinion they could share with me?
I don’t mind it, if I believe it deals with a basic human right. In that sense, I believed in overturning the will of the majority in the Deep South that led to enforced segregation. I’m not saying I think all of the issues surrounding this topic are perfectly in line with that issue, but I absolutely don’t hold the will of the majority as sacred. It’s been oppressive and wrong too many times throughout history.
This topic really stuck in my craw last night. Thanks for your reply Ray. Your response is essentially how I responded to him as well but he had an answer that (at the time) seemed valid. He replied that through a civil union or domestic partnership, gay couples are not denied any legal rights afforded a married couple (this is not true, more to follow). I then brought up the civil rights movement and how the federal government finally had to integrate schools in the south at gun point. The vote of the majority was overturned. Legally, the government was justified because (I believe) it was the supreme court that finally came in and laid down the hammer. In the case of SSM, the supreme court does not see it as a civil right necessarily and has left if up to the states to decide. I don’t really know how to reply to this. I am not a legal or political expert and wonder if anyone has any insight to help clarify. As for my point above about the rights of a civil union being equal to that of a civil marriage, I found some pretty good sources to refute this and I thought I would share. It is interesting to note that less than 5 states even allow for a civil union and domestic partnerships hold very little legal equality with marriage.
This is very interesting to me and helped shed light on how unfair and ridiculous staunch conservatives are being to their fellow men and women.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-versus-civil-unions-domestic-partnerships-etc http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf Fwiw, I think the Supreme Court is going to tackle the issue relatively soon, given the discrepancy right now among the states and how quickly the issue is progressing at that level. I think the central issue was Utah’s insistence that they wouldn’t recognize the marriages that were performed before a stay could be issued, as well as the federal judge’s refusal to grant that stay at the time of the ruling. (I personally think the judge should have granted the stay immediately, but that he wanted gay marriages to be on the books, since that would further his own view.) I think the Supreme Court doesn’t want lower judges using their positions to create a situation that would be harder for the Supreme Court to address if they delayed tackling it. I might be wrong about that, but I think they wanted to tackle the federal rights issue, one way or the other, to make the state issues less divisive and contentious – and to lower the chance for judicial activism in either direction. I think they knew that if they didn’t act now, they would have multiple appeals on their hands that they would have to address eventually – in a more complicated situation, overall.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.