- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If you were not aware of it: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/54089953-90/church-gay-lds-marriage.html.csp Bro. Reid makes some very good points in his statements.
Quite a contrast to other LDS serving in congress, or the one aspiring to be president, IMO. Reid’s comments directly contradict statements by the brethren on how marriage equality jeopardizes the sanctity of marriage. do the brethren care? will they react to declare, thru FP letter, that LDS should defend marriage? Senator Reid is a wonderful boon to the LDS public relations effort. I think of him as the original prototype for the “And I’m a Mormon” PR campaign. He helps to weaken the idea that a Mormon President would just be a puppet for SLC.
I understand that the state of Utah voted to repeal the prohibition amendment… I think being able to vote our conscience should always trump “follow the brethren.”
Roy wrote:I understand that the state of Utah voted to repeal the prohibition amendment… I think being able to vote our conscience should always trump “follow the brethren.”
to the GREAT disappointment of the leadership at the time. likewise, the church from the time of JS believed in common consent.but not today. when in 1974-77, certain LDS actively dissented from the heinous “doctrine” of withholding the priesthood from blacks–they were all excommunicated.
maybe reid is too visible. september 1993 is less than 20 years ago.
wayfarer, that is all fine and good accurate, but Harry Reid IS the highest ranking Mormon in the US Government right now – and he has been taking political stances that are contrary to some general Church stances for a long time. He supports legalized gambling, for example, and has for a long time. Bro. Reid served as a Gospel Doctrine teacher for part of his time in the Senate. He is an active, unapologetic member.
Fwiw, I posted this link to highlight his statements in the article. I would like to have it focus on him and his statements, not on other things we can and do discuss in other threads. Please.
🙂 For example:
Quote:“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd,” Reid said.
I think Senator Reid is a great example of what an honest and moral and ethical Mormon should be and act like. Speak your mind, and say what you believe is right, regardless of what the church leadership says to the contrary. Be true and follow the spirit. Let the consequences follow. Good for you Mr. Reid. Old-Timer wrote:For example:
Quote:“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd,” Reid said.
One thing that has probably been said a hundred times here….it just makes so much sense to me…if sex outside of marriage is wrong, than why not let them get married?
I just don’t get it. I don’t understand the threat. I don’t understand the church’s position on this issue at all. If sex outside of marriage is immoral…why make laws that will continue and perhaps increase more immorality? Gay people are going to have sex…why not support them getting married and doing it in committed relationship?
I just don’t get it.
Harry Reid was exactly correct, IMO.
Leadership couldn’t and wouldn’t touch him as he’s entitled to his opinion. It’s a great example of someone following his conscience in a public way which will pave the way for people who aren’t famous and influential to do the same. It’s similar to Marie Osmond siding with her daughter who is gay. We have less to fear from the Q15 – more to fear from hardline bishops and SPs who think they are circling the wagons. I need to bring some of his quotes to church, from time to time people in my ward make incredibly offensive comments about gay marriage, this week blasting Pres Obama. I typically just tune these comments out, but feel I should perhaps introduce some new viewpoints to the class. Imnot sure how it will go over. Anyone else have suggestions or find ways to productively make open comments about gay marriage in class? Or will that just not go over well?
I’m sure this will cement HR’s position amongst the vocal portion of my ward as the worst excuse for a mormon ever. But I’m gaining a new respect for the guy. Quote:“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd,” Reid said.
Well said, though I understand there are arguments on both sides of the issue. If that’s what he really thinks, though, it makes one wonder why he voted the way he has so many times in the past. I think it’s great that he looks to the younger generations (his children and grandchildren) to get a feel for where things are going.
doug wrote:If that’s what he really thinks, though, it makes one wonder why he voted the way he has so many times in the past.I think it’s great that he looks to the younger generations (his children and grandchildren) to get a feel for where things are going. Probably for the same reason that I was once a Young Republican and contributed money to the Oregon Family Council & Defense of Marriage Coalition, and voted to amend the Oregon Constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman
😳 😳 People change, people evolve. People mix with other people, and their perspective of the world changes as they learn to empathize with those who are different. People’s spiritually and world view do evolve. It’s a good thing.
Unless you’re Mormon.
doug wrote:I’m sure this will cement HR’s position amongst the vocal portion of my ward as the worst excuse for a mormon ever.
I had written the following in another post about Senator Reid more than a year ago.
Quote:I thought of a very vocal political minded woman in my ward. When I asked her if she thought Harry should be excommunicated she responded that he should be shot.
I love the idea that being united doesn’t mean that we are all the same. Unfortunately not everyone feels the same way and some would push out those that are different.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Leadership couldn’t and wouldn’t touch him as he’s entitled to his opinion. It’s a great example of someone following his conscience in a public way which will pave the way for people who aren’t famous and influential to do the same. It’s similar to Marie Osmond siding with her daughter who is gay. We have less to fear from the Q15 – more to fear from hardline bishops and SPs who think they are circling the wagons.
Wow — this is a really good comment.I think one’s attitude changes the closer one gets to the issue.
I thought homosexuals were deviants until I got to know someone who i thought to be the most honest, upright, example of leadership and integrity. I asked him, one time travelling together, “Tell me about youself, your wife and family.” His answer: “I have a partner and his name is Thomas.” Open mouth, extract foot. When we meet the people behind the label, we learn that they are real people, good people. caring, loving, kind hearted people.
So for years after this, I was ok with other people being gay. Then, I was driving with my daughter and she came out to me. And I thought she just had a drinking/suicide problem… This completely upset my sense of what ‘gay’ meant. I tried every possible line of thinking: other people, outside the church — that’s ok for them. But for me and my house? We will serve the Lord and no-one will be gay in my house. Seriously — this is where I was. I couldn’t handle the idea. It was miserable.
Then I had to start realizing that I, too, had a homosexual experience or so when I was a child — abuse by another kid, and when I didn’t like what we were doing, he turned on me. He became the bully that beat up on me every recess – and organized others to do so — and spread a rumor that I was a queer and other not-so-nice names. Ironic isn’t it? When I realized this experience — it was deeply buried — I had to realize my own sexuality and understand myself better. Once I came to know myself better, then I came to accept my daughter for exactly who she is.
I have often said exactly what Harry Reid now is saying publicly. But whenever I have voiced opposition to Prop 8 or the idea that marriage equality actually is good for marriage, I get the ‘looks’, and the ‘attitude’ that I am not in keeping with the proclamation on the family. I did not feel I had the same rights of freedom of expression in the church as does Harry Reid.
Now with Reid’s expression, maybe we can be a little more vocal. Maybe I don’t care what the church thinks any more.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Leadership couldn’t and wouldn’t touch him as he’s entitled to his opinion. It’s a great example of someone following his conscience in a public way which will pave the way for people who aren’t famous and influential to do the same. It’s similar to Marie Osmond siding with her daughter who is gay. We have less to fear from the Q15 – more to fear from hardline bishops and SPs who think they are circling the wagons.
wayfarer wrote:I have often said exactly what Harry Reid now is saying publicly. But whenever I have voiced opposition to Prop 8 or the idea that marriage equality actually is good for marriage, I get the ‘looks’, and the ‘attitude’ that I am not in keeping with the proclamation on the family. I did not feel I had the same rights of freedom of expression in the church as does Harry Reid.
Now with Reid’s expression, maybe we can be a little more vocal. Maybe I don’t care what the church thinks any more.
These are both really good comments, and thanks for sharing your story, wayfarer. It is very true that the closer we are to the situation, the more our attitudes change.It is still uncomfortable in church to openly discuss these tolerant views without getting those “looks” from others, and their comments about the evils of society caused by these groups who fail to follow the brethren make me sad. They actually make me want to attend church less, because I don’t feel good being around people with hurtful attitudes. But I try to remain, telling myself I want to grant others the same liberty to hold and express their views as I want for my views. I need to make sure I’m tolerant, even if others aren’t.
The article stated:
Quote:LDS leaders regularly point to its statement on relationships with government, which says public officials who are Mormon make their own decisions and may not agree “with one another or even with a publicly stated church position.”Does this not specifically state that
LDS leaders recognize people will have different views? Perhaps local authorities and ward members need to be reminded of how their leaders in Salt Lake view such things. DIFFERING VIEWS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED. Heber13 wrote:The article stated:
Quote:LDS leaders regularly point to its statement on relationships with government, which says public officials who are Mormon make their own decisions and may not agree “with one another or even with a publicly stated church position.”
Does this not specifically state thatLDS leaders recognize people will have different views? Perhaps local authorities and ward members need to be reminded of how their leaders in Salt Lake view such things. DIFFERING VIEWS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED.
No, it does not say that ‘people’ will have differing views. It only says that public officials may make their own decisions.My premise in my previous posts was that Harry Reid can say something publicly without being chastized by the church. That does not exempt local leaders from taking action should a rank-and-file member get vocal about one of these ‘morality’ issues. In fact it only provides a very legitmate exemption for public officials.
Ray may moderate my comments out of existence if he so desires, but i believe that members are not on safe ground when the openly oppose a position taken by the leadership, with precedents in 1974-77 and 1993 as being evidence. In an effort to ‘StayLDS”, one has to seriously consider the consequences of advocacy, and how it is to be done. Without hard and fast rules, it’s dangerous territory.
the public position allowing elected mormon officials to take any position even if opposed to the brethren is interesting. I have to respect Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, who took a supportive position on civil rights. Delbert Stapley sent him a personal letter, on official “Council of the Twelve” letterhead, but with caveats that it was his personal opinion. What was that opinion? That going against the stated position of the church is detrimental to the well-being of the public official. He cited numerous cases where the lord had allegedly extracted vengeance for violating the spirit of the brethren.
To his credit, George Romney ignored the letter and continued on the right course of civil rights and justice. But the letter is very ominous. According to the 14 Fundamentals of following the prophet, the prophet(s) don’t need to express anything as being official for it to be mandatory to comply.
So here we are: Harry Reid publicly states the obvious, that civil right of marriage equality doesn’t harm marriage, and George’s son says otherwise. George was a republican, to boot.
Fascinating the course of things.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.