- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wow! Now this is a website that fills me with hope and a little bit of pride. It’s a small, but brave, step in the right direction. To have the official logo on this and videos from the Apostles is a huge statement by the Brethren. http://www.mormonsandgays.org/http://www.mormonsandgays.org/” class=”bbcode_url”> Quote:The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is.
Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
The website also includes a statement from Dahlin H. Oaks like:
Quote:This same topic was discussed with all of the general authorities of the church in April of 2012. We will not discuss any of the multitude of other issues and questions. There is so much we don’t understand about this subject, that we’d do well to stay close to what we know from the revealed word of God. What we do know is that the doctrine of the church, that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married, has not changed and is not changing. But what is changing and what needs to change is to help our own members and families understand how to deal with same gender attraction.
Interesting that he says ‘is not changing’ but not ‘will never change.’
Thanks for this. I like this part:
Quote:But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.
I am literally sitting with tears in my eyes after seeing this!!(reading this on my iPhone on an overcrowded train..) amazing! This is SUCH a huge step forward! I wish I could show this to some of my extremely narrow minded miss. Companions (I remember one specific comp. talking about homosexuality=fire and brimstone.. While not gay myself, (or knowing any people in the church with same sex attraction) I always wanted more understanding from the members when it came to gays/lesbians. This is actually my first post here on staylds.(been lurking around for a couple of months now). I wanted my first post to be an “this is me/introduction” post but I couldn’t help writing this!!! Wohooooo!
Orson wrote:Thanks for this.
I like this part:
Quote:But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.
Agreed. This feel a long way from Proposition 8.
I’ve just shared it on my facebook feed. I’ll be interested to see what reaction I get. I’m not ‘out’ as middle-way but made a comment that might have hinted at such. Feel a little nervous.
It’s a great step in the right direction. I hope there are more in the near and far future. Bear wrote:I am literally sitting with tears in my eyes after seeing this!!(reading this on my iPhone on an overcrowded train..) amazing! This is SUCH a huge step forward! I wish I could show this to some of my extremely narrow minded miss. Companions (I remember one specific comp. talking about homosexuality=fire and brimstone.. While not gay myself, (or knowing any people in the church with same sex attraction) I always wanted more understanding from the members when it came to gays/lesbians.
This is actually my first post here on staylds.(been lurking around for a couple of months now). I wanted my first post to be an “this is me/introduction” post but I couldn’t help writing this!!! Wohooooo!
Welcome Bear. I agree with you. It’s an exciting time.
If you had lived prior to Peter giving the gentiles the gospel and saw his resistance to doing so, would you have raised a rutkus? If you have lived in 1977 and was adament that all males should have priesthood, would you have raised a rutkus?
My point being, if we have any hope that this church is led by revelation then we ought to see that God’s time is not ours and that history has taught us to be patient as solutions come in his time.
I too am grateful for the small changes in emphasis and feel it will be a blessing to many
It sounds like ” the church” has recongnized the need to have a Jesus Christ understanding and compassion. Now if the rest of us members could get on board that would be wonderful. Quote:
I’ve just shared it on my facebook feed. I’ll be interested to see what reaction I get. I’m not ‘out’ as middle-way but made a comment that might have hinted at such. Feel a little nervous.I did the same thing and haven’t had any lash back yet. This website gives me a lot of hope for the church and its stance on gays. It will be nice to have something to back me up next time there is a homophobic remark in church.
True story: a guy in our ward was teaching priesthood a few Sundays back and said something to the effect of “they used to take gays and nail their penis to a tree…as it should be.” Luckily I teach the deacons and missed that one, but I am hoping this message will reach guys like that.
DBMormon wrote:If you had lived prior to Peter giving the gentiles the gospel and saw his resistance to doing so, would you have raised a rutkus?
If you have lived in 1977 and was adament that all males should have priesthood, would you have raised a rutkus?
You’re damn right I would have.
Women rights, slavery, Protestant reformation, ERA, founding fathers, interracial marriage, clergy sexual abuse etc etc…thank God for the people who speak up when they feel goverment and religious authority are wrong and abusing their power.
I think it is ironic that God relies on rebels to do his work for him…you know, folks like Joseph Smith who said the hell with the ecclesiastical authority of his time.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
DBMormon wrote:If you had lived prior to Peter giving the gentiles the gospel and saw his resistance to doing so, would you have raised a rutkus?
If you have lived in 1977 and was adament that all males should have priesthood, would you have raised a rutkus?
My point being, if we have any hope that this church is led by revelation then we ought to see that God’s time is not ours and that history has taught us to be patient as solutions come in his time.
I too am grateful for the small changes in emphasis and feel it will be a blessing to many
Rutkus? To quote one of my heroes: “You keep using that word. I do no’ think it mean’ wha’ you think it mean'”
Did you mean:
Ruck·us/ˈrəkəs/
Noun:
A disturbance or commotion
Dictionary.com
Anyway…
The revelation on the WoW only occurred AFTER Emma made a ruckus and Joseph enquired.
There are other examples, but I’d have to get on my laptop to make sure I’m not misquoting. I think they would include: tithing’s clarification and re-emphasis, Peter’s revelation (in response to Cornelius the centurion’s prayers, Acts 10), blacks having the priesthood, baptism for the dead, polygamy ending, the revelation on the spirit world/spirit prison, the lowering of the mission age and even the first vision itself were all in response to some tangible concern/problem/tragedy/legal or social issue.
In essence some sort of emotional or literal ‘ruckus’ triggered a concern that lead to a question that lead to an answer and a change in practice or doctrine.
The critic may call that ‘molding beliefs to suit your needs’ but I would try to see it as God giving answers as questions arise. Line upon line, precept on precept. Not running faster than we have strength. Maybe we don’t have gay marriage in the church yet because there are too many slow runners and the pace is being set accordingly?
The point is, in many of these key principles in our history, they came (as visions/dreams/answers to prayer) in response to questions and concerns that either the prophet or a third party raised.
Was Emma unrighteous to ask the question and raise a ruckus? I will sustain the prophet. I also sustain my local leaders. But that doesn’t exclude the option of ‘being an Emma’ and raising a question or concern that they may, in turn, seek guidance over.
Or to use the analogy again, just because we may have some slow runners doesn’t mean I can cheer them on a bit. I’m not saying we at staylds are the front runners, that would be incredibly arrogant. I’m fully aware that I’m trailing at the back of the back on plenty of aspects!
cwald wrote:DBMormon wrote:If you had lived prior to Peter giving the gentiles the gospel and saw his resistance to doing so, would you have raised a rutkus?
If you have lived in 1977 and was adament that all males should have priesthood, would you have raised a rutkus?
You’re damn right I would have.
Women rights, slavery, Protestant reformation, ERA, founding fathers, interracial marriage, clergy sexual abuse etc etc…thank God for the people who speak up when they feel goverment and religious authority are wrong and abusing their power.
I think it is ironic that God relies on rebels to do his work for him…you know, folks like Joseph Smith who said the hell with the ecclesiastical authority of his time.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Nicely put.
DB, I know you often want to lend balance to the conversations and that we sometimes get carried away, I appreciate it very much, especially when you feel you have overcome your faith crisis and could justify moving on from this board.
Equally, I don’t think you need to warn us on this. I don’t think anyone on this thread has made open criticisms of the brethren, and it’s not intention to. But given it’s clear there’s no ‘floating quill’ that springs spontaneously and unrequested into action, I think it’s reasonable that questions are, respectfully, asked.
First, and I have said this before, you won’t offend me as long as you don’t call me names…lol So please I like to hear when someone differs in their point of view from mine, it is how I/we learn what others think and feel and that helps me learn and also be aware that not everyone sees things as I do. And yes both the previous two quotes were right on. Revelation comes when we asks questions and not in a vacuum as many assume. I am sorry if I worded it in a way to say all questions are bad…. not my intention.
In my mind I have a line where once you cross that you have gone from asking serious questions to questioning seriously. By that I mean, that for example let’s say God is ok with homosexual behavior and at some point plans to tell the leaders through revelation. Let’s also assume the Leaders are asking God and pleading for clarification, but the time is not right. Now while I may have personally come to the conclusion through study or prayer or hopefully both, that the current policy needs changed. And while it would be fair to ask the church, “Any chance we can revisit this? Any chance your wrong and God has new information? And by the way I disagree with your stance.” but then to give the benefit of the doubt that God is in charge and he will fix this in his time, and until then publicly, I will sustain the church’s policy and the brethren.
Rather then publicly saying they are wrong and second guessing why they won’t make the change or make bigger changes.
Another example:
As a leader, I make decisions, I make them knowing the seriousness of them, and I do so prayerfully taking all information into account. Those around me are asked to sustain my decisions, to essentially act as if they are their own. While many work out beautifully, some of my decisions have been wrong and have backfired. Yet those around me while personally having disagreed, have sustained me and acted in unison. If they hadn’t the very foundation of trust, faith, progress, unity, and many other good things would have been destroyed. Imagine if my counselors or other ward leaders when they disagreed with me simply went by their dictates of their own reasoning and opinions and didn’t sustain my decisions? (this excludes instances where malicious intent is used)
As a leader I have been grateful for both the courage of others to share an opinion that differed from mine and also their faith to sustain me when they disagreed. Both are needed and welcomed.
I hope whether you agree or not you can see where I am coming from.
I understand, DB – but I will point out that I will not and cannot “follow” someone down a path that I believe is highly destructive and morally wrong just because that person is my leader. At some point, that becomes a slippery slope and, with the wrong leader or command, suicidal. Iow, while I agree with the general concept you are articulating, in the end I simply must follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Prop 8 for CA members is a perfect example of this, imo. Many members could sustain their leaders but refuse to contribute their time and/or money to the campaign.
Again, in the end, it’s important to me to remember that the heart of Lucifer’s plan was, “I will make them do whatever I say, and I will bring all of them back to you – in the exact same condition as they are now, with no growth or progression.” Growth and progression are found in the lessons of both victories and defeats, success and failure – and those have to be my own lessons to be most beneficial to me. I have to “muddle in the middle” and find my own path, and I can’t do that by reflexively following OR not following other people. I have to walk my own path amid the paths of my faith community – and that sometimes includes doing things or not doing things contrary to the desire and/or expressed request of my leaders.
I have to live with myself and the choices I make, so I have to make them carefully and intentionally. Lacking strong feelings otherwise, I support my leaders by doing what they ask me to do – but I don’t do so when I feel so strongly that I must do differently.
Old-Timer wrote:I understand, DB – but I will point out that I will not and cannot “follow” someone down a path that I believe is highly destructive and morally wrong just because that person is my leader. At some point, that becomes a slippery slope and, with the wrong leader or command, suicidal.
Iow, while I agree with the general concept you are articulating, in the end I simply must follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Prop 8 for CA members is a perfect example of this, imo. Many members could sustain their leaders but refuse to contribute their time and/or money to the campaign.
Again, in the end, it’s important to me to remember that the heart of Lucifer’s plan was, “I will make them do whatever I say, and I will bring all of them back to you – in the exact same condition as they are now, with no growth or progression.” Growth and progression are found in the lessons of both victories and defeats, success and failure – and those have to be my own lessons to be most beneficial to me. I have to “muddle in the middle” and find my own path, and I can’t do that by reflexively following OR not following other people. I have to walk my own path amid the paths of my faith community – and that sometimes includes doing things or not doing things contrary to the desire and/or expressed request of my leaders.
I have to live with myself and the choices I make, so I have to make them carefully and intentionally. Lacking strong feelings otherwise, I support my leaders by doing what they ask me to do – but I don’t do so when I feel so strongly that I must do differently.
I can live with that and practice the same in my life as well
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.