My son is gay.

[Anonymous]

I agree, Poppyseed. I hope my last comment didn’t come across as condescending – or as not supporting the LDS Church’s current stance on homosexual activity. I didn’t mean either of those things. I actually do support the current stance – with the caveat that I would like to see the membership uphold what I think the “pure standard” is, not what the the “worldly standard” is on EITHER extreme (the purely carnal OR what I consider to be the “hedged about” version on the other side of the spectrum where gay members can’t show any degree of affection or intimacy for each other).

I will try to say it a little differently than I did in my last comment:

I wish that, collectively as members of the Church, we were able to accept people who are living what we consider to be celestial, terrestrial AND telestial lives as fellow congregants – as long as the ideals that constitute our collective, current understanding could still be taught. I believe in one standard for attendance at our meetings (only excluding those that actively try to disrupt and scorn us), another standard for baptism and church membership (that would include anyone who is willing to follow the standards that would allow a member to retain membership) and a final standard for temple attendance (and I am fine with the current one, especially since the interview questions are as generic as they are now).

That’s a delicate balance and a very difficult thing, but I wish we were there. Since we aren’t, I support fully those gay members who can’t stay actively involved within the Church.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I wish that, collectively as members of the Church, we were able to accept people who are living what we consider to be celestial, terrestrial AND telestial lives as fellow congregants – as long as the ideals that constitute our collective, current understanding could still be taught. I believe in one standard for attendance at our meetings (only excluding those that actively try to disrupt and scorn us), another standard for baptism and church membership (that would include anyone who is willing to follow the standards that would allow a member to retain membership) and a final standard for temple attendance (and I am fine with the current one, especially since the interview questions are as generic as they are now).

Ray, I wish were were there also. But is it realistic? Aren’t there councils in the church that look at our gentile neighbors and ask, “How can we help them come in to the waters of baptism and receive those blessings?”. Then, for those baptized, “How can we help them get to the temple?” It seems the church teaches everyone needs to be progressing towards the temple, yet with Ophelia’s son or others acting upon SSA, the current temple standards would never be possible.

Is it possible for the church to stop looking at the congregants as “needing to help them” and instead just accepting them as they are?

[Anonymous]

Heber, I believe learning to balance BOTH of those ideals is the trick – and it ain’t easy.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Is it possible for the church to stop looking at the congregants as “needing to help them” and instead just accepting them as they are?

Now THAT would be the LDS Church I am hoping for!

[Author]

Posts