- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/heightened-intrigue-mormon-conference-utah-66082715 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/mormon-leader-be-kind-gays-don-t-forget-god-s-n1063221 Be kind to gays, but don’t forget God’s lawsQuote:People should love everyone no matter their difference, but the zeal to achieve that doesn’t mean people should forget the faith’s belief that God’s laws prohibit gay marriage and prevents people in those relationships from receiving heavenly salvation, said Dallin H. Oaks
Before this was the “Curse of Cain” problem. Give it 15 years. This will be old news. Quote:People should love everyone no matter their difference, but the zeal to achieve
that doesn’t mean people should forget the faith’s beliefHow could they, what with Oaks bringing it up at every opportunity.
🙄 nibbler wrote:
I hate to say it, but this is more of Oaks being Oaks. He has a real stick in his craw when it comes to this subject and too often uses the platform people have given him to stump his pet issue.It’s a tough issue to get around given the church’s theology. So much of the Mormon purpose of life centers around heterosexual reproduction.
Do you think it’s strategy to invest certain apostles with certain issues? For the longest time, Elder Packer was the poster child for same sex issues. He spoke regularly against it. Do you think they are concentrating the bad news into one person consciously, or is it just an expression of individual apostles’ personalities?
I heard an interview with Lynn Packer (BKP’s nephew) who said that he’d had dinner with BKP before the priesthood session where he gave the little factories talk and he believed that BKP did not want to give that talk but had been asked to. He thought that BKP was filling a role he’d been asked to fill. I’m not sure I totally believe that. I think in the Q15 there are a lot of strong personalities, egos and pet projects that are all jockeying for position. Responding to other comments, I think it’s very difficult, if not impossible to love unconditionally if you believe in a God who loves conditionally and for whom obedience to law is paramount. I think Oaks is very sincere, but believes that obedience to God’s law is the most important thing, more important than hurt feelings or ostracizing people. I think he feels called to continually preach that obedience to God’s law is the most important thing, no matter the repercussions. Since I have realized that, I can take what he says with a bit more of a grain of salt and can understand where he is coming from. With this mindset, I think you will never be able to love and accept LGBT people, the best you can do is be civil. This is what he is advocating, don’t be mean, be civil and respectful, but do not ever accept gay relationships unconditionally.
For me personally, I think that the whole point of Jesus’ ministry was to rebut this kind of thinking and that he taught and did demonstrated the fallacies and problems with this kind of religious thinking and observance and taught a higher law of unconditional love and transformation through radical acceptance.
SilentDawning wrote:
nibbler wrote:
I hate to say it, but this is more of Oaks being Oaks. He has a real stick in his craw when it comes to this subject and too often uses the platform people have given him to stump his pet issue.It’s a tough issue to get around given the church’s theology. So much of the Mormon purpose of life centers around heterosexual reproduction.
Do you think it’s strategy to invest certain apostles with certain issues? For the longest time, Elder Packer was the poster child for same sex issues. He spoke regularly against it. Do you think they are concentrating the bad news into one person consciously, or is it just an expression of individual apostles’ personalities?
No. I think it’s the individuals themselves making the choice. Oaks has been riding this horse for years, I think it is his personality (and mostly his opinion that I don’t think is necessarily shared by all 14 of the others which is why they aren’t talking about it). If the high council is a micro/local version of the Q12 (and it is meant to be that way), I know what to expect of most of my fellow HCs. We’re all given the same talk assignments and references each month (although we don’t all speak each month) but we also each have our own “spin” on the topics. I once told my SP my talks are really always on the same topic and without saying anything else he replied “And it’s a good one.” My talks always take a love/mercy/grace point of view. I have a fellow HC who always goes at them from the service point of view, I know that and when I hear him speak I know what to expect. There are a couple hardliners. I know that and know what to expect. I think the same is true of Oaks and BKP in the past. We know they have/had soapbox issues and nine times out of ten were going to get on the soapbox. That tenth time when they didn’t is usually a gem though.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.