- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
We might let inactives live a “life of sin” but we seem to draw the line when they try to call their lifestyle choices good and acceptable and thus muddy the waters for anyone else (especially subsequent generations) trying to choose between right and wrong.
I’m all for dealing with apostates. It just makes sense. And it’s in the Church’s prerogative to declare what things are important to weed out of our congregations.
When you declare mandatory disciplinary councils for a group that’s built a massive amount of sympathy from the general public; a group that’s successfully branded themselves as a discriminated class… When you do that you are absolutely begging for a long and painful PR nightmare. This policy change is going to drone on and on and on. Every time we’ve forgotten about it, another story like this will pop up. The Church will be tried in the court of public opinion over and over and is going to lose every time.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
marty wrote:The Church will be tried in the court of public opinion over and over and is going to lose every time.
And?
We’re not here to gain society’s approval. Christ’s own words, and for that matter, His life in general made that pretty clear.
NightSG wrote:
And?We’re not here to gain society’s approval. Christ’s own words, and for that matter, His life in general made that pretty clear.
The short answer to your question (and?) is that it makes it harder for me to stay LDS. I probably could have chosen better words.
I figured that this forum has a lot of people trying to cobble a different version of what it means to be LDS. I’m definitely on the fringe, and while I don’t believe that society is always to be trusted, I do believe that society’s sense of care and equality is a pretty good barometer. Historically when that’s clashed with the Church, the Church has eventually changed their stance.
marty wrote:NightSG wrote:
And?We’re not here to gain society’s approval. Christ’s own words, and for that matter, His life in general made that pretty clear.
The short answer to your question (and?) is that it makes it harder for me to stay LDS. I probably could have chosen better words.
I figured that this forum has a lot of people trying to cobble a different version of what it means to be LDS. I’m definitely on the fringe, and while I don’t believe that society is always to be trusted, I do believe that society’s sense of care and equality is a pretty good barometer. Historically when that’s clashed with the Church, the Church has eventually changed their stance.
I agree with you Marty. On the inside leaders can be smug and talk about how persecution is part of our culture, and it’s good, and “we don’t care.” On the outside it’s a different story – partly because of that smugness. The court of public opinion is different outside the Corridor and this stuff plays well (or poorly depending on your point of view) in that court.
It seems this isn’t the only case of a DC for a lesbian couple in Utah. The most recent Mormon Stories podcast (#623) is a very similar story of another married lesbian woman being threatened with a DC (also in Utah). http://mormonstories.org/elizabeth-grimshaw-facing-lds-excommunication-for-being-same-sex-married/ I’m sure that these local leaders are only trying to follow the policy as outlined in HB1, which states that a DC is mandatory for members in a same-gender marriage. I just wish it would stop.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.