- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m really struggling with the World Congress of Families. I knew that Uganda had passed severe laws against homosexuals and that other countries have or are considering strong laws. I thought that the people pushing these laws were evangelical groups. I didn’t realize that WCF is a firm supporter of these radical groups that are threatening homosexuals throughout the world. And I didn’t know the LDS church (Oaks in particular) played a role in it. I don’t understand how the church can promote this organization. Didn’t know this. Do you have a source? Sounds awful. I have seen a documentary about the scare tactics they use over there and the amount of hate was mortifying. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do not support the WCF, specifically for the reasons you mention. I know the Church doesn’t support all of the initiatives of the WCF, including the harsh approaches to homosexuality in Africa (that the Church’s focus is on trying to increase the marriage rate and decrease the divorce rate that are out of control in many countries), and that it works with quite a few organizations even though it doesn’t support everything done by those organizations, but I still wish it wasn’t associated at all with the WCF.
The stated goal of the WCF is simply to promote marriage – which is a good, Christian thing. I’m not sure the original purpose was anti-gay. I fully support marriage and see why the church would support an organization which promotes marriage. But, given the other views and involvement of the WCF, I also wish the church was not involved with it. Supporting marriages is one thing but the organization is criminalizing homosexuals and encouraging other countries to pass laws that punish them. It’s not ok imo and not Christian at all. In fact, the hate that’s been shown towards LGBT is horrible. The church leaders can’t truly want to include homosexuals and welcome them in to the church and yet support laws that punish them. Now openly gay people in Uganda will go to prison for life. The big players in WCF and other groups at first supported the death penalty for homosexuals. Guess they toned it down to life in prison. Dallin H. Oaks: support the law of the land Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:Dallin H. Oaks: support the law of the land
What does this mean to you?I’m not going to pretend to answer for startpoor, but I will throw in that Elder Oaks said this n the context of believing (or perhaps knowing) that the ban on SSM in Utah was about to be struck down. He had fought vigorously to favor of the ban. I simply believe he was reiterating AoF12 and indicating that despite his opposition (and the church’s opposition) to SSM, he intended to abide by the court’s decision and cease opposing the ban, and that we should follow that example. In the broader sense, we are obligated to obey the law of the land as members of the church. I believe we are still free to oppose laws through legal methods, or even with civil disobedience – but there are legal consequences to civil disobedience. Quote:I’m not going to pretend to answer for startpoor, but I will throw in that Elder Oaks said this n the context of believing (or perhaps knowing) that the ban on SSM in Utah was about to be struck down. He had fought vigorously to favor of the ban. I simply believe he was reiterating AoF12 and indicating that despite his opposition (and the church’s opposition) to SSM, he intended to abide by the court’s decision and cease opposing the ban, and that we should follow that example. In the broader sense, we are obligated to obey the law of the land as members of the church. I believe we are still free to oppose laws through legal methods, or even with civil disobedience – but there are legal consequences to civil disobedience.
Yes. This is my understanding as well. I think my point is that Oaks is an honorary member of WCF and this organization helped to criminalize homosexuality in Uganda. They helped to write the law that now puts homosexuals in prison for life. So, I’m not talking about prop 8 that Oaks fought against or any US law towards SSM. I’m disturbed at the connection the church has to this group and what it’s done to homosexuals outside of the US. I don’t care if the goal is for strong marriages, they are a part of something that is endangering lives in other countries. How is this ok?
Haven wrote:Quote:I’m not going to pretend to answer for startpoor, but I will throw in that Elder Oaks said this n the context of believing (or perhaps knowing) that the ban on SSM in Utah was about to be struck down. He had fought vigorously to favor of the ban. I simply believe he was reiterating AoF12 and indicating that despite his opposition (and the church’s opposition) to SSM, he intended to abide by the court’s decision and cease opposing the ban, and that we should follow that example. In the broader sense, we are obligated to obey the law of the land as members of the church. I believe we are still free to oppose laws through legal methods, or even with civil disobedience – but there are legal consequences to civil disobedience.
Yes. This is my understanding as well. I think my point is that Oaks is an honorary member of WCF and this organization helped to criminalize homosexuality in Uganda. They helped to write the law that now puts homosexuals in prison for life. So, I’m not talking about prop 8 that Oaks fought against or any US law towards SSM. I’m disturbed at the connection the church has to this group and what it’s done to homosexuals outside of the US. I don’t care if the goal is for strong marriages, they are a part of something that is endangering lives in other countries. How is this ok?
Whether it’s SSM in Utah or illegal homosexuality in Uganda, we do believe in “honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.” I think that was Oaks’s point. I’m not saying the church’s hand in this (if any) is OK, nor do I support any involvement Elder Oaks may have. Fortunately I don’t live in Uganda or other countries where homosexuality is illegal (yes, there are
manyother countries, including several others in Africa, the Muslim Middle East, and India). Were I to live in one of those countries I may become politically active to try to change the law – but it may also not be safe to do so. I get that this is an issue for you Haven, possibly even a deal breaker. We all have our issues, and I respect that this is one of yours. I think you need to understand it’s not an issue for all of us, and there can be a variety of reasons for that. If you really are concerned about Elder Oaks, I would suggest writing to him (being respectful, of course) and let him tell his side of the story. You may not get an answer, but you might – this isn’t normally the kind of thing they kick back to SPs.
This is certainly a good place to vent, and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention – frankly I had not even heard of the WCF before (I was aware of Uganda making homosexuality illegal). This forum isn’t going to solve the problem though – I’m not going to stop going to church or quit paying tithing because of it and I’m not going to write to church HQ or protest on Temple Square (but I support your decision to do so if that’s what you feel you need to do). While I think there are people at church HQ who read the bloggernacle and get a general idea of what people think (and I think the bloggernacle has been responsible for some changes), no major change is going to occur by posting here.
Quote:Whether it’s SSM in Utah or illegal homosexuality in Uganda, we do believe in “honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.” I think that was Oaks’s point. I’m not saying the church’s hand in this (if any) is OK, nor do I support any involvement Elder Oaks may have. Fortunately I don’t live in Uganda or other countries where homosexuality is illegal (yes, there are manyother countries, including several others in Africa, the Muslim Middle East, and India). Were I to live in one of those countries I may become politically active to try to change the law – but it may also not be safe to do so.
Agreed.
Quote:I get that this is an issue for you Haven, possibly even a deal breaker. We all have our issues, and I respect that this is one of yours. I think you need to understand it’s not an issue for all of us, and there can be a variety of reasons for that. If you really are concerned about Elder Oaks, I would suggest writing to him (being respectful, of course) and let him tell his side of the story. You may not get an answer, but you might – this isn’t normally the kind of thing they kick back to SPs.
This is certainly a good place to vent, and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention – frankly I had not even heard of the WCF before (I was aware of Uganda making homosexuality illegal). This forum isn’t going to solve the problem though – I’m not going to stop going to church or quit paying tithing because of it and I’m not going to write to church HQ or protest on Temple Square (but I support your decision to do so if that’s what you feel you need to do). While I think there are people at church HQ who read the bloggernacle and get a general idea of what people think (and I think the bloggernacle has been responsible for some changes), no major change is going to occur by posting here.
Just to clarify, I’m not at all thinking of protesting or writing a letter, etc. Not my style, probably. I’m just trying to understand something that has very recently shaken me up. It doesn’t have to be anyone else’s issue at all. I don’t know that much about it either so that’s why I posted. I’m not expecting changes to any of the issues posted on this site or for problems to be solved, but is this a reason for me stop posting or discussing issues that are effecting me? This is actually a serious question since I feel invalidated at the moment.
I’m glad you brought up the issue. It’s serious for me too as this falls in my bucket of “why the church is bad” which for me is important to define so I can maintain my sanity at church by speaking up against the bad and supporting the good. Otherwise I just sit silently and leave angry. My one liner above was directed at the double speak of Elder Oaks coming off as sympathetic here in the states, while simultaneously promoting hate elsewhere.
One of my favorite authors/people is a board member for the National Organization for Marriage–a like minded bigoted organization that fights against gay rights. I had to stop purchasing anything new from him because I could no longer support his royalties in good conscience.
I still his books and essays (of course I’m talking about Orson Scott Card here) because he’s still a good person in many ways and he is a talented person.
If it were up to me (which it isn’t) my household would not pay tithing, only fast offerings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Haven wrote:I’m not expecting changes to any of the issues posted on this site or for problems to be solved, but is this a reason for me stop posting or discussing issues that are effecting me? This is actually a serious question since I feel invalidated at the moment.
Not at all, and I’m sorry if I seemed to imply otherwise. These forums are a good, safe place to have such discussions while hiding behind our masks of anonymity. What are you looking for from this discussion?
Haven wrote:Just to clarify, I’m not at all thinking of protesting or writing a letter, etc. Not my style, probably. I’m just trying to understand something that has very recently shaken me up. It doesn’t have to be anyone else’s issue at all. I don’t know that much about it either so that’s why I posted. I’m not expecting changes to any of the issues posted on this site or for problems to be solved, but is this a reason for me stop posting or discussing issues that are effecting me? This is actually a serious question since I feel invalidated at the moment.
Taking steps like writing letters can be risky as well as rewarding. Through the internet and online communities, I believe that information is shared, discussions had, and changes made that would not have happened otherwise. That does not mean that we are necessarily pushing for changes – as you stated. Many times we are just exploring our own perspective on the various issues.
I am glad that you brought up the WCF as I did not know about it earlier. I imagine the church deals with many organizations to help further its goals even when they do not necessarily support everything the organization does. I believe that the church will work with this organization as long as the benefit from doing so outweighs the drawbacks. I do not believe the church is necessarily wrong/evil for doing so – more like selfserving (as are most organizations). Perhaps they think that the good that they can do by encouraging stable heterosexual families would outweigh the harm caused to gays in africa. It also seems unlikely that this issue would affect the core constituancy of the church. In short, I see the church largely making decisions as a business would – on the basis of a cost benefit analysis or ROI.
If the WCF were listed as a terrorist organization (purely hypothetical of course) then the scales would quickly shift for the church and I believe we would see immediate steps to distance or even sever the relationship.
As far as the honorary board member I believe that sort of thing that can be tricky. I am vaguely aware of some honorary doctorates being bestowed upon church leaders from universities. I do not imagine that the church leaders agree with all university decisions and yet they generally accept the honoring. I do not believe that the situations are perfectly similar – apples to apples – but I believe the discussion could be helpful in both comparison and contrast. Under just what circumstances should a church leader reject or return an honorary title from another organization?
Lastly I believe that DJ can come of more curtly than he intends sometimes.
😮 :silent: I try to overlook it cuz he is a good guy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.