- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mcarp wrote:
That spread will be a localize phenomenon in 5 years. The tolerance will be widespread in 10 years. In 20 years, the first of this generation will be approaching 50 — my age! — and will be stake presidents and some even members of the 70. At that point, the tolerance will become more institutionalized. I know it sounds crazy, but I think in 20 years the idea of giving the priesthood to women and homosexuals will not be out of the question.
Nice post mcarp! I think there is good logic in what you say…and I hope you’re right on!
Quote:mcarp said…So, I know it sounds crazy, but I think in 20 years the idea of giving the priesthood to women and homosexuals will not be out of the question.
while I’m not sure General Conference will change in the next 5 years, I think you are going to see more change than you can believe at the local level. It will probably start with consolidated leadership meetings, then a 2.5 hour meeting block. Along with a quicker pace, most of this generation have grown up with gay friends, in households where the mother makes more money than the father or in fatherless homes. That will spread more tolerance for women and homosexuals.
Touchy subject but I will give it a try. If this is not the church of God I can see the church become accepting of gays and their lifestyle, assuming that’s what you meant. If it is the church of God I can see same sex attracted holding the priesthood, holding positions, going to the temple, full fellowship and keeping the laws of chasity just like any other single member.
Duck, jeriboy! 👿 Fwiw, given our belief in continuing revelation and the conflicting lessons that history can present, I can picture lots of possibilities -relative to lots of different things. Honestly, I’m not even sure which of those possibilities I would pick at this moment if I had the power to do so. [Putting on my admin hat]:
I really, really, really hope (and I might even add another “really, really”) that this thread doesn’t devolve into a generic “homosexuality and gay marriage” thread. I have NO problem discussing those issues (and they are very different issues), but we have established threads with very good comments on both of them already. Anyone who wants to continue those discussions is more than welcome to do so – in the appropriate existing threads.
I hope everyone understands why I say that. This is a much broader topic, and I don’t want to devalue the threads that are more focused by starting all over again here.
jeriboy wrote:
Touchy subject but I will give it a try. If this is not the church of God I can see the church become accepting of gays and their lifestyle, assuming that’s what you meant. If it is the church of God I can see same sex attracted holding the priesthood, holding positions, going to the temple, full fellowship and keeping the laws of chasity just like any other single member.If I’m not mistaken (and I could be!), I think that IS the policy today. The real question is, as the leadership comes to understand (that’s how I would put it…) that God made gays how they are, what is considered “chaste?” “Sex” only within their committed union — however that is defined?
Old-Timer wrote:I really, really, really hope (and I might even add another “really, really”) that this thread doesn’t devolve into a generic “homosexuality and gay marriage” thread.
Oops, sorry Ray…I posted before I read this….
Quote:Rix said… If I’m not mistaken (and I could be!), I think that IS the policy today. The real question is, as the leadership comes to understand (that’s how I would put it…) that God made gays how they are, what is considered “chaste?” “Sex” only within their committed union — however that is defined?
Gods gives us weakness that we might be made strong. I am a person who has violated the laws of chastity and needs to repent. I have no desire for God to lower his standards for my convenience, I am the one who needs to repent and measure up to his ETERNAL laws.
jeriboy wrote:
Touchy subject but I will give it a try. If this is not the church of God I can see the church become accepting of gays and their lifestyle, assuming that’s what you meant. If it is the church of God I can see same sex attracted holding the priesthood, holding positions, going to the temple, full fellowship and keeping the laws of chasity just like any other single member.Go look up some of the things Mark E. Peterson (then an apostle) said about blacks never holding the priesthood in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although it isn’t well publicized, there actually were people that left the church after 1978 and cite as one of the signs of the church no longer being true that the priesthood was given to the blacks. The same is true of polygamy back in the early 1900s.
The definition of “keeping the laws of chastity” will be tested when gay marriage is widely accepted.
Not looking for a fight. Just sayin’.
Quote:mcarp said…Go look up some of the things Mark E. Peterson (then an apostle) said about blacks never holding the priesthood in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although it isn’t well publicized, there actually were people that left the church after 1978 and cite as one of the signs of the church no longer being true that the priesthood was given to the blacks. The same is true of polygamy back in the early 1900s.
A reporter asked David O. McKay at the dedication of one of the California temples when blacks would receive the priesthood. He responded, not in my life time or yours. I have always wanted to know if the reporter died before blacks received the priesthood.
jeriboy wrote:Quote:Rix said… If I’m not mistaken (and I could be!), I think that IS the policy today. The real question is, as the leadership comes to understand (that’s how I would put it…) that God made gays how they are, what is considered “chaste?” “Sex” only within their committed union — however that is defined?
Gods gives us weakness that we might be made strong. I am a person who has violated the laws of chastity and needs to repent. I have no desire for God to lower his standards for my convenience, I am the one who needs to repent and measure up to his ETERNAL laws.
Jeriboy, of course I don’t know about your situation, but I think it’s quite possible that at least as it relates to gays, that many have misinterpreted what God really means regarding “chastity.” I mean even in our short history, chastity has evolved from one man and many women to one man and one woman. Was that God changing? Or was it our incorrect reception of God’s inspiration?
Rix wrote:
Jeriboy, of course I don’t know about your situation, but I think it’s quite possible that at least as it relates to gays, that many have misinterpreted what God really means regarding “chastity.” I mean even in our short history, chastity has evolved from one man and many women to one man and one woman. Was that God changing? Or was it our incorrect reception of God’s inspiration?Good point and well said. Not to drag this back into a political discussion, but I found it ironic that the Church and/or members of the church were so militant about “one man, one woman” during the Prop 8 campaign when 120 years ago the Church was lobbying the U.S. government that it was “one man, many women” and BY (reportedly) said that having only one wife was a sin.
mcarp wrote:Rix wrote:
Jeriboy, of course I don’t know about your situation, but I think it’s quite possible that at least as it relates to gays, that many have misinterpreted what God really means regarding “chastity.” I mean even in our short history, chastity has evolved from one man and many women to one man and one woman. Was that God changing? Or was it our incorrect reception of God’s inspiration?Good point and well said. Not to drag this back into a political discussion, but I found it ironic that the Church and/or members of the church were so militant about “one man, one woman” during the Prop 8 campaign when 120 years ago the Church was lobbying the U.S. government that it was “one man, many women” and BY (reportedly) said that having only one wife was a sin.
Yeah, a bit of a “debate of convenience” that when confronted with “why did “X” change?” the answer is modern revelation; but when the question of “well then, can’t we receive another revelation in the future that might change doctrine?” the answer is “NO!”
Alrighty then.
And we wonder why many see the church as inconsistent….
😆 I don’t know if its just hearsay but I have heard that C Todd Christoferson (sp?) has a gay son. If that is true I think it could have a tremendous impact on the way gays are treated. I can’t see gays being accepted in the near future( maybe 20 years) but I can certainly see a climate of less fear and more compassion and love in the future. Captain Curmudgeon wrote:Random thoughts on the topic, mostly from reading this forum.
So, a good place to start is with the recent Pew Research report (released 24 July and that was not a coincidence) which gives some idea of where the church is. Much more Utah-centric and less dynamic than I would have thought from my own observations. And it seems to me that both trends are likely to continue.
StayLDS is interesting to me because it seems to be bucking one of the other trends that I’ve seen in my lifetime: the tendency to get rid of faithful Mormons with slightly (and sometimes not quite that slight) different ideas on the gospel. I think of the academics not that long ago and some personal friends. When people who were born in the church are forced out instead of being somehow accommodated, the church shrinks (obviously) and become even less dynamic.
I expect the church to come to better terms with homosexuality fairly soon. I see two trends here. The first is that it’s easier for gay people to come out, even Mormons. The second is that general authorities are getting slightly younger and at some point they will be in close touch with grandchildren and children who are gay. Think about VP and Mrs Cheney. From where they stand on most issues, you’d expect them to be violently anti-gay, but they have a gay daughter and they know that she does not conform at all to the usual right-wing rhetoric about homosexuals so they do not go along with it.
Otherwise, I see the church becoming more and more like other Protestant churches. I left SLC and the church when I was 18 and came back when I was 40. Big shock! All the wonderful stuff that I loved (but didn’t believe) was now no longer “emphasized”. See that here as well. The really interesting, unique, and peculiar doctrines are sliding away from our collective attention.
There is a big battle in the offing when the existence of the “Internet Mormons” comes to the attention of the “Chapel Mormons.” Big gap there. Could be either an accommodation or the people who believe in a limited site for the Lamanites and that the Book of Mormon is inspired but not necessarily true are going to be hitting the road.
I have to agree with you. It seems the more essoteric and interesting aspects of the Church get far less attention nowadays. When I joined in the late 1970s there seemed to be a more intellectual approach to lessons and priesthood discussions were far more in depth. Now there seems to be a far greater attention to being in line with authority and not alienating people with deeper doctrine — yet that will only alienate the more intellectual people.
I think there are different types of Mormons and we all have to try to get along. I was active in a discussion forum that seemed to have people who were threatened the most by active LDS people who didn’t really conform to a certain lifestyle or interpretation of the Gospel. If these type of people become the dominant force in our religion then expect a mass exodus of people who like to question, or esplore, but are also devout. I am not really optomistic when I read articles like when Elder Bedner held up as an ideal a guy who broke up with his fiance because she had more than one ear ring in her ear. The only happy thing I got from that talk was that some poor girl was saved from a life with an intolerant dweeb. Hope she found someone who wasn’t so dogmatic.
Quote:I am not really optomistic when I read articles like when Elder Bedner held up as an ideal a guy who broke up with his fiance because she had more than one ear ring in her ear. The only happy thing I got from that talk was that some poor girl was saved from a life with an intolerant dweeb. Hope she found someone who wasn’t so dogmatic.
I agree with your interpretation of that example used in the Bednar, talk, Fiannan. If you ask me, she dodged a bullet. I found it particularly interesting how he hung back and observed his GF to see if she would take the earrings out (testing her) rather than having a conversation with her. Is that the pattern of behavior for this guy in relationships? If they had married, would he hang back on their honeymoon to see if she exhibits any unsavory behaviors in the bedroom? Would he watch her struggle with patience while taking care of their kids, wondering if she was going to be Christlike or blow her stack? He’s a big freakin’ help. He comes across as being incapable of relating to her. He’s watching her like a rat in a maze. Sorry for the mini-rant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.