This is not one of those science vs faith debates I have going on, but nevertheless I wondered if anybody else was having that problem.
Here is the background of the problem:
1: There is a marriage amendment coming to the floor of congress this month that up until recently I was very much opposed to.
2: At church 2 weeks ago I was read a letter from the first presidency (the prophet and his 2 councelors) asking the membership of the church to support this bill.
3: I fully support my prophet and believe he is God's spokesman here on earth of that I do not question. I am very aware of the stipulations that a prophet is only the prophet when speaking as such, but anyway you swing it, a letter to the church requesting an action has God's stamp of approval as far as Mormons are concerned.
I am being asked by a power I consider greater than I, to support a piece of legislation up until now I believed was the wrong thing for righteous intents.
I believe what makes this country work was that by tolerating the lifestyles of others, I could have my own lifestyle tolerated.
I am reminded of a time in American history where Mormons were persecuted because of their definition of marriage and driven from their homes, striped of their citezenship, and treated terribly by those who thought some of their ideas were evil and that Mormons would destroy the fabric of Christian/American culture. I can't help but feel that perhaps the persecuted have become the persecutors. (coincidentally laws against polygamy are still on the books even as homosexuals crusade for their marital rights)
Yet a source that I believe to be 100% true has asked me to reevaluate my beliefs on this subject. Is it right to hesitate to vote ones convictions in this country for fear of infringing on the rights of others? Ill be brunt, I do not believe homosexuality is a force for good in this nation. I do believe it is a faulty lifestyle, that does more harm then good. Yet believing that, do I have the right to try to supress it, in order to sustain a society that is more in line with my own belief system? Do I have that right sometimes, if not always, or never at all?
I firmly believed that homosexuals think that they are doing right, and I ought not to force them (by utilizing a majority vote) to live as I personally choose to live.
Are there any other Mormons who feel this way, and how have you come to terms with the request to support this constitutional ammendment?
For those of you who do not believe in Mormonism, how would you react in this situation were you in my shoes. I don't know, I know I am not the only one who feels this way, and yet I have yet to meet another Mormon in Utah actively talking about this dilemma, outside the usual "I already thought gay marriage was bad, the prophet has just confirmed that God agrees with me."
I know I can pray about this request of me and gain divine confirmation of its authenticity, yet I have always liked having a rational reason for doing what I do.
Thank you for any advice, suggestions, civil criticisms you feel are worth submitting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am very aware of the stipulations that a prophet is only the prophet when speaking as such, but anyway you swing it, a letter to the church requesting an action has God's stamp of approval as far as Mormons are concerned.
I don't know nearly enough about Mormon doctrine to truly comment, but, if this letter is not written as prophecy, is it meant to supplant the carefully considered non-revelation-based conclusions of the members?
It sounds like this letter wasn't saying, "God has declared that this amendment is a good thing" but rather something like "the amendment is proper because of reasons 1, 2, and 3."
After considering it prayerfully and comparing your existing reasons for opposing the amendment, does it change your mind?
As to "God's stamp of approval," isn't the prophet supposed to be very clear about which of his statements have "God's stamp of approval"? (This is based on my interpretation of your statement about when the prophet is a prophet.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For those of you who do not believe in Mormonism, how would you react in this situation were you in my shoes.
First off, I'd ask myself whether the prophet is speaking for God or merely his own opinion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What a good question BB. The Catholic Church, unless the Pope or Council is speaking very specifically infallibly (something that happens only very rarely) does acknowledge that the faithful may follow their individual consciences.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage. One may argue that they should have that right, but that is another issue. The proposed amendment to the constitution would still permit states to legislate homosexual unions and thereby change the law and centuries of social practice. This is better than the anti-democratic practice of letting judges legislate. If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
I think you can you can support the marraige amendment as a pro-democracy measure, without violating any belief that you may have that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: After considering it prayerfully and comparing your existing reasons for opposing the amendment, does it change your mind?
Best advice I've ever heard Dag give, hands down (not that you don't give plenty of other good advice).
I've been struggling with similar questions for a long time. The difference is that for me, is that I've felt for the past year that neither SSM nor civil unions were the right thing to support (although I seemed to have the opposite experience as you in that most LDS younger people I talked to about it about year ago were completely fine with SSM). At the same time, I struggle with the thought of being part of imposing what is essentially a religious based morality on the population at large. It's a difficult position.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I am in the same boat you are BB - and no, we are not unique, a good friend of mine called me about this very thing. I was not present to hear the letter read, so I do not know its exact contents. I would be disappointed if it was worded specifically "contact your local representatives in support of the ammendment being considered" because while the church holds official positions on certain issues, it has never pressured people to express their opinions in a certain way, which I think is right and proper. Unfortunately the full contents of the letter are not available on the church's website, simply a short press release about it. I would assume that the letter reiterated the church's opinion on homosexuality and marriage between a man and woman as divinely appointed and encouraged members to contact their local representatives with their opinions, but I really would like to read it. I suppose I'll have to get ahold of my bishop and ask if he can read it to me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
There is in the MA state constitution, IMO.
EDIT: Therefore, in the case of MA, I believe the judges made the right ruling for MA in any case.
-Bok
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What a good question BB. The Catholic Church, unless the Pope or Council is speaking very specifically infallibly (something that happens only very rarely) does acknowledge that the faithful may follow their individual consciences.
Kate- This is typical of the Mormon church when it comes to which political parties, causes, candidates, etc to support. They are urged merely to follow their conscience and prayerfully consider before they vote. This is not the norm for the LDS Church to read a statement like this from the pulpit.
My first reaction is that this is to be treated as the word of God by the LDS followers. While not necessarily eternal doctrine (like the atonement of Christ for example), it does appear to be the official church position from the prophet. Which would in essence give it the "stamp of God" as it's been put.
Edit: Although without the actual text in front of me, I'm just going off BB's words.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Would you argue that there is a constitutional right to ANY marriage?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
I tend to disagree on this. Typically, people in large groups don't make good decisions. I'm always reminded of the saying "None of us is as stupid as all of us."
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:I was not present to hear the letter read, so I do not know its exact contents.
Here you go.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I already gave an account of my struggle with it when I was a believing Mormon, but in case you missed it: http://tinyurl.com/fxgr4
I think it touches upon the relavant considerations. Basically, I felt that I should follow the prophet no matter what and force my own will into alignment with his.
Now that I no longer believe he speaks for God, I think of everything he says as just the opinion of one man due the same consideration I would give any other person's opinion.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
I'm sorry, Mig, but I think you're mistaken. No judges have suggested that there's a "right to homosexual marriage". What they have asserted is that there is a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Getting government out of the marriage business would do the trick just as well. But if the government allows some guy to marry me, and in fact gives benefits in such a case, bu denies my partner the same right because she's a woman, that's inequality. It's punitive.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: One may argue that they should have that right, but that is another issue. The proposed amendment to the constitution would still permit states to legislate homosexual unions and thereby change the law and centuries of social practice.
Again, Mig, you're mistaken. Not only would it bar states from doing anything of the sort, it would actually force states that have already instituted marriage equality, such as Massachussetts, and possible Maryland in a short while, to revoke their laws.
In terms of "centuries of social practice", legalizing inter-racial marriage changed the law and centuries of social practice. Allowing women to own property (let alone vote) changed the law and centuries of social practice.
This country, founded on respect for the individual, has a track record of eliminating inequities that had been enshrined in law and centuries of social practice when such have been brought to the attention of the courts and legislatures.
It was taken for granted that women should be subservient to their menfolk. All but servants. It was taken for granted that people of different races should not engage in miscegenation. Mixing the races -- ick! This is no different.
Religious reasons were given for keeping women from voting. Social reasons were given for keeping women from voting. Not too surprisingly, one of those was that it would damage the family unit. It's an oldie, but apparently a goodie.
People honestly didn't see why women should have the right to vote. They honestly didn't think that preventing women from voting was discriminatory towards women. All the excuses you hear today for why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry are echoes of the excuses that were used to fight giving women the vote and the excuses that were used to fight recognition of interracial marriage.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: This is better than the anti-democratic practice of letting judges legislate.
You don't seem to understand how this country works, Mig. Judges don't legislate. They interpret. The question of whether judges are empowered to force the legislature to legislate according to the constitution was fought and finished while Thomas Jefferson was in office. That ship has sailed. Now, you can claim that the framers of the various constitutions "didn't mean it" when they spoke of equality under the law. You can point out that they never would have extended marriage to same-sex couples. But they also never would have extended the franchise to women or marriage rights to interracial couples.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
First, Mig, I want to point out that people who regularly refer to gays and lesbians as "homosexuals" generally betray their own bias.
Second of all, what you say sounds reasonable, but it's not really honest. When Californians tried to legalize same-sex marriage through a ballot initiative, opponents of same-sex marriage were very loud in their demands that it be left to the courts (!) and not to a vote.
Be honest, Mig, and admit that you would be as vociferous in your opposition to same-sex marriage if it was voted on in a referendum or legislated by a congress.
To go back to your mistaken claim above, this amendment would bar states from legislating same-sex marriage into existence. If the voters in a state wanted to create an amendment to their state constitution enshrining the right of same-sex couples to marry, this federal amendment would invalidate it.
If you didn't realize this, maybe you need to reevaluate your view on this amendment. It is absolutely a blow to state's rights and democracy, however much its supporters are trying to obscure that fact.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I think you can you can support the marraige amendment as a pro-democracy measure, without violating any belief that you may have that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
On the contrary. This amendment should be viewed as anti-democratic, even by those who think same-sex marriage should not be permitted.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here is church's official press release about the letter, for those interested.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I am very aware of the stipulations that a prophet is only the prophet when speaking as such, but anyway you swing it, a letter to the church requesting an action has God's stamp of approval as far as Mormons are concerned.
I don't know nearly enough about Mormon doctrine to truly comment, but, if this letter is not written as prophecy, is it meant to supplant the carefully considered non-revelation-based conclusions of the members?
It sounds like this letter wasn't saying, "God has declared that this amendment is a good thing" but rather something like "the amendment is proper because of reasons 1, 2, and 3."
After considering it prayerfully and comparing your existing reasons for opposing the amendment, does it change your mind?
As to "God's stamp of approval," isn't the prophet supposed to be very clear about which of his statements have "God's stamp of approval"? (This is based on my interpretation of your statement about when the prophet is a prophet.)
Thank you for your advice Dag. Here is alink to the complete text of the letter:
Thats from the horses mouth. Perhaps I am wrong but when they say the ammendment is designed to protect the family. And that they support any legislation that accomplishes this, and then exhorts leaders to pass these sorts of measures, and finally asks member to let their voices be heard, that they are in no uncertain terms supporting the ammendment.
This is my take on things. When the prophet says, "Thus saith the lord..." or the equivalent thats a pretty obvious mouthpiece of God statement. When the entire first presidency and the quorum of the twelve issue a letter that is to be read in the church where they so definitively lay out their feelings, they are in fact asking telling members of the church the Lords feelings on the subject.
Dag: your advice about prayer is probably the most wise thing I could do.
-----------
I am also aware that if I ultimately decide to not support this ammendment my membership in the church is by no means at stake, yet while its important that I decide to do things on my own, yet I believe in remaining humble enough to be instructed by a power I acknowledge greater than my own.
Thanks to all that have posted, I am glad there is are such useful people in this community.
enochville: I do not see myself as attempting to force my beliefs into a shape that somebody else dictates. But I do believe in a God who is all knowing, and I fully expect him to bestow enough of his knowledge to me so that I do not err.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
You can't use me as a standard. I'm Orthodox, but I'm also gay, and this impinges on me. I don't know how Esther and Rivka feel about it.
I know that same-sex marriage doesn't belong in Judaism. I feel exactly the same about the various liberal sects recognizing same-sex marriage that any other Orthodox Jew does. It's utterly invalid. But that's a religious status. The secular recognition of a family that exists de facto should be a no-brainer.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
As a non-Mormon, it seems clear that you should follow the Prophet in this. Not that that is easy, (or that _I_ agree with it), but something like this seems pretty clear-cut.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
I don't know how important this organization is, but there have been lots of prominent Orthodox Jews speaking in favor of the amendment.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
You can't use me as a standard. I'm Orthodox, but I'm also gay, and this impinges on me. I don't know how Esther and Rivka feel about it.
I know that same-sex marriage doesn't belong in Judaism. I feel exactly the same about the various liberal sects recognizing same-sex marriage that any other Orthodox Jew does. It's utterly invalid. But that's a religious status. The secular recognition of a family that exists de facto should be a no-brainer.
I thought I saw one of them saying something somewhere, maybe not.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia:
quote:I was not present to hear the letter read, so I do not know its exact contents.
As a non-Mormon, but as someone who can read, my comment about this letter is that if they wanted to say you have to support the amendment, they could easily have done so. The fact that they did not suggests that they were not, in fact, requiring you to support it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From the LDS letter:
quote:We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
If you honestly believe as a practical matter that the amendment will weaken or won't strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society, then it seems you are still within the dictates of the letter to oppose the amendment.
To use Bokonon's phrase on this, I think you can follow the prophet IF you truly believe the impact won't weaken families.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
I don't know how important this organization is, but there have been lots of prominent Orthodox Jews speaking in favor of the amendment.
Well I definitely stand corrected. Though I think its a very week argument the author uses.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Thanks Amilia (I don't remember that link to the full text being there when I first read the news release more than a week ago). The letter is worded how I had expected. Personally, I do not think that the proposed ammendment is "designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society".
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, this seems to answer your question:
quote:Ill be brunt, I do not believe homosexuality is a force for good in this nation. I do believe it is a faulty lifestyle, that does more harm then good.
That was from the opening post.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: From the LDS letter:
quote:We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
If you honestly believe as a practical matter that the amendment will weaken or won't strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society, then it seems you are still within the dictates of the letter to oppose the amendment.
To use Bokonon's phrase on this, I think you can follow the prophet IF you truly believe the impact won't weaken families.
Again it is left up to the individual (who prayerfully considers his/her decision) to decide. I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God. We probably should not be suprised if that answer is coincidentally the same as the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve.
Bokonon's: Though I feel homosexuality is not good for society that does not mean I believe this particular ammendment is the right way to respond to it. Hence to difficulty of the issue.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: As a non-Mormon, it seems clear that you should follow the Prophet in this. Not that that is easy, (or that _I_ agree with it), but something like this seems pretty clear-cut.
-Bok
For me, (and from what it seems BlackBlade) it's not a question of following the prophet, that's a given. It's kind wanting to resolve the personal internal conflicting thoughts and feelings on the matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Dag, this seems to answer your question:
quote:Ill be brunt, I do not believe homosexuality is a force for good in this nation. I do believe it is a faulty lifestyle, that does more harm then good.
That was from the opening post.
-Bok
BB basically covered this, but thinking homosexuality does more harm than good does not necessarily mean that the amendment will do more good than harm.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Not to sound dismissive, but something tells me that if you pray, you will be in agreement.
(Though I understand that even getting this answer does not make it easy to digest immediately)
-Bok
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
I don't know how important this organization is, but there have been lots of prominent Orthodox Jews speaking in favor of the amendment.
Yup. We don't lack for homophobes. But then, none of us are required to subordinate our moral compasses to them. They don't claim infallibility, and if they did, we'd just laugh.
If you follow the link at the bottom of the page and read Rabbi Weinreb's article... well, let me just point out that Judaism doesn't recognize civil marriage of any kind. So he's being a little disingenuous. Just as Judaism "affirms marriage only between a man and woman", so too does it only affirm marriage between a Jew and a Jew, or a non-Jew and a non-Jew.
For Orthodox Jews to support this amendment because Jewish law doesn't recognize same-sex marriages is no different than supporting an amendment banning marriage between Jews and non-Jews. That particular ban, I might remind you, has been legislated in the past in certain places.
And when he writes:
quote:Observant Jews must have an attitude of empathy and understanding for individuals who say, "I have these urges, I can’t help them"
, I can't decide whether to laugh or to cry. Such an attitude is certainly not common in Orthodox circles, and I strongly suspect that it's not held by Rabbi Weinreb either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God.
Does Mormon doctrine say that all questions submitted to God will be answered in prayer? (And I mean answer in a narrow sense here as in "receive an answer to the question asked.")
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God.
Does Mormon doctrine say that all questions submitted to God will be answered in prayer? (And I mean answer in a narrow sense here as in "receive an answer to the question asked.")
They will be answered. How and when is left to God's discretion.
To be a bit more specific without limiting God to my experiences. The answer comes both within certain parameters laid out in scripture yet often in a specific way as to be most meaningful to the individual obtaining it.
But everyone (Mormons, prophets in scripture)agrees that the answer will come.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Would you argue that there is a constitutional right to ANY marriage?
I see your point. There is a constitutional right to marriage between a man and a woman, at least there's well established constitutional law on this point. Other frequently cited examples of well-establsihed "constitutional rights" not expressly stated in the constitution are the right to travel and the provacy right.
But I don't think that these cases are the same as homosexual marriage, becuase these other rights are more clearly established in the culture and history. Plus there is zero case law that gives homosexuals any special protections or rights. To further refine my point, I think that the view that homosexual marriage is inappropriate is so firmly established in history and social custom, and without legal support, that a court can only impose the right via unsupported judicial fiat.
From starLisa:
quote: First, Mig, I want to point out that people who regularly refer to gays and lesbians as "homosexuals" generally betray their own bias.
I don't deny my bias on this issue. I do have strong views on this issue. But how does using the term homosexual betray any particualr bias?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: To use Bokonon's phrase on this, I think you can follow the prophet IF you truly believe the impact won't weaken families.
However, the prophet sent his represenative, Elder Nelson, to sign the docoument supporting the bill. They also went to the trouble of sending out a letter to be read throughout the entire church. This to me would imply substantial support for the ammendment by the Church.
It may not be this simple but the way I read it is: We have been stressing the subject matter for almost 10 years now, we support the ammendment, so if you believed what we've been teaching then supporting the ammendment is the right thing to do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God.
Does Mormon doctrine say that all questions submitted to God will be answered in prayer? (And I mean answer in a narrow sense here as in "receive an answer to the question asked.")
They will be answered. How and when is left to God's discretion.
To be a bit more specific without limiting God to my experiences. The answer comes both within certain parameters laid out in scripture yet often in a specific way as to be most meaningful to the individual obtaining it.
But everyone (Mormons, prophets in scripture)agrees that the answer will come.
So does this mean that doctrine provides for the possibility that you will not be answered before you must act on support or opposition for this amendment?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Mig wrote: I don't deny my bias on this issue. I do have strong views on this issue. But how does using the term homosexual betray any particualr bias?
It's like calling blacks "Negros". It's not as bad as the n-word, but it's not what they want to be called, and it's offensive when you call them that.
Also, you claimed that this amendment wouldn't prevent states from legislating same-sex marriages. I pointed out that you're mistaken. But I note that you've ignored that.
Furthermore, you've repeated your claims about "social custom" in the face of the innumerable social customs that were done away with when people realized they were discriminatory in the past, and which even you (I hope) don't have a problem with. Interracial marriage and women being allowed to vote, for example.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Not to sound dismissive, but something tells me that if you pray, you will be in agreement.
(Though I understand that even getting this answer does not make it easy to digest immediately)
-Bok
I believe that, and yet I like to logically lay out the reasoning for doing something. From the letters reasoning does something such as "preserving the family which is the foundation of all society." Present a greater good that needs to be protected more so than the beliefs of a group people? I could be told by God "yes support this ammendment" and I would do it, yet I would not understand why I am doing it, to me this represents a problem.
I am reminded of a certain man named Nephi (readers of the homecoming saga will remember an equivalent incident in the first book) who was commanded to kill a man who was unconcious. Upon being unable to do something that violated his own beliefs (which God had given him) he was explained the very utilitarian view that killing this man would preserve a way for future generations to live in righteousness and by no other way could this be acheived.
Though I am not KILLING anyone, I would still like to know why I am WRONG in thinking the ammendment is the wrong way to respond to the gay marriage issue. Though I do not demand God to explain things to me, I very much prefer it.
Dag: Perhaps. I imagine if God was going to not answer you before requiring you to act it would be for the purpose of achieving some higher goal, i.e trying to teach you some lesson.
An example of this might be Abraham literally about to kill his son Isaac at the Lord's command and being stopped by God at that instant and then explaining why he had put Abraham through that ordeal.
Another example might be Jesus on the cross crying out to God, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" From my own understanding, Jesus did not foresee this act of his father and probably did not understand the motives behind it until later, later possibly being the instant after he had asked or after his actual death.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I could be told by God "yes support this ammendment" and I would do it, yet I would not understand why I am doing it, to me this represents a problem.
I also think your support in such a situation would likely be very ineffectual.
quote:Dag: Perhaps. I imagine if God was going to not answer you before requiring you to act it would be for the purpose of achieving some higher goal, i.e trying to teach you some lesson.
Thank you for the answer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
For my take on it, the line in bold means that you can express yourself to your congressman in whatever way you feel. If you feel the amendment would not help towards the ultimate goal (strong families -> everyone coming unto Christ), then you can tell your Senator so without going against the prophet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I could be told by God "yes support this ammendment" and I would do it, yet I would not understand why I am doing it, to me this represents a problem.
I also think your support in such a situation would likely be very ineffectual.
quote:Dag: Perhaps. I imagine if God was going to not answer you before requiring you to act it would be for the purpose of achieving some higher goal, i.e trying to teach you some lesson.
Thank you for the answer.
sorry for the long edit in my previous post, in case you do not notice it Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was going to post something snarky, but on second thought, I guess I'll just stay out of this one. Consider yourself snarked, please.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I was going to post something snarky, but on second thought, I guess I'll just stay out of this one. Consider yourself snarked, please.
Good luck finding snarked in a dictionary. Remember KOM "civil criticisms" were invited. But your restraint is acknowledged
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think a good question to ask yourself would be this:
In 1977, if you believed that blacks should hold the priesthood, would you have been wrong to hold that belief? If the answer to that question is "yes," if waiting that extra year made all the difference, then I think you have your answer here as well.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think a good question to ask yourself would be this:
In 1977, if you believed that blacks should hold the priesthood, would you have been wrong to hold that belief? If the answer to that question is "yes," if waiting that extra year made all the difference, then I think you have your answer here as well.
I see what you're getting at Tom, and I appreciate the question. I've been considering it. However, to me the circumstances of the two situations are too dissimilar to make it extremely useful to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm curious about this situation. The closest analogy I have would be if one of my mentors who I trusted knew more than I about a situation were to advise me to do X, I would do X. If they told me not to dig too much for answers why, I would trust them.
But that trust is part of a personal relationship built up over years and the fact that they know me and I am convinced that they have my best interests in mind when offering that type of advice.
When it comes to matters of faith or spirit, I consider myself to have a direct and personal relationship with God. Intercessors are not present. Spiritual advisors are, of course, welcome and I consider myself fortunate to have several people whose opinions I trust.
I have never once asked a person in that position how to vote on an issue.
If we had a discussion about it, I would ask their reasons for an opinion I didn't share. So that I could understand why they felt that way, and also to explore my own reasons a little more deeply.
I'm trying to put myself in the position of having a spiritual advisor whose word I would take on an issue unquestioningly. I'm struggling with it.
I say all that so that you know my mindset before I say what I have to say about the letter.
So...
In that frame of mind, I read the First President's letter.
I liked it.
It encouraged me (were I a follower) to tell my elected representatives exactly what I think. It tells me exactly what HE thinks about the issue.
The fact that my viewpoint and his don't coincide seems perfectly okay within the confines of that letter. All it really says is:
1) I think this. 2) We (myself and other leaders) have set forth our position on this repeatedly and you can find it in the referenced materials. 3) I urge you to write to your elected officials.
It doesn't say I have to write to support their position.
it doesn't say I'm a bad person if I disagree with them on this one.
So, I'm a free actor and they acknowledge that.
No problems!
If I were concerned about the variance between my position and theirs, I might try to enter into a discussion with the church leaders. But otherwise, I'll just take their position into account when I do what they urge me to do -- write to my elected officials.
I really think they're implying they'd be okay with me doing that even if I disagree with them.
I gather that would not be a socially acceptable position in the church, but if I can't take a letter from my church leaders literally, then I'd have some real problems with them.
But then, I'm not real good with authority figures.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I posted this in another thread on the same subject here in this forum. I thought it might be helpful to the discussion.
It points our exactly what the Amendment is, and what it's legal ramifications are.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just for the record, Wikipedia seems to have a fairly accurate and unbiased account of the 'Federal Marriage Amendment'.
In short, this is it - 2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
1. Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
I thought it might help if we all knew what we were talking about. Wikipedia does a reasonable good job of analysing the legal implications of this Amendment.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum, that's actually somewhat interesting. It doesn't seem to forbid, say, civil unions.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Nope, but it does say that if a civil union is allowed in one state, another state wouldn't have to honor it.
Marriages are honored that way (when couples move, they don't have to remarry in their new state).
It's possible that civil unions would be a patchwork of laws ranging from no law, a law meant only for heterosexuals, a law meant only for homosexuals, a law making it possible for friends to cover friends on their insurance, and so on...
I said this elsewhere, but this law basically doesn't resolve the real issues that started the whole effort by homosexuals to get recognition for their committed relationships in the first place.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage. One may argue that they should have that right, but that is another issue. The proposed amendment to the constitution would still permit states to legislate homosexual unions and thereby change the law and centuries of social practice. This is better than the anti-democratic practice of letting judges legislate. If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
I think you can you can support the marraige amendment as a pro-democracy measure, without violating any belief that you may have that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Of course, there is also no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to marry either.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Seems like a pretty sweet way for the church to finally get all the christian churches liking them, and rid of that stigmatism. And Mormons don't even need to do what this letter is proposing for that to happen.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Really?
I kinda doubt it.
I doubt the anti-Mormon folks I've met would ever change their mind because of anything short of wholesale "conversion" of the Mormon church and flat out rejection of the BoM, and the prophet.
On the other side, I don't really see the leaders of the Mormon church setting policy based on how much it'll mean to other Christian denominations.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
For my take on it, the line in bold means that you can express yourself to your congressman in whatever way you feel. If you feel the amendment would not help towards the ultimate goal (strong families -> everyone coming unto Christ), then you can tell your Senator so without going against the prophet.
That is exactly how I read the statement. So, I think the appropriate response is to really ask yourself, will this amendment help strengthen families. If you believe it will and still don't support the amendment, then you have a problem. If you don't believe the amendment will help families, then don't support it. And if you believe the amendment will hurt families, then speak up.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Mig wrote: I don't deny my bias on this issue. I do have strong views on this issue. But how does using the term homosexual betray any particualr bias?
It's like calling blacks "Negros". It's not as bad as the n-word, but it's not what they want to be called, and it's offensive when you call them that.
Using the term homosexuals is offensive? That's just plain rediculous.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
This is the text of the proposed amendment:
quote:`SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'. `SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'
starLisa wrote, regarding my assertion that the proposed amendment would permit states to legislate homosexual unions:
quote:Again, Mig, you're mistaken. Not only would it bar states from doing anything of the sort, it would actually force states that have already instituted marriage equality, such as Massachussetts, and possible Maryland in a short while, to revoke their laws.
As the text of the amendment clear states, it bars any construction of the US Constitution and the constitution of any state that confers homosexual marriage. The effect of the amendment is limited to constitutional construction by state and federal courts. It does not bar any state TO legislatively alter the definition of marriage. In the case of Massachusetts, the state amended its marriage law to comply with the state Supreme Court’s decision, based, as starLisa accurately noted on an equalprotection arguement. The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment would permit the Massachusetts legislature to change its laws to again ban homosexual marriages, but does not require that they do so. The issue, ultimately, should be left up tot he people not radical jurists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It does not bar any state TO legislatively alter the definition of marriage.
Yes, it does. As far as I can tell, the line "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" would make unconstitutional any legislative definition of marriage that contradicted this.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Tom is right. If this passes, no state could allow same-sex marriages because they would be unconstitutional under the US Constitution.
The amendment would not forbid a state to allow civil unions, but it would make those unions completely and explicitly non-portable to states that don't allow them. It would also forbid any judge from ordering a state to allow civil unions or the like due to an interpretation of that state's constitution. If this passes, the only way a same-sex couple will be able to get a civil union is to move to a state where the popular vote demanded they have that priviledge. And then they'd have to stay there.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
andi330 wrote:
quote:Of course, there is also no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to marry either.
Actually, heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right. See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (19780.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
andi330 wrote:
quote:Of course, there is also no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to marry either.
Actually, heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right. See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The 1978 citation is the correct format, but I do not believe it establishes heterosexual marriage as a fundamental right, but rather a right of "persons," "individuals," or "men/man" (presumably used in the inclusive sense of "human").
For example:
quote:Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....
From where do you derive the "heterosexual" qualification, Mig? I can't find it in the text of the document.
Also, I do not know how this decision has been treated subsequently. If we're lucky, Dagonee may see fit to enlighten us. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And oh, hey! Welcome to Hatrack. Though I see you've been around awhile, it's the first we've met.
I see from your profile that you are an attorney. Well, then, I will look forward to you enlightening me. *grin
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
You're correct, I added the "heterosexual" quallifcation. I did so because the case cited involved a heterosexual couple.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: And oh, hey! Welcome to Hatrack. Though I see you've been around awhile, it's the first we've met.
I see from your profile that you are an attorney. Well, then, I will look forward to you enlightening me. *grin
Thanks for the welcome, but never look to an attorney for enlightenment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Fair enough. I guess the interpretation might still be up for grabs, though.
It's probably a reasonable assumption that the colloquial definition of "marriage" in the late seventies was based on presumption of man-woman coupling, although IIRC, there was organized pressure from activists to legalize gay and lesbian marriage in the early seventies, too. I wonder how much of that issue might have filtered up through to the SC consciousness? In reading through the text of the decision with 2006 eyes, I'm struck by how nonspecific the wording is with regards to gender.
Again, though, there are multiple possible interpretations for that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Thanks for the welcome, but never look to an attorney for enlightenment.
Hey, Bub, some of my best friends are attorn[ey]s.
---
Edited for the stellar spelling qualitys.
[ June 07, 2006, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Thanks for the welcome, but never look to an attorney for enlightenment.
Hey, Bub, some of my best friends are attornies.
You misunderstood. She's not impuning attorneys. She's providing a legal disclaimer. It's a professional courtesy to remove any presumption of legal obligation. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well debate should probably end for now seeing as how the ammendment did not pass the floor of the Senate.
quote:It does not bar any state TO legislatively alter the definition of marriage.
Yes, it does. As far as I can tell, the line "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" would make unconstitutional any legislative definition of marriage that contradicted this.
Of course it does. Mig probably realizes it as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man. The House doesn't properly appreciate how lucky they are that the Senate's not yet full of complete idiots.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Does anyone have a break down of who voted for what?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man. The House doesn't properly appreciate how lucky they are that the Senate's not yet full of complete idiots.
You know Tom, this is an issue which very obviously has people on both sides on this board. And you just called a bunch of them idiots by implication.
The board nearly had a collective conniption when someone made such broad statements about people who have had abortions. Let's try to show a little courtesy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Even people who support the sentiment behind the amendment should realize that it'd be idiotic to pass it, if only because the continued attempt to pass this amendment is just one of two things holding the religious wing of the Republican party together. Even if you think homosexuality is wrong, banning homosexual marriage would have as its most immediate and visible effect the partial neutering of the right wing of American politics.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'm guessing abortion is the other?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And there are likely people who think one of the folloring:
1) that getting this "taken care of" would end one of the ties between social conservatism and business-friendly conservatism; or
2) that it's worth the cost of shattering the right wing;
3) that the 7-year push to get it ratified would extend the likely length of the issue.
None of these require idiocy as a prerequisite for believing them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The board nearly had a collective conniption when someone made such broad statements about people who have had abortions.
That's an exaggeration. I and others took offence and said as much, in essentially the same way as you've just done here. I think you're reading a double standard where none exists.
That said, I strongly agree with the substance of your post.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I had a friend of mine convinced that the Bush win in the 2004 election combined by with the Republican legislative majorities meant that he was obviously going to appoint Supreme Court Justices who would immediately overturn Roe vs. Wade. She didn't believe me that if there's one thing a conservative like George Bush would never do, it's throw away abortion as an issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And there are likely people who think one of the following...
I'd wager that it's very likely indeed that these people aren't in the Senate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She didn't believe me that if there's one thing a conservative like George Bush would never do,
I don't believe you either. I know there are conservatives who would hate to see the abortion issue go away, but 1.) I doubt Bush is one of the them, and 2.) Anyone who thinks the abortion issue will go away after Roe is overturned isn't analyzing the issue correctly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you want informed and analytical opinions of what would happen if Roe is overturned, the Atlantic has some ideas.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
edit: apparently the post I was responding to disappeared.
Kat, I'm going to make a point of reading that article at the library (the web site is subscriber only). Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Black Blade, I am Mormon and feel exactly the same way. The way I've resolved it is by realizing these things.
1) Prophets are not infallible. Read what Brigham Young thought about black people, for instance, or read Rough Stone Rolling, the biography of Joseph Smith. The wonderful thing is that prophets are people, just like you and I.
2) God does not want me to surrender my agency. I am supposed to think, feel, strive, and puzzle my way through life to strengthen and refine my moral senses and powers. That's part of eternal progression. No faculty can grow without exercise. We are absolutely not supposed to give up our moral agency to others. Prophets are meant to be our guides, not to be followed blindly.
3) After much pondering and prayer, I feel confident that God approves my choice to support the legalization of gay marriage. Note that I don't ask the prophet to change his views, and I do sustain him as the leader of the church. I simply retain stewardship over my own moral choices.
I hope this helps. Let us know what you decide.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I want to make it clear that in the few cases where I don't see eye to eye with the prophet about things, I am fully open to the possibility that he's right and I'm wrong. I do give those things extra thought and prayer and study. What's the use of having a prophet if you just ignore what he says and go your own way, right? I don't at all do that. It's just like Bob Scopatz said about his mentor. I feel a personal relationship with him, I know he has only my best interests in mind, and I know him to be wise and good. I know he talks to God about what is the best path for the church, just as I talk to God about what is the best path for me. I know him to be a trustworthy source of information. So I would never simply dismiss or discount what guidance comes through that source. I wanted to make that clear, since my previous post didn't stress that enough.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Arsed... I can't even read these threads anymore. I'm not even gay... I'm about as straight as it gets, but reading some of the posts in these threads, reading what people say and believe... just makes me want to strangle my countrymen and women.
I have a great respect for those of you who are homosexual who can read people say stuff like this and calmly, coolly and rationally respond.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This thread? What's so wrong in this thread? The strongest thing anyone has expressed is a belief that SSM maybe shouldn't be passed. If that flicks anyone into an uncontrollable rage, the problem lies with the person reading it.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Tatiana
The way I've resolved it is by realizing these things.
1) Prophets are not infallible. Read what Brigham Young thought about black people, for instance, or read Rough Stone Rolling, the biography of Joseph Smith. The wonderful thing is that prophets are people, just like you and I.
2) God does not want me to surrender my agency. I am supposed to think, feel, strive, and puzzle my way through life to strengthen and refine my moral senses and powers. That's part of eternal progression. No faculty can grow without exercise. We are absolutely not supposed to give up our moral agency to others. Prophets are meant to be our guides, not to be followed blindly.
3) After much pondering and prayer, I feel confident that God approves my choice to support the legalization of gay marriage. Note that I don't ask the prophet to change his views, and I do sustain him as the leader of the church. I simply retain stewardship over my own moral choices.
Most excellent thoughts, and truer words were never spoken. People seem to forget that despite all the references to sheep and flocks in the Bible, we are not meant to be blind sheep following a 'belled' leader over a cliff.
At the very heart of the Protestant foundation, the very reason that we exist, is that Martin Luther felt that the Catholic Church wanted to hide the Scriptures from the average citizen and dictate with absolute authority what the Bible did and didn't mean.
Martin Luther felt that a person's spirituality was between him/her and God, each able to read and interpret the Scipture in light of his own conscience. The Church is merely our guide and counsel on matters of spirituality and interpretations of the Bible. When any non-Catholic religion or any religious figure takes it upon himself to DICTATE what the Bible does or doesn't say, or does and doesn't mean, that should be a huge RED FLAG that this person is not truly of the faith.
Further, I have no problem with religious leaders who speak TO God, but I am extremely fearful of anyone who claims to speak FOR God. God is quite capable of speaking for himself; thank you very much.
Any person can render their interpretation of God's will and intent, but I absolutely reject any and all persons who claim to speak the will of God with absolute authority.
Yes, there are many people who have dedicated the lives to the study and interpretation of the Bible, and I grant them full HUMAN authority to speak, but GOD has only granted that full authority ONCE, and even then the actions and words of Jesus are open to interpretation because those actions and words were suject to inclusion, exclusion, and interpretation of human authors.
Straying slightly from the central topic, there was a PBS documentary recently on Gay Mormons, and they seem to feel that they have first been abandon by their Church, and that their Church had essentially made them persona non grata. They have in effect been banished and/or shunned. That seems a very un-Christian thing to do, and I must ask Momons in general if that is the answer to all SIN (no love, no compassion, no understanding, no forgiveness, no deference to God as the Judge and Redemer), or if you are very selective in your banishment of sinners; bannishing OTHERS who sin, while conviniently forgiving OUR sins?
It would seem to me that any and all Churches are nothing but a collection of sinners banded together to seek spiritual guidance and personal spiritual enlightenment. Invariably we ALL FAIL, but we try hard to improve, to grow spiritually, to act with compassion and enlightenment, to seek our own peace with God.
So, explain to me how the Mormon (and virtually every other church) can embrace sinners whose sins are similar to our own, but banish sinners whose sins are very different from our own? Like I said, that really doesn't seem to be a very Christian thing to do, it futher seems extremely hypocritical. Something I'm sure God doesn't endorse.
Now really straying from the central subject. If we take the Old Testament as the absolute word of and authority of God, then the Bible essentially tells me it is my duty to wait outside divorce court and smash people on the head with a cinder block, killing them dead in the street, as they exit the court. (Admittedly overstated, but you get my point.)
The Bible says in one location (that I am aware of) in Old Testament that (condensed version) gay activity is a Sin. That is repeated one time by Paul in the New Testament, and I personally believe Paul is merely echoing what he read in the Old Testament.
Now the Old Testament goes on for Chapter after Chapter explaining how Adulterer's should be stoned to death. I believe that this information is found in both Old and New Testaments, though I could be wrong. How is it we conviniently ignore that part, while we sieze on two extremely short phrases regarding gay activity with absolute hatred and vitriol? Again, that seems a very hypocritical and un-Christian like thing to do.
Our goal as Christians and sinners is to recognise that we are all, each and everyone, flawed and spritually frail, and our goal is to embrace each other in the spirit of true fellowship and love. To guide each other with kindness, and to lead by example, in helping each other find our individual enlightenment and peace with God.
I still say action of exclusion and rejection are the most un-Christian actions of all. If you can't embrace a sinner, then you can't embrace yourself, and in my view, that cuts you off completely from God. But then that's just my opinion.
There are many more aspects of this rant on my mind, but I've rambled on long enough, and (for now) I will spare you further ranting.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now the Old Testament goes on for Chapter after Chapter explaining how Adulterer's should be stoned to death. I believe that this information is found in both Old and New Testaments, though I could be wrong. How is it we conviniently ignore that part, while we sieze on two extremely short phrases regarding gay activity with absolute hatred and vitriol? Again, that seems a very hypocritical and un-Christian like thing to do.
Unless people are advocating actually stoning homosexuals to death, your complaint here makes no sense. How many churches do you know that say adultery is just peachy keen?
Adultery is condemned. Homosexual actions are condemned. Stoning is advocated for neither. How are they being inconsistent in their treatment?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Adultery by couples married in the temple is considered a worse sin than being a homosexual is in the LDS church.
BlueWizard, I really think you should spend some time getting your facts straight or asking simple questions to get them straight, rather than posting long rants in most threads you're involved in. There's so many misconceptions about Christians in general and the LDS church in particular, that I'm really not going to try to wade through and sort them all out.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Mig, the legislative bodies and the courts are both elected by "the people." You may disagree with how a court operates, but it is not anti-democratic per se.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think he cares about the facts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Adultery by couples married in the temple is considered a worse sin than being a homosexual is in the LDS church.
BlueWizard, I really think you should spend some time getting your facts straight or asking simple questions to get them straight, rather than posting long rants in most threads you're involved in. There's so many misconceptions about Christians in general and the LDS church in particular, that I'm really not going to try to wade through and sort them all out.
I agree with this. To respond to a question, after doing some serious thinking, and prayer I found an answer that I feel good about. Sorry if I deliberately withold the particulars of my choice.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:there was a PBS documentary recently on Gay Mormons, and they seem to feel that they have first been abandon by their Church, and that their Church had essentially made them persona non grata. They have in effect been banished and/or shunned. That seems a very un-Christian thing to do, and I must ask Momons in general if that is the answer to all SIN (no love, no compassion, no understanding, no forgiveness, no deference to God as the Judge and Redemer), or if you are very selective in your banishment of sinners; bannishing OTHERS who sin, while conviniently forgiving OUR sins?
No matter what, it's not Christian to turn the sinner away from our love and fellowship.
But neither can we admit that what God has declared as sinful (through living prophets) is not sinful, or that God doesn't care.
Some people can carry these two requirements off gracefully; others cannot.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Dagonee
Unless people are advocating actually stoning homosexuals to death, your complaint here makes no sense. How many churches do you know that say adultery is just peachy keen?
Adultery is condemned. Homosexual actions are condemned. Stoning is advocated for neither. How are they being inconsistent in their treatment?
Either I'm not understanding you, or you are not understanding me. It's not about equivalency, it's about consistency.
The Bible in several places with absolute clarity does say that Adulterer's should be put to death. Though I admit what constituted 'adultery' in the Bible is a little more flexible and at the same time more complex than our modern definition. But the fact remains, it says point blank that Adulterer's should be put to death. If you do not put Adulterer's to death, then how can you justify shunning or banishing anyone from your church?
So, the question is, are you consistent in the way your treat sinners, and are you consistent in the way you represent the very foundation of the Protestant movement, and are you consistent in the way you apply Jesus's message of love?
You said -
Adultery is condemned. Homosexual actions are condemned. Stoning is advocated for neither....
On one hand I pointed out that THE BIBLE does flat out say the adulterer's should be stoned. Now I admit that no modern Christian religion advocates that. Yet if you can reject stoning adulterers, then why can't you reject persecuting gay people? I still say the hate and condemnation of gay people, in the presents or absents of the open condemnation of other sin, is a very un-Christian like thing to do.
(Keep in mind that I am responding in general, and not personally attacking Dagonee who seems very reasonable and intelligent.)
So, once again, it is a matter of functional consistency. Does your church treat gay people the same way they treat other sinners? Do you equally shun and/or banish fornicators, the promiscuous, the adulterers, the theives, those who engage in unethical business practices, those who tell lies, those who lust and convet, those who live in hate, spite, and vitriol? (Again, statement in general)
It would seem to me that all these question were implied in my rant. And for the record, I did ask very specific question that were ignored.
BaoQingTian did answer one of my implied questions about how Adultry was treated. This, as he/she implies, is considered a terrible sin.
To BaoQingTian, katharina, and to some extent, BlackBlade, while I used the LDS church to illustrate my points, it was nothing more than that, an illustration. In fact, in several places I made reference to Christian religion in general. Since, I had a Mormon example, I framed my questions in the Mormon church, but it applies equally to all religions. Again, I had a Mormon example, so I used it as an illustration.
I claim no particular knowledge of the LDS church, but I do understand the Protestant Movement, Christianity in general, and Jesus's message of love. You may certainly take acception to various details of what I said, but can you truly dispute my general statements on love and fellowship, and embracing all sinners if they are truly struggling to find spiritual truth?
Scott R. seems to get it -
No matter what, it's not Christian to turn the sinner away from our love and fellowship.
Scott then added -
But neither can we admit that what God has declared as sinful (through living prophets) is not sinful, or that God doesn't care.
First, no one on this earth has absolute authority to tell me what the Bible does and doesn't say, and what it does and doesn't mean. Although, the Catholic Church could attempt to claim that authority. Me, however, I am a PROTESTANT, and at the heart of my beleif, and reaffirmed by Paul in Romans Chapt 14 (I believe), is the idea that my faith, my spiritual salvation, my interpretations of the scriptures are all between me and God, with the Church being my guide and interpreter, but absolutely NOT having absolute authority to dictate anything.
Next on the issue of Sin, I am not denying that the Bible says that Gay activity is sinful, but I certainly am not going to deny the many many many other sins delineated and denounced by the Bible. It gets down to a general question of OUR sins vs THEIR sins, and the very unquestionably human idea that our sins can be overlooked but their sins must be condemned with hate and spite.
If you only took one aspect of what I said to heart, let it be these paragraphs.
Our goal as Christians and sinners is to recognise that we are all, each and everyone, flawed and spritually frail, and our goal is to embrace each other in the spirit of true fellowship and love. To guide each other with kindness, and to lead by example, in helping each other find our individual enlightenment and peace with God.
I still say action of exclusion and rejection are the most un-Christian actions of all. If you can't embrace a sinner, then you can't embrace yourself, and in my view, that cuts you off completely from God. But then that's just my opinion.
Further, in light of these two paragraphs, let's us all not be so foolish as to think that we mere mortals can or should take on the role of God as the Judge and Redeemer. We are here to help and support each other in our individual quests to redemption and enlightenment. We are NOT here to judge and condemn each other. That serves no spiritual purpose. In fact, Paul specifically speak out against this. If you do not guide your fellow Christian with love and understanding, and with fellowship and love, then you become an obstical between this person and his God.
So, ask yourself, are you the hatefilled spiteful judgemental person that stands between a sinner and his God, or are you the gentle loving hands that support him and lift him up to God as he seeks out his own enlightenment and spiritual peace? Are you the judge and condemner, or are you the loving supporter, and are you consistent in who you judge and who you support?
(Again, questions in general, not attacking anyone or anything specifically.)
If I am wrong in my beliefs after a lifetime of searching for spiritual truth, then let God judge as he will. But I accept no judgement at all from any fellow human on spiritual matters, and I accept no human's claim that he or she speaks with the absolute authority of God. THAT goes against the very heart and foundation of my religion.
So, you are free to pick apart minor little details in my statements, but it would do us all much greater service, if we focused on the overal concepts, rather than particular details that merely serve to make a broader point.
Why do you concern yourself with the speck of sawdust in my eye while you ignore the plank in your own?"
The wise and true Christian spends his time concentrating on the Plank (board) in his own eye, while offerring love, support, and fellowship to his friends and neighbors as they try to negotiate the tricky path to dealing with their own Plank. THAT is what it means to be a Christian.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
[ June 08, 2006, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard:
On one hand I pointed out that THE BIBLE does flat out say the adulterer's should be stoned. Now I admit that no modern Christian religion advocates that. Yet if you can reject stoning adulterers, then why can't you reject persecuting gay people? I still say the hate and condemnation of gay people, in the presents or absents of the open condemnation of other sin, is a very un-Christian like thing to do.
If I were to reject stoning of adulterer's then the logical equivalent would be to reject stoning of homosexuals.
The hate of gay people (or any kind of sinner) is definately un-Christian and there is no place for it in the church. However, condemnation of sin has never been un-Christian. The definition I use here for condemnation is "an expression of strong disapproval; pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable." Neither Jesus nor his disciples had a problem condemning practices they saw as wrong. This is not the same as judgement. This is simply saying that a certain action or practice is morally wrong. Is that against your flavor of Christianity?
BaoQingTian did answer one of my implied questions about how Adultry was treated. This, as he/she implies, is considered a terrible sin. For future reference, I'm a he You may certainly take acception to various details of what I said, but can you truly dispute my general statements on love and fellowship, and embracing all sinners if they are truly struggling to find spiritual truth?
I'm not trying to dispute your statements. Scott R put it very well. I think we as individuals (speaking as a LDS) have a LONG way to come.
First, no one on this earth has absolute authority to tell me what the Bible does and doesn't say, and what it does and doesn't mean.
But you've repeatedly been telling others exactly what the Bible does say and does mean. Don't be surprised if we claim the same privilege as you do.
Me, however, I am a PROTESTANT, and at the heart of my beleif, and reaffirmed by Paul in Romans Chapt 14 (I believe), is the idea that my faith, my spiritual salvation, my interpretations of the scriptures are all between me and God, with the Church being my guide and interpreter, but absolutely NOT having absolute authority to dictate anything. Again, you're demonstrating an ignorance of BlackBlade's (and others) religious beliefs-which is at the heart of the topic of this thread, and which is why he's talking about convictions colliding. Every temple worthy LDS member believes that the President of the Churchis the authority figure, the prophet, seer, and revelator. He has the authority to make new commandments or dissolve old ones. He has the ability to receive revelation directly from God himself.
This is the heart of the inner conflict. To feel one way about something yet have the mouthpiece of God say something different. The reason I keep responding is that I don't think you get that. You believe something different. I get that. It's a non-issue for you. However, you could acknowledge that this is an issue for some of us.
But I accept no judgement at all from any fellow human on spiritual matters, and I accept no human's claim that he or she speaks with the absolute authority of God. THAT goes against the very heart and foundation of my religion. But that is part of the foundation of mine and many others on this board. That's what you just don't seem to acknowledge.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Well, I don't think this thread is about homosexuality. I believe it is about questioning the church/following in which you are, and their opinions.
Personally, I've heard speeches given at my old church for George W. Bush, and although I agreed (I dislike Bush, but reeeeealy didn't like Kerry) I didn't appreciate him bringing his political views to church. Upon further reflection, I really do think that it was okay, but as for me personally, I don't like it. I don't like it when I'm in church (I'm a Christian) and they tell me to stand, or sit, and play whatever little games of 'worship leader says' with me. (I especially hate it when they say 'just praise the lord'. What do they think I'm doing? And if I'm not, is saying that going to make me reconsider not showing external signs of worship?)
I don't think that it is the best reaction, but I have the opposite problem as you. When somebody in authority at a church, tells me to do something outside of a sermon or somethign, I immedietly resent it, and want to do the opposite.
I believe that you need to follow your convictions, however. Even if I disagree.
Homosexuality is, to me, more than just your garden-variety sin.
And here's why.
Although it is listed with the other sins, you find it listed as unnatural. With, say, adultery, and stealing, and losing your temper, you have what are called 'sins of the flesh'; natural desires and impulses accodrding to the Bible. With Homosexuality, it is considered unnatural (Romans 1, other passeges in the epistles)
Then again, if you believe that those were epistles just written to the church at that time, this has no credence.
Anyway, with this in mind, I don't believe that the marriage ammendment should be change, because I do believe that people, in the name of tolerence, have not even begun to think of the repercussions. And please, don't think I'm going to blame 9/11, or Hurricane Katrina on God or anything. But, for reasons that I have no other explanation than my conscience, I can't see a change in the ammendment ending well. I've thought about it, and it doesn't seem like a huge leap in 'tolerence' or whatever, but it just seems wrong. And these feelings have never led me wrong before. And who knows, maybe I ate spicy food on the nights before every time I thought of the ammendment, but I do think that this is my conscience, not just some luny feelings.
That being said, I have no problem having gay friends. There are far too many Christians who are (I hate this term) Homophobes. I feel no qualms about watching Will and Grace, anymore than I do when talking to somebody who is gay.
The only plus with the marriage ammendment is that homosexuals can have wills. I know from a couple of friends that there have been wills that weren't heeded at the death of someone gay, and that somebody's partner could not see them in the emergency room. They can't share insurance either, at least, not since I checked.
Anyway, regardless of the prophet (For a minute there I thought you went to a charismatic church. LOL), follow your convictions. I don't know if this is a travesty or anything in your religion, since I'm not mormen, but I would go with your instincts, just as I go with mine.
[ June 08, 2006, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Nathan2006 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Either I'm not understanding you, or you are not understanding me. It's not about equivalency, it's about consistency.
The Bible in several places with absolute clarity does say that Adulterer's should be put to death. Though I admit what constituted 'adultery' in the Bible is a little more flexible and at the same time more complex than our modern definition. But the fact remains, it says point blank that Adulterer's should be put to death. If you do not put Adulterer's to death, then how can you justify shunning or banishing anyone from your church?
On one hand I pointed out that THE BIBLE does flat out say the adulterer's should be stoned. Now I admit that no modern Christian religion advocates that. Yet if you can reject stoning adulterers, then why can't you reject persecuting gay people? I still say the hate and condemnation of gay people, in the presents or absents of the open condemnation of other sin, is a very un-Christian like thing to do.
First, once again you are claiming that the Church hates and persecutes gay people. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but too often when I hear this it turns out that what is meant by persecution simply stating that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman and that sexual acts outside marriage are wrong.
You did miss this point entirely. Modern Christians reject stoning adulterers. They also reject stoning people who engage in homosexual actions. You ask for consistency. I've pointed out that the move away from strict Levitical commands is consistent for both adultery and homosexuality. You respond by using vague terms like persecuting and by stating that adultery is tolerated. You have yet to back up either contention in any way.
Are you contending that the Church does not condemn adultery? I think you'd have a very hard time supporting that statement.
Are you saying that people who commit adultery are not kicked out of some churches while homosexuals are? If so, I think you are missing some important distinctions. For example, in the Catholic Church, both adultery and homosexual actions will be forgiven if the actor is truly repentant and seeks forgiveness during the sacrament of reconciliation. The two are not treated differently. Even if they repeat the sin after genuine attempts to do better, they will be forgiven. However, in either case, a person who refuses to admit that the act in question is wrong and to make a firm commitment to refrain from future commissions will not be granted absolution. Often, when someone speaks of a homosexual being turned away from the Church (in the Catholic case, it would mean being ineligible for the sacraments until proper reconciliation is obtained), they are speaking of someone who has no intention of trying to live chastely.
As to public denouncement of homosexuality, a public response is more necessary when there is a concerted effort to make a sin socially acceptable. As far as I can tell, most people agree that adultery is wrong. However, there is an active movement trying to convince people that homosexual actions are not immoral. This requires a strong response from those who think otherwise.
I won't deny that there is persecution, condemnation, and hatred of homosexuals amongst Christians. But your broad-based assertions lack substantive support.
quote:So, once again, it is a matter of functional consistency. Does your church treat gay people the same way they treat other sinners? Do you equally shun and/or banish fornicators, the promiscuous, the adulterers, the theives, those who engage in unethical business practices, those who tell lies, those who lust and convet, those who live in hate, spite, and vitriol? (Again, statement in general)
My Church does not shun or banish gay people, fornicators (promiscuous or otherwise), adulterers, or thieves. Or murderers, for that matter. Very few acts result in excommunication, and none of those create excommunication that cannot be removed upon proper penance.
You need to lay a greater foundation before you can expect answers to your questions. I would venture to say that many people here think they are based on faulty premises.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
BaoQingTian, thank you so much for responding, and even more so for responding to the substance of the things I said, rather than nitpicky little points. You have cleared up a few things for me.
quote: BlueWizard originally said-
On one hand I pointed out that THE BIBLE does flat out say the adulterer's should be stoned. Now I admit that no modern Christian religion advocates that. Yet if you can reject stoning adulterers, then why can't you reject persecuting gay people?
In response to which you made some excellent points, but I don't think you quite got the point I was making, and the clue is in your statement -
If I were to reject stoning of adulterer's then the logical equivalent would be to reject stoning of homosexuals.
See, it's not at all about equivalent, it is about the consistent applications of beliefs. If fact that was the primary point of my original post. Though I admit I may have alienated some people by framing it in a Mormon illustration rather than asking it outright as a general question to all religions.
So, the question is, to anyone of any faith, and directed not at anyone personally, but at those people who would reject otherwise faithful and spritually-seeking Gay people, is your/their rejection of gay people consistent across all sin, or is it very much an 'our sins' vs 'their sins' thing?
I said -
...can you truly dispute my general statements on love and fellowship, and embracing all sinners if they are truly struggling to find spiritual truth?
This once again come down to consistency. In the documentary I mentioned, it said that Gay people could not be allowed back into the Church unless they rejected their 'homosexual lifestyle' and abstained from gay sex. In the name of consistency, are all sinners thrown out of the Church if they are unable to say with absolute certainty that they will never sin again? Maybe there is an element that I am missing, but it would seem, if that were true, that all your Churches would be empty.
Since we are all flawed human beings and we are all sinners, I would think that the true test would be for the person to be seeking God's wisdom and guidance in finding the true nature of sin and spiritual enlightenment.
I can't help but wonder if some sinners are allowed to try to overcome their sins, while other sinners must make an absolute statement of moral purity and absolute certainty. Again, are sins dealt with consistently, or is there a subliminal overlooking of our sins and an absolute condemnation of their sins?
Again, it's not so much offical Church policy in question, as the action of people using the Church as an excuse. Back on point -
I'm sorry but exclusion and rejection seem like exactly the opposite of what is needed. You need to invite gay people into your church unconditionally if they are truly seeking spiritual guidance and enlightenment. (and yes, I realize I said 'unconditionally but with a condition'.) How can you ever expect them or any sinner to recover if they are denied the spiritual environment that helps them resolve their issues?
And if you invite them into your church will it be to persecute them, to rain hellfire and brimstone down on them, or will it be to accept that we are all sinners and need to support each other in seeking spiritual truth?
I really don't know. So, I'm asking you.
quote: First, no one on this earth has absolute authority to tell me what the Bible does and doesn't say, and what it does and doesn't mean.
But you've repeatedly been telling others exactly what the Bible does say and does mean.
Well, you are cheating here a bit . When the Bible literally says 'Adulterers should be stone' and says in many times and in many ways, there really isn't any interpretation there. I don't need divine inspiration, to read what is clearly and literally written.
The same is true of my interpretation of Paul's words. They are pretty clear, evident, and literal; really no interpretation needed.
But when people start prancing around with signs that say 'God hates Fag' and 'Death to all queers', I think they are very much taking a great deal of literary license in making those statements. I really think that takes a HUGE amount of subjective (and self-serving) interpretation.
I do thank you for clearing up that issue regarding Mormons and the relationship to the Prophets. However, I simply can't accept it. Oh, I accept that you accept it, but I personally can't accept it myself.
If you really believe there are living beings on this earth that truly have the full authority of God, then you have essential rejected the very foundation of the Protestant Movement. In a sense, you have remade yourself into your own personal variation of the ancient Catholic Church.
Humans are flawed creatures severly compromised and corrupted by the flesh. I simply can and must reject any and all people who claim such outragious authority as being false prophets. It is the absolute height of human arrogance.
If they are so spiritually enlightened and divinely inspired that they think they can know the true thoughts of God, then they would be in Heaven at God's side speaking to him in person. As long as they are corrupted by the flesh, such Godliness is impossible. As I said, only one person has ever lived who had that level of Divine Grace, and that was Jesus, and we can't talk to him in person.
Now, perhaps we are trapped in a matter of semantics. Let me use the example of the Pope. I accept that the Pope has the absolute authority to speak for the Church. Perhaps even the divine authority to speak for the Church. But, I reject that he actually speaks for God. He speaks for the Churches interpretation of God.
Now, you seem to indicate that the Mormon faith is quite different.
You said -
He has the authority to make new commandments or dissolve old ones.
Are you talking about the Ten Commandments? That's hard to believe that we would allow a human to rewrite what is suppose to be the divinely inspired word of God, and more so, a set of univeral laws. Or do you not believe the Bible is the Divinely inspired word of God? Personally, I don't, I believe the underlying truths are divinely inspired by God, but the superfical words are invariabley corrupted by men. It seems even more the height of arrogance to think a human can repeal the Ten Commandments. Though of course I reasonably assume this has never really been done even if the authority exists.
Again, I accept that you accept that, but it is completely foreign and unreasonable to me. When I made my statements, while I was using the Mormon Church as my example, I was also very much thinking about the many televangelist who claim to be the voice of God directing moral judgements here on earth. Certainly, I don't want to put the Mormon Church in the same catagory with Televangelist, I'm simply implying that I was looking at this with a much broader scope than just the Mormon faith.
My whole purpose in making these statements in all my post here was first to make what I though was a neutral and reasonable position. Second, I was asking very specifically, if the Mormon Church, and any other church for that matter, can as a matter of unbiased conscience say that they are treating Gay people the same way they treat all sinners. If you are that's fine, and if you are not, then perhaps actions and motivations need to be re-examined.
Third, yes, I do get the central point, which is the internal conflict of a single Mormon over the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This person (BlackBlade) is trying to resolve what he(?) sees as conflicting aspects of the issue with respect to his personal beliefs and the edicts of his Church.
I am, or was, trying to present what I thought was a fair and neutral spiritual perspective, to help him see this issue in a new/alternative/different light. Perspective is always good.
BlackBlade is conflicted by the historic persecution of Mormons and how they now appear to be persecuting another group.
My answer, in a very long round about way, was Love Conquers All. Is this conscious human action against gay people, sometimes even escalating to the point of persecution, justifiable under God's most general and true message of love?
This is exactly why I don't accept any human as God's Absolute Authority. I have no doubt that the Prophet in question is making statements that reflect the consistent and collective beliefs of the Church (much like the Pope), but I absolutely reject that he literally speaks for God. Independant of the policy of the Church, you must decide for yourself, if this man's statements are a reflection of the corrupted flesh, the bureaucracy and political motivations of the Church, or if they are the true and divinely inspired will of God.
I absolutely reject that any human is infallable; the Pope, the Prophet, whom ever; if they are flesh, they are falliable. I believe this is very relevant to the discussion.
What we must all do, and what especially Mormons must do, is decide the motivations behind this person making this statement. Is he making his statement as a matter of Church policy? Is he making his statement in defense of the Church's concept and traditions regarding marriage, or is he making a statement based on his interpretation of the law and civil liberties? You must further ask yourself if this person's statements are motivated by God's Love, or if they are motivated by the inevitable corruption of the flesh?
I can very easily accept that this Prophet speak with the full authority of the Church, but I flatly reject that any person residing on earth and living in flesh is absolutely infallable and the absolute voice of God on earth.
Even if you accept this person as God's spokesman, you must still question what he says. You must resolve things in your own conscience, in prayer with God, in your own sense of earthly justice, and in light of Jesus's message of Love.
If you blindly follow, then sadly you will always be blind.
However, I can only assume that your goal is not to be blind but to be enlightened, to not stumble blindly in the wilderness, but to see by the clear light of God's Love and Grace. Your spirtual leaders and Church can guide you, but the absolute authority is your own heart, and that is the standard by which God will one day judge you.
Again, as before, I am trying to add an independant perspective that hopefull will allow you to see things in a new light and resolve the issue as your conscience dictates.
Finally, I want to thank BaoQingTian for responding directly to what I said and for giving me my first true insight into the Mormon Faith. It was very helpful.
I do have a question I have been wanting to ask but couldn't find the right place to put it. Are the concepts and policies of 'banishment and/or shunning' actual working parts of your faith, or are they just general concepts? When these gay people said they were 'banished' did the mean literally or conceptually?
Final appology, I know my post turn into impossibly long rants, I really don't intend them to be that way. That's just how they seem to turn out once I've said what I have to say. I also think if you look at the concepts rather than the details, you will see that I actually, or hopefully, did have something to say.
For what it's worth.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Dagonee, as I said before, I've always found you to be a very fair and reasonable person whether we agree or not. I still find that true, but we really are dancing in two separate spheres, and are unlikely to get any resolution unless we can get them to at least overlap a bit.
Again, I don't so much dispute anything you said here, but it seems clear you didn't understand what I said.
quote:BlueWizard I still say the hate and condemnation of gay people, in the presents or absents of the open condemnation of other sin, is a very un-Christian like thing to do.
Once again, I am hanged by my own generalizations. So let me reverse it, can you claim with good conscience that there are no people who claim to allegedly be the voice of the Church (any church) and Religion (any religion) who are not acting with God's Love and Grace in their actions toward gay people? A bit convoluted I admit. So, straight out, we know there are allegedly religious people who ARE actively persecuting and actively hating gay people. The Mormon Church seems very strict on gay people; though I admit they are general strict about every thing. I did have an example from TV of how specific gay people were treated by the Church. So, I used all that as a framework to build and pose my question, which I did with all sincerity.
So, we can't deny that there are people who in the name of religion are hating and persecuting gay people. Certainly not you, but they are out there. I was making general statements to make a point, and did not mean to imply that all people of any religious took this view. I may make general statements in discussion of Muslim terroists, but that does not necessarily imply that I think all Muslims are terrorist.
As far as sin, I've already admitted this is sin, the question become what do we do about this relative to other sins. Which brings us to the next point.
You did miss this point entirely. Modern Christians reject stoning adulterers. They also reject stoning people who engage in homosexual actions. You ask for consistency....
Yes, I accept that your statement is absolutely consistent, just consistent to the wrong point. I'll try to keep it short (really I will) since I addressed some of this in response to BaoQingTian very helpful post.
Religious people reject that absolute clear statement regarding Adultry, but then absolutely hold to that statement about gay activity. Again, it's not about the sin of it, but about rejecting one clear and concise statement in the Bible while adhering to another slighly more vague statement. That is the inconsistency. That they can pick and choose from the Old Testament what they will and won't believe with regard to sin and punishment. I generally find a very 'our sins' vs 'their sins' mentality in people who do this, and that why it was part of the framework of my question.
What you said is absolutely right and consistent within itself, it just doesn't address my point.
Next, all this 'stuff' about Adultry and gay activity, is not the central point in itself, but the lead up to the central point. That central point was does your individual church, and does your Church as an organization (or any church for that matter) treat this issue (gay activity) in a fair and consistent way WITH REGARD to other sins. And, is that treatment guided by God's Love and Grace?
You actually did a pretty good job of addressing that point, and that's all I really wanted. Though I would certainly love to hear more details.
As far as speaking out against gay activity, I've already said in another thread we both posted in, that people are free to speak their minds (within general reason) on issues of the day, and they are free to draw there motivation from where ever. But we must make a distinction between what is legally and civily fair, and what is religiously preferred. Or at least, I think we do.
So, how are gay people welcomed in your Church, your individual church and your church as an institution? Are they truly welcomed with love and acceptance as they are in many churches, or are them simply allowed in so they can be condemned and persecuted? That only requires an answer within your conscience, but in resolving this issue in the context of the original subject, within your own conscience is a very important place. Though, I admit you did address it to some extent in your latest post.
Further, I twice made the point that people seeking acceptance in the church should be '...seeking God's wisdom and guidance in finding the true nature of sin and spiritual enlightenment. You did also address that aspect, though I suspect my definition is less ridged than your Church's.
You simply can't deny that on a broad general scale religion is used as a means of direct and malicious persecution of gay people. Signs saying 'God hates Fag' makes that abundantly clear. No you didn't do that, but I assume, perhaps wrongly, that people can make the distinction when I am speaking 'in general'.
My Church does not shun or banish...
Thank you for that reponse. I asked that question directly to BaoQingTian below. If you would like to expand on it, I'm willing to hear it.
I do get the points you are trying to make and, in and of themselves, they are valid and clear. Perhaps my whole problem was too much setup and not enough question. None the less, I suspect we are more in sync now that before.
So... better or worse???
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Banishment and shunning are not really part of the LDS church. There is excommunication. However, this isn't the same thing as banishing. If you are excommunicated and want to be part of the church still, a priesthood holder will keep in contact and help with repentence. You then get rebaptized and rejoin the church as if you had never left. Some find this process not to be a punishment, but a powerful way to put his/her sins behind him/her. However, if you say, I am going to continue committing major sins, you will not be rebaptized. Based on what I understand of the policies, the people interviewed on the show are probably those who see no reason to stop committing homosexual acts.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm trying to come up with a church that preaches tolerance of marital infidelity, but is intolerant of homosexuality.
I can think of some that are the opposite -- asserting that homosexuality in and of itself (even for practicing homosexuals) is not a sin, but that marital infidelity is.
I do know of inconsistencies in the actual day-to-day living of the various churches' teachings though. Things like a preacher having an affair and not being removed from his position. I do think that stuff like that is horrible, and the problem is merely compounded when those same congregations try to do things like stop young people from having sex out of wedlock, but tolerate the adultery of their more senior members...things like that. Or try to "crack down" on homosexuality while tolerating infidelity.
But I don't know of any place that has a policy of tolerance regarding those things.
Maybe the problem that Blue Wizard is having is with inconsistency in behavior, not teachings.
If so, the answer is "yeah it sucks" but that's not a reason to rail against the church/religion itself. It's a reason to spend some time and effort correcting what has gone awry in a particular congregation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Again, I don't so much dispute anything you said here, but it seems clear you didn't understand what I said.
Disagreement with underlying premise is not equivalent to lack of understanding.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Second, I was asking very specifically, if the Mormon Church, and any other church for that matter, can as a matter of unbiased conscience say that they are treating Gay people the same way they treat all sinners.
Doctrinally and procedurally, yes. Mormon homosexuals are under the same law as unmarried individuals-- that is, no sexual conduct at all is permitted.
Like all things involving people, behaviors have to be taken on an individual level. You (Blue Wizard) brought up a program on PBS that you saw that seemed to portray a level of persecution within the Mormon church against homosexuals. (What was the program? I'm curious...I keep my ear to the ground for mentions of Mormonism in the media, and I haven't heard of this one...)
The problem may be twofold-- certainly, there is a level of personal bias against homosexuality in some Church members. However, the nature of the doctrine of the church, with its emphasis on the centrality of male/female marriage and procreation, and its strong statements against homosexual marriage, doesn't leave much wiggle room for homosexuals to feel comfortable about their sexual inclinations. Thus, as soon as a person realizes they are attracted to the same gender, they see that to be Mormon and to be homosexual might mean a life of denial.
And not just denial of, say, certain behaviors; sexual attraction runs much, much deeper than behavior. To the homosexual Mormon, it must seem like God demands a complete shunning of one's Self (which indeed, He does; but no where is it more readily apparent than in this subject). Other people are allowed to be with those they are basically, sexually attracted to-- the homosexual is not. It is a rejection of something so basic, it may seem to the homosexual that God has foreordained them to sin.
Mormons believe that original sin was removed through the grace of Christ's atonement; to the homosexual Mormon, it may appear that he or she is not covered in that grace, despite the doctrine, because the feelings of attraction go so deep as to be genetic.
(Ramble, ramble, ramble) What I'm getting at is that the feelings of persecution that homosexuals feel within the Mormon church may come from active, unChristian bias against homosexuals by members; additionally, it may come from feeling completely unable to cope with being both Mormon and homosexual, because of the basic doctrines that the Mormon church espouses.
Mormonism is an emotional and rational bond-- homosexuality is a natural or genetic one. There's bound to be a conflict.
It is our responsability as members of God's church to work harder to show that homosexuals are NOT inherently, basically, fundamentally out of reach of Christ's atonement, any more than the rest of humanity. We need to recognize the unique aspects of homosexuality and respond with charity and love to help them avoid sin, repent when necessary, and align themselves with the kingdom of God.
Hey, we could all use a little bit of that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Second, I was asking very specifically, if the Mormon Church, and any other church for that matter, can as a matter of unbiased conscience say that they are treating Gay people the same way they treat all sinners.
And...again, not all churches preach that homosexuality is a sin.
For such churches that DO preach a message of abstaining from sex unless one is married, the expectation of celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage is something that would apply to all people.
If they can't perform a legal marriage ceremony for their gay and lesbian members, they can at least do a commitment ceremony so that those couples can live faithfully to their convictions, regardless of whether their union is recognized by the government.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlueWizard,
Honey, I really do understand where you are coming from, I do. I have made similar arguments myself. But there are a couple of things that make this conversation a bit different.
For those who are against homosexuality, "God says so" is the only argument they need. Whether they believe that God speaks through "the inerrant Word of scripture" or through a representative on earth - be that Pope or Prophet. In the case of scripture, we have the tools of biblical scholarship and reason with which to press our point. We can explain the context of those few (nine, I believe) references to homosexuality; we can point out that, while there is scant scriptural reason to condemn homosexuality, there is abundant scriptural reason to refrain from judging the sins of others; we can reason (and this is the point I think you were trying to make) that if "God says so" is the reason for condemning homosexuality there would be an uproar about allowing Sabbath breakers into the military and an outcry when coveters are permitted to teach our children. After all those made it into the top ten!
But this is the wrong audience for those arguments. Here we are not arguing with supposed biblical literalists using Scripture to support their own predjudices. Here we are dealing with the question of the authority of the Church and how that conflicts or coincides with our own personal authority (or agency?). How do we reconcile our belief in the Church (whatever that is) when we think that the Church is wrong?
I think that this poses different problems for different religions. For example, I think that Catholics have it tougher that Protestants do (although we get lots of practice!) as we have a structure that claims a certain authority. I think that Mormons have a similar situation. Each of us has to find that space where we are true to both our religion and to ourselves, because you can't really be true to either alone. This takes some work and some courage and I applaud BlackBlade for asking those tough questions. For myself, I believe that the Church requires more from me than obedience.
I hope this has been helpful.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks for your courtesy in your responses BlueWizard. It is appreciated. I won't address things that Scott R. posted- he did an excellent job for those things he addressed. Here's some responses to some other points you made.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: In the name of consistency, are all sinners thrown out of the Church if they are unable to say with absolute certainty that they will never sin again? Maybe there is an element that I am missing, but it would seem, if that were true, that all your Churches would be empty.
Although this will overlap responses made by others, it kind of comes down to attitude. A repentant attitude is necessary. 'I will try not to sin again' as opposed to 'What I am doing is not wrong.'
quote: I can't help but wonder if some sinners are allowed to try to overcome their sins, while other sinners must make an absolute statement of moral purity and absolute certainty. Again, are sins dealt with consistently, or is there a subliminal overlooking of our sins and an absolute condemnation of their sins?
Again, it's not so much offical Church policy in question, as the action of people using the Church as an excuse.
Exactly. All Christians need to be more Christlike in their treatment of others.
quote: I'm sorry but exclusion and rejection seem like exactly the opposite of what is needed. You need to invite gay people into your church unconditionally if they are truly seeking spiritual guidance and enlightenment. (and yes, I realize I said 'unconditionally but with a condition'.) How can you ever expect them or any sinner to recover if they are denied the spiritual environment that helps them resolve their issues?
Very true. Someone mentioned excommunication as the most extreme punishment. That does not mean shunned or banished. Those that are excommunicated are allowed to attend church and receive guidance. We need to do a lot better in our individual treatment of these people though, I freely admit.
quote: Well, you are cheating here a bit . When the Bible literally says 'Adulterers should be stone' and says in many times and in many ways, there really isn't any interpretation there. I don't need divine inspiration, to read what is clearly and literally written. The same is true of my interpretation of Paul's words. They are pretty clear, evident, and literal; really no interpretation needed.
That wasn't quite my point. The Bible also says to let him who is without sin cast the first stone. They're both in the Bible. Now my view is that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law, therefore his teachings kind of override contradictory Old Testament instructions. This one view alone colors the entire way I interpret scripture- even the 'literal' passages. I know you have your own ways of interpreting the scriptures. It just seemed as though the lens which you view things in the Bible is the same one that you want everyone else to look through. I apologize for not being specific- I didn't mean to come across as petty nitpicking.
quote: I do thank you for clearing up that issue regarding Mormons and the relationship to the Prophets. However, I simply can't accept it. Oh, I accept that you accept it, but I personally can't accept it myself.
Don't worry, I'm not asking you to. Just trying clear things up, as you said.
quote: If you really believe there are living beings on this earth that truly have the full authority of God, then you have essential rejected the very foundation of the Protestant Movement. In a sense, you have remade yourself into your own personal variation of the ancient Catholic Church.
I've never considered the LDS church to be Protestant. I think the term some use is 'Restorationalist' or something like that. You're very close to the mark with the Catholic church comment. Basically Mormon's believe that authority was lost after the death of the early apostles. It was restored in modern times. This is why the concept modern day revelation is so important to the LDS church. It's why we consider our church valid. If there is no modern day revelation, then the church is not true. It's central to our doctrine.
quote: Humans are flawed creatures severly compromised and corrupted by the flesh. I simply can and must reject any and all people who claim such outragious authority as being false prophets. It is the absolute height of human arrogance.
But you believe in prophets in Biblical times, right? How exactly did human nature change between then and now? I'm not trying to argue, I understand that you reject them- just realize that there are different viewpoints that don't require the other person to be crazy .
quote: If they are so spiritually enlightened and divinely inspired that they think they can know the true thoughts of God, then they would be in Heaven at God's side speaking to him in person. As long as they are corrupted by the flesh, such Godliness is impossible. As I said, only one person has ever lived who had that level of Divine Grace, and that was Jesus, and we can't talk to him in person.
No one is claiming that any prophets are on par with the Son of God.
quote: You said -
He has the authority to make new commandments or dissolve old ones.
Are you talking about the Ten Commandments? That's hard to believe that we would allow a human to rewrite what is suppose to be the divinely inspired word of God, and more so, a set of univeral laws. Or do you not believe the Bible is the Divinely inspired word of God? Personally, I don't, I believe the underlying truths are divinely inspired by God, but the superfical words are invariabley corrupted by men. It seems even more the height of arrogance to think a human can repeal the Ten Commandments. Though of course I reasonably assume this has never really been done even if the authority exists.
Yet if we take Acts 15 at face value, men did in fact rewrite and set aside the laws of God. That they did this is fundamentally important to the establishment of the Christian faith as seperate from the Jewish. Is the entire Christian faith simply an apostate branch of Judaism? (Rhetorical question starLisa )
quote: Third, yes, I do get the central point, which is the internal conflict of a single Mormon over the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This person (BlackBlade) is trying to resolve what he(?) sees as conflicting aspects of the issue with respect to his personal beliefs and the edicts of his Church.
I am, or was, trying to present what I thought was a fair and neutral spiritual perspective, to help him see this issue in a new/alternative/different light. Perspective is always good.
See kmbboots post.
quote: My answer, in a very long round about way, was Love Conquers All. Is this conscious human action against gay people, sometimes even escalating to the point of persecution, justifiable under God's most general and true message of love?
Absolutely not. Us sinners are working on it though.
quote: This is exactly why I don't accept any human as God's Absolute Authority. I have no doubt that the Prophet in question is making statements that reflect the consistent and collective beliefs of the Church (much like the Pope), but I absolutely reject that he literally speaks for God.
I get that you reject that
quote: Independant of the policy of the Church, you must decide for yourself, if this man's statements are a reflection of the corrupted flesh, the bureaucracy and political motivations of the Church, or if they are the true and divinely inspired will of God.
Yes we must. We are commanded to do just that.
quote: I absolutely reject that any human is infallable; the Pope, the Prophet, whom ever; if they are flesh, they are falliable. I believe this is very relevant to the discussion.
I agree. Mormon's do not believe their prophets are superhuman, perfect, or infallible. However, we are promised by God that he will not allow them to lead the church astray. So when they tell us they are speaking for the Lord, we'd be wise to listen.
quote: What we must all do, and what especially Mormons must do, is decide the motivations behind this person making this statement. Is he making his statement as a matter of Church policy? Is he making his statement in defense of the Church's concept and traditions regarding marriage, or is he making a statement based on his interpretation of the law and civil liberties? You must further ask yourself if this person's statements are motivated by God's Love, or if they are motivated by the inevitable corruption of the flesh?
And pray and listen to the Spirit.
quote: If you blindly follow, then sadly you will always be blind.
Very true. The flip side of that is that if you, blindly or not, decide not to follow, then you will be lost. It's a narrow path to walk.
quote: Again, as before, I am trying to add an independant perspective that hopefull will allow you to see things in a new light and resolve the issue as your conscience dictates.
Your perspective and the way you're courtesy are appreciated.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Now we are getting somewhere. I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Scott, Bob, kmbboots, and to BaoQingTian for their wonderfully enlightening posts. I also want to thank Dagonee for his posts, I do agree with what he said and look forward to his posts in the future, but I still say, on this one issue in particular, he missed my point.
Some I suspect will say that the conversation has strayed horrible from the core questions asked by BlackBlade (cool name). While it seems like BlackBlade has resolved the issue in his own mind, I was trying to point out that there were several things, several steps or processes, he needed to do to know who and what to trust in seeking counsel on the matter.
On the issue of Old Testament statements regarding Adultry and Gay Activity, it is important that the people you trust to counsel you are acting consistently. I see so many people who reach back into the Old Testament selectively to condemn those around them. It is quite easy to draw on the Old Testament to condemn Gay Activity, while conviniently ignoring condemnation of sin that hits a little close to home. You simple can not rely on these people to give you sound unbiased advise.
Kmbboots points out that for a lot of people 'God says so' is all they need. But that must always be questioned for underlying motivation. Is it 'God says so because I say so'? Is it 'God says so, except when it doesn't suit me'? Again, look for Love and consistency in anyone who claims 'God said so'.
That is way it is important to look at how your church (speaking in general) as individual members, as a local organization, and as a greater national organization treats the various sins that human invariably commit. If on any of those levels, they are not consistent, then at that place of inconsistency you can not dependably draw you counsel.
It seems that the Mormon Church is very consistent across all sin. In that case, I would merely suggest staying away from individuals who approach this issue with an excessive amount of vitriol. It's a pretty clear sign, they are not truly motivated by God's Love.
On the issue of the Prophet's statements, I think it is important to look at the underlying motivation. In fact, BlackBlade brought up that specific issue. He said it was unclear in what capacity the Prophet was speaking. Since the context wasn't clear, you must resolve it in your heart. To do that you must question the Prophets motivation, you must question him as a human, as a representative for the Church, and as a representative for God.
It may be (though unlikely) that he was speaking for God and saying, in a sense, 'God hates fag'. He may have been merely supporting Marriage with a capital 'M' as being a distinct religious rite that has now taken on civil and legal aspects, but is none the less something separate from other legal unions that are similar to marriage. In a sense, trying to preserve marriage in name, while not being concerned with other legal unions.
So, the motivations of the Prophet are very important, and since the motivation context was not clear, we must divine it for ourselves.
So, I think I was justified in asking how your Church treats gay people relative to other sinners. It was a sincere question and now I have some wonderfully enlightening answers. The extention of that question, is the conclusion that if you find points of inconsistency in the spiritual chain of command, at those points the advice can not be trusted.
The final step is to ask if the counsel, the people, and the church around you are motivated by God's Love on this issue. That is critical because we find so much vile hatred directed at gay people by people who claim strong religious and moral foundation. I reject that. We must always love our fellow sinners because it is through our love and God's Love that they will find their own personal spirtual peace. Bitter condemnation will never server you as well as a loving embrace.
BlackBlade said -
Yet a source that I believe to be 100% true has asked me to reevaluate my beliefs on this subject.
The Prophet said what he said, but he said it with underlying intent, context, purpose, and specific authority. You must question, both by asking and by doubting, what that motivation was.
Maybe he was simply trying to isolate 'Marriage' as a distinct and unique entity, and religious scarament, separate from other legal unions.
Maybe he was speaking with the absolute voice of God and saying this is right and everything else is wrong.
Maybe he was simply stating the Churches position on a civil and legal matter.
But without some sense of the underlying intent, you can't know ...well... what he intended.
Let me close by again thanking everyone for the wonderfully enlightening posts, that is exactly what I was looking for. I felt a literal thrill when I read each post, but was especially thrilled when I read BaoQingTian post which was amazingly brief yet very informative.
Finally, I want to apologise if it seemed that I was attacking the Mormon Church. Obviously my beliefs are different, but the questions I ask, no matter how hostile they may have sounded, I asked with sincerity and did so to a purpose.
You can't deny that there is general hypocracy all around you, though it seems much less so in the Mormon Church. Yet, even Mormons are humans, subject to the same flaws and frailties as the rest of us. It is important to look at the world around you from this cold unpleasant perspective, because if you are looking for true spiritual answers, you need to know who you can trust.
I hope BlakeBlade found some general spiritual guidance in our discussion even though we seem to have strayed from the central subject. He seems to have resolved this issue in his heart, and regardless of his choices, I wish him the best.
Thank you all again.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Now we are getting somewhere. I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Scott, Bob, kmbboots, and to BaoQingTian for their wonderfully enlightening posts. I also want to thank Dagonee for his posts, I do agree with what he said and look forward to his posts in the future, but I still say, on this one issue in particular, he missed my point.
Some I suspect will say that the conversation has strayed horrible from the core questions asked by BlackBlade (cool name). While it seems like BlackBlade has resolved the issue in his own mind, I was trying to point out that there were several things, several steps or processes, he needed to do to know who and what to trust in seeking counsel on the matter.
On the issue of Old Testament statements regarding Adultry and Gay Activity, it is important that the people you trust to counsel you are acting consistently. I see so many people who reach back into the Old Testament selectively to condemn those around them. It is quite easy to draw on the Old Testament to condemn Gay Activity, while conviniently ignoring condemnation of sin that hits a little close to home. You simple can not rely on these people to give you sound unbiased advise.
Kmbboots points out that for a lot of people 'God says so' is all they need. But that must always be questioned for underlying motivation. Is it 'God says so because I say so'? Is it 'God says so, except when it doesn't suit me'? Again, look for Love and consistency in anyone who claims 'God said so'.
That is way it is important to look at how your church (speaking in general) as individual members, as a local organization, and as a greater national organization treats the various sins that human invariably commit. If on any of those levels, they are not consistent, then at that place of inconsistency you can not dependably draw you counsel.
It seems that the Mormon Church is very consistent across all sin. In that case, I would merely suggest staying away from individuals who approach this issue with an excessive amount of vitriol. It's a pretty clear sign, they are not truly motivated by God's Love.
On the issue of the Prophet's statements, I think it is important to look at the underlying motivation. In fact, BlackBlade brought up that specific issue. He said it was unclear in what capacity the Prophet was speaking. Since the context wasn't clear, you must resolve it in your heart. To do that you must question the Prophets motivation, you must question him as a human, as a representative for the Church, and as a representative for God.
It may be (though unlikely) that he was speaking for God and saying, in a sense, 'God hates fag'. He may have been merely supporting Marriage with a capital 'M' as being a distinct religious rite that has now taken on civil and legal aspects, but is none the less something separate from other legal unions that are similar to marriage. In a sense, trying to preserve marriage in name, while not being concerned with other legal unions.
So, the motivations of the Prophet are very important, and since the motivation context was not clear, we must divine it for ourselves.
So, I think I was justified in asking how your Church treats gay people relative to other sinners. It was a sincere question and now I have some wonderfully enlightening answers. The extention of that question, is the conclusion that if you find points of inconsistency in the spiritual chain of command, at those points the advice can not be trusted.
The final step is to ask if the counsel, the people, and the church around you are motivated by God's Love on this issue. That is critical because we find so much vile hatred directed at gay people by people who claim strong religious and moral foundation. I reject that. We must always love our fellow sinners because it is through our love and God's Love that they will find their own personal spirtual peace. Bitter condemnation will never server you as well as a loving embrace.
BlackBlade said -
Yet a source that I believe to be 100% true has asked me to reevaluate my beliefs on this subject.
The Prophet said what he said, but he said it with underlying intent, context, purpose, and specific authority. You must question, both by asking and by doubting, what that motivation was.
Maybe he was simply trying to isolate 'Marriage' as a distinct and unique entity, and religious scarament, separate from other legal unions.
Maybe he was speaking with the absolute voice of God and saying this is right and everything else is wrong.
Maybe he was simply stating the Churches position on a civil and legal matter.
But without some sense of the underlying intent, you can't know ...well... what he intended.
Let me close by again thanking everyone for the wonderfully enlightening posts, that is exactly what I was looking for. I felt a literal thrill when I read each post, but was especially thrilled when I read BaoQingTian post which was amazingly brief yet very informative.
Finally, I want to apologise if it seemed that I was attacking the Mormon Church. Obviously my beliefs are different, but the questions I ask, no matter how hostile they may have sounded, I asked with sincerity and did so to a purpose.
You can't deny that there is general hypocracy all around you, though it seems much less so in the Mormon Church. Yet, even Mormons are humans, subject to the same flaws and frailties as the rest of us. It is important to look at the world around you from this cold unpleasant perspective, because if you are looking for true spiritual answers, you need to know who you can trust.
I hope BlakeBlade found some general spiritual guidance in our discussion even though we seem to have strayed from the central subject. He seems to have resolved this issue in his heart, and regardless of his choices, I wish him the best.
Thank you all again.
Steve/BlueWizard
I very much appreciated your post, and I really do understand the points you are trying to make. Your posts in the future remain in my "Worth reading" category.
Though the discussion did stray from my original intent, and at times that can be a bit maddening still I am reminded by Mr. Card's response to one of my own statements, "If we can't digress, why bother conversing at all?"
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Here are some excerpts from a thread on Times and Seasons, a Mormon group blog, that speaks very cogently to this topic.
First, from a talk by Elder Oaks that was in this month's Ensign.
quote: Now, brothers and sisters, if you are troubled about something we have just said, please listen very carefully to what I will say now. . . .
If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance.
I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him.
He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault, his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”
The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.
Then from the readers' commentary on the topic. This comment is from Mark Butler.
quote: The reason why rules have exception, is that ultimately legalism is an imperfect implementation of divine meta-ethics. They are the guideposts and directional markers that lead in the direction of ultimate good, but ultimately conflict from time to time, leaving us to ponder the competing principles, costs and benefits, duties and obligations, stretching our abilities and our endurance to their very limits.
Jesus Christ is not the end of the law, he is the *fulfilment* of the law - the higher law of the Spirit. We be no more Pharisees concerned with every jot and tittle of a legislated morality, but judges in our own right - ultimately able to decide cases in true equity and not the lesser law alone. As the Father hath committed all judgment into the hands of his Son, so also is it the Son’s good pleasure to commit all judgment into our hands, that we be no more children, but friends and fellow members of the household of God.
And that, ultimately is what it means to be sanctified through law, first the lesser - the law of children, and then the higher - the true law of the Spirit - not the law of arbitrary discretion, but of judgment and equity with fairness towards all, no matter what the situation - to ultimately remove the training wheels and plot a true course, upright and faithful - no corruption, no guile - just integrity and honor, doing true credit to the name that has been placed upon us.
To me that perfectly sums it up.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Blade: Ask yourself, what would Christ do if he were President?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Well, we are straying from the central subject completely, but what you post here is relavant to the general discussion that occurred in reponse to the original question.
I am please to see that many of the things I said, are, directly or indirectly, echoed by these speakers.
I think it is extremely important to be careful about who you trust to counsel you in spiritual matters. Remember, the loudest voice is rarely the truest voice. In some cases, you would to better to seek out the counsel of the person who says nothing, than to seek the counsel of some one who is constantly shouting alleged truth from the roof tops.
In general, I found both speakers very fair and well reasoned. But there is one paragraph that confuses me. Perhaps it is because I am not a Mormon, or perhaps it is because both speakers seem to speak in what I will call 'Biblical English' rather than plan common English.
Here is the paragraph in question --
Jesus Christ is not the end of the law, he is the *fulfilment* of the law - the higher law of the Spirit. We be no more Pharisees concerned with every jot and tittle of a legislated morality, but judges in our own right - ultimately able to decide cases in true equity and not the lesser law alone. As the Father hath committed all judgment into the hands of his Son, so also is it the Son’s good pleasure to commit all judgment into our hands, that we be no more children, but friends and fellow members of the household of God.
On the general concept, I agree, but I am confused about his statements that WE are qualified and acceptable Judges. He seems to say that God granted that right to Judge to Jesus, and that Jesus granted the right to Judge our fellow humans to us; at least to some unspecified group of us.
Specifically -
"... but judges in our own right - ultimately able to decide cases in true equity and not the lesser law alone."
On one hand, he seems to be saying that our goal is not to resolve questions on 'the lesser law alone', but to judge on true genuine spiritual truths.
If he had said, '...ultimately strive to decide cases in true equity...', I probably wouldn't have had a problem. Personally, I find it difficult to believe any human has the right or the ability to pass absolute judgement on other humans. They can certainly express their opinion on how they think God will judge a given person, but not to pass judgement themselves.
Have I misinterpreted what this person intended to say, or am I missing some concept unique to the Mormon Church? Are there really people who have absolute authority to pass spiritual judgement on others?
The first speaker, Elder Oaks, doesn't seem to think so, or at least that's how I interpret it. The first author seems to echo my sentiments and to some extent those of Paul in his letters to the Romans. Elder Oaks reponse by saying -
"You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."
This is in reference to killing, which is no small thing.
Any insight into this would be genuinely and truly appreciated. Next, I am not being antagonistic or hostile, I ask because I really want to know.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Steve, be assured that no hostility on your part is perceived or assumed. I interpret Mark Butler to be saying perhaps two things at once, and yes, there are some Mormon-specific ideas here, now that I think of it. I interpret Mark to mean that we judge for ourselves in things over which we have stewardship, meaning our own moral choices, and for the case of a parent, how to care for their children and what the rules will be for them, and what the punishments will be if they break the rules, etc. Mormons have other stewardships with respect to the church as well. We are basically stewards of all things over which we have been given power. That's the immediate sense I get of what he meant about us being judges.
In the future, though, we LDS are all aspiring to become gods, and our stewardship will be expanded to spirit children of our own, if we are faithful and diligent in following the Lord's guidance. In those days, we shall be judges over those spirit children, in the same way that as earthly parents, we judge our earthly children. Does that help clear up what I think Mark meant?
Feel free to ask any questions at all that you have about the LDS faith. There are many here who are qualified to answer you. (I'm not particularly qualified, so I will just tell you what I think, and not speak for the church.)
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Yes, thank you Tatiana, that does help clear it up, though you have also raised some other minor issues that I need to think on.
This thread has made me very curious about the LDS faith, I find some very appealing aspect to it. Though naive and foolish boy that I am, it never really occurred to me that their could be a Christian or Christian-like faith outside of Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. (I say 'Christian-like' to allow for the inclusion of Jews.)
I, obviously, mistakenly assumed that if you were not Catholic or Jew, then you were automatically Protestant. Though by some stretch, I suppose you could say LDS is 'protestant' in that they, to some extent, reject Catholic teaching and authority, but I naturally assume 'Protestant' means drawing heavily on the works of Martin Luther. That should explain some of my statements.
I find it extremely fastinating that a Christian religion could evolve on it's own independant of Luther Protestantism and the Catholic Church.
None of this really requires an answer. I was just pointing out that it makes the LDS faith that much more fastinating to me.
Thanks again.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
We don't consider ourselves to be Protestants, but rather, a restoration of the original church as founded by Christ. We believe that some time after the deaths of the original apostles, there was a falling away, and the doctrines of humans got mixed up with those of God. For a long while, people were left confused, following what felt to them like the best of the various human-made (or God-human) doctrines that came to be. We think that God restored his original church in the early 19th century. It may sound unlikely on first thought, but the more I learned about it, the more sound good sense it seemed (and felt), and still does.
We have retained some hymns and traditions of Protestantism, as early church members were almost all converts from Protestantism in one form or another. But the organization of the church, the purpose of the church, our sacrament and ordinances, were all revealed to Joseph Smith in the 1800s, (ongoing to today), and they are mostly unique to our faith, aside from some strong parallels with very early Hebrew practices. I'm not a historian, nor a biblical scholar, so that's all I know about it. You can find out more from other sources.
Here is the church site meant for people wanting to learn more about our faith. Plus, feel free to ask any questions here. Lots of people here have studied more and understand these things better than I.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Also, the LDS church, while not part of the Protestant movement, does always speak very highly of Martin Luther and the courage he had to stand up for his beliefs.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Though naive and foolish boy that I am, it never really occurred to me that their could be a Christian or Christian-like faith outside of Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. (I say 'Christian-like' to allow for the inclusion of Jews.)
I wish you wouldn't. It's really extremely offensive.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
StarLisa,
Not wanting to be a rabble rouser or anything, but I'm not sure exactly what you are offended by. Can I assume that it is my reference to Jews as 'Christian-like'? I was trying to make a very concise statement that was far more related to Protestantism, than to the Jewish faith.
The fact is the Jewish faith and Christianity are irrevocably linked. Christianity comes from the Jewish faith. Christ himself was a Jew. In fact, nearly everybody in the Bible was a Jew. Perhaps I should have said 'Christian-related' or 'Christian-associated'.
I was simply try to, in a very shorthand way, make a point that was completely unrelated to whether the Jewish faith was or wasn't 'Christian-like'.
Sorry.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
StarLisa,
Not wanting to be a rabble rouser or anything, but I'm not sure exactly what you are offended by. Can I assume that it is my reference to Jews as 'Christian-like'? I was trying to make a very concise statement that was far more related to Protestantism, than to the Jewish faith.
The fact is the Jewish faith and Christianity are irrevocably linked. Christianity comes from the Jewish faith. Christ himself was a Jew. In fact, nearly everybody in the Bible was a Jew. Perhaps I should have said 'Christian-related' or 'Christian-associated'.
I was simply try to, in a very shorthand way, make a point that was completely unrelated to whether the Jewish faith was or wasn't 'Christian-like'.
Sorry.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Steve,
We don't think Judaism and Christianity are linked except insofar as Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect. What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
I understand that the butchery is (hopefully) behind us now, but even terms like "Judeo-Christian" are pretty nasty. Referring to us as "Christian-like" is just... <shudder> We are in no way Christian-like.
Lisa
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Steve,
We don't think Judaism and Christianity are linked except insofar as Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect. What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
I understand that the butchery is (hopefully) behind us now, but even terms like "Judeo-Christian" are pretty nasty. Referring to us as "Christian-like" is just... <shudder> We are in no way Christian-like.
Lisa
"Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect." Why dont you go tell all those Christians both past and present that helped fund the creation of a state of Israel your opinion of their belief system.
Why not flip it around
"Inasmuch as Judaism is a regrettable estranged father of Christianity that just won't seem to die."
and we formed from a "small sect" of Judaism? So what the all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ were a small sect? I suppose it was the Egyptian Jews, or the Ethiopian Sects that were the true head of the body huh? Forgive me if I misunderstand what you are trying to say.
It feels as if you are calling somebody out for being offensive, and then stating that you are offended because Christianity is in of itself offensive to you?
And another thing, its VERY common knowledge that in its initial days to the pagan world Christianity and Judaism were very difficult to differentiate from each other. Its initaly appeal to non Jews was limited because Christianity simply felt like another version of Judaism. Enter the Romans and the protestant reformation and Christianity by and large seem long departed from its relative Judaism.
But even in its modified form, MANY of the values within Christianity and Judaism are shared. One God the creator of our souls and the world, belief in a savior, (I am sure you will argue that you are one of those unorthodox nonmessianic Jews just to make things difficult.), more than half of their canons are completely identical, etc. Its not even limited to that.
There are studies done on Christ era Judeo jurisprudence, and its amazing how many of the principles in Jewish law are found in court systems today.
I guess to sum up starlisa. I personally have great respect for the Jewish (both the ethnicity and the religion) people as a whole. They have produced many amazing people that have benefited society world wide. That being said, I just do not appreciate speaking with somebody who demands respect and yet does not offer me the same grounds for deserving respect as she herself demands.
I hope I do not come across as angry, I still retain much respect for what you say starlisa.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Steve,
We don't think Judaism and Christianity are linked except insofar as Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect. What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
I understand that the butchery is (hopefully) behind us now, but even terms like "Judeo-Christian" are pretty nasty. Referring to us as "Christian-like" is just... <shudder> We are in no way Christian-like.
Lisa
"Christianity was a regrettable outgrowth from a small Jewish sect." Why dont you go tell all those Christians both past and present that helped fund the creation of a state of Israel your opinion of their belief system.
Why not flip it around
"Inasmuch as Judaism is a regrettable estranged father of Christianity that just won't seem to die."
and we formed from a "small sect" of Judaism? So what the all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ were a small sect? I suppose it was the Egyptian Jews, or the Ethiopian Sects that were the true head of the body huh? Forgive me if I misunderstand what you are trying to say.
It feels as if you are calling somebody out for being offensive, and then stating that you are offended because Christianity is in of itself offensive to you?
And another thing, its VERY common knowledge that in its initial days to the pagan world Christianity and Judaism were very difficult to differentiate from each other. Its initaly appeal to non Jews was limited because Christianity simply felt like another version of Judaism. Enter the Romans and the protestant reformation and Christianity by and large seem long departed from its relative Judaism.
But even in its modified form, MANY of the values within Christianity and Judaism are shared. One God the creator of our souls and the world, belief in a savior, (I am sure you will argue that you are one of those unorthodox nonmessianic Jews just to make things difficult.), more than half of their canons are completely identical, etc. Its not even limited to that.
There are studies done on Christ era Judeo jurisprudence, and its amazing how many of the principles in Jewish law are found in court systems today.
I guess to sum up starlisa. I personally have great respect for the Jewish (both the ethnicity and the religion) people as a whole. They have produced many amazing people that have benefited society world wide. That being said, I just do not appreciate speaking with somebody who demands respect and yet does not offer me the same grounds for deserving respect as she herself demands.
I hope I do not come across as angry, I still retain much respect for what you say starlisa.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why dont you go tell all those Christians both past and present that helped fund the creation of a state of Israel your opinion of their belief system.
Don't give her any ideas.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Everyone needs to belong. I think this is how Lisa expresses her attachment to the group to and in which she belongs.
Lisa, you can shoot me verbally if I'm totally wrong, but I get the feeling that the defense of Judaism and Isreal has more to do with strengthening your ties and declaring your loyalty to Judaism and Isreal than an interest in debate about the topic.
I also think that's fine. It's not nice to use a conversation like that, but if you need to, I don't mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I mind.
Everyone needs civility. starLisa proves her incapability to be civil on this topic with statements like:
quote:What it's done to what it took from us really is offensive, and was even before its adherents started butchering us for sticking with what God told us.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have to admit that I don't mind because I think that Lisa is not actually completely in control of her actions - in other words, she needs so badly to establish herself as a good Jew that it's broken her social skills. She's clearly competent in other areas. I don't know - I guess I think there's some sort of short-circuit every time the topic comes up.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Demeaning? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Most understand that Christianity is derived from Judaism. Unless you are a Mormon in which case there are some added statements to this arguement that I am not planning on going into.
Do Christians complain that we are grouped with the Jews in descriptions of our beliefs? I do not know of any.
I do not mind being associated with Judaism, I do not know why Judaism should be loath to be associated with me.
Maybe somebody should locate the remnants of all the other tribes of Israel and ask how they feel about having their belief systems all lumped together with the single tribe of Judah.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: and we formed from a "small sect" of Judaism? So what the all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ were a small sect?
<raised eyebrow> Pardon? You're getting your mythology confused with reality. If there's any historical element to the Gospels, then if there were Jews who supported Jesus, it was because they thought he might turn out to be the messiah. But Christianity went and deified the man. If you believe that all the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time (or any of them, actually) believed the messiah was going to be a deity, you might be interested in this nifty deal I can offer you on a bridge. Barely used.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It feels as if you are calling somebody out for being offensive, and then stating that you are offended because Christianity is in of itself offensive to you?
Oh, yeeps. Look, he asked, okay? Yes, Christianity itself is, by its nature, a dreadful parody of Judaism. You must realize that from a Jewish point of view, this is the case. If you don't, then it's probably good that you hear it. It's not as though I'm going to be out picketing churches, but -- sheesh! -- calling us "Christian-like" is just adding insult to a long history of insult and injury.
God gave us His Torah, and tasked us with it. Christianity has taken concepts that are ours and turned them into something very different. Turning a human king into a mystical savior and deity is simply inexplicible to us. And then turning around and killing us for not accepting the heresy...
Look, I don't think many Jews have a problem with Christians as people. But the religion, because it was derived from us and turned into what it did, kind of squicks a lot of us out.
When I was a freshman in college, I went to a talk being given by the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship in the lounge in my dorm. I was bludgeoned into going by a friend of mine who was Jewish, but ignorant. And when she saw the flyers that said "Proof of the Resurrection", she got all uptight and insisted that I come. It took her about a week's worth of me saying "no" to finally getting me so tired of her whining that I went, just to get her to leave me alone.
The "proof", incidentally, consisted of someone reading the thing about the boulder having been moved away, with the cave empty and an angel sitting on the rock -- "his garb as white as snow" (and yes, I turned to my friend and whispered, "...and everywhere the angel went, the lamb was sure to go"). Which was more or less what I'd figured, and why I didn't see the point in going.
But then they had a little discussion group. And they asked us to stay. Of course. And they were really, really nice. I'm not being tongue in cheek about that at all. Very sweet and friendly people, every one.
During the course of the discussion, one of them mentioned that, of course, anyone who doesn't accept JC is going to burn in Hell, but he wasn't all gloatful about it. There was nothing nasty in his attitude. He wasn't glaring and shouting hellfire at us. He was just saying what he believed. My friend, needless to say, full of all the hypersensitivity that comes from being utterly ignorant of her own religion, was horrified. So, actually, were a few of the other IVCF kids. Their reaction, though, was largely because they thought we were going to be offended. Which my friend certainly demonstrated to be a valid fear. I wasn't offended at all. He wasn't making it up, after all. It's not like he didn't like Jews, so he was saying we were going to burn in Hell. He was a perfectly nice, unoffensive young man who was trying to express, honestly, what his religion taught him.
The fact that what he said was offensive to others wasn't due to him wanting to cause offensive. It was due to him being honest.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Christians are going to burn in Hell. But that's mostly because the whole Hell thing was invented after Christianity broke away from us. So we don't have any truck with the idea. It's one more thing that squicks us out, actually.
My point, though, is that one person's expression of belief can often be highly offensive to another person. Just by the nature of that belief.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But even in its modified form, MANY of the values within Christianity and Judaism are shared. One God the creator of our souls and the world, belief in a savior, (I am sure you will argue that you are one of those unorthodox nonmessianic Jews just to make things difficult.),
You don't know me very well, do you. Boy, have you got the wrong number. But that's what you don't understand. Did you ever read Stephen King's Danse Macabre? It's a non-fiction book about horror and terror and fear. He makes an interesting point. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is infinitely more horrific than the Blob could ever be. Why? Because the Blob is something else entirely. It bears no relation to us, and what makes it scary is only what it does. But the Creature from the Black Lagoon is humanoid. It looks like a warped or distorted human being. And that grabs us by the nerves and won't let go.
Nothing is ever as horrifying as something that's almost us, but monstrous. You talk about One God. But you turned that into a trinity. Huh? You talk about a savior, but we don't have such a concept. The messiah is not, and never was, a mystical savior. He's a human being, begotten of human beings. Never a deity. <shudder>
Of all things, idolatry is the anti-Judaism. And then we see a group of people who took some of the most basic concepts in the world and idolatrized them. And yes, that squicks the heck out of us. How could it not?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: more than half of their canons are completely identical, etc. Its not even limited to that.
I disagree. Even the parts that you would say are the same are not the same. We never had anything that said "a virgin shall conceive", for example. That's a mistranslation of Isaiah. You co-opted the idea of the Sabbath, moved it to a new time like some network executive, and turned it, as well, into something it never was. Not to mention the fact that the Sabbath is only for Jews.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There are studies done on Christ era Judeo jurisprudence, and its amazing how many of the principles in Jewish law are found in court systems today.
I guess to sum up starlisa. I personally have great respect for the Jewish (both the ethnicity and the religion) people as a whole. They have produced many amazing people that have benefited society world wide. That being said, I just do not appreciate speaking with somebody who demands respect and yet does not offer me the same grounds for deserving respect as she herself demands.
I hope I do not come across as angry, I still retain much respect for what you say starlisa.
I hear what you're saying. And I hope you can understand what I've said. I understand that hearing me speaking truth is liable to offend you. But calling Judaism "Christian-like" was horribly offensive. And all I did was ask that it not be done. When I was asked why, I explained why. I'm not on a crusade.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Everyone needs to belong. I think this is how Lisa expresses her attachment to the group to and in which she belongs.
Lisa, you can shoot me verbally if I'm totally wrong, but I get the feeling that the defense of Judaism and Isreal has more to do with strengthening your ties and declaring your loyalty to Judaism and Isreal than an interest in debate about the topic.
Not really. That has more to do with a sense of justice, a knowledge that it's a life-and-death issue, having lived through it for 12 years, and knowing that the lives of two of my children, who still live there, are at stake. It's not academic for me the way it is for so many people on this forum.
That's regarding the Israel stuff. The Judaism stuff... well, I explained it in what I wrote to BlackBlade. All I did was ask that one thing not be said. When asked why, I gave a short answer. I didn't intend to beat it into the ground.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have to admit that I don't mind because I think that Lisa is not actually completely in control of her actions - in other words, she needs so badly to establish herself as a good Jew that it's broken her social skills. She's clearly competent in other areas. I don't know - I guess I think there's some sort of short-circuit every time the topic comes up.
Your condescension is understood. But I assure you that I am completely in control of my actions. You didn't see anything offensive with Judaism being called "Christian-like", because it doesn't offend you personally. But what I wrote did. Perhaps you might consider that things look different from a different perspective.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Demeaning? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Most understand that Christianity is derived from Judaism. Unless you are a Mormon in which case there are some added statements to this arguement that I am not planning on going into.
Do Christians complain that we are grouped with the Jews in descriptions of our beliefs? I do not know of any.
I do not mind being associated with Judaism, I do not know why Judaism should be loath to be associated with me.
Maybe somebody should locate the remnants of all the other tribes of Israel and ask how they feel about having their belief systems all lumped together with the single tribe of Judah.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that we don't want to be associated with Christianity. Do you seriously not understand that Christianity is a terrible heresy relative to Judaism? It's not as though we broke away from you. We were given God's word and after 13 centuries or so, you broke away from us. And do you honestly expect us to forget two millenia of persecution? None of us place blame for that on individual Christians, but on Christianity, as such?
As far as "the other tribes of Israel" are concerned, we are the People of Israel. We use the term "Jews", derived from the tribe of Judah, because it was the main one of the tribes which remained faithful to God's Torah. Most of the rest assimilated into the surrounding population, because they didn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I do see something offensive with it. It's just that on other topics, you don't return offense with offense. On this one, you do. So, either you have conciously chosen to not care about your uncivilityx, or else you don't really get what you are doing. I think both kind of come from the same thing - the importance you place on the topic.
I'm not diminishing the importance of the topic, but no amount of uncivility in the present situation will change either history or the minds of people who are not posting here. The minds of those who are posting here are being offended and not persuaded, so it's ultimately fruitless if persuasion is your point.
Since the persuasion is so fruitless, that makes me think that persuasion isn't the point. Taking a stand is - on this topic taking a vehement stand is more important to you than the conversation. Which kind of brings me full circle - you have a need to be this rude about it.
Does that make sense?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's not as though we broke away from you.
Actually, that is one of the beliefs or Mormonism (although I'm grossly oversimplifying here).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You see it as rude. I don't. Tell me... given that calling Judaism "Christian-like" was extremely offensive to me, how would you suggest, as someone who is obviously an expert, that I could have handled it better? Should I have just ignored it? Was it "rude" for me to ask that he not call us that? Was there something in my word choice that you think could have been done better? I'm asking honestly.
I'll tell you in advance that saying nothing at all wasn't an option. So if you think saying anything at all about it was inherently rude, then we're at a standstill.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I don't think saying that calling Judaism "Christian-like" was offensive was rude. That was a very measured, honest response.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Okay, then Steve asked me how it was offensive. Do you think I should not have answered? Or, if I answered, how do you think I should have answered differently?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I have heard other Jews express dislike for the term "Judeo-Christian" before, for well-articulated reasons that made sense to me at the time but that I can't remember now. And I am pretty sure any of them would have had a problem with Judaism being referred to as a "Christian-like" religion, too. While there are similarities, certainly, don't you think it sounds a little demeaning, BlackBlade?
Demeaning? No. Inaccurate? Yes. Most understand that Christianity is derived from Judaism. Unless you are a Mormon in which case there are some added statements to this arguement that I am not planning on going into.
Do Christians complain that we are grouped with the Jews in descriptions of our beliefs? I do not know of any.
I do not mind being associated with Judaism, I do not know why Judaism should be loath to be associated with me.
Maybe somebody should locate the remnants of all the other tribes of Israel and ask how they feel about having their belief systems all lumped together with the single tribe of Judah.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that we don't want to be associated with Christianity. Do you seriously not understand that Christianity is a terrible heresy relative to Judaism? It's not as though we broke away from you. We were given God's word and after 13 centuries or so, you broke away from us. And do you honestly expect us to forget two millenia of persecution? None of us place blame for that on individual Christians, but on Christianity, as such?
As far as "the other tribes of Israel" are concerned, we are the People of Israel. We use the term "Jews", derived from the tribe of Judah, because it was the main one of the tribes which remained faithful to God's Torah. Most of the rest assimilated into the surrounding population, because they didn't.
I fully understand that Jews view Christianity as a heresy, but a corruption of ideas is not a basis for disdain. The moral values shared by both people are still comparable. Is that not more important?
But if you want me to see things from your perspective you are failing to see things from Christians perspectives. We see the Jews of today largely the same as Moses probably viewed the Israelites who stayed in Egypt while he was managing the great exodus. "People stuck in the past and in complete denial of what God was doing today."
To make it even more pointed, as a Mormon I see protestants as people, "Stuck in the past...etc" So from my perspective Jews have not only missed one Exodus, they missed the next Exodus that took place centuries after that one. You guys have missed the boat that picked up the people from the first boat you missed."
Yet I do not see your "Backsliding ways" or "frowardness" two words the Old Testament uses frequently to describe its people as grounds to dislike Jews.
As for your belief that there are a bajillion errors in our version of the Old Testament, it sufficeth me to say that I simply disagree with that statement. The Septuagint was written by Jews, much of its writings are quoted word for word in the Dead Sea scrolls, and there really is no STRONG reason to suspect that it ought to be look at with suspicion in regards to its accuracy. I would be interested in seeing the basis for your assertion that the "A virgin shall conceive." Passage is erreneous.
Yes Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years by people under the banner of, "Christianity." Does any Christian today believe that Christ really condoned any of those acts? Perhaps White Supremecist groups do but how many of them are held in high esteem by Christians of today? Perhaps you ought to remember that according to Christian writings it was the Jews that tried to kill off Christianity in its early years. Hunting down its followers and seeing them executed.
I am not trying to finger point, or state who has a greater claim to pity, but it was largely "On the backs of gentiles." (to quote Isaiah) That the Jews of today now have a place to live. Why else do Muslim nations CONSTANTLY accuse the US of "Only siding with Israel?"
Respect us in spite of our deviant beliefs, and I will respect you in spite of your, "Brow of brass, your back of iron sinews, your backsliding ways, and your frowardness."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But if you want me to see things from your perspective you are failing to see things from Christians perspectives. We see the Jews of today largely the same as Moses probably viewed the Israelites who stayed in Egypt while he was managing the great exodus. "People stuck in the past and in complete denial of what God was doing today."
Speak for yourself. You do not speak for "the Christian perspective."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But if you want me to see things from your perspective you are failing to see things from Christians perspectives. We see the Jews of today largely the same as Moses probably viewed the Israelites who stayed in Egypt while he was managing the great exodus. "People stuck in the past and in complete denial of what God was doing today."
Speak for yourself. You do not speak for "the Christian perspective."
If you disagree with that assesment of the Jewish situation, you are welcome to provide a better description. Simply saying I do not speak for Christianity (I was obviously not pretending to be the mouthpiece of Christianity, merely an interpreter) does not really help the discussion in anyway.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
When you say she's failing to see things from "Christians perspective" and then say "We" see this, it certainly sounds like you are trying to speak for Christianity at large. I see "the Jewish situation" differently, yes, but my interpretation is not really relevant to the conversation. I merely wish to remind you, and starLisa, that not all Christians feel as you do. As far as I'm concerned, that helps the discussion.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
"Froward". What a cool word. I assume that's a translation of "stiff-necked"? I had to go and look it up.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: "Froward". What a cool word. I assume that's a translation of "stiff-necked"? I had to go and look it up.
More or less the same meaning. I remember reading that word like 30 times in the Old Testament before realizing it was not the word "Forward." Suddenly the scriptures made sense again I wonder if its related to the phrase, "to and fro." "To" being the right way and "Fro" being the wrong way.
Eljay: I see what your saying. I say "we" as in "most Christians." I can be wrong in this assertion and I can concede that perhaps I ought not to speak in plural form when expressing my own opinions, regardless of how many people I believe agree with me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thank you, BlackBlade, I appreciate that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I had a wonderful post but it is now moot.
So I will post that I went to Merriam Webster and looked it up. froward Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Ohhh...that turned nasty didn't it.
Yes, I guess I can see how a Jew would be offended if I told him/her he/she was 'like a Christian' and left it at that. BUT, and this is a big but, I was making a statement in a larger context. I certainly was not making a statement with any intent to insult Jews.
Look at the context of what I said, and all I was doing was trying to establish a brief framework for the inclusion of Jews in a general discusssion of Christianity and specifically Protestantism.
I was simply trying to make a statement that included the three primary aspects of 'people like us' (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
So, what did I mean then by that, and what do I now mean by 'people like us'? What I meant is people who are not Shinto, Hindu, or Buddhist. My intent was to exclude these religion that are perfectly valid, but completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
This whole thing was a statement of what I now know to be a mistaken belief, that if you were not Jew or Catholic, you had to be Protestant. Now, I find there is a forth choice; Restorationist (that is the right term, isn't it?). I was simply acknowledging my mistake in this area, and I think most people understood that.
My statement of 'Christian-like' was an attempt to say that Jews are not like Christians, and yes, I know now that sounds counter intuitive, but it's true. My intent was to include all religions that have the same collective origins as our collective religions without going into a long distracting tangent on how Jews are not Christians. So, my inclusion of the admittedly poor phrase 'Christian-like' was actually a very shorthand attempt at acknowledging that Jew are different than Christians. Again, counter intuitive, but none the less true.
Perhaps 'Christian-associated' would have been a better choice. But any reasonable interpretation of my full statement in its full context should have clearly shown that I was not intending to offend Jews, but excluding unrelated religious like Shinto, Buddhist, and Hindu. I was creating a context that kept the conversation relevant to Christianity, and the Jewish faith is very much relevant and related to Christianity, at least historically.
You are free to choose a word to be offended by while ignoring that context, just as others are free to consider the statement in context, and ignore an unrelated and now admittedly poor choice of words.
Most posts here are written spontaneously. They are not review by countless editors before 'going to publication'; occassionally a poor choice of words will slip in just as a few spelling and grammar error will appear. You need to make some allowances for the fact that we are not professional writers who words are carefully reviewed.
Though, it is good to now know that this is a far more important and sensitive issue that I might have imagined. And you can be sure, I will be more sensitive in this area in the furture.
So, I learned two things here: 1.) There are more possibilities that Catholic, Protestant, and Jew; there is also Restorationist 2.) Jews generally don't like being compared to Christians.
I come away a wiser man.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I was simply trying to make a statement that included the three primary aspects of 'people like us' (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
So basically, even if someone points out that it's offensive, you'll keep doing it. Understood.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: So, what did I mean then by that, and what do I now mean by 'people like us'? What I meant is people who are not Shinto, Hindu, or Buddhist. My intent was to exclude these religion that are perfectly valid, but completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
And you just don't get that anyone could possibly see Christian, Shintoist, Hindu and Buddhist as one category, with Jews on the other side. I see that. Nevertheless, when we say "One God", we really mean it, and it's really irksome to be included into a group that has an idiosyncratic definition of "One".
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Perhaps 'Christian-associated' would have been a better choice.
<blink>
How about leaving us out of it. Honestly, Steve. By Jewish terms, Christianity is an outlaw faith. This is like calling smugglers "Coast Guard-associated".
[Edit: I mean, calling the Coast Guard "smuggler-associated.]
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: But any reasonable interpretation of my full statement in its full context should have clearly shown that I was not intending to offend Jews,
If intent is what's important, than it should suffice that I don't mean to offend Christians. Clearly, though, intent hasn't been enough for that.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Most posts here are written spontaneously. They are not review by countless editors before 'going to publication'; occassionally a poor choice of words will slip in just as a few spelling and grammar error will appear. You need to make some allowances for the fact that we are not professional writers who words are carefully reviewed.
I didn't intend to make a federal case out of it, Steve. Even kat had no complaint with my initial post pointing out that what you'd said was offensive and asking you not to do it. Rather than just nod and say "Okay", you asked why. And that was fair as well. So I explained. And people got all pissy. Fine. Obviously, my explanation was as offensive to them as your comment was to me. But now, it seems as though you're saying that I had no right to be offended in the first place. Or that I should have kept it zipped. Instead, why not try and understand that it is offensive to take a religion that broke away from us and tack us on to it.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Though, it is good to now know that this is a far more important and sensitive issue that I might have imagined. And you can be sure, I will be more sensitive in this area in the furture.
I appreciate that.
[ June 13, 2006, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lisa, try to be more civil. Equating Christians with drug smugglers is not kosher.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Not at all...I'm just saying that there are more divisive topics down this path and it's not worth going there.
(note: sorry I deleted my earlier post because I found out there were some factual errors in it and I don't have time to fix it now).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I was simply trying to make a statement that included the three primary aspects of 'people like us' (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
Also Eastern Orthodox. And the Anglican church and it's offshoots. And a half dozen other options.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bob, awhile ago, there was a discussion about a man who had stored kiddie porn on his computer. These were images of children being sexually assaulted, but had been modified using a graphics program like Photoshop. Other images were cartoonish in nature-- drawings of assualt, in other words. Some people argued that such images should be considered free and protected speech because there was no victim.
I avoid the topic because I know I can't discuss it rationally. I know my limits.
I expect others to be able to do the same thing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa, try to be more civil. Equating Christians with drug smugglers is not kosher.
I never intended to do that. You should have seen my initial comparison.
An analogy compares a dynamic or a relationship. To focus on the concretes used is missing the point. A baby is to a nursery as a criminal is to a jail cell, but that doesn't imply that there's any actual comparison between a baby and a criminal.
Christians are not smugglers, and Jews are not the Coast Guard. If anyone else thought I was suggesting that, then this is your clarification.
I started with an analogy that would have probably offended you even more, and then toned it down to use what I consider to be a victimless crime (outlawry, rather than crime), and I didn't even have drug smuggling in mind. The drug business was your addition. You just can't win with some folks, I guess.
In any case, I stand by the analogy, as divorced from the concretes used in it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It looks to me like your analagy should be reversed, though. If Christianity is the "outlaw faith" then calling Jews "Christian-associated" would be like calling the coast guard "smuggler-associated," not the other way around, no?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yes, you're right. So not only did I tick people off, I even did the analogy backwards. I'm going to edit it.
Lisa -- having a bad brain day
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lisa,
Could be that I'm just out of patience, but I do think that you are bright enough to explain to Steve that Judaism and Christianity are sufficiently different that lumping them together is offensive without being offensive yourself. I really do think you could have managed that if it weren't so much more important to you to take potshots at Christianity. While I agree that Steve's comparison was offensive, it was made out of ignorance; you are deliberately offensive.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It was ignorant the first time. But then he chose to do it again.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I submit that it was on-going ignorance, and heat-of-the-moment defensiveness in the face of unexpected passion on your part, but that's just me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No, he failed to understand why it was offensive the first time. You get it and are insulting about about it because you enjoy insulting my religion. Big difference.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The back and forth about who was offensive isn't particularly interesting to me (though I can understand why people on both sides of this have felt offended by statements made by people on the other side, and feel like it's a worthwhile conversation that's being had about it), but I am interested in the word "froward". I'd seen it before, but had never really thought about it. From the Online Etymological Dictionary
quote:froward O.E. fromweard "turned from or away," from from + -weard. Opposite of toward, it renders L. pervertus in early translations of the Psalms, and also meant "about to depart, departing," and "doomed to die."
Absolutely fascinating. I'd never thought about the word "toward" either, but that completely makes sense.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks for that link. It's a cool dictionary!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I always find it particularly grievous when people contend over religion. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It is, by its very nature, a contentious topic.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It always seems to me like it shouldn't be, though. Does anyone else feel that way? As though when we are speaking of our religion or anyone else's, we should do it in reverent tones, and with the utmost of fellow-feeling, and love, and close kinship. These things are sacred. Don't we desecrate them somewhat if we become cross with one another and contend in their presence? Don't we give them the lie that way, and deny with our actions the very things we are setting about to avow with our words?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Don't we desecrate them somewhat if we become cross with one another and contend in their presence?
Honestly? I would say 'no.'
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:BlueWizard (Jew, Catholic, Protestant). Those are the three associated branches of 'people like us'.
starLisa So basically, even if someone points out that it's offensive, you'll keep doing it. Understood.
No, clearly, you don't understand. While I may have minced my words a bit, I did apologies and thanked you for pointing out my error. I finished by saying 'I come away a wiser man' for you having informed me of my error.
THEN, I did what I consider a reasonable explaination of my intent and the context of my statements, which really had little to do with the Jewish Faith. And whether you like it or not, the Jewish Faith and Christianity are inextricably linked. As I pointed out, Jesus was a Jew, as was nearly everyone of any significance in the Bible.
starLisa And you just don't get that anyone could possibly see Christian, Shintoist, Hindu and Buddhist as one category, with Jews on the other side.
Yes, in a completely different context than this greater conversation, I could see that. But I think you will find much greater resistance to Christianity being disassociated with Jews, and lumped into the same caatgory as Buddhists. But, that is not this conversation, or at least it wasn't until now.
We are all sons and daughters of Abraham in spirit. We are all associated, even if our specific doctrines are very different.
quote:BlueWizard Perhaps 'Christian-associated' would have been a better choice.
starLisa How about leaving us out of it. Honestly, Steve.
Sorry, but like it or not, you and your faith are part of this. Although relative to this greater conversation, a very small part.
starLisa ...what you'd said was offensive and asking you not to do it. Rather than just nod and say "Okay", you asked why. And that was fair as well. So I explained.
Yes, you did ask me not to do it, but you also seem to fail to look for or see the context in which the statement was made, and seem to have disregarded my explanation of how the misunderstanding came about. That's fine. Call it the way you choose to see it.
Note however, that much earlier in this converstation, I said some things that by all reason would likely to have offended some Mormons. However, while I did raise a few feathers, once my explanation of intent and context was clear, we had an extremely enlightening discussion. They were willing to move the conversation beyond the misunderstanding rather than wallow in the hurt.
Your hurt, I get that. But what your hurt about really was a very insignificant part of the overal conversation. You were hurt by a poor choice of words that was an extremely minor part of the greater story. Further, the words that offended you were words that were poorly chosen, but chosen none the less to placate you. Which I think I explain in a way that was clear to everyone except you.
starLisa If intent is what's important, than it should suffice that I don't mean to offend Christians.
Do you really mean that in your heart? Because your responses seem somewhat bitter. I mean you equated us with smugglers and outlaws, while we tried to be respectful of your Faith. Maybe we/I didn't succeed, but at least we tried.
I said before and I say now -
Though, it is good to now know that this is a far more important and sensitive issue that I might have imagined. And you can be sure, I will be more sensitive in this area in the furture.
But you seem determined to take offense, so you make a choice as well.
Abondoning this subject, I have a question for DKW.
dkw Also Eastern Orthodox. And the Anglican church and it's offshoots
So, enlighten me, because I really don't know. Are you saying that Eastern Orthodox and Anglican are not Protestant religions with some foundation in Martin Luther's teachings? I could perhaps see that of Eastern Orthodox which I always assumed was vaguely Catholic, but it doesn't seem quite right for Anglican which I always took to be a variation of the Protestant Episcopal Church?
Just curious.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Eastern Orthodox has absolutely nothing to do with Luther's teaching. It dates back as a separate entity from the Roman Catholic Church to 1054 and claims apostolic succession back to Christ.
Anglican is different case. I think it'd be mostly accurate to say some Anglicans are Protestants arising out of Luther, and some are "catholics" whose doctrine has its own line of of descent from Roman Catholicism. The Anglican communion allows for both, I believe. (I'm much fuzzier on the Anglican than the EO stuff).
Also, LDS is not the only church that calls itself restorationist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Don't we desecrate them somewhat if we become cross with one another and contend in their presence? Don't we give them the lie that way, and deny with our actions the very things we are setting about to avow with our words?
It really depends on what you're 'avowing' doesn't it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
There's a point at which all interfaith discussions break down when so many of the individual faiths include the teaching that they alone have it right and everyone else is wrong to a greater or lesser extent. It can be enlightening to explore the differences in doctrine, but, again, when it comes down to the things that define a denomination or religion as "truly different from all others" at least some of the adherents aren't going to discuss and are simply going to assert.
What it takes to have these discussions at all is constant maintenance of an attitude of mutual interest and respect. Not everyone is capable of approaching all parts of the discussion that way. And some of us have bigger toes than others.
And sometimes we catch each other just the wrong way.
But I have yet to see a religious discussion here at Hatrack that didn't include offensive things. People choose whether or not to take offense, and having chosen to take offense, they choose whether or not to react, and if reacting, how strongly (and offensively).
I hope for people to have long slow fuses all the time here. I don't expect it in discussions where people are passionate about the topic (religion, abortion, current hot topics, whatever). I also don't expect it from some people.
Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised by a person or a long friendly discussion.
It makes up for the disappointments of when things turn out the way they usually do.
My advice: live for the good moments and be glad the bad ones take at least two people getting upset before they really propagate.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: So, enlighten me, because I really don't know. Are you saying that Eastern Orthodox and Anglican are not Protestant religions with some foundation in Martin Luther's teachings?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And there are others.
To begin with Anglicans: the Church of England broke off from the Catholic church in a separate schism, not related to Luther, triggered by the King’s political arguments with the Pope. At the time it was a “schism without heresy” because theologically the CoE was still Catholic. (Except for the rather crucial matter of papal authority.) There were, however, protestant theologians who wanted it to become theologically protestant, King Henry resisted. After his death, in the squabble between his heirs, the CoE wavered between Catholic and Protestant in theology. Eventually Queen Elizabeth brought some stability by commissioning the Book of Common prayer and declaring that either Catholic or Protestant beliefs were acceptable, as long as worship and prayer were held in common. The Epsicopal, Methodist, Holiness, and Pentecostal churches and the Salvation Army are branches off this part of the tree, although most of them are now protestant in theology. The churches in the Anglican communion are still a blend of Catholic and Protestant theology.
The Eastern Orthodox churches have no ties through Luther whatsoever. Neither do the Waldensians, the Moravians, or the Uniate Churches. Or the Anabaptists such as Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish, etc. Luther was as strongly against those groups as the Catholics were.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No, he failed to understand why it was offensive the first time. You get it and are insulting about about it because you enjoy insulting my religion. Big difference.
I disagree, but clearly you think you know better than me what my intent was.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It was impossible to say just that Judaism and Christianity were, from your point of view, so very different that Steve was wrong to lump them together? You couldn't explain the differences in theology without being perjorative? It was impossible to make your point without sprinkling in the "shudders" at the thought of being associated with us, without using words like "warped" and "distorted", without references to the Creature from the Black Lagoon, without referring to us as butchers and outlaws? Did it occur to you to try?
I apologize to the rest of you. I know that this is neither interesting nor comfortable. I am, however, really tired of being insulted.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
It would be interesting, now that we have strayed so far, if people went back to the context, and looked at the difficulty of what I was trying to say, because it really was a difficult thing to phrase in a context that didn't run off on a long drawn out distracting tangent.
What I orginally said was -
Though naive and foolish boy that I am, it never really occurred to me that their could be a Christian or Christian-like faith outside of Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. (I say 'Christian-like' to allow for the inclusion of Jews.)
As I explained, I said 'Christian-like' to make the distinction between Christianity and Judaism. If I has said 'non-Christian' that would imply the inclusion of Shinto, Hindu, and Buddhist, and they clearly have no part in the broader discussion.
So, how do I make a quick clear concise statement of my mistake, which whether some like it or not, does validly include the Jewish faith? Not an easy task.
I do thank starLisa for pointing that out the potential for offense to me. It's nice to be warned that this is such a touchy subject. I take it as very worthwhile information. But, as the saying goes, 'discretion is the better part of valor'. While I applaud her purpose, I'm put off by her method.
Lest my intend not be clear, in the paragraph after the 'offending' statement, I did clarify my intent by saying -
I, obviously, mistakenly assumed that if you were not Catholic or Jew, then you were automatically Protestant.
Clearly the information, context, and intent where there if you chose to see them.
We are all making a choice, some chose to continue the conversation, which when closer to the central point, has actually been interesting. Yes, I was aware of the many minority religious mentioned by dkw, and thank him(?) for that information...
Neither do the Waldensians, the Moravians, or the Uniate Churches. Or the Anabaptists such as Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish, etc. Luther was as strongly against those groups as the Catholics were.
Again, I come away a wiser man. Like I said I was aware of most of these religions, but was not so fully aware that they had developed so independantly of both the Catholic Church and the teaching of Martin Luther. Whether they followed Luther or not, I had assumed he had influenced them to break away from any influence by the Catholic Church.
To some extent, on Europe proper, I have assumed that the Catholic Church dominated everything; society, religion, and politics, and that all permutations were either for or against that dominant core. The primary force against the dominant core was Martin Luther. So, on a very broad scale there might be some general foundation to my belief, though I now find that there are many exceptions to the rule.
Still, I will note that the Anabaptists were a radical movement of the 16th century Reformation, and that Luther is generally considered the leader of the Reformation. So there is some connection there. While they may not have formed around Luther, they saw and seized the opportunity he created.
A great thanks to all who responded on this last issue. Once again, though straying far from BlackBlade's original framework, it has been an interesting and informative conversation.
Best Regards to All,
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: While they may not have formed around Luther, they saw and seized the opportunity he created.
Nope, some of those broke off before Luther. Ever hear of John Huss?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Interestingly enough Luther was trying to create an opportunity to purge the catholic church of false teachings. A purification if you will. He was very much against creating competing church's as the importance of legitimate authority was not lost on him. It was close to the end of his life and mostly after his death that we see this sudden immergence of protestant churches, completely seperate from the catholic church.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Only if by "close to the end of his life" you mean "20 years before he died."
Luther originally wanted to reform the Catholic church, not start a new church, but he was quite firmly on the "new church" path by 1523.
And the majority of his support of "legitimate authority" was the secular authority of Germany. He argued quite fiercly against the authority of the pope.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
going to have to disagree with you at least in part DKW on the question of authority.
One of Luthers biggest concerns when he formed his new church was that he felt he was both unworthy and lacked the authority to perform some of sacrements of the church, such as communion.
Unfortunately I can't complete this thought (Ill try to do so tomorrow morning, but I can see where you draw your points from dkw)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Where on earth are you getting that information? Have you readany of Luther's writings?!?
quote:From The Smalcald Articles by Martin Luther, 1537
1] That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily or through a human creature (that is, a political magistrate) have attached themselves to him, to be Christians, not under him as a lord, but with him as brethren [colleagues] and comrades, as the ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian show.
[Articles 2-9 elaborate on this]
10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.
My apologies to the Catholics, btw. There were a few Catholics in my first Historical Theology class in sem, and Luther was a hard two weeks for them. This is somewhat less insulting (really!) than some quotes I could have chosen.
As for not considering himself to have the authority to celebrate the sacraments, he not only did consider himself to have such authority but also wrote instructions on the proper way to celebrate them, their true meaning, and a new order of service for the German church.
[ June 14, 2006, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: Yes, I was aware of the many minority religious mentioned by dkw, and thank him(?) for that information...
Ah-HA! So dkw and Bob_Scopatz are definitely in favor of gay marriage, then!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And so is our fetus!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Where did you get that? This is just getting more and more complicated.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Am I even reading this thread right?
"Would members of the regrettable outlaw sect known as Christianity please not offend my religion by describing it with terms I personally dislike?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Where on earth are you getting that information? Have you readany of Luther's writings?!?
quote:From The Smalcald Articles by Martin Luther, 1537
1] That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily or through a human creature (that is, a political magistrate) have attached themselves to him, to be Christians, not under him as a lord, but with him as brethren [colleagues] and comrades, as the ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian show.
[Articles 2-9 elaborate on this]
10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.
My apologies to the Catholics, btw. There were a few Catholics in my first Historical Theology class in sem, and Luther was a hard two weeks for them. This is somewhat less insulting (really!) than some quotes I could have chosen.
As for not considering himself to have the authority to celebrate the sacraments, he not only did consider himself to have such authority but also wrote instructions on the proper way to celebrate them, their true meaning, and a new order of service for the German church.
Why yes, yes I have read some of Luther's Works. I also worked with my friend when he wrote his masters thesis on Luther. But hey I don't pretend to be a Lutheran scholar.
Luther disagreed with the Pope putting himself between people and God in terms of salvation. He never said "Any Joe Schmo (or more appropriately klaus schmlaus) can lead the church and perform sacrements therein."
Just because you think the current head of a church is bogus does not mean you think there need not be a head.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm seriously appreciating the opportunity presented here for me to learn, so BlackBlade, could you then post selections of Luther's writings that you think speak to your position, as dkw has done?
This is extremely interesting to a little ole self-taught protestant like myself. I find the history of the Reformation fascinating, but don't have near enough knowledge and expertise to really participate in the discussion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Luther very clearly stated, in numerous writings, that the head of the church is Christ and there need be no other head. Not just need be, but should be no individual claiming that position.
Not just that the (then) current pope was corrupt but that the whole idea of a supreme pontiff was wrong.
And it is a far cry from "not any Joe Schmoe" to the idea that Luther didn't consider himself to have the authority to perform sacraments. He obviously did.
Edit: in fact, he claimed that any Joe Schmoe could legitimately celebrate communion, if in a situation where no priest were available the community of the faithful declared Joe to be their priest. Authority to ordain rests in the church, defined as the community of believers, not in the pope.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We, too, believe that Christ is the head of the Church. We do not always make that clear.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I know. But it is the theological reason why Protestant churches do not have a pope-analogue. (Which, to tie back to the earlier topic, is another example of how the LDS church is not theologically Protestant.)
Although for years there was a woman who presented a petition at every United Methodist General Conference that we needed to elect a pope.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dkw (your edit): I fully agree that Luther believed as you did in this circumstance. But again this is a situation where neccesity supercedes the need for uniformity. It reminds me of David (as in goliath's slayer) running from Saul and being offered the shew bread that was only for the priests to consume.
Luther certainly felt the masses could appoint a priest if there was none available. But I do not think he was saying "Let everyone be a priest, and let everyone be the laity."
Also in response to your earlier assertion that Luther was firmly on the "seperate church bandwagon." I should have been more specific when I said that Luther wanted to have 1 universal church, and was very much opposed to a church being called after his own name:
""Let us abolish all party names and call ourselves Christians, after him whose teaching we hold . . . I hold, together with the universal church, the one universal teaching of Christ, who is our only master." "
but back to authority:
I think I can concede that Luther certainly agreed that the congregation as lead by the Holy Ghost could do all things as expediency requires. But he certainly believed in a system of leadership that made decisions based on the ultimate authority, "The Scriptures."
Luther from what I understood felt that a leadership was important and that order prevail in the church, yet he believed that no one person was above the gospel, and had the write to go against what the scriptures said. Hence his very strong words against the Pope who he felt was disregarding the scriptures.
^^ A few of Luthers remarks on authority. Again it seems he is saying that in his day because of the oppressive nature of the catholic church it was partially expedient that how one is called as a preacher be temporarily modified.
But Luther also makes it very pointed that there must be order in all things.
To be honest, I should like to do more research as it appears Luther has said that any congregation could simply elect a preacher and that that would suffice so long as the preacher uses the scriptures are their guide when preaching.
This does not satisfy me as a way to setup a "Universal Church." Ill need to read more particulars about how Martin Luther viewed authority, Ill concede though that as far as an organized priesthood is concerned althout Luther certainly submitted to the authority the leadership of the catholic church at first, the pendulum seems to be in your favor dkw.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Another thing (just in case anyone is curious) we didn't always have a Pope. The bishop of Rome had no more authority than the bishops of the other apostolic churches. And bishops used to be elected by the laity.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I wonder if its related to the phrase, "to and fro." "To" being the right way and "Fro" being the wrong way.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Where did you get that?