posted
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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're correct, I added the "heterosexual" quallifcation. I did so because the case cited involved a heterosexual couple.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man. The House doesn't properly appreciate how lucky they are that the Senate's not yet full of complete idiots.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want informed and analytical opinions of what would happen if Roe is overturned, the Atlantic has some ideas.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
