Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My thought would be that if you feel you have something/anything to offer, then stick it out with boundaries that you set. I would meet with your ywPres and or bishop and explain your situation to a limited extent and say that you are willing to do xyz but not abc WITHOUT guilt. If they feel the need to release you with your time/commitment limitation that is ok. Something else will come along. If they are OK with your boundaries, then give what you can out of love for the youth and God, not out of rote obligation to the Church or it’s hierarchy. If you really have nothing left to give at this time, then ask for a break and at some point something else will come along. Regardless, seek for a relationship with Christ separate and apart from the organizational church–something I am trying to do at this point. Did we not learned anything from the debacle that has resulted from the rhetoric, exclusion and discrimination around the priesthood ban? This is the issue that consistently has been the most despicable and UnChristlike policy ever–up until now – –advocated by the church. Aren’t we just repeating history. For the church to maintain any sense of respect from a societal and governmental perspective 50 years from now, no discrimination based on sexual orientation will be tolerated.
For once, couldn’t we be in the leading edge of love and tolerance standing as an example of Christ to the world rather than clinging to Archaic “doctrine” that is not scientifically sound or consistent with lived human experience?
Take a look at the doctrinal discussion section. There is a whole thread about this new policy. I don’t know what to say in regards to trying to find truth. I am in a tough spot myself. I think the best answer I could give you is that currently, I am trying to focus on the teachings of the church that have made me a better person. I try to hold those and then recognize that pretty much everything in the church is based on humans trying to do what they understand to be best. Whether or not that is actually best is another question. I do not at all I understand the reasoning behind not allowing children of legally married homosexuals to participate in the church fully. I think in retrospect there is no doubt this is on the wrong side of history. Wow. Where is the Christianity here? I guess it doesn’t surprise me that the Church would make it official that they would ex SS married couples, but to prevent a child from being baptized===>Where in the world does that come from??? The child of a sex offender, abuser, drug addict, prisoner etc… Can join the church but not one living with a LGBT parent. Absolutely incomprehensible.
Imagine a worldchurch where a same sex couple were accepted as normal and valued to an equal degree as any other couple. The LoC rules could still apply to pre marital relations. This approach would actually strengthen the core idea of a family being central to the success of our society. Children reared under these unions would not be treated any differently, but loved just like they should be.
These relationships would not threaten to destroy the family>>>give me a break.
I’m astronomically more concerned about infidelity, deadbeat dads, abusive, and drug/alcohol addicted … parents destroying their children, the central role of the family, and our society than I ever will be by any perceived threat from any LGBT cause.
Good to hear your story. I have a brother in law who is gay and this led me to do a lot of thinking. I’m trying to hold it together too. I’ve had a real tough time with time consuming church calling that I have felt we’re not an efficient use of my time. I did unload to my bishop a month or so ago. Mostly a positive experience but I’m sure I won’t be called as EQP any time soon. 
Wow! I am so sorry. I applaude you for sticking it out and trying to find the good in your culture/heritage even under the tough circumstances. That speaks volumes to your character. I completlely understand this being the last straw for you if that is what it is. IF God made you gay, I wholeheartedly believe that he has to deal with the ramifications of that action and in fact, I think he does—He loves you just as much as me or anyone else on Earth. Our society as a whole and LDS in particular has just not come to complete terms with this yet. Asking you to be alone, marry contrary to your identity . . . is BS IMHO and is contrived by imperfect humans. My only advice would be if you leave, to hold on to what you know to be good. There are many teachings in the Church that have made me a better person and that is what I am currently trying to hold on to. (WoW, love, service to others, loving my family members).
Those parts you cherish can still help you live a Christ like fulfilling life 100% regardless of you sexual orientation.
All I can say is that there are times I have seen goodness in my life and much of the good that I hope I have been a part of has been a result of my association with the church and it’s teachings. I would like to think that goodness somehow emanates from God. I am trying to believe that JS did encounter the divine somehow and was chosen to reveal truth. Assuming this is true, I think it is very likely that he simply took his perceived mantle and authority way too far in regards to polygamy and the coercion associated therein. I feel I can still seek and hope for truth within the doctrine while rejecting certain pieces outright (priesthood ban). Perhaps if JS was a prophet, he was not chosen despite his weakness but because of it. If so, maybe we can take hope in our own imperfect sometimes miserable search for truth while we wallow through the mire of our personal and institutional weaknesses. I have to be honest, I was disappointed in lack of racial, cultural, and birthplace diversity in the new selections to the quorum of the 12. I recall a quote by President Hinckley when his son was called as a seventy: “First I’d like to say just a word concerning those we have sustained this afternoon as members of the Quorums of the Seventy. I am convinced that there are literally hundreds of brethren worthy and capable to serve as general officers of the Church. We see them everywhere. ”
I agree with that statement.
I felt the Church had a real golden opportunity to demonstrate that its practice and leadership matches its multicultural world-wide message (as demonstrated by “Meet the Mormons”, the ethnic diversity seen in the youth videos, or pictures of members in the Ensign.)
My dream team was Bishop Gausse, Elder Sitati, and either Elder Costa, Gonzalez or Vinas. I know this was wishful thinking, but I was shocked that all three were white Utah-born members. I was left feeling like we are a Utah based church with fingers trying to extend to other parts of the world rather than a diverse world-wide faith. The honest truth is that many many groups and individuals outside the church perhaps rightfully view our past/present as blatantly racist–I hate that and it is not a label I have any desire to bear. These selections did nothing to quell that criticism.
Having said that, I have absolutely nothing against Elders Renlund (I am aware of his unique background), Stephenson, and Rasband and I am willing to sustain them. I am confident they will represent the Church well. I just feel there may have been many who if called, the Lord would have qualified to represent him honorably and valiantly.
