Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
We don’t do polygamy marriages in the temple for those who have passed away, but we do baptisms and sealings.
I’m pretty sure there are still polygamy marriages in the temple for those who have passed away. Remarried widower convert? (I’m going to need a full-time fact checker at some point
Also, the proclamation takes an extremely hard line on gender and, in the future, this will almost assuredly have to be changed/adjusted. (Sex-change, gender identity, etc.)
Lastly, it feels as if this line of thinking is not that the nuclear family is ideal but rather, doctrinal. Especially following the Adam and Eve construct. If that’s the case, shouldn’t the church take just as hard a stance against divorce as it does against SSM? And, shouldn’t unwed mothers be incentivized doctrinally to put their children up for adoption to a One Man/One Woman family? Just random thoughts
Old-Timer wrote:I mean that; I have taught history, and it appears that it requires a deeply conflicted, complex, flawed personality and character for someone to have a far-reaching and long-lasting effect on history.
Great insight, Ray. The legacy of the founding fathers of the U.S. is another great example. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin being the most obvious of the deeply conflicted, complex, flawed. But the legacy they left will impact human history for at least another 500 years, and, of course, inform history for as long as our species survives on earth.
Heber13 wrote:However, polygamy is not the saving ordinance, just one “program” of the church from time to time allowed for the church to achieve its mission.
Heber, you mentioned in another thread that SSM is doctrinal but here you say that polygamy is/was a “program”. Explain?
Old-Timer wrote:Part of moving through Stage 4 to Stage 5 is accepting the idea that the number of people who agree with you completely is going to shrink drastically – that those still in Stage 3 on BOTH sides of any issue are going to have problems with your unwillingness to vilify those with whom you disagree.
I’m going to give away my status again as lazy, arm-chair pseudo-intellecutal philosopher by asking for the references to the stages. You guys mention them and I’ve been able to infer that I’m a screaming Stage 3er and my sensai, Ray, is a stage 5.
Thank you, Ray, for the post, it is well-thought out. I guess my question is: couldn’t the church be better served, maybe even internally more than externally, by staying out of the whole debate, in the same way they do with abortion? I guess what’s so hard for me to be post stage 3 on this is that real damage is being done to the thousands, maybe tens of thousands of LDS youth who are blessed with SSA. (I”m sincere in my hope that people can refer to SSA as the potential good that it can do in the world, only God knows why it exists but it must be for a wise purpose)
Old-Timer wrote:There is a strikingly sharp couple in my stake. Both are well put together every time they are in public. The wife is gorgeous, and the husband is handsome. Both are extremely fit. They are in their mid-30’sm have been married for almost 8 years and have no children. She drives a Lexus; he drives a Mercedes.
I would laugh and wonder why they say they’ve only been married for 8 years (mid-30’s, LDS, you do the math)
Old-Timer wrote:Objectively, that a whole lot of Mormons don’t believe in gay marriage. Anything more than that, based solely on the money issue, is subjective speculation – and VERY wrong, in many cases.
That’s absolutely true… if you’re a reporter.
I do understand the point, and it’s correct. It’s just people making unsound or unfounded judgments. But there is a message that can be inferred (as subjective speculation that is VERY wrong, in many cases): gay marriage is wrong therefore gay is wrong therefore gay feelings are wrong.
asha- sorry for hijacking this thread for my views. I relate totally to what you’re going through, mostly cause my sister is in almost the exact same place as you. Your spirit is so sweet and your desire to do good is inspiring. keep it up! I’m going to share some of your thoughts with my sister cause I think they will be a great comfort to her to know there are others out there like her and you.
Old-Timer wrote:The summary point is that “the Church” as an institution spent very little on Prop 8 – and Mormons spent a little over $20 million.
There’s alot of web-sites listing every individual donor and some of them have researched every individual donor and come up with conservative estimates that is about double the $20 million from LDS members. And Prop 102 in AZ was roughly another $20 million from members.
Obviously, what people choose to do with their money is their choice. I have no problem with that. But realistically, if homosexuals saw these numbers, or if that 13 year old deacon in San Diego who recognized his own SSA, saw those numbers, what is the conclusion to be drawn?
Heber13 wrote:I feel there is a double standard. If I believe homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that I shouldn’t be able to say what is right or wrong for other people, then we have a disagreement. Why am I a bigot and you are not? (not you or I personally, but the church and pro-gay marriage groups). Having an opinion about what you think is right or even normal is not bigotry.
Thank you Heber for your example of fair-mindedness in your post. I’m still developing my on-line voice to be more fair-minded.
I absolutely recognize the double standard but I would say that THE emotionally charged issue is choice. If you are “born” with SSA, do you “choose” to be gay?
The reason that Elder Wickman’s statement is troubling is what he says at the end:
Heber13 wrote:What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed.
The “hindrances” for homosexuals is a man created obstacle. For someone who is blind or autistic or quadrapalegic, these are uncontrollable natural forces, with the hope of a restoration in the Resurrection of Christ. Imho, homosexuals could experience the fullness of joy if we just accepted them and included them, as they were created by a loving Heavenly Father.
I saw a fascinating movie a couple weeks ago in the theater, and there was a section that actually discussed indepth some interesting commonalities for handicapped people and transgender people. Of course, the commonalities have nothing to do with treating transgender people as “handicapped” but that transgender people feel discrimination in similar ways to handicapped. Not sure when it might be available on DVD.
Thank you again, Heber for continuing to engage this discussion. I value and respect your viewpoint.
Heber13 wrote:Is there any advice you can provide on how to talk to my kids about their doubts when I’m riddled with my own?
As I’m sure you can tell, I’m addicted to this forum too.
Surprisingly, I have no advice. I think it’s so courageous of you to even be confronting this, I’m impressed. I will say that if my dad had said to me what you’ve been thinking about saying, it would have saved me years of low-self worth and emotional brokenness. But that’s just me. Please take with huge grain of salt.
Old-Timer wrote:What I about to say is not directed at you, swimordie. It’s just an observation from decades of observing and studying people and religion.
It is SO hard for many people to truly give up the idea that they know what’s best for everyone else.
As I stated in my intro, I’m new to this forum stuff, but I”ll take this as my first time-out. I’m sorry that I crossed a line because I have felt a spirit of calm and introspection at this forum. And I sincerely wanted to maintain that with my posts. Anything I posted was purely my opinion and, honestly, I don’t even know what’s best for me most of the time, let alone for everyone else. Obviously, I’m passionate about my opinion but it is truly stated with love, fwiw.
Old-Timer wrote:Also, I have a REALLY hard time with people who accept gay marriage as fine and dandy for consenting adults but not polygamy. I understand totally the reasoning people use to say that, and this isn’t the thread to go into details, but, for me, that dog don’t hunt.
swimordie wrote:mormonheretic wrote:There probably weren’t laws against identity theft back then either, but I think everyone of that day would find it morally reprehensible.
Are you then saying that polygamy is morally reprehensible? In all instances? In any era?
Ray, I was using the terminology of the statement to ask the question. That doesn’t mean that I feel that polygamy is morally reprehensible. I was asking mh if he thought that polygamy is morally reprehensible.
For the record, as a flaming libertarian, I’m all for whatever 2,3,10 consenting adults want to do together. Just don’t call me late to dinner.
Heber13 wrote:The material on the website I read was very sensitively written, and invited all to live up to the standards the church believes are important, but also calls for all people to be tolerant.
This is the very first quote from the lds website by Oaks:
ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable.
I’m sorry to disagree, Heber, but THAT statement is NOT sensitive. We all know what he means “normal” is, so not only is he demeaning homosexuals, but he is also demeaning single parents, grandparents who are raising grandchildren, stay at home dads, etc.
I don’t think I have to “characterize” this statement as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. It IS narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable.
Narrow-minded in the sense that there are already thousands of homosexual couples raising children in a totally “normal’ way. And I’m sure those homosexual parents will be AT LEAST as successful as my TBM parents were.
Bigoted by the very definition of bigotry.
Websters (from Dictionary.net): 2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
Unreasonable in the face of defining what “normal” is. Normal is a man and a woman? A man and several women? A man and a stay at home mom? A stay at home dad and a mom? Just a mom? Just a dad? Grandparents? Adopted parents? If you follow the logic of Elder Oaks, we should all be striving for normal. That is God’s way. That is Christ’s way. Obviously, I’m being facetious. Normal is, in fact, unreasonable in the face of real life.
“Invited to live the standards the church believes are important.”
There is a great literary term for this but I don’t know what it is. Some sort of fallacy. My point: the church is endeavoring to make it IMPOSSIBLE to live the standards. The standard is “no sexual relations outside marriage”. Of course, by keeping homosexuals from ever being allowed to marry, by default you’re making it literally impossible to live those standards. It was the same 35 years ago: a white and an african-american could not get sealed in the temple because it was not “normal” or God’s way, or it was unnatural. All of the exact same terminology that is being used today.
Sorry for the emotion. I’m trying.
mormonheretic wrote:There probably weren’t laws against identity theft back then either, but I think everyone of that day would find it morally reprehensible.
Are you then saying that polygamy is morally reprehensible? In all instances? In any era?
asha wrote:Disclaimer: going into atheistic territory… might offend some (sorry!)
I don’t know if anyone else has used this, I’m not claiming to have made it up but in terms of God, I’m calling myself a post-agnostic: Not only is God unknowable, but the knowledge is completely irrelevant.
Try to follow some logic here. What does the knowledge of God add to our experience as human beings? Assuming that God sent us here for a reason, He obviously wants us to learn and grow as much as possible. In order to do this, we need to discover, experience, learn, etc. ON OUR OWN. Yes, we are here for each other and that may be the greatest lesson of all for us to learn: to love ourselves and love others unconditionally, the way God loves each of us.
As for the hope of the after-life, I believe that this is where God would be most disappointed in us, His children. The obsession of religion for the after-life and to a degree, the apocalypse, is the single most irrelevant piece of information for the proper living of THIS life. The one and only chance we will ever have to be in mortality and we’re going to waste it obsessing about the next life? And by obsessing, I do mean valuing church callings above family, hobbies, occupation, leisure, etc. Serving others does not require church attendance. And church attendance and service for the sake of a higher degree of glory is not the lesson that God is trying to teach us in mortality.
I believe that this mortal life should be treated as much more precious than the after-life. We only get this for a few years, we have the after-life for eternity. So, which should we really be concerned with? If we can learn to love ourselves, stay present to show our love to others, and love life for the invaluable experience that it is, then the after-life takes care of itself (trusting Jesus Christ)
Asha, I love your posts, they are so honest and you’re obviously a wonderful person with a wonderful heart and I hope you continue to post here for us all to enjoy and savor.
jmb275 wrote:I view collective human wisdom and experience as superior to everything else. This isn’t because it is superior to God’s knowledge, but it is, I think, superior to what Ray pointed out above. That is to say, I think “philosophies of men” is the collective wisdom of humankind.
I agree completely with this. Isn’t it possible that part of free agency for each of us as individuals allows for God to literally be hands off in all things, give us gifts of conscience and the spirit and let us figure out everything ourselves, both individually and collectively as a species??
