Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you everyone for the welcome messages. In the short time I’ve been stalking this forum, it really does feel like the “home” I’d like to participate in. I hope I can be an addition to the respectful journey we are all on. just me wrote:Why does God give us opposition in his laws? What does it mean? Let alone the lying part which we have already established is against God’s law.
Someone mentioned in another thread the incongruities with the Laban story and some of the commands in the OT to kill children. An argument could be made that it isn’t God giving these laws…
“There must needs be opposition in all things”? Does there need to be opposition to the opposition? I think so.
asha wrote:I’m so confused.
I don’t know if you read my intro but I was in the obsessive stage, the one right before the stage you’re in now, when I felt directed to resign. I’m saying this because even after I resigned, I still went through the “nothing matters anyway” phase. And, btw, if you come from a TBM forever family, when you leave, they say much worse things than that you’re weak.
This may sound really “new-agey” but I would cherish the melieu (sp?). I know that I have embraced all of the confusing, depressing, exhilirating, frustrating, crazy feelings because the alternative is I could be my dad. Wallowing in 65 years of guilt, shame, never being good enough. Which is where I was most of my adult life trying to be TBM for my parents, in-laws, bishop, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Disclaimer: May be insensitive
Before I resigned, When I was going through what you were going through before, ie, obsessed with church stuff, I went to the EQP because I was a EQ teacher and told him everything. He loved the discussions I provoked in class (eg. God commands us to be perfect, but does he REALLY want us to be?).
He said if I could keep to the manual that he had no problem letting me continue to teach. The next week he said they would be releasing me. Probably talked to the bishop, I suppose. My only point is: there are parents who may feel differently about their daughters being in your class if you disclosed your current state of thinking/testimony. I think there’s an ethical question to be asked. People choose organized religion for different reasons but there is a reasonable expectation in a rather orthodox organized religion that group think is valued and promoted.
Sorry about all the bad spelling, I’m not feeling it tonight.
jmb275 wrote:The idea that God tells us things that don’t work out so we can learn seems like a cruel trick. Either that or God just isn’t really doing the telling (which is my opinion).
That concept goes to the very core of who/what God is? Or who/what you think He is? At some level, everyone is led by God. If you believe in a conscience that generally makes a human understand basic right from wrong. Maybe that’s all that God is. As we develop our understanding of right and wrong, then our “God” grows and develops inside us. And we can then experience a greater amount of joy or a higher plane of happiness. Maybe……
Sorry to insert a “philosophy of man” notion here but I can’t help but interject that there is a spirit of this law that certainly supersedes the letter of the law: ethics. In fact the ethicist at the NYTimes did an article recently, you can read it on the NYT website. He even mentioned the “hiding Jews from Nazis” analogy and showed that the ethical act of hiding the Jews overwhelms the argument for never lying. I agree with hawkgrrrl, “bearing false witness” is most likely a legalese term as the Ten Commandments were most likely the “law of the land” in a very legal sense of the term. (Which is why the separation between church and state is so important, imo)
Heber13 wrote:Could the church’s open involvement with Prop 8 be that if overturned and same-sex marriage allowed, then the Church (by law) would have to allow homosexual marriages in temples or else be subject to anti-descrimination laws?
There’s two ways the church can go, imo, and one will damage the right of religious expression and one will safeguard it.
Current path is very similar to priesthood ban; at some point the Supreme Court will count this as discrimination and the church will be forced to change under the threat of no more tax-exempt status.
OR, the church could get ahead of this curve and fight for freedom of religious expression by pushing for a change in the laws with respect to the word “marriage”. This is how other countries have handled it. If two people want to get “married” they get a civil union license from the state. For most that’s it, but for the religious, they can then go get married by their respective clergy, but this marriage is only ceremonial; clergy do not have the power from the state to legally create a civil union. In countries where this is the law, the church waives the one year wait period to get sealed in the temple.
The future of this legal battle is almost assuredly going to be over the word “marriage”. As that term has legal ramifications (nearly 1,000 uses in federal law) the equal access clause of the constitution will force the supreme court to recognize this discrimination (in time).
btw, I’m not a lawyer, armchair quarterback, yes, lawyer, no.
Final thought: The church could get WAY, WAY, WAY out in front of this and recognize that eternal marriage is just that: eternal. Ray even mentioned in a post over on the JS thread that we have no idea how creation of spirits may happen in the next life, does gender matter, etc. A commitment between two people who would like to be together for eternity would be blessed by God, in my oh so very humble opinion.
mormonheretic wrote:How do you interpret faith in your life? Are you more scientifically inclined, so faith doesn’t have a place in your life, or does it have a place?
I’m not curt but I’m curious what you mean? What would JS have thought of your question? Not what he would have said, but would have thought. He had an uncanny knack of having all of the answers (kinderhook). Did he transcend faith due to his knowledge?
Old-Timer wrote:What if, for the future of the Church as a growing organization, prophets sometimes are inspired to do things that don’t make a lot of sense in the short-term but which pay great dividends in the long-term?
I’ll agree with you that this view IS very cynical. I understand your point completely and agree with you and Heber about the practical aspects of it as it relates to PR, etc.
Otoh, there are 14 year old boys in Happy Valley contemplating suicide due to this PR. I know that statement is a form of fear-mongering and I would be hesitant to use it as a rebuttal to your much more practical tone, but I feel like that issue is lost in the political posturing of the church. I hope to not use emotionally charged references in future posts.
Old-Timer wrote:Personally, no matter how anyone feels about the initiatives themselves, I actually like the fact that the Church only gets involved in issues they think they have a chance of winning.
The problem, politically, is that this is a loser issue. A repeal Prop 8 will be on the ballot in CA every two years until it’s repealed and that’s just a matter of time. Judging by the exit polling, it will probably happen in 2010. (African-Americans turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama and they voted yes on Prop 8 by 35-40% margin)
What will the church do when it gets on the ballot in Utah? It’ll happen in the next 10-15 years. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court could get involved before and make it all moot, just as they did on the miscegenation issue. Btw, if you want to know the probable trajectory of SSM, study the miscegenation process.
Loving v. State of VirginiaDo we want members of the church spending millions on pointless campaigns? Members in CA donated roughly $40million and in AZ roughly $20million on the respective campaigns in 2008.
jmb275 wrote:swimordie are you in CA then?
Actually, I’m in Arizona where prop 102 was exactly the same as prop 8 and the only other place the church did their underground fundraising for the respective campaigns. btw, there were like, 7 different ballot issues about abortion in other states and the church did not fundraise for any of these.
Quote:just me
Oh, and I admire your courage for going to church even though you have resigned! Do you find it difficult or awkward?
Actually, everything’s been fine. I often get the sense that people respect the gravity of my decision and I haven’t felt any negative ‘vibes’. Interestingly, I’ve been married for 13 years and can count on one hand the number of times we’ve been home taught but since I resigned, we’ve had HT’s every month!
Also, being in Arizona, I’m sure alot of members were conflicted about Prop 102 so it would be dangerous for anyone to speak up pro or con. Or, most agree with me and don’t know what they can do about it. “So let it be written, so let it be done.” Anyone else notice that disagreeing with the brethren never happens? (at least where I’ve been to church)
This is what I wrote in the new thread on SSM/Prop 8: I’m so proud of myself for getting an intro thread moved.
In response to Heber13 and the question of why I felt morally obligated to resign:
Two reasons– first, as an imperfect devoted follower of Christ’s teachings, I feel that He would never disqualify a person the opportunity for the fulness of the gospel (especially eternal companionship). I know He loves every person unconditionally and I believe that He allows us to become who we are and, in that sense, He “created” us. A fellow human who is naturally attracted to the same sex is the creation of a loving Heavenly Father. He accepts them as He created them and expects them to find love, happiness, service in the “state” that they are in. NOT to try to “fix” the “condition”, or “overcome” the “struggle”. Those are, frankly, bigoted ideas. A bigot is a person who feels justified in deeming that another human being is somehow “broken” or “incomplete” or “not quite human” or “unnatural”. Nazi’s killed the disabled as well as Jews, homosexuals, gypsys, etc.
The church’s official position on homosexuality (which they have posted on lds.org) is essentially that homosexuality is some sort of “disability”, akin to being blind; that it is a struggle to overcome just like someone with say cystic fibrosis, and that many people with SSA can lead meaningful lives in the church by staying celibate for life or discovering a way to still get married, have kids, and lead a “normal” life.
God created the condition of homosexuality in the same way that he created heterosexuality. Just as he created the races, the languages, genders, etc. In my heart, I believe that the church left Christ on this topic and I chose, for myself, to follow the Christ that I’ve always tried to follow. In fact, I tell people that when they ask: I feel that the church left me, not that I left the church. (I am fully aware of the egotistic nature of that comment)
Second, as I’ve noticed by reading many of the posts on this forum, alot of you are politically libertarian even if you don’t admit it. I am too and feel strongly that the more that religion inserts itself into the civic discourse the greater the danger for the loss of religious liberty in the long run. The church is opening itself up to government oversight, regulation, etc. and potentially the loss of tax-exempt status by its political posture. The church could never have been founded, the gospel restored without the religious liberty protection of the constitution (in spite of the trampling of the right by some citizens of missouri, illinois, etc.) Which, to bring it full circle, is why the church’s current “doctrinal” stance and political position on this issue is so ironic.
IMHO, needless to say.
I’m so proud of myself for getting an intro thread moved. In response to Heber13 and the question of why I felt morally obligated to resign:
Two reasons– first, as an imperfect devoted follower of Christ’s teachings, I feel that He would never disqualify a person the opportunity for the fulness of the gospel (especially eternal companionship). I know He loves every person unconditionally and I believe that He allows us to become who we are and, in that sense, He “created” us. A fellow human who is naturally attracted to the same sex is the creation of a loving Heavenly Father. He accepts them as He created them and expects them to find love, happiness, service in the “state” that they are in. NOT to try to “fix” the “condition”, or “overcome” the “struggle”. Those are, frankly, bigoted ideas. A bigot is a person who feels justified in deeming that another human being is somehow “broken” or “incomplete” or “not quite human” or “unnatural”. Nazi’s killed the disabled as well as Jews, homosexuals, gypsys, etc.
The church’s official position on homosexuality (which they have posted on lds.org) is essentially that homosexuality is some sort of “disability”, akin to being blind; that it is a struggle to overcome just like someone with say cystic fibrosis, and that many people with SSA can lead meaningful lives in the church by staying celibate for life or discovering a way to still get married, have kids, and lead a “normal” life.
God created the condition of homosexuality in the same way that he created heterosexuality. Just as he created the races, the languages, genders, etc. In my heart, I believe that the church left Christ on this topic and I chose, for myself, to follow the Christ that I’ve always tried to follow. In fact, I tell people that when they ask: I feel that the church left me, not that I left the church. (I am fully aware of the egotistic nature of that comment)
Second, as I’ve noticed by reading many of the posts on this forum, alot of you are politically libertarian even if you don’t admit it. I am too and feel strongly that the more that religion inserts itself into the civic discourse the greater the danger for the loss of religious liberty in the long run. The church is opening itself up to government oversight, regulation, etc. and potentially the loss of tax-exempt status by its political posture. The church could never have been founded, the gospel restored without the religious liberty protection of the constitution (in spite of the trampling of the right by some citizens of missouri, illinois, etc.) Which, to bring it full circle, is why the church’s current “doctrinal” stance and political position on this issue is so ironic.
IMHO, needless to say.
