Suzie

Great point. I think it is important to ask clarification instead of automatically assuming bad intention, that's a good thing. Having said that, there are times when there is really no misunderstanding. I have read a few times posters here for example, calling others "liars" and other adjectives that I think are clearly a personal attack and shouldn't have room here. I believe people who uses such adjectives to describe others do not know how to express themselves properly and they resort in personal attacks to be in control of the discussion. Sometimes, they are not even breaking any site rules but the condescending tone is evident. And these are the same posters having issues with other posters in a lot of threads, and definitely not a one time scenario. I agree with your point about forgiving others, it is important and good but let's be careful not to mean that we should allow people to belittle others and our course of action should be telling the person receiving the bad treatment to just forgive. No, I believe the persons in question should do some self-analysis and try to rectify certain behaviors.

Oh no, don't take me wrong. I believe being passionate about our beliefs is a good thing! And yes part of a debate as well. I welcome it. But we have to be careful, being passionate isn't an excuse to be discourteous, it doesn't mean to depreciate or become uncivil . That's the issue I have when genuine people wish to establish an intelligent debate and these things get in the middle.

Not necessarily. One could agree, disagree or take no position/stand at all. You can check over my original post with regards to the context of the question.

Not conflicted here. I wouldn't oppose neither I would be particularly concerned about safety but I agree about unisex bathrooms.

Loved the idea. One of my good friends from Church many years ago, organized a surprise "tea" party/baby shower for me and I thought it was great.

lol Well, It was a rhetorical question but of course, you are free to answer. And the "where we stand?" wasn't about Gay Marriage and whether we support it or not, but more about where we stand with regards to Elder Christofferson's words.

Nah, you have some tough competitors. lol

What is NO contention: Just_A_Guy and I debating and disagreeing in a lot of things and yet keeping it always respectful and civil. So far so good. lol What is contention: People FIGHTING hard to be right rather than exchange views and try to learn from others. Silly, in my view.

And you know what? This is something I have been saying for AGES. *We* need to do our own thinking and soul searching on this issue. Someone could easily take Elder Christofferson's words and run with it to support their view point or if tomorrow another leader says the opposite, another member might do the same to support their view and so on. Where do *we* stand?

I just love when Mormons focus so much on being right rather than understand the obvious fact that people who are going through serious challenges in life speak through their pain. And heck yes, you are clueless about what char713 is going through, I know am completely clueless. As a mom of several children with special needs, I always get unwanted "opinions" "advice" from "experts" who don't have a clue about the things I go through on a daily basis. And yes, I wish you would just shut up to be honest because I could care less about your *ihavenocluebutihaveatongueandthatswhyitalk*"opinion". Char 713, to be honest I am speechless about some of the things I read on this thread. I can only say that I am sorry about the things you are going through, I have challenges of my own and I work on a daily basis with people who are going through a lot of pain in their lives. Do you have anyone to talk to? Like a therapist?

I watched the whole interview, the impression I got was that the Church has no qualms (his words) about members thinking differently on this issue, the Church expects it and embraces diversity of opinion. He gave the example of several Utahn legislators who are members of the Church and yet they have different opinions about it. He also stated that the Church doesn't expect everyone to play the same tune and how boring it would be if they did. And basically he said a member is free to support Gay Marriage and advocate it through Social media and other venues and they do not consider it an organized effort neither an attack to the Church. So what I got is that a member can support it and advocate it and the Church is okay with that BUT the issue can become one if the member in question now creates an organization or is part of an organization that promotesthe idea that the Church and its leaders got it all wrong and they demand the Church to support Gay Marriage etc. The latter might cause someone to have a disciplinary counsel.

I don't have to try...read my signature.

Well, I can only speak for myself. Christofferson's statement doesn't comfort me but I am glad for those who do find comfort. I'm very okay with openly saying that I support gay marriage. Personally, I experienced first-hand what is like to think differently from mainstream Mormonism but didn't stop me from accepting my views and most importantly, did not try to change it to please others. Having said all that, I think the internet gives a general sense of anonymity so a lot of the bashing that occurs with regards to this topic happens online. Oh, I agree but I do not think that hoping that someone out there agrees with you means you are actively persuading them. I think there are two completely different things. For the first, I think it is a very natural human attribute to hope that others agree with our viewpoint. The second however, indicates that one is actively engaging in acts of convincing, inducing, coercing, etc the other individual/s into agreeing with us.

But that's just it. Why would you need to "drag" a gay marriage supporter back onto "unsafe ground"? I mean, I don't see anything inherently wrong with your last two questions to be honest. The first one can invite/open communication between the two opposite sides on this issue and if done civilly, can become an interesting exchange of opinions (but we know it doesn't end up well most of the time online and offline) However, the last question would indicate that the Gay Marriage supporter is trying to persuade you to support Gay Marriage just like he/she does but not every Gay Marriage supporter wants to go out there and "Preach" how everyone should accept it and persuade others to follow them. Some of us support Gay Marriage and we are perfectly okay with those who do not. As a matter of fact, it doesn't anger me or bring any sort of emotion if you disagree on the issue. Just like I respect your view ("your" generally speaking) I just expect the same courtesy. :)

I see it being used if someone posts on Facebook that they support Gay Marriage and they get bashed by others telling them they shouldn't be posting things like that online, etc that their membership is in jeopardy, etc etc etc. Even though what Elder Christofferson said isn't nothing new really, I'm glad he clarified the point for the few that felt the need to warn others about something that cannot happen.

Actually, I agree. But I think we shouldn't try to read more than what Elder Christofferson said. He simply made a statement of fact or clarified a misconception that members of the Church cannot openly support gay marriage on social media because they could lose their membership. It is clear for everyone now (if any had any doubts or were told by others that they could be subjected to Church discipline that it is not the case).

To be honest, I don't think this was meant to give comfort or to receive comfort. Unfortunately, we have a lot of members of our Church who are constantly scrutinizing others for their beliefs online and telling them that if they say X about gay marriage on social media, if they say they support it specifically, they could get excommunicated, etc. Elder Christofferson is simply clarifying that it is not the case, he is basically saying that they could write in HUGE capital letters on Facebook, Twitter, etc that they support Gay Marriage and they are not going to be subjected to Church discipline. Whether people like it or not, the Church isn't the Gestapo and we are FREE THINKERS. I support gay marriage but I think everyone here knew that already.

Srmaher, there are two rules to follow: 1. You are just a human. 2. See #1. Do your VERY best and there will be no regrets but if you need to recharge your batteries, don't feel guilty. A happier dad means happier children!

Elder Quentin L. Cook stated (and before some of you jump on me, I am NOT saying this quote states we should attend gay weddings but it tells us how we, as Latter-Day Saints, should be towards people choosing to live an homosexual lifestyle and not just merely someone struggling with same sex attraction but not acting upon those feelings. Then each one of us can ponder on our own and evaluate if we are striving to live by this or not, both in every day life and the way we express ourselves towards gay related topics in the forum.

Well, Donald Paul Sullins is a priest and yes he is also a sociologist but a priest nonetheless who happen to be very involved in anti-gay marriage campaigns, not saying his words are not valuable but I would rather a non-bias source. There have been a few studies with the opposite conclusion. He talks about some of these children having a biological connection with at least one parent of the same sex couples but we have no more information given?. Perhaps previous relationship issues? Divorce? I could see a child negatively affected by these issues and if we compare them against ANY couple (gay or not gay) that did NOT go through separation or divorce, of course they will be seen as having emotional issues but is it because they are raised by gay parents or is it because of previous challenges?. Were the same sex couples in question even married? How is it that Sullins did not have control over such an important element in a study? The truth of the matter is that so far no one has presented a serious and flawless research methodology about children raised in a household with two homosexual parents and there is a serious and I mean serious lack of scientific data about how these children are doing and how they will turn out to be.

I would agree with you generally speaking but the huge elephant in the middle of the room with this particular book is that it contains porn and we are advised to stay away from porn, we are advised if we are participating in porn we should talk to our Bishop if needed, etc and we were specifically advised against porn in literature: Basically, it is not like "Yeah, it contains porn BUT the story REALLY is about something else". It's like a man/woman saying he/she watches porn NOT for the sex but to watch how pretty the naked bodies of human beings truly are or someone who watches porn to study the mindset of why would any man/woman denigrate themselves to that stage. Hence, I stated earlier in the thread that I know a few people who think that reading porn isn't bad (and they wouldn't call it porn but erotica, because porn sounds so "bad" doesn't it?) but you talk to them about watching porn and they are shocked, I really do not know what the shock is about. Porn is porn, in whatever form.

I would attend for no other reason that if *I* were in the same situation, I would like my loved ones with me at that very important event in my life. I do not believe in imposing my religious views on anyone.

Please do not take personal the following comment, hope I do not sound harsh because it is not my intention and yet I want to make a point. Whether you want to abuse him or not (and even if you might have a medical condition) it does not stop the fact that you are abusing him and certainly does not stop your behavior from affecting him. He certainly does not have to put up with it but he made the choice. Was a good choice? He can only answer that. Professionally speaking, I would never advise anyone to stay in an abusive relationship EVEN if they think they can "help/save" the soul of the person with the issue. I think it is a very dangerous thing to do, specially if the person in question has children. I did not read the books but if Anastasia decided to stay with the guy to try to "help" him while submitting herself to abuse from him then she was indeed enabling the abuse, the purpose behind why she did it is irrelevant.

Me? lol Geez, without wanting to sound sacrilegious, it reminds me to Judas.