Congratulate or ignore?

[skippy740]

"Only the Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must." Obiwan Kenobi :)

[Roseslipper]

im not going to take the time to finish reading this. But I wish everyone happiness, theirs nothing wrong with that. you can dislike the sin but its not up to us to judge but love the person no matter what the sin or sins might be. So I would probably congradulate them...why not...there not married in the sight of God only in the land of the law..Again we are not to judge, for we dont understand all....

[Soulsearcher]

yeah, that is one of my fears from going to an LDS church and perhaps getting converted. I have a lot of gay and atheist friends... Those are conversations I don't want to have lol Religion is not exactly a positive topic in our conversation circles

While in my experiences that's pretty much the view of most mormons in the communities i've been in, i've always looked at it as a time to try and clear up some misunderstandings. First reaction i get from guys i'm dating or hanging around with when i tell them I spend a lot of time with or talking to mormons is very negative, but over time and a lot of conversations their views tend to change quite a bit. Actually gets to be kinda fun dispelling myths and gossip.

[Lakumi]

While in my experiences that's pretty much the view of most mormons in the communities i've been in, i've always looked at it as a time to try and clear up some misunderstandings. First reaction i get from guys i'm dating or hanging around with when i tell them I spend a lot of time with or talking to mormons is very negative, but over time and a lot of conversations their views tend to change quite a bit. Actually gets to be kinda fun dispelling myths and gossip.

I know Mormons are not hateful or bigoted people, they are some of the nicest folk I've met, but I think the topic would be more about me and wanting religion in my life, rather then which religion it was, that's what I assume, from what I know about them

[Guest]

I didn't read the whole thread. Just read up to Soul's post on how I wanted people to react when I got baptized LDS.

Here's my response to the OP and to Soul:

- You can be polite without being plastic. Was it beefche that gave the perfect response? - if you feel congratulations are in order, then congratulate. If you don't feel that congratulations are in order, don't congratulate.

- When I got married to a white LDS young man my family ostracized me. How do I feel? Okay with it. Completely. I know my family and why they did it. It was my choice to defy their "wisdom" and I shouldn't expect them to put on a smiling face and attend the courthouse event when I knew in their hearts they feared for my salvation. And their fears are all realized completely when I got baptized LDS which to them, as devout Catholics, is the greatest of all disappointments. And their disdain for my marrying an American gets justified when American culture clashes with our Filiipino one. It was my choice to marry an American. It is then my problem to meld the cultures, not theirs. If they don't want to have to put up with it, I shouldn't expect them to do so.

I know this. I don't fault them for it. It is what they believe and it is what they know. If they would have congratulated me on my baptism I would have seen it for what it is - Plastic. They're not happy for me. I don't see why they would be. But, I know that the reason they will not congratulate me for all these things is because they LOVE ME and CARE FOR ME so much that they can't bear for me to go down the "wrong path".

So, if any of my close friends get in a homosexual marriage, I will not pretend to be happy for them. But, I will express as much as I am able, how much I still love them despite of our differences. It is up to them what they do with how I express myself.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, you said in one post what I failed to communicate in my half dozen plus ones. Spot on!

[Finrock]

Good morning Twisted_Fairytales. I hope you are doing well today! :)

THEIR happiness as they are obviously happy and do not share the same view. Perhaps some religions view us that way, bit it doesn't stop us from being happy or believing what we are doing is right.

I don't know what "their" happiness means and I don't know that their happiness is so "obvious". To clarify, are you suggesting that happiness is relative? That people can be happy regardless of what they choose to do as long as its what they like and what they believe in?

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

This is a sincere question. Let say that during Jesus's earthly ministry a gay couple got married in Jerusalem, do you think that Jesus would congratulate their marriage?

Regards,

Finrock

[skippy740]

D&c 64:10

10 I, the lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

[Finrock]

Good morning skippy740. I hope you are doing well! :)

D&c 64:10

Is this a response to my posts? If so, how does that relate?

Regards,

Finrock

[skippy740]

I'm saying that the standard for Christ is a different standard for us.

How would Christ react? I don't know. Perhaps "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." A prayer on their behalf, not casting judgment in their faces?

Christ was seen with those that needed a physician. He said:

Mark 2:17

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

We can also infer with the context of the verses (and other similar verses found in the scriptures) that Christ went where He was wanted and needed. If He was not wanted or needed, He didn't spend time convincing them.

It is my 'assumption' (I really don't like that word) that those who find happiness in sin, are not looking for healing. They consider themselves 'whole', so Christ may not attend, nor choose to preach to them. If they chose the path of repentance, He would be the first to help give an encouraging word... but we're not talking about that step at this time.

How should we react? I think I do know. We can take a cue from how missionaries call others to repentance.

Do missionaries hold signs that say "Repent! For the End is Near!"? No.

Do missionaries yell at others and try to shame them from their sinful ways? No.

They teach and preach, and when the other person feels the spirit, THAT is when they extend a commitment to live by the commandments or extend the invitation for baptism. These invitations are not extended without the Spirit there to instruct and teach.

We can 'preach', but it's up to the Spirit to do the teaching.

So, while we can talk about "WWJD?"... the standard is clearly different for Him than it is for us. The answer to "WWJD?" has always been to "CTR" (Choose the Right).

Edited July 6, 2013 by skippy740

[jerome1232]

Who exactly, is advocating for throwing judgement in anyones face? All I've seen are subtle refusals to praise and call what isn't good, good.

[skippy740]

Good morning Twisted_Fairytales. I hope you are doing well today! :)

I don't know what "their" happiness means and I don't know that their happiness is so "obvious". To clarify, are you suggesting that happiness is relative? That people can be happy regardless of what they choose to do as long as its what they like and what they believe in?

Regards,

Finrock

Yes.

Is the only true definition of happiness that found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I believe that.

But not everyone does.

Some are happy believing in Muslim beliefs.

Some are happy Buddhists.

Some are happy Catholics.

Some are just happy to not be LDS.

How arrogant are we to think that we have the only definition of happiness... and that anyone else that doesn't see it should be denied any well-wishes of them being happy???

We can be nice, polite and kind while not approving or endorsing other people's lifestyle choices.

If we don't, we run the danger of alienating a friend or family member.

I don't think it's that hard of a concept. But then again, we Californians have all kinds of weirdos around us. Maybe we're just more used to it.

[Bini]

Bravo, bravo, bravo! Some excellent responses and I couldn't agree more! (You know who you are and I wish we had more people like you that were tolerant. Love the sinner, hate the sin -- amen! We're all sinners, yet we all sin differently, and you grasp that! Bravo, bravo, bravo!)

[Anddenex]

President Boyd K. Packer,

Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity.

[skippy740]

It is my opinion that President Packer's remarks falls into tolerance of a movement, or a 'cause' that is not in harmony with the Gospel. It's easy for another side to say "you ____" because you don't agree with them. So they play the 'tolerance' card to 'guilt' others who have stricter principles into weakening them to allow and advance their ways as moral, correct and even 'better' than what the Lord had intended.

We aren't talking about addressing a movement or cause in this thread. We are talking about individuals with whom we have a personal relationship with on some level and they want to share something that they think brings them happiness with you.

[Lakumi]

It is my opinion that President Packer's remarks falls into tolerance of a movement, or a 'cause' that is not in harmony with the Gospel. It's easy for another side to say "you ____" because you don't agree with them. So they play the 'tolerance' card to 'guilt' others who have stricter principles into weakening them to allow and advance their ways as moral, correct and even 'better' than what the Lord had intended.

no people play the tolerance card so other people don't kill them. a lot of humans like to simply kill people they are intolerant to.

them, making others guilty, often betters society, though at the time, it was said, say giving women or black people the right to vote, would ruin society as we knew it.

Edited July 7, 2013 by skippy740

[Windseeker]

no people play the tolerance card so other people don't kill them. a lot of humans like to simply kill people they are intolerant to.

them, making others guilty, often betters society, though at the time, it was said, say giving women or black people the right to vote, would ruin society as we knew it.

Don't you think that's a bit overplayed now days?

[Lakumi]

Don't you think that's a bit overplayed now days?

no, because there are still people being denied rights

history will repeat itself unless the cycle is broken, we, as a society and species, need to learn from the past, not bury and forget it.

[Anddenex]

no people play the tolerance card so other people don't kill them. a lot of humans like to simply kill people they are intolerant to.

This is easily a false statement.

them, making others guilty, often betters society, though at the time, it was said, say giving women or black people the right to vote, would ruin society as we knew it.

Not the same argument.

[prisonchaplain]

Jonah prophesied against the sins of a community. Jesus told the adulteress to sin no more. He impolitely mentioned the Samaritan woman's five previous husbands and current shack up. Paul tells a group of Gentiles that there altar to the unknown God is all about the God of Israel--and of Jesus. He says there ignorance was understandable--but now that the truth is revealed, their polytheism can no longer be tolerated. The disciples dare to cast out of a prophetess the demon that gave her the insight.

Christ followers are commanded to be salt and light, while the time remains. Salt stings. It also cleanses. In word and deed we are to exhibit Christ and his standards. Sometimes that will be uncomfortable. Those who love the darkness will curse the light.

I suspect the day is coming when our churches will be under attack. Why should Christian churches not pay taxes? They are just a private club of people choosing to associate--many of them joined by homophobic beliefs that they blanket with spiritual language. We'll tolerate them, but why give them financial breaks?

What? Their clergy refuse to conduct same-sex marriage? This is discrimination. They should be charged. (Note that many smaller churches will rent their facilities out for marriages to non-members).

Still...I agree we must do as Jesus...not hate the sinners. But, in our quest to love and understand and empathize--we still must hate the sin. And, when given the opportunity, we must advocate for godly standards.

I will smile to my same-sex friend when the announcement comes. I might say, "I hope everything turns out okay." I will pray for his salvation, and for that of his partner. And, I would hope he would not press me by saying, "You're okay with this right? You bless me, right?"

[Anddenex]

It is my opinion that President Packer's remarks falls into tolerance of a movement, or a 'cause' that is not in harmony with the Gospel. It's easy for another side to say "you ____" because you don't agree with them. So they play the 'tolerance' card to 'guilt' others who have stricter principles into weakening them to allow and advance their ways as moral, correct and even 'better' than what the Lord had intended.

We aren't talking about addressing a movement or cause in this thread. We are talking about individuals with whom we have a personal relationship with on some level and they want to share something that they think brings them happiness with you.

Is not gay marriage a cause, and is not gay marriage the result of the thread? Do we congratulate a friend who has entered into a relationship which is not in harmony with the Gospel?

Did not Bini's comment imply those who are like PC are less tolerant and less loving? Thus, an effort to weaken the stand of PC and others who would disagree with this movement?

President Packer's comment seems right in line as Bini shares, "I wish we had more people like you that were tolerant."

[drham3rd]

My earthly father taught me to be respectful of others always regardless of who they are and my heavenly father taught me not to judge others. Thus, I would wish them well and wish them much happiness...leave it at that

[skippy740]

Is not gay marriage a cause, and is not gay marriage the result of the thread? Do we congratulate a friend who has entered into a relationship which is not in harmony with the Gospel?

I had a new thought on this, and maybe by changing the scenario a bit, we can get a new perspective.

I have an uncle who is a heavy drinker and be rather obnoxious. He is responsible when he drinks, but the amount he does drink makes me think that he must be an alcoholic.

Attending functions at his home makes me uncomfortable - particularly when the 'party' is starting and going. Of course, the other people that he invites seem to love such an atmosphere... but I'd rather pass on that.

But he's my uncle and I love him.

What do we do when he has a birthday?

We come early, wish him a happy birthday, chat for a while and leave before the party starts.

We don't celebrate his party with his style and to participate in the 'revelry'. But we do show appreciation for him, even though he is not living by the Word of Wisdom standards that we are taught.

Could we not do something similar for someone we know who is entering into a same-sex relationship? We don't have to approve or celebrate their choices, but we can show that we appreciate THEM with a small gift and make a quiet and discreet exit?

I think they'll realize that we wouldn't be comfortable in attending the festivities, but we would be showing a great deal of class and they would appreciate the kind gestures.

Just my opinion.

[Maureen]

...And, I would hope he would not press me by saying, "You're okay with this right? You bless me, right?"

And I would hope that after you explain to him in a loving way why you cannot bless the marriage that he would understand.

M.