"Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS Apostle reiterates"

[Suzie]

 

 

But I thought the premise of this discussion was that gay marriage supporters were living in fear of Stasi-like, rat-out-your-best-friend-for-a-thought-crime environment.  If one doesn't believe that that is the atmosphere of modern Mormonism, then Christofferson's statement merits a "meh".  If one does believe that that is the atmosphere of modern Mormonism, then I don't see how Christofferson's statements are nearly enough.)

 

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.

 

Maybe this goes into the fundamental differences as to how/why people communicate.  The idea of saying something just to "be heard" without at lest hoping that someone might agree with you, is absolutely foreign to my way of thinking.

 

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.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

I think that's classic herd mentality. It's not a lot of fun to be a conservative in the bloggernacle, either. :)

  

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.

Hmm . . . I'm not convinced . . . (But, wait--were you trying? )

[Suzie]

 

Hmm . . . I'm not convinced . . . (But, wait--were you trying? )

 

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

[NeuroTypical]

I've been in bishopric meetings, gone on visits to see the Do-Not-Contact people, and been on the internet around mormons.  Here is a partial list of folks that have remained on the rolls of the church as members.  Some I've met personally, some I've heard discussed in bishopric meetings, some told their story online and I believe them.

 

Met online:

* BYU college kids supportive of legalizing marijuana.

* People so passionately on different sides of the illegal immigration issue, they offered to go fight each other to settle things.

 

 

Met in real life:

* Many totally inactive and totally uninterested people with obvious Word of Wisdom issues (i.e. come to the door with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth, open bottle of alcohol on the table).  

* Lots and lots and lots and lots of people, confused at who we were and why we were knocking on their door, totally uninterested in anything we had to say.

* Several people who do not believe in God, or the truth claims of the church. 

* A guy living with his shack-up girlfriend and their kid.

* A guy who got a divorce from his wife, and is currently engaged to be married to his guy friend.

 

 

Heard discussed in Bishopric meeting:

* An active lesbian, living with her girlfriend.

* A lady who had become an ordained minister of another church.

 

These last two folks (and several others), the bishop was approaching with an outstretched hand, to get a read on their feelings about their membership in the church.  On more than one occasion, I've helped deliver a message of "I'm sorry we bothered you.  You're listed as a member of our church.  If you'd like to get your name removed, you only need to [X]."

 

The gay guy engaged to be married, may be heading for some church discipline, but as far as Facebook tells me, my buddy is still a member. 

 

I've been involved in 3 or so different disciplinary councils (in capacity as ward clerk or some such).  None of them were due to thoughts or beliefs - all were due to actions.  Adultery, premarital sex, and teaching false doctrine.

Edited March 19, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

, and teaching false doctrine.

 

I think this is the one that's been "clarified", as some would view posting a view on Facebook as "teaching false doctrine". And such an idea well may have been considered teaching false doctrine 20 years ago, had some medium existed for publishing such sentiment. So this does, I suppose, clarify that Facebook posts don't count (though I suspect one could post in such a way and with such frequency so as to still get themselves into a disciplinary council).

[NeuroTypical]

I agree that things have been clarified.  But of course Facebook posts can count.  

 

Example of not teaching false doctrine on Facebook: "I think guys should be able to marry guys."

 

Example of teaching false doctrine on Facebook: "I'm a Mormon, and the church is wrong about this one.  Joseph Smith had no problem with gays marrying."

[skalenfehl]

So what this boils down to, if I understand this current issue, is that it is now safe to openly support one iniquity without losing one's temple recommend? Maybe approved isn't the right word...I'm trying to think of a more appropriate word. Sanctioned? I think sanction is appropriate.

 

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

Is Elder Christofferson saying that it is now ok to answer yes? It sounds to me like a definite yes. You can express support on Facebook, march in parades, etc. That's the impression I got from the video interview.

 

With this new precedent, will members have the same safety to openly support any other sin or iniquity from losing one's temple recommend? If it's not okay to "support" one iniquity, why is it okay to "support" another? Is the only answer because our leaders say so? Does that make it right in the sight of God? What a slippery slope we have been thrust onto.

[carlimac]

Here's the distinction I think needs to be made. Rather than a blanket statement of  support for gays getting married, I've always wished the question would be "Do you approve of gays with in the church, who are full believers in and active participants  getting married to someone of their same gender, and still be worthy to go to the temple?"  My answer would be no. That's obvious. But luckily, I'm not nor will I ever be a bishop so I don't have to judge anyone. 

 

Do I like the idea of of gay marriage in general? No,  but there are lots of things I don't approve of that my opinion doesn't mean squat about. I don't necessarily approve of drinking alcohol, smoking, pot, watching anything more than PG-13 rated movies. Tough beans. If that's what other people feel comfortable doing, that's their business.  Should gay people be able to marry. Well, for pity sakes, if they REALLY want to, have at it. If that piece of paper saying they are "married" makes them happier...well what ever. My not liking the idea of it isn't going to stop them from breaking the fundamental rules of the universe, which they are already doing most likely. The horse is already out of the barn and all the way to the other side of the neighbor's pasture by now on that one. 

 

 

Should gays be able to adopt children? NO NO NO!  But for some reason I don't understand, that has never come into question legally.

 

And the last question- should gays be able to introduce the person they "married" as  their "husband?  Perhaps in the silliness of Dr. Suessland, maybe. It just sounds so nonsensical.  How about a lesbian introducing the woman she "married" as her wife?   My answer- let's just pretend she's your college roommate and call it good.  

Edited March 20, 2015 by carlimac

[carlimac]

OK, so it's safe to say, " I approve of gay marriage" on facebook. Now I just wonder what the motivation is, as a Latter Day Saint, to want to make that public statement. 

 

I have relatives that do but they are mostly "Millenials" who enjoy the shock value of showing of their liberalism. They are also the ones more likely to use profanity on facebook. I believe they don't care what others think of them. They are closer to the fringe than they care to admit.

 

I have a gay friend, no longer in the church at all who of course is very pro-gay marriage. He's "married" to his...friend...whatever.   And his family, mostly active LDS are pro-gay marriage, too. At least pro- HIS marriage. I suppose that approval carries over to his friends and associates who are also gay. But I wonder if they think it's OK beyond their acquaintances. Do they really believe this is what's best for society?

 

I can understand why my friends who aren't religious put up that marriage equality sign.  But my curiosity, (which always gets me in trouble) makes me wonder what point any LDS person is trying to make by being boldly pro-gay marriage in public. 

Edited March 20, 2015 by carlimac

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Now I just wonder what the motivation is, as a Latter Day Saint, to want to make that public statement. 

 

There are likely many different reasons.  Most common I would guess would be people who have loved ones that struggle with homosexuality and therefore . . .  I would go on, but I don't want to appear to be pushing acceptance of gay marriage.   :)   I'm just trying to say there is not necessarily an "agenda" involved.

Edited March 20, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[carlimac]

There are likely many different reasons.  Most common I would guess would be people who have loved ones that struggle with homosexuality and therefore . . .  I would go on, but I don't want to appear to be pushing acceptance of gay marriage.   :)   I'm just trying to say there is not necessarily an "agenda" involved.

 

So defending a loved one makes sense, as long as that loved one isn't trying to live a hypocritical lifestyle.   I'm not saying there has to be an agenda. I'm just simply wondering how a member of the church 1) arrives at the point of accepting gay marriage as good and 2) wants other members of the church to know that and throws caution to the wind by announcing it. I just can't get my head around it.

 

I mean can you imagine a faithful member of the church posting on facebook, "I'm all for everyone having an affair if they want one. "  or "Hey I believe in gambling. It's good and wholesome."    

Edited March 20, 2015 by carlimac

[Vort]

No, no, no, carlimac. It's not that we believe having an affair is good. Rather, we simply want to support our loved ones in their extramarital affairs, and hope they will find great joy and fulfillment in their adulteries. Same with gambling; it's not that the gambling is good, per se, but when people have made the decision to gamble away their life savings, we need to be able to extend our approval and show them through our actions that we have no problem whatsoever with their decision.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, though:

The LDS Church's position on illegal immigration to the US is, frankly, probably a lot softer than a lot of us (as conservatives) would like for it to be.

Do we feel comfortable expressing our hard-line positions on immigration via social media, in spite of the fact that they might not align with the church's political position?

Should we?

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, though:

The LDS Church's position on illegal immigration to the US is, frankly, probably a lot softer than a lot of us (as conservatives) would like for it to be.

Do we feel comfortable expressing our hard-line positions on immigration via social media, in spite of the fact that they might not align with the church's political position?

Should we?

 

Is immigration a moral issue?

[Just_A_Guy]

*Shrug* The Church seems to think so.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

 

 

 

 

Should gays be able to adopt children? NO NO NO!  But for some reason I don't understand, that has never come into question legally.

 

 

So gay people can't be good parents? or are you in favor of more parent less children?

 

 

 

And the last question- should gays be able to introduce the person they "married" as  their "husband?  Perhaps in the silliness of Dr. Suessland, maybe. It just sounds so nonsensical.  How about a lesbian introducing the woman she "married" as her wife?   My answer- let's just pretend she's your college roommate and call it good.  

You can pretend that they are roommates if you want but if I was married to another guy I would introduce him as my spouse. 

[omegaseamaster75]

Is immigration a moral issue?

Can I be issued a temple recommend if I am an illegal?  

 

the answer is yes, and I don't have a problem with it but many might

Edited March 20, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

 

*Shrug* The Church seems to think so.

 

At it's core, you're comparing someone moving from one place to another (take laws out of the equation and there is no morality issue) to gay cohabitation (take laws out of the equation and it's still immoral). God's law vs. man's law. Not sure there's enough equivalency there to support the example.

[Litzy]

No, no, no, carlimac. It's not that we believe having an affair is good. Rather, we simply want to support our loved ones in their extramarital affairs, and hope they will find great joy and fulfillment in their adulteries. Same with gambling; it's not that the gambling is good, per se, but when people have made the decision to gamble away their life savings, we need to be able to extend our approval and show them through our actions that we have no problem whatsoever with their decision.

 

Of course, it's not good when our loved ones do it. But we love them, so of course they get to be a moral/ethical exception. It's all relative.

 

If someone else entirely was having an affair or gambling, that of course would be much more wrong.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Litzy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, though:

The LDS Church's position on illegal immigration to the US is, frankly, probably a lot softer than a lot of us (as conservatives) would like for it to be.

Do we feel comfortable expressing our hard-line positions on immigration via social media, in spite of the fact that they might not align with the church's political position?

Should we?

 

Touche JAG. 

 

 

 

At it's core, you're comparing someone moving from one place to another (take laws out of the equation and there is no morality issue) to gay cohabitation (take laws out of the equation and it's still immoral). God's law vs. man's law. Not sure there's enough equivalency there to support the example.

 

 

But if immigration so much less a big deal than why not simply align your view with that of the Leadership?  I'm not trying to argue, this is a sincere question.  

I completely agree with the Leadership's position on immigration, BTW.  :)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So defending a loved one makes sense, as long as that loved one isn't trying to live a hypocritical lifestyle.   I'm not saying there has to be an agenda. I'm just simply wondering how a member of the church 1) arrives at the point of accepting gay marriage as good and 2) wants other members of the church to know that and throws caution to the wind by announcing it. I just can't get my head around it.

 

I mean can you imagine a faithful member of the church posting on facebook, "I'm all for everyone having an affair if they want one. "  or "Hey I believe in gambling. It's good and wholesome."    

 

If you really want to know send me a PM.  I'll talk to you about it.  I don't want to get into a debate.  And I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view.  

[carlimac]

Of course, it's not good when our loved ones do it. But we love them, so of course they get to be a moral/ethical exception. It's all relative.

 

If someone else entirely was having an affair or gambling, that of course would be much more wrong.

 

Yeah, this is a tough one. So far I'm not in this situation but who's to say I won't be with grandchildren coming. Looks like all my children have turned out straight. Trying hard to project myself into that scenario, I still don't think I could support gay marriage, especially on facebook if it was my child or grandchild.  To a much lesser extent, gay friends who are now married and say they are exquisitely happy...still can't support it. Sorry. Although many of our mutual friends who are active LDS did congratulate him, I'd feel like a hypocrite if I did.  

[The Folk Prophet]

But if immigration so much less a big deal than why not simply align your view with that of the Leadership?  I'm not trying to argue, this is a sincere question.  

 

My opinion (may not surprise you) is just that. There is no reason to not simply align one's view with that of the Leadership.

 

Of course, that is beyond the point I'm making to JaG, which is nothing more or less than that his comparison doesn't quite work for me.

[carlimac]

So gay people can't be good parents? or are you in favor of more parent less children?

 

 

 

Of course they can be good parents. Not taking the bait omega. 

[Just_A_Guy]

TFP, I think it's all in the phrasing.  I do take a hard-line position on immigration based, not on what I deem to be "moral", but what might be termed "political expediency"--I think it's in the national interest to preserve a distinctly "American" culture and to not have an immigration system that gives preference to those who disregard the law.

 

On the other hand, the Church might well say that it's immoral to break up families, or to uproot them and send them back to the parents' nation of origin.