How do you treat homosexuals?


Guest teamfamilywall
 Share

Recommended Posts

As you say, perspectives don't mean truth. Ultimately what you interpret and what I interpret from the scriptures are going to be very different and they are perspectives. Your statements sounds as though your interpretation is THE truth. Interpretations abound. 

 

It's not perspective or interpretation that every instance Jesus supposedly "hung out" with anyone, that He also preached truth, called them to repentance, and/or led/set examples of perfect righteousness. That is just the fact of the matter -- not perspective.

 

Now because we do not have the complete and perfect record of everything that Jesus did, it leaves room for presumption as to what he did otherwise, and there is a lot of reading between the lines.

 

My perspective is based on what's in the lines, not on reading between them. Yes, it's still just perspective -- but certainly more justifiable than reading things between the lines that are not in in the lines at all.

 

Sure...everyone has a perspective. That claim, in and of itself, does nothing to justify the validity of one's perspective. What does justify validity is logic, reason, and the teachings on the matter of those in authority.

 

For the most part, we are not meant to self-interpret scripture. That is left to those in authority. As of yet, they have stood firmly against, for example, gay marriage. Until they come out and say that the example of Christ is to be interpreted in support of gay marriage, I'm going to go with what they are teaching and saying. But they also teach compassion, tolerance, and kindness. And of such I am supportive. I am not, however, willing to disregard their other teachings about being selective, being careful who your friends are, standing up with courage for the right, and being bold in our fight against sin. I am not willing to read between the lines of what they say to support some politically correct agenda, or entertain or sympathize with put upon complaints in support of sinful behavior and attitudes.

 

But you're right that we probably mostly agree. Where we adamantly disagree (but I disagree with most on this -- of course the way that most have approached things has been carefully leading the world to hell) is that we should be attending social events in support of things that are immoral to us, that it's more important that no one is offended than it is to speak the truth boldly, or that our primary responsibility in going after the 1 in favor of the 99 is to be buddies with them.

 

I draw a line between kindness and compassion, and repetitive social interaction as "buddies", "friends", "pals", etc. Being friendly to and being friends with is different (though I admit some semantic difficulty here, so hopefully my meaning is clear).

 

If a close friend of mine chooses to engage in the ludicrous social experiment that is all-things-gay-are-cool, there will, without question, be a disconnect in our friendship moving forward. And I believe that right. I will still be kind. I will still be friendly. I might even still invite said friend to certain events (some for sure) and the like. I will not, on the other hand, be going to their celebrations of their new lifestyle. I'm probably distinctly less likely to go to the movies or dinner or such things with said friend. Part of this is simply because friendship, in many ways, is based on relatability, and such extreme lifestyle changes alter that relatability to the point of naturally altering the friendship. So the same thing might happen if this friend determined they were heavily into sports or what-have-you (something I don't care much for). As to actually shunning someone for this sort of thing, it sort of depends on how much they wore it on their sleeves. Someone I knew, for example, came out many years back, and immediately entirely changes his persona, started dressing and acting more effeminate (not something I have a problem with directly, but I do have a problem with his obvious intentional and unreal affectation of it), speaking with a lisp, and the whole gambit. I admit, I avoid this person somewhat (though I am still friendly and courteous when I do interact with them). But hey, I'd do the same thing if one of my friends decided to take up smoking, started using foul language, or otherwise turned to behavior and the like that I found objectionable.

 

On the other hand, if a close friend came out, remained themselves, overall, I'd likely stay just as close to them as a friend for my part (though I would absolutely refuse to attend a gay wedding or anything like unto it), but I expect that they would soon part ways with being my friend, because they would get what they get from my true self.

 

You see, it's pretty unfair to expect that we should accept them for their true selves and yet suppress our true selves. My true self is a disciple and witness of Christ. My true self is a member of a covenant people who have been commanded. My true self cares, very deeply, about these issues, and my true self would never shut up about it just to stay friends.

 

If someone is going to be friends with me they are going to get my covenants and commitments along with that. It's part and parcel. Take it or leave it. If it offends, so be it. But I will stand as a witness of God at all times and in all places that I may be in. This is who I am. This is what I've committed to be.

 

This may seem unfair. Sure. It sounds like I believe that they have to be friends with me on my terms and not on theirs. That may well seem to be the case. But the fact is that the terms I live by are those I have covenanted to live by, and those terms have been set by the Lord. It is the Lord's terms. If anyone wants to be friends with me, I am willing, but not by way of compromise on those terms. I am under those terms by way of covenant, and I hold the sacredness of those covenants above all things.

 

Obviously I cannot promise perfect execution. I do my best, like all of us. But I'm also not going to just buy in, no questions asked, with some getting-along-matters-most philosophy because people claim their feelings are hurt by my convictions.

 

It's a simple philosophical core, and I reject the implication that staying buddies is the most important thing, that it is the proper path in most instances, or that it's even really that important at all. Kindness is a virtue. But it is not the only virtue. And moreover, perception of kindness does not kindness make or break.

 

Elder Oaks quoted Hugh Nibley in the latest conference. I thought it interesting:

 

“That’s been the whole story of the Church, hasn’t it? You have to be willing to offend here, you have to be willing to take the risk. That’s where the faith comes in. … Our commitment is supposed to be a test, it’s supposed to be hard, it’s supposed to be impractical in the terms of this world.”

 

Not the typical love-fest ideology that the lay member seems to think is the philosophical core of how we should approach things.

 

Obviously it's a balance -- a hard one. But it's a balance that needs to be faced and dealt with, and the idea of offending others cannot be discarded. It is too one sided. We try not to offend. But we MUST accept that a great deal of the time we have to be willing to offend in favor of more important principles.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I agree that you don't go to a strip-joint because Christ "hung out" with prostitutes. In my opinion, that is a huge exaggeration of the idea and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Although there are probably a minority who do. 

 

 

How does a strip joint differ morally for you from a gay wedding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest teamfamilywall

One goes to a strip joint for personal pleasure. One goes to a gay wedding to support a friend or family member. If the difference is not clear than we have differing perspectives.

 

I don't agree with your statement about "reading the lines." If everyone "read the lines" in the same way, we would not have so many different churches preaching similar but different doctrines. Unless you are the prophet speaking on behalf of the Church as to the correct interpretation of scripture, the interpretation of even "the lines" of scripture are based on an individual's experiences and the promptings of the Spirit (hopefully). So what you call "reading the lines" I see as your interpretation.

 

Again, I am not suggesting that you should keep quite. After you have declared repentance, you have a choice: 1) continue calling repentance to that person until they file for a restraining order, 2) cease to have contact with the person at all because you give up or don't feel they are worth your time, or 3) continue to be there for the person until you feel they are ready to hear. Life presents teaching moments if you are patient. Feel free to act as you are inspired to and I will do the same. In the end, the Lord will use each individual in different ways to influence different people.  

 

Another distinction in my mind is the permanence of the relationship you have with a person. If you meeting someone who you will have short contact with or defending your religious beliefs, then preaching repentance clearly and directly is certainly a good if not the best option in most situations. However, when you are talking about the long-term relationships we develop with friends and family, crying repentance constantly will ostracize those you are trying to help. In those instances, teaching moments will present themselves and you must carefully watch for them, but patience and understanding also needs to be applied.

 

I appreciate your quote, but I could also provide other quotes from living prophets that support a gentle and long-term approach. There is a time and a season for all things. Extremes in any form are dangerous. Even excessive commitment can be a bad thing as it can lead one to be as the Jews who looked beyond the mark because of the simpleness of the Gospel message. I have no problem offending people, I do it more often than I would like to admit (for good and bad reasons), but I do not believe it is always good nor that it should be the status quo, particularly in our long-term relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest teamfamilywall

It is incredibly sad to me that we've come so far as to think of a gay wedding as a "normal" social event.

 

Normal was a poor word choice and is not what I actually believe. If my brother or a best friend were to get married to another man, I would be there is a heart beat. I don't, however, go and crash weddings as normal events. By normal, I am referring to those events in life where your loved ones are making big life decisions. If you would not support a person in such an event, than we just don't see eye to eye on the topic. If that is the case, I respect your position, but I will continue to live my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with your statement about "reading the lines." If everyone "read the lines" in the same way, we would not have so many different churches preaching similar but different doctrines. Unless you are the prophet speaking on behalf of the Church as to the correct interpretation of scripture, the interpretation of even "the lines" of scripture are based on an individual's experiences and the promptings of the Spirit (hopefully). So what you call "reading the lines" I see as your interpretation.

 

You can disagree all you want. But when the scriptures say "Jesus wept" the line is that Jesus wept. There's no reading between the lines by taking that to mean that Jesus wept. If you can't understand what I mean then fine. But I'm not talking about "perspective" here. Perspective comes into play, yes. One can have the perspective all they want. One can determine He was sad and another that He was cutting onions -- that's reading between the lines. The fact is that He wept. When someone implies that Jesus hanging out with sinners means "such-n-such" (go to gay weddings or the like) it is reading between the lines. When I say that when he hung out with sinners, he always preached, taught, called to repentance, etc. it is a fact. It's not my perspective of what Jesus did. It's what Jesus did.

 

I appreciate your quote, but I could also provide other quotes from living prophets that support a gentle and long-term approach. 

 

To which I have already agreed, sometimes is the right approach. So what, exactly, are you debating here? (I have to presume "debate" with your use of the word "but", as in you're presuming my posting of this quote was meant to be exclusive guidance for our choices. I was, I'm pretty sure, quite clear about "balance".)

 

 Extremes in any form are dangerous.

 

Once again. I spoke quite clearly about balance. Here's the self quote to prove it. "Obviously it's a balance -- a hard one. But it's a balance that needs to be faced and dealt with,"

 

I have no problem offending people, I do it more often than I would like to admit (for good and bad reasons), but I do not believe it is always good nor that it should be the status quo, particularly in our long-term relationships.

 

Speaking of reading between the lines, how, exactly, did you take from my ideas that it is "always good" or "should be the status quo" to offend people?

 

You're treating my ideas like I'm advocating for purposefully offending people as a standard course of action. Where it seems to me that it should be obvious that what I'm advocating for is simply not setting, "did I offend them" as the primary consideration. That is not the same thing as "offending people is good". It is not saying that we shouldn't consider whether we're offending people at all. We should. Stridently! We shouldn't purposefully offend or intentionally belittle, degrade, or abuse in any manner. What I am trying, very urgently, to counter is the implication that our primary consideration for interaction with homosexuals be related to their offense. Our consideration should be, rather, A: our covenants with and the commandments from God. B: Our concern for God's children at large. C: Our concern for the long term welfare of the person at hand. (And, yes, very much in that order.) And then, finally, D: Did we offend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

than we just don't see eye to eye on the topic.

 

^ this.

 

Not only do we not see eye to eye, but I find the very idea that any faithful LDS person would consider attending such an event incredibly tragic. That being said, I think it's related to general naivety and the successful bamboozlement of society by the pro-gay camp rather than direct malevolence. Of course, the end result is the same either way.

 

Driving headlong into a semi-truck, whether falling asleep at the wheel, being distracted by a phone call, or purposefully going hari-kari on it, the smashed-up mess of a wreck is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest teamfamilywall

I find it equally tragic that you believe the way you do. In my mind, perspectives like yours are are like those of the Pharisees at the time of Christ. Mormon doctrine is profound and beautiful, but Mormon culture can be poisonous. We clearly don't agree with each other and I'm getting bored with the back and forth :) I see our common ground and where we differ in opinion. That is good. Thanks for a hearty discussion.

 

I don't actually read all of your lines. You and I write a lot. Too much for my taste ;) That is how I made my interpretation. I just saw the most common and repeated words in your previous statements, which from my perspective, harped on one topic in particular. I skimmed the rest. Sorry if this bothers you. And yes, my comments are an interpretation based on my reading (a poor reading), just as your statements are your interpretation of your reading of the scriptures. You don't have to like it, but as you often say, "it is a fact." I have no pretense of suggesting that my statements are the correct interpretation. I believe them to be correct according to what I know, according to what I have experienced, and according to how the Spirit prompts me to act. But men are fallible and neither you nor I are Prophets... despite your name :)

 

By the way, the extremism in your counterarguments is a little absurd. Almost as absurd as my own extreme counterarguments! I've seen it a couple of times now in your statements. You base your counterarguments on extreme situations. Of course the scripture "Jesus wept" meant that Jesus wept. That doesn't mean you are right about everything you read and interpret! You and I need to be a little more reasonable. Clearly one can find statements in the scriptures that few will interpret differently. However, scriptures are open to interpretation as can be attested by the existence of this very website. There are thousands of discussions in which differing perspectives or interpretations, whatever you want to call them, are offered. And each person thinks or believes their interpretation to be correct. I hope you learn at some point that your "reading of the lines" is far from the only reading. Not all doctrine has been laid before us as of yet. Ease up on the "its a fact."

 

Thanks for sharing in a discussion with me. I have enjoyed hearing your perspective and the perspectives of everyone else!! The Folk Prophet, please have the last word in our back and forth conversation if you want it. Thanks again! It has been a blast!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. So, basically..."I didn't bother to read your posts, but I'm going to argue with you anyway, claim you said things you didn't, and then call you Pharisaical and imply your ideas are poisonous and absurd...but keep in mind...I didn't actually read what you said...oh...and then after making these pointless arguments and forcing you to clarify needlessly, I'm going to complain about going back and forth."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teamfamilywall... I'll make my post short and sweet so you will be able to read it in its entirety.

The problem I see why you erroneously think TFP is a Pharisee is that you look at the whole situation in a very myopic way where the gay wedding is the ONLY important event in a gay person's life and that if you don't attend it you must really hate him so.

This is the same error people defending the gay person against the cake maker does.

Buy basically, the situation is this: TFP may have a gay best friend who he has "hung out with", gave food, shelter, compassion, defended against bullies, comforted when sick or weary, attended his college graduation, his 21st bday bash, even accompanied him to Brony-con even if TFP really can't stand My Little Ponies because he didn't want his best friend to be alone... BUT BECAUSE he drew the line on attending his GAY WEDDING due to TFP's religious convictions... THEN HE'S A PHARISEE.

Do you see the problem in your thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure people actually get naked for prurient purposes at a gay wedding. I've never been to one...so I can't say for sure. :D

 

I didn't ask about the difference in the events, only the moral difference. Aren't both institutionalization of deviant sexuality? In fact, of the two, I probably have more friends and family participating in the exhibitionism/voyeurism economy through patronage or employment than are involved in gay weddings. So if I'm going to support an institution of outsiders for the sake of availability, I would think it would be the one with more relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't ask about the difference in the events, only the moral difference. Aren't both institutionalization of deviant sexuality? In fact, of the two, I probably have more friends and family participating in the exhibitionism/voyeurism economy through patronage or employment than are involved in gay weddings. So if I'm going to support an institution of outsiders for the sake of availability, I would think it would be the one with more relations.

 

Sure. The point I'm getting at, for my part at least, is the prurient value in viewing strippers vs. the non-prurient "tolerant" viewing of gay people making vows and sealing it with a kiss. The prurience increases the immorality level, as to my attending. As to the wickedness of the events themselves...I believe I agree with the thought you seem to be getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of this gay wedding stuff is a matter of the personal interpretation of why one attends weddings in general. If the reason you go is because you support your loved one's decision, then you would probably not attend a gay wedding. If you go because you love the person, then even at a heterosexual wedding, even if you hate their choice of spouse and are against the union, would you not go anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of this gay wedding stuff is a matter of the personal interpretation of why one attends weddings in general. If the reason you go is because you support your loved one's decision, then you would probably not attend a gay wedding. If you go because you love the person, then even at a heterosexual wedding, even if you hate their choice of spouse and are against the union, would you not go anyway?

 

It's an interesting question, but not really relevant, as for myself, as to why I would or wouldn't attend a gay wedding. Not liking a person is a very, very different thing than feeling that attending an event supports sin and corruption. I could think the two folk getting married were the most awesome people in the world. I still wouldn't attend. It has nothing to do with who the people are - super nice or big jerks - friends, relatives, associates, or enemies -- irrelevant. It has to do with the event itself.

 

And this is, really, to the point. Supporting an evil event to support people you care for, vs supporting a wholesome event to support people you don't care for. The idea, actually, puts some clarity into the discussion. Events vs. people. It also plays quite well into what I believe mordorbund was trying to say.

 

Would you (a general "you", not specific to davidstarfall) attend the first time your daughter stripped? What if it was really important to her? What if it was her first job -- finally a chance to get on top of things financially, etc? What if she viewed it as entirely wholesome and beautiful -- an expression of her feminist strength and a celebration of the human body and sexuality? Does any of these views or your love for her make it acceptable to go? Does her offense that you refuse to go sway you? Should it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm grateful for a family where my nephew receives unconditional love and does not feel like an outcast. Some of the reactions of this board are truly shocking. I have no problem attending a gay marriage and will absolutely be there if he so chooses to commit his life to another human being. So we don't all agree, that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One goes to a strip joint for personal pleasure. One goes to a gay wedding to support a friend or family member. If the difference is not clear than we have differing perspectives.

 

I see. So earlier when you posted:

 I agree that you don't go to a strip-joint because Christ "hung out" with prostitutes. In my opinion, that is a huge exaggeration of the idea and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Although there are probably a minority who do. 

 

 

you weren't talking about going to a strip-joint to support a friend or family member, but for your own enjoyment. In that case of course it's a huge exaggeration, much akin to justifying crashing random gay weddings because Christ "hung out" with prostitutes.

 

EDIT: I see TFP used a similar example while I was away.

Would you like to try an apples to apples comparison? Would you patronize a strip joint to support your brother in his bachelor's party? What about to support your daughter paying off her student loans?

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the reactions of this board are truly shocking. 

Interestingly enough, originally I felt the same way, but after considering the logic people have laid out, it makes more sense to me, and is justifiable to not engaged in activities or support things they see as morally reprehensible.

The general conclusion I take for all of this is that people shouldn't judge others and lash out at others, if they refuse to participate in activities they view are morally wrong.

Which is a two way street, one side seems to view it as morally wrong to refuse to support a person in a major life decision (provide emotional support for the decision), the other side views it morally wrong to act in the major life decision. The major life decision being gay marriage.

Both sides are doing this.

Why is it acceptable for one side to judge the morality of the other?

(Which is a separate issue from the acceptability of gay marriage, which can be argued from a community pov, or as a non-right privilege government discrimination/subsidy view) Just a side note, I don't intend to derail the thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm grateful for a family where my nephew receives unconditional love and does not feel like an outcast. Some of the reactions of this board are truly shocking. I have no problem attending a gay marriage and will absolutely be there if he so chooses to commit his life to another human being. So we don't all agree, that's fine.

 

Wait a minute. Is it shocking, or is it fine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Interestingly enough, originally I felt the same way, but after considering the logic people have laid out, 

(Whi

I agree totally. Personally I have gone (and would continue to do so) to gay weddings. However everyone here has been polite, knowledgeable and respectful. Do I agree with everything? Nope, but like I've mentioned before, if we agreed on everything what would be the point of us being here? 

I think both sides on this issue tend to emote rather than think.  That said, I've been surprised how good the arguments/discussions are on here.  Sorry if this is too cheesy or Saved by the Bellish but this forum is totally different because people of all views think instead of emote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a bit of a stretch for me to compare a wedding to pornography.

 

Why? Why is it a stretch at all? Because society has embraced something? What if society were to embrace pornography? I mean "really" embrace it as wholesome and good. Moreover, take out the prurient factor for yourself (if any) and then compare.  I don't see a stretch at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I've been surprised how good the arguments/discussions are on here.  Sorry if this is too cheesy or Saved by the Bellish but this forum is totally different because people of all views think instead of emote. 

The discussions I see here have been some of the least contentious, most informative discussions on various issues with strongly opposing view points i've encountered anywhere.

Even with the occasional offense taken, feelings hurt, or strong disagreement.

It's awesome!

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Why is it a stretch at all? Because society has embraced something? What if society were to embrace pornography? I mean "really" embrace it as wholesome and good. Moreover, take out the prurient factor for yourself (if any) and then compare.  I don't see a stretch at all.

Because at a wedding I am not actively sinning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share