Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church


Sunday21
 Share

Recommended Posts

I live in Utah, I saw a black guy once. He is a great Sunday school teacher :)

You can’t being more minorities into the church if there aren’t any minorities around :P

I also get annoyed with these articles that blame culture in any amount. I feel like the saints are generally a little better than we give them. We tend to be very wrong on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article, IMHO, was shortsighted (as it can be seen as embracing sin, rather than rejecting sin); although, the intention was good. Do we want to deny people (sons and daughters of God) the opportunity to come unto Christ? The obvious answer, no. Do we want to be accepting of people who have a desire to come unto Christ by exercising their faith unto repentance? The obvious answer, yes. Do we want to be accepting of people with divers temptations, but are honestly seeking God's will in their lives. The obvious answer, yes.

The Church welcomes any and all who desire to come unto Christ, or as Elder Holland said, "With divine imperatives of love and faith, repentance and compassion, honesty and forgiveness, there is room in this choir for all who wish to be there. “Come as you are,” a loving Father says to each of us, but He adds, “Don’t plan to stay as you are.” We smile and remember that God is determined to make of us more than we thought we could be." (Source)

Elder Bednar shared this statement, "First I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh...Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be acted upon," when he was once asked, "How can homosexual members of the Church live and remain steadfast in the gospel"?

I have loved his response. We are not defined by our "sins." We are defined by our spiritual natures, as sons and daughters of God, and that through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with the ability to overcome. The gospel of Jesus Christ accepts all. God accepts all. He accepts some into the Telestial kingdom, some into the Terrestrial kingdom, and some into the Celestial kingdom. It is our personal choice where we want to be in the end, God will accept us "the way we have become." If a person wants to come to Church as a visitor, let they come and be respectful. If they want to come in order to accept the atonement of Jesus Christ, and to exercise their faith unto repentance, we welcome them also with open arms.

If a person wants to come and seeks to poison the well, "Homosexuality is not a sin, we are beautiful the way we are," (or any other challenge as given by Elder Bednar) and desires to change the Church from within, then please remain where you are in the great and spacious building -- it is welcoming of all manner of sin (sin is beautiful there).  This reminds me of the TED talk given by a Millenial Mormon who believed that in time the Church would change its doctrine as the younger generation of Millenials becomes leaders of the Church (a teaching truly from the adversary). If doctrine can change so easily then sadly the Church is not true; fortunately, the Church is true and will be a North Star to all who want to come unto Christ and be saved.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2017 at 4:59 PM, Sunday21 said:

Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church

Did you read this? One of the articles at the beginning of this site. I could not agree more. High flaming time. Mormonism is for everyone! Gay, tattoos, blue collar, biker, We want you!

Here is an excerpt

And bring on the gays.  We need more LGBT in our LDS.  It’s a difficult sell for the Church because of our position on gay marriage, and much of the LGBT community resents what they believe to be mixed messages at best.  But that isn’t everyone, and my experience is that there are more than a few LGBT folks that feel a great affinity for the Church and would like to participate in a more meaningful way.  Yet I still hear members make comments like, “Why would a gay person want to be a Mormon?”  I don’t know, but probably for the same reason that a self-righteous snoot wants to be a Mormon.  We don’t get to decide who “belongs” in God’s kingdom.  God does.  And we have been told clearly that mere sexual orientation does not exclude anyone from any of the blessings of the Church.

Yeah! I don’t care who you are, what you did, or what you wear, you belong with us!

Why would a gay person want to be Mormon? I know one gay dude that is/was LDS, he was excommunicated when he married a man. I'm not a bishop, I'm not going to get into the meat and potatos of it.  

We need ALL sinners in our church, so that they can become better, healthier people, brought to our savior so that they have ample opportunity to experience his love. We do insist one cease already well covered conduct, and by and large, we'll help you with it, minus felony conduct, jails and prisons will help you out with that, as one can expect. Christ wants his lost sheep, we are all his lost sheep for as long as we are subject to the human condition, I confess, most of the men in my ward are far better men than I am. I never "expect" a temple recommend, I lay it on the line to the Bishop and Stake President for their decision as to my worthiness. They see something in me that I don't. Perhaps they look upon me with God's eyes. I continue to repent for a lifetime of disappointing my God for I have lived with one foot in hell, and the other on the earth, only by grace does my God reach out his hand to pull me out of the jaws of perdition or I would surely die spiritually, I am unworthy, but for some odd reason, our savior takes pity on me. I guess he's just got a soft spot for a lost cause.  Yes, I have tattoos, lots of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I love about this article is the warm and welcoming attitude. The lack of distain, disgust and judging. We need more of this. A personality psychologist told me that Protestant clergy are dramatically more open and accepting, empathetic, and agreeable than members of their congregations. I see a similar difference in personality between the brethren and our members. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2017 at 8:39 PM, Vort said:

Do we need more pedophiles in our wards? If the article's author enthusiastically agrees that we do, then I'll agree with him that we need more homosexuals.

I think classifying members by their sins of choice is foolish and counterproductive, but whatever.

You say a lot of things that really hit home with me.  I love reading your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

When voices arise saying we need more taboo people in our church it generally means that we are not welcoming of such people. One suggestion in this string is that many people in LDS wards would be uncomfortable sitting next to a homosexual. Is that really true though? If an individual walked into a typical ward dressed in traditional Sunday best, joined in a Gospel Principals class, and as he sat down, said to the member sitting next to him, "You know, the missionaries encouraged me to come here, and I really want to know God. However, I'm attracted to men. Still, I want to see if this religion rings true..."  WOULD MOST MEMBERS SCOOT AWAY?

My guess is that the real intent of such broad-brush claims to church being unwelcoming to specific sin-groups is that the church should stop denouncing those sins, so the sinners are not uncomfortable.  If I'm right, then they are wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by "denouncing those sins".  Maybe it's because I don't live in Mormonland, but there is never any "pounding of the pulpit" or denouncing specific sins in my ward (Am I allowed to call it my ward if I'm not LDS?).  They talk about sin in general and living as God requires, but I never hear them focus on a particular sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "denouncing those sins".  Maybe it's because I don't live in Mormonland, but there is never any "pounding of the pulpit" or denouncing specific sins in my ward (Am I allowed to call it my ward if I'm not LDS?).  They talk about sin in general and living as God requires, but I never hear them focus on a particular sin.

I think it just depends on the ward. My ward does talk about specific sins from time to time as well as general Gospel topics. While the lessons are standardized there is always flexibility in what topics are chosen for sacrament talks and what teachers choose to emphasize in lessons. On a side note you can call it your ward. The ward covers ever non member as well as member living in that location, and it's the ward you would attend if you decided to be baptized so it's your ward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

My guess is that the real intent of such broad-brush claims to church being unwelcoming to specific sin-groups is that the church should stop denouncing those sins, so the sinners are not uncomfortable.  If I'm right, then they are wrong.

Totally agree.  First off in the modern Church today we do not denounce sin.  Honestly, I can't remember the last time I was in a ward sacrament meeting where specific types of sin were denounced.  The modern Church culture is to just "love everyone".  The only real sin that I can actually think of that is actually denounced in general in church sacrament is pornography.

The rest isn't denounced b/c "we all know it's bad", like we don't need to denounce specific types of behavior because everyone in church already "knows" it's bad, so why make people feel worse for condemning it. We all know divorce is bad so in an effort to make those who are going through divorce not feel bad we don't talk about it. We all know homosexuality is bad, so we don't talk about it so as to not make those individuals feel bad.  We all know we shouldn't get tatoos so we don't talk about it.  We all know we shouldn't do drugs so we don't talk about it.  

Why . . .because we want to be "inclusive", we want everyone to feel "loved".   Well that's great, just because you and I know it's bad . .how do we keep understanding that it's bad and more importantly how to pass down those same beliefs to the next generation.  By talking about how it's bad!!!

No we don't need more homosexuals, individuals with tattos, people who have or do drugs, pedophiles, etc.  We don't need or want any of those types of people.  We need more people who are humble followers of Christ, who live their lives the best they can every day to get rid of whatever sins they have and by the grace of God approach His mercy seat.  We need individuals who have truly repeated of their sins, who don't take pride in their past sins and who understand what it means to make a covenant with God to become a disciple. 

This article strikes me as a self-serving "look at how good I am b/c I don't judge other people" clap-trap . .rameumpton.  Oh God, look at how good I am b/c I don't "judge" others. I severely dislike this "A friend with a visible tattoo asked our bishop at the time if she should have her quite-visible tattoo removed.  He asked why.  She explained that some of the Relief Society sisters seemed bothered by it.  His wise counsel was “Let them be bothered.  That doesn’t say anything about who you are now.” 

This is false doctrine.  If you are showing a tattoo for the world to see, then YES it does represent who you are now.  For example, if you have a visible tattoo of a naked lady, and you show it for the world to see, how can you say that "well that doesn't represent who I am".  You have visibly marked yourself in a representative way.  To show up to church with a naked lady tattoo would be ridiculous.  But, I guess b/c the tattoo was a flower or some cutzy thing we can say . . ."that doesn't represent me now".  That's right the Bishop's counsel is if I flaunt my sin, and you are bothered by it in Church it is your problem.  If you don't want it to represent you, then either cover it up or get it removed. It's why tattoos are a big deal . . .b/c it's a permanent mark of representation.

In effect, the Bishop told her tattoos aren't bad, only certain types of tattoos are bad.

And obviously most of this articles or people who believe this way either don't have kids or don't understand how to raise them properly.  The process of raising children is all about civilization.  Parents have the primary responsibility but they get socialized/civilized by Church, school, groups they attend etc. They are sponges and they only way they learn right from wrong is by having it taught to them and the easiest way to teach a child is by example.  So when you have openly homosexual members who attend Church, individuals who openly flaunt tattoos, nose-rings, etc. and don't express or teach their repentance process then kids will naturally pick up on it and then when they sin will say . .. it's no big deal b/c soandso did this and they have this or do this and it's no big deal.

No . ..we need humble followers of Christ who are not ashamed of Christ, who recognize their sins, who are not afraid to call sin what it is sin and who strive with all their might to repent of their sins, do whatever they can to make restitution for their sins and follow Christ. 

Right now the teaching we are teaching to our children is that sin doesn't matter all that really matters is that you "love everyone".  It can easily become the Church of Christ without Christ in it.

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I think it just depends on the ward. My ward does talk about specific sins from time to time as well as general Gospel topics. While the lessons are standardized there is always flexibility in what topics are chosen for sacrament talks and what teachers choose to emphasize in lessons. On a side note you can call it your ward. The ward covers ever non member as well as member living in that location, and it's the ward you would attend if you decided to be baptized so it's your ward.

I agree in our lessons we do.  Definitely in Priesthood/Relief Society .  . . . IMO not so much in Sacrament.  In SS . . .maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the article, and overall it doesn't sound bad on the surface. I feel like what the author is trying too say is we could be more welcoming of people who are struggling. That's true, Our Savior invites all men everywhere to come to him and be changed. But for me, these general condemnations of us not being welcoming enough just aren't a real problem. In my ward, when anybody comes to church we are excited. It's a giant first step towards change and we love to have them there! I feel like the author is pushing an agenda of not condemning sin as sin though in order for people not to feel uncomfortable and I have to disagree with that philosophy. The Lord teaches us that since he loves us he chastens us. We need to feel uncomfortable with our lifestyle in order to be motivated to change. So yes we should be welcoming to everyone who comes in our door. But I love what Elder Holland teaches in a decotional at BYU from 1980.

"If there is one lament I cannot abide, it is the poor, pitiful, withered cry, “Well, that’s just the way I am.” If you want to talk about discouraging attitudes, that is one that discourages me. Please spare me your speeches about “That’s just the way I am.” I’ve heard that from too many people who wanted to sin and call it psychology. And I use the word sin to cover a vast range of habits which bring discouragement and doubt and despair.

You can change anything you want to change and you can do it very fast. It is another Satanic falsehood to believe that it takes years and years and eons of eternity to repent. It takes exactly as long to repent as it takes you to say “I’ll change”—and mean it. Of course there will be problems to work out and restitutions to make. You may well spend—indeed, you had better spend—the rest of your life proving your repentance by its permanence. But change, growth, renewal, and repentance can come for you as instantaneously as it did for Alma and the Sons of Mosiah"

This life is all about changing for the better through the grace of Jeaus Christ. Yes come with your sins, but plan to change as Christ saves you from those sins.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

 I feel like the author is pushing an agenda of not condemning sin as sin though in order for people not to feel uncomfortable and I have to disagree with that philosophy.

Amen . . .oh and I LOVE the quote.  I like GC today and the stuff they say . . .but man when I read what the Apostles and Prophets were saying in the 70s/80s it just inspires me.  It is like "YES!!! that!!!".  

Unfortunately, Elder Holland's quote:

"If there is one lament I cannot abide, it is the poor, pitiful, withered cry, “Well, that’s just the way I am.” If you want to talk about discouraging attitudes, that is one that discourages me."

does not work with today's modern Church teaching.  

The modern Church says when someone says "I'm homosexual, that's just the way I am" . . .okay that's fine just don't act on it.  That's a far cry from Elder Holland's quote.  Like I've said before, the Church has changed it's teachings . . .

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JoCa said:

 The modern Church says when someone says "I'm homosexual, that's just the way I am" . . .okay that's fine just don't act on it.  That's a far cry from Elder Holland's quote.  Like I've said before, the Church has changed it's teachings . . .

3

That's unnerving.  One of the things that attracted me to the Church was its acceptance of damaged people and desire to help them get right in accordance with their unbending adherence to God's law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's unnerving.  One of the things that attracted me to the Church was its acceptance of damaged people and desire to help them get right in accordance with their unbending adherence to God's law.

It makes at least two of us. 

Absolutely, the miracle, the beauty, the wonder, the glory of the Gospel is that fact that through Christ we can change.  No matter, who we are, what we've been through, no matter our old habits, our old patterns of life, our old thinking.  The Gospel through Christ can and does change the very essence and core of who we are, it changes how we think, how we feel, who we are, everything!  It's glorious, wonderful! How awesome it is!  It makes me want to scream it from the rooftops.  God through Christ can truly change us!  Whereas before we were dead, now we am alive in Christ.

Trust me, I'm not pleased about it . . .I firmly believe in that modern day Prophets and Apostles.  I do not believe that some of the current ideologies espoused in Church are from God .. . why He is allowing it to be taught in His Church, I honestly do not know.

Today in the modern Church, you can openly proclaim you are homosexual, you can get up in Sacrament meeting proclaim it to the world, say "God made me this way and it's just the way he wants me to be" and as long as you add the caveat that you "don't act on it" or advocate for individuals to act on it . .. you are "welcomed and loved" and you are told God loves you just the way you are . . .just don't act on it.  Don't believe me . . .see Todd Christoferson's book.

It is the Gospel of Christ without Christ.

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue the church hasn't changed that much though. Look at this quote from President Uchtdorf in the April Conference this year.

"Does this mean that God condones or overlooks behaviors that run contrary to His commands? No, definitely not!
                But He wants to change more than just our behaviors. He wants to change our very natures. He wants to change our hearts.
                He wants us to reach out and take firm hold of the iron rod, confront our fears, and bravely step forward and upward along the strait and narrow path. He wants this for us because He loves us and because this is the way to happiness"

He is saying the same thing Elder Holland said in 1980. You need to come to Christ and when you do he can and will change you as you strive to follow his commandments. The church hasn't changed its teachings. There is a softening in tone to reach out to those mired in sin and let them know they are welcome as they strive to change. But they are still told to change. Here is President Uchtdorf again from the April 2016 GC 

"We call these steps of faith obedience.
      That is not a popular word these days. But obedience is a cherished concept in the gospel of Jesus Christ because we know that “through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”

So I would argue that the church, while it changes as the GA'S receive more revelation, has not changed in it's core message of obedience, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ. I used a few quotes from President Uchtdorf, but I could post hundreds of them from the last ten years from all the GA's that teach just as strongly as anything in the 1980's. This is still, and will always be Christ's Church.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "denouncing those sins".  Maybe it's because I don't live in Mormonland, but there is never any "pounding of the pulpit" or denouncing specific sins in my ward (Am I allowed to call it my ward if I'm not LDS?).  They talk about sin in general and living as God requires, but I never hear them focus on a particular sin.

:D It is your ward.  As @Midwest LDS said -- every human within its boundaries is covered, and the ward is responsible for all of them to one degree or another.

In my experience, talks and lessons tend to focus on increasing virtues rather than decreasing sins (end result is the same, but the lesson is often easier to give and take from the positive side).  But every now and then, when a specific need requires it, there will be a sin-specific lesson or talk.  These are often reserved for 5th-Sunday lessons that happen during Sunday school and Priesthood/Relief Society so that they can be had in the absence of the children - as they're often about things like pornography - in fact, I can't remember the last time another sin was the focus of a lesson.

That said, "hellfire and damnation" talks and lessons aren't really our style and have rarely been.  Some might think these are more effective, and I suppose for some people at some times on some topics, they might be.  But I suspect for most of us, learning how to be a little better, and encouragement to try are more likely to be effective in the long run.  To me, the following quote is quite possibly the most effective condemnation of sin I have ever been exposed to - it cut right through me when I read it.  No fist-banging on the pulpit necessary:

Quote

Sin is waste. It is doing one thing when you should be doing other and better things for which you have the capacity.

-- Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, Chapter 3: "Zeal Without Knowledge"

IMO, the Law of Moses and the corruption built up around it by the Pharisees is more fitting to fist-banging sermons condemning sins, and we've been moving farther and farther from that ever since Christ's birth.  Why?  Because being frightened or intimidated into giving up your sins isn't good enough.  It's not enough to just not do sins (something previously largely influenced by the simple presence of civilization), now we must not even think or feel sins.  Every change I've seen in Church policy in my lifetime has been away from the rote, list-driven "do this and don't do that" style of teaching and toward the "come to Christ, be converted, and let the Holy Ghost guide you in what to do or not do" style of teaching.  I don't lament the change.  I don't think we're any less effective now than before.  I don't think we're any more tolerant of sin than before.  I think we're expecting people to stop acting like children who need to be told every little thing to do or not do, and to start acting like adults who should be able to decide for themselves, once they've learned correct principles - in other words, we're trying to teach doctrine and principles and let the people decide for themselves how to live them.  I predict this will continue.  Why?  Because it's not enough for them to simply do the right thing, they must do it for the right reasons, and no fist-banging will inspire the right reasons - every individual has to build the reasons in their own heart, and one person's reasons may not match another's (especially at any given point in time).

Total speculation on my part: I think part of these changes are because those who die today will have 2000 fewer years to get their act together than those who died shortly after Christ came - we've got to figure out more in our mortality because we won't have as much post-mortality in which to continue trying.  We have less time to waste (aka sin).

23 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's unnerving.  One of the things that attracted me to the Church was its acceptance of damaged people and desire to help them get right in accordance with their unbending adherence to God's law.

What's unnerving?  That JoCa thinks the Church is accepting of sin, or has given up on [something]?  IMO, that's just his perception.  When looking down at a forest from the top of a mountain, it looks completely different from when you're standing across an open field from one of its edges, which looks entirely different from when you're smack in the middle of it.  IMO, the only thing that's changed in the view.  The forest is the same - we're teaching the same gospel.  I don't believe for a minute that any of our current prophets and apostles is any more accepting of the "I'm just that way" excuse than they were whenever Elder Holland gave the quoted talk - I just think JoCa is looking at the forest from a different angle and is drawing erroneous conclusions from what he's hearing from the folks looking at the forest from a different view.

@JoCa, I know you won't agree with what I've said, and that's OK by me.

 

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

I would argue the church hasn't changed that much though.

I agree to a very large extent.  I really do . . .but again the Church's message is muddled.  When you have Deseret Books (owned by the Church) publishing Christoferson's book vs. what Uchtdorf says . . .

The current message the Church has (as put out by the mormonandgays website) is what Elder Utchdorf says is true as long as it doesn't involve homosexuality.  I grant that in every other aspect the Church holds the line with regards to Utchdorf's message but if it involves homosexuality . . .welp good luck.

So we currently have an exception to this ideology for homosexuality (and yes it is an exception) . . .as soon as you have one exception you will eventually get more.  Either God can change everyone, every single one regardless or He can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

Really . . . read mormonandgays much?

I think you are drawing a different conclusion from what you read than I am.  What percentage of humans draw your "muddled message" conclusion, vs. the percentage that draw the "same message, different angle" conclusion I draw, I don't know; but I trust that the prophets and apostles of our day know what they're doing, and that it's done under the direction and guidance of the Lord.  As far as I'm concerned, you're looking at the forest canopy from the top of the mountain and don't understand the language of folks who are smack in the middle of that forest talking about what it looks like from inside.  But the forest itself hasn't changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

 (Am I allowed to call it my ward if I'm not LDS?).  

Yes.  The Bishop is not just the Bishop of the LDS members.  The Bishop is the Bishop of that geographical area.  So, LDS and non-LDS alike are under his stewardship.  So, your Bishop is your Bishop and your ward is your ward regardless of where you are in your journey to Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed @zil. The penalty for homosexual behavior is still the same. The church has not cut back on the consequences of sin. Rather, they teach that you can come to church and be whole even while you are struggling with same sex attraction. The Lord has found a way to bring back souls who thought they were lost because of their attraction. Instead the Lord has once again reached out his Holy Arm and brought salvation back into their lives. Some can be healed of their same sex attraction. I've read about and seen it happen. But for many, the Lord does not take away the affliction, but offers a way to strengthen them in it. Just as Alma and his people were strengthened to bear up their burdens, or Paul was strengthened to uphold his apostleship despite whatever his "thorn in the flesh" was. I've met people who have not been healed of their attraction, but have been strengthened and resist the temptation to give in to their desires. They will be blessed in the next life for staying true to the Lord despite their inclinations and I trust the Lord's servants will not lead his church astray while they are rescuing His sheep.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

That's unnerving.  One of the things that attracted me to the Church was its acceptance of damaged people and desire to help them get right in accordance with their unbending adherence to God's law.

I think what we’re seeing in the case of homosexuality; is the tacit acknowledgement by the Church that (even allowing for the process of repentance and sanctification) there is not yet a surefire way to make gays stop being attracted to people of their own gender during this mortal life.

Thus the Church has shifted its approach from purging desires, to regulating behaviors in anticipation of a future date of redemption at which time we anticipate that the desires, too, will finally be vanquished.  It is also moving towards a little more of an “open door” policy so that people who have adopted a gay lifestyle may be able to find their way back into the Church when advancing age and the diminution of raging hormones make them a little more willing to control their sexual urges than they were in their youth. 

I think I’ve said this in other fora; but the whole point of living prophets is that sometimes society evolves to the point that the counsel given by former prophets just isn’t the best way of dealing with the current circumstances anymore.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

What I love about this article is the warm and welcoming attitude. The lack of distain, disgust and judging. We need more of this. A personality psychologist told me that Protestant clergy are dramatically more open and accepting, empathetic, and agreeable than members of their congregations. I see a similar difference in personality between the brethren and our members. 

Amen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "denouncing those sins".  Maybe it's because I don't live in Mormonland, but there is never any "pounding of the pulpit" or denouncing specific sins in my ward (Am I allowed to call it my ward if I'm not LDS?).  They talk about sin in general and living as God requires, but I never hear them focus on a particular sin.

Your reply only underlines my point. What you say of LDS wards is also true of most Protestant, and more specifically Evangelical churches. There just is not that much denouncing of specific sins. However, in reaction to the culture's new dogma (that gay marriage must be accepted as a basic human right), I do hear fleeting references to the ungodliness of those unions. Yet, there's this impression that our pulpits are overflowing with hostility--especially towards LGBT folk. The bottom-line is that I agree with you that the very error our critics accuse LDS wards and Evangelical churches of is one that exists much more in their minds than in our sermons and lessons.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

What I love about this article is the warm and welcoming attitude. The lack of distain, disgust and judging. We need more of this. A personality psychologist told me that Protestant clergy are dramatically more open and accepting, empathetic, and agreeable than members of their congregations. I see a similar difference in personality between the brethren and our members. 

I'll not argue this point, because it's personal perspective. However, I would ask you (and the personality psychologist) to reflect. Is this really true? Are LDS members dramatically closed, unaccepting and disagreeable? Are Protestant lay-members?  I hear a lot of frustration directed at a society that demands our obeisance to its immoral consensus, but very little rejection of individual LBGT folk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

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