Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

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.

Slow down, now! I thought that I was the bishop of all non-members!

[Vort]

5 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.

Except that that is exactly what the article revels in: Nasty, condemnatory judgment of anyone who isn't sufficiently "accepting". It runs like a foul thread throughout the weft of the article. It is one long, congratulatory screed on the open-mindedness of the author and his followers, and implicit (and explicit) condemnation of those who dare to say something like, "It is wrong to be actively homosexual." It is standing under the Mormon umbrella while pointing the finger of scorn and condemnation at others standing under the umbrella.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Slow down, now! I thought that I was the bishop of all non-members!

You could be if you just stop being stubborn and get baptized already so you can get the proper Priesthood keys!  

[Sunday21]

57 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

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.

As the woman who has tried, unsuccessfully, to launch a smiling campaign...in CANADA!!! on the part of members to visitors to the ward, as the woman who has tried many many times to introduce new members, returning members and visitors to ward members, only to be told rudely and, loudly enough for the poor visitor to hear, that NO the ward member was not interested in meeting someone new, and in fact, as the woman who had a bun thrown at her while she was trying to talk to a visitor....(am I venting? Yes).,... Let me tell you, our ward members could be more....friendly...human...outgoing...civil and frankly, I think Heavenly Father should send a flood!

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

 CANADA!!! 

Therein lies the problem.

 

[pam]

3 hours 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.

That's exactly what we want.  All of us are damaged goods to a degree and we all need the Church to guide us in the right direction.  You were on the right track with this way of thinking.

[zil]

30 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

As the woman who has tried, unsuccessfully, to launch a smiling campaign...in CANADA!!! on the part of members to visitors to the ward, as the woman who has tried many many times to introduce new members, returning members and visitors to ward members, only to be told rudely and, loudly enough for the poor visitor to hear, that NO the ward member was not interested in meeting someone new, and in fact, as the woman who had a bun thrown at her while she was trying to talk to a visitor....(am I venting? Yes).,... Let me tell you, our ward members could be more....friendly...human...outgoing...civil and frankly, I think Heavenly Father should send a flood!

It is my hope that your ward is an anomaly.  Certainly, it doesn't match my own experiences in various wards.  (But I also know it's not the only such ward, based on the reports of others.)

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.  

Isn't the obvious resulting question to the "open door" policy plain, however? Shouldn't the "ravenous wolf" potentially eating our children while we're about rescuing the lost sheep be of, perhaps, greater concern than the attempt to rescue the sexually deviant who may someday lose their mojo?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 10/23/2017 at 7:50 AM, zil said:

Personally, I think Vort's point was perfectly clear. 

It's understandable that it was perfectly clear for you because you agree.  It is when people diagree, even mildly that more misunderstandings occur.  So what may seem clear to you is not necessarily clear to all.
 

On 10/23/2017 at 8:08 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s an analogy, not an equation.  And a pretty decent one, where pedophiles are  concerned—as those of us who would actually cop to knowing, loving, and having worked with some pedophiles, could attest.

I realize that any analogy can be stretched only so far, but this one doesn't work for me at all for two reasons.  First, of all, though Vort explained this was not his intention, many people DO think that homosexuals are pedophiles and vice versa.  Merely making the comparison then begs the question.   Second of all when a homosexual sins it is with another consenting adult.  When a pedophile sins he takes away the free agency of another for a time, and causes lasting damage.  The two are not comparable in my mind.  Not at all.  Further, when two homosexuals sin, because they were both consenting, both need to repent.  Not so in the pedophile situation. The pedophile needs legal action, repentance and therapy.  The victim will likely need a lot of therapy.   

So for me this analogy does not hold up at all.  Thus my question.  
 

On 10/23/2017 at 9:04 AM, Vort said:

I had thought that my words were clear. Go read them again, carefully, without imposing your presuppositions on them, and see if they don't make more sense.

It goes without saying that you thought your words were clear.  If that were not so, you would have reworded it before posting.  It is also goes without saying that some people are going to have different presuppositions than your presuppositions and then find your meaning unclear.  Notice also, that I simply asked if that is what you meant. I sought more clarification before jumping to a conclusion.   As I already stated to JAG, it was a reasonable question, and I stand by it.   Some people do erroneously make a connection between homosexuals and pedophiles, and therefore it is good to make clear your intentions here.  I think it was a poor analogy as I already explained above.  

I believe I understand why you and others don't care for the article as it focuses on people's sins, and in your opinion even appears to imply that they don't need to work on giving up those sins.  (Do I understand you correctly?)   

I can understand that approach and as we see here, others feel the same way.   However, there will be others like Sunday and myself that read the intention of the article differently.  To me the message was, "Whatever your sins are, or you feel they are, come work on overcoming them with us.  The church is hospital for sinners, not a museum of Saints.  We are all sinners, so come and worship with us as we all work towards giving up our sins to know Christ."  

Your approach will appeal to some, and the approach of the article will appeal to others.  Is that not our goal, to bring as many souls to Christ as possible?  I like the article for that reason, and at the same time I understand why others don't care for it.  

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I can understand that approach and as we see here, others feel the same way.   However, there will be others like Sunday and myself that read the intention of the article differently.  To me the message was, "Whatever your sins are, or you feel they are, come work on overcoming them with us.  The church is hospital for sinners, not a museum of Saints.  We are all sinners, so come and worship with us as we all work towards giving up our sins to know Christ."  

 

You, me and @Sunday21 share this. I'm sure there are others who do as well. 

[prisonchaplain]

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Isn't the obvious resulting question to the "open door" policy plain, however? Shouldn't the "ravenous wolf" potentially eating our children while we're about rescuing the lost sheep be of, perhaps, greater concern than the attempt to rescue the sexually deviant who may someday lose their mojo?

There are intelligent, compassionate, effective ways of supporting members and guests with unwanted attractions. Many churches have discreet protocols even for having former sex offenders worship with them. A designated person may shadow the individual (with their knowledge), and they may be informed of certain areas that are off-limits, and of course that they are never to be in a room alone with a minor. These guests/members are generally very cooperative and appreciative of the support. Scripture commands that the strong in the church come along side the weak.  So, even as we reject the calls to legitimize, normalize and embrace sin, we also provide sacred space for the fallen, that they may experience true restoration with God and his people.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There are intelligent, compassionate, effective ways of supporting members and guests with unwanted attractions. Many churches have discreet protocols even for having former sex offenders worship with them. A designated person may shadow the individual (with their knowledge), and they may be informed of certain areas that are off-limits, and of course that they are never to be in a room alone with a minor. These guests/members are generally very cooperative and appreciative of the support. Scripture commands that the strong in the church come along side the weak.  So, even as we reject the calls to legitimize, normalize and embrace sin, we also provide sacred space for the fallen, that they may experience true restoration with God and his people.

Well said. 

[Vort]

59 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

First, of all, though Vort explained this was not his intention, many people DO think that homosexuals are pedophiles and vice versa.  Merely making the comparison then begs the question.

You seem to be saying that some comparisons are, by their very nature, off limits. You appear to believe that it is intrinsically morally wrong to say that homosexuality is a sin, just like pedophilia is a sin. I disagree.

(Also, "begs the question" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.)

59 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Second of all when a homosexual sins it is with another consenting adult.  When a pedophile sins he takes away the free agency of another for a time, and causes lasting damage.

A sinner is a sinner, and a pedophile who controls himself is no more sinful than a homosexual who controls himself. That is the only relevant point. Should we, or should we not, invite the pedophile to Church? Yes or no? I can only assume that you agree the answer is a loud, resounding "YES!"

Why, then, did the author mention homosexuality but not pedophilia? Why wasn't he courageous enough to bring up a less popular and less fashionable moral perversion? Are we to believe that he was really going for "acceptance of the sinful" as his theme? Or was he using the article to show how unprejudiced he was, and how he graciously condescended to lecture all the other sinners in the Church on their sinful natures?

We do not -- or at least should not -- use preaching the gospel as a chance to show off our own (perceived) moral superiority. The author spends the entire article talking about "we" and "us", how "we" need to change "our" attitude. I guess he has a mouse in his pocket, because his complaints bear little resemblance to me or to the Saints I know. I have never heard anyone complain about a member or visitor who had tattoos or who smelled like cigarettes. My experience says that his complaints are hollow. Perhaps the author should confine himself to publicly berating his own foolishness and insincerity rather than presuming to lecture everyone else on what he (wrongly) perceives to be their shortcomings. The hypocrisy is insufferable.

59 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Notice also, that I simply asked if that is what you meant. I sought more clarification before jumping to a conclusion.

And I appreciate that. Thank you. You can perhaps understand my frustration when you consider that you have a history of misunderstanding what I write. This seems to happen along a common line: You read into my words certain negative meanings that simply are not there. It's frustrating.

Actually, I should be (and in my better moments, I am) glad that you voice these things, since it gives me a chance to disclaim them. Nevertheless, I am confident that you would quickly find it tiresome if I replied to many of your posts by writing, for example, "So it sounds like you're claiming that all men should be lined up and shot, and boys permanently enslaved to women for all time. Do I take your meaning correctly?" I imagine after a few times of answering, "No, of course not! How could you ever get such a meaning from what I wrote?", you'd get tired of defending yourself from (what seem to you to be) obviously spurious charges of hate-ism.

59 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I think it was a poor analogy as I already explained above.

You've said that you found it objectionable, because you think it taps into some underlying vein of false prejudice against homosexuals. You have not explained why the analogy is invalid or otherwise "poor", just that you dislike it.

59 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I believe I understand why you and others don't care for the article as it focuses on people's sins, and in your opinion even appears to imply that they don't need to work on giving up those sins.  (Do I understand you correctly?)

Partially. I primarily dislike the article because I perceive it as hypocritical. The author takes the Saints to task for not being friendly and accepting enough of those who are "different", while his entire article is a screed against those very Saints. His paragraphs on homosexuals are particularly telling:

Quote

We need more LGBT in our LDS...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...Our own attitudes, however, can create a huge stumbling block for LGBT members and visitors, and that simply is inexcusable.

So we should not judge homosexuals for their homosexuality, but it's okay for the author to classify another Latter-day Saint as being a "self-righteous snoot" and to pass judgment that some sins (like not having the right attitude, where "right" means "like the author's") are "inexcusable".

Seriously, what a hypocrite.

Consider his last paragraphs:

Quote

Most of all, what I think we can use more of is compassion, tolerance, and Christ-like love. His ministry was all about people on the fringes.  The physically and mentally ill.  The outcast.  The adulteress.  The possessed.  We would do well following that example by embracing whomever might be lifted, comforted, and enriched through exposure to the gospel.

In other words, everyone.

Does the author exemplify the attitude he claims we should follow? Or is he simply looking to put up points on the Politically Correct scoreboard?

Let the author write the same article, but talk about pedophiles (whose sinful nature is widely despised) rather than homosexuals (whose sinful nature is widely celebrated). Then I might have more of a tendency to believe him to be sincere.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There are intelligent, compassionate, effective ways of supporting members and guests with unwanted attractions. Many churches have discreet protocols even for having former sex offenders worship with them. A designated person may shadow the individual (with their knowledge), and they may be informed of certain areas that are off-limits, and of course that they are never to be in a room alone with a minor. These guests/members are generally very cooperative and appreciative of the support. Scripture commands that the strong in the church come along side the weak.  So, even as we reject the calls to legitimize, normalize and embrace sin, we also provide sacred space for the fallen, that they may experience true restoration with God and his people.

This isn't exactly what I'm talking about though. I'm really more concerned about the dialogue itself. I'm more concerned with the implications of what's being stressed than I am of the sinner sitting in church. I want the sinner in church. It is the ideals pervading the flock that are being perpetuated, as we see in the example of the article being discussed, inadvertently upheld by the "open door"-ness of it all without, in many cases, the accompanying "beware the wolf" message. Oh...the "beware the wolf" message is still there...somewhere. Just not accompanying the "open door" message. Because, of course, the "beware the wolf" message would be offensive to those being offered the "open door" message. I consider that offense a lesser concern, however, than I do the interpreted ideals of those who are, unaware, being devoured by said wolf, and then heaping that compost into the mix as some sort of higher ideal. I have never considered the wolves to be the sinners themselves. The wolves are the accompanying lies that need to be guarded against. What worries me is the failure to guard against these wolves in the name of not offending while allowing the prioritization of dangerous attitudes above the protection of vulnerable minds within the flock.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

You seem to be saying that some comparisons are, by their very nature, off limits. 

I thought my comments were very clear and yet you misunderstood me.   I'm not saying some comparisions are off limits, the comparisons you make are your business, I'm just saying in my opinion it was a poor choice.  Because some people think that all homosexuals are pedophiles, and that is far from the truth. 
 

Quote

A sinner is a sinner, and a pedophile who controls himself is no more sinful than a homosexual who controls himself.

True and the same can be said of all of us and our sins.  
 

Quote

Why, then, did the author mention homosexuality but not pedophilia? Why wasn't he courageous enough to bring up a less popular and less fashionable moral perversion?

Perhaps, the author has friends who are homosexual, but does not have friends that are pedophiles.  That is certainly the case for me.  I have homosexual friends.  I don't know anyone who openly admits to being a pedophile.  So if I wrote this article, I would likely write it in the same way, with the same reasons.  
 

Quote

We do not -- or at least should not -- use preaching the gospel as a chance to show off our own (perceived) moral superiority. 

Here I think you are reading something into the article that was not at all intended.  I didn't get that from the article at all.   If what he said doesn't apply to you, then it wasn't directed to you. 

Quote

And I appreciate that. Thank you. You can perhaps understand my frustration when you consider that you have a history of misunderstanding what I write. This seems to happen along a common line: You read into my words certain negative meanings that simply are not there. It's frustrating.

Being misunderstood is frustrating to be sure.  However, it is also unfair to judge someone by their past behavior.  I'm trying to find a better way to broach our differences.

Quote

Actually, I should be (and in my better moments, I am) glad that you voice these things, since it gives me a chance to disclaim them. Nevertheless, I am confident that you would quickly find it tiresome if I replied to many of your posts by writing, for example, "So it sounds like you're claiming that all men should be lined up and shot, and boys permanently enslaved to women for all time. Do I take your meaning correctly?" I imagine after a few times of answering, "No, of course not! How could you ever get such a meaning from what I wrote?", you'd get tired of defending yourself from (what seem to you to be) obviously spurious charges of hate-ism.

Vort, think about this for a moment.  You seem to be implying here that I do this quite frequently.  If so, I'd be happy if you would point it out to me, because my recollection is very different.  And if you do find those posts...check the dates.  I don't disagree that we have had disagreements in the past, but we have not had disagreements for a long time.  

Quote

You've said that you found it objectionable, because you think it taps into some underlying vein of false prejudice against homosexuals. You have not explained why the analogy is invalid or otherwise "poor", just that you dislike it.

Your first sentence here answers the second. 

About the article, let's suppose that you are right that the author is a hypocrite.  We need more hypocrites at church as well, to sit next to the homosexuals and pedophiles.  Because in the end, we are all sinners.  

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Isn't the obvious resulting question to the "open door" policy plain, however? Shouldn't the "ravenous wolf" potentially eating our children while we're about rescuing the lost sheep be of, perhaps, greater concern than the attempt to rescue the sexually deviant who may someday lose their mojo?

Sure; and I think it was pointed out above (maybe by @zil?  Sorry; am posting on the fly) that to the extent that *anyone* affirmatively starts going out and saying “there’s nothing wrong with this activity that the Church says is sinful and you should go ahead and do it if you want to”, there’s going to need to be corrective action.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm not sure that tattooed people/homosexuals and the other people that the article is talking about are banging on church doors asking to be let in, so this thread is sort of a moot point.  

[zil]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not sure that tattooed people/homosexuals and the other people that the article is talking about are banging on church doors asking to be let in, so this thread is sort of a moot point.  

Stop ruining a perfectly good debate, er discussion, with your facts.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

About the article, let's suppose that you are right that the author is a hypocrite.  We need more hypocrites at church as well, to sit next to the homosexuals and pedophiles.  Because in the end, we are all sinners.

Hear, hear. But the point is: We don't need more pedophiles at Church molesting our children. We don't need more homosexuals at Church preaching the beauties of homosexuality. And we don't need more hypocrites loudly proclaiming their hypocrisies. All sinners are welcome, which is good news for every one of us. But the sinner should understand that he or she will be giving up the sin, so don't get comfortable with it.

[prisonchaplain]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not sure that tattooed people/homosexuals and the other people that the article is talking about are banging on church doors asking to be let in, so this thread is sort of a moot point.  

Or maybe this lack of eagerness to enter our gates is exactly the point of the thread. How do we become attractive to sinners without compromising our sainthood? Perhaps @The Folk Prophet is asking the same point--with emphasis on the maintaining holiness--and even our belief in sanctified living?

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

Stop ruining a perfectly good debate, er discussion, with your facts.

lol. It's like those threads where people say through their noses "I wouldn't allow someone to drink coffee in my house. Or alcohol. Or watch a G rated movie. Horrid!" Um, I'm pretty much assuring you that anyone who wants to drink coffee/alcohol, watch a PG movie wouldn't want to come over to your house in the first place, so...

[zil]

Just now, MormonGator said:

lol. It's like those threads where people say through their noses "I wouldn't allow someone to drink coffee in my house. Or alcohol. Or watch a G rated movie. Horrid!" Um, I'm pretty much assuring you that anyone who wants to drink coffee/alcohol, watch a PG movie wouldn't want to come over to your house in the first place, so...

I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're complimenting me or insulting me...

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're complimenting me or insulting me...

Both. 

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Or maybe this lack of eagerness to enter our gates is exactly the point of the thread. How do we become attractive to sinners without compromising our sainthood? Perhaps @The Folk Prophet is asking the same point--with emphasis on the maintaining holiness--and even our belief in sanctified living?

Hey, I hope it works. I hope you can find a way to bring EVERYONE into the flock. From homosexuals to tattooed people to the worst kind of people-liberals :: gasp :: 

What I am saying is that a large percentage of those kinds of people have absolutely no interest in joining a church. So saying they can't join or have to change to join will have zero impact in their lives. It would be like telling @prisonchaplain that no, he can't join the American Association of Atheists.

Edited October 24, 2017 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure; and I think it was pointed out above (maybe by @zil?  Sorry; am posting on the fly) that to the extent that *anyone* affirmatively starts going out and saying “there’s nothing wrong with this activity that the Church says is sinful and you should go ahead and do it if you want to”, there’s going to need to be corrective action.

 

Only "affirmatively"?

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Only "affirmatively"?

Yes. People have all sorts of private opinion, most of them stupid and practically all of them wrong. That's the common condition of mortality. The problems really begin when people start preaching their beliefs as reasonable, even necessary, interpretations of the gospel.