Sunday21

Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church

Recommended Posts

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!

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

And you can’t be buried in a Jewish cemetery! There’s always that!

You actually can. That's an urban legend. 

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/533444/jewish/Can-a-person-with-a-tattoo-be-buried-in-a-Jewish-cemetery.htm

https://reformjudaism.org/practice/ask-rabbi/it-true-you-cannot-be-buried-jewish-cemetery-if-you-have-tattoo

The cemetery thing is for murderers and truly evil people, like @mirkwood

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Good to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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.

I don’t know if this is true, but..there used to be a rumour that the way to get rid of the missionaries was to tell them that you were gay. Perhaps the author is reacting to this rumour?

I know a number of lovely gay people. I bet that you would like them.

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I don’t know if this is true, but..there used to be a rumour that the way to get rid of the missionaries was to tell them that you were gay.

Before or after the first kiss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Oh, I wouldn't take that bet @Sunday21. He doesn't like anything. @Vort once kicked a puppy on Christmas day. 

I don't need to wait for Christmas Day. I'm a non-denominational puppy-kicker.

I'm sure there are very many lovely homosexuals that I would be quite fond of. I'm sure there are plenty of charming adulterers that I would like. I'm sure many pedophiles are marvelous people (seriously) that I would like. If the fact that they are marvelous people and/or that I might like them are the relevant factors, then I don't understand why naming one of their weaknesses is relevant. That is the entire point of my response to the author of the above-mentioned article.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with part of this statement: "Yeah! I don’t care who you are, what you did, or what you wear, you belong with us!"

As a matter of fact, Mormons do in fact care a great deal about who you are.  Kind of our entire purpose here is to invite you to be what we figure is the best, most righteous, sin-free son or daughter of God that you can.  And yes, we have pretty clear opinions about the shoulds and shouldn'ts to help you get there.  But yeah, your past and your clothing are secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

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!

Well, I notice that last line has been removed from the article.  Reading the thing without that line, it's a pretty good article.  

Vort says: "I don't understand why naming one of their weaknesses is relevant."

IMO, the reason we want to call this stuff out specifically for two reasons:

1. As we extend an inviting hand, the whole world tends to misunderstand something.  The world figures your past, your feelings, your natural man desires define you.  It isn't true, but folks tend to assume it is true.  So we call out to the various kinds of sinners who often just assume "oh, they don't mean me", to get their attention.

2. Sometimes we LDS ourselves fall into this trap too.  I bet we can't swing a dead cat in sacrament meeting without hitting a dozen people who would be really uncomfortable sitting next to a homosexual, or a scary looking dude with weird tattoos.  So we have some house cleaning to do of our own, and should cover the distance we need to cover in order to be able to extend genuine love and acceptance to folks who sin differently than we do.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vort  I hope I misread your posts and you were not equating being homosexual with being a pedophile or adulterer. That is a fallacy. Some homosexuals maybe, but certainly noy all.  Plenty of pedophiles and adulterers are heterosexuals.

Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is. 

The church has a wonderful site on www.mormonsandgays.org for anyone who is interested.

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort  I hope I misread your posts and you were not equating being homosexual with being a pedophile or adulterer. Plenty of pedophiles and adulterers are heterosexuals.

Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is. 

The church has a wonderful site on www.mormonsanfgays.org for anyone who is interested.

Personally, I think Vort's point was perfectly clear.  He's saying if we think we need more of people who commit "Sin X", we should also think we need more of people who commit "Sin Y" (there was no implied relationship between X and Y).  In other words, we want everyone to abandon their sins (without regard for what the sin is) and come to Christ.  Alternately, we want everyone to come and join us as we all struggle to abandon our sins.

As has been mentioned previously, he was more / also saying it doesn't make sense to label people by their (worst?) sins. (NT gave a differing opinion of why it might make sense.)

Personally, I don't comprehend why it needs to be said - I think it's been being said for eons, it's just that we're not all equally good at implementation.

I will say, however, that we need to be careful not to dilute the doctrine in hopes of making people who prefer their sins feel welcome, cuz without the call to repentance and the clear teachings regarding what is sin, we're as useless as the world, if not worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 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.

Agreed.  We need more *people* in the Church—full stop.

Some of the articles on MormonHub lately remind me of the rameumptoms of old (“thank you, Lord, for not making me like those cretins over there!”).  Heck, even full-blown antis usually at least take the trouble to protest about how much they like Mormons.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort  I hope I misread your posts and you were not equating being homosexual with being a pedophile or adulterer. That is a fallacy. Some homosexuals maybe, but certainly noy all.  Plenty of pedophiles and adulterers are heterosexuals.

Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is. 

The church has a wonderful site on www.mormonsandgays.org for anyone who is interested.

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.  

Pedophiles, speaking generally, don’t consciously choose their attractions; many of them go through the hell and loneliness that are part and parcel of repressing an attraction for a lifetime; and to the extent that they control their actions, their predilection constitutes a weakness rather than a sin.  I think, at this stage of the discussion, it is primarily our desire to continue to stigmatize pedophilia whilst de-stigmatizing homosexuality that makes comparisons to pedophilia so objectionable.  (That, and the desire of some gay-rights activists to overly-dramatize the situation by wailing that “no one in the history of the world has e’er had to suffer as I do!  Pity me—and give me what I want!”)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it is a very big mistake to think that the gospel is popular.  It is my understanding that the things of G-d are very unpopular – especially for the natural man.  But the gospel is about those that discard the popular notions and dedicate themselves to the love of G-d and service of their fellow man.

The point of becoming a saint of G-d is not about where someone has been but about the direction (where) they are going.  We should welcome anyone and everyone to the path – and realize it is not about who they were but where the path will take them.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort  I hope I misread your posts and you were not equating being homosexual with being a pedophile or adulterer. That is a fallacy. Some homosexuals maybe, but certainly noy all.  Plenty of pedophiles and adulterers are heterosexuals.

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.

To clarify: I did not say that homosexuals were pedophiles, nor did I say they were adulterers. Rather, I observed that if we vocally extend the hands of fellowship to homosexuals, we should also vocally do so to pedophiles. And adulterers. And Democrats. And BSA national leaders. And all other unsavory types. Because we're all "unsavory types", and calling out Perversion X (bad temper, greediness, homosexuality, lusting after thy neighbor's wife) as being especially invited over Perversion Y (pedophilia, porn users, Marxists, those who enjoy kicking puppies) is absurd.

Homosexuality is the Flavor du Jour of perversions. I believe it is for this reason, and this reason only, that the author states that we "need" more homosexuals in our congregations and yet, hypocritically, refuses to say that we "need" more pedophiles. We need more pedophiles in our congregation just exactly as much as we need more homosexuals, tattooed people, leftists, or those who eat their boogers. So why doesn't the author call out those groups, as well? Because they aren't The Hot Thing at the moment.

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is. 

In like manner, being a pedophile is not a sin. Acting on it is. So are you celebrating the pedophiles in our midst and openly encouraging more to come unto Christ and join the throng? If not, maybe you should. After all, no one needs the atonement of Christ more than pedophiles. Why the specificity of homosexuals? Are homosexuals more beloved of God than pedophiles? I think they are not.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now