cat123

What LGBTQ+ hath wrot

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

How is it false?  The Saint Mary's Bell Choir is going to be very much advocating for and making excuses for remaining in their brand of sin (After all they think Catholicism is just fine and dandy no matter what we or the Lord thinks about it)

Since when was being a Catholic a sin?

Abandoning the fullness of the restored Gospel, of course, is a sin; and a group that were known in the community for actively and aggressively promoting this would probably find itself persona non grata on temple premises in fairly short order.  

There’s a big difference between sincere error and willful rebellion. 

But drawing an equivalence between Catholics and impenitent fornication advocates is, frankly, kind of silly.  

Moreover, people in this particular environment aren’t rationally going to conclude that since we Mormons let a Catholic choir perform at our facility, we are conceding (or are about to concede) that we’ve been in the wrong all this time and that our guests are in the right.  But by virtue of inviting the gay choir, lots of folks are concluding precisely that.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Since when was being a Catholic a sin?

Abandoning the fullness of the restored Gospel, of course, is a sin; and a group that were known in the community for actively and aggressively promoting this would probably find itself persona non grata on temple premises in fairly short order.  

But drawing an equivalence between Catholics and fornicators is, frankly, kind of silly.

In the First Vision the Lord called the Creeds of Christianity an "Abomination"   That is the strongest language the Lord uses.  He uses equally strong language for fornicators.  The Lord makes the equivalency.  Do you consider him silly?

The simple fact of the matter is the various "Abominable" churches have the advantage of history.  We can see how the Lord has directed his Church to interact with them.  Therefore it is normal.  However the "Abominable" Homosexual groups are new.  We have no history.  We do not see how the Lord had directed his Church to interact with them. (yet.. that is changing) So we get hung up on the Abominable part assuming that is the most important part.

Want to know how we should (re)act?  Watch for how the Lord's leaders (re)act.  While this action might have happened without the First Presidency's knowledge.. at some point they will become aware.  The action (or lack there of) they take after gaining awareness is them owning (or disowning) the action.

In this case we do not need to do anything about the action taken by the Event Coordinatior.  The Lord's leaders will.  That is their job.  Our job is to look to our stewardship.  If we see someone in our stewardship struggling because of this (or any other) issue we reach out and help them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often thought that Moroni 8:14 suggests that people who believe that infant baptism is necessary are in the bonds of iniqiuity possessing neither faith, hope or charity, but as to whether that means they are sinful, well I'm less certain about drawing that conclusion. 

14  Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:14)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

[1]In the First Vision the Lord called the Creeds of Christianity an "Abomination"   That is the strongest language the Lord uses.  He uses equally strong language for fornicators.  The Lord makes the equivalency.  Do you consider him silly?

The simple fact of the matter is the various "Abominable" churches have the advantage of history.  We can see how the Lord has directed his Church to interact with them.  Therefore it is normal.  However the "Abominable" Homosexual groups are new.  We have no history.  We do not see how the Lord had directed his Church to interact with them. (yet.. that is changing) So we get hung up on the Abominable part assuming that is the most important part.

[2]Want to know how we should (re)act?  Watch for how the Lord's leaders (re)act.  While this action might have happened without the First Presidency's knowledge.. at some point they will become aware.  The action (or lack there of) they take after gaining awareness is them owning (or disowning) the action.

[3]In this case we do not need to do anything about the action taken by the Event Coordinatior.  The Lord's leaders will.  That is their job.  Our job is to look to our stewardship.  If we see someone in our stewardship struggling because of this (or any other) issue we reach out and help them.  

1.  The fixation with “abominable” is yours, not mine.  

2.  I do agree we need to watch the leadership.  So let’s look at how the modern Church leadership has treated Catholics versus LGBTQ:

—A person who has gay sex can’t take the sacrament.  If he persists over time, he faces excommunication.  A person who goes to a Catholic mass once—or even regularly—may continue in full fellowship with the LDS Church so long as he does not renounce LDS teaching.

—Until recently, a child of gay parents couldn’t be baptized without FP approval.  A child of Catholic parents, could.

—Current members of the First Presidency are on record suggesting that it may be necessary to limit young children’s exposure to gay lifestyles.  They have not advocated limitations on children’s exposure to Catholic lifestyles. 

—The Church has a significant record of opposing civic gay marriage.  It had no record of opposing civic Catholic marriage.  

—Joseph Smith spoke favorably of the Catholic Church  Not so with recidivist sexual sinners.

—Internal memoranda and videoconference recordings from the last two decades have shown the GAs discussing the spiritual and social dangers of homosexuality.  No such recent recordings exist of them perseverating on Catholicism in such a way.

—Recent General conferences have been full of warnings about homosexuality; whereas in the last thirty years there have been twenty-one occurrences of the word “Catholic” in General Conference transcripts—all of them neutral or positive.

—A person who has been in a gay relationship needs approval from (IIRC) at least a mission president to be approved for baptism.  A Catholic needs approval only from the missionary who usually handles baptismal interviews.

3)

A.  Who made it your stewardship to tell me I’m doing my stewardship wrong?  If you can (respectfully and politely, of course!) criticize my exercise of my stewardship, why can’t I (respectfully and politely) criticize someone else’s exercise of theirs when, as we’ve already established, they hold no direct ecclesiastical authority over me personally?  (I’m not trying to be snarky; this is an honest question.)

B.  When I’ve tried to help people who are stumbling on the LGBTQ issue, several have pointed back to this action of the DC temple staff to suggest that they need no help because the Church is going to change.  My stewardship has been made harder due to the temple staff’s actions, and you’re telling me to sit there and take it, let my friends drift off into apostasy—and never, ever suggest that the temple staff acted inconsistently with the rest of the Church’s teachings vis a vis LGBTQ issues?

And you still haven’t given me a solid basis on which I could disagree with and publicly warn against apostates like Kelley or Dehlin or Snuffer or Bishop prior to their excommunication. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a remarkable discussion/argument, at least 6 pages worth that I did not read but only skimmed because it was just too tedious and hair splitting and nit picking and incomprehensive and mind boggling.  But I thought I'd just drop this in here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/mormon-tabernacle-choir-rehearses-with-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus?lang=eng

And this: http://www.newnownext.com/sf-gay-mens-chorus-conductor-directs-mormon-tabernacle-choir/06/2018/

And this: https://www.deseret.com/2018/6/26/20647875/it-s-all-about-the-music-san-francisco-gay-men-s-chorus-performs-with-mormon-tabernacle-choir

The trail has already been blazed by the Tab Choir. Looks like a good time was had by all. So not to worry about church-wide apostacy and such. "It's all about the music."  Some people who self label as gay are extremely musically talented and have much to offer. For those of us who are close enough to go hear it, all we have to do is just listen with our ears and hearts and enjoy the music. The rest of you don't need to fret or even pay any attention.  I did get a giggle out of this headline from the SL Trib. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/06/25/the-mormon-tabernacle-choir-gets-a-gay-conductor-for-a-night/  ( Anyone who stopped reading at "conductor" just may have wet themselves or had a heart attack. 😄)

 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Meanwhile, the below was performed at the Conference Center a couple of months ago.  (I was there.)

Thoughts on whether the First Presidency endorses this?

 

Well, I doubt the prophet would endorse that song. I think it’s pretty tasteless of that group to perform it at that particular venue. They should have known better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  The fixation with “abominable” is yours, not mine.  

2.  I do agree we need to watch the leadership.  So let’s look at how the modern Church leadership has treated Catholics versus LGBTQ:

—A person who has gay sex can’t take the sacrament.  If he persists over time, he faces excommunication.  A person who goes to a Catholic mass once—or even regularly—may continue in full fellowship with the LDS Church so long as he does not renounce LDS teaching.

—Until recently, a child of gay parents couldn’t be baptized without FP approval.  A child of Catholic parents, could.

—Current members of the First Presidency are on record suggesting that it may be necessary to limit young children’s exposure to gay lifestyles.  They have not advocated limitations on children’s exposure to Catholic lifestyles. 

—The Church has a significant record of opposing civic gay marriage.  It had no record of opposing civic Catholic marriage.  

—Joseph Smith spoke favorably of the Catholic Church  Not so with recidivist sexual sinners.

—Internal memoranda and videoconference recordings from the last two decades have shown the GAs discussing the spiritual and social dangers of homosexuality.  No such recent recordings exist of them perseverating on Catholicism in such a way.

—Recent General conferences have been full of warnings about homosexuality; whereas in the last thirty years there have been twenty-one occurrences of the word “Catholic” in General Conference transcripts—all of them neutral or positive.

—A person who has been in a gay relationship needs approval from (IIRC) at least a mission president to be approved for baptism.  A Catholic needs approval only from the missionary who usually handles baptismal interviews.

3)

A.  Who made it your stewardship to tell me I’m doing my stewardship wrong?  If you can (respectfully and politely, of course!) criticize my exercise of my stewardship, why can’t I (respectfully and politely) criticize someone else’s exercise of theirs when, as we’ve already established, they hold no direct ecclesiastical authority over me personally?  (I’m not trying to be snarky; this is an honest question.)

B.  When I’ve tried to help people who are stumbling on the LGBTQ issue, several have pointed back to this action of the DC temple staff to suggest that they need no help because the Church is going to change.  My stewardship has been made harder due to the temple staff’s actions, and you’re telling me to sit there and take it, let my friends drift off into apostasy—and never, ever suggest that the temple staff acted inconsistently with the rest of the Church’s teachings vis a vis LGBTQ issues?

And you still haven’t given me a solid basis on which I could disagree with and publicly warn against apostates like Kelley or Dehlin or Snuffer or Bishop prior to their excommunication. 

1. It is the Lord's written in scriptures... All I am doing it showing it.

2. The leadership as also created https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/

Funny how you refused to include that one in your review.  Plus the countless talks about how we love the sinner and include them as much as we can.

3. I presume you made temple covenants to support the church.  The church has detailed process for handling the necessary corrections for wayward leadership.  (Or those acting in official capacity) including those that have the power of public rebuking.  The Event Coordinatior was acting in their official capacity.  Even if they have no direct stewardship of you or me, they were still were in the bounds of their official capacity.  A Covenant to support the church must include following the direction and guidance given.

A. You (and me) are not acting (by posting on this forums) in the bounds of our official calling or stewardship.  Thus you and I can call each other out all day for our post here without coming anywhere near the violation of the covenants we made. 

B. Now you also mention how some of your stewardship has become harder.  That sucks.  But that is also life.  People will find excuses to do what they want to do. The temple staff action is an excuse for their rebellion not the cause.  You want to do something useful focus on the cause... Their rebellious spirits and hard hearts.

To clarify in case you still don't understand my response.  Those acting within the bounds of their officially given calling.  The only public rebuke is from one holding a stewardship over them.  Private options of course exist.  And legal options should they so apply.

However when such budding apostates step beyond their official capacity (which they eventually must) (such as abuse or private discussions in open forums) then they are no longer covered

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Well, I doubt the prophet would endorse that song. I think it’s pretty tasteless of that group to perform it at that particular venue. They should have known better. 

Indeed...  As for the people who arranged for them to be there...  We should not presume that just because we do not see it... that those with the proper stewardship did not take the corrective actions they felt were needed and appropriate.

If someone we have stewardship over is negatively impacted by such.... we can and should work with them and try to help them overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

1. It is the Lord's written in scriptures... All I am doing it showing it.

2. The leadership as also created https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/

Funny how you refused to include that one in your review.  Plus the countless talks about how we love the sinner and include them as much as we can.

3. I presume you made temple covenants to support the church.  The church has detailed process for handling the necessary corrections for wayward leadership.  (Or those acting in official capacity) including those that have the power of public rebuking.  The Event Coordinatior was acting in their official capacity.  Even if they have no direct stewardship of you or me, they were still were in the bounds of their official capacity.  A Covenant to support the church must include following the direction and guidance given.

A. You (and me) are not acting (by posting on this forums) in the bounds of our official calling or stewardship.  Thus you and I can call each other out all day for our post here without coming anywhere near the violation of the covenants we made. 

B. Now you also mention how some of your stewardship has become harder.  That sucks.  But that is also life.  People will find excuses to do what they want to do. The temple staff action is an excuse for their rebellion not the cause.  You want to do something useful focus on the cause... Their rebellious spirits and hard hearts.

To clarify in case you still don't understand my response.  Those acting within the bounds of their officially given calling.  The only public rebuke is from one holding a stewardship over them.  Private options of course exist.  And legal options should they so apply.

However when such budding apostates step beyond their official capacity (which they eventually must) (such as abuse or private discussions in open forums) then they are no longer covered

So, let’s take a moment to make sure we’re on the same page about context.  Your position is that if we let Catholics sing on our premises, we should have no objection to letting gays sing on our premises; because being a fornicator, sodomite, and (in many cases) spouse-abandoner, is no more morally problematic than . . . being a Catholic.  

So . . .

1)  So, what?  There aren’t gradients of “abominations”? Are you telling me that if you had to choose between eating a communion wafer and copulating with Elton John, you just might copulate with Elton John?  You wouldn’t see a difference?  Your wife wouldn’t see a difference?

2)  The existence of Mormonsandgays.com does not indicate moral parity between fornication and Catholicism.  If anything, the lack of a “Mormonsandcatholics.com”—and apparent lack of even a perceived need for such a site—reinforces the disparity.  And embracing sinners equally does not mean we are prohibited from noticing that they are, in fact, sinning; or that different sins have different levels of appeal and/or different consequences against which third parties may need to be warned/insulated.  

Now, would you like to start talking about the numerous differences in GA approaches to homosexuality versus Catholicism that I’ve noted?  Or is there another diversion you’d like us to follow for a while?

3) 

A.  I won’t presume to define what you are, or think, you are doing here; but as for me—of course my participation here is part of my stewardship.  I don’t check my priesthood or baptismal covenants at the door when I log into this site.  As you well know, this site exists because independent Church members took the “every member a missionary” mantra and ran with it. 

B.  Alma didn’t tell Corianton “well, your fornication and abandonment of your ministry was no biggie because those Zoramites were hellbound anyways”.  Nor did he say “those Zoramites had no right to tell you that dating a whore wasn’t within the bounds of your stewardship”. When local leaders err, members—even ordinarily decent and obedient ones; the “very elect”, as it were—will naturally stray.

I mean, my goodness, @estradling75  You’re one of the most thoughtful, orthodox, and conservative members of this board; but all it takes is local approval of one event on the DC temple grounds and all of a sudden you’re suggesting that gay sex is no worse than Catholicism.  You would never have advocated that position six months ago.

I do understand your arguments—you’re a remarkably effective communicator.  I simply don’t agree with you.  You’ve given no solid basis for a Saint to disavow or protect himself or others against the apostadores or errors of a fellow saint who has not yet been excommunicated, other than to privately pass the issue up the chain of command.  You have not explained why we were OK to publicly disagree with Dehlin and Kelley and Snuffer and Bishop at a time when the Church itself had not formally and publicly moved against them.  You have not explained on what basis a Nevada Saint could tell his daughter “yes, Bishop Miller has been using the local chapel as a whorehouse every Thursday and he hasn’t been released yet; but prostitution is wrong and you shouldn’t be a part of that”.  You have given short shrift to the role of individual covenant, ordination, and revelation in speaking out against sin and error. 

Unless or until the First Presidency says otherwise, I submit that the DC temple scheduler exceeded the bounds of his/her stewardship the moment (s)he booked that choir; just as (s)he would have in booking the site out for a casino night or a strip show; and I need not wait for GA permission before publicly questioning the wisdom of that decision—particularly when numerous observers start asking me if the decision means that the Church is about to start sanctioning gambling, stripping, or gay sex.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m probably jumping back in the boiling pot here... but the point I (and I think@estradling75) was making was that if we should not be allowing an all gay men’s choir that represents LGBTQ+ on the grounds that it supports a way of life and belief system that will take them away from God, then we should be doing it on all levels, not just the worst.

Stop meeting with members of other faiths because we are providing another platform for our members and children to become distracted from the true gospel. Stop hosting events on friendship where we invite leaders of other faiths to speak on our venues cause it allows our members to see and hear a man speak a slightly different gospel than the one we know to be true.

Homosexuality is a grosser sin than being of a false church. But when embraced completely, they will both take you away from God. So why only oppose one? Why not oppose both?

I think I have switched sides on this topic and am now against the gay choir having sung with our choir. But I still don’t see how we can reject one sinful organization in participating with us yet be ok with accepting another.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Meanwhile, the below was performed at the Conference Center a couple of months ago.  (I was there.)

Thoughts on whether the First Presidency endorses this?

 

Very nice quartet performance, though I associate barbershop quartet more with polyphony. This performance is much more homophony, which is fine, but is not what I think of as "real" barbershop quartet.

Ah! That's your point! It's HOMOPHONY! For shame!

Theologically speaking, this song is a combo stew, with a little of this and a little of that, which in the end don't make any sense at all together. (Satan's little...lamb? When they die, they'll go to...purgatory?) It sounds like an atheist's attempt to write clever lyrics about a topic he doesn't really understand. Maybe that's by design.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


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

Homosexuality is a grosser sin than being of a false church. But when embraced completely, they will both take you away from God. So why only oppose one? Why not oppose both?

If you are not a Christian, embracing Catholicism will bring you closer to God. Catholicism teaches good and holy principles to a much greater extent than does the practice of homosexuality. 

Share this post


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

If you are not a Christian, embracing Catholicism will bring you closer to God. Catholicism teaches good and holy principles to a much greater extent than does the practice of homosexuality. 

And I see that and agree with that. So the idea is that if an organization only sort of takes people away from Christ, it’s ok to invite them to perform with us and in our venues?

To me it sounds like we are saying “you can’t come to my party cause you will bring drugs and alcohol... but you can come cause your only going to swear at our party That isn’t a big deal.”

Again, I’m not so much questioning the severity of homosexuality and Catholicism. I’m questioning the disallowance of a major sinful organization, yet the allowance of a minor sinful organization. This is where my questions come.

If it comes down to that, its ok to let a slightly sinful group in our venues, but not a major sinful group, then that is fine, just say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fether said:

And I see that and agree with that. So the idea is that if an organization only sort of takes people away from Christ, it’s ok to invite them to perform with us and in our venues?

To me it sounds like we are saying “you can’t come to my party cause you will bring drugs and alcohol... but you can come cause your only going to swear at our party That isn’t a big deal.”

Again, I’m not so much questioning the severity of homosexuality and Catholicism. I’m questioning the disallowance of a major sinful organization, yet the allowance of a minor sinful organization. This is where my questions come.

If it comes down to that, its ok to let a slightly sinful group in our venues, but not a major sinful group, then that is fine, just say it.

This is going to sound weird coming from me, but . . . 

The rationale for being concerned about a gay choir from performing in a church venue isn’t that we are trying to be 100% ideologically consistent or pure; or preserve the sanctity of some sacred site. 

The rationale is a) the possibility that the society in which we live—in all its nuanced, messy, incoherent, inconsistencies—is going to draw a particular message about the event; and b) the relative spiritual harmfulness of such a message.  Are we causing someone to stumble?  Paul has some things to say about that in Romans 14.

If local/global events were such that a Catholic choir performing at an LDS venue would be broadly seen as undermining/renouncing a core LDS doctrinal claim, then I would agree that the choir should absolutely be excluded.

But thankfully, that’s not the culture we live in at this particular moment.  This sort of issue is very attenuated to time, place, public opinion, cultural baggage, and other circumstance; and as those factors evolve the ideal Church response may well evolve too.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

The rationale is a) the possibility that the society in which we live—in all its nuanced, messy, incoherent, inconsistencies—is going to draw a particular message about the event; and b) the relative spiritual harmfulness of such a message.  Are we causing someone to stumble?

I really appreciate this comment. I see holes in it, but they are all nit picky holes that could lead to another 9 pages of pointless discourse. But I think I get it.

I’m still having a hard time with the idea that this was an all bad event and that it should never have happened. Cognitively I get it and I in many senses agree. But I still feel emotionally that this wasn’t a big deal. Surely the fact that I have two siblings that are LGBTQ+ is effecting my thought process in it. For better or for worst I don’t know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 Are we causing someone to stumble?  Paul has some things to say about that in Romans 14.

But what of the good that can come from it?  Consider a kid who's struggling with same-sex attraction and all the shame, self-loathing, etc that can go along with that, especially in those who grew up in the church.  What if he sees this and realizes that it gets better. This might just save his life, keep him from attempting/committing suicide.  

Also, I think there is a difference between providing a venue for a performance (which is what DC Temple is doing) and sponsoring or endorsing a group.  The choir formerly known as MoTab has performed with many different individuals and choirs that did not uphold the same standards or beliefs.  It's a performance, not a sermon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 10:32 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Moreover, people in this particular environment aren’t rationally going to conclude that since we Mormons let a Catholic choir perform at our facility, we are conceding (or are about to concede) that we’ve been in the wrong all this time and that our guests are in the right.  But by virtue of inviting the gay choir, lots of folks are concluding precisely that.  

Who is concluding that? I don't know of anyone who says "Well, this gay choir is singing with the MoTab. This means gay marriage will be sanctioned tomorrow!" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MormonGator said:

Who is concluding that? I don't know of anyone who says "Well, this gay choir is singing with the MoTab. This means gay marriage will be sanctioned tomorrow!" 

Maybe not, but JAG has made it clear that he knows people who say this. I wil bet you $10,000 that members of my own family will say exactly this. You yourself have been open about believing that the Church will soon embrace homosexual "marriage"; can you really not see that others who share your opinions or hopes would take this as a move in precisely that direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dprh said:

[1]  But what of the good that can come from it?  Consider a kid who's struggling with same-sex attraction and all the shame, self-loathing, etc that can go along with that, especially in those who grew up in the church.  What if he sees this and realizes that it gets better. This might just save his life, keep him from attempting/committing suicide.  

[2]  Also, I think there is a difference between providing a venue for a performance (which is what DC Temple is doing) and sponsoring or endorsing a group.  The choir formerly known as MoTab has performed with many different individuals and choirs that did not uphold the same standards or beliefs.  It's a performance, not a sermon.  

1.  DPRH, people who attempt/commit suicide—gay or straight—are mentally ill.  Period.  I will mourn with those who mourn, but I refuse to be blamed for someone else’s mental illness; and I refuse to let damnable libertines exploit that mental illness in order to force me or the Church to quit saying the things that harrow up their guilty souls.  If the Church’s softened rhetoric is causing suicides now, then why wasn’t it causing them in equal proportions in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s when the likes of Lee, Kimball, Peterson, McConkie, Hinckley, and Packer were using much harsher rhetoric?

Even if there were some truth to this:  if we’re out to prevent suicide, then what should we accept as an acceptable ratio of suicides to apostasies?  Is one apostasy for every prevented suicide acceptable,?  Ten apostasies?  Twenty?  Fifty?  A hundred?  

Or should we just quit catering to mentally ill folks whose exits from this life included a calculated lash-out at the people who loved them—and the ghouls who cynically use those deaths for political gain—and focus our efforts on preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and inviting all men everywhere to repent and come to Him?

2.  The issue isn’t just what we mean to say; it’s how the statement will be interpreted by those who hear it.  

As I noted upthread, at least two participants in this very thread are taking this as evidence that the Church is going, or is about to go, soft on the sin of gay sex.

Its like me weaving a swastika into a blanket as an homage to the Navajo:  sure, maybe that’s what I meant; but I also had darned good reason to know that that’s not how it was going to be interpreted.  

Share this post


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

Who is concluding that? I don't know of anyone who says "Well, this gay choir is singing with the MoTab. This means gay marriage will be sanctioned tomorrow!" 

I'm seeing it in other forums and interwebs places I visit.

Edited by mirkwood

Share this post


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

. You yourself have been open about believing that the Church will soon embrace homosexual "marriage";

Yes, and I stand by that 100%-but I think this doesn't really have anything to do with it. 

 

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

can you really not see that others who share your opinions or hopes would take this as a move in precisely that direction?

Honestly, no. It's a huge jump to say "Gay choir today, gay marriage tomorrow." 

Share this post


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

Who is concluding that? I don't know of anyone who says "Well, this gay choir is singing with the MoTab. This means gay marriage will be sanctioned tomorrow!" 

With due respect, my old friend, on the first page of this thread @NeuroTypical described the possibility of the Church adopting an attitude of:

And, no matter how much you might want to be straight and get sealed in the temple and whatnot, you might be better served just by admitting you're gay and following God as a gay guy.  Go join the choir, even though some of you aren't interested in following gospel standards.

. . . every year that goes by, I see more and more indication that the church is adopting this notion.

To which you yourself replied:

They are adopting it. I think in twenty years you'll see a vastly different view of homosexuality from the church than you do now. 

I appreciate your clarification to @Vort, and certainly our memories and perceptions can morph even over the life of an internet discussion thread.  But I think at the time, even you thought the choir invite was a harbinger of something. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

 But I think at the time, even you thought the choir invite was a harbinger of something. 

You will, and I still think "adopting different viewpoints" isn't the same as seeing this as adopting full blown gay marriage. 

Edited by MormonGator

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