Apostle says it's okay to support gay marriage

[samizdat]

A good friend of mine who sings in the tabernacle choir was really bothered and saddened by Elder Christofferson's comment, in fact, his reply to me when I first informed him of this was 'brother, we are singing to the tune of the world as a church right now'. It's one thing to advocate unconditional love and acceptance of those who are homosexual or who struggle with same-sex attraction, but it's another entirely to condone same-sex marriage as it is not only in opposition to the plan of salvation, the family unit, God's natural laws of pro-creation and even the proclamation to the world on the family, it violates moral codes of conduct and standards that we have, as a church for a very long time, frowned upon as abominable in the sight of God. But now it's OK according to one Apostle? :-\ God will not be mocked. :-s

I don't think Elder Christoffersen was condoning same sex marriage. In his legalese, he said that the Church would no longer pursue or excommunicate those that said they supported it on Facebook (but the Church would come after those that repeatedly attacked the Church's position on it).

Marc raised a point about the temple recommend questions which I wholeheartedly agree with. Hopefully there is some damage control, if not, it would be a sign that there are starting to see cracks forming higher up.

You have to realize that Christoffersen is probably being pressured more than others considering he has an openly gay brother "married" to his partner.

Good points and I agree, however, given the comments he made, he’s leaving the door open for anyone to believe that gay marriage is OK and that is just not the case.

Yep. Hence my calling the remarks legalese.

[passionflower]

-delete-

[passionflower]

-delete-

[Thinker]

This topic - that a church leader has contradicted an aspect I've loved about the church (defending marriage) - has been really disappointing.

I guess there's always a silver lining - such obvious contradiction may encourage more to turn from prioritizing fallible men, to prioritizing God.

[marc]

The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

[Joel]

The following is the conclusion of an article that takes a deeper look into what was said during the interview:

Conclusion

In politics, you shouldn’t listen to what the politicians say a new law is intended to be used for, instead you should read the specific language of the bill and try to determine what a law could potentially be used for assuming the most expansive and liberal application of the language used to define it. In a similar manner, when listening to a General Authority describe what freedoms members have to publicly express opinions and support causes that contradict the teachings of the Brethren – you have to examine the language closely to see what the most confining interpretation might be. The church is programmed to guard its doctrinal and cultural borders. You can only effectively do this by cutting off anything or any one who tries to weaken or flex those boundaries. When one person is excommunicated and has all their ordinances and sealings revoked for stepping too far for their local leader to tolerate, the other members get the message and self-censorship is reinforced. That is how discipline is used to silence dissent within the church. That is how it has happened since the days when Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated and we see it today when the likes of Kate Kelly and John Dehlin get cut off.

While it is endearing that Elder Christofferson uses language that would suggest tolerance for dissenting views on issues such as gay marriage, it must be remembered how the church universally responds when asked about the discipline proceedings of an individual member of the church for any reason:

“The decision as to whether to hold a disciplinary council, when and for what reasons rests with the local leader who knows the individual best. Local leaders operate under general principles and guidelines of the Church.”
(“Church Responds to John Dehlin’s Public Comments” mormonnewsroom.org)

What a low ranking apostle says in a secular interview is not part of what instructions local leaders are given when they look for guidance on issues of discipline. When there is ever any ambiguity or apparent conflict between instructions, the leaders are directed to follow the guidance given in the Handbook of Instructions. If an apostle got up and said that it was okay for members to secretly continue the practice of polygamy – local leaders would still excommunicate members caught in active plural marriage, because the guidelines are set forth in the Handbook of Instructions which has the endorsement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. An offhand interview doesn’t set church policy.

The current Church Handbook of Instructions which is the authoritative manual on church policy provided to every local leader states:


Current CHI policy on same-gender marriage. click here to see in context.

That is what Bishops and Stake Presidents will use as a guide in determining the consequences of the open expression of conscience on matters of gay marriage in the church. Any member who becomes vocal of their convictions after seeing this interview should be aware that Elder Christofferson will not be the one standing at the head of the council that is convened for your very own “Court of Love”.

P.S.

My suspicion is that the church realized that the writing was on the wall for anti-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. That was going to become a reality no matter what. By accepting this, they decided that they could attach religious expression protections to a law granting the inevitable anti-discrimination provision and in doing so they win a PR victory for appearing progressive in dealing with LGBT issues all the while adding a layer of protection for themselves. The wording of the law deserves a post all on its own (it seems that now you can’t fire a zealous Mormon for proselytizing on work premises, during work hours).

[gtoda]

I haven't read this whole thread so I apologize if this information exists somewhere in here.

I would really like to know what it is the LGBTQ movement wants from the church and its leadership.

I have been listening to podcasts and reading blogs for years some of which openly support the LGBTQ movement which I have no problem with whatever (John Dehlin for example). I applaud his efforts to stem the suicides of gay young men who don't see any way to reconcile their sexual orientation with their religious affiliation.

I would just like to know exactly what it is they are asking for. I have never heard anyone give a list of things they would like the church to change. Are they asking for approval to be married for "time" or for "time and eternity"? Are they expecting to be allowed to be the bishop or stake president? Perhaps one day there'll be a male-male mission president couple? The logistics of sending out openly gay missionaries is overwhelming. I mean, wouldn't you have to pair a gay female with a gay male so as to try and reduce the possibility of sexual misconduct?

My comments are a little tongue in cheek but my question is serious.

I just don't see where the church can change any of its policies regarding this issue.

How can it be okay to support gay marriage if you believe in the eternal propagation of the godly species?

If the church changes its policies on this I'm really not sure my mind could stretch that far. I'm not at all homophobic I just don't think I can fathom a gay marriage in the temple. Doesn't the church cease to be "the church" at that point?

[LDS Dude]

Yeah, he really just said the Church is not going to formally excommunicate every Tom, Dick, and Harry that supports gay marriage. In a sense, to a certain extent, one can excommunicate one's self and apparently in this case, your true standing will remain between you and the Lord. The Church still champions heterosexual marriage and to go contrary to that is basically "kicking against the pricks". How do you get good people to do the work of the Adversary? You lead them into believing that what they are doing is caring and compassionate.

[A Random Phrase]

How do you get good people to do the work of the Adversary? You lead them into believing that what they are doing is caring and compassionate.

Absolutely. And that they are somehow defending Truth.

[Bee Prepared]

The education effort, I believe, is really aimed at the members, not the general public. As they stated, the doctrine has not and will not change. But how we respect others who choose to live by a different set of standards does need to change. All this announcement was saying is the same thing their church has always said. "Treat all as children of God." The LDS church is asking people to defend their rights too, just like the LGBT community wants their's to be defended. All both sides are asking is for the persecution to stop and to work together.

Church leaders and government officials are actually seeking to protect rights of both sides, which is extremely difficult to do because of the moral impasse.

Support is a personal thing while advocacy is telling others that they are wrong and they need to change. The apostle was spot on.

“What the LDS church did today was historic,” said Democratic state Sen. Jim Dabakis, who was raised Mormon and is openly gay. “This was a bold, strong, principled statement … today we are seeing the fruits of civility and respect.”

Read more: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2015/01/ ... z3V6DlO2B7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Thinker]

If he meant to love everyone as children of God, he would have made a news conference stating that.
But instead, he announced it's ok to support that which the church has previously denounced.

Christopherson and his brother with homosexual preferences don't bother me so much, neither do respectful homosexuals.
What concerns me is the church, which Christopherson knowingly represents and members blindly following misguided imperfect men over prioritizing God and God's will.

[log]

What concerns me is members blindly following misguided imperfect men over prioritizing God and God's will.

Why does this concern you?

[Thinker]

It concerns me because if they will obey anything those men say, no matter how evil, they may hurt me and others, even in the name of "equality."

In this case, encouraging homosexual practices encourages unhealthy behavior (statistically - mental illness, STDs, AIDs according to US CDC national health reports). Supporting homosexual "marriage" legally denies children (future society) the opportunity to be raise by a mother AND father

[log]

It concerns me because if they will obey anything those men say, no matter how evil, they may hurt me and others, even in the name of "equality."

They may. So also might those who will obey nothing those men say, no matter how righteous. Should I be concerned about them? Why or why not?

Or, to put it another way, anyone may hurt you and others for any reason, regardless of who they obey, right? So why concern oneself about others? Or should we live paranoid, always fearing what others may do?

[Thinker]

How many people do you personally know who decide on their own to regularly give a lot of money away without knowing what its used for, or how many do you know who kill people on their own (MMM, Ute men, women and children).

No sane individual would do that.
But you put them with a group, and they'll do all kinds of crazy things under peer pressure.
Yes, some peer pressure is good, and some isn't.
We need to think for ourselves to decide, rather than blindly trust a group leader to do it for us.

Homosexual practices are not ok and it is immoral and wrong of Christopherson to use his position to suggest it's ok.

Adult children raised by homosexual parents who oppose homosexual "marriage" are defending truth more than a wolf in sheep's clothing is.

These testimonies of adult children raised by homosexual parents reveal the likelihood of more related problems, if courts push marriage redefined to include homosexuality.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/laurett ... eral-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.”

“There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.”

“As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” Stefanowicz explained. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.”

“I grew up with a parent and her partner in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”

Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”

“At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and damned to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner,” she recounts. “They did this with the encouragement of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only allowed out of my room to go to school. This could go on for weeks.”

“I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner,” said Klein. “People’s accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories were of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays.”

[log]

How many people do you personally know who decide on their own to regularly give a lot of money away without knowing what its used for,

I know a few. It is, after all, taught by Jesus to do exactly that - give alms, give to them that ask, lend without hoping to receive again, and don't turn borrowers away.

or how many do you know who kill people on their own (MMM, Ute men, women and children).

Is Amway in the assassination business?

No sane individual would do that.

I'm not sure which action you're referring to - giving to people without requiring an accounting of what is done with the gift, or joining Amway to kill people.

But you put them with a group, and they'll do all kinds of crazy things under peer pressure.

That's possibly true.

Yes, some peer pressure is good, and some isn't.

Is peer pressure the way you want to be treated? If not, then maybe it's not good. But that's a value judgement.

We need to think for ourselves to decide, rather than blindly trust a group leader to do it for us.

Isn't that a value judgement left up to the individual to make for themselves?

Oh, haha, you meant Mountain Meadows Massacre. I thought you were referring to some kind of MLM. My bad. But anyways, yes, people do bad things on their own too sometimes. Examples can be found at will and I don't think it edifying to seek them out.

[log]

Shall dissent be tolerated? Or shall we cast out those who engage in doubleplusungood crimethink?

Which path is compatible with the Golden Rule?

[Thinker]

Log,
You misunderstood the question, or maybe I need to clarify.
Do you know anyone who on their own initiative, gives not change, but thousands of dollars monthly to the same person out of their own free will, knowing it is NOT used to help those in need, but believing it will make them more acceptable to God?

You seem to be suggesting that negative peer pressure is a value judgment that is not for me to warn others about.
Yet you've began repetitive threads preaching your value judgments.

This is a forum. We don't know each other.
We're not using special "authority" to try to dictate beliefs - we are anonymous.
I am trying to encourage others to learn to think for themselves, to realize evil for what it is, and to choose God's will above all - even above those deemed as "authority."

[log]

Log,
You misunderstood the question, or maybe I need to clarify.
Do you know anyone who gives, not change but thousands of dollars monthly to the same person out of their own free will, knowing it is NOT used to help those in need, but believing it will make you more acceptable to God?

Maybe I do. What business of it is mine?

You seem to be suggesting that negative peer pressure is a value judgment that is not for me to warn others about.

I am suggesting that whether peer pressure, per se, is good or bad is a value judgement left up to the individuals involved in either responding to it or applying it.

Yet you've began repetitive threads preaching your value judgments.

Have I?

This is a forum. We don't know each other.

Should that matter?

We're not using special "authority" to try to dictate beliefs because we are anonymous.

And isn't that more pleasant than exercising authority to try to dictate beliefs? I know I hate it when people attempt to cite authority to dictate my beliefs.

I am trying to encourage others to learn to think for themselves...

You're free to do that, just as I am free to point out that it is properly given to each person to decide for themselves whether to outsource their decisions - in other words, it's a matter of values and properly a man's agency to make that decision for themselves.

You may note that I haven't even said one way or another whether thinking for oneself is good or bad. That's because it IS properly your agency to make that determination.

, to realize evil for what it is, and to choose God's will above all - even above those deemed as "authority."

Here you run into a problem. For some - a significant portion of your audience, even - the authority in question is held to be one of God's spokesmen, and is advancing, to them, God's will; his words are God's words.

[Thinker]

Paraphrasing a quote...evil prevails when good men do nothing.

Jesus said he came "not to send peace, but a sword."

This world is becoming too evil and deceptive and too many innocents are being hurt to try to pretend it's not your business.
It is your business - loving others as yourself IS your business and mine.
Love is not necessarily kissing up to people, nor is it turning a blind eye to evil.
Love is appreciating what is while striving for what is best - through trial and error, active faith.

Being luke warm, you lose.
Life is to be lived not avoided in the name of "none of my business."

[log]

Shall dissent be tolerated? Or shall we cast out those who engage in doubleplusungood crimethink?

Which path is compatible with the Golden Rule?

Will we grant that our opponents are well-meaning? Will we treat them as we would ourselves?

Or will we judge, censure, punish, cast them out, and ultimately seek to destroy them?

[log]

Paraphrasing a quote...evil prevails when good men do nothing.

Jesus said he came "not to send peace, but a sword."

Ah, but this same Jesus said, "I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

As well as "put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

1 Peter 4:15
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.

[Thinker]

Yes, a time and place for whipping people out of a temple for using it to make make money, and a time to turn the other cheek.

This is why people need to learn to think for themselves and not just blindly believe as they're told. "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot be change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."
God (Pure Love) and God's will (what is best physically, spiritually etc) needs to be prioritized before all. All else, including prophets, will fail.

[log]

Would Jesus have been guiltless before the law if he had struck anyone with the whip? And if Jesus was guilty before the law, could he have fulfilled it?

[Obrien]

Would Jesus have been guiltless before the law if he had struck anyone with the whip? And if Jesus was guilty before the law, could he have fulfilled it?

How do you know he did not strike anyone?