LDS Freedom Forum

Thanks for calling me an abomination, Tony; awfully Christ-like of you. And thanks for putting words in my mouth - never did I compare unmarried opposite-sex sex to same-sex sex (because there's a lot of difference, right?). You missed my point entirely. I would try to spell it out more clearly for you, but it's just not worth it. Justification - a big word for some.

konigking wrote:So is this a Crack in the dam and it soon will burst? (Crack=softening on gay issues, Burst=temple sealing for gays). I think not. That's why we have modern prophets. And I guess this point is a representation of LDSFF as a whole. Some here think the church is apostate because it acknowledges and addresses cracks.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but I personally do not think the Church will ever allow same-sex marriage or sealings in the temple. I think the militant gay lobby (which has the fedgov 100% on its side) will continue to bully and intimidate and sue, sue, sue until the Church does indeed lose it's tax-exempt status and then, most likely, dis-incorporation, seizure of assets (chapels, temples, BYU campuses), etc. The SLC Temple dedication prayer clearly states that temple (at least) will be taken out of the hands of the Church at some point in the future (feel free to Google it).

Also, Elder Bednar and Elder Holland have spoken at several stake conferences, especially last fall, where they both stated (paraphrasing here) that the members shouldn't always count on having a building to meet in for church - that we are basically spoiled and think of the Church more as a social institution, and what will those people do when the "social" is taken out of their Sunday meetings? At that point, who knows what will happen to, and inside of, the temples - look to Kirtland and Nauvoo temples for examples. History repeats. I think most members have no idea what tight places the Church will be going through. Christ cannot redeem that which is already free; the Church will be in literal bondage - whether over this issue or another, I don't know, nor when, but it will happen.

Tony wrote:Someone will be denied a Temple recommend if they associate with a group that advocates for gay marriage.

Tony wrote:President Monson Tony [apparently, considering what he said above) has the keys and the authority; you do not have the keys nor the authority.

Tabula Rasa wrote:Thanks for calling me an abomination, Tony; awfully Christ-like of you. And thanks for putting words in my mouth - never did I compare unmarried opposite-sex sex to same-sex sex (because there's a lot of difference, right?). You missed my point entirely. I would try to spell it out more clearly for you, but it's just not worth it. Justification - a big word for some.

Christians are probably some of the least Christlike people on the planet. I donno if all religions are hypocritical as them, or it's just them, i assume it's all of them.
They always say they're not all bad or bigoted or whatever, to be reasonable and all that, but seem perfectly happy to judge any other group based on a small minority.
I've been told I don't have a right to judge LDS people (for instance) since I am not a member, but I certainly am able to be judged, which I always assumed was up to God not man, or at very least someone a tad more important.

People always ruin spirituality for me, church always ruins it for me.
I'll never find faith in a building with the sorts I've run into.
But I may find it with the things I take from there.

Tabula Rasa wrote:

Tony wrote:Someone will be denied a Temple recommend if they associate with a group that advocates for gay marriage.

Tony wrote:President Monson Tony [apparently, considering what he said above) has the keys and the authority; you do not have the keys nor the authority.

The Temple recommend interview includes the question: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Associating with a group that advocates for gay marriage would mean that a person is denied a Temple recommend. I did not make the rule; I am simply aware of it.

Sirocco wrote:

Tabula Rasa wrote:Thanks for calling me an abomination, Tony; awfully Christ-like of you. And thanks for putting words in my mouth - never did I compare unmarried opposite-sex sex to same-sex sex (because there's a lot of difference, right?). You missed my point entirely. I would try to spell it out more clearly for you, but it's just not worth it. Justification - a big word for some.

Christians are probably some of the least Christlike people on the planet. I donno if all religions are hypocritical as them, or it's just them, i assume it's all of them.
They always say they're not all bad or bigoted or whatever, to be reasonable and all that, but seem perfectly happy to judge any other group based on a small minority.
I've been told I don't have a right to judge LDS people (for instance) since I am not a member, but I certainly am able to be judged, which I always assumed was up to God not man, or at very least someone a tad more important.

People always ruin spirituality for me, church always ruins it for me.
I'll never find faith in a building with the sorts I've run into.
But I may find it with the things I take from there.

You can judge all you want. And others will undoubtedly judge you.
Both sides are sinning to do so though.

Jesus said judge not least ye be judged.

Or in other words. Judgement of other will result in gods judgement of you. Carma if you will.

It's best to let people be who and what they will be. love them. Try and understand their side even if they don't do the same in return.

Life is much easyer if you don't label yourself and others. But it take work on yourself and your own judgmental thinking of yourself to get there. But it's worth it.

Oh I fully accept to be judged, but my beef is with those who do judge and expect to be immune from it.
I do believe in karma though don't claim to understand it's origins. I feel weary about people who have too many answers.

Tabula Rasa wrote:Thanks for calling me an abomination, Tony; awfully Christ-like of you. And thanks for putting words in my mouth - never did I compare unmarried opposite-sex sex to same-sex sex (because there's a lot of difference, right?). You missed my point entirely. I would try to spell it out more clearly for you, but it's just not worth it. Justification - a big word for some.

This is what you posted.

Tabula Rasa wrote: So the Filipino saints who are in bad marriages can leave the bad marriage and live with another partner, with all that entails, i.e. unmarried sex (and can even get baptized) - but an LDS person with same-sex attraction doesn't get to do that (have sex, of any kind), and has to live their life as a celibate single person - they just have to deal with it, basically. The Filipino member - bad situation, but here's an 'out' for you. Gay member - bad situation, no 'out' for you (no pun intended). Seems strange that some are required to make a sacrifice, but others aren't. Again I say, what a thing.

And this is what I posted.

Tony wrote:They are not allowed to get a lawful divorce. The government of the Philippines is this preventing someone from entering the kingdom of God. The government is hedging up the way. The Church, with authority from God, is providing a way. It is an abomination to compare this to the sin of homosexuality.

As you can see, I did not call you an abomination.

I find the title of this thread both offensive and misleading.

Elizabeth wrote:I find the title of this thread both offensive and misleading.

Distract yourself by learning this song (this thread is a lot more fun this way):

Tony wrote:Someone will be denied a Temple recommend if they associate with a group that advocates for gay marriage.

Tony wrote:The Temple recommend interview includes the question: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Associating with a group that advocates for gay marriage would mean that a person is denied a Temple recommend. I did not make the rule; I am simply aware of it.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson (and Elder L. Tom Perry, who was standing right next to D. Todd when he said all this) of the Quorum of the Twelve disagrees with you, Tony. The interview is all over the web. You should watch/read it. Here's a snippet for you though -

Interviewer — "What about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?"

D. Todd Christofferson - “We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues ... In our view, it doesn’t really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that’s a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines.”

Facebook (all social media), the people/groups who sponsor gay pride parades, etc.. are absolutely advocating for gay marriage - and Elder Christofferson says you will NOT have your recommend taken away if you associate with them or post on social media your happiness (support/agreement) with the same-sex marriage ruling, etc. It's only if you say nasty things about the Church or its leaders that you'll get in trouble. I repeat, you will NOT have your recommend taken away because you associate with groups or individuals who advocate for same-sex marriage. And that has been my whole point of posting in this thread - asking how exactly that jives with recommend question #7 - and so far, not a soul has provided an answer - and no one will, because there is no answer, at least not that is consistent with what Elder Christofferson said (and which the Church has not refuted in any way).

Oh, and FWIW, my husband talked to our stake president about this last night as he was doing stake clerky stuff. And I called our Bishop this morning and asked these same questions. Both men said we could march in gay pride parades, chant and hold signs up advocating for gay marriage - officially belong to groups that advocate for gay marriage - give money to groups that advocate for gay marriage - post daily my advocation (new word) for gay marriage - and they would NOT take our recommends away. Obviously, we have no desire to do these things, as same-sex marriage is against God's law, but if we wanted to, we could, and the Church would take NO action against us. We also asked (again) about recommend question #7, and (again) they both said they're not sure what it means, but as long as you don't say anything bad about the Church or its leaders, you're good - no matter what other groups/individuals you affiliate with.

I agree that there is no good answer to how posting pro-gay marriage support on Facebook, or marching in a Gay Pride parade does not jeopardize one's temple recommend. However, if they (the top leadership) take a hard line, and tell the membership that these activities will cause the loss of temple attendance, the first people who will need to be chastized might be Steve Young and his wife. Can you even begin to imagine the bad press, and loss of revenue (tithing?) this would cause? The Top 15 (13 currently) would be getting hate mail and death threats, even more so than they do now. It would be a public relations disaster of the highest order in our current political climate. They (people like Tony) will use the reasoning that God doesn't want that to happen to the church right now, so it's okay for the members to support gay marriage on social media, and for the Youngs to spearhead their group, Affirmation, and for Mormons in their Sunday best dress to march in Pride parades, so the Church can keep its good name, and good public relations, (and positive cashflow). I can totally see that this is what Jesus would do.

Yeah, right.

Tabula Rasa wrote:Oh, and FWIW, my husband talked to our stake president about this last night as he was doing stake clerky stuff. And I called our Bishop this morning and asked these same questions. Both men said we could march in gay pride parades, chant and hold signs up advocating for gay marriage - officially belong to groups that advocate for gay marriage - give money to groups that advocate for gay marriage - post daily my advocation (new word) for gay marriage - and they would NOT take our recommends away. Obviously, we have no desire to do these things, as same-sex marriage is against God's law, but if we wanted to, we could, and the Church would take NO action against us. We also asked (again) about recommend question #7, and (again) they both said they're not sure what it means, but as long as you don't say anything bad about the Church or its leaders, you're good - no matter what other groups/individuals you affiliate with.

Kiss the ring and you can do anything?

Lizzy60 wrote:I agree that there is no good answer to how posting pro-gay marriage support on Facebook, or marching in a Gay Pride parade does not jeopardize one's temple recommend. However, if they (the top leadership) take a hard line, and tell the membership that these activities will cause the loss of temple attendance, the first people who will need to be chastized might be Steve Young and his wife.

And about 1/2 of the active members in the two wards that are in my town. I just got an email from a good friend of mine, whose husband is the Bishop of the other ward that meets in our building. She/he says the same thing - members can publicly advocate all they want for same-sex marriage and NOTHING will be done to them - they will KEEP their temple recommends. If they publicly say the Church is wrong for not marrying same-sex couples, then that's where they'll get in trouble - but anything else is fine. So yeah, #7 needs to be relegated to the dustbin, obviously.

How many run-of-the-mill LDS would continue to pay a full tithe if their local leadership rescinded their recommends due to their pro-SSM support? Just wondering......

Not only that ^^ which I agree would happen, but in my own area, some of the most vocal supporters (read: advocates) of same-sex marriage are leaders and teachers in our ward/stake. Might be kinda tricky taking the recommends away from our seminary teacher, high councilman, RS teacher, Primary teacher, oh, and the Nursery leader (and her assistant, lol). They'd probably have to release them all, too, right? That would be a real pain.

It's an unholy mess, isn't it?

Lizzy60 wrote:It's an unholy mess, isn't it?

Fixed it for ya. ;)

Would you like them to be released and recommends taken away?

I would like the Church(tm) to be consistent, instead of trying to straddle the line. Also, there is a double standard going on here. You can advocate contrary to their position on SSM and be safe, but if you dare to say that you've not received personal confirmation of their PSR status, you are out, out, out. Maybe in just a week or two.

What LIzzy said. ^^ They're talking out of both sides of their mouth - trying to have their cake and eat it, too. I honestly don't care which side the Church chooses (doesn't affect my salvation at all), but CHOOSE already. Be consistent.

So maybe those two recommend questions are just dumb.

ajax wrote:So maybe those two recommend questions are just dumb.

:ymparty: :YMAPPLAUSE:

Tabula Rasa wrote:Oh, and FWIW, my husband talked to our stake president about this last night as he was doing stake clerky stuff. And I called our Bishop this morning and asked these same questions. Both men said we could march in gay pride parades, chant and hold signs up advocating for gay marriage - officially belong to groups that advocate for gay marriage - give money to groups that advocate for gay marriage - post daily my advocation (new word) for gay marriage - and they would NOT take our recommends away. Obviously, we have no desire to do these things, as same-sex marriage is against God's law, but if we wanted to, we could, and the Church would take NO action against us. We also asked (again) about recommend question #7, and (again) they both said they're not sure what it means, but as long as you don't say anything bad about the Church or its leaders, you're good - no matter what other groups/individuals you affiliate with.

I never said they would TAKE AWAY the temple recommend that someone already has. If a person stated in a temple recommend interview that they belong to a group "whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," that person would be denied a temple recommend.