LDS Church Makes 'Surprise' Change on LGBT Issues

[robocop (actually)]

"merciful"..... you used that word, but I don't think it means what you just said.

It's evil to portray consenting adults in a loving relationship as "transgression".

The bigotry of the LDS remains unckecked, just like always. Only now-- they will try to "teach" impressionable kids that their parents are Evil, for being who they are-- just as god intended them to be....!

God doesn't change, but he delegates responsibilities to his prophets. Transgression is unintentional. They don't teach that those parents are evil and they do teach that God created them that way.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Homosexual acts in marriage are still considered transgression, just not a condition for apostasy. They still go through the disciplinary council... both homosexual acts and heterosexual acts like adultery. This was done to be merciful.

Still behind the times. Still not as tolerant as the incoming generations will most certainly be. Still bad press. I'd wish your church "good luck" - but that would be entirely insincere of me.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Still behind the times. Still not as tolerant as the incoming generations will most certainly be. Still bad press. I'd wish your church "good luck" - but that would be entirely insincere of me.

God is not behind or ahead... He delegates responsibility to prophets and many other leaders and they lead their people as well they can.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

God is not behind or ahead... He delegates responsibility to prophets and many other leaders and they lead their people as well they can.

Honestly doesn't matter if God can be "behind" or "ahead." It's the church that needs to look out for the church's interests, and they have a public perception to answer to - whether they like it or not. Hence the reason changes are made in the first place. You can claim it was to grant "mercy" - but that's just a veneer in my opinion.

The point will always stand that God cannot help the church with it's public image.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

God said in Malachi 3:6 that He never changes. Onw would expect a church that claims to represent God would know thetruth and would also never change. So the LDS church either was wrong in the past or is wrong now. Either way looks bad. Do you want to follow a church that either was or is wrong? How do you know which is correct?

 

[Katzpur]

Are the same sex partners allowed to marry? Is their marriage recognized?

If not-- my comment remains: Bigotry continues unabated.

They can marry civilly and still be members of the Church. They can't marry in the Temple, but then neither can coffee-drinkers.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Socially, good for them. Spiritually, I have to question the bonafides of an organised religion that changes it's teachings according to social trends.

That is not what happens
Churches have to reinterpret their teachings to be relevant to changes in society... neither God's will nor the basic teachings change. But how they apply does.

The ability of man to get things wrong has no bounds.
To correct mistakes is Both honest and necessary.

 

[Katzpur]

Honestly doesn't matter if God can be "behind" or "ahead." It's the church that needs to look out for the church's interests, and they have a public perception to answer to - whether they like it or not. Hence the reason changes are made in the first place. You can claim it was to grant "mercy" - but that's just a veneer in my opinion.

The point will always stand that God cannot help the church with it's public image.

Here's my two cents worth. I suspect that when the Church leadership implemented the policies they did back in November, 2015, they had no idea of what the fallout would be like. I don't personally believe that the policy was inspired or revealed by God, but that it was the decision of men. LGBT members of the Church and their allies have been talking to the Church leadership over the years and I believe that they were able to convince those who were in a position to reverse the decision to do so. I honestly don't think they realized the harm their initial decision was going to cause, and regardless of what many of our critics may say, I don't believe they are malicious men. If someone had asked me three years ago whether I thought the policy would ever be changed, I'd have said, "Absolutely." If they'd have asked me when I thought it would happen, I'd have said 50-100 years from now. It's just gratifying to me to know that they're listening to us. Baby steps are better than standing still.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Mormon church now allowing children of LGBT parents to be baptized


So - when religious organizations change their policies - do you forgive their past mistakes?

View attachment 28009

I am curious to see how both Mormons, and non-Mormons view the change.

Could this be in response to this? : Thread about Catholic school rejecting student of same sex parents

There is a recent event where a Catholic school doesn't accept the child of same sex parents, and it gets some treatment here in this thread (introduced by Skwim). Not long on its heels comes the current thread.

It seems strange for the two events to happen in succession, like a coincidence or something planned.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Honestly doesn't matter if God can be "behind" or "ahead." It's the church that needs to look out for the church's interests, and they have a public perception to answer to - whether they like it or not. Hence the reason changes are made in the first place. You can claim it was to grant "mercy" - but that's just a veneer in my opinion.

The point will always stand that God cannot help the church with it's public image.

Yes they do have a PR problem... the natural man is an enemy to God. The world is always moving in a different direction and there's nothing that can be done about it.

 

[dianaiad]

I very much agree - everyone needs to confirm everything through personal study and prayer. Some random guy in the cafeteria, vs. disagreeing with the prophet and apostles though - have you ever been daring enough to disagree with the prophet and apostles?

Privately and upon policies, yes. I haven't done so in regard to basic doctrine however.

Talking with my stake president - he shared that he served a mission during the priesthood ban on the blacks, that it broke his heart. I asked "so what did you do? when you disagreed with the policy"? He did not do anything - he just stayed silent, and was happy when the ban was lifted. I told him I did not think "silence" was the correct response to that - I believe it is perfectly fine to disagree with, and communicate concerns about, policies that are harmful and destructive.

I prayed hard, and a lot; I served my mission during those years, too, and the wonderful man I married could have checked off the 'African American' box. So can my kids. He (my husband) was about half native American (we just found that out through DNA from my daughter) and his mother was hispanic with about a quarter black heritage. Now me, I'm just about as 'pure' a Celt as an American can pull off, but my kids have everything in 'em but Asian. They are gorgeous, my kids (yes, I AM biased. Sue me). So the ban on blacks was rather personal for us.

However, we decided that we would pray for this every time, and we did. And that announcement on a sunny June morning was so welcome, and we were so full of joy, that I couldn't contain it in the house. I had to go outside and shout for it.

Because yes, while on my mission I had to try to explain it to someone, and I just said....I don't know, but I have faith that it will all turn out well.

It did, and within four years of my marriage.

Works for me. What that tells me is that if we hold to what we truly believe to be true, and have faith that God will straighten things out if we are faithful, then...He will straighten things out. So far that seems to be working.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes they do have a PR problem... the natural man is an enemy to God. The world is always moving in a different direction and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Nothing wrong with a different direction than the one you think is best, unless it can be demonstrated that people are actually getting hurt. Both parts of which I think all religious organizations should keep in mind.

Also remember that "the public" is a term applicable to your current members, and their incoming, indoctrinated children as well. It is obviously quite possible to tick off even those that already subscribe to your particular religious views.

 

[dianaiad]

Obviously, the LDS was hemorrhaging money as well as followers.

Thus, the change to keep money flowing into their tax-free treasury, and to quit losing followers.

I note that the adults were not allowed-- just the kiddos. So the bigotry remains unchecked.

...."obvious." Well, that's one criticism; the LDS is losing money and members.

Except of course that we aren't, not to the extent that evangelical and orthodox Christianity is. Are we losing members? Of course. But again, not to the extent that everybody else is; what's happening to us is that our growth has slowed down. We aren't 'shrinking' in membership.

Of course the next criticism that will be heard (and it often comes precisely from the same people who have made the one about 'hemorrhaging money") is that we are too big, have too much money, and spend it all on the wrong stuff. Not that you will do this, Bob the Unbeliever, but it is usually the next step.

I have learned to pretty much ignore this stuff, or go on autopilot and simply type...or in some cases, cut and paste...the standard responses to get it over with and get on with the conversation.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Nothing wrong with a different direction than the one you think is best, unless it can be demonstrated that people are actually getting hurt. Both parts of which I think all religious organizations should keep in mind.

Also remember that "the public" is a term applicable to your current members, and their incoming, indoctrinated children as well. It is obviously quite possible to tick off even those that already subscribe to your particular religious views.

I stop replying to viscous posters.

 

[Katzpur]

Could this be in response to this? : Thread about Catholic school rejecting student of same sex parents

There is a recent event where a Catholic school doesn't accept the child of same sex parents, and it gets some treatment here in this thread (introduced by Skwim). Not long on its heels comes the current thread.

It seems strange for the two events to happen in succession, like a coincidence or something planned.

It may be an odd coincidence, but I believe it really is a coincidence.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That is not what happens
Churches have to reinterpret their teachings to be relevant to changes in society... neither God's will nor the basic teachings change. But how they apply does.

The ability of man to get things wrong has no bounds.
To correct mistakes is Both honest and necessary.

That's one interpretation. What I said is another.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God doesn't change, but he delegates responsibilities to his prophets. Transgression is unintentional. They don't teach that those parents are evil and they do teach that God created them that way.

The sentence above? Is internally contradictory. You cannot have a square-circle. There is no such thing as a married-bachelor.

If god cannot change? Then? God is evil, for permitting evil to happen for so long.

Finally? Yes-- it *is* abusive to teach kids their parents are "transgressing" just by being who they are supposed to be.

That's pure D-evil.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They can marry civilly and still be members of the Church. They can't marry in the Temple, but then neither can coffee-drinkers.

Still bigotry and still Evil. Ostracizing people for being who they are supposed to be.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

...."obvious." Well, that's one criticism; the LDS is losing money and members.

Except of course that we aren't, not to the extent that evangelical and orthodox Christianity is. Are we losing members? Of course. But again, not to the extent that everybody else is; what's happening to us is that our growth has slowed down. We aren't 'shrinking' in membership.

Of course the next criticism that will be heard (and it often comes precisely from the same people who have made the one about 'hemorrhaging money") is that we are too big, have too much money, and spend it all on the wrong stuff. Not that you will do this, Bob the Unbeliever, but it is usually the next step.

I have learned to pretty much ignore this stuff, or go on autopilot and simply type...or in some cases, cut and paste...the standard responses to get it over with and get on with the conversation.

Except of course that you are-- in record numbers, historically. Loosing members, that is.

And your WhatAboutIsm with respect to other branches of religion? So what? Doesn't change the **fact** that LDS is rapidly shrinking, with each passing generation.

Among the Millennial crowd? Record numbers are identifying as "none" when asked about religion.

You, and pretty much all religions are on a rocket-sled to oblivion: The Internet really is the place where All Religion Come To Die. Mainly because facts are not filtered....

Oh, sure-- in the end, the numbers will likely settle out at a small percentage of the population.

Just as you can still find Druids here and there; you can find followers of the Norse gods, and I quite expect you can find adherents of the ancient Egyptian gods too.

Small percentages. Harmless. You can copy-paste all the lies you like-- it won't change the maths one iota.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, I fully expect the LDS to be the first large Christian denomination to recognize marriage amongst people who don't fit the usual binary gender code.

Too late for that:

We are committed to being a welcoming church that is opposed to discrimination against any person on any basis, and affirm that all human beings are made in the image of God regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. We welcome into full membership and ministry people of all sexual orientations and gender identities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, two spirit, trans,* queer+).

Gender and Orientation