LDS and Prop 8

[Witch of Hope]

Gay rights: Oakland LDS Stake tries to heal post-Prop 8 rifts - Salt Lake Tribune

This is also the church, and I`m glad to read this!
It gives me hope that one day even the LDS could change their mind.
What do you think about it?

 

[Witch of Hope]

From the article:

"The special meeting made me want to be part of a positive change in the church," she says. "I want to talk to people, to explain why I feel like I do, and help them try to understand."
That may work in Berkeley, but how about Bountiful?
Schweidel is hopeful. There are two kinds of Mormons, she says, quoting a friend: those who know gay people and those who don't know they know gay people.
The task, she says, is to move more members from the second to the first category.
"If my mom in Orem had gay neighbors next door, I know she would love them," Schweidel says. "The Mormons I have spoken to make an effort to understand. They totally get it."

 

[Mr Cheese]

The LDS chruch as an organisation is overall, bigoted, andti same sex couples, homphobic and has deeply inherant instituonalised rascism

However not all mormons themselves are like this, though I am sure it is a problem amongst members, past and present (and future).

That is what I think.

Now with that in mind, you should really just accept this and move on
lest you be seen as a troll

 

[Orontes]

Gay rights: Oakland LDS Stake tries to heal post-Prop 8 rifts - Salt Lake Tribune

This is also the church, and I`m glad to read this!
It gives me hope that one day even the LDS could change their mind.
What do you think about it?

Hello,

I'm not sure what you hope the LDS Church would change their minds about. I live in Southern California and was active in the Prop. 8 Campaign.

Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic. Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will. The overturn of the earlier Proposition 22 (that led to the Proposition 8 campaign) was an affront to the democratic process.

As to homosexuality proper: the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin. Therefore, any relation involving homosexuality i.e. homosexual marriage, would also be seen as sinful.

The LDS Church would agree with the larger notion the state can regulate sexual relations. This would also include what can or should be considered a marriage. Marriage is a state endorsement of a relationship where the state acts as the guarantor of the contract.

None of these positions are likely to change.


In regards to the article and what you quote in your second post: I think it is an error to assume the LDS Church's stance is based on or related to not knowing gay people. Individual Mormons may be anti-gay, pro-gay or even self identify as gay: none of those positions necessarily speak to the larger stance of the Church.

 

[Valjean]

The saints have a history of modifying their theology when the need arises, don't they?

 

[Orontes]

The saints have a history of modifying their theology when the need arises, don't they?

The LDS Church certainly did when it came to polygamy: at least in regards to the practice though not a repudiation of the principle.

 

[Katzpur]

The saints have a history of modifying their theology when the need arises, don't they?

You know, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Sounds like a kind of a lose-lose deal for us.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The saints have a history of modifying their theology when the need arises, don't they?

Yes....

although there are no "african american" leaders in the LDS chruch...
despite the "curse/mark of cain" being lifted

...

I guess its a bit like parts of America...rosa park did her thing
but just go and visit certain states, and you'd think otherwise....

 

[Mr Cheese]

You know, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Sounds like a kind of a lose-lose deal for us.

yet where are the important black members of your church?

 

[Witch of Hope]

The LDS Church certainly did when it came to polygamy: at least in regards to the practice though not a repudiation of the principle.

And they did it with the priesthood for non-white people. Th pressure from outside (government and civil rights movement) ans problems from inside (that they couldn't use the Brasilian Temple cause of "black blood of the most Brasilians as LeGrand Richards quoted it.

 

[Witch of Hope]

You know, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Sounds like a kind of a lose-lose deal for us.

Do I condemend your church for the people from this articl? No! But I know that Prop 8 has brought a lot of problems inside of wards and families.

 

[Witch of Hope]

Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic. Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will. The overturn of the earlier Proposition 22 (that led to the Proposition 8 campaign) was an affront to the democratic process.

This proposition startd with a lie. As a Californian, you did know who has th lading rol in this campagn. NOM (National Organization for Marrig)? No, your church and othr churchs with thir lis and prejudices

As to homosexuality proper: the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin. Therefore, any relation involving homosexuality i.e. homosexual marriage, would also be seen as sinful.

As the Bible said, homosexuality is NOT a sin (see the tread about Religion and Homosexuality). It is said by Leviticus and also by St Paul (Romans), by Genesis (Sodom Story) and by 1. Corintians. Your church is wrong if their leaders said that. vry bible scientist can tell you this.

The LDS Church would agree with the larger notion the state can regulate sexual relations. This would also include what can or should be considered a marriage. Marriage is a state endorsement of a relationship where the state acts as the guarantor of the contract.

So, is that correct?
I live in Germany, we have a domestic partnership/union, but your church is also against this!

None of these positions are likely to change.

Think about the polygamy and the priesthood for blacks. It was said by church leaders that this NEVER would b changed. And it changed.

 

[Katzpur]

although there are no "african american" leaders in the LDS chruch...

You are wrong, just as you are wrong about a myriad of other things about the Church.



This man, Joseph Sitati, earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Nairobi, as well as a diploma in accounting and finance from the Association of Certified Accountants. He has worked as an executive for a nongovernmental organization and in several positions with a large oil and gas company. He is one of the LDS Church's "General Authorities." The General Authorities are the LDS Church's top leaders. There are hundreds and hundreds of Black men who are in lower leadership positions within the Church. They are not merely "Priests" but "High Priests." (There is a huge difference between the authority of an LDS Priest and an LDS High Priest.)

 

[Katzpur]

Do I condemend your church for the people from this articl? No! But I know that Prop 8 has brought a lot of problems inside of wards and families.

You are missing my point entirely, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Katzpur]

yet where are the important black members of your church?

See my post #13 for an answer.

By the way, your question seemed to miss the point of my comment, and you can't even use Witch of Hope's excuse that English isn't your first language.

 

[Orontes]

And they did it with the priesthood for non-white people. Th pressure from outside (government and civil rights movement) ans problems from inside (that they couldn't use the Brasilian Temple cause of "black blood of the most Brasilians as LeGrand Richards quoted it.

There was no legal pressure on the Church to change its position on Blacks and the priesthood in 1978. The only thing I can think of would be some college schools refused to play against BYU (a Church affiliated university). There certainly was the issue of trying to maintain some loyalty to a stance while dealing with Church expansion in South American that has large amounts of people of mixed decent: but that is an issue of internal coherence, not outside pressure.

This proposition startd with a lie. As a Californian, you did know who has th lading rol in this campagn. NOM (National Organization for Marrig)? No, your church and othr churchs with thir lis and prejudices

I mention two Propositions in what you quote from me. I don't know which you mean with the "This proposition started as a lie". The verbiage of the two is nearly identical, if not identical, where the language is the state recognizes the marriage of one man and one women. What is the lie?

As the Bible said, homosexuality is NOT a sin (see the tread about Religion and Homosexuality). It is said by Leviticus and also by St Paul (Romans), by Genesis (Sodom Story) and by 1. Corintians. Your church is wrong if their leaders said that. vry bible scientist can tell you this.

There is nowhere in the Bible where the text states: "homosexuality is not a sin". There are some gay advocates who attempt to reread some of the sexual stances of the text. These aren't particularly compelling or interesting. Moreover, they fail to take account of the larger traditions who produced the text and their long history of sexual ethics. Even so, the LDS Church on the subject is clear: homosexuality is a sin, even a gross sin.

So, is that correct?
I live in Germany, we have a domestic partnership/union, but your church is also against this!

I don't understand how your post above relates to my statement that the Church agrees with the larger notion the state (a political body) can regulate sexual relations. Both marriage and domestic partnerships are examples of state regulations. Regulation of sexual relations is within the state's purview. Such regulations should occur via the democratic process.

Think about the polygamy and the priesthood for blacks. It was said by church leaders that this NEVER would b changed. And it changed.

I'm not aware of any Official statements from the Church that the ban on Blacks would never change. I have read statements by various General Authorities from during the prohibition who said it would change during the Millennium (after Christ's return) or that the policy would one day change etc. Even so, polygamy is likely the better choice to go with if one wants to find precedent for dramatic changes. If one reads the rhetoric of the Church on the subject, the change was very much tied to a practical concession given the U.S. Government's moves against the Church's holdings and possible very existence as an organization. If the government opted for a stance where the Church must recognize gay marriages and then began seizing Church holdings and imprisoning those who refused to comply, that would move in the direction of what was happening during the late 19th Century with the Church. Of coarse, such would impact far more churches than just the LDS.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You are wrong, just as you are wrong about a myriad of other things about the Church.



This man, Joseph Sitati, earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Nairobi, as well as a diploma in accounting and finance from the Association of Certified Accountants. He has worked as an executive for a nongovernmental organization and in several positions with a large oil and gas company. He is one of the LDS Church's "General Authorities." The General Authorities are the LDS Church's top leaders. There are hundreds and hundreds of Black men who are in lower leadership positions within the Church. They are not merely "Priests" but "High Priests." (There is a huge difference between the authority of an LDS Priest and an LDS High Priest.)

ok, I'm wrong, I'll never assert this again

It does not however change the fact that the LDS church is homophic

Wrong about many things? like Joseph smith being a free mason
like Mormons effectively seeing God as an alien?..re: kolob
or the whole God is actually 3 beings thing
You know, instead of just saying, all this is wrong

why don't mormons respond and reply why people think mormons believe in venusians
or why people think mormons believe they will inherit their own universe
or why the denial of masonic connections....

Instead we are just greeted with closed lips

 

[Witch of Hope]

You are wrong, just as you are wrong about a myriad of other things about the Church.



This man, Joseph Sitati, earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Nairobi, as well as a diploma in accounting and finance from the Association of Certified Accountants. He has worked as an executive for a nongovernmental organization and in several positions with a large oil and gas company. He is one of the LDS Church's "General Authorities." The General Authorities are the LDS Church's top leaders. There are hundreds and hundreds of Black men who are in lower leadership positions within the Church.

One posterchild doesn't make a former racial church freee from racism. Or did you forget this:

Cain slew his brother ... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.... How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp.290-91).


When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity ... he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.143).

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning (The Way To Perfection, 1935, p.101).

The obvious question is, "When will Abel's seed be redeemed?" It will first of all be necessary that Abel marry, and then be resurrected, and ultimately exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom so that he can have a continuation of his seed. It will then be necessary for Abel to create an earth for his spirit children to come to and experience mortality. These children will have to be "redeemed" or resurrected. After the resurrection or redemption of Abel's seed, Cain's descendants, the Negroes, will then be allowed to possess the Priesthood (The Church and the Negro, 1967, pp.45-49).

Sounds not good in my ears

 

[Mr Cheese]

There is nowhere in the Bible where the text states: "homosexuality is not a sin". There are some gay advocates who attempt to reread some of the sexual stances of the text. These aren't particularly compelling or interesting. Moreover, they fail to take account of the larger traditions who produced the text and their long history of sexual ethics. Even so, the LDS Church on the subject is clear: homosexuality is a sin, even a gross sin.


.

Yet, where does Jesus condemn homosexuality?

With the inherant bigotr of the bible, supposedly...how do you deal with the fact that David loved a man "above all women" (to quote the bible)?

 

[Witch of Hope]

Here something about what Paul realy said in Romans 1:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...homosexuality-trap-escape-18.html#post1868438

Please excuse my lousy English