Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » LDS church declares SSM couples apostates and their children banned from attending (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: LDS church declares SSM couples apostates and their children banned from attending
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"his is more about something OTHER than wanting to avoid confusing children"

Well That's implicit in my argument as well. I said that the church is following the only gtradition that it has for dealing with those that war on the church. And in the LDS experience, duplicitious federal proclamation followed by a show of force and rallied by resentful exmormons, looks an awful lot like an enemy's charge. Good thing that Mormons are relatively peaceful and creative in dealing with perceived enemies. I'm sure that if it becomes apparent that church land wont be seixed and church leaders jailed for our peculiar beliefs and practices re marriage. That the defensive alert will die back. But the Mormons didnt light this fire or set the precedents. The feds and press set the rules of how mormons had to deal with pligs in order to be considered separate from them. So that's what the church deels it must do to convince the world that it rejects ssm to the same degree that it has ceased the practiv e of polygamy. Sure, it sucks for the kids. Show the LDS a less painful way to unambiguously reject ssm as valid, and they will probably take it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Show the LDS a less painful way to unambiguously reject ssm as valid, and they will probably take it.

I did when I quoted the Catholic stance on baptism for the children of SS unions.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Show the LDS a less painful way to unambiguously reject ssm as valid, and they will probably take it.

I did when I quoted the Catholic stance on baptism for the children of SS unions.
I am willing to believe that you think you did. But when the LDS church took such steps with pligs and their families, it was still accused of and believed to be tacitly accepting modern practice of polygamy. So it's understandable that church leaders to expect that they need to take the same harsh exclusionary policies in order to be believed as repudiating the redefinition of marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic"

Nonmormons are not required to disavow their parents when they become Mormon.

I was told that an Orthodox Christian can take mass but an Episcopal cannot. A married Anglican priest or Orthodox priest can become a Catholic priest while remaining married. And a Hindu fakir can baptize you a Catholic in a pinch if no Catholic priest can be found, but a Mormon cannot, because apparently the lds "three persons in One God" poses mo0re of a difficulty that actual polytheism. Nevertheless the LDS church and Catholic church work together on many projects both spiritual and material with mutual respect and admiration. There are bigots in the trenches on both sides, sad to say. I have sharp differences with Kate but dont consider her a bigot.

I have no idea what you mean by a Hindu fakir baptizing people. It is true that ordinary Catholics can baptize in an emergency.
You err when you restrict the emergency baptizer to ordinary Catholic since Catholicism accepts the baptism of most Protestaznt sects. According to a number of Catholic sources, in emergencies the baptiser need not be Catholic or even Christian, so long as he say the words. And the consensus at catholic forums was that a hindu fakir could carry out an emergency catholic baptism. But a mormon could not because a hindu could imagine the Trinitarian conception of God while a Mormon had been brainwahed to believe in "a different jesus". (grand hypocrat Eric Hilbert kicked me off that forum for pointing out, on a mountain meadows thread, the parallels between Bishop Lee and certain Rwandan parrish priests ...)

"ust LDS - traditions must be re-baptized if they convert to Catholicism is that - as you pointed out earlier - baptism means something different"

The latter is true but that's not the reason, as most of the Protestant sects whose baptism you accept conceive baptism more like the LDS do than as the Catholics do. EG restricting baptism to someone who can talk, etc. The words of the covenant are identical, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The reason given is not that Mormons have a different concept of the trinity than the one that evolved from the second Nicene Creed. So while they chafed at my choice of examples, they agreed that they were more vomfy with a Hindu fakir baptizing a dying wannabe Catholic, than say a mormon paramedic
paramedic.

I have no problem with Catholics rejecting the LDS baptism. But pity the twit who buys that the LDS three person in one god concept is so horribly different from the Catholic three persons in one God that you are better in a pimch to seek salvation from a fakir.

[ November 09, 2015, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You spend a lot of time on the wrong Catholic forums. I believe I have already told you this.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it's understandable that church leaders to expect that they need to take the same harsh exclusionary policies in order to be believed as repudiating the redefinition of marriage.
Well, at least we can all agree that the policy should be characterized as "harsh" and "exclusionary."

Out of curiosity, can you see any parallel between this new LDS policy, and this text from Matthew?
quote:
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

For my part, I'm sure any resemblance is slight. After all, we all know that Jesus was very opposed to communing with sinners and anyone who had violated the old traditional law...
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You spend a lot of time on the wrong Catholic forums. I believe I have already told you this.

You did tell me that, and I have not been back there since you told me that. Nor have I met any Catholics who could show me contrary authority to what I saw there. Funny, my high opinion of Catholics was damaged by two days on Catholic Answer forums just as my previou8sly favorable impressiohn of Muslim integrity was shattered by conversations on a few Muslim forums. And don't even get me started on the Mormon forums ;(

Dont assume that because I disagree with you passionately on a few issues that I pay as
Ittle heed to what you say as you do with me. I remember, for example, that you said that they hated you more than they hate me. And given what they say about Jesuits, and several other respected Catholic groups, I believe you.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
it's understandable that church leaders to expect that they need to take the same harsh exclusionary policies in order to be believed as repudiating the redefinition of marriage.
Well, at least we can all agree that the policy should be characterized as "harsh" and "exclusionary."

I am touched, SP. For once you seem to be reading what I said rather than what you think your childhood bugbears would have said.

quote:
quote:
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


Indeed. And that's an argument that can be made against the policy without lying about what the policy is, or why it was implemented. Godspeed.

"r all, we all know that Jesus was very opposed to communing with sinners and anyone who had violated the old traditional law..."

I tend to agree thzt Elde K, as quoted, seems to fall short of the Savior's advice and example. As did the apostles of old. WhICH IS WHY I would like to see critics set aside the bullcrap and misleading arguments and focus on the valid critical points like the one you just made.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You spend a lot of time on the wrong Catholic forums. I believe I have already told you this.

You did tell me that, and I have not been back there since you told me that. Nor have I met any Catholics who could show me contrary authority to what I saw there. Funny, my high opinion of Catholics was damaged by two days on Catholic Answer forums just as my previou8sly favorable impressiohn of Muslim integrity was shattered by conversations on a few Muslim forums. And don't even get me started on the Mormon forums ;(

Dont assume that because I disagree with you passionately on a few issues that I pay as
Ittle heed to what you say as you do with me. I remember, for example, that you said that they hated you more than they hate me. And given what they say about Jesuits, and several other respected Catholic groups, I believe you.

Dude, there are 1.2 billion Catholics. How many of them did it take to change your opinion?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for making my point, Kate. '(

I wish Carlotta and Pan were here. They actually listened to me before responding rather than endlessly trying to turn me into a refried stereotype. I think I have their number somewhere.

In case any Catholic with reading skills is paying attention, I am still bothered by what I was told on CAF, and would like better sources.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Out of curiosity, can you see any parallel between this new LDS policy"

Just to clarify, you mean certain Ornerians' rendition of ABC's rendition of LDS policy?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has instructed local church leaders that same-sex couples are apostates and that children living with them can't take part in church activities until they're adults and leave home, the church told NBC News on Thursday night.

OK, this is either a misquote or written by a total fool.

All same sex couples cannot conceivably be "apostates" because most same sex couples in the USA cannot possibly know, let alone be in rebellion against the LDS church. That would be like Pakistan declaring me a traitor when I owe no allegiance abd have never had any ties to Pakistan. Some jackass has left out context. I suspect that the group targeted was much narrower, say members of the church that enter into same sec marriages.

And no, that doesnt rebut SPs valid concerns.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, the policy is written for members of the church who enter into same sex relationships. But when it comes to their children, it doesn't matter what the parents' relationship to the church is - they are subject to the same restrictions. (Just trying to be clear - it is absolutely mostly a problem for people who have existing ties to the church.)

Just read another account from a man who has several LDS children, got divorced a few years ago and is living with his same sex partner now. His ex-wife is suing for full custody in reaction to this policy change.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well thank (someone) we live in a nation with clear boundaries between the law and religion and this couldn't possibly be cause alone for a change in custody. Right?

At least the lawyer's children will be well provided for...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I can see the argument for change in custody. The very prohibition on government interference in religion recognizes religion's importance. I'm glad I'm not the judge deciding that case either way is likely to be sticky.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Yep, the policy is written for members of the church who enter into same sex relationships. But when it comes to their children, it doesn't matter what the parents' relationship to the church is - they are subject to the same restrictions. (Just trying to be clear - it is absolutely mostly a problem for people who have existing ties to the church.)

Just read another account from a man who has several LDS children, got divorced a few years ago and is living with his same sex partner now. His ex-wife is suing for full custody in reaction to this policy change.

See? If your goal is change, it doesnt hurt your argument to be specific and avoid broad misleadingly statements. The latter are good for stirring up angry mobs but not particularly good for persuading religious authorities with a history of perceived persecution.

I honestly believe that specificity and accuracy is everyone's friend here.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I honestly can not see what you think you've demonstrated or corrected me on, Pete. What did I previously say that was misleading?

You didn't respond about your misleading claim that this policy won't deprive children of any pastoral care.

[ November 09, 2015, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yep, the policy is written for members of the church who enter into same sex relationships. But when it comes to their children, it doesn't matter what the parents' relationship to the church is - they are subject to the same restrictions"

If you are right sbout the policy then it sounds doctrinally inconsistent. Affixing the apostasy label to nonmormon same sex couples would be like calling a muslim polygamous man a mormon apostate. That's a queerly parrochial view for an increasingly worldwide church.

Even though the policy is harsh and unfair to the kids, I can understand its application to Mormon pligs, many of whom have insstitutionalized murder, kidnapping and child rape. Of them, I can appreciate application of Jesus' words about cutting off your arm to save the body.

To my knoowledge same sex couples and their kids do not bring the same sort of violent baggage to the table than modern pligs bring. So I suspect the church will moderate and amend this policy. Assuming that what I've been told here is the whole story.

Remember this is the same church that just used its influence (pissing off some former allies) to get the Boy Scouts to accept gay scout kids. Thomas Monson is as tender hearted a president as Mormons have ever had. He seems to consistently speak the level of the youngest members of the audience eben though he is afaik the highest iq president in church history, with an eidetic memory, etc.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Assuming that what I've been told here is the whole story."

Have you looked into the handbook text and the church's statements on the matter?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
?

You didn't respond about your misleading claim that this policy won't deprive children of any pastoral care.

When did I claim that? Yes it deprives them of a great deal of pastoral care. not of alll but of most. so it was misleading for you to say the church at most only cared about their material needs. scifi, I went ouy of my way to avoid accusing you directly of being misleading, but you forced my hand by asking, " What did I previously say that was misleading"

I think highly of you.. I had said some stuff in the article was misleading and you seemed to be arguing with me citing a cause that I have sympayhy for and to some extent agree with.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"Assuming that what I've been told here is the whole story."

Have you looked into the handbook text and the church's statements on the matter?

No. Do you know of a BHI that's current and online?

how about a link to that cell phone keyboard you spoke of?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe that this is the change under discussion:

quote:
Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.



Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Well thank (someone) we live in a nation with clear boundaries between the law and religion and this couldn't possibly be cause alone for a change in custody. Right?
..

In some states it could go the other way. In NV for example, the gay daddy might sue to get full custody because the mom's religion interfered with his relationship with his children.

What happens in case of shared custory? say minor kids live with mom and spend every other weekend with dad and dad's partner? does the LDS church really want to be in the business of estranging children from their parents? I wish I knew what the actual policy was.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note I posted the above before seein g Kate's previous post. Thank you Kate.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a link that I think includes the relevant information: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"ame-gender cohabitation "

??

Doesnt that same gender cohabitation arrangement describe most BYU dorms? who wrote that?
?

But I still dont think that saying it means they have to denounce their parents is an accurate or sane assessment.

What the writer seems to be trying to do is to be fair and consistent with the policy towards apostate plig families. Fairness and consistency are virtues but as I have argued ago, there are issues with pligs that require such harsh measures, and afaik may not be applicable to same sex couples.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be specific: you said kids affected by this policy won't be deprived of home visits. Home visits to same sex relationship households is one situation that the church is trying to avoid, according to Christofferson. I didn't see you respond when I pointed that out previously.

Sorry about saying you said they won't be denied any pastoral care. That wasn't accurate.

I never said the church "at most" cared about their material needs. I was acknowledging your point that they might help with material needs.

There's a transcript of Christofferson's remarks here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

The text of the new policy regarding children is this:

quote:
Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.

The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.

The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage

The disciplinary requirements for same sex couples (don't feel like cleaning up the formatting from the PDF copy/paste):
quote:

When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary Serious Transgression
. . . It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, . . .


Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 is also to be updated immediately as follows (addition is highlighted): When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory Apostasy
As used here,
apostasy
refers to members who: 1.

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. 2.

Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. 3.

Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. 4.

Are in a same-gender marriage. 5.

Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Email me your address and phone model and I'm happy to send you a compatible bluetooth keyboard if I can find one.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Here is a link that I think includes the relevant information: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288

Thank you again Kate!

As I suspected and hoped, the "apostasy" label is not brooadly applied to members in a same sex relationship as sf said but specifically to those in a same sex MARRIAGE." it's specifically the marriage term that invokes the apostasy issue.

This isnt a periferal issue blown wide out of homophobia. Marriage as the eternal union of man and woman is at the core of what distinguishes the LDS church from other Christian sects. Call it heterocentrism if you like.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or "cohabitation". Or "living in a same-gender relationship". I don't think anyone was confused about why. None of us are unfamiliar with the "heterocentrism" of the LDS church.

[ November 09, 2015, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I apparently missed that you were specifically concerned with the apostate label and how it applied. Sorry about that.

That's a side effect of the fact that I don't really care about that aspect of the issue. LDS people living in a same sex sexual relationship have all obviously decided to reject the church's teachings on this matter.

When it comes to the policy regarding children, it's not limited to children of apostates. [Frown]

[ November 09, 2015, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I missed that, too. Sorry.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Well, I apparently missed that you were specifically concerned with the apostate label and how it applied. Sorry about that.

That's a side effect of the fact that I don't really care about that aspect of the issue. [Frown]

I think you assumed everything I said applied to your argument. I was adressing the thread title, which is the first I had heard about this issue. I do not think LR meant to mislead. But whether you care or not, I hope you will acknowledge that the LDS church and culture do not treat "apostates" as ...other prominent groups in the nedia have treated "apostates." Note Maxine Hanks is back in the church ... That's half of the september six, and counting. Hoping Lavinia Fielding Andersen will be soon...

On a personal note, wince you dont email anymore, I wish I could talk to you because am getting kind of headspun with a single mom who like you is reasonably leftish and quite atheistic. Hope you would chat by phone or email. About from your experience if such a relationship can possibly end well. Would it have been easier if you were not living in Utah? or if you were both middle aged and not going to have kids? I dont want to live through another divorce but ,,, well in some respects it is a match made in a heaven she doesnt believe in. [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Or "cohabitation". Or "living in a same-gender relationship". I don't think anyone was confused about why. None of us are unfamiliar with the "heterocentrism" of the LDS church.

Kate, I do not think you unintelligent. On many topics you keep me informed and on some others you challenge me. Onh some you have even persuaded me and that takes some doing. But on this topic if you understand that aspect of LDS theology, your words do not reflect that understanding nor any desire to be informed. That's ok; there are issues such as sports where I have no desire to understand what's going on either. But then I dont pass judgment on referee calls.

[ November 09, 2015, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Go ahead and email me Pete
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"LDS people living in a same sex sexual relationship have all obviously decided to reject the church's teachings on this matter."

Exactly. While I think that it's been exaggerated above to say that the kids have to repudiate their parents, I think it would be more consistent with. LDS respect for family to have them explicitly accept the teachings of the church on the matter. And why single out kids of same sex parents? Put the question to all prospective converts as part of the standard interview.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Or "cohabitation". Or "living in a same-gender relationship". I don't think anyone was confused about why. None of us are unfamiliar with the "heterocentrism" of the LDS church.

Kate, I do not think you unintelligent. On many topics you keep me informed and on some others you challenge me. Onh some you have even persuaded me and that takes some doing. But on this topic if you understand that aspect of LDS theology, your words do not reflect that understanding nor any desire to be informed. That's ok; there are issues such as sports where I have no desire to understand what's going on either. But then I dont pass judgment on referee calls.
"Heterocentrism" was your word. I get that eternal gender roles are central to Mormon theology As I said, it is hardly new information. That doesn't mean that I have to like the harm it does any more than I like the harm that rigid sexual doctrine does in my Church.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
""Heterocentrism" was your word."

Yes it was. But I dont think you know as much as you think you know about what I was alluding to with that word.

"I get that eternal gender roles are central to Mormon theology?"

Oh? eternal "gender roles" are *central* to LDS theology? Please expound. [Smile] in this central LDS doctrine, what is the role of Mother in. Heaven? why dont we know more about her? why did President Hinkley say he knew of "no precedent" for praying to a Mother in Heaven when we are told that Hymns are prayers to the almighty and we explicitly pray to a mother as well as a father in heaven in the hymn once called an invocation and now called 'oh My Father." If you understand perfectly this stuff about the eternal roles of men and women in LDS theology, then please ecplain it to me. I've only.prayed and studied and cried and asked about this since I was three years old when my aunt told me that I shouldnt nurse my stuffed tiger and that boys grow up. To be daddies whose job is to take home money.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where did I claim to know everything? One doesn't have to know everything to know what you just said . How does being aware of the importance of gender roles expand on your head to understanding them perfectly even if I thought that it was possible to understand any theology "perfectly"?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I mean is that you neither understand n or seem to want to understand what I am talking about.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, unlike Catholics, mormons dont have a millennium and a half of theological musing. They have twice as much scripture as you and 10% of the time to sort it out and talk about it. They need a few centuries to sort out what you said you understand without kackboot thugs marching thru the slc temple as occurred in the late 19th century at the command of the Inited States Supreme Court in US v Reynolds.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1