cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

- Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - More fallout from gay marriage spat (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17055)

It's odd if it's occurring that way.

However, these guys could do it differently by just stating, "hey, we oppose the FMA or whatever it's called."

The mistake, politically, these folk make, is to go public against the Church. In many other circumstances folks can do that and get away with it, but not in this context.

Nonetheless, I imagine this too shall pass and change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 188494)

and so the tent gets smaller....

I guess what it boils down to, is that I believe in a personal relationship with God. And I don't think ANY mortal man has the power to step between a person and God.

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care about what priesthood, what authority, or anything. The personal relationship between a person and God is inviolate, and only dependent on God and that person.

I recognize that social organizations do have and should have the power to regulate their membership. That's fine. And we are always taking in data that either pushes into stronger or weaker membership in that social organization.

We need to decide who we want to be. Figure out how big this tent is. And also we need to think about why some stakes have larger tents and other stakes have smaller tents.

Maybe SEIQ is right. Maybe the very soul of the LDS church is up for grabs right now, and the mullahs are in furious attacking retreat.

It's sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 188492)

It's events like this that tell me the clock is ticking for many Mormons--those who have personal beliefs and aren't afraid to share them.

I wonder what Joseph Smith would say to the idea that merely expressing personal opposition to an official act of the church is worthy of excommunication? The idea that there is no back and forth, no common consent.

It's funny--if we defend Nielsen in semi-anonymity on the internet, we are "safe", but if we write in and say the exact same thing in an op-ed, we risk eternal damnation. That's pretty freaking incredible.

That's why I don't really think God gives all that much weight to excommunication. Look at the David O. McKay bio and the attempt by an apostle to excommunicate Juanita Brooks. Do I believe, in one moment as President McKay considered the matter, that Sis. Brooks eternal welfare was on the line? No I don't, not for a second.

Excommunications of conscience such as this case brings to mind, make me sad. There is one person on CB who has said he is preparing a dossier to "expose" me to local church leaders. What happens when my day comes? Do I take the path of conscience, or do I kowtow to unrighteous dominion?

What if the church demands I shut down this website? The clock is ticking.

By the way, it's too f*&#$# bad the guy wasn't an athlete at BYU. His case might have turned out different.

What athletes do you know that have taken public stances in direct conflict to general policies of the church. Not once, but repeatedly. I will bet the guy didn't get thrown out of the orchestra because he refused to shave his beard. What do you think would happen if an athlete grew a beard and refused to shave it.

I understand and can sympathize with the bulk of your post. I think at this point the bulk of the church doesn't mind the order of things. Maybe as time moves on that will change and then the churches stance on this might too.

AS one who doesn't approve of gay marriage, I hope they don't. However, I don't ever use the churches stance as being a doctrinal issue. I consider it a social issue, much like the black situation was.

It seems inevitable that gay marriage is legalized. I dont care one bit if it is. I am not against it.

But I am interested to see the also inevitable reactions of homophobes in and out of the Church that will hide behind a phony shield of conservatism and family values to justify exclusionary behavior.

How many LDS families will do the following upon the legalization of gay marriage:

1. Not speak to gay couples that come to our Sacrament meeting
2. Not allow their children to play with children of gay couples
3. Not befriend gay couples that move to your street, block, etc...

All of these will happen, no doubt. And all in the name of family values and adherence to what Christ would want us to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 188500)

How many LDS families will do the following upon the legalization of gay marriage:

1. Not speak to gay couples that come to our Sacrament meeting
2. Not allow their children to play with children of gay couples
3. Not befriend gay couples that move to your street, block, etc...

All of these will happen, no doubt. And all in the name of family values and adherence to what Christ would want us to do.

You know, I often wonder if our kids will be talking about our parents' generation, (and ours to a lesser extent) in the same way that we talk about our grandparents' generation in relation to blacks and the priesthood. They'll wonder how we could have been so out of touch.

Triplet, you're being too harsh on the members.

In gay couples, they represent something which is very difficult for the members to understand. Gay copulation is a sin in the eyes of most members. So they won't know how to respond.

Some will respond cautiously, some will stand off and some will act as they would with heterosexual couples. You take social conservatives and can't expect them to behave as if they were living on Castro Street in San Francisco.

I suspect members would treat gay couples better than they will treat members who support gay couples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 188500)

Is it possible to think that gay marriage is not a good idea without being called a homophobe. I am against gay marriage. The fact I am wouldn't make me do any of the 3 things you mentioned.

Just noticed that Dr. Bradshaw from the Biology dept. at BYU got quite a bit of mention at the end of that article. He was one of my favorite professors at the Y.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 188492)

That's why I don't really think God gives all that much weight to excommunication. Look at the David O. McKay bio and the attempt by an apostle to excommunicate Juanita Brooks. Do I believe, in one moment as President McKay considered the matter, that Sis. Brooks eternal welfare was on the line? No I don't, not for a second.

My grandpa tells a story about his grandpa. Apparently, back in Draper, UT in the early 1900s, this ancestor (named Leonard) and his stake president got into a tiff over irrigation rights (the history of the west is the history of water rights, IMO). Apparently, the SP got so angry he had Leonard ex'd. At a church meeting shortly thereafter, President Joseph F. Smith showed up and asked Leonard to come sit on the stand with him. When Leonard explained that he couldn't since he had been ex'd, President Smith said something like, "Oh, whatever. You're not excommunicated." And Leonard went up on the stand and lived the rest of his life as if nothing had ever happened. No rebaptism or anything.

That's the story, anyway - don't know if it's very true but it's a nice family story.