08-03-2006, 03:57 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
|
|
08-03-2006, 04:04 PM | #22 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I do not see how one can be a temple recommend holder, and believe in gay marriage. I can see how one could politically differ with the proposed amendment, but it seems if one wants men to marry, that one does not believe in God's prophets, the Proclamation on the Family or the scriptures. I can see how a mother of a gay son could have more sympathies for gayness than those of us who have no known relatives in that situation. I don't see how it transfers to disbelieving in the roles which the Church declares to be true and proper. A poor example. I disagree with the policy on the priesthood pre 1978. However, I was not in authority to make any change and it was not my role to direct the Church to change it. If a person in 1976 openly declared to his bishop he did not support the Church's position on the priesthood, my guess is, he wouldn't have received a temple recommend. And if he took it too far, he would have been excommunicated. The recommend interview is to express testimony and declare oneself basically worthy to enter into a house of worship. If one says, well, I don't really have a testimony that only a man and a woman should marry, isn't that person lacking a testimony of a fundamental element? And if you lack fundamental elements, should you be allowed to go college before you've passed algebra and geometry?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
08-03-2006, 04:07 PM | #23 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
what is someone is anti- church-gay marriage, but doesn't give a hoot if the state allows gays to marry?
seems to me the church should be most concerned about its own definition of marriage and not other temporal marriage matters. there is only one doctrinal marriage, right? |
08-03-2006, 04:07 PM | #24 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Case in point. Stake presidents begin to learn about the politics of the Church. A stake president concerned about fundamental policies would send his concerns to a member he knows is sympathetic to his position in order to allow the sympathetic apostle to use it for political discussion.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
08-03-2006, 04:11 PM | #25 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
My real question is why would an active member, who is therefore heterosexual take too many efforts on behalf of a group that really doesn't impact him too much? From a practical perspective, I deal with those matters that affect me most, earning a living, raising my kids, being supportive of spouse, exercising and Church work. That consumes my time. When I was politically active, that was for business purposes and networking purposes. It wasn't to promote some great agenda. Why do people divert themselves from the act of living to matters so ethereal and which can take themselves away from important matters?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
08-03-2006, 04:12 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
I think we can all agree on one thing, if you support gay marriage, you should not be discriminated on temple participation based on your feelings. Talk about slippery slope, where does the church draw the line? It's been discussed here that the church allows for members to be completely active, hold leadership positions, temple recommends, if they are employed by businesses that sole purpose is contrary to the views of the church, would these peoples rites be stripped as well if bishops started rejecting recommends based on gay marriage beliefs? |
|
08-03-2006, 04:15 PM | #27 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
You should have a basic testimony. And if you are in an anti-LDS organization designed at drawing people away because they reject the LDS doctrine on homosexuality as fallacious, a TR should be denied.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
08-03-2006, 04:22 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Moscow, ID
Posts: 1,151
|
I think the crux of the problem is in these little words...
Quote:
IMHO the statement "I support gay marriage" implies a disagreement with the fundamental doctrines of the LDS church. Is there any question about where the church stands on homosexuality being a sin?
__________________
I reject your reality and substitute my own... |
|
08-03-2006, 04:23 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,506
|
Quote:
Hotel owners, lawyers, some physicians, restaurant owners, grocery store owners, workers of these people, would all have their passage revoked. Where do you draw the line? What is more damning, to belong to a pro-gay marriage group, or to represent as a lawyer a murderer? What is more damning, to belong to picket in support of gay marriage, or to sell beer at your restaurant? |
|
08-03-2006, 04:27 PM | #30 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Yet Church opposition to gaming is not a fundamental belief. And the members in gaming, usually or almost unanimously do not gamble. That belief is pragmatic. So is the anti-alcohol stance. That belief is not fundamental. It's based on a testimony of fundamental doctrines, belief in God the Father, Christ, the Restoration, the priesthood, the prophet, and in the covenants of the temple and those made at baptism. And proper marriage is a fundamental belief.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|