What kind of men does God want?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is the church we live in, no question about it. If Danzig was unaware of this fact, he wasn't paying attention. His example will teach another generation of members.

And they can always cowardly come on CG and do it in anonymity.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Tex

And they can always cowardly come on CG and do it in anonymity.

Cowardly??? So are you saying you admire the courage of those who come out in open defiance?

You are an enigma.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Cowardly??? So are you saying you admire the courage of those who come out in open defiance?

You are an enigma.

I wouldn't say I admire it--at least not in a "boy I wish I could do that" way.

But it takes far more cahones to criticize the church in a widely-circulated newspaper with your name attached, than to come here anonymously and savage the church. Any idiot can get an account on CG and bad-mouth its leaders (plenty already have).

[Leo]

Originally Posted by Adam

This captures better than anything else why I am moved so deeply by the Danzig episode. I can see myself in his place some day frankly and it isn't a good feeling to be forced to choose between the keeper of the ordinances of the gospel and my integrity. Could anything be more painful then making this choice?

Why make the choice at all? If you have a testimony of the fundamental four -- (1) God, (2) Jesus, (3) Book of Mormon, (4) Joseph Smith -- and yet you see a deeply troubling flaw in the Church, why not walk along the ark, without steadying it, and wait for that day when the Church steadies itself?

Thousands anguished over the Church's racist practice and teachings, and the ark is slowly steadying itself on that point (Elder Holland, in his interview for The Mormons PBS documentary, said that prior racist justifications for priesthood discrimination were "wrong" -- now we need that in a Proclamation to the World).

It seems that the choice is only presented when you wish to speak publicly about it. But if your integrity demands public statements or even public advocacy, then perhaps you may be presented with the choice. But, as it now stands, you do not need to make the choice: you can faithfully serve and participate in the Church, and still disagree with the Church's stance on homosexuality. That is, unless your integrity demands public statements or advocacy. But if it doesn't, hopefully it's enough for you -- and me -- to recognize how poorly Danzig's priesthood leaders carried out their duties, and hope that a majority of the membership agrees with us.

And I'm optimistic; I think a majority of the membership would like to pistol whip MoTab's Director and kick Danzig's priesthood leaders in the nuts. That, or just ask them to calm down and read about the Shepherd's many parables on "tending the flock." (Another reason the press release is so bad: it misuses the Savior's metaphor.)

Adam, take heart: my small corner of the vineyard is primarily populated by pistol-whippers and nut-crunchers. Let me clarify: a majority agrees with the Church's stance on homosexuality (whatever that may be at this amorphous moment), but disagrees with how Danzig was treated.

[FMCoug]

I would not take the Abrahamic test thing literally. I think it's true that we will all have (and for some have had) an "Abrahamic test". But I don't consider that literally killing a child. I think it's unique for everyone and can be summed up in asking you do something that seems completely wrong to youl. Everything your rational mind, intellect, etc. thinks about this says to you it's the wrong thing to do. But you do it anyway based on inspiration.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by Leo

Let me clarify: a majority agrees with the Church's stance on homosexuality (whatever that may be at this amorphous moment), but disagrees with how Danzig was treated.

I see at least two ambiguities in the Church's stance on homosexuality at this time:

(1) the source of same-sex attraction (conflicting statements; non-repudiation of past statements)

(2) So what are we supposed to do wrt to gay marriage? Contact our congressional reps and tell them what we personally think about the Federal Marriage Amendment or tell them what we think so long as our thoughts are in favor of the FMA? What if I think that same-sex marriage is wrong, but that the FMA is also wrong? What if I think that same-sex marriage is wrong, but that, taking a wholly utilitarian or pragmatic approach, that recognizing gay marriage will yield a net benefit for society? My point: I can personally oppose same-sex marriage for the reasons provided by the Church, but still find legitimate reasons for (1) opposing the FMA, and (2) supporting society's grant of legitimacy to gay marriage.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Cowardly??? So are you saying you admire the courage of those who come out in open defiance?

You are an enigma.

A wise man once said, what a difference a "g" makes.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

A wise man once said, what a difference a "g" makes.

Now you're stealing oats?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Leo

Why make the choice at all? If you have a testimony of the fundamental four -- (1) God, (2) Jesus, (3) Book of Mormon, (4) Joseph Smith -- and yet you see a deeply troubling flaw in the Church, why not walk along the ark, without steadying it, and wait for that day when the Church steadies itself?

Thousands anguished over the Church's racist practice and teachings, and the ark is slowly steadying itself on that point (Elder Holland, in his interview for The Mormons PBS documentary, said that prior racist justifications for priesthood discrimination were "wrong" -- now we need that in a Proclamation to the World).

It seems that the choice is only presented when you wish to speak publicly about it. But if your integrity demands public statements or even public advocacy, then perhaps you may be presented with the choice. But, as it now stands, you do not need to make the choice: you can faithfully serve and participate in the Church, and still disagree with the Church's stance on homosexuality. That is, unless your integrity demands public statements or advocacy. But if it doesn't, hopefully it's enough for you -- and me -- to recognize how poorly Danzig's priesthood leaders carried out their duties, and hope that a majority of the membership agrees with us.

And I'm optimistic; I think a majority of the membership would like to pistol whip MoTab's Director and kick Danzig's priesthood leaders in the nuts. That, or just ask them to calm down and read about the Shepherd's many parables on "tending the flock." (Another reason the press release is so bad: it misuses the Savior's metaphor.)

Adam, take heart: my small corner of the vineyard is primarily populated by pistol-whippers and nut-crunchers. Let me clarify: a majority agrees with the Church's stance on homosexuality (whatever that may be at this amorphous moment), but disagrees with how Danzig was treated.

Excellent post, Leo.

Was that your very first post on CG? I hope you stick around.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wouldn't say I admire it--at least not in a "boy I wish I could do that" way.

But it takes far more cahones to criticize the church in a widely-circulated newspaper with your name attached, than to come here anonymously and savage the church. Any idiot can get an account on CG and bad-mouth its leaders (plenty already have).

This from a guy won't even admit his marital status. Courage indeed.