Intervention show--gay LDS guy

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My point is, you can believe the church is wrong about something, but still think it is a worthwhile organization to participate in.

Don't you think there were a few members who thought the church was wrong on the blacks and priesthood issue, but still put their butts in the pews?

Many I would think, but how many of them were ordaining black men anyway?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My hope would be this, that there is some connection beyond to make up for the disconnect, but I would not encourage a practicing gay to attend, as it is cruel for both groups.

I go to the New Testament Jesus to think through this sort of thing. I can't imagine the New Testament Jesus telling someone not to attend his church. So I feel uncomfortable with any situation that has us as a church inviting someone not to attend.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Many I would think, but how many of them were ordaining black men anyway?

In some ways the act of a black man attending a Mormon service before 1978 could be seen as subversive. Doesn't mean that the black man who puts his rear is the pew intends it to be subversive.

Same thing goes for a gay couple in a Mormon service in 2008. It may be viewed as subversive, even if not intended to be.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by splitbamboo

I know I'm stupid to respond to this, but here goes.

They both constitute sin. If you don't believe that, you don't believe in modern prophets. And both sins can be recognizable and things we don't want our children or neighbors to emulate so we will most likely find it hard to deal with.

But both can also be used for teaching and that is good. And maybe, by being in Church, the offender (like each of us) will come to figure out how he can cope/change/whatever. And maybe we'll become more tolerant as well.

Sounds like a good thing and a reasonable analogy in my opinion...

Is that true? I don't think we should automatically make the leap from it being a word of wisdom (D&C89:2 -- To be sent greeting; not by commandment...) to its noncompliance being a sin. Can't it be a code of health and requirement for a TR without its noncompliance being a sin? Have GAs referred to drinking as being a sin? (Maybe they have).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I go to the New Testament Jesus to think through this sort of thing. I can't imagine the New Testament Jesus telling someone not to attend his church. So I feel uncomfortable with any situation that has us as a church inviting someone not to attend.

There is a difference from disinviting and inviting. I would not INVITE a practicing gay person to attend. That does not mean I would shun or turn away one that decided to attend.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by scottie

Is that true? I don't think we should automatically make the leap from it being a word of wisdom (D&C89:2 -- To be sent greeting; not by commandment...) to its noncompliance being a sin. Can't it be a code of health and requirement for a TR without its noncompliance being a sin? Have GAs referred to drinking as being a sin? (Maybe they have).

Wacked out Mormon definition of sin. Ugh.

[Tex]

I don't see why a practicing gay couldn't come to church, anymore than someone with a drinking problem or anyone else (provided he is not drunk at that moment).

They may not want to be there for various reasons, but assuming they did, I would welcome them with open arms. Assuming they aren't disruptive, the church has open doors to all people, regardless of what sin they may be struggling with.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't see why a practicing gay couldn't come to church, anymore than someone with a drinking problem or anyone else (provided he is not drunk at that moment).

They may not want to be there for various reasons, but assuming they did, I would welcome them with open arms. Assuming they aren't disruptive, the church has open doors to all people, regardless of what sin they may be struggling with.

I don't see the value for the gay person in a gay person being associated with the Church. If I were other than a lesbian, I would not attend the LDS Church.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't see the value for the gay person in a gay person being associated with the Church. If I were other than a lesbian, I would not attend the LDS Church.

There's no other value in the gospel for a gay person?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

There's no other value in the gospel for a gay person?

Let's be pragmatic. A practicing gay person is at odds with the principles which allow one full fellowship of the community.

As long as full fellowship is denied, I don't see the value, and prior to 78, I can see that same argument holding more or less true for blacks.

Why would you want somebody to continue to fight the ostracizing from members?

Hopefully, there is something in Christ's atonement which makes up for these circumstances, but I wouldn't recommend the practicing gay stick it out. That is heretical I know, but it seems more pragmatic to me.