Prop. 8 armageddon?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Levin

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think the Church will change its stance. There. Understand? Go read my previous posts and see if anything there is inconsistent, or whether the entire meaning of the posts could be altered by changing two words. Clearly Lebowski understood.

I know what you meant. I just thought it was kinda funny that you could change the name of the prophet and change the word "gay" to "black" and your post appears like it was written in 1960. Sorry that seems to upset you.

On second thought I probably should have used "colored" or "negro" to make it more authentic.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

If the answer is yes, go ahead and explain to me why you think they will never change positions. If the answer is no, explain to me how my name-calling is ignorant.

Here's what the enlightened LDS like 3D and you miss (bless your modern hearts, I love you), if the LDS Church doesn't take sides (the wrong side, I think we agree on that much) on issues like this, there's really hardly any point to it.

[MikeWaters]

The church has a history of changing its mind when confronted with harsh social and financial consequences:

1. polygamy
2. blacks and the priesthood

Just like in Africa, where blacks held church, but it wasn't recognized or official, maybe we will have a splinter group of gays, that have a church, that is not recognized or official. Affirmation seems to be the beginning of that.

The church is standing at a crossroads--it has no real explanation for the existence of gays, and no good way of dealing with it. This is both its weakness and strength. On the one hand, you would think that men with direct conduits to God could come up with some answers, on the other hand, not knowing allows for future flexibility, i.e. a change in policy.

If the church became largely about fighting gay marriage and gay rights, I'm not sure I could stomach it.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

OK, I'll bite. Do you think the church is on the wrong side of this issue?

If the answer is yes, go ahead and explain to me why you think they will never change positions. If the answer is no, explain to me how my name-calling is ignorant.

I'm very conflicted. I think the Church's teachings on the law of chastity and homosexuality are correct, but it is a very tough pill to swallow, and I haven't swallowed it completely yet.

I think I answered your question to some degree in the thread on whether I'd want my gay son to leave the Church or try to stay in it. Unequivocally, if he were sexually active, I would want him to leave the Church completely -- for his own well being and happiness.

[MikeWaters]

Would it be wrong to say, "I want my children to pursue truth, not Mormonism, or necessarily any other creed. If that path goes through Mormonism, then great, but how can I ask others to pursue truth, if I can't ask my own children to do so?"

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The church has a history of changing its mind when confronted with harsh social and financial consequences:

1. polygamy
2. blacks and the priesthood

Just like in Africa, where blacks held church, but it wasn't recognized or official, maybe we will have a splinter group of gays, that have a church, that is not recognized or official. Affirmation seems to be the beginning of that.

The church is standing at a crossroads--it has no real explanation for the existence of gays, and no good way of dealing with it. This is both its weakness and strength. On the one hand, you would think that men with direct conduits to God could come up with some answers, on the other hand, not knowing allows for future flexibility, i.e. a change in policy.

If the church became largely about fighting gay marriage and gay rights, I'm not sure I could stomach it.

Here's the paradox.

Because the tide of history still is progressive, the LDS CHurch is on the wrong side of history in about any way you can think of. At its roots there was no institution more committed to a creationist world view. Just try to stay awake sometime in your temple sessions and see what you learn. Creationism underlay the priesthood ban (still not officially repudiated), i.e. the mark of Ham fable. We still see educated Mormons who can write marvelous declarative sentences come here and say stuff like all Arabs are descended from Ishmael. At a time when the world was more enthralled than any time in its history by exegesis and scientific stripping away of the old, sacred myths, Joseph said he saw Jesus, translated a gold book, etc. Mormons revived one of the "twin pillars of barbarism" (a marvelously descriptive and precise pharase): polygamy.

So it's not surprising that in addition to actually living and enforcing a moral code hardly no one even pretends to abide in the modern world, Mormons were the last among "mainstream" institutions in America to eliminate racial apartheid. Mormonism's opposition to gay rights is entirely consistent with everything it stands for and has done, what Mormonism is at a cellular level.

So given Mormonism's unique status in the world, its raison d'etre, which is what attracts most Mormons (apparently not most here, however) to Mormonism, Mormonism inevitably will wind up opposing progress on social issues. And given that Mormonism is on the wrong side of historty, it will always in the end lose these quixotic campaigns (at least until the Church headquarterss are able to move to Afghanistan and make peace with the powers that be there).

But until every vestage of barbarism has been legislated away or made unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or made unacceptable by popular opinion, there are still issues for which Mormonism must take the (wrong and losing) side, and Mormonism must yield the principle for which it has fought so hard, so it can live to fight (and lose and abandon the principle for which it has fought) another day. That's the paradox.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Would it be wrong to say, "I want my children to pursue truth, not Mormonism, or necessarily any other creed. If that path goes through Mormonism, then great, but how can I ask others to pursue truth, if I can't ask my own children to do so?"

Sincerely,

Robin Finderson

two peas in a pod!

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Sincerely,

Robin Finderson

two peas in a pod!

This is disingenuous, and a crude troll. Not up to your normal standards.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Would it be wrong to say, "I want my children to pursue truth, not Mormonism, or necessarily any other creed. If that path goes through Mormonism, then great, but how can I ask others to pursue truth, if I can't ask my own children to do so?"

This is a nice formulation, but identical in the substance.

[MikeWaters]

I have found in my short life that some people claim to be pursuing a very interesting path of truth, but it doesn't sound convincing nor look very rewarding to me.