Reorganized LDS

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have volunteered in an AIDS hospice.

All sorts of people volunteer. That's not the point. The question is whether rejection of Mormonism typically leads to a more humanistic, altruistic lifestyle. Or not. It's an empiric question that is tough to answer. We each only have a smattering of case reports.

Good for you. I can't even tell you where our AIDS clinics are. I suppose some of my physician clients can.

For whatever reason, I admit I am not very service oriented outside of Church or friends. Mine is probably in reaction to the overservice my spouse renders. If it's service involved, she does it, no matter how much money or time it costs.

We do donate significant time to the children's cancer clinic, but that is a result of my spouse. She donates upwards of twenty hours per week there. Mine is limited to monthly time or cash donations. But whatever, nobody would use me as an example of charitable donations.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I find it quite ironic that you'd accuse non-belivers and apostates of being either narcissitic or incapable of living morally.

Narcissistic like a guy who proclaims himself a prophet, seers, treasure hunter, expert ancient hieroglyph translator, bank president, mayor, military legion leader?
Immoral like a guy who changes the rules to suit himself, like reinstablishing polygamy, excusing his own debts, and runs from prosecution at every turn?

What's your point? You don't believe and spout traditional anti crap, that even Brodie rejected. Move yourself at least into the 20th century out of the 19th friend.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

And from what I've seen Mormonismn would at least implicitly discourage someone from wanting to donate time at an AIDS clinic.

For how smart you are and how intelligently you express yourself, that sure was an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Now, I happen to be a Mormon, and I can't think of any discouragement, explicit or implicit, that the church would give regarding donating time at an AIDS clinic. Could you clarify?

What I meant was Mormon church's condemnation of homosexuality as deviant would tend to discourage many from donating at an AIDS hospice. I know there is no explicit discouragement. But excomunicating gays and taking public positions against gay marriage seems to me to invite a lack of charity toward gays. See my other thread re opacity of Mormon doctrine/position.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I personally am familiar with nobody, LDS or nonLDS, who have ever donated time to an AIDS clinic. Have you donated time to an AIDS clinic? I have not.

My wife, born a Catholic but not religious, has many times. The mother of one of my law partners is famous for having established one of the first AIDS hospices in the world, here in Seattle, using much of her own means (her husband was a high ranking Boeing executive). She went on to become an ordained Episcopal minister. As you probably know, the Episcapalians recently ordained a gay cleric.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What I meant was Mormon church's condemnation of homosexuality as deviant would tend to discourage many not to donate at an AIDS hospice. I know there is no explicit discouragement. But excomunicating gays and taking public positions against gay marriage seems to me to invite a lack of charity toward gays. See my other thread re opacity of Mormon doctrine/position.

How is disagreeing with homosexuality grounds for accusing an entire sect of lacking charity towards them?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What I meant was Mormon church's condemnation of homosexuality as deviant would tend to discourage many from donating at an AIDS hospice. I know there is no explicit discouragement. But excomunicating gays and taking public positions against gay marriage seems to me to invite a lack of charity toward gays. See my other thread re opacity of Mormon doctrine/position.

Any implicit discouragement would go directly against a number of higher commandments-- love thy neighbor as thyself, for example. If Mormons lack charity towards gays or anybody else, it is in conflict with their doctrine, not concordance. I don't think there's anything opaque about that sentiment.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

How is disagreeing with homosexuality grounds for accusing an entire sect of lacking charity towards them?

There is quite a bit of vitrol in the church against gays, unfortunately. It is definitely not part of our doctrine, of course, but it exists all the same. One need look no further than this board-- Grapevine's posts may be part of maintaining a faux persona, but he plays the stereotype all too well.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

There is quite a bit of vitrol in the church against gays, unfortunately. It is definitely not part of our doctrine, of course, but it exists all the same. One need look no further than this board-- Grapevine's posts may be part of maintaining a faux persona, but he plays the stereotype all too well.

It certainly is not grounds for painting all of Mormonsim with such a ridiculous broad brush.

I find it ironic that those who accuse us of being narrow-minded fail to see the mote in their own eye.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

There is quite a bit of vitrol in the church against gays, unfortunately. It is definitely not part of our doctrine, of course, but it exists all the same. One need look no further than this board-- Grapevine's posts may be part of maintaining a faux persona, but he plays the stereotype all too well.

This is an example of how a firm and clear First Presidency encyclical on the subject of homosexuality would be of use and benefit.