Prop 8 and passive-aggressiveness

[exUte]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

Is it just me, or is the church really very passive aggressive in fighting for prop-8? If my stake president (whom i work with is being accurate), Pres. Monson has been attributed with calling this issue our "gettysburgh"...

1. We are supposed to campaign for the passage of Prop-8, but not to use the church's name or facilities for our work.

2. When "proselytizing" for the cause, we are just "educating" or "polling" the public.

3. The Church has not met with the lds gay group Affirmation, which seems to claim that homosexuality is not a lifestyle or temptation, but a matter of genetics and biology, but will meet with the group Evergreen International, which works to help those lds overcome homosexual behavior. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10521489

4. The GA who spoke to Evergreen William Walker (never heard of him) didn't even use the words "same sex attraction" or homosexuality, but he did say "wickedness never was happiness".

i wish that the church would just come out and say what the mean. it is very clear that they believe homosexuality is a sin and will lead to destruction of our society. i would still disagree with the church's position for reasons i and many others here have already articulated, but i would respect the church for saying what they mean instead of spinning.

the longer this passive aggressive approach goes on, the more it becomes clear that the church is not authentic and true to itself, and is really more about spin and smoke and mirrors.

because we live in an environment where evil is considered good and good is now evil. To the secularists, the Mormon church is probably the devil himself. Reminds me of the times described in Helaman......to a tee.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

this goes back to the whole conception of what a sinner is. In the church we believe some people are sinners, some are not. Whereas in some denominations, all people are sinners.

Per the church, gays are sinners, and incapable of leading the lives of a decent, moral person.

So the idea that gay parents could raise a kid in a good decent way is impossible. What it comes down to is the church thinks these gays are despicable people, but not worthy of lynching, or acting illegally or aggressively against.

run by a bunch of old white guys. Or do you think the prophet, is truly a prophet and communicates with God? Which one is it?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

this goes back to the whole conception of what a sinner is. In the church we believe some people are sinners, some are not. Whereas in some denominations, all people are sinners.

Per the church, gays are sinners, and incapable of leading the lives of a decent, moral person.

So the idea that gay parents could raise a kid in a good decent way is impossible. What it comes down to is the church thinks these gays are despicable people, but not worthy of lynching, or acting illegally or aggressively against.

We believe that all are sinners, Mike. This is abundantly clear from the scriptures. If you mean the membership doesn't always act like they believe this, then yes I can buy that. But my experience is that people are actually pretty humble for the most part and recognize that they are sinners at some level. I don't know of anyone who is not a sinner "per the church."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

We believe that all are sinners, Mike. This is abundantly clear from the scriptures. If you mean the membership doesn't always act like they believe this, then yes I can buy that. But my experience is that people are actually pretty humble for the most part and recognize that they are sinners at some level. I don't know of anyone who is not a sinner "per the church."

My thoughts exactly.

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

authority figures lose credibility with me as soon as they spin or side-step what they are trying to say in order to make it more palatable to the target of comments or action.

Perhaps you'd feel better if they spoke in parables?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps you'd feel better if they spoke in parables?

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

My thoughts exactly.



Perhaps you'd feel better if they spoke in parables?

nah. i would just rather have church leaders who call a spade a spade instead of sounding like a whitehouse press secretary or palin answering charlie gibson's questions about the "bush doctrine".

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

We believe that all are sinners, Mike. This is abundantly clear from the scriptures. If you mean the membership doesn't always act like they believe this, then yes I can buy that. But my experience is that people are actually pretty humble for the most part and recognize that they are sinners at some level. I don't know of anyone who is not a sinner "per the church."

then why are members against gays adopting? Because they are the kind of sinner who should be shunned. There are two kinds of sinners in the church--the kind that is ok, and the kind that is Satan. Gays are Satan.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

then why are members against gays adopting? Because they are the kind of sinner who should be shunned. There are two kinds of sinners in the church--the kind that is ok, and the kind that is Satan. Gays are Satan.

This is an interesting issue for me. I'm aware of gay couples (two sets of guys) who have adopted kids who came from horrible environments and who probably would not have been adopted by the typical hetero couple seeking a baby (the adopted kids were at least a few years old). By all accounts, the gay parents are doing superbly raising these once-troubled youth. For that reason alone, I don't object to, and in fact support, gays adopting.

And yet I remain convinced that kids are better off with a mother and a father, instead of two moms or two dads. I believe dads and moms each bring something to the table that the other cannot. So while I support gays adopting, I'd favor a hetero couple over a gay couple, ceteris paribus, in placing a child for adoption. I'm open to science showing me my belief is archaic and insupportable, but I don't think that's been done yet. Or has it?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

nah. i would just rather have church leaders who call a spade a spade instead of sounding like a whitehouse press secretary or palin answering charlie gibson's questions about the "bush doctrine".

Perhaps I was too subtle. I am suggesting that Jesus did not always call a spade a spade (at least in public).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

This is an interesting issue for me. I'm aware of gay couples (two sets of guys) who have adopted kids who came from horrible environments and who probably would not have been adopted by the typical hetero couple seeking a baby (the adopted kids were at least a few years old). By all accounts, the gay parents are doing superbly raising these once-troubled youth. For that reason alone, I don't object to, and in fact support, gays adopting.

And yet I remain convinced that kids are better off with a mother and a father, instead of two moms or two dads. I believe dads and moms each bring something to the table that the other cannot. So while I support gays adopting, I'd favor a hetero couple over a gay couple, ceteris paribus, in placing a child for adoption. I'm open to science showing me my belief is archaic and insupportable, but I don't think that's been done yet. Or has it?

For the church, there is not even a discussion here. To the church, it is so obvious that gays should not be parents, that to say otherwise is like suggesting that unpunished rapist/murderers be allowed license to raise children.

"Damaged children should get the damaged parents." That's kind of what you are saying.