Reorganized LDS

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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

Why, you're in luck!

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0...1-11-1,FF.html

Let me save you some time in responding. Yes, I know this addresses "the family" and not "homosexuality" in particular. But I'll make two blanket statements: first, this declaration pretty much lays out what you need to know doctrinally regarding homosexuality; and second, there has been plenty said by church leaders on being charitable to others, even to gays. I don't suspect that clarification is needed-- simply adherence to the principles already stated.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

So the only worthy charity is an AIDS clinic?

We're unworthy by donating time and money to a children's cancer clinic?

The only problem I have with AIDS clinic is the inherent politics of it. Compassion is involved, but they also become political. I notice you have not been involved, but neither have I.

With a cancer clinic, or support clinic, there really isn't any politics involved, just compassion.

[Robin]

Are Mormon apostates, on the whole, less altruistic than others? Perhaps this might be the the case. Some significant percentage of apostates lose interest in the church because they grow tired of the burdens of church activity, and MAYBE that is a pretty good indicator for a less altruistic outlook on life. But many other apostates simply leave the church because, when they really think about it, the idea of God and Jesus floating three feet off the ground in the sacred grove just doesn't fit into a basic experiential understanding of how things work. For these people, apostasy probably ISN'T a good indicator of anything pertaining to their ethical or altruistic outlook.

The problem with a discussion like this is it takes a fact, or in this case an unsupported hypothesis (apostates, on the whole, are less altruistic), and stains a lot of people to which the 'facts' don't apply. So what use is a discussion like this except to spread a certain brand of prejudice?

Similar logical paths might turn into discussions about the violent nature of black people, or the greedy nature of Jewish people, or the lazy nature of Mexicans. In other words a discussion like this is less than useless.

[RockyBalboa]

And the martyr complex continues...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So the only worthy charity is an AIDS clinic?

We're unworthy by donating time and money to a children's cancer clinic?

The only problem I have with AIDS clinic is the inherent politics of it. Compassion is involved, but they also become political. I notice you have not been involved, but neither have I.

With a cancer clinic, or support clinic, there really isn't any politics involved, just compassion.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Compassion comes from the individual serving. If you bring politics into your heart while you serve, then yes there are politics.

Liver cancer secondary to alcohol abuse? Lung cancer secondary to smoking? Politics there?

I don't think the Savior would start parsing his compassion to individuals based on perceived worthiness. Wasn't the female adulterer the pariah of the day?

If you can't imagine Jesus among those with HIV/AIDS, then I think you've got the wrong Jesus.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

And the martyr complex continues...

Lame post.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

And the martyr complex continues...

Not necesssary, Rocky. Robin actually makes a very good point.

Robin, as I recall, had his first major crisis over the church over the church's attitude toward gays/lesbians (and correct me if I'm wrong, Robin-- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth). It seems to me that there are a substantial number of people who leave the church because the behavior of the members of the church is entirely inconsistent with the behavior of people who are supposed to be "saints"-- literally, "holy" or "sanctified" beings. The discrepancy suggests two possible states: one, the doctrine is true and the members are really that sub-par; or two, "by their fruits ye shall know them."

I don't mean to categorize you, Robin, or any other individual for that matter, but I think that many members eventually pack up primarily because of the preposterously asinine society that somehow sprung up behind the church. This is very much the state I find myself in. I am an active member, but I often find church a grueling experience. I said before that I am a member because I believe in the origins of the church, in spite of the fact that it makes me miserable at times. This is the main reason why.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I refuse to consider myself a Mormon.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I refuse to consider myself a Mormon.

Whatever, Mormon boy. (neener, neener)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not sure I agree with this. Compassion comes from the individual serving. If you bring politics into your heart while you serve, then yes there are politics.

Liver cancer secondary to alcohol abuse? Lung cancer secondary to smoking? Politics there?

I don't think the Savior would start parsing his compassion to individuals based on perceived worthiness. Wasn't the female adulterer the pariah of the day?

If you can't imagine Jesus among those with HIV/AIDS, then I think you've got the wrong Jesus.

Wow, way to put words into my mouth Mike.

My adversion to political causes is my belief somebody isn't rendering services out of compassion but to make a political statement. Many who are active in the AIDS arena are also very political, so I question their motives. Moreover, if one becomes intimately involved with most charities,even within worthy charities, one can find persons with unworthy motives.

To me, charitable service should be mostly out of sight, and nonpolitical. Once politics are involved, it cheapens the actions, makes them unworthy. Christ would never had run for political office; he wouldn't want to sully his hands with such things. Yes I know we are commanded to be involved, but Christ wasn't a politician.

Children charities are easily the most meaningful, as they are our future, don't vote, and usually aren't political. There are loads of things involving children. Abused children, children with cancer, children with AIDS, education of uneducated and so forth. And a person can be involved without being noticed or political. One can do so without receiving credit.

The one brush with AIDS charities involved a bunch of political gay acitivists who were actually violating the private inurement rules of 501(c)(3) charities. It left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

[MikeWaters]

What words did I put in your mouth?

I give people who are doing service the benefit of the doubt. Someone who volunteers numerous hours helping their fellow man...I really don't see the point of sitting around questioning their motives.

Christ ran for messiah, did he not? And was there not a vote of sorts? Won't he be king and ruler in the future? Sounds an awful lot like an adminstrative governmental position.

If one limits their service to only the most innocent, only the most worthy, where does that leave everyone else? It's not how Christ operated, based on my reading.