Lds wtf

[smileyeagle1021]

I'm not sure whether it should go here or religion because it is the churches response to a social woe, mods feel free to move if needed.

Anyway, watching the history channel, they have a show on about gang problems in Salt Lake. At the end there is an LDS Church spokesperson talking about how the church is beginning to recognize that some of it's members are gang members and the churches role in those people's lives... that the church is working to reach out to these people to bring them back in, that they want to spread the message that despite your mistakes we will bring you in. They are also investing in community programs to reduce gang violence. All of this I think is great... what gives me the WTF though is that this is the same spokesperson who is encouraging us to fight the amendment in California to allow gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin... I had a roommate who was excommunicated because he at one point in his life had an alcohol problem, hell, I'm sure that if the church leadership dug hard enough they could even find reason to excommunicate me.

Why the hell are they busy doing the "it's ok, we love you" for people committing crimes that every Christian sect considers a sin, but is pushing people out of the church for things that people can't agree on whether or not it's a sin.

[Boozy]

I went ahead and moved it, because I suspect most of the discussion will be centered around religion.

I don't know anything about the LDS Church. I don't think we have many Mormons in Canada. In a case where they've decided to embrace gang members and turn their backs on homosexuals, I'm assuming that there's something in the LDS doctrine that supports that.

So it doesn't make sense. Why should it? It's a religion. Why do people expect religions and their adherents to behave logically?

[Slytovhand]

?? Confused...

Doesn't it say in the bible that it's a sin to have sex with a member of the same sex?? Leviticus or something?

Now, I'm also not sure where you're coming from, but what I do think is that if an organisation (such as a religion) makes a particular rule, I don't see the point in a person trying to 'force' their way into that religion and say they need to change. Eg - homosexuality. If the Catholic church says you can't be a catholic and a homosexual, then I don't see the point in homosexuals trying to be Catholics... go be something else that does accept you...

That's my 2 cents

(not saying I agree with such a stance, btw).

[AdminAssistant]

Doesn't it say in the bible that it's a sin to have sex with a member of the same sex?? Leviticus or something?

Yes, in the same section that forbids the eating of shellfish, encourages slavery, and forbids associating with women on their period. The scripture in Leviticus concerning homosexuality is taken out of context and twisted to fit the purpose of homophobes.

The Christian doctrine (idea/whatever) - well, at least for Protestants, I don't know much about LDS or Catholicism - is that we have all sinned. All of us. So to ban a group of people due to their sin seems to me to be the opposite of the goal of the church - to convert people to the word of the Lord and prevent said people from going to Hell. (Why, yes, I am a Baptist. :rolleyes:)

I think this has more to do with looking good in the eyes of the community than with the actual spiritual goals of the church. If the Salt Lake community sees the LDS church being pro-active to help stop gang violence (by accepting gang members back into the fold, etc.) then it improves the stature of the LDS church within the same community.

ETA: Looking at my above statement on sin - I have to say this. People should be able to be whatever they jolly well want to be. I don't see anything wrong with a GBLT person who is also a Catholic. For most people, their sexuality and their religion are quite separate things. As I said, it is impossible to not have sinned in some way. Why should a Catholic who just happens to be GLBT be forced to find a new spiritual home? I just hate the notion that someone can't be homosexual and a good Christian at the same time.

[anriana]

The Christian doctrine (idea/whatever) - well, at least for Protestants, I don't know much about LDS or Catholicism - is that we have all sinned. All of us. So to ban a group of people due to their sin seems to me to be the opposite of the goal of the church - to convert people to the word of the Lord and prevent said people from going to Hell. (Why, yes, I am a Baptist. :rolleyes:)

ETA: Looking at my above statement on sin - I have to say this. People should be able to be whatever they jolly well want to be. I don't see anything wrong with a GBLT person who is also a Catholic. For most people, their sexuality and their religion are quite separate things. As I said, it is impossible to not have sinned in some way. Why should a Catholic who just happens to be GLBT be forced to find a new spiritual home? I just hate the notion that someone can't be homosexual and a good Christian at the same time.

My understanding of the Christian doctrine is that people who are sexually active with members of the same gender are choosing to revel in and not repent of their sin. If these gang members are renouncing their gangster lifestyle, they are repenting from their sins. So, everyone sins, but a proper Christian recognizes sin and tries to avoid it, something active homosexuals don't. (I identify as queer and certainly don't agree with any of this; it's just how I was raised by Southern Baptists to understand their doctrine)

Now, I'm also not sure where you're coming from, but what I do think is that if an organisation (such as a religion) makes a particular rule, I don't see the point in a person trying to 'force' their way into that religion and say they need to change. Eg - homosexuality. If the Catholic church says you can't be a catholic and a homosexual, then I don't see the point in homosexuals trying to be Catholics... go be something else that does accept you...

I doubt most queer people struggling with spiritual identity are converting to religions that don't want them. It's not easy to throw away the beliefs and culture you were raised with because one facet of yourself doesn't mesh with them. Hell, most straight Catholics don't adhere to 100% of the church's doctrine - how many of them use contraceptives of some sort?

[Slytovhand]

ETA: Looking at my above statement on sin - I have to say this. People should be able to be whatever they jolly well want to be. I don't see anything wrong with a GBLT person who is also a Catholic. For most people, their sexuality and their religion are quite separate things. As I said, it is impossible to not have sinned in some way. Why should a Catholic who just happens to be GLBT be forced to find a new spiritual home? I just hate the notion that someone can't be homosexual and a good Christian at the same time.

Ummm - cos although we humans are the ones who make the rules and all, those rules are considered to come from a higher source, and thus can't be argued with. (well, ok, you could, but I don't like your chances of winning it :p)

I think people should take more personal responsibility for their beliefs, rather than just jump in with what sounds good. Thus, be prepared to believe as you believe - and if there's a group that believes all the same, cool. If not, no point trying to join up with them and then get them to change their policies or rules. And if neither fit - then go it alone...:D

[Rapscallion]

If the Catholic church says you can't be a catholic and a homosexual, then I don't see the point in homosexuals trying to be Catholics... go be something else that does accept you...


The surest way to get someone of a group of people to do something is to tell them that it's impossible. Someone will try to prove you wrong.


ETA: Looking at my above statement on sin - I have to say this. People should be able to be whatever they jolly well want to be. I don't see anything wrong with a GBLT person who is also a Catholic.

The problem here is that the church is a private institution with its own rules. If you break the rules, then the church is quite within its rights to deny you access to its sacred tenets (such as marriage).

To put it another way, I might desperately want to become a wet nurse, but it isn't really going to fit with the job description.

A while back, I saw an interview (probably over twenty years ago) where a priest and a sunday school teacher had had an affair and were both dismissed from their jobs. Chastity was a part of his contract, and hers had something about not getting knocked up by priests or similar. They went on national television to complain about how the catholic church had treated them badly. Mike Morris, the presenter, just bare faced asked them what the problem was - they broke the rules of employment and were sacked. They didn't really have an answer, except to say that the church had been nasty about it.

If you want to belong to an organisation, you have to follow its rules. The alternative is a good old-fashioned schism.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Hell, most straight Catholics don't adhere to 100% of the church's doctrine - how many of them use contraceptives of some sort?

Exactly! I could only excuse the Church excommunicating homosexuals if they excommunicated everyone who used some form of birth control, or didn't go to confession enough, or didn't say the rosary every night, or.....and so on and so forth.

Honestly, these folks aren't giving God enough credit. Yet another reason why I sleep in on Sundays....

[Sylvia727]

Why the hell are they busy doing the "it's ok, we love you" for people committing crimes that every Christian sect considers a sin, but is pushing people out of the church for things that people can't agree on whether or not it's a sin.

Because (almost) all Christians agree it's a sin. It's hard to publicly forgive someone for committing a sin if half the population doesn't think a sin was committed. But violence, well, nobody likes violence, so it's easy to acknowledge as a problem.

Despite all of this, I think religions and their denominations will gradually and reluctantly adapt to mainstream culture. How many pastors would have performed an interracial marriage ceremony 200 years ago? And how many will now?

[smileyeagle1021]

?? Confused...

Doesn't it say in the bible that it's a sin to have sex with a member of the same sex?? Leviticus or something?



yes, it does... but there are quite a few gang violence issues that violate the 10 Commandments... the biggest of which is "thou shalt not kill" ... bit hypocritical to say that we are willing to forgive a commandment violation but violating the Levitcan code (i think that's the name for it) which is more complex than even US law is unforgivable.

Because (almost) all Christians agree it's a sin. It's hard to publicly forgive someone for committing a sin if half the population doesn't think a sin was committed. But violence, well, nobody likes violence, so it's easy to acknowledge as a problem.


that's actually something I hadn't thought of... it is something to ponder on.

[Flyndaran]

Unless those gay bashers are out stoning adulterers and eaters of shellfish, then I will continute to shout from the tallest treetops that they are disgusting hate-filled hypocrites MIS-using their supposed holy books to promote cruelty and pain.

[Slytovhand]

So... if they were stoning those adulterers and shellfish eaters, it would be ok???

yeah - I know where you're coming from...:p

I think I agree, too!

[Sylvia727]

So... if they were stoning those adulterers and shellfish eaters, it would be ok???

They wouldn't be hypocrites anymore. They'd just be your average murderous crazies. :p

[ElMarko]

what gives me the WTF though is that this is the same spokesperson who is encouraging us to fight the amendment in California to allow gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin...

Gay marriage is legal in California. The initiative would ban it. I just don't want anyone confused at the ballot box.

[Shangri-laschild]

Much though I don't like the church's stance on homosexuality, I see the difference.

From what I understand, so long as you don't think about or do any acts that are considered homosexual, the church will welcome you in. You are expected to either remain celebate or marry someone of the opposite gender. I guess they consider it a temptation that some people have and that if you want to stay in the church, you are not to give into it.

For a gang member to be welcomed into the church, they would have to also, not participate in what they would otherwise be participating in (the gang activity).

Both parties are expected to stop participating in their "sinful activities" in order to be welcomed in or and become members.

[smileyeagle1021]

Shangri, I have to call you on that... the church will excommunicate a homosexual... but they won't excommunicate a gang member... so there is still a double standard.

[Shangri-laschild]

Shangri, I have to call you on that... the church will excommunicate a homosexual... but they won't excommunicate a gang member... so there is still a double standard.

Damn. It wasn't for the most part anything that was brought up when I was still attending so all the information I've gotten was from a friend who's dad came out (though I don't think he's abstaining or even going to church anyway) and a couple others. I didn't like their stand point to start with, that just ticks me off more.