LDS Church Press Release Response to HRC Petition

[All-American]

that's much better. I think the good brother Otterson has earned his paycheck, though I would never see why anyone would want that job.

Anyone who can't see or feel the differences in that statement compared to BKP's talk is silly.

I suspect that a lot will not.

Ultimately, the way Church members respond to the issue will only change with awareness of the effects their behavior causes. Pray for the brave souls of whom victims will be made before eyes and hearts are opened on the matter.

[statman]

I beat you to the punch.

You know, I think that this will eventually become the only refuge for the church once the church's style of homophobia falls completely out of fashion. The church will eventually be able to say, "Yes, being gay is not part of God's plan, but it is nothing that can't be fixed in the eternities by a merciful God. Since life is about attaining a measure of joy, we invite gay people to come and join our Mormon communities with full fellowship. Gay brothers, bring your husbands. Gay sisters, bring your wives. Join us in worship and service. Just because one aspect of your life doesn't seem to fit with God's plan for his children does NOT mean that you should not partake of all of the other fruits of God's church on Earth."

It seems that the church will either whither on the vine, or will eventually embrace some kind of position like this.

I would hope that that is already the message, more or less. I know it would freak a lot of people out, but the phrase "let he who is without sin..." comes to mind.

But I don't see the Church giving gay individual stemple reccommends any time soon, but there's absolutely no reason a gay couple should not be invited to attend services.

We have a lesbian couple in our ward (in Lehi! GASP!) that show up for "high holidays." I'm not sure how many in the ward know that they're "a couple" - I only know because the HPG home teaches them both since they're "single sisters."

[LA Ute]

FWIW, Ottersen's statement had to be approved by the First Presidency before he read it.

He is a good, smart, compassionate, open-minded guy and the church is lucky to have him, IMO.

[BigFatMeanie]

I would hope that that is already the message, more or less. I know it would freak a lot of people out, but the phrase "let he who is without sin..." comes to mind.

But I don't see the Church giving gay individual stemple reccommends any time soon, but there's absolutely no reason a gay couple should not be invited to attend services.

We have a lesbian couple in our ward (in Lehi! GASP!) that show up for "high holidays." I'm not sure how many in the ward know that they're "a couple" - I only know because the HPG home teaches them both since they're "single sisters."

Do you mean someone that is gay and sexually active or do you mean someone that is gay yet celibate? The latter group, though small in numbers, are most certainly given temple recommends.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Do you mean someone that is gay and sexually active or do you mean someone that is gay yet celibate? The latter group, though small in numbers, are most certainly given temple recommends.

Yes. From the release:

Those in the Church who are attracted to someone of the same sex but stay faithful to the Church’s teachings can be happy during this life and perform meaningful service in the Church. They can enjoy full fellowship with other Church members, including attending and serving in temples, and ultimately receive all the blessings afforded to those who live the commandments of God.

Of course, to get the full temple blessings they would need marry someone of the opposite sex and have one of those ticking-time-bomb marriages.

[woot]

You simply don't understand Mormon doctrine as much as you think you do.

Easy for you to say, but this is something that I was taught and that everyone I knew believed. Granted, it may not be a doctrine, but that takes us back to the idea that the church doesn't have any doctrine.

Edit: It may come down to how we define "promise," as Statman mentioned. It seems that it was always interpreted to mean "hope" or "potential" as opposed to the more literal "you still might be fine, but we can't make any promises."

[Pheidippides]

that's much better. I think the good brother Otterson has earned his paycheck, though I would never see why anyone would want that job.

Anyone who can't see or feel the differences in that statement compared to BKP's talk is silly.

I really want to hope that's what BKP wanted to say on the subject, and that it was simply his unlearned speech, much like Moses, that caused the confusion. I really want to believe this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OrangeUte]

I found that to be a well crafted statement.

I wish it could be followed up by Elder Packer saying, to church members, this is what I meant to say.

DITTO!

[Surfah]

I really want to hope that's what BKP wanted to say on the subject, and that it was simply his unlearned speech, much like Moses, that caused the confusion. I really want to believe this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then believe it.

[statman]

Do you mean someone that is gay and sexually active or do you mean someone that is gay yet celibate? The latter group, though small in numbers, are most certainly given temple recommends.

Gay and celibate is as worthy as straight and celibate.

[statman]

Yes. From the release:



Of course, to get the full temple blessings they would need marry someone of the opposite sex and have one of those ticking-time-bomb marriages.

Unfortunately, my sister is in one of those ticking time-bomb marriages...

[statman]

Easy for you to say, but this is something that I was taught and that everyone I knew believed. Granted, it may not be a doctrine, but that takes us back to the idea that the church doesn't have any doctrine.

Edit: It may come down to how we define "promise," as Statman mentioned. It seems that it was always interpreted to mean "hope" or "potential" as opposed to the more literal "you still might be fine, but we can't make any promises."

Basically, It's never been revealed (to the general church population, at least) what happens to people who don't fall into the standard groups. We can't "promise" what will happen, but we can have faith that a just god will make things right for everyone...

[Indy Coug]

Easy for you to say, but this is something that I was taught and that everyone I knew believed. Granted, it may not be a doctrine, but that takes us back to the idea that the church doesn't have any doctrine.

Edit: It may come down to how we define "promise," as Statman mentioned. It seems that it was always interpreted to mean "hope" or "potential" as opposed to the more literal "you still might be fine, but we can't make any promises."

I always enjoy when a non-believer gets so dogmatic about what the church does and doesn't teach.

[BigFatMeanie]

Gay and celibate is as worthy as straight and celibate.

So you meant the former group? If so, I agree with you.

Your original statement "But I don't see the Church giving gay individual stemple reccommends any time soon" isn't clear, nor have you yet cleared it up.

[Pheidippides]

Then believe it.

It may be delusional, but it will help me sleep better at night.