I want to fight the exclusion policy

[earl2bad]

I'm an active member. I've been a member of the church for a long time and being black there's already been a lot of things about the church's history that I've had to reconcile with my membership in it. I get that this is a living church and that leaders have made mistakes and are infallible.

The policy change was something of a breaking point for me. Mentally and spiritually, I am unable to make sense of any of the church's policies affecting homosexuals. I feel scripture and academia both do a poor job of justifying its condemnation. When I interviewed for my temple recommend, I let the stake presidency know how I feel. I've let the members of my ward know both in Sunday School and from the pulpit while wearing a black shirt and rainbow tie. I've written the first presidency. I wrote this piece on the subject and based on how it got around the Mormon blogosphere, I'm certain there are people who feel the way I do.
http://rationalfaiths.com/a-card-carryi ... cy-change/

I'm at a loss for what else to do that's in the spirit of the first and second great commandments. I feel something bigger needs to be done than what I'm able to do within my current circle of influence. I want to know if anything like that is being done by anyone.

[zionminded]

I think the most effective thing you can do is stay in the church and help others navigate through that policy by being a voice from the inside. Not one of contention and rebellion, but one of understanding, faith and hope. I know Bishops who think the policy is not Christ-like, and they're not going to "take action" against the LGBTQ community over it.

I know a black man who was a member before 1978. He had a testimony of the restored gospel despite the long standing racial discord that kept him from receiving priesthood blessings. He was then, and is an active member of the church. He had a choice to make a difference then, and now.

You have the same choice, regardless of your sexual orientation; I choose to show Christ-like love to all of Father's children, from within the boundaries of the Church I love, even when they make a wrong choice.

[creator]

You can look at this policy from multiple perspectives. I don't have a problem with the policy, given the clarifications that were later presented. And the other part of this, defining homosexuality as apostasy didn't need to become official policy in order to be true.

[Zathura]

Unfortunately, I don't see any changes happening. Unless you happen to be one of the 15 men on the top of the church hierarchy, you won't be able to make a difference.
If you find something is wrong, take it up with the Lord, as it is He that can set things straight if they aren't the way the should be.

I wonder if anybody has decided to engage in mighty prayer and fasting to find what they should do regarding this policy, and if it's of God.

[kennyhs]

"Unfortunately, messengers of divinely mandated commandments are often no more popular today than they were anciently,"

Jeffrey R. Holland

[JohnnyL]

You've written your letter. I'm figuring you did your best to present facts, research, etc.? Good. Now, fast, ask God if that's his revealed will, and relax.

A bishop I knew felt the same way about Official Declaration 2/ Blacks and the priesthood that you feel now, and kind of made it known, too. What would you say to him?

[Melissa]

I'm an active member. I've been a member of the church for a long time and being black there's already been a lot of things about the church's history that I've had to reconcile with my membership in it. I get that this is a living church and that leaders have made mistakes and are infallible.

The policy change was something of a breaking point for me. Mentally and spiritually, I am unable to make sense of any of the church's policies affecting homosexuals. I feel scripture and academia both do a poor job of justifying its condemnation. When I interviewed for my temple recommend, I let the stake presidency know how I feel. I've let the members of my ward know both in Sunday School and from the pulpit while wearing a black shirt and rainbow tie. I've written the first presidency. I wrote this piece on the subject and based on how it got around the Mormon blogosphere, I'm certain there are people who feel the way I do.
http://rationalfaiths.com/a-card-carryi ... cy-change/

I'm at a loss for what else to do that's in the spirit of the first and second great commandments. I feel something bigger needs to be done than what I'm able to do within my current circle of influence. I want to know if anything like that is being done by anyone.

May I ask what it is that you would like to see changed?

[Elizabeth]

You cannot say you are an active LDS and support homosexuality. If you wish to follow Lucifer, whose agenda this is, then leave the LDS Church.

I'm an active member. I've been a member of the church for a long time and being black there's already been a lot of things about the church's history that I've had to reconcile with my membership in it. I get that this is a living church and that leaders have made mistakes and are infallible.

The policy change was something of a breaking point for me. Mentally and spiritually, I am unable to make sense of any of the church's policies affecting homosexuals. I feel scripture and academia both do a poor job of justifying its condemnation. When I interviewed for my temple recommend, I let the stake presidency know how I feel. I've let the members of my ward know both in Sunday School and from the pulpit while wearing a black shirt and rainbow tie. I've written the first presidency. I wrote this piece on the subject and based on how it got around the Mormon blogosphere, I'm certain there are people who feel the way I do.
http://rationalfaiths.com/a-card-carryi ... cy-change/

I'm at a loss for what else to do that's in the spirit of the first and second great commandments. I feel something bigger needs to be done than what I'm able to do within my current circle of influence. I want to know if anything like that is being done by anyone.

[light-one]

I'm an active member. I've been a member of the church for a long time and being black there's already been a lot of things about the church's history that I've had to reconcile with my membership in it. I get that this is a living church and that leaders have made mistakes and are infallible.

The policy change was something of a breaking point for me. Mentally and spiritually, I am unable to make sense of any of the church's policies affecting homosexuals. I feel scripture and academia both do a poor job of justifying its condemnation. When I interviewed for my temple recommend, I let the stake presidency know how I feel. I've let the members of my ward know both in Sunday School and from the pulpit while wearing a black shirt and rainbow tie. I've written the first presidency. I wrote this piece on the subject and based on how it got around the Mormon blogosphere, I'm certain there are people who feel the way I do.
http://rationalfaiths.com/a-card-carryi ... cy-change/

I'm at a loss for what else to do that's in the spirit of the first and second great commandments. I feel something bigger needs to be done than what I'm able to do within my current circle of influence. I want to know if anything like that is being done by anyone.

I am not aware of any Christian churches that promote homosexualism. The Bible and nature do not promote homosexualism. Why would you want to be a member of any church that would change policy to favor homosexualism in order to appease protesters?

[ebenezerarise]

I'm an active member. I've been a member of the church for a long time and being black there's already been a lot of things about the church's history that I've had to reconcile with my membership in it. I get that this is a living church and that leaders have made mistakes and are infallible.

The policy change was something of a breaking point for me. Mentally and spiritually, I am unable to make sense of any of the church's policies affecting homosexuals. I feel scripture and academia both do a poor job of justifying its condemnation. When I interviewed for my temple recommend, I let the stake presidency know how I feel. I've let the members of my ward know both in Sunday School and from the pulpit while wearing a black shirt and rainbow tie. I've written the first presidency. I wrote this piece on the subject and based on how it got around the Mormon blogosphere, I'm certain there are people who feel the way I do.
http://rationalfaiths.com/a-card-carryi ... cy-change/

I'm at a loss for what else to do that's in the spirit of the first and second great commandments. I feel something bigger needs to be done than what I'm able to do within my current circle of influence. I want to know if anything like that is being done by anyone.

The changes have now been declared revelation.

That puts you at odds with the Lord.

Good luck with that.

[jockeybox]

Note to self, never tell an LGTBQ person to look for friends among the LDSFF crowd. You guys are rough.

[gkearney]

The changes have now been declared revelation.

That puts you at odds with the Lord.

Good luck with that.

So are we going to "man up" and put this into the D&C? Or is this revelation dejure?

[ebenezerarise]

There's lots of revelation that isn't in the D&C. The point though is that this isn't a democracy or a social club that is open to member vote or even interpretation. This is the Lord's Church. Baptism comes with a covenant. You just don't get to change the plan of God because you suddenly feel it is unfair.

[gkearney]

Just why do we have the D&C if we are unwilling or unable to add sections to it? Not
Doing so would seem to indicate that we lack the courage of our convictions. Do we believe in an open canon or don't we?

[Sarah]

All these issues - the gay policy, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, polygamy, even tithing - the things a lot of members struggle with, all seem to come down to one complaint - It's not fair. It's not equal. There is a contradiction, in that we believe God is just and no respecter of persons, yet we see church policy that seems to promote inequality. I can understand this viewpoint, and I think we all need to have compassion on those on the outside who feel like they or others they care for are being slighted in some way.

There are many ways in which I've reconciled this apparent contradiction. The first is that when we look at how God deals with people throughout history, he is not concerned about making everything fair for everyone at the same time, especially in THIS LIFE. The Jews and the Gentiles, the clean and the unclean, the first born and other children, one tribe of Israel over the other, the first wife and all others etc. There are different laws for different groups of people. Often there are "haves" and "have nots" in this world, and while we are commanded to be compassionate and generous to those who are disadvantaged, we see that the Lord purposely declares some to be given different gifts or privileges at different times. We need to compare our Father in Heaven's approach to a wise parent who knows which child needs which opportunity for growth. This life is a test, and these opportunities which inequality provides are to teach us how to give, receive, love, forgive, show compassion, and overcome temptation.

I agree with the policy. It makes total sense to me. A child who is being raised by same-sex parents would place himself in a position of making a covenant with God to obey God's commandments and would have to condemn his parents marriage. Wait until he is old enough to see clearly the choice he must make and help him not be put in a position where he mush choose his God over his parents. There is also the option that he could be baptized before 18 with the First Presidency's approval.

[ebenezerarise]

Just why do we have the D&C if we are unwilling or unable to add sections to it? Not
Doing so would seem to indicate that we lack the courage of our convictions. Do we believe in an open canon or don't we?

Bulll-oney. Plural marriage was practiced long before it was ever added to the D&C.

But we're talking a policy here, not anything new in doctrine. I would guess there are hundreds if not thousands of policy changes and updates that come by way of revelation that get announced and go by unprotested.

This "policy" is an affirmation of long standing BASIC FUNDAMENTAL doctrine.

It doesn't discriminate against any body. Nobody is withheld blessings. Far too much has been made of this thing and it is time to tell the gay community like it is. They can change society but they cannot change religion. It doesn't work that way.

[gkearney]

Do not read more into my words than are there. I did not comment as to if this is revelation or not. Indeed it likely is. I simply would like to have such "BASIC FUNDAMENTAL doctrine" placed into the canon that's all. Otherwise it can end up being like the whole priesthood ban something that everyone thought was doctrine but which turns out 150 year latter not to be. If we are willing to believe this to be "BASIC FUNDAMENTAL doctrine" then we should be willing to have it included into the D&C as such, right?

[butterfly]

I support agency. Personally, if one person's agency does not infringe on another's, then I do my best to respect their personal decision. If an 8yr old wants to show with a physical ordinance that they want to follow the Savior, I wouldn't stand in their way.

If anything, the good that could come from denying baptism would be for LDS members to wake up and actually question the Lord, instead of just blindly following. We prayed about this policy within my family, and it was a very interesting answer we received. I would encourage everyone to ask the Lord if children not being permitted to be baptized based on their home life is what He wants us to support.
I believe He is doing all He can to get us to communicate with and trust in Him and remember that He is Lord, not us and not our leaders.
What would you do if you sincerely prayed and the Lord told you the policy is not what He wants for His children? There are a !ot of Sauls in the church- wonderful, valiant people who just don't always realize when they're running at full speed in the wrong direction, myself included. If we will talk with the Lord on our own road to Damascus, we can become Pauls and use our effort to defend the right thing.

[zionminded]

You cannot say you are an active LDS and support homosexuality. If you wish to follow Lucifer, whose agenda this is, then leave the LDS Church.

I'm an active member. I've been a member of the church for a long time and being black there's already been a lot of things about the church's history that I've had to reconcile with my membership in it. I get that this is a living church and that leaders have made mistakes and are infallible.

The policy change was something of a breaking point for me. Mentally and spiritually, I am unable to make sense of any of the church's policies affecting homosexuals. I feel scripture and academia both do a poor job of justifying its condemnation. When I interviewed for my temple recommend, I let the stake presidency know how I feel. I've let the members of my ward know both in Sunday School and from the pulpit while wearing a black shirt and rainbow tie. I've written the first presidency. I wrote this piece on the subject and based on how it got around the Mormon blogosphere, I'm certain there are people who feel the way I do.
http://rationalfaiths.com/a-card-carryi ... cy-change/

I'm at a loss for what else to do that's in the spirit of the first and second great commandments. I feel something bigger needs to be done than what I'm able to do within my current circle of influence. I want to know if anything like that is being done by anyone.

Yes you can. Making statements like that is part of the problem. Being homosexual isn't following lucifer, why would god make a gay person from birth?

[zionminded]

Here is my position on the subject.

Homosexuality as a sin
Being gay isn't the sin, nor is the behavior of gay sex in and of itself. The problem is promiscuity, which historically was tied to being gay in that community, since it until very late, wasn't socially accepted and largely hidden. Most of what you read in the scriptures was connected with rape and poor social sexual behaviors, not part of monogamous relationships. An aspect if it is damning (meaning lack of progression), as earthy homosexual relationships don't typically have offspring of their own. I don't know what the eternities hold, however, I don't think that ones spiritual progression forever is tied to their sexual orientation. Rather I think God has a program worked out for everybody to grow and develop eternally.

Monogamy
How we socialize and partner up, isn't the problem. Homosexual sex (especially male homosexuality) is largely distasteful to heterosexual men (while lesbian women seems to be an quasi-attractive behavior), this social bias may not translate to how god feels. What he wants is solid family units, and commitment to him and others. Love to him and others. In my opinion, a homosexual monogamous marriage may not be "as perfect" as a heterosexual family, but it is way better than a broken or maladaptive home environment of heterosexual parents. Research supports this.

Biology
Recently the church changed it's opinion. For many decades, being gay was a choice largely thought to be induced by porn, or childhood abuse. Neither are true. Today the church says that has strong biological determinants. Research supports this strongly. While some claim that it's okay to be gay so long as you don't act out, the implications are very difficult. If you were told that you can be heterosexual, but you can never show affection to your wife, would you stay with the church?

Hardening the Boundaries
I could go on and on, but to simplify, the church needs to make space for LGBTQ members to play a role, and have a home. To enjoy the restored gospel in a way that gives them hope, and allows them to participate just like most others who are working through their issues. We have members who commit adultery, who have pornography addictions, drug addictions, who abuse their spouses and kids, and commit all sorts of crimes yet, remain as members sometimes with callings. While the Lord does have a standard that is high, there needs to be room for people to be in the body as members of the church, and while they may or may not be able to attend the temple, they should be able to enjoy the Spirit of the Lord and take part in some aspects even if they are gay etc. By hardening the boundaries, we limit the protection and love that the Lords restored gospel can help people.

What's next?
What is next? Will we call other sin's apostasy too? Will we put more shame into church settings, and shun and reject people with sins? We ARE a church of sinners. We should not be a church of perfect members. We should realize that this church is a church to bring people to Christ, then allow them to navigate toward him beyond the ability for leaders to save.. and find solace with Christ. Will we require that you must pay tithing and if you don't you're kicked out? Will we kick out and deny blessings to those who have committed adultery (and want to repent), or to those who speak out against church policies with close friends?

I'm fear the church will have a long fight on its hands if it continues to harden the boundaries of the church, instead of opening its arms to all. We have several biases that are hurting the church. If you disagree with these statements it will likely come from either a position of the Lord is leading Hi s Prophet, and that's the end of it, or biases you have against gay people. I understand those positions, and ask you to open your mind to a more inclusive Christlike format, and know that the Lord gives his Prophet a great deal of latitude.

[boo]

Why indeed. Why would God deprive his children of the saving ordinances if all involved including his parents wanted him to have them and would actively support him ? Why can a child living in the home of his sexually active and promiscuous lesbian mother have the saving ordinances but not a child living in the home of two committed stable gay parents? Why is an innocent child being deprived of the saving ordinances by the Church because of the life style choices of his parents ?

[Elizabeth]

There is no compromise nor discussion to be had on the matter of the evils of homosexuality. That it is of Lucifer is a given. The choice is clear, if your choice is to follow Lucifer then leave the LDS Church, LDS members, and other Christians and take the consequences of the way you have chosen.

[Zathura]

A desire to NOT turn away a child from Christ because of the lifestyle of parents of that child is NOT choosing to follow Lucifer, sorry bud.

How many of these children do you really think will get baptized when they are 18? Good luck. They will most likely be bitter towards the church by then :ymapplause:

[earl2bad]

There is no compromise nor discussion to be had on the matter of the evils of homosexuality. That it is of Lucifer is a given. The choice is clear, if your choice is to follow Lucifer then leave the LDS Church, LDS members, and other Christians and take the consequences of the way you have chosen.

Most scholars disagree with you. Homosexuality as we understand it today didn't even exist when Paul wrote about it; that is to say people didn't identify themselves as homosexual or heterosexual because they didn't understand sexuality that way. We cannot make the assumption that the bible speaks ill of homosexuality when it was understood so differently back then. I contend that the scriptures most Christians claim condemn homosexuality must be revisited with new eyes and we must reconsider the justice of the policies affecting homosexuals.

[zionminded]

There is no compromise nor discussion to be had on the matter of the evils of homosexuality. That it is of Lucifer is a given. The choice is clear, if your choice is to follow Lucifer then leave the LDS Church, LDS members, and other Christians and take the consequences of the way you have chosen.

I'm thinking that you've never sinned, or if you have, you carry a great deal of trapped guilt.