Prop 8 Revisited

You're welcome to your opinions KC, but man, I find them cringe-worthy. I don't see how refusing to baptize straight children of gay parents, for example, is "reaching out to gays". It's the opposite, in fact. That's less Fear-based and more Hatred-based. Luckily, the next generation of Saints is unlikely to continue that false doctrine (IMO), just as a generation of Saints not so long ago finally put a stop to racism within the Church.

Mars wrote:

You're welcome to your opinions KC, but man, I find them cringe-worthy. I don't see how refusing to baptize straight children of gay parents, for example, is "reaching out to gays". It's the opposite, in fact. That's less Fear-based and more Hatred-based. Luckily, the next generation of Saints is unlikely to continue that false doctrine (IMO), just as a generation of Saints not so long ago finally put a stop to racism within the Church.

Mmm hmm. It's becoming more and more clear where you're coming from. You won't just come out and say it, because you know I'll hold your feet to the fire, but you let little bits out here and there. It's not the first time I've noticed this in your posts. One thing I've observed about many members who have apostatized, or who are on the road to apostasy, is a revision of history (such your bogus views on the Priesthood ban), as well as viewing the Church as an institution that bases its policy on which way the winds are currently blowing (your "rising generation" nonsense) rather than on divine revelation. It's why you see any doctrine you don't agree with (probably a long list) as just a culture problem in the Church that will be weeded out with time. If you were 100% honest about all your views, I suspect many would be shocked how many don't align with Church doctrine. In sum, you are the very thing President Benson talked about years ago when it said there were members "more concerned about bringing the world into the Gospel than bringing the Gospel into the world."





“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” - Joseph Smith

Mars wrote:

You're welcome to your opinions KC, but man, I find them cringe-worthy. I don't see how refusing to baptize straight children of gay parents, for example, is "reaching out to gays". It's the opposite, in fact. That's less Fear-based and more Hatred-based. Luckily, the next generation of Saints is unlikely to continue that false doctrine (IMO), just as a generation of Saints not so long ago finally put a stop to racism within the Church.

The church has never and will never baptize underage children of people who are in a state of apostasy. Does the church baptize 8 year olds from the FLDS faith? It just doesn't. There was no policy change, there was a clarification to the handbook so bishops would know how to respond to issues and someone got ahold of it and politicized it in order to make the church look bad. This is how bullying works and is how the LGBT community operates. They are "victims of society" who use the media and the courts as a bully pulpit to bully any individual or group that doesn't believe the same as them into doing their bidding. As far as the LGBT community not being that influential in BYU not getting into the Big 12 during the last round of expansion. I believe BYU was in before the LGBT letters went to the Big 12 commissioner and they are so powerful that the Big 12 didn't take anyone because without BYU it wasn't worth expanding.

Well my Bishop agrees with me, and that's why I've taught Sunday School and Temple Prep for the last 2 years, so there! :P :D

Mars wrote:

Well my Bishop agrees with me, and that's why I've taught Sunday School and Temple Prep for the last 2 years, so there! :P :D

Well then, since you are a sunday school teacher, and your bishop agrees with you, then I guess I must have been wrong. :roll:

frdbtr wrote:

You're welcome to your opinions KC, but man, I find them cringe-worthy. I don't see how refusing to baptize straight children of gay parents, for example, is "reaching out to gays". It's the opposite, in fact. That's less Fear-based and more Hatred-based. Luckily, the next generation of Saints is unlikely to continue that false doctrine (IMO), just as a generation of Saints not so long ago finally put a stop to racism within the Church.

The church has never and will never baptize underage children of people who are in a state of apostasy. Does the church baptize 8 year olds from the FLDS faith? It just doesn't. There was no policy change, there was a clarification to the handbook so bishops would know how to respond to issues and someone got ahold of it and politicized it in order to make the church look bad. This is how bullying works and is how the LGBT community operates. They are "victims of society" who use the media and the courts as a bully pulpit to bully any individual or group that doesn't believe the same as them into doing their bidding. As far as the LGBT community not being that influential in BYU not getting into the Big 12 during the last round of expansion. I believe BYU was in before the LGBT letters went to the Big 12 commissioner and they are so powerful that the Big 12 didn't take anyone because without BYU it wasn't worth expanding.

So do you not believe the LBGT community didn't feel as thought the church was/is bullying them? There is always 2 ways to look at things, seeing it from only your prefered perspective is simple and closed minded.

Mars wrote:

Well my Bishop agrees with me, and that's why I've taught Sunday School and Temple Prep for the last 2 years, so there! :P :D

Agrees with you about what? You are so full of crap. Your opinions are your own but don't come on a BYU board and try to pass off your warped view of things.



As for the BIG 12, I ask again those who think the gay issue was the deciding factor on BYU not getting an invite, why didn't the conference just take two other schools? There were several lobbying hard to get in and they were more "PC" than BYU.



My point being, it seems the conference not wanting to expand at that time was more of a factor than some gay groups sending letters. Don't attribute more power to these scumbags than they actually have.

frdbtr wrote:

Well my Bishop agrees with me, and that's why I've taught Sunday School and Temple Prep for the last 2 years, so there! :P :D

Well then, since you are a sunday school teacher, and your bishop agrees with you, then I guess I must have been wrong.

It takes a big person to apologize when they see that they were wrong. Good on you. 8)

a1247 wrote:

Mars wrote:

You're welcome to your opinions KC, but man, I find them cringe-worthy. I don't see how refusing to baptize straight children of gay parents, for example, is "reaching out to gays". It's the opposite, in fact. That's less Fear-based and more Hatred-based. Luckily, the next generation of Saints is unlikely to continue that false doctrine (IMO), just as a generation of Saints not so long ago finally put a stop to racism within the Church.

The church has never and will never baptize underage children of people who are in a state of apostasy. Does the church baptize 8 year olds from the FLDS faith? It just doesn't. There was no policy change, there was a clarification to the handbook so bishops would know how to respond to issues and someone got ahold of it and politicized it in order to make the church look bad. This is how bullying works and is how the LGBT community operates. They are "victims of society" who use the media and the courts as a bully pulpit to bully any individual or group that doesn't believe the same as them into doing their bidding. As far as the LGBT community not being that influential in BYU not getting into the Big 12 during the last round of expansion. I believe BYU was in before the LGBT letters went to the Big 12 commissioner and they are so powerful that the Big 12 didn't take anyone because without BYU it wasn't worth expanding.

So do you not believe the LBGT community didn't feel as thought the church was/is bullying them? There is always 2 ways to look at things, seeing it from only your prefered perspective is simple and closed minded.

The church used a free and legal election process to get legislation passed. The LGBT community got pissed that they lost and retaliated with bully tactics.

The church has a terrible PR problem. For example, I'm way in favor of the church not baptizing SSA's kids until they are 18. It makes absolute sense. They are essentially bumping the age of accountability for those kids until they are 18 and able to decide for themselves what they want to do. The church doesn't want to have a situation where a kid loves their moms or dads, but also wants them to desperately break up with each other so they can come to church with them on Sunday and "be saved."



So instead of a situation where the kid has to choose between family and getting baptized, the kid can go on doing one, or the other, or both obligation free until they are old enough to legally decide on their own.



But the church didn't present it like this. It got leaked when they presented it for printing, and then they went into scramble mode when the SJW's and leftist hate mongers took it and milked it for it's last drop of h8. So, yeah... The church sucks at PR. Instead of getting ahead of things, they are constantly stepping into it, and the apostles look - at best - as a bunch of out of touch old dudes, wondering what happened to the world. While we are talking about firing everyone that breathes on this board, I think that the Churches PR needs to go first. Regular Coke didn't "have enough demand"... Give me an effing break.

Mars wrote:

Well my Bishop agrees with me, and that's why I've taught Sunday School and Temple Prep for the last 2 years, so there! :P :D

This post makes me chuckle pretty good.



The irony is pretty delicious. Earlier he says:

Mars wrote:
The Church is perfect. Its members, its leaders, and especially its culture is not. Occasionally far from it. . . . [T]his is a message that we must continually re-learn, again and again.

But now he wants to use his Bishop and his position in the Church to somehow support his position....



It also may be the first time I have seen someone use a Sunday School position to buttress a Church/gospel argument.

Also, I was joking.

Please remember we can have discussions with respect to each other and in the choice of words we use. Lets not get this thread locked because we're passionate about a topic and cannot find a way to eloquently express our opinions.

Gunk wrote:

Getting involved in Prop 8 was one of the stupidest things the church ever did.

Are you from California (My recollection is that you are) I'm in central California and the majority of the belief here is that the Church's participation in Prop 8 was a great blessing to many in the local faith community. This past year the local church stakes have had the opportunity to work with an large church that had for years and years actively taught others to never associate with the LDS church. Inroads were made in the faith community through joint cooperation on Prop 8 that may never have been made otherwise. The LGBT peeps are going to forever hate the church for the sake of hating the church, there is no getting around that. However, because we have had the opportunity to work with other faiths, there have been benefits not previously anticipated all through the participation in the Prop 8 efforts.

I was in CA. Moved away a few years back. Thankfully.



I lived in the Bay Area. Prop 8 was a disaster for us. I have heard in some places it was a bridge. For us it was a wedge. I was on the public affairs council for the Bay Area, so guess who got to go in and try to mop up the mess Prop 8 made? Me. Decades of work with local leaders, municipalities, etc erased.



IMO, religion should be non-partisan. Dems, Reps, Green Party, whatever should feel welcome at Church. Correct principles should be taught and people left alone to govern themselves. The Church has no business being involved in politics and they crossed a line from which they will never be able to go back on.



I know the Church excused their political involvement as a "moral" responsibility, but it alienated a lot of people. And, in the wards I saw, Prop 8 created all sorts of contention.



Even in my case, I felt conflicted. I didn't and don't like the Church using its structure, its members, and its influence to sway elections. I don't want my tithing going towards political lobbying. Let the voice of the people be heard, and if the voice of the people want something contrary to the God's commandments, that's for God to handle.

I'm from Sacramento, and Gunk said it well. The church should teach its members, and members should be politically active and involved to the best of their ability based on their personal beliefs. The church shouldn't be politically active itself, or seek in any way to litigate the lives and freedoms of their members or especially non-LDS. It closed a lot of doors and created a lot of bad feelings where I'm from, inside and outside of the Church. We should be building bridges, not walls.

There are two levels of opposition I’m hearing. One is that the Church should never get involved in matters political, and I guess political means any time a vote is held. So, hypothetically speaking, a vote tomorrow on an initiative legalizing incest is one more political matter the Church should stay out of because there’s going to be a vote. I don’t subscribe to such a black and white view for the Church. Good grief, Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States! How more political can one get? I accept the Church’s position that in matters that are moral the Church can and might participate in voted matters and I trust the brethren collectively in their judgment of what is a moral matter worthy of the Church getting involved. I have also seen objection about the negative consequences that flowed from the Church’s participation. I don’t deny that for some, perhaps many, that was the case, but I also known that the negative consequences were not universal in application. As ABYUFAN points out, for some, perhaps many, the action was a positive. Can anyone deny that the Church showed that it is a force to be reckoned with in moral elected matters and this might serve as a deterrent to subsequent nefarious actions the wicked or misguided might have been considering?

The fact that taking a moral position might incite negative reactions does not make the position any less moral. I doubt that the brethren were so naive that they didn’t understand the consequences that would flow from the actions they committed the Church to take.

Taking action does not mean the Church hasn’t and does not teach correct principles. If there’s one message I’ve heard over time from the brethren, it is that the family is a divine institution and it is under attack. And as far as I can tell, the Church IS not building walls but bridges every day with people not of our faith. It is a tireless effort.

All this said, I imagine that the brethren have learned some things from prop 8 and the Church’s mission of proclaiming the Gospel to the world and might recalibrate their approach to such matters in the future. But maybe not, depending upon the Spirirt as their guide. I’m will to put my faith in their collective judgment in these matters.

This issue has been a very difficult one for me, many of my family members, and many of my friends. Growing up I saw many people I knew kicked out of their houses and asked to not come to church when they came out as having same sex attraction. That was in the early 90's. As a young newlywed I went to church one Sunday where I heard I needed to post a prop 8 sign in my yard and that if I disagreed with the church on the matter that it was akin to sin and since the prophet supported it was essentially gospel. I told my new wife that it made me uncomfortable and that I wouldn't be supporting the effort since I love and accepted my best friend and family members who were gay and lesbian. I have always been a little left of center and just being in a gospel doctrine class was enough to make me want to not go to church since politics came up every week and very nasty things were said.



Fast forward nearly 18 years and I have seen people leave the church faster and faster. I have been in 3 EQ presidencies and out of 7 people, only two of us are still active. A couple struggled with the church essays on blacks and the priesthood and Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. The others had children or nieces that came out and struggled with the churches view toward those they loved. 2 of them had youth that attempted suicide because they knew they couldn't live up to the family proclamation. Many of the youth in my area become inactive the second they move out of their parents houses because they have friends who are lgtbq and have values that are more inclusive than many strong members. I don't expect my own children to continue in the church because of this issue.



My fear is that issues like this will create a much smaller less inclusive church that welcomes the those who are all in. Those who struggle will find Christ's grace outside of the LDS structure. I love what the church has done for me in my life but I don't blame those who find happiness outside of the church. I have spent most of my life balancing my personal philosophy against many things in church history that I disagree with. I have found my peace and the tools in my church toolbox that work well for me. It is ironic that I have struggled most of my life with some church doctrines and practices and people who were much stronger members than I am have been leaving left and right.

One of my mission companions had an uncle leave the church over Blacks receiving the Priesthood. People have left the church for as long as there has been a church.



The youth suicide is a troubling aspect for me. I have not seen one ounce of scientific evidence to support the position that youth suicides are in any way tied to church policies. Not one. Yet that presumption gets thrown around as if it is unassailable fact. Sorry, but I'm from Missouri. And I believe in science. Give me something other than feelings to support your position. This is a big deal to me because a local youth took his life this past summer. Someone who my children grew up with. When he took his life there were well-intentioned -but stone -headed folks asking if he took his life because he was gay (there is no sign of that his college girlfriend attended his funeral) or if his dad set too high of expectations and made him do it (I don't see it) But that's where we live now, with the understood presumption that the church is now responsible for youth suicide.

Isn't Utah #1 in youth suicide nationally?