Skip to comments.An embrace that swayed the Mormon Church on gay rights [LGBT's been meeting with Lds reps 5 years]
Posted on 02/04/2015 11:24:17 PM PST by ColofornianEdited on 02/04/2015 11:45:26 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Matthew Aune and Derek Jones were...strolling through Main Street Plaza just east of the Salt Lake Temple, the holiest site in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Aune bussed his partner on the cheek. Church security guards appeared. The twentysomething men said they were cuffed and forced to the ground. The church's official statement said the couple had been "engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language" on private church property, an account the two men vigorously contested.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The 2009 incident opened the door to an unlikely series of back-channel talks between mid-level church officials and members of the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community. Meeting in private homes and other venues, they spent much of the next five years exchanging views, discussing policy changes, even socializing...
Well, this Times journalist makes it sound like it took five years for the LGBT "contingent" to "make progress" with the Mormons...and that the January press conference called by the LDS Church was the "end result" of that...
Sorry. But the 2009 "kiss incident" and ensuing "kiss-in" wound up working MUCH, MUCH faster. Basically, most of what the Lds Church said about wishing to elevate lesbians, homosexuals, bi-sexuals, and transgenders into minority class status was already communicated by the Lds Church late 2009:
* Homosexual rights: Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights
...and Mormons Back Salt Lake City Gay Rights Laws
That first meeting "was awkward, but then we went around the room and talked about our personal journeys," said state Sen. Jim Dabakis, a gay Democrat who describes himself as "a cultural Mormon" and has been involved in the process from the start...The gay and lesbian contingent did not want to meet in church headquarters; the church officials did not want to venture into the offices of a group like Equality Utah or the Utah Pride Center. So Dabakis called Diane Stewart friend, political activist, Mormon in good standing, same-sex marriage supporter...
So...Dabakis is a "gay" state senator from Salt Lake City, an ex-Lds missionary who was a Mormon convert at age 11...and has since left the church:
Born into a Greek-American family from Springfield, Massachusetts, Dabakis is the son of a machinist. Raised as a Greek Orthodox, he was baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at age 11 so that he could play on a Church-affiliated basketball team. In 1971, he enrolled at Brigham Young University and sought guidance from Mark E. Petersen, one of the Church's apostles, about his homosexuality. He was sent to the San Francisco bay area as a missionary and has since ceased to be a practicing Mormon.
OKay...let me get this straight...
This homosexual Mormon seeks counsel from an Lds "apostle"...and, instead of helping him with his sexuality issues...he ensures he gets sent to San Francisco...
(Oh, yeah, that'll "help" Lds missionaries with homosexual leanings, all right!)
The 2009 incident opened the door to an unlikely series of back-channel talks between mid-level church officials and members of the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community.
OK...let me get this straight...WE have "G" (for gay), "L" (for lesbian), "T" (for transgender), and "B" (for bisexual).
So first to the GLBT contingent: Exactly why are you so exclusionary -- and prejudicial -- and discriminatory -- to not include the "P" in your movement or in these Lds Church meetings??? ("P" for polygamists)...
I thought the GLBT people were all about...
...tisk, tisk, tisk...
...I guess the lie sounds forth by exactly which letter you exclude from your precious "narrow" acronym!!!
Now to the Lds church:
Why didn't you ensure somebody from the polygamist community was represented at these meetings?
Aren't they "discriminated" against in Utah...perhaps even more so by some Mormons re: employment and housing...???
When Monson and the oldest 5 apostles are gone, the door to gaydom will swing wide open. Maybe sooner.
I believe it was this site, not sure who, but the reason Romney signed the domestic partnership bill was to allow gay marriage...
it would redefine marriage...
allow polygamy back to America...
Which all good Mormons must engage in or go to hell according to their false prophet
and 2 months ago, a fine, wonderful Mormon woman told me she believed the biggest treason America is failing is because the LDS outlawed polygamy and Heavenly Father is judging the US...and she was dead serious.
What domestic partnership bill did he sign? I don’t recall any.
further proof that the Mormon church is not Christian. You cannot be Christian and promote (or accept) homosexual practice.
So what it means is that the Mormons are now going to axcept the same law most other Churches have been excepting for years.
Which does not make it right of course.
Which all good Mormons must engage in or go to hell according to their false prophet
The only thing I find in doctrines and covenants is that the prophet is allowed to have more than one wife.
It is sad that the American people will not vote for an honest man like Reagan any more so the politicians have to either change their views or lie about it and say they are for things they are not to get elected.
It does seem that people will accept sodomite marriage easier than polygamy so I can see your point but I believe the polygamy view comes from a false concept which the Mormons them selves do not understand.
Sodomy is rock bottom so I hardly see where polygamy would even be an issue.
“The only thing I find in doctrines and covenants is that the prophet is allowed to have more than one wife.”
Not just the prophet, anyone in the “priesthood”, which is quite a common office in that church:
D & C 132:
“61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthoodif any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.”
If a man’s wife disputes his right to take more than one wife? She is damned:
“64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.”
Yes Joseph was also called a high priest as according to him Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon also were.
One in each generation
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred),
The “one in each generation” applies to the prophet, not to the priesthood. There are millions of Mormon “priesthood” holders (of various types); it is not anything very special or exclusive like the clergy in Christian denominations. Pretty much every male Mormon in good standing is a priest, of at least one of the orders. So that verse from D&C 132 basically permits polygamy for all Mormons.
“Mormon males typically enter the first order, the “Aaronic” priesthood, at age 12 as “deacons.” As they learn more, they progress to the levels of “teacher” and then “priest,” usually by age 18.
At age 18, the average Mormon man enters the second (higher) “Melchizedek” priesthood as an “elder.” It is at this point that they become eligible to serve on a mission, take on such leadership positions as bishop (local pastor) and stake president, perhaps even advancing to higher ranks within the church, such as joining a Quorum of the Seventy or becoming an apostle.”
The one in each generation applies to the prophet,
Says priest hood.
It says the one on whom is conferred “keys of this priesthood” (or the authority to confer priesthood on others), so the high priest, or prophet, such as Joseph Smith, or his successors. Even to this day, Smith’s successors are referred more often to as “prophets” than as “high priests”:
“God has called prophets to lead His Church in our day, just as He did anciently. The current prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Thomas S. Monson.”
I don’t see how there is any room to argue here that this section only applies to the high priest. Polygamy was in general practice in Smith’s day, by all Mormons. If that wasn’t his intention, he would have surely said “no, this only applies to me!”, but he did not do that.
Polygamy was in general practice in Smiths day, by all Mormons.
The power was conferred to Joseph, but there were different versions of priests and as time went by there were more included.
The book of Mormon forbids polygamy so it is doubtful that all of the different priests would be included, but I believe it was meant for Emma and very doubtful if it had anything serious to do with any thing else.
I like my Bible much better than I do the book of Mormon because it does not forbid polygamy, not that I am up to it and never have been but I believe it may work for some.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.