How can LDS accommodate gays?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Do you have any scriptural/modern-day prophetic basis to back that statement up?

The "I would say" didn't clue you in that it was his opinion?

[TripletDaddy]

It would be cool to get Christian Siriano to design something fierce for fashion-conscious LDS men to wear to Church.

Currently, our Church clothing is a hot tranny mess.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

rightly so, eh?

A couple points.

1. Adam's #4 wasn't specific about HOW one in that situation could serve only that they should be able to serve in a reasonable capacity.

And I responded to it in that spirit. You may have noticed I did not say "deny all callings to all gays." Or maybe you didn't notice.

Originally Posted by jay santos

2. Openly flaunting. That's an interesting phrase you use, and I agree someone openly flaunting a serious commandment in the gospel might be a reason to place some restrictions. What is openly flaunting?

In the context of this discussion, I would say actively and publicly participating in a gay marriage/civil union constitutes open flaunting of the law of chastity.

Originally Posted by jay santos

For anything else, I don't see anything that should preclude someone from a regular level church calling. I'm not talking about salvation or even a temple recommend, I'm talking about participating and serving in the church.

Again, it depends on the calling and the type of sin.

Originally Posted by Adam

It is the height of homophobia to say that sexual relations between two persons of the same gender in a committed long-term relationship is breaking one of "the more serious commandments".

I would say your looking down your nose at them is a worse sin. I would say denying them the opportunity to serve as choir director or ward newsletter person is a more serious sin.

I could not care less about your opinion on what constitutes homophobia, or which sins are more serious than others.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Which is why you come on here and proclaim sexual relations between civilly married gay Californians to be a violation of one of the more serious commandments. Because you don't care what we think. Nice. So you are just pontificating to hear your keyboard hum?

Drop the royal "we."

I don't care what you think constitutes homophobia, or which sins are more serious than others.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So a full-fledged alcoholic (meaning they drink daily and aren't receiving treatment for their addiction) should be allowed to serve as bishop? EQP? Sunday School instructor? Primary teacher? Home teacher? Guy who hands out programs at the door?

What about an unrepentant adulterer?

What about a guy that doesn't pay tithing?

At what point does the level of the sin limit the level of one's particpation in the church?

I said regular level service. That probably wouldn't include bishopric and above and auxiliary presidents.

Church callings are not equal opportunity. I wouldn't assign a drunk to serve with the youth. But then I wouldn't call a perfectly worthy man with an IQ of 80 to teach gospel doctrine. I would only call a certain type to manage church finances. I would only call a certain type to be an executive secretary. etc. Certain sins may affect your ability to serve, and that would be part of the decision making process. But many other factors are weighted.

The issue was Adam's #4. I see absolutely no issue with letting a person in a commited, gay marriage to serve in a number of roles, including possibly teaching, though that would come with a lot of consultation and negotiation and a team teacher.

[CardiacCoug]

Let's treat gays like second-class citizens in the Church. They can come to Church, take the sacrament, teach classes, organize activities, etc. But they can't really have any positions of authority or responsibility within the Church -- certainly not be a member of a Bishopric, for example.

Come to think of it, let's treat gay people exactly like we treat women.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

The "I would say" didn't clue you in that it was his opinion?

His first paragraph wasn't predicated by "I would say", and it was the first paragraph I was responding to.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Let's treat gays like second-class citizens in the Church. They can come to Church, take the sacrament, teach classes, organize activities, etc. But they can't really have any positions of authority or responsibility within the Church -- certainly not be a member of a Bishopric, for example.

Come to think of it, let's treat gay people exactly like we treat women.

Baby steps dude. It would be pretty radical to have people you'd formerly excommunicate serving in callings.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

His first paragraph wasn't predicated by "I would say", and it was the first paragraph I was responding to.

Now who's parsing people's words? Stick to statistics.