Hmmm... Lots of people take shots at LDS doctrine, will they be upset if I take
a legitimate stance against Pope Francis?Without revelation, the
Catholic Church is like a ship without a rudder. Changing views, opinions and
even doctrine. As that may be, popularism is on the rise as well...
Uncle Rico:So the LDS church can change doctrine (polygamy, blacks
and the priesthood, etc..) but when the Catholic Church changes doctrine it is
proof that they are a "ship without a rudder"?We need to try
the best we can to be consistent.
@ Church MemberWow that was predictably fast to make this about the
LDS Church once again...Let me address your wild statements as you
have basically invited me to do so.1.The LDS church has not changed
it's policy or doctrine on polygamy. It was practiced (less you forget) by
Abraham, David, Solomon and others in the bible. It is NOT new doctrine. neither
is it exclusive doctrine to the LDS Church. The doctrine is still there, its not
practiced today. If you disagree with Polygamy, then please get on your knees
and petition God on why he allowed it, not LDS Church members.2.
Blacks have never been officially banned from the priesthood, there is zero
doctrine on the topic, however many LDS leaders were predjudiced with Blacks and
tis became a cultural acceptance (for a time) not doctrine.Hope this
helps you understand things :)
Personally - I don't care if a priest is gay or heterosexual. I do,
however, care if the priest dismisses his vow of celibacy and chooses to cause
sexual harm to another. He will need to be brought to the church court as well
as the court of the land to answer to charges. He should not be transferred to
or hidden in another parish.
@ Uncle Rico: For the record - the way you feel about the Pope and his
revelation (or lack thereof) and the Catholic Church's position on, well,
anything really, is exactly how non-Mormons feel about the LDS Prophet, his
revelation (or lack thereof) and the Mormon Church.As for the Pope
not judging, don't really need modern revelation for that one - Matthew
7:1-5 kind of covers it.And the LDS Church has changed its position
on polygamy - it was practiced, and members were told it was necessary to get
into the Celestial Kingdom - and now it is not practiced, and members still have
access to the Celestial Kingdom.And my father fell down on his knees
and cried when it was announced that revelation had been received allowing
Blacks to have the Priesthood.And whether there has been a change in
practice but not in doctrine or whether there was a misunderstanding or however
you and the Mormon Church choose to explain things, I refer you back to Matthew.
@Uncle RicoYour stance is what? the LDS church has never changed it
doctrine? Preposterous. A statement you need to defend rather than have us
fire ammo at you. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I'm sure
you will have a zinger for everyone of them so you can rest assured its not the
case.I for one am glad to see the Catholics changing their hard
tone. Its what Jesus would do, right?
This reflects other analyses on the Pope's statement. That it was much
warmer in tone but that the basic doctrine has not changed.
Pope Francis is touted as the peoples pope. I have to agree yes he is and the
flock should follow.
If two popes disagree is not one infallible? Every church has had leaders who
have disagreed therefore no church has leaders who are infallible.
Leaders must be careful in their pronouncements in that, as in this case of the
pope in nearly whitewashing perpetrator clergy of their horrific sexual serial
crimes against young boys, in a sense relieves culprits of guilt and
consequences. Clergy sexual abuse of young boys is a civil crime, and it is not
in the province of the pope to convey the appearance that all is fine in that
kingdom, that he absolves the civil crime, something that is not in his
province. As chief arbitrator it is his duty to judge. If not the pope, who? If
not now, when? Confession is one thing but the church still teaches that though
there is forgiveness for the truly repentant, that does not relieve the guilty
of consequences, that there is penance attached, so where is the appropriate
penance, like removal from the the attraction to sin? Sexually abusive clergy
damaged the church, and there is provision in penance for restitution. It might
be akin to the owner of the bar, telling the alcoholic bartender that has gotten
drunk on the job many times, that the owner forgives him and lets him keep on
tending bar. This is mystifying.
@Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) --"...horrific sexual serial crimes
against young boys,... "Don't equate homosexuality with
pedophilia.Statistics from the Child Advocacy Center show that 75%
of all male child molesters are "married or have consenting sexual
relationships (with women)" and that "only about 4 percent of same-sex
abuse involves homosexual perpetrators".
study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior from 1978 demonstrated that "sexual
orientation was not related to the sex of the victim targeted" and that
"men who molested boys often had adult relationships with women".Freund (1989), Jenny (1994), other studies, and other studies concur
that homosexual men are NOT more likely to abuse boys than heterosexual men.The APA, the National Association of Social Workers, the American
Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all
acknowledge that gay men are NOT more likely to molest children than
heterosexual men.AN Groth, former director of the Sex Offender
Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, has said: "my studies
have indicated that homosexual males pose LESS risk of sexual harm to children
(both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence
rate--than heterosexual males."
@Uncle Rico"Wow that was predictably fast to make this about the LDS
Church once again..."You're the one who brought up the LDS
church and proceeded to basically say "since people attack my church,
I'm going to criticize another church". You really think that's
not a recipe for someone to then return your revelation criticism back at
you?Anyway, this really isn't any sort of change for the
Catholic church in doctrine. What he said roughly translates to "as long as
they're celibate, like all priests are supposed to be anyway, who cares
what kind of sex they're choosing not to have?".
This is about the Catholic Church and the Pope, not the LDS Church. The Pope
merely stated that he would not be the judge of ones homosexuality, implying
that it will be left up to God. As far as I can tell, the Pope did not change
Catholic Church doctrine with that statement. He just reaffirmed what most all
Christians believe about any persons behavior or sins, namely, that the ultimate
judgement of a persons life will rest with God.
Having "same sex attraction" is not the same as "being
homosexual". Having an attraction is one thing; acting on it and having
relations with someone of the same sex is sin. That will not change no matter
how many people want it to. You can disagree with God and live your life as you
see fit. Remember, though, there is no "free" agency; we are free to
act, but not free from the consequences of our actions.Matthew
16:24: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."If
SSA is your cross, deny yourself and follow Christ. Not a popular position in
this age of selfish luxury and demands, but still true. Thousands and thousands
of men have, even though the media intentionally ignores these stories.
Can you imagine if they only listened to non LDS people when describing who
Mormons are? Lets go out there and find out who Mormons really are and what
their beliefs are and lets find out if they are even christian, but don't
speak to them, because they don't count. They can't be trusted and
have no say about anything unless it comes from outside their community. No way!
That isn't going to happen! So, when do gay people have a voice about
who they are, how they fit into God's plan.Does anyone take into
consideration the faith of a gay person? There is no way it could be right! No
way! There is nothing wrong with being gay. What is wrong is the way in which we
are treated and it truly is an insult for people to expect us to accept their
degrading ideas and beliefs about who we are! It is amazing how much arrogance
people have when it comes to God!
@RedWings;Sin is relative. What one group considers "sin"
another considers as "not sin". Your own bible tells you to "judge
not"; by judging others as "sinful" you are yourself
"sinning" by failing to adhere to that commandment.If you
believe something is "sinful", don't engage in it. How much more
simple could it possibly be?Follow Christ? Since god doesn't
exist, he clearly could not have any children and Jesus is therefore not the
"son of god". Why follow a lie?
The problem is not what the Pope says; the problem is everything that people
read into it. And this issue is pushed all day, every day.Pope Francis is
trying to be open and candid. He is reaching out. But a candid comment to
reporters is far from a Papal encyclical.
@RedWings"Having "same sex attraction" is not the same as
"being homosexual"."Actually it is. Having the
attractions is what makes someone homosexual or heterosexual. Not having sex
doesn't make you asexual, not having the attractions is what makes someone
asexual. "Thousands and thousands of men have, even though the
media intentionally ignores these stories."Why men? Women can be
gay too but I swear it's almost always men that are talked about. I wonder
I'm a practicing Catholic (and will keep practicing 'til I get it
right, lol), and I can truthfully say that Pope Francis said absolutely nothing
new. Church doctrine has not changed, and we are still called to love the sinner
while hating the sin. This is a secular-media-generated brouhaha, nothing more.
Yes it is admitted, people in the LDS church have not always treated homosexuals
with the Love they should have, but then why isn't the LDS church allowed
to change? People learn and grow and when they do, they progress. Members of
the LDS church are taught to Love every man woman and child as a Child of God
and as such, it does not matter if they are gay or if they have tattoos, or
smoke or are past drug abusers, pornographers, drunks, or any of the million
other types of sin. The Church is open to all of those who wish to worship
Jesus Christ and follow his commandments. Christ is about Love not hate.
Interesting to me is that the Catholic policy is remarkably similar to the LDS
perspective of the issue, though both religions vary on their doctrinal
understanding of sexuality/sex, gender and family. The Catholic view of the
original sin being sexual in nature causes them to dismiss all sexual activity
as unholy. Whereas LDS don't believe in "original sin" as sexual
(almost the opposite), but LDS believe procreation to be a sacred act between
husband and wife thus one of utmost import and the cause for maintaining a
strictly chaste life. In many respects the dogmatic Catholic
viewpoint that all sex is bad, levels the playing field and makes the concept of
homosexuality "just another sin", whereas LDS struggle more with the
idea that by embracing homosexuality in its most open and practical forms one
runs the risk of missing the opportunity to use the sacred gift of procreation
in life to progress and grow a family (again LDS viewpoint varies), and
therefore compounds self-depravation and damnation, at least in terms of this
mortal life (for LDS belief in continuing spiritual progression still inspires
RanchHand: Why is it that, for you, the definition odf "sin" is relative
and based on a given group's definition, but the existence of God is not?
I believe that is called hypocrisy. You believe that God does not exist. You
cannot prove it.atl134: Having an attraction to the same sex is not
the same as acting on that attraction. I had desires at times toward the same
sex when I was younger. I did not act on them, and now, with help, I rarely have
those desires. That is not "denying who I am"; that is fulfilling who I
am and denying the temptations and lusts of the flesh. You can
never sin your way to happiness. There is only one Way there, and His name is
Uncle Rico:Do you really believe that the LDS church has not changed
its doctrine? Ever?
RedWings: "Having 'same sex attraction' is not the same as
'being homosexual'." "Having an attraction to the same
sex is not the same as acting on that attraction."As atl134
correctly pointed out, your first statement is false. Having same sex
attraction is the very definition of being homosexual. It is irrelevant to the
definition whether one acts on those attractions or not. Your second statement
above is correct-- having an attraction is not the same as acting on it. If one
may venture to read between the lines of your second post, perhaps your
reluctance to accept that "SSA = homosexuality" is due to a personal
desire not to self-identify as homosexual despite having had those inclinations
at times, since you consider the condition of homosexuality (and not just
homosexual behavior) sinful. Fine, that's your choice. But it
doesn't alter the accepted definition of the word.
There is no evidence the Catholic Church has changed doctrine, so talking about
it at all makes no sense. Policy is not doctrine. Although in this case the
Catholic Church has changed nothing. Pope Francis made a comment, that the media
is trying to spin as contradicting the policies developed by Pope Benedict XVI.
However Francis has done nothing to actually change those policies. The Catholic Church still has the same policies on the formation of the
priesthood. This no more contradicts those policies, than Boyd K. Packer's
bold declarations of the ability to repent in his much maligned fall 2010 talk
were an attack on the raise the bar policies for missionaries.
@RanchHand - there is no God? Prove it.
Whether a priest can be a homosexual depends on whatever the Catholic Church
wants. Until celibacy is not a requirement for priests there will be many, in
fact thousands of homosexual priests. That does not mean they are all bad
people, but preying on altar boys and pedophilia has cost the Roman Catholic
Church billions. Celibacy was not a requirement in the early Catholic Church
prior to the 5th century or so.
@What in Tucket? --"That does not mean they are all bad people,
but preying on altar boys and pedophilia has cost the Roman Catholic Church
billions. " Again -- homosexuality and pedophilia are NOT
related.Statistics from the Child Advocacy Center show that
"only about 4 percent of same-sex abuse involves homosexual
A classic study in the Archives of
Sexual Behavior from 1978 demonstrated that "sexual orientation was not
related to the sex of the victim targeted" and that "men who molested
boys often had adult relationships with women".Freund (1989),
Jenny (1994), other studies, and other studies concur that homosexual men are
NOT more likely to abuse boys than heterosexual men.The APA, the
National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child
Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all acknowledge that gay
men are NOT more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.AN
Groth, former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department
of Corrections, has said: "my studies have indicated that homosexual males
pose LESS risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an
absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males."
Pope Francis the one thing you could do to increase the happiness of those who
serve the Catholic Church the most is to do away with the celibacy
requirement.Many other churches who do not have this requirement
serve their people very well.