Sunday, April 5, 2009
Dear Elder Oaks,
The fact that the Church does not meet my needs, and that I realize that, does not make me self-centered. Why won't the Church just look at and address why it can't meet the needs of thousands of other men like me? Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Because your needs are not legitimate to them, that's why they won't address it.
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch or listen to any conference. It's strange, but I'm sort of glad. I did my taxes instead--probably had more fun and learned more in the process anyway!
I think next time I see him, I'll ask him for you. His son's in my stake, I see Elder Oaks probably once a year, and he's really approachable~
ReplyDeleteoff the topic...i like your new title pic :)
ReplyDeleteEzra- I hope that they WILL address it someday. Preferably sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteEJ- Do it.
Troy- Thanks! Its Zac Efron. Shhh, don't tell anyone. I think I'll be changing that picture every now and then to keep things interesting :)
I was actually discussing this very topic with someone just the other day. She gave me some very interesting insight into the matter. I will paraphrase what she stated.
ReplyDeleteIt is not, and never has been, the Church's responsibility to meet the needs of the people. There is a distinct difference between the role of the Church and the role of God that many don't understand, including many in the Church. The idea is for the Church to teach the Truth. In regards to this particular "sin", the Church teaches that it is a sin and, therefore, the Church must hate this sin. However, it is the point of the Church, directed by this perspective, to hate the sin, not to hate the person. It is not the role of the Church to judge; that is the role of God.
"The Church may hate the sin, but it should not hate the person."
Whether this is true or not (obviously, there is the debate about whether this should be considered sin or not, as well), I thought it was a very interesting perspective. Does the Church overstep it's bounds in this way?
haha, I know where he gets his hair cut (yeah I was pretty surprised myself...) anyway I would love to talk with someone but I'm sure it would be like when I talked to orin hatch in DC, the older generations are COMPLETELY closed to new ideas even if they are true... ugh
ReplyDeleteWHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF HAVING SEX WITH THE SAME GENDER? JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, US OLD FOLKS YOU KNOW HOW WE ARE>. IT ALL MOST SEEMS SELF SERVING, BUT WHAT DO I KNOW?
ReplyDelete"What would be the purpose of having sex with the same gender?"
ReplyDeleteWell, what is the purpose of having sex with the OPPOSITE gender? Don't say "for reproduction" because everyone KNOWS that is not the only purpose.
When two people love one another other and want to build a life together in a committed monogamous relationship, even marry if it were legally available to them, how can consummating that relationship with sexual intimacy be viewed as deviant.
It's the same thing the heteros do!
P.S. self serving would be jacking off
or having sex with a woman and not making sure she gets to reach orgasm too.
as MR,Spock would say "it is not logical"
ReplyDeleteReally? Not logical, or just not comprehensible for you? So is all sex that doesn't result in conception illogical? Think about that. The logic of pleasure and sharing intimate space is there.
ReplyDeleteHowever I would guess that you just can't get your mind around the concept, or you are just offended by the idea. Well guess what, I feel the same way about heterosexual sex.
Or is it just the fact that we don't have a vagina involved? Well, hetero or homo, we all combine our orifices of excrement to find pleasure and satisfying others.
It's not a matter of logic. It is a matter of looking past your own ideals, beliefs and life experiences.