Jump to content

Teancum

Contributor
  • Content Count

    4,796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,795 Excellent

3 Followers

About Teancum

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,181 profile views
  1. Well first off I do not hate the church. Second, I came to the conclusion that I posted after a long and thoughtful process. Among this was looking at various topics and things that have changed in the church and the backpedaling and brushing under the rug teachings and policy that was once doctrinal and enforced not being along the line of "I don't know that we teach or taught that." And yes gas-lighting does occur. Last of all is a study of more fundamental religions and bad characteristics and methods they use. There is a term for this but I was scolded last time I used it. I am sorry you don't like my comments.
  2. If it was before being a member I believe it is dismissed.
  3. It is progress that people are critically thinking and realizing the shackles and control that so called "revealed religion" places on them. They see the so called "revalators" get so much wrong and contradict themselves time after time. In other words we are seeing a revolution in free thinkers and it is liberating since its pretty clear that living a life of submission to dogma that is fallacious if not false is no good way to live.
  4. Or it may be the realization that LGBTQ person are not immoral.
  5. God may have been willing to take Saul, but there are certain things you can do and the LDS Church doesn't forgive you of it really since they will restrict you from certain things. Generally someone that has been divorced and remarried is not likely to be called as a bishop. Exceptions can be made when there may not be a lot of good candidates in a ward for bishop other than someone who went through a divorce. A man who has been divorced cannot be called to be a temple sealer. There are other oddities like this as well.
  6. My guess is neither of us well be around then. But who knows? 😁😁
  7. So cool that you were there at the 100th anniversary! I was as well. We lived in Brigham City then. I was 9.5 years old. I thought it was such a cool event and remember it with fondness. In 1869 it was such a monumentla event and worth remembering and dedicating.
  8. I cannot imagine this causing any issue for a young couple who are devout and believes in the sanctity of a Temple Sealing. Many will simply go that route directly. But for those who have non member family and or significant friends who can now have a wedding that can be inclusive and then still be sealed, well they will do so and avoid the heartache and angst the prior policy caused. This is a good thing. It is fairly sad that there seems to be such a Pharisaical trend among some on things like this. I shouldn't be surprised. There are many such things in the church, and many who have a smug self righteousness about them that it causes them to take such a stance. I hope this does not get me in trouble with the moderators. I am trying to express my dismay without stepping over the line because I think such attitudes also demonstrate other very problematic things, but I will refrain. I have shared before that my wife and I were able to have a non Temple wedding and two months later we were sealed in the temple. She was a convert and had not been a member for a year. The policy then in effect allowed for this provision. We were married in the area she grew up in. I had relocated a long way from my home. She was the first child in her family to marry. Her family was very distressed that they may not have been able to attend the wedding. So we decided to marry outside the temple and have our bishop perform the marriage. I saw this as a wonderful "loophole" for us and so we took this path. However, we had a rigid stake president who said he didn't care what the policy was, he would make us wait a year anyway. I had to get a General Authority to intervene on our behalf. Two months later when we were sealed it was an incredible event for us and as meaningful as it would had been had we been married there in the first place. We had to travel to the Temple. We had three couples that were very close to us attend and participate. It was a quiet and sacred event. Nothing was taken away. Not one whit.
  9. So sad that you would want to continue such an exclusionary, controlling and hurtful policy. I applaud the Church for this. And it won't take one whit away from a temple sealing for those who want that and would anyway.
  10. I think this demonstrates what I have obviously felt for some time. The past and future of apologetics is dismal. Good people can disagree with me on this but for me at least, I could not be an active defender of the faith when there was so much to defend and many of the defenses were simply putting your finger in the dyke to have another leak some about. it;s because of things like this that I feel this way even more so.: -The 11/5 policy must have been an "iterative" step for the leaders down the path towards discerning the will of the Lord on the subject. (Apparently this path has u-turns).
  11. Well alli can say is that in my almost 60 years at least 35 of it the Church was nowhere near as ecumenical as it is today. But as I said to Calm, the LDS Church loves to sweep these things under the rug and dissemble about them, sort of like what you just did.
×
×
  • Create New...