Jump to content

Mystery Meat

Members
  • Content Count

    2,247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,834 Excellent

3 Followers

About Mystery Meat

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,401 profile views
  1. My thoughts on this briefly: For whatever reason, Latter-day Saints (at least in the US) can't seem to separate their politics from their faith. They want the former to have a prominent place in the latter. For a long time the politically conservative members of the Church did this by guilting and claiming some sort of divine approval of their politics thereby elevating them above those who dared vote democrat. In the past 10 years or so (basically since the election of Pres. Obama), it feels to me like those in our faith on the American left have been prone to inject their politics into the Church (SSM, Ordain Women, etc.). Folks on the American left love their protests, sit ins, and other public pressure campaigns to influence change. I say good for them. But many seem to want to use the same tactics to influence change in the Church. The problem is there is no scriptural precedent supporting this and there is a lot that doesn't. In short, God doesn't care if you are a R or a D. I think God cares very much when you bring your worldly politics, whatever they may be, into his divine kingdom.
  2. No further clarification is needed. It is straight forward. You have to want a different meaning other than the obvious one to twist its plain meaning and see ambiguity.
  3. Heterosexual man gets called in for fornication or adultery. He is sorry for his actions, vows to repent and accepts the will of the council as to his fate. Wants to be in good standing with the Church. vs. Homosexual man gets called in for engaging in sexual activity with another man regardless of legal marital status. He refuses to repent, does not view his actions as sinful and defied the Church and its position on homosexuality/SSM. Both are sinful. One will likely have a different outcome.
  4. I have yet to see any statement that they believe the policy was bad. You are projecting your thoughts and feelings onto them. Nor do I see a retraction that the policy did come via revelation.
  5. A long time. Eternity even.
  6. No, God never says, "Oops! My bad." But that doesn't mean he doesn't rescind or reverse or alter based on the wickedness of the children of men.
  7. Its not like there is no scriptural precedent...
  8. Nope. My beef is not with the Church or its leadership. I think they implemented the Lord's will and then when everyone got offended, the Lord said, "Enough." Now we will see how pleased folks are with the alternative.
  9. And fair enough. But I will have 0 sympathy (and I do mean zero) when there is an uproar over the fact that some kid was traumatized and his parents outraged that a Bishop would teach an 8 year old that his parents were living in sin and their family could not be eternal like other families.
  10. And so it goes. I still support the initial policy (and so do my gay and lesbian friends who have no connection to the Church or proximity to Utah) and not because I hate the "gays". But that is neither here nor there. I wonder how long before all those who are celebrating and gloating realize that this announcement basically says if an 8 year old child of a LGBTQ parent who is hoping to be baptized will be interviewed by a bishop who tells them and their parents that homosexual behavior is sinful, two people of the same gender being married is sinful and a violation of God's law, and sexual relationships are only condoned by God within the bonds of marriage between a man and his wife. Furthermore, this will be continuously taught to the child throughout his church participation. I am sure the LGBTQ folks and those in their support corner will be thrilled with that. Ironically, their inevitable anger and self righteousness will validate the charitable purpose behind the policy in the first place (edit), and also reveal their true, uncompromising demand: the church embrace homosexuality and SSM full stop. Anything less will be protested, slandered and rejected. But by all means, lets begin teaching these kids that their parents are entrapped in serious sin and that their very families are fundamentally in violation of God's eternal law. Reap what you sow.
  11. The very idea of trying to place Christ on the political spectrum seems silly to me. I think there would be plenty of the left and right who would be very disappointed by His doctrine, truly understood.
  12. My two cents briefly. In Come Follow Me we recently read the Savior's invitation to "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me for I am meek and lowly of heart." Elder Bednar said something that the Spirit had already taught me as I read those verses: our covenants are how we "Come Unto [Him]." The Sacrament is the ordinance we participate in to renew all of the covenants we have made with the Lord. In it, we covenant to do three things 1. Will to take or that we do take Christ's name upon us, 2. That we do always remember Him, and 3. That we will keep His commandments. I think there are temple implications for # 1 as well, but I also think taking his name upon us involves living as he lived (serving, loving, caring for the poor and sick, etc.). In that sense I know plenty of people gay, straight, or otherwise who can probably check that box. 3 is different. I believe, and the Spirit, scripture and modern day prophets and apostles seem to all accord, that the law of chastity prohibits sexual relationships outside of Man and Woman united in marriage. In that sense, I do not think anyone who is in open, knowing violation of God's commandments can truly or at least fully "Come Unto [Christ]." By the way that includes me to the extent that I am unrepentant and unwilling to even desire to change as needed. My thoughts for the little they are worth.
  13. You must be a blast at parties...
  14. I think the answer and reality is a bit more nuanced. I think the model of Belong->Believe->Behave is quite noble and what we should be striving for in terms of how we treat people who are either not members of the Church or who are otherwise members, but not believing (in one degree or another). We treat them well. We are kind and compassionate. We don't make them feel ostracized. We love them and serve and include them. This is the ideal. But, what does it mean to belong? Should everyone be baptized? Should everyone be able to attend the temple? Should everyone be allowed to serve a mission? To me the answer to that is no. Covenants are not without meaning and importance. My sense is that some folks, particularly NOMs and similar types, would want to define belong to include the ability to be baptized and attend the temple regardless of their beliefs and/or behaviors. But as I believe (and I think the Church does too) covenants are more than just social or cultural niceties, I don't think they can be extended to those who do not believe and who are (at the very least) not trying to behave. There will be some who do not "belong" in the Celestial Kingdom in the next life. Certain levels of belief and behavior that are required. I guess when it comes to how we treat people, we should treat everyone as they belong and welcome to be counted among us. But not all blessings can be extended without meeting certain belief and behavior thresholds.
×
×
  • Create New...